The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
lib-er-tar-ian
washingtonpost.com — An amazingly insightful article explaining the phenomena that is not really about Ron Paul, but more about citizens exercising their remaining civil rights to restore America to the free society it once was.
jesuissb- 2758 diggs
- digg it
- galeninjapan, on 11/26/2007, -23/+183n. 1. a person who believes in the doctrine of the freedom of the will
2. a person who believes in full individual freedom of thought, expression and action
3. a freewheeling rebel who hates wiretaps, loves Ron Paul and is redirecting politics- natedouglas, on 11/26/2007, -16/+724. an anarchist, in polite company.
;-)- CannonFodder89, on 11/26/2007, -10/+3Only if you don't accept the legitimacy of someone to rule over you.
Oh wait. =/ - SouthsideIrish, on 11/26/2007, -12/+5An anarchist is a libertarian who believes the human beings are not all are good and some are control freaks and think that they must control you.
- smellycarney, on 11/26/2007, -10/+12And they're right. The fundamental flaw of humanist thought is the notion that people are inherently good unless otherwise corrupted. Anyone with a baby knows that people are self-centered, selfish, and otherwise bad form the second they're born.
- krebcycle, on 11/27/2007, -11/+1stupidest post i've ever read
- chaosium, on 11/27/2007, -4/+2Anyone who states that people are Rational Actors is selling you something or trying to ***** you over in some manner.
- smellycarney, on 11/26/2007, -10/+12And they're right. The fundamental flaw of humanist thought is the notion that people are inherently good unless otherwise corrupted. Anyone with a baby knows that people are self-centered, selfish, and otherwise bad form the second they're born.
- mikesbaker, on 11/27/2007, -15/+1learn the defenition of anarchist moran
- CondoleezzaRice, on 11/27/2007, -5/+3Learn to spell "moron", moron.
- chaosium, on 11/27/2007, -6/+1Get a brain.
- armbar, on 11/27/2007, -0/+13So he spells definition wrong and you ding him on "moron"?
- Pssdoff, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2You fail the Internet.
http://images.google.com/images?q=get+a+brain+mora ...
- CondoleezzaRice, on 11/27/2007, -5/+3Learn to spell "moron", moron.
- mchugh22, on 11/27/2007, -3/+3Libertarians want way more government then anarchists want, thats like comparing democrats to socialists. IMO the people of a country should decide what services are supplied by the state. I think everyone on Digg can agree that if the majority of the people are informed and free upon voting on current issues as would occur in a pure democracy the fair result could be anarchist or communist or anywhere in between however it would be the right decision because the majority of the citizens wanted it to be that way.
- armbar, on 11/27/2007, -3/+6The problem is that we have to take the consensus of a few because so many people are either too busy (in their own words) or too stupid to accurately and intelligently vote. I wish society as a whole was more educated in critical thinking and current events so that the system you suggest could actually work.
- chaosium, on 11/27/2007, -7/+3But then nobody would vote Libertarian, so you're back to being failures.
- armbar, on 11/27/2007, -3/+6The problem is that we have to take the consensus of a few because so many people are either too busy (in their own words) or too stupid to accurately and intelligently vote. I wish society as a whole was more educated in critical thinking and current events so that the system you suggest could actually work.
- CannonFodder89, on 11/26/2007, -10/+3Only if you don't accept the legitimacy of someone to rule over you.
- EXreaction, on 11/26/2007, -44/+3No way!!!! Libtards are the ones taking our freedoms away and sending our troops to war!!!! They are evil socialists!!!!
// sarcasm- aywwts4, on 11/26/2007, -0/+24This proves the rule that just adding a /sarcasm tag to something wont make it funny.
- PHiZ187, on 11/26/2007, -18/+4And it also adds weight to the self-evident truth that pualtards are *****.
- chaosium, on 11/27/2007, -1/+7Ron Paul fans aren't liberals, though.
- bolognium, on 11/27/2007, -11/+2that's a good follower. goooood good follower.. wanna cookie? yeah!? yeah, you wanna cookie?!
- PHiZ187, on 11/26/2007, -18/+4And it also adds weight to the self-evident truth that pualtards are *****.
- aywwts4, on 11/26/2007, -0/+24This proves the rule that just adding a /sarcasm tag to something wont make it funny.
- glasnostic, on 11/26/2007, -29/+20It is strange that the number 2 definition does not jive with the number 3 definition.
Ron Paul believes that the state has the right to restrict your personal freedoms. He believes that a state can outlaw homosexuality, and even blowjobs.
How in the world can somebody who believes in ultimate freedom of expression support a guy who would allow a state to outlaw blowjobs?- SouthsideIrish, on 11/26/2007, -11/+14It's called the 10th Amendment. Feel free to read said constitution and they go through the process of amending it.
- razor150, on 11/26/2007, -7/+9Actually any power not granted to the Federal government by the Constitution is granted to the State and the People. Libertarians conveniently forget that part when they say States have the right to limit your rights. Maybe you need to do some brushing up yourself.
- MindStalker, on 11/26/2007, -1/+16Technically the State does have the right to limit your Rights, its doing it all the time. But last time I checked all States also have a Constitution which people can work to change (its much easier to change as well).
People can freely vote to limit their rights at any time, its when it happens at a level as high as the Federal government is when it gets scary because what might work for one state won't necessarily work for another. And its so impossibly hard to change the US Constitution
- MindStalker, on 11/26/2007, -1/+16Technically the State does have the right to limit your Rights, its doing it all the time. But last time I checked all States also have a Constitution which people can work to change (its much easier to change as well).
- razor150, on 11/26/2007, -7/+9Actually any power not granted to the Federal government by the Constitution is granted to the State and the People. Libertarians conveniently forget that part when they say States have the right to limit your rights. Maybe you need to do some brushing up yourself.
- MWeather, on 11/26/2007, -5/+23"Ron Paul believes that the state has the right to restrict your personal freedoms. He believes that a state can outlaw homosexuality, and even blowjobs."
Uh, they can. They have no right to, but under the current constitution, they can. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out.
Don't like it? Change the Constitution.- smellycarney, on 11/26/2007, -4/+18Or better yet, change your State's constitution or move to one that doesn't give a damn. That's the beauty of the Constitution and the proximity of 48 contiguous states + 2 more.
- chaosium, on 11/27/2007, -12/+1God, you people are just as Fascist as the Neocons ever were.
- DrPaulFTW, on 11/27/2007, -3/+0Uh, they can't. Over 200 years of court jurisdiction establish the precedence of the federal constitution over that of the states'. Thus meaning, that if outlawing homosexual marriages, blowjobs, etc. is found in violation of the constitution, the ability of the state to legislate against such activity is nil.
Furthermore, it is absolutely absurd to call Ron Paul a libertarian. He is nothing more than a traditional conservative. You don't even need a college course to make such a simple distinction, just look it up on Wikipedia, or any source that you find to be more trustworthy. Libertarians would never allow the passage of laws infringing on the rights of citizens (and support all rights unless they infringe upon those of another), and therefore would adamantly oppose any legislation providing for a ban on homosexual marriage, etc. Obviously Mr. Paul's religious inclinations interfere with this libertarian viewpoint. This is why one cannot separate Paul from other religious, conservative wackos. I find it truly entertaining the manner in which agnostics and atheists attempt to justify Mr. Paul's policies. Understand one thing: Paul stands for the libertarian ideal of free market economy far more so than he stands for civil liberties. Let us not forget the free-fall of free-market economics under former President Hoover.
Paul's viewpoints on liberty (where he does hold them) are truly wonderful. But rather than fall in line, find a candidate you can truly endorse without feeling you have to make a compromise. I know deep down that many of you are concerned with Ron Paul's beliefs on religion. Recognize this concern is healthy.- ChildeRoland420, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2"Let us not forget the free-fall of free-market economics under former President Hoover."
The Federal reserve was created in 1913, destroying any hope of the US having an actual free-market economy. - MWeather, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2"Over 200 years of court jurisdiction establish the precedence of the federal constitution over that of the states'."
The courts also said that intrastate non-commercial activity can be regulated under the interstate commerce clause.
This may come as a shock to you, but the courts are sometimes wrong.
- ChildeRoland420, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2"Let us not forget the free-fall of free-market economics under former President Hoover."
- Phrostee, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1states do that already, it is illegal to have sex in any position other than missionary in the state of Virginia
- smellycarney, on 11/26/2007, -4/+18Or better yet, change your State's constitution or move to one that doesn't give a damn. That's the beauty of the Constitution and the proximity of 48 contiguous states + 2 more.
- Identity4, on 11/27/2007, -0/+5It is a lot easier for citizens to manipulate state lawmaking than federal lawmaking. Maybe this will have a trickledown effect, stopping at a point where people can easily participate in government at a local level.
- SouthsideIrish, on 11/26/2007, -11/+14It's called the 10th Amendment. Feel free to read said constitution and they go through the process of amending it.
- ellecon, on 11/26/2007, -0/+38Libertarianism is the idea that the individual has rights over the ownership of him/herself and the products of his/her labor. As long as one does not interfere with the rights of personal/property ownership of another individual, the state has no right to legislate.
- notque, on 11/26/2007, -20/+9Which isn't what Ron Paul is for.
- smellycarney, on 11/26/2007, -2/+12I would disagree. Ron Paul may not be libertarian, but he is decidedly libertarian in economic policy. If you're going to pick something to beat him up on, economic policy isn't the one. Some of his international policy is not libertarian, but that is for national sovereignty reasons.
- diggduggjoe, on 11/27/2007, -7/+3I have to agree with RP when it comes to the border. Sovereignty requires a secure border. I, also, do not like the flood of immigrants who come here illegally. I have never bought that Americans are all too lazy to work some jobs. It is working for about 20 bucks a day that many Americans will reject. The simple fact is illegals are exploited much like slaves. They should stay in their homeland and fight for change.
- BabaRamDass, on 11/27/2007, -3/+4Illegals are not exploited if they're voluntarily willing to do the work. They value the dollar at much more than you or I because of their cultural origin. Nothing wrong with that.
