Free market principles at work [Archive] - Debate Policy

Kathianne

11-10-2012, 01:03 AM

About Sandy

You see, Free Market principles really do work.

This is in the news.

Read and I have a question.

****************
Compassionate strangers banded together this week to raise more than $56,000 to help a 19-year-old college student whose parents were killed in Superstorm Sandy (http://yhoo.it/RJGbcY%20), leaving her to raise her three younger siblings (http://yhoo.it/Tzj5V2%20) on her own.
**************

When is the last time you read where the Feds stepped in to help like this?

Thousands are begging for help from the government.

But the free market did this for this surviving family.

I'm glad to see this. Now on the honesty front, the minors will all get social security from the parents, as they should. They will need though, all the help they can get. What a brave young woman. Smart too, obviously.

Kathianne

11-10-2012, 01:10 AM

I knew the story you were referring to, but wasn't finding it in your two links. Here's one for others to join in:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/08/15030092-after-hurricane-sandy-kills-parents-rutgers-student-must-raise-3-siblings?lite

After Hurricane Sandy kills parents, Rutgers student must raise 3 siblings
By Jim Gold, NBC News

..."I now have two goals: caring for and being guardian of my three younger siblings and keeping my family in the house we grew up in."
After Everett posted her story on Wishuponahero.com (https://www.wishuponahero.com/), more than $56,000 in donations poured in...

Kathianne

11-10-2012, 01:13 AM

Reading into this, it seems they will be fine financially, from the parents' estate. That however takes time. The generosity of others makes that a non-worry, which seems to me a very good thing for this young woman and her 3 traumatized siblings.

fj1200

11-10-2012, 03:06 AM

But the free market did this for this surviving family.

Good story but not exactly the free market at work.

Noir

11-10-2012, 07:54 AM

Not so much the free market as Altruism, which (on a philosophical political level) is more of a leftie concept.

Kathianne

11-10-2012, 08:42 AM

Not so much the free market as Altruism, which (on a philosophical political level) is more of a leftie concept.

I see very little altruism from anyone calling themselves progressive. Wanting to take from others to give to those one finds more 'worthy' is not altruism. Altruism would say that one would do for others and give all one has for others. It doesn't involve others stuff.

Noir

11-10-2012, 10:12 AM

I see very little altruism from anyone calling themselves progressive. Wanting to take from others to give to those one finds more 'worthy' is not altruism. Altruism would say that one would do for others and give all one has for others. It doesn't involve others stuff.

Socialism is an altruistic philosophy.

Kathianne

11-10-2012, 10:20 AM

Socialism is an altruistic philosophy.

Philosophy is not capable of being altruistic or greedy or happy or sad. Only humans can be. "Wanting Utopia" isn't creating Utopia. As far as a philosophy goes towards representing the idea of equality or a bit for everyone, communism beats all. Then again, philosophy is only as good as it is practical.

Capitalism may be the meanest based upon philosophical points, but practically has done more to raise folks out of poverty and into wealth than any other that I'm aware of.

fj1200

11-10-2012, 03:34 PM

^ Couldn't have said it better myself... if I could have said it at all. :)

Robert A Whit

11-10-2012, 06:48 PM

Good story but not exactly the free market at work.

Explain how it is a government plan or program at work?

Kathianne

11-10-2012, 07:44 PM

Explain how it is a government plan or program at work? There is philanthropy and charity that haven't a thing to do with government or free markets. I'm pretty sure that is what was meant.

Robert A Whit

11-10-2012, 08:14 PM

Philosophy is not capable of being altruistic or greedy or happy or sad. Only humans can be. "Wanting Utopia" isn't creating Utopia. As far as a philosophy goes towards representing the idea of equality or a bit for everyone, communism beats all. Then again, philosophy is only as good as it is practical.

Capitalism may be the meanest based upon philosophical points, but practically has done more to raise folks out of poverty and into wealth than any other that I'm aware of.

Well said. Carefully thought out.

I want to make one point.

Capitalism is not mean nor evil nor any other perjorative.

Why don't we define capitalism then see if it is bad.

We don't often use barter and thus far I have NEVER read an unkind post over barter.

Capitalism merely makes barter easier.

Rather than you swap a fish for my corn, since you may not want fish nor me want your corn, a medium of exchange is created.

We call this money or capital.

Should you need more seed for a larger corn crop. you approach a person with capital to turn over to you. The person with money agrees to lend you what you need at a rate of profit to said person that both agree to remit with principle.

