on PolicyMic
Chris Inks George, your continued insistence to adhere to a system of doing things "because it's been done that way" is asinine at best and deadly at worst. Just because the law allows or does not allow something does not make it morally or ethically right or wrong, only controlled by one group over another.
Chris Inks Michael, you should be aware that government "regulation" and FED inflation, artificially-low interest rates, etc, all combined to make the collapse possible. It could never have happened on anything near that scale if government hadn't colluded with special interest groups to pass anti-competitive legislation that gave "legal" protection to the activities of these groups. Additionally, because the FED artificially lowered the interest rate businesses were not able to correctly identify the amount of risk that was required to do what they did, thereby making bad choices. You cannot regulate genetic innateness within individuals, but you CAN take away government's ability to give special privileges to one group over another, which leaves everyone on a much more level playing field.
Chris Inks Sorry for the double post. The site said it didn't post and sent me to an error page both times.
Chris Inks Thomas, Libertarians are quite aware of the "possibility" however that becomes nullified quite a bit when one takes government-backed tyranny out of the picture. If government is not able to churn out anti-competitive legislation, the FED isn't allowed to create inflation, and people are forced to take personal responsibility instead of entitlement, there is little holding society back from progressing. However, in our current state of affairs, we find ourselves falling further down the list of most free countries. This is not a product of Capitalism, but of Crony-Capitalism/Corporatism. We are not the victims of the free market as we do not enjoy such freedom. Our market is regulated by special interests backed by government. The less free we have become the worse off we now are.
Chris Inks Thomas, it's not that Libertarians "generally don't realize that with unregulated markets comes, unfettered Big Business which themselves bring the risk of tyranny if left unchecked;" rather it's that Libertarians understand that people will do what they will regardless and, as such, should be allowed to learn from their own mistakes thereby decreasing the possibility of such a mistake being made again and it also teaches personal responsibility which defends one against entitlement. Additionally, having a government in place that protects the individual sets the stage for legal recourse against tyrannical businesses/individuals. What we currently see is government-protected tyranny at the hands of special interest groups (corporations and unions, alike).
Chris Inks George, when you continue to invoke "common sense," especially within an inductive argument, as support for your premise, implying that it is akin to universal acceptance and infallibility, you set yourself up to not be taken serious at all. Derivatives of derivatives leads to meltdown.
Chris Inks Continued personal attacks, instead of focusing on the argument at hand, is a sign of the lack of one's ability to argue cogently. All I did was point out the non-finiteness of your argument, and you have been attempting to argue that because "everyone" does something it should be done. /logicfail
Chris Inks What I find interesting is your study of philosophy yet your continued personal attacks. One is forced to assume logic, then, is not your strong suit. But, your response does prove on thing, that you are willing to accept the quite realistic possibility of just how incorrect your argument is.
Chris Inks The only way Wall Street can "manage" government is if government is given the ability to dole out special privileges. Therein lies the problem. Unions want special privileges, the NRA wants special privileges, the housing industry wants special privileges, banks want special privileges, corporations want special privileges...it never ends. However, if the government were to be bound in such a way that it was no longer able to give out these special privileges, then no one would be able to harm another with the legal protection of the government; no one would be able to be inefficient & survive because government would no longer be able to prop them up. At this point government could then concentrate on its true purpose, protection of the individual, which indirectly protects society.
Chris Inks The right way to deal with the student debt bubble is to get government out of the education business and to remove ourselves from fiat currency. By doing these two things we make college much more affordable for those who really choose to go because they see the value in knowledge.
Chris Inks George, try to follow me, here. The point is, when your argument is an attempt at being inductively based, and supported by "common sense" or "humanly obvious" positions, then it lacks in any kind of finiteness, and lends itself to being relegated nearly to the position of a mere opinion.
Chris Inks Exactly my point, arguing inductively guarantees no finite support for a position. Even worse, yours is based on "common sense" which you cannot seem to comprehend is not universal thereby actually weakening your argument. "Nothing is faster than the speed of light" used to be "humanly obvious" too.
