I think some environmental regulation is justified.
I think some environmental regulation is justified.
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.
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.
There's not much value in any of this. Okay, so we trust the individual to know what's in his best interest ... so?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.
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.
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.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.
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..
We made 'em up.Originally Posted by philab
So that's just how the world runs. Individuals pursuing their own interests.Originally Posted by philab
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.
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.
That is how the world runs. You don't need a government or a market or anything to ensure that.So that's just how the world runs. Individuals pursuing their own interests.
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.
Okay. Could use some specificity here.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".
I can't even begin to fathom where this came from. Word play? Get your own ****ing apple?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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?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.
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.
1 Kings 11:3: “He (Solomon) had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.” -- Biblical marriage. One man, seven hundred women.
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.