When you put cash into a bank, you should not see the bank as evil for paying you interest. Nor should the bank be called evil for lending capital.

Capital is simply the way we fulfil our needs and wants and by our sweat, it turns out to make barter much easier.

I don't see this in strict terms of philosophy yet it has elements of philosophy attached.

Kathianne

11-10-2012, 08:21 PM

Well said. Carefully thought out.

I want to make one point.

Capitalism is not mean nor evil nor any other perjorative.

Why don't we define capitalism then see if it is bad.

We don't often use barter and thus far I have NEVER read an unkind post over barter.

Capitalism merely makes barter easier.

Rather than you swap a fish for my corn, since you may not want fish nor me want your corn, a medium of exchange is created.

We call this money or capital.

Should you need more seed for a larger corn crop. you approach a person with capital to turn over to you. The person with money agrees to lend you what you need at a rate of profit to said person that both agree to remit with principle.

When you put cash into a bank, you should not see the bank as evil for paying you interest. Nor should the bank be called evil for lending capital.

Capital is simply the way we fulfil our needs and wants and by our sweat, it turns out to make barter much easier.

I don't see this in strict terms of philosophy yet it has elements of philosophy attached.

I doubt there's a better spokesman than Machiavelli for capitalism, than perchance Locke. In either case, capitalism as a philosophy is harsh, though the benefits enormous.

Read, The Prince.

http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince00.htm

and/or John Locke on The Rise of Capitalism

http://hope.dukejournals.org/content/18/2/291.citation

Robert A Whit

11-10-2012, 08:22 PM

Kathianne

11-10-2012, 08:25 PM

Both of those are part of the free market.

Want to know why?

Because one exchanges money for something in return. Such as good will, self satisfaction, fulfilment of purpose, etc.

Business sells good will too.

I disagree. Markets are business. Business is not human, doesn't feel, empathize, or have any relation to humans. It exists for profit and to provide profit for investors, whether one or many.

That doesn't exclude that individuals within said business, may choose to extend themselves and their portions or parts thereof to the benefits of others.

Robert A Whit

11-10-2012, 08:27 PM

I doubt there's a better spokesman than Machiavelli for capitalism, than perchance Locke. In either case, capitalism as a philosophy is harsh, though the benefits enormous.

Read, The Prince.

http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince00.htm

and/or John Locke on The Rise of Capitalism

http://hope.dukejournals.org/content/18/2/291.citation

When they lived, I believe that it is entirely possible they were correct for their era.

However, capitalism has advanced far too much to use those concepts as being how it is today. Course crooks pervert any system.

Robert A Whit

11-10-2012, 08:32 PM

I disagree. Markets are business. Business is not human, doesn't feel, empathize, or have any relation to humans. It exists for profit and to provide profit for investors, whether one or many.

That doesn't exclude that individuals within said business, may choose to extend themselves and their portions or parts thereof to the benefits of others.

The free market as I use it is an act by humans who are said to be conducting business. Business does not exist but with humans conducting acts. Take a food bank. They give away free food. But business gives them the food. Thus on that business makes no profit.

Business supplies needs and on that part is not a philosophy though owners of business may indeed carry out acts due to their philosophy.

Robert A Whit

11-10-2012, 08:43 PM

Not so much the free market as Altruism, which (on a philosophical political level) is more of a leftie concept.

Some here are confused as to what a free market mean.

Take the submission of cash to the survivors, the remaining family.

Those donating did not find the cash they donated in some sewer or on the roof. They committed to trading effort for cash. The cash was donated. But absent the ability to earn, no money would have been submitted.

No, it is not left winger to be altruistic. Even when they use government as the vehicle for charity, as FEMA does, that is removed by law from the true earners. The true earners did not volunteer said money be sent to FEMA nor in fact those on welfare or food stamps.

That was an involuntary act.

It is the case of stealing property not theirs and delivering it to some person who they feel is more deserving, aka class warfare.

fj1200

11-10-2012, 09:42 PM

Explain how it is a government plan or program at work?

The absence of government is not automatically the free-market. The example of the OP could happen regardless of capitalism or a free-marketeers involvement.

Some here are confused as to what a free market mean.

Take the submission of cash to the survivors, the remaining family.

Those donating did not find the cash they donated in some sewer or on the roof. They committed to trading effort for cash. The cash was donated. But absent the ability to earn, no money would have been submitted.

