I do not know who generated this post-JP; KT; or LM. Not that this matters, but, it kind of sounds like John. There have been quite a few arguments and discussions recently regarding the role of government in the lives of citizens, here and far. Free markets may be justifiably called a manifestation of freedom. Profit and loss is a matter of calculated risk, not governmental domination. Even China appears to realize it cannot be a world economic power without fostering some form of capitalist initiative (although we may not know exactly what that form may be.) Some pundits have been criticizing other economic systems, notably those of Canada and Great Britain (or is that England, now?) I cannot comment on the Brits means and methods---never been there. But, let's look at Canada (I have been there---lived there, in fact.) The punditry says their healthcare system is inferior. Socialized medicine is inherently inferior. I'd say: it depends. On numbers, firstly and priorities, secondly.
On the numbers: Canada does not have 300 million citizens to take care of. Socialized medicine works better with small populations. On the priorities: Canada does not have a huge public assistance bureaucracy to administer, because her disadvantaged population is proportionally much smaller than that of the USA. There are many more factors involved in this equation. I have given you the fundamentals.

为了确保我们的自由，政府应该被限制在仅仅递送邮件的范围内。
至于全民医疗保险，解决办法是另一条路。如果保险公司及其利润完全从医疗成本中剔除，医疗成本将取决于每个人的负担能力，自由市场供需将使其如此。
As for the choice between freedom and equality, they are truly One or the same. Fairness by and by, is sadly the grey area of today's justice; something like science and religion, probability and faith, that will evolve into the light of absolute One day very soon.
And lastly, if One ever finds One or equally another in need beyond the strength of one's own power of self-reliance, surely it is not up to the government to come to One's aid, but the good or right of simply us All.
Be One too,
=

History is history, or course. And, it is meaningful--even instructive, although Santayana strongly implied that we refuse to learn from history, and, history appears to support his notion. In any case, freedom and free-marketry probably did not occur simultaneously. Therefore, I conclude they are cousins, not siblings. What this may mean exactly, I am not sure---except to say we ought not marry either.

加拿大的人口从来没有依赖于奴隶制或狂热的宗教观点，所以从来没有发展出我们这里的保守极端主义。我有可靠的消息称，与那里的保守党相比，大多数民主党人会被认为过于激进地保守。在自由市场中，我们不应该相信通过一种对称的谈判来建立一种对称关系。如果建立政府是为了保障权利，那么政府是谁的权利呢?如果只是为了某些人，而另一些人则是为了加强一种对称关系(即剥夺其他人的权利)，那么这样一个政府的权威是合法的吗?为什么人们很容易忘记，同样的产品，欧洲支付的费用比我们低得多，而且需求也更少，因为人们不容易生病，也不需要等很长时间才能得到帮助。

Just what is it that drives free marketing? Well, there are several factors that have been alluded to since this post was initiated in 2013, and now, upon its resurgence, I think it time to connect some dots more directly than as has been done heretofore. Freedom and free markets are, as I stated before, close cousins without which prosperous economies cannot evolve and endure. Profit and the creation of wealth are the lifeblood of progress an most all of its forms. Business, science, technology, infrastructure, education and a whole host of societal necessities rely upon money in order to grow, develop, expand and improve the condition of human life and protect the freedoms we have come to expect from the privilege of living in a free society. Much of where we are today, like it or not, came out of the time of FDR. Social Security spawned the notion of government stewardship and provided the impetus for an acceleration of the industrial revolution which propelled us toward the ubiquitous military-industrial complex that married creation of wealth with defense (and/or offense, depending upon who we were defending or offending against and why).
而且，正如我们所知，当权力被授予时，管理这些权力的实体不愿放弃这些控制。政府会做我们默认或明确授权它做的事情。不喜欢政府介入医疗行业?照照镜子。对政府对教育的管理感到不安?你或者你的祖先可能也与此有关。我们能走到今天有很多原因，其中很多都是成年人自愿的。有趣的是，新一批总统候选人中的一位一直在敲着革命的鼓，他似乎触及了人们的神经。“革命”是一个强烈的词，可以激起人们的情绪，但我们大多数人都怀疑他能否获得提名。是的，我们几乎得到了我们应得的，不，我不是在说灾难性的疾病、恐怖主义暴力、车祸或谋杀。 Not as direct causation anyway.
但是，它们都在某个方面有联系。因为我们是富有的人，受特权传统的影响。现在不是所有人都喜欢我们。我很怀疑每个人都做过。
Neuman.

