What the hell is "economic freedom"?

[Alexander Hamilton]

The freedom to whatever you want with your money so long as it doesn't damage the competitiveness of the market nor is very unethical. For example, regulating banks would add economic freedom because the bank's best interests conflicted with the interests of the market's competitiveness.

No, it wouldn't. Government regulation always decreases freedom, never increases.

Really? So a bank CEO having the "freedom" to allow his company to give sub-prime loans to people who normally wouldn't qualify thereby causing all the people to lose freedom when they dive into bankruptcy gives the country more freedom. Hardly.

Those people don't have to take the loans, freedom hater.

[Alexander Hamilton]

The freedom to whatever you want with your money so long as it doesn't damage the competitiveness of the market nor is very unethical. For example, regulating banks would add economic freedom because the bank's best interests conflicted with the interests of the market's competitiveness.

No, it wouldn't. Government regulation always decreases freedom, never increases.

Really? So a bank CEO having the "freedom" to allow his company to give sub-prime loans to people who normally wouldn't qualify thereby causing all the people to lose freedom when they dive into bankruptcy gives the country more freedom. Hardly.

Those people don't have to take the loans, freedom hater.

Because only a Nazi would oppose irresponsible lending

The only irresponsibility is on the part of people who would sign a contract without ensuring they could finance it, no matter if it is the banker or the client. That is their problem, not mine.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Empathy is for those who know they are wrong, so instead they use emotions to try and justify their error.

[Alexander Hamilton]

empathy is for sotomayor fans

[Alexander Hamilton]

The freedom to whatever you want with your money so long as it doesn't damage the competitiveness of the market nor is very unethical. For example, regulating banks would add economic freedom because the bank's best interests conflicted with the interests of the market's competitiveness.

No, it wouldn't. Government regulation always decreases freedom, never increases.

Really? So a bank CEO having the "freedom" to allow his company to give sub-prime loans to people who normally wouldn't qualify thereby causing all the people to lose freedom when they dive into bankruptcy gives the country more freedom. Hardly.

Uh, yeah, he has the freedom to take risks, and to accept responsibility when those risks turn sour. It would not be in any bank's best interest to make such loans.

Stop trying to re-define freedom into "non-freedom".

Banks misleading people which causes them to lose capital, without which your freedom goes down significantly, is inherently anti-market and hurts the country.

Banks misleading people? Nobody forced anyone to take out loans. What was "misleading"?

Banks, like the government, are supposed to take care us, Libertas. We can't do it ourselves. We need them.

[Alexander Hamilton]

An intellectual fallacy used to justify economic anarchy.

And what's wrong with economic anarchy?

Anarchy is the right for anyone to do whatever he wants. People pursue nothing but their self-interest, thus ruining the collective interest. Liberty isn't guaranteed, and strongest people oppress weakest people.
It's mostly the animals' social organizations.

Animals use collective organization, you ignorant hack. Ever heard of a pack of wolves? Any other animal? They all group together to protect themselves from outside threats.

Humans do not have this. We have families. Each family must group together to compete against other families to protect themselves. This means that I am required to take care of my family even if at the expense of another's. And guess what? The thought of it does not bother me one bit. We were all given the tools required to fight for our own survival, it's time people begin putting them to use.

[Alexander Hamilton]

An intellectual fallacy used to justify economic anarchy.

And what's wrong with economic anarchy?

Anarchy is the right for anyone to do whatever he wants. People pursue nothing but their self-interest, thus ruining the collective interest. Liberty isn't guaranteed, and strongest people oppress weakest people.
It's mostly the animals' social organizations.

Animals use collective organization, you ignorant hack. Ever heard of a pack of wolves? Any other animal? They all group together to protect themselves from outside threats.

Humans do not have this. We have families. Each family must group together to compete against other families to protect themselves. This means that I am required to take care of my family even if at the expense of another's. And guess what? The thought of it does not bother me one bit. We were all given the tools required to fight for our own survival, it's time people begin putting them to use.

Evolution also gave us a brain to realize how self-destructive "fight for survival" is for everyone.

No. Just no.

[Alexander Hamilton]

An intellectual fallacy used to justify economic anarchy.

And what's wrong with economic anarchy?

Anarchy is the right for anyone to do whatever he wants. People pursue nothing but their self-interest, thus ruining the collective interest. Liberty isn't guaranteed, and strongest people oppress weakest people.
It's mostly the animals' social organizations.

Individuals each acting for his or her own best interests together create the order necessary for the 'common good'.

This is an irrational thought supported by no fact. You're just a bigot.

LOL

[Alexander Hamilton]

What to get out of this thread: Vepres and Antonio are complete morons.

[Alexander Hamilton]

The worst don't work at all, Winston.