Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:46:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1169 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> >
> > > Then you are doomed to a lifetime of futile frustration and tilting at
> > > windmills. I already said that morally you may be correct, but practically
> > > what is the alternative? Society grinds to a halt every time someone is
> > > born? If you reject the possibility of being born into a contract, then you
> > > have the ultimate right: modify the contract and accept it or beat feet.
> >
> > The problem is there's no free market in governmental systems at the moment,
> > and the present players collude to keep it that way.
>
> I would surmise that "Fre Market" and "Governmental Systems" are exclusive.
> There has to be oversight to "Free Market" in order to maintain the safety
> and health of those involved in the Free Market system--hence Gov't.
Sorry, David, you were reading too fast. You missed the point. I speak of a
marketplace*of* ideas themselves, a marketplace IN government systems.
But be that as it may, past reading in this group will show that I don't
agree that government oversight is *necessarily* necessary for a free market
to function. Certainly it's *one* way to organize, the most common way that
(semi free) markets are oversighted, yes, but not the only way. I commend
David Friedman's work on this to you for some reading.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
164 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