- smellycarney, on 11/26/2007, -2/+12I would disagree. Ron Paul may not be libertarian, but he is decidedly libertarian in economic policy. If you're going to pick something to beat him up on, economic policy isn't the one. Some of his international policy is not libertarian, but that is for national sovereignty reasons.
- jerbaker, on 11/27/2007, -5/+3So Libertarians are for allowing states to cap CO2 emissions, and unlimited strikes by trade unions? Why do I suspect not?
- nicholai, on 11/29/2007, -0/+2Libertarians do support the right to unlimited strikes by trade unions. We just don't think the government should have the authority to tell companies they can't fire people that refuse to work.
- Lanie, on 11/27/2007, -3/+1And yet Ron Paul would deny a woman the right to chose whether or not she can get an abortion, no matter how early in the pregnancy. How can he preach for liberty of the people when he's willing to deny people rights?
- yodaj007, on 11/27/2007, -0/+5He has not once voted for a bill that would deny a woman the right to an abortion. That is a myth.
- ellecon, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Personally, I wouldn't get an abortion. That's my choice, and I don't think a person has a right to tell me what to do on this point. People may think I'm not ready to have a child and may try to convince me that termination is the best choice, but ultimately the decision is mine alone.
A woman who chooses to have an abortion is making her own choice, and I'll respect her opinion on the matter if she respects mine. I think she should have access to proper medical care to prevent back-alley or self abortions, which would not only cause a bigger drain on health services in the long run but foster the growth of an unlicensed surgery industry.
However, women should also know that adoption and making room in your life for another is an option as well.
- notque, on 11/26/2007, -20/+9Which isn't what Ron Paul is for.
- pintomp3, on 11/27/2007, -17/+24. a corporatist.
- scubasteve377, on 11/27/2007, -1/+5No, libertarians are for free markets, dummy. Corporatism is the exact opposite of free market capitalism.
Now would be a good time for to go back to school, your digg privileges have been revoked until such a time that you can demonstrate that you are able to comprehend even the most basic economic theory.- pintomp3, on 11/27/2007, -7/+2libertarians are for unregulated free markets, which is akin to having no police and the streets run by gangs. we hear about the invisible hand of the free market, but that invisible hand is guided by a basic human tendency: greed. an unbridled free market is the polar opposite of communism, neither extreme is good.
- scubasteve377, on 11/27/2007, -1/+5The "invisible hand" metaphor refers the collective will of consumers and has absolutely nothing to do with the greed of corporations. The greed of corporations is completely irrelevant, because no matter how "evil" and greedy a corporation could be, they cannot force me to buy their product. Only the government can do that. In the free market, ALL associations are 100% voluntary. Consumers hold all of the power and businesses must struggle and compete with one another to offer the best goods, services, and prices, to earn their business. The ability to say, "***** you, I'll take my money elsewhere!" leaves absolutely zero room for abuse, because in the free market, only he who gives the people what they want, will succeed. If we must use metaphors, the free market is more akin to, after being fed up with having a police force that is all paid off by the gangs, everyone in the neighborhood decides buys a gun, kicks the gangs and the crooked cops out, and decides to handle their own ***** from now on.
Corporatism is the collusion of government and business interest to subvert market competition and control economic forces. Government regulation does not restrain corporations. The regulations are written by lobbyists for the benefit of corporations. It's not about choosing between government regulation or corporate regulation, because government regulation is corporate regulation. This is true because, as sure as corporations will be driven by profit above all else, a government that grows too large will be corrupt. So, in corporatism, the economy is heavily regulated in order to give certain business interests an unfair advantage (think telecoms and their regional monopolies). That's why I would say a heavily regulated (fascist) economy is the opposite of an unregulated democratic economy. Corporatism and communism are both managed economies and I would say they are both about equally far from free market capitalism, and, in practice, actually have a hell of a lot more in common than either does with capitalism.
- scubasteve377, on 11/27/2007, -1/+5The "invisible hand" metaphor refers the collective will of consumers and has absolutely nothing to do with the greed of corporations. The greed of corporations is completely irrelevant, because no matter how "evil" and greedy a corporation could be, they cannot force me to buy their product. Only the government can do that. In the free market, ALL associations are 100% voluntary. Consumers hold all of the power and businesses must struggle and compete with one another to offer the best goods, services, and prices, to earn their business. The ability to say, "***** you, I'll take my money elsewhere!" leaves absolutely zero room for abuse, because in the free market, only he who gives the people what they want, will succeed. If we must use metaphors, the free market is more akin to, after being fed up with having a police force that is all paid off by the gangs, everyone in the neighborhood decides buys a gun, kicks the gangs and the crooked cops out, and decides to handle their own ***** from now on.
- pintomp3, on 11/27/2007, -7/+2libertarians are for unregulated free markets, which is akin to having no police and the streets run by gangs. we hear about the invisible hand of the free market, but that invisible hand is guided by a basic human tendency: greed. an unbridled free market is the polar opposite of communism, neither extreme is good.
- scubasteve377, on 11/27/2007, -1/+5No, libertarians are for free markets, dummy. Corporatism is the exact opposite of free market capitalism.
- doubledoh, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2The Philosophy of Liberty:
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf - gamemaker, on 11/27/2007, -3/+15. an extremist person who believes that all taxation government activity is bad
(and so if they were running things, we'd have no sewers, no running water, no food/drug/safety standards, and no police) - Herostratus, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2BEST... ARTICLE... EVER!!!!!
JOIN THE R3VO_|UTION!!!
- natedouglas, on 11/26/2007, -16/+724. an anarchist, in polite company.
- malakite33, on 11/26/2007, -30/+171One thing I can say is that if Paul loses, his movement will not stop, it will only grow bigger and bigger every time big government gets bigger and every time another unlawful war goes into effect and every time our rights are taken away and the constitution is disregarded and trampled on by the politicians. Next time we vote people into congress it will be the most freedom minded candidates. Ron Paul has indeed cured my apathy and thousands, no, hundreds of thousands of others across the nation. His stamp on this country will be seen through out our generation and Washington will be overrun and retaken for the people. Can you finish the fight?
- AirRaven, on 11/26/2007, -43/+16...I hope to god that was exaggerated for comic effect. You write political rhetoric lke Homer Simpson.
- GeneralFailure0, on 11/26/2007, -3/+17More like Master Chief.
- heartcoldfusion, on 11/26/2007, -6/+35It's not his movement. It's a movement that has slowly but surely been gaining momentum since the mid 60's.
- MWeather, on 11/26/2007, -4/+32The mid-1760s.
- notque, on 11/26/2007, -16/+8No, mid 1960's is correct.
- chaosium, on 11/27/2007, -9/+3Why the ***** are the Young Republicans pretending they're hippies? You're a bunch of fist-pumping nationalist militiamen and far more EVOL than the Love Generation would ever have stood for.
- notque, on 11/26/2007, -16/+8No, mid 1960's is correct.
- Draxius, on 11/27/2007, -1/+6Barry Goldwater
- MWeather, on 11/26/2007, -4/+32The mid-1760s.
- mcduckov, on 11/26/2007, -19/+6It looks like we have a shot at the Nader Effect on the Republican side. Hopefully Paul will run as an independent when he loses the primary.
- elnerdo, on 11/27/2007, -2/+1He has said many times that he will not.
- mcduckov, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1Probably fewer times than Nader said he would not.
- elnerdo, on 11/27/2007, -2/+1He has said many times that he will not.
- reed311, on 11/26/2007, -17/+8This "movement" has been around for a long long time and has never gained momentum; because the people who belong to this are in the minority. Yeah yeah, everyone else is brainwashed except for Ron Paul supporters; but the fact remains that most people do not choose to follow his ideologies.
- Tomchei, on 11/26/2007, -5/+18Then the least I ask those `most people` is to obey the constitution and do not force me to do things that are unconstitutional.
I will leave you alone, I will not pollute your space, I will be considerate.
Please do not force me to pay for your bridge that I will never use - for that matter, don't force me to pay to destroy said bridge.
Please do not force me to pay for your failed education systems - at least change some things and be fair.
Please don't force me to fund welfare, I really would do more locally.- EarlOfLade, on 11/26/2007, -16/+6Oh please.... go build a tree house in some remote forest and don't bother me with your inane ideas.
- PHiZ187, on 11/26/2007, -15/+5You DO use the bridge, food comes to you over it. Your elected representatives take it to work. How do we determine who does and doesn't use the bridge, and should/shouldn't pay? It is a non-excludable good, ala the classif free-rider problem.
You DO use the education system. The education system produces skilled workers, which drive the economy allowing you to purchase F-150 pickup trucks with Yosemite Sam mudflaps. Further, w/o jobs, there would be higher incidency of crime. You pay for schools so that people don't kick in your door and rob your ass.
Again, you DO use welfare. Supporting the sick and the elderly removes hardship that would manifest in people stealing your *****.
Libertarians are excluded from the political arena, because no-one takes their prescription that everyone should live in a log cabin in the woods and clean their guns all day seriously. America rejects you, and your "vision" of the country.- Tomchei, on 11/26/2007, -3/+14You DO use the bridge, food comes to you over it. Your elected representatives take it to work. How do we determine who does and doesn't use the bridge, and should/shouldn't pay? It is a non-excludable good, ala the classif free-rider problem.
I don't use the bridges in Iraq that I am referencing.
You DO use the education system.
I don't have a problem paying taxes for free education. I have a problem with paying taxes for a system that is broken and has been seriously broken for 20 years and has no signs of getting fixed.
For example:
The city of Atlanta spends $14,000 per child. That's a starter car. $14,000, per kid. I used to live there and it was $8,000 then and their test scores were still the lowest and are still the lowest dollar per result.
Again, you DO use welfare.
Tell me why I see people with food stamps buying steaks, not ground beef, using cell phones and driving new cars?
I don't have a problem with charity. I have a problem with charity when I'm forced to pay for it.
