>mfw I realize most of economics is based on assumptions that aren't true >perfect competition

File: 26 KB, 295x445, rogood.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Jan 15 19:02:42 2011 No.2354699 [Reply] [Original]

>mfw I realize most of economics is based on assumptions that aren't true

>perfect competition

>>	CNS !ZB6kpElKD6 Sat Jan 15 19:05:42 2011 No.2354714 >>2354699 >economics I think you mean free market capitalism >perfect competition >completely selfish agents >regulation will always lead to stagnation

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 19:10:42 2011 No.2354738 >>2354714 >implying anything but free market capitalism is relevant anymore

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 19:18:42 2011 No.2354782 >>2354738 >implying free market capitalism is relevant, was ever relevant, or could ever possibly be anything but a religious mechanism of oppression.

>>	CNS !ZB6kpElKD6 Sat Jan 15 19:22:42 2011 No.2354801 >>2354738 Oh really? Give me a definition of what constitutes a 'free market'.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 19:29:42 2011 No.2354825 >>2354714 >Something is wrong Free market will fix it. >Problem getting worse Free market will fix it. >"Maybe we should reg-" THE FREE MARKET WILL FIX THE PROBLEM!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 19:31:42 2011 No.2354832 File: 284 KB, 1161x869, 1279465078596.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2354825 dam Right.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 19:31:42 2011 No.2354833 PhD student in economics here. Probably less than 20% of modern macroeconomic research utilizes complete markets/perfect competition. Frictions, frictions everywhere.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 19:33:42 2011 No.2354841 >>2354801 Free association, essentially. To be a free market you have to allow any resource or service to be sold with or without qualifications. The only people who have power over what is successful are the consumers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 19:34:42 2011 No.2354850 File: 608 KB, 150x113, 1293672385214.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2354832 >Ayn Rand

Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT Sat Jan 15 19:36:42 2011 No.2354856

>>2354825
In order for the free market to fix a problem, we need a free market. Once free market was interfered with, it was gone. Free doesn't mean "only mess with it occasionally". Free means "don't fucking mess with it at all".

Sub-prime lending was a big stab in the throat to the already dead free market.

CNS !ZB6kpElKD6 Sat Jan 15 19:36:42 2011 No.2354857

>>2354825
Exactly. The very notion of a free market is horse crap anyway. There's no such thing. There are rules and restrictions in every market. Take laws against child labor for instance. When the US purposed to instate laws that would restrict the hours per day a child below the age of 16 could work everyone got all riled up saying employment regulations would lead to stagnated economic growth because it restricts the free market. Now these rules are present and so integrated into the market they're simply accepted. The same goes for banning the trading of human lives (also known as slavery), court rulings, university admittance etc.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 19:37:42 2011 No.2354861 >>2354833 Get out now. I'll cover you, but the barricade won't last long.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 19:38:42 2011 No.2354866 >>2354833 >Phd economics Hey, is it worth it? Economics seems wishy washy. I want some models and theories that are time tested and true.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 19:40:42 2011 No.2354875 >>2354866 What's wrong? Are you...scared?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 19:42:42 2011 No.2354881 >>2354875 Yes. I want a bit of certainty in what I'm studying. I'm econ major looking to go to grad school, but thinking Statistics might be better.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 19:44:42 2011 No.2354888 >>2354881 Honestly, there's "a bit" of certainty in a lot of fields /sci/ shits on, but you'll never find absolute certainty, especially not in economics. Go for it if your research interests or career goals involve econ.

Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT Sat Jan 15 19:46:42 2011 No.2354900

>>2354857
Regulations inhibiting freedom is an anarchist concept. The so called "total freedom" envisioned would quickly become "freedom for the strong only" as various people find themselves overpowered with no means of recourse. This would quickly create aristocracies and a currency based feudal system, so clearly a free market is not free of regulation.