No, it is not left winger to be altruistic. Even when they use government as the vehicle for charity, as FEMA does, that is removed by law from the true earners. The true earners did not volunteer said money be sent to FEMA nor in fact those on welfare or food stamps.

That was an involuntary act.

It is the case of stealing property not theirs and delivering it to some person who they feel is more deserving, aka class warfare.

Possibly, but not who you think. ;)

In the example there is no market of supply and demand and there is no exchange of goods or services. It is merely charity given by generous individuals. That they may have earned those dollars via free-market capitalism does not mean that any downstream activities are inherently part of the free-market.

Robert A Whit

11-10-2012, 11:17 PM

The absence of government is not automatically the free-market. The example of the OP could happen regardless of capitalism or a free-marketeers involvement.

Possibly, but not who you think. ;)

In the example there is no market of supply and demand and there is no exchange of goods or services. It is merely charity given by generous individuals. That they may have earned those dollars via free-market capitalism does not mean that any downstream activities are inherently part of the free-market.

The point was apparently not clear.
My point is that all funds used to help were the product of work. That work is free market.
My most important point is that if you get such help from the government, you stand in line, you fill out reams of paperwork. An angry survivor in NJ reports that to get help, he has to follow these steps.
1. Wait in line
2. Get forms
3. Fill forms out. He reported that said forms are apx 30 pages.
4. Turn forms in.
5. Wait for the Gov to evaluate said forms. Around 2 weeks he was told.
6. Finally if the Feds approve, it starts the process where he can be healed.
When he reported this, he said he had already been waiting for a couple of weeks and thus far nobody contacted him to tell him if he is qualified.

Contrast that to the help given to that girl and her siblings. In a few days once the public learned of her problem, they had almost $60,000 in her hands. She did not have to fill out forms.

Some of you enjoy discussing food stamps.

The process is virtually the same as for those survivors.
Would it shock you that a person living in poverty with no remaining cash gets $16 per month in food stamps? Can you live on $4 per week for food?

The private sector on the other hand gives said person about $100 per month in food and only had a one page form filled out, mostly to identify the person to be put into their computer system.

fj1200

11-11-2012, 12:28 AM

The point was apparently not clear.
My point is that all funds used to help were the product of work. That work is free market.

Your point was not clear in the OP but you have expanded on it; You have still carried the reasoning too far IMO. Anything provided is the result of work at some point, if they had received $60k in canned food from some Amish would it still be the "free market at work"? As Kathianne pointed out capitalism and free markets are better at generating excesses that can be used for charity, etc. but there is no profit in charity, as you pointed out. Even inefficient government assistance is the product of work.

Robert A Whit

11-11-2012, 09:29 PM

Your point was not clear in the OP but you have expanded on it; You have still carried the reasoning too far IMO. Anything provided is the result of work at some point, if they had received $60k in canned food from some Amish would it still be the "free market at work"? As Kathianne pointed out capitalism and free markets are better at generating excesses that can be used for charity, etc. but there is no profit in charity, as you pointed out. Even inefficient government assistance is the product of work.

First has there ever been a short post where all points made were agreed to by all others?

I doubt that.

Were they always understood by all others?

I doubt that.

You agree with me that the aid is the product of work.

I never said that your quote about Kathianne is not agreed to by me.

While you still missed my points.

As we speak, were Bush the president, the main stream media would still be screaming that the potus did nothing for these victims of Sandy. Because they are part of the democrats team, they praise Obama.
But for what?

Reams of paperwork?

Weeks upon weeks of non action and delay?

All we need from Obama is another "atta boy brownie type remark. Notice he simply does not speak of it. He however did just ahead of his election.

Funny how that works.

fj1200

11-12-2012, 08:25 AM

First has there ever been a short post where all points made were agreed to by all others?

...

You agree with me that the aid is the product of work.

I disagreed with your OP and I said your expanded reasoning was carried too far. And yes, aid is the product of work, as all aid is whether done with free-market incentive or socialist confiscation. I think we all agree that the former is far superior to the latter.

mundame

11-12-2012, 10:14 AM

Not everything is about free-market capitalism.

Charity isn't; philanthropy isn't, such as wealthy individuals establishing large art museums. Building large homes isn't -- that's conspicuous consumption, though it does provide construction jobs. Meritocracy versus affirmative action in getting places at universities isn't about capitalism. Raising children isn't about capitalism.

