Wanted: New Political Party


PDA






Sven
January 1, 2003, 02:23 PM
Wanted: New political party.

Desired attributes / positions:

-firm on 2nd amendment / RKBA
-less money spent on the war on drugs
-less money spent (OUTSIDE US) on the war on terrorism
-less money spent on social programs not making a measureable difference

Call me a dreamer.

If you enjoyed reading about "Wanted: New Political Party" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
David Roberson
January 1, 2003, 02:29 PM
I'd call you a libertarian. The LP already espouses all of these.

shu
January 1, 2003, 02:34 PM
Sven -

You describe the Libertarian platform.

GinSlinger
January 1, 2003, 02:36 PM
Ditto on LP

http://www.lp.org

GinSlinger

Sven
January 1, 2003, 02:46 PM
Let me add one additional parameter:

-pro-public schools

My understanding is that the libertarian platform is against public schools. Help me here.

shu
January 1, 2003, 03:01 PM
Public Schools?
Have not researched the official LP position on 'Government Schools'. Suspect they are largely reconciled to the concept of some public support (funding) of education but would posit that:
a) it aint the business of the feral gummit; b) control should be more at the local or individual level; c) free enterprise (voucher) system would produce more value for the dollar spent.

David Roberson
January 1, 2003, 03:34 PM
Sven, here's what the Libertarian Party has to say about public schools:

Public schools are supposed to provide a good education for our children. More often than not, they don't. Each year public schools graduate more and more students who are unable to read, write, or do basic arithmetic. Our children's talents are wasted because we continue to trust politicians to do this important job. Politicians have had decades to fix these problems, and they haven't been able to do so.

In recent years, government involvement in education has grown rapidly. At the same time, the quality of the education offered to most public school students has gone down. We are finding, as with so many other government efforts, that throwing more money or more regulations at this problem does not fix it. The best way to end the crisis in education is to deal with the main cause -- government involvement.

The politicians who run the public schools have created new regulations and mandated new programs. These are imposed on local schools. We have more bureaucracy and less innovation. We have more red tape and less creativity. More resources are spent on these matters. The cost of education goes up. The quality of education goes down.

Many public schools have become dangerous places for our children. The news is filled with reports of drug use, rapes, assaults, and murders in our schools. It's difficult to expect a child to learn in a place where the child does not feel safe. Yet most families have no choice but to send their children to the local public school, no matter how dangerous.

It's no surprise that poor children suffer the most under the current system. Wealthy parents can afford to send their children to better or safer schools. Poor parents have no choice. Their children generally end up in the schools with the worst problems. These children end up at a public school, which is obligated to accept every local student, even those who are not interested in learning or who have a reputation for being disruptive or dangerous. The current system traps poor children in poor schools. This is just one reason that many parents have given up hope that their children will escape the poverty they have known.

To solve a crisis, you must recognize and eliminate its cause. The crisis in education is no different. The most important step is to end government control of education. We must move toward a system where parents have good, safe, affordable choices for educating their children.

To transfer control of education from bureaucrats to parents and teachers and encourage alternatives to the public school monopoly, the Libertarian Party would:

Support a true market in education -- one in which parents and students would not be stuck with a bad local school, because they could choose another.

Implement measures such as tax credits so that parents will have the financial ability to choose among schools.

Provide financial incentives for businesses to help fund schools and for individuals to support students other than their own children.

Eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, which spends billions on education and educates no one. The growth of this agency and its numerous regulations is a major reason for runaway costs in American schools.

Blackhawk
January 1, 2003, 03:40 PM
NO political parties are needed, AFAIC. Can't we just get rid of them all? :D

Just think, CongressCritters would have to run on what THEY believe and vote for what THEY support, and WE would get to know them and might even be able to trust them as individuals.... :rolleyes:

coati
January 1, 2003, 03:48 PM
Your new party has many trappings of Jeffersonian democracy, Jefferson being an advocate of public education.

I mean trappings in the good sense. Jefferson was considered quite liberal in his day, before liberalism took on many aspects of socialism.

GinSlinger
January 1, 2003, 03:50 PM
Ahhh, Blackhawk, a true George Washington!

Seriously, that WOULD be ideal. Espicially since it would definitely put the brakes on Congress.

GinSlinger

AZTOY
January 1, 2003, 03:55 PM
I would LOVE a RKBA Party .

All members must be gun owers and be firm on our 2nd amendment rights.:D

dev_null
January 1, 2003, 03:55 PM
If we must have political parties -- and I consider myself a Jefferson/Madison/Mason type -- then I want one that's like the Libertarians *minus* the free rein for Big Business. A more balanced approach, somewhere in between laissez faire and the excesses of JP Morgan and Andrew Carnegie on the one hand, and the government interference and socialist agenda of, say, the PRK.

-0-

BigJake_old
January 1, 2003, 04:05 PM
i agree dev_null.

Another Dreamer.... Parameters i would add

Flat 15 % Income tax, seems like it should work, but then all the exemtion BS and whatever falls in and you still have the middle class supporting the country while the rich and the lazy get off easy. I wish there was a way that could work, there would have to be SOOO much reform though.

Another thing i consider worth pursuing is a MUCH stiffer legal system. Deplorable prison conditions like china would make the place less apealing, therefore making people a little more lawfull? I think consequences should be much stiffer too, you have convicted murders in jail for 5-10 because we don't have the room to house them. IMO, you muder or rape a person, once you're convicted, they hang ya from the nearest tree, no reason for us to pay to keep that kind of person alive. problem with that being its still not foolproof and inocent people are going to get shafted too.


BIGEST thing i would change though would be that god aweful NAFTA thing, that has to go. all these idiots wonder why the ecomomy is going to hell, look to slick willy and his crowd for taking the fence down between us, canada,mexico, and china. The canuks (no offence) come across the border and sell thier wheat for american dollars, brazil has free rien to import soy beans for next to nothing (on a railroad we built for them..) Being a farm kid coming of age, i see this now. the american family farms' days are numbered, and it sickens me. Cheap steal comes from japan and china with no tax. We help everyone else out by giving them a free hand in trade and what not, and then wonder why people in OUR country are all out of work. it must be nice to be so naive... I say screw the world, we have enough problems of our own.

thats just what was on my mind. if any of it is completly wrong or incorrect, let me know.

coati
January 1, 2003, 04:10 PM
dev_null,

Well said! Jefferson seemed to want to step away from the formality of the European elite and distrusted the influence that banks and traders had.

Wiz
January 1, 2003, 05:09 PM
I would add two more criteria:

1) Maintain Roe v. Wade
2) Get religion out of government

As previous posters have said, all of these things are part of the Libertarian Party's agenda. I am not a registered Libertarian, but I like most of their platform.

- Wiz

wQuay
January 1, 2003, 05:22 PM
I would add two more criteria:

1) Maintain Roe v. Wade
2) Get religion out of government


Interesting. For the first, you advocate granting the judicial branch (and with it government in general) the privilege to create rights and laws, thereby nullifying the purpose of the legislature. The founding fathers called this "tyranny." The second, "Let's get religion out of government and use my anti-religion instead," is nothing new and requires no further comment.

Wiz
January 1, 2003, 05:52 PM
Originally Posted By wQuay

Interesting. For the first, you advocate granting the judicial branch (and with it government in general) the privilege to create rights and laws, thereby nullifying the purpose of the legislature. The founding fathers called this "tyranny." The second, "Let's get religion out of government and use my anti-religion instead," is nothing new and requires no further comment.
First of all, I am advocating a platform position of pro choice. On the contrary from your comments, I do not want the government to involve itself in legislating my personal/family's life.

Secondly, I did not say anything about being anti-religion. I just think that religion has no place in government or business. If we are to live in a truly "free" society, then everyone should have a right to believe and think freely. We should not have one faith imposed upon us. That is why this country came to be in the first place. That is all I am saying.

- Wiz

David Roberson
January 1, 2003, 06:38 PM
Wiz, you also are describing the Libertarian Party (unofficial motto: "Pro-choice on everything").

pax
January 1, 2003, 07:27 PM
Re public schools. A little digging around reveals that there is a definite relationship between the amount of money spent on schools at the state level, and the student scores on standardized tests.

Guess what? The more money they spend, the worse the students do.

You could look it up.

pax

A lot of people can cover their mistakes, but not teachers. Their mistakes grow up to be school board members. -- John Leo

Soap
January 1, 2003, 07:48 PM
Ack! I'm about to have a coronary here!

dev_null- What exactly is wrong with people becoming extremely wealthy through laissez-faire economics?

Big Jake- Free trade is what makes the world go 'round. Protectionism only "helps" a specific demographic. Trade restrictions just make goods more expensive and more scarce in an economy. It is great that the Canadians can come here and sell wheat and that the Brazillians can import soy. This is economically efficient. The reason why the people in our country are out of work is because they are demanding too high of prices for a good with high substitutability. By trying to solve problems with protectionist economic policy, you will create an innumerable amount of greater problems.

Oatka
January 1, 2003, 08:28 PM
Another one:

401Ks for all elected/appointed pols instead of taxpayer-funded pensions (later on the states). Once they leave office they get a lump-sum xfer to the mutual fund of their choice.

Some retired pols are making more than their original wage, thanks to COLA.

A side benefit would be that if their pensions were at risk to the economic health of this country, they wouldn't be voting for such self-destructive bills as NAFTA and H1Bs.

Bob Locke
January 1, 2003, 08:33 PM
I continue to be amazed at people who advocate maintaining our right to defend ourselves from violence with firearms who also in turn maintain that other lives aren't worth saving. Those positions are impossible to reconcile logically, IMO.

Life is either worth defending, or it isn't.

It sounds to me as if you're looking for the Libertarian Party, Sven. They've actually gotten better on the RKBA over the years, and they're for no drug war (want to treat drugs like alcohol and end Prohibition) or involvement overseas.

You're not dreaming; these people actually exist.

dev_null
January 1, 2003, 09:10 PM
dev_null- What exactly is wrong with people becoming extremely wealthy through laissez-faire economics?
I'm not going to go into all this yet again, but the issue isn't whether someone gets rich, but whether we can trust people in positions of power to act ethically. I put it to you that the answer is all to often "not unless they are compelled to, usually through a desire on their part to avoid punishment for fsking people over."

If the business practices of the 19th century and earlier don't ring a bell, then perhaps those of Nike and Enron will. Sorry, I don't see that it's any better for the foot in Orwell's famous boot to be Big Business any more than Big Brother.

I'm not advocating Big Government or a Socialist "Worker's Paradise" as the alternative (I'll nip that particular strawman in the bud before it gets raised), I'm suggesting that just as we need an agreement on reasonable limits to individual behavior (murder, rape, theft, etc.), we need some on corporate behavior as well.

-0-

Oracle
January 1, 2003, 09:23 PM
I'm not advocating Big Government or a Socialist "Worker's Paradise" as the alternative (I'll nip that particular strawman in the bud before it gets raised), I'm suggesting that just as we need an agreement on reasonable limits to individual behavior (murder, rape, theft, etc.), we need some on corporate behavior as well.

We've had those laws for a very long time, they're called anti-fraud laws. It doesn't matter whether someone is trying to defraud you of money given for the sale of a pig, or if a corporation is trying to defraud it's shareholders or customers, it's the same thing.

Fraud has always been illegal, why do we need any laws on the matter other than a general explanation of what fraud is (such as: A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain), and a statute that says that practice is illegal. Then apply it as need be.

Law doesn't need to be complicated, it can be very simple, and should be. A government in which the law cannot be easily understood by the common man is a tyrannical government.

shu
January 1, 2003, 09:32 PM
Well said, Oracle

wQuay
January 1, 2003, 09:47 PM
First of all, I am advocating a platform position of pro choice. On the contrary from your comments, I do not want the government to involve itself in legislating my personal/family's life.


Ok, so you're pro choice and want the Libertarian party to be the same. I'll assume that you understand why Roe vs Wade is such a threat to liberty, and not start an abortion debate.


Secondly, I did not say anything about being anti-religion. I just think that religion has no place in government or business. If we are to live in a truly "free" society, then everyone should have a right to believe and think freely. We should not have one faith imposed upon us. That is why this country came to be in the first place. That is all I am saying.


Everything (in this instance, law) is of religious significance to someone somewhere. No law, or anarchy, is the only way to avoid this, and it almost sounds like that is your idea of a truly "free" society.

BigJake_old
January 1, 2003, 11:16 PM
Mr. Flory- So you sugest that we just take it lying down that any ol country can barge in on our AG buisness and sell thier produce? seems like inflation to me, seeing as the flood of foreing produce has flattend our AG industry to the point that the common farmer can't support himself, same for the steel and auto workers. thats great that the chinese and everyone else is happy and thier cheaply made crap is plentiful in every wallmart and junk store in town, but whats the point if americans can't make the money to buy that garbage? as its going, we're screwed.

wQuay, very well said.

Our gov't was founded on Christian principals, whether you like it or not, and the only way around that is anarchy. some say revise the constitution and all that, well, you can't please everyone, and even if you aint christian, them values have served us pretty well and make perfect sense for a gov because its common sense. everyone knows that you shouldn't kill people (without good reason) or steal things. our laws are based on religion and they work, get over it...

Wiz
January 1, 2003, 11:17 PM
Originally Posted By wQuay

Everything (in this instance, law) is of religious significance to someone somewhere. No law, or anarchy, is the only way to avoid this, and it almost sounds like that is your idea of a truly "free" society.
Our forefathers came to this land to avoid religious persecution. To escape government induced religious dogma. That was the founding fathers notion for this new country. It was only coincidental that many of them were Christians. However, they believed that every person has a right to their own beliefs, and to worship or not worship as they see fit. I won't get into a debate with you about their using the word "God" in the Declaration of Independence. After all, Jefferson and Adams were Agnostics. Their message was abundantly clear. Introducing a state sponsored religion into government has never worked in any society. That is exactly what terrorism is all about today. If you look at history, virtually every war has been based upon either religious fanaticism or imperialism or both. It sounds like you are advocating perpetuating this cycle of ignorance. BTW, I will not get into a pro-freedom/liberty debate here either, as it is mostly a religious and emotional issue, and no one on either side will budge from their beliefs. But I will point out that the Libertarian party already has that as one of its platform ideologies.

Edited to say:

Yes, our laws about killing and stealing are common sense, and they have served us well. And, the Constitution does not contain (on purpose) any religious references.

Soap
January 1, 2003, 11:34 PM
BigJake- "Mr. Flory"...I'm only 21 for goodness' sake call me Dan! :)

So you sugest that we just take it lying down that any ol country can barge in on our AG buisness and sell thier produce?

That is exactly what I am saying. If the exchange is voluntary and peaceable there is no problem. But when you restrict people's ability to trade freely, you have created an artificial effect on quantity and price. When there are barriers to trade: Quantity goes down, a shortage. And price goes upward. So in trying to help people, you have actually hurt everyone in the U.S. because there is a shortage plus the prices of goods are higher.

seems like inflation to me,

Inflation is a completely separate issue which is beyond the scope of this issue.

seeing as the flood of foreing produce has flattend our AG industry to the point that the common farmer can't support himself, same for the steel and auto workers.

This may sound cold but it is the simple harsh truth of capitalism: The common farm/steel/auto worker is being undercut by people who can perform the same job for less money with similar results. This is not a bad thing at all. These people simply have to change their skillset to make themselves more marketable and economically viable. For example, I'm going to school for management, finance, and economics, I'm not going to school to be a cooper or cobbler because those skill sets are no longer needed.

thats great that the chinese and everyone else is happy and thier cheaply made crap is plentiful in every wallmart and junk store in town,

That is fine that you feel that way because in capitalism you can (or at least should) be able to purchase from whom you choose. This means that you can choose to not buy anything from Wally World or anything that is Chinese-made. But just because you have a problem with it, you don't have the right to control mine, or anyone else's, voluntary economic exchange with Wally World or China. When you don't have free trade between countries you don't have capitalism.

but whats the point if americans can't make the money to buy that garbage? as its going, we're screwed.

Americans can make the money. They just need to make smart decisions regarding their career path. If I could make 60K/year screwing bolts onto a car body I would do it...but right now that is not an economically viable choice, therefore I choose a field where my potential for growth and earnings is high.

grampster
January 1, 2003, 11:43 PM
Americans are most generally warm and generous people. We let our emotions get the best of us from time to time. That's why so many folks at least partially support Liberal advocacy. A Liberal's feelings direct his thinking, rather than the other way 'round. They talk about "we" but the focus is really all about "me". We all have a streak of that. But thankfully most of us do reason a bit, thank goodness.
Libertarians also seem to be overly concerned with "me" rather than "we". The pro-abortion position probably proclaims this more than anything regarding both political positions.
If we were to have any different polital parties in America, I would like to see three, actually. Conservative Party, Liberal Party and Everybody Else. Maybe then we could get more participation in our Constitutional Republic. Our form of govenment will not work well unless there is participation.
Look at what we have now......50% of the eligable folks voted in the last presidential election and they were about evenly divided. What I would like to know is where and who is the other
50%?? Call me a dreamer, but maybe then the differences between the political parties would be markedly different than they are now: The Republicans separate you from your hard earned money by setting loose the Robber Barons and the Democrats steal your money by taxing you at the point of a gun.
In the end, either way your family posterity is in danger. For the time being, I can avoid the Robber Barons, thus hang onto to some green, so I lean toward Repubs. With the Dems, you can't. They take it before you even get it. Its called the payroll tax.

wQuay
January 2, 2003, 12:07 AM
Our forefathers came to this land to avoid religious persecution. To escape government induced religious dogma.

