Considering the well being of "not you", at the expense of "you", is the hallmark of collectivism, which is the basis for Socialism, Fascism, and Communism.
OTOH, being concerned with "you" (YOUR life, YOUR liberty, YOUR pursuit of happiness), is the hallmark of Capitalism, and was an end-product of the Enlightenment.
Well, if you ask me, there was no valid reason to invade Iraq.
I agree with this, but my reason is even more simple:
The source of the 9/11 attacks was Totalitarian Islam (TI). Iraq had very little to do with TI, Saddam's regime was largely secular. Was Saddam's regime stifling and oppressive? Yes, but it was rather far removed from the real source of the 9/11 attacks: TI
The point is not that CRA is singularly responsible for the financial bubble, but rather that the financial and housing industries are highly regulated (i.e. controlled) by the government - a fact that is widely overlooked by the media, in my experience
Not only do the Treasury, Fed, and HUD play large roles in matters financial and housing related, including Freddie/Fannie, FDIC, SOX, interest rate manipulation, etc., but it is getting to the point where it is suicidal to even try to stand against the government. All the TARP recipients were told to take the money under threat of government persecution, execs who disagreed would get the boot. The govt fired the head of GM and installed a puppet to cram it's bankruptcy plan down.
If Moody's had started to take a negative view on residential real estate, the ratings firm would have been hauled before Congress to testify about why it was hurting the U.S. economy with its bearish ratings.
The 3 rating services themselves are government-sponsored monopolies
Dont forget also that: 1. the government punished banks that didn't make risky loans through the Community Reinvestment act, 2. Government-licensed rating agencies gave AAA ratings to the securities, 3. the government created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, guaranteeing government debt and artificially lowering interest rates 4. The government's long (and increasing) track record of telling everyone they do not need to be responsible for their their own lives/decisions.
The thing that is inherently wrong with trying to guarantee housing for all is that such a claim is an infringement on the rights of those who will be forced to provide that housing. There can be no right to take what you "need" from others.
There is no, and has never been any, unfettered Capitalism.
Capitalism is "A social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned"
The Renaissance marked the rebirth of reason and a focus on THIS world and YOUR life. Capitalism is the system that eliminates the master-slave relationship, enshrines reason as man's guide to reality, provides a sanction that you have a right to exist and pursue your own happiness, and protects you from "the group"
Contrast that to today where pursuing your happiness is considered selfish and evil, morality consists of sacrificing yourself for the group, and both the far left and the far right threw man's mind out the window long ago
I agree there needs to be a government, and it should provide military, police, and courts - the purpose of which is to protect you, the individual. It's power has to be strictly defined by a constitution based on individual rights.
I do not agree with a so called "social net", which is a euphemism for "I can take your property if I need it."
I do not agree there must be a "master". The government should only step in to prevent the initiation of force in society, it should never, itself, initiate force against its citizens.
However a business cannot keep out other businesses by constantly raising/lowering prices - that's a fictional scenario that would bankrupt anyone who actually tried it. (See 'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal' for a thorough debunking of common fallacies about Capitalism)
There is no need for government control of all aspects dealing with the transport of water, electricity, signals, etc. to your house.
These kind of transport rights are valuable, and if people were free from government coercion, they could easily work out effective and mutually beneficial arrangements for such transport to occur.
There are all sorts of legal mechanisms already in place for usage restrictions, right-of-ways, and other things
The whole notion that to do anything requires bureaucrats to control everything does not make sense.
If there is no value in the services, then they shouldn't be provided. If there is value in the services, then a business can be created to provide that value.
Government is not required.
All the government can do is force people to do things. That force needs to be very tightly limited(as per the vision of the founding fathers)
Government has a legalized monopoly on the use of physical force. The purpose of the Constitution is to very strictly/narrowly define how that force could be used (Military, police, courts). In this view, you, the individual, are sovereign and have rights - and no other person or group of people can infringe on your rights.
Putting it to a vote is irrelevant. Even if 51% of the people want to infringe on my rights (take my money, force me to pray, force me to work), they have no right to. The "democracy" part of our country applies only to elections - not to "unlimited majority rule".
There cannot be a monopoly unless the government forces it into a monopoly through special franchise rights, subsidies, etc.
In the absence of government coercion, companies have to keep their prices at the market level - or will go out of business by raising their prices too high and bringing in competition.
If people weren't forced by the government to fund government-controlled schools and use government controlled utilities, then people could vote with their dollars.
I am saying is that the government has a legalized monopoly on the use of force in society. The government should not take your money against your will and give it to other people, regardless of the alleged "benefits to society", which is a euphemism for "benefiting some people at the expense of other people".
I do not know whether we would already be on the moon without government coercion, but I strongly suspect that if we took a freedom and property-rights based approach, we would.
For example, they way to get men on mars quickly and at no expense to the taxpayer is to say: "Whoever lands on Mars first owns it." You would cheer with your fist in the air to the first private ship blasts into space, created by men of vision staking their own lives and personal fortunes.
(Although I suppose some people would recoil in horror that the government is not in charge)
Slashdot Mirror
In a free society, you have individual rights. You are legally protected from harm by others.
Considering the well being of "not you", at the expense of "you", is the hallmark of collectivism, which is the basis for Socialism, Fascism, and Communism.
OTOH, being concerned with "you" (YOUR life, YOUR liberty, YOUR pursuit of happiness), is the hallmark of Capitalism, and was an end-product of the Enlightenment.
If I was your neighbor, could I take whatever I wanted from you?
Fascism is when the government controls business and property, but pretends to leave private individuals in control.
So Bush was bad, but Obama is even worse
Take GM as an example, the government is controlling it completely - firing/hiring CEOs, cramming down the terms of bankruptcy, etc.
Well, if you ask me, there was no valid reason to invade Iraq.
I agree with this, but my reason is even more simple:
The source of the 9/11 attacks was Totalitarian Islam (TI). Iraq had very little to do with TI, Saddam's regime was largely secular. Was Saddam's regime stifling and oppressive? Yes, but it was rather far removed from the real source of the 9/11 attacks: TI
To pretend that anything any animal does isn't for self interest is just total ignorance or stupidity, take you pick.
If a man jumps off a building, am I pretending that it isn't in his self-interest?
The point is not that CRA is singularly responsible for the financial bubble, but rather that the financial and housing industries are highly regulated (i.e. controlled) by the government - a fact that is widely overlooked by the media, in my experience
Not only do the Treasury, Fed, and HUD play large roles in matters financial and housing related, including Freddie/Fannie, FDIC, SOX, interest rate manipulation, etc., but it is getting to the point where it is suicidal to even try to stand against the government. All the TARP recipients were told to take the money under threat of government persecution, execs who disagreed would get the boot. The govt fired the head of GM and installed a puppet to cram it's bankruptcy plan down.
Here Warren buffet mentions Moody's rating role in the real-estate bubble
If Moody's had started to take a negative view on residential real estate, the ratings firm would have been hauled before Congress to testify about why it was hurting the U.S. economy with its bearish ratings.
The 3 rating services themselves are government-sponsored monopolies
When was the banking industry deregulated? Was I sleeping? Are you?
Dont forget also that: 1. the government punished banks that didn't make risky loans through the Community Reinvestment act, 2. Government-licensed rating agencies gave AAA ratings to the securities, 3. the government created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, guaranteeing government debt and artificially lowering interest rates 4. The government's long (and increasing) track record of telling everyone they do not need to be responsible for their their own lives/decisions.
The thing that is inherently wrong with trying to guarantee housing for all is that such a claim is an infringement on the rights of those who will be forced to provide that housing. There can be no right to take what you "need" from others.
There is no, and has never been any, unfettered Capitalism.