Lots of things in our society have nothing to do with free-market business or with socialism or corporatism or merchantilism -- they just aren't about business, they are about something else.

revelarts

11-12-2012, 10:25 AM

Not so much the free market as Altruism, which (on a philosophical political level) is more of a leftie concept.
Well funny the old right wing religion has a bit of Altruism in it I think from waaaay back, do unto others... good Samaritans... love your neighbors.. etc etc..

So it's kinda hard to claim it as primarily a "leftie" concept. But the left likes to discount Christian or religiously motivated charitable acts, I guess it flies in the face of the idea that religion is just bad bad bad , i don't know.

Socialism is an altruistic philosophy.
In it's purest form, where everyone in in the can voluntarily, sure.
But it's never been practiced politically outside of small groups.
Socialism ends up being, steal from the rich give to the poor or whoever the gov't says . Works great if you get a job as a one of the thieves/Gov't.

mundame

11-12-2012, 10:29 AM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Noirhttp://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=591646#post591646)Socialism is an altruistic philosophy."

Well.............is it altruism if it is required?

Socialism requires everyone able to work hard to give everything they make to the people who aren't able, or want to take drugs instead of working.

Able people don't want to do this, of course, so the socialist government forces it.

I don't see how you can call that altruistic at all, since that word implies voluntary giving that a person chooses.

Robert A Whit

11-12-2012, 08:51 PM

I doubt there's a better spokesman than Machiavelli for capitalism, than perchance Locke. In either case, capitalism as a philosophy is harsh, though the benefits enormous.

Read, The Prince.

http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince00.htm

and/or John Locke on The Rise of Capitalism

http://hope.dukejournals.org/content/18/2/291.citation

Before I submit my list of best explainers, please clarify.

Do you intend to go by Karl Marx definition or the one we use in the USA?

For the USA, I highly recommend the following

1. Milton Friedman, nobel prize winner
2. Frederich Hayek. also nobel prize winner
3. Thomas DiLorenzo.
https://mises.org/store/Product2.aspx?ProductId=260

Kathianne

11-12-2012, 08:59 PM

Before I submit my list of best explainers, please clarify.

Do you intend to go by Karl Marx definition or the one we use in the USA?

For the USA, I highly recommend the following

1. Milton Friedman, nobel prize winner
2. Frederich Hayek. also nobel prize winner
3. Thomas DiLorenzo.
https://mises.org/store/Product2.aspx?ProductId=260

Ok, go for any and how they conflate charity with free markets, other than the availability of wealth.

Robert A Whit

11-12-2012, 09:13 PM

Ok, go for any and how they conflate charity with free markets, other than the availability of wealth.

You appear to be very troubled by the term free market. I believe the term charity also troubles you.

Kathianne

11-13-2012, 05:33 AM

You appear to be very troubled by the term free market. I believe the term charity also troubles you.

I have trouble with the word 'confusion' should someone use it wrong, then try to convince me that it means what they decide it should mean.

fj1200

11-13-2012, 08:52 AM

You appear to be very troubled by the term free market. I believe the term charity also troubles you.

She doesn't appear to be troubled at all.

Charity (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charity):

1 : benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity2
a : generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also : aid given to those in need
b : an institution engaged in relief of the poor
c : public provision for the relief of the needy

3
a : a gift for public benevolent purposes
b : an institution (as a hospital) founded by such a gift

4

: lenient judgment of others

Free Market (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free+market?show=0&t=1352814532):

: an economic market operating by free competition

There's not much crossover there.

mundame

11-13-2012, 08:58 AM

Kathianne

11-13-2012, 04:20 PM

She doesn't appear to be troubled at all.

Charity (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charity):

Free Market (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free+market?show=0&t=1352814532):

There's not much crossover there.

Indeed. He's looking to change the definitions to fit his argument. Doesn't work like that, well perhaps with Bill Clinton.

Robert A Whit

11-13-2012, 04:29 PM

I have trouble with the word 'confusion' should someone use it wrong, then try to convince me that it means what they decide it should mean.

You are confused because you LIMIT "Free Market" to a very narrow meaning.

Clearly those collecting the money and turning it over used free market principles. To Wit:

A voluntary exchange between two or more parties so that each party gains with no coercion involved.

When I was a student of Business Law, we learned that even a peck on the cheek an expression of love or indeed even like, can suffice as an element in a contract.

