Capitalism
So I am admin for a page on Facebook called capitalism, it has 8,500 likes. I just posted this status to that page of Mitt Romney's quote on capitalism from the debate.
"You can't have a free market work unless you have regulation"
90% of the comments are telling me that Mitt is correct and you cannot have capitalism without regulation....for various reasons.
/cry
https://www.facebook.com/Free.Market...f¬if_t=like
Veterans For Ron Paul on YouTube YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP8q7fc7TR4
"You can't have a free market work unless you have regulation" -Mitt Romney
They teach this garbage in Political Science classes, right before they blame libertarians for the 2008 crisis. Seriously.
Rand Paul 2016
The regulations you have are the natural forces of the free market.
They are not defined as laws, but they are regulating.
I'd like to change Romney's quote a little...
'You don't have a free market when you have force, fraud and coercion.'
Free markets means that the choices made by the entities in the market are free from force, fraud and coercion.
This means that party 'a' can make a deal with party 'b', where they can voluntarily make the terms of their agreement without the interference of party 'c', which would be the government or other criminals.
The only role for government (from a Minarchist perspective) is to make sure there is no force, fraud and coercion in the free market. This however does not require many laws, only the ones restricting the government. Freedom of contract is most important in this case. If contracts are free, there is virtually no role for government to interfere with them in the first place. Only in case of a dispute government would be introduced into the market. Anarcho-Capitalists feel about the same way, except they want no government at all, leaving it to the private sector to police for force, fraud and coercion.
Last edited by luctor-et-emergo; 10-04-2012 at 06:49 AM.
And up is down.
Mitt really is nothing but a RINO and big government neocon with a very left-leaning twist. Many of the regulations he actively supports are the very protectionist barriers to entry that keep average individuals from competing fairly in a market that has always been anything but free -- by design.
The only real difference I see between Romney and Obama are whether cannibalistic protectionism is confined mostly to the private sector, or taken over completely by the public sector. Mitt's gubmint is the usual Bush-style crack operation to Obama's full blown zombie apocalypse crystal meth lab.
What the vote will mean to many, since both candidates are speaking about irrelevancies to the real future, is which President will be left holding the bag. Because whichever man takes the oath of office next year, along with his party, may well end up being a sacrificial GOAT.
The only other difference I see: Utahans, and specifically the Mormon-based influences on Romney, will pressure him into some kind of sound money. It's no accident, I believe, that Romney threw the "gold standard reconsideration" bone out there. That wasn't just to appease Ron Paul supporters. That's also his base on the Non-Paul conservative Constitutionalist Mormon side. It wasn't just a bunch of Ron Paul supporters in Utah that passed their gold and silver legal tender act. Obama, on the other hand, is more likely to take a Keynesian/Kucinich approach with everything, as he attempts to arrogate virtually everything possible under federal control -- and would have no problems delegating "emergency powers" to a global entity.
Need more Bastiat!
"You can't have crony-capitalism work unless you have regulation."
The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.
"Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron
"Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton
That's a bullshit response from Mitt. Its really the exact opposite. You can't have capitalism with regulation. Shame on these fools for agreeing with him.
Mitt is no free market guy, but I KINDA agree. I do want a government to protect my private property from both foreign and domestic threats as well to enforce contracts. Could capitalism occur in a land free of government, absolutely, but I am not yet sold that it would be better than a minimalist government. The biggest problem I have with my argument is it's slippery slope.
I don't think Mitt was talkiing about minimal regulation just to protect your rights. He could care less about your rights. What he wants is the regulation we have today which does nothing more than prevent capitalism.Originally Posted by cubical
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote