tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post8567234850688855761..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: DeregulationAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-75678109356715755432011-02-01T12:12:10.846-07:002011-02-01T12:12:10.846-07:00I am trying to determine the source of your confus...I am trying to determine the source of your confusion.<br /><br /><i>The use of violence and coercion is not part of the free-market.</i><br /><br />Actually, they are. Violence - or the threat of violence (coercion) - is how you enforce property rights.<br /><br /><i>Theft & slavery are contra the free-market and children do not consent,</i><br /><br />What is "theft"? What is "slavery"? What is "consent"?<br /><br />Who gets to answer these questions? What options do you have if you disagree with those answers? What options do others have if they disagree with your disagreement?<br /><br />Getting a set of answers to these questions written into a set of books would end up making a system as complex, confusing, and potentially corruptable as any set of government regulations.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-78207293838674264242011-02-01T07:57:40.854-07:002011-02-01T07:57:40.854-07:00This comes across as quite confused.
You say: &qu...This comes across as quite confused.<br /><br />You say: "<i>when you get right down to it, a system of private property is a system of rules and regulations. </i>"<br /><br />Right, but that says nothing about government .. you're simply making a remark about an "is" to squeeze in the government.<br /><br />Next, you say: "<i>In the purist of capitalist system, I'm not permitted to acquire your money by pulling a gun on you and offering you a market trade - if you give me your money, then I will not shoot you. </i>"<br /><br />Of course not, and why? Because the free-market is a system of voluntary transactions between consenting individuals. The use of violence and coercion is not part of the free-market. That is called government, which makes it lawful for itself. <br /><br />"<i>To see that "free markets" embody a set of regulations, ask yourself if we going to remove regulations on armed robbery. Are we going to deregulate the child sex industry? Are we going to use the market to regulate the hit-man industry? Are we going to permit government interference in the buying and selling of slaves? </i>"<br /><br />Theft & slavery are contra the free-market and children do not consent. <br /><br />Without wishing to sound harsh, I am only half-way through and this is so confused.Liam Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09585790660383219089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-59368212236852352902011-01-31T08:42:01.575-07:002011-01-31T08:42:01.575-07:00Daniel
I am afraid that I have no idea what your ...<b>Daniel</b><br /><br />I am afraid that I have no idea what your argument is. You're going to have to be bit more explicit about where you see a problem.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-2185502227192195742011-01-30T18:46:08.815-07:002011-01-30T18:46:08.815-07:00Mr. Fyfe, I'm not someone who prides himself i...Mr. Fyfe, I'm not someone who prides himself in being politically savvy. When I see news reports detailing a red or blue viewpoint, my eyes will often see only shades gray, so I have little passion or interest in such subjects. As such I do not know much about some of the issues you present. There are, however, a few problems I have with the way you present them.<br /><br />You are trying to view these situations algebraically. You say "Company is lobbying for deregulation of x action." Then, quite conveniently, you seem to forget that x has a value. Instead of evaluating the function (or exploring the argument) at the true value of x, you proceed to strawman the opposition's arguments by replacing x with a practice that is easier for you to condemn. Forgive my condescension, but it's rather disappointing a practice for someone who claims, and I once held, to be an objective eye.Danielnoreply@blogger.com