http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/ Business and Technology with Common Sense Thu, 24 May 2012 21:21:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4-beta4-20883 http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45056 markjaquith Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:34:29 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45056 They wouldn't exist if the government hadn't created them. They're not part of a free market, and they wouldn't operate the way they do if they were.Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae aren't examples of corruption. They're examples of what happens when the government subsidizes a market that can't sustain itself. Not everyone can afford a house, but they were giving out loans (with an implicit Federal guarantee, as Government-Sponsored Enterprises) as if everyone was able to.The mortgage situation doesn't illustrate anything about the free market, because it *isn't a free market*. It's a government-subsidized market. That's not a semantic point. You're trying to paint free markets as leading to "corruption" and using as an example a non-free market's government-created bubble and implosion.If someone took on a sub-prime loan that they can no longer afford, that's no one's fault but theirs. That's not corruption -- that's human stupidity. And screw them if they think that I should pay for their financial mistakes. The best service the government could do for them and for the country is to let them lose their houses and not do anything to *reenforce their stupid decisions*. They wouldn’t exist if the government hadn’t created them. They’re not part of a free market, and they wouldn’t operate the way they do if they were.Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae aren’t examples of corruption. They’re examples of what happens when the government subsidizes a market that can’t sustain itself. Not everyone can afford a house, but they were giving out loans (with an implicit Federal guarantee, as Government-Sponsored Enterprises) as if everyone was able to.The mortgage situation doesn’t illustrate anything about the free market, because it *isn’t a free market*. It’s a government-subsidized market. That’s not a semantic point. You’re trying to paint free markets as leading to “corruption” and using as an example a non-free market’s government-created bubble and implosion.If someone took on a sub-prime loan that they can no longer afford, that’s no one’s fault but theirs. That’s not corruption — that’s human stupidity. And screw them if they think that I should pay for their financial mistakes. The best service the government could do for them and for the country is to let them lose their houses and not do anything to *reenforce their stupid decisions*.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45063 markjaquith Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:34:29 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45063 They wouldn't exist if the government hadn't created them. They're not part of a free market, and they wouldn't operate the way they do if they were.Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae aren't examples of corruption. They're examples of what happens when the government subsidizes a market that can't sustain itself. Not everyone can afford a house, but they were giving out loans (with an implicit Federal guarantee, as Government-Sponsored Enterprises) as if everyone was able to.The mortgage situation doesn't illustrate anything about the free market, because it *isn't a free market*. It's a government-subsidized market. That's not a semantic point. You're trying to paint free markets as leading to "corruption" and using as an example a non-free market's government-created bubble and implosion.If someone took on a sub-prime loan that they can no longer afford, that's no one's fault but theirs. That's not corruption -- that's human stupidity. And screw them if they think that I should pay for their financial mistakes. The best service the government could do for them and for the country is to let them lose their houses and not do anything to *reenforce their stupid decisions*. They wouldn’t exist if the government hadn’t created them. They’re not part of a free market, and they wouldn’t operate the way they do if they were.Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae aren’t examples of corruption. They’re examples of what happens when the government subsidizes a market that can’t sustain itself. Not everyone can afford a house, but they were giving out loans (with an implicit Federal guarantee, as Government-Sponsored Enterprises) as if everyone was able to.The mortgage situation doesn’t illustrate anything about the free market, because it *isn’t a free market*. It’s a government-subsidized market. That’s not a semantic point. You’re trying to paint free markets as leading to “corruption” and using as an example a non-free market’s government-created bubble and implosion.If someone took on a sub-prime loan that they can no longer afford, that’s no one’s fault but theirs. That’s not corruption — that’s human stupidity. And screw them if they think that I should pay for their financial mistakes. The best service the government could do for them and for the country is to let them lose their houses and not do anything to *reenforce their stupid decisions*.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45070 markjaquith Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:34:29 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45070 They wouldn't exist if the government hadn't created them. They're not part of a free market, and they wouldn't operate the way they do if they were.Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae aren't examples of corruption. They're examples of what happens when the government subsidizes a market that can't sustain itself. Not everyone can afford a house, but they were giving out loans (with an implicit Federal guarantee, as Government-Sponsored Enterprises) as if everyone was able to.The mortgage situation doesn't illustrate anything about the free market, because it *isn't a free market*. It's a government-subsidized market. That's not a semantic point. You're trying to paint free markets as leading to "corruption" and using as an example a non-free market's government-created bubble and implosion.If someone took on a sub-prime loan that they can no longer afford, that's no one's fault but theirs. That's not corruption -- that's human stupidity. And screw them if they think that I should pay for their financial mistakes. The best service the government could do for them and for the country is to let them lose their houses and not do anything to *reenforce their stupid decisions*. They wouldn’t exist if the government hadn’t created them. They’re not part of a free market, and they wouldn’t operate the way they do if they were.Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae aren’t examples of corruption. They’re examples of what happens when the government subsidizes a market that can’t sustain itself. Not everyone can afford a house, but they were giving out loans (with an implicit Federal guarantee, as Government-Sponsored Enterprises) as if everyone was able to.The mortgage situation doesn’t illustrate anything about the free market, because it *isn’t a free market*. It’s a government-subsidized market. That’s not a semantic point. You’re trying to paint free markets as leading to “corruption” and using as an example a non-free market’s government-created bubble and implosion.If someone took on a sub-prime loan that they can no longer afford, that’s no one’s fault but theirs. That’s not corruption — that’s human stupidity. And screw them if they think that I should pay for their financial mistakes. The best service the government could do for them and for the country is to let them lose their houses and not do anything to *reenforce their stupid decisions*.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45077 markjaquith Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:34:29 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45077 They wouldn't exist if the government hadn't created them. They're not part of a free market, and they wouldn't operate the way they do if they were.Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae aren't examples of corruption. They're examples of what happens when the government subsidizes a market that can't sustain itself. Not everyone can afford a house, but they were giving out loans (with an implicit Federal guarantee, as Government-Sponsored Enterprises) as if everyone was able to.The mortgage situation doesn't illustrate anything about the free market, because it *isn't a free market*. It's a government-subsidized market. That's not a semantic point. You're trying to paint free markets as leading to "corruption" and using as an example a non-free market's government-created bubble and implosion.If someone took on a sub-prime loan that they can no longer afford, that's no one's fault but theirs. That's not corruption -- that's human stupidity. And screw them if they think that I should pay for their financial mistakes. The best service the government could do for them and for the country is to let them lose their houses and not do anything to *reenforce their stupid decisions*. They wouldn’t exist if the government hadn’t created them. They’re not part of a free market, and they wouldn’t operate the way they do if they were.Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae aren’t examples of corruption. They’re examples of what happens when the government subsidizes a market that can’t sustain itself. Not everyone can afford a house, but they were giving out loans (with an implicit Federal guarantee, as Government-Sponsored Enterprises) as if everyone was able to.The mortgage situation doesn’t illustrate anything about the free market, because it *isn’t a free market*. It’s a government-subsidized market. That’s not a semantic point. You’re trying to paint free markets as leading to “corruption” and using as an example a non-free market’s government-created bubble and implosion.If someone took on a sub-prime loan that they can no longer afford, that’s no one’s fault but theirs. That’s not corruption — that’s human stupidity. And screw them if they think that I should pay for their financial mistakes. The best service the government could do for them and for the country is to let them lose their houses and not do anything to *reenforce their stupid decisions*.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45035 markjaquith Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:34:29 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45035 They wouldn't exist if the government hadn't created them. They're not part of a free market, and they wouldn't operate the way they do if they were.Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae aren't examples of corruption. They're examples of what happens when the government subsidizes a market that can't sustain itself. Not everyone can afford a house, but they were giving out loans (with an implicit Federal guarantee, as Government-Sponsored Enterprises) as if everyone was able to.The mortgage situation doesn't illustrate anything about the free market, because it *isn't a free market*. It's a government-subsidized market. That's not a semantic point. You're trying to paint free markets as leading to "corruption" and using as an example a non-free market's government-created bubble and implosion.If someone took on a sub-prime loan that they can no longer afford, that's no one's fault but theirs. That's not corruption -- that's human stupidity. And screw them if they think that I should pay for their financial mistakes. The best service the government could do for them and for the country is to let them lose their houses and not do anything to *reenforce their stupid decisions*. They wouldn’t exist if the government hadn’t created them. They’re not part of a free market, and they wouldn’t operate the way they do if they were.Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae aren’t examples of corruption. They’re examples of what happens when the government subsidizes a market that can’t sustain itself. Not everyone can afford a house, but they were giving out loans (with an implicit Federal guarantee, as Government-Sponsored Enterprises) as if everyone was able to.The mortgage situation doesn’t illustrate anything about the free market, because it *isn’t a free market*. It’s a government-subsidized market. That’s not a semantic point. You’re trying to paint free markets as leading to “corruption” and using as an example a non-free market’s government-created bubble and implosion.If someone took on a sub-prime loan that they can no longer afford, that’s no one’s fault but theirs. That’s not corruption — that’s human stupidity. And screw them if they think that I should pay for their financial mistakes. The best service the government could do for them and for the country is to let them lose their houses and not do anything to *reenforce their stupid decisions*.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45042 markjaquith Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:34:29 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45042 They wouldn't exist if the government hadn't created them. They're not part of a free market, and they wouldn't operate the way they do if they were.Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae aren't examples of corruption. They're examples of what happens when the government subsidizes a market that can't sustain itself. Not everyone can afford a house, but they were giving out loans (with an implicit Federal guarantee, as Government-Sponsored Enterprises) as if everyone was able to.The mortgage situation doesn't illustrate anything about the free market, because it *isn't a free market*. It's a government-subsidized market. That's not a semantic point. You're trying to paint free markets as leading to "corruption" and using as an example a non-free market's government-created bubble and implosion.If someone took on a sub-prime loan that they can no longer afford, that's no one's fault but theirs. That's not corruption -- that's human stupidity. And screw them if they think that I should pay for their financial mistakes. The best service the government could do for them and for the country is to let them lose their houses and not do anything to *reenforce their stupid decisions*. They wouldn’t exist if the government hadn’t created them. They’re not part of a free market, and they wouldn’t operate the way they do if they were.Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae aren’t examples of corruption. They’re examples of what happens when the government subsidizes a market that can’t sustain itself. Not everyone can afford a house, but they were giving out loans (with an implicit Federal guarantee, as Government-Sponsored Enterprises) as if everyone was able to.The mortgage situation doesn’t illustrate anything about the free market, because it *isn’t a free market*. It’s a government-subsidized market. That’s not a semantic point. You’re trying to paint free markets as leading to “corruption” and using as an example a non-free market’s government-created bubble and implosion.If someone took on a sub-prime loan that they can no longer afford, that’s no one’s fault but theirs. That’s not corruption — that’s human stupidity. And screw them if they think that I should pay for their financial mistakes. The best service the government could do for them and for the country is to let them lose their houses and not do anything to *reenforce their stupid decisions*.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45049 markjaquith Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:34:29 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45049 They wouldn't exist if the government hadn't created them. They're not part of a free market, and they wouldn't operate the way they do if they were.Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae aren't examples of corruption. They're examples of what happens when the government subsidizes a market that can't sustain itself. Not everyone can afford a house, but they were giving out loans (with an implicit Federal guarantee, as Government-Sponsored Enterprises) as if everyone was able to.The mortgage situation doesn't illustrate anything about the free market, because it *isn't a free market*. It's a government-subsidized market. That's not a semantic point. You're trying to paint free markets as leading to "corruption" and using as an example a non-free market's government-created bubble and implosion.If someone took on a sub-prime loan that they can no longer afford, that's no one's fault but theirs. That's not corruption -- that's human stupidity. And screw them if they think that I should pay for their financial mistakes. The best service the government could do for them and for the country is to let them lose their houses and not do anything to *reenforce their stupid decisions*. They wouldn’t exist if the government hadn’t created them. They’re not part of a free market, and they wouldn’t operate the way they do if they were.Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae aren’t examples of corruption. They’re examples of what happens when the government subsidizes a market that can’t sustain itself. Not everyone can afford a house, but they were giving out loans (with an implicit Federal guarantee, as Government-Sponsored Enterprises) as if everyone was able to.The mortgage situation doesn’t illustrate anything about the free market, because it *isn’t a free market*. It’s a government-subsidized market. That’s not a semantic point. You’re trying to paint free markets as leading to “corruption” and using as an example a non-free market’s government-created bubble and implosion.If someone took on a sub-prime loan that they can no longer afford, that’s no one’s fault but theirs. That’s not corruption — that’s human stupidity. And screw them if they think that I should pay for their financial mistakes. The best service the government could do for them and for the country is to let them lose their houses and not do anything to *reenforce their stupid decisions*.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45062 Aaron Brazell Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:09:05 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45062 Obviously, we're arguing semantics but I think it illustrates the point thata free market left to its own devices *will* eventually lead to corruption.And that is what happened in all these cases.By the way, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are *not* government. They areprivately held, and partially government funded/subsidized. Obviously, we’re arguing semantics but I think it illustrates the point thata free market left to its own devices *will* eventually lead to corruption.And that is what happened in all these cases.By the way, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are *not* government. They areprivately held, and partially government funded/subsidized.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45069 Aaron Brazell Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:09:05 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45069 Obviously, we're arguing semantics but I think it illustrates the point thata free market left to its own devices *will* eventually lead to corruption.And that is what happened in all these cases.By the way, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are *not* government. They areprivately held, and partially government funded/subsidized. Obviously, we’re arguing semantics but I think it illustrates the point thata free market left to its own devices *will* eventually lead to corruption.And that is what happened in all these cases.By the way, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are *not* government. They areprivately held, and partially government funded/subsidized.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45076 Aaron Brazell Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:09:05 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45076 Obviously, we're arguing semantics but I think it illustrates the point thata free market left to its own devices *will* eventually lead to corruption.And that is what happened in all these cases.By the way, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are *not* government. They areprivately held, and partially government funded/subsidized. Obviously, we’re arguing semantics but I think it illustrates the point thata free market left to its own devices *will* eventually lead to corruption.And that is what happened in all these cases.By the way, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are *not* government. They areprivately held, and partially government funded/subsidized.