noumenal, your entire reply employs the fallacy ad hominem. attack the viewpoint, not the holder of the vewpoint -- and when i say attack, i mean through rational debate rather than outright refutal in as harsh and vitriolic terms as you can muster. you're entitled to your opinion just as much as i am to mine, and you're entitled to argue for your opinion -- but you're not entitled to take out your apparent antipathy for my opinion on me.

Hey, you're right. I'm sorry qprogeny - I know sincerity doesn't come across on the internet, but, really I was being a dick.

You're right, it's only politics and I didn't mean to generalize, but I just flipped out. The attacks weren't addressed directly at you, because I don't know you at all, personally. I was attacking some of the views you expressed and using your internet persona as a punching bag. I realized my error at the end and that's why I typed the "sorry for being an asshole", which probably just came off as annoying.

I think there was some rational argument mixed in there a little bit, though. But, I'll understand if you don't want to discuss with me. I must've made a pretty terrible impression on you, but I won't edit my post. I need to have better manners and think before I post next time.

But I didn't really expect you to take it personally. I was sort of hoping you would have some biting comebacks. Again, I'm sorry about being mean.

no problem. i know i have political/religious opinions that might be deemed slightly . . . well, psychotic to some. (and yeah, i always miss out on the "biting comebacks" -- i tend not to be able to tell when things are to be taken in jest, or when a piss-fest will be taken all in good fun -- so i figure it's safer to assume people mean to be taken seriously than to give a tongue-in-cheek reply that would be deemed insulting if the comments really were serious.)

but yeah, i'm always up for argument (as opposed to mere altercation). give it your best shot.

Honestly, I was just venting and sort of deserve to be smacked down or put in my place.

Maybe this thread should be abandoned, but we should start a thread more generally about politics and see if we can get some civil debate going on...

I've got to go right now though.

what can be attained from reading this thread:

1. lailav is a half-wit.

2. qprogeny would let the whole world sink into the sea if he thought he could make a quick & non-illegal buck from it. and this probably means he is a half-wit too.

why do i hate wal-mart...?
rednecks and greeters.

I feel bad for old people that have to stand and say hello for probably just above minimum wage.


Also, their sales tactics bug me. They practically say that you save so much money you make money.

What I've learned:

Toilet and Bowels has everything figured out.

no, there are moral standards to the acquisition of wealth. just not yours. and i am not a half-wit.

hah hah hah this was hilarious

everything else you've said in this thread contradicts this. the message you've been conveying is that it's fine to do anything as long as it won't get in serious trouble with the authorities

What I've learned, HaydenAsche likes to suck up to people. & diss the people that are not liked by the people he sucks up to. (ha ha, I can do it to)

"Well, that's it then. I'm hanging myself, & Wal-Marts paying for it."
-George Carlin

no, i mean the legitimate, legal and moral acquisition of wealth. note that i said that CREATING something of value is to be extolled. bilking investors and screwing over employees is not creating something of value, it is taking away something of value. the only difference here is how you define "screwing over" -- you simply define it more liberally than myself.

I'm not sucking up. Just recognizing another person's own.

Whatever, kiss ass.

Fuck Yo Couch, Nigga.

It hurts when you're mean to me.

You know I was just kidding. Don't you? I Hope so.

I'm sorry, my love.

I hope you will accept this as my apology.

www.meatspin.com

...
 

Yet, what is proper regulation, as regulation often tends to create more problems? Who gets to decide what the proper amount of regulation should be?
The fact of the matter is that one person (or group) that has the power to regulate does not have the ability to comprehend all of the consequences of such regulation. Often said regulations can actually harm the intended beneficiaries in unforseen ways (A minimum wage increases unemployment among teenagers, one of the demographics it is supposed to help. The Endangered Species Act has actually given incentive for people who find an endangered species on their land to kill it before anyone finds out rather than face the financial burdens that come with government regulation. Zoning regulations make it so that only certain types of buildings may be permitted in certain areas, leading to what some people call "sprawl". I'll be happy to elaborate.)
Since those that are in charge of regulation are inherently self-interested (just as everyone else in the world) they will make decisions that serve themselves as well as the special interests that fund them. Regulation is corruption in the purest form. It is regulation that creates barriers to entry in industries, which reduces the competition and ultimately hurts consumers (which is everyone).
The argument that the market fails and thus intervention and regulation is required is a very tempting argument. However, further investigation often shows that the so-called failures of the market occured, not because the market was free, but because some aspect of it had been previously regulated.

I don't want to get in to personal attacks, but I do think that you need to elaborate...

And yet, as I am one of those "crazy" libertarians, I probably would not end all government regulation if I had the power to do so, but I would indeed curtail it.

Oh and the reason I dislike Wal-Mart is because they are dirty and the incredibly long lines, even at 3 in the morning. I would like to be able to afford not to shop there.

If you can essentially achieve unlimited superiority in a free enterprise system, why is that less troubling than the government doing the same? At a certain point if Wal-Mart ends up controlling all the means of production...they're not just beating out the competition in their own market, they're manipulating it in every other. Rubbermaid wasn't a Wal-Mart competitor, they were a Wal-Mart supplier... In essence, Wal-Mart begins deciding what will be produced. In a certain sense, the people are still getting what they want because Wal-Mart will go where the profit is...

But if people put the highest value on low cost, it means Wal-Mart can do pretty much whatever it wants towards that end. I realize that in some free enterprise circles sweatshops are considered a good thing, but most people don't feel that way and yet support them anyway. They fulfill their immediate needs or even wants first. It's true that people support what is of value to them, but generally only what is most immediately and obviously of value. Wal-Mart offers low prices, that's obvious to everyone. It's also obvious that you can put a direct value on Wal-Mart's low prices. But to believe this inherently means Wal-Mart is good for people, you almost have to start out with the belief that free enterprise is a divine, flawless system...that it will all work out fine in the end, and that we will always act in our best interest.

If Wal-Mart is the ideal of capitalism, then let me be the first to say in this thread that I am fundamentally opposed to capitalism. However, I've also heard the argument that Wal-Mart is a mutant of a comprised free enterprise system (the United States), and could not have existed unchecked in a pure free enterprise system. I'm not sure if I buy that, but any system that regards Wal-Mart as a standard-bearer is fairly horrifying. I'm awed by Wal-Mart's accomplishments, but I don't support them, or any institution with that much power, let alone one that has shown it's capability to abuse it.