Emissions trading broken?

[Tamas]

The Freidman quote doesn't use any examples of coercion that aren't governmental.

Maybe because Friedman was usually pushing the least-government-possible stance? Just maybe.

[DGuller]

The Freidman quote doesn't use any examples of coercion that aren't governmental.

Maybe because Friedman was usually pushing the least-government-possible stance? Just maybe.

Yes, and the reason creationists don't give credit to evolution is because they're pushing the "God did it" stance.  I'm not sure how either of those things are much of a defense.

[Razgovory]

The Freidman quote doesn't use any examples of coercion that aren't governmental.

Maybe because Friedman was usually pushing the least-government-possible stance? Just maybe.

So?

[grumbler]

Maybe because Friedman was usually pushing the least-government-possible stance? Just maybe.

I don't think people understand the principle of an example.  No matter how many examples given by someone they disagree with for tribal reasons, they will always insist that there are not enough.

Don't even try to counter such arguments.  Ignore them, and focus on discussions with people who are actually interested in discussing, rather than merely declaiming.

[Razgovory]

   You are still going with this thing?

[Tamas]

The Freidman quote doesn't use any examples of coercion that aren't governmental.

Maybe because Friedman was usually pushing the least-government-possible stance? Just maybe.

So?

Since Friedman's public appearances has been mostly -or exclusively, I don't know- about his pet topic of reducing government interference in economics, it should come as no surprise to anyone that his quotes are found in the context of reducing government interference in economi.cs.

But of course you very well know that. You are just nitpicking because liberalism is not in the left's team which you have committed yourself to.

[DGuller]

Since Friedman's public appearances has been mostly -or exclusively, I don't know- about his pet topic of reducing government interference in economics, it should come as no surprise to anyone that his quotes are found in the context of reducing government interference in economi.cs.

But of course you very well know that. You are just nitpicking because liberalism is not in the left's team which you have committed yourself to.

That may be true, but that just makes him an ideologue.  And forgetting that humans have to eat, cloth themselves, and live somewhere, which in an advanced civilized society almost always means having someone wield an economic power over you, is a very textbook basic thing libertarians forget.  This is also why their ideology, when not diluted with a dose of reality, is such a bunk.

[grumbler]

That may be true, but that just makes him an ideologue.  And forgetting that humans have to eat, cloth themselves, and live somewhere, which in an advanced civilized society almost always means having someone wield an economic power over you, is a very textbook basic thing libertarians forget.  This is also why their ideology, when not diluted with a dose of reality, is such a bunk.

What does anything you say here have to do with Friedman?  He doesn't argue that people should not eat, clothe themselves, and live somewhere, even if doing so means that they must have economic interactions with others.  He is arguing that, to maximize freedom, economic power should be dispersed as much possible, so that your scenario of having people wield economic power over others is minimized. 

You are forgetting that Friedman's value here is not conformity, but freedom.  Once they read what he actually says here, I think even textbook conformitarians will be able to grasp that.

[Martinus]

WAD. 

[DGuller]

What does anything you say here have to do with Friedman?  He doesn't argue that people should not eat, clothe themselves, and live somewhere, even if doing so means that they must have economic interactions with others.  He is arguing that, to maximize freedom, economic power should be dispersed as much possible, so that your scenario of having people wield economic power over others is minimized. 

You are forgetting that Friedman's value here is not conformity, but freedom.  Once they read what he actually says here, I think even textbook conformitarians will be able to grasp that.

Yes, he does say that in general, but his list of examples all includes government.  If he was also concerned about abuse of economic power, then he might have snuck that in instead of one of the four government-related entities he mentioned.

[Tamas]

What does anything you say here have to do with Friedman?  He doesn't argue that people should not eat, clothe themselves, and live somewhere, even if doing so means that they must have economic interactions with others.  He is arguing that, to maximize freedom, economic power should be dispersed as much possible, so that your scenario of having people wield economic power over others is minimized. 

You are forgetting that Friedman's value here is not conformity, but freedom.  Once they read what he actually says here, I think even textbook conformitarians will be able to grasp that.

Yes, he does say that in general, but his list of examples all includes government.  If he was also concerned about abuse of economic power, then he might have snuck that in instead of one of the four government-related entities he mentioned.

Ok Raz. Jesus it's a fucking quote from somewhere and you attack it because it does not come with a complete disclaimer.

Also, two general things:
-it is very lazy to turn to the most idiotic Ryand lunacy when "debating" libertarianism. I am not throwing hippies and soviets at you in turn, do notice that.

-I am not convinced that "least government intervention possible" is a libertarian agenda. Or rather, it should not be. It is liberalism, but in this age, a "liberal" is a socialist with no balls.

[DGuller]

-I am not convinced that "least government intervention possible" is a libertarian agenda. Or rather, it should not be. It is liberalism, but in this age, a "liberal" is a socialist with no balls.

The past is in the past.  Political ideologies evolve along with the world and its conditions.  If the ideology stays the same for 200 years, then it's either horribly ineffective, or horribly divorced from reality. 

The old classic liberals were so successful in the past, that the need for them as a political force disappeared, and only the fringe is left that advocates that a good thing in excess is an even better thing.  Now the biggest problems are the side effects of what has largely been a success, like for example pollution that can kill us all.

[Tamas]

Now the biggest problems are the side effects of what has largely been a success, like for example pollution that can kill us all.

That was CLEARLY avoided by industrialization via state control!

[Martinus]

I think it is misguided to characterise classic liberalism as "least government intervention possible."

You have to remember that liberalism formed more or less as a reaction to absolutism (which meants "a whole lot of government intervention"), but it didn't call for dismantling of the state or reducing it to its bare functions. I don't think there has ever been a classic liberal who supported the nonsense modern day libertarians spout. If there ever was a political ideology reminiscent of Ayn Rand style lunatics, it's probably anarcho-syndicalism or catholic distributism.

[Tamas]

I think it is misguided to characterise classic liberalism as "least government intervention possible."

You have to remember that liberalism formed more or less as a reaction to absolutism (which meants "a whole lot of government intervention"), but it didn't call for dismantling of the state or reducing it to its bare functions.

yet their states only held bare functions compared to the stuff we have today in many countries. Some of these are necessary because of the development we have seen. But all? Nah.