I have a remote relative that is homeless. He has no wherewithal to support himself and is content living at the shelter. Giving these guys anything more than $50 is asking for trouble as it invites violence and attention from nearby folk.
I seriously would donate to the shelter more than I do if I weren't taxed to the hilt.
The shelter he is part of is funded by local churches and the only assistance they get locally is from the food bank. Monetarily the funds are raised locally.
Now why should I be forced to pay welfare for abusers of the system where there are people I know that could really use it??
- Tomchei, on 11/26/2007, -3/+14You DO use the bridge, food comes to you over it. Your elected representatives take it to work. How do we determine who does and doesn't use the bridge, and should/shouldn't pay? It is a non-excludable good, ala the classif free-rider problem.
- EarlOfLade, on 11/26/2007, -16/+6Oh please.... go build a tree house in some remote forest and don't bother me with your inane ideas.
- phenry50BMG, on 11/27/2007, -4/+3The "movement" of which you so flippantly speak is called FREEDOM. Yes, it has been around for quite some time and many have fought and died for it. Many men gave their all and sacrificed their own personal wealth so you could smugly say what you have to say.
Bear in mind, there is a growing mass of us who plan to restore this Republic to it's glory as it was given to us. You're either with us, or the terrorists (government). There is no doubt that you would have been considered a Loyalist back in the day. Back in the day, they allowed Loyalists to go back to England. There is nowhere left to send you so choose your side carefully.- trotskyist, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3"You're either with us, or the terrorists (government)."
It's almost like I've heard this before somewhere..- chaosium, on 11/27/2007, -7/+2That's because the Ronenpaulogists are all old-school dittoheads that were the same Neocons they thrash and spittle while describing. They're the crazed element of fire and brimstone Republicania, and as far from Liberal as one can come.
- WilliamDavis, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2@ chaosium
*****. Many Paul supporters have ignored republicans and democrats for years. Some may have supported republicans at one time because they claimed to be fiscally conservative. Republicans themselves proved that to be a lie over the last 15 years.
- trotskyist, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3"You're either with us, or the terrorists (government)."
- Tomchei, on 11/26/2007, -5/+18Then the least I ask those `most people` is to obey the constitution and do not force me to do things that are unconstitutional.
- ndonohue, on 11/27/2007, -1/+8On Legendary mode
- klick37, on 11/27/2007, -3/+4RP 2012!
- themoosejuice, on 11/27/2007, -7/+1"One thing I can say is that if Paul loses, his movement will not stop,"
Yeah, just like Ross Perot. Haha.
Funny,, I just realized the have the same initials R.P. - brisbin33, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3dugg for unintended halo 3 reference
- Herostratus, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2DOMINATING!
- AirRaven, on 11/26/2007, -43/+16...I hope to god that was exaggerated for comic effect. You write political rhetoric lke Homer Simpson.
- dogster, on 11/26/2007, -34/+6http://savetucker.org/
- HerrEisenheim, on 11/26/2007, -14/+5Holy *****. I'm digging you up simply because I'm in awe that there exists a group of people who actually like Tucker Carlson. He is one of the greatest douchebags of our era.
- laofmoonster, on 11/26/2007, -8/+1WHAAT they can't cancel Tucker! I don't want to see MSNBC become "FOX for liberals"
(not that Tucker Carlson's future has much to do with libertarians other than the fact that he is pro-small government)- MWeather, on 11/26/2007, -0/+13Tucker isn't a conservative, he's an entertainer.
- tehbored, on 11/26/2007, -143/+142I have a feeling most Ron Paul supporters don't really know what exactly it is they are supporting. Based on his views, I'd guess that Ron Paul would allow large corporations to run around unrestricted, striking down anti-trust laws and laws that protect the rights of workers by limiting those of big business. Also, he would probably remove environmental regulations allowing companies to engage in unchecked dumping and polluting.
I don't understand why so many people are opposed to socialism when the countries with the highest standards of living in the world are all socialist. That's why I want Dennis Kucinich to be our next president. He would remove harmful government regulations such as prohibition, but keep good laws such as those that prevent monopolies. If we want a higher standard of living in America, we should use techniques that have been proven to work elsewhere (Western Europe for example). Dennis Kucinich for president!- billybob217, on 11/26/2007, -74/+63I agree w/ you...
RP vision of a government sounds much like the laissez-faire government we had in the 20s...
Though prepared to get thoroughly buried as it is Digg...
Feel free to bury me now I suppose...- jeffiek, on 11/26/2007, -38/+17Wish granted
- darkzealot89, on 11/26/2007, -29/+40It should also be mentioned that Ron Paul opposes Net Neutrality. A topic that should hit very close to home for diggers.
- MWeather, on 11/26/2007, -13/+35Ron Paul is against the government regulating the internet? I'm shocked, shocked I say!
- darkzealot89, on 11/26/2007, -15/+7http://www.2decide.com/table.htm
Check your facts, it means he is all for control of it. Instead of protecting Neutrality on the net, he opposes it. - MWeather, on 11/27/2007, -1/+2He opposes government mandated neutrality. I haven't read anything that suggests he opposes neutrality.
- darkzealot89, on 11/26/2007, -15/+7http://www.2decide.com/table.htm
- n8glenn, on 11/26/2007, -7/+25Once government establishes control over the internet, AT&T will begin lobbying legislators to pass a new bill that AT&T just wrote regulating the internet. No thanks.
- krebcycle, on 11/27/2007, -10/+3If the government doesn't do something then AT&T and Comcast and all the other big corporate ISP's will start clamping down on bandwidth to sites they don't like or don't pay them. What then?
- MWeather, on 11/27/2007, -1/+2Then you take your business elsewhere.
- blast_flame, on 11/26/2007, -9/+24Correction. Government enforced net neutrality. It's all about the means you do something. Using government force is not the right mean.
- nakani, on 11/27/2007, -2/+10vote with your dollars
- MWeather, on 11/26/2007, -13/+35Ron Paul is against the government regulating the internet? I'm shocked, shocked I say!
- j0keR, on 11/26/2007, -11/+39What you have been taught about the twenties was written by the "winner" of the time.
“History is written by the victors.” -Winston Churchill
The government was subverted by socialists. Their doctrine was that it was the failure of capitalism that brought about the depression. In fact it was government control over the marketplace. They're so blinded by their hatred of the perceived right, that they take their word for their alleged philosophy. Here's a hint, they don't stand for the free market. They're nationalists who believe in corporate fascism. The twenties wasn't about the free market. This country has never had a free market since it was initially founded. There is enough wealth and technology available today to make up for the "flaws" of the market in the past.
Once again, let me state: there is no free market when there is state control, weather that control be a right-wing government contract, or a left-wing environmental regulation. Both wings belong to a bird that exists to enslave the American people.- LokitheComplex, on 11/26/2007, -13/+9Hearing people say that there never has been a completely free market reminds me of communists saying the Soviet Unions wasn't true communism.
Even under absolute markets there would be crashes and downturns unless we could control all matter.
I'm for freedoms. But in a totally free market the corporations will rule supreme.- positron, on 11/27/2007, -1/+8In a totally free market, corporations don't exist.
- TomJoad, on 11/27/2007, -1/+8the soviet union wasn't true communism. communism is workers control of industry and government and destruction all together of property and (eventually) the state.
the soviet union had the destruction of private property, thats it. - jon30041, on 11/27/2007, -5/+2I would like to say that the Depression was a bigger issue than what you've stated. How about this theory?
The automobile is invented. Suddenly, people don't need their horses anymore to pull the plow, and the work gets done in record time. More crops are produced, inundating the market with a huge supply. Price of corn drops to comply with demands, and farmers get poor. They are now unable to pay off their property taxes, slowly whittling away at the economic sector of the nation.
Also, there were a ton of people exploiting each other, destroying land values, so on and so forth... The depression was an across the board issue. But what brought us out of it? FDR and the New Deal. Guess what, Socialist ideas started using the shovel we'd dug ourselves a hole with to make stairs to get out.- MWeather, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2The New Deal was a response to the Depression, not the cause of it. Learn to read a calendar.
- LokitheComplex, on 11/26/2007, -13/+9Hearing people say that there never has been a completely free market reminds me of communists saying the Soviet Unions wasn't true communism.
- emmeron, on 11/27/2007, -6/+7We never had laissez-faire in the US, nor anywhere. Ever.
Truly the only problem with laissez-faire economics is that it requires informed consumers. We fail there already, but should the bright carry the burden of the inept always? - ChimpFlix, on 11/27/2007, -1/+11I'd say people new to the concept of Libertarianism may not really understand it. I think a lot of it involves philosophical self-reflection and an understanding of the way one fits into the world. The best advice I can offer is for people unfamiliar with Libertarianism to read, read, read. There's a huge amount of information to digest and come to terms with.
- billybob217, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1I have read a lot about it...
And I still have the vision of the government...
Read some history, go read about the laissez-faire government in the US after 1820's... It was a "classical libertarian" government and you will many correlations...
I for one do not want that to happen again...
But there is no point in arguing w/ you Diggers about it...
- billybob217, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1I have read a lot about it...
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 11/26/2007, -34/+84Most of the countries with the lowest standards of living just happen to be socialist as well, and we already have a higher SOL then western Europeans do. Western Europe, Canada, and the US are the best places in the world to live in because our economies are based on capitalism and in spite of quasi-socialist governments.
BTW, monopolies can not exist with out government intervention.- AirRaven, on 11/26/2007, -16/+211) The United Kingdom's been led by the Labour Party for the past decade- a *socialist* Party. Granted, they've been leaning more towards the "Third Way", but the fact remains that not only have they presided over a period of record economic growth and improvement in living standards, but they're also a hell of a lot less suicidally libertarian than Ron Paul et al.
2) ....Your "BTW" would be a heck of a lot more interesting if you could elaborate on that point without just throwing it out there with a complete lack of justification. - Mutton, on 11/26/2007, -10/+23Well, monopolies can exist without government intervention, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily evil. The evil monopolies are the ones that are created through political power (read: gov't regulation).
