"I would be more likely to agree with you on much of this Van. But I do not think we have had a "free market" in my lifetime and probably my grandparents. "
I'm not quite sure what Lance meant by that... since I've been saying and complaining about that fact for years, he couldn't have meant it as a piece of news for me... was it intended as an argument against seeking after something worthwhile, because it has not existed for some time, if ever? |  Morpheus: This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes." |
| If so, then how would you then ever argue for doing anything at all? Do you argue against seeking after the correct answer... because... you've been wrong for so long? Do wrong and false answers get some sort of tenure when we're talking about law and economics? |
When I asked what he meant, he answered that he'd had it with Wall Streeter's & Occupiers (which I can sympathize with), and that,
"I am just tired of the 24 hr a day media cycle and the business of politics and the era of sound bite thinking as opposed to true thoughtful analysis."Maybe Lance was just running head first into some sound byte-itis, I know he isn't the only one... but he's also not the only one letting that frustration dissuade them from the real issue at hand - and that's a problem that extends far beyond Lance's comments and into many, many peoples thoughts.
But... people... seriously... should you yield to the sound byte for or against anything? If an issue of substance, of significance, is raised, should you let the media or political sound bytes... or the equivalent presumptions of friends, distract you from pursuing the meat of the issue?
Free Market or Forced Market... that's a fairly significant choice, isn't it? The implications of your choice certainly are.
Should you let the media, politicians or friends reduce an issue of such significance, to the equivalent of a sound byte, by allowing them to simply say,
"Oh things aren't that simple!"Really? In fact the issue IS that simple, though facing up to it might not be; but then you are faced with another simple issue - if something is difficult, do you face up to it, or do you do your best to avoid it?
If you agree in general with the answers which those questions provoked, why would you want to avoid them? Are you ever justified in swallowing the blue pill and going back into the Matrix? IMHO, the simple answer is No, you aren't, and you don't. You take the red pill, face up to the Truth, which only honestly questioning what you believe can reveal to you, and pursue the answers to wherever they might lead.
The Questions I posed in the last post are important questions, as are the answers which most rational people will find themselves arriving at - should they be denied because they are incompatible with what you may have been (perhaps mistakenly) supporting for years and years?
| The Free Market has never fully existed, but it did more fully exist here, under our constitutional form of government, which was conducive to its growth, for a time, during the early years of our nation, and more so here than anywhere else in the world. And it was due to that approximation of the Free Market, that our explosive growth and prosperity resulted from, and it was because of that, that America came to represent freedom and liberty to the world, drawing such a true 'diversity' of people to immigrate to our shores. Is it possible to deny that? Can anyone seriously suggest that it was the ever more restrictive laws and regulations which hampered the Free Market, that resulted in our wealth and prosperity? If so, why didn't such wealth and prosperity occur in nations that were even more restrictive and more hostile to a Free Market and Property Rights, than ours was? Because of their 'people'?(I dunno... sounds a tad 'racist' to me.) That early approximation of a Free Market in America, took its first deliberate step backwards with the passage of the first proregressive 'reform', the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 (mentioned in this post a while back), and with each additional regulatory law and agency that has been established, our proregressive steps have taken us further from freedom, and closer to the political collusion of those having wealth and power and few scruples, in business and government - and insulating them from the reach of the Law and Justice, while distancing the people from participation in their own society - and the unavoidable loss of the liberty for each of us to live our own lives, has been the direct result of their reforms. |
| ||||
Ask yourself why it is that the first thought of those who want to 'Help the ___, (fill in the blank), is to turn to politicians in government, instead of turning directly to those of like mind in their own neighborhoods and society? Why would someone want to go through government... what does it offer them except interference? The truth is that they would not choose to, unless they are either being forcibly prevented from doing what they feel is right to do, unless they beg favors or permissions (aka permits) from govt ... or on the other hand, the go through government because they want to force others into doing what they want them to do?
One presumes and relies upon Liberty, and the other presumes and relies upon Tyranny... which would you prefer? The Red Pill... or the Blue Pill?
It comes down to this, if people are being wronged in some new way by an industry, technology, etc, then you pass a clear law to punish those who engage in such unjust actions, and include with that law clearly stated punishments, best suited to penalize them and re-compensate their victims. On the other hand, if you want to control what people do, if you want to promote some behaviors, and suppress others (which is a rejection of Free Will and Reason and an endorsement of Behavioristic and Utilitarian theories of stimulus response), if you want to increase your own power - political and/or economic - then you go about granting favors to those best able to further your interests, through regulations chock full of artfully inserted, and lucrative, loopholes.
If you want Justice, you pass Just, brief, clear laws and enforce them across the board, swiftly and as severely as justice demands and permits.
If you want power and wealth without having to suffer the burden and annoyance of intelligent effort, then you pursue regulations - as many of them as possible, the more extensive and unintelligible as possible - which rely upon the interpretations of faceless and traceless men to impose, or overlook, them as it is politically and/or financially expedient for the 'parties concerned' to do so.
The first option is open to anyone having the desire and ability to pursue them.
The second option is open only to those having the wealth and power to manipulate the system to their advantage.
Liberty or Tyranny - each has its characteristics.
Have you asked the questions necessary to enable you recognize which is which? Will you even ask which one is the Red Pill, and which one is the Blue Pill?
2 comments:
Excellent post, Van!
It really is that simple and you explain why in a clear and concise manner.
As we have seen, time and time again ad nauseaum, regulations haven't stopped crooked and fraudulent bussinessmen nor their politician counterparts.
I think far too many people confuse regulations with just laws.
For one thing, regulations never lead to justice.
Regulations punish those who run law abiding businesses (and eventually their customers) while the loopholes in those regulations help those who seek power and money by unjust deeds.
But even if the regulations were without loopholes (fat chance) it still punishes law abiding citizens.
Only just laws will help mitigate the greedy and power hungry, not regulations.
And just laws don't punish law abiding citizens.
Of course, leftist, tyrannyist judges and lawyers and politicians like to muddy just laws (and rights) too, but it is more difficult for them to do so than it is for regulations, since regulations are almost always written by the tyranny minded (whether they realize it or not).
It still all boils down to liberty or tyranny, and from that truth it's much easier to see who is pro liberty and who ain't based on what they say and, more importantly, their actions, since they often lie to cover up their corruption.
Love this post. Spot on!!
Post a Comment