Five Ft. Three

“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” ― Milton Friedman

Because we live in a free country

on October 14, 2011

I truly do not understand the Wall Street protests. If you are someone who hates banks and bankers, then do not put your money in a bank, do not take a loan from them, it’s a free country, no one is making you deal with banks or bankers.

If you hate corporations, don’t do business with them. Nobody has a gun to your head and is telling you to buy an iPhone or eat at McDonalds. If you think the stock market sucks, don’t buy stocks. Don’t work for a corporation if you don’t like them, but leave these options available for people like me who want to be able to buy things from corporations if I desire, what’s it to you if I do? It’s a free country.

If you think that you are very rich and don’t pay enough in taxes, go ahead and send more. There is a way you can donate to the government. But don’t force me to want to do the same, I research where I am going to donate my money to make sure it is going to a cause I believe in, and will be used properly. If you think the government is the best way to help people, by all means, go ahead and send your charitable dollars there, it’s your money and it’s a free country, so you can if you want.

If you think Jesus wants us to live in communes and give our money to the commune and divide it equally, you are free to do that. Even if there are zoning laws where maybe you all can’t live in one big house together, you are still free to find others who share that same feeling and divide up all your money with them. I don’t think that is illegal, is it?

So, you see, in a country designed as our was, to let us be free to pursue our happiness, then anyone can just go ahead and do that; however, it was also designed where we don’t do so at the expense of others (otherwise known as infringing on others rights).

So then, why are people protesting in Wall Street?

Advertisements

25 responses to “Because we live in a free country

  1. Doug says:

    This is difficult to answer because of the very nature of the protests. They are open ended and un-organized on purpose.The ones who say that power resides with corporations and entities with money and that this power influences government for their own personal gain and seemingly corruption – because nobody was punished for the Lehman Brothers and other financial meltdowns which helped tank the economy – I can agree with. Like the old saying absolute power corrupts absolutely. And yet they not only did not get punished but some view that the bailout rewarded those very same people and behaviour.They are protesting this corruption.The others who feel that they have done all the right things like going to college, incurring debt (to be paid off by – – – , and getting a well paid job because of this education; and yet feel jilted ; I can sympathise with but do not think they are correct. Like you said, nobody said they had to do this. And nobody said that a good high paying job was guaranteed or that they are "entitled" to this. I'll stop rambling here for now…

  2. BB-Idaho says:

    "So then, why are people protesting in Wall Street?"IMO, no one is happy; there has been a significant redistribution of wealth (on a par with the era just before the great depression) from the lower 99% to the top 1%.History teaches that such economicsleads to decay..Rome, Spain, Britain.. So, if we blame the government we protest by tea party.If we blame greed, we protest WallStreet. If we like the system, wedo neither. So, we ARE free to pursue our happiness.

  3. soapster says:

    "I truly do not understand the Wall Street protests. If you are someone who hates banks and bankers, then do not put your money in a bank, do not take a loan from them, it's a free country, no one is making you deal with banks or bankers."The Federal Reserve system and the system of fractional reserve banking effects us all Beth whether people have their money in banks or not.

  4. soapster says:

    Everything you've expressed here is but a morsel of a much bigger issue Beth. The problem isn't the Corporations per se. The problem is with Corporations lobbying congress and writing regulations and the like which are intended to A) benefit said corporation(s) while stifling their competitors; and B) provide a safety net for said corporation(s) whereby they are "too big to fail" and get bailed out by taxpayers for their ill behavior.

  5. Dave Miller says:

    Beth, and probably Soap, can government impose any limits?For instance, if someone wants to open a business but not allow Mexicans or African Americans to do business there, should he be able to do that?

  6. Doug says:

    And, if they don't want to do business with a particular religious group too.

  7. soapster says:

    "For instance, if someone wants to open a business but not allow Mexicans or African Americans to do business there, should he be able to do that?"The majority of individuals who ask these types of questions are much more interested in demagoguery and hyperbole than they are in an actual discussion on the subject.If you are truly interested in a response to this question Dave I am more than happy to oblige you. If however your intention is to resort to demogoguery and hyperbole in the fashion that much of the punditry on television does then I am not interested.

  8. Z-man says:

    Soap is hardcore libertarian. We've already had similar discussions him and I and I'd venture the answer to your question is yes. I don't agree though.

  9. soapster says:

    Government holds a monopoly on certain services. Say you need a fishing license, driver's license, you've got to pay a fee, etc.You can only facilitate any one of a number of these services through government. Therefore government is/holds a monopoly on certains goods and services. Right? Right.That being the case, government cannot and shall not discriminate. Government is publicly owned and publicly used.Now, let us take your example of a business owner who may aspire to preclude Mexicans and or African Americans from engaging in business them.Your question is should the business owner be permitted to do that?Yes.Would it be my advise to them to do so?Not unless they seriously wanted to compromise their profits and subsequently their ability to grow their business.By what premise you might ask:Said business owner privately owns his/her business. It is used by the public but the public does not have any holdings with said business. They do not own it. Suppose this business is a pet food store. People might need pet food just as they might need a driver's license. The difference is that government facilitates all transactions with respect to the latter (that is to certain goods and/or services). In the former scenario (that being a pet food store) said owner is not a monopoly. They may be the only pet food store in a certain geographical location but they do not hold a monopoly on pet food or pet related products. The only way for them to gain a monopoly is to have total and complete control over a commodity (in this case the commodities which can be shaped and commanded to result in pet food and/or pet food products.If one believes in private property rights, then one certainly ought to believe in the principle of ownership and the use and disposal of said property.People will always be ignorant. People will always discriminate. No law has ever or will ever change that. Sure the politicos can draft legislation and the president can sign a law forcing (and that's really what it is) one individual to negotiate or contract or provide a good or service to another individual. And that's good for whom?I happen to believe that all human interactions should be voluntary. They shouldn't be forced, coerced, mandated, etc.People should do things because they want to do them, because in so doing there is a mutual benefit to all parties involved (otherwise they wouldn't do it).