Chris Inks George, "common sense" used to mean that the world was flat, the earth was at the center of the universe, and that women and "negros" didn't have the capacity to become as intelligent as white men.
Chris Inks George, a deductive argument is lacking if your proof of validity lies in the notion of "common sense." What results, at best, is an inductive argument which is not finite. Claiming induction as definitive because "it is at the very heart of virtually everything we do" is dishonest at best.
Chris Inks An invocation of "common sense" is nonsense as it is only common within the time period & of the particular society where it is invoked (i.e. it is not universal). Therefore your usage of it to validate a position makes your argument, in its current state, inductive at best and not at all definite.
Chris Inks Fantastic point regarding SCOTUS and unconstitutional laws! The challenge with giving one the ability to do something is that it can then be used by someone else to potentially affect you negatively the next time. If you want to be protected, you must first guarantee your neighbor's protection.
Chris Inks Autocratic as far as their own lives are concerned, yes. However, a "Libertarian" that espouses autocracy over another's life is not Libertarian at all. As far as "capitulating to corporate power over personal freedom at every available turn" goes, I have to ask what are you talking about? Blanket generalizations are never the things that are taken seriously. So, I present to you this challenge, be specific. I would really be interested to know where you see this capitulation.
Chris Inks The truth is, some on Wall Street, many in government, & the whole of the Fed all share the blame for what has happened. The one thing they have in common is the inherent fallibility of human beings which is something that cannot be legislated into genetic non-existence. The best bet is to regulate what can be done. Where do we get the most benefit from the application of this? We get it from binding the government. If we take away the government's ability to hand out special privileges to anyone & reintroduce the protection of the individual as its top priority, as society & all else grows from the individual, then we succeed in keeping groups from growing anti-competitively through legal protection from the government while guaranteeing true legal recourse to those who are wronged.
on PolicyMic
Chris Inks George, your continued insistence to adhere to a system of doing things "because it's been done that way" is asinine at best and deadly at worst. Just because the law allows or does not allow something does not make it morally or ethically right or wrong, only controlled by one group over another.
Chris Inks Michael, you should be aware that government "regulation" and FED inflation, artificially-low interest rates, etc, all combined to make the collapse possible. It could never have happened on anything near that scale if government hadn't colluded with special interest groups to pass anti-competitive legislation that gave "legal" protection to the activities of these groups. Additionally, because the FED artificially lowered the interest rate businesses were not able to correctly identify the amount of risk that was required to do what they did, thereby making bad choices. You cannot regulate genetic innateness within individuals, but you CAN take away government's ability to give special privileges to one group over another, which leaves everyone on a much more level playing field.
Chris Inks Sorry for the double post. The site said it didn't post and sent me to an error page both times.
Chris Inks Thomas, Libertarians are quite aware of the "possibility" however that becomes nullified quite a bit when one takes government-backed tyranny out of the picture. If government is not able to churn out anti-competitive legislation, the FED isn't allowed to create inflation, and people are forced to take personal responsibility instead of entitlement, there is little holding society back from progressing. However, in our current state of affairs, we find ourselves falling further down the list of most free countries. This is not a product of Capitalism, but of Crony-Capitalism/Corporatism. We are not the victims of the free market as we do not enjoy such freedom. Our market is regulated by special interests backed by government. The less free we have become the worse off we now are.
Chris Inks Thomas, it's not that Libertarians "generally don't realize that with unregulated markets comes, unfettered Big Business which themselves bring the risk of tyranny if left unchecked;" rather it's that Libertarians understand that people will do what they will regardless and, as such, should be allowed to learn from their own mistakes thereby decreasing the possibility of such a mistake being made again and it also teaches personal responsibility which defends one against entitlement. Additionally, having a government in place that protects the individual sets the stage for legal recourse against tyrannical businesses/individuals. What we currently see is government-protected tyranny at the hands of special interest groups (corporations and unions, alike).
