Quote of the Day...11/22/2013

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Quote of the Day...11/22/2013

Postby clampdaddy » Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:23 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:And I'm with Spinner 100% on usury laws.

Giving, as always, all the advantage to those least in need of advantages.

No, allowing the same freedoms to all Americans, equally.

So obviously there should be no restrictions on insider trading, correct? It's just taking advantage of your knowledge and ability to prevail over others who do not possess that knowledge. Happens every day.

If its legal for one person (congressmen) to do it should be legal for all people to do.
Last edited by clampdaddy on Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3687
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die


Re: Quote of the Day...11/22/2013

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:28 am

Glimmerjim wrote:So obviously there should be no restrictions on insider trading, correct?
That is a form of fraud. Fraud in all forms should be illegal. It should be a serious crime :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:

Glimmerjim wrote:It's just taking advantage of your knowledge and ability to prevail over others who do not possess that knowledge.
It is not information that is available to both sides. This is why it is fraud. If you are developing a new drug and you run tests and no that it has failed. Selling rights to that drug is fraud. Now if you make that information available where it is readily available with me doing my due diligence, and I still want to buy it and you make no false claims, hey, then it's not fraud. It's stupidity.

Glimmerjim wrote:Happens every day.

What crimes don't happen every day? :huh:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Quote of the Day...11/22/2013

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:25 pm

Glimmerjim wrote: So obviously there should be no restrictions on insider trading, correct?
SpinnerMan wrote: That is a form of fraud. Fraud in all forms should be illegal. It should be a serious crime :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:

Laws are restrictions. So your point is that, obviously, restrictions are needed in a "free-trade market". I didn't realize I'd have to get to that level of definition to make my point! :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Quote of the Day...11/22/2013

Postby assateague » Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:28 pm

"Free trade" does NOT mean anarchy. I'm not certain if you guys don't understand this, or are just pretending not to.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Quote of the Day...11/22/2013

Postby blackduckdog2 » Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:49 pm

assateague wrote:"Free trade" does NOT mean anarchy. I'm not certain if you guys don't understand this, or are just pretending not to.

That totally free trade would descend into anarchy though, and that right quick, I feel relatively sure of. "A fool and his money are soon parted" is a good starting point, too……..by what Christian ethic does a man propose to part another from his means, simply because he is a fool? Intelligence and creative ambition are surely to be reward, but why must a fool (and we will assume, for the sake of this polemic, that the fool was made by God) be punished? What's up with that?
I worked with a "fool" if you will. I would never call him that to his face, he was a wonderful man with a true genius for repair and my little coffee repair business would have been MUCH less a going concern had my wife not introduced us (he was a janitor at the hospital where she worked)
I could easily have paid him a tenth of what he was worth and he'd have accepted it as his due……..but it WASN'T his due. He was worth so much more than he knew, but, since he was a fool, he had no real way to assess his value. This sounds like I'm touting my own wonderful generous nature (which I do not really have, at least not in most cases) but I don't know any other way to say it. If we are capable of NOT taking advantage of someone's position, by what virtue do we excuse ourselves when we do it anyway?
Last edited by blackduckdog2 on Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Quote of the Day...11/22/2013

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:43 pm

assateague wrote:"Free trade" does NOT mean anarchy. I'm not certain if you guys don't understand this, or are just pretending not to.

Free trade is an ambiguous term that is usually defined by the person who can use their personal definition to their personal advantage. I'm not certain if you don't recognize this or blah...blah...blah.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Quote of the Day...11/22/2013

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:26 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:That totally free trade would descend into anarchy though, and that right quick, I feel relatively sure of.
Can anarchy exist if there is effective law enforcement? You will never have free trade without effective law enforcement. There are just too many people that do not respect your right to life, liberty, and property and will take what they want via force.

Free trade requires effective law enforcement. Without effective law enforcement of some form, anarchy will ensue.

I think this is the biggest determinant of a successful society. Does society effectively enforce the law to protect basic rights? If you look in lawless societies, do they look to achieve order or do they look the other way? The wild west, if you will, looked to law and order. Obamaville looks the other way. Society as a whole seems to be moving toward looking the other way more than looking to compliance with the law.

John Adams - "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion"

Free markets require and are not free of law enforcement. Both parties to every interaction are free to do as they choose without fear or deception in a free market.

blackduckdog2 wrote:"A fool and his money are soon parted" is a good starting point, too……..by what Christian ethic does a man propose to part another from his means, simply because he is a fool?
Why do you think the Catholic church and nearly all American Protestant churches are so pro-education? Education, education, education, that is the Christian ethic to address this reality of life. It's not to pretend it doesn't exist. It is not to leave the fool a fool by shielding him from the consequences and therefore the feedback to learn. I'm sure you allowed your kids to make some mistakes so that they would learn and stopped them from others so they would not be harmed too badly. As an adult, there is only so much you can do to shield your equal from his on foolish actions. You cannot be his father and he your child nor can the government treat him like a child for the duration of his adult life.

