digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at motherjones.com

The Paulites Aren't Done Yet

motherjones.com — Ron Paul deserves representation at the Republican national convention in proportion to the support he received in the primaries. And his supporters are prepared to fight like hell to make sure he gets it.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Bombfrog, on 05/09/2008, -35/+22Dugg.
  • jaymzdean, on 05/09/2008, -20/+130The cool thing about Ron Paul's model of true, free-market capitalism, is, you get your property rights back. The reason that's important, is that it brings liability to those who pollute and practice irresponsible business practices which lead to regional or community contamination. It's an environmentalists solution, and would stimulate the economy something fierce, as people began to realize that their land was theirs again. A whole new industry would emerge in the eco-friendly/fixing industry. As it stands, multi-national corporations are giving themselves immunity to damages to our air, soil, water, food, and bodies through their power-grip on Washington politics.
    • colincornaby, on 05/09/2008, -34/+21True free market capitalism doesn't actually exist for long. The natural state of unregulated capitalism is monopoly. You can start with an open market, but it will always revert back to a few large companies controlling most of the market. Time and time again we've had this happen in our country (ATT being the best example.)
      That's what makes the current system so great. It's a free market, with the government stirring the pot so to speak, keeping larger companies from taking too much control of the market.
      • Arcueid01, on 05/09/2008, -10/+14I agree with you on this. We need to hone our antitrust law to deal with the monopolies better. The lobbying in Washington has allowed some of our current corps to get a large as they currently are. It needs to stop and the media conglomerates are the first that need to be broken up big time.
        • chaosium, on 05/10/2008, -2/+4"antitrust law"

          Ron Paul would never vote for this.
      • Nerys, on 05/09/2008, -4/+23You speak as if this is not what we already have. 6 CEO's control over 90% of every radio newspaper and television outlet in this country.

        We are down to essentially 3 Cell Providers 4 if you add t-mobile.

        We are down to 1 satellite provider for radio

        Down to 2 for TV

        so CLEARLY the method we are using RIGHT NOW is NOT working. Lets try something else.
        • kemp34, on 05/09/2008, -5/+24Yeah, allowing big companies with huge legal teams and lobby budgets to move government in its direction is a huge problem. Ron Paul is against fascism which a lot of diggers fail to realize.
          • chaosium, on 05/10/2008, -4/+4"Ron Paul is against fascism which a lot of diggers fail to realize."

            Saying things does not make them true.

            Saying things does not give them a completely different meaning from what he avocates.

            A fully capitalism-driven and entirely self-policed state is not more benevolent or caring of rights than governmental fascism.
          • Bilabrin, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5"A fully capitalism-driven and entirely self-policed state is not more benevolent or caring of rights than governmental fascism."

            Okay, agreed but I think we need to look more closely at our language and it's lack of subtlety. I don't think "entirely self-policed" is going to work either because naturally, no one is free from bias. I do think we can make markets free from both stifling overegulation and stifling monopolistic collusion.

            We have to look at where the breakdown occurs. I think we could take steps to free governments of corporate $$ influence and also keep corporations honest and competitive without empowering gargantuan government agencies which stifle business from the other direction.
        • Bilabrin, on 05/09/2008, -3/+19The devil is in the details. There are currently barriers to entry created by govenment which prop monopolies and oligarchical systems of industry.
          • chaosium, on 05/10/2008, -3/+3"barriers to entry"

            These barriers to entry will not disappear in the "truly free market". They are issues of scale and collusion, which will only grow.
          • Bilabrin, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4Well now I think we're parsing the definition of "truly free markets."
            A market locked down by collusion from powerful and unfortunately, influential megacorps, is no more free than a market locked down by intrusive and stifling government regulation. I think where we fail is in oversimplification.

            I think if we analyze the details of where the failures and inefficiencies spring forth, we can devise solutions not based on vague generalizations like "all big companies are evil and bad for society" or even "Libertarians are for no government and say let anarchy rule" or "liberals are for communism."

            Now , granted, my advice - try to make governments less corruptible, influenced in subtle ways by big $$ - is akin to saying, let's find a way to help Sisyphus get that boulder up there, but I'm an optimist and I believe we can solve our problems. I haven't given in to fatalistic cynicism completely.
      • PeppermintPig, on 05/09/2008, -6/+22"The natural state of unregulated capitalism is monopoly."

        Uh, what? That makes about as much sense as 'freedom is slavery.' In a free market, companies must compete to provide the best service to its customers. If force is involved, it's no longer a free market. USPS has a monopoly on mailing letters.

        If people don't defend their rights, then expect others to walk all over them. Self-government, voluntarily promoted regulation and reputation rating are all valid means of safeguarding against systems that implicitly assume force is necessary for the economy to work.

        "Time and time again we've had this happen in our country (ATT being the best example.)"

        Except that AT&T had their infrastructure subsidized with tax dollars. They were a creation of government manipulation.

        "That's what makes the current system so great. It's a free market, with the government stirring the pot so to speak, keeping larger companies from taking too much control of the market."

        That analogy would work, if the pot was owned by a cannibal. Innocent people also get swept up in the mix of arbitrary regulation.
        • KMye, on 05/10/2008, -6/+20"In a free market, companies must compete to provide the best service to its customers. If force is involved, it's no longer a free market."

          So you're in favor of regulation of the markets in order to keep large power blocs from removing competition, in order to keep the markets as completive as possible?
          • Soccrmastr, on 05/10/2008, -3/+6he means government force
          • KMye, on 05/10/2008, -6/+5Yeah I got that. And he's quite mistaken if he thinks that monopolistic pressure or force can only come from government.
          • shredluc, on 05/10/2008, -5/+7A monopoly by definition must be unopposed. The only way to do that in the modern world is with the power of government regulation. If there are two companies supplying 99% of something, then by definition it is NOT a monopoly. If one company supplies 99% of something, it still is not a monopoly. Even with that last case, the only way to sustain the monopoly will be through the power of regulation. If anyone is allowed to provide a service at any time, that service cannot be a monopoly.

            In an unregulated market the only way to retain 99% of service is either through physical force or outstanding service. If the service is not outstanding, the market will naturally reduce said corporations market share through competition.
          • KMye, on 05/10/2008, -5/+4Companies can be monopolistically completive, introducing the same negative consequences of full monopoly into the market, without being true, 100% monopolies. Oligopolistic markets are also undesirable.

            The claim that these kind of markets can only form through physical force or outstanding service if not created by the government is so blatantly untrue, I'm curious where you got the notion...
          • Jaydo, on 05/10/2008, -6/+1"In an unregulated market the only way to retain 99% of service is either through physical force or outstanding service. If the service is not outstanding, the market will naturally reduce said corporations market share through competition."

            Verizon or Comcast... ever heard of em?
          • shredluc, on 05/10/2008, -3/+7@kmye - i cannot see how one can create a monopoly (or oligopoly) without forceful removal of competition. on the other hand if either of those are created by outstanding service, then what is the problem? If you can exceed their level of service i would expect you to become the dominant player in no time barring outside physical (or regulatory - different side, same coin) force. as to where i got the notion, all claims can be reduced to either force (physical or outstanding service) through simple logical progression. Please try to give me an example of a contradiction.

            @jaydo - Yeah, i heard of both. Funny thing is that i can't seem to compete with them because they have exclusive contracts with local municipalities. Kinda silly blaming the corporations for existing when the town won't let me open my own place with a competing service.
          • PeppermintPig, on 05/10/2008, -2/+7Actually, I meant ANY force. Yes KMye, I am in favor of _voluntary_ regulation, in which third party inspection and regulation may be established, so that certification and branding may aid consumers in making educated decisions concerning the products available to them. But any action by a company to forcefully destroy its competition would be illegal, just as no individual should be able to force you to give up your home.

            In a free market situation, you wouldn't necessarily have the hassle of zoning law which leads to monopolized control of internet backbones. You would be free to negotiate with property owners to install competing lines.
          • KMye, on 05/10/2008, -1/+6@PP - *****, I was about to say (again) that I give up on wasting any more of my life in Paul threads, but at least you seem to not be pulling everything out of your ass. So, not being sarcastic this time, you agree that some regulation to discourage predatory, non-market tactics is desirable?

            @shred - You've only used the term "physical force" before. How are you using "forceful removal of competition", and why do you think this okay to let happen?
          • PeppermintPig, on 05/10/2008, -1/+6Predatory action assumes coercion, fraud, or outright force, so these things should be resisted. Clearly we need agencies to provide services to ensure accountability and protection of people from violent action, theft, fraud, or coercion, but people in the market can create these services without having to force others to support them. After all, if a product or service is desirable, a business will spring up to supply it.

            A complete lack of governance or regulation would be absurd. Most anarcho capitalists who argue for no government are actually advocating decentralization of government, or voluntarism.

            Anybody who advocates NO governance whatsoever, or putting the 'means of production in the hands of the people' is inviting abusive situations by ignoring human nature, creating utopia. In other words, who watches the watchers, and who is qualified to determine what is just right and good for others?

            In terms of regulation, we all ought to be able to regulate and govern our own activities in order to be successful in society. For people who are handicapped and don't have the means, there are enough sympathetic parties in the world, starting with families of such persons, to ensure that ill or elderly people are not left out in the cold. If there aren't, then no measure of forceful action by government would correct this problem, because government is simply made up the very same people, but uses money taken by others to try and correct the problem.

