Parties, politicians and PACs that want "less regulation" are, or represent, bullies that want to bully everybody and take everything away from everybody less powerful than them. Throughout time immemorial, this is the story of human nature and human civilization. The disappearing "middle class" of America was made possible by tediously beating back the tentacles of business greed, through organized labor movements and wildly successful socialist policies that created the prosperity bubble of the 1950s that everyone fetishizes so much, without (apparently) questioning how it was made possible, and HOW TO PROTECT IT from the wolves that are ALWAYS at the door.

Made readable especially if that last run-on sentence were broken down into a sentence for each concept or point. It reads too much like a lawyer's brief. I could not figure out who was the party of the first part. And never did find the relevant verb in that first sentence.

Example: "Parties, politicians and PACs that want "less regulation" are, or represent, bullies. Those bullies want to bully everybody and want to take everything from the less powerful." Is that what you were trying to say?

"Parties, politicians and PACs that want "less regulation" are, or represent, bullies that want to bully everybody and take everything away from everybody less powerful than them."

Of course. This is what happens when *State Capitalists are in charge.

You wouldn't have that kinda shit with Free Enterprise.

#

"If the government "big brother" orders you not to avoid hiring someone strictly based upon them being gay" (or black or female or disordered or disabled or...) be clever and don't hire 'em for a 'legit' reason.

Really, the only reason anyone runs a'foul of EO is cuz they were too stupid to put one over on 'civil servants'.







*the more masculine version of tw's beloved State Socialists.

From the era of free enterprise-

Whoa, see how easy it is to get carried away and move from regulations to entirely throwing away markets? The thing that raised billions out of abject poverty, and continues to do so in China and India faster than anyone thought possible? Using an example of abject poverty during a time when it still existed, which was over a century ago in this country?

"From the era of free enterprise"
 

Go, educate yourself on what Free Enterprise is, what State Capitalism is.

That picture, for example, shows the result of the latter, not the former.

Any 'system' offers opportunity for abuse, but sweat shops, onerous child labor, etc. are strictly the result of protected 'capital', not risky 'enterprise'.

By definition: Capitalism is only about 'capital', so it's natural for the Capitalist to see himself protected by the Big Stick, hence he works to see regs minimized on himself and maximized on his competition. The Capitalist always has an eye open for bringing every penny into 'his' coffers (not his competitor's and sure as shit not his customer's or employee's). Capitalism is a Keynesian exercise that promotes intrusive, irresponsible, playin' favorites, muckin' with culture, government (rule by the powerful).

By definition: Free Enterprse is only about the trading individual as he transacts with other trading individuals. The Big Stick is excluded ('cept as final arbiter of dispute) so it's natural for the Free Enterpriser to be cautious and moderate (he has no safety net to catch him or teat to nourish in bad times). 'Too big to fail' is alien to the Free Enterpriser cuz the reality of failure looms (the wolf is always at the door). Free Enterprise is an Austrian exercise. Free Enterprise promotes less intrusive, responsible, largely silent, neutral, government (proxy-hood).

Thank you for explaining this--it's actually really helpful to see how you've broken down what you view as the causes and effects of different systems, and to understand what you mean when using different terms.

This makes it easier to see that our views are based on similar concerns. And, of course, unless either one of us is omnipotent, or has a PhD in several different fields, much of this is interpretation of information and analysis we've received from outside sources.

That's an interesting cleaving of free enterprise and capitalism. I've all ways understood them to be interchangeable.
Evidently I'm not alone...

From
From
free enterprise
noun - an economy that relies chiefly on market forces to allocate goods and resources and to determine prices

Synonyms:
laissez-faire economy, market economy, private enterprise
Antonyms:
non-market economy
an economy that is not a market economy
Types:
capitalism, capitalist economy
an economic system based on private ownership of capital
venture capitalism
capitalism that invests in innovative enterprises (especially high technology) where the potential profits are large
Type of:
economic system, economy
the system of production and distribution and consumption

Flint,

"much of this is interpretation of information and analysis we've received from outside sources."

In my case: while defintions and whatnot come from dictionaries and whatnot, my experience of the difference between Free Enterprise and Capitalism is first hand.

As I say: I self-employ, and I do so in a gray area sphere (information). I find it, convey it, wash my hands of it. What I do is largely unregulated ('cept by 'legit' private investigators who are always lookin' to call down the fire on someone they think is takin' their business). Mine is truly a 'free' enterprise. I have no formal regulators to oversee me, no safety net, no teat. If I don't work, or if I work but fail, there's no line for me to stand in to get a check. If I'm screwed over by a client, the current iteration of the courts is of little use to me.

