_Zero30_
- 13 comments
- 2 likes given
- 11 likes received
Bio not provided
@Revkeyes @KaphenDePriest @Parley I think there is another important point about government regulaton, which is the disproportionate effect that it has on smaller businesses. The large corporations can afford teams of lawyers and employees to help them meet regulation. Small businesses cannot do so. Much of what is called 'regulation' is lobbied for by big corporations with the express purpose of forcing small competitors out of business. For example - Walmart is a big lobbier for higher minimum wage. Why? Because Walmart can afford to pay higher wages! The loss to Walmart is more than offset by the gain in the number of small competitors who are put out of business/have to pass on costs to customers, thus losing business to....Walmart. This is prevalent in every industry in which government gets involved. It is the big corporations that write the regulation, and without a corrupt/ignorant government to enforce the regs, they couldn't not use them to destroy small business. The fact that these big corporations engage in what George Stigler calls 'regulatory capture' shows they are well aware of power of regulation to destroy their competitors, and that they are afraid of honest (free market) competition.
I also think this is well evidenced through just following the money in terms of campaign contributions. There are no massive corporations funding Ron Paul with millions of dollars, unlike ALL the other candidates whose top contributers consist of a who's who of U.S. banking and corporate interests. If his position is a boon to big business - why does not a single one of them fund him? Why have fake libertarians like the Koch brothers consistently funded anyone BUT Ron Paul? It just doesn't make any sense.
@Parley Perhaps, but the numbers that are awake now can influence people. There's a fair bit of psychological research of group behaviour that indicates that 10% with a passionately held view converts a majority. (Of course, it doesn't account for a lying, suppressing mainstream media.) We probably need 20% ;)
@Revkeyes @thebillygoatkid Peace indeed - I can appreciate your position. And apologies for being strident too - sometimes it's difficult to sort the reasoned arguments from the drivel posters on the net huh? :)
I think you're spot on that corporate America runs the government. Check this site out for some damning info on the supposedly 'lesser of two evils' in this respect Dems: http://geke.us/VennDiagrams.html
I also share your apprehension about cutting regulation - the trouble with attempting to cut regs is that we have a constant hegelian dialectic going on with capitalism v socialism giving us corporatism, which gives us the worst of both ideologies.
Where I differ from your opinion is in my perception of the damage that regulation does in terms of unintended consequences. Take the housing bubble crash for instance: It was manufactured by the Federal government through Fannie and Freddie's line of credit to the treasury. They led the whole industry down the path of risky lending by buying all the banks junk mortgages that, without the government, there was literally no market for. I just published a blog post (4 years late, ha!) if you're interested that outlines what actually happened: http://bit.ly/IsqtxO
Such unintended consequences of government intervention are inevitable as government central planners do not have all the information. Hayek called this 'pretence of knowledge' a 'fatal conceit' The housing crash put literally millions of people on the streets, who would not have been on the streets in an open, unregulated market. This effect happens everywhere, because of this law of unintended consequences.
Thus for me any benefit of regulation (and there must be some good ones!) is always outweighed by the negative. Good debate Revkeyes - you should read 'the road to serfdom' or 'Economics in one lesson' if you haven't already. http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/#0.1_L19
Peace :)
@Revkeyes @AnthonyPittoreIII I agree with your thinking here up to a point. The issue I have with the 'times have changed' approach is that it opens the door to law becoming a 'living document'. This to me seems to be a major contributing factor to much of the current mess we find ourselves in. This leads me to reduce things to first principles - either I believe in a free society, with all the inevitable problems that entails, or I do not.
Also, and I think more pertinently to me - the fact that the Constitution is, as you say, a 'vital governing document' makes Ron Paul the only candidate worth having. Because all of the others are completely ignoring the constitution, and will continue to do so. A Paul presidency will not achieve many of the things that people argue about, but it CAN address the biggest, most urgent issues that everyone educated seems to agree on. End the wars, end the fed, end bailouts, restore privacy and due legal process. These are the fundamentals to me, and Dr Paul is the only one who cares about them. Must dash...enjoyed the posts :) Revkeyes
@Revkeyes @thebillygoatkid Fair enough, I would agree with that, although in that case I'm not sure what you mean by 'powerless workers'. I'm always interested when people say 'I likeX about Ron Paul, but Y scares me to death'. I used to think this, and the more economic history I read, the more I agree with Ron.
Ok, gotcha :) But it begs the question...what if the FEDERAL government had been corrupt at that time too? It was not the existence of the system then that was the solution, but the people working within it, whose motivations were honourable. If they had not been honourable, the system you claim is the solution, would in fact have compounded the problem.
@Revkeyes But this is rather a straw man when our position is not 'no regulation at all', but the enforcement of private property rights under a fixed Rule of Law, that does not favour special interests.
@FU Yeah that Ron Paul, he only wants to cut $1 trillion in his first year, balance the budget in three, and shut all 700 U.S. military bases around the world. What a warmonger.
@Revkeyes @thebillygoatkid As for 'powerless workers' - there is absolutely no reason why labour unions cannot function without government attachment.
@Revkeyes @thebillygoatkid Unfortunately I don't have time right now to address your whole post, but come on - are you serious with this bit?
'ut what happens when little girls are blown up in churches and young men are murdered and buried in shallow graves while the police look the other way? How about when state police officers savagely beat and maim innocent people? Somehow "you killed my daughter and turned attack dogs on my son, so I won't be entering the back door to buy an egg salad sandwich from you anymore" seems a little too tepid a response to me.'
Firstly, what you are angry about is the at times disgusting state of human nature. I couldn't agree more, but suggest that the government can legislate morality is deluded. People will always retain their prejudices, whatever the law. You do not educate people by authoritarianism, which is preciselyt why the 'war on drugs' (which would be more accurately described as a war on the minorities you are concerned about) has been such a massive failure.
Second - the response to murder/any physical assault advocated by Ron Paul and anyone who supports him is not to boycott them as you claim, but to hit them with the full force of the law and try and imprison them as appropriate. Your comment then is utter fallacy, and irrelevant to the point your trying to make.
@FU @thebillygoatkid @Revkeyes 'Please explain how private property rights will ensure clean air, water, food, etc'
If someone pollutes your air/water/food - they are liable in law. Some history: the EPA was formed as a result of industry lobbying government. Industry was sick of losing in court and having to pay out, so it lobbied the government to make (it's own chosen) levels of pollution 'legal'. That is what you have today. Industry decides how much pollution it can't be bothered to deal with. EPA approves it. You are stuck with it. Get it?
@Revkeyes You might find this enlightening on the effects of the minimum wage laws you champion: http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/#0.1_L19
Here's the lazy version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQj1qlsjVoM
The examples you cite are all very well, but what you fail to cite is how they are enormously outweighed by the consequences of what so called 'regulation' allows to happen legally. This leaves people no legal route to recompense whatsoever. Monsanto is an excellent case in point. The history of its evil doing is unprecedented, but it would more than likely not exist at all without the protection it has received from the Federal government. The market would have put it out of business after the PCB scandal. Instead it has never been bigger and continues to poison the populace and crush its honest competitors. Fluoride in your water. Aspartame in your soda. Do you really want to argue regulation is effective?