- LokitheComplex, on 11/26/2007, -8/+10So you'd be happy living in a country with one energy company? Or even one corporation that ran everything. And used loss leading to wipe out all competition?
- Mutton, on 11/26/2007, -2/+14If that one energy company satisfied everyone's needs, then why not? It's an unrealistic scenario though.
Loss leading/dumping is a short term strategy. No company can continue to dump forever. - LokitheComplex, on 11/26/2007, -6/+6Monopolies are bad because they lead to stagnation, inefficiency and fixed prices. If monopolies aren't that bad why is a state one bad?
In businesses that require a major investment leading and dumping works fine and it has done for a long time all over the world. - Mutton, on 11/26/2007, -2/+3Not sure why people are digging you down for trying to have a discussion... I dugg you up.
- zaphar, on 11/27/2007, -0/+9State monopolies are bad since they are forced into existence, i.e. no potential competition. The only way a monopoly can exist in a free market is if customers are generally satisfied with the company and it's not economical for a potential competitor to spring up.
- Mutton, on 11/26/2007, -2/+14If that one energy company satisfied everyone's needs, then why not? It's an unrealistic scenario though.
- jerbaker, on 11/27/2007, -5/+5So when corporations send soldiers to burn down the houses of trade union organizers, that's not evil since the government wasn't behind it? Are you insane?
- chaosium, on 11/27/2007, -7/+2It's good! Violent corporate rule means the free market is determining a victor.
- jon30041, on 11/27/2007, -1/+3I dug you up hoping I got the sarcasm. If that wasn't sarcastic... I hate you.
- zaphar, on 11/27/2007, -1/+5It's evil no less, but I can help defend them without having to worry about nationalist retards. Corporations that start fighting the general populace will lose money faster than they can make; look at Iraq and how much the government spends there, and they don't even have to make their money, they just take it.
- scubasteve377, on 11/27/2007, -1/+6And the Straw Man of the Year goes to...
Honestly, no one could seriously think that jerbaker's point is valid, can they?
Here. Let me lend you a clue. In the free market, all associations are voluntary. If any corporation attempts to use force in such a way, that's when the government (acting in it's proper role, as a referee, instead of an active participant) steps in defends the rights of the people whose rights are being violated. - jerbaker, on 11/27/2007, -3/+3"Corporations that start fighting the general populace will lose money faster than they can make"
And what about the people killed and injured before they run out of money? Do you know anything about history at all? Look up Cripple Creek 1902, the Coal and Iron Police, the Homestead strike of 1892, the American Protective League, etc. Frequently the violence against workers was sanctioned by the government. Remember that we once had a system with very little regulation. It got us a lot of dead people, child labor, and 80-hour work weeks. No need to repeat history.
- LokitheComplex, on 11/26/2007, -8/+10So you'd be happy living in a country with one energy company? Or even one corporation that ran everything. And used loss leading to wipe out all competition?
- CannonFodder89, on 11/26/2007, -8/+14Even a market anarchist like me would acknowledge that national outlook is far more important than government. I've never been to some of these Nordic countries with the highest standard of living, but I've heard wonderful stories about the people there. Despite their welfare socialism, they do just fine. It's nice when a society isn't bathed in religious dogma and an "I GOT MINE" attitude.
- zaphar, on 11/27/2007, -1/+9And they are also tiny. If you think modeling a huge, muti-ethnic country after small, mostly homogeneous country, you'll probably end up with something that you didn't expect. Also to note, the inefficiently of such systems grow as you increase the size of them, so this would be another problem. Why do you think there are so many problems now in the US, could it be that the federal government is trying to assume the roles that the individual states, localities, and families used to provide?
- geoboy, on 11/28/2007, -1/+2Exactly, zaphar. Socialism could never work on the federal level in the U.S. because it's a "one size fits all" approach that absolutely cannot work with such a large and diverse population. Let the States set up their own socialist or libertarian systems, and get the Fed out of the freakin' way.
- MWeather, on 11/26/2007, -10/+13"BTW, monopolies can not exist with out government intervention."
Please elaborate. I'm curious how the government made Microsoft a Monopoly. I was under the impression Microsoft did that on it's own.- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 11/26/2007, -8/+11I'm curious to know when MS became a Monopoly.
- krebcycle, on 11/27/2007, -3/+4I'd argue that it isn't one and never has been. There are other operating systems out there that you can purchase. However, since their market share is so large they can act like one (like in the IE vrs Netscape battle).
- jerbaker, on 11/27/2007, -4/+5Watch them digg down instead of answer the question.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 11/27/2007, -3/+3Looks like you were right.
So, I ask again, when did MS become a monopoly?
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 11/27/2007, -3/+3Looks like you were right.
- Misesean, on 11/27/2007, -1/+4http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp
- zaphar, on 11/27/2007, -1/+8Considering the government is probably one of their largest customers, that pretty much guaranties that Microsoft will dominate the market. Microsoft has made deals with the government to get it's products into the public schools. I remember having classes where I had to specifically use a Microsoft product, actually there was one you could take to become Microsoft certified, paid for by the school too. And the licensing fees, oh god, was a frigging waste of money.
- matador3, on 11/27/2007, -1/+7Microsoft is not a monopoly but the massive amount of corporate welfare they get from the government might have something to do with their success.
"Microsoft enjoyed more than $12 billion in total tax breaks over the past five years. In fact, Microsoft actually paid no tax at all in 1999, despite $12.3 billion in reported U.S. profits. Microsoft’s tax rate for the past two years was only 1.8 percent on $21.9 billion in pretax U.S. profits."
http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0402.htm
Please consider this when criticizing the idea of a free market. The point here is not that Microsoft should be taxed more it's that the government creates an uneven playing field. If small corporations were taxed at the same low rate as Microsoft there would be nothing close to a monopoly.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 11/26/2007, -8/+11I'm curious to know when MS became a Monopoly.
- gerran, on 11/27/2007, -6/+3> BTW, monopolies can not exist with out government intervention.
You're lost. Standard Oil was the largest monopoly in U.S. history. It obtained that status by using unprecedented market leverage and ruthless business practices. Government regulation was needed to break it up and restore a competitive market.
Geez. Read your history books.- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 11/27/2007, -1/+3Why don't you do some actual research? Most of their shady practices that allowed them to reach 90% market share (which is still not a monopoly) was their manipulation of railroads used to transport the competitions oil. The RR industry was heavily, heavily "regulated" (meaning that RR insiders got government jobs, allowing them to use the guns of government to stifle competition) at the time. Without the RRs they would not have been able to become a near monopoly.
From wiki:
The lawsuit argued that Standard's monopolistic practices took place in the last four years: [9]
"The general result of the investigation has been to disclose the existence of numerous and flagrant discriminations by the railroads in behalf of the Standard Oil Company and its affiliated corporations. With comparatively few exceptions, mainly of other large concerns in California, the Standard has been the sole beneficiary of such discriminations. In almost every section of the country that company has been found to enjoy some unfair advantages over its competitors, and some of these discriminations affect enormous areas."
You lose.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 11/27/2007, -1/+3Why don't you do some actual research? Most of their shady practices that allowed them to reach 90% market share (which is still not a monopoly) was their manipulation of railroads used to transport the competitions oil. The RR industry was heavily, heavily "regulated" (meaning that RR insiders got government jobs, allowing them to use the guns of government to stifle competition) at the time. Without the RRs they would not have been able to become a near monopoly.
- AirRaven, on 11/26/2007, -16/+211) The United Kingdom's been led by the Labour Party for the past decade- a *socialist* Party. Granted, they've been leaning more towards the "Third Way", but the fact remains that not only have they presided over a period of record economic growth and improvement in living standards, but they're also a hell of a lot less suicidally libertarian than Ron Paul et al.
- jeffiek, on 11/26/2007, -34/+110"when the countries with the highest standards of living in the world are all socialist."
I don't understand why people sell their souls for a few dollars.
Your argument is strikingly similar to that offered by the South in defense of slavery. They argued their slaves were better taken care of than the "wage slaves" of the North. Would you argue that being a well fed slave is better than being a starving free-man? Didn't think so.
Then why shackle yourself to the chains of government? Are you foolish enough to think they have your best interests in mind?
"keep good laws such as those that prevent monopolies."
Not only has it been shown many times that monopolies can't exist WITHOUT the support of government, you leave a glaring exception to your own rule. You grant the government a monopoly on VIOLENCE. They are the only ones permitted to walk around armed, they are the only ones permitted to break into houses, they are the only ones permitted to kill. Excuse me, but I think that monopoly is the most evil of all.
"proven to work elsewhere (Western Europe for example)."
You're not too good on the concept of proof are you? Correlation is NOT causation. It doesn't even come close to proof. There are a LOT of explanations for the success/failure of any government. Does the wealth of Saudia Arabia make it desirable? That's where your argument leads.- tehbored, on 11/26/2007, -16/+6"Would you argue that being a well fed slave is better than being a starving free-man? Didn't think so."
Why do you assume the answer is no? I'd give up a few freedoms for a higher standard of living. There would have to be a line drawn somewhere, but still.
"You grant the government a monopoly on VIOLENCE. They are the only ones permitted to walk around armed, they are the only ones permitted to break into houses, they are the only ones permitted to kill."
So just because I want to give the government the right to control pollution and administer healthcare to its citizens it means I want to give them the right to break into people's houses with no warrant? Don't put words in my mouth.
"You're not too good on the concept of proof are you? Correlation is NOT causation. It doesn't even come close to proof. There are a LOT of explanations for the success/failure of any government. Does the wealth of Saudia Arabia make it desirable? That's where your argument leads."
You're right, there *are* a lot of causes for success. I never said that any socialism would be successful, I just said that laissez-faire capitalism would be unsuccessful. I'm also not arguing against capitalism in general, only unrestricted capitalism. Also, your mention of Saudi Arabia is completely irrelevant.- masterm1nd, on 11/27/2007, -1/+11You can draw the line somewhere, but you cannot control the line from moving somewhere else.
