And yet he is the only one to go after the biggest illegal corporation of all time. THE FEDERAL RESERVE!!!
GOVT. REGULATION?
How about the fake liberals and fake conservative wake up and see the FEDERAL RESERVE owns you. Like Cattle. They write the regulations. And Ron Paul is the only one calling them out. You can't have it both ways. Who are you supporting that has a goal of ending the illegal monopoly of the biggest corporation in America?
I was talking about private unregulated corporations. I'll admit, I'm not up to speed on the Federal reserve so, I can't comment on that. Also, I have not made up my mind on who I am supporting. Federal reserve aside, are you for complete deregulation across the board, ie the FDA, etc?
Also, I have nothing against Ron Paul. He makes good points, esp when it concerns the Iraq war and foreign policy. I'm just not too keen on the rest of his libertarian views.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
It seems to me that an unchecked 'free' market tends to becomes dominated by a few corporations, that results in oligopolistic competition and higher profits for the companies in question. This occurs because only established corporations can afford the large capital investments needed to compete, thus reducing the number of competitors who can enter or survive in a given the market. In other words, an unchecked capitalist market evolves toward oligopolistic concentration, imo.
Higher profits should not be seen as a bad thing, they are healthy in a competative market place. Where high profits are not desirable are in situations where the government props up business by making laws to suit their needs and one of the biggest customers to large corporation oligarchs is the federal government. This relationship is detrimental to the free market, it makes the market fuzzy and less secure.
I was talking about private unregulated corporations. I'll admit, I'm not up to speed on the Federal reserve so, I can't comment on that. Also, I have not made up my mind on who I am supporting. Federal reserve aside, are you for complete deregulation across the board, ie the FDA, etc?
Also, I have nothing against Ron Paul. He makes good points, esp when it concerns the Iraq war and foreign policy. I'm just not too keen on the rest of his libertarian views.
Deregulation or ending corporate monopoly subsidy? It's all how you frame the question. The system that he wishes to dismantle only protects huge corporations that write the laws. In radio, in financial services, energy, our drugs, all decided by the fortune 500. Take away that subsidy and mom and pop can compete on a level playing field.
I have no doubt that there is something about the gov't that 'offends' everyone and anti-government sentiments obviously resonate with most all of us. But here is my concern with the libertarian views. I'm reminded of 19th century US. Did we not have laissez-faire capitalism and were there not many horrible problems? Filth in our meat, racism, company towns, union-busting goons, monopolies, corruption scandals, a punishing business cycle, sweat shops, child labor, etc. The solution to most of those problems was government: food and drug regulation, anti-trust laws, labor laws, etc. The free market did not 'work out' out these problems then, so I'm having a hard time seeing how it would work them out now.
This is what I mean when I say deregulation, ie protection from abuses of the market. I do not want to see these protections desolved, things like the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, the Product Safety Commission, truth in labeling laws, investigations into mail fraud, laws against race and sex discrimination. These are just a few that come to mind.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Well... for those of us 'idiots' out here who are tired of given only the choice between a shit and jelly sandwich or a turd omlette... we think we might actually choose mockery cake this time. And what really seperates this 'clown' from the rest of the clowns in the field... they are politicians? That make them the better choice? If you believe the campaign lies of politicians... you are the clown, not them. The only one telling us the truth... that the whole campaign process is a fucking joke... Stephen Colbert.
So, bon appitite, assholes. Let me know is adding tobasco sauce to your turd omlette makes it go down any easier... I'm going to be having some delicious protest cake with thick layer of 'Sick of the mockery that American Politics have become' icing. Mmmmmmm... mockery.
I have no doubt that there is something about the gov't that 'offends' everyone and anti-government sentiments obviously resonate with most all of us. But here is my concern with the libertarian views. I'm reminded of 19th century US. Did we not have laissez-faire capitalism and were there not many horrible problems? Filth in our meat, racism, company towns, union-busting goons, monopolies, corruption scandals, a punishing business cycle, sweat shops, child labor, etc. The solution to most of those problems was government: food and drug regulation, anti-trust laws, labor laws, etc. The free market did not 'work out' out these problems then, so I'm having a hard time seeing how it would work them out now.
This is what I mean when I say deregulation, ie protection from abuses of the market. I do not want to see these protections desolved, things like the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, the Product Safety Commission, truth in labeling laws, investigations into mail fraud, laws against race and sex discrimination. These are just a few that come to mind.
You always sum up my thoughts perfectly when it comes to this topic. I totally agree
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
some of the stuff that he and his staff come up with is pure comedic genius.
It's a shame he never got that bridge named after him in Hungary...
I doubt people would seriously vote for a comedian, but California voted for Schwarzenegger, so I wouldn't be completely surprised.. On the other hand underneath the thick layer of narcissism is an intelligent person.
Still I doubt this 'candidacy' should be taken seriously.
I'm reminded of 19th century US. Did we not have laissez-faire capitalism and were there not many horrible problems? Filth in our meat, racism, company towns, union-busting goons, monopolies, corruption scandals, a punishing business cycle, sweat shops, child labor, etc. The solution to most of those problems was government: food and drug regulation, anti-trust laws, labor laws, etc. The free market did not 'work out' out these problems then, so I'm having a hard time seeing how it would work them out now.
This is what I mean when I say deregulation, ie protection from abuses of the market. I do not want to see these protections desolved, things like the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, the Product Safety Commission, truth in labeling laws, investigations into mail fraud, laws against race and sex discrimination. These are just a few that come to mind.
The market place has always been heavily influenced by the government. It would be foolish to believe that it was business alone that allowed slavery, allowed union-busting, allows shit in meat etc. The government not only allows/ed this stuff to happen but set up a "reasonable" framework for it to exist. You can own slaves, but only so many and only in the form of chattel, you can hire goons to bust the unions but only after the strike is declared "illegal", you can have shit in the meat but you have to put a warning on the package to cook it thoroughly. Etc.
The solution to these problems is absolutely not the government. Rosa Parks is a perfect example of an individual standing up and forcing a change, if it were left up to the government they would only make changes in favor of corporations and big business because currently that is exactly who they are. Laws are designed to protect large business.
A truely free market would correct these problems quicker and more efficiently. If there was knowledge out there that there was cow shit in hamburger(which there is right now, in every pack), and government was not there to lay down guidelines about how much shit is "acceptable", then people would not buy hamburger anymore or would still buy it but with the information that it contains crap. The idea of researching what you eat has competely left the mindframe of an average person...why? Because we are like children and expect the government to steer us through life...
As for the FDA, CDC etc, those parts of the government seem reasonable but in essense what they do is take responsibility away from the individual. Personally, I don't need a bureaucrasy to tell me what I should or shouldn't buy with my money.
It seems to me that an unchecked 'free' market tends to becomes dominated by a few corporations, that results in oligopolistic competition and higher profits for the companies in question. This occurs because only established corporations can afford the large capital investments needed to compete, thus reducing the number of competitors who can enter or survive in a given the market. In other words, an unchecked capitalist market evolves toward oligopolistic concentration, imo.
That is ONLY a true statement IF the "unregulated" market is actualy a market that exists with rules, regulations, and tax benefits for (and lobbied into existence by) the corporations.
In short, the corporate form has grown to dominate business, ONLY because congressional legislation FAVORS corporate business ... and no wonder ... corporations FLOOD them with political contributions! grrr.
If corporations were NOT given an advantage, or better yet, if they were regulated to place them at specific DISadvanatge, we may be just hunkydoory ...
IN FACT, THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE FEDERAL "INCOME TAX" WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A SAFEGUARD AGAINST CORPORATE DOMINATION.
Another merit of this tax is the federal supervision, which must be exercised in order to make the law effective over the annual accounts and business transactions of all corporations. While the faculty of assuming a corporate form has been of the utmost utility in the business world, it is also true that substantially all of the abuses and all of the evils which have aroused the public to the necessity of reform were made possible by the use of this very faculty. If now, by a perfectly legitimate and effective system of taxation, we are incidentally able to possess the Government and the stockholders and the public of the knowledge of the real business transactions and the gains and profits of every corporation in the country, we have made a long step toward that supervisory control of corporations which may prevent a further abuse of power.
Essentialy what Taft is arguing here is that (and this is all the more apparent if you read the ENTIRE letter) the tax he is proposing -- a tax ONLY on the after-tax net incomes of CORPORATE business -- would act as a sort of check-and-balance to keep corporate power at bay. In other words, all forms of business being "equal", by putting a tax ONLY on the corporate form, you impose financial oversight on this form of business and cause it to fall in check to some extent, via its necessity to comply with regulation and oversight. There is also some stunting of corporate growth versus that of the unincorporated sole proprietorship or partnership as the common man is NOT taxed and there for operating at a specific financial advantage. Meanwhile Mean Mr. Corporation is both at a financial AND regulatory disadvantage. BRILLIANT. Just a shame it never went off like it was supposed to. :( grr
I think that if people start reading this letter, they will see just how swindled they really have become.
Also, it will make you realize why Ron Paul (and coincidentaly, his support of Taft himself) are all the more relevant.
THANK YOU.
GOODNIGHT.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
That is ONLY a true statement IF the "unregulated" market is actualy a market that exists with rules, regulations, and tax benefits for (and lobbied into existence by) the corporations.
In short, the corporate form has grown to dominate business, ONLY because congressional legislation FAVORS corporate business ... and no wonder ... corporations FLOOD them with political contributions! grrr.
If corporations were NOT given an advantage, or better yet, if they were regulated to place them at specific DISadvanatge, we may be just hunkydoory ...
IN FACT, THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE FEDERAL "INCOME TAX" WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A SAFEGUARD AGAINST CORPORATE DOMINATION.
Essentialy what Taft is arguing here is that (and this is all the more apparent if you read the ENTIRE letter) the tax he is proposing -- a tax ONLY on the after-tax net incomes of CORPORATE business -- would act as a sort of check-and-balance to keep corporate power at bay. In other words, all forms of business being "equal", by putting a tax ONLY on the corporate form, you impose financial oversight on this form of business and cause it to fall in check to some extent, via its necessity to comply with regulation and oversight. There is also some stunting of corporate growth versus that of the unincorporated sole proprietorship or partnership as the common man is NOT taxed and there for operating at a specific financial advantage. Meanwhile Mean Mr. Corporation is both at a financial AND regulatory disadvantage. BRILLIANT. Just a shame it never went off like it was supposed to. :( grr
I think that if people start reading this letter, they will see just how swindled they really have become.
Also, it will make you realize why Ron Paul (and coincidentaly, his support of Taft himself) are all the more relevant.
It's a shame he never got that bridge named after him in Hungary...
I doubt people would seriously vote for a comedian, but California voted for Schwarzenegger, so I wouldn't be completely surprised.. On the other hand underneath the thick layer of narcissism is an intelligent person.
Still I doubt this 'candidacy' should be taken seriously.
that was one of the ones i was thinking of. the hungarian ambassador to the us came on the show to give him special honours as a consolation.
The market place has always been heavily influenced by the government. It would be foolish to believe that it was business alone that allowed slavery, allowed union-busting, allows shit in meat etc. The government not only allows/ed this stuff to happen but set up a "reasonable" framework for it to exist. You can own slaves, but only so many and only in the form of chattel, you can hire goons to bust the unions but only after the strike is declared "illegal", you can have shit in the meat but you have to put a warning on the package to cook it thoroughly. Etc.
The gov't allowed these things to happen because they did not, at the time, regulated against said abuse. Again, I'm not saying that the go'vt has not been responsible for many things, but I'm not so quick to absolutely blame the gov't for everything, esp when we can see the where they have corrected problems, via regulations.
The solution to these problems is absolutely not the government. Rosa Parks is a perfect example of an individual standing up and forcing a change, if it were left up to the government they would only make changes in favor of corporations and big business because currently that is exactly who they are. Laws are designed to protect large business.