A truly free market is kept free with regulations that prevent the above scenario from occurring. Once these rules are established, they must be applied to all and kept enforced. "Capitalism" exists only when everyone involved has control over their own capital. As soon as a corporation can impose its will on my personal capital, capitalism has died and we have regressed to fuedalism. Monopolies and aristocracies, the so called inevitable and logical "end" of capitalism, are the inevitable and logical "end" of all human societies unless actively worked against.

Freedom of any type only exists where it is defended. Freedom without regulation is not freedom, it is neglect.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 19:48:42 2011 No.2354905 >>2354900 Nice explanation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 19:55:42 2011 No.2354930 >>2354900 Ya, like Net neutrality. We need regulations to keep the internet free.

CNS !ZB6kpElKD6 Sat Jan 15 19:56:42 2011 No.2354932

>>2354900
I fail to see how that would be an argument for less market regulation in any way.
>Once free market was interfered with, it was gone.
See, this is just nonsense. There never was a free market to begin with. The early US economy was in fact literally the most heavily regulated market within the borders of capitalism. Protectionism was popular and under Washington's presidency import taxes were as high as 55%. It was effectively more protectionist than the contemporary China.

The way the market was regulated in the nineteenth century and before would be considered seriously socialist by modern day free market capitalists, yet, it made the US economy the largest one out there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 19:57:42 2011 No.2354937 File: 105 KB, 725x965, toothbrush wow.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2354900 >>2354900 dude, ur like smart and stuff.

>>	Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q Sat Jan 15 19:58:42 2011 No.2354945 File: 33 KB, 566x557, 1292088662102.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2354900 >Freedom without regulation is not freedom, it is neglect. begin slow clap

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 19:59:42 2011 No.2354946 >>2354932 >circles don't exist because there are no perfect circles gtfo

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:03:42 2011 No.2354968 >>2354900 Beautifully put, save'd.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:04:42 2011 No.2354970 File: 46 KB, 475x359, big-brother.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2354900 Regulation is Freedom. Ignorance is Strength. War is Peace.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:05:42 2011 No.2354974 >>2354900 >>2354932 I like both of you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:06:42 2011 No.2354979 >Regulate >Blame free market when economy fails >Call for more regulation >Blame free market again

CNS !ZB6kpElKD6 Sat Jan 15 20:06:42 2011 No.2354981

>>2354946
That's not the argument at all. The point is there are in fact regulations on the US market, so the notion that regulation leads to stagnation of economic growth is necessarily false. Furthermore, the early US economy was one of the most heavily regulated markets ever.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:06:42 2011 No.2354983 >>2354970 X is Freedom. Ignorance is Strength. War is Peace. We can do this for a lot of shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:07:42 2011 No.2354989 >>2354979 Just stop.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:10:42 2011 No.2355013 >>2354937 >This girl All of my love. Moar?

Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:11:42 2011 No.2355016

>>2354900
>Regulations inhibiting freedom is an anarchist concept
Because a system of no government can impose regulation.
>The so called "total freedom" envisioned would quickly become "freedom for the strong only" as various people find themselves overpowered with no means of recourse. This would quickly create aristocracies and a currency based feudal system, so clearly a free market is not free of regulation.
>Implying it isn't aristocratic regulation that gets them to power.
And yes a free market is just that free from regulation, numbnuts. Once a corporation takes over and destroys all competition the market is no longer free and is controlled by corporatist jackassery.
>A truly free market is kept free with regulations that prevent the above scenario from occurring.
Again, you cannot have freedom imposed through regulations. What kind of doublethink bullshit is this?
>As soon as a corporation can impose its will on my personal capital, capitalism has died and we have regressed to fuedalism.
Corporatism is a kind of not-free-market capitalism, feudalism doesn't work on the same principle.
>Freedom of any type only exists where it is defended. Freedom without regulation is not freedom, it is neglect.
It is up to the people to regulate the market, not the government. Once the governemnt controls the market you have tyranny.

Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT Sat Jan 15 20:12:42 2011 No.2355027

>>2354932
As mentioned in the very first line of my post, regulations inhibiting freedom is an anarchist concept. It is simply not true. Regulations are needed in any system, or it is no system at all.