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45034 Aaron Brazell Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:09:05 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45034 Obviously, we're arguing semantics but I think it illustrates the point thata free market left to its own devices *will* eventually lead to corruption.And that is what happened in all these cases.By the way, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are *not* government. They areprivately held, and partially government funded/subsidized. Obviously, we’re arguing semantics but I think it illustrates the point thata free market left to its own devices *will* eventually lead to corruption.And that is what happened in all these cases.By the way, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are *not* government. They areprivately held, and partially government funded/subsidized.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45041 Aaron Brazell Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:09:05 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45041 Obviously, we're arguing semantics but I think it illustrates the point thata free market left to its own devices *will* eventually lead to corruption.And that is what happened in all these cases.By the way, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are *not* government. They areprivately held, and partially government funded/subsidized. Obviously, we’re arguing semantics but I think it illustrates the point thata free market left to its own devices *will* eventually lead to corruption.And that is what happened in all these cases.By the way, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are *not* government. They areprivately held, and partially government funded/subsidized.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45048 Aaron Brazell Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:09:05 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45048 Obviously, we're arguing semantics but I think it illustrates the point thata free market left to its own devices *will* eventually lead to corruption.And that is what happened in all these cases.By the way, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are *not* government. They areprivately held, and partially government funded/subsidized. Obviously, we’re arguing semantics but I think it illustrates the point thata free market left to its own devices *will* eventually lead to corruption.And that is what happened in all these cases.By the way, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are *not* government. They areprivately held, and partially government funded/subsidized.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45055 Aaron Brazell Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:09:05 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45055 Obviously, we're arguing semantics but I think it illustrates the point thata free market left to its own devices *will* eventually lead to corruption.And that is what happened in all these cases.By the way, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are *not* government. They areprivately held, and partially government funded/subsidized. Obviously, we’re arguing semantics but I think it illustrates the point thata free market left to its own devices *will* eventually lead to corruption.And that is what happened in all these cases.By the way, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are *not* government. They areprivately held, and partially government funded/subsidized.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45061 markjaquith Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:04:01 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45061 "Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon."Um, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the FDIC are *government corporations*. They have nothing to do with a free market. IndyMac failed, yeah -- but failure is part of life, and certainly part of a free market. Failure (or the threat of it) is necessary for competition. Of course, our mortgage market wasn't and isn't a free market. It's propped up by our government -- to whom failure comes naturally.Enron activity was illegal, not free market. They're in jail now. The free market doesn't make criminality go away.Ted Stevens got fat off of government power, not the free market. If you give people power, they'll use it, sell it, etc. That's a statement on the corruptive nature of power -- nothing to do with the free market. In a capitalist system, Stevens wouldn't have any government power worth selling.With the partial exception of IndyMac (partial because their failure is linked to a government-controlled market), you're talking about criminal behavior, or normal governmental incompetence. Those things don't need regulation, they need punitive measures and eradication, respectively. “Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.”Um, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the FDIC are *government corporations*. They have nothing to do with a free market. IndyMac failed, yeah — but failure is part of life, and certainly part of a free market. Failure (or the threat of it) is necessary for competition. Of course, our mortgage market wasn’t and isn’t a free market. It’s propped up by our government — to whom failure comes naturally.Enron activity was illegal, not free market. They’re in jail now. The free market doesn’t make criminality go away.Ted Stevens got fat off of government power, not the free market. If you give people power, they’ll use it, sell it, etc. That’s a statement on the corruptive nature of power — nothing to do with the free market. In a capitalist system, Stevens wouldn’t have any government power worth selling.With the partial exception of IndyMac (partial because their failure is linked to a government-controlled market), you’re talking about criminal behavior, or normal governmental incompetence. Those things don’t need regulation, they need punitive measures and eradication, respectively.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45068 markjaquith Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:04:01 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45068 "Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon."Um, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the FDIC are *government corporations*. They have nothing to do with a free market. IndyMac failed, yeah -- but failure is part of life, and certainly part of a free market. Failure (or the threat of it) is necessary for competition. Of course, our mortgage market wasn't and isn't a free market. It's propped up by our government -- to whom failure comes naturally.Enron activity was illegal, not free market. They're in jail now. The free market doesn't make criminality go away.Ted Stevens got fat off of government power, not the free market. If you give people power, they'll use it, sell it, etc. That's a statement on the corruptive nature of power -- nothing to do with the free market. In a capitalist system, Stevens wouldn't have any government power worth selling.With the partial exception of IndyMac (partial because their failure is linked to a government-controlled market), you're talking about criminal behavior, or normal governmental incompetence. Those things don't need regulation, they need