free market as religion

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I propose a new religion: free market, otherwise known as "the invisible hand." It makes perfect sense. The free market is always just. The free market is not always predictable, but so is fate, which can be equally unpredictable, and not to mention, unavoidable.

9/11 - the free market attacked statism. It was a private property issue, why did government get involved? hm

The church of the free market. You become an anarchist, you oppose statism, you oppose involuntary social interaction, you live the way you want to live. How daree statism control us! The easy solution to tyranny is to gun them down. We form voluntary organizations, anything from a scientific organization to a government or societal organization. We are all mobile sovereign states. We form voluntary armies that crush statism, we surround the statists, we butcher them all!

HAVE FAITH IN THE FREE MARKET

If you don't have faith, then well, you might be a statist. Being a staist is not evil, we all have those tendencies, but you should control those urges, or else, befor you know it, you will be imposing your will on others. That's involuntary social interaction.

Worship the free market
Understand the invisible hand
Be a better person

That is all.

[Kade]

I propose a new religion: free market, otherwise known as "the invisible hand." It makes perfect sense. The free market is always just. The free market is not always predictable, but so is fate, which can be equally unpredictable, and not to mention, unavoidable.

9/11 - the free market attacked statism. It was a private property issue, why did government get involved? hm

The church of the free market. You become an anarchist, you oppose statism, you oppose involuntary social interaction, you live the way you want to live. How daree statism control us! The easy solution to tyranny is to gun them down. We form voluntary organizations, anything from a scientific organization to a government or societal organization. We are all mobile sovereign states. We form voluntary armies that crush statism, we surround the statists, we butcher them all!

HAVE FAITH IN THE FREE MARKET

If you don't have faith, then well, you might be a statist. Being a staist is not evil, we all have those tendencies, but you should control those urges, or else, befor you know it, you will be imposing your will on others. That's involuntary social interaction.

Worship the free market
Understand the invisible hand
Be a better person

That is all.

It already is a religion. And everyday I argue with it's fundies.

[The_Orlonater]

Nothing wrong with a free market.

[Kade]

Nothing wrong with a free market.

Absolutely nothing wrong with it.

I can't wait to go back to the days before regulations for amusement park rides...it looked more fun then:

http://jj.am/gallery/d/43538-1/AmusementParkRideCollapse.gif

[The_Orlonater]

Absolutely nothing wrong with it.

I can't wait to go back to the days before regulations for amusement park rides...it looked more fun then:

http://jj.am/gallery/d/43538-1/AmusementParkRideCollapse.gif

What should the government regulate in your opinion?

[priest_of_syrinx]

Absolutely nothing wrong with it.

I can't wait to go back to the days before regulations for amusement park rides...it looked more fun then:

http://jj.am/gallery/d/43538-1/AmusementParkRideCollapse.gif

If a ride is dangerous, don't ride it.

[Theocrat]

Absolutely nothing wrong with it.

I can't wait to go back to the days before regulations for amusement park rides...it looked more fun then:

http://jj.am/gallery/d/43538-1/AmusementParkRideCollapse.gif

What is the image suppose to show?

[The_Orlonater]

I don't get it either, Kade.

[coyote_sprit]

The image is called amusement park ride collapse. He's sayong that if the government doesn't regulate amusement parks stuff like that would happen on a regular basis. Atleast thats what I interpret it as.

[The_Orlonater]

http://www.ideachannel.tv/

[Kade]

Tell that to the kids who lost their heads in that ride (literally)

This is one of many common examples of necessary regulation.

Carnival rides, which often come into existence as fast as they leave existence, (since rides are owned by individuals) did not comply with the more expensive upgrades and regulations to their rides.

The concept of "don't ride" it then, does not apply so vividly to the large number of people who WILL die, because of lack of decent equipment.

Since the mandatory safety precautions, deaths like these have been decreased significantly.

[Theocrat]

Tell that to the kids who lost their heads in that ride (literally)

This is one of many common examples of necessary regulation.

Carnival rides, which often come into existence as fast as they leave existence, (since rides are owned by individuals) did not comply with the more expensive upgrades and regulations to their rides.

The concept of "don't ride" it then, does not apply so vividly to the large number of people who WILL die, because of lack of decent equipment.

Since the mandatory safety precautions, deaths like these have been decreased significantly.(emphasis mine)

That's called "survival of the fittest," according to your naturalistic religion. ;) Be consistent in your views, and stop adding "nurture" to "nature."

[Andrew-Austin]

Statism could be a religion as well, no? Statists today display far more blind faith then pro free marketers do, and we're now witnessing the consequences of their faith everyday. Certainly seems to be one of the more dangerous and destructive religions out there.

[Kade]

(emphasis mine)

That's called "survival of the fittest," according to your naturalistic religion. ;) Be consistent in your views, and stop adding "nurture" to "nature."

You're being tremendously dishonest, and you know it.

And even if I were a strict naturalists, the philosophy proceeds with the conceptual morality of culture...and thirdly, survival of the fittest does not necessarily mean survival of the strongest... as so many uneducated loons like to believe.