Interference is when a system is effected or contradicted, such as with sub-prime lending. Regulations are neither bad nor good, they are a tool. A tool when mis-used creates problems. The market we once had was at it's most powerful before interference began. Interference, despite the interference being more and different regulations, is called interference because it interfered.

There will never be an unregulated system, because without regulations it is not a system. The free market we once had was the most powerful on the planet. The market we have now is less free, and it constantly being bothered by "regulations", as well as direct orders that are never passed as law but are simply imposed as dictatorial fiat, such as sub-prime lending.

Dictatorial fiat is more harmful than mis-used regulations

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:12:42 2011 No.2355033 >>2354983 Regulation is the opposite of freedom. If I am controlled to do something then I am not free to do it. Fuck this is simple, Boomer is clearly an idiot who doesn't understand this simple point.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:13:42 2011 No.2355034 ITT: people who've never taken econ 101

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:15:42 2011 No.2355040 >>2355033 I don;'t think you want freedom without regulations for reasons alluded to in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:16:42 2011 No.2355051 >>2355040 >implying those regulations are there to maximize freedom. This thread is fucking gullible and stupid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:16:42 2011 No.2355052 ITT: idiots who think anarchists support lassiez-faire. They're as far left as it gets. Collectivisation and direct democracy is how they operate, and usually bans on speculation, investors and hoarding.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:17:42 2011 No.2355057 >>2355052 You fucking dolt, those are anarcho-syndicalists. Or Leftist anarchists. There is such a thing as anarcho-capitalists.

Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:17:42 2011 No.2355059

>>2354699
>mfw I realize most of economics is based on assumptions that aren't true
it's not just that but they're assuming completely arbitrary shit to be true and/or variable
also, all the models are linear and simplistic to the point of retarded

and those motherfuckers get all the money in our crazy society...

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:17:42 2011 No.2355065 >>2355057 who aren't anarchists b/c capitalism is inherently hierarchical

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:18:42 2011 No.2355078 >>2355051 They're meant to protect you from people who would have you work at 50 cents an hour in a sweatshop.

Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT Sat Jan 15 20:18:42 2011 No.2355080

>>2355016
You made my point for me in accepting that an unregulated market allows for monopoly which ends freedoms. Without regulations to prevent such a scenario, freedom ends. Freedom without regulation ends.

The government is people. To call for self-government without government can also be called double-think nonsense. But we both agree that there must be enforcement. But what to enforce? Any rule you enforce is defined as a regulation. So in the end, you support regulation. You are just not comfortable with it being worded this way.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:19:42 2011 No.2355082 >>2355065 fullretard.jpeg Capitalism is naturally hierarchical, it doesn't need a governemnt. Anarchy is not anti-hierarchy it's anti-governemnt.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:19:42 2011 No.2355083 there are regulations that promote freedom and those that inhibit it just like there are laws that promote freedom and laws that inhibit it

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:19:42 2011 No.2355089 >>2355082 hierarchy is government you fool

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:20:42 2011 No.2355092 >>2355078 And tax me for opening those sweatshops, it's double-edged sword.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:21:42 2011 No.2355102 >>2355089 Government is a kind of hierarchy, but it isn't the only kind. I'm done arguing semantics with you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:21:42 2011 No.2355106 >>2355102 Good, I don't have time to educate you anyway

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:22:42 2011 No.2355107 >>2355089 so the food chain is a government?

Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:22:42 2011 No.2355108

>>2355082

Anarchism is not opposed to government as such, just heirarchical government. Obviously organization needs to be done, but this is through local bodies with decentralized power and an egalitarian power structure. Federations of trade unions are often used as such an organizing body.

Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT Sat Jan 15 20:22:42 2011 No.2355111

>>2355033
So your freedom is gone, because you may not strike me? The freedom to swing your fists ends when you reach my face. Should we both be allowed to cave in each others skulls? Or are we freer if both us are prohibited from prohibiting each other?

As explained in line one of the post you are trying to argue against.

Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:23:42 2011 No.2355114

>>2355092
Nike doesn't give a shit about taxes. They make more than enough in revenue to handle taxes, and they could make so much more if the workplace regulations imposed on them were removed. They wouldn't have to open sweatshops in Indonesia anymore.

>>	CNS !ZB6kpElKD6 Sat Jan 15 20:24:42 2011 No.2355117 Derail successful. (but also unintentional. Sorry OP)

Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:26:42 2011 No.2355129

>>2355080
>You made my point for me in accepting that an unregulated market allows for monopoly which ends freedoms. Without regulations to prevent such a scenario, freedom ends. Freedom without regulation ends.
Freedom doesn't exist with regulations either. Economic freedom doesn't exist when corporations or governemnt take over the free market.
>The government is people.
I wish, the governemnt is a separate from the public and is there supposedly to represent the people in democracies but we know that this is merely another means for tyranny to be enthroned through public ignorance.

>But we both agree that there must be enforcement. But what to enforce? Any rule you enforce is defined as a regulation. So in the end, you support regulation. You are just not comfortable with it being worded this way.
No I don't think enforcement or regulation or whatever is good in anyway. Once it imposes itself whether it is the governemnt or a corporation, freedom is tossed out the window.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:28:42 2011 No.2355145 >>2355111 Should adults not be allowed to trade whatever goods and services they consent to?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:28:42 2011 No.2355147 >>2355106 >implying you can educate anything. You can't even get simple definitions straight.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:28:42 2011 No.2355148 >>2354833 non economics person you're full of shit and also irrelevant

Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:29:42 2011 No.2355154

>>2355129
>No I don't think enforcement or regulation or whatever is good in anyway. Once it imposes itself whether it is the governemnt or a corporation, freedom is tossed out the window.
lol nigger

you should read this shit. You might learn something: >>2354932

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:29:42 2011 No.2355155 File: 59 KB, 500x521, whitedog_panting.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2354861 LOL I actually laughed really hard. >my face after that laugh

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:30:42 2011 No.2355164 >>2355154 I did, and it is true for its goals. I'm not interested in the same goals.

>>	Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT Sat Jan 15 20:31:42 2011 No.2355173 >>2355129 Based on those assertions, there has never been nor will there ever be freedom.

Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:33:42 2011 No.2355179
File: 23 KB, 640x480, 1289000386700.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>no one has mentioned perfect competition only applies to markets with all firms selling identical goods, which makes advertising trivial and forces identical prices thanks to an infinitely elastic demand curve.
>/sci/ thinks it knows shit about economics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:33:42 2011 No.2355180 >>2355173 You got it, the only way to achieve freedom would be to leave civilization.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:33:42 2011 No.2355184 >day one of macroeconomic >"theories must be unrealistic" This class will either be easy and I won't learn shit, or it will be difficult due to bullshit, and I still won't learn anything of value.

Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT Sat Jan 15 20:35:42 2011 No.2355196

>>2355145
How do you define a good, how do you define a service, how do you define consent? Simply answering those questions introduces regulation. From there, do you only allow goods and services traded through consent?

I don't remember consenting to my skull being caved in. I might define that as a service, but definitely not good.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:36:42 2011 No.2355199 >ITT planet ownership >also ITT the unalienable rights of goods good luck finding a hole big enough to bury you with all your worldly possessions

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:38:42 2011 No.2355208 >>2355199 The Egyptians did it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:40:42 2011 No.2355219 >>2355180 tthe point is cilivilazation isnt civil it is a direction towards absolute civility but for now the majority of peeople are dumb fucks such as yourself so i dont expect much

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:42:42 2011 No.2355233 >>2355208 fuck you the end game of the free market is the privatization of the planet how are you gonna bury yourself with a planet, oh right

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:43:42 2011 No.2355235 >>2355196 >derp free market requires regulation >herp if it's not regulated people will just steal everything That doesn't mean it isn't free. That means it ISN'T A MARKET IN THE FIRST PLACE. You understand how trade is different than theft, right?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:44:42 2011 No.2355244 >>2355219 >l it is a direction towards absolute civility I can't believe people are this stupid. No, it's a means of controlling a population for the purpose of acquiring power through imposing civility.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:44:42 2011 No.2355249 File: 1.70 MB, 400x225, 1286747578608.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >do you only allow goods and services traded through consent? If there's no consent it wasn't a trade, numbnuts.

Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:46:42 2011 No.2355253

>>2355233
>the end game of the free market is the privatization of the planet
This can go two ways, either everyone is their own business thus everyone is privatized or a corporation takes over and the free market ends.
>how are you gonna bury yourself with a planet, oh right
Smash the planet I am buried on into a much larger one. Thus burying the planet if the collision goes as planned.

Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT Sat Jan 15 20:49:42 2011 No.2355262

>>2355180
Freedom as you define it. Freedom as I define it is not found in the wilderness or in natural forces. It is created when one can guarantee himself security and his needs. Working against the natural forces that are forever driving to destroy us is what creates the freedom from them.

Our first jailer was the physical world. Our first bars were these bodies. We free ourselves more and more daily. I do not wish to slide back into that prison. And I also do not wish to trade the prison of wilderness for a prison of tyranny. Tyranny and wilderness are NOT the only options, such thinking is a lie designed to make you choose between the two prisons.

Free yourself from hunger and servitude both. Accept the rules that keep you as well as others from stabbing each other in their sleep for their food. Accept the driving force that keeps you making food to eat. Accept that freedom only exists where it is worked for and protected. Protect it from the decadence of tyranny as much as from the decadence of anarchy.

You do not wish for freedom. You wish for neglect. You are free to leave. I will stay, and change the system. It will become proper order, and not tyranny. It will not be allowed to fall, or overgrow. Order by reason, rather than chaos of whims, is what shall maintain civilization.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:49:42 2011 No.2355263 >>2355244 People are that stupid. In a few moments, in fact, you will see that they are even stupider.

Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:53:42 2011 No.2355278

>>2355262
>You do not wish for freedom. You wish for neglect.
I love how you pigeonhole terms without the slightest concern for their actual definitions. I want you r bureaucratic nonsense to leave me and my enterprise alone, if that isn't freedom then go fuck yourself.
>It will become proper order, and not tyranny. It will not be allowed to fall, or overgrow. Order by reason, rather than chaos of whims, is what shall maintain civilization.
How poetic, unfortunately your system is based on control and regulation thus you minimize people's economic freedom in doing so.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:53:42 2011 No.2355279 >>2355263 As if by magic: >>2355262

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:56:42 2011 No.2355294 >>2355262 Hey BOOMER can you suggest some readings so we can become smart like you? Economics and philosophical etc

Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT Sat Jan 15 20:57:42 2011 No.2355302

>>2355278
>I love how you pigeonhole terms without the slightest concern for their actual definitions.

Pot! We meet again. You have grown strong in the days since we parted, but now we meet once more. You still cannot accept how similar we are, or that we are born of the same materials, forged in the same fire. But you are as black as I, no matter how black you try to name me, you are as black as I.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:58:42 2011 No.2355307 >>2355294 I am Boomer, I base my economics understanding off ideological nonsense. So read anything by Marx. Because he was an economist and knew what he was talking about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 20:59:42 2011 No.2355315 Boomer actually gave a decent definition of freedom and supported his views reasonably the other guy arguing with him basically went full retarded and nothing else.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:00:42 2011 No.2355324 >>2355302 The fuck is Pot? Aside from pot as in pottery or cannabis. Also I think you should go into poetry, no seriously leave economics to people that understand it. But you have a gift, and I'm sure /lit will love you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:01:42 2011 No.2355330 >>2355315 Boomer thinks freedom is regulation, you have to be a moron to think that two opposing terms are the same thing.

>>	Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q Sat Jan 15 21:02:42 2011 No.2355331 File: 331 KB, 545x485, 1294564263372.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2355307 >insulting Boomer Might as well create atheism vs. christianity threads or spam tractors.

Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT Sat Jan 15 21:02:42 2011 No.2355332

>>2355294
History, and keep your discernment open for the contradictory accounts of the same events.

Science, physics, engineering. And accept the definitions and behaviours of things for what they are, do not try and redefine the universe to fit your concepts, simply define the universe for what it is.

Math. Learn it. Just algebra alone will do wonders for your brain.

To list individual books would be quite a task. Just start reading. If you want a specific place to start, ask yourself what your goals are. Begin with literature conducive to your goals.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:03:42 2011 No.2355336 >>2355332 Damn, he's like Socrates.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:03:42 2011 No.2355338 File: 123 KB, 560x747, 1283874943665.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Laissez-faire. You got it OP.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:04:42 2011 No.2355339 >>2355336 Hey. Don't insult Socrates.

Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:05:42 2011 No.2355346

>>2355330

>Boomer thinks freedom is regulation, you have to be a moron to think that two opposing terms are the same thing.

No, he thinks certain regulations are conducive to freedom.

Freedom has to do with certain conditions that provide safety, meaning, dignity, and survival for humans. Etc.

You are just afraid of the world "regulation" and have retarded kneejerk reactions to it.

>>	Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT Sat Jan 15 21:05:42 2011 No.2355347 >>2355336 >Damn, he's like Socrates >>2355339 >Hey. Don't insult Socrates. I'm not really that into Pokemon.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:06:42 2011 No.2355349 File: 8 KB, 247x204, 1288205060017.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2355034

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:06:42 2011 No.2355355 Boomer what is your Phd in?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:07:42 2011 No.2355359 >>2355349 Yeah, we'd all be much better of if we parroted your cultural propaganda bullshit you got taught and swallowed whole.

Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:09:42 2011 No.2355371

>>2355346
So by imposing regulations upon certain people you maximize freedom for all. Yep that's logical.

Yes I'm a afraid of the term regulation because it means: "controlling human or societal behavior by rules or restrictions." I can't see how anyone would think that means freedom: "the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints."

>>	Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT Sat Jan 15 21:09:42 2011 No.2355374 >>2355359 Economics courses are not bad to take, nor is any course. Even if you completely disagree with it, you will at least know what the people you disagree with think, and can argue more effectively for your side against their side.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:10:42 2011 No.2355376 >>2355374 This is the first time I agree with you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:10:42 2011 No.2355379 >>2355371 You can't have true freedom unless you live in an anarchy bro.

>>	Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT Sat Jan 15 21:11:42 2011 No.2355382 >>2355371 No, by imposing certain regulations on all people you maximize freedom. You are free to "act" how you wish, until you "act" to limit my actions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:11:42 2011 No.2355383 >>2355359 Cultural propaganda? That's rich. I've yet to see any arguments in this thread. Just assumptions and buzzwords used by laymen to put down ideas they don't understand.

Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:13:42 2011 No.2355396

>>2355371

>the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints

because a regulation can make it illegal to impose external restraints on some aspect of life.

i.e freedom of speech.

freedom from unlawful search and seizure.

freedom from racist discrimination. etc.

freedom from a monopoly controlling prices

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:14:42 2011 No.2355397 >>2355382 You're still controlling people by doing so, thus taking away from my freedom to limit other people's freedom and vice versa.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:15:42 2011 No.2355402 >>2355396 >implying the government isn't a national monopoly.

Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:18:42 2011 No.2355418

>>2355396
>freedom from a monopoly controlling prices
Except that the free market is what breaks up monopolies. Monopolies are created by taking advantage of government regulations (many are even GIVEN OUT by the government itself), then asshats like you blame them on the free market.

Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:18:42 2011 No.2355419

>>2355383
It's one of the biggest problems in academic or intellectual pursuits - people typically have the idea that they are immune to or lacking any cultural programming. And of course typically they are awash in it, thinking only along culturally programmed lines and neither able nor wanting to escape from it.

>>	Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT Sat Jan 15 21:18:42 2011 No.2355420 >>2355397 Do you consider the finite length of your arms a lack of freedom? Do you consider the limited time given to you daily by your bodies energy reserves to be a lack of freedom? At what point will you accept that freedom can exist?

Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:19:42 2011 No.2355428

Another man's freedom is oppression to another. In reality freedom does not exist. It is illusion. The only thing that exists is the balance between individuals, who together form a society.

Nature doesn't care about the concept of equality. We are born inequal. We roll the dice, and hope for the best outcome. We have entered into social contract, to assure best possible mutual outcome.

Because by nature we are inequal, the rights and freedoms of every man must be protected by limiting the freedoms and rights of every man.

It has always been so. It will always be so.

Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:23:42 2011 No.2355444

>>2355420
>Do you consider the finite length of your arms a lack of freedom? Do you consider the limited time given to you daily by your bodies energy reserves to be a lack of freedom?
Not politically regulated.
>At what point will you accept that freedom can exist?
When we stop imposing political and economic regulations upon people.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:26:42 2011 No.2355456 >>2355444 >When we stop imposing political and economic regulations upon people. When they become enlightened and are able to regulate themselves.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:27:42 2011 No.2355464 File: 75 KB, 298x297, LOL_Face.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Free market takes care of monopolies ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLL

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:28:42 2011 No.2355467 >>2355456 they generally are.

Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:28:42 2011 No.2355468

>>2355456
We already passed the enlightenment era, just most people didn't get the memo. Our morals regulate most of our actions, you don't need a law in place to prevent me from killing another person. However you do need conscription (a law/regulation) to force others into killing each other.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:28:42 2011 No.2355469 >implying perfect competition isn't a simplification they use to teach basic economic theory to 12 year old schoolchildren. >OP is a 12 year old child

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:28:42 2011 No.2355470 A society in which rape is legal might be more "Free" for rapists. But it would be more oppressive for non-rapists. Freedom is a metaphysical concept.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:29:42 2011 No.2355471 >>2355469 >implying they have more accurate models later on girlslaughing

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:29:42 2011 No.2355477 >>2355464 Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the face people make when they have no argument but want to appear right anyway

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:33:42 2011 No.2355492 >>2355477 this is like when communists say their system isn't working because they aren't communist enough IF ONLY OUR MARKETS WERE FREEEER

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:33:42 2011 No.2355493 Only one person actually knew the definition of perfect competition. Everybody else is in a pissing contest over the semantics of "free." /sci/, I am disappoint.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:35:42 2011 No.2355504 >>2355492 More name-calling with no argument? More people who think cutthroat prices won't stop a monopoly from failing in the long run?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:37:42 2011 No.2355514 >>2355444 At which time I will round up a militia and put some force regulations on you and anyone who disagrees with me, and only a group with power comparable to or greater than mine will be able to save you, should they be interested in saving you.

>>	Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT Sat Jan 15 21:40:42 2011 No.2355525 >>2355514 I wasn't going to be the first to say it, but you will find I am the first to act on it. your militia arrives to find my militia making him dig holes with a big sign on him that says "This man is FREE!". Let's ally our militias.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:41:42 2011 No.2355527 >>2355514 Thus killing freedom, if you are able to round up the militia in the first place. Also tyrannies don't withstand the test of time either, look at history.

>>	Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT Sat Jan 15 21:42:42 2011 No.2355535 >>2355527 Historically, dictatorially run empires have lasted approximately millenia.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:42:42 2011 No.2355536 >>2355525 Boomer confirmed for tyrannical despot bent on forcing people to his will. Freedom is Slavery, huh boober?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:43:42 2011 No.2355540 >>2355535 Some barely lasted a decade.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:45:42 2011 No.2355554 there's no evidence that a free market has a tendency to eliminate monopolies not even theoretical

Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT Sat Jan 15 21:47:42 2011 No.2355563

>>2355536
Not quite, but close. For me there are two options.

Option one, and my favorite, is equality. Everyone is free. I can go to raves and play video games. There is no tyranny because people are not allowed to oppress each other.

Option two. I am the one in charge. I will not be oppressed.

Or is George Washington and the first Continental Congress just a load of dictators to you? What is your opinion on the Spartans, Athenians, or other Greeks? Just wondering your opinions on those.

Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:51:42 2011 No.2355583

>>2355563
>Or is George Washington and the first Continental Congress just a load of dictators to you?
In some respects they were. For instance slave ownership was common to them. However the small government approach to politics was a good move.
>What is your opinion on the Spartans,
Clearly a militaristic despotism
>Athenians,
Right the democratic republic. Democracy is the rule of the many and the suppression of the few. Thus its a mean to give the illusion of freedom to the public by making the majority happy.

>>	Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT Sat Jan 15 21:58:42 2011 No.2355613 >>2355583 Then to you, I am quite the tyrannical despot. Rar.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 21:59:42 2011 No.2355619 >>2355613 Well given that you're in office.

>>	Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT Sat Jan 15 22:00:42 2011 No.2355627 >>2355619 >Well given that you're in office. ...wat?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 22:02:42 2011 No.2355633 >>2355627 To be considered a despot you need to be a despot, not someone that supports despotism.

>>	Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT Sat Jan 15 22:05:42 2011 No.2355646 >>2355633 You must not be the dude that called me a despot, than.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 22:09:42 2011 No.2355661 >>2355646 Nope, that's me. Your second option is quite autocratic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 22:13:42 2011 No.2355680 >>2355382 I'm still trying to figure you out... are you a minarchist or what?

Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT Sat Jan 15 22:26:42 2011 No.2355726

>>2355680
>_< You made me look up the word minarchist.

Minarchist sounds like a good idea, but entirely descriptive of me. I definitely agree with "only as much regulation as necessary", but shouldn't that technically be everyone's position. Does anyone actually support going too far with anything? Isn't the real argument what constitutes a minimum, a median, and an extreme? How much government can you have before you have enough? How much more until you have too much?

I don't believe there is such a thing as a perfect government. That would require perfect people. I believe there is such a thing as "perfect" systems, in the same way there is such a thing as "unbreakable" combs. As soon as you introduce people into it, it can fall apart as soon as they decide to let it. No matter what system you choose, if it is not followed of course it will fail.

On that note, I support the idea of differing and competing governments. There is no one right way, so why not let people choose which of the many correct options they feel best with? And no matter what, you can never completely stop people from choosing wrong. The one thing about giving people freedom of choice is that they will make the wrong choices. But do we take away freedom of choice based upon this?

I doubt I can be accurately defined by any one political label.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 22:39:42 2011 No.2355761 >>2355726 >On that note, I support the idea of differing and competing governments. There is no one right way, so why not let people choose which of the many correct options they feel best with? And on that note I revoke my comment calling you despot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 22:40:42 2011 No.2355762 rolling

Anonymous Sat Jan 15 22:43:42 2011 No.2355773

derp derp derp there is no right answer because the different opinions and bickering between leftists and rightists forms a convenient and stable equilibrium where several perspectives are considered because any intelligent person realizes that any form of specialization has its drawbacks. unless you have another agent to specialize in what you are missing and then trade with them then specialization does not work and that goes for becoming a specialized social system herpidy berp a derp

Anonymous Sat Jan 15 22:50:42 2011 No.2355792

There seems to be a lot of arguing about what actually constitutes freedom in here. In my mind, "freedom" alone is meaningless. Freedom always implies freedom from something. What that something is is where everyone gets caught up. I'd define that something as being aggression or coercion against person or property. To be "free" is to be free from any involuntary invasions of ones body or ones property. That being said, the only legitimate use of aggression is in defense of ones self or property. Any aggression against non-aggressors is illegitimate and immoral from that standpoint.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 23:00:42 2011 No.2355836 >bans on investors haha yeah that will happen for sure

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 23:08:42 2011 No.2355873 File: 39 KB, 400x400, 150814_1754027892549_1294471920_32048988_3219435_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math