Colbert polling higher than Ron Paul

1235

Comments

  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    baraka wrote:
    And I've never suggested that the gov't is perfect, but that does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water.

    That's perfectly fine.
    It is my belief that unmoderated capitalism is just as brutal and cruel as communism. We can look at history to provide examples of this. I would suggest that we can see examples pure capitalism in places such as Somalia and Calcutta.

    Hehe...pure capitalism and federal anarchy in the past decade have actually improved Somalia to some extent, but your point is fine here.
    As far as your question, I was simply posing an example of an abuse of labor. Unsanitary working conditions, no benefits, folks forced to to work like dogs in order to feed their families, etc. We see examples of these sweat shops all over the world in countries that turn a blind eye. Do we really want to go back to this?

    You keep assuming that, absent government regulation, we'd all go back to working in sweatshops. That's ridiculous. Our economic environment and labor base make little sense in a sweatshop environment whereas developing economies (like the one we were in 100 years ago) do.

    However, some sweatshops would likely open here, absent regulations. Can you explain to me a) why that's wrong and b) how it's any different than simply pushing your sweatshops overseas like you do today.
    The 'market' will not work out these problems.

    Of course it will. The "market" works out these problems via machinery, knowledge labor, and many other means. What you mean to say is that the market will not work out these problems quickly enough or somehow else to your liking.

    Markets will eventually work out most inefficiencies. To suggest that a person sitting on a stool weaving a shirt for 16 hours a day is "efficient" is silly.
    There is no example in history of the 'market' ever working out these problems.

    ?????

    Why don't we start at the beginning:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plough
    But there is a track record with our gov't. I can not accept on faith your claims.

    You don't have to accept anything. You can do anything you'd like with your govenment.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    gue_barium wrote:
    But we're talking billions and billions of dollars here from some really heavy hitters, warmongerers, death merchants... you know, that whole "market" that is the military industrial complex. How does a libertarian think he can fare against the likes of that?

    The same way you can fare against the likes of Wal-Mart: by withholding what you have that they need. It's not complicated.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    gue_barium wrote:
    National Parks and Forests sold off into private lots?

    No, the government has no right to sell them. That would imply that they own them.
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    farfromglorified wrote:
    The same way you can fare against the likes of Wal-Mart: by withholding what you have that they need. It's not complicated.

    Okee.



    whew.
    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.
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    farfromglorified wrote:
    No, the government has no right to sell them. That would imply that they own them.

    The government does own them. Lands are always marketable, historically speaking. The Louisiana Purchase... Alaska territory...
    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.
  • baraka
    baraka Posts: 1,268
    farfromglorified wrote:

    Opposed to what practice? Monopolization???? You work in healthcare, right? Why do you think the major drug companies lobby for increased FDA user fees that they have to pay? Why do you think they lobby for increased standards on laboratories and labelling? Why do you think they lobby for expanded patent rights? Do you think they do that because they like meeting those standards and paying those fees or being subject to those patent restrictions, or do you think they do it because they know it significantly raises the barriers to market entry for newcomers?

    I'm not suggesting that there are not problems, but you are suggesting we scrap the whole system, just dissolve things like the FDA. Do you deny the increase in public health due to organizations like the FDA or CDC? Do you suggest that throw out a system that has a track record of improving public health? What do you suggest, ffg? Why not address the concern above opposed to dissolving the whole thing? Why no just address the problems within the system?
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    baraka wrote:
    Yes, exactly. The contrast in public health and safety, and in environmental quality, before and after the introduction of government regulation further validates my point.

    It doesn't validate anything. Government has existed since the dawn of civilization. The monitor on my desk isn't a tiger repellant. It just happens to exist in a place where no tigers are to be found.

    The fact that this particular government is the biggest polluter, killer, and slaveowner in this country does validate something. It doesn't mean that absent that government, pollution, killing and slaveowning will stop. But it does mean that this government is morally corrupt.
    It offers strong refutation to the libertarian's assurance that 'the free market', the enforcement of property rights and the threat of civil law suits are the best means of protecting the public and the natural environment.

    That Libertarian assurance is pretty silly. So is the assurance that the government has done much to "protect the public and the natural environment".
  • baraka
    baraka Posts: 1,268
    farfromglorified wrote:
    This makes no sense, so maybe I'm misunderstanding it. Are you saying that an inventor comes up with an idea that costs X to produce and is offered X + Y to sell it to a big corporation, but that it would actually be worth X + Z which is greater than Y, but he would choose to sell it to a major corporation for X + Y simply because he doesn't have the startup capital??? You think that's how a free market would operate?