- Acolyte357, on 11/27/2007, -1/+2"I'd give up a few freedoms for a higher standard of living."
you sir are spineless
- billybob217, on 11/26/2007, -8/+0I believe that "monopoly on violence" of the federal government is actually granted by the Constitution where the federal government regulates all armed forces...
- nicholai, on 11/29/2007, -0/+1Have you even read the constitution? Consider the "right to bear arms".
- LokitheComplex, on 11/26/2007, -13/+5"it been shown many times that monopolies can't exist WITHOUT the support of government"
No its not.- Misesean, on 11/27/2007, -0/+7http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp
- theWrkncacnter, on 11/27/2007, -4/+1that chapter doesn't explain anything
- Misesean, on 11/27/2007, -0/+5Did you read the whole chapter, or just the first page? Maybe it's not obvious that the link is only to the first page, there are four other pages to complete the chapter.
- TomJoad, on 11/27/2007, -9/+3 you can be a libertarian and a socialist. i am one. I believe that government should own everything (or a better way to say it would be that no one owns anything), but that the people should be their government. in fact, as economics invariably has a large effect on politics, Democracy and Liberty can never perfectly coexist with capitalism. unequal economic outcomes will produce unequal political practices. while at the same time the equality created by socialism gives makes perfect sense to be paired with liberty and political equality.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 11/27/2007, -1/+3"Personally I can't imagine going against a large corporation without the help of the state."
No, you can't.
Libertarians believe that people own themselves.
Socialists believe that state owns you.
I would like to see you reconcile those two opposing points of view.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 11/27/2007, -1/+3"Personally I can't imagine going against a large corporation without the help of the state."
- jerbaker, on 11/27/2007, -8/+2"I don't understand why people sell their souls for a few dollars."
Doesn't it occur to you when you say this that you're discounting your own viewpoint? Capitalism is about prostituting 1/3rd or more of your life to the highest bidder.
"Then why shackle yourself to the chains of government? Are you foolish enough to think they have your best interests in mind?"
I don't think anyone in the government has my best interests in mind, but I can vote them out. Corporations on the other hand also do not have my interests in mind, and without the power of the state I can do nothing to stop them.
"Does the wealth of Saudia Arabia make it desirable? That's where your argument leads."
How is the argument that capitalism generates wealth any different?- masterm1nd, on 11/27/2007, -2/+7"Capitalism is about prostituting 1/3rd or more of your life to the highest bidder"
No. You are free to do whatever the hell you want, even if that apparently means starving.- jerbaker, on 11/27/2007, -2/+3In a definitional sense, yes. Using your argument, in a Communist system you are free to do whatever you want to, even if that means going to jail. Does that mean you're still free? No, it doesn't.
- Akronos, on 11/27/2007, -2/+5If you don't like a corporation, you don't buy their products. If you don't like them enough, you start some consumer awareness group to boycott them. Use the media if you must. That's how you stop them.
- jerbaker, on 11/27/2007, -2/+2The result of your argument is that the richer you are, the more voting power you have. That goes against every principle I believe in.
- Akronos, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1Not really. For example, if I felt that Nabisco was making bad cookies, I'd stop buying them. It's not like rich people buy much more cookies than I do. And if other people felt the same as I did, then Nabisco loses more money.
Another example (This time, it's real). I'm a vegetarian because I don't like how slaughterhouses operate. So I don't purchase meat. Thus, producers of meat don't get my money. But since other people like to eat meat, they buy meat and the producers get money. That's fine. Why should just one person not liking meat stop others from buying meat if others want it? But vegetarianism is becoming more popular for various reasons and so these corporations lose more and more money as vegetarianism grows popular. Eventually, if it grows popular enough, some corporations may go out of business.
Certainly you've heard of groups like PETA. While I don't agree with most of their positions since I think they are extreme, they are an example of how powerful consumer groups can be. Remember "Murder King"? And then remember that BK changed their policy and are now selling veggie burgers?
- jon30041, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1Sometimes, like in the case of Wal-Mart and our failing economy, staying alive means sacrificing some morals for the best deal. I buy at Wal-Mart sometimes. Not often, but once a month or so, for a couple items. It's cheaper there. They're cornering a market of poorer people by unethical business practices. Great. THe lower classes options are starve and have a clean conscience or live and feel guilty? *****, dude, those AREN'T good options. If those are our options, that means the system is ***** BROKEN.
- Draxius, on 11/27/2007, -2/+5Where the hell have all these people gotten the idea that a corporation is accountable to no one? I see it everywhere and it simply makes NO sense. A corporation MUST make money, the only way it does that is by providing value to society through the form of a product or service. A representative democracy is far less accountable to the people than any corporation. Every dollar you spend is a "vote" to the company that produced the product you bought. In a representative democracy you don't get to vote on any issues (except the very few that make it to referendum) and you don't even vote for the representatives very often. To make the arguement that commerce and production in the hands of a government would be more accountable to the people than even a monopolistic corporation is just plain silly.
- jerbaker, on 11/27/2007, -2/+1If money is what keeps corporations accountable, that means you would rather live in a system where some people have more votes than other people. I don't think that's a good system, let a lone an optimal one.
- jeffiek, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3"How is the argument that capitalism generates wealth any different?"
Thank you. An intelligent question. That argument by itself would not hold up any better. It is the REASON that capitalism generates wealth that separates it from any other system. To be clear, I use capitalism in its true sense also known as free-market, NOT corporatism. I am using it in the sense that both parties voluntarily, willingly, and knowingly conduct their business.
The result is wealth, but its the respect for the free will of men that makes it desirable.
- masterm1nd, on 11/27/2007, -2/+7"Capitalism is about prostituting 1/3rd or more of your life to the highest bidder"
- Strman, on 11/27/2007, -3/+1There is quite a big difference between being a slave and being offered social services that are provided through taxes. I don't mean to criticize your political views, but please don't make outlandish statements like that.
- tehbored, on 11/26/2007, -16/+6"Would you argue that being a well fed slave is better than being a starving free-man? Didn't think so."
- masterm1nd, on 11/26/2007, -15/+35"the countries with the highest standards of living in the world are all socialist" No.
The fundamental problem with giving everyone second and third generation rights, is that so far, no one has been able to do it without taking away everyone else's first generation rights in the process. If you have the right to unemployment checks, then that forces everyone else out of their right to private property.
"Libertarians and others to the economic right see second and third generation human rights as an attempt to cloak political goals in the language of rights, thus (a) granting certain political goals inappropriately positive connotations; (b) advancing the power of governments and NGOs while (c) diminishing the legitimate negative rights of individuals who are coerced by state power into funding or otherwise providing certain services (for example, a "right to employment" necessarily means that individuals may be forced to provide employment to others, and/or may be forced to pay additional taxes to governments to monitor and administer programs.)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_generations_of_ ... .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive ... .- masterm1nd, on 11/26/2007, -1/+9"In some rare cases, an innocent person might indeed be totally helpless and have no choice but to obtain resources by stealing them. Perhaps only filching that piece of fruit will stave off immediate starvation. But extraordinary circumstances cannot generate laws granting a permanent right to steal, not when stealing itself means taking by force what by right belongs to others. .... As for those who believe that protection of negative rights requires positive rights, they fail to show that any such right to protection can exist unless there already exist the more fundamental—and “negative”—right to liberty."
- ssn697, on 11/26/2007, -7/+9Can you point us to a successful Fully Libertarian country?
- masterm1nd, on 11/26/2007, -6/+9The old America.
- ssn697, on 11/26/2007, -8/+7Wa huh? THAT is your answer? PUH LEASE. We were NEVER Libertarian. If it is SUCH a good way to govern, why are there ZERO countries that are Libertarian?
- KMye, on 11/26/2007, -10/+4I suspect the Paul revolution is completely bereft of any historians...
- masterm1nd, on 11/26/2007, -4/+4Well, you are assuming one definition fits all. I don't identify myself or my ideals with any textbook ideology, but I normally find myself somewhere between classical liberalism, libertarian, conservatism, minarchism. More importantly than what I want, is what I don't want, which is communism and fascism. The old America is shocking close to that.
- ssn697, on 11/26/2007, -3/+4Here is the answer:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_countries_have_libe ... - masterm1nd, on 11/26/2007, -2/+9I never once mentioned libertarian before replying to your strawman fallacy and I'm not even a Paul supporter, just a good idea supporter. I beg you to refute anything I said in my first two comments. Now how about you show me a country that grants positive rights or second generation rights and hasn't lost their most fundamental first generation and negative rights. Do you want liberty or equality? The two are mutually exclusive, we can only have one of them.
- masterm1nd, on 11/27/2007, -1/+4And to clarify correctly, liberty and equality are mutually exclusive, and you can't have equality without first having liberty, thus leaving liberty is the only best choice.
- masterm1nd, on 11/26/2007, -6/+9The old America.
- masterm1nd, on 11/26/2007, -1/+9You are misinterpreting me ssn697. I am not arguing for a libertarian country. I am arguing against a socialist country. Not everything is black and white.
- Robbothehood, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1I think he must mean social democracies such as the Scandinavian nations that have dominated the standard of living censuses, and to a lesser extent Canada, which performed very well in the past.
- DAaaMan64, on 11/26/2007, -11/+35Why do you assume that state government can't control the corporations within their state?
- notque, on 11/26/2007, -11/+23Because they don't now? Because corporations leverage state laws against each other to get better laws in states? To get more subsidies. Because we watch it happen every day.
- j0keR, on 11/26/2007, -5/+21Way to point out a failure of socialism as an excuse to further expand and centralize said socialism.
- DAaaMan64, on 11/26/2007, -3/+6Why don't they now? Because people don't understand that it can be enforced at state level. Why do you think the poster "assumed" it in the first place?
