Excellent Response to Obama's Speech (and Jindal's)

[Damocles]

I figure all it will take is about 4 more years of screwed up democrat rule and people will be hungry for something different, like the LP.

I wish. I'm just hoping that the R Party will finally realize that Goldwater Republicans are the way to go rather than measuring the validity of a candidate by pew time.

 

[blackascoal]

I disagree.

A combination of regulations slanted towards those with the money and power combined with a lack of protection for those that are at the bottom of that market is what caused the crisis.

A real free market would not inhibit the ability to punish those that would abuse the market with their greed while freely allowing people to pursue any and every opportunity to prosper by keeping that market free.

The notion that regulation caused the crisis is exactly what I'm talkking about when I said I could never be a libertarian. That makes no sense whatsoever to me .. and in fact, it was the lack of regulation and oversight that is at the core of the crisis.

I repeat, unless you're talking about robber barons, there i no such thing as a lazziez-fare "free market." It's an unworkable philosophy that has no real world application.

 

[blackascoal]

I wish. I'm just hoping that the R Party will finally realize that Goldwater Republicans are the way to go rather than measuring the validity of a candidate by pew time.

Yeah, Goldwater .. now there's an example of a successful politician republicans should follow.

Their future can be found in walking backwards.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The notion that regulation caused the crisis is exactly what I'm talkking about when I said I could never be a libertarian. That makes no sense whatsoever to me .. and in fact, it was the lack of regulation and oversight that is at the core of the crisis.

You're just plain wrong. You need to re-read my statement.

The Libertarians are not advocating NO regulation, they are advocating MINIMAL regulation in different areas. Currently, the regulation is slanted to favor that greed. That needs to change.

 

[blackascoal]

You're just plain wrong. You need to re-read my statement.

The Libertarians are not advocating NO regulation, they are advocating MINIMAL regulation in different areas. Currently, the regulation is slanted to favor that greed. That needs to change.

Much respect for your thoughts brother, but if "minimal" regulation is what libertarians want, then I haven't misread you.

Minimal regulation amounts to no regulation in my opinion. The public interest and good should far outweigh the interests of corporations.

Tip-toeing around the problem is not the answer .. and in fact, that's exactly how we got here .. looking for "minimal."

Hasn't the events that surround us now illustrate what corporations will do without proper regulation and oversight?

What is needed is proper regulation and oversight, not minimal.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Much respect for your thoughts brother, but if "minimal" regulation is what libertarians want, then I haven't misread you.

Minimal regulation amounts to no regulation in my opinion. The public interest and good should far outweigh the interests of corporations.

Tip-toeing around the problem is not the answer .. and in fact, that's exactly how we got here .. looking for "minimal."

Hasn't the events that surround us now illustrate what corporations will do without proper regulation and oversight?

What is needed is proper regulation and oversight, not minimal.

proper regulation would indeed be minimal. The minimal regulation would focus on the oversight portion of those controlling the company or business and let the remaining portion of the market, that of the product and trade itself, be free.

we are where we are at now because that regulation was focused on the wrong portion of the free market model.

 

[Cancel5]

Crap like this is exactly why I'm not a libertarioan.

Let's do nothing and just allow the "free market" to save us.

"the party of principle" .. what a joke.

The free market save us, like during the Bush years. The market and big business were about as "free" as they could be, to do whatever they wanted to the American public. See where we ended up with "free"

 

[blackascoal]

proper regulation would indeed be minimal. The minimal regulation would focus on the oversight portion of those controlling the company or business and let the remaining portion of the market, that of the product and trade itself, be free.

we are where we are at now because that regulation was focused on the wrong portion of the free market model.

We should at least agree that there is no such thing as a "free market." It doesn't exist. It's a misnomer that detracts from solutions.

Markets are mixed, period.

Can we agree on that?

They are mixed because all history and example has shown that unregulated markets are in the best interests of no state or people but the corporate entity.

"free market" is a pipedream. It's like talking about living in a world without crime that doesn't need police. Neither dream-like state considers the reality of human nature. Laws and enforcement (the government) are required because of human nature. Regulation and enforcement (the government) and are required because of human nature.

