Oldnemisis, you talk out of both sides of your mouth.
"I have no idea what it even means".
It means you change your rebuttal to suit your needs no matter how inconsistent. I'm not even sure if you're aware of how many times you have contradicted yourself. It's really irritating because then you claim to be open to new ideas if someone can "persuade" you. This of course means you think you are worth persuading, which I no longer do. However in the interest of other readers coming across this thread, I'll be glad to expose you as the hypocrite you are. Please read on.
"I take it as your admission that free market would not prevented it. This was my point".
First, you use Madoff as an example of what happens in a free market despite the fact that we are in a mixed economy. You then completely disregard that point and change tactics trying to ask me if a free market would have prevented a Madoff scenario and simultaneously infer that MORE regulation would have prevented it. This logic is faulty on a variety of levels but you act like it proves some point. Madoff was a crook plain and simple, crooks will commit crimes and get caught after the fact. Crimes are punished to deter future criminals but rarely is regulation going to prevent a crime from being committed. The fact that he was caught AFTER the crime was committed in and already regulated economy, and the fact that laws in place to prosecute fraud exist prove that criminals will do criminal things despite those laws. In other words, your question is moot, and it hardly offers a valid reason not to have a free market.
However, in the thread with Rocco, (and now our arguments have overlapped) you claim that people are too stupid to govern themselves and you cite the housing bubble being the reason. Again, this is one of the dumbest arguments because the housing bubble was caused by the gov't giving people who would otherwise not have money, access to loans. In other words, the regulation you want is the cause of the problem, typically people like you will call for more regulation as the cure, thereby increasing the size and the power of gov't which leads me to my next point...
You complained in an earlier thread about Democrats taxing the hell out of people and then simultaneously argued for a shift of power from the states to the federal gov't, effectively arguing for central planning (which I challenge you to find a country the size of the U.S. that is well run with central planning) Then you backpedaled and said something along the lines of "well if they just don't tax the rich I'm ok with it". Of course this is inacurrate as the middle class already carries a huge part of the burden now but it's ridiculous to assume poor people will pay taxes from money they don't have. In effect you are saying you want to grow the gov't while complaining about taxes and then you say Ponzi schemes won't exist in a regulated environment when the gov't is already operating as a giant Ponzi scheme that a hundred Madoffs wouldn't come close to! Incredible! Or hadn't you noticed the deficit and the inevitable bankruptcy looming over our heads? Strangely, you seem to be unaware that our current tax system was devised by Karl Marx and his cronies and you won't see it being in the constitution but that won't stop you from citing the Supreme Court, albeit inaccurately.
While you're arguing for a more powerful, bigger gov't, with central planning (uh Communism!) you talk about how Communism it only looks good on paper and actually have the nerve to compare it to Freedom. I word for word explained what happens philosophically when the economic system devised by Karl Marx (a philosopher) is put into place which redistributes wealth from those who produce to those who "need" it. You say that is not what communism is. Please review the following quote
" In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"!
This last statement, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" means that those who produce are enslaved like sacrificial animals to those who "need" something. It is in effect a slavery. Somehow though you manage to tell me that the architect of Communism didn't quote what I just quoted and that and I somehow don't understand communism either. Ridiculous Old Nemisis, truly ridiculous.
When you have the right to your own life it is a logical extension that you have the right to keep what your life produces.
"It is not logical extension, it is fantasy as I've never seen any US court to come to such interpretation".
Every court in the U.S. recognizes that when someone steals from another person, that person owned that property and and someone who didn't own it, took it unlawfully, if the courts as you say have never reached that conclusion, then it would be impossible to charge someone with the crime of theft since they wouldn't be able to own anything to begin with. Ironically, here is another quote by Karl Marx “The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property”
You already said that laws against crimes such as Fraud, theft, etc exist. They exist because someone owned that property, bought with means they had from their own productivity. That is exactly the same thing I just said when I pointed out that a person's life is his own and the things he owns are his. This is what capitalism is based on, the ability to own property without fear of the gov't taking it away. How is this not a self evident truth? Only a person talking out of both sides of their mouth like you could try to argue both sides. See, in this country (and this is where Rocco and my arguments overlap again) our society and laws are based on three things. Judeo Christian values, Greco-Roman Philosophy, and Anglo Saxon law. Which brings up my next point.
Somehow, in your mind, the US would descend into the anarchy that takes place in Somalia if a free market economic system where in place. Somehow, in your convoluted mind, every U.S. citizen would carry an AK47 and join some roving band of raiders after permits (the word means to PERMIT) from entering business (and once again, that product you claim that kills people would only stop after 30 people have died in a free market are somehow magically rescued by a law that says you can't have unsafe products in a regulated one somehow stops criminal acts before criminals actually act. That is so fucking stupid btw) and other petty money generating regulations for the gov't are extiguished, the U.S. would plummet into chaos despite the fact that, that is how this country started out, and despite the fact that the U.S. generated more wealth in the History of the world while under that system.
Lastly, I pointed out that a lot of money is being wasted persecuting citizens for crimes such as smoking weed. You then said "go to California" where smoking weed is legal. I brought up a friend who was growing weed in CA, also legal in that state and pointed out that federal law doesn't recognize state's rights to bring light to the needless laws and show you the Libertarian philosophy. Then you go back and say growing weed is illegal in California (after you advised going there to begin with to smoke weed) and you say it is illegal because the fed gov't says so. Are you trying to prove my point for me?? Money being taken away from private citizens to defend themselves and pay fines and also money being taken away from private citizens (taxes) to prosecute those "crimes" is the biggest farce I can think of. But you, in all your analytical wisdom challenge me by saying you want to see some statistics. Here's your statistic smartass, go up to a cop while smoking a joint, then see what happens.
If you're making these conflicting assertions on purpose, you're being disingenuous, if it's because you don't know any better, then I gave you too much credit in the beginning. Either way....
"I have no idea what it even means".
It means you change your rebuttal to suit your needs no matter how inconsistent. I'm not even sure if you're aware of how many times you have contradicted yourself. It's really irritating because then you claim to be open to new ideas if someone can "persuade" you. This of course means you think you are worth persuading, which I no longer do. However in the interest of other readers coming across this thread, I'll be glad to expose you as the hypocrite you are. Please read on.
"I take it as your admission that free market would not prevented it. This was my point".
First, you use Madoff as an example of what happens in a free market despite the fact that we are in a mixed economy. You then completely disregard that point and change tactics trying to ask me if a free market would have prevented a Madoff scenario and simultaneously infer that MORE regulation would have prevented it. This logic is faulty on a variety of levels but you act like it proves some point. Madoff was a crook plain and simple, crooks will commit crimes and get caught after the fact. Crimes are punished to deter future criminals but rarely is regulation going to prevent a crime from being committed. The fact that he was caught AFTER the crime was committed in and already regulated economy, and the fact that laws in place to prosecute fraud exist prove that criminals will do criminal things despite those laws. In other words, your question is moot, and it hardly offers a valid reason not to have a free market.
However, in the thread with Rocco, (and now our arguments have overlapped) you claim that people are too stupid to govern themselves and you cite the housing bubble being the reason. Again, this is one of the dumbest arguments because the housing bubble was caused by the gov't giving people who would otherwise not have money, access to loans. In other words, the regulation you want is the cause of the problem, typically people like you will call for more regulation as the cure, thereby increasing the size and the power of gov't which leads me to my next point...
