@jimmacsaid I just love the default " blame someone else " mantra. Come on, like, get real.
For my money its more likely that the general confusion surrounding who and what we, as individuals, are to blame, than the economic policies. Not saying it is, saying it is more likely.
After all, it was the nature of twentieth-century capitalism that everyone should scam everyone, and he who scammed the most ultimately won the game. On that basis, I was the undefeated world champ.”
Free market never said you have the right to hurt other people. It has been agreed
for the longest time that dangerous criminals go to prison. I in no way wish to challenge that.
You are aware that government oversight is how "dangerous criminals" are defined, captured and imprisoned right?
Sean Atwood became a millionaire smuggling ecstasy to Arizona.
Jordan Peterson became a millionaire selling low quality stocks to rich people.
Are you in favor of those businesses having no government oversight or regulation?
I differ here with the typical libertarian.
I believe that you can take all the drugs you want if you can show that you can pay your own bills as you get sick.
Otherwise, it would be very much against the law and punished severely. That explains my stance on regulation of drugs.
Selling stocks: We are too tight with regulations. Insider information should be usable in determining stock transactions
Free market never said you have the right to hurt other people. It has been agreed
for the longest time that dangerous criminals go to prison. I in no way wish to challenge that.
You are aware that government oversight is how "dangerous criminals" are defined, captured and imprisoned right?
I'm surprised at you.
Everything I say, you try to inject something into it that changes the meaning. And we never can progress.
@earl-of-trumpssaid I differ here with the typical libertarian.
I believe that you can take all the drugs you want if you can show that you can pay your own bills as you get sick.
Otherwise, it would be very much against the law and punished severely. That explains my stance on regulation of drugs.
Selling stocks: We are too tight with regulations. Insider information should be usable in determining stock transactions
It sounds like you are in favor of criminalizing risky behavior unless you are rich. Does that extend to overeating? Smoking tobacco? Bungie jumping?
Everything I say, you try to inject something into it that changes the meaning. And we never can progress.
I am not "injecting" anything. I am simply pointing out the logical consequences of what you say.
Think about it. What is a "criminal"?
Slavers weren't criminals until slavery was outlawed. Cocaine users weren't criminals until cocaine was outlawed. Wife beaters weren't criminals until domestic violence was outlawed. Murderers of American Indians weren't criminals until killing American Indians was outlawed. Immigrants who didn't get government approval weren't criminals until the government outlawed immigration without government permission. Don't you see the pattern here?
Some people call Trump a criminal. And what is the response every time?
"Trump wasn't convicted of anything [by the government] so he's not a criminal".
Assuming we know what a “market” is, the question hinges on the word “free.” In the context of society, “free” means free from the coercion of others.
Unfortunately evictions are coercive market actions. So is putting someone in prison for drug use or prostitution. So the "Free Market" cannot exist at least in the sense meant by Libertarians and other economic conservatives. They need to twist and redefine words in strange ways to try to make it all work e.g. blaming the person who is being coerced by government men with guns.