With the exception of Rhode Island, this is incorrect. Many of the early settlers didn't have a problem with "government induced religious dogma" as such, they just didn't agree with what the dogma was back home and wanted to use their own. Even the Pilgrims, who were fairly liberal in this respect, were very religious in their compact. (http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/mayflower.htm)

It was only coincidental that many of them were Christians.

No.

However, they believed that every person has a right to their own beliefs, and to worship or not worship as they see fit.

No disagreement there. However, there's a big difference between "worship" and living a religion. Many religions endorse practices that in America would be illegal. ???

Yes, our laws about killing and stealing are common sense, and they have served us well. And, the Constitution does not contain (on purpose) any religious references.

For us they may be common sense, but not to the majority of human beings who have lived throughout history. Furthermore, the Constitution does not exclude religion from government on the state and local level.

Wiz
January 2, 2003, 12:30 AM
wQuay - This debate is going nowhere. Let's just agree to disagree. The subject of the original post was about what we would like to see in a new political party. I stated my opinion. That's that.

- Wiz

dev_null
January 2, 2003, 10:46 AM
Oracle: we are in agreement on the issue of fraud. The problem is that I have yet to see anything from the LP, or those espousing it, supporting the idea that it's possible to be for safeguards against ruthless exploitation of employees, shareholders, customers, distributors, the environment, etc., without demonizing that belief as being (quick, hide the children) a totalitarian socialist tenet. I'm not just talking about fraud, I'm also talking about sweatshops, child labor, no minimum wage, no maximum hours, no overtime pay, no benefits, a return of the company store, strongarm tactics in the marketplace, Love Canal, and the whole nine.

Setting aside the issue of illegal immigration, you have only to look at the situation of migrant workers to see what happens when there are no safeguards. Or the Nike plants in SE Asia. Or the coal mines in the Victorian era. Or the NY shirtwaist fire. Or...

And that's just the employees. Does anyone really think that power plants would voluntarily install scrubbers on the smokestacks if they didn't have to? Or that consumers would switch to another supplier -- assuming any other power company to which one could switch had scrubbers installed -- that costs more per kwh? Or that companies wouldn't dump their carcinogens anywhere they pleased if there were no legal restraints upon them? Or that Micro$oft wouldn't own every switch, router, desktop, and transcontinental cable in the world if there were no anti-trust laws? (Hint: How did we come to have anti-trust laws in the first place?)

And so on...

Like I said, I am most definitely NOT advocating some kind of Maoist-Odonian (pace Ursula LeGuin) shangri-la, nor the kind of Kafkaesque bureaucratic nightmare we have now. To paraphrase Lao Tsu, "there must be a middle road." But everything I've seen from the LP seems to be in favor of giving businesses an absolute free rein. And that sounds no better to me than giving the government a free rein.

-0-

Glock Glockler
January 2, 2003, 10:57 AM
BigJake,

As far as trade goes, I think it's relevant to point out that we, as a nation, are really not competing on even ground with many oyther countries. For years now, our govt has been straddleing our industries with scores or regulatory nonsense that make it financially unviable to remain in the US, and doing business in the US has become far less profitable.

For example, my roommate works for a refrigerant producing company. One day a young kid who was probably not even 20yrs old came in and asked the owner for an application, which he gave to him and instructed him to fill it out, give it to the secretary, and that he would call him back in a day or two to schedule an interview if everything checked out. The kid asked if he could fill it out at home and just bring it back, and the owner refused and told him again to fill it out right then and there. The kid then asked why he could not fill it out and bring it back, at which point the owner said "You can't read, can you"? The kid jumped up, started cursing at him and stormed off.

It turned out the kid contacted the EEOC and filed suit against the owner for discrimination because of his illiteracy, never mind the fact that a lot of those barrels of chemicals have labels on the outside which give detailed and specific instructions as to how they must be handled and stored. You could have BIG problems if they are stored improperly. Long story short, the owner had to pay this punk 3 months of unemployment, even though he had never been employed and hadn't even filled out 1 letter on an application.

Foreign competition isn't what's killing our industries, it's govt interference. Why would a company want to bother with garbage like this, teamsters, affirmative action, OSHA, EPA? Why would they want to pay the highest corporate taxes of any industrialized nation? Why would they want to contend with frivilous lawsuits because of idiot judges?

I could go on for hours about the ways that businesses are incentivized to leave the country, and also the ways that NAFTA is not free trade but actually govt managed trade set to favor certain corporate interests at everyone's expense. Jake, get the govt to take the handcuffs off our industry and let the rest of the world worry about our production.

I, now, have to bring up points that I forgot to mention:).

Jake, do you think that the fact that we have 20yr olds, like the one who didn't apply at my rommates company, who cannot read has anything to do with our industrial issues? We're advancing from the industrial age into the information age, yet our govt run schools cannot even prepare our nation's children for the agrarian age.

Do you think that having scores of people on various welfare doles, at taxpayer expense, not only drains money from our pockets (and our company's pockets), but also inflates the cost of goods and services because they're more scarce due to less people working?

Soap
January 2, 2003, 11:00 AM
Glock Glockler brings up excellent points that I failed to address. There is the problem of a highly advanced economy such as ours no longer needing certain types of labor (which I addressed). And there is also the artificial barriers to production that Glock Glockler mentioned. Good work.

BigJake_old
January 2, 2003, 07:21 PM
hmm... i didn't really want to think that much about all this today, but here goes...

Dan First- I have to disagree with some of your points on this, and its not really going to matter because its one of those things we see diferently on, but heres my .02 cents on it.

Foreign powers are taking the vast majority of our buisness, and i see some of the other points on industry, but shouldn't our own Ag folks have first crack at selling in this country? seems only right to me. i am agaist helping everyone out, i think that OUR people should be thought of first and then other countrys can have a piece of whats left. i think we help these other country and let them into out economy at OUR expense. I don't think anyone in this country should suffer loss of jobs or whatever while another country proffits on it, i say take care of our own first, and i sugest imposing some form of tax on all incoming goods. It seems self destructive to have so many people on wellfare and out of work because of forieng products taking up the market. in time, the minority of the people that make up the upper/smart class that do all the smart careers arent going to be able to finance welfare, social security, and all the gov't programs, let alone maintain a military or any of those extras. i see your point that our kids are stupid now adays, and that issue should be addressed, but there still have to be people working the factorys if you want to manage em. get my point at all? i'm not thinking extremely clear tonight, but thats my position on the subject, i'm thinking we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.


Glock Glocker, I here you, the gov't has screwed most of the big companys over. companys shouldn't be punished for making proffit, no one should, that just boils down to tax reform again. and it makes sence to leave the country, but in the mean time our country continues to decline. i agree that the kid was completly wrong, and a moron as well. thats just pointing out another problem in our country, that no one wants to take responsablitiy for thier actions. I'm not at all supporting the masses living off of welfare, don't get me wrong. and since we have enough idiots running around domesticly, it only makes sense to me to have imigration virtualy shut down. there was a time we needed all the people that would come in the country, but that day is over. theres about half of your welfare leaches right there. i'd say tighten up the process, let people in, but require them to have the basic knowledge to get along in this country, for instance, a working knowledge of the english language, and literacy in it. dan pointed out that enough of our own arent literate, why further increase the problem?

Malone LaVeigh
January 2, 2003, 07:49 PM
We've had those laws for a very long time, they're called anti-fraud laws. It doesn't matter whether someone is trying to defraud you of money given for the sale of a pig, or if a corporation is trying to defraud it's shareholders or customers, it's the same thing.

Fraud has always been illegal, why do we need any laws on the matter other than a general explanation of what fraud is (such as: A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain), and a statute that says that practice is illegal. Then apply it as need be.

Law doesn't need to be complicated, it can be very simple, and should be. A government in which the law cannot be easily understood by the common man is a tyrannical government.You left out one aspect of the law. It has to be enforced. Let's see... can you put a corporation in jail? No, you can only put individuals in jail, but they are generally shielded from responsibility by corporate laws. And even if you can identify someone to put in jail, penalties and sanctions are determined by legislators who largely depend on corporate campaign contributions for their survival. Not to mention that they can afford the best attorneys. the Libertarian concept is to make everyone liable for their actions. But can you afford an attorney who will go toe-to-toe with the law staff of a large corporation?


Our gov't was founded on Christian principals, whether you like it or not, and the only way around that is anarchy.Well, thatr will be a surprise to all of the governments in the world that don't happen to be based on Christianity. Would especially surprise the Pagan Greeks that somehow thought they invented something called democracy.

