The Last Thing We Need is a Great Leader by AnthonyT

Citizen

Quote:
Are you talking to me? Because I got the response. If not could you direct your comments please?

No, not you Cit - that's aimed at Rue, cause I am damn sick and tired of addressing topics and then told I never did, having the clearly stated position I DID take misrepresented, and then flamed for things someone else said which wind up attributed to me cause folk just lump everyone disagreeing with them in one category and don't have the common damn decency to consider them, and address them as, individuals.

While not the only one here who's done that, Rue is certainly the worst offender for it, and since other than plain stupidity, the only other explaination for it is outright malice, it stands to reason I'd be pretty damn annoyed with it by now, yes ?

In response to your own take - while removing Government would solve a lotta issues, time and time again I done said folk ain't ready for that, not yet...

BUT, removing Governments endless protection of corporate chicanery would be a cursed good start, it may not be the only problem with reining in corporate power, but it's for damn sure the worst here in the US.

Rue

Quote:
like in Somalia ? Afghanistan ? How's that working for them ?

Lemme repeat, once again, Somalia is the end product *OF* Governments, once they run out of resources to consume and proceed to fight amongst themselves for the scraps that remain, that kind of petty warlordism can only come to rise on a disarmed populace to begin with which Government usefully provided, and in the end, such petty warlordism is the crucible in which Government is usually formed, they're just more honest about it.

To ME, there is no difference between "Do this or we'll initiate violence against you!" coming from a petty warlord, or a city council member - the only real difference is the amount of potential force behind it, because you might just get away with capping the warlord and sending his troops in retreat.

The original US Government was not formed that way, and thus is a comparitive rarity historically, having it's original basis on the consent of the governed, which is why even Madison pointed out that you cannot force armed folk to do your bidding - but we have over time fallen to the base and degraded concept of using force haven't we ?

What makes us so much better, ehe ?

A petty warlord might blow you away for target practice, but then, a SWAT team with the wrong address might kill you too, yes ?

And I doubt the warlord gives a fuck whether your garage is four inches wider than the building code specifically allows for...

As for Afghanistan, between us and the Russians, since when have they really been able to have a Government not propped up by some outside faction to begin with ?

And they've a right to the Government they want, oppressive and dickheaded that the Taliban were, if they were absolutely intolerable, the Afghanis themselves would have kicked the living shit out of them just like they did to the Russians, and just like they do to us whenever we leave our heavily fortified safe zones.

In fact, you might well cite Afghanistan as a place where Government only exists on the peoples tolerance of it, and maybe if outside influences got the fuck out of their business and their country, perhaps they might wind up with a decent one... or not, but that choice is THEIRS, in the past twenty years they've kicked the crap out of any Gov they were not willing to tolerate, and I don't see that changin any time soon.

And if you wish to doubt the strength of those bonds between people in the absence of a nitpickery Government, find a Pashtun and try telling HIM that, he could probably use a good laugh.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 3:26 PM

Sarge keeps stealin my thunder on the rest of it, but he's been way more polite and articulate about it than I woulda, so he's welcome to it.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 3:37 PM

Quote:
but then failed to post the many instances where government intervened on behalf of its citizens.

That's cause there are not any.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strikes

Tell you what, pull out your history books and find me one, I repeat ONE, single strike, walkout, sit-down, what have you, where the US Military came in shooting, to protect the workers.

Find me ONE.

You do that, and we'll talk - till then, we're done talkin.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 3:56 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"your overlord-government fantasies ... the intrusive omnipresent way you prefer ... what you want is to set up oversight that essential requires each of us to ask permission before we do anything ... You want ubiquitous government oversight ... your premise that parents need permission from the government to make decisions "

Why are you putting words in my mouth ?

My ENTIRE premise is that government is an effective means by which a community of people solve collective problems. The hitch - it only works if the people agree to abide by community decisions.

Do you have a problem with that ? If you do, then you have a problem with democracy.

"Punish polluters." Good, we agree.