Education is the largest part of the solution to this. This is why it is so heartbreaking to see how horrible education is and where is it worst? Who controls those systems? Actions speak louder than words. A free society must be an educated society.

blackduckdog2 wrote:Intelligence and creative ambition are surely to be reward, but why must a fool (and we will assume, for the sake of this polemic, that the fool was made by God) be punished? What's up with that?
So he does not remain a fool. If there is no consequence for being a fool, why not remain a fool?

We have bankruptcy laws. There is no debtors prison. They can only lose so much and then get to start over with the knowledge of the consequences of their foolish actions. If they continue to repeat them, seriously, what do you suggest we do? Institutionalize them for the insanity of doing the same thing over again and expecting a different outcome. Some people don't care if they go bankrupt. They enjoy living beyond their means and then conning the next set of suckers into funding their lifestyle. If you came from a dysfunctional part of society, you would know people like this. They are not fools. They are short-sighted conmen. Poorly educated, which is why they are so short-sighted and make what we deem as poor decisions.

blackduckdog2 wrote:I worked with a "fool" if you will. I would never call him that to his face, he was a wonderful man with a true genius for repair and my little coffee repair business would have been MUCH less a going concern had my wife not introduced us (he was a janitor at the hospital where she worked)
I could easily have paid him a tenth of what he was worth and he'd have accepted it as his due……..but it WASN'T his due. He was worth so much more than he knew, but, since he was a fool, he had no real way to assess his value. This sounds like I'm touting my own wonderful generous nature (which I do not really have, at least not in most cases) but I don't know any other way to say it. If we are capable of NOT taking advantage of someone's position, by what virtue do we excuse ourselves when we do it anyway?

And at the end of the day, there is a small subset of society that will require people to step up and take care of them. Only individuals and not the government can distinguish the mentally handicapped, was he a fool or was he handicapped mentally and there is a big difference, and treat them like children for the duration of their life because mentally, that is what they are. My aunt has been a nurse at a hospital for the mentally retard since I was pretty young. I have gone there many times and am very familiar and have a special place in my heart for these poor kids. They are not fools. They are children for life because of their mental disability. As such, yes, we should treat them that way.

Of course, there is a continuum and the line is not so clear. That's why their family has to step up and look out for them. That is why their friends have to step up and look out for them. They are the rare exception and making policy based on exception is the most foolish thing we all do and that is why the politician are able to part the average fools of about 40% of their money without them even knowing that it is gone.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Quote of the Day...11/22/2013

Postby vincentpa » Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:47 am

Indaswamp wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
buckmeister wrote:Capitalism has a dark side compared to what fairy tale?

All fairy tales have their dark sides or else they wouldn't resonate through our collective memories over the centuries. Well, the best ones do, and they're the only ones that stand the test of time…
But here's the thing that bugs me in here…I made my money (such as it is) as a small businessman. I love the free market. I have said this over and over, yet here you are, buckmeister, busting my chops because I DARE to suggest that capitalism is anything but absolutely perfect. Why the hell do you guys do that? EVERY economic system has problems, and we shouldn't pretend that ours is any different

no economic system is perfect, but capitalism is the best one by any measure.

Will you please show me where I have stated differently?!? I point out the flaws it has, because I always believe that we can do it better, and basically get called a marxist because of it

how exact;y would you make it 'better'? Keep in mind, I'm talking about 'capitalism', not 'crony capitalism' that we have today.


We've always had crony capitalism. Corruption will exist in any political system. It always has. That's what makes capitalism imperfect. The imperfection is human nature. Politics will always be corrupted by those with money seeking influence to make more money. Pure capitalism cannot and will not ever exist.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7770
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Quote of the Day...11/22/2013

Postby vincentpa » Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:50 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:The notion that people who won't think like you are sheep breeds a bunch of cynical, bitter old men.


I seriously doubt that anyone here would honestly call you or Jim sheep. You guys are thinkers (usually wrong, but thinkers none the less :wink: :lol3: ) and not the types who've joined the herd because you needed a shepherd. You two seem like the type that have formed your opinions because you fear for the safety and welfare of those sheep. More like sheep dogs.

I gotta admit I kinda like the idea………I definitely wouldn't mind coming back as an Australian Shepherd. Oh wait, they're cattle dogs….can I still be one?