Capitalism is "A social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned"
The Renaissance marked the rebirth of reason and a focus on THIS world and YOUR life. Capitalism is the system that eliminates the master-slave relationship, enshrines reason as man's guide to reality, provides a sanction that you have a right to exist and pursue your own happiness, and protects you from "the group"
Contrast that to today where pursuing your happiness is considered selfish and evil, morality consists of sacrificing yourself for the group, and both the far left and the far right threw man's mind out the window long ago
I agree there needs to be a government, and it should provide military, police, and courts - the purpose of which is to protect you, the individual. It's power has to be strictly defined by a constitution based on individual rights.
I do not agree with a so called "social net", which is a euphemism for "I can take your property if I need it."
I do not agree there must be a "master". The government should only step in to prevent the initiation of force in society, it should never, itself, initiate force against its citizens.
You are partially correct - monopolies can sustain themselves: Here is an example of how Standard oil kicked everyone's ass simply by being the best at everything it did.
However a business cannot keep out other businesses by constantly raising/lowering prices - that's a fictional scenario that would bankrupt anyone who actually tried it. (See 'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal' for a thorough debunking of common fallacies about Capitalism)
More competitors can always come in, if it would be profitable for them. Capital flows to where there is profit potential.
That's between the farmer and the electric company to work out. I have no right to take your money and use it to give the farmer electricity.
There is no need for government control of all aspects dealing with the transport of water, electricity, signals, etc. to your house.
These kind of transport rights are valuable, and if people were free from government coercion, they could easily work out effective and mutually beneficial arrangements for such transport to occur.
There are all sorts of legal mechanisms already in place for usage restrictions, right-of-ways, and other things
The whole notion that to do anything requires bureaucrats to control everything does not make sense.
I was referring to a coercive monopoly. Yes, there can be an earned monopoly. See the case of how standard oil kicked everyone's ass simply by being better than everyone else
What you are talking about is mob rule - the ability for the gang (51%) to enslave the other 49%.
I am saying that each individual should be free, dealing with other individuals voluntarily, by mutual consent.
It doesn't matter how many people want to take your money, your time, your life - they have no right to take any of it.
If there is no value in the services, then they shouldn't be provided. If there is value in the services, then a business can be created to provide that value.
Government is not required.
All the government can do is force people to do things. That force needs to be very tightly limited(as per the vision of the founding fathers)
Socialism means the individual has no rights, but a group (or its leaders), can force you to serve the group.
This is in direct contradiction to the U.S. Constitution, which enshrines the sovereignty of the individual against the group.
Government has a legalized monopoly on the use of physical force. The purpose of the Constitution is to very strictly/narrowly define how that force could be used (Military, police, courts). In this view, you, the individual, are sovereign and have rights - and no other person or group of people can infringe on your rights.
Putting it to a vote is irrelevant. Even if 51% of the people want to infringe on my rights (take my money, force me to pray, force me to work), they have no right to. The "democracy" part of our country applies only to elections - not to "unlimited majority rule".
There cannot be a monopoly unless the government forces it into a monopoly through special franchise rights, subsidies, etc.
In the absence of government coercion, companies have to keep their prices at the market level - or will go out of business by raising their prices too high and bringing in competition.
I disagree - I think the biggest hurdle is getting around the stifling controls by the government that enshrine existing businesses.
If people weren't forced by the government to fund government-controlled schools and use government controlled utilities, then people could vote with their dollars.
I am saying is that the government has a legalized monopoly on the use of force in society. The government should not take your money against your will and give it to other people, regardless of the alleged "benefits to society", which is a euphemism for "benefiting some people at the expense of other people".
I do not know whether we would already be on the moon without government coercion, but I strongly suspect that if we took a freedom and property-rights based approach, we would.
For example, they way to get men on mars quickly and at no expense to the taxpayer is to say: "Whoever lands on Mars first owns it." You would cheer with your fist in the air to the first private ship blasts into space, created by men of vision staking their own lives and personal fortunes.
(Although I suppose some people would recoil in horror that the government is not in charge)