"... seek to expand their power buy establishing arcane regulations that have only the slimmest connection to real pollution." I wonder what you consider 'real pollution'. Might it be ppm (part per million) lead in such low concentrations you can't see it, smell it or taste it, and which permanently damages fetal and young brains ? Or does it have to be belching black smoke to be 'real pollution' ?
Aside from that, I have a question for you - what is your basis for such a law ?
US law is based on monetary damages - you have to show monetary damage to individuals - usually health risk - to even consider an anti-pollution law. That is why, for example, only a handful of the 70,000 man-made chemicals in use today have ever been tested (let alone regulated). Somebody has to show damages first before the process even gets started. And remember how long the chemical industry stalled the process on PCBs ? Demandng 100% proof as a legal dodge ?
And what if the problem is not one chemical, or two, but the mix of chemicals made by different companies for different uses - that just happen to come together in your body to create havoc ? For example by causing cancer, or autism, or turning boys into girls ?
What about noise, shown to increase death rates from heart disease in women ? Is it 'real pollution' ? Is that something that should be regulated ?
How does your system account for pollution run amok (as it has) in a better way ?

"True public resources, like water and air, timber on public lands, etc, should be monitored ..." We agree.
What about species ? Are they a public resource even if on 'private' land ? Do they deserve protection from extinction ?
What about zoning ? Do people have the right to enjoy quiet in their homes and yards without listening to (and smelling and tasting) the foundry next door ?

"powerful (ie rich) businesses" ... "Much of this thread has been addressing this."
If you mean that corporations should not be granted personhood, I couldn't agree more. If you think that it will magically make the imbalance of power between them and their immediate community go away, I couldn't disagree more. Corporations - and even large businesses - are delocalized entities - neither dependent on, nor answerable to, nor controllable by, their local communities.

"You want ubiquitous government oversight, where only established standards and procedure are allowed."
No, I see them as a bare minimum.

"Not ignoring the problem, just rejecting your premise that parents need permission from the government to make decisions for their children."
First of all I'd like to highlight what I see as an 'ownership' attitude toward children.
Second, you have a strange idea of a society which never existed. Communities make decisions for parents ALL THE TIME. - especially the least developed, most isolated kind you fantasize over. What language will you speak ? With which hand do you eat ? What foods will be served ? What roles will the household members fill ? When are the children married ? With whom ? How ? How far behind the man does the woman walk ?
You are wrong to think community influence stops at your door, that it ever has, or that it ever will.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 4:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Do you have a problem with that ? If you do, then you have a problem with democracy.

I do indeed. So did the founders of our country. That's why they sought to limit's its effects. They really only saw it as a useful way to choose our representatives. They certainly weren't promoting the current popular conception of "majority rule", where 51% of voters dictate how the rest of us must live. The core theme of the Constitution was to establish clear limits on government authority, regardless of the will of he majority. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with the fundamental structure of our nation.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 4:11 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The framers limited authority over - not services for. Though I do wish they'd put in a 'right to privacy' in their Bill of Rights.

If you listen Ron Paul, btw, you will find he really only cares about Federal government. The state governments can be as intrusive as the voters wish to make them. Who you sleep with, what kind of sex you have, what you read ... that kind of thing.

And I would like an answer to this - Why are you putting words in my mouth ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 4:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The framers limited authority over - not services for.

Their genius was in realizing these are two sides of the same coin.

Quote:
Though I do wish they'd put in a 'right to privacy' in their Bill of Rights.

The unreasonable search and seizure bit oughta cover it, but I'd definitely be in favor of more explicit language. Write it up!

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 4:17 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Their genius was in realizing these are two sides of the same coin."

Now you're putting words in THEIR mouths !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 4:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If you listen Ron Paul, btw, you will find he really only cares about Federal government. The state governments can be as intrusive as the voters wish to make them. Who you sleep with, what kind of sex you have, what you read ... that kind of thing.

I'm not really in the business of defending Ron Paul. I disagree with him on plenty. But you're misrepresenting him here. He's a national politician, so local stuff isn't his concern. He expresses preference for local government solutions because knows that unrealistic programs are less likely to fly there - the waste and injustice are too obvious so close to home.

Quote:
And I would like an answer to this - Why are you putting words in my mouth ?

I'm just trying to make sense out of what you're saying. It ain't easy. Gimme points for trying anyway. :)

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 4:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Their genius was in realizing these are two sides of the same coin."

Now you're putting words in THEIR mouths !

Not so much....