            People who are not willing to take responsibility for their action tend to cede their authority to government. This includes corporations, as well as individuals consuming a product. Because a majority wants something doesn't mean they should get it at the expense of a minority. Rather, the majority should have the means to collaborate and produce that which they want through their own energy and finances.

            Whatever the case, I advocate more liberty.
          • KMye, on 05/10/2008, -4/+3We also need, and have, regulations to knock down unethical restraint of free trade. To use the most recent example I can think of, what private, industry-created organization do you envision would protect against Go! (Mesa) Airline coming into the inter-island Hawaiian market, selling tickets (illegally under our regulations) at far-below cost ($10-$20 a piece) with the intent of driving its competitors to bankruptcy and then increasing prices to above what they were before? How would a private organization have any authority to do anything?

            The more I've talked to hardcore libertarians, the more I've come to believe they're even more fanciful, in general, than outright socialists. I'm not a proponent of a vast welfare state, but at the same time, it's been shown in the past, in this country and others that charity will not ensure the ill and elderly will not be "left out in the cold." And at least regarding Paul and his brand of libertarianism, I don't believe he's sincere in thinking it would. It seems incredibly hypocritical to me that he states humans' charity and good nature will take care of all domestic poverty problems, but then when presented with similar situations on the international scale, when perhaps an entire nation needs charity to overcome a drought year, for example, his stance is "It's their own ***** problem." It makes me sick.
          • PeppermintPig, on 05/10/2008, -1/+3If you look at the national advocacy for 'free trade agreement', It could be argued that we have a government giving support for unethical forms of trade, since these are not actions of a free market, but tomes of regulation.

            If you have an airlines providing really cheap tickets, I don't see anything wrong with that. Of course, if they jack the prices up after they remove competition, then competitors can come right back in. The practical limitations of selling cheap tickets all depends on the costs required to maintain the airline: Fuel prices, as well as how much they're willing to invest in flight frequency, airplane size, or creature comforts. Selling really cheap tickets that people want is not a crime... though it is a risky ploy to run negative in order to beat out competitors. It would not take very long for competitors to reassert themselves.

            The US is the most charitable country in the world, but you make a good point. When people expect the government to handle these issues, they become less charitable, and since government tends to be more bureaucratic and less efficient, you will have a greater gaps in performance and coverage for the disabled and elderly.

            I have to disagree with your characterization of Paul. He's bound to act within the confines of his position as a US politician and it's not his way of saying '***** the rest of the world'. However charitable he is with his own money, it's impossible for government to engage in charity. Notice, when Congress discusses giving out awards or medals that Paul suggests they should pay for the awards out of their own pockets rather than taking taxpayer money (such as when giving gold medals at a cost of around $30,000 each to people like Reagan and his wife). I definitely oppose that kind of activity.
          • KMye, on 05/11/2008, -4/+3Again, as below re: environmental regs, my argument is not that the government does not have any wrong-minded business regulations, it's that some are desirable and necessary to protect against abuses and to create more efficient markets.

            In all seriousness, where did you get your understanding of microeconomics and business practice from, Mises.org, or what?

            Selling airline tickets at below cost with the intention to drive other competitors out of business IS a crime in the US, and Go! is being sued for it presently. It's not as easy as snapping one's fingers to enter or reenter some markets. Aside from costs of entry, which can be extremely prohibitive in markets with high upfront capital requirements (such as the airline industry), bankruptcies, as in the case of Hawaiian and Aloha Air, resulting from illegal business tactics like Go! employed don't help anything.

            I understand the power of the idea of markets naturally regulating price and reaching most-efficient solutions. It's a beautiful idea, and a real phenomena that should be harnessed wherever possible. But the real world rarely works ideally in this realm. There's much more intertia and friction than one's led to believe when reading the first few chapters of an econ textbook.
          • PeppermintPig, on 05/11/2008, -2/+4"Again, as below re: environmental regs, my argument is not that the government does not have any wrong-minded business regulations, it's that some are desirable and necessary to protect against abuses and to create more efficient markets."

            However good they may be, if they are things people would not choose to see, then they are superfluous activities. Besides, the consequence of failing to meet the regulations is fines, and doesn't always deal with the core issue, such as environmental damage. When environmental cleanup is applied, the costs are much higher than what the private sector would tolerate. The incentive to 'do good' is created by threats of force, as opposed to rewards and incentives of greater business for adhering to what customers are seeking. I believe there is a better way, by making businesses accountable for the property/environment, so they understand that the government will NOT bail them out if they pollute their own land, and nobody will want to buy that land after they screw it up. Sustainability is the big picture.

            A company can price a product only so low before it becomes prohibitive to their ability to turn a profit. There's no need to set laws against prices that are too low, or too high, as any company which prices too high will run up against a natural resistance against paying. If all companies are setting 'high' prices, then we can speculate on a few influences: The product could be scarce due to seasonal issues, growth of use/limits of cultivation, high government taxation, or perhaps even a cartel situation as with oil.

            Workers might even make demands for higher wages, raising the cost of the ticket price. I believe that larger airlines do have the means to remain in the market with the undercutting airline, even if they are less efficient. Just means the mainstream airline needs to cut expenses or raise prices elsewhere to compensate.

            Conversely, if a company is setting a low product price because it's saving money by not using adequate safety procedures, then I would argue you have a reason to publicize and boycott the company on these grounds. But what is 'adequate' depends on your personal judgment (like morality, should not be forced on others).

            This issue leads into the massive problems of third world industrial sprawl and regulation which harms workers because their government is being pressured by developed nations to establish socialization programs without the same measure of infrastructure to support it. Corporate power is often stronger in relation to the government in these places, leading to corruption and an over-regulation of these markets.

            If Go! was not providing a service people wanted, then they'd die off. However 'illegal' it may have been, people were apparently willing to patronize their airline for the savings. Like they say, if you can't beat them, join them: It would be a better use of time for airlines to establish interoperability with Go!, but most companies would prefer to use the law to say these things are illegal.

            I claim no expertise in finances of any kind, particularly because these are issues related with knowing the specifics of business operation and resource use, though I understand the principles influencing economics very well.

            Friction and force are inevitable. Economics is understanding the source and mechanisms governing the creation of wealth, and how individuals in the market change behaviors in relation to force.

            I reject Keynesian theory because it is not a proper model of economics. Rather than explain the basic functions of economics, it establishes a theory of state, or central control of the economy with the goal of making broad sweeping generalizations concerning the market in order to determine a course of action to manipulate the market, assuming that there is a business cycle and that growth spurts must be regulated. It is interesting, then, that supply-side economics is assumed to be a 'contrasting' theory, yet the goals are virtually the same: Impose or repeal taxation, regulation, in order to invoke growth and/or stability of the marketplace. The fundamental problem with these ideas is that it assumes the state should favor one industry over another, or that it can determine something unseen in commodity or business that individuals cannot.

            In reality, consequentially, government indeed gets into the business of subsidizing certain businesses or industries, which tends to lead to the monopolistic corporate structures that they later destroy, all under the assumption that the market MUST be regulated.

            Individuals from the Chicago School such as Milton Friedman were not all that different from the perspective of the Keynesians in that they too focused on macroeconomics, however Friedman's positions were predominantly critiques of Keynesianism by comparing the theory with its real world results, particularly concerning the inability to positively effect the business cycle via manipulation.

            I am familiar with groups like mises. I've read some of their articles and the content is compatible with my beliefs. Never read any of Rand's works, however. Because I completely reject Keynesian theory, I've never had an interest in taking an economics course, but I've spent enough time reading about it to know what it is. My interest and understanding of economics actually comes more from an interest in philosophy and sociology. Technically speaking, I am a 'libertarian'.
          • KMye, on 05/11/2008, -3/+3To be honest, I'm tiring of this, and very uninterested in your musings on economic schools of thought when you haven't even taken the time to study anything about what you're talking about.

            Regarding environmental regulation, you're waxing philosophical issues you're obviously completely unfamiliar with, and it gets tiring reading and responding to. Environmental regulations in this country, whether you're a logging company, a mining company, or a developer, are largely preventative in nature. For example, to attain a permit for a new mine, a company must post a bond for the entire reclamation costs beforehand, making sure a company can't ruin a piece of land and then flee, taking a smaller fine as its only punishment. Developers, at least in California, need to have state-licensed environmental contractors on-site during development making sure regulations are followed. And have you heard of Superfund? I'm not a big fan of it, personally, and there's actually a good argument most of its applications have been unconstitutional, but the point is, the government is generally not in the business of bailing environmental offenders out.

            The next three paragraphs read to me: blah, blah, blah. You don't need to waste time relaying your understanding of basic market functions to me, ok? And again, like, the examples of oil and railroads in another comment in this thread, Hawaiian and Aloha going bankrupt wasn't a hypothetical; they're both actually in bankruptcy right now. I'm not sure how you think they should have established "interoperability" on single-leg flights, especially with a competitor who was obviously flagrantly violating laws that have been around since the late 19th century.

            Anyway, you obviously understand some basic market functions enough to ***** about them a little, but seem to have no knowledge of how they've played out historically or in the the real world today. Sorry to be a little cross, but there's just no point to this. I highly encourage you to go take a few econ courses as it seems to be something you care about. You're welcome to any last word you wish, but I'm out.
          • PeppermintPig, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4"To be honest, I'm tiring of this, and very uninterested in your musings on economic schools of thought when you haven't even taken the time to study anything about what you're talking about."

            How do you know what I've even studied? You run out of arguments and then resort to ***** generalizations. The same flippancy could be posed back at you: I apologize if my arguments are simple, but they tend to be the most effective given the apprehension you've exhibited thus far. You don't appear to grasp how human behavior fundamentally relates to economics by making the implicit statement that force is necessary to make 'good'. That is the argument of a collectivist, and it's completely irrational.

            You're not the first person to ever act as if a tuition justifies your sense of understanding. Thing is, you haven't even made an argument, but rather cited some scenarios, and I played along and argued with potentials as based upon rationalized behaviors, which you continually disregard. If you can cite vague cases and then not expect scrutiny, how is it then that I am not allowed to play by the same flimsy rules you've established?? If you are unwilling to lay out a foundation, let alone defend it, then there's no effective means of discussing reality with you.

            If you did take a college course on economics, I suggest you ask for a refund.

            "Regarding environmental regulation, you're waxing philosophical issues you're obviously completely unfamiliar with, and it gets tiring reading and responding to. Environmental regulations in this country, whether you're a logging company, a mining company, or a developer, are largely preventative in nature."

            Sorry if this is boring you. Why don't you go play a video game or something, k?

            Environmental regulation via government is wasteful. The US navy has no problem dumping perfectly functional tools, chemicals, and aircraft into the ocean to justify their budgets. And you expect this government to actually give a ***** when they themselves act above the law? This is such a bleeding heart go-to defense that environmentalists cling to without reason, just like supporting inefficient paper recycling, but doing so for a sense of moral well-being.

            "For example, to attain a permit for a new mine, a company must post a bond for the entire reclamation costs beforehand, making sure a company can't ruin a piece of land and then flee, taking a smaller fine as its only punishment. Developers, at least in California, need to have state-licensed environmental contractors on-site during development making sure regulations are followed."

            The state regards the law as more important than the environment. Licensing is essentially a big bribery racket which violates the liberty to property and business.

            "Anyway, you obviously understand some basic market functions enough to ***** about them a little, but seem to have no knowledge of how they've played out historically or in the the real world today."

            But what's the point? A dry examination of history, or are you actually willing to question your assumptions?? Pick a historic event then! All I've seen so far is one unprincipled argument after another supporting some measure of force.
          • KMye, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Oh ***** it, I lied, one more round, yeah? I woke up grouchy, so sorry if I was overly offensive, but I was exasperated reading through ***** like:

            "A company can price a product only so low before it becomes prohibitive to their ability to turn a profit. There's no need to set laws against prices that are too low, or too high, as any company which prices too high will run up against a natural resistance against paying. If all companies are setting 'high' prices, then we can speculate on a few influences: The product could be scarce due to seasonal issues, growth of use/limits of cultivation, high government taxation, or perhaps even a cartel situation as with oil."

            presented as if it were somehow profound or not considered to be assumed. I'm making an assumption on what you've studied, in or out of the classroom, based on your comments; but the thing you seem to be most lacking in is not a basic understanding of econ, but of any real world experience with anything you're talking about. I don't care where someone's learned something, as long as they have. But I'll repeat that all that you've expressed so far regarding your exceeding insight into how "human behavior fundamentally relates to economics," like in the above quoted paragraph, is just the most basic of *****. You sound like a physics student who's just learned Newton's gravity who thinks that's the only equation you need to launch a rocket into orbit.

            I think my argument has been pretty apparent and consistent across this thread as a whole; it's not that there aren't bad regulations, and not that many regulations aren't put in for some corrupt purpose, and not that some don't result in inefficiencies at some level, and not even that our country isn't over-regulated at present. The argument, again, is that some form of anti-trust, environmental, health, pharmaceutical, securities, banking and other regulation are desirable and necessary for a healthier economy and to protect human life.

            Any examples, like Go!, I've given have been as specific evidence of a more generalized point that I've referenced to address one of your points. If I'd thought I needed to actually lay out why I was referencing oil and railroads in another thread, I would have done so, too.

            I happy for you you've changed your argument on environmental regulation once you realized it was full of *****, but your new argument doesn't address anything. Because the Navy has violated regulations, it's better to just say ***** all remove everything?

            The examples I used here were in direct support of the fact that most environmental regulations in this country are preventative, which was in response to your embarrassingly incorrect claim that all environmental regulations do is slap fines on companies. I don't come to this issue as an environmental activist. I work in the mining industry, and have been around it and the logging industry all of my life. Government regulation of mining can be excruciating, and perhaps 50% of the associated costs are unreasonable, but the reality is the responsible people in the industry are glad it's there in some form. I'm an ardent defender of mining, it's been my experience that most parties will actually exceed the regulations they think are good, and try to cheat a little on the ones they think are silly, but all it takes is 5% or 10% of large scale mining to not be responsible to have extremely negative consequences. If you want to look at unregulated mining in this country, all you have to do is look to "recreational" gold mining. It sounds like it should be with a gold pan, which is kind of the idea, but people do it with pieces of heavy equipment these days. The most horrific ***** I've ever seen was up in Alaska, where a "recreational" miner was using an excavator and a D9 to just strip off acres of top soil, dig out huge piles of ore, and run everything through sluices straight into a large stream. What market forces do you envision rising up to create something discourage this kind of practice, or similarly irresponsible practices on larger scales (if there were no regs?)?

            To make it clear, that doesn't mean I'm all on board with all things environmentally regulated. I think carbon emission regulations schemes are criminally idiotic, or just criminal, depending on who's pushing them. But in my opinion, the battle for reasonable environmental responsibility has to be fought from the side that assumes the government has some authority and responsibility in the arena, because the market has never and will not self-regulate in this sense because the market does not select for that.

            My exasperation in the last comment wasn't just because of you; it seems like every Paul supporter I've talked to recently has been full-blooded anarcho-capitalist, who all seem to make the assumption that just because government is corrupt, and because government regulatory authority gives the opportunity for (and reality of) some collusion and corruption, that things would magically be better if we just got rid of it, that the major reason for unethical business practices is that regulations are in place, and that if all regulation was removed, people would be forced by the market to become responsible actors, and some idealized "Consumer Reports" would spring up in every market and solve all problems. Is this generally where you're coming from, too?
          • PeppermintPig, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4"The argument, again, is that some form of anti-trust, environmental, health, pharmaceutical, securities, banking and other regulation are desirable and necessary for a healthier economy and to protect human life."

            But neither you nor a majority can make this determination for any other individual, nor would it be acceptable to use force to get your way.

            "
            I happy for you you've changed your argument on environmental regulation once you realized it was full of *****, but your new argument doesn't address anything. Because the Navy has violated regulations, it's better to just say ***** all remove everything?"

            Even if I have to live with the fact that assholes given power with no accountability will do stupid stuff like this, that doesn't mean I have to like it. But just because I alone lack sufficient means to influence change here doesn't mean I accept the situation as you do. Your 'solution' is fundamentally similar to anybody else who argues to use the force of government to get their way.

            "The examples I used here were in direct support of the fact that most environmental regulations in this country are preventative, which was in response to your embarrassingly incorrect claim that all environmental regulations do is slap fines on companies."

            I never said that. Government can completely crush a business if it wants to. Corporations, by their nature, however, tend to take the brunt of the punishment while management can often slink away. You're making a huge number of assumptions about my arguments.

            "What market forces do you envision rising up to create something discourage this kind of practice, or similarly irresponsible practices on larger scales (if there were no regs?)?"

            Simple: Respect for private property. There's no reason why government should be managing so much land as it is. Certain individuals who get into government have an irrational mistrust of the logging industry, and there's always an occasional story of unmanaged overgrowth leading to massive forest fires. This is the tragedy of the commons.

            Lack of government leaves a vacuum for someone to fill. Most Anarcho Capitalists tend to view things from their own individual perspective, not necessarily with regard to issues of transition. Which is why regulations are important, but leaving these decisions to an organization with no market incentives will lead to inefficient and broad sweeping solutions, especially further you go up the chain of government.
          • kemp34, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4KMye irrationally believes a gun-toting social agency can solve any and all problems in society. It is rather comical and sad at the same time. Making a big stick (government body of force), IN PRACTICE, has just created a big stick, now usable by the most power hungry folks in the world to do whatever the hell they want. To believe a big weapon and huge agent of force will somehow make the world a lovely benevolent place is TRULY the crazy Utopian farce. KMye, you have been brainwashed by years of both formal and informal propaganda holding the state up as the highest value. It is false and folly. I suggest emancipating yourself from your deep belief in the use of coercion to solve the problems of society. Here is a tip: guns don't work for much but self defense.
          • KMye, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2**"The examples I used here were in direct support of the fact that most environmental regulations in this country are preventative, which
            **was in response to your embarrassingly incorrect claim that all environmental regulations do is slap fines on companies."

