> yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:91cf3e9a-03bb-477f-a86b-0f379fac5a10@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>

>>On Feb 9, 11:15 pm, Michael Price yahoo.com> wrote:
>>

>>>> So when we discuss "government," we need to recognize what kind of
>>>>government we are talking about.

>>>
>>> The kind that looks after itself and then gets guys like you to
>>>blame others when it goes wrong. In other words the usual kind.

>>
>>It's the libertarians that got it wrong. If the libertarians have
>>their way and get rid of the government (non-elitist type), what

>
> You seem to be under the false assumption that Libertarians wanting small
> limited government equates to not wanting a judicial system. Al the
> protections you describe exist under the Libertarian ideal as well.
>

>>The only way to prevent this from happening is to lie and deny the ...

>On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 23:40:52 -0800 (PST), Michael Price
>yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>>On Feb 10, 3:32 am, stuff_st...@comcast.net wrote:

>>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 04:56:21 -0600, "Mark M." techz.net> wrote:

>>>>Ultimately, every problem is blamed on government, especially in the ironic
>>>>instance when government fails to take on a more active role in regulating business
>>>>practices.

>>>
>>> Absolutely. Largely because government doesn't get involved until
>>> there's already a failure. If there's a market failure - let's say as
>>> an example, in health care.

>>
>> And when has there not been massive intervention in health care?

>
>Gee, a 190 out of 220 years?

> tcq.net> wrote in message
>
> news:a6131e7d-141a-4f46-ac5f-41893dd0239e@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>

>> On Feb 9, 7:16 am, Democracy Highlander yahoo.com>
>> wrote:

>>> Marcello wrote:

>>>> I don't know how you can say there was no government intervention when
>>>> the
>>>> government permits the Fed to print its money as well as set the prime
>>>> banking rates. Very poor monetary policy is the cause of this massive
>>>> bubble, and in fact if left alone in a laissez-faire situation
>>>> (something
>>>> not likely to happen) it would correct itself in time.

>

>>> MOTTO:
>>> ===== ...

> On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 23:48:16 -0800 (PST), Vide...@tcq.net wrote:

>>On Feb 9, 10:32 am, stuff_st...@comcast.net wrote:

>>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 04:56:21 -0600, "Mark M." techz.net> wrote:

>>>>Ultimately, every problem is blamed on government, especially in the ironic
>>>>instance when government fails to take on a more active role in regulating business
>>>>practices.

>

>>> Absolutely. Largely because government doesn't get involved until
>>> there's already a failure. If there's a market failure - let's say as
>>> an example, in health care. The market is given a long time to try to
>>> resolve the matter. But only after a time of dissatisfaction with the
>>> results of the failure, the public inveighs on the government to act
>>> to correct it. If government's response is not perfect - no matter
>>> how complex or intractable the problem or how much improvement is
>>> made, the anti-statist crowd will scream it's a failure of government
>>> and blame the entire problem on government, never acknowledging the
>>> market failure that dumped the issue on the government's lap.

>

>> hey stuff, nice analogy, i am going to lift it for my quotes, ok? ...

> On Feb 10, 12:12 am, "Marcello" nospam.com> wrote:

>> yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:91cf3e9a-03bb-477f-a86b-0f379fac5a10@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>

>>> On Feb 9, 11:15 pm, Michael Price yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>>> So when we discuss "government," we need to recognize what kind
>>>>> of
>>>>> government we are talking about.

>>>> The kind that looks after itself and then gets guys like you to
>>>> blame others when it goes wrong. In other words the usual kind.

>>

>>> It's the libertarians that got it wrong. If the libertarians have
>>> their way and get rid of the government (non-elitist type), what

>>
>> You seem to be under the false assumption that Libertarians wanting small
>> limited government equates to not wanting a judicial system. Al the
>> protections you describe exist under the Libertarian ideal as well. ...

> Marcello wrote:

>> yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:91cf3e9a-03bb-477f-a86b-0f379fac5a10@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>

>>>On Feb 9, 11:15 pm, Michael Price yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>>> So when we discuss "government," we need to recognize what kind of
>>>>>government we are talking about.

>>>>
>>>> The kind that looks after itself and then gets guys like you to
>>>>blame others when it goes wrong. In other words the usual kind.

>>>
>>>It's the libertarians that got it wrong. If the libertarians have
>>>their way and get rid of the government (non-elitist type), what

>>
>> You seem to be under the false assumption that Libertarians wanting small
>> limited government equates to not wanting a judicial system. Al the
>> protections you describe exist under the Libertarian ideal as well. ...

> On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 23:48:16 -0800 (PST), Video61@tcq.net wrote:
>

>>On Feb 9, 10:32 am, stuff_st...@comcast.net wrote:

>>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 04:56:21 -0600, "Mark M." techz.net> wrote:

>>>>Ultimately, every problem is blamed on government, especially in the
>>>>ironic
>>>>instance when government fails to take on a more active role in
>>>>regulating business
>>>>practices.

>>>
>>> Absolutely. Largely because government doesn't get involved until
>>> there's already a failure. If there's a market failure - let's say as
>>> an example, in health care. The market is given a long time to try to
>>> resolve the matter. But only after a time of dissatisfaction with the
>>> results of the failure, the public inveighs on the government to act
>>> to correct it. If government's response is not perfect - no matter
>>> how complex or intractable the problem or how much improvement is
>>> made, the anti-statist crowd will scream it's a failure of government ...

> On Feb 9, 10:41 pm, "Marcello" nospam.com> wrote:

>> tcq.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:a6131e7d-141a-4f46-ac5f-41893dd0239e@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>

>>> On Feb 9, 7:16 am, Democracy Highlander yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:

>>>> Marcello wrote:

>>>>> I don't know how you can say there was no government intervention
>>>>> when
>>>>> the
>>>>> government permits the Fed to print its money as well as set the
>>>>> prime
>>>>> banking rates. Very poor monetary policy is the cause of this
>>>>> massive
>>>>> bubble, and in fact if left alone in a laissez-faire situation ...

> comcast.net> wrote in message

>> Less snarky, more patient and willing to explain. Of course that means
>> it went unanswered except for Price like stuff that just parrots their
>> assumptions and filters and avoids the issues and thought. SO I'm back
>> to snarky for a bit.

>
> I really enjoy your statement that anyone who disagrees with your line of
> reasoning avoid thought.  Can you condescend any harder?  Is it not the very
> definition of close mindedness to block out all those who disagree as
> forming opinions without though?  I am sure that will take you quite far in
> life, best of luck.

> On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 23:40:52 -0800 (PST), Michael Price
> yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>>> The market is given a long time to try to
>>> resolve the matter. But only after a time of dissatisfaction with the
>>> results of the failure, the public inveighs on the government to act
>>> to correct it. If government's response is not perfect - no matter
>>> how complex or intractable the problem or how much improvement is
>>> made, the anti-statist crowd will scream it's a failure of government
>>> and blame the entire problem on government, never acknowledging the
>>> market failure that dumped the issue on the government's lap.

>>
>> And when has that happened? All the "market failures" I can
>>remember resulted from government incompetence.

>
> Because your a libertoon and facts and history don't impact your
> thoughts.
> ...