Quote:
Originally posted by George Washington:
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 4:36 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The U.S. Constitution is the work of several men, directly and indirectly. The three most notable persons whose work influenced the Constitution but who were not involved in its writing are Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Thomas Paine. The group of men involved in the writing of the Constitution are generally referred to as the "framers".

delegates to the Constitutional Convention ( * indicates delegates who did not sign the Constitution)

Connecticut
Ellsworth (Elsworth), Oliver*
Johnson, William S.
Sherman, Roger

Delaware
Bassett (Basset), Richard
Bedford, Gunning, Jr.
Broom, Jacob
Dickinson, John
Read, George

Georgia
Baldwin, Abraham
Few, William
Houstoun, William*
Pierce, William L.*

Maryland
Carroll, Daniel
Jenifer, Daniel of St. Thomas
Martin, Luther*
McHenry, James
Mercer, John F.*

Massachusetts
Gerry, Elbridge*
Gorham, Nathaniel
King, Rufus
Strong, Caleb*

New Hampshire
Gilman, Nicholas
Langdon, John

New Jersey
Brearly (Brearley), David
Dayton, Jonathan
Houston, William C.*
Livingston, William
Paterson (Patterson), William

New York
Hamilton, Alexander
Lansing, John, Jr.*
Yates, Robert *

North Carolina
Blount, William
Davie, William R.*
Martin, Alexander *
Spaight, Richard D.
Williamson, Hugh

Pennsylvania
Clymer, George
Fitzsimons, Thomas
Franklin, Benjamin
Ingersoll, Jared
Mifflin, Thomas
Morris, Gouverneur
Morris, Robert
Wilson, James

South Carolina
Butler, Pierce
Pinckney, Charles
Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth
Rutledge, John

Rhode Island
Rhode Island did not send any delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

Virginia
Blair, John
Madison, James
Mason, George *
McClurg, James*
Randolph, Edmund J.*
Washington, George
Wythe, George*

So, do you believe that Washington spoke for them all ? Or did the Constitution speak for them instead ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 4:40 PM

uh.... yup.

?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 4:49 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

NOW you're putting words in the mouths of all the delegates !

That's a really, really bad habit you've got.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 5:03 PM

?
?
?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 5:22 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

My ENTIRE premise is that government is an effective means by which a community of people solve collective problems. The hitch - it only works if the people agree to abide by community decisions.

Do you have a problem with that ? If you do, then you have a problem with democracy.

Minor quibble here, but I have a bit of a problem with that. You seem to be presuming that if the majority wants it, it must automatically be the right thing to do, and in the best interest of all parties. That doesn't take into account the rights of the minority, or the legality and constitutionality of the thing you're doing.

"Majority rule" isn't the hallmark of our Constitution. After all, the mob doesn't need the law on its side; it's the mob and the majority, after all - it's already got might on its side. And being the mob in power, if they DO want the law on their side, it seems pretty easy to rewrite the laws in their favor. The law needs to be on the side of the minority, to ensure that THEIR rights are also protected and addressed while trying to accommodate the majority. Checks and balances are about trying to keep the little guy from getting steamrollered by the mob. This is where the Supreme Court is supposed to come in, to ensure that what's being done in the name of the mob is actually a legal thing to do in the first place.

Sadly, it's getting harder and harder to get that protection of our basic rights.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 5:45 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Rue, the exchange between you and Sergeant might have become a bit fuzzy. I think we lost the rails on this train two or three posts ago.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 6:14 PM

There's rails?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 6:45 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Where am I coming from.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=34613

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 6, 2008 1:51 AM

Rue

Quote:
"Their genius was in realizing these are two sides of the same coin."

Now you're putting words in THEIR mouths !

Nope, it's all right there in the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers and related speeches, all of the participants made their thoughts, feelings and intentions quite abundantly clear and precise as possible.

I don't think all of them were completely honest, mind you (

You, Hamilton!) but their own words on the issues are a matter of easily accessible public record, perhaps you should go read them, yes ?

Because if you're going to argue this subject without a clear knowledge of the subject matter, there's hardly any point to discussing it, is there ?

Oh, and regarding Afghanistan, this little bit landed in my inbox this morning.
AP IMPACT: Afghans fed up with government, US
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080905/ap_on_re_as/angry_afghans;_ylt=Al2
b.eslMwMxuSe9ijkUdl1vaA8F

Sounds a lot to me like their problem is too MUCH Government, unwanted being the least damning thing held against em, and ineffective being another.

They weren't fond of the Taliban either, but unless you lived right next to em you could pretty much ignore the bastards, which isn't an option for the nitpickery style of US Puppet Governments.

They're eventually gonna boil over and kick us right the hell out of there, and I don't blame em a bit for it.

"We meddle, people don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome."

