Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 389
  1. #101
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    PS: Im glazing over tons of voluminous subject matter, so there are many generalities throughout, but this is simply for the sake of the hypothetical at hand. I dont proclaim to know this WOULD work, but I know that the model we have is not the ONLY ONE that Will.
    Indeed.

    The problem with that statement is that it can be used to justify any form of government.

    The matter is whether it would be better than what we have now.

    For your proposed system to work, it seems to me would require people to be a lot more educated, less apathetic, and take up a LOT of people's time.

    If you want to compel a government to enforce, you can always sue for a writ of mandamus, and small special interest groups can do this today.

  2. #102
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    The other problem with "government by lawsuit" is that many judges are elected.

    Corporate donations to judges' election campaign are already problematic.

    For that matter, how would such a society handle large organized crime organizations?

    I can't imagine "small groups of concerned citizens" suing the Gotti family would get very far.

    You then have to lean on big bad government to fight such things that were NEVER imagined by the venerable founding fathers in all their wisdom.

  3. #103
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    2.5 Money and Financial Markets

    We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted compe ion among banks and depository ins utions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and uncons utional legal tender laws.
    Individuals are pefectly free to use commodities now as exchange. Nothing in our current system forbids barter.

    "uncons utional legal tender laws" is another opinion, contrary to established legal precedent, to my understanding, yet this states it as an unquestioned fact.

    Perhaps we need more Enrons, WorldComs, and Bernie Madoffs, all of whom fully benefitted from a lack of oversight.

    The problem with "free market" solutions is that they lead to things that stifle compe ion, such as complex derivitives, monopolies, and so forth, just as often as government regulation can create needless red tape.

  4. #104
    Believe. Parker2112's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    4,495
    The only effect this would have is further tilt the balance of power in favor of large corporations and large groups over smaller groups.

    You would be creating a tyranny of corporations and interest group worse than anything you rail against today, IMO.

    "Sure you can sue my billion dollar corporation, but I can afford dozens of expert witnesses, and years to litigate. When you lose, I will present you with a bill for $500,000 in legal costs."

    One would have to VERY carefully reform that particular area of the law, and then define "frivolous".
    all these concepts already exists. do we already have a tyranny?

    To some extent, I think so. But can we tweak the rules for a more desirable result?

    I think so.

    The thing is, the effect of $$$ in litigation can be neutralized. $$$ buys endless appeals, endless army of lawyers, etc. This can be limited, similar to the way Texas implemented tort reform to protect corps from big verdicts.

  5. #105
    Veteran Ignignokt's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Post Count
    7,042
    I saw nothing in Random Guy's post that debunked Liberterianism. Nothing but ad hominem attacks and his perception from personal encounters.

    Also, the conception that Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan agreed with each other is utter bull . Alan Greenspan was no longer an objectivist. Objectivist advocate the removal of the federal reserve and advocate the gold standard.

    If you knew anything about what you're trying to criticize you wouldn't have desire to read that idiotic book.

    And another thing, it's only mental midgets who try to equate a govt agency bureau to a court where you have the equal privelege to prove your case against the law.

  6. #106
    Veteran Ignignokt's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Post Count
    7,042
    Individuals are pefectly free to use commodities now as exchange. Nothing in our current system forbids barter.

    "uncons utional legal tender laws" is another opinion, contrary to established legal precedent, to my understanding, yet this states it as an unquestioned fact.

    Perhaps we need more Enrons, WorldComs, and Bernie Madoffs, all of whom fully benefitted from a lack of oversight.

    The problem with "free market" solutions is that they lead to things that stifle compe ion, such as complex derivitives, monopolies, and so forth, just as often as government regulation can create needless red tape.

    Coercive Monopolies are only possible because of govt. It was govt contracts that lead to the abuses and enlargement of Rail Road monopolies in the 19th century.

    Also, throughout the 19th century, Standard oils goods got cheaper and cheaper, this was better for the consumer.

  7. #107
    Believe. Parker2112's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    4,495
    This would tend to ignore some fundamental principles of economics.

    Consider:

    Something where the pollution is fairly dilute and the effects are, per capita, pretty small, or some action has only a very minor effect on a large group of people, but benefits a small group, such as a corporation or group of corporations greatly.

    The larger group could afford to spend a LOT pursuing its interests at the expense of the wider good, simply because the average person doesn't care enough to bother.

    Are you really going to jump on a lawsuit where your interest in the matter is only three or four dollars?