BigJake_old
January 2, 2003, 08:08 PM
You make no point, i said christian pricipals, which happens to be true.

Soap
January 2, 2003, 08:36 PM
Jake-

I have to disagree with some of your points on this, and its not really going to matter because its one of those things we see diferently on, but heres my .02 cents on it.

I'm glad to hear your two cents. That is what this board is all about. We can learn from each other's perspective.

Foreign powers are taking the vast majority of our buisness, and i see some of the other points on industry, but shouldn't our own Ag folks have first crack at selling in this country? seems only right to me.

I agree. But the folks in this country cannot compete in certain industries effectively. This is because the government ties our industries' hands through excessive taxation and regulatory laws. Either that, or the American worker ties his own hands by engaging in collective bargaining or lobbying for the previously mentioned taxation or regulatory laws.

i am agaist helping everyone out, i think that OUR people should be thought of first and then other countrys can have a piece of whats left. i think we help these other country and let them into out economy at OUR expense. I don't think anyone in this country should suffer loss of jobs or whatever while another country proffits on it, i say take care of our own first, and i sugest imposing some form of tax on all incoming goods.

I'm competely with you again: That Americans should be thought of first and foremost in any economic decisions. But what you are advocating hurts every person in America. If you tax incoming goods, you are creating an artificial price increase. This means that every single household in America must pay a higher price for that good. In addition to the higher price, the American people would also experience a shortage where quantity demanded is greater than quantity supplied.

For example: Let us say that the Japanese can provide us steel at a price of $10/lb. The American company offers the same product for $13/lb. So the consumer is saving money every time they buy Japanese steel.

But why is the price of Japanese steel lower? It could be a result of a number of factors. Two factors could be the Steelworker's Union and OSHA requirements. The Steelworker's Union has used collective bargaining to demand a mean wage of $60K/year for a steelworker. Great for the steel workers but this will increase the price/lb of steel. The second factor, OSHA requirements, has required the investment in a complex set of safety requirements (which are not present in Japan). These regulations force the price of steel even higher. So if the steel orginally was say $8/lb for U.S. made steel, these two factors pushed the cost up to $13/lb for U.S. made steel.

Now what if we taxed as you said? Let us say that the tax pushes the price of Japanese steel up to $15/lb. So America no longer has a source of $10/lb steel. So Americans are forced to buy the $13/lb. steel. The price of every single good or service that involves steel in some way will rise. So every single American household that purchases these goods or service with the higher price is suffering a detriment. I understand that you want to help Americans, but this method will only hurt every American.

It seems self destructive to have so many people on wellfare and out of work because of forieng products taking up the market. in time, the minority of the people that make up the upper/smart class that do all the smart careers arent going to be able to finance welfare, social security, and all the gov't programs, let alone maintain a military or any of those extras.

The solution to that is simple: Stop tying the hands of all classes by having government welfare/social security/etc. programs. These programs are completely different issue that are feel good, but bad economically.

i see your point that our kids are stupid now adays, and that issue should be addressed, but there still have to be people working the factorys if you want to manage em. get my point at all? i'm not thinking extremely clear tonight, but thats my position on the subject, i'm thinking we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

I wasn't saying that kids are stupid at all. Its just that people have to choose their economic niche wisely. I understand your point that there need to be people working in factories for me to be economically efficient. But if this country has zero industrial production (which is highly unlikely), I still should be alright because I'm concentrating on investment banking instead of industrial management.



Think of it this way Jake, just take a look at China before they traded with the rest of the world. They were not a strong nation by anyone's definition. Look at them now. If you want America to succeed, free trade is the way to go. It might sound good, but economic protectionism just digs our own graves.

wQuay
January 2, 2003, 09:00 PM
Everyone here would do well to read Christ and Civilization. (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/reviews/last.asp)

Shalako
January 2, 2003, 09:07 PM
I love the part where the environmentalists impose all their endangered species laws and herbicide/fertilizer/Natural Res. regulations, thereby making agriculture and industry in the U.S. cost prohibitive, then allow all the other nations with no enviro protections to bring in their cheaper products. Nice case of NIMBY there, to the working stiff's detriment. You've now just sold America short and we can no longer produce every element of the supply chain. No factories and mines to make various infrastructure and war time support items. But hey, just find a new job. We've got high tech and advanced avionics industries, right? Good luck pushing that plan to those folks on the otherside of the normal distribution, i.e. guys like my dad. I helped teach him multiplication when I was 12. He's not the avionics type, but he'd be one hell of an asset to any factory or mechanical trade. We need to be a complete, well rounded economy and nation. This business about changing your 'skillset' is kind of idealizing a bit. It may work for the top 30% but what do we do with the rest of the workers?

This global economy business could be a sure fire way to hamstring ourselves if/when the big one hits. If the transportation industries, Mexico, and foreign relations all take a dump at the same time and we are facing multiple aggressive forces, could we repeat the steps taken in 1941 to generate and equip a large enough army? Yeah, only if they are armed with a Microsoft Certification and a palm pilot...

-Shalako

ps. my vote for a new Political Party would be to bring back common sense and personal responsibility, dash the PC CYA BS against the nearest rock, and not buy goods from any countries with softer enviro regs than us.

Soap
January 2, 2003, 09:43 PM
Shalako-

I love the part where the environmentalists impose all their endangered species laws and herbicide/fertilizer/Natural Res. regulations, thereby making agriculture and industry in the U.S. cost prohibitive, then allow all the other nations with no enviro protections to bring in their cheaper products.

Exactly. So either we

1- Get rid of our enviro regs
or
2- We ban importation of goods with any country with enviro regs which are more lax than ours (which you suggested).

Number 1 would make the U.S. industries more competitive. Number 2 would raise the cost and cause a shortage of all goods affected...to the working stiff's detriment.

You've now just sold America short and we can no longer produce every element of the supply chain.

No country can product every element of the supply chain in today's complex economy.

We need to be a complete, well rounded economy and nation. This business about changing your 'skillset' is kind of idealizing a bit. It may work for the top 30% but what do we do with the rest of the workers?

Firstly, protectionism will do nothing to complete or well-round our economy or nation. How many times do I have to say it: Protectionism hurts all Americans. Secondly, I think you're selling all of the workers of America short by assuming that they are too stupid or lazy to change their economic niche. For example, I go to school with a guy who did drywall for 20 years...his GPA is better than mine! People can change their economic niche quite readily.

This global economy business could be a sure fire way to hamstring ourselves if/when the big one hits. If the transportation industries, Mexico, and foreign relations all take a dump at the same time and we are facing multiple aggressive forces, could we repeat the steps taken in 1941 to generate and equip a large enough army? Yeah, only if they are armed with a Microsoft Certification and a palm pilot...

This global economy business is what will prevent "the big one". Peace is ensured by mutual trade and reliance upon one another. Since no nation has a completely self-sufficient economy, this means they will rely on other nations. This reliance equals peace. After all, if you try to kill all the bakers, one day there will be no bread. Furthermore, recent warfare has taught us that technology is indeed a Good Thing.

Sean Smith
January 3, 2003, 11:53 AM
If I have an objection to Libertarianism, it is that it seems implicitly willing to substitute a tyrannical corporate sector for a tyrannical government sector. Re-create the corporate legal/political climate of 1900 and you will re-create the outlandish abuses of large masses of the population and the environment that went along with it.

Put another way, how do you bring legal pressure to bear on a corporation for wrongdoing, when it always has more money and better lawyers than you?

Do I support protectionism? No. Do I support the vast majority of corporate regulations out there? No. I just don't support corporations as unaccountable centers of power, either.

Glock Glockler
January 3, 2003, 12:10 PM
Sean Smith,

No Libertarian I know wants corporate tyranny any more than they do govt tyranny. As far as making things better for them at our expense, we're doing a good job of that right now through liability ceilings, when there are limits on how much a corporation is liable for after they pollute an area. At that point, it makes good business sense to dump toxic waste in an river if you can only be sued for $50million, when it would cost you $75million to dispose of it properly.

If I had to pick one area of the govt which would be very well funded, I wouldn't mind spending a lot of money to insure we had a top-notch legal system. If someone is clearly in the wrong, decent court should be able to find them so even if they have to go up against the dream team. Hmmm, speaking of that, why could the state not bid out prosecuting jobs via the attourney general? Maybe the dream team would be the one's doing the prosecuring.

Keep that thought in mind as well as the public backlash against whatever company is pulling various shenannigans. They might find themselves at the receiving end of a serious boycott if they get stupid.

Chris Rhines
January 3, 2003, 12:44 PM
What is a "tyrannical corporate sector?" Seriously. I'm no particular fan of limited liability regulations, but GM can't force me to buy a Suburban at gunpoint. Corporations can't steal my property. The government can, and does.

A non-coercive society based on strict enforcement of property rights makes the whole 'tyrannical corporation' problem irrevelant. One does not need lawyers to administer his own property.

- Chris

Sean Smith
January 3, 2003, 02:35 PM
GM can poison you at work and not tell you about it. GM can destroy your property value and your health by dumping toxic waste adjacent to it, polluting the air above it, and so forth. If they have all the lawyers and money, and nothing they do is illegal except insofar as you personally can prove they violate "property rights" in each specific instance, they will always win.

De facto corporate oligarchy.

dev_null
January 3, 2003, 02:48 PM
What is a "tyrannical corporate sector?" Seriously. I'm no particular fan of limited liability regulations, but GM can't force me to buy a Suburban at gunpoint. Corporations can't steal my property. The government can, and does.

A non-coercive society based on strict enforcement of property rights makes the whole 'tyrannical corporation' problem irrevelant. One does not need lawyers to administer his own property.
You're focussing on the consumer aspect and ignoring all the other areas of impact. I don't know about you, but most people have to work for a living. They also have to breathe the air, drink the water, etc. Lastly, maybe GM can't force you to buy a Suburban, but if there's no law against monopolies, no restrictions on anti-competitive tactics or price fixing, GM can see to it that you either buy the Suburban for $100,000 or walk.

Like the man said, read up on working conditions during the Victorian era...

-0-

Soap
January 3, 2003, 03:12 PM
GM can poison you at work and not tell you about it. GM can destroy your property value and your health by dumping toxic waste adjacent to it, polluting the air above it, and so forth. If they have all the lawyers and money, and nothing they do is illegal except insofar as you personally can prove they violate "property rights" in each specific instance, they will always win.

De facto corporate oligarchy.

The beauty of corporations is that you don't have to buy their products. They poison you, quit and tell everyone in the world. If they dump waste on your property, do something about it. It could be legal action to the other extreme of harming the sector that is polluting.

With governments, the only choice is to buy their product. If you don't, you go to jail or you have to leave.

In a truly competitive market, corporate oligarchies would be very rare. Even if they did exist, a consumer has to choice to put them out of business.

Soap
January 3, 2003, 03:28 PM
You're focussing on the consumer aspect and ignoring all the other areas of impact. I don't know about you, but most people have to work for a living. They also have to breathe the air, drink the water, etc. Lastly, maybe GM can't force you to buy a Suburban, but if there's no law against monopolies, no restrictions on anti-competitive tactics or price fixing, GM can see to it that you either buy the Suburban for $100,000 or walk.

Like the man said, read up on working conditions during the Victorian era...

Monopolies only exist because of certain laws which actually make them possible. For a real life example of "big business", see the airlines. The airlines are constantly in the negative, but yet they stay in business because they are propped up by the government. In the absence of laws, monopolies fall under their own weight because they are inefficient. The inefficiency lies in that the quantity lower and the price is higher. Natural monopolies happen so rarely that they are not really worth talking about.

Concerning your $100K or walk example: Price fixing only exists currently as an artificial quasi-price floor. All of the laws and regulations in this country such as taxes, emissions, etc. make vehicles more expensive to a consumer. There are no laws which relate to a price ceiling. This means that GM can charge, this very minute, $100K for a Suburban. No laws prevent them from doing this...so why don't they? The answer is because GM isn't stupid. They will not sell a profitable amount of Suburbans at that price. The only way GM could get away with selling Suburbans at that price is if the government requires every household to buy a Suburban for $100K.

Concerning the Victorian era: The Victorian era obviously had bad working conditions. Economies progress. Part of this progression includes going though pure hell sometimes. Our economy would not have developed from Ag-based to Enviro-friendly/good working conditions/etc. industry overnight. The Victorian era was a transition stage which the West has completed. Working conditions would have improved naturally regardless of intervention.

Chris Rhines
January 3, 2003, 03:42 PM
GM can poison you at work and not tell you about it. I don't work for GM. If GM is posioning their employees, that's a problem for the employees and unions (GFL!) to deal with.

GM can destroy your property value and your health by dumping toxic waste adjacent to it, polluting the air above it, and so forth. If GM dumps so much as a thimbleful of toxic waste (or anything else, for that matter) onto my property (or into the air above it, which I own) then I can take measures to make them stop. Proof doesn't come into it at all. Neither do lawyers or courts, except to assess penalties for non-complience.

On the other hand, GM can use corrupt government courts to it's advantage, should such courts exist. Big Bizness is powerless without a government to give it legitimacy.

- Chris

Chris Rhines
January 3, 2003, 03:46 PM
Like the man said, read up on working conditions during the Victorian era... The implication being that we had lassiez-faire capitalism in effect during the Victorian era, which is manifestly not the case. In fact, the Victorian era was far more mercantilist than today.

- Chris

Malone LaVeigh
January 3, 2003, 04:20 PM
Exactly. So either we

1- Get rid of our enviro regs
or
2- We ban importation of goods with any country with enviro regs which are more lax than ours (which you suggested).

Number 1 would make the U.S. industries more competitive. Number 2 would raise the cost and cause a shortage of all goods affected...to the working stiff's detriment. You missed one part. We have those environmental regs because we don't want to eat poisons. They were not "imposed on us by enviros" as some would portray it but were the result of our national political decision-making process. If you don't like them or think they should be changed, you're free do do so within our legislative process. The choice you're giving us is to eat our own poisons or eat imported poisons. I would give us strong enough import regulations to meet the intent of our domestic laws, which is to protect our people.

In the process it would also protect the workers, farmers and producers in this country who are laboring under the restrictions we have self-imposed for our own good.

Malone LaVeigh
January 3, 2003, 04:22 PM
The implication being that we had lassiez-faire capitalism in effect during the Victorian era, which is manifestly not the case. In fact, the Victorian era was far more mercantilist than today.And how would you define the difference in terms of working conditions?

BigJake_old
January 3, 2003, 04:31 PM
it was mentioned that china got big because of thier industrial trade with the rest of the world. let the record show that that particular countrys Evviromental regs and Human rights are non existant. China is a power because it burns its reasorces and people like there is no tomorow, they don't care for either of them.

Malone LaVeigh
January 3, 2003, 04:44 PM
it was mentioned that china got big because of thier industrial trade with the rest of the world. let the record show that that particular countrys Evviromental regs and Human rights are non existant. China is a power because it burns its reasorces and people like there is no tomorow, they don't care for either of them.Exactly. Just think how much more economicly powerful we could be if we had slave labor in our factories. That IS the only goal for a nation, isn't it?

Soap
January 3, 2003, 05:55 PM
You missed one part. We have those environmental regs because we don't want to eat poisons.

And for some reason you think that you would eat poison if the regs weren't there? Personally, if a good is poisoned, I don't buy it. If someone were to poison my property, I would take action. The natural market will eat those who poison others so rest easy.

They were not "imposed on us by enviros" as some would portray it but were the result of our national political decision-making process. If you don't like them or think they should be changed, you're free do do so within our legislative process.

Yes I am free. I didn't vote for any of the enviro regs. This is yet another case of me having to consume a product that I didn't want to buy in the first place.

The choice you're giving us is to eat our own poisons or eat imported poisons.

You're pretty much saying that you would eat poisoned food...that is simply insane. As a consumer, I don't buy things with poison in them, you may, but I won't. Also in a free market, you are free to produce your own food if you have a problem with existing ones.

I would give us strong enough import regulations to meet the intent of our domestic laws, which is to protect our people.

I feel like I'm really repeating myself unnecessarily here: Import regulations make quantity go down and price go up. This means that there is a shortage plus you're paying a higher price. Call me crazy, but making Americans experience a shortage and higher price for a good is not helping Americans. It is very simple.

In the process it would also protect the workers, farmers and producers in this country who are laboring under the restrictions we have self-imposed for our own good.

I don't give a hoot about the "workers of the world". I am a consumer. I will consume whatever goods and services that I desire regardless of who produced it. If no viable source for a good exists, I will produce it myself. That is what the market is all about.

Soap
January 3, 2003, 06:01 PM
it was mentioned that china got big because of thier industrial trade with the rest of the world. let the record show that that particular countrys Evviromental regs and Human rights are non existant. China is a power because it burns its reasorces and people like there is no tomorow, they don't care for either of them.

and

Exactly. Just think how much more economicly powerful we could be if we had slave labor in our factories. That IS the only goal for a nation, isn't it?


If you two can think of a way for a nation to go from Ag-based to fully industrialized by skipping the middle step, please enlighten me. One year, Shee Lee was a farmer, the next year, we was employed in an environmentally-friendly, high-paying job as a CNC machinist...get real fellas. And if you think that slave labor somehow has any positive influence on a market, you need to read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.

Chris Rhines
January 3, 2003, 06:12 PM
And how would you define the difference in terms of working conditions? Neither system has anything to do with working conditions. What exactly are you talking about?

A free-market economy would probably have better working conditions than our present mercantilist dictatorship, given that mercantilism provides a certain immunity from market pressure to large corporations.

---

I'd like to reiterate the point about slave labor. Anyone who thinks that slavery is even economically possible in a modern economy needs to clue in to reality. You can't have a slave-electrical engineer, or a slave-machinist, you can't even have a slave-farmer nowadays. Slavery has been obsolete for three generations.

I have to wonder about the people who advocate reverting to a different kind of slavery...

- Chris

Mastrogiacomo
January 3, 2003, 06:19 PM
Just my two cents on Public Schools. There's nothing wrong with them. First of all, what is the basis of how we measure all these students incapable of reading, writing, math, etc? The MCAS? A test that discriminates based on income, based on the student's abilities in English, discrimates against students with special needs (no accomodations given ANYONE for this test), forces young school children to pass exams that exceed more than two hours in lengths and understand material beyond them in age (automotive questions, philosophy, etc), a test created by companies that design COLLEGE LEVEL EXAMS for students that pose questions in a trival pursuit manner where only one answer is best.

The MCAS has done away teaching as we know it because teachers must now play educational trival pursuit to keep their jobs. No meaningful debates, no emphasis on writing and reading, no emphasis on music, dance, gym, social activities, etc. For the school year, each child is categorized by ability, but for the MCAS, every child must perform as well as the gifted child without exceptions. There is no consideration for the hard work a child puts into a school year or their extra effort. Nothing matters except what happens in the two weeks in which this test is given. You worked hard, showed up? Tough! Your work sucks! A child that passes the MCAS, passes far and beyond, but don't print that, we want you parents to think your kids barely made it through. The MCAS is the standard even though EVERY TEACHER OF THE YEAR HAS SPOKEN AGAINST THE MCAS. :what:

What do I know? I have a M.Ed. I can't do anything with because I refuse to teach the MCAS and stupidly wanted to teach reading, writing, etc. I wanted to teach English but Bilingual Educators in Massachusetts took my jobs because no one wanted me to teach English WITH English. What was I thinking? I got out and looking for a new career. By the way, I got my M.Ed. in spite of my learning disability, discrimination from teachers that thought I "had it easy" and a very good lawyer...

My prayers are with all these children that are at the mercy of voters too stupid to question what politicans and businessmen say about the "terrible state" of public schools..:(

If this is YOUR child, especially your learning disabled child going through the MCAS nightmare, show some backbone, get off their backs, let them have a social life, and COMPLAIN to the school about the :cuss: lousy standards. Should children be tested? Yes, but should it count for everything and not take into account all the student's efforts and abilities? Hell no! But that's just me....and what do I know? I went to public schools.

Justin
January 3, 2003, 06:50 PM
This global economy business is what will prevent "the big one". Peace is ensured by mutual trade and reliance upon one another. Since no nation has a completely self-sufficient economy, this means they will rely on other nations. This reliance equals peace. After all, if you try to kill all the bakers, one day there will be no bread. Furthermore, recent warfare has taught us that technology is indeed a Good Thing.


In other words...

When goods don't cross borders armies will.
-Frederic Bastiat

Malone LaVeigh
January 3, 2003, 06:52 PM
And for some reason you think that you would eat poison if the regs weren't there? Personally, if a good is poisoned, I don't buy it. If someone were to poison my property, I would take action. The natural market will eat those who poison others so rest easy. OK, I tried writing in very simple terms to make a point, but it obviously didn't work. Let's try this again.

The environmental, worker protection, and other regulations faced by producers in this country were placed there mostly to protect Americans. For example, our farmers are not allowed to use certain pesticides that might either persist on the food product or bioaccumulate through the food chain and enter our food supply through some other route, or leach into water bodies and enter our drinking water. These regulations came about because our elected representatives empowered the regulatory agencies to protect the public interest. Now, I sure don't agree with everything that comes out of those hallowed halls, but they are the result of OUR internal political processes. If we don't like them, we have processes to deal with our disagreements.

Free trade allows a foreign company that isn't constrained by the same rules to unfairly compete against our producers. If we decided for whatever reason that a certain rule has merit, then it has the same merit whether a foreign company provides the product or whether it is a domestic company.

Yes I am free. I didn't vote for any of the enviro regs. This is yet another case of me having to consume a product that I didn't want to buy in the first place.I said you are free to try to get any regulations on domestic producers you don't like changed. No one's making you consume anything.
I feel like I'm really repeating myself unnecessarily here: Import regulations make quantity go down and price go up. This means that there is a shortage plus you're paying a higher price. Call me crazy, but making Americans experience a shortage and higher price for a good is not helping Americans. It is very simple.Yes, of course, ANY regulations can have that effect. The point is that, through our national political process, we have made the decision that cleaner food is more important than greater supplies. (I'm using the example of poisons in food again. I hope you can extend the example to other areas.) You may not know it, but shortages of food are not a problem in this country. One of the greatest problems in ag econ these days is disposing of the surplus produced right here. There is no shortage.
I don't give a hoot about the "workers of the world". I am a consumer. I will consume whatever goods and services that I desire regardless of who produced it. If no viable source for a good exists, I will produce it myself. That is what the market is all about.You need to read more carefully. I never said anything about the "workers of the world." I specifically talked about the workers, farmers and producers in this country, as you quoted. Luckily, the politicians in this country know that the workers and consumers are the same people. You may have found some way to consume your way through life without making a contribution, but the rest of us have to work for a living.

David Roberson
January 3, 2003, 06:53 PM
Mastrogiacomo, you seem unaware that your lengthy post merely provides evidence of the greatest failing of public schools: They're controlled by the government.

Good to see a nice libertarian thread here already. Now if we can get someone to start whining about how Steyr pistols are deliberately designed to be unsafe and how they go full auto all the time, I'll feel quite at home.

Malone LaVeigh
January 3, 2003, 07:04 PM
If you two can think of a way for a nation to go from Ag-based to fully industrialized by skipping the middle step, please enlighten me. One year, Shee Lee was a farmer, the next year, we was employed in an environmentally-friendly, high-paying job as a CNC machinist...get real fellas.So that's an excuse to let them get away with behavior we have is unacceptable in our own producers? Like we haven't learned anything from history? Shoule we make them start off producing Model T's?
And if you think that slave labor somehow has any positive influence on a market
and
Anyone who thinks that slavery is even economically possible in a modern economy needs to clue in to reality.My example was a little extreme. But I have no doubt that the labor of a permanent underclass benefits certain players in some markets. There's the farm workers, for example. Also, are you aware of how much work is being done in prisons nowadays?
Neither system has anything to do with working conditions. What exactly are you talking about? You were responding to a statement about working conditions. :rolleyes:

Chris Rhines
January 3, 2003, 07:21 PM
My example was a little extreme. But I have no doubt that the labor of a permanent underclass benefits certain players in some markets. Some markets, you say? Look at some of the markets where slavery is presently practiced today. Most of them are primitive socialist hellholes. This is not a coincidence.

Also, are you aware of how much work is being done in prisons nowadays? None of any real consequence to the economy, here in the United States. In China, everybodies favorite punching bag, very little labor is actually performed by prisoners. Most of that is WND propaganda.

You were responding to a statement about working conditions. Point I was trying to make is that working conditions depend on way more than economic system (or lack thereof.)

- Chris

Malone LaVeigh
January 3, 2003, 07:48 PM
Point I was trying to make is that working conditions depend on way more than economic system (or lack thereof.)I can get behind that...

Soap
January 3, 2003, 08:43 PM
The environmental, worker protection, and other regulations faced by producers in this country were placed there mostly to protect Americans. For example, our farmers are not allowed to use certain pesticides that might either persist on the food product or bioaccumulate through the food chain and enter our food supply through some other route, or leach into water bodies and enter our drinking water. These regulations came about because our elected representatives empowered the regulatory agencies to protect the public interest.

I have a question for you Malone, do you think that people are so stupid that they will eat contaminated food? Or is it that the producers are so evil that they will destory other people's property? Furthermore, the public has also deemed that gun control prevents crime so I fail to see your point. In a free enterprise system, one could create an independent agency which screens food to determine a cleanliness rating. In addition, restitution for damages caused by pollution could be dealt with properly in a legal system.

Now, I sure don't agree with everything that comes out of those hallowed halls, but they are the result of OUR internal political processes. If we don't like them, we have processes to deal with our disagreements.

I never said otherwise. But the best option to combat a producer is to not consume their product. Simple.

Free trade allows a foreign company that isn't constrained by the same rules to unfairly compete against our producers. If we decided for whatever reason that a certain rule has merit, then it has the same merit whether a foreign company provides the product or whether it is a domestic company.

Unfair? How is beating a competitor in business unfair? Free trade allows consumers to choose what they want to consume. If people want to eat food that will give them cancer, I don't care. The market will naturally take care of people who make stupid choices...it will also take care of those who make intelligent choices. It will also put any producer who sells harmful products out of business.

I said you are free to try to get any regulations on domestic producers you don't like changed. No one's making you consume anything.

Exactly. And I don't consume products that do not bring me any utility.

Yes, of course, ANY regulations can have that effect. The point is that, through our national political process, we have made the decision that cleaner food is more important than greater supplies. (I'm using the example of poisons in food again. I hope you can extend the example to other areas.) You may not know it, but shortages of food are not a problem in this country. One of the greatest problems in ag econ these days is disposing of the surplus produced right here. There is no shortage.

Cleaner food...you seriously think that if Mexico imported contaminated soy that anyone would be dumb enough to buy it? One of the main reasons why domestically produced food is cleaner is because of the natural market. The consumers have a demand in this country for food that is of the highest caliber...therefore the producers take heed. This happens naturally without any sort of regulation. BUT the regulation will make the food, which the market has now made naturally clean, higher priced. As to the economic inefficiency of the surplus food: Hmm...who do you think subsidizes farmers who inefficiently produce a greater quantity than is demanded? I'll give you a hint, its not any body foreign.

You need to read more carefully. I never said anything about the "workers of the world." I specifically talked about the workers, farmers and producers in this country, as you quoted. Luckily, the politicians in this country know that the workers and consumers are the same people. You may have found some way to consume your way through life without making a contribution, but the rest of us have to work for a living.

You need to read more carefully. My point is that I don't care where a good was produced as long as it provides me with the maximum benefit. I drive an MB, not a Ford, because my benefit is higher. I have a numerous Asian parts in my computer, because I gained the maximum benefit from it. I don't care if Hans, Shee, or Bob made it, as long as they do a good job and provide me with maximum utility.

So that's an excuse to let them get away with behavior we have is unacceptable in our own producers? Like we haven't learned anything from history? Shoule we make them start off producing Model T's?

I suppose you mean "them" as being the evil capitalists of the 19th Century that wore top hats right? I'm not providing any sort of excuse, I'm just saying that periods of inadequacy are a function of progression. For example, if in 2315 A.D. the quality of life is FAR higher than it is now, they will probably critize our bad working and living conditions. Think progression. Also, of course mankind has learned from history. This means that in the absence of regulation, all of a sudden it won't turn into The Jungle.

Soap
January 3, 2003, 08:44 PM
Justin- Excellent quote!

Rangerover
January 3, 2003, 09:15 PM
Just my two cents on Public Schools. There's nothing wrong with them.
I disagree.

Our public schools are a disgrace to the nation.

Every year the incoming Freshman class at my university was more illiterate than the one before it. Seriously. It's gotten to the point that they can't write a coherent sentence. They can't find their own state on a map. Many don't know who the POTUS is. Yet they graduated and somehow got into college anyway. So, I opted for a career change because I got tired of doing this: :banghead:
Let someone else deal with the "M.C. Headshot Piff Doggie Kop Killa" generation.

I did my time.

I now plan on enjoying my new, more fulfilling job and spending more time at the range. (Whew! I managed to get something gun related in there :p ).

I for one don't want one more of my tax dollars spent on the cesspool we call "public education": I've seen what it produces.

My observations. My opinion. YMMV.

Mastrogiacomo
January 3, 2003, 09:43 PM
Maybe if teachers weren't paid so :cuss: and treated so :cuss: they'd be good ones that would actually WANT to stay in the field. Of course, it'd be great if we could get rid of the business men and politicans out of education and people like John Silber who believe "a learning disability is a politically correct term for what used to be called stupidity." I'll bet HE never went to public schools? How does one explain a dumb ass like him? :uhoh:

Malone LaVeigh
January 3, 2003, 09:59 PM
I have a question for you Malone, do you think that people are so stupid that they will eat contaminated food?I've studied enough envoronmental toxicology and organic chemistry to be pretty sure you eat contaminated food all the time. Now, the concentrations are pretty low in most produce these days. Do you know why? I remember when oranges would come into the grocery shelves reeking of insecticide. Part of the reason they don't very often these days is undoubtedly due to market demand. But regulations have had a indispensible role in that also.

Flash bulletin: food doesn't normally come with labels showing every contaminant. There is very little chance you would know what you were eating in an unregulated market. Do you know what's in the water that comes out of your tap? If you lived in Sacramento, I could tell you with some certainty that the water in the local creeks and rivers contains diazanon. It's being phased out starting last year. Those nasty regulations.

Or is it that the producers are so evil that they will destory other people's property?Huh?
Furthermore, the public has also deemed that gun control prevents crime so I fail to see your point.I wasn't arguing that everything the government comes out with is right. But it is the result of our internal political process.
In a free enterprise system, one could create an independent agency which screens food to determine a cleanliness rating.Nothing wrong with that. What independent agency is going to screen water in rivers for the fish? Or groundwater? Or the body fat of wildlife? Believe it or not, there are things in the world that don't lend themselves to being market commodities.
In addition, restitution for damages caused by pollution could be dealt with properly in a legal system.Nonsense. Who can afford the better and most lawyers? You or Monsanto?
But the best option to combat a producer is to not consume their product.Only if you have perfect knowledge about their and all products.
Unfair? How is beating a competitor in business unfair?Now you're being absurd. Are you trying to say that all competition is, by definition, fair? I think I gave enough reasons why it's unfair for a foreign competitor to demand to sell his products in a market that is weighed against domestic producers, when the constraints on the domestic producer were arrived at through our political process. What you're advocating, and what free trade is all about, is the dismantling of national sovereignty.
Cleaner food...you seriously think that if Mexico imported contaminated soy that anyone would be dumb enough to buy it?There's very little chance you'd have any way of knowing it. Especially without regulations. For your information, pesticides banned in this country have been found in imported food.
As to the economic inefficiency of the surplus food: Hmm...who do you think subsidizes farmers who inefficiently produce a greater quantity than is demanded?That's not the point. I've denounced our ag subsidies over on TFL, you could look it up. But the point is that there is no shortage of production capacity. We have deemed in this country that we don't want poisoned food or pesticides leaching into rivers and groundwater, or entering the food chains. That has probably raised the price of ag products grown here. It would be stupid to turn around and let others do the same things and sell the products to our people. BTW, you should be very happy, because that is exactly the current situation.
I don't care if Hans, Shee, or Bob made it, as long as they do a good job and provide me with maximum utility.When I'm in the market, I don't care either. I want some of the choices that affect how things are produced made up front through regulations. I mean the ones that the market fails to produce. Markets are very powerful and useful in producing consumer goods at the lowest price. From the individual POV, that is all that matters. But that is not always the same as the public good. Nations have to make choices from a larger perspective. I know this clashes with your religious belief in the Free Market, but it's reality.
I suppose you mean "them" as being the evil capitalists of the 19th Century that wore top hats right?I thought from the quote above my statement it was clear I was talking about the Chinese. Try reading it again in that context.

Soap
January 3, 2003, 10:34 PM
Do you know why? I remember when oranges would come into the grocery shelves reeking of insecticide. Part of the reason they don't very often these days is undoubtedly due to market demand. But regulations have had a indispensible role in that also.

I'm sure people would have continued to eat food that killed them generation after generation had the valiant FDA not stepped in...:rolleyes:

Flash bulletin: food doesn't normally come with labels showing every contaminant. There is very little chance you would know what you were eating in an unregulated market. Do you know what's in the water that comes out of your tap? If you lived in Sacramento, I could tell you with some certainty that the water in the local creeks and rivers contains diazanon. It's being phased out starting last year. Those nasty regulations.

If I had reason to believe that my food or water was harmful, I would either not consume it or hire a tester.

Huh?

Whoops. I meant "destroy", sorry.

I wasn't arguing that everything the government comes out with is right. But it is the result of our internal political process.

Yes Malone, laws are created by an internal political process. I agree.

Nothing wrong with that. What independent agency is going to screen water in rivers for the fish? Or groundwater? Or the body fat of wildlife? Believe it or not, there are things in the world that don't lend themselves to being market commodities.

Who owns the fish or the wildlife? The owner of the wildlife could hire testers if they deemed it necessary. You are incorrect in saying that the market cannot take care of everything. Public property isn't a function of the market, it is a distortion of it. This is because the market doesn't recognize property that is owned supposedly by everyone. Public property is a good that you have to pay for or go to jail. This is unnatural and is a distortion of the market. When there is no public property, there is no need for public measures to protect it.

Nonsense. Who can afford the better and most lawyers? You or Monsanto?

Just as citizens have a right to revolt under unjust rule, individuals have the right to fight back in the face of injustice. If the legal action was completely unfair and the corporation still destroyed my property, I would attempt to destroy or combat the area of their business that is harming me. Someone knowingly poisoning your water is essentially attacking you. The counterattack would start out being peaceful but it could escalate to a matter of self-defense.

Only if you have perfect knowledge about their and all products.

Malone...there is no such thing about perfect knowledge about anything. But people can gather whichever amount of information they choose and purchase what they want according to their information.

Now you're being absurd. Are you trying to say that all competition is, by definition, fair? I think I gave enough reasons why it's unfair for a foreign competitor to demand to sell his products in a market that is weighed against domestic producers, when the constraints on the domestic producer were arrived at through our political process. What you're advocating, and what free trade is all about, is the dismantling of national sovereignty.

Competition is fair when it is done in an ethical manner. Also, the fault isn't on the foreign producer, it is on the distorted market which hinders the ability of domestic producers. As it concerns sovereignty, sure. Here's a good quote for you:

Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all our ends. And whoever has sole control of the means must also determine which ends are to be served, which values are to be rated higher and which lower—in short, what men should believe and strive for. F.A Hayek in The Road to Serfdom pg. 101

There's very little chance you'd have any way of knowing it. Especially without regulations. For your information, pesticides banned in this country have been found in imported food.

If I had a reason believe that my food would harm me, I would first do research. If that was fruitless, I would hire independent testing. Consumers are more well-informed than you think.

That's not the point. I've denounced our ag subsidies over on TFL, you could look it up. But the point is that there is no shortage of production capacity. We have deemed in this country that we don't want poisoned food or pesticides leaching into rivers and groundwater, or entering the food chains. That has probably raised the price of ag products grown here. It would be stupid to turn around and let others do the same things and sell the products to our people. BTW, you should be very happy, because that is exactly the current situation.

So our domestic producers produce waaaayyy too much...plus their food does not provide consumers with greater utility (since consumers are willing to buy the foreign stuff). Well it seems to me that domestic producers should be out of business. Regarding shortages, a shortage of the cheap "poisoned" food would occur if there were barriers to trade. The shortage of the specific product would still be present. A shortage doesn't necessarily mean a shortage of the entire good.

When I'm in the market, I don't care either. I want some of the choices that affect how things are produced made up front through regulations. I mean the ones that the market fails to produce. Markets are very powerful and useful in producing consumer goods at the lowest price. From the individual POV, that is all that matters. But that is not always the same as the public good. Nations have to make choices from a larger perspective. I know this clashes with your religious belief in the Free Market, but it's reality.

You make a bad assumption here: That I give a whit about "the public". Another assumption you make is that the policy makers will do what is best for the public. Read Justin's quote by Bastiat, it is excellent.

I thought from the quote above my statement it was clear I was talking about the Chinese. Try reading it again in that context.

I see. I don't justify anything the Chinese do. My idea is that economies must go through stages of progression. This progression includes work conditions/wages/etc. That is as far as my idea extended.

amprecon
January 3, 2003, 10:58 PM
Yada, Yada, Yada, Holy Horse Pookey! Religion and politics, the discussions never produce a winner and they never win over converts. I briefly scanned these posts and see that the Libertarian Party is quite popular with most here. However, as I am a registered Republican, I strongly lean toward the Constitution Party. They seem to reflect my feelings about how America should be, maybe some of you would like to take a look and see what you think.
Personally, my biggest gripe with America today is the government, they have their fingers into everything and I consider that a threat. Anyway the site can be found at the following link: http://www.constitutionparty.com it mirrors the Libertarian Party pretty well.

Sean Smith
January 4, 2003, 10:53 AM
Daniel,

Your sort of comments are the reason why nobody takes libertarians seriously. Wishing away all the negative consequences of your philosophy doesn't make them go away, it just means you are ignoring them. That sort of "argument" is just an appeal to magic.

Saying "I wouldn't eat poison" is a comical over-simplification, or just shows you are shockingly unimaginative about the consequences of total de-regulation of everything. It means you have no answer at all, or that you like licking the boots of corporate despots instead of political despots.

After all, the East India Company didn't exactly make India a utopia... :rolleyes:

Soap
January 4, 2003, 11:06 AM
Sean Smith,

Lucky for the LP I'm not a Libertarian, nor do I really claim to be. I vote that way in some cases, but I don't owe my allegiance to them.

Do remember Firestone Tires? They sold a product that was defective, they were exposed. I don't recall that there needed to be a Federal Tire Agency to inspect the tires.

In regards to despots, a business despot is easily unseated. Don't buy from them, don't consume their goods. Unfortunately that option is absent when we're talking about political despots.

BigJake_old
January 4, 2003, 01:00 PM
Malone, i got your back man.

Dan, where to start...i leave for a day and miss the whole thing..

First off, you say that there is no problem when we have competition in the economy over various goods between 2 countrys. that would be correct, IF there was a level playing field, which i GAURENTEE you there is not with us and china. another thought would be, why buy or even trade from a company that hates us, and uses a majority of the money they get from us to build a vast army, that will be more than likely deployed against us at some point in time. who was it that talked about socialist hell holes? doesn't matter who, but that just described china.

About these shoratages of goods and raises in price?? america can take care of herself, we have in the past, and we could now without foreing garbage poring in, and if you really have to have forieng stuff, mexico makes cheap garbage just as good as china, and they're closer. You said that the Commerce or whatever kept us at peace... what peace are you talking about? it was once said that peace was not just the absence of conflict, heck, we don't even have that. Our list of allies grows considerably shorter than that of our ememys. just cause we arent slinging lead at them openly doesn't mean they like us. for these reasons i say to hell with trade with china or any other nation that doesn't Follow the regulations of this country, its not fair for the american people.

Soap
January 4, 2003, 01:49 PM
Jake,

First off, you say that there is no problem when we have competition in the economy over various goods between 2 countrys. that would be correct, IF there was a level playing field, which i GAURENTEE you there is not with us and china. another thought would be, why buy or even trade from a company that hates us, and uses a majority of the money they get from us to build a vast army, that will be more than likely deployed against us at some point in time. who was it that talked about socialist hell holes? doesn't matter who, but that just described china.

If people want to work for low wage/long hours/poor working conditions/etc I don't care. As the end user of a product, I don't care about anything except the product itself. Furthermore, I suggest you read Justin's Basitat quote: "When goods don't cross borders armies will."
BTW- There is a huge factor that will prevent the Chinese from ever landing on these shores...


About these shoratages of goods and raises in price?? america can take care of herself, we have in the past, and we could now without foreing garbage poring in, and if you really have to have forieng stuff, mexico makes cheap garbage just as good as china, and they're closer.

God forbid things are economically efficient! :rolleyes: America has also handled slavery as well, just because we can handle it, that doesn't make it effective or moral. You're typing on some Asian gear right now Jake. Would you like to spend $4K on a computer because it has a sticker of a flag on it?

You said that the Commerce or whatever kept us at peace... what peace are you talking about? it was once said that peace was not just the absence of conflict, heck, we don't even have that. Our list of allies grows considerably shorter than that of our ememys. just cause we arent slinging lead at them openly doesn't mean they like us.

The list of allies grows short because of two factors: No trade. Or there is trade but we still meddle in that nation's affairs. Either way, it still isn't free trade.

for these reasons i say to hell with trade with china or any other nation that doesn't Follow the regulations of this country, its not fair for the american people.

Well that is your choice. You can say to hell with anyone you want. It is an individual's choice to choose who they trade with. If you don't like white/black/Muslim/Asian/Libertarian/Democrat/Republican/etc. people, fine, don't trade with them. But don't interfere with my peaceable trade with those people. Once you restrict the American individual's right to trade with whomever they please, you are doing something that is "not fair for the american people."

JPM70535
January 4, 2003, 02:03 PM
I don't know why we need another political party. IMO all we need to do is pick whichever party we think could best be formed into one represenative of the values we hold dear,band together and change its current agenda. Getting a third party to a position of power and influence would take far too long to do the 2A cause any good. All that 3rd partys have ever accomplished is to siphon votes away from mainstream party candidates (usually the conservative Republican rather than the liberal Democrat.

Liberals, regardless of their party affiliation have been the downfall of this country. Their philosophy that the way to correct all the ills of this country is to throw more and more money at the problem in hopes of a quick fix.

This approach has never worked whether the problen has been the quality of education, or the increase in crime in the lower income areas of our cities.

What is needed is personal accountability for ones actions. If for example, a student in school refuses to learn and creates chaos, instead of calling him developmentally challenged and refusing to allow dicipline, do what was done in the days before political correctness, Call him a bad kid and kick him out. Use this philosophy in all problem areas and the education level of the remaining students will increase. Enough rant, sorry

If you enjoyed reading about "Wanted: New Political Party" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!