But the solution was the gov't via laws against race discrimination. Sadly, Rosa Parks actions would not alone change the hearts of all men at once. So laws were created, to prevent discrimination.
A truely free market would correct these problems quicker and more efficiently. If there was knowledge out there that there was cow shit in hamburger(which there is right now, in every pack), and government was not there to lay down guidelines about how much shit is "acceptable", then people would not buy hamburger anymore or would still buy it but with the information that it contains crap. The idea of researching what you eat has competely left the mindframe of an average person...why? Because we are like children and expect the government to steer us through life...
As for the FDA, CDC etc, those parts of the government seem reasonable but in essense what they do is take responsibility away from the individual. Personally, I don't need a bureaucrasy to tell me what I should or shouldn't buy with my money.
I'm not confident about the predictions for how prosperous a truly free market will be because these expectations are based on a number of ad hoc presumptions that are expected to be taken on faith,imo. As I stated before, we tried that back in the 19th century when there were almost no regulations. To say that the market will always find the efficient way to do something, whereas government will always do a worse job and will always be riddled with waste and misdirection and inefficiency and pointlessness is an ad hoc presumption, imo. Every libertarian I have discussed this with uses it as an axiom to reason from, rather than as a conclusion to reason toward. And there is not really much evidence to speak of that this is true in a dependable general way, but there are plenty of counterexamples to the presumption that government action will always screw things up.
As far as taking the responsibility away from the individual, the FDA, CDC, etc are doing nothing of the sort. They are empowering folks with information that allow them to make the best possible choices. They protect the people. For example, in this country we were outraged by all the toys that were produced in China that contained lead, due to using the more inexpensive lead paint. If our regulatory agencies disappear tomorrow, we will see more and more of this by companies here. A regulatory agency has the means and the experts to ensure a standard that the common person has no control over.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
That is ONLY a true statement IF the "unregulated" market is actualy a market that exists with rules, regulations, and tax benefits for (and lobbied into existence by) the corporations.
I think I must be really tired Drifting, because I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Can you expound?
In short, the corporate form has grown to dominate business, ONLY because congressional legislation FAVORS corporate business ... and no wonder ... corporations FLOOD them with political contributions! grrr.
Oh I agree. I've never stated that the gov't has not acted wrongly in this matter. It's issues like this that divides the political stances in our country.
If corporations were NOT given an advantage, or better yet, if they were regulated to place them at specific DISadvanatge, we may be just hunkydoory ...
Hum, maybe I am tired, because I think I agree You are talking about regulating big business, yes?
IN FACT, THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE FEDERAL "INCOME TAX" WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A SAFEGUARD AGAINST CORPORATE DOMINATION.
Ah, now we enter the tax realm! You know, there was a whole thread about libertarian views that I and another poster participated in and it was really fun. The poster that started the thread, someone with libertarian views, is a sharp guy and we got pretty detailed about our philosophies on taxes. I'll try to dig it up for you.
I need to go back and refresh myself on what I said, but most of my concerns can be found there. ffg was a fun guy to debate. He kept you on your toes!
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Yes and another problem I have with Libertarianism in general is the deregulation aspect, that it ignores the plain fact that private institutions, like corporations can be just as tyrannical as governments.
A good Libertarian never ignores this fact. A good Libertarian, however, doesn't think the solution is to impose their own tyrannical institution because of it.
At least our government in the U.S. is, at least in principle, is constrained by the constitution and the voters.
In principle, yes. In fact, no. The Constitution, for better or worse, is in tatters. The voters, for better or worse, have no principled basis aside from convenience.
It seems to me that corporations in the absence of government regulation could have the potential to be unbounded authoritarian structures.
It seems to me that you, in the absence of shackles, could have the potential to be a rapist and murderer. Care to be shackled?
Corporations can be more oppressive to our citizens. Citizens will be constrained to participate in an economy that is essentially shaped by corporate interests that are consolidating their power in fewer and fewer hands. Without regulation to limit private power, we end up with effective slavery: sweat-shops, company towns, no collective bargaining, etc.
Baraka, you've fallen back on a "well, corporations would be just as bad" argument. That's all fine and good. There are some truths there. However, remember that Ron Paul and Libertarians in general are not advocating for the removal of government. They're advocating a return to the original American concept of government wherein the state serves as a defender from tyranny in any form. In a Libertarian state, forced labor is a crime. Property theft is a crime. Violent union-busting is a crime. The list of crimes would remain quite long and would serve to protect individuals from corporations and corporations from individuals all based upon a belief in personal property.
It seems to me that an unchecked 'free' market tends to becomes dominated by a few corporations, that results in oligopolistic competition and higher profits for the companies in question. This occurs because only established corporations can afford the large capital investments needed to compete, thus reducing the number of competitors who can enter or survive in a given the market. In other words, an unchecked capitalist market evolves toward oligopolistic concentration, imo.
An unchecked free market does not "tend to become dominated by a few corporations". It certainly can, in some instances. However, a regulated market increases that chance by creating protectionist environments, encouraging consolidation, and imposing regulatory and feduciary barriers on entering the market. It is no coincidence that the most heavily regulated industries tend to be the ones also dominated by only a few players.
An unchecked free market does not "tend to become dominated by a few corporations". It certainly can, in some instances. However, a regulated market increases that chance by creating protectionist environments, encouraging consolidation, and imposing regulatory and feduciary barriers on entering the market. It is no coincidence that the most heavily regulated industries tend to be the ones also dominated by only a few players.
Great to see you back my friend.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I have no doubt that there is something about the gov't that 'offends' everyone and anti-government sentiments obviously resonate with most all of us. But here is my concern with the libertarian views. I'm reminded of 19th century US. Did we not have laissez-faire capitalism and were there not many horrible problems? Filth in our meat, racism, company towns, union-busting goons, monopolies, corruption scandals, a punishing business cycle, sweat shops, child labor, etc. The solution to most of those problems was government: food and drug regulation, anti-trust laws, labor laws, etc. The free market did not 'work out' out these problems then, so I'm having a hard time seeing how it would work them out now.
Be careful where you lay credit. The government that "solved" the above problems also did much to create them. The 19th Century was marked by laissez-faire capitalism to roughly the same extent as it was marked by governmental cronyism, influence, injustice and coersion. Furthermore, be careful with your environmental relativism. Two centuries from now, human beings will look back at the very heavily regulated 21st century and ask with the same disgust, "how did they live like that"? The 19th Century, while very far from perfect, held better lives for most Americans than did in the 17th Century, just as the 21st century holds better lives for most Americans than did the 19th Century.
This is what I mean when I say deregulation, ie protection from abuses of the market. I do not want to see these protections desolved, things like the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, the Product Safety Commission, truth in labeling laws, investigations into mail fraud, laws against race and sex discrimination. These are just a few that come to mind.
If you do not want to see these protections dissolved, don't dissolve them. But if what you want to have or do not want to have has any relevance, understand that what others want to have or do not want to have has equal relevance.
Be careful where you lay credit. The government that "solved" the above problems also did much to create them. The 19th Century was marked by laissez-faire capitalism to roughly the same extent as it was marked by governmental cronyism, influence, injustice and coersion. Furthermore, be careful with your environmental relativism. Two centuries from now, human beings will look back at the very heavily regulated 21st century and ask with the same disgust, "how did they live like that"? The 19th Century, while very far from perfect, held better lives for most Americans than did in the 17th Century, just as the 21st century holds better lives for most Americans than did the 19th Century.
If you do not want to see these protections dissolved, don't dissolve them. But if what you want to have or do not want to have has any relevance, understand that what others want to have or do not want to have has equal relevance.
You contradict yourself. How would there be "equal relevance" when "belief" systems oppose? If ownership is a human right, as you believe, then who is to say the displacement of longstanding tenants of a land aren't simply overrun by somebody with the greater capital? This happens today as it is. It's called gentrification.
You contradict yourself. How would there be "equal relevance" when "belief" systems oppose?
Because the principle is the same. When one person says "This should exist because I like this" and another says "This shouldn't exist because I don't like this", their principle (personal preference) is the same. Neither proves objectively whether "this" should or should not exist.
The nice thing about the free market is that personal preferences need not be exclusionary (though they certainly can become exclusionary in certain environments). The bad thing about governments is that personal preferences almost always become exclusionary.
If ownership is a human right, as you believe, then who is to say the displacement of longstanding tenants of a land aren't simply overrun by somebody with the greater capital?
The displacement of longstanding tenants of a land that are overrun by somebody with greater capital would be a violation of ownership rights, assuming those tenants actually own that land and that "somebody" overruns by force as opposed to exchange.
This happens today as it is. It's called gentrification.
Depends on what kind of gentrification you're talking about, but you've chosen a very bad example here. "Good" gentrification, meaning where existing tenants willingly exchange property for exceptional gains on original investments, is a nice outcome of market forces. "Bad" gentrification, meaning when inflation, taxation, and outright coersion literally pushes people off their land tends to be a function of government, not free markets. But I suspect that you're playing around with the word "own" above and referring not to owners, but to renters....
Be careful where you lay credit. The government that "solved" the above problems also did much to create them. The 19th Century was marked by laissez-faire capitalism to roughly the same extent as it was marked by governmental cronyism, influence, injustice and coersion. Furthermore, be careful with your environmental relativism. Two centuries from now, human beings will look back at the very heavily regulated 21st century and ask with the same disgust, "how did they live like that"? The 19th Century, while very far from perfect, held better lives for most Americans than did in the 17th Century, just as the 21st century holds better lives for most Americans than did the 19th Century.
If you do not want to see these protections dissolved, don't dissolve them. But if what you want to have or do not want to have has any relevance, understand that what others want to have or do not want to have has equal relevance.
I also disagree with your premise that we humans now look back at earlier earlier eras "in disgust." Your unrealistic implication in that assessment could be that "progress" is the key?
Because the principle is the same. When one person says "This should exist because I like this" and another says "This shouldn't exist because I don't like this", their principle (personal preference) is the same. Neither proves objectively whether "this" should or should not exist.
The nice thing about the free market is that personal preferences need not be exclusionary (though they certainly can become exclusionary in certain environments). The bad thing about governments is that personal preferences almost always become exclusionary.
The displacement of longstanding tentants of a land that are overrun by somebody with greater capital would be a violation of ownership rights, assuming those tenants actually own that land and that "somebody" overruns by force as opposed to exchange.
Depends on what kind of gentrification you're talking about, but you've chosen a very bad example here. "Good" gentrification, meaning where existing tentants willingly exchange property for exceptional gains on original investments, is a nice outcome of market forces. "Bad" gentrification, meaning when inflation, taxation, and outright coersion literally pushes people off their land tends to be a function of government, not free markets. But I suspect that you're playing around with the word "own" above and referring not to owners, but to renters....
I also disagree with your premise that we humans now look back at earlier earlier eras "in disgust." Your unrealistic implication in that assessment could be that "progress" is the key?
I think we certainly do look back at earlier eras "in disgust", though those words might be too loaded or strong. I mean, would you like to live in 19th Century America? How about 17th Century America? Perhaps rural Kenya today? Would you trade your life now for what it would be then or there? Some might certainly say yes. The vast majority, however, would not.
"Progress" is not necessarily key to everything, but "progress" is a fundamental part of civilization and civilization itself is forever bound to the concept. If one looks at industrial America, one certainly sees lots of progress made, and absolutely much to be made. Same goes for today or at any point in "civilized history". We can look, for instance, at much of China and India today and see a mirror of 19th century america. There is much there to be horrified about, yet at the same time their current position represents a step forward from the horrors that came before it.
Help me out here. I'm not saying "likes" and "dislikes" are capital. I'm simply saying that if one attempts to justify their particular argument based on a preference, one must allow the same from others. In other words, you cannot say "Ban all ice cream except chocolate, because I like chocolate" without allowing your neighbor's argument of "Ban all ice cream except vanilla, because I like vanilla".
I think we certainly do look back at earlier eras "in disgust", though those words might be too loaded or strong. I mean, would you like to live in 19th Century America? How about 17th Century America? Perhaps rural Kenya today? Would you trade your life now for what it would be then or there? Some might certainly say yes. The vast majority, however, would not.
"Progress" is not necessarily key to everything, but "progress" is a fundamental part of civilization and civilization itself is forever bound to the concept. If one looks at industrial America, one certainly sees lots of progress made, and absolutely much to be made. Same goes for today or at any point in "civilized history". We can look, for instance, at much of China and India today and see a mirror of 19th century america. There is much there to be horrified about, yet at the same time their current position represents a step forward from the horrors that came before it.
That's too bad.
And since when does an individualist use the "vast majority" (would agree)argument?
And since when does an individualist use the "vast majority" (would agree)argument?
I'm not using a "vast majority" argument to justify anything other than the claim that most people would see today's existence as better for them personally than their existence in the past would have been. I'm not suggesting that you should worship progress because your neighbors might, or that progress itself is unimpeachable simply because most people believe it is right. Neither is or should be the case.
A good Libertarian never ignores this fact. A good Libertarian, however, doesn't think the solution is to impose their own tyrannical institution because of it.
But they are ignoring this fact. So are you saying that libertarians don't care how many restrictions are placed on you, what kind of force is applied to you, what sort of misery you live in, as long as it's not the government doing it? Again, at least with the gov't, the people have a voice. This would not be the case with a large corporation. Corporations have in the past ignored public health and what is best for the community because their eye is on the bottom line. I will note, however, that this is not the case for ALL large companies, but many.
In principle, yes. In fact, no. The Constitution, for better or worse, is in tatters. The voters, for better or worse, have no principled basis aside from convenience.
We've been down this road too. 'Plain meaning' of the constitution is a matter of opinion. The meaning changes over time depending on popular usage, historical context, etc. We can debate this all day and it has by evidence of non-unanimous court decisions. But for practical purposes, the meaning MUST be decided one way or another.
Libertarian claims of the meaning are often clearly shaped by their beliefs. It is my feeling that their 'meaning' is not bound by common sense.
The best way to interpret the constitution is the way the founders explicitly specified in the Constitution, ie look to the courts, especially the Supreme Court.
It seems to me that you, in the absence of shackles, could have the potential to be a rapist and murderer. Care to be shackled?
Oh how I've missed you, ffg. I think I know where you are going with this. And in a perfect world, perhaps we can one day we can live without laws. On the flip side, communism was supposed to provide a perfect society as well. I don't think that went so well.
Baraka, you've fallen back on a "well, corporations would be just as bad" argument. That's all fine and good. There are some truths there. However, remember that Ron Paul and Libertarians in general are not advocating for the removal of government. They're advocating a return to the original American concept of government wherein the state serves as a defender from tyranny in any form. In a Libertarian state, forced labor is a crime. Property theft is a crime. Violent union-busting is a crime. The list of crimes would remain quite long and would serve to protect individuals from corporations and corporations from individuals all based upon a belief in personal property.
I stated my opinion concerning the 'return to the original concept of gov't' above. As far as your last statement concerning personal property, you need to be careful. The foundational principles of libertarianism, the rights to life, liberty, and property are in the abstract, very attractive, so you won't find me arguing against that at all. But the libertarians take it s step further and that proves to be the undoing of their ideology in my opinion. I've heard it referred to 'the like liberty principle'. For example, the 'right to property' can threaten the life and liberty of others, like in the case of the segregation laws in the American south, prior to the enactment of the public accommodation laws. In general, the powerful and wealthy individual's 'freedom to choose' is routinely found to constrain the same freedom in others.
Whew, my brain hurts. It's nice to see you back, ffg!
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Help me out here. I'm not saying "likes" and "dislikes" are capital. I'm simply saying that if one attempts to justify their particular argument based on a preference, one must allow the same from others. In other words, you cannot say "Ban all ice cream except chocolate, because I like chocolate" without allowing your neighbor's argument of "Ban all ice cream except vanilla, because I like vanilla".
I'm saying that in this economic food chain that we live in, the drive to obtain capital (property, through banknotes) tends to to be paramount in your argument for Libertarianism. No worries about where the real food comes from since you no longer have to raise it yourself.... Your ideal seems to hold that justice and democracy will prevail in these trivial exercises of constitutional law and elections in this form of government that you preach. You seem to forget how easily the "people" are swayed to vote. It's like saying "the best bullshitter wins."
How would your candidate be better than say that congressperson from California who opposes the Iraq war, yet refused to vote against a defense spending bill because it would take 1,000 jobs and the revenue that comes with it out of her State?
But they are ignoring this fact. So are you saying that libertarians don't care how many restrictions are placed on you, what kind of force is applied to you, what sort of misery you live in, as long as it's not the government doing it?
No. Quit confusing people like me (more anarchistic) and corporatists with Libertarians. Libertarians don't believe in regulating markets, but certainly would support applying personal property restrictions on corporate actions. No Libertarian believes that Wal-Mart should be able to enslave you or steal your home and most support a governmental structure to protect you from this.
Again, at least with the gov't, the people have a voice.
Do they? People have a vote. A vote and a voice aren't necessarily the same thing. A person will find it is much easier to influece another with a dollar than they will with a vote.
This would not be the case with a large corporation. Corporations have in the past ignored public health and what is best for the community because their eye is on the bottom line. I will note, however, that this is not the case for ALL large companies, but many.
Sure. And governments have in the past ignored public health and what is best for the community because their eye is on the bottom line or on power or on populism. So what's your argument here? Any individual human being or groups of human beings can ignore public health or what's best for the community.
We've been down this road too. 'Plain meaning' of the constitution is a matter of opinion. The meaning changes over time depending on popular usage, historical context, etc. We can debate this all day and it has by evidence of non-unanimous court decisions. But for practical purposes, the meaning MUST be decided one way or another.
Hehe...yes, it certainly MUST.
Libertarian claims of the meaning are often clearly shaped by their beliefs. It is my feeling that their 'meaning' is not bound by common sense.
I'm sure they'd feel the same about you, and me.
The best way to interpret the constitution is the way the founders explicitly specified in the Constitution, ie look to the courts, especially the Supreme Court.
I agree. The best way to interpret the constitution is to read it as literally as possible. But out with that goes nearly 90% of the activities of today's federal government.
Oh how I've missed you, ffg.
I've missed you too!
I think I know where you are going with this. And in a perfect world, perhaps we can one day we can live without laws. On the flip side, communism was supposed to provide a perfect society as well. I don't think that went so well.
That's because there's no such thing as a "perfect society". There are, however, individual concepts of a perfect life, held by each of us.
I stated my opinion concerning the 'return to the original concept of gov't' above. As far as your last statement concerning personal property, you need to be careful. The foundational principles of libertarianism, the rights to life, liberty, and property are in the abstract, very attractive, so you won't find me arguing against that at all. But the libertarians take it s step further and that proves to be the undoing of their ideology in my opinion. I've heard it referred to 'the like liberty principle'. For example, the 'right to property' can threaten the life and liberty of others, like in the case of the segregation laws in the American south, prior to the enactment of the public accommodation laws. In general, the powerful and wealthy individual's 'freedom to choose' is routinely found to constrain the same freedom in others.
Absolutely! There are many potential contradictions to be found between rights to life, liberty and property.
I'm saying that in this economic food chain that we live in, the drive to obtain capital (property, through banknotes) tends to to be paramount in your argument for Libertarianism.
Huh? My argument for Libertarianism is not defined by a "drive to obtain capital". Why do you see it that way? My argument for Libertarianism simply extends to a belief that people should be able to keep what they own, and it plays an important role here since so many people's arguments against Libertarianism are defined by a desire to have what those people own.
No worries about where the real food comes from since you no longer have to raise it yourself.... Your ideal seems to hold that justice and democracy will prevail in these trivial exercises of constitutional law and elections in this form of government that you preach. You seem to forget how easily the "people" are swayed to vote. It's like saying "the best bullshitter wins." How would your candidate be better than say that congressperson from California who opposes the Iraq war, yet refused to vote against a defense spending bill because it would take 1,000 jobs and the revenue that comes with it out of her State?
This is kind of all over the place, and I'm not sure what you're saying. Certainly there is an important point found in the fact that too many of us are economically separated from our sustenance, and that voters are fickle, and that many politicians are hypocrites. I don't disagree with any of those things, at least on the surface. What's your point here?
Comments
I was talking about private unregulated corporations. I'll admit, I'm not up to speed on the Federal reserve so, I can't comment on that. Also, I have not made up my mind on who I am supporting. Federal reserve aside, are you for complete deregulation across the board, ie the FDA, etc?
Also, I have nothing against Ron Paul. He makes good points, esp when it concerns the Iraq war and foreign policy. I'm just not too keen on the rest of his libertarian views.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Higher profits should not be seen as a bad thing, they are healthy in a competative market place. Where high profits are not desirable are in situations where the government props up business by making laws to suit their needs and one of the biggest customers to large corporation oligarchs is the federal government. This relationship is detrimental to the free market, it makes the market fuzzy and less secure.
You got to spend it all
http://www.mikecann.net/2009/02/best-smoking-song-poll.html
Vote on Our Best Smoking Poll with Pearl Jam song!
This is what I mean when I say deregulation, ie protection from abuses of the market. I do not want to see these protections desolved, things like the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, the Product Safety Commission, truth in labeling laws, investigations into mail fraud, laws against race and sex discrimination. These are just a few that come to mind.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Perfectly said, Cosmo.
I doubt people would seriously vote for a comedian, but California voted for Schwarzenegger, so I wouldn't be completely surprised.. On the other hand underneath the thick layer of narcissism is an intelligent person.
Still I doubt this 'candidacy' should be taken seriously.
The market place has always been heavily influenced by the government. It would be foolish to believe that it was business alone that allowed slavery, allowed union-busting, allows shit in meat etc. The government not only allows/ed this stuff to happen but set up a "reasonable" framework for it to exist. You can own slaves, but only so many and only in the form of chattel, you can hire goons to bust the unions but only after the strike is declared "illegal", you can have shit in the meat but you have to put a warning on the package to cook it thoroughly. Etc.
The solution to these problems is absolutely not the government. Rosa Parks is a perfect example of an individual standing up and forcing a change, if it were left up to the government they would only make changes in favor of corporations and big business because currently that is exactly who they are. Laws are designed to protect large business.
A truely free market would correct these problems quicker and more efficiently. If there was knowledge out there that there was cow shit in hamburger(which there is right now, in every pack), and government was not there to lay down guidelines about how much shit is "acceptable", then people would not buy hamburger anymore or would still buy it but with the information that it contains crap. The idea of researching what you eat has competely left the mindframe of an average person...why? Because we are like children and expect the government to steer us through life...
As for the FDA, CDC etc, those parts of the government seem reasonable but in essense what they do is take responsibility away from the individual. Personally, I don't need a bureaucrasy to tell me what I should or shouldn't buy with my money.
You got to spend it all
And i think that is the big point to take away here.
Most of these goofballs will be likely to NOT make their way to the polls to actually vote in the primary.
On the contrary, just about EVERY ONE of the people who says they intend to support Ron Paul WILL BE AT THE POLLS.
Just my opinion.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
That is ONLY a true statement IF the "unregulated" market is actualy a market that exists with rules, regulations, and tax benefits for (and lobbied into existence by) the corporations.
In short, the corporate form has grown to dominate business, ONLY because congressional legislation FAVORS corporate business ... and no wonder ... corporations FLOOD them with political contributions! grrr.
If corporations were NOT given an advantage, or better yet, if they were regulated to place them at specific DISadvanatge, we may be just hunkydoory ...
IN FACT, THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE FEDERAL "INCOME TAX" WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A SAFEGUARD AGAINST CORPORATE DOMINATION.
Don't believe me?
READ THIS: Legislative Intent Of 16th Ammendment - Letter From Taft To Congress
He says, in relevant part:
Essentialy what Taft is arguing here is that (and this is all the more apparent if you read the ENTIRE letter) the tax he is proposing -- a tax ONLY on the after-tax net incomes of CORPORATE business -- would act as a sort of check-and-balance to keep corporate power at bay. In other words, all forms of business being "equal", by putting a tax ONLY on the corporate form, you impose financial oversight on this form of business and cause it to fall in check to some extent, via its necessity to comply with regulation and oversight. There is also some stunting of corporate growth versus that of the unincorporated sole proprietorship or partnership as the common man is NOT taxed and there for operating at a specific financial advantage. Meanwhile Mean Mr. Corporation is both at a financial AND regulatory disadvantage. BRILLIANT. Just a shame it never went off like it was supposed to. :( grr
I think that if people start reading this letter, they will see just how swindled they really have become.
Also, it will make you realize why Ron Paul (and coincidentaly, his support of Taft himself) are all the more relevant.
THANK YOU.
GOODNIGHT.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
You would be a fine father for my babies.
You got to spend it all
that was one of the ones i was thinking of.
The gov't allowed these things to happen because they did not, at the time, regulated against said abuse. Again, I'm not saying that the go'vt has not been responsible for many things, but I'm not so quick to absolutely blame the gov't for everything, esp when we can see the where they have corrected problems, via regulations.
But the solution was the gov't via laws against race discrimination. Sadly, Rosa Parks actions would not alone change the hearts of all men at once. So laws were created, to prevent discrimination.
I'm not confident about the predictions for how prosperous a truly free market will be because these expectations are based on a number of ad hoc presumptions that are expected to be taken on faith,imo. As I stated before, we tried that back in the 19th century when there were almost no regulations. To say that the market will always find the efficient way to do something, whereas government will always do a worse job and will always be riddled with waste and misdirection and inefficiency and pointlessness is an ad hoc presumption, imo. Every libertarian I have discussed this with uses it as an axiom to reason from, rather than as a conclusion to reason toward. And there is not really much evidence to speak of that this is true in a dependable general way, but there are plenty of counterexamples to the presumption that government action will always screw things up.
As far as taking the responsibility away from the individual, the FDA, CDC, etc are doing nothing of the sort. They are empowering folks with information that allow them to make the best possible choices. They protect the people. For example, in this country we were outraged by all the toys that were produced in China that contained lead, due to using the more inexpensive lead paint. If our regulatory agencies disappear tomorrow, we will see more and more of this by companies here. A regulatory agency has the means and the experts to ensure a standard that the common person has no control over.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I think I must be really tired Drifting, because I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Can you expound?
Oh I agree. I've never stated that the gov't has not acted wrongly in this matter. It's issues like this that divides the political stances in our country.
Hum, maybe I am tired, because I think I agree
Ah, now we enter the tax realm!
Edit: OK, I found the thread about Libertarian Ideology that was started by FarFromGlorified when we were debating the issue. http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=243354
I need to go back and refresh myself on what I said, but most of my concerns can be found there. ffg was a fun guy to debate. He kept you on your toes!
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
A good Libertarian never ignores this fact. A good Libertarian, however, doesn't think the solution is to impose their own tyrannical institution because of it.
In principle, yes. In fact, no. The Constitution, for better or worse, is in tatters. The voters, for better or worse, have no principled basis aside from convenience.
It seems to me that you, in the absence of shackles, could have the potential to be a rapist and murderer. Care to be shackled?
Baraka, you've fallen back on a "well, corporations would be just as bad" argument. That's all fine and good. There are some truths there. However, remember that Ron Paul and Libertarians in general are not advocating for the removal of government. They're advocating a return to the original American concept of government wherein the state serves as a defender from tyranny in any form. In a Libertarian state, forced labor is a crime. Property theft is a crime. Violent union-busting is a crime. The list of crimes would remain quite long and would serve to protect individuals from corporations and corporations from individuals all based upon a belief in personal property.
An unchecked free market does not "tend to become dominated by a few corporations". It certainly can, in some instances. However, a regulated market increases that chance by creating protectionist environments, encouraging consolidation, and imposing regulatory and feduciary barriers on entering the market. It is no coincidence that the most heavily regulated industries tend to be the ones also dominated by only a few players.
Great to see you back my friend.
Be careful where you lay credit. The government that "solved" the above problems also did much to create them. The 19th Century was marked by laissez-faire capitalism to roughly the same extent as it was marked by governmental cronyism, influence, injustice and coersion. Furthermore, be careful with your environmental relativism. Two centuries from now, human beings will look back at the very heavily regulated 21st century and ask with the same disgust, "how did they live like that"? The 19th Century, while very far from perfect, held better lives for most Americans than did in the 17th Century, just as the 21st century holds better lives for most Americans than did the 19th Century.
If you do not want to see these protections dissolved, don't dissolve them. But if what you want to have or do not want to have has any relevance, understand that what others want to have or do not want to have has equal relevance.
You contradict yourself. How would there be "equal relevance" when "belief" systems oppose? If ownership is a human right, as you believe, then who is to say the displacement of longstanding tenants of a land aren't simply overrun by somebody with the greater capital? This happens today as it is. It's called gentrification.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Because the principle is the same. When one person says "This should exist because I like this" and another says "This shouldn't exist because I don't like this", their principle (personal preference) is the same. Neither proves objectively whether "this" should or should not exist.
The nice thing about the free market is that personal preferences need not be exclusionary (though they certainly can become exclusionary in certain environments). The bad thing about governments is that personal preferences almost always become exclusionary.
