Oh please, more pearls of wisdom!

"My friends on the right don’t like to hear this, but the Constitution is not a clear document. Written 100 years ago, when America had thirteen states and very different problems, it rarely speaks directly to the questions we ask it."

-Ezra Klein

Yes folks, he said the constitution was written 100 years ago.... and that in the early 20th century the US apparently had only 13 states. I would not listen to his commentary regarding frosted flakes, let alone a concept such as capitalism.

Rule #14

Im quite sure he knows when the constitution was written. but feel free to use this misstatement (is it even that?) to keep from having to think about important, complex issues. Seems to work well for you people.

"you people"

You have not the slightest idea of what my political opinions are. But feel free to assume away, like an ass. Putting people in small boxes keeps you from having to think about "important, complex issues."

I actually have a super good idea of your political opinions. That's why i used the phrase "you people".

Yeah I know you THINK you do, but you most certainly have no idea.

Capitalism is very effective, it appears to be, when properly shaped, and constrained, and regulated, the single best system we've come up with to manage most human affairs or at least affairs that involve transactions between parties.

Capitalism, at its core, is based on the consumer choosing to allocate his or her capital (spending). You produce a good product, you will likely sell it and make a profit.

You cannot "manage" capitalism because when you try, you invariably take choices out of the consumers hand. Worse, you get the "managers" of capitalism to chose one producer over the other (subsidies). This is no longer capitalism as the private means of production are no longer private, and the consumer cannot act in their rational interests.

Demonizing capitalism and accepting a perverse economic system is unacceptable for a lot of us Americans.

He didn't say "managing" capitalism. He said it's the best system "to manage most human affairs or at least affairs that involve transactions between parties."

And most people (consumers) don't act in their rational interests, hense buying things produced in China or Mexico or purchased from Wal-Mart or McDonald's, which go directly against the support of their own local communities which need local workers and local owners in order to survive and reap the benefits of a capitalistic economy by keeping the money at home, not in corporate headquarters.

Regulating businesses to, as mentioned, not dump toxic waste while producing nuclear energy, is not fighting capitalism and removing the "private" label to the company, it's regulating these assholes from not being assholes. You wanna run a business? Don't fuck things up for everyone else. That's not anti-capitalist, it's about being a moral human being.

Perverse economic system? We're in a perverse economic system: capitalism run-amok! Have you been living underground? There's nothing wrong with capitalism if we're playing fairly, but people aren't fair and aren't moral. But why is it that capitalism is the end-all-be-all? Why can't we steal a play from the other playbooks to make capitalism a newer, better system that is more fair for all to enjoy? Times change and we need to adjust.

He didn't say "managing" capitalism. He said it's the best system "to manage most human affairs or at least affairs that involve transactions between parties."

Because government knows all?

And most people (consumers) don't act in their rational interests, hense buying things produced in China or Mexico or purchased from Wal-Mart or McDonald's, which go directly against the support of their own local communities which need local workers and local owners in order to survive and reap the benefits of a capitalistic economy by keeping the money at home, not in corporate headquarters.

This is the core of Randian thought. Whether it's right or wrong is up for debate, but people's reasoning is THEIR reasoning.

I'm assuming you're liberal. How can you preach the freedom to smoke weed, abort fetuses and keep the police state to a minimum, yet you are against economic freedom? I will never understand this amongst my liberal friends.

We should be free to make love with whomever we want, smoke what we want, and we should be able to spend our money however we want.

Of course their reasoning is their own reasoning. I'm saying their reasoning is flawed, but that's fine, people can do whatever they want and spend however they want. They can shop at Wal-Mart, but they will eventually see the consequences on that decision. In fact, we're seeing some of those consequences right now. But it's not all Wal-Mart's fault, they're getting what is available to them in this world of globalization. If you don't make choices that help your country/state/town, then don't get pissed when jobs disappear, homes are lost, and you can't afford to eat. And if after that they keep championing this perfect capitalism we have, then they're just fools.

My ultra conservative father said he would pay more for clothes made in the USA if they were made available to him, but we basically just have American Apparel and boutiques, which would just allow him to be chastised as an alleged "hipster". There aren't many purchasing choices that can be made for the common good anymore. Luckily the constant rise in energy prices should correct this and make it easier and more affordable for people to make these local choices as we can't import from overseas for cheap, or even get spinach from California without paying a huge price.