[Kade]

Statism could be a religion as well, no? Certainly would be a more dangerous and destructive one.

Then there is realists, who believe in both styles of economies competing.

[Theocrat]

You're being tremendously dishonest, and you know it.

And even if I were a strict naturalists, the philosophy proceeds with the conceptual morality of culture...and thirdly, survival of the fittest does not necessarily mean survival of the strongest... as so many uneducated loons like to believe.

I'm not being dishonest--you are. Why should it matter what happens to one "pack of animals" who are blindly utilizing the technology for their own random amusement at the risk of another "pack of animals'" failure to ensure that technology's safety? After all, the electrochemical processes in the former "pack of animals'" brains told them it was okay to get on the ride to have fun, even if the electrochemical processes in the latter "pack of animals'" brains didn't make sure they made a safe ride. That's nature running its course (through both biological and mechanical machines) in order to preserve a species, right?

What gives the government a right to "regulate" nature?

[Kade]

I'm not being dishonest--you are. Why should it matter what happens to one "pack of animals" who are blindly utilizing the technology for their own random amusement at the risk of another "pack of animals'" failure to ensure that technology's safety?

That is your interpretation of a philosophy you don't understand. It's called a straw man. You create your interpretation of what you think it means, and than continue to promote that version as if it were fact.

You are so blinded to your assumptions that you have not listened to anything anyone has told you about their own personal philosophies.

I honestly believe that if you really think that is how non-believers view the world, you yourself are harboring some latent sadistic tendencies, and use your religion as a shield against your diseased thinking.

I value my life, and others lives because it is part of my own moral framework. You value your life and others because if you don't you are afraid of being punished.

[Theocrat]

That is your interpretation of a philosophy you don't understand. It's called a straw man. You create your interpretation of what you think it means, and than continue to promote that version as if it were fact.

You are so blinded to your assumptions that you have not listened to anything anyone has told you about their own personal philosophies.

I honestly believe that if you really think that is how non-believers view the world, you yourself are harboring some latent sadistic tendencies, and use your religion as a shield against your diseased thinking.

I value my life, and others lives because it is part of my own moral framework. You value your life and others because if you don't you are afraid of being punished.

You've missed my whole point, Kade. Any appeal you make to morality destroys your whole belief system that only matter exists. When you do so, you contradict yourself by "adding nurture to nature," (as the naturalistic philosopher Carl Sagan once said), and thus, you're acting like a Christian.

You have no objective nor absolute basis to appeal to morality outside of the assumption that God exists. All you have is your personal opinion on the subject, and if that's the case, then everyone can have their own personal opinion of what morality is and how it should be regulated, even groups of people who are in control of our civil governments.

If a business decides that it's morally right for it to build an amusement park without any regulations to protect its customers, then it can do so because of its own personal views. The same applies to anyone, if you're correct that morality is okay if it's defined by one's own personal opinion. So, stop complaining and arguing with the free marketeers, and let nature run its course.

[Kade]

If a business decides that it's morally right for it to build an amusement park without any regulations to protect its customers, then it can do so because of its own personal views. The same applies to anyone, if you're correct that morality is okay if it's defined by one's own personal opinion. So, stop complaining and arguing with the free marketeers, and let nature run its course.

Wrong. The people decide what is moral. Just like they did when they wrote your precious book-idol thousands of years ago.

There is no difference. The best we can offer is a progressive moral zeitgeist, at the helm of compassionate and intelligent body of leaders.

[Theocrat]

Wrong. The people decide what is moral. Just like they did when they wrote your precious book-idol thousands of years ago.

There is no difference. The best we can offer is a progressive moral zeitgeist, at the helm of compassionate and intelligent body of leaders.(emphasis mine)

That's what I said. The people of the business decide what is moral on how they run their amusement park, even if it is without regulations for the safety of its customers.

The only "zeitgeist" that will bring true freedom and morality to our nation is God Himself. If we don't listen to Him, then we will fail, and we can do nothing else but fail without relying on our Creator. You mark my words.

[r33d33]

Why can't the state regulate the amusement parks?

[Andrew-Austin]

The only "zeitgeist" that will bring true freedom and morality to our nation is God Himself. If we don't listen to Him, then we will fail, and we can do nothing else but fail without relying on our Creator. You mark my words.

How do I hear God's voice? If God is the only force which can bring morality into this world, how come I have met so many non-Christians who seem to be far more moral then most Christians? How is their morality "not true".

I have to agree with Kade for once, you always seem to be setting up straw-man arguments that you can knock down. It seems to stem from a desperation to tie all philosophical issues back to the bible.

[The_Orlonater]

Tell that to the kids who lost their heads in that ride (literally)

This is one of many common examples of necessary regulation.

Carnival rides, which often come into existence as fast as they leave existence, (since rides are owned by individuals) did not comply with the more expensive upgrades and regulations to their rides.

The concept of "don't ride" it then, does not apply so vividly to the large number of people who WILL die, because of lack of decent equipment.

Since the mandatory safety precautions, deaths like these have been decreased significantly.