Having worked 9 to 5, with all the benefits and all the strictures, serving multiple overseers, ain't no way in Heaven or Hell I'd ever give up the autonomy I have now for the 'security' I had then.

As I reckon things: Free Enterprise, with all it's dangers and neck-breakin', life-wreckin' possibilities, is superior to State Capitalism with it's abattoir-like confinements and 'regulations'. Only thing State Capitalism is better than is State Socialism (and not by much).

#

Bruce,

Investopedia (I think) has three small articles (one on Free Enterprise, one on Capitalism, one comparing/contrasting the two). Also: run a general search using '*free enterprise vs capitalism'. You should get hits for links to formal analysis of the differences as well as essays doin' the same.

I'd do the work for you (cuz I'm a 'fuck you, I told ya so' kinda guy), but this old Ipad I'm workin' from ain't none too swift. Besides: you're a big boy. If you really wanna know, you'll climb over the garden wall yourself.









*Free enterprise, for the record, is synonomous with 'free (open, unregulated) market' (something Capitalists discourage [which makes them different from commies how?]).

But you see my point, we're comparing fruit over the phone when I'm holding an apple and you an orange. Gets real muddled if we're not using names the same way.

Well, I nipped that in the bud, yeah?
 

.

Yeah, now I know exactly what you're wrong about. :lol2:

http://cellar.org/2015/imsorry.gif I couldn't resist, the Devil made me do it. :blush:

^This^, on WORLD KINDNESS DAY? :eyebrow:

Oh, the humanity! ... :p:

I've been insulted (I guess) but I don't know how, so I guess it doesn't matter...
 

...but. in case it does...

Go fuck yourself, Bruce.

So again the characteristic of a wacko extremists is evident. Explains why he approves of Nazis, White Supremacists, and KKK - just like Trump.

Profanity makes more sense (justifies all conclusions) when one is an extremist.

Actually he is being kind. Otherwise he would resort to what is most often implemented by extremists - assault weapons.

I like how you, tw, ignore everything I've posted in this thread...
 

...and fixate only on 'go fuck yourself, Bruce'.

I know why you do this.

Bein' a State Socialist (but bein' unwilling to out yourself) you avoid dealing with the substance I've offered (cuz then you'd have to acknowledge I don't fit into your lil box of 'Nazis, White Supremacists, and KKK'), and you'd have out yourself as the true extremist.

Your methods are old news.

You're old news, not even worth droppin' a profanity on.

Posted as a warning about a race to the bottom returning to a time with no regulation. We got through it and it did lift everyone. It was however no heaven on earth to be wished for again.

No, it was a joke, and I did apologize if you remember.

As far as fucking myself, damn, I wish I could. ;)

Have we humans become so wacko that you want to become a new species?

"it was a joke"
 

Yeah, but I didn't/don't get it.

'splain it to me.

#

"Have we humans become so wacko that you want to become a new species?"

I'm pretty damn sure you and me ain't the same strain.

"returning to a time with no regulation"
 

Yeah, but no one suggestin' that.

Not even minimalistic 'me' is suggestin' 'no regulation'.

We've been going back a forth, with me and I'll bet others, misunderstanding your thoughts on free enterprise, and equating it with capitalism, as most people do. The joke was now that you've cleaved the two terms into different scenarios it doesn't matter because I so used to telling you your wrong. Hey, I didn't say it was a good joke.:p:

I'm not able to lick anything down there... can't even see anything down there. :rolleyes:

Nonsense. You make those 'no regulations' demands constantly. Then make minor concessions when even you realize that rationalization was bogus.

"The joke was now that you've cleaved the two terms into different scenarios it doesn't matter because I so used to telling you your wrong"

Okay.

##

"You make those 'no regulations' demands constantly."

No. I constantly say the reg ought to be 'mind your business, keep your hands to yourself, or else'.

#

"make minor concessions"

On the subject(s) at hand: I concede nuthin' to nobody (certainly not to an extremist commie like you).

-----

"free enterprise equated with capitalism by most people"

True, and more than a little frustrating cuz the two aren't interchangable (and that's not me makin' some idiosyncratic assessment).

The difference between the two is as obvious and profound as the difference between Keynesian and Austrian. Hell, even tw knows the difference between Free Enterprise and Capitalism and he's no more intelligent than Koko.

Hey, don't be insulting Koko. :haha:

yer right: sorry, Koko
 

.

Let him continue. He demonstrates what defines a wacko extremist.

Better that he vent here rather than with his weapons on a crowd.

Yes, you give him the will to live. :haha:

"you give him the will to live"
 

Just the opposite.

His kind sap the will outta my kind.

Friggin' vampires.

I live anyway....I is chockablocked with juicy VITALITY.

Reminded of this thread when I came upon this quote today.

"Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself."
-- John Stuart Mill

Contextually, is Mill only talking about law or also social constructs which continue due to a lack of meddling?

This is in the intro to "On Liberty" in which he's working out the role of utilitarianism in governing, but he's admitting that there is a "tyranny of the majority" that applies outside of government. And fighting that is just as important as fighting government tyranny. (although he had not seen the horrors of the 20th century yet, this was 1869)

He goes on to say

"Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism."

solid

Wonder what he would think about a prevailing social norm of diversity? Kind of leads into a "everything in moderation, including moderation itself" vibe.

To frame this in other contemporary notions:

Seems that it would recognize diversity achieved through societal peer pressure as being expected and acceptable while that obtained through societal bullying to be illegitimate and best prevented. Bullying can come from greater society; or, any self serving subset. This suggests limitations on the means of achieving diversity rather than moderation in end results would be the goal.

"There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism."

The limit, of course, is the tip of one's nose, the edges of one's life.

'Mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else.'

It's 'or else' that introduces the conundrum: how does one defend one's 'self' against against the weight of all others, how do you stake out the edges of your life and say 'this far and no farther' and make it stick?

Bluntly: how do you preserve autonomy?

The answer is obvious.

Become politically active? ;)

That's rather vague.

Be a porcupine, they achieve all that and still manage to reproduce.

Is Porcupine a form of Kung Fu like Drunken Monkey?

Not the same quillity.

I see your point.

"Become politically active?"
 

If you're lookin' to waste time: go for it.

Long before one should become politically active, one should become secually active. We all learned that in the 60s. If in doubt, consult a large library of 60s and 70s rock and roll.

If you can explain what 'secually active' entails, I might consider it. If it involves secession then you're talking the 1860's.🎩

There are many ways to skin a cat.
Example: Through non-violent protest, folks from my workplace were very successful getting curb cuts put in throughout the city and University making it possible for wheel-chair bound individuals to live regular lives and become less dependent.

Ha!

"Through non-violent protest, folks from my workplace were very successful getting curb cuts put in throughout the city and University making it possible for city planners, architects, and concrete companies to make a buck offa taxpayers."

:thumb:

henry, don't you care about people in wheelchairs?

"henry, don't you care about people in wheelchairs?"
 

Nope.

I believe we are done. I've enjoyed our little talk.

:thumb:

Don't forget there are many people who are smarter, meaner, better equipped, and a better shot than you are. Always.

This is why people get called Nazis.

Yeah, this is why I've evolved into more of a pragmatist. To become such an individualist that you oppose government assisting in the liberation of others makes no sense to me. Government exists, if you want good governance you have to engage with it. Libertarianism has become a way to convince people not to engage with their government assuring government which does not represent their interests.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Libertarianism is on the opposite side of the political spectrum of authoritarianism/fascism.

The good authoritarian idea is we make curb cuts because sidewalks should work well for everyone.

The bad authoritarian idea is that we hobble the "privileged" abled so that disabled people have "equality".

We need the abled to engineer, spec, and build those curb cuts. So hobbling them is a total disaster and won't lead to equality at all! Source: pretty much every authoritarian nation ever.

If we were rich, and had plenty of engineers, we could develop wheelchairs that could easily manage curbs and even climb stairs.

"Don't forget there are many people who are smarter, meaner, better equipped, and a better shot than you are. Always."

And some of 'em are in wheelchairs.

"This is why people get called Nazis."
 

Heil Hitler.

"Yeah, this is why I've evolved into more of a pragmatist. To become such an individualist that you oppose government assisting in the liberation of others makes no sense to me. Government exists, if you want good governance you have to engage with it. Libertarianism has become a way to convince people not to engage with their government assuring government which does not represent their interests."

...equals...

Yeah, this is why I've evolved into a slave. To be a free man and oppose being turned into a resource for others makes me scared. Governors exist. And, since we all want to be on the governors' good side we should do as told. Libertarianism is 'bad' because it reminds people the governors are employees and governors don't like that. Libertarianism is 'wrong' because it highlghts the natural tension between those who govern and those governed, a tension governors very much want to eliminate so as to better 'govern' (rule).

...equals...

I've accepted my lot, which is to be bent over. Libertarians, with all their shennanigans, endanger my lube supply.

"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
 

Yes, I am.