Also, I was talking about regulation mostly. I assume as a rational human being that you're against toxic waste dumping? Without regulation of some kind, nuclear plants could do that as they please if it helps their bottom line.

And why do you have to bring in all this rubbish of a police state and abortions?

Not much I disagree with you on with the first part.

With regulation though, dumping waste affects my air/water/land so yeah sure it should be illegal. If they dump it in my backyard, I would sue and win big. If they were to dump it in public land, the town or city would sue and win big. Thus, it's not economically smart to pollute.

But with such laws, are we really preventing anything? Or just prosecuting after the fact. The spirit of the law will never work: preventing the morally bankrupt from polluting. If there's a will, there's a way.

My last point was, how can you believe in protecting personal liberties but be against economic freedom?

What the heck is this economic freedom? Freedom to sell you egg made from manure? Freedom to sell you antibotic from made from sugar? Freedom to sell your family into the sex trade? Because if I can do it (because I'm great and wonderful and intellectually superior and well-connected), I should?

And the reason "it's not economically smart to pollute" is only because of laws passed by government. You could turn the laws around and say "you don't like pollution? go fight because might is right", ie, wage physical war. The winner of that war is obviously a great and superior individual and if Ayn Rand were still alive, the winner would have full access to her and she wouldn't even call it rape.

Fear mongering.

Companies hate recalls because a bad product that kills will put you out of business pretty fast.

"Selling your family into the sex trade" is about the worst, non-sensical example you could pick. Nice attempt, though.

What economic freedom are we talking about?

Example:

Calorie count laws in NYC.

Those signs didn't change themselves. Hiring people to change them is not cheap. Buying new hard placards is not cheap. (It costs me $150 to get a couple of posters for work stuff)

Now the cost is minimal in the grand scheme of things, but it's still a cost.

Government has forced that cost and it will likely be transferred via a price hike or service reduction. My freedom to engage in a transaction has been affected.

Well you still have the choice to make your own food instead of paying whatever couple cents may have been tacked onto the overall cost of making sure a sign tells you what goes into this food (though who is complaining about nutrition information on food packaging in grocery stores affecting your purchasing rights?).

And this whole thing came about because people were not making wise decisions on food choices, which ultimately lead to more health issues and even more money spent through addressing that.

What about if we educated people to make better life choices, to understand how their "economic freedom" really works and affects their daily life, to live morally, and not be ignorant, pig-headed "I do what I want" douchebags that ruin things for the rest of us? I think that would be money well spent.

To me, your reply sounds like, "You don't know how to make choices for yourself. You eat things that cost you a lot of money in health care costs. You don't understand basic life choices. Thus, we need to make them for you."

That anathema to freedom. You must let people make their own choices, right or wrong, in a free society.

And who's to say what's a right or wrong life choice, or a better life choice than the next alternative.

I fully don't understand extreme sports. I think it's a terrible life choice. If you don't kill yourself, you'll at least have zero cartilage by the age of 40. You know what? I love that you can make a career out of it and have a passion. Go for it.

I think eating whatever you want and having a stubbornness about exercise is a terrible life choice. But so what. It's your life. I'm not going to look to regulate exercise and what you choose to eat.

Nobody is making any choices for you. All that is happening is they are giving you the information needed to make an informed decision. The government isn't stopping anyone from buying a double quarter pounder, they're just going to make you feel guilty about your poor choice.

And spending valuable resources because someone is making poor decisions affects everyone. No matter how many Americans loooove their hyper-individualistic lifestyles, we live in a society that is, in many ways, co-dependent (and we could all benefit from that more than we are). Where does that quarter pounder come from? What are the environmental problems involved with its creation? What about the energy use in processing and shipping? The containers that it comes in? Buying that energy-intensive, wasteful non-food is causing more problems than just making the eater a fatty, which ultimately could use up medical resources when it wouldn't have been a problem if they just bought some damn vegetables and cooked at home.

A "market" is a place where trade is regulated.

All trade has always had some degree of regulation. At its core, we call this simple "trust" & "consequence".

I wish you wouldn't confuse your fantasy's for reality.