BoatShoes;1296484 wrote:1. There is too much to respond to in here now but I will go with a few things.
There are people who are not talented and who do not add much value and it is my inclination, given the limits of epistemology that it might be a little ok to sacrifice a little sink or swim and still have an economy that grows rapidly with those who create little value nonetheless contributing to economic growth with government rectifying coordination failure so that they can live with dignity.
Honestly, I can't think of anyone I know who deserves dignity and doesn't have the ability to contribute value. Hell, I even know some who DON'T deserve much dignity, but who are capable of adding value.
Sacrificing a little sink-or-swim by giving of ourselves, voluntarily, and not at the behest of a governing body is precisely what I think is the right thing to do. In fact, I think it is my obligation as a human being, but I do not think it is, or should be, my obligation as a citizen.
Many of us know people who deserve such dignity, but are temporarily incapable of providing for their and their family's expenses. We are the "friends and family" of such a person, and it is our duty as humans, I think, to ensure that people are taken care of.
Any Christian should certainly believe this, and while I know you aren't one (unless something has changed recently), I find many portions of the Bible, both Old and New Testament, where God is crystal clear that it is the obligation of the people to defend, protect, and not to abuse or harm the poor.
Jeremiah 22:15-16
"Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar? Did not your father have food and drink? He did what was right and just, so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?” declares the Lord.
Rest assured, I do think that there should be such help. I merely think that it should be left to the people giving and administering it, as each individual has different needs and pulls on his finances. I don't think it at all adequate for a governing body, largely detached from the day-to-day of its constituency, to exercise that judgment, particularly using sweeping rules like they currently do.
BoatShoes;1296484 wrote:2. Government intervention can actually cause markets to approach a true free market as opposed to a laissez-faire market which is not equivalent to a free market...Antitrust laws are a good example of this.
Technically, anti-trust laws force businesses to only grow to a certain extent. I tend to disagree with them in principle, because capping someone's success is hardly indicative of something I'd consider free.
BoatShoes;1296484 wrote:3. The S & P is doing relatively well. Sorry about the small business owners you know.
When they group "business" in general, it always seems to include the large mega-businesses of the country, which will certainly skew results, particularly if they seem to be working with governing bodies (Goldman-Sachs, anyone?). The problem is, the more regulation you put on larger businesses, the more seems to end up distributed to the smaller ones.
Think of it like a race. Regulation can be represented by a hurdle. The more hurdles in the race, the slower a person's time will be. Now, if you've got two racers who are trying to hit a certain time, the effect of those hurdles will be felt by all. Some might be fast enough to still make the targeted time, but others might not be. Even if the average race time with the hurdles is still below the target, that doesn't mean some don't make the cut, though they would have if the race track had not been manipulated to keep them from making the time as well.
