On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 14 Jan 2015, at 15:52, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 4:13 AM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 8:36 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 1/13/2015 7:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> >>> You're using the term "free" as if it were some mystical property like >>> "kosher" or "halal". A free market is simply free from regulation from a >>> central authority, that's all. The silk road is free from regulation. >>> Anyone can participate, including mafias. If mafias couldn't participate, >>> it wouldn't be a free market. >>> >>> >>> The trouble with the idea of a "free market", meaning free of government >>> regulation is that a market is a place where things are traded. To trade >>> something you need to own it. But without government or its equivalent you >>> can't *own *anymore than you can carry at a dead run while firing your >>> AK-47. The first function of government is to provide safety for its >>> citizens (mostly from each other). The second is to define and defend >>> property rights. And governments have done it differently. In England, at >>> one time, all land belonged to the crown. Even today a lot of real estate >>> in England is not owned by its occupants, it's on a 100y lease from the >>> crown. American indians didn't have any concept of personal ownership of >>> land. Ownership of "intellectual property" is defined by the government >>> and they keep changing it - extending copyright duration at the behest of >>> Disney Corp. Stocks and bonds would be just paper without a government to >>> enforce ownership. >>> >> >> In the end, if the majority of people decided to misbehave, the >> government would be powerless. The reason the majority people do not >> misbehave is "software" that was installed in their minds by civilisation. >> Surely you agree that modern governments would not work in ancient >> cultures. We actually see this first hand, for example with the Arab spring >> revolutions, where democracy quickly devolves back to civil war or >> theocracy. >> > > On this topic, if anyone hasn't seen it, I would recommend seeing the > documentary "The Square": > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2486682/ > > It gives far more insight into the Egyptian revolution than I ever got > through traditional media channels. > > > Does it explain well the two revolutions? Against the army, and then > against the Muslim Brotherhood? It is not entirely clear from the trailer. > > > It does. That alone was something I didn't realize before seeing the documentary. From the stories I had previously read I got the impression the fighting was just between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Army, none of the media talked about the people who were opposed to both of those forces. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
