Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good thing to know that you are never at a loss to understand an analogy Frank.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni
So all the technological advancement of the 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st centuries done by private institutions and individuals count for nothing?
How did any scientific and technological advancement take place prior to the modern nation state? I want to know which governments are responsible for the wheel or how to make fire or agriculture or written language or any of the other major discoveries that made civilization (and *gasp* the state itself) possible.
I've also never heard of repealing all traffic laws and nor have I heard libertarians say that most traffic laws are responsible for traffic accidents. But keep knocking down those strawmen because that is the only battle of wits you actually have a chance of winning (although the odds are still not in your favor).
Synonym : one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses.
You can definitely use the words "free market" and "laissez faire" interchangably.
We are going around in circles now with your question that you were so hurt about me not immediately answering. I answered the question and now you are moving the goal posts. I am not going to keep on with this. Because now you are "guessing" at things. Well, I would assume that any law you make, if there is a proper enforcement arm would prevent the behaviors the laws are meant to eliminate.
Simplifying the laws is a pretty meaningless argument, if the laws aim at eliminating a bad behavior. Simplification would only legalize the bad behavior. So, in the case of pollution simplification would do nothing other than let polluters pollute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
I never said they are not synonyms. I said they are not interchangeable.
I just asked you the simple question. If they are interchangeable why do you have find another dictionary? The worst part of it, it doesn't even agree with you.
I am not arguing against better enforcement and libertarians are not against enforcing sensible laws.
What I am asking is. If they created even more laws, made it even harder to deal with the regulations, would the disasters been averted. My guess there would be more disasters, because burdensome laws open up for more corruption and black market activity.
If those countries simplified their laws, it would reduce the incentives to break the laws and it would be easier to enforce them.
And you are back at stawmen.
As pointed out million of times before, in a free market you are not allowed to poison and pollute, because you are not allowed to destroy someone else property.
Planning to respond to that comment soon, or are you going to keep pretending I didn't write it.
Synonym : one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses.
You can definitely use the words "free market" and "laissez faire" interchangably.
Your definition does not say they can be interchanged. And no synonyms can't be interchanged. Big and fat are synonyms, but that doesn't mean you can just interchange them.
Also, this time you didn't use Oxford English dictionary. Remember you said this
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinoza 1454
The Oxford English Dictionary is the definitive document on word meanings in the English speaking world. You don't have to like that. But, that is the fact of the matter.
You are just full of ****. You lied, you didn't use Oxford dictionary because you believe it was the best. You looked for the best suited dictionary. And even then it was not the same definition.
Quote:
We are going around in circles now with your question that you were so hurt about me not immediately answering. I answered the question and now you are moving the goal posts. I am not going to keep on with this. Because now you are "guessing" at things. Well, I would assume that any law you make, if there is a proper enforcement arm would prevent the behaviors the laws are meant to eliminate.
Your arguments just get weaker and weaker. Why would I be hurt by you not answering? Do you really expect me to not point it out when you don't answer. To refuse to answer questions is probably one of the stupidest things you can do in a debate. Do you ever hear Obama say "I refuse to answer this question"
You did not answer my question, again. Would the disasters have been prevented if they made it even harder to deal with the regulations.
Quote:
Simplifying the laws is a pretty meaningless argument, if the laws aim at eliminating a bad behavior. Simplification would only legalize the bad behavior. So, in the case of pollution simplification would do nothing other than let polluters pollute.
If that is the case, why did those disasters happen in countries where the laws are extremely difficult to deal with.
Also, I don't think you know what simplification means. It does not mean legalize. It just means making the laws easy to follow. You don't try to micromanage the companies and instead focus on what is important.
The reason that needs to be done, especially in third world countries, is because else it becomes very difficult to enforce the laws. You just end up with a lot of corruption. Normally disasters happen, due to corruption.
It is a good thing you don't speak in vague ill defined terms.
OED is the best dictionary in the world. It is pretty much common knowledge.
I am not going to go in circles with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
Your definition does not say they can be interchanged. And no synonyms can't be interchanged. Big and fat are synonyms, but that doesn't mean you can just interchange them.
Also, this time you didn't use Oxford English dictionary. Remember you said this You are just full of ****. You lied, you didn't use Oxford dictionary because you believe it was the best. You looked for the best suited dictionary. And even then it was not the same definition.
Your arguments just get weaker and weaker. Why would I be hurt by you not answering? Do you really expect me to not point it out when you don't answer. To refuse to answer questions is probably one of the stupidest things you can do in a debate. Do you ever hear Obama say "I refuse to answer this question"
You did not answer my question, again. Would the disasters have been prevented if they made it even harder to deal with the regulations.
If that is the case, why did those disasters happen in countries where the laws are extremely difficult to deal with.
Also, I don't think you know what simplification means. It does not mean legalize. It just means making the laws easy to follow. You don't try to micromanage the companies and instead focus on what is important.
The reason that needs to be done, especially in third world countries, is because else it becomes very difficult to enforce the laws. You just end up with a lot of corruption. Normally disasters happen, due to corruption.
FYi most of the FREE market lists you have were not free market. We had in the PAST before the EPA many years without DISASTERS!!
So from a natural stand point which does more damage to land, waters, and completely destory entire land masses IE from a volanco.
How many TREES and water supplies were DESTROYED.
Now also consider who long we have been on this planet and the amount of distruction volancos have on this planet and if a meteor or asteroid ever hit.
FYI in a well regulated completed EPA take over I can assure you a BP issue will happen WHY because government also does a crap job of the things they SAY they actually care about.
This quote says it all. It shows that the free market is just not working. A system that allocates 85 people more wealth than the poorest 3.5 Billion is prima facie immoral. The system is set up to keep these people poor as well. Capitalism creates poverty.
2014 Oxfam report "85 people own more than the poorest 3.5 billion people on the planet"
This statistic from Oxfam is staggering. Just 85 people, the top 0.00000001 percent, own as much as the poorest 3.5 billion people on the planet.
Oxfam's concern is not only that wealth is concentrated at the top, but that it will remain this way, passed down from generation to generation like royalty.
Capitalism is as far from a free market as is Communism. They are both constructs of a government regulated economy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
25 worst NATURAL distasters.
