or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Government is not the solution to our problem, it IS the problem
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Government is not the solution to our problem, it IS the problem - Page 8

post #281 of 573
Thread Starter 
No, tonton, you (and others) have essentially said "that's the system, you're stuck with it, and if you don't like it then leave".

You have not been able to satisfactorily explain to me why I am obligated to uphold a "contract" I was never given the opportunity to sign.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #282 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

No, tonton, you (and others) have essentially said "that's the system, you're stuck with it, and if you don't like it then leave".

You have not been able to satisfactorily explain to me why I am obligated to uphold a "contract" I was never given the opportunity to sign.

And you were not given the choice of who your parents were either.

You were born into the contract. You are honestly lucky you weren't born in Somalia.
post #283 of 573
Thread Starter 
You misunderstand me. I willingly and openly recognize that the foundation of the United States of America ushered in the greatest era of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known, and I thank God every day that I was fortunate enough to be born when and where I was.

But I, like most of us, recognize that there were and are problems and imperfections in the system virtually from the very beginning which have led to the present problems we face.

Please don't mistake my discontent with the status quo for ungratefulness or ingratitude.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #284 of 573
Thread Starter 
This is the status quo:

Wall Street Aristocracy Got $1.2 Trillion From Fed

Quote:
Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke’s unprecedented effort to keep the economy from plunging into depression included lending banks and other companies as much as $1.2 trillion of public money, about the same amount U.S. homeowners currently owe on 6.5 million delinquent and foreclosed mortgages. The largest borrower, Morgan Stanley (MS), got as much as $107.3 billion, while Citigroup took $99.5 billion and Bank of America $91.4 billion, according to a Bloomberg News compilation of data obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, months of litigation and an act of Congress.

This is the government you claim I am bound by "social contract" to allow to take my property under threat of violence.

This is what they are doing with my money.

This is wrong.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #285 of 573
I'm sorry. Isn't that what the Fed does? Loan money to banks. Am I missing something?
post #286 of 573
Thread Starter 
The fact that we're broke, perhaps?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #287 of 573
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #288 of 573
Thread Starter 
$500,000 federal stimulus grant created 1.72 jobs

Quote:
A federal stimulus grant of nearly $500,000 to grow trees and stimulate the economy in Nevada yielded a whopping 1.72 jobs, according to government statistics.
In 2009, the U.S. Forest Service awarded $490,000 of stimulus money to Nevada's Clark County Urban Forestry Revitalization Project, aimed at revitalizing urban neighborhoods in the county with trees, plants, and green-industry training.

The project produced only 1.72 full-time jobs.

According to Recovery.gov, the U.S. government's official website related to Recovery Act spending, the project created 1.72 permanent jobs. In addition, the Nevada state Division of Forestry reported the federal grant generated one full-time temporary job and 11 short-term project-oriented jobs.
It also resulted in the planting of hundreds of trees -- which critics say is about the only good thing that came out of this stimulus project.

Government efficiency at its finest.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #289 of 573
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #290 of 573
Thread Starter 
Delayed-notice search warrants issued under the expanded powers of the Patriot Act, 2006–2009:

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #291 of 573
Thread Starter 
Hooray for central banking!

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #292 of 573
The Incinerator That Kept Burning Cash

Quote:
In 1969, officials in the state's capital city raised $12.5 million to build a trash incinerator that generates electricity. Since then, officials have borrowed at least 11 more times, according to the city controller and bond documents, swelling the facility's debt to $310 million.

...

"No one knew how to say no. They just knew how to do deals," says William Cluck, who was appointed last year to the Harrisburg Authority, the public entity that owns the incinerator. "The mayor said, 'I want to do this.' And the financial advisers said, 'Here is how you do it. Now, please pay me my fees.' "
post #293 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Hooray for central banking!

Hooray for the free market! Because that's one of the things that happens.
post #294 of 573
Thread Starter 
Monopolies can only exist in the presence of State aggression.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #295 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Monopolies can only exist in the presence of State aggression.

Keep telling yourself that.



The fact is the exact opposite. Monopolies can only be avoided with antitrust regulation. Let me ask you a simple question. Between 1995 and 2010, were banks and corporate mergers more heavily regulated, or were they less heavily regulated?

The truth is there is a lot less regulation now, so there is a lot more consolidation. If your theory made any sense we should have seen a lot more competition in this time of deregulation, when in fact, the exact opposite has happened.
post #296 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru
Monopolies can only exist in the presence of State aggression.

Just for the sake of clarity, did you mean by the presence of as the maker of?
Because one can be present at an event without causing it.
Or is it something else altogether?

As for writing the State with a capital S, its the first time I see it in English. It is however the norm in French (« lÉtat »), but then France does have a state-centrist tradition at least since Cardinal Richelieu.

Just for the sake of an unnecessary anecdote, back in the 80s I had a conversation with a young fellow fresh out of business school making the case for natural monopolies.
To roughly sum it up he went like this:
Monopoly happening through unimpeded competition (as in the big fish eating all smaller ones)=natural=good.
Monopoly caused by state intervention=artificial=bad.
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #297 of 573
Thread Starter 
Monopolies cannot exist if competition is allowed. One way competition is stifled or eliminated is by government enforcement of so-called "intellectual property" laws.

Also, the government itself is a compulsory monopoly of protection over a certain geographical area, which extracts its revenues by force.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #298 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Monopolies cannot exist if competition is allowed.

An established monopoly can simply buy any company that grows large enough to offer any competition, don't you get it? So in a totally free market, a monopoly can make damn sure no competition is allowed. No government involvement necessary.
post #299 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

An established monopoly can simply buy any company that grows large enough to offer any competition, don't you get it? So in a totally free market, a monopoly can make damn sure no competition is allowed. No government involvement necessary.

But what if you believe otherwise really really really hard? Does that change reality?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #300 of 573
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

An established monopoly can simply buy any company that grows large enough to offer any competition, don't you get it? So in a totally free market, a monopoly can make damn sure no competition is allowed. No government involvement necessary.

What if the company is a private company and refuses to sell?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #301 of 573
Well, in your world, money is speech and the monopoly is unlikely to use indoor voices.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #302 of 573
Thread Starter 
And if the private company refuses to sell at any price?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #303 of 573
Doesn't matter about the refusing to sell. You completely missed my point. The refusal to use indoor voices has nothing to do with forcing a company into selling. There's more than one way to squash a company. You act like in a world without regulations, the monopolies will be ethical.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #304 of 573
Thread Starter 
You act like in a world without government regulation, regulation will not exist.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #305 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

And if the private company refuses to sell at any price?

Honestly. Think about it. Do you really think that would happen? REALLY?

Then the monopoly, having all of the buying and marketing power in the industry, can do several things to kill you in another way, and they would:

1. Buy up all the supply of something you need.
2. Strong-arm business partners not to work with you.
3. Sell at a loss temporarily to kill off your sales.
4. Hire away your talent.

It doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

It takes a moron to deny that those things happen, and would happen in spades if not for regulation.
post #306 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You act like in a world without government regulation, regulation will not exist.

No, really, it doesn't. Nowhere near enough. Ask BP to regulate their own safety standards and see what happens.
post #307 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No, really, it doesn't. Nowhere near enough. Ask BP to regulate their own safety standards and see what happens.

Wasn't there some sort of spill or something? Chocolate pelicans? I don't remember.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #308 of 573
Thread Starter 
BP was regulating its own safety standards when the spill occurred?

But I don't ever recall advocating that businesses regulate themselves and not be held accountable for their actions.

I simply said a truly free-market is self-regulating.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #309 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

BP was regulating its own safety standards when the spill occurred?

Far more than you would admit.

Quote:
But I don't ever recall advocating that businesses regulate themselves and not be held accountable for their actions.

I simply said a truly free-market is self-regulating.

And that's why a truly free market is not viable. Because self regulation is not enough.

Look at all the loss in business BP suffered after the spill! No one wanted their product anymore, and they're going bankrupt... right? Right?
post #310 of 573
Since when does a free market mean freedom from all regulation? Seems like a straw man put by the left. Much like the "tea party wants no government anarchy".

It's easy to be right when you make shit up.
post #311 of 573
Thread Starter 
BP - like any other large corporation - has lobbyists in Washington D.C. and connections throughout the government to ensure that government uses its coercion and violence in BP's best interest.

BP has deep lobbying connections to help on spill

Gulf disaster a boon to Washington lobbying

The unholy alliance between government and big business is what has kept BP afloat (no pun intended).

Limit the government's power and suddenly BP can't rely on the government's monopoly on violence to achieve its success. BP then must sink or swim on its own merits.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #312 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Keep telling yourself that.



The fact is the exact opposite. Monopolies can only be avoided with antitrust regulation. Let me ask you a simple question. Between 1995 and 2010, were banks and corporate mergers more heavily regulated, or were they less heavily regulated?

The truth is there is a lot less regulation now, so there is a lot more consolidation. If your theory made any sense we should have seen a lot more competition in this time of deregulation, when in fact, the exact opposite has happened.

There is more consolidation because of the federal government's meddling. In 2008, they deliberately encouraged and mandated consolidation.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #313 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Since when does a free market mean freedom from all regulation? Seems like a straw man put by the left. Much like the "tea party wants no government anarchy".

It's easy to be right when you make shit up.

It's easy to make shit up when you don't follow the discussion. Start with the graph above. jazzguru was bemoaning the conglomeration of banks which I pointed out was a product of deregulation. Are you denying that as well?

As you can see, I said the (comparative) free market system leads to conglomeration. Please tell me where I said that the free market system was 100% free of government regulation. That sounds like a straw man put up by the right. Much like "liberals want to redistribute wealth until everybody is equal communism."

However, jazzguru went on to defend deregulation without any supporting logical argument, and also, without any limits. From what he says here, one can easily conclude that jazzguru honestly believes that all government regulation can be replaced by self-regulation in industry. It's not a straw-man. It's what he believes. I'm saying that it's a ridiculous belief. You've already forgotten the exploding watermelons discussion?
post #314 of 573
Yep. Compassionate Conservatism, my ass. Let the poor die.

Quote:
What do you tell a guy who is sick, goes into a coma and doesn't have health insurance? Who pays for his coverage? "Are you saying society should just let him die?" Wolf Blitzer asked.

"Yeah!" several members of the crowd yelled out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0...usaolp00000009

Government isn't the problem. Failing humanity is. Thanks, Ayn.

Quote:
"We never turned anybody away form the hospital," he said of his volunteer work for churches and his career as a doctor. "We have given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves, assume responsibility for ourselves ... that's the reason the cost is so high."

Then explain why costs are so low in Hong Kong, where we have universal healthcare for everyone, even if you choose private healthcare?
post #315 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

An established monopoly can simply buy any company that grows large enough to offer any competition, don't you get it? So in a totally free market, a monopoly can make damn sure no competition is allowed. No government involvement necessary.

Gotta side more with Jazz on this one. 15 minutes after Megacorp Inc. buys its last competitor, their customer service and product portfolio will start to tank. In a truly free society, a competitor (sometimes made up of Megacorp's six brightest employees) will arise because the rewards are so great.

Now Tonton does have a point that there must be government legislation to facilitate an open market. This stops Microsoft from forcing PC makers to pay for licences to Apple computers or Banks from forcing customers to pay onerous sums to switch their mortgages.

But I think the point Jazz is trying to make is that the biggest problems we see with monopolies today are from the likes of the banking/credit card industry and the cable/telecom industry.

And the problems there are that they are highly government regulated industries, which serves them well because they use the regulations as a shield against nimble startups that might eat their lunch.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #316 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yep. Compassionate Conservatism, my ass. Let the poor die.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0...usaolp00000009

Government isn't the problem. Failing humanity is. Thanks, Ayn.

Then explain why costs are so low in Hong Kong, where we have universal healthcare for everyone, even if you choose private healthcare?

The answers given by the person actually being questioned were reasoned and well thought out. The situation being put forth was not that this was some poor person who could not afford health card and was being put upon for being poor. This was a person who couple have afforded it, gambled and lost. Ron Pauls answer was, that was the price the person paid for his lack of planning. Government is not there to be your stupidity safety net. Gotta say I agree there. The audience member apparently calling for the death of that person needs to work on his compassion a bit. Ron goes on to state that the person would be taken care of by his community, not by the government.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #317 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

15 minutes after Megacorp Inc. buys its last competitor, their customer service and product portfolio will start to tank.

Why? Any reason? This is an extremely broad, and unsupported assertion. And I've already shown how buying out competitors is not the only way to kill them.
post #318 of 573
Even if a person is stupid, he doesn't deserve to die. That's not very Christian, Noah.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #319 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Government is not there to be your stupidity safety net. Gotta say I agree there. The audience member apparently calling for the death of that person needs to work on his compassion a bit.

My God, you're saying the exact same thing. So it's not what you believe that reflects the level of compassion you have, but what you say?

The audience members who shouted out "yes" have the exact same beliefs you do. You both lack compassion.

What you're saying is that perhaps they needed a bit more tact.
post #320 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Even if a person is stupid, he doesn't deserve to die. That's not very Christian, Noah.

Not in the Classical sense. But we've been through this.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Government is not the solution to our problem, it IS the problem