Big Business & Big Government vs. the People

It's like black markets have never existed...

 

Yeah, it sounds like the only one who doesn't like free markets is the state and its toadies.

 

I imagine this fellow as a spiv in world war 2 crowing "I does right I does". There's surely nothing more involved...

 

definitely absurd!! we love govt as long as it's primary purpose supports and encourages freedom. The very idea of no police is absurd.
Issue today is capitalism versus socialism not cap/socialism versus near anarchy. Do you understand. You make no contribution if you are on the wrong subject.

Cohortes Urbanae - Ancient History Encyclopedia
https://www.ancient.eu/Cohortes_Urbanae/
Dec 16, 2016 - The cohortes urbanae (urban cohorts) were a body of troops garrisoned at Rome, which was created by Augustus to provide additional... ... cities they were stationed at. Effectively acting as a police force it was also occasionally employed in battles and even involved itself in the succession of emperors.

 

so 120 million slowly starved to death in Red China and USSR because people lied? What people?

 

do you mean remove at liberal gun point owners who got to be owners in peaceful voluntary transactions from which both parties benefited? Why are liberals always violent?

 

I see you found a modern historian who refers to a military force as "police". The fact remains that the first state funded police department in the western hemisphere was that of Boston in 1848. I guess we can say 1848 heralded the end of the Hobbesian "state of nature" in the Americas. I suppose it's my fault for not defining "police", as it turns out you're not educated enough to bother to ask.

 

Though foreigners, whether immigrants or prisoners of war, were integrated into the police force – especially the Nubian Medjay as we mentioned, the higher official positions were usually kept forEgyptians… and the Chief of Police was most likely chosen by the pharaoh or vizier.
Ancient Egyptian Police - Experience Ancient Egypt
www.experience-ancient-egypt.com/ancient-egyptian-history/ancient-egyptian.../ancient.

 

so you want to debate about whether we should have 1000's of local govt police forces or whether one federal govt should control national economy??

 

govt intervention to impose capitalism is critical for rising standards of living but deadly if it imposes socialism or libcommieism.

 

I'm good. You just keep your 3x5 card.

 

why not answer the question??

 

You want me to answer the question as to which of those two resolutions I want to debate? The answer is: I'm good.
Both propositions are false in my opinion, and I don't debate resolutions that I affirm. If you want to debate a question or phrase a resolution that you affirm, I might be game. I would want you to define your question or resolution first, though, 'cause I don't like quarreling over definitions.

 

100% absurd. Debate since Plato and Aristotle has been between freedom and govt or now Democrats(govt) and Republicans(freedom). Why so afraid to tell us what side you are on and why?

 

someone debating from 3 x 5 cards should be easy to defeat yet you are afraid to try? What does that teach you?

 

Pretty much- authoritarian busy-bodies that wish to interfere with the day to day activities of otherwise peaceful people for no other benefit than their own.

 

"Republicans(freedom)"???
I seem to have made a mistake. Reading some of your posts had me thinking you were some kind of libertarian.

Aristotle thought of the perfect society as one in which men who are naturally slave(those who can do with their hands) voluntarily united under those who are naturally master(those who can see the future). He didn't say anything about those who can do both.

Plato couldn't think of anything to say back to to the state officials who were to execute him had they asked him if the state was not to thank for his very existence(by instituting the laws of matrimony(cause otherwise his dad would never have known to **** his mom)).

Cicero thought of perfect law as a natural part of the human condition, the same everywhere and always, and necessarily efficacious(even if the offender escapes all human punishment). Though a lawyer, he had little respect for legislation. He said:
"we shall be sometimes obliged to
use the same terms as the vulgar, and to conform to that common idiom which
signifies by the word law, all the arbitrary regulations which are found in our statute
books"
But for his distaste for blasphemers, he was the perfect anarchist. (I say blasphemers flippantly. It was really vandalism of religious sculptures(which happens to be property rights violation) that got his goat. He thought there should be stiffer punishment for such vandals(the first hate-crime-punishment proponent?))

St. Paul said everyone should obey the state because it and those holding its seats would not be but by the will of God, so that anything they command or forbid must be so by God also. That state later executed him for preaching the gospel.(So either God didn't want him preaching the gospel or he was just another damned statist.)

St Thomas referred to Aristotle as "the philosopher" and cited his opinion of the perfect community as evidence that men have a moral obligation to obey the law. He's known as one of the first natural lawyers, but was actually a positivist, believing that law must necessarily be stipulated and promulgated.

Justinian, though an emperor, didn't seem to agree with Aristotle about all that "natural slave" ****. He said that, by the law of nature, all men are born free, but war and conquest lead to the law of nations and casts including slavery. He coined the maxim, repeated by such as Blackstone and Spooner: "Justice is the constant and perpetual wish to render every man his due."

I'm on the side of peace by natural law, so I guess I don't agree with any of you statists (except maybe Cicero(sans the hate-crime stuff),.. oh, and Spooner, of course(except on IP)).

 

Ah, peace by natural law, so in today’s terminology or choices you’re a like me, Conservative Republican libertarian?

 

I don't understand.

 

Jefferson's Republican Declaration talked about natural law. Ever since so have other Republicans conservatives and libertarians while liberals, Democrats and socialists have opposed.

 

Those Republicans and conservatives should swallow their own pill like I did.

 

Are you double jointed?

 

The costs exist in a free market or a regulated market.

In a regulated market the costs are generally paid in dollars. In the kind of free market, you are talking about, those costs are paid in human misery (the poor) and environmental damage (as companies will abuse the environment in order to obtain a competitive advantage).

I'd argue that in a regulated market there is greater demand for the services were discussing since they are mandatory, thus lower cost, especially since the costs are spread out so that virtually everyone contributes.

The fact is, when a poor person doesn't have enough to make ends meet, they will choose food and shelter over the opportunity costs that come with purchasing things that will keep them free from potential harm. This, of course, means that those that cannot afford to protect themselves will be harmed more often.

 

Alternatively a person who chooses to skip what others consider essential, is able to save money and get ahead by making sacrifices others are unwilling to.
When forced to pay for things they don't want, to subsidise others who do want it and think it affordable because they are, well... affluent, they are trapped into poverty by do gooders.

And lets be quite clear here. The lions share of the money never goes to the poor. It goes to the wealthy running the schemes. Who charge a fortune for doing so.

Rich people telling poor people how best to spend their money?
Oh Pahleeease.

 

no idea what you are trying to say. If you know why not share it with us?