  10. "So then, why are people protesting in Wall Street?"Beth this"peoters" is Orchestrated by the leftist movement led be a Flea-Bag named Lisa Fithian, she is the leader behind Occupy Wall Street.She was also behind Cindy Sheehan's protest at George Bush's Crawford Home. Check it out in Google.Communism is not dead, but alive and well and living right here in the USA.

  11. Z-man says:

    I disagree with soap above but it's a clear enough position. Went to Poughkeepsie to get a hard to find West African tea that has great health benefits, kinkeliba, and found it only in an African market there but by the standard above since he's a private business owner he should have been allowed to refuse to sell it to me if he so chose (he didn't though because he's a good business man). Thinking though what about drug companies who under this libertarian fantasy/dystopia? would stipulate that under no circumstances should African-Americans get anti-cancer or AIDS drugs? or a totally free private insurance company free of gov't influence and dictates doing the same? Now you could make the case that everything's interconnected these days, pharmaceutical companies, the government through Medicaid, Medicare and now Obamacare but let's say they weren't, that health care and gov't were totally separated and a total free market existed, wondering what would a hardcore libertarian's answer be to denying African-Americans much needed drugs? Let's further say only one company or insurance company did this and the rest were non-discrimatory so you didn't have the monopoly argument…oh God this is getting convoluted!

  12. soapster says:

    Your entire argument Z predicates itself on the assumption that the entities you mentioned control the entire supply of a commodity or resource.They don't. Thus, the supply of the commodity and/or resource can be acquired by other individuals/entities who may not share the same discriminatory practices as the other.What one doesn't provide another surely will (providing the production of it is accomodating to the market demand for it).And really Z, I have to call you out for your dig about this libertarian "fantasy/distopia". Perhaps you didn't intend anything by it but regardless I should point out by asking the obvious question:Is it any more a fantasy than your suggestion that at present we live in a completely bigoted,intolerant,ignorant, racist society where people everyone would discriminate against people based on their skin color or otherwise?Hardly.

  13. Z-man says:

    "Thus the supply of the commodity and/or resource can be acquired by other individuals/entities who may not share the same discriminatory practices as the other."But what if they all do, what then???

  14. soapster says:

    It's a zero sum game then. The whites will have their "whites only" shops and the blacks will have their "blacks only" shops and the Mexicans and the Jews and the Asians will all have theirs.Seriously Z…You should probably quit voting like real soon. Assuming the worst in the human race and all.

  15. Z-man says:

    But that's the history of discrimination soap. Remember Jackie Robinson? before Branch Rickey no blacks in the major leagues.

  16. soapster says:

    Oh yeah and remember the horse and buggy? The age of washing clothes by hand and hanging them to dry? Evolution my friend.

  17. Dave Miller says:

    Soap, I've been out of range for a few days… you should know better than to think I am asking a question to demagogue the issue… not my style…But let me stretch the question a little. Can a private foundation that receives public money or assistance, like a 501 C 3 designation, be able to choose who they sell their product to, or who can be involved in their org., based on color.Does the fact that they use public resources make a difference?

  18. soapster says:

    You didn't strike me as the sort to demagogue Dave and I respect you for that. I've always felt your inquiries were genuine and I hope they continue to be. I should think I do not need to point out the absurdity in a private foundation taking public funds. This we might term having one's cake and eating it too. Private means private. Once you step up to the trough you have to be prepared to eat whatever slop they serve up.

  19. Beth says:

    Very true, Doug, there should have been people punished for the fallout of the mortgage failures, but it isn't so much the bankers as the legislators who required them to make bad loans in the first place who are to blame.And BB, really, you don't believe in the 99%, do you?

  20. BB-Idaho says:

    Believe? I just look at data and draw conclusions. May not be the same as others, but works for me.

  21. Beth says:

    OWS does not represent the 99%.

  22. soapster says:

    There are special interests who are organizing and infiltrating the OWS just as their are the same elements doing the same thing with the Tea Party. I think it is fair to say that yes, those interest groups are not representative of either movement.That said, any group is comprised of individual members not all of whom agree on every item in unison. This is the case with both the OWS and Tea Party movements.Just as there are member of both movements who have it all wrong, so too are there members of both movements who have it all right.

  23. BB-Idaho says:

    Considering:"Nobody has a gun to your head and is telling you to buy an iPhone or eat at McDonalds. If you think the stock market sucks, don't buy stocks. Don't work for a corporation if you don't like them, but leave these options available for people like me who want to be able to buy things from corporations if I desire, what's it to you if I do? It's a free country." I don't have or need a cell phone, I think McDonalds is avalue, my stocks do fine and I have turned down jobs at corporations who didn't deserve me.You have the same rights…what isthe complaint again?

Thanks for joining in on the discussion!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s