Wanted: New Political Party

[wQuay]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You make no point, i said christian pricipals, which happens to be true.

 

[Soap]

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]

Everyone here would do well to read Christ and Civilization.

 

[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. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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