This is like a 2003 Politics Board post
You're right, just like they were free at the start of the industrial revolution. Free to be used and abused by those with unfettered power and discretion to use and abuse them in the name of the free market.
It simply cannot be credibly disputed that it took regulation to bring that monster under control and it takes regulation to this day to maintain that control -- and for one simple reason: man in the state of nature will pursue his objectives, on most occasions, without regard to the rights, needs, safety, etc., of others. Preservation of self interest, as each sees or defines it, being the prime law.
I don't know why I have to state the obvious, but we both know since no one has ever been free in human history, the people at the start of the Industrial Revolution were not free. There were a number of people who fit the description of having "unfettered power and discretion to use and abuse them in the name of the
free market." Your job is the same as mine and that is to ask why? A non-governmental party can only be granted "unfettered power and discretion to use and abuse them in the name of the
free market" by government's deferment of its duties to protect an individual's rights. That deferment is generally the result of a payoff. That mechanism is what empowers the government to claim more authority, i.e. regulations, in the name of the public good, and it also enables them to solicit more payoffs which is a dynamic that still exist today through
lobbying and the
regulatory revolving door. It was already illegal to beat and cheat workers. New regulations weren't needed to do the job government ignored in the first place.
My understanding of history is different from your understanding. My interpretation says it wasn't new regulations that got the employers under control. It was workers forming their own gangs (unions) to counter the employer's force with their own force. It wasn't uncommon for labor disputes to turn into bloodbaths because the government had failed to protect individual rights early on.
one simple reason: man in the state of nature will pursue his objectives, on most occasions, without regard to the rights, needs, safety, etc., of others. Preservation of self interest, as each sees or defines it, being the prime law.
I completely agree with this assessment of man's nature. I would add one thing explicitly that may only be implicit in that statement, man's pursuit is also insatiable, greed. That's why a system designed by and for human should not be in denial of it. A system where the initiation of force is completely and utterly illegal is the only system that lets man be man and protects his individual right to be his nature. That means government has to be subjected to this standard as well for man to be free.
I'm ALL for Freedom. But what is freedom if the very notion of it is not be protected? - it would not exist. Enter the social contract, real or imagined, which dictates that some freedom has to be surrendered in order for the masses to exercise and enjoy freedom, hence, the reason your unfettered pure free market theory stands in antithesis of ordered freedom.
I believe freedom is consistent with human nature. When I hear someone say "some freedom has to be surrendered in order for the masses to exercise and enjoy freedom," I hear humans needs to surrender their very nature to be human. The same way Truth is, Right is, and Justice is, I think Freedom is. Your idea of degrees of freedom like "ordered freedom" is unattractive. The social contract is something promoted by people in authority to claim moral authority as they exercise power to the detriment of individuals. The greater good has a track record and it's terrible.
Unless I totally misread this, what you're arguing is ordered society with reasonable rules regulations -- the very thing which says your "pure free market" cannot exist
i.e.,
"a just government that would exist solely to protect people's rights as they interacted with one another" -- which is testament to the impossibility of your unfettered free market -- because without reins, it does and will not operate in the best interest, of all.
You're obviously lumping my post about the subject with someone else's. My post have always cited a government that was extremely strong.
"A just government that would exist solely to protect people's rights as they interacted with one another" is not a new phrase or idea for me, and its specific. You also have it wrong regarding who would wear the reins. The government as well as individuals would be subject to a system where the initiation of force is outlawed. The point of which is not to operate in the best interest of all. That would be the result. The point would be to protect individual rights.
People result to dog-eat because of the First Law of Nature; Self Preservation. The suppression of that law enables ordered society, hence, the rise of government to protect. (You're making my points here).
By describing dog-eat-dog as equal to self-preservation, you are only projecting your own sensibilities onto everyone else. Self-Preservation is valid, but dog-eat-dog is not man's natural realization of that goal. To be better off in a world where the initiation of force is outlawed, man cannot live a parasitic existence with his fellow man. The reason for that is man cannot do everything for himself. The laws of comparative advantage and division of labor lends itself to mutually beneficial interactions (economics). Like I said, for the deviants, government will be there for instances of fraud and extortion. For the cases that fall short of criminal liability, people can abandon a relationship they feel isn't beneficial because there is no force mandating the association. Civil cases can also be pursued for honest disagreements among men when it comes to damages and contract law.
You'll say last part isn't free market, but it is as long as the laws regarding all this is consistent with man's nature, individual rights, and disregards the idea of sacrificing for the greater good.
You were doing pretty good (supporting my theories though) until you decided to turn it personal. But lets see . . .
Is government merely a reflection of the governed??? This is a theme you constantly attempt to advance -- where it appears you exclude yourself from those whom government reflect. Perhaps I am wrong, but you often say "your side won" or "you got what you wanted" -- wherein you appear to exempt yourself from those in whose image government reflects.
If government is just a reflection of the people - doesn't that mean you, too? Doesn't that mean T.O., me, Lamar (where is he anyway?), etc. ??? In other words, if government is such a reflection, as you say, it is an amalgam of us all - and all of our values permeate the governemnt, no?
No.
The government reflects those people who has given it their moral sanction. I haven't been included in that group since the TARP bailout. I made the mistake of agreeing with the philosophy of the greater good until I saw it's application in an extreme circumstance, the last recession.
Right now I would describe my relationship with this country as one where I just try to avoid your guns. I avoid penalties like fines and incarceration, whether or not they are consistent with morality. Nothing more, nothing less.
The difference between my opposition and the opposition of a person that sanctions this system is like the difference between me and the Occupy movement. Occupy railed against the bank bailout by demanding a student loan bailout. They weren't against the use of the bat, they just wanted the bat to be turned on someone else. That's where Lamarr, thoughtone, you, and the rest stand when you vote between Democrats and Republicans. Who's version of the greater good prevails is what you're fighting for. Both parties supported giving rich bankers $23 trillion dollars worth of programs in the name of saving all of us, which is consistent with both parties philosophy. People shouldn't have to play the electoral odds on whether or not they are raped or the rapist. That's why I promote a system that views legality and morality as one.
The initiation of force should be illegal and, to the heart of our disagreement, it should be illegal for the government as well. That's why you can think we are saying the same thing, but I extend the logic to bailouts and the minimum wage because government should not be exempt from a moral principle.
" n shit