punitive measures and eradication, respectively. “Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.”Um, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the FDIC are *government corporations*. They have nothing to do with a free market. IndyMac failed, yeah — but failure is part of life, and certainly part of a free market. Failure (or the threat of it) is necessary for competition. Of course, our mortgage market wasn’t and isn’t a free market. It’s propped up by our government — to whom failure comes naturally.Enron activity was illegal, not free market. They’re in jail now. The free market doesn’t make criminality go away.Ted Stevens got fat off of government power, not the free market. If you give people power, they’ll use it, sell it, etc. That’s a statement on the corruptive nature of power — nothing to do with the free market. In a capitalist system, Stevens wouldn’t have any government power worth selling.With the partial exception of IndyMac (partial because their failure is linked to a government-controlled market), you’re talking about criminal behavior, or normal governmental incompetence. Those things don’t need regulation, they need punitive measures and eradication, respectively.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45075 markjaquith Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:04:01 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45075 "Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon."Um, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the FDIC are *government corporations*. They have nothing to do with a free market. IndyMac failed, yeah -- but failure is part of life, and certainly part of a free market. Failure (or the threat of it) is necessary for competition. Of course, our mortgage market wasn't and isn't a free market. It's propped up by our government -- to whom failure comes naturally.Enron activity was illegal, not free market. They're in jail now. The free market doesn't make criminality go away.Ted Stevens got fat off of government power, not the free market. If you give people power, they'll use it, sell it, etc. That's a statement on the corruptive nature of power -- nothing to do with the free market. In a capitalist system, Stevens wouldn't have any government power worth selling.With the partial exception of IndyMac (partial because their failure is linked to a government-controlled market), you're talking about criminal behavior, or normal governmental incompetence. Those things don't need regulation, they need punitive measures and eradication, respectively. “Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.”Um, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the FDIC are *government corporations*. They have nothing to do with a free market. IndyMac failed, yeah — but failure is part of life, and certainly part of a free market. Failure (or the threat of it) is necessary for competition. Of course, our mortgage market wasn’t and isn’t a free market. It’s propped up by our government — to whom failure comes naturally.Enron activity was illegal, not free market. They’re in jail now. The free market doesn’t make criminality go away.Ted Stevens got fat off of government power, not the free market. If you give people power, they’ll use it, sell it, etc. That’s a statement on the corruptive nature of power — nothing to do with the free market. In a capitalist system, Stevens wouldn’t have any government power worth selling.With the partial exception of IndyMac (partial because their failure is linked to a government-controlled market), you’re talking about criminal behavior, or normal governmental incompetence. Those things don’t need regulation, they need punitive measures and eradication, respectively.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45033 markjaquith Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:04:01 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45033 "Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon."Um, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the FDIC are *government corporations*. They have nothing to do with a free market. IndyMac failed, yeah -- but failure is part of life, and certainly part of a free market. Failure (or the threat of it) is necessary for competition. Of course, our mortgage market wasn't and isn't a free market. It's propped up by our government -- to whom failure comes naturally.Enron activity was illegal, not free market. They're in jail now. The free market doesn't make criminality go away.Ted Stevens got fat off of government power, not the free market. If you give people power, they'll use it, sell it, etc. That's a statement on the corruptive nature of power -- nothing to do with the free market. In a capitalist system, Stevens wouldn't have any government power worth selling.With the partial exception of IndyMac (partial because their failure is linked to a government-controlled market), you're talking about criminal behavior, or normal governmental incompetence. Those things don't need regulation, they need punitive measures and eradication, respectively. “Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.”Um, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the FDIC are *government corporations*. They have nothing to do with a free market. IndyMac failed, yeah — but failure is part of life, and certainly part of a free market. Failure (or the threat of it) is necessary for competition. Of course, our mortgage market wasn’t and isn’t a free market. It’s propped up by our government — to whom failure comes naturally.Enron activity was illegal, not free market. They’re in jail now. The free market doesn’t make criminality go away.Ted Stevens got fat off of government power, not the free market. If you give people power, they’ll use it, sell it, etc. That’s a statement on the corruptive nature of power — nothing to do with the free market. In a capitalist system, Stevens wouldn’t have any government power worth selling.With the partial exception of IndyMac (partial because their failure is linked to a government-controlled market), you’re talking about criminal behavior, or normal governmental incompetence. Those things don’t need regulation, they need punitive measures and eradication, respectively.