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 6, 2008 3:57 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
But the corporate legal structure is what really gives a 'monopoly' its punch. I'm not saying there could never be a privately owned monopoly, but the monopoly problem seems a direct outcome of corporatism.

We're sort of talking in circles here, because you hear 'smaller government and free markets' and think of the Reagan/Thatcher thing. To me, a free market is just an extension of freedom. People ought to be free to trade with each other any way they see fit. That doesn't mean they should be able to negotiate with third world nations to enslave their populations, bringing the spoils home to their stockholders. It doesn't mean they should be free to dominate and control our media and democratic process, passing ever more laws to ensure their dominant status.

Perhaps. What I'm primarily discussing is Markets, with little reference to government supportive regulation of corporations, because I don't think there should be all that much, if any. I'm discussing the failure of Reganite and Thatcherite economic deregulation in the context of the markets. Markets can't produce optimal results alone, because for them to do so we'd have to have people that make optimal decisions for themselves 100% of the time, and even for the best of us that's simply a fantasy. What I'm saying is that favourable Government support of corporations may make monopolies more likely, but it's deregulated markets that produce monopolies, and a monopoly can take advantage of a deregulated market every bit as easily as they can take advantage of an interventionist Government.

Sure, Government bending over for corporations is bad, but removing Government from the picture completely and giving them free reign of the markets is just as bad, and has the added caveat that there are not even any 'good' regulations to produce at least some balance. I see a certain amount of revisionist history on the part of the Reganites and later neo-Conservatives (not that I'm accusing you of being either, bear with me). Both make the assertion that America's rise to #1 super power was garnered through individual hard work, liberty, and the Government getting the hell outta the way. But at best, that's half the story, at worst it's complete sash. America's post Second World War rise had a lot more to do with America having the only and largest untouched manufacturing centre, in a world that needed rebuilding than anything else. However America's ability to take advantage of that situation is interesting, but it has little to do with merely the unfettered exercise of pure liberty. America had shown that it's corporate philosophy was capable of producing some of the most efficient and competitive companies in the world, this was boosted by Government stepping away from Corporate support, it's true. The US began to follow a much less protectionist and isolationist stance, that really exploded after the Second World War, and was a big part of American economic hegemony up too the late 70's/ early 80's. But coinciding with this rise was market regulation, such as the 1914 Clayton Act against monopoly and price fixing, and the founding of the Federal Trade Commission in 1911. Far from being caused by the US Government “getting out of the way”, America's economic success seems more to do with it's inherent Enlightenment principles and egalitarianism than allowing market forces to do their work, it's a history of holding private power accountable, often through Government regulation and the courts, and it worked. Then Reganism came along, the market Regulations were stripped away, and there was no balance to corporate power, nor their ability to lobby Government for preferential treatment.

American's are still living with the egalitarian assumptions of the beginning of the last century, but they're not living with the social structure that implemented them, nor the reality of them. It's where the term “land of opportunity” comes from, the tacit belief that it's all merely about effort, that your start in life doesn't dictate what you'll get out of it. It's why American's tend to be more willing to accept much greater inequality than, say, Europeans. In Europe people are much more pessimistic about the possibilities of improving ones social position, but, ironically I think, much more likely to do so than American's these days. Social Mobility is much higher and social inequality much lower in Europe than in the United State. US policy is nowhere near as egalitarian, and doesn't offer the opportunity for social advancement that it once did. In fact, the trend is that Europe and America are changing places in that regard.

The problem is that the US Government seems on doing the exact opposite of what would fix the problem, and in fact what caused it in the first place. By constantly weakening it's social and economic pluralism, by eroding the codified egalitarianism of reasonable market regulation, the US Government is essentially cementing the causes of the very problems it's trying to avert. American economic hegemony is waning, largely because the rest of the World is recovering from the Second World War. Just like Britain before it, America is now turning ever more to protectionism and even isolationism. It's easy to be egalitarian and support free trade with other countries when you have hegemony of the market, but much more difficult when you can't call all the shots, just as it was for Britain in the early twentieth century. But just like the British Empire, America is going to find that these protectionist policies are far more damaging in the long run.

Quote:
Those are the sorts of things that are broken about the system. And these are the kinds of things we could fix with intelligent government policy. But laws that make a felony out of selling "bathtub cheese", or restrict medical resources to an elite cartel... where's the justice in that?

Well, “bathtub cheese” is actually, a fairly major public health issue. Food absolutely should be regulated and forced to commit to standards. Back in 19th Century England there were no food regulations, so vendors put lead in flour, and sold boot lacquer as toffee. It wasn't illegal, so the government couldn't react, and the people who knew about it, ended up dead, while still others made bad decisions, not to mention that it was so widespread that there was no real alternative. Regulations stopped that, and “bathtub cheese” is a similar issue. It makes people sick, and they can't know about it, until their already sick, thus it can't simply be dealt with through market principles.

Which is the point. The Market alone can't help to deal with all problems, and it can't stop monopolies, and it can't prevent the dumping of toxic waste, or ensure that a companies products are safe for public consumption. I'm not pulling this solely out of my arse, it has historical precedent.

That's not to say that over regulation isn't as bad as under regulation, of course it is, because it'll for sure extend unfair advantage to one group, as surely as natural market process will do. The trick is to get a good balance between the two, and for sure it's a tightrope, and undoubtedly it's something we will never manage, so we will be wobbling back and forth trying to get our balance, but that doesn't mean we should just give up and leap off to one side or the other.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
No, not you Cit

Cool.

Quote:
In response to your own take - while removing Government would solve a lotta issues, time and time again I done said folk ain't ready for that, not yet...

Well, that's still a rather utopian attitude, and certainly one that the Communists could identify with

. If only people were better, Communism would work in the real world.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 6, 2008 7:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Markets can't produce optimal results alone, because for them to do so we'd have to have people that make optimal decisions for themselves 100% of the time, and even for the best of us that's simply a fantasy....

"Optimal results" isn't what I'm after with market freedom. My interest is in the freedom part. Your analysis of the fairy tale of American dominance through free market principles seems dead on. In fact, government collusion with corporations has probably done more to make America #1 than free markets. But I still think it's wrong.[edit: - the collusion is wrong, not your analysis]

You, and others here, envision my general opposition to regulation as advocating the removal of regulations keeping the corporations in check, but leaving in place those that give them unfair advantage. I'm looking for the opposite.

Quote:
Government bending over for corporations is bad, but removing Government from the picture completely and giving them free reign of the markets is just as bad, and has the added caveat that there are not even any 'good' regulations to produce at least some balance.

My point is that corporations in their current form exist because of government. If you truly took government out of the picture, you take the corporations out as well. But it's not necessary to do away with government to achieve this. Just severe the collusion that currently exists between the corporations and government. That collusion often takes the form of benign seeming 'regulations' that play out to protect corporate domination of markets, rather than consumer interests. That's why the vast majority of regulatory efforts, the ones that find their way through the legislative process, take the form of barriers to entry (additional overhead that the corporations can absorb, but private competitors can't). Corps and other vested interests thrive on these kinds of regulations because it maintains their dominance.

Quote:
Well, “bathtub cheese” is actually, a fairly major public health issue. Food absolutely should be regulated and forced to commit to standards.

This gets us back to the heart of the article. As Penn put's it ...

Quote:
We need someone stupid enough to understand that the president of the United States can't solve many problems without taking away freedom and therefore shouldn't try. The only reason John McCain scares me a little less is because I think he's a little less likely to win. They both promise a government that will watch over us, and I don't like that.

I don't want anyone as president who promises to take care of me. I may be stupid, but I want a chance to try to be a grown-up and take care of my family. Freedom means the freedom to be stupid, and that's what I want. I don't want anyone to feel my pain or tell me to ask what we can do for our country, or give us all money and take care of us.

This gets at the core of what real freedom is. If I want to buy bathtub cheese, it's between me and the guy with the bathtub and should be no one else's business. If he's lying about it, if he's telling everyone his cheese is made in a sanitized "clean room" when it wasn't, then he's committing fraud. That is, and ought to be, illegal. At that point, the government has an obligation to step in.

But I don't want the government deciding how cheese should be made in the first place.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 6, 2008 8:16 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I'm generally in agreement with Sergeant, here.

To be precise:

1) I'd like the government to require full disclosure about what's in our food.

2) I'd like the government's Surgeon General to make recommendations about what we should eat and what we should avoid to maintain good health.

3) I'd like the government to slam anyone who misrepresents the content, quality, methodology, or age of their food product.

But I don't want the government telling people they can't make food how they want to (or eat it how they want, for that matter.)

