Michael Lorrey wrote:
>> A laissez-faire approach to economics does not necessarily translate well
to
>> other societies with different views of freedom, personal responsibility,
>> society, etc. In Russia and many SE Asian countries, for example, global
>> capitalism looks rather like a dismal failure at the moment.
>
>Of course, it was not capitalism they were practicing, just state directed
>mercantilism, with a far greater disregard for individual liberties. In
other
>words, the crooks in charge before just wanted a license to pillage the
system
>one more time. This time they not only snookered their own people but
investors
>from around the world....
I think many of them thought they were playing the game correctly. Certainly the capital markets thought so.
>Really? You mean I can just stop paying my taxes and nothing will happen to
me?
>Really? I can go shoot a spruce grouse if I feel like it and nobody is
gonna do
>anything to me? If you answer in the negative, then it has to do with
force.
>Everything the government does is due to regulation. Regulation is a law
written
>by a bureaucrat who never gave me or my representative a voice in writing
it.
>Regulation without representation is definitely force. Enforcing
regulatio.n
>ignorant of my opposition is also definitely force. Just because you use
nice
>words and use tons of paperwork to bury me does not mean its not force.
"The pen
>is mightier than the sword." You wield the ultimate weapon, sir.
I'm glad you enjoy my writing. I'm not involved in burying you in paperwork, however. Not my department.
>An employee is not required to work there, nor are they required to do the
work.
>They can very easily change employers, and while employed cannot be coerced
into
>paying for something they don't want, unless you are a union employee, in
which
>case, too bad. I work as a contract consultant. I choose my employers more
than
>they choose me. And before you think I'm some kind of highly educated
>professional, I never finished my bachelors degree, I just know a lot about
>computer applications, publishing, graphic design, database conversion, and
>website development, as well as a number of other things.
I'm glad you have a lot of marketable skills. But not all people are skilled in these areas, and others who are skilled would prefer to work at a stable 9 to 5 job than do consulting. Personally I enjoy technical work but have no interest in working 12 hour days. I therefore have more sympathy for those who don't view boundless expansion etc. as the end-all, be-all of existence.
>> Without getting into Samael's understanding of economics, even a
beginning
>> economist recognizes the important distinction between positive and
>> normative economics. It's one thing, for example, to state that some
market
>> outcome is Pareto optimal, but another thing entirely to say we should
>> restructure our political and social systems to achieve said outcome.
>
>Especially when the restructuring would undo 60 years of bureaucrats
building
>the welfare state up, eh? There's a lot of emotional and ideological
investment
>in the status quo. Hopefully the loss of face come jan1 of next year will
help
>things along.
Huh? I have no involvement in the maintenance of the "welfare state" and am not overly concerned what happens to it.
>> While I don't necessarily agree with everything either Samael or Joe is
>> saying, we must recognize that there are two sides to this story. Sure,
>> governments do bad things, but so do businesses. Personally, I'm much
more
>> concerned about what my next (private sector) employer might do to me, or
>> try to make me do, than I am about the guvmint.
>
>Yes guvmint employees have it pretty cushy, thanks to the union, but how
about
>non-union employees?
I don't understand the question. Sombunall government employees are unionized. The union has definitely made things cushy for those who are. Too cushy, in my opinion. As for other industries, unions have their place. At times they're a benefit, at others a hinderance.