Are you a sincere seeker who has questions about Christianity, or a Christian with doubts about your faith? Post them here to receive a thoughtful response.
Jac3510 wrote:Then the short answer is I don't think it's true because I don't have any reason to think it's true. On the contrary, I so those types of things regulated all the time, so it seems false from even the briefest look at the way the world really works.
By "it" I mean in order to regulate vice you must limit the free market.
Of course those things are regulated all the time.
It may take hours for me to copy the passage from the book, holding the darned book in a position to copy from it, and the inevetablo typos, aargh!!!!
But I might do it if I thought a lot of people would care, but I am not sure very many do.
I tried so dratted hard in my origional post to make myself clear, but I apparently failed.
Perhaps you could copy my origional post inserting comments on what you don't understand.
Jac3510 wrote:Then the short answer is I don't think it's true because I don't have any reason to think it's true. On the contrary, I so those types of things regulated all the time, so it seems false from even the briefest look at the way the world really works.
by ultimate777 » Sat Dec 07, 2013 2:37 pm
In the book, "Renegade History of the United States" by Thaddeus Russell, the author thinks American conservatives are in a bad way because in order to curb vice the market must be regulated
Maybe I failed to make clear that the author is saying that either vice must be controlled by controlling the free market if that is what society chooses, or the alternative is less controlled vice in order to get a less regulated free market. Is this last sentence clear?
and to have a free market vice must go largely unregulated. He thinks few conservatives have a clue this is so, and might be very chagrined if they did. He cites many examples in American history, especially from like 1750 to 1850 to prove his case.
Do you think its true?
If not, why not?
If so, what should be done?
I doubt I can explain things anywhere near as good as the author can, but if you have a question I can handle I may answer it
Very likely I will refer you to the book without comment.
ultimate777
Valued Member
I just don't think it's much of an observation to note that American economics is not based on laissez-faire economics. Adam Smith certainly thought as much, and while we have much to thank Smith for, we haven't adopted his system in toto. Moreover, the basic assumption of that system is that the individual is the basic unit of society, and while many conservatives would hold that to be true (especially libertarians, which are they ones who have any tendency at all towards LF economics), a very large number would not, holding, instead, that the family is the basic unit of society.
Anyway, the very fact that society has demanded that we regulate certain vices shows that we do not nor are we interested in employing a system of economic anarchy. In short, I think your author is just creating a straw man. To the extent that there are people who would embrace the economic system your author seems to be talking about (and I can't comment on that intelligently as I have neither read his work nor any substantive representation of that work from you), he would still be wrong because they would not be surprised by the claim that we cannot or should not control vice. There is a reason, after all, that libertarians want to legalize drugs, prostitution, same sex marriage, gambling, and other such things. They think that the fact that we are controlling those is problematic.
So as far as I can tell, there are two groups of people your author could have in mind, and for both people, his assertion (as you are representing it) is wrong.
1. If he is talking about laissez-faire capitalists, which is to say libertarians, he is wrong, because they would not be surprised that vice can't be regulated. In fact, the see the regulation and actively campaign against it since it is incompatible with economics as they understand it.
2. If he is talking about social conservatives, which is to say those people who actively campaign to regulate vices like drug use and prostitution, he is wrong because they do not adhere to the laissez-faire economics or its philosophical underpinnings that demand such vices go unregulated. They start from a different set of assumptions and have a different governmental model in mind that not only allows for but demands the regulation of vice.
So your author just appears to not understand conservatism, which is probably not surprising, given his self-professed background.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