The displacement of longstanding tenants of a land that are overrun by somebody with greater capital would be a violation of ownership rights, assuming those tenants actually own that land and that "somebody" overruns by force as opposed to exchange.
Depends on what kind of gentrification you're talking about, but you've chosen a very bad example here. "Good" gentrification, meaning where existing tenants willingly exchange property for exceptional gains on original investments, is a nice outcome of market forces. "Bad" gentrification, meaning when inflation, taxation, and outright coersion literally pushes people off their land tends to be a function of government, not free markets. But I suspect that you're playing around with the word "own" above and referring not to owners, but to renters....
I also disagree with your premise that we humans now look back at earlier earlier eras "in disgust." Your unrealistic implication in that assessment could be that "progress" is the key?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
"Likes" and "dislikes" aren't capital.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I think we certainly do look back at earlier eras "in disgust", though those words might be too loaded or strong. I mean, would you like to live in 19th Century America? How about 17th Century America? Perhaps rural Kenya today? Would you trade your life now for what it would be then or there? Some might certainly say yes. The vast majority, however, would not.
"Progress" is not necessarily key to everything, but "progress" is a fundamental part of civilization and civilization itself is forever bound to the concept. If one looks at industrial America, one certainly sees lots of progress made, and absolutely much to be made. Same goes for today or at any point in "civilized history". We can look, for instance, at much of China and India today and see a mirror of 19th century america. There is much there to be horrified about, yet at the same time their current position represents a step forward from the horrors that came before it.
Help me out here. I'm not saying "likes" and "dislikes" are capital. I'm simply saying that if one attempts to justify their particular argument based on a preference, one must allow the same from others. In other words, you cannot say "Ban all ice cream except chocolate, because I like chocolate" without allowing your neighbor's argument of "Ban all ice cream except vanilla, because I like vanilla".
That's too bad.
And since when does an individualist use the "vast majority" (would agree)argument?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Too bad for whom? And how?
I'm not using a "vast majority" argument to justify anything other than the claim that most people would see today's existence as better for them personally than their existence in the past would have been. I'm not suggesting that you should worship progress because your neighbors might, or that progress itself is unimpeachable simply because most people believe it is right. Neither is or should be the case.
But they are ignoring this fact. So are you saying that libertarians don't care how many restrictions are placed on you, what kind of force is applied to you, what sort of misery you live in, as long as it's not the government doing it? Again, at least with the gov't, the people have a voice. This would not be the case with a large corporation. Corporations have in the past ignored public health and what is best for the community because their eye is on the bottom line. I will note, however, that this is not the case for ALL large companies, but many.
We've been down this road too. 'Plain meaning' of the constitution is a matter of opinion. The meaning changes over time depending on popular usage, historical context, etc. We can debate this all day and it has by evidence of non-unanimous court decisions. But for practical purposes, the meaning MUST be decided one way or another.
Libertarian claims of the meaning are often clearly shaped by their beliefs. It is my feeling that their 'meaning' is not bound by common sense.
The best way to interpret the constitution is the way the founders explicitly specified in the Constitution, ie look to the courts, especially the Supreme Court.
Oh how I've missed you, ffg.
I stated my opinion concerning the 'return to the original concept of gov't' above. As far as your last statement concerning personal property, you need to be careful. The foundational principles of libertarianism, the rights to life, liberty, and property are in the abstract, very attractive, so you won't find me arguing against that at all. But the libertarians take it s step further and that proves to be the undoing of their ideology in my opinion. I've heard it referred to 'the like liberty principle'. For example, the 'right to property' can threaten the life and liberty of others, like in the case of the segregation laws in the American south, prior to the enactment of the public accommodation laws. In general, the powerful and wealthy individual's 'freedom to choose' is routinely found to constrain the same freedom in others.
Whew, my brain hurts. It's nice to see you back, ffg!
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I'm saying that in this economic food chain that we live in, the drive to obtain capital (property, through banknotes) tends to to be paramount in your argument for Libertarianism. No worries about where the real food comes from since you no longer have to raise it yourself.... Your ideal seems to hold that justice and democracy will prevail in these trivial exercises of constitutional law and elections in this form of government that you preach. You seem to forget how easily the "people" are swayed to vote. It's like saying "the best bullshitter wins."
How would your candidate be better than say that congressperson from California who opposes the Iraq war, yet refused to vote against a defense spending bill because it would take 1,000 jobs and the revenue that comes with it out of her State?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
No. Quit confusing people like me (more anarchistic) and corporatists with Libertarians. Libertarians don't believe in regulating markets, but certainly would support applying personal property restrictions on corporate actions. No Libertarian believes that Wal-Mart should be able to enslave you or steal your home and most support a governmental structure to protect you from this.
Do they? People have a vote. A vote and a voice aren't necessarily the same thing. A person will find it is much easier to influece another with a dollar than they will with a vote.
Sure. And governments have in the past ignored public health and what is best for the community because their eye is on the bottom line or on power or on populism. So what's your argument here? Any individual human being or groups of human beings can ignore public health or what's best for the community.
Hehe...yes, it certainly MUST.
I'm sure they'd feel the same about you, and me.
I agree. The best way to interpret the constitution is to read it as literally as possible. But out with that goes nearly 90% of the activities of today's federal government.
I've missed you too!
That's because there's no such thing as a "perfect society". There are, however, individual concepts of a perfect life, held by each of us.
Absolutely! There are many potential contradictions to be found between rights to life, liberty and property.
Huh? My argument for Libertarianism is not defined by a "drive to obtain capital". Why do you see it that way? My argument for Libertarianism simply extends to a belief that people should be able to keep what they own, and it plays an important role here since so many people's arguments against Libertarianism are defined by a desire to have what those people own.
This is kind of all over the place, and I'm not sure what you're saying. Certainly there is an important point found in the fact that too many of us are economically separated from our sustenance, and that voters are fickle, and that many politicians are hypocrites. I don't disagree with any of those things, at least on the surface. What's your point here?