So where is the contract?

When parties pledge funds such as in this case, party A seeks most generally a verbal contract to obtain funds from Parties A, B, C, etc, promising in return to remit said funds to the harmed party or the victim of Sandy.

I doubt a person not fluent in contract law understands.

Robert A Whit

11-13-2012, 04:34 PM

She doesn't appear to be troubled at all.

Charity (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charity):

Free Market (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free+market?show=0&t=1352814532):

There's not much crossover there.

My aim was to show taht Government is lousy as to helping people to this extent.

When have you heard of Government turning over almost $60,000 to victims in such a short time?

Some of you are extremely hung up on only one thing. Free market.

I believe i explained that the Free market is not as narrow as you defined it. It includes things such as the soliciting of funds with the aim and promise to turn said funds over to parties named in the promise.

I am not clear why some are so hung up on two terms. Free market and Charity when the story involves victims of said storm who got funds extremely fast using free market principles.

Robert A Whit

11-13-2012, 04:41 PM

Charity is choosing to give stuff away.

Socialism is being forced by government to give stuff away.

Robbery is being forced by robbers to give stuff away.

There is no difference between robbery and socialism, or the progressive tax system, which is robbery from the rich more than from the poor.

Charity, however, is just not in the equation at all. It's something else. Like a tree. That's something else, too.

Charity often operates using free market principles.

Wherein party A broadcasts a problem they want other parties to step in and help solve.

"Sandy victims lost parents and I want YOU to send cash to help the survivors"

A mechanism is agreed upon where said funds are sent by the givers.

While it is freely given, the free market also uses freely given funds to obtain something.

Now, under contract law, a contract such as the above (solicit funds to deliver to victims), has 5 elements to make it valid.

Do you know that you can create a contract where all you get in return is good feelings?

I do not understand the hang up on the term free market.

While it is charity, clearly in my opinion we use free market principles during the resolution of the problem.

Maybe it is because I studied in college for a full year contract law and it included what a contract has to be.

Kathianne

11-13-2012, 04:44 PM

Pay Pal may is a free market invention. It is a tool, used in the same vein that a telethon is in the charity drive for money for orphans.

That doesn't preclude that Pay Pal or the telephone can't be used in free market enterprises.

The reasons for using said tool differ.

You are the one hung up on terms.

Robert A Whit

11-13-2012, 05:10 PM

Indeed. He's looking to change the definitions to fit his argument. Doesn't work like that, well perhaps with Bill Clinton.

Actually why don't you visit post number 1 to see what MY actual argument was prior to some of you deciding to hijack the argument and divert to your selected topic.

To wit:
My argument is that to help victims, don't wait for the Feds. The public whom are party to a free market can accomplish it much faster with less pain for the victims.

Robert A Whit

11-13-2012, 05:14 PM

Kathianne

11-13-2012, 05:17 PM

Actually why don't you visit post number 1 to see what MY actual argument was prior to some of you deciding to hijack the argument and divert to your selected topic.

To wit:
My argument is that to help victims, don't wait for the Feds. The public whom are party to a free market can accomplish it much faster with less pain for the victims.

No one would be arguing that. Seems pretty clear that we are all in favor of giving to those in need, whether through Pay Pal, giving money to someone we know that needs it directly, giving to established charities. I don't know of anyone on here, well perhaps Noir, that thinks government helps those in need better, more cost effectively, and all around more efficiently than any charity. Indeed, I think we'd agree that the direct approach is not only better for efficiency, but also giving hope and pride to the recipient.

However, if I give someone $10 or $100 or $1000 or $1000000 as charity through a direct donation to the person or through Pay Pal or through Catholic Charities, that is not 'free markets.' Oh the money may have been 'earned', but then so again are what we pay in taxes.

It was you that confused the discussion over definitions and terms.

Robert A Whit

11-13-2012, 05:20 PM

I disagreed with your OP and I said your expanded reasoning was carried too far. And yes, aid is the product of work, as all aid is whether done with free-market incentive or socialist confiscation. I think we all agree that the former is far superior to the latter.

I do not mind you not agreeing. Not one bit. It shows that you are in need of more information.

It also shows that my OP theme was not your argument. For a rather odd reason or purpose on your part, you chose to ignore the theme and rather argue by biting ankles.

You act as if my central argument was free market. Actually it was a knock on the government and an applause for those who helped the victims. And imagine this, with no lines to wait in nor forms to fill out.

Kathianne

11-13-2012, 05:28 PM

I do not mind you not agreeing. Not one bit. It shows that you are in need of more information.

It also shows that my OP theme was not your argument. For a rather odd reason or purpose on your part, you chose to ignore the theme and rather argue by biting ankles.

You act as if my central argument was free market. Actually it was a knock on the government and an applause for those who helped the victims. And imagine this, with no lines to wait in nor forms to fill out.

Actually your 'appeal to authority' regarding a contract law class, illustrates how desperate you were to twist definition. Didn't work.

Do you wish to discuss the superiority over private giving vs. gov't handouts or not? Not sure what more could be said though.

Robert A Whit

11-13-2012, 05:30 PM

No one would be arguing that. Seems pretty clear that we are all in favor of giving to those in need, whether through Pay Pal, giving money to someone we know that needs it directly, giving to established charities. I don't know of anyone on here, well perhaps Noir, that thinks government helps those in need better, more cost effectively, and all around more efficiently than any charity. Indeed, I think we'd agree that the direct approach is not only better for efficiency, but also giving hope and pride to the recipient.

However, if I give someone $10 or $100 or $1000 or $1000000 as charity through a direct donation to the person or through Pay Pal or through Catholic Charities, that is not 'free markets.' Oh the money may have been 'earned', but then so again are what we pay in taxes.

It was you that confused the discussion over definitions and terms.

Go back to posts that followed my OP and you will see that it was not me starting the rant over free market.

Othat than your final sentence, I agree with the remainder of what you stated.

In your argument, one does not know how you learned of the victims plight since you do not say. All you state is you gave sums of cash. The free market assumes you two parties have needs. Party V (victim) in this case needs cash to meet needs. Party G (giver) also has needs. Though V does not send you something back, clearly G has a motive. And fulfils that motive by giving.

When you give to charity, do you get anything in return?

If you say no, why do you do it?

As to when I give to charity, I get good feelings. Even when you buy a Bar, you will often pay the seller for what is called good will. Good will has a measurable cash value.

Only if you studied business law will you perhaps get it. Otherwise you may need more education.

Robert A Whit

11-13-2012, 05:37 PM

Actually your 'appeal to authority' regarding a contract law class, illustrates how desperate you were to twist definition. Didn't work.

Do you wish to discuss the superiority over private giving vs. gov't handouts or not? Not sure what more could be said though.

Actually I am in no way desperate nor did I twist anything.

Tell me, what was my OP actually about?

Surely you don't intend to discuss that part. I had discussed the superiority you mention.

Two of you got your nose bent out of shape merely due to my mention of free market. Suddenly the topic was forgotten until I tried to bring it back to the real topic.

Tell me though.

Have you formally studied contract law as is contained in the course called business law?

Robert A Whit

11-13-2012, 05:39 PM

Charity is choosing to give stuff away.

Socialism is being forced by government to give stuff away.

Robbery is being forced by robbers to give stuff away.

There is no difference between robbery and socialism, or the progressive tax system, which is robbery from the rich more than from the poor.

Charity, however, is just not in the equation at all. It's something else. Like a tree. That's something else, too.

Well said.

I see taxing the rich as like the sheep with the desired meat in a meeting with a pack of wolves.

The wolves are determined to have meat so have a vote and invite the sheep to cast his vote.

Natually the pack wins.

And when the sheep protests, the wolves explain it that the sheep has to give his FAIR SHARE of meat.

I get a kick when those not paying much in taxes tell the rich they must pay a FAIR share. They don't mean FAIR, they mean they are the pack of wolves and plan to eat the sheep.

Kathianne

11-13-2012, 06:37 PM

Actually I am in no way desperate nor did I twist anything.

Tell me, what was my OP actually about?

Surely you don't intend to discuss that part. I had discussed the superiority you mention.

Two of you got your nose bent out of shape merely due to my mention of free market. Suddenly the topic was forgotten until I tried to bring it back to the real topic.

Tell me though.

Have you formally studied contract law as is contained in the course called business law?

Actually, yes. I've also taught the Constitution on both HS and college levels. However, one doesn't need either to know the definition of free markets.

mundame

11-13-2012, 06:51 PM

And when the sheep protests, the wolves explain it that the sheep has to give his FAIR SHARE of meat.

I get a kick when those not paying much in taxes tell the rich they must pay a FAIR share. They don't mean FAIR, they mean they are the pack of wolves and plan to eat the sheep.

I love this way you expressed it. It reminds me I was just knocked over a few weeks ago by reading a thing from Nietzsche, in which he says that morality is the rules made up by the lambs against the eagles.

The lambs legislate that it is sinful and evil and immoral to swoop out of the sky and carry off lambs to be torn up by eaglets in the nest.

This has little effect on the eagles, however; they keep on doing it because they are stronger. Morality, he says is the way the weak try to control the strong, but it doesn't work.

Robert A Whit

11-13-2012, 07:00 PM

Actually, yes. I've also taught the Constitution on both HS and college levels. However, one doesn't need either to know the definition of free markets.

So, if you studied business law, and I am not clear you have, you ought to be able to link up my actual argument and include free market principles.

It is wonderful you know a bit about the constitution. Too many really don't know all that much about it. I happen to know a lot about it.

I admit that my school teachers did not really hit the homerun. I learned far more about the constitution much later in life due to my own self study.

You seem to me to be overly concerned about free market as to how I intended it to be used. Not clear what you are fretting for.

Robert A Whit

11-13-2012, 07:13 PM

I love this way you expressed it. It reminds me I was just knocked over a few weeks ago by reading a thing from Nietzsche, in which he says that morality is the rules made up by the lambs against the eagles.

The lambs legislate that it is sinful and evil and immoral to swoop out of the sky and carry off lambs to be torn up by eaglets in the nest.

This has little effect on the eagles, however; they keep on doing it because they are stronger. Morality, he says is the way the weak try to control the strong, but it doesn't work.

I have read some Nietzsche and checked my home library to see if I had his ideas.

But I agree with that part.

I see a lot of what happens as similar to the animal world.

Kathianne

11-13-2012, 07:21 PM

So, if you studied business law, and I am not clear you have, you ought to be able to link up my actual argument and include free market principles.

It is wonderful you know a bit about the constitution. Too many really don't know all that much about it. I happen to know a lot about it.

I admit that my school teachers did not really hit the homerun. I learned far more about the constitution much later in life due to my own self study.

You seem to me to be overly concerned about free market as to how I intended it to be used. Not clear what you are fretting for.

Okay, first you bring up 'appeal to authority.' Now you are bring up logical fallacy. I do not have to chase after your arguments, nor you mine. You are the one that derailed this discussion. If you now wish to bring it to the topic of charitable giving being superior to government redistribution on all levels, fine. If not, I'm done.

Robert A Whit

11-13-2012, 08:54 PM

If you now wish to bring it to the topic of charitable giving being superior to government redistribution on all levels, fine. If not, I'm done.

At last you offer to stop derailing this topic.

That is all I wanted in the first place. Matter of fact, a review of my opening post proves that is all I wanted.

fj1200

11-14-2012, 11:28 AM

A voluntary exchange between two or more parties so that each party gains with no coercion involved.

When I was a student of Business Law, we learned that even a peck on the cheek an expression of love or indeed even like, can suffice as an element in a contract.

So where is the contract?

When parties pledge funds such as in this case, party A seeks most generally a verbal contract to obtain funds from Parties A, B, C, etc, promising in return to remit said funds to the harmed party or the victim of Sandy.

I doubt a person not fluent in contract law understands.

What exactly does contract law have to do with this? A promise to give money is not a contract.

My aim was to show taht Government is lousy as to helping people to this extent.

When have you heard of Government turning over almost $60,000 to victims in such a short time?

Some of you are extremely hung up on only one thing. Free market.

I believe i explained that the Free market is not as narrow as you defined it. It includes things such as the soliciting of funds with the aim and promise to turn said funds over to parties named in the promise.

I am not clear why some are so hung up on two terms. Free market and Charity when the story involves victims of said storm who got funds extremely fast using free market principles.

There's no real argument that government is lousy at charity yet to claim charity is the free-market is off-base, which has been shown. Actually, in this case I would prefer government NOT turn over $60,000 as people have done... EVER. It's not a function of government. Whether giving a 19-year old, as responsible as she may be, a large infusion of cash when she is unlikely to be able to handle it responsibly is probably not wise. With luck her parents made a proper will, carried enough life insurance, and created a trust with responsible trustees so that the family will be taken care of in times of tragedy. I imagine the courts will have some say in the lives of those kids until all are adults.

Now, under contract law, a contract such as the above (solicit funds to deliver to victims), has 5 elements to make it valid.

Maybe it is because I studied in college for a full year contract law and it included what a contract has to be.

The elements of a contract (http://www.expertlaw.com/library/business/contract_law.html):

Meeting of the Minds
Offer and Acceptance
Mutual Consideration

In order to be valid, the parties to a contract must exchange something of value. In the case of the sale of a piano, the buyer receives something of value in the form of the piano, and the seller receives money.

Performance or Delivery
Good Faith

There is no mutual consideration in charity. That is more akin to a pledge.

Yes to all of the above. I am very hung up on terms since I deal with them with precision.

Apparently not as you are freely expanding the definition of "free-market" to include what you prefer.

I do not mind you not agreeing. Not one bit. It shows that you are in need of more information.

It also shows that my OP theme was not your argument. For a rather odd reason or purpose on your part, you chose to ignore the theme and rather argue by biting ankles.

You act as if my central argument was free market. Actually it was a knock on the government and an applause for those who helped the victims. And imagine this, with no lines to wait in nor forms to fill out.

Exactly what information am I missing and how would you titling the thread as "Free market principles at work" not have "free market" be central to your theme? :rolleyes:

At last you offer to stop derailing this topic.

One must be on the rails originally to be derailed later. :poke:

Kathianne

11-14-2012, 03:33 PM

While not exactly on topic, this article illustrates Robert's point, I believe:

http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/14/hurricane-sandy-a-tale-of-two-headlines

<header> Hurricane Sandy: A Tale of Two Headlines (http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/14/hurricane-sandy-a-tale-of-two-headlines) Jesse Walker (http://reason.com/people/jesse-walker/all)|<time datetime="2012-11-14T15:35:00+00:00">Nov. 14, 2012 10:35 am</time>
</header> http://media.reason.com/mc/jwalker/2012_11/gerritsen.jpg?h=213&w=320As Sandy (http://reason.com/tags/hurricane-sandy) moved up the Atlantic coast, The New York Times summed up the conventional wisdom about the hurricane and the feds in an editorial headlined "A Big Storm Requires Big Government (http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/30/new-york-times-a-big-storm-requires-big)." It wasn't long before that story started coming apart (http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/02/worm-beginning-to-turn-on-big-apples-lov), and at this point it may be safe to say that the narrative has completely reversed. Here's The Brooklyn Bureau, reporting under the rather different headline "Grassroots Groups Have Taken Over Sandy Relief (http://www.bkbureau.org/node/3746/)":

In the days after the deluge, as Gerritsen residents began the process of sifting through their possessions to find what was salvageable, the relief effort got underway. But as has been the case in other stricken communities, the effort was led less by government agencies than by members of the community themselves — in this case, members of "the Vollies," Gerritsen Beach's volunteer fire station, the last volunteer fire department remaining in the borough and a symbol of the proud but increasingly frustrated self-reliance that has come to typify post-Sandy aid efforts.

Twelve days after the storm, the Vollies headquarters in the hard-hit "old section" of Gerritsen nearer the ocean is a hive of donated food and clothes, volunteers from all over, lists of electricians and plumbers hastily scrawled on pages from legal pads and taped to a wall. A food truck, normally resident in Midtown, has been dispatched by the mayor's office to serve free meals. National Guard troops based at nearby Floyd Bennett Field sort through a mountain of clothing. Amid the maelstrom, Assistant Fire Chief Doreen Garson is a nonstop ball of energy, directing volunteers, "Right now," she says, "we're acting as our own little city."...

http://media.reason.com/mc/jwalker/2012_11/gbfd.jpg?h=204&w=200By comparison, there has been less visible support from city and federal agencies. In particular, the Federal Emergency Management Agency -- which has already been lambasted in the media for shutting down (http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20121107/tottenville/staten-island-fema-disaster-center-shuts-doors-due-weather) many of its aid centers for two days "due to weather" when a nor'easter swept through last week, and for being outperformed (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/nyregion/where-fema-fell-short-occupy-sandy-was-there.html) by a bunch of ragged veterans of Occupy Wall Street -- gets little praise from the storm survivors thronging the Vollies hall. The Times piece didn't just praise FEMA (http://reason.com/tags/fema); it singled out the agency's "war room," the place "where officials gather to decide where rescuers should go, where drinking water should be shipped." Turns out that those aren't areas where central planning works well, no matter how much the phrase "war room" excites the editorialists of The New York Times.