Discourse and Discussion - Cap/Com

[Velociryx]

Ahem....earlier I was accused of telling other people what they believe.

Pot...meet Kettle?

I just TOLD you what I believe! And I am one of the vile monsters you so fervently despise!

Yeah...LOTS to despise there. Wanting people to succeed on their own.

Utterly despicable, I know.

-=Vel=-

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
No it's not. It's assumed that the market takes care of these things. Why do you have this idea about L-F?

L-F doesn't assume that the market takes care of policing contracts, etc... L-F is based upon obligation of contracts and freedom from coercion.

[Az]

I have to disagree with you. I don't think capitalists measure success any other way than my their bank account.

Capitalists are people, too. One could start a bussiness, and run with it. hey, it could even happen to you, or me, or anyone else. Doesn't mean that one doesn't believe in the same ideals. Jefferson owned slaves, and all that.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Why are you so afraid of personal success?

This is mystifying to me.

Why is it so bad to hold a person responsible and accountable for his or her successes in life?

We are held accountable for being on time for work. We are held accountable for turning our homework in. In all areas of life, there is personal responsibility and accountability. Why should this be any different?

Because you measure success by how much money you make, and when you make money off of me I tend to notice, especially when you don't do anything worth a **** to get it. All you do is take advantage of an opportunity to exploit me. Why the hell should I hold that idea of personal responisiblity. That's nothing but BS, and we see through that. It's not hard.

And yet you would craft a society where you are no longer responsible for your own well being. Let the state take care of everything. So it comes with the price tag of being told where and how to live.

Apparently, you're okay with that (or you see yourself as being one of the party bosses, in which case you will be given special consideration).

Blah Blah Blah. I've said plenty of times that I don't believe in a society where people can just live like parasites, you just won't let it go.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I have to disagree with you. I don't think capitalists measure success any other way than my their bank account.

Carnegie. Pwned.

[Kuciwalker]

500th post!

[Az]

Cap/Com strikes again.

moving to the other thread, I guess...

[Velociryx]

Nope...I sure won't let it go, Kid, because your core points are absolutely 180 degrees from the reality.

Here in the real world, Capitalists enable wealth to be created. That has value. You may choose not to recognize or acknowledge it. You may choose to scoff and call it "non-work" but the reality is, it's d@mned hard.

Have you ever tried? If not, how can you condemn something as not being work just becuase it doesn't look and feel like ditch digging?

Go experience it first, then come back and tell me it ain't work.

-=Vel=-

[Az]

Well, Vel, the problem with your position, is you think that only capitalists can enable wealth to be created.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


L-F doesn't assume that the market takes care of policing contracts, etc... L-F is based upon obligation of contracts and freedom from coercion.

I'm asking you where you got this idea. The literal translation from French means hands off. So where do you get the idea that it means otherwise?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Nope...I sure won't let it go, Kid, because your core points are absolutely 180 degrees from the reality.

That's why Che isn't talking to you about it. You're being a real *******, and you aren't making any points, because you are stuck on this crap.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm asking you where you got this idea. The literal translation from French means hands off. So where do you get the idea that it means otherwise?

lais·sez faire
n.

1. An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.
2. Noninterference in the affairs of others.

Obviously it requires two things: enforcement of the obligation of contracts and prevention of coercion. Pollution is coercion.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

lais·sez faire
n.

1. An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.
2. Noninterference in the affairs of others.

Obviously it requires two things: enforcement of the obligation of contracts and prevention of coercion. Pollution is coercion.

A free-enterprise system can function without polution control now can't it? It did for a long time.

[Kuciwalker]

It can operate for a long time without a lot of things. It doesn't mean they aren't an inherent part of L-F.

[Kidlicious]

According to the definition that you posted. Polution control is not L-F, because it is beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate.