Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 76
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    I think some environmental regulation is justified.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,514
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    I think some environmental regulation is justified.
    I dont necessarily think you are against it, but i think it is the biggest complaint of many "liberals" and the "Green party", because it is an outlier in terms of regular economics because there is no clear delineation of property as the air stands. If i own the air above my home then how do i keep what you do next door from messing up my air.

    I cant remember who the economist was (you may know this) who posed an economic theory that should make the dispute more clear, but it doesnt work in my mind. Because there is no way to enforce it, how can you prove that one person or business is solely responsible. The only way i can see, that will irritate many libertarians or conservatives, is to enable and make the state or federal government responsible and able to sue or inhibit pollution.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    31,754
    vCash
    1490
    Quote Originally Posted by flea View Post
    We've been here for a while.
    Indeed, but sometimes people are delayed into waking up to where they really are. Corporatocracy presents itself as something else.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    31,754
    vCash
    1490
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    I dont necessarily think you are against it, but i think it is the biggest complaint of many "liberals" and the "Green party", because it is an outlier in terms of regular economics because there is no clear delineation of property as the air stands. If i own the air above my home then how do i keep what you do next door from messing up my air.

    I cant remember who the economist was (you may know this) who posed an economic theory that should make the dispute more clear, but it doesnt work in my mind. Because there is no way to enforce it, how can you prove that one person or business is solely responsible. The only way i can see, that will irritate many libertarians or conservatives, is to enable and make the state or federal government responsible and able to sue or inhibit pollution.
    "There is no business to be done on a dead planet." - David Brower

    The fact that the environment isn't taking front seat to EVERYTHING right now is deplorable and we're just killing ourselves. Forget "save the planet", we're going to run out of clean air to breathe at some point. We'd sooner wait for a bubble to go outside in than change our ways.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    There is nothing in my ideology that would allow selling anyone into slavery. Government has a role in protecting private property rights.
    From where are these property rights derived?

    As far as who I want in charge of the "public interest"....it's not really about that. I want individuals pursuing their own interests. I do not trust business to know what is in the public's best interest. I do not trust government to know what is in the public's best interest. I trust the individual to know what is in his best interest.
    There's not much value in any of this. Okay, so we trust the individual to know what's in his best interest ... so?

    I mean, I think the implication is that citizens should not be limited in their autonomy so as to provide them with every available means to pursue their "best interests." The problem is: the "free market" does just that. It limits. Vast wealth inequalities limit the autonomy of the lesser. Big business limits the autonomy of workers, of buyers, of voters.

    Well, you've got subsidized health insurance, giant government programs (Medicare and Medicaid) distorting the market, and you've got them regulating the bejeezus out of both the health insurance market, and the health care provider market.
    There's a difference between government in the marketplace and government regulating the marketplace. I'm not particularly fond of the former, but let's not throw the latter out with it.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Glendale, CA
    Posts
    16,899
    vCash
    1500
    The difference is corporations are more so in it for profits than governments are. Corporations do anything and everything to make money, and the man at the top gets a ridiculous amount of money for his job.

    While governments although in it for profits as well, not as much as corporations. Governments are always in a deficit, rarely in profit range because they spend money for its citizens to prosper not the government. And the President only makes 500,000 a year, much much less than any corporation head..

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,136
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by LAKERMANIA View Post
    The difference is corporations are more so in it for profits than governments are. Corporations do anything and everything to make money, and the man at the top gets a ridiculous amount of money for his job.

    While governments although in it for profits as well, not as much as corporations. Governments are always in a deficit, rarely in profit range because they spend money for its citizens to prosper not the government. And the President only makes 500,000 a year, much much less than any corporation head..
    There are plenty of historical examples to clearly demonstrate that any power if left unchecked, can be brutal and oppressive. This article overblows the situation and completely misses the point, that is that any democrasy depends on a responsible, conscientious, informed public. Thats where we are falling short. If, in a representative republic such as ours, we let either side go unchecked, we have ourselves to blame for not demanding the right kind of change.We need to demand more of our leaders than the canned crap they continue to dish out. If we don't, we will be the one's responsible. Not some corperation, and not Obama.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Glendale, CA
    Posts
    16,899
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Patsfan56 View Post
    There are plenty of historical examples to clearly demonstrate that any power if left unchecked, can be brutal and oppressive. This article overblows the situation and completely misses the point, that is that any democrasy depends on a responsible, conscientious, informed public. Thats where we are falling short. If, in a representative republic such as ours, we let either side go unchecked, we have ourselves to blame for not demanding the right kind of change.We need to demand more of our leaders than the canned crap they continue to dish out. If we don't, we will be the one's responsible. Not some corperation, and not Obama.
    This is true but we have come a long way from the "King is the representative of God" days, we live in a time where governments do their best to ensure that citizens prosper. Corporations could care less whether or not some random John Doe has a job or not..

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    31,754
    vCash
    1490
    Quote Originally Posted by LAKERMANIA View Post
    The difference is corporations are more so in it for profits than governments are. Corporations do anything and everything to make money, and the man at the top gets a ridiculous amount of money for his job.

    While governments although in it for profits as well, not as much as corporations. Governments are always in a deficit, rarely in profit range because they spend money for its citizens to prosper not the government. And the President only makes 500,000 a year, much much less than any corporation head..
    Well don't let the public office salaries fool you. Most of them leave office to cushy 7 figure consulting work for the companies who they helped while in office.

    Between lobbyists and back office deals the line between corporate and gov't is very blurred.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,514
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    Well don't let the public office salaries fool you. Most of them leave office to cushy 7 figure consulting work for the companies who they helped while in office.

    Between lobbyists and back office deals the line between corporate and gov't is very blurred.
    It is like going to college, it is an investment in your future.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by philab
    From where are these property rights derived?
    We made 'em up.

    Quote Originally Posted by philab
    There's not much value in any of this. Okay, so we trust the individual to know what's in his best interest ... so?
    So that's just how the world runs. Individuals pursuing their own interests.

    Labgrown imputed onto me a belief that business would act in the public interest. I don't believe that. I believe they pursue their own interests. But I take a much more positive view of the profit motive than a lot of people seem to on this board. And I take a much more negative view of government's "good intentions" and pursuit of what is best for the "public interest".

    Your "the free market limits!" stuff is just word play. "If my neighbor eats an apple, that's one less apple for me and my liberty is limited!" No. It's not. Go get your own ****ing apple. The same with your "government in the marketplace is different than government regulating the marketplace". My argument is that government policies have greatly distorted the health care market, leading to a very inefficient system. Your response is "government in the marketplace is different than government regulating the marketplace".
    Last edited by gcoll; 02-14-2011 at 01:13 AM.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    We made 'em up.
    I realize that. The whole point was that property rights aren't **** without the government as a guarantor. We take it for granted now. Nearly every "free market" advocate recognizes the importance of some sort of property rights. But there is no such thing as a "free market" in property without the governmental playing a substantial role. Without substantial government involvement, the most powerful party always runs over the others. Only the wealthiest and most powerful have the means to protect real property, only the wealthiest have the means to utilize intellectual property efficiently.

    It's the same principle. Government plays a very important role in ensuring that the market truly is free. A lack of regulation just allows wealth to accumulate into a single hand.

    So that's just how the world runs. Individuals pursuing their own interests.
    That is how the world runs. You don't need a government or a market or anything to ensure that.

    The problem arises when the individuals who are better at pursuing their own interests climb to the top and lock the door behind them, leaving future generations without any sort of mobility. The current trick is using government itself to lock the proverbial door, but that does not mean that government is inherently evil.

    Labgrown imputed onto me a belief that business would act in the public interest. I don't believe that. I believe they pursue their own interests. But I take a much more positive view of the profit motive than a lot of people seem to on this board. And I take a much more negative view of government's "good intentions" and pursuit of what is best for the "public interest".
    Okay. Could use some specificity here.

    Your "the free market limits!" stuff is just word play. "If my neighbor eats an apple, that's one less apple for me and my liberty is limited!" No. It's not. Go get your own ****ing apple.
    I can't even begin to fathom where this came from. Word play? Get your own ****ing apple?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    The same with your "government in the marketplace is different than government regulating the marketplace". My argument is that government policies have greatly distorted the health care market, leading to a very inefficient system. Your response is "government in the marketplace is different than government regulating the marketplace".
    You've become unnecessarily hostile, first off.

    You mentioned "giant government programs distorting the market." That's government in the market. That's what I was referring to. The new HCB involves a certain degree of government entering the marketplace. I thought that was part of the context of your point.

    Anyway, the evolution of healthcare in this country is so ****ed and from so many sides. If you want to pin it all all government ... okay. I just don't think that, even if true, this one example of government ****ing up the marketplace is enough to cast government to the wayside.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,501
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    There is nothing in my ideology that would allow selling anyone into slavery. Government has a role in protecting private property rights.

    There is nothing in my ideology that allows anyone to own anyone else.
    So it's just a matter of drawing lines as to how far out of the market you want government then. If they were totally out, we'd have indentured servitude again. We'd have segregation again, and we'd have slavery. You can bank on it.

    As far as business selling my children into slavery. I'm not sure which business would do that. Next time I'm in Subway I'll be sure to make sure they aren't trying to kidnap and sell anyone though. The view that business is a monolithic and evil force seems so incredibly immature to me.
    And the notion that business should be given further control over all our fates in the name of some mythical "independence" seems short-sighted and blind to me, but YMMV. There will be no fantastical personal independence ever again, save for those living alone in the wilderness. We live in a huge, complex and integrated society. You will have to interact with large, organized entities and they will have power over you. The only question is whether you have any degree of control over those entities or not. We have some degree of direct control over the actions of governments and absolutely no direct control over the activities of corporations. The only levers of control available to us to influence the actions of necessarily utterly self-interested corporations is via government. If enough of our citizens have been brainwashed into thinking that this sole avenue of control is worthless. . .

    As for "immature" thanks for that. But you've again distorted my views. Corporations are utterly amoral. It's built into their foundations. It's legally necessitated by the fiduciary duty. Given a choice whether to do something morally right, but less profitable, or to do something morally wrong, but more profitable, a corporate executive is legally required to take the morally wrong option. And if there is a law against doing the morally wrong thing, but the profit differential is high enough, he's obligated to spend money to change the law to legalize the morally wrong option.

    As far as who I want in charge of the "public interest"....it's not really about that. I want individuals pursuing their own interests. I do not trust business to know what is in the public's best interest. I do not trust government to know what is in the public's best interest. I trust the individual to know what is in his best interest.
    This is pure fantasy again. No individual can pursue their own interests in the face of opposition from a gigantic and powerful business. Try getting a procedure from your health insurance company they don't want to give you, and you'll see what I mean. Good luck with "your own interest." Try getting the toxic waste dump you housing development was built on cleaned up on your own. Good luck with "your own interest". Try getting a safety standard at work that prevents your mine from collapsing, or you from inhaling asbestos, or your wife from having to give blowjobs to keep her job. Good luck with "your own interest". How are these problems solved by an individual without resort to government?

    It's only possible to maintain a fantasy of extreme individualism because we live in a system with so many government protections. Those who read history realize what life was like before those protections existed. Debtors prisons, unsafe and contaminated food, child labor, and extreme pollution were just a few features of a deregulated industrialized society. Given enough corporatocracy (even cloaked in the false mantle of "individual freedom"), we can go back to this utopian society where everyone is "free" to be victimized by those with pure, pure profit motives.
    Last edited by Labgrownmangoat; 02-14-2011 at 08:07 AM.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    19,669
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    Indeed, but sometimes people are delayed into waking up to where they really are. Corporatocracy presents itself as something else.
    Not too many people truly realize the power, and hold that corporations hold over not only our government, but governments around the world. Many are bred to call for less regulation, letting the "free market run wild", and following the notion of "trickle-down" economics. All of these have helped hurt us, and 30 years of these policies have produced scalable results. Meanwhile corporations are now protected under the Bill of Rights, and wealth has steadily gone from the majority of Americans to the top 1%.

    What PatsFan alluded to is what I also agree with, it all comes down to an informed and intelligent public, which our country as a whole sorely lacks. For instance, in 1984 50 corporations owned half of the media in the country, now it's down to 5. It may be different leanings, but its the same message. Our media is half entertainment, half buisness-friendly news. Some things are never reported in the U.S., and all media outlets fall in line once an administration wants to go to war as well, b/c many of the same corporations who own these stations make large amount of money when we go to war.

    We have become consumers, not citizens. On one hand we always have to make sacrifices(bailout the banks, have education and social programs cut), and are normally screwed by the people who are supposed to protect us.....but on the other we're programmed into "fashionable consumption", and waste our money on gadgets and gizmos that we don't need. A good portion of us are lazy, detached, and ignorant to the world. That's by design.

    It's also impossible to have a representative government when both parties are in the pocket of the corporation, are millionaires themselves, etc.

    I can go on forever, but b/c of these reasons and others, our democracy(republic) is truly in jeopardy.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •