When Mitt Romney becomes president.... *FLUX THREAD!*

[Jason]

It is not up to the government to regulate the behavior and desires of a child. If the parent is going to be lazy then the child will suffer. It is not the responsibility of society to save that child.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

But where does the paranoid fantasy of enforced responsibility end and just doing the right thing begin?

Nor have you addressed or attempted to explain how a child having desires and wants for things he/she does not need and will be perhaps harmful for them is the result of a lazy parent. I'm not talking about a parent who gives in, I'm talking about the desire/want itself....

I also take it you do not have kids? (I don't either before you attempt to call me a lazy parent)

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

And I don't know what you're worried about. The government does not enforce anything I'm babbling about. In fact, in a large part, the folks who create these junk food/crap products ARE the government basically.

But nevermind anyway. This is starting to feel like trying to convince a bee not to kill itself by needlessly stinging me, or trying to convince a shark not to eat a puppy that fell in the water... If ya just don't give a damn...... you just don't...

[stack-o-tracks]

Sorry for this thread. 

[Jason]

But where does the paranoid fantasy of enforced responsibility end and just doing the right thing begin?

Nor have you addressed or attempted to explain how a child having desires and wants for things he/she does not need and will be perhaps harmful for them is the result of a lazy parent. I'm not talking about a parent who gives in, I'm talking about the desire/want itself....

I also take it you do not have kids? (I don't either before you attempt to call me a lazy parent)

Enforced responsibility ends exactly where doing the right thing begins. It means people take control of their lives. A child's desires and wants for things he or she doesn't need and will be perhaps harmful for them is and isn't the result of a lazy parent. I would think most parents would have the decency to not have the television and the internet as a babysitter. But nowadays it's considered "dangerous" for kids to go outside and play, make friends...sh*t, kids can't even play with a fucking stick anymore because they don't even know what the hell a stick is anymore. Do you even see sticks anymore? I think they might have been outsourced to China! Or maybe it's those pesky terrorists that the penguins in the expensive suits keep talking about on television...

I understand that children need to have a childhood. But it is the responsibility of parents to make sure that their children are grounded and kept in line. It is not the government's responsibility and certainly not that of the television or the internet.

I don't have kids and don't want them.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

But where does the paranoid fantasy of enforced responsibility end and just doing the right thing begin?

Nor have you addressed or attempted to explain how a child having desires and wants for things he/she does not need and will be perhaps harmful for them is the result of a lazy parent. I'm not talking about a parent who gives in, I'm talking about the desire/want itself....

I also take it you do not have kids? (I don't either before you attempt to call me a lazy parent)

Enforced responsibility ends exactly where doing the right thing begins. It means people take control of their lives. A child's desires and wants for things he or she doesn't need and will be perhaps harmful for them is and isn't the result of a lazy parent. I would think most parents would have the decency to not have the television and the internet as a babysitter. But nowadays it's considered "dangerous" for kids to go outside and play, make friends...sh*t, kids can't even play with a f***ing stick anymore because they don't even know what the hell a stick is anymore. Do you even see sticks anymore? I think they might have been outsourced to China! Or maybe it's those pesky terrorists that the penguins in the expensive suits keep talking about on television...

I understand that children need to have a childhood. But it is the responsibility of parents to make sure that their children are grounded and kept in line. It is not the government's responsibility and certainly not that of the television or the internet.

I don't have kids and don't want them.

Egad!

I don't have kids but have worked with kids and have nephews etc etc and you're correct if this were a perfect world, but alas it is not, and I promise you, it is impossible to keep kids away from the clutches of the junk food industry. It's not impossible to protect them from it but basic exposure is going to happen regardless. If you did any amount of shoe leather research, you'd see. Kids are THE target market practically. And do you really a household where both parents work full time is really fertile ground for a child to be completely shielded/protected from exposure? And I'm not defending idiot glutton parents, but there are those who try and it is not easy, so don't sit here acting like it's simple. But I'm trying to get at what this hard-ass attitude of yours is really about.... How about this: is it JUST government doing ANYTHING that you have a problem with, no matter good or bad? Do you consider a government/tax payer funded health class in a grammar school or junior high/high school that might try and educate kids on good eating habits and to avoid junk food, blah blah  as an example of "the government raising our children"? Do they have no right or business teaching such matters because one less kid will buy a can of coke that day, thus harming the free market?

[SBonilla]

But where does the paranoid fantasy of enforced responsibility end and just doing the right thing begin?

Nor have you addressed or attempted to explain how a child having desires and wants for things he/she does not need and will be perhaps harmful for them is the result of a lazy parent. I'm not talking about a parent who gives in, I'm talking about the desire/want itself....

I also take it you do not have kids? (I don't either before you attempt to call me a lazy parent)

Enforced responsibility ends exactly where doing the right thing begins. It means people take control of their lives. A child's desires and wants for things he or she doesn't need and will be perhaps harmful for them is and isn't the result of a lazy parent. I would think most parents would have the decency to not have the television and the internet as a babysitter. But nowadays it's considered "dangerous" for kids to go outside and play, make friends...sh*t, kids can't even play with a f***ing stick anymore because they don't even know what the hell a stick is anymore. Do you even see sticks anymore? I think they might have been outsourced to China! Or maybe it's those pesky terrorists that the penguins in the expensive suits keep talking about on television...

I understand that children need to have a childhood. But it is the responsibility of parents to make sure that their children are grounded and kept in line. It is not the government's responsibility and certainly not that of the television or the internet.

I don't have kids and don't want them.

That's crap. You can talk about taking 'control of their lives,' which is a cop-out. It's simplistic and ham-fisted and dumb.  What about the elderly, in addition to the child. Seniors are taken advantage of and even abused, not only by companiies who prey on them, but also by their beloved children. As a society, we need to protect everybody. And try not to unreasonably intrude on things. At least your kids won't rob you blind, you've seen to that.

[Dunderhead]

The government has a weird way of just opening up and creating the very problems we're discussing. We worry about junk food in public schools, why is that a problem? I don't mean to say there's nothing wrong with that, I mean, why has that even become a problem in the first place. The problem is the level of control that the government has over the education system to begin with. The centralized model of compulsory education is a complete failure, and mismanagement has made public schools so ineffectual that a massive increase in spending is seen as the only way to improve the quality of public schools. In such a centralized system it's much harder for individual schools to adapt to the singular needs of the communities they service. Because centralization makes it harder for schools to be efficient, money becomes more important than it otherwise would have been. Public schools are strapped for funds, they need to save/make money when it comes to things like cafeteria food. Because they're an arm of the government, and because the government and corporations enjoy such an incestuous relationship, these schools end up being supplied with sh*t on the cheap to feed their students with. And the schools that still can't make ends meet are driven into corporate sponsorships.
Meanwhile, the parents who are unhappy with the failures of the public schools have no other option. Education is so centralized that the government effectively has a monopoly on primary and tertiary education in The United States. Home schooling is actively stigmatized, political rhetoric downplays the "education" aspect of schooling and emphasizes the "socialization" which happens when you put hundreds of kids together in a building with little supervision. This is coupled with an intense opposition to all private models or education, such as tax credits and vouchers, which teachers' unions relentlessly attempt to undermine. Kids end up being stuck in sucky schools, which the parents pay property taxes in order to finance despite the general sentiment that the current model isn't working. Individual students, families and communities are the losers, corporations and unions are the winners.

And that's just one particular aspect of the junk food problem. We could also just as easily look at the government's management of agriculture as playing an undeniable part in the destruction of dietary nutrition. When the government lords over corn production to the point where high fructose corn syrup finds its' way into every food product, you really have to wonder, maybe it's the regulation of everything in this country by the government and the activity of the FDA and other agencies that's really to blame for some of these issues we currently face.

I can't help but be sceptical when the solution we're presented with is, regulate and tax junk food as the regulation of agriculture, education, infrastructure, and food by the government was what created the junk food problem in the first place. Sure we can add in new regulations now to cover up the problems we've created for ourselves, but can it really be doubted that those regulations will inevitably create additional unforeseen consequences which, in turn, will require even more regulations to cover up a decade or two down the line?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I absolutely agree but RealBeachBoy seems to be suggesting that anything positive that the government tries to do is socialism or the government ruling our lives, while all the negative things they might already be doing or allowing or being paid off to allow  is just the free-market being free......

Don't get me started on schools.....

No coincidence that the modern school day as we know it was designed to fragment kid's minds and make them good soldiers.

[Dunderhead]

Industries just do what they do best, they do what we want them to do, they expand, explore ways to increase their market share, buy advertising and promote their products, create jobs, make money and generate wealth.

There is no way to stop them from doing this, it's a process natural to every business and is the foundation for healthy growth. The problem is our societal cognitive dissonance about this type of thing. We expect the government to make regulations that prevent corporations from overstepping their bounds, when our best regulations fail, we blame the corporations for doing something unscrupulous. In reality corporations use the regulatory apparatus as a back door to monopoly. Obama (or a hypothetical republican) will promise that no lobbyists will be part of his administration, and then immediately install an ex-Monsanto chief as the head of the FDA. 

The problem isn't the corporations, it's the powers which we the people tolerate the government exercising on our behalf. Corporations will just do what their inclination commands, they'll aim for complete domination of a market by all means available. We've gifted the federal government so many regulatory powers that it would be stupid for corporations to not try and use those powers to their own advantage. It's the fact that the government even has these powers in the first place that causes so many of our current woes. When the bureaucrats own everything, when they're able to seize all private property, when they're able to mandate the purchase of certain goods and services and approve and certify official corporate vendors, the corporations will spare no expense in getting a piece of that control. The government has, in this way, become little more than an auction. But if we simply reasserted the constitution's prohibition on the government possessing these powers, the incentive for corporations to own the federal government would evaporate. If the government is unable to give anything to corporations, then corporations won't bother spending money trying to get a piece of that nothing.

[hypehat]

I don't have kids and don't want them.

Gee, I think I just found the most qualified man on the internet to lay down the law on children's rights, then! Please, talk more about how you should control children.

[hypehat]

Industries just do what they do best, they do what we want them to do, they expand, explore ways to increase their market share, buy advertising and promote their products, create jobs, make money and generate wealth.

There is no way to stop them from doing this, it's a process natural to every business and is the foundation for healthy growth. The problem is our societal cognitive dissonance about this type of thing. We expect the government to make regulations that prevent corporations from overstepping their bounds, when our best regulations fail, we blame the corporations for doing something unscrupulous. In reality corporations use the regulatory apparatus as a back door to monopoly. Obama (or a hypothetical republican) will promise that no lobbyists will be part of his administration, and then immediately install an ex-Monsanto chief as the head of the FDA.  

The problem isn't the corporations, it's the powers which we the people tolerate the government exercising on our behalf. Corporations will just do what their inclination commands, they'll aim for complete domination of a market by all means available. We've gifted the federal government so many regulatory powers that it would be stupid for corporations to not try and use those powers to their own advantage. It's the fact that the government even has these powers in the first place that causes so many of our current woes. When the bureaucrats own everything, when they're able to seize all private property, when they're able to mandate the purchase of certain goods and services and approve and certify official corporate vendors, the corporations will spare no expense in getting a piece of that control. The government has, in this way, become little more than an auction. But if we simply reasserted the constitution's prohibition on the government possessing these powers, the incentive for corporations to own the federal government would evaporate. If the government is unable to give anything to corporations, then corporations won't bother spending money trying to get a piece of that nothing.

I don't follow you. Earlier, you said government can't control the economy because of how you perceive the debt crisis. Ergo, a free-market approach, corporations are people my friend etc is what is needed. Deregulation/increased spending, you dig.


But now you're telling me corporations want to take my money?!

Say it ain't so!

And that they don't care about people who give them their money??

Smack my arse and call me Shirley.

C'mon Fishmonk, make up your mind, would you? If you want to abolish government, cut it out and say so plainly. But I guess there's no red tape, bureaucracy, or any kind of limitation in BUSINESS. No no. We can trust businessmen and the financial sector. They'd never abuse any lenience in fiscal regulation, because business clearly loves people. Stop me if I'm wrong.

Let's get down to brass tacks, Fishmonk. What has the government done to you to make you hate it so?

[hypehat]

I absolutely agree but RealBeachBoy seems to be suggesting that anything positive that the government tries to do is socialism or the government ruling our lives, while all the negative things they might already be doing or allowing or being paid off to allow  is just the free-market being free......

No no no, there is clearly a pithy one liner that will prove that you should vote for Ron Paul in 2012 in the pipeline right after TRBB gets back from his street corner in Des Moines, where he is brandishing a semen-stained copy of The Fountainhead and asking passers by where the free-market is. If anyone stops, he simply says 'the free market is here' before punching the nearest person who looks like they might not be at work right now straight in the spleen and giggling like a private (not public, good fucking god) school girl. 

[Jason]

I absolutely agree but RealBeachBoy seems to be suggesting that anything positive that the government tries to do is socialism or the government ruling our lives, while all the negative things they might already be doing or allowing or being paid off to allow  is just the free-market being free......

Don't get me started on schools.....

No coincidence that the modern school day as we know it was designed to fragment kid's minds and make them good soldiers.

You excel at taking my points and skewing them to make me sound like a neoconservative.

Because the government does both the so-called "positive" AND "negative" things by stealing money from citizens who have worked hard to earn it. I say stealing because if you do not provide the government with their interest-free loan every April 15th, the government comes knocking on your door with guns pointed, threatening your life. That is an infringement upon life and upon liberty; it's an infringement upon life because if you resist you'll probably end up dead and upon liberty because you have the right to decide how you spend your money.

There is no free market to speak of in the United States. It's impossible to have one, since government picks winners and losers. We have a planned market...I'd even go as far as saying it's autarkic.

[Dunderhead]

Industries just do what they do best, they do what we want them to do, they expand, explore ways to increase their market share, buy advertising and promote their products, create jobs, make money and generate wealth.

There is no way to stop them from doing this, it's a process natural to every business and is the foundation for healthy growth. The problem is our societal cognitive dissonance about this type of thing. We expect the government to make regulations that prevent corporations from overstepping their bounds, when our best regulations fail, we blame the corporations for doing something unscrupulous. In reality corporations use the regulatory apparatus as a back door to monopoly. Obama (or a hypothetical republican) will promise that no lobbyists will be part of his administration, and then immediately install an ex-Monsanto chief as the head of the FDA.  

The problem isn't the corporations, it's the powers which we the people tolerate the government exercising on our behalf. Corporations will just do what their inclination commands, they'll aim for complete domination of a market by all means available. We've gifted the federal government so many regulatory powers that it would be stupid for corporations to not try and use those powers to their own advantage. It's the fact that the government even has these powers in the first place that causes so many of our current woes. When the bureaucrats own everything, when they're able to seize all private property, when they're able to mandate the purchase of certain goods and services and approve and certify official corporate vendors, the corporations will spare no expense in getting a piece of that control. The government has, in this way, become little more than an auction. But if we simply reasserted the constitution's prohibition on the government possessing these powers, the incentive for corporations to own the federal government would evaporate. If the government is unable to give anything to corporations, then corporations won't bother spending money trying to get a piece of that nothing.

I don't follow you. Earlier, you said government can't control the economy because of how you perceive the debt crisis. Ergo, a free-market approach, corporations are people my friend etc is what is needed. Deregulation/increased spending, you dig.


But now you're telling me corporations want to take my money?!

Say it ain't so!

And that they don't care about people who give them their money??

Smack my arse and call me Shirley.

C'mon Fishmonk, make up your mind, would you?

The contradiction is your own making. The government can't effectively control the economy, it can't fix the economy or make it better, it's toolkit doesn't provide access to that level of micromanagement. Think of the uncertainty principle, in the same way a scientist can't observe an electron without affecting the results, the government can't achieve an ideal (or anywhere near ideal) economy through anything it's able to do, because in the process of trying to realize the ideal through central planning, the outcome will always be affected in an unpredictable and unintended way.

Despite this the government will continuously try to manage the economy to achieve some pareto optimal end, and as point of fact, we encourage them to try again and again despite overwhelming historical evidence suggesting that it does more harm than good. As the united states has had a decaying of Republicanism (as in the form of government called republicanism) and has gradually moved towards mass democracy (popular election of senators, perceived obsolescence of the electoral college...) we've put additional pressure on government to undertake ever grander programs of central planning far beyond the scope of anything conceived of in the US constitution.

Corporations only further subvert this process. We demand the government extend it's powers in an unconstitutional way to gain a greater measure of control over prices and industry, the corporations use that sentiment to their own advantage. The people perceive regulations as anti-corporate, and the corporations encourage that perception in order to prime the public for massive regulatory activity in the critical sectors of the us economy.

Believe it or not corporations do things like focus group the rhetoric they intend their shills in the government to use when advocating for some bill written by lobbyists. Health care reform was designed and marketed to the American people, and supported by the pharmaceutical manufacturers and insurance companies, just as the highways were favored by the major auto-manufacturers decades previously.

I don't see what the contradiction here is.

1. Voters give the government more power.
2. Corporations see that the government has more power.
3. Corporations attempt to buy privileged use of that power.
4. Government double crosses the voters, abuses its' new power in favor of special interest.
5. Unintended consequences occur.
6. Public is outraged, demands the government assume further powers to curtail the destructive activity that led up to (5.)
7. Corporations see that the government has more power...

As I said in my previous post, this cycle continues endlessly and worsens exponentially. Regulation, deficit spending, large debts, insolvent entitlements, manipulation of interest rates, inflation all go hand in hand. They're all strange bedfellows with one another, they follow and precede one another in an accelerating death spiral of economic catastrophe.

If we want to fix things, we need to go back to step 1 and start there. If we don't give the government that power, we won't be burned by corporate wheeling and dealing like we are now. Currently popular logic dictates that when we get to step 5 that we're then obligated to go directly to step 6 and begin the cycle anew. But if we just stopped, if we stopped ourselves from following that pattern, if we removed regulatory monopolies granted to corporations, competition would return and the market share of Merck, Monsanto, Merrill Lynch, ExxonMobil, and GM would no longer be guaranteed by government manipulation of the economy.

[Jason]

The bailouts were the most devious of the regulations. An overregulated market led to companies collapsing left and right...and instead of letting them go bankrupt so new, cheaper competition could arise, the government gave them a free pass to do whatever they wish.

You have the Clinton regime to thank for that initial overregulation.

[Dunderhead]

The economy is an ecosystem. There's a delicate balance that develops organically. Humans have to tread very carefully, a useful plant or animal species can become invasive and destroy the balance of nature. Ships at sea make noise damaging to whales and marine habitats. A species that humans hunt to extinction can no longer provide a critical service needed in that environment.

Even well intentioned environmental programmes can have severe, and unexpected repercussions.

Central planning, the activities of the federal reserve are like clear cutting rainforest, or strip mining the earth of minerals. It's a sledgehammer on the balance between buyers and sellers, producers and consumers, borrowers and lenders. Prices are a sort of natural signal, telling everyone in the economy where they should be putting their resources. Government manipulation is equivalent to damming up a river during the salmon's migration season. It blocks the flow of resources, it destroys the balance of things. Signalling breaks down, competition collapses, the environment is destroyed.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

The bailouts were the most devious of the regulations. An overregulated market led to companies collapsing left and right...and instead of letting them go bankrupt so new, cheaper competition could arise, the government gave them a free pass to do whatever they wish.

You have the Clinton regime to thank for that initial overregulation.

I'm the last person who's going to defend a Democrat just because they're a Democrat......

Otherwise...... has anybody taken notice of how we all seem to be actually agreeing: even if in the most roundabout way??

[Jason]

The Liberty Movement was designed to be cooperative and to bring people together. I'd say the fact that this thread hasn't become a bunch of mudslinging is testament to that.

[Dunderhead]

The Liberty Movement was designed to be cooperative and to bring people together. I'd say the fact that this thread hasn't become a bunch of mudslinging is testament to that.

It's very inclusive isn't it. When your philosophy is just "everyone has equal rights and is allowed to pursue happiness however they will" it brings people together in a weird way. There was something very refreshing about his campaign that haggard old white men gun-nuts and young socially conscious minorities could attend a rally together and cheer for the same politician.

[Jason]

The Liberty Movement was designed to be cooperative and to bring people together. I'd say the fact that this thread hasn't become a bunch of mudslinging is testament to that.

It's very inclusive isn't it. When your philosophy is just "everyone has equal rights and is allowed to pursue happiness however they will" it brings people together in a weird way. There was something very refreshing about his campaign that haggard old white men gun-nuts and young socially conscious minorities could attend a rally together and cheer for the same politician.

Absolutely. Granted, I'm much more abrasive than many in the movement are, but I'm abrasive in general. I yam who I yam.

[Dunderhead]

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/201292083623946701.html

[hypehat]

The bailouts were the most devious of the regulations. An overregulated market led to companies collapsing left and right...and instead of letting them go bankrupt so new, cheaper competition could arise, the government gave them a free pass to do whatever they wish.

You have the Clinton regime to thank for that initial overregulation.

I'm the last person who's going to defend a Democrat just because they're a Democrat......

Otherwise...... has anybody taken notice of how we all seem to be actually agreeing: even if in the most roundabout way??

Not me, I think y'all crazy...

Fishmonk, whilst you state your views pretty well in the face of my irreverent banter, your solution seems to be giving the corporations power in spite of the fact that it would be an absolutely terrible idea. I think anyone who believes that any company operating on a corporate level has any kind of conscience or notion of social responsibility on it's own (as opposed to doing something terrible, being publically shamed and atoning for it) is incredibly naive. They have absolutely no interest in maintaining things like a minimum wage, or insurance or pension plans, or any kind of social contract so long as they can exploit you for greater profit. I figure you don't give a flying toss about people poorer than you because you are a libertarian and you don't want to interfere with their rights (nice one, bro), but there's nothing to stop them fucking over the middle class either. You're nothing to them. That's libertarianism for you - why would they want to protect your rights to a decent standard of living so long as you have the loosely defined big three TRBB trots out as a ready made argument and they can make tonnes of money? The fact you have decades of government intervention to thank for that standard of living escapes you, and everyone else, clearly.


This is what I'm getting at. You people don't quite seem to understand how this goes down. The corporate scheming you state as being bad is mostly designed to f*** over workers and guarantee profits in spite of you. They have none of the social obligations that a government does, and again, to suggest that they would gain one if no-one was looking after them is hilarious. Don't say that the marketplace would sort them out - if there's a monopoly, you can't boycott them! Your rights as an individual are destroyed.

At least a government is accountable at the ballot box. (The republicans best efforts be damned) A corporate society (especially if you removed monopoly laws) would have no such accountability.

[Dunderhead]

Fishmonk, whilst you state your views pretty well in the face of my irreverent banter,

I think that people who resort constantly to moral outrage and personal insult are oftentimes the most insecure about their beliefs. It's ok to agree with other people, it's ok to allow your world view to adapt and take on more information. You won't become a devil just because you're no longer a democrat. I think that you're out of your depth, and I don't mean that as an insult, only as a criticism. You throw around words without much care or accuracy. "Monopoly" this, "human rights" that. I get the impression however that you haven't really, truly thought deeply about those ideas, and that when it comes to the concepts of economic theory and science, you're very much out of your element. You have a good heart, and it's clear that you want to care about people, but sometimes the best way to care for people is to let them be free...

your solution seems to be giving the corporations power in spite of the fact that it would be an absolutely terrible idea.

"Your solution is not my solution, therefore it is a terrible idea"

I think anyone who believes that any company operating on a corporate level has any kind of conscience or notion of social responsibility on it's own (as opposed to doing something terrible, being publically shamed and atoning for it) is incredibly naive.

I think anyone who believes that any politician operating on the level of government has any kind of conscience or notion of social responsibility is incredibly naive.