If you do and I ever catch you trying to hump my leg, I'll kick you right in the ass.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7770
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Quote of the Day...11/22/2013

Postby vincentpa » Wed Nov 27, 2013 8:07 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:The notion that people who won't think like you are sheep breeds a bunch of cynical, bitter old men.


I seriously doubt that anyone here would honestly call you or Jim sheep. You guys are thinkers (usually wrong, but thinkers none the less :wink: :lol3: ) and not the types who've joined the herd because you needed a shepherd. You two seem like the type that have formed your opinions because you fear for the safety and welfare of those sheep. More like sheep dogs.

That's a very decent thing to say, cd! Don't encounter that often here! :beer:



You usually only read it when I use it in reference to you, you pinko commie fag! :hi:
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7770
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Quote of the Day...11/22/2013

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:14 am

vincentpa wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:The notion that people who won't think like you are sheep breeds a bunch of cynical, bitter old men.


I seriously doubt that anyone here would honestly call you or Jim sheep. You guys are thinkers (usually wrong, but thinkers none the less :wink: :lol3: ) and not the types who've joined the herd because you needed a shepherd. You two seem like the type that have formed your opinions because you fear for the safety and welfare of those sheep. More like sheep dogs.

I gotta admit I kinda like the idea………I definitely wouldn't mind coming back as an Australian Shepherd. Oh wait, they're cattle dogs….can I still be one?



If you do and I ever catch you trying to hump my leg, I'll kick you right in the ass.

:lol3: :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Quote of the Day...11/22/2013

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:26 am

SpinnerMan wrote: No kid should get a high school diploma and not know how to calculate and understand the cost of loan. This and many other basic life skills that I'm not sure even Obama really understands.

We are becoming more revealing and transparent regarding finances and other "life-skills", after centuries of "survival of the fittest". Just for curiousity's sake, I wonder which of the two major political parties has been the major thrust in the overwhelming majority of these mandates to revelation? :huh: Instead of teaching the sheep to run faster, perhaps it is easier, and more successful, to build a fence to limit the wolves access to them.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Quote of the Day...11/22/2013

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:29 am

vincentpa wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:The notion that people who won't think like you are sheep breeds a bunch of cynical, bitter old men.


I seriously doubt that anyone here would honestly call you or Jim sheep. You guys are thinkers (usually wrong, but thinkers none the less :wink: :lol3: ) and not the types who've joined the herd because you needed a shepherd. You two seem like the type that have formed your opinions because you fear for the safety and welfare of those sheep. More like sheep dogs.

That's a very decent thing to say, cd! Don't encounter that often here! :beer:



You usually only read it when I use it in reference to you, you pinko commie fag! :hi:

As I age, vp, I have noticed quite a decline in my visual acuity. Not necessarily what I can see, but what I choose to!
:lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Quote of the Day...11/22/2013

Postby ScaupHunter » Wed Nov 27, 2013 1:25 pm

I find it endlessly amusing how we continually argue free trade and capitalism here, then devolve to new regulations.

Gentlemen we are a ridiculously over regulated and under enforced nation. How about we refocus our efforts onto actual enforcement of existing laws and stop making stupid new ones?
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6766
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Quote of the Day...11/22/2013

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Nov 27, 2013 1:41 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: No kid should get a high school diploma and not know how to calculate and understand the cost of loan. This and many other basic life skills that I'm not sure even Obama really understands.

We are becoming more revealing and transparent regarding finances and other "life-skills", after centuries of "survival of the fittest". Just for curiousity's sake, I wonder which of the two major political parties has been the major thrust in the overwhelming majority of these mandates to revelation? :huh: Instead of teaching the sheep to run faster, perhaps it is easier, and more successful, to build a fence to limit the wolves access to them.

Look at the education quality in the Democrat strongholds and look at the education quality in the Republican strongholds.

Look at the credit ratings of the Democrat base and the Republican base.

Look at the charitable giving of the Democrat base and the Republican base.

No Christian believes in survival of the fittest. Although, there was a Socialist Workers Party movement that made this center piece and took it upon themselves to exterminate those they deemed unfit. Also, who is more unfit than the unborn and who wishes they survive and who says it's just a choice like choosing a party dress? :huh:

What good does a mandate to reveal information do if your base can't read it and doesn't know what to do with it if they can? :huh:

I think the sheep dog/sheep analogy put forth by Vince, I think, applies. The Democrat leaders see themselves as the sheep dogs and their base as the sheep and they definitely feel the need to build a fence to keep their sheep community organized for their benefit. After all is the sheep dog really protecting the sheep or just making sure they stay safe until they are sheered and/or slaughtered by the right person? :huh:

I agree, if you go to the Democrat sheepdog communities, they are well trained, but if you go to the Democrat sheep communities they are horribly educated. So badly so that they don't realize that they are not part of the sheep dog class, yet they don't work for their dinner. They are dinner.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Quote of the Day...11/22/2013

Postby assateague » Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:44 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:"Free trade" does NOT mean anarchy. I'm not certain if you guys don't understand this, or are just pretending not to.

Free trade is an ambiguous term that is usually defined by the person who can use their personal definition to their personal advantage. I'm not certain if you don't recognize this or blah...blah...blah.



Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, will you find a definition of "free trade" that states (or even implies) a society free of laws.

Maybe you could post it up if you find it, though. Rather than a feeble attempt at snide, you oughtta make sure you know just what you're saying first.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Quote of the Day...11/22/2013

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:27 pm

assateague wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:"Free trade" does NOT mean anarchy. I'm not certain if you guys don't understand this, or are just pretending not to.

Free trade is an ambiguous term that is usually defined by the person who can use their personal definition to their personal advantage. I'm not certain if you don't recognize this or blah...blah...blah.



Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, will you find a definition of "free trade" that states (or even implies) a society free of laws.

Maybe you could post it up if you find it, though. Rather than a feeble attempt at snide, you oughtta make sure you know just what you're saying first.

You seem to have a firm grasp of it so I'll just ask you precisely what the definition of free trade is. Please include the concept of legalities since any form of regulation with teeth is in the judicial system. In addition, please refrain from ambiguous generalities such as "over" regulation and "restrictive" laws.
However, on your other point I must disagree. That was "snide" at its best! :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Quote of the Day...11/22/2013

Postby clampdaddy » Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:55 pm

SpinnerMan wrote: .....I think the sheep dog/sheep analogy put forth by Vince, I think, applies......


My name is Matt. :thumbsup:
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3687
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Quote of the Day...11/22/2013

Postby assateague » Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:40 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:"Free trade" does NOT mean anarchy. I'm not certain if you guys don't understand this, or are just pretending not to.

Free trade is an ambiguous term that is usually defined by the person who can use their personal definition to their personal advantage. I'm not certain if you don't recognize this or blah...blah...blah.



Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, will you find a definition of "free trade" that states (or even implies) a society free of laws.

Maybe you could post it up if you find it, though. Rather than a feeble attempt at snide, you oughtta make sure you know just what you're saying first.

You seem to have a firm grasp of it so I'll just ask you precisely what the definition of free trade is. Please include the concept of legalities since any form of regulation with teeth is in the judicial system. In addition, please refrain from ambiguous generalities such as "over" regulation and "restrictive" laws.
However, on your other point I must disagree. That was "snide" at its best! :lol3:



Sure. This definition works great for me:

A free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce private contracts and the ownership of property.

All markets within it are unregulated by any parties other than those players in the market. In its purest form the government plays a neutral role in its administration and legislation of economic activity, neither limiting it (by regulating industries or protecting them from internal/external market pressures) nor actively promoting it (by owning economic interests or offering subsidies to businesses or R&D).
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Quote of the Day...11/22/2013

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Nov 28, 2013 5:11 pm

clampdaddy wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: .....I think the sheep dog/sheep analogy put forth by Vince, I think, applies......


My name is Matt. :thumbsup:

Oops. Sorry. But I think it is a good one.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Quote of the Day...11/22/2013

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Nov 28, 2013 5:52 pm

assateague wrote:A free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce private contracts and the ownership of property.



So therefore, he who is capable of producing the most deceptive contract wins and the state has nothing to say about it. Your mother goes to purchase a car. She likes the car, she likes the price, she likes the terms. She enters into a contract and drives it away. Well, lo and behold, on the 14th page of the contract is one sentence that states that if all her payments are not made in pennies manufactured in 1972 the contract is void and she can either relinquish the car or all of her earthly possessions become the property of the car dealer. Absurd example? Of course it is. Without state regulation would contracts become simply tools for the legally educated to strip the money from the legally uneducated? Of course they would.
So we can all take a few centuries step back into "survival of the fittest", fittest in this case implying the most able to hire the best attorney's to draw up and enforce their contracts. Hell of an idea! :thumbsup:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Quote of the Day...11/22/2013

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Nov 28, 2013 5:57 pm

assateague wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:"Free trade" does NOT mean anarchy. I'm not certain if you guys don't understand this, or are just pretending not to.

Free trade is an ambiguous term that is usually defined by the person who can use their personal definition to their personal advantage. I'm not certain if you don't recognize this or blah...blah...blah.



Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, will you find a definition of "free trade" that states (or even implies) a society free of laws.