Chris Inks Thomas, it's not that Libertarians "generally don't realize that with unregulated markets comes, unfettered Big Business which themselves bring the risk of tyranny if left unchecked;" rather it's that Libertarians understand that people will do what they will regardless and, as such, should be allowed to learn from their own mistakes thereby decreasing the possibility of such a mistake being made again and it also teaches personal responsibility which defends one against entitlement. Additionally, having a government in place that protects the individual sets the stage for legal recourse against tyrannical businesses/individuals. What we currently see is government-protected tyranny at the hands of special interest groups (corporations and unions, alike).
Chris Inks George, when you continue to invoke "common sense," especially within an inductive argument, as support for your premise, implying that it is akin to universal acceptance and infallibility, you set yourself up to not be taken serious at all. Derivatives of derivatives leads to meltdown.
Chris Inks Continued personal attacks, instead of focusing on the argument at hand, is a sign of the lack of one's ability to argue cogently. All I did was point out the non-finiteness of your argument, and you have been attempting to argue that because "everyone" does something it should be done. /logicfail
Chris Inks What I find interesting is your study of philosophy yet your continued personal attacks. One is forced to assume logic, then, is not your strong suit. But, your response does prove on thing, that you are willing to accept the quite realistic possibility of just how incorrect your argument is.
Chris Inks The only way Wall Street can "manage" government is if government is given the ability to dole out special privileges. Therein lies the problem. Unions want special privileges, the NRA wants special privileges, the housing industry wants special privileges, banks want special privileges, corporations want special privileges...it never ends. However, if the government were to be bound in such a way that it was no longer able to give out these special privileges, then no one would be able to harm another with the legal protection of the government; no one would be able to be inefficient & survive because government would no longer be able to prop them up. At this point government could then concentrate on its true purpose, protection of the individual, which indirectly protects society.
Chris Inks The right way to deal with the student debt bubble is to get government out of the education business and to remove ourselves from fiat currency. By doing these two things we make college much more affordable for those who really choose to go because they see the value in knowledge.
Chris Inks George, try to follow me, here. The point is, when your argument is an attempt at being inductively based, and supported by "common sense" or "humanly obvious" positions, then it lacks in any kind of finiteness, and lends itself to being relegated nearly to the position of a mere opinion.
Chris Inks Exactly my point, arguing inductively guarantees no finite support for a position. Even worse, yours is based on "common sense" which you cannot seem to comprehend is not universal thereby actually weakening your argument. "Nothing is faster than the speed of light" used to be "humanly obvious" too.
Chris Inks George, "common sense" used to mean that the world was flat, the earth was at the center of the universe, and that women and "negros" didn't have the capacity to become as intelligent as white men.
Chris Inks George, a deductive argument is lacking if your proof of validity lies in the notion of "common sense." What results, at best, is an inductive argument which is not finite. Claiming induction as definitive because "it is at the very heart of virtually everything we do" is dishonest at best.
Chris Inks An invocation of "common sense" is nonsense as it is only common within the time period & of the particular society where it is invoked (i.e. it is not universal). Therefore your usage of it to validate a position makes your argument, in its current state, inductive at best and not at all definite.
Chris Inks Fantastic point regarding SCOTUS and unconstitutional laws! The challenge with giving one the ability to do something is that it can then be used by someone else to potentially affect you negatively the next time. If you want to be protected, you must first guarantee your neighbor's protection.
Chris Inks Autocratic as far as their own lives are concerned, yes. However, a "Libertarian" that espouses autocracy over another's life is not Libertarian at all. As far as "capitulating to corporate power over personal freedom at every available turn" goes, I have to ask what are you talking about? Blanket generalizations are never the things that are taken seriously. So, I present to you this challenge, be specific. I would really be interested to know where you see this capitulation.
Chris Inks The truth is, some on Wall Street, many in government, & the whole of the Fed all share the blame for what has happened. The one thing they have in common is the inherent fallibility of human beings which is something that cannot be legislated into genetic non-existence. The best bet is to regulate what can be done. Where do we get the most benefit from the application of this? We get it from binding the government. If we take away the government's ability to hand out special privileges to anyone & reintroduce the protection of the individual as its top priority, as society & all else grows from the individual, then we succeed in keeping groups from growing anti-competitively through legal protection from the government while guaranteeing true legal recourse to those who are wronged.