            **I never said that.

            Yes you did. "Besides, the consequence of failing to meet the regulations is fines, and doesn't always deal with the core issue, such as environmental damage." Are you full of *****, or did you already forget your ***** from above?

            "Simple: Respect for private property. There's no reason why government should be managing so much land as it is. Certain individuals who get into government have an irrational mistrust of the logging industry, and there's always an occasional story of unmanaged overgrowth leading to massive forest fires. This is the tragedy of the commons."

            Your naivety is astounding. Care to elucidate how "respect for private property" solves all these problems? So, if someone buys private land in for the sole purpose of mining a metals deposit, and can do it as open pit mine with no reclamation or other standards for 1/5th the cost as under current regulations, you think that every person in this situation will do the right thing out of "respect for private property" they bought solely for this purpose?? And assuming he follows no regulations and destroys his own land, but also ends up washing tons of cyanide-contaminated silt down the hill into the watershed, what recourse do others whose land is affected by this if there are regulations making it illegal? Simple, huh?

            Also, what put you under the impression the reason for under-managed western forests is the result of environmentalists in the government? Your intuition? By the far the major reason for this these days is never-ending litigation from environmental groups like the Sierra Club.

            "Which is why regulations are important, but leaving these decisions to an organization with no market incentives will lead to inefficient and broad sweeping solutions"

            Where did you get the idea government has no market incentives? Where do you think they get their money from?

            @kemp - you give cashman and card a run for their money. Shouldn't you be busy shoveling your money at Ron Paul and Alex Jones?

          • kemp34, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3KMye, your entire argumentative structure is built on a naive and false belief in the benevolence of the body of force in society (government). While I really respect Ron Paul and agree with Alex Jones on a variety of topics, these individuals have minimal bearing on my personal philosophical position. My position has been honed by years of independent personal study and draws from hundreds of resources that have not come close to being debunked. While I have donated a modest sum to Ron Paul (and have received a fair return on my investment) I have given no money to Alex Jones. Your baseless attempt at a smear is further indicative of your lack of insight. One who talks and talks, but avoids understanding the meat of his assumptions, is not to be respected, nor listened to in any other fashion than understanding where ignorance is willy nilly headed at the current moment.
          • KMye, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Well, I glanced over some of your comments, and let me take it back, you're more coherent than cashman or card, though I think your worldview is pretty flawed. Calling me brainwashed because I've taken my education and years in business and the real world and come to a different opinion than you does nothing but undercut any credibility you may have in a discussion of ideas, though.

            I've said again and again I don't think the government is benevolent. This is just a guess, but I would think a pretty safe wager, that I've had more direct experience with just how generally corrupt local and national government members of this nation and others can be. I understand very well that business and government are inseparable, and some level of corruption is the natural state of this system, because of human nature.

            But where you and others seem to look at this in an abstract, philosphical sense, saying "the government does some wrong, so we just shouldn't have it", I view the issue in pragmatic terms, and say that things have been, and would be much worse without certain types of regulation, so the way to address existing problems is trying to influence the needed changes, without throwing the whole thing out.

            If you think a world of uncontrolled corporate/organized crime despotism is preferable to what we have now, that's your prerogative. It seems to me one of the major flaw in yours and others' is an overly optimistic appraisal of humans' benevolence in general.
      • BlakeEM, on 05/09/2008, -1/+16The problem right now is that it's too hard to compete so using our current market as evidence that monopoly will always exist in a free market is flawed. This is where regulations come into play. You make it to hard (and expensive) for anyone to create a business you will have a lot less business and a lot less competition. Another big issues that I wish Ron Paul would address is current copyright laws. I think this is a big reason why we have monopolies more then any other reason. This is especially true when it comes to technology. When one company can control all innovation in one area this obviously greatly hinders competition. I will agree however we do need laws to stop things like price fixing as the oil companies do currently with limited resources (Oligopoly.)
      • Bilabrin, on 05/09/2008, -3/+13But I think that happens only when monopolies are able to infiltrate government and pass anti-competitve legislation.

        For example. MegaUberCorp is the only provider of lightbulbs. The price of lightbulbs jumps to $10 a bulb. Now, this is a perfect opportunity for some small business to come along and make a killing selling lightbulbs for $5 a bulb. If there are not government created barriers to entry in the market (as there are now) the price of bulbs drops until no-one can eek any more profit from it. Prosperity ensues.
        • KMye, on 05/10/2008, -2/+10Railroads, Oil...monopolies are perfectly possible without government intervention.
          • shredluc, on 05/10/2008, -3/+7Of course they are, through the means of physical force. (regulation is another name for "i told you what to do and if you don't do it, i'll beat you")
          • KMye, on 05/10/2008, -3/+3Same question, what do you mean by "physical force" here?
          • PeppermintPig, on 05/10/2008, -2/+7Actually, assuming a railroad or oil company didn't use force, and gave everybody a product they wanted at a great price, it's possible that they could create a natural monopoly, but this would be the good kind of monopoly that doesn't invoke regulation against the creation of competition. This rarely ever happens. Competition fuels innovation.
          • KMye, on 05/10/2008, -4/+4Railroad and oil were not hypothetical examples; they were historic. Are you really not familiar with Standard Oil or the games the railroads played in the 19th century?
          • PeppermintPig, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5If you notice, my argument suggests that collusion with the government is the norm in history.
          • kemp34, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5KMye - these industries gained GOVERNMENT SPONSORED power. Wake up!
          • JDenigma, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4You're right kemp. KMye has apparently bought into the revisionist history of the so-called robber barons. KMye need to educated himself with some real, accurate historical information, not the b.s. myths and lies.

            Standard Oil was a good company that got unfairly demonized by false propaganda that continues to this day. Standard Oil was not a monopoly contrary to popular belief. The same goes for other so called robber barons such as James J. Hill who was the only one who built a wildly successful railroad without any government subsidies and other favors to protect him from competition. All the others who were building railroads at the time were getting political favors and were thus corrupt and providing bad services to the consumers.

            Another one was Cornelius Vanderbilt who got into the market "illegally" against government laws to compete against Robert Fulton who was granted a 30 yr. monopoly on steamboat traffic in N.Y. by the government in 1807. Thanks to those maverick actions by Cornelius Vanderbilt, he was undermining the sweetheart deal by the government and eventually it led to the Supreme Court ending the monopoly in 1824. With the deregulation of that industry and the allowing of competition, traffic increased and costs came down.

            Oh, by the way, one of the harsh critics of Standard Oil at that time in the late 1800's, early 1900's, was journalist Ida Tarbell who hmm coincidentally enough had a brother who was treasurer of a competitor, "Pure Oil Company" and that company was failing to compete successfully with Standard Oils low prices. So naturally we had a case of yellow journalism here and lobbying to get the government to step in to create laws to hurt Standard Oil and help its incompetent competitors. Standard Oil was a great company that was revolutionary in its time and was friendly to consumers when it kept lowering prices, paid its employees well and was eliminating waste by figuring out how to produce oil byproducts such as lubricating oil, gasoline, paraffin wax, Vaseline, paint, varnish, and many other substances. Oh yeah, what a villain Standard Oil and John D. Rockefeller were.

            Then you had anti-trust regulation which was not pro-consumer at all and was lobbied for by competing companies that wanted help from the government and protectionist tariffs were added as well to stifle competition.

            Read a little history besides your standard h.s. or college textbook or your junk novel equivalent in your mainstream published bestseller you happened to pick up from Barnes and Noble.

            Come back KMye! Come back!
        • stealthc, on 05/10/2008, -1/+10The textbook version of history in those industries is so inaccurate as to qualify as lies. Those industries had plenty of government intervention. If someone gets a "monopoly" because people buy their product in droves and no competitors can satisfy the consumers demands in the same way (ala Microsoft and Windows/Office) then I don't see a problem. But monopolies like these are never permanent. You need the force of government to make a monopoly permanent.
      • WilliamDavis, on 05/10/2008, -6/+3ATT is a terrible example for a lot of reasons. You should take some introductory economics courses if you ever plan to say such things to anyone in person. A little education could save you a lot of embarrassment.
        • colincornaby, on 05/10/2008, -1/+3I HAVE taken economics courses.
        • stealthc, on 05/10/2008, -4/+7@colincornaby
          Then you need to get briefed on the *real* history of monopolies in this country.
          http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide- ...
          • chaosium, on 05/10/2008, -5/+3Anyone who cites a Politically Incorrect Guide To: should kill themselves immediately.
          • kemp34, on 05/12/2008, -2/+4^^^ Moron.
          • chaosium, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2"^^^ Moron."

            Historical fanfiction, masturbatory aid, it's anything but nonfiction.
          • JDenigma, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2chaosium

            The Politically Incorrect Guide is just supposed to be a primer, an introductory guide that gives a summary of the basics, but it certainly isn't meant to be a be all, end all to rely upon. The P.I. book on American history is supposed to be a light, entertaining read that debunks common misunderstandings of history that are taught in revisionist history as opposed to being a scholarly work. I would certainly agree that one shouldn't read that and that only. One should broaden their horizons and read from a multitude of sources and be open to different ideas and analysis. "Beware the man of one book".

            The P.I. book is good as an alternative to many of the lies and myths that are commonly taught. Beyond that book, one of course should read more in depth, books and original sources as well that cover those topics exhaustively and not just limit themself to that book only.
      • lilSears, on 05/10/2008, -5/+11You do realize that the only way ATT got to be a monopoly is that the government made it right? If the govt supports a corporation, they can undercut the competition to make it completely impossible to compete against. After that's out of the way, they jack up the prices and relax and that's exactly what happened. It's still the reason why we're 2-3 years behind in cell phone technology compared to the rest of the world.

        A monopoly is 99.99% IMPOSSIBLE under a free market economy. Governments only make monopolies.
      • stealthc, on 05/10/2008, -1/+5I don't understand how a monopoly could survive for long if competitors aren't barred by government from entering the market. Right now it is government which insulates the big businesses. A free market would expose those businesses to swarms of small-time competitors. Can you imagine not having to bribe the FCC thousands, if not millions, just to get on the air? Can you imagine not having to give 18% of what you make right off the top to the IRS? The elimination of taxes and fees would make small business far more profitable, and thus more abundant. Your argument is invalid because history does not back it up. The Robber Barons became what they were through fraud protected by and subsidized by government.
    • Sogui, on 05/09/2008, -22/+15Yea because those smokestacks from refineries near Houston pump air pollution up to Northern Texas where I live and we have some of the poorest air quality in the US. I'm sure "free market capitalism" is going to bring a lot of liability to complex issues like pollution.

      Get real Digg, one minute even the world's greatest superpower is a puppet for the corporations, the next minute you think that corporations are fair players who would have no incentive to lie or deceive others to advance their position in a "free market".
      • kemp34, on 05/09/2008, -5/+8It's called aligning the government to do its job properly. Come on now.
        • gurudrew, on 05/09/2008, -4/+10and that starts by putting the power back in the hands of local and state government where it belongs.
    • sodade, on 05/09/2008, -4/+9Tax corporations based on the $ value of the full impact to society incurred in the course of running their business. So, pumping crap into the air has a pretty huge cost associated with it, but also consider that the corporation is employing people and possibly contributing to the economic superiority of America balance it out and tax accordingly. This brings in so much cash, that you can eliminate other taxes. Yes, it raises the cost of some consumer goods, but that just means we'd be paying the TRUE cost of things.
      seems so elegant of a solution to me - what am I missing here?
      • PeppermintPig, on 05/09/2008, -2/+11They'll only displace the tax in the form of higher prices or products of lesser quality.
        • kemp34, on 05/09/2008, -4/+9Doesn't it make sense though? A product that costs the earth more, costs the consumer more? I like that.
        • rficwizard, on 05/10/2008, -0/+6Yes, that's what should happen. When a business pays the true cost for the damage it does, it must make up that cost somewhere. One way is by reducing the damage. That is ideal, if it can be done without increasing cost. Another is by increasing costs. That will pass the true cost on to the consumer, who is, after all, the one demanding the product whose production causes damage. It will also reduce the demand for the product, which will reduce the total harm done. In fact, what usually happens is that the cost increases some, and the damage decreases some. Solutions that involve paying the cost of damage provide the proper incentives, while strictly regulatory solutions often fail to do so.
      • gurudrew, on 05/09/2008, -0/+15corporations should not be allowed to do evil things just because they can afford the tax.
        • Bilabrin, on 05/10/2008, -3/+3True but if you raise the tax to the point where they reconsider their evil actions, then it becomes effective.
          • TonyLocNE, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2yes, raise taxes at the cost to the consumers..... The only thing that raising taxes on businesses does is create more unemployment and higher prices for consumers. Which in turn causes more national debt because of entitlement programs such as welfare.
          • Bilabrin, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1In absence of competition the tax would be passed on to the consumer. In a free market economy, they would not.
        • rficwizard, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2Define evil. If your definition involves "not changing the world" then the avoidance of evil is not compatible with human existence. If it involves "not damaging the world," you need to define which changes are "damage", and then you will still find that all of us that live in modern societies are evil. Our existence changes the environment. The best we can do is to make reasonable effort to minimize those changes in a way that is consistent with out continued comfortable existence.

          Most things have a price. There is a price that most people would accept for having some pollution. There is a price that most people would accept for the extinction of a species. There is a price that most people would accept for an increase in birth defects. There is a price that most people would accept for shorter life spans. Until you accept that utopia is not an option, and that life involves trade-offs, you will not be able to optimize the trade-offs. Once you have decided to optimize the trade-offs, instead of pretending that they don't exist, you will find that the market is often the most efficient way to do so.
      • pensivewombat, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1Well, it would require a massive government bureaucracy to properly measure and oversee the "true" costs of these actions, assuming they can even be measured. This will costs lots of money. Of course, with something that difficult to measure, corporations will inevitable find a way to skirt the regulations leaving us with an even more bloated government and just as much pollution with not benefit to the consumer.
      • skanton, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Many global corporations do not have factories in the US, but in the third world (i.e nike). Where environmental laws, worker benefits, and taxes hardly exist (thanks to the world bank and IMF)

        Now you can see that corporations do not employ people in the US and overtime have been doing quite the opposite. These corporations are not in the business of creating jobs, producing a good affordable product, they are in the business of making money. Extracting the highest surplus value possible is their goal, and they will do anything to achieve it.

        Lets not forget that there is a reason third world countries are poor. Their poverty is not a natural phenomenal that just happens, I believe it is the product of imperialism and class based foreign policy.
    • matador3, on 05/09/2008, -11/+26I love it when people complain about monopolies and call for government regulation. What the hell do you think a government is? Think of it this way, a government is a corporation that can imprison or kill you for not purchasing their services. If you disagree I invite you to stop paying your taxes and see what happens to you. A government is an automatic monopoly of force. If you disagree I invite you to try to start your own competing government and see what happens to you. I suppose a monopoly is theoretically possible in a pure capitalist system but only so long as people are happy with the product or service being provided. If people were truly unhappy with the monopoly they would be free to look elsewhere or start their own competing company. There would be no barrier to entry in the market to prevent them.

      If you look closely at any of the so called monopolies you mentioned you will find a plethora of favorable regulations, corporate welfare, and other artificial barriers to competition provided by the government which is propping them up. You honestly expect more government to fix the problem?
      • donutwant, on 05/10/2008, -6/+2.
      • ZenMojo, on 05/10/2008, -6/+6A government is a representative body established by the people, of the people, for the people. If the people can seize the reigns back then government becomes the opposite of a monopoly. Free market capitalism embraces monopoly and therefore cannot exist on a scale larger than small communities. Milton FRIEDMAN said that.
        • skanton, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2I would not go as far as to say that the government is a body established by the people, of the people, and for the people.

          The founding fathers (establishers of the government) were not regular working class/middle class people. They were wealthy land owners, bankers, factory owners, and slave holders. They created the state in order to protect their class property. Who else can take a 4 month trip to Philadelphia to write a constitution? The only reason items such as the bill of rights were included is because of popular democratic pressure. This class struggle is very much with us today, where every single democratic achievement was taken through democratic pressure by the people through protests, labor organizations and the like.

          Its true that you can say that the government is of the people, since the US population is the one who is paying for the massive military budget the US has acquired, the hundreds of million dollar bailouts, rich tax cuts, and relief funds to poor countries. The US people are also the ones fighting the wars, while the real reasons for the war are suppressed.
        • TonyLocNE, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3A democrat quoting Milton Friedman... send in the clowns..
      • rlbond86, on 05/10/2008, -6/+3You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Corporations do not provide public goods (non-rival and non-exclusive), government does. Please take Economics 101 before claiming to know what you're talking about.
        • rficwizard, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5Diggers often tell everyone else to take an economics class. Economics is an important subject that we should all try to understand. It is also very easy to understand. Almost the entire subject is composed of learning the vocabulary, and asking yourself what you would do in a given situation. The entire field of economics boils down to the idea that people will usually act in their own perceived self interest. Most people get that, but don't apply it to economic discussions.

          The Teaching Company has some great courses on Economics. Timothy Taylor's courses are excellent. He understands economics very clearly, speaks very well, and doesn't have a hidden agenda. If you listen to this in your car for 40 minutes a day, in a month you will have a pretty solid understanding of economics. I highly recommend these courses for people who are unfamiliar with economic principles, as well as for people who have "taken an economics course".

          Also, please get beyond Economics 101 "before claiming to know what you are talking about." Many of the economics discussions I see on digg involve questions that real economists aren't able to definitively answer. What a basic understanding of economics will get you is answers to the many, many questions that economists do agree on, but non-economists generally don't know how to answer.
          • rlbond86, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1If YOU have taken economics 101, YOU should know that public goods aren't well provided by corporations, because YOU would not pay for something that YOU did not have to. That was what I was saying.
        • Bilabrin, on 05/10/2008, -1/+3So corporate competition hasn't brought us affordable food, clothing, and transportation and medicine? What's keeping the cost of medication up, government regulation barring competition from Canada or allowing competition from other markets to bring us cheaper pricing?
    • BabyWookie, on 05/10/2008, -26/+9Get off Ayn Rand's dick and stop drinking this "laissez-faire" utopia kool-aid. Free market will always lead to the oppression and exploitation of the majority of the populace.
      • ZenMojo, on 05/10/2008, -1/+13Yeah, but those people are just parasites. We need a society of intellectuals and artists to make really awesome buildings and wash their own ***** underwear.
        • SleighBoy, on 05/10/2008, -1/+10I propose we build an underwater city to start this Utopian society!
          • Bilabrin, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2Jeez, the upkeep would be brutal. You'd have to have a pretty strong infrastrure to maintain it. Although I believe a libertarian society could do it.
          • chaosium, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3"Jeez, the upkeep would be brutal. You'd have to have a pretty strong infrastrure to maintain it. Although I believe a libertarian society could do it."

            http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3328/floating_ ...

            Let alone missing the joke completely.
      • Ymeg, on 05/10/2008, -5/+12And this is opposed to what?

        Also: Rand > You.
      • Subliminational, on 05/10/2008, -1/+8Its hard to say since we've always had a government that supports corporate interests. I don't know of an example of free market capitalism. The example always given, the late 1800s in the US, is not a good example of a true free market. The railroads got huge land grants from the gov't for example.
        • PeppermintPig, on 05/10/2008, -2/+5The free market often turns into a black market when prohibitions are set, but examples are all around us... if, however, people only look to economics on an abstract 'national' scale, then we can only generalize that free market economics are not prized by most people.
          • ssn697, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2Hmmm, the free market in Chile in the 70's turned to the black market, just so a third of its people could survive. There are real world examples, then your claims. Real world has trumped you every time.
      • brad3378, on 05/10/2008, -2/+10So what do you think about this $31,000 per citizen national debt we're facing?
        Will we be able to keep it under control once the baby boomers retire, start collecting SS and quit paying income taxes?
        Will Obama's additional social program spending and tax relief for the baby boomers (earning less than $50K) help or make things worse?
        Will a "60-percent increase in lifetime Social Security payroll taxes for some young voters"
        (source: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9218 ) help Obama win the youth vote?
        Is Obama mortgaging the future of young taxpayers by subsiding the old people that actually vote?

        More debt is what I see from this guy.
        What do you see?
        Please don't give a one word answer like "Change".
        • PeppermintPig, on 05/10/2008, -1/+8Social Security is counter-intuitive. If inflation continues to undercut the value of money, then retirement funds will constantly fall below sufficiency by the time you do go to collect. So Obama will propose to increase spending here. Would have been better to let people keep the money in the first place, then they would have had more practice investing it themselves and we'd be better off than we are now.
      • Bilabrin, on 05/10/2008, -1/+7Can we stop with the "Kool-aid" references already

        There's a ton of intellectual gold in regards to the defense of the "free market" concept here. Read the entire thread and don't be so juvenilely dismissive. It discredits you and makes you look trollish. Once you get the reputation of a troll, it's hard to get people to engage you in intellectual debate on this site, which can be rewarding and can make your arguments more convincing and informed no matter which side of the issue you espouse.
    • arobicha, on 05/10/2008, -17/+0F for fail... See me after class. Your argument is filled with logical gaps between theory and conclusions. You just plagiarized and paraphrased from his website didn't you? He's a republican, what do you expect from him other than bad ideas?
    • KMye, on 05/10/2008, -11/+8Anyone who thinks that removing environmental regulations will somehow lead to greater environmental responsibility is not necessarily an idiot, but obviously has no experience what they're talking about. And what of resource production on government land, where the majority of it occurs? And anyone who thinks that land owners don't fundamentally consider it their own land and treat it with respect it deserves because they have to conform to some regulations, probably doesn't own land. It's just embarrassing for digg, or at least Paul supporters, that you digg comments like this up so high.
      • PeppermintPig, on 05/10/2008, -2/+5Going to respond with a single case: Mercury filled light bulbs are supposedly more environmentally sound? So much so that Ireland banned incandescent light bulbs altogether??
        • KMye, on 05/10/2008, -4/+3I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your point. My argument is not that there aren't wrong-minded or corrupt environmental regulations out there. I could contribute quite a few items if we started a list.

          There being bad regulations out there doesn't mean that none are necessary at all, and I'm at complete loss as to how it would mean markets would self-regulate environmentally.
        • chaosium, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2"Mercury filled light bulbs are supposedly more environmentally sound?"

          Yes, they are without a doubt. The mercury they contain is nothing compared to the mercury released into the environment by wasteful bulbs.
    • Seldon2639, on 05/10/2008, -6/+3That's not entirely accurate. The issue with a pure property rights solution to environmental issues is the tragedy of the commons. For any individual business, or homeowner, it costs less (in terms of opportunity costs, actual expenditure, and any other measure) to pollute than is lost by the accumulation of pollution. If it goes downstream, my pollution only hurts other people, so if my rights are secure, I have no reason to stop.
      • stealthc, on 05/10/2008, -2/+7Actually, it is entirely accurate. The tragedy of the commons is what happens when government controls the land "for the public." When government owns it, nobody does, and no one is held responsible. If property rights are intact, then finding responsibility for pollution becomes possible. First, would-be polluters are interested in keeping their land profitable, which means keeping it clean. Second, if their pollution wafts over into someone else's property, that someone else has damages they can sue for. Simple respect for property rights therefore saves us from having to pass thousands of pages of environmental laws.
    • holzp, on 05/10/2008, -3/+8From http://www.electiondrinkinggame.com:
      Drink when:
      - A Ron Paul supporter makes a scene
      - You see a Ron Paul Sign
      2x If it is handmade
      At this rate I wont make it past the first hour of the Convention.
  • LostinService, on 05/09/2008, -25/+11I would have dugg this if not for the use of the word "Paulestinians." That's just insulting.
    • Todash19, on 05/09/2008, -5/+25I am partial to Paultard.
      Whats in a name? I could care less.
      It's the message, not in some stupid name.
      • Frnnkdlxx, on 05/09/2008, -4/+5How about I call you an Al'Ronqaeda supporter? How well do you think that goes over for people who've never heard of Ron Paul? Believe it or not, you're not the only person that exists. When you call someone a name like that as if it's regular, people who have never heard of the issues and coming here take it as if you accept namecalling because it represnets you. Paultard? How well do you think that goes over with a conservative looking up Ron Paul and his support? It's an attack not only on our character, but our movement. again, you have to think past yourselves and think about what this may look like to others. I don't see people calling obama supports obamarapers, or obamatards.
        • Crasoum, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4Yea they're slurred with obamabots. :/
        • Todash19, on 05/09/2008, -0/+6It is what it is. There are much more Profound and less obvious reasons Ron Paul is not as popular as he should be. This is because his stance on The federal reserve and his foreign policy.
          Too many people in power pulling the strings have done their best to bury his message and his candidacy. In case you haven't noticed, its working. But not for long.
          Again, whats in a name when there are waaay bigger fish to fry.
          Nothing against you by the way. Notice i didnt digg down any of your comments.
          I guess i was just raised not to worry about what other people think, esp when it comes to namecalling.
        • catfish182, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2the reputation of the paul supporter is well known and not liked. I have thought for a long while that paulites when this first started helped hurt pauls chances.
          You can have a fantastic candidate but when you have supporters act ***** insane on digg and other sites it starts anti paul talk which hurts worse.
          disagree with me if you must but the "fair weather" paul supporter ***** that campaign
    • Amiga500, on 05/10/2008, -2/+2You should be insulted for supporting a candidate that is bat ***** insane. Learn from this, and try not to repeat your mistakes.
  • Nekura20x6, on 05/09/2008, -22/+17Lyndon Larouche: The Next Generation
    • Todash19, on 05/09/2008, -7/+4Lyndon Larouche: Search for Liberty
      • shutaro, on 05/09/2008, -4/+3Lyndon Larouche's Vegas Vacation
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 05/10/2008, -3/+2Lyndon Larouche: Nuttier than a squirrel turd.
    • jonathantneal, on 05/09/2008, -3/+9http://lyndonlarouche.net/larouche-obama-menu.htm

      When I first went to college I became a Larouche guy, then the group told me I should stop singing jazz because it was racist, but then they had some pretty racist remarks themselves to say. I Please do not try to compare him to Ron Paul.

      Lyndon Larouche: Nemesis :P
    • tidu, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1There's an old guy on our campus that preaches larouche a few days a week. His sign says "SHOOT AND KILL VIDEOS ARE BRAINWASHING THE YOUNG" He is a silly man
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 05/10/2008, -2/+2I think LaRouchies are even nuttier than all but the most fervored of Paulistinians. I've seen a few on campus. Buncha loons. The guy has zero qualifications in politics outside of doing five years hard time in the joint. But that was all a conspiracy, wasn't it?
    • stealthc, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Wow, you really don't understand what this is about, do you?
  • SpeshulEd, on 05/09/2008, -10/+42Good, his chances are better than Hillary's at this point.
    • fuzzmeister, on 05/09/2008, -19/+31I know you weren't completely serious, but here are some delegate numbers for you:

      Obama: 1,860
      Clinton: 1,696

      McCain: 1,409
      Paul: drumroll please... 26
      • Frnnkdlxx, on 05/09/2008, -27/+16oooh. I like numbers. Now for the statistics of ron pauls press.

        McCain mentioned: 60,000 times
        Ron Paul mentioned: drum roll please: 4,000 times.

        WOW!!! Impressive numbers for someone who the media swore didn't exist. asshat
        • petrodollar, on 05/09/2008, -20/+7"McCain mentioned: 60,000 times
          Ron Paul mentioned: drum roll please: 4,000 times."

          Further compelling evidence that he has no shot.
          • Frnnkdlxx, on 05/09/2008, -7/+11You obviously hate America.
          • ssn697, on 05/10/2008, -11/+3"You obviously hate America"

            It is good to have that rational, well thought out, convincing Ron Paul supporter argument back for one last run...
          • catfish182, on 05/10/2008, -2/+2see frnnkdlxx its comments like that that stop people from even giving a ***** about what you say.
        • lazerus9, on 05/09/2008, -7/+1Can you guess what the "Z" stands for?
        • lazerus9, on 05/09/2008, -4/+1Your spelling is off but your assessment is correct.
        • rlbond86, on 05/10/2008, -2/+1Maybe if he had more delegates, the media would care more.
      • Nerys, on 05/09/2008, -11/+9There is an irrefutable direct undeniable scientific relationship to popularity (vote) and MEDIA exposure.

        HE is not LOW in popularity and therefore low in Media exposure he is LOW IN MEDIA exposure (zero now) and THEREFORE as a result of that LOW in popularity.

        NOT the other way around.
        • ssn697, on 05/10/2008, -6/+8Weird. Rudy and Fred Thompson had the most media exposure back in September, when things started rolling. McCain had the least, except for the whole "his campaign is over" exposure.

          In November, Ron Paul had more exposure than any other candidate. A month later, his numbers dropped.

          Now, you were saying?
    • vault, on 05/09/2008, -12/+10His chances were literally never better than Hillary's, or Obama's, or McCain's...
    • unreg, on 05/09/2008, -19/+6Sorry, Ron quit. Took his bat and ball and went home. He doesn't get to play anymore.
      • Nerys, on 05/09/2008, -3/+20He did not quit. He is in fact still going. Off course thats not what the media says. Go figure you base your info on the media?

        Erasing parts of a debate to remove his voice. CANCELING THE LAST DEBATE in order to avoid putting him on TV and REFUSING to acknowledge him in the media. Yeah I guess you do not see a difference between quitting and being THROWN OUT by the media.
        • unreg, on 05/10/2008, -8/+2Thanks for playing.

          Now do the same contentions apply to Hillary Clinton? Seems the typical Digger is voicing the opinion that Hillary doesn't count anymore, that she should pack it up and go back home.

          PS: Ron wasn't thrown out, he was never in.
  • wrenchone, on 05/09/2008, -27/+12I don't know if digg can handle Obama and Paul spam at the same time.
    • unreg, on 05/09/2008, -4/+1Opaula? Pobama?

    • stealthc, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5Every couple of weeks a decent Paul story peeks through to the front page. Meanwhile diggers are jacking off to ten redundant Obama stories on the front page every single day. Based on volume and frivolity, only the Obama madness qualifies as spam.
  • tastypickles, on 05/09/2008, -10/+104Danger: small-government, anti-invasion ideals might sneak into the public debate.
    M-U-S-T C-E-N-S-O-R
    • fuzzmeister, on 05/09/2008, -9/+20As long as you don't purport that your ideals for government are the only ones that a rational person could ever have (arrogance doesn't win you any friends), I should hope that you are welcomed into the "public debate".
      • Midoc, on 05/09/2008, -10/+5And sadly someone dugg down your comment simply because they purport that very notion.
        • nakani, on 05/09/2008, -0/+6I didn't digg him down, but that comment was unprompted. tastypickles wasn't being dogmatic...
        • Subliminational, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1I usually prompt most people for their comments. Not that time though.
    • jair428, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2Ron needs to also watch out for this

      http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Only_Ron_Paul_su ...
  • VastSully, on 05/09/2008, -12/+81It's amazing the only guy out there willing to fight for the little guy gets ignored.
    Let's just re-elect Bush with a different face...... He or she will change everything!
    Do you want to buy my bridge?
    • ssn697, on 05/10/2008, -16/+4Again I say: It is so nice to have the Ron Paul supporter rhetoric based on nothing, back for one last run.
      • brad3378, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2I have to agree with you - that particular comment was a bit heavy on the rhetoric.
        If I didn't know any better I'd swear it was copied & pasted from an Obama forum.
    • blarch, on 05/10/2008, -2/+1i agree with much of what you said, but i had to bury this time for inaccuracy, Ralph Nader and Mike Gravel are two more great presidential candidates who have track records of taking well-intentioned action consistently which has positively affected millions, likely saving the lives of hundreds of thousands from multi-national corporations and from war. Please donate to all three if you can. i recommend Ralph Nader's latest, The Seventeen Traditions.
      Sorry Paul People, he isn't my favorite in light of the Nader/Gonzalez ticket. Matt Gonzalez has already done so much to warn People about Barack Obama. but I kept the Paul sign in the window. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73itqDCsvEg&feature ...
    • Amiga500, on 05/10/2008, -4/+1Because in Ron's case, the little guys are Ompa Loompas.
  • Elderon, on 05/09/2008, -9/+25I like paul, Out of the people that have a shot now for the presidency I hope Obama wins, but It's kinda disheartening to see how anti-paul people were and all of a sudden being for Obama is the cool thing to do now. It's the same stuff the paul people were doing but now it's acceptable.
    • Enasni1212, on 05/09/2008, -16/+4The difference is that Obama appears to have a good chance at winning. I support Ron Paul. I am from New Hampshire, so I voted earlier in the primaries. And yet, I voted for Obama. I know that defeatism won't accomplish much, but realism has a place is politics, too. Yes, you can argue that if you don't vote for who you support you can't get your message out, but it's not worth the alternative in this case.
      • kemp34, on 05/09/2008, -2/+21Man, that early you had given up on Paul? I think votes were stolen in both sides in that state, so your vote might not have counted properly either way. Sad.
        • Enasni1212, on 05/09/2008, -12/+4Yes, that early I had given up on Paul. The whole internet craze was fun while it lasted, but it was obvious that it wasn't sticking to the general public. So I voted for a candidate that could win.
          • kemp34, on 05/09/2008, -0/+11In all honesty, thank the media for the lack of "stick um" Paul was seriously blacked out during key weeks and the box still tells a lot of couch potato voters who is "legitimate".
            0% coverage in the week leading up to Super Tuesday (arguably THE MOST critical week):
            http://www.journalism.org/node/9610
            Sad.
          • Enasni1212, on 05/09/2008, -9/+1I agree with why he never got the response he warranted, but there wasn't much we could do to make the media treat him like a legitimate candidate. It was frustrating and sad, but voting for him anyway wouldn't have changed anything.
          • Robjayne, on 05/10/2008, -1/+4thus we are were we are...
      • rlbond86, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1Dugg down for not being a Fundamentalist. Digg sure has sunk to new levels.
    • bullhead2007, on 05/09/2008, -3/+34I totally agree. It's okay to flood Digg with Obama blogs all day, but everyone always bitched when there were a few Ron Paul blogs coming up. Even though Ron Paul had no media coverage, and Obama has plenty.
      • FredFredrickson, on 05/09/2008, -11/+4Why does everyone act like being on the Obama side is just some I'm-just-doing it-because-it's-popular thing? I've backed Obama since the beginning, and all I have to say is that if he didn't have a chance to turn things around, he wouldn't be doing so well against the competition right now.
        • Seldon2639, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3For the same reason that people made the same complaints about supporting Paul. I personally didn't support Paul or Obama, but for the most part, it comes down to a backlash against what comes to be perceived as trying to flood the airwaves (as it were) with your opinions. No reasonable person would criticize you for stating your opinion, backed up with facts and reason. The issue comes to be seen as both a constant self-righteous self-wanking of how awesome your candidate is, and that behavior like that eventually comes to be seen as pure bandwagoning. If you have a legitimate reason to support Obama, that's one thing. The people who supported Paul had ideals, even if you disagree with them. Many Obama supporters I've met, and spoken to, support him mainly because of how well he's doing, and how charismatic he is. That's the difference
    • JoeVet, on 05/09/2008, -16/+3Obama and Paul are polar opposites. Do you select your candidate solely on how vocal their supporters are or do you listen to their ideas and goals? I suspect the former because few would go from supporting a religious fanatic to a democrat.
      • fromonesource, on 05/10/2008, -1/+12He's not a religious fanatic. He would keep his religious opinions out of your life, so what do you care if he believes in god?
      • tbob19, on 05/10/2008, -0/+6I'm not sure what you are talking about. Obama has said he is a christian as well.
    • victordelprete, on 05/10/2008, -0/+12That isn't what happened. The management at Digg pulled some strings and turned off the Ron Paul machine with a simple software filter. It happened so suddenly that it was obvious. A few days later they turned on Obama with a similar mechanism. Easy to write actually... And now, every once in a while they let one Ron Paul story through to throw us a bone and make it not look so obvious.
    • queotic, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1I'm an Obama supporter, but I have nothing but respect for the honorable Dr. Ron Paul. Obama vs Paul would have made for an AMAZING general election, but unfortunately, at this point in time, I cannot see someone who is against the war becoming the Republican nominee. With absolutely no media coverage, Ron Paul is still getting a significant amount of votes in the primaries. (I wonder if RP has raised more money than McCain...does anyone know?). Funny how the media is always talking about how "divided" the Democratic party is because we have to choose between two strong candidates, yet they don't mention how truly divided the Republican party is. McCain is the presumptive nominee, but both Paul and Huckabee are still getting a good chunk of the vote and many Republicans have switched their party to vote for Obama.
  • Frnnkdlxx, on 05/09/2008, -22/+91wtf is a Paulite? I'm a man, I have a name, I support Ron Pauls candidacy, I believe in the idea of a republic. I do not appreciate namecalling. Paulite. Paulie. You might as well be calling me a hippie, a yippie, a yuppie. It's rude. Why don't I call you an Idiodite?
    • shutaro, on 05/09/2008, -11/+32Yeah, I know what you mean... Name calling is simply not very Paulite. *rimshot*
    • Zera, on 05/10/2008, -4/+5Paulite isn't a negative term. It's just a simple way of saying "Ron Paul supporter" in one word.
      • mmortal03, on 05/10/2008, -1/+5I think it is more than that. It seems to also carry a "fanatic, blind follower" connotation. Sure, many Ron Paul supporters ARE strong or fervent believers in much of Dr. Paul's philosophy, but it isn't like they don't critically think about the practicalities and implementation of these beliefs, and they also don't all 100% believe in everything he believes. I know I don't, he was just the closest person to my beliefs who actually was getting some airtime and had the chance of being on the ballot.
        It is true that one can always point out cattle in whatever movement one looks at, but I would argue that most libertarians are not cattle. They consciously choose to not think in terms of the mainstream Republican or Democrat philosophy, and that is already a huge step forward in critical thinking. Sure, there are still people who are going to stubbornly write in Ron Paul on their ballot, thinking it will be some kind of "protest vote", even though it won't be counted or reported on by their state's rules.
        See, they could instead be voting for, say, a third party candidate whom is also very close to their viewpoints, but who would actually be counted, reported on, and be another face to the movement, gaining it more publicity. This isn't a one-man revolution, so these Paulites, in my above, "fanatic, blind follower" definition, are going to have to recognize that they will already need to vote for someone who is not Ron Paul in 2012 and in future elections, so they might as well practice this behavior now, in 2008, and actually vote for the closest person to their beliefs who also makes it on the ballot.
        • Zera, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Yea, well said. I guess my personal view is that when someone attempts to use a term in a negative way to describe you, if you don't recognize it or react to that negative insinuation, then you win.

          If someone wants to debate me on one of my beliefs, then lets have at it, I'm just simply going to refuse to recognize attempts at namecalling or veiled, vague personal attacks.
    • Fooord, on 05/10/2008, -6/+3I get in. In politics, a person has a name. His name was Frnnkdlxx.
      His name was Frnnkdlxx.
      His name was Frnnkdlxx.
      His name was Frnnkdlxx.
    • ssn697, on 05/10/2008, -8/+5"I do not appreciate name calling" says the same guy who has called people idiot in this very article thread, and replied to an argument with "you obviously hate America".

      Welcome back, irrational Ron Paul supporters!
      • 3ugene, on 05/10/2008, -1/+4You assholes always get people riled up and cause them to become defensive. You start it by sock puppet trolling Ron Paul articles like it is a full time job. And whenever somebody replies with an educated response, you do not reply.

        I expect a reply to this comment because I have seen people call you out multiple times in the past year.
    • OffPiste, on 05/10/2008, -9/+4Paultards are funny.
  • Midoc, on 05/09/2008, -27/+10All I know is that the harder Ron Paul tries to pretend he has a chance, the more people pull away from him.
    • Arcueid01, on 05/09/2008, -2/+8Yup only the stupid ones
    • kemp34, on 05/09/2008, -2/+20You realize it is Ron Paul's supporters, not Ron Paul leading the charge right? It's not like Hillary who is PERSONALLY fighting tooth and nail and throwing the kitchen sink. Paul is chilled, educating, speaking policy. His supporters are the ones who keep trying because they are passionate.
    • Nerys, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5All I know is the more that media outright blacklists ron paul the FEWER there are people that will KNOW about him. NO ONE except the GOP party and the MEDIA are "pulling away" from ron paul. The problem is even simpler than that. THEY HAVE NO CLUE HE EXISTS!!
      • Midoc, on 05/10/2008, -4/+3So go out and craft yourself a tin foil hat. Everyone on earth knows that Ron Paul exists, but very few people like or even support his ideologies. Everywhere I turned between last September and this January, I ran into some form of Ron Paul support, whether it was online or offline. I don't like Ron Paul, I have researched his positions and consider myself well informed on those positions, and yet I don't like him. Your claim is that people don't like him because they don't know about him, but I think those of us who dislike him are proof enough that he doesn't convert everyone. So isn't it possible that everyone knows about him, but they just don't like him?
        • kemp34, on 05/10/2008, -1/+6You vastly overestimate the level of awareness in society-at-large. There are millions of senior voters who only know what the TV shows them. Amongst the younger generations, most probably do know Ron Paul, but that is still a fraction of the electorate. Many choose not to vote for someone if they think he has "no chance". Like it or not, TV coverage says to many folks who "can win". This is undeniable.
          0% big media coverage in the key week before Super Tuesday:
          http://www.journalism.org/node/9610
          Sorry, but that has a big effect and that is undeniable by any rational observer.
          • Midoc, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2Who is this younger generation you speak of that doesn't know about Ron Paul? As for your statement regarding who the media says will win, it seems to me like the media predicted that it was going to be Clinton vs. Giuliani, how'd that prediction turn out? I don't doubt that his lack of media coverage hurt him that week, but substantial coverage following his record donation days didn't seem to help him either.
          • kemp34, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Direct quote: "Amongst the younger generations, most probably do know Ron Paul, but that is still a fraction of the electorate." I am saying most younger people know about Paul, while most of the 50-and-up really did not, or, at best had a vague idea based on minimal presentation in the big media. Like it or not, the old, corporate media controls/reflects/manufactures who the older generations in our society will likely vote for. And in relation to Giuliani and Hillary, yes there can be frontrunners, but the media chooses who is legit and lets them race it out. See the % coverage in my link above. 0% coverage for Paul in a key week. In my mind, this is so outrageous as to have been a tipped hand by the higher-ups in the big media. Giving 0% to Paul is pretty over the top if you ask me. If you disagree with this being wrong, then I say your bias has overcome your conscience.
          • Midoc, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1My apologies, somehow I saw a not in there. I do think it is wrong, it does need to be as fair as possible, but you have to admit, Ron Paul just wasn't creating enough hype on his own.
    • rficwizard, on 05/10/2008, -1/+5All you know is wrong.

      Most of Ron Paul's supporters never really thought he would be the next President. We gave money to his campaign, and supported him, and went to his rallies, and sent letters to the editor, because we liked some or all of his message and thought it should be heard. Paul's Presidential campaign was one part of a long-term strategy to bring the discussion of individual freedom and limited government back into the American political debate.
      • Midoc, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2So you admit he never stood a chance. That's just what the rest of the world has been waiting to hear.
        • rficwizard, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3I can't speak for anyone else, but I never thought there was a large probability of him being elected President. If that's what you have been waiting to hear, I am happy to end your suspense. I didn't realize my opinion was held in such high regard.

          As I said, my primary goal was not to have him elected. Filling any single office, even that of the POTUS, with a champion of individual liberty, is too small a goal. I intend to fill EVERY office with champions for individual liberty. Clearly, that is a long term goal. I don't expect to get there in my lifetime, but do intend to do my part. Relentless incrementalism!
          • Midoc, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1So you want to force your views on the rest of the country?
  • tcpip4lyfe, on 05/09/2008, -5/+53Anyone else have his new book?
    • MillionsLivio, on 05/09/2008, -0/+24I do, it's fantastic so far.
    • kemp34, on 05/09/2008, -1/+23Yup, read it, great book, passed it on to a friend. Handed out a few copies to family. I'm with it.
    • Todash19, on 05/09/2008, -0/+12Does a cow have *****? Hells yeah i have the book. Well, the audio book anyway.
      On my third listen. I plan to put it up against visuals...
    • plimpton777, on 05/10/2008, -0/+15Not only do I HAVE it, I traveled to 4 bookstores in NYC to actually FIND a copy so I could bring it back to the Borders that Ron Paul was signing it (they were sold out everywhere). And I got myself a funky fresh photo of me shaking Ron Paul's hand! EPIC WIN!
      • expatcatalyst, on 05/10/2008, -1/+7pic or it didn't happen...just trying to get that in before the hostiles did. Congratulations....lol
    • BabyWookie, on 05/10/2008, -14/+1Yes. I bought it just so that I can use it as toilet paper.
      • rex84, on 05/10/2008, -1/+6You probably have a copy of the Constitution that you use for toilet paper too.
      • Subliminational, on 05/10/2008, -1/+5Good, more sales of it.
      • rficwizard, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3It's nice to see that you're trying. Next time a book falls into your hands, look at the little marks on the pages. With a little training and practice, those marks can be interpreted into concepts. I would start with the title a