Thus, solutions are to be found within the realm the actual, not in dream-like states. What is required is finding the proper level of regulation where the public interest and good are paramount.

Operating a business is a privledge, not a right that supercedes the interests of the people.

One thing that perplexes me about libertarian ideology is its claim of affinity for the beliefs of Thomas Jefferson. But Jefferson believed that freedom from monopolies/corporations is a basic human right. I have no understanding of how business should be more important than society .. and neither did Jefferson.

 

[blackascoal]

The free market save us, like during the Bush years. The market and big business were about as "free" as they could be, to do whatever they wanted to the American public. See where we ended up with "free"

It landed us in a world full of robber barons.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

We should at least agree that there is no such thing as a "free market." It doesn't exist. It's a misnomer that detracts from solutions.

Markets are mixed, period.

Can we agree on that?

I could agree on this, to a point.

Operating a business is a privledge, not a right that supercedes the interests of the people.

This is where I have to disagree. The right to live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness invariably includes the right to prosper by providing goods and services to society. There is a balance to maintain, but operating your own business is indeed a right.

One thing that perplexes me about libertarian ideology is its claim of affinity for the beliefs of Thomas Jefferson. But Jefferson believed that freedom from monopolies/corporations is a basic human right. I have no understanding of how business should be more important than society .. and neither did Jefferson.

your socialist ideology is what has you leaning towards society being the most important thing as if society is in itself a living entity. It is not a singular entity, but it is made up of singular entities who, in order to make society work, have to have similar goals in mind. It is only with that mindset of every individual, does society achieve its purpose and without the individual, society is worthless.

 

[blackascoal]

I could agree on this, to a point.

This is where I have to disagree. The right to live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness invariably includes the right to prosper by providing goods and services to society. There is a balance to maintain, but operating your own business is indeed a right.

This is at the core of what seperates us my brother. I own a business, but I have no right to do business that supercedes the interests of society or the public good. Tha truth never changes, nor are there exceptions to that basic principle.

your socialist ideology is what has you leaning towards society being the most important thing as if society is in itself a living entity. It is not a singular entity, but it is made up of singular entities who, in order to make society work, have to have similar goals in mind. It is only with that mindset of every individual, does society achieve its purpose and without the individual, society is worthless.

I absolutely agree with you that society is indeed at the core of my beliefs and it is from society that the power, opportunity, and livelyhood of the individual/singular entities is derived.

I simply have no understanding of the concept that suggests individuals are more important than society. The belief that I am more important than the whole is simply bizzare and without conscience or spirituality to me .. and THAT my brother may be the real crux of our differences. Spirituality is an important component of my political ideology .. which is not to suggest that you aren't a good person. I believe that you are.

 

[Damocles]

You're just plain wrong. You need to re-read my statement.

The Libertarians are not advocating NO regulation, they are advocating MINIMAL regulation in different areas. Currently, the regulation is slanted to favor that greed. That needs to change.

Exactly. Libertarians advocate laws that protect individuals from becoming victims of larger conglomerations. Corporations should be held responsible for the actions they take that directly victimize people. Also, corporations should have no rights save those the owners have. Each person should be responsible for their actions, not forced to follow laws that put profit above the law and protect them for such actions.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I agree. Operating a business is not a "privilege". Although the business license may be revoked for committing crimes, this is no difference than having your freedom of association revoked when you commit and armed robbery and are put in prison.

 

[KingCondanomation]

The free market save us, like during the Bush years. The market and big business were about as "free" as they could be, to do whatever they wanted to the American public. See where we ended up with "free"

What regulations did Bush reduce to make it more free? Sure he cut taxes, but that doesn't make a market any more or less free.
Instead with Sarbanes-Oxley the "free market" had to cope with an estimated $1.5 TRILLION in lost productivity:
http://w4.stern.nyu.edu/accounting/...05/Zhang_Ivy_Economic_Consequences_of_S_O.pdf

After he first got in Bush eliminated ergonomics regulations, which essentially allowed business to no longer fear lawsuits from people suing over such silliness as carpal tunnel syndrome or aching fingers from keyboard typing.
Whooped-de-dee.