Maybe you could post it up if you find it, though. Rather than a feeble attempt at snide, you oughtta make sure you know just what you're saying first.

You seem to have a firm grasp of it so I'll just ask you precisely what the definition of free trade is. Please include the concept of legalities since any form of regulation with teeth is in the judicial system. In addition, please refrain from ambiguous generalities such as "over" regulation and "restrictive" laws.
However, on your other point I must disagree. That was "snide" at its best! :lol3:



Sure. This definition works great for me:

A free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce private contracts and the ownership of property.

All markets within it are unregulated by any parties other than those players in the market. In its purest form the government plays a neutral role in its administration and legislation of economic activity, neither limiting it (by regulating industries or protecting them from internal/external market pressures) nor actively promoting it (by owning economic interests or offering subsidies to businesses or R&D).

Kind of like the depression of 1921 when the government did nothing and the economy rebounded in 18 months... :thumbsup:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58806
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Quote of the Day...11/22/2013

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Nov 28, 2013 6:51 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
assateague wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:"Free trade" does NOT mean anarchy. I'm not certain if you guys don't understand this, or are just pretending not to.

Free trade is an ambiguous term that is usually defined by the person who can use their personal definition to their personal advantage. I'm not certain if you don't recognize this or blah...blah...blah.



Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, will you find a definition of "free trade" that states (or even implies) a society free of laws.

Maybe you could post it up if you find it, though. Rather than a feeble attempt at snide, you oughtta make sure you know just what you're saying first.

You seem to have a firm grasp of it so I'll just ask you precisely what the definition of free trade is. Please include the concept of legalities since any form of regulation with teeth is in the judicial system. In addition, please refrain from ambiguous generalities such as "over" regulation and "restrictive" laws.
However, on your other point I must disagree. That was "snide" at its best! :lol3:



Sure. This definition works great for me:

A free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce private contracts and the ownership of property.

All markets within it are unregulated by any parties other than those players in the market. In its purest form the government plays a neutral role in its administration and legislation of economic activity, neither limiting it (by regulating industries or protecting them from internal/external market pressures) nor actively promoting it (by owning economic interests or offering subsidies to businesses or R&D).

Kind of like the depression of 1921 when the government did nothing and the economy rebounded in 18 months... :thumbsup:

So in 1921 there were not already statutes in place controlling commerce? Probably commensurate with the time and the prevailing issues? There were? And it did that well with them in place? I say bring 'em on, that must be the secret! And by the way....was it over-regulation by the state that created the Depression to begin with?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Quote of the Day...11/22/2013

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Nov 28, 2013 6:54 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
assateague wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:"Free trade" does NOT mean anarchy. I'm not certain if you guys don't understand this, or are just pretending not to.

Free trade is an ambiguous term that is usually defined by the person who can use their personal definition to their personal advantage. I'm not certain if you don't recognize this or blah...blah...blah.



Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, will you find a definition of "free trade" that states (or even implies) a society free of laws.

Maybe you could post it up if you find it, though. Rather than a feeble attempt at snide, you oughtta make sure you know just what you're saying first.

You seem to have a firm grasp of it so I'll just ask you precisely what the definition of free trade is. Please include the concept of legalities since any form of regulation with teeth is in the judicial system. In addition, please refrain from ambiguous generalities such as "over" regulation and "restrictive" laws.
However, on your other point I must disagree. That was "snide" at its best! :lol3:



Sure. This definition works great for me:

A free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce private contracts and the ownership of property.

All markets within it are unregulated by any parties other than those players in the market. In its purest form the government plays a neutral role in its administration and legislation of economic activity, neither limiting it (by regulating industries or protecting them from internal/external market pressures) nor actively promoting it (by owning economic interests or offering subsidies to businesses or R&D).

Kind of like the depression of 1921 when the government did nothing and the economy rebounded in 18 months... :thumbsup:

So in 1921 there were not already statutes in place controlling commerce? Probably commensurate with the time and the prevailing issues? There were? And it did that well with them in place? I say bring 'em on, that must be the secret! And by the way....was it over-regulation by the state that created the Depression to begin with?

still amazes me the number of liberals that don't know about the 1921 depression.....
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58806
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Quote of the Day...11/22/2013

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Nov 28, 2013 7:56 pm

Indaswamp wrote: still amazes me the number of liberals that don't know about the 1921 depression.....

It was a rhetorical question, Inda, but it still amazes me the number of conservatives who believe they have the answers to questions that are both complex and still in question amongst multitudes of scholars that have devoted their lives to understanding them. That, indeed, is the Achille's Heel of Conservatism.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests