Atlas Shrugged

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not really. You said that my comment about "society works pretty well with government intervention, regulation and so on..." was false. I showed a case where they certainly work well together, so your comment was successfully rebutted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Where exactly did I say that they always work together? Your claim was that they never work together. And I rebutted it. Successfully, since I take it from your lack of a rebuttal to my TGV example, that you now accept that the TGV is a good example of everybody working together.

QED.

robindch

Naz_st wrote: »

Just how far France has come from "Laissez-Faire"!

Reminds me of one of Prezzident George Bush the Younger's wiser comments:

GW Bush wrote:

The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Since your claim -- as above -- was that it such co-operation never exists or never works, a single counter example will suffice.

Don't mention it - glad to help

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In this post, where you said that my claim that "society works pretty well with government intervention, regulation" was false.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig

Well, I just like the lots of different shiny colours!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

PopePalpatine

What do you find objectionable about this article? I think it makes a point that economic libertarians put a lot of faith in the "free market", regardless of what gets trampled underneath its feet.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

marienbad

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Typical hit and runs response , how about answering the other issues raised ,which coincidentally I asked you some posts back and you also ignored ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop

The Libertarian definition of 'free' and 'free market' tends to change to suit the argument at hand, and it tends to regularly get used in the most broad-form, that the Salon author describes, as a rhetorical battering-ram against whatever government policies are being disagreed with - which makes it a fair criticism.

In short: What Libertarians claim to believe, doesn't match the rhetoric/narrative they tend to use.

If Libertarians dropped the nebulous term 'free markets', debates would be a lot more productive - this won't happen though, because the vague never-pinned-down definition of the term makes it a powerful rhetorical tool.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Tough one to answer. It's not a free market. You've constrained it by some necessities so it's not by essence free. In a similar vein free speech isn't free speech because you can't squeal bomb! on a crowded jet or defame someone's right to a good name without some form of repercussion. Yet most people know what is meant by 'free speech', because libertarians are such a minority it would probably be helpful if they were explicitly clear what they mean when they use the term the 'free market'. Otherwise, people will invariably assume something, which by your statement above libertarians don't actually believe.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The definition of 'free markets' that you provided there, when used to oppose a government policy, is basically the same as saying "because it's not Libertarianism" - it would be a lot clearer to just say that...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

marienbad

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Here we go again.

marienbad

marienbad wrote: »

So what, blindness exists everywhere, no one disputes that. What is your answer to real life situations such as Bhopal ,Thalidomide or the Gulf Oil Disaster ?

Bhopal is a classic example of your property rights theory- when they couldn't do it in a developed country they just went where they could do it .
And please don't say Chernobyl .

Still awaiting your answer on this one.

Turtwig

marienbad wrote: »

Here we go again.

Mod:

Permabear, was incorrect about most of your posts being like this. However, many of them are and it's getting close to too many. Please start substantiating your posts a bit more.


Ta.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This definition - even if we don't equate it with Libertarianism like I have done - is again so vague that it can be warped to mean anything. There is nothing 'clear' about that definition.

Deciding when government starts to go beyond preserving peoples lives/liberties/property-rights (and I doubt this is the framing most non-Libertarians use, for defining what governments role should be), is also a question that has to be decided as a part of policymaking - which means when you use 'free markets' as an argument against a policy (i.e. as part of an argument for trying to decide when governments go beyond 'preserving peoples lives/liberties/property-rights'), then you're making a circular argument and/or begging the question.

Since everybody will have their own opinion on when government goes beyond 'preserving peoples lives/liberties/property-rights', with that being entirely subjective, the term 'free markets' really can mean anything to anyone - and since it's so subjective, it really does, when used to oppose a policy, mean "because that disagrees with my political beliefs".

Brian Shanahan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Lawless Market. It has the advantage of both conveying accurately what libertarians want, and why they shouldn't have it.

Valmont

Brian, you're assuming there that without the state we would have no law or legal system. Ancient Ireland and Brehon law prove this isn't the case.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Here's how debate works -

I make a claim (that society works well with government intervention)
You tell me that this is false.
I disprove your claim (by showing an example of where my original claim is true)

It's traditional in polite debate at this point for you to concede that your claim of falsity is wrong, even if you really, really, really think it's not.

Permabear wrote: »

[...] yes, you have complained extensively about Rand's writing style while acknowledging that you haven't actually read her books.

I hope you don't mind me reminding you that I've read enough of Rand's output and experienced enough of her dreadful style and broad silliness to know that further, undirected reading is unlikely to change my opinion of her.

If, however, you do have a short, unbroken passage penned by Rand - say something a few pages long - which adequately demonstrate what you believe is her philosophical brilliance, her profound economic thought and her deftness with a pen (or indeed, any one of the three), then of course, I'd be very happy to read it and comment.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.