You complained in an earlier thread about Democrats taxing the hell out of people and then simultaneously argued for a shift of power from the states to the federal gov't, effectively arguing for central planning (which I challenge you to find a country the size of the U.S. that is well run with central planning) Then you backpedaled and said something along the lines of "well if they just don't tax the rich I'm ok with it". Of course this is inacurrate as the middle class already carries a huge part of the burden now but it's ridiculous to assume poor people will pay taxes from money they don't have. In effect you are saying you want to grow the gov't while complaining about taxes and then you say Ponzi schemes won't exist in a regulated environment when the gov't is already operating as a giant Ponzi scheme that a hundred Madoffs wouldn't come close to! Incredible! Or hadn't you noticed the deficit and the inevitable bankruptcy looming over our heads? Strangely, you seem to be unaware that our current tax system was devised by Karl Marx and his cronies and you won't see it being in the constitution but that won't stop you from citing the Supreme Court, albeit inaccurately.
While you're arguing for a more powerful, bigger gov't, with central planning (uh Communism!) you talk about how Communism it only looks good on paper and actually have the nerve to compare it to Freedom. I word for word explained what happens philosophically when the economic system devised by Karl Marx (a philosopher) is put into place which redistributes wealth from those who produce to those who "need" it. You say that is not what communism is. Please review the following quote
" In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"!
This last statement, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" means that those who produce are enslaved like sacrificial animals to those who "need" something. It is in effect a slavery. Somehow though you manage to tell me that the architect of Communism didn't quote what I just quoted and that and I somehow don't understand communism either. Ridiculous Old Nemisis, truly ridiculous.
When you have the right to your own life it is a logical extension that you have the right to keep what your life produces.
"It is not logical extension, it is fantasy as I've never seen any US court to come to such interpretation".
Every court in the U.S. recognizes that when someone steals from another person, that person owned that property and and someone who didn't own it, took it unlawfully, if the courts as you say have never reached that conclusion, then it would be impossible to charge someone with the crime of theft since they wouldn't be able to own anything to begin with. Ironically, here is another quote by Karl Marx “The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property”
You already said that laws against crimes such as Fraud, theft, etc exist. They exist because someone owned that property, bought with means they had from their own productivity. That is exactly the same thing I just said when I pointed out that a person's life is his own and the things he owns are his. This is what capitalism is based on, the ability to own property without fear of the gov't taking it away. How is this not a self evident truth? Only a person talking out of both sides of their mouth like you could try to argue both sides. See, in this country (and this is where Rocco and my arguments overlap again) our society and laws are based on three things. Judeo Christian values, Greco-Roman Philosophy, and Anglo Saxon law. Which brings up my next point.
Somehow, in your mind, the US would descend into the anarchy that takes place in Somalia if a free market economic system where in place. Somehow, in your convoluted mind, every U.S. citizen would carry an AK47 and join some roving band of raiders after permits (the word means to PERMIT) from entering business (and once again, that product you claim that kills people would only stop after 30 people have died in a free market are somehow magically rescued by a law that says you can't have unsafe products in a regulated one somehow stops criminal acts before criminals actually act. That is so fucking stupid btw) and other petty money generating regulations for the gov't are extiguished, the U.S. would plummet into chaos despite the fact that, that is how this country started out, and despite the fact that the U.S. generated more wealth in the History of the world while under that system.
Lastly, I pointed out that a lot of money is being wasted persecuting citizens for crimes such as smoking weed. You then said "go to California" where smoking weed is legal. I brought up a friend who was growing weed in CA, also legal in that state and pointed out that federal law doesn't recognize state's rights to bring light to the needless laws and show you the Libertarian philosophy. Then you go back and say growing weed is illegal in California (after you advised going there to begin with to smoke weed) and you say it is illegal because the fed gov't says so. Are you trying to prove my point for me?? Money being taken away from private citizens to defend themselves and pay fines and also money being taken away from private citizens (taxes) to prosecute those "crimes" is the biggest farce I can think of. But you, in all your analytical wisdom challenge me by saying you want to see some statistics. Here's your statistic smartass, go up to a cop while smoking a joint, then see what happens.
If you're making these conflicting assertions on purpose, you're being disingenuous, if it's because you don't know any better, then I gave you too much credit in the beginning. Either way....