Trust me, if the food label was required to say "5% rat droppings per serving" then the food in question would not be widely consumed.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 6, 2008 10:39 AM

WENDYPOPS

It's all just a popularity contest. It's not about who's going to be best for the country or who's the 'smartest'. It's who says all the right things and promises that everything will be alright. In reality everything will never be alright for everyone.

"So remember, the only way to waste your vote is to vote!"

I could not agree more.

My advice is to ignore it all and just get on with your own life however you want to live it.

I'm sure i had some other things to say, but politics bores me, so.

--------------------

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 6, 2008 1:28 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
"Optimal results" isn't what I'm after with market freedom. My interest is in the freedom part.

But by optimal results, I don't mean the most competitive market, though an optimal market will tend to be more competitive over all than a non-optimal one. What you seem to be suggesting is no Government interference whatsoever, even in the case of minimal regulation such as anti-monopoly laws.

My contention is that, that wouldn't actually produce a free (free as in freedom) market. Stepping back and allowing all to sink or swim, win or lose, cheat or scam as they see fit, and hoping that market forces and private litigation will solve all the problems isn't going to work. Again assuming Market forces and private action is going to solve all the problems, makes some tacit assumptions which seem similar to those made by Reganites and Thatcherites in their economic policies. It seems to assume that all private actors within the market have all the information they need to make good decisions, that they will make those decisions and that all actors have similar power and capabilities.

Of course they do not. With a totally free (free as in no regulation) market the most ruthless experienced and powerful actors will gain more and more power. There's nothing to stop them, because a completely free market is the law of the Jungle, biggest strongest most ruthless takes all. Ultimately a completely free market presided over by a monopoly doesn't contain very much freedom. Sure, the monopoly at the top has all the freedom it could want. It can do what it likes, sell what it likes and charge what it likes, that's some freedom. All the customers of course have no freedom or choice whatsoever, but it's a free market, no regulation:

Quote:
You, and others here, envision my general opposition to regulation as advocating the removal of regulations keeping the corporations in check, but leaving in place those that give them unfair advantage. I'm looking for the opposite.

Well, it does kinda sound like that Sarge. Maybe I'm missing something, but I've been making the case for Government regulation of Markets with 'good' regulations, anti-monopoly laws and the like which I thought you were arguing against. I'm not making the case for protectionism nor corporatism, quite the opposite in fact. There is a case for Government regulation within the Public arena, and the Private arena where it inflicts on the public.

I see this regulation as something that should be inflicted on private companies though. A viable Democratic Government is held accountable to the people through various mechanisms, one is elections, another is enlightenment principled social institutions, and another is the rule of law. These are required because Government is a powerful actor within the Public Domain. Private companies are powerful actors within the private domain, and they certainly have a great influence on other actors within the private domain, and they exert influence on the public as well. It makes sense that you'd want similar checks on Corporate power that you put on that of Government. Corporations have no electorate that they are accountable too, they have shareholders, but they are a much more restricted group, and usually only concerned with short term profits, so if anything a bad influence on corporate power. There are Enlightenment inspired social structures that balance corporations, labour unions for instance, but what about the rule of law? There's laws that are aimed solely and only at limiting Government power, so why not laws aimed at limiting Private power within a Market?

Quote:
Your analysis of the fairy tale of American dominance through free market principles seems dead on. In fact, government collusion with corporations has probably done more to make America #1 than free markets. But I still think it's wrong.[edit: - the collusion is wrong, not your analysis]

And I agree, the US Government has wielded the full vista of it's hard and soft power over the last half century in the support of purely private business venture. However the point I was trying to make that at the beginning American business made itself competitive because of American enlightenment principles, pluralism and egalitarianism, rather than a free market, and that leaving it up to a free market alone would ultimately have harmed freedom and competitiveness, as surely as the Government intervention in the form of heavy protectionism did. I'm saying that deep down the major attribute to the American system was being prepared to hold the Private actors to account, it was the reasonably regulated markets, and the Government agents willing to take private companies to court when they overstepped their bounds. The problem now is that America is now pulling back from these principles, handing companies disproportionate power because the Government and public domain are no longer holding the private actors to account. Corporatism is certainly an issue, but I think its more a symptom of the wider problem that private power is no longer being held to account.

Quote:
My point is that corporations in their current form exist because of government. If you truly took government out of the picture, you take the corporations out as well. But it's not necessary to do away with government to achieve this. Just severe the collusion that currently exists between the corporations and government.

