if racism is bad, why hasn't the free market ended it?

Glaucoma said:
The bullshit answer where it falsely assumes everyone will protect their reputation?
Click to expand...

In the presence of real competition, yes.

In the absence of competition, such as exists in the present where a forcible monopoly holds sway, no.


If people have a choice in service providers do they chose the crappy one or the one that gets good reviews?
 
Rob Roy said:
In the presence of real competition, yes.

In the absence of competition, such as exists in the present where a forcible monopoly holds sway, no.


If people have a choice in service providers do they chose the crappy one or the one that gets good reviews?
Click to expand...
You do have a choice
Move
 
ChesusRice said:
You do have a choice
Move
Click to expand...


Exactly! See, blind squirrel, you've found a nut, except you didn't realize it. Because you're also a deaf and DUMB squirrel.

Of course people should have the option of MOVING their choice of service provider to an entity who provides good service. That was my point, that went over your pointed head.
 
Not GOP said:
The government was approved by the people, and only exists because the people decided it should. And it was the people who established property as a fundamental inalienable right protected from government. Not government
Click to expand...


I do like that you said people should be protected FROM government.

Property rights for INDIVIDUALS exist in the absence of a central coercion based authoritarian government.

However the government wasn't approved by "the people" it was approved by "some people", as in not all of the people it purports to have domain over approved of it, even in the beginning.
 
Rob Roy said:
I do like that you said people should be protected FROM government.

Property rights for INDIVIDUALS exist in the absence of a central coercion based authoritarian government.

However the government wasn't approved by "the people" it was approved by "some people", as in not all of the people it purports to have domain over approved of it, even in the beginning.
Click to expand...
How are you going to get every single person to agree on every little thing? Who has time to take up every little issue?
The constitution was approved by Delegates from "we the people" . I never stated "all people" That would be impossible.
 
Rob Roy said:
There are several ways to justifiably acquire ownership of something.

In a human sense, ownership of self should be a given. (I realize you like to play semantics here and disagree that people own themselves...but humor me) Logically if all people "own" themselves" then nobody can own another person, because they aren't the other person.
Click to expand...
It isn't semantics. People are not property. If people "own" themselves, they can be acquired, ownership is transferable. They can be rented. The best way to insure people can't be owned is if they are not property. Rights are not derived from property as you suggest. People have rights because they can not be property.

You whole philosophy seems to revolve around this fallacy.
 
Rob Roy said:
In the presence of real competition, yes.

In the absence of competition, such as exists in the present where a forcible monopoly holds sway, no.


If people have a choice in service providers do they chose the crappy one or the one that gets good reviews?
Click to expand...

If plaintiffs hire the mediator, do you think they are going to hire one that will possibly rule against them or pay extra to make sure they get the verdict they want?

How is it that you don't understand this?
 
Rob Roy said:
In a free market all parties to a trade, interaction, etc are involved on a consensual basis and give THEIR consent to the interaction. I imagine if ISIS espouses clitorectomies as a standard, they may not have the consent of the person being ectomized. So, no their mode of operation indicates they are not interested in a free market.

Some people think they are a creation/ tool of the Empire though.
Click to expand...

No. In a free market, where ALL ELSE IS EQUAL, will all parties, consensually be able to trade and interact, knowing that neither party will try to manipulate the deal. Until we have a utopian society where we can rely on that we have these things called laws and regulations that safeguard dumb-dumbs from those trying to manipulate the free market.

Your depth of understanding things is quite shallow.
 
see4 said:
No. In a free market, where ALL ELSE IS EQUAL, will all parties, consensually be able to trade and interact, knowing that neither party will try to manipulate the deal. Until we have a utopian society where we can rely on that we have these things called laws and regulations that safeguard dumb-dumbs from those trying to manipulate the free market.

Your depth of understanding things is quite shallow.
Click to expand...
a utopian society is impossible. Will never happen. There will always be political corruption within the government,
and the government can not change the needs of man, or their desire to get what they want
 
Not GOP said:
a utopian society is impossible. Will never happen. There will always be political corruption within the government,
and the government can not change the needs of man, or their desire to get what they want
Click to expand...

Utopia and government are two completely different concepts. Utopia is a social contract concept. Government is not.
 
abandonconflict said:
It isn't semantics. People are not property. If people "own" themselves, they can be acquired, ownership is transferable. They can be rented. The best way to insure people can't be owned is if they are not property. Rights are not derived from property as you suggest. People have rights because they can not be property.

You whole philosophy seems to revolve around this fallacy.
Click to expand...


Since people DO own themselves, that precludes the idea that another can also own them. Strike one.

People can and DO rent their time and their labor, etc. out to others, which is fine as long it's consensual. Strike two.

My core philosophy revolves around voluntary human interactions, defensive force is acceptable, offensive force is not. Strike three, you're out!
 
see4 said:
No. In a free market, where ALL ELSE IS EQUAL, will all parties, consensually be able to trade and interact, knowing that neither party will try to manipulate the deal. Until we have a utopian society where we can rely on that we have these things called laws and regulations that safeguard dumb-dumbs from those trying to manipulate the free market.

Your depth of understanding things is quite shallow.
Click to expand...


Hello. Nice to see you posting. Hadn't noticed many by you recently.

Of course your post is woeful and inept, but still nice to see you. It sounded like a guy of average intelligence trying to sound smart after one too many beers.
 
Not GOP said:
How are you going to get every single person to agree on every little thing? Who has time to take up every little issue?
The constitution was approved by Delegates from "we the people" . I never stated "all people" That would be impossible.
Click to expand...

They don't need to agree on EVERYTHING, grasshopper.

They only need to agree to leave others alone who leave them alone. The rest is not their business.
 
abandonconflict said:
People are not property. Human beings can not be owned. If you believe people are property, slavery is compatible with your views. As has been established, pedophilia is already compatible with your views.
Click to expand...

I didn't equate a persons right to own themself, with other people having any right to own others. You're swinging wildly.

Individual people have a right of SELF ownership.

Slavery is the imposition of one person on another, which is incompatible with your twisted attempt to assign me some beliefs that I don't hold.
 
Glaucoma said:
If plaintiffs hire the mediator, do you think they are going to hire one that will possibly rule against them or pay extra to make sure they get the verdict they want?

How is it that you don't understand this?
Click to expand...


Again, you've described the PRESENT paradigm and exactly how government "justice" works.

The state prosecutor and the judge are on the same team, can you deny that?
 
Rob Roy said:
Hello. Nice to see you posting. Hadn't noticed many by you recently.

Of course your post is woeful and inept, but still nice to see you. It sounded like a guy of average intelligence trying to sound smart after one too many beers.
Click to expand...

No. Allow me to slow down the thought process for you a bit.

You feel that everyone should interact with each other in a mutually consenting manner, and that the exchange between the parties be what they agree to prior to the conclusion of said deal. The expectation therefore, is that all parties involved will mutually benefit from the deal, as nobody wants a bad deal. You conclude that not only is this possible, but should be happening now, in place of government. I am merely pointing out to you that it is not. And that laws and regulations are put in place to protect the weak minded who would otherwise be taken advantage of, even in "mutually consenting" transactions.

Sort of like a 16 year old girl taking advantage of a 13 year old boy. Or vice versa. In your world, it would be completely ok for a 36 year old man enter into a mutually consenting sexual relationship with a 15 year old girl.

Again, the depth of your understanding things is quite shallow, and this fact is conveniently obvious to us. And replying with "nuh uh, no you are inept, poopy pants", isn't a sound counter argument. #justsayin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top