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45040 markjaquith Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:04:01 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45040 "Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon."Um, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the FDIC are *government corporations*. They have nothing to do with a free market. IndyMac failed, yeah -- but failure is part of life, and certainly part of a free market. Failure (or the threat of it) is necessary for competition. Of course, our mortgage market wasn't and isn't a free market. It's propped up by our government -- to whom failure comes naturally.Enron activity was illegal, not free market. They're in jail now. The free market doesn't make criminality go away.Ted Stevens got fat off of government power, not the free market. If you give people power, they'll use it, sell it, etc. That's a statement on the corruptive nature of power -- nothing to do with the free market. In a capitalist system, Stevens wouldn't have any government power worth selling.With the partial exception of IndyMac (partial because their failure is linked to a government-controlled market), you're talking about criminal behavior, or normal governmental incompetence. Those things don't need regulation, they need punitive measures and eradication, respectively. “Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.”Um, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the FDIC are *government corporations*. They have nothing to do with a free market. IndyMac failed, yeah — but failure is part of life, and certainly part of a free market. Failure (or the threat of it) is necessary for competition. Of course, our mortgage market wasn’t and isn’t a free market. It’s propped up by our government — to whom failure comes naturally.Enron activity was illegal, not free market. They’re in jail now. The free market doesn’t make criminality go away.Ted Stevens got fat off of government power, not the free market. If you give people power, they’ll use it, sell it, etc. That’s a statement on the corruptive nature of power — nothing to do with the free market. In a capitalist system, Stevens wouldn’t have any government power worth selling.With the partial exception of IndyMac (partial because their failure is linked to a government-controlled market), you’re talking about criminal behavior, or normal governmental incompetence. Those things don’t need regulation, they need punitive measures and eradication, respectively.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45047 markjaquith Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:04:01 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45047 "Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon."Um, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the FDIC are *government corporations*. They have nothing to do with a free market. IndyMac failed, yeah -- but failure is part of life, and certainly part of a free market. Failure (or the threat of it) is necessary for competition. Of course, our mortgage market wasn't and isn't a free market. It's propped up by our government -- to whom failure comes naturally.Enron activity was illegal, not free market. They're in jail now. The free market doesn't make criminality go away.Ted Stevens got fat off of government power, not the free market. If you give people power, they'll use it, sell it, etc. That's a statement on the corruptive nature of power -- nothing to do with the free market. In a capitalist system, Stevens wouldn't have any government power worth selling.With the partial exception of IndyMac (partial because their failure is linked to a government-controlled market), you're talking about criminal behavior, or normal governmental incompetence. Those things don't need regulation, they need punitive measures and eradication, respectively. “Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.”Um, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the FDIC are *government corporations*. They have nothing to do with a free market. IndyMac failed, yeah — but failure is part of life, and certainly part of a free market. Failure (or the threat of it) is necessary for competition. Of course, our mortgage market wasn’t and isn’t a free market. It’s propped up by our government — to whom failure comes naturally.Enron activity was illegal, not free market. They’re in jail now. The free market doesn’t make criminality go away.Ted Stevens got fat off of government power, not the free market. If you give people power, they’ll use it, sell it, etc. That’s a statement on the corruptive nature of power — nothing to do with the free market. In a capitalist system, Stevens wouldn’t have any government power worth selling.With the partial exception of IndyMac (partial because their failure is linked to a government-controlled market), you’re talking about criminal behavior, or normal governmental incompetence. Those things don’t need regulation, they need punitive measures and eradication, respectively.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45054 markjaquith Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:04:01 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45054 "Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon."Um, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the FDIC are *government corporations*. They have nothing to do with a free market. IndyMac failed, yeah -- but failure is part of life, and certainly part of a free market. Failure (or the threat of it) is necessary for competition. Of course, our mortgage market wasn't and isn't a free market. It's propped up by our government -- to whom failure comes naturally.Enron activity was illegal, not free market. They're in jail now. The free market doesn't make criminality go away.Ted Stevens got fat off of government power, not the free market. If you give people power, they'll use it, sell it, etc. That's a statement on the corruptive nature of power -- nothing to do with the free market. In a capitalist system, Stevens wouldn't have any government power worth selling.With the partial exception of IndyMac (partial because their failure is linked to a government-controlled market), you're talking about criminal behavior, or normal governmental incompetence. Those things don't need regulation, they need punitive measures and eradication, respectively. “Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.”Um, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the FDIC are *government corporations*. They have nothing to do with a free market. IndyMac failed, yeah — but failure is part of life, and certainly part of a free market. Failure (or the threat of it) is necessary for competition. Of course, our mortgage market wasn’t and isn’t a free market. It’s propped up by our government — to whom failure comes naturally.Enron activity was illegal, not free market. They’re in jail now. The free market doesn’t make criminality go away.Ted Stevens got fat off of government power, not the free market. If you give people power, they’ll use it, sell it, etc. That’s a statement on the corruptive nature of power — nothing to do with the free market. In a capitalist system, Stevens wouldn’t have any government power worth selling.With the partial exception of IndyMac (partial because their failure is linked to a government-controlled market), you’re talking about criminal behavior, or normal governmental incompetence. Those things don’t need regulation, they need punitive measures and eradication, respectively.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45060 Aaron Brazell Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:57:08 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45060 "In other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust inthe individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded insecrecy."Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.Trust in the market got us Enron.Trust in the market got us Ted Stevens being paid off by private oilcompanies.Trust in the market *is* generally a good thing but there needs to be a copon the beat. Capitalism is good, but as with anything, needs some regulationor it gets out of control. “In other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust inthe individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded insecrecy.”Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.Trust in the market got us Enron.Trust in the market got us Ted Stevens being paid off by private oilcompanies.Trust in the market *is* generally a good thing but there needs to be a copon the beat. Capitalism is good, but as with anything, needs some regulationor it gets out of control.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45067 Aaron Brazell Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:57:08 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45067 "In other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust inthe individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded insecrecy."Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.Trust in the market got us Enron.Trust in the market got us Ted Stevens being paid off by private oilcompanies.Trust in the market *is* generally a good thing but there needs to be a copon the beat. Capitalism is good, but as with anything, needs some regulationor it gets out of control. “In other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust inthe individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded insecrecy.”Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.Trust in the market got us Enron.Trust in the market got us Ted Stevens being paid off by private oilcompanies.Trust in the market *is* generally a good thing but there needs to be a copon the beat. Capitalism is good, but as with anything, needs some regulationor it gets out of control.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45074 Aaron Brazell Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:57:08 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45074 "In other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust inthe individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded insecrecy."Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.Trust in the market got us Enron.Trust in the market got us Ted Stevens being paid off by private oilcompanies.Trust in the market *is* generally a good thing but there needs to be a copon the beat. Capitalism is good, but as with anything, needs some regulationor it gets out of control. “In other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust inthe individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded insecrecy.”Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.Trust in the market got us Enron.Trust in the market got us Ted Stevens being paid off by private oilcompanies.Trust in the market *is* generally a good thing but there needs to be a copon the beat. Capitalism is good, but as with anything, needs some regulationor it gets out of control.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45032 Aaron Brazell Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:57:08 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45032 "In other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust inthe individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded insecrecy."Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.Trust in the market got us Enron.Trust in the market got us Ted Stevens being paid off by private oilcompanies.Trust in the market *is* generally a good thing but there needs to be a copon the beat. Capitalism is good, but as with anything, needs some regulationor it gets out of control. “In other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust inthe individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded insecrecy.”Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.Trust in the market got us Enron.Trust in the market got us Ted Stevens being paid off by private oilcompanies.Trust in the market *is* generally a good thing but there needs to be a copon the beat. Capitalism is good, but as with anything, needs some regulationor it gets out of control.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45039 Aaron Brazell Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:57:08 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45039 "In other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust inthe individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded insecrecy."Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.Trust in the market got us Enron.Trust in the market got us Ted Stevens being paid off by private oilcompanies.Trust in the market *is* generally a good thing but there needs to be a copon the beat. Capitalism is good, but as with anything, needs some regulationor it gets out of control. “In other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust inthe individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded insecrecy.”Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.Trust in the market got us Enron.Trust in the market got us Ted Stevens being paid off by private oilcompanies.Trust in the market *is* generally a good thing but there needs to be a copon the beat. Capitalism is good, but as with anything, needs some regulationor it gets out of control.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45046 Aaron Brazell Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:57:08 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45046 "In other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust inthe individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded insecrecy."Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.Trust in the market got us Enron.Trust in the market got us Ted Stevens being paid off by private oilcompanies.Trust in the market *is* generally a good thing but there needs to be a copon the beat. Capitalism is good, but as with anything, needs some regulationor it gets out of control. “In other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust inthe individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded insecrecy.”Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.Trust in the market got us Enron.Trust in the market got us Ted Stevens being paid off by private oilcompanies.Trust in the market *is* generally a good thing but there needs to be a copon the beat. Capitalism is good, but as with anything, needs some regulationor it gets out of control.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45053 Aaron Brazell Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:57:08 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45053 "In other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust inthe individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded insecrecy."Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.Trust in the market got us Enron.Trust in the market got us Ted Stevens being paid off by private oilcompanies.Trust in the market *is* generally a good thing but there needs to be a copon the beat. Capitalism is good, but as with anything, needs some regulationor it gets out of control. “In other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust inthe individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded insecrecy.”Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.Trust in the market got us Enron.Trust in the market got us Ted Stevens being paid off by private oilcompanies.Trust in the market *is* generally a good thing but there needs to be a copon the beat. Capitalism is good, but as with anything, needs some regulationor it gets out of control.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45059 markjaquith Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:08:26 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45059 Your definition of Conservatism is incongruous. You say you want governemt out of people's lives, but you want the government to be involved in the mortgage scandal (hint: they are involved... their involvement is the problem). "where opportunities are provided for the willing and able" ? How is that Conservative? If the government steps out of the way, there will be plenty of opportunities in the market. The government doesn't need to provide them. "barriers to technology innovation lowered (tax incentives for innovation)" ? How about we just get rid of the ridiculous idea of corporate taxes altogether? It's a stupid concept, and it's killing our competitiveness in world markets. The idea that the government should tax everyone and then "incentivize" the businesses they like by providing tax breaks is anti-Conservative. It's a recipe for corruption. This is the stuff that makes the Ted Stevens of the world.Here is how Conservatism can help me:Lower or eliminate personal income taxesEliminate corporate income taxesEliminate tarrifs on everythingRefuse to tax the InternetCommit to a more open government, where information is freely available (on the Internet would be nice), and secrecy is criminalizedStay away from the Kyoto Protocol and other expensive displays of meaningless environmental showmanshipStop trying to run the world on my dimeIn other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust in the individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded in secrecy. Your definition of Conservatism is incongruous. You say you want governemt out of people’s lives, but you want the government to be involved in the mortgage scandal (hint: they are involved… their involvement is the problem). “where opportunities are provided for the willing and able” ? How is that Conservative? If the government steps out of the way, there will be plenty of opportunities in the market. The government doesn’t need to provide them. “barriers to technology innovation lowered (tax incentives for innovation)” ? How about we just get rid of the ridiculous idea of corporate taxes altogether? It’s a stupid concept, and it’s killing our competitiveness in world markets. The idea that the government should tax everyone and then “incentivize” the businesses they like by providing tax breaks is anti-Conservative. It’s a recipe for corruption. This is the stuff that makes the Ted Stevens of the world.Here is how Conservatism can help me:Lower or eliminate personal income taxesEliminate corporate income taxesEliminate tarrifs on everythingRefuse to tax the InternetCommit to a more open government, where information is freely available (on the Internet would be nice), and secrecy is criminalizedStay away from the Kyoto Protocol and other expensive displays of meaningless environmental showmanshipStop trying to run the world on my dimeIn other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust in the individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded in secrecy.

]]> http://technosailor.com/2008/08/01/relvant-conservatism-in-the-internet-era/comment-page-1/#comment-45066 markjaquith Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:08:26 +0000 http://technosailor.com/?p=4171#comment-45066 Your definition of Conservatism is incongruous. You say you want governemt out of people's lives, but you want the government to be involved in the mortgage scandal (hint: they are involved... their involvement is the problem). "where opportunities are provided for the willing and able" ? How is that Conservative? If the government steps out of the way, there will be plenty of opportunities in the market. The government doesn't need to provide them. "barriers to technology innovation lowered (tax incentives for innovation)" ? How about we just get rid of the ridiculous idea of corporate taxes altogether? It's a stupid concept, and it's killing our competitiveness in world markets. The idea that the government should tax everyone and then "incentivize" the businesses they like by providing tax breaks is anti-Conservative. It's a recipe for corruption. This is the stuff that makes the Ted Stevens of the world.Here is how Conservatism can help me:Lower or eliminate personal income taxesEliminate corporate income taxesEliminate tarrifs on everythingRefuse to tax the InternetCommit to a more open government, where information is freely available (on the Internet would be nice), and secrecy is criminalizedStay away from the Kyoto Protocol and other expensive displays of meaningless environmental showmanshipStop trying to run the world on my dimeIn other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust in the individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded in secrecy. Your definition of Conservatism is incongruous. You say you want governemt out of people’s lives, but you want the government to be involved in the mortgage scandal (hint: they are involved… their involvement is the problem). “where opportunities are provided for the willing and able” ? How is that Conservative? If the government steps out of the way, there will be plenty of opportunities in the market. The government doesn’t need to provide them. “barriers to technology innovation lowered (tax incentives for innovation)” ? How about we just get rid of the ridiculous idea of corporate taxes altogether? It’s a stupid concept, and it’s killing our competitiveness in world markets. The idea that the government should tax everyone and then “incentivize” the businesses they like by providing tax breaks is anti-Conservative. It’s a recipe for corruption. This is the stuff that makes the Ted Stevens of the world.Here is how Conservatism can help me:Lower or eliminate personal income taxesEliminate corporate income taxesEliminate tarrifs on everythingRefuse to tax the InternetCommit to a more open government, where information is freely available (on the Internet would be nice), and secrecy is criminalizedStay away from the Kyoto Protocol and other expensive displays of meaningless environmental showmanshipStop trying to run the world on my dimeIn other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust in the individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded in secrecy.

]]>