I don't think that's true. Corporations are something that has evolved over time from the early mercantilist trading companies to the heavy manufacturing companies of the early twentieth century. It was about the 1930's when the modern Corporation started to come into being, when its was recognised that their were private entities whose owners, the shareholders, weren't the same people as those that ran the company on a day to day basis. That's the birth of the modern corporation, and at the time America still had a strong enlightenment principle at work, and held private actors to account. The corporatist attitude that has led to the current corporate person-hood and 'aggressive' lobbying is more contemporary than the corporation itself. Even the shareholder attitude that the primary responsibility was to maximise profits wasn't there from the beginning, but is as much a problem and driving force behind the modern day concept of corporatism as anything else.

I think it's certainly possible, indeed necessary to separate corporate power from Government power. Democratic government is supposed to represent the will of the electorate, which it simply can't do while giving preferential treatment to any subgroups or private entities. But it is Governments place to ensure that one private entity does infringe to heavily on another, at the end of the day that's what most laws boil down to, from theft to murder.

Quote:
This gets at the core of what real freedom is. If I want to buy bathtub cheese, it's between me and the guy with the bathtub and should be no one else's business. If he's lying about it, if he's telling everyone his cheese is made in a sanitized "clean room" when it wasn't, then he's committing fraud. That is, and ought to be, illegal. At that point, the government has an obligation to step in.

But I don't want the government deciding how cheese should be made in the first place.

But we get back to what I was saying earlier, this was the situation prior to the inaction of food regulations, and it didn't work. People died, the bad vendors continued to make money because people didn't have all the information. If you force companies to provide all the information, then really what's the difference between that and telling them they can't sell stuff that's harmful. I see no freedom advantage beyond the mere conceptual, but I do see that it would make it much harder to enforce. There's also the added factor of further information. In the modern day there's far more information in human knowledge than could be learned by any one individual in a life time. Even if you had all the relevant information on a food stuff, its highly unlikely that even a sizeable minority of people could hope to process that information in an informed manner. Government agencies can employ experts who can make the informed decisions that lay people can't, now these judgements could be made in to some mandatory packaging, so that if some food stuff will kill you if you eat it, you've got a big red sticker that says “this will kill you”, but why not just ban it?

If you don't think that there should be a government agency, no deferring to experts when one isn't one, then what are the moral implications of condemning people to death because they couldn't make an informed decision? If they had all the information, it's not fraud, but not everyone is going to be capable of processing all that information, not because they're stupid or lazy, but because not everyone can be an expert in everything. In fact no one can.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 6, 2008 5:10 PM

Cit, you bring up a lot of good points, as usual. Unfortunately, my phone service is out from a storm and won't be fixed until Tuesday. I'm at a public location right now, with limited time, but I'd like to get in a couple of comments in response.

The problems you cite from early product safety issues were solved with a government regulatory approach. But that wasn't the only way to solve them. In fact, other approaches were in the works when government stepped in, effectively short-circuiting evolving consumer protection efforts. Private agencies can, and have, served the role or consumer advocacy. And they do so without the rule of law, without force. They leave freedom intact.

That leaves people free to take their chances if they wish, and allows those who feel they don't have enough information to look for the seal of approval of their favorite consumer protection agency. But the ubiquitous force of government, with its one-size-fits-all solutions, undercuts these efforts and promotes a sense of security and complacency in consumers that, in the end, is quite dangerous. It promotes an attitude that everything available is safe because the government is supposed to be monitoring it all. It dumbs down the consumer base and makes them increasingly vulnerable to scams. (It makes them vote for GW twice in a row)

We're facing a similar situation now with the health care crisis. Solutions are emerging. Solutions that would respect consumer freedom and not create bloated government bureaucracy. Regulation is actually inhibiting many common sense solutions to health care - especially ones that cut the insurance companies from the equation. That's what needs to happen more than anything, but it will never be allowed because the insurance companies control the regulations.

So, just like the product safety issue, we'll hit the healthcare problem with the hammer of government, effectively crushing more organic, non-governmental attempts to solve the problem, likely even outlawing them. All in the name of preserve the current medical industry profits and power.

I don't have time to edit this so that it makes more sense, I'd like to come back to it. My main point is that people aren't idiots. They can solve their own problems and will. All too often its government that's standing in the way of those solutions, treating people like children and promoting a sense of dependency that keeps the rich and powerful rich and powerful.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 6, 2008 6:04 PM