Content deleted Content added
Line 99: :Ad hominem attacks are NOT appropriate. Who are you to call others names?[[User:Sigiheri|Sigiheri]] ([[User talk:Sigiheri|talk]]) 19:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC) ::His name is BATTLECRY, and he has a banner saying he's a socialist, and he's editing on the free market page! haha. All his edits are simply deletions of sources and properly structured sentences. I haven't even accused him of anything other than deleting my contributions in what seems a malicious way.▼ I'm going to edit the text so it is correct and I'll give multiple citations to the relevant sources. Line 108 ⟶ 109: 4). A free market is not a structure. A free market is existence in the absence of state regulation. :What does it mean: "free market is existence..."[[User:Sigiheri|Sigiheri]] ([[User talk:Sigiheri|talk]]) 19:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC) ::Quite frankly I've said this too many times and it is finally wearing my patience: I shouldn't have to explain economics to you. Period. What do you think a free market is? Poverty isn't imposed. Economics is the study of human action. A free market is just existnce without a state. It doesn't preclude any of the features of any specific market. Just the absence of the state. '''I'm not here to defend economic science'''. I'm here to contribute without getting drawn into defensive edit wars. [[User:Rothbardanswer|Rothbardanswer]] ([[User talk:Rothbardanswer|talk]]) 20:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC) ▲::His name is BATTLECRY, and he has a banner saying he's a socialist, and he's editing on the free market page! haha. All his edits are simply deletions of sources and properly structured sentences. I haven't even accused him of anything other than deleting my contributions in what seems a malicious way. 5). "Monopolies" is a politically loaded and ambiguous term. A price can't be monopolised on a free market in the absence of government violence, threat or legality. See: [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baxaay2m9yk]] [[User:Rothbardanswer|Rothbardanswer]] ([[User talk:Rothbardanswer|talk]]) 14:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC) :If you're going to support an economic argument with a youtube video, walking away from the article now is the least unhappy of the possible outcomes for you, and I would strongly recommend that course of action. [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] ([[User talk:Bobrayner|talk]]) 17:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC) :: I actually can't believe you asked me why my tone changed. Every comment you make is passive aggressive. [[User:Rothbardanswer|Rothbardanswer]] ([[User talk:Rothbardanswer|talk]]) 20:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC) : I haven't cited a youtube video in the article. The article now has multiple citations to economic textbooks. Line 126 ⟶ 129: This article should reference the Manchester school, imo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_capitalism[[User:Sigiheri|Sigiheri]] ([[User talk:Sigiheri|talk]]) 20:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC) :: I didn't contribute dictionary.com. Cobden is a GREAT source but why do you think the classical economists are better than the more advanced so called "Austrians"? seems silly. [[User:Rothbardanswer|Rothbardanswer]] ([[User talk:Rothbardanswer|talk]]) 20:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC) | |||