    Yes, if the capital is held by a handful of corporations, then this guy has no means to see his idea to fruition. There is no level playing field. I believe in markets as much as anyone. But the expression free markets is often misinterpreted to mean that unregulated markets are all that is required for markets to work their 'wonders' and achieve efficient outcomes. But there are many, many other conditions that must be present. Deregulation or privatization may even move the outcome further from the ideal competitive benchmark rather than closer to it, it depends upon the characteristics of the market in question. Many economists argue this point.
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    baraka wrote:
    I'm not suggesting that there are not problems, but you are suggesting we scrap the whole system, just dissolve things like the FDA.

    You don't have to dissolve the FDA. I don't care what you do with the FDA. Simply stop using it as a weapon.
    Do you deny the increase in public health due to organizations like the FDA or CDC?

    I don't deny it, no.
    Do you suggest that throw out a system that has a track record of improving public health?

    No. You don't have to throw out anything.
    What do you suggest, ffg?

    I suggest you stop threatening people in the name of "public health", for one.
    Why not address the concern above opposed to dissolving the whole thing?

    Because the whole thing is morally corrupt.
    Why no just address the problems within the system?

    Why should I? It's not my system.
  • baraka
    baraka Posts: 1,268
    farfromglorified wrote:

    You keep assuming that, absent government regulation, we'd all go back to working in sweatshops. That's ridiculous. Our economic environment and labor base make little sense in a sweatshop environment whereas developing economies (like the one we were in 100 years ago) do.

    However, some sweatshops would likely open here, absent regulations. Can you explain to me a) why that's wrong and b) how it's any different than simply pushing your sweatshops overseas like you do today.

    Do I really need to explain why that is wrong? Also, about me pushing the sweatshops overseas, you said this................
    farfromglorified wrote:
    So "real compassion" is found in violently preventing someone from moving a factory overseas?

    Why does one move their operations overseas? Is it perhaps due to the cheap labor among other things?

    And, you say it is ridiculous to assume sweatshops will open up here, then you say they will most likely open up here?????????
    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
  • baraka
    baraka Posts: 1,268
    farfromglorified wrote:
    If you catch a fish, it's yours, baraka.

    Even if I catch it in a body of water you claim ownership to, the seas, for example? The privatization of oceanic resources suggests that 'territories' of ocean will have to be established, which means the end of the centuries-old convention of non-sovereignty of the seas.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    If you raise goats, they're yours, baraka.

    I'm talking about the natural wildlife on said property, ie birds, deer, etc. Do you 'own' them? And if a flock of birds on your property that you 'own' fly over my property and poop all over my property, can I sue you for property damage? And how can I determine who's birds they belong to? How about if a bunch of bees from your property fly over and pollinate my gardens, can you charge me?


    farfromglorified wrote:
    Sure.



    Wherever property ends, baraka. This isn't that complicated.

    Oh, but it is very complicated! Total privatization of the earth is a fantasy and ridiculous. The atmosphere, the seas, wildlife, and innumerable ecological services both known and undiscovered, are now and will forever be the 'common property' of mankind, not to mention the other species of the earth. You say we can privatize the Earth, so can we conceivably 'privatize' the atmosphere, and with it the hydrological cycle? If so, then who is liable things such as El Nino? If I own a 'piece' of the atmosphere, is this a defined space, or is it the migrating clouds and molecules within? Do you see this slippery slope?

    Ah, I'm getting behind in my work. I'll be back later. I'm sure you will have much more for me.
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    baraka wrote:
    Do I really need to explain why that is wrong?

    Yes, you do. For example, right now, somewhere in India, a woman is working 16 hours per day making something you or me might buy. She's working there in squalid conditions, but doing so willingly. Why is this wrong?
    Why does one move their operations overseas? Is it perhaps due to the cheap labor among other things?

    Most likely, yes.
    And, you say it is ridiculous to assume sweatshops will open up here, then you say they will most likely open up here?????????

    Sorry for not being more clear. I'm saying that the labor force as a whole will not suddenly return to 1864 standards if you eliminate regulations. Yes, sweatshops would certainly open. But they would represent a small part of the operating market in this country, not the norm.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    gue_barium wrote:
    The government does own them.

    No, it doesn't. It holds them, the same way someone else held them until the government took hold of them.
    Lands are always marketable, historically speaking.

    Definitely!
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    farfromglorified wrote:
    No, it doesn't. It holds them, the same way someone else held them until the government took hold of them.



    Definitely!

    "You got to know when to hold em, got to know when to fold 'em..."

    Actually, much of America was a monetary purchase. The National Park system, in part, was through buying out private ownership on parts of those lands. I don't really want to argue semantics, though. I don't like the word "ownership" in the sense that the Earth itself is absolutely without ownership, ever and always.
    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    baraka wrote:
    Even if I catch it in a body of water you claim ownership to, the seas, for example?

    How can I or you "claim ownership" to the seas?
    The privatization of oceanic resources suggests that 'territories' of ocean will have to be established, which means the end of the centuries-old convention of non-sovereignty of the seas.

    Umm...the privatization of the land you own, at some point, suggested that the "territories" of land had to be established, which meant the end of the centuries-old convention of non-sovereignty of the land.
    I'm talking about the natural wildlife on said property, ie birds, deer, etc. Do you 'own' them?

    How can you "own" a bird or deer?
    And if a flock of birds on your property that you 'own' fly over my property and poop all over my property, can I sue you for property damage?

    You can try.
    And how can I determine who's birds they belong to?

    DNA, most likely.
    How about if a bunch of bees from your property fly over and pollinate my gardens, can you charge me?

    Charge you with what?
    Oh, but it is very complicated! Total privatization of the earth is a fantasy and ridiculous.

    Why? Because of poop and pollinization?
    The atmosphere, the seas, wildlife, and innumerable ecological services both known and undiscovered, are now and will forever be the 'common property' of mankind, not to mention the other species of the earth.

    "Common property" makes no sense. Property is exclusionary. There's no such thing as "common property". "Common property" is simply organized possession.
    You say we can privatize the Earth, so can we conceivably 'privatize' the atmosphere, and with it the hydrological cycle?

    You certainly could.
    If so, then who is liable things such as El Nino?

    Nature.
    If I own a 'piece' of the atmosphere, is this a defined space, or is it the migrating clouds and molecules within?

    How could you "own" a piece of the atmosphere by either standard?
    Do you see this slippery slope?

    There is no slippery slope here. There are just questions you are asking.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    gue_barium wrote:
    Actually, much of America was a monetary purchase.

    Most definitely, yes.
    The National Park system, in part, was through buying out private ownership on parts of those lands.

    Some of it, sure.
    I don't really want to argue semantics, though. I don't like the word "ownership" in the sense that the Earth itself is absolutely without ownership, ever and always.

    Why?
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Most definitely, yes.



    Some of it, sure.



    Why?

    Humans are just another species of animal on the planet.
    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    gue_barium wrote:
    Humans are just another species of animal on the planet.

    Yes, and....?

    What does the fact that humans are just another species of animal have to do with this?
  • baraka
    baraka Posts: 1,268
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Yes, you do. For example, right now, somewhere in India, a woman is working 16 hours per day making something you or me might buy. She's working there in squalid conditions, but doing so willingly. Why is this wrong?

    So you are saying that when posed with the choice of either earning nothing or working in inhumane conditions to earn a little in an attempt to feed their family, since the individual 'choses' the latter there is no moral dilemma even though this is considered slave labor? Are you saying that libertarianism allows one to sell himself into slavery? There was a time in history that one could do just that to pay off debts. There is no moral dilemma here? I'm reminded of the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' farside cartoon. Come on now, make up your mind, it's one or the other!
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    baraka wrote:
    So you are saying that when posed with the choice of either earning nothing or working in inhumane conditions to earn a little in an attempt to feed their family, since the individual 'choses' the latter there is no moral dilemma even though this is considered slave labor?

    There is no moral dilemma in the absence of actual slavery, baraka.

    Let me ask you this: at some point many millenia ago, a man or a woman chose between the horribly dangerous task of continued hunting and gathering and the back-breaking work of farming in order to feed his or her family. Do you see a similar "moral dilemma" in that?
    Are you saying that libertarianism allows one to sell himself into slavery?

    Sure! If that's what you want to do, I doubt any Libertarian would want to prevent you from selling yourself into slavery.
    There was a time in history that one could do just that to pay off debts. There is no moral dilemma here?

    Not for a third party, no.
    I'm reminded of the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' farside cartoon. Come on now, make up your mind, it's one or the other!

    There are many "damed if you do, damned if you don't" choices in life. Often, they are preceeded by "glorified if you do, damned if you don't" choices.

    Let's see if we can flesh this out a bit....how is your sweatshop laborer "damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't"???

Categories