- texpundit, on 11/26/2007, -4/+24Ron Paul is actually for getting RID of corporate subsidies, tax breaks/loopholes and other things that have actually allowed said corporations to grow as big as they have. Most of these behemoths wouldn't be NEARLY as big as they currently if it weren't for the special privileges they get from government laws, intervention and loopholes.
Hell, the EPA is a direct example of how over-regulating companies (while allowing gov't subsidies) actually KILLS competition in markets and bolsters corporate power.- krebcycle, on 11/27/2007, -11/+4Libertarianism is a digg fad along with Ron Paul. It is not mainstream and never will be. Tell me about how good libertarianism is once all the zoning in your neighborhood is gone and there's a landfill across the street from your house.
- smellycarney, on 11/26/2007, -5/+29dugg for displaying a fundamental understanding of the Constitution. States' Rights > Federal Rights. The job of the feds: 1) Foster interstate commerce 2) Carry on international diplomacy 3) Coin & print money
Everything else SHOULD be the job of the state. Ron Paul understands that. Everyone else is trying to make us forget it. Good luck with your new socialist or neo-conservative overlords. I'll be looking to depart this once great land if Ron Paul doesn't win.- PHiZ187, on 11/26/2007, -2/+4Now THAT is what I call a win for democracy!
- ssn697, on 11/26/2007, -6/+8"Everything else SHOULD be the job of the state"
Or, if you could look past the RP rhetoric, you would see that the PEOPLE should be in charge, not the STATE. The STATE is just fed junior. Look around. Now, read the 10th amendment, the WHOLE THING. Read the last 4 words, then tell us again how the State should control everything.- PHiZ187, on 11/26/2007, -7/+2That's great that you can read the 10th amendment, but it means nothing. Read the 200 years worth of SCOTUS decisions interpreting the 10th Amendment, then you can understand what it means. Remember, the SCOTUS is in the Constitution too.
- ssn697, on 11/27/2007, -1/+3I agree wholeheartedly about the SCOTUS. The common RP'er mantra is "SCOTUS is CORRUPT!" when I bring it up. They only want to read the parts of the Constitution that fit, then throw the rest out, or claim it is "bad".
States rights is just a PIECE of the pie, period. Pretending it is the panacea is just that, pretend... - matador3, on 11/27/2007, -1/+2Judicial review is unconstitutional ;)
- ssn697, on 11/27/2007, -1/+3I agree wholeheartedly about the SCOTUS. The common RP'er mantra is "SCOTUS is CORRUPT!" when I bring it up. They only want to read the parts of the Constitution that fit, then throw the rest out, or claim it is "bad".
- bumb1ebee, on 11/27/2007, -3/+9The entire point of having states' rights is not to empower the states but to give more representation to the people and to limit the power of the federal government. The people have way more influence at the local level than they do at the national level. If you argue against states' rights you are effectively arguing against the will of the people.
Local and state governments care more about their citizens than the federal government because they actually have to live in the neighborhood that they are serving. It makes more sense that they will pass legislation that is beneficial to their surroundings because they are a part of it. They understand the needs of their constituency much more than some federal official living in a luxury suite thousands of miles away in Washington D.C. The idea that states are so stupid that will abandon all reason and pass laws that will oppress their citizens just because the federal government isn't there to check them is completely groundless and very elitist. Don't assume you know how best to run other people's lives. They have the right to determine that for themselves.- ssn697, on 11/27/2007, -4/+3"Local and state governments care more about their citizens than the federal government because they actually have to live in the neighborhood that they are serving. It makes more sense that they will pass legislation that is beneficial to their surroundings because they are a part of it."
That is some funny, pretend Utopia ***** right there. I DO work with my state government. I actually see all the local ordinances, all the crap. You are living in a pretend world, spouting BS pablum that is NOT real world. I have been working with local and State governments for 20 years. My guess is you haven't. Hell, that isn't even a guess. All I have to do is read the tripe above, and I know you are a book-learnin' boy... - matador3, on 11/27/2007, -1/+4OK but do you think the Federal government is better or worse in that respect, and why? That just sounds like an argument for less government all around. I don't think there's any question that local governments are more responsive to local issues than state governments and state governments more so than Federal.
- ssn697, on 11/27/2007, -4/+3"Local and state governments care more about their citizens than the federal government because they actually have to live in the neighborhood that they are serving. It makes more sense that they will pass legislation that is beneficial to their surroundings because they are a part of it."
- PHiZ187, on 11/26/2007, -7/+2That's great that you can read the 10th amendment, but it means nothing. Read the 200 years worth of SCOTUS decisions interpreting the 10th Amendment, then you can understand what it means. Remember, the SCOTUS is in the Constitution too.
- notque, on 11/26/2007, -11/+23Because they don't now? Because corporations leverage state laws against each other to get better laws in states? To get more subsidies. Because we watch it happen every day.
- h3smith, on 11/26/2007, -10/+18lol, i don't even know where to begin to debunk your silly claims.
- EuphopiaB, on 11/26/2007, -13/+36"I'd guess that Ron Paul would allow large corporations to run around unrestricted, striking down anti-trust laws and laws that protect the rights of workers by limiting those of big business. Also, he would probably remove environmental regulations allowing companies to engage in unchecked dumping and polluting."
No. If a corporation is inflicting harm on an individual or group of people then it is responsible. He has commented specifically on pollution, and stated that if it is harming people then it is a crime against those affected. The same goes for corporations. He wouldn't grant them any more than a citizen. A corporation can make contracts and deals but cannot, just as no person can, inflict harm on someone else.
The laws that prevent monopolies are specifically the problem. By interfering with the idea of a free market, they dispose of it completely. It is up to the workers to decide if they want to work for a corporation. If the deal isn't good enough, then the government shouldn't force the corporation to give them more - they simply should not work there. A free country doesn't mean that we have the world's highest standard of living or that we have happy people everywhere with fat meals on their tables. All it means is we are free, and as such we are free to fail. We can work against this as a people, but it is not the job of the government to force compliance on corporations or people into these higher standards you speak of. We should strive to be free, not perfect. I may agree that socialism leads to greater life expectancy and quality of life, but it does so at the sacrifice of the freedom and liberty of individuals, which includes the freedom to sign a contract that screws you because of stupidity and the freedom, similarly, to protest bad corporations and not do business with them THROUGH THE PEOPLE and using the people rather than making the government force it.
The people of Eurasia, Oceania and Eastasia had high standards of living and had everything they needed, but were they free?- SouthsideIrish, on 11/26/2007, -2/+8Why should the government collect the fines from corporations when they dump and pollute the enviroment? In a Libertarian society I will be able to sue the companies Board of Directors for polluting the river that borders. I say company because Libertarians want to get rid of the corporate fiction that is called a corporation.
- PHiZ187, on 11/26/2007, -8/+2You're presuming that you will be able to identify the culprit. That is just not the case in our modern industrialized society. Look at the E.Coli meat recalls, that reach 100s of "downstream" repackagers and distributors. Look at generic pharmaceuticals that cause birth defects. They cannot be traced back tot he individual company that manufactured the specific pills that you took. This is why we have the FDA.
The way that your market theory would work is that people would have to die in a sufficient number, until consumers got the signal that something was bad. Beef, for instance. How many people around the country would have to die, before the nation would notice a trend, and then modify their behavior? I don't suppose there would be any media regulation laws to prevent the meat industry from cozying up to the media industry, would there be?
You know what, pick up a realMicroEconomics textbook, not that John Stossel crap. It will be very illuminating.- WiseWeasel, on 11/27/2007, -1/+9I'm sure lawyers will find the company responsible... If I have faith in anything, it's the ability for lawyers to find someone to sue.
- PHiZ187, on 11/26/2007, -8/+2You're presuming that you will be able to identify the culprit. That is just not the case in our modern industrialized society. Look at the E.Coli meat recalls, that reach 100s of "downstream" repackagers and distributors. Look at generic pharmaceuticals that cause birth defects. They cannot be traced back tot he individual company that manufactured the specific pills that you took. This is why we have the FDA.
- Deanblackoak, on 11/26/2007, -8/+3To the person that thinks states can control monopolies, they can't because they didn't before federal anti-trust laws. Switching to state rights would just move the problem, not solve it. If the current federal government can't be improve, why does anyone think by moving the problems to the states would instantly solve them. It's still a faulty government, only then we'd have 50 of them. And to the person that mentioned the Civil War, the south thought they could determine the faith of slavery because it was a STATE'S RIGHT to do so. Frankly the first 100 years of this country was a battle about state rights vs. federal. Do we really think it's a good idea to go back in time? Shouldn't we be progressing and instead of degreasing?
- WiseWeasel, on 11/27/2007, -1/+6You obviously weren't around for all the State X vs. Microsoft lawsuits for abuse of their monopoly... States can and *do* regulate monopolies operating within their borders. That's not to say the federal government can't or shouldn't regulate them, but know that the states are well within their rights to pursue abusive monopolists themselves. Decentralization is not the opposite of progress; in fact, it helps progress happen faster as different states try different approaches, and prevents a single point of failure for the entire country.
- SouthsideIrish, on 11/26/2007, -2/+8Why should the government collect the fines from corporations when they dump and pollute the enviroment? In a Libertarian society I will be able to sue the companies Board of Directors for polluting the river that borders. I say company because Libertarians want to get rid of the corporate fiction that is called a corporation.
- FkFaceMcFayden, on 11/26/2007, -14/+7Yeah, one thing I've noticed is all the corporate support Ron Paul is getting these days as apposed to other pro-antitrust / protectionist candidates. If there's one thing huge corporations hate, it's anti-trust laws.
- WiseWeasel, on 11/27/2007, -1/+6What corporate support? Source?
- Misesean, on 11/27/2007, -0/+4I assume that's the point.
- WiseWeasel, on 11/27/2007, -1/+6What corporate support? Source?
- mcduckov, on 11/26/2007, -15/+10Indeed. As President he would not be able to simply repeal laws but he would have a wide swath of power over Federal regulatory agencies. One can assume that Paul is not, in fact, in favor of having any federal regulatory agency making rules that impact all states since that is, in his view, a violation of states rights.
So, adios EPA. We'll go back to leaving it up to each locality how much and what kind of pollution is acceptable. See ya FTC, my local government can deal with multinational banks. Etc Etc Etc. I tend to agree that people don't really think about the true consequences of a RP win.- Deanblackoak, on 11/26/2007, -8/+3Bravo! Well said.
- MWeather, on 11/26/2007, -1/+12"So, adios EPA. We'll go back to leaving it up to each locality how much and what kind of pollution is acceptable."
Good. If there's one thing California has proven, it's that local regulation works better than federal regulation.- tehbored, on 11/26/2007, -1/+2Too bad not every state is as environmentally conscious as California.
- CognitiveRes, on 11/27/2007, -2/+1Should my sarcasam detector be dinging right now?
- WarrenHarding, on 11/27/2007, -4/+1yeah, that power crisis in california a few years back was just awesome!!!! you should get a clue before you start talking out of your ass again.
- SlimFastForYou, on 11/27/2007, -2/+2@WarrenHarding:
From an excerpt in a textbook I was reading the other day: "In order to make it's brand of energy trading possible, Enron had been a major advocate of electricity deregulation in the 90's, arguing that efficiencies from deregulation would provide consumers with cheaper electricity. Seeking such efficiencies, the State of California deregulated in 1998, only to experience, two years later, soaring electricity prices and supply shortages producing blackouts throughout the state. As subsequent investigation showed, deregulation had provided Enron and other energy companies the ability to manipulate the supply of electricity to the state to drive up prices and company's profits."
So maybe I'm missing the point, but what clue does MWeather need to get? He said that local regulation works better than federal regulation. California DEregulated and got screwed over. Your example seems to prove his point.
- ddrekins, on 11/26/2007, -1/+11Actually, the things you mentioned sound rather nice. Alone, removing the FTC might have some negative consequences but removing certain barriers and, more importantly, removing government favors to existing banks would actually have a result that would lead to more competition, not less. More competition generally means more options, and I believe, is preferable to limiting banking to the few inflationary options we are faced with currently.
Perhaps not everyone understands all of the consequences of a Ron Paul victory, but perhaps you and I haven't had a chance to see America without a Federal bank to distort our views? - powerhouse, on 11/26/2007, -1/+8So you find it easier to change federal law and regulations than local laws?
- PHiZ187, on 11/26/2007, -3/+2mcduckov, you're an idiot for (at least) two reasons, as evidenced by this post. 1) If you read about constitutional law, instead of just wanking off about it you'll see that it is the Congress's job to pass laws and (our current Executive notwithstanding), it is the President's duty to enforce them. So, no, RP could not instruct the executive agencies to just stop enforcing their regulations. As a sidenote, how ***** out of touch do you have to be to advocate such a massive upheaval in everyday American life, or naive to think that it could ever ever ever happen? 2) The congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. It is their ***** job to regulate in areas such as enviornmental protection, and the other executive agencies.
- WiseWeasel, on 11/27/2007, -1/+5Maybe we can support such a change when we see how badly our federal representatives and federal agencies are handling the various programs mentioned. The Dept. of Education has set back every school in the country with their broken 'No Child Left Behind' policy. The EPA is actually trying to prevent states from enforcing their more stringent regulations, and has been completely incapable of doing much of anything to actually protect the environment lately. The FDA is a complete disaster, approving dangerous pesticides, food products and medication for their crony friends while keeping small competitors out of the market. The FCC censors our media access and prevents new competitors from joining the market. Our congress has proven themselves incapable of legislating for our benefit rather than their campaign contributors. Personally, I'll take the chance of decentralizing all their power to the states, where it will at least be more responsive to local public pressure.
Our federal government has proven themselves to be completely incompetent, and they cannot be trusted to wield as much power as we've granted them responsibly. It's time to take that power away from them and give it back to more local authorities, or at least greatly reduce their scope at the federal level. I could see the federal government establishing minimum requirements for use of federal funds, but actual implementation should be done by the states (which can choose to combine their efforts with other states if they want - or go their own way if they see a better alternative). I could see something like the federal government offering the states implementation A, B, C, D, or provide their own alternative that meets basic requirements 1,2,3... Then, it's up to the states to either go with one of the default plans, or find an alternative by themselves, or with like-minded states.- PHiZ187, on 11/27/2007, -5/+2First, I have to note that the examples of incompetancy and cronyism are attributable largely to the Bush administration and the Republicans in congress. When you vote for people who's ideology says "government cannot work", you will get government that does not work.
Second, your proposition will work for some things but not others. There is a strong interest in avoiding the "patchwork" effect, where commercial actors are afraid to do business int he 50 states because of the cause of complying with a myriad of local laws. This is where a uniform set of laws is appropriate. The FCC, FDA, and certain programs by the EPA clearly call for this. Education, I could see that being delegated more to the states. It is a topic that would benefit greatly from local knowledge of the issues. - WiseWeasel, on 11/27/2007, -0/+6@PHiZ187: The very possibility that someone like Bush can be elected and turn all those agencies to ***** in no time is the problem we need to mitigate, by decentralizing their power. It's too risky to have a single point of failure for the whole country. I will agree that the Bush administration is responsible for highlighting the weaknesses in our federal programs, but this is a problem that should be dealt with, to ensure that no future administration has the ability to screw up our whole country so badly. By letting states run social programs, we ensure that no single corrupt individual can ruin the whole country at once.
Certain aspects of the FCC (like radio bandwidth allocation) do need to be controlled at the federal, and possibly even global level (since radio waves transcend state and national borders), but the way these decisions are made by the FCC are not in our interest, and its scope is much more broad than this. The FDA is also not doing its job, and does not actually ensure safety, due to corruption or plain lack of knowledge. There are some deep structural problems that need fixing there. The EPA hasn't done much for its namesake, and I will grant you that this is largely due to this administration, but it still demonstrates a problem with the way that agency is run if it is so susceptible to politicization and corruption. Likewise with education. It's likely that there is a need for some regulation at the national level, but we haven't found a system that will ensure this while both keeping political agendas out of federal regulatory agencies and making sure they work in the interest of citizens. Until we find such a system, the best I can come up with is to decentralize their power to the states where citizens have more representation, and at least if the next state over has a system that seems to be working better than the one in my state, I can pressure my representatives to adopt a similar system. It will facilitate much greater progress towards systems that truly work for our benefit to let many states try different approaches, and see what sticks.
- PHiZ187, on 11/27/2007, -5/+2First, I have to note that the examples of incompetancy and cronyism are attributable largely to the Bush administration and the Republicans in congress. When you vote for people who's ideology says "government cannot work", you will get government that does not work.
- mcduckov, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1The executive branch exercises a great deal of control over the federal regulatory agencies. Bush can't close the EPA but he sure as hell can appoint people who will cut enforcement actions in half. RP could appoint people who would cut enforcement actions to near zero. The consequence would be lawsuits against the EPA and RP would do what he always does, point at the constitution. In the meantime nothing would be getting done.
Perhaps you should ask RP if he agrees is is the federal government's job to regulate pollution nationally. You might be surprised at the answer (hint, you're one of those people who have not fully realized the implications of what a RP win would mean).
- WiseWeasel, on 11/27/2007, -1/+5Maybe we can support such a change when we see how badly our federal representatives and federal agencies are handling the various programs mentioned. The Dept. of Education has set back every school in the country with their broken 'No Child Left Behind' policy. The EPA is actually trying to prevent states from enforcing their more stringent regulations, and has been completely incapable of doing much of anything to actually protect the environment lately. The FDA is a complete disaster, approving dangerous pesticides, food products and medication for their crony friends while keeping small competitors out of the market. The FCC censors our media access and prevents new competitors from joining the market. Our congress has proven themselves incapable of legislating for our benefit rather than their campaign contributors. Personally, I'll take the chance of decentralizing all their power to the states, where it will at least be more responsive to local public pressure.
- bigbchew, on 11/26/2007, -7/+32What I think people fail to consider more is the way corporations and citizens could coexist without a big government. Only with big government have companies such as halliburton, dutch royal shell or blackwater been able to reap such profit. Without recent interventions, mega-oil and mega-war would have been impossible as they have relied on the horsepower militaries provide.
In a free market society, companies are successful only in doing what their customers desire. And logically, if a strong demand to be less-polluting and non-violent existed, a company would seek to adhere to it as it would lead to profitability.
Freedom, I think, solve all the things, if not more, that certain gov't regulations can. Something to consider.- notque, on 11/26/2007, -10/+4You remove one section of their profit and power, government subsidies and replace it with companies doing the job of raping the population's wealth themselves.
- bigbchew, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3I would argue that genorating revenue will always require the blessing of clients, customers and employees who deal with companies. Without it, no revenue could be made, no paychecks(-ques) could be paid and no goods could be delivered. Only when an organization is subsidized by taxes will it disregard the how well it serves its purpose.
- WiseWeasel, on 11/27/2007, -0/+4But they still have to answer to that same population, as they are legally liable for any damages they cause, and they must get their money directly from them. If you have a problem with a company, you don't give them your money, in favor of a competitor (or you start your own if you can). If they are getting government subsidies or contracts, then we are unable to reign them in through boycotting and competition. Personally, I would trust a huge number of individual citizens to keep companies in check a whole lot more than I trust our corrupt congresscritters.
- LokitheComplex, on 11/26/2007, -9/+1OK what do we do about the fat epidemic in the industrialised world.
The market says the more efficient something is the better it is for everyone. This means being offered addictive fatty, sugary food everywhere and advertised constantly is good.
Unfortunately not enough people have either the biology or will for this not to cause increasing mass health problems.- bigbchew, on 11/27/2007, -0/+8I doubt that most people have a difficulty linking fatty foods and poor exercise to getting fat. If people choose to lead a more unhealthy lifestyle that is their personal choice that no one else can control. Calling this a 'fat epidemic' implies that getting fat is something outside of their control which unless they have no basic background in nutrition or common sense, it isn't the case.
