Lazefaire Capitalism is ideal!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Fun fact. It actually did in Louisiana and other areas, just never on a federal level.

a reply to: Greven
I just mistyped "capitalism" is all.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
Well this thing called "compromise" was ALSO a big part of the forming of the country. Whatever happened to that one?

a reply to: KEACHI

Not saying I disbelieve you but source?

Lazefaire Calitalism

Lazy typing or is it laze typing. Up next, Mandela Effect.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Tman2135

It seems as though maybe you're talking about mediation?

That's a thing.

Mediation/arbitration are essentially the same in this context. Think King Solomon and the baby.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, when you're creating something rather than already living under it, that really hammers home the need for compromise.

We've gotten to the point where people want compromise mostly on things that the federal government was never designed to do in the first place--it's like trying to compromise between getting the flu or getting mononucleosis, when we really just don't have a need for either and have ways to avoid it.

I feel this whole mindset revolves around everyone being morally actionable. Unfortunately, that is not human nature. We by our own design are greedy, self serving, duplicitous and capable of harming everyone but ourselves for our own benefit. The 'all is fair' approach would see the smartest and most unscrupulous among us benefit overwhelmingly at the expense/health/livelihood of everyone else. I believe governmental 'meddling' is a necessary evil to combat such detestable human qualities (despite its drawbacks vis-a-vis slowing business development). I would rather have a more difficult environment to do business where it is at least checked constantly by oversight, rather than a free for all where the greediest can directly benefit to the detriment of all.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

This isn't true at all. It's more like we've gotten to a point where a certain large segment of the population refuses to budge on their ideals no matter what and are doing everything to justify their stubbornness. I mean if Americans can get together and hammer out historic compromises like the Missouri Compromise (I'm specifically bringing this one up because it happened long after the country was founded) over something like slavery then YOU can acquiesce that just because YOU may not have a need for something being discussed politically, someone else MAY have a need for it.

Compromise is never dead politically unless you kill it yourself. We are a nation founded on compromise. Compromise allowed us to stay together as a nation during rough times and it has driven our successes for well over 200 years. YOU are doing a disservice to your country and your country's founding fathers by abandoning it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I haven't abandoned anything. I compromise in my life on a daily basis--in my job, in my marriage, in how we raise our children, with what I think is best for our children. Hell, I'm having my mother-in-law move in with us against everything in me that tells me that this could very well end up being a bad decision.

I understand the need to compromise, and I understand that some people want things legislated that I do not. But if YOU are unwilling to admit that the federal government--especially within the last decade-plus (but going back over 100 years)--has been usurping control over aspects of life that it was never designed to have, then you can't just point the finger at other people as being the problem. I never said anything about political discussions being a bad thing; what I DID say was that the federal government is assuming rolls that it was never meant to have, and that this is a massive contributing factor to the inability or unwillingness to compromise by those in a position where compromising can have an actual effect.

I can be willing to compromise on things discussed in government all day long, but in the end, I'm not the one voting on or proposing the legislation. My willingness/unwillingness to compromise only matter every two years in that regard, and it's only one vote.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

what I DID say was that the federal government is assuming rolls that it was never meant to have, and that this is a massive contributing factor to the inability or unwillingness to compromise by those in a position where compromising can have an actual effect.

The point you are missing is that the above here isn't new. This has been debated on and compromised on MANY MANY times in American history. Your definition of what the federal government is supposed to do isn't the end all be all definition. Even the founding fathers couldn't agree on that. Yet you act like it is. THIS is the breakdown in compromise that I'm alluding to. You are taking your ball and going home because you refuse to budge on your political position in the slightest.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, I don't refuse to budge in my political view in the slightest--hell, you're talking to someone who has gone from being a liberal-minded person, to mostly conservative, to finally landing in the best-fitting spot so far, which is neither of those. In fact, nothing that I'm saying is a "political view," just how I see the government acting.

But, we'll end this train of discussion, because as you are unwilling to accept that I'm not unwilling to budge, I'm tired of the circular track that we're traveling on.

Best regard--I'll take my ball and go home, but it's only because I've learned my lesson in futility.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

This is why the conversation isn't going anywhere. Instead of trying to be a bit introspective and entertain my ideas as being possibly true you just get offended and quit the conversation. You won't even try to entertain my ideas to see if they have any merit. This is something you should recognize as the first step towards compromise.

You think I bring up your political view like it is a partisan label too. That is media driven drivel. Political view is just as nuanced and different as snowflakes in the sky. There is no way you don't have a political view because we are having a conversation about politics right now. So clearly you have some sort of position on it.

Also just because you've compromised your position in the past doesn't mean you aren't being stubborn currently. But anyways do you. I can't make you talk to me.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
Lazefaire Calitalism is defined as "Laissez Faire Capitalism. "Laissez Faire" is French for "leave alone" which means that the government leaves the people alone regarding all economic activities. It is the separation of economy and state."

All a government should be concerned with is protecting citizen's rights, running a rational judicial system, and protecting its citizens from external and internal aggressors. It has no business meddling in religion or economics. Do you agree?

Laws are for those with no ethics.
That's about a million out of a million Amerikkkans!
Unregulated elitism is far from ideal for anyone but the elite.
And not even for them as they and their children will have to breathe the same poisoned air that their unregulated corporations have no profit from cleaning as they pump out their widgets.
Maybe they have bottled air.
Imported.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
Lazefaire Calitalism is defined as "Laissez Faire Capitalism. "Laissez Faire" is French for "leave alone" which means that the government leaves the people alone regarding all economic activities. It is the separation of economy and state."

All a government should be concerned with is protecting citizen's rights, running a rational judicial system, and protecting its citizens from external and internal aggressors. It has no business meddling in religion or economics. Do you agree?

Protecting citizens from being abused by big corporations... Who is going to do that if not the government??

I mean, in the US, the government is the corporations' biotch... in France, for example, the government represents the people. ("the people" not being the big corporations...).

a reply to: Aristotelian1

Not at all. Unrestricted economies result in a whole slew negative consequences which are somewhat mitigated by regulations.

Isn't that pretty much what led to the Great Depression under Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover?