Where is justice and freedom?

[Camelza]

Well then Laissez-faire's funtamentals disagree with Laissez-Faire itself.
Or pherhaps you don't understand what I mean by "unrestrained".
Just to clear things out; By unrestrained capitalism I mean the practice of certain companies to use their lobbies and through them manipulate a democratic system in their favour, breaking the laws and the natural way of an economy which is for, ie; a completely in-debt company(no matter how big) to go bankrupt.
I believe in laws, I don't believe in pro-market interventionism and lend culture.

Unrestrained doesn't mean any of that. That's crony capitalism, and nobody likes that except its participants.

Crony capitalism is the next stage of unrestrained capitalism.
For capitalism to work the state must not interfere with the economy but in the meantime to have laws in effect that restrict the markets from intervening in politics.
That's what laissez-faire is.

[Arkolon]

Unrestrained doesn't mean any of that. That's crony capitalism, and nobody likes that except its participants.

Crony capitalism is the next stage of unrestrained capitalism.
For capitalism to work the state must not interfere with the economy but in the meantime to have laws in effect that restrict the markets from intervening in politics.
That's what laissez-faire is.

If the state is a laissez-faire state (ie a noninterventionist minarchist state), then the businesses don't have any system to abuse. Regulation is employed by corporate lobby groups to make corporations richer. A state that has no regulation except those that permit a legal framework for the enforcement of property rights and the defense of natural rights cannot be subject to the same corporate lobbying.

Laissez-faire is minarchism (edit: or ancapism)

[Jamjai]

I am not sure wat the OP is trying to say

[Camelza]

Crony capitalism is the next stage of unrestrained capitalism.
For capitalism to work the state must not interfere with the economy but in the meantime to have laws in effect that restrict the markets from intervening in politics.
That's what laissez-faire is.

If the state is a laissez-faire state (ie a noninterventionist minarchist state), then the businesses don't have any system to abuse. Regulation is employed by corporate lobby groups to make corporations richer. A state that has no regulation except those that permit a legal framework for the enforcement of property rights and the defense of natural rights cannot be subject to the same corporate lobbying.

Laissez-faire is minarchism (edit: or ancapism)

No, that's a common misconception. Laissez-faire isn't ancap and anarcho-capitalism is not minarchy(You also mentioned a "laissez-faire state" and later called Laissez-faire anarcho-capitalism, contradicting with yourself).
Laissez-faire is far more general and vague as a concept, laissez faire is not against labour laws, or taxes; it is against tariffs, strategic restrictions, high taxation, state intervention in the form of corporate welfare as well as state capitalism, cabotage and bureucracy. In general Laissez faire supports an equilibrium of egalitarian politics and free economy).

[Camelza]

I am not sure wat the OP is trying to say

"America, fuck yeah!"

[Arkolon]

If the state is a laissez-faire state (ie a noninterventionist minarchist state), then the businesses don't have any system to abuse. Regulation is employed by corporate lobby groups to make corporations richer. A state that has no regulation except those that permit a legal framework for the enforcement of property rights and the defense of natural rights cannot be subject to the same corporate lobbying.

Laissez-faire is minarchism (edit: or ancapism)

No, that's a common misconception. Laissez-faire isn't ancap and anarcho-capitalism is not minarchy(You also mentioned a "laissez-faire state" and later called Laissez-faire anarcho-capitalism, contradicting with yourself).

I said laissez-faire could be taken to be minarchism, or, in a more extreme form, anarcho-capitalism.

You do realise you're talking to one of the most ardent laissez-faire people on NS?

Laissez-faire is far more general and vague as a concept, laissez faire is not against labour laws, or taxes; it is against tariffs, strategic restrictions, high taxation, state intervention in the form of corporate welfare as well as state capitalism, cabotage and bureucracy. In general Laissez faire supports an equilibrium of egalitarian politics and free economy).

Egalitarian politics and a free-market complement each other. All else is hypocritical.

[Camelza]

No, that's a common misconception. Laissez-faire isn't ancap and anarcho-capitalism is not minarchy(You also mentioned a "laissez-faire state" and later called Laissez-faire anarcho-capitalism, contradicting with yourself).

I said laissez-faire could be taken to be minarchism, or, in a more extreme form, anarcho-capitalism.

I see, only it is neither.

You do realise you're talking to one of the most ardent laissez-faire people on NS?

No, I'm not; you don't care about capitalism in practice, but instead about creating a libertarian utopic society that will end up into being a neo-feudalist society and as such we will have to go again through a capitalist revolution. You're a neo-feudalist to me.

Laissez-faire is far more general and vague as a concept, laissez faire is not against labour laws, or taxes; it is against tariffs, strategic restrictions, high taxation, state intervention in the form of corporate welfare as well as state capitalism, cabotage and bureucracy. In general Laissez faire supports an equilibrium of egalitarian politics and free economy).

Egalitarian politics and a free-market complement each other. All else is hypocritical.

So we agree then? That a state promoting civil and civic liberties under the rule of law and its economy functions under a laissez-faire economic liberal system, is the best possible form of government, no?

[Katganistan]

These are the people I was talking about, determined to suppress any other opinions!

No, it's called a discussion. Discuss. Tell them why they are wrong rather than making a comment about how they are suppressing your opinion and then ignoring their points.

Because if that is what you intend to do, may I suggest blogger, myspace, facebook or tumblr?


Reading through the thread convinces me that you need to be *** Warned for trolling ***. Ironically, you are the one suppressing ideas by namecalling, ignoring points, and seeming to think this is acceptable.