Extending to what I suggested, if there is a genuine demand for something, companies will supply it; the law of economics. Therefore I would say if there is a demand for less-fatty, more-healthy foods, there will always be someone out there willing to make money providing it.
Without big government.- LokitheComplex, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1If it is only a matter of personal choice then it was a huge coincidence that people started choosing lots of fatty food. If left to themselves a large amount of people will not be able to resist junk food. This will make for a worse society. I would guess that only technology might break this one. Maybe government research maybe corporate maybe a mix. But maybe there will be more money in making people fat than making them thin.
(I should say I am speaking from the UK) - Misesean, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2Yes, "huge coincidence". Those don't often happen. If someone does some digging, I'm sure it's directly attributable to some move government made. (The obvious linkage is government involvement in health care, which has made people less healthy)
- LokitheComplex, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1If it is only a matter of personal choice then it was a huge coincidence that people started choosing lots of fatty food. If left to themselves a large amount of people will not be able to resist junk food. This will make for a worse society. I would guess that only technology might break this one. Maybe government research maybe corporate maybe a mix. But maybe there will be more money in making people fat than making them thin.
- WiseWeasel, on 11/27/2007, -0/+7Education. Also, stop the corn and wheat subsidies that encourage the use of refined and enriched corn and wheat products instead of more healthy alternatives. We must empower people to make that decision themselves, and stop manipulating the market to favor these particular crops and products.
- LokitheComplex, on 11/27/2007, -5/+1The junk food will likely always be cheaper to produce, advertised heavily and be widely available. The corporations will also spend millions trying to warp science reporting.
The fat issue appears across the industrialised world. - WiseWeasel, on 11/27/2007, -0/+5@LokitheComplex: Education is the ultimate answer. You're not going to run people's lives for them... If you can convince people that junk food is bad for them, and if they care about their health, then they will do what's right. Otherwise, they will be ugly and die young. Who knows, maybe it will be an advantage for survival to be a fat tub of lard at some point, so who are we to say it's wrong? Have faith in the population's ability to regulate itself. At least we know that our government doesn't have all the answers, nor an ability to actually solve problems with integrity, so the solution is to have open discussion of the subject and let people decide for themselves.
- Robbothehood, on 11/27/2007, -5/+0Oh, education, where is the education going to come from, if there isn't a government to supply it? Free market forces cannot promote even schooling throughout the US. Even then, why will conglomerates sit by and let their customers get to know how bad their products are? All but underground education efforts will be bought and sold.
- WiseWeasel, on 11/27/2007, -0/+4@Robbothehood: The state and federal governments do have the means to educate people on these subjects, through schooling, PSA advertisements, and any other means of getting their message out. It's up to the public and private school systems to teach critical thinking skills that will allow people to parse the information they receive and make the "right" decision for themselves. The internet allows people to educate themselves and each-other as well, so you and I are responsible for this education, as we discuss these issues in depth. Nutritional scientists and the medical community, including our personal doctors are also responsible for education on the subject. With unrestricted communication like we have on the internet, the opportunities for education are endless.
As an aside, who are you to complain if I want to be fat and unhealthy anyways?
- LokitheComplex, on 11/27/2007, -5/+1The junk food will likely always be cheaper to produce, advertised heavily and be widely available. The corporations will also spend millions trying to warp science reporting.
- masterm1nd, on 11/27/2007, -0/+4"OK what do we do about the fat epidemic in the industrialized world"
You let people do what the what the want.
- bigbchew, on 11/27/2007, -0/+8I doubt that most people have a difficulty linking fatty foods and poor exercise to getting fat. If people choose to lead a more unhealthy lifestyle that is their personal choice that no one else can control. Calling this a 'fat epidemic' implies that getting fat is something outside of their control which unless they have no basic background in nutrition or common sense, it isn't the case.
- notque, on 11/26/2007, -10/+4You remove one section of their profit and power, government subsidies and replace it with companies doing the job of raping the population's wealth themselves.
- paulielatex, on 11/26/2007, -7/+14tehboard, you are 100% wrong --- the fact is the most socialist countries have the lowest standard of living. Don't take my word for it look up the stats: google "standard of living capitalist versus socialist"
- n8glenn, on 11/26/2007, -10/+26Ron Paul has the utmost confidence that a free society can work. He believes that people like you and I can band together to oppose abuse by the large corporations, or to enter an unregulated and free market in order to compete with businesses that abuse their customers. This does not mean that there will no longer be laws, that anything goes, and that corporations are above the law, it just means that the government will not control and regulate markets. One thing to remember is that corporations cannot have monopolies without the help of the government, and if you look at the big corporations now, they are all for government regulations, because they have lobbyists paying congressmen to pass laws that THEY WROTE! This is the reason that the corporate owned media is trying to bury Ron Paul. If his policies were actually good for the corporations, they would go all out to propagandize for him.
- LokitheComplex, on 11/26/2007, -4/+2Personally I can't imagine going against a large corporation without the help of the state.
I know people (business people) who have gone against large companies. Yes they used state against them. But that was because the tool was there.
Ultimately they said "Our Lawyers are better than yours."
And you know what they're right. They could spend far more time and money in court than my friends. So that was that.- WiseWeasel, on 11/27/2007, -0/+8Boycotts and class-action lawsuits. Alone, we might not stand much of a chance in court against Monsanto or Archer Daniels Midland, but if our legal system has taught us anything, it's that class-action suits will raise the stakes to the point that the plaintiff gets the best representation available. Big companies might have excellent legal departments (and they need them because they're such juicy targets), but large class-action suits involving many millions of dollars and hundreds or thousands of plaintiffs attract the best lawyers money can buy, and are an excellent method of preventing corporate abuse. Boycotting would be an excellent method of control as well if these companies weren't getting a majority of their income from government subsidies and contracts through corrupt officials.
- Robbothehood, on 11/27/2007, -4/+0It's government regulations that hold companies responsible for their actions that make these lawsuits possible. Legal action requires law, kind of like the ones that a government would provide. Not a government that promotes a truly free market though, no laws regulating corporations means they have no responsibility to answer to false advertising, dangerous products etc. Don't worry though, the people will find out and together they will all pass the word around about offending products and everyone will get it. By the by, big media, which seems to be running rather rampant lately, is likely to get worse before it gets better given more legal freedom to operate.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1"Personally I can't imagine going against a large corporation without the help of the state."
Just because you are weak individual doesn't mean the rest of us are.
- LokitheComplex, on 11/26/2007, -4/+2Personally I can't imagine going against a large corporation without the help of the state.
- vermin, on 11/27/2007, -3/+10This whole thread just proves how even the people on Digg get caught up in the divisive "socialist vs capitalist" ***** that gets promoted in the American media.
Within this same thread Western European countries were used as both examples of socialist and capitalist economies. So which is it? Are these great countries with high standards of living socialist or capitalist? Is there nothing in between? Are they commie bastards, or corporate pigs?
I think a lot of people need a lesson in economics and they can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy Could it be that most western countries, including the US, are actually mixed economies with socialist and capitalist elements?
For the record, Ron Paul has some radical policies that would either; not be feasible in one term, would never get backing from congress.- tehbored, on 11/27/2007, -4/+5They are in between of course. The problem with Ron Paul is that he isn't. Ron Paul is almost exclusively capitalist.
- Misesean, on 11/27/2007, -1/+5Every county is somewhere in between. At one extreme, 100% capitalist would be an anarchy - the best possible system, but there wouldn't be any "country"; at the other, 100% socialist, there wouldn't be anybody alive to be a "country" either (at the real-life farthest extremes of socialism, people only survive through the "black" market - i.e., the bit of capitalism that still exists). but what's your point? That "somewhere in the middle" is better because that's what we have today? What kind of argument is that? FWIW, Mises suggested a good place to draw the line: a county is "capitalist" if it has a stock market, and "socialist" if it doesn't. So all those European countries are capitalist. They also have bits of socialism, but they do OK _in spite of_ the socialism, not _because_ of it.
- lendrick, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1In a purely socialist society, you end up with government-owned means of production. In a purely capitalist society, you end up with a government owned by the means of production. In both cases, you have too much concentration of power.
Between pure capitalism and pure socialism, capitalism is clearly the better choice. There's no question there. The problem, though, is that people assume there's a linear curve. Just because pure capitalism is better than pure socialism doesn't mean that a mix of the two can't be better than both. There are several things that make capitalism good:
1) People have a personal incentive to succeed, and 2) You get products and services (and prices) based on supply and demand and not on what some economic planner says you need
Unfortunately, pure capitalism can kill both of these benefits. If the money ends up completely concentrated in the hands of a few people, it becomes increasingly hard for average people to succeed, thereby reducing the incentive for them to do so. The other problem with capitalism is that companies always tend toward a monopoly, which allows them to set their prices far above what their products are really worth, which kills the market's control on the cost of a given product. Limited intervention by the government can, to a large extent, alleviate these problems by providing a "safety net" and ensuring that competition exists.- Misesean, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2No; in a purely socialist society, assuming such a thing is possible (i.e., that you can prevent a "black" market - i.e., a market; otherwise it's not /purely/ socialist), there could be no significant production, regardless of what economic planners might want. A small number of people could maybe live barefoot and starving in mud huts, but you couldn't get much above that. Relevant historical example: http://www.mises.org/story/336 Also see: http://www.mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx
What makes you think "money would end up concentrated in the hands of a few people" under capitalism? There's nothing in economic theory to make you expect that, and if you look at history, the opposite always happens. I think you've just been listening to the imaginings of socialist-apologists. Your theory that "companies always tend toward a monopoly" is also false - monopoly is a result of government, it's impossible in a truly free market (capitalism): http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp (note: there are five pages, not just one)
- Misesean, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2No; in a purely socialist society, assuming such a thing is possible (i.e., that you can prevent a "black" market - i.e., a market; otherwise it's not /purely/ socialist), there could be no significant production, regardless of what economic planners might want. A small number of people could maybe live barefoot and