    All of this "let the courts decide" seems HIGHLY inefficient to me, and not only that, it seems to really shift the balance of power from flesh and blood people to large corporations.

    Much of your "criminalize" this and that also seems to be essentially what we have today anyways.

    Government isn't perfect, but it is fairly accountable to the public through elections, at least as much as abdicating all of our problems to lawyers and judges, in my opinion.
    The lawsuit would stem from a polluter's actions exceeding legal limits. nothing wrong with enforcing those limits is there? amount of damages becomes becomes irrelevant.

    Fed environmental protection is HIGHLY inefficient AND HIGHLY suspect at this point. So that is not a great argument.

    Regulatory bodies are not highly accountable. They are unelected. By allowing private environmental protection groups to essentially sue to enforce federally set limits: 1. allows private actors to pursue pollutors, and 2. allows the public to funnel funding to groups of its choice, who have success taking corps to court and winning, and 3. move the expense of enforcement to interested parties (sierra club, edf, concerned citizens) instead of taxation to all.

  8. #108
    Believe. Parker2112's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    4,495
    Indeed.

    The problem with that statement is that it can be used to justify any form of government.

    The matter is whether it would be better than what we have now.

    For your proposed system to work, it seems to me would require people to be a lot more educated, less apathetic, and take up a LOT of people's time.

    If you want to compel a government to enforce, you can always sue for a writ of mandamus, and small special interest groups can do this today.
    funnel resources to private watchdog groups better suited to spend tons of time.

    Also, generally speaking you or I dont have standing to try and force the govt to do its job, unless the govt inaction is hurting you specifically.

  9. #109
    Believe. Parker2112's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    4,495
    The other problem with "government by lawsuit" is that many judges are elected.

    Corporate donations to judges' election campaign are already problematic.

    For that matter, how would such a society handle large organized crime organizations?

    I can't imagine "small groups of concerned citizens" suing the Gotti family would get very far.

    You then have to lean on big bad government to fight such things that were NEVER imagined by the venerable founding fathers in all their wisdom.
    We are only talking the environment here. criminal prosecutions cant be privatized. It will have to remain an open public process. But that doesnt mean the criminal statutes cant be beefed up for added deterrence to CEOs.

  10. #110
    Believe. Parker2112's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    4,495
    Individuals are pefectly free to use commodities now as exchange. Nothing in our current system forbids barter.

    "uncons utional legal tender laws" is another opinion, contrary to established legal precedent, to my understanding, yet this states it as an unquestioned fact.

    Perhaps we need more Enrons, WorldComs, and Bernie Madoffs, all of whom fully benefitted from a lack of oversight.

    The problem with "free market" solutions is that they lead to things that stifle compe ion, such as complex derivitives, monopolies, and so forth, just as often as government regulation can create needless red tape.
    You need to look into how the Federal Reserve itself propogated the boom in complex derivitaves through inflationary policies. When credit is cheap, people can gamble big.

    And the problem isnt even oversight. There has been tons of criminal fraudulent behavior throughout this last bust stemming from the mortgage crisis, and yet there have been no prosecutions.

    The big banks are tied into the very top tier of govt, they are bailed out by the taxpayer for pete sakes, and they are to not prosecuted for their wrongdoings. This happens in the light of day.

    Is it lack of oversight, or is our govt bought and paid for?

    And how do you get the people's voice back? By making a corrupt machine bigger? How can anyone clamour for more govt, when govt has turned its back on voters to favor dollars? Look at the bailouts. look at the election system. look at the Gulf of Mexico. look at the legislation that is being offerred up by lobbyists, and being passed by legislators without even being read.

    I think you see my point. The sacred cow of big govt must die if people are going to get their voice back.

  11. #111
    Believe. Parker2112's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    4,495
    coercive monopolies are only possible because of govt. It was govt contracts that lead to the abuses and enlargement of rail road monopolies in the 19th century.

    Also, throughout the 19th century, standard oils goods got cheaper and cheaper, this was better for the consumer.
    +1000

  12. #112
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    I saw nothing in Random Guy's post that debunked Liberterianism. Nothing but ad hominem attacks and his perception from personal encounters.

    Also, the conception that Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan agreed with each other is utter bull . Alan Greenspan was no longer an objectivist. Objectivist advocate the removal of the federal reserve and advocate the gold standard.

    If you knew anything about what you're trying to criticize you wouldn't have desire to read that idiotic book.

    And another thing, it's only mental midgets who try to equate a govt agency bureau to a court where you have the equal privelege to prove your case against the law.
    Meh, I already admitted the OP was a bit over the top in tone. It was done purposefully, although I generally agree with a lot of it.

    As for "not knowing" anything about Libertarianism, you have made the assumption that if I just learned I would agree with it.

    That is a false assumption. I have read a good deal.

    While I cannot quote Libertarian doctrine or party platform from memory, I feel I am familiar enough with it to come to some fair conclusions of my own.

    That is the third instance of what I feel is a 'quasi' religious overture when discussing this.

    "If you just read the Bible/Koran you would come to accept Jesus as the son of God/Mohammed as his prophet."

    That statement bears a great deal of similarity to yours. Indeed, the scary thing is that same sentiment "if you just learned more, you would agree with me" is common among what I regard as another quasi-religion, 9-11 Truthdom.

    Further, the fact that you try to discourage me to read something critical of the philosophy simply reinforces that assertion.

    If an idea or proponents of an idea cannot withstand criticism that pushes it out of rationality and into dogma.

    I have said I would be just as willing to read a book or two if a le is suggested by a supporter, and some were actually available. I will get around to it evenutually.

  13. #113
    Believe. Parker2112's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    4,495
    read ron paul revolution. then disagree.

  14. #114
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Coercive Monopolies are only possible because of govt. It was govt contracts that lead to the abuses and enlargement of Rail Road monopolies in the 19th century.

    Also, throughout the 19th century, Standard oils goods got cheaper and cheaper, this was better for the consumer.
    Defending monopolies now?

    Monopolies are completely possible without any action by the government.

    Coercive monopolies, a sub-category, are completely possible without any action by a government.

    Any time you have a high barrier to entry, you will get consolidation and a potential for monopolies, existance of government or not.

    I reject your assertion, and have just as much support for my statements as you have, in what amounts to a matter of opinion.

    As for implying that monopolies are "good for the consumer", that fully contradicts the understanding modern economics.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly for more details. See the term "deadweight" loss.

    Those consumers would most likely have been better off without Standard Oil's monopoly.

  15. #115
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    read ron paul revolution. then disagree.
    The full le:

    http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Man.../dp/0446537519

    I assume you mean this book?

  16. #116
    Believe. Parker2112's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    4,495
    yes.

  17. #117
    Believe. Parker2112's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    4,495
    Defending monopolies now?

    Monopolies are completely possible without any action by the government.

    Coercive monopolies, a sub-category, are completely possible without any action by a government.

    Any time you have a high barrier to entry, you will get consolidation and a potential for monopolies, existance of government or not.

    I reject your assertion, and have just as much support for my statements as you have, in what amounts to a matter of opinion.

    As for implying that monopolies are "good for the consumer", that fully contradicts the understanding modern economics.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly for more details. See the term "deadweight" loss.

    Those consumers would most likely have been better off without Standard Oil's monopoly.
    Just because they are possible without govt doesnt mean the govt doesnt create them through its actions/policies.

    otherwise you missed the point entirely. Hes not defending monopolies, hes saying GOVT CAUSES MONOPLIES. not all mind you, but some. And when we look to govt to protect us from gouging, isnt this completely unacceptable?

  18. #118
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    The lawsuit would stem from a polluter's actions exceeding legal limits. nothing wrong with enforcing those limits is there? amount of damages becomes becomes irrelevant.

    Fed environmental protection is HIGHLY inefficient AND HIGHLY suspect at this point. So that is not a great argument.

    Regulatory bodies are not highly accountable. They are unelected. By allowing private environmental protection groups to essentially sue to enforce federally set limits: 1. allows private actors to pursue pollutors, and 2. allows the public to funnel funding to groups of its choice, who have success taking corps to court and winning, and 3. move the expense of enforcement to interested parties (sierra club, edf, concerned citizens) instead of taxation to all.
    You're talking about "legal limits" again. We already have those.

    Regulatory bodies are accountable in that the laws that they operate under are written by legislatures.

    Take our friendly neighborhood state insurance departments, for example. There is no federal regulation of insurance, and it is all done on a state by state basis. In this way the power is devolved, precisely the way you advocate. The state insurance laws, written by elected officials, outline what it can and cannot do.

    If one allows voluntary "public funding" to be the ONLY thing funding interest groups, they WILL BE BURIED in court by the businesses they attempt to oversee. No ifs, ands, or buts.

    Different groups will have different agendas in different states, and businesses will be forced to deal with 50 different laws and hundreds of different "mini-regulators". They will come screaming for uniform laws and government oversight should that happen, much as the insurance industry constantly pushes for Federal oversight, and for exactly the same reasons.

  19. #119
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    The end result of this experiment would be massive amounts of inefficiency on the part of larger businesses trying to do business across state lines, and a rather measurable loss in consumer utility, as the ultimate purchaser of goods must pay for all the costs involved in making that good.

    I don't see this as any different in ultimate effect from taxes. At least that is honest and up front.

  20. #120
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    I saw nothing in Random Guy's post that debunked Liberterianism. Nothing but ad hominem attacks and his perception from personal encounters.

    Also, the conception that Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan agreed with each other is utter bull . Alan Greenspan was no longer an objectivist. Objectivist advocate the removal of the federal reserve and advocate the gold standard.

    If you knew anything about what you're trying to criticize you wouldn't have desire to read that idiotic book.

    And another thing, it's only mental midgets who try to equate a govt agency bureau to a court where you have the equal privelege to prove your case against the law.
    That's RandomPropaganda for you.

  21. #121
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    [Ignignokt was] not defending monopolies,
    Respectfully I disagree.

    Also, throughout the 19th century, Standard oils goods got cheaper and cheaper, this was better for the consumer.
    The obvious implication is that the monopoly was "better for the consumer" than otherwise would have been the case.

    (lunch hour over, gotta get going)

  22. #122
    Believe. Parker2112's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    4,495
    You're talking about "legal limits" again. We already have those.

    Regulatory bodies are accountable in that the laws that they operate under are written by legislatures.

    Take our friendly neighborhood state insurance departments, for example. There is no federal regulation of insurance, and it is all done on a state by state basis. In this way the power is devolved, precisely the way you advocate. The state insurance laws, written by elected officials, outline what it can and cannot do.

    If one allows voluntary "public funding" to be the ONLY thing funding interest groups, they WILL BE BURIED in court by the businesses they attempt to oversee. No ifs, ands, or buts.

    Different groups will have different agendas in different states, and businesses will be forced to deal with 50 different laws and hundreds of different "mini-regulators". They will come screaming for uniform laws and government oversight should that happen, much as the insurance industry constantly pushes for Federal oversight, and for exactly the same reasons.
    you still cant take the jump from inefficient govt enforcement to enforcement through litigation can you?

    you still have no idea what a private right of action is?

    you are still talking about what you know, and ignoring what you dont arent you?

  23. #123
    Believe. Parker2112's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    4,495
    Different groups will have different agendas in different states, and businesses will be forced to deal with 50 different laws and hundreds of different "mini-regulators". They will come screaming for uniform laws and government oversight should that happen, much as the insurance industry constantly pushes for Federal oversight, and for exactly the same reasons.
    just maybe huge mega corporations arent such a good idea...ever think of that?

    Maybe a diverse body of law throughout the states would set a cap on corporate greed. is that so bad?

  24. #124
    Believe. Parker2112's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    4,495
    The end result of this experiment would be massive amounts of inefficiency on the part of larger businesses trying to do business across state lines, and a rather measurable loss in consumer utility, as the ultimate purchaser of goods must pay for all the costs involved in making that good.

    I don't see this as any different in ultimate effect from taxes. At least that is honest and up front.
    there is a huge amount of difference in handicapping businesses with completely reasonable cir stances (diverse laws among states), and taking the property of the populous.

    HHUUGGEE..

  25. #125
    Believe. FailureNotAnOption's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Post Count
    69
    Libertarianism requires a smarter general public to work. I basically feel Libertarianism has the highest ceiling of any ideology but it also is by far the most demanding.
    I would tend to agree with statements of this type.

    Libertarianism is certainly an utopian ideal, unfounded as of now, and maybe ever on any grand scale.

    It would require a strong-willed work force, one that actively educated itself on many different principles and facets of the economy and government. Private watchdog groups would have great power and expectation vested in them.

    Otherwise, said workforce would quickly find themselves governed by corporate money interests.

    Libertarians are often loathe to point out that brutal fact of a near-regulation free capitalist market, in spite of it's elephant-in-the-roomness. It's really what stops libertarianism dead in its tracks. Most people prefer less liberty in exchange for less responsibility.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

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