[Peace-discuss] rp statement on The American Majority

[John W.]

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:47 AM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:

 I would contend that the US has drifted quite far from a free market system
> and what we have now is a system controlled by regulation that inhibits
> entry into the market with regulations that protect large corporations and
> decimate competition.
>

Yes, because corporations and extremely wealthy individuals can purchase
immunity from restrictive regulations, not to mention special favors - the
rankest kind of affirmative action.  That's why I said what I said in my
reply.  I still wonder why you asked though, because even the least affluent
of libertarians (there are NO truly POOR libertarians) decries the "nanny
state".



> The idea of personal property rights starts with you yourself.  All rights
> start with the idea that you own your body as an individual, that you are
> not
> property of the state.
>
> Perhaps you do agree with this concept,
>

To a point.  Libertarians are always yammering that they should be able to
do whatever they want "as long as they don't hurt anybody else."  But of
course they can't calculate the harm they do with any accuracy whatsoever,
and of course they leave out entirely the concept of "sins of omission".
Libertarians, in their pursuit of freedom/license, are perfectly fine with
ignoring the common good except insofar as "the market" is responsive to it.



> but because what
> we have now in the USA is often falsely said to be free markets, you are
> associating
> pseudo-free markets with the concept of truly free markets?
>

Could be.  All I know for sure is that my concept of freedom does not equate
with license, and has a very strong "common good" component.  In economic
terms, It differs quite markedly from the concept of freedom espoused by
every libertarian I've ever met.



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
>
> http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FreeMarket.html
>
>
> John W. wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:51 AM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:
>
>  John,
>>
>> Do you think that we have Free Markets in the US?
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>
> Very free indeed to those who can afford 'em.  Why do you ask?
>
>
>
>
>
>>  John W. wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:32 AM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:
>>
>>  Ron Paul Statement to the National Press Club - 10 September 08
>>> The American Majority
>>>
>>> *The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and
>>> policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish
>>> idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the
>>> two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can
>>> 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or
>>> extensive shifts in policy.*
>>> Carroll Quigley – Author of Tragedy & Hope
>>>
>>> The coverage of the presidential election is designed to be a grand
>>> distraction. This is not new, but this year, it's more so than ever.
>>>
>>> Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates
>>> is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are
>>> frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant
>>> differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the
>>> appearance of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a
>>> barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic
>>> pundits hired to perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.
>>>
>>> The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real
>>> goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.
>>>
>>> Influential forces, the media, the government, the privileged
>>> corporations and moneyed interests see to it that both party's candidates
>>> are acceptable, regardless of the outcome, since they will still be in
>>> charge. It's been that way for a long time. George Wallace was not the first
>>> to recognize that there's "not a dime's worth of difference" between the two
>>> parties. There is, though, a difference between the two major candidates and
>>> the candidates on third-party tickets and those running as independents.
>>>
>>> The two parties and their candidates have no real disagreements on
>>> foreign policy, monetary policy, privacy issues, or the welfare state. They
>>> both are willing to abuse the Rule of Law and ignore constitutional
>>> restraint on Executive Powers. *Neither major party champions free
>>> markets and private-property ownership.*
>>>
>>
>> This is a profoundly ignorant statement, and illustrates why I despise
>> libertarians.  BOTH major parties WORSHIP AT THE ALTAR of "free markets" and
>> private property ownership.  And so do libertarians.
>>
>> I stopped reading right here.
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080910/c60c687b/attachment.html