Maybe you're right here. But if an accident did happen you could always sue them. They could work for that carnival ride to be fixed. So they won't get their ass sued.

Anyway, whatever works.

[Theocrat]

How do I hear God's voice?

Repent (turn away from your sins).
Pray (ask God to change your heart and make Himself known to you).
Believe, read, and follow God's word (keep His commandments and serve other people for God's glory and man's benefit).

[Andrew-Austin]

Repent (turn away from your sins).
Pray (ask God to change your heart and make Himself known to you).
Believe, read, and follow God's word (keep His commandments and serve other people for God's glory and man's benefit).


Meditation, introspection, and the search for truth and knowledge have proven to be better ways of becoming closer to "God" in my experience. I see no rational basis, nor do I simply feel the need to believe in the bible. If I happen to choose to follow some of the commandments in the bible, it will not just be because they are supposedly the word of God (which I see no evidence of, nor see any reason to believe that is the case). It will be because of my naturally occurring search for right over wrong.

[AutoDas]

Free markets don't require faith for them to work.

see gov't

[user]

9/11 - the free market attacked statism.

What do you mean by this?

[Fox McCloud]

The only "zeitgeist" that will bring true freedom and morality to our nation is God Himself. If we don't listen to Him, then we will fail, and we can do nothing else but fail without relying on our Creator. You mark my words.

I might also point out that this is Ron Paul's philosophy as well; he has said "Defiance of God's Law will eventually bring havoc to a society". He also stated that he thinks that it was divine providence that brought this nation together and that he doesn't see how it could have been otherwise, and that with our current situation, "providentially, we may end too, very soon, by God's will".

there's also a 3rd quote (but I cannot find it at this time, so it may not really be Dr. Paul), but I believe he said that laws that go against God's laws are totally irrelevant.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Alex Libman]

I've said before that while libertarianism / minarchism describes the political action I currently find prudent, I see Anarcho-Capitalism as a personal philosophy, a religion if you will. It cannot be applied politically yet, but it has very specific ethical standards I must live up to.

[kojirodensetsu]

The government can not make you safe.

I am going to apply your same logic to driving. The government has been licensing people for years now. Why have we not seen the same type of reduction you assert from amusement park regulation in road deaths due to the wonderful regulation we have?

Next topic... hospital deaths...
That's not quite the same. Amusement park safety is due to mechanical stuff. Humans are by nature flawed. If an amusement park's equipment becomes old you can replace it.

I'm not for the total destruction of all regulations (if regulations mean less amusement parks but makes sure the ones that are up are safe I'm for it). But I think that's more of a state issue.

[noxagol]

The market will regulate itself. If an amusement park makes a ride that happens to kill people, chances are that ride will never be ridden again and the amusement park will lose a lot of money on that ride. If they do no attempt to correct the problem in some way, chances are, the entire park will go under since there is a great lack of confidence in that park and no one trusts it. The people thought to be responsible will then have a great deal of hardship in finding new work in the amusement park industry.

Government regulations create a false sense of security and actually make things more dangerous. If something meets government standards, and those standards are not sufficient, and people trust the government, then we have false confidence created. Also, in the face of regulations, people tend to only meet them and stop. Without set regulations, people tend to keep going to better and better.

[user]

Also, I think in general the idea that you must be religious to have morals and ethical standards is dangerously wrong. Atheists get attacked for this and it's not warranted.

[strapko]

I am pretty sure the government does not regulate six flags. I have been on numerous rides, 100s of times and all is well.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[AutoDas]

I liked that Lew Rockwell podcast called Road Socialism because Walter Block brings up a good point. Forty-thousand people are needlessly dieing on government funded roads. If this was the railroad back in the day then progressives would be chanting for nationalizing the railroads, but when a disaster does occur on government property they just shrug it off as it's not their fault. This should be treated as murder if people think they have a right to roads but government gets a free pass.

I don't remember reading anything about turnpike roads causing deaths at this rate but maybe that's because they were privatized roads.

[hypnagogue]

No one would willfully choose to ride an amusement park ride which ran the risk of killing them. How would an individual know the difference between a dangerous ride and a safe one? Should they ask to review the blueprints? It's disconcerting the attitude some people seem to have that you need to have a decapitation before you may legally do anything.

The free market competition should be focused on which ride is more enjoyable and affordable, not which one is less likely to kill you, in your own amateur opinion.

[noxagol]

No one would willfully choose to ride an amusement park ride which ran the risk of killing them. How would an individual know the difference between a dangerous ride and a safe one? Should they ask to review the blueprints? It's disconcerting the attitude some people seem to have that you need to have a decapitation before you may legally do anything.

The free market competition should be focused on which ride is more enjoyable and affordable, not which one is less likely to kill you, in your own amateur opinion.

Another company could inspect it for them, stamp it with their approval, just like Underwriter Labs does for electrical items. Everyones long term lively hood rides on the safe and successful operation of the ride. There is no incentive to produce an unsafe ride if you care at all about staying in business.

What if the government gets it wrong?

[user]

What if the government gets it wrong?

Then they get more power! It all makes so much sense! :eek: