/sci/ - Science & Math

I'm 12 and what is this?

>>2398611
By dissing Obama for nominating Kagan. By calling Kagan metaphorical Satan spawn. By promoting individual gun rights. By attacking laissez-faire Ayn Rand style markets as retarded as fuck and immoral. By fighting the good fights.

>>2398614
Liberal Crime Squad
http://www.bay12games.com/lcs/

>>2398625
> laissez-faire Ayn Rand style markets
What is wrong with them? Why would you want more regulation about what you can do with /your own money/?

>>2398649
More stability.

>>2398649

>>2398657
This.

People who like Ayn Rand just desperately want to consider themselves superior. It's just as bad an idea as communism, but in the other direction.

>>2398657
Why would people suddenly turn immoral if the market was free and uncontrolled? It's not like one can control the market if peopel really want freedom, that just creates blackmarkets.

>>2398649
No. The distinction is in how business is monitored and corrected, not personal expenditures. Unless you think "regulation" is keeping business from making the shiny you want to buy.

How can there even BE any Ayn Rand faggots after the recent financial crisis? If there were no regulation at all, this would happen much more often. Some CEOs will gladly drive entire businesses into the ground as long as they make a few million in the process.

>>2398674
No, you see, there is ALREADY a sizeable portion of humans that say "Fuck morals, acquire currency". Without controls, they will abuse the rest of society as much as they can to make money.

It's not about humans changing. Any socioeconomic model that requires people as a group to significantly change in their values and desires isn't gonna fly. You'd have to change the people first, BEFORE adopting the new system.

lulz

>>2398674
A market with no regulations is like a state with no laws. The biggest dick of the group would decide to make his own regulations and enforce them anyways, so it's better if we elect a (supposedly) neutral party (a government) to regulate things instead.

>>2398657
And thus from natural selection: morality.

>>2398675
>>2398690
>>2398699
Wouldn't a better competitor arise if the current players were being bad/abusive? It may be a problem if there's a monopoly, but why can't monopolies be broken by the people by simply making a better competitor?

>>2398717
We call them revolutions.

You see, you don't have a free market once a monopoly arises. There is no place for a competitor to arise, because the man with the guns won't allow it.

>>2398717
>So, like, if there was a monarchy, and the people were unhappy with the king, wouldn't a competitor arise?

>>2398725
>>2398734
I don't see how a free market suddenly means that they don't have to follow the same laws as the rest of us.

>>2398744
Well for evidence of that, maybe you could take a look at america.

>>2398725
Hell, even Edison did this with the early motion picture industry. He sent goons to destroy independent filmmakers who wouldn't kowtow and join the group that paid him dues. The first modern filmmaking studios, with everything from equipment to housing on the same lot, arose as a means of protecting themselves from Edison's thugs.

This is where we've come from, as a society. This is why we have regulations on business now, and why monopolies are so very, very bad.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/thomas-edisons-plot-to-destroy-the-movies.ars

>>2398744
A market isn't "free" in the radical sense of businesses have to follow laws. Like environmental regulation, laws against anticompetitive practices, laws against insider trading, laws against price fixing, etc.

>>2398744
A market isn't "free" in the radical sense if businesses have to follow laws. Like environmental regulation, laws against anticompetitive practices, laws against insider trading, laws against price fixing, etc.