ad hominem

nobody's disputing that factory conditions were tough, so this doesn't go to your point.

well, you can discuss Thomas Jefferson if you want, but don't act like my positions are his and then attack them, because that'd be a straw man argument.

It is an entirely valid ad hominem. Libs and ACists dance around subjects a lot from my observations (you can throw in the broadsweeping generalization at a discount).

And yes factory life does go to my point. Do yo think liability companies were around to insure factories against injuries to children doing their jobs?

I was using Jefferson as an example as to how long corporations have been around. Not to use as a strawman.

ironically logical sentences are word games, and it still doesn't help your case, and you still have no idea why, and I'm out of patience.

In other words, "I do not have a valid point.."

no, I'm telling you that you'll yield better results if read an intro book on critical thinking before you try to engage in discourse with a critical thinker.

ad hominem


You do not even address or talk about issues. This is why Libertarians and ACists are not mainstream. Sit there and act all snooty. But try reading economic books pl0x.

bull, I did a whole post describing what I mean by laissez-faire capitalism, and all you site is a website that shows that factory conditions were tough. you don't address limited liability or regulations at all, and again, and again repeat the same rubbish that laissez-faire capitalism is to blame. you claim that you're citing "history". it's not persuasive. when you site something, make sure it backs up the claim you're making next time.

there's facts, and then there's historical interpretation of facts. that's where you're getting mixed up. citing a fact without a historical context doesn't actually help you.

then how do yourself and the other ACists provide citation for your claims that AC is possible, and would be better than the current system?

*cite

Because liability was not always around for the lifespan of what were corporations of the 18th century. Y'know them multinational tea companies and all...

http://www.ehow.com/info_7945279_lim...-act-1855.html

well, that's a derail, but what one would do is provide evidence for the various parts of a free society, and then argue that a free society is economical. there are illustrations of poly-centric orders that have existed. also, there would have to be a measuring stick as towards what "works", because it's generally assumed that the status quo "works" without really an explanation as to how it's desirable.

apparently the industrial revolution pre-dates 1855

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution

hmmm

I think the objection is that you read narrowly the condition of factory work as no addressing limited liability as though it has nothing to do with the reality of how regulations came to be. Jefferson was entirely talking about the corporations you're suggesting, and again you read narrowly that Paul must be strawmanning you (which he was not). To further attack him for explaining these differences in both of your opinions is a bit snooty. I mean, I took his point for exactly what it seems he meant on first reading, but then, I might be sheeple or something also.

we still haven't gotten to the point

1) what makes corporations natural (supposedly they are)
2) how would corporations exist without a legal shield

1) Do you think capitalists just stop their businesses from growing at certain points?

2) I do not believe capitalism exists without government. And if it did, corporations (maybe not under legal definitions of the word) would certainly form.