They have absolutely no interest in maintaining things like a minimum wage, or insurance or pension plans, or any kind of social contract so long as they can exploit you for greater profit.

There are plenty average people who actually would prefer to opt out of a mandatory 15% payroll tax, so why should they care about your outrage. You're holding up these things, the minimum wage, and social insurance program as if they just have to exist no matter what. This next point may be a difficult one for you to hear, and I suspect that your inclination will simply be to ignore it, but I think it's important that you hear it from somebody: there are valid, empirically supported, scientific arguments made by distinguished, professional economists that simply do not agree that these social programs provide a net-benefit to society.

Your premise is faulty, you start out by asserting the absolute necessity of social insurance. You take it for granted that the minimum wage is actually objectively good for workers. Some economists (more on the political/social science/theory side of economics than the scientific/empirical side) will tell you how important social insurance is all day long. Other, equally respected, economists will tell you the exact opposite. You've said that corporations are against these things, and you've concluded that because these things are good, corporations must be bad. You have not earned your conclusion.

I figure you don't give a flying toss about people poorer than you because you are a libertarian and you don't want to interfere with their rights (nice one, bro), but there's nothing to stop them f***ing over the middle class either.

You have not explained exactly how less regulation will allow corporations to f*** over the middle class, you simply take it for granted that they somehow will. It's disappointing that you can't go one post in this debate without saying something obnoxiously condescending (nice one, bro). The United Kingdom is very different from The United States. The United States has one, very brief, written document that expressly lays out what rights people have. This is our constitution, and it represents the unquestionable law of the land above the normal statutes and laws passed by congress. I'm of the opinion that these rights are to be defended unconditionally. That if you strip away a few rights here or there, or say that this right applies more to these people and that right applies more those people, you'll inevitably undermine the entire concept of right.

So, corporations use regulations to f*** over the middle class, and your argument as to why we should never even consider repealing any regulation is that, if we do, corporations will f*** over the middle class. Ok...
I think you have a somewhat naive idea of what regulations are and what they actually say. There are tens of thousands of pages of inane regulations on the books, no single person could even come close to knowing what they all say. Congress passes new regulatory packages constantly and completely indiscriminately. It's not a measured, thorough, well considered process, in fact I would bet that most members of congress have absolutely no idea what the new regulations are even designed to do. You've reduced the argument down to a point where you're blinding yourself to the truth of things. For you "regulation" is just a word that you think noone is allowed to question. If I advocate that we radically reduce the number of regulations, you jump the gun, you get so giddy that you leap over the moon to tell me "corporations are evil, we HAVE to regulate them". Maybe that's true, we could have that argument, but I think your wilfully denying the fact that the overwhelming majority of regulations of pointless wastes of money written by the very corporations that you despise and approved by the very politicians you want us to trust...

You're nothing to them. That's libertarianism for you - why would they want to protect your rights to a decent standard of living so long as you have the loosely defined big three TRBB trots out as a ready made argument and they can make tonnes of money? The fact you have decades of government intervention to thank for that standard of living escapes you, and everyone else, clearly.

Why should I expect that complete strangers go out of their way to help me? There is no moral obligation here. It's ironic that you get upset at the idea that corporations don't care about "your" rights, when at the very same time you're arguing against the rights of every group you dislike. Racists don't deserve free speech, the rich don't deserve to own the things that they do. You have a very wishy-washy idea of rights that will only lead to the destruction of right as a concept. When you want to take away the rights of others, you have no problem discovering social justifications for doing so, when people want to take away your rights you get upset. Read your Fichte. I'm serious. You can't expect moral behavior in any case, unless you insist upon moral behavior in every case.

This is what I'm getting at. You people don't quite seem to understand how this goes down.

That makes two of us...

The corporate scheming you state as being bad is mostly designed to f*** over workers and guarantee profits in spite of you.

Yes alright, I'll concede as much, as long as you concede that the primary tool by which corporations hope to accomplish their ends is regulation and government interference in the economy.

They have none of the social obligations that a government does, and again, to suggest that they would gain one if no-one was looking after them is hilarious.

Nobody has suggested that. Where have you seen that suggested? The only thing that's hilarious is how bitter and arrogant your post has been. You ignore the simplest of points and then construct ludicrous strawmen to take our your resentment on. Corporations do not absolutely have to have some social obligation. Social obligation is arbitrary, it changes constantly and is only a perfectly nebulous intuition that's completely unquantifiable. The "social obligation" of government in the pre-Civil Rights era was to preserve the superiority of white people. But in 100 years I'm sure that all of the bullsh*t "social obligations" we have today will still be unchallenged....

Don't say that the marketplace would sort them out - if there's a monopoly, you can't boycott them! Your rights as an individual are destroyed.

I studied monopolies extensively as part of my degree program, and I question how much you actually know about monopolies. There's good reason to be sceptical about the very possibility of natural monopolies. The theory just doesn't support you here, because the theory says that government itself is the thing that creates monopolies. Certainly game theory dictates that oligopoly type situations are untenable and will always naturally collapse, and actual monopolies are more things like a single company controlling the entire market for a drug which they own the patent for.
Some economists have even made the point that anti-trust laws are actually a tool used by corporations to attain monopolies for themselves, and that anti-trust laws are counterproductive for that very reason. You act like the natural state of things is just monopolies everywhere all the time. That's an unfounded premise, historically monopolies are created, given to specific companies, and enforced by the government itself.

At least a government is accountable at the ballot box. (The republicans best efforts be damned) A corporate society (especially if you removed monopoly laws) would have no such accountability.

The post immediately preceding yours contains a link challenging exactly that supposition...
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/201292083623946701.html

[hypehat]

Too long to quote and I'm at work giving other people my money, so again, brevity.

You're right, maybe I'm out of my depth. I can't deeply consider everything I'm posting and am throwing these terms out as I understand them. However, I do wonder whether you are too far down the rabbit hole. A lot of this theorising strikes me as too dense for it's own good - ie, it always strikes me as odd that in the ideals you claim people would feel better off. Abolishing the minimum wage is one such thing that would instantly destroy the qualities of lots of peoples lives on the dodgy promise that they will either work harder or the marketplace will set a new one. Which, seeing as I have deep-seated concerns about the actual reality of how companies on a grand operate, I don't trust that.

The way I see it is, if your textbook says a persoon isn't 'free' but government gives them a basic standard of living, are they happier? Yes. A person without money cannot feed or cloth themselves with social liberty. I don't care for that.

Ok, convince me how a minimum wage DOESN'T guarantee a basic standard of living and should be abolished. Educate me.

Like I said, you can vote out a politician. Doesn't matter if they're corrupt as f***, there are channels and methods. You would have no recourse in a free-market society besides a boycott, and that's not feasible. 

I also completely and utterly don't believe that corporations would only do good if it wasn't for that pesky Government. That's nuts.

Your 'political/empirical' split says wonders. Devoid of all context, the power of money, and human fallibility/simple assholism, yes - you could let corporations run amok, and they would love the people who give them the money. Everything would be done fairly and above board as they would not be trying to squeeze through government loopholes to maximise their profits. But that would never happen. It's human nature.

In the UK, it's lovely because our Constitution changes on the regular with the times and from a variety of different sources. It's not one old old document. But why wouldn't corporations, who's only motivation is money, not want to f*** anybody over, that's my point. You have money, they can get your money. Or your labour. What else would they care about? But then, I view things like the minimum wage as essential for a standard of living. More fool me.

Social insurance is necessary for people not in your cosy libertarian bubble. Your standard of living nowadays comes from massive Government intervention during the 30's, and it has been eroded ever since. Again, this is the sort of thing I took for granted in the real world (and on other places online, this board is somewhat of an anomaly) but here we are.

Re: racists don't deserve free speech: Racism is about denying human rights. It is about denying other people's lives, liberties and their pursuit of happiness, if you will. If you want to defend it, go ahead.

Don't get me wrong, a lot of things suck about government. I just think you're looking at the wrong things because you think corporations somehow have your best interest at heart. What's their motivation?


Right, outta time. Gotta go make some money pay my taxes to Comrade Cameron.