实际上，国防部一直被称为战争部，直到“军事工业国会复合体”成为新政的陪葬者和破坏者(克里斯托弗·帕克和马特·巴雷托在《他们无法相信的变革》中有详细记载)。艾森豪威尔在他的著名演讲中没有把国会包括在阴谋中，这是在顾问们担心这个集团的权力的要求下做出的。我们的医疗保健系统设计如此糟糕的原因是，雇主们承诺自己承担责任，将这个问题排除在公共领域之外。这使得医疗保健建立在有工作的基础上，给了雇主又一个恐吓心怀不满的员工的工具，让他们乖乖听话。它也代表了一种现代版本的日益缩小的期望和权利，呼应了早期封建统治模式赖以扎根的圈地行为。特权不是一种权利，它甚至不是一种特权，它是一种权力，一种柏林从未解释过的社会现象。特权，且不说特权，不是一种积极的自由，它是一种使民事当局有责任执行的权力。所谓自由，只是为了掩饰它的真实性质。解决这个问题的唯一办法是通过民事当局来阻止而不是强制执行。
想象一下，在一个赌场里，下注的不是纸牌、轮子或骰子，而是股票的涨跌。政府有责任支持获胜者的财产主张吗?我从来都不明白我们是怎么得到这个观念的，赌博收益应该被法律强制执行。难道法律只是强制执行那些在公平平等的交换中获得的收益吗?政府是否应该配合使用其权力来支持一项不付出任何代价的财产主张?不劳而获的原则应该得到公众的支持吗?这场游戏的赢家们大声否认，在支持穷人的情况下，应该这样做。但实际上，这种支持对总体繁荣产生了积极的影响，因为它给了劳动人民一点信心，让他们敢于对抗吝啬的雇主，这对消极自由的概念来说是绝对重要的。所有的交换在本质上都是不对称的(顺便说一句，马克思从来没有完全能够解释这一点，因为他没有独立思考)，所以自由市场的概念在概念上是不可解决的。最好的情况是，我们可以减轻最坏的影响，把赌徒排除在外，并限制使封建统治深入社会结构的社会差距。
Liberty to swing one's fist, it is said, ends at the other's nose. But just swinging the fist threateningly is as much an assault on liberty as the implicit impact. Simple minded slogans usually have pernicious consequences, and this is a prima facie case they are intended. Berlin's notion cannot be assumed to be honest. But read Adam Smith, where there is a sharp distinction made between financial investment and work. Money investors might realize a profit or not, but there is no limit on how much, and potential gains often far exceed possible losses, whereas the best the worker can expect out of investing his or her working life is "subsistence". This is consistent throughout the text of The Wealth of Nations, but it is not explained why. The reason, of course, is that the prosperity of working people is always accompanied by efforts to relieve them of their "disposable income", and defense against this assault requires resources far in excess of those just emerging into the middle class. And so, they get pushed back down, unless government intervenes as their champion, instead of shill to prerogative.

Regarding free markets, I would suggest reading The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein if you have the stomach for it.
Gandhi said: ...the root of all evil -- human greed.
=

吃点东西吧，迈克尔。克鲁格曼的《自由主义者的良心》或《大政府的理由》可能更容易读，但有许多资源支持保守经济学是有毒的这一主张。泰勒先生重发这篇帖子，或许是在暗示，伯尼就是解决问题的办法。但鉴于所有的经济丑闻，颠倒的道德主题，以及对过去50多年事件的不连贯解释，仍然支持标准经济理论的人几乎不可能是诚实的。经济学家展示股市曲线图，敦促我们抚平起伏，以看到他们希望我们看到的趋势，但同一位分析师将起伏放大到微观尺度，并向私人投资者展示如何作弊。世界杯赛程2022赛程表欧洲区也就是说，他们颠倒了故事。对工人节俭，对上层管理人员奢侈。反演。理财建议过去有义务承担受托责任，而现在银行对你的钱忽放忽放，对自己的钱却小心谨慎。今天租客的困境与封建时代农奴的困境遥相呼应，难道封建主义不就是在法律和经济制度的背景下，利用租客的地位，让他们无家可归或被“放逐”吗? Imagine a homeowner with a mortgage in which the bank lets anyone pay up the balance and take over the property even if the originator of the mortgage had almost paid it all up? That's what corporate raiders do, and that's what banks are trending to happen even to home ownership. And just because you can sell something doesn't mean you are giving people what they want. At every turn economics chooses terms that corrupt our perception of the phenomena.

"Looking for my 'Lo, and Behold!'"? Problem is, whose 'Lo!' and whose 'Behold!'? If they're not the same, it's preaching, not philosophy.
A great teacher is simply one who gets the point across, not one that gets to the point. Confusion on this point engenders tirades. But even if a bit of effluvium can be satisfying, it doesn't satisfy its basic mission if it doesn't get the point across, however brusquely it gets to the point.
据我所知，这些页面上的帖子被删除的唯一原因是为了推销。空虚和粗鲁，唉，留在这里，所有人都看到了，尽管从这里的缺乏行动来判断，似乎很少有足够的行动。当然，作者可以修改消息，但不能完全删除消息。
The most serious point that needs to be made on the specified topic is the current danger "global markets" are to the sovereignty of free peoples. Public control of markets, and therefore of work-life too, is being ceded to what Chomsky, rightly, calls "private tyrannies", let alone to totalitarian states. Once the global market has become a full-fledged neo-feudalism it is hard to see how any of the peoples of the world can ever be free again.

维特根斯坦说世界是事实的总和。他大错特错。世界是我们对它的认识的简单术语。他们过去常称精神病医生为“疏离者”。社会平静的市场是对揭示其疯狂的诅咒。但是，没有什么比描绘一个如此舒适熟悉的世界的陌生感更严谨的了。事实上，这是最奇怪的事情。但如果你所能做的只是表现得奇怪，那这种严谨性就不存在了。

"By moving its tax address (but not its headquarters and employees) to a tax haven, Pfizer will likely avoid paying the U.S. taxes it owes on about $140 billion in profits it has stashed offshore. That will cost us tens of billions of dollars in lost revenue ? money that is needed to maintain critical services here at home."
From a petition to stop tax havens.