My point exactly.....
Modern theoclassical economics has made an art form of fake empiricism produced by fake think tanks that shape their product to please their corporate founders/donors. - William Black
My point exactly.....
"I wondered how the new Heritage was handling Ecuador. Ecuador is a particular problem for entities like Heritage. Heritage has an "economic freedom index." Freedom has a specialized meaning to Heritage-financial regulation and regulation to protect workers' health and safety tends to be treated as a decline in freedom. Simply having the government spend money-even if the spending dramatically increases health, safety, and education- can be treated by the index as making a nation less "free." Like the competitiveness indices created by the World Economic Forum, the Heritage indices represent faux empiricism in the service of ideological dogmas." -William Black
This guy is either an idiot or a sicko who wants to control others-take your pick.
Regulations are a decrease in freedom. There is no arguing against that point.
Increases in health, safety, and education have nothing to do with freedom.(not that I agree that government improves any of those things, but they have nothing to do with freedom)
Um yeah, you are trying to tell this to someone who for pages tried to argue that government telling its citizens where they can and can't work was a good thing, and didn't infringe on liberty...
Good luck with that.
You are an absolute fool. There is no arguing with a stone and you have the intelligence of one.
And you are still the fool who believes that freedom includes the right to trample on others so the few can have that freedom. Bravo!
No proof to back up your assertions, just propaganda talking points. I know it hurts to have your sacred cows slaughtered by the truth.
See any dictionary I can think of, for "proof." However, I no more need to source what I said than someone needs to source the claim that 2+2=4. Words have meaning.
You can argue that servitude/slavery improves living conditions all you want(you'll look like an idiot, but you seem to be okay with that),but you can't argue it increases freedom.
He is quite stupid, isn't he?
I don't think he is stupid, not at all. I think he is a poor spokes person for collectivism and statist everywhere, however. And I also think he is awful at debate. But those aren't character flaws, just skills that need to be improved.
Arguing the points he does makes him either stupid or evil. Due to his spelling, I'm going with stupid.
To say that an individual should have the right to be put in a position which gives him the ability to trample on the rights of the unknowing is not freedom. And for you to assume so is sloppy thinking.
You are another who contributes nothing of substance here so please just go away.
This comment makes it seem that we are on the same side. However, you constantly argue in favor of putting people in that position, so I know you don't really believe what you just said.
Conflicts of interest in business is what I'm referring to. Countingbeans thinks it's okay because if you forbid this it is restricting the freedoms of individuals to choose where they work. I think it is anti-freedom as these individuals can trample on the rights of the masses because they are not informed and therefore are not free to choose as they do not have the knowledge. He doesn't see this. To him it is black and white. He can't fathom the idea that some people should not be allowed to take advantage of others because it tramples on their rights to choose who to work for. To the contrary people can choose to work for Big Parma or the FDA but not both. It is that restriction that he has a problem with but not the rights of others.
He thinks a group of individuals labeled "government" can tell another group of individuals what they can or cannot do as it involves employment. So, when you look at it, he is basically saying he is for what he is saying he is against, as long as the small group of people are the group he approves of.
That's the impression I'm getting, as well. He seems to not understand that the real conflict of interest is in allowing those in government to tell others what they can and can't do.
No that is what YOU are doing. You guard the small group of people's right to trample on the majorities right of freedom.
No it is you who doesn't understand! The rights of the majority are being trampled by the rights of the minority to take advantage of them.
The only institution I can think of that has been given the power to "trample" on the rights of anyone is government. Government is the only entity I can think of that has been given the right to initiate force in order to gain compliance with its demands.
What "rights" of the majority are being trampled by the minority?