Libertarian Party

Craven de Kere wrote:

Try: "volatile nature of market forces".

Perhaps the anthropomorphism of "whimsical" was the problem.

Cool thanks. But can you differentiate for me between the volatile nature of market forces and the volatile nature of government regulations intended to act in the place of market forces? Are you sure the cure isn't worse than the disease?

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

But can you differentiate for me between the volatile nature of market forces and the volatile nature of government regulations intended to act in the place of market forces?

Sure, "market forces" fluctuate more so than do laws. You'll have to do your own research on this if you dispute it, I'm familiar with your tendency to ask for large amounts of research and then ignore it if it doesn't support your position and I don't plan to fall for it (this time).

Secondly, laws are not a substitute for "market forces" except in the minds of some libertarians and others similarly affected.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Scrat wrote:

But can you differentiate for me between the volatile nature of market forces and the volatile nature of government regulations intended to act in the place of market forces?

Sure, "market forces" fluctuate more so than do laws. You'll have to do your own research on this if you dispute it, I'm familiar with your tendency to ask for large amounts of research and then ignore it if it doesn't support your position and I don't plan to fall for it (this time).

And I'm familiar with your tendency to attribute nefarious intentions where none are evident.

But if we can continue discussing the topic, and steer clear of the personal hostility (

), my point is to question the inference I took from your choice of words... that market forces are more likely to yield unintended and negative results than would be government regulations intended to solve the same problem. (If I've inferred wrongly, you are free to correct me at your leisure.) I disagree in the extreme with that assessment, but understand how one might reach it. I think the negative consequences of failures of market systems are generally fairly obvious and easily attributable to said failures. The negative consequences of failures of government regulations often are not so obvious, and are therefor easy to miss, or to deny even if you happen to notice they are happening.

Anyhow, that's what I see as being wrong with what I see as being your position. :wink: Please don't go to too much trouble in any response you may wish to offer, as I don't want to be held to account for any fatigue you may suffer as a result. Cool

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

And I'm familiar with your tendency to attribute nefarious intentions where none are evident.

I did nothing of the sort. I referenced your tendency to ask for difficult research and said why I would not do the leg work this time.

Quote:

But if we can continue discussing the topic, and steer clear of the personal hostility ( ),

Hostility? Laughing

Who be attributing nefarious intentions now?

Quote:

I disagree in the extreme with that assessment, but understand how one might reach it.

You "understand" differently than do I. My position has nothing to do with how "generally fairly obvious and easily attributable" the respective failures are.

0 Replies

Quote:

You "understand" differently than do I. My position has nothing to do with how "generally fairly obvious and easily attributable" the respective failures are.

I can only assume that you mean for me to continue to understand differently, since you make no effort to instruct me as to what your position is, merely indicating that I've failed to grasp it.

I'd ask you to clarify what you do mean, but that would no doubt be considered an unreasonable request, so I'll just sign off by reiterating my point that I believe government regulatory actions often have far reaching unintended negative consequences that are often not as immediately apparent or as easily attributable as to the root cause thereof, that the failings of market solutions are generally more visible and more easily blamed on those solutions, and that this might lead one such as you to conclude that market forces are more prone to failure, or more "whimsical" if you like, but that one such as you would be wrong to draw such a conclusion. I believe that government regulatory efforts tend not to work as well as would market solutions in most cases, but that some government regulation can be a good thing if taken in very small, carefully chosen doses.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Quote:
You "understand" differently than do I. My position has nothing to do with how "generally fairly obvious and easily attributable" the respective failures are.

I can only assume that you mean for me to continue to understand differently, since you make no effort to instruct me as to what your position is, merely indicating that I've failed to grasp it.

Incorrect, what I meant was that you try to forward a subjective opinion as an "understanding" and I noted that I hold a different one.

But insofar as myself not really wishing to discuss this with you at this time you are correct. If I were to take up a discussion on libertarian ideology I would procure a more profitable one. Thus far it's not much more than a statement of a belief with no support and nothing interesting. That's not a knock on you, I'm just telling you that I am not interested in the discussion you had broached.

Quote:

..I'll just sign off by reiterating my point that I believe government regulatory actions often have far reaching unintended negative consequences that are often not as immediately apparent or as easily attributable as to the root cause thereof, that the failings of market solutions are generally more visible and more easily blamed on those solutions, and that this might lead one such as you to conclude that market forces are more prone to failure, or more "whimsical" if you like, but that one such as you would be wrong to draw such a conclusion.

Sez you, in accord with your beliefs. <shrugs>

0 Replies

Quote:

Sez you, in accord with your beliefs. <shrugs>

Well, at least I stand ready to debate the validity of those beliefs. Confused

You seem to be suggesting that you think regulation is more trustworthy than market solutions. I don't think that's so, and don't think you can support that notion, but you don't want to have to support it... see the dilemma? So, assuming you are more willing to support your statements for others, you are probably right that you'll find more substantive debate elsewhere, but the difference will be purely a function of what you are willing to bring to your side of the debate.

0 Replies

Scrat,

Yes, Scrat, I am not willing to "bring my side of the debate" to you. LOL

Feel free to take from that what you will.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Scrat,

Yes, Scrat, I am not willing to "bring my side of the debate" to you. LOL

Feel free to take from that what you will.

As will others, I'm sure. Cool

0 Replies

Ahh, I shoulda figured this was more of an audience thing for you than it is for me. the stage is yours Scrat, I suggest pirouettes.

0 Replies

Kids! Don't make come back there!

0 Replies

But moooom we were going to do pirouettes!

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Kids! Don't make come back there!

Sorry if my attempt to debate Craven on his stated point of view was somehow out of line. Doesn't seem like the kind of thing for which you'd get taken to task in a discussion forum, but then what do I know?

I'm going to continue to try to discuss the issue with those who are willing, and I'll take my cue from Craven that he is not. Cool

0 Replies

Scrat,

Make that chest-beating instead of pirouettes.

"He doesn't think I'm worth debating with!" Thump-thump-thump.....

0 Replies

Thomas - I like a lot of what you've written on this topic so far, specifically your comments on market solutions being preferable to government regulatory actions. I'm wondering though... I generally say that I believe that some areas require government regulation, but I realize that I can't make a good argument as to which specific areas those are.

I wondered whether you agree that market solutions aren't always preferable, and if so, are there any specific examples you would offer as being cases where government regulation is the better solution?

0 Replies

The Libertarian Party, which I knew little about, appears to be consderably more wacky than I'd suspected ...

Liberty has a fascinating, detailed recounting of the LP convention and the runup to it. It concludes, near the end:

Quote:

The nomination process was over. LP delegates had chosen as their standard-bearer a man who had willfully refused to file his federal tax return for years, refused to get a driver's license but continued to drive his car despite having been ticketed so many times that he couldn't recall the exact number, proposed to blow up the United Nations building, wanted to force criminals in prisons to stay in bed until their muscles atrophied, and planned to force Congress to take a "special version" of his class on the Constitution. And the overwhelming majority of delegates didn't know any of this about their nominee.

0 Replies

It's very wacky, that's why you hear "small l" so much.

0 Replies

The Libertarians have their fringe group just as the Democrats and Republicans do and, as usual, the fringe gets most of the press.

The libertarian views of strict constitutional interpretation, strict limits on a centralized federal government, and preservation of freedom and privacy, while ensuring the national defense is near and dear to many of us. But most of us who hold largely libertarian views probably don't register or vote Libertarian because of the wacky element that seems to be in charge of the platform and emphasis these days.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The Libertarians have their fringe group just as the Democrats and Republicans do and, as usual, the fringe gets most of the press.

Dude, we're talking the guy that got nominated to be their presidential candidate here.

(Unless you mean that the Libertarian party as a whole is the "fringe group" within the libertarian current, in which case the story underscores your point)

0 Replies

Yes. The Libertarian choice for president is rather indicative that either 1) they couldn't find a good candidate this year or 2) the fringe was in control of the convention and platform this year.

Dude? You call a southern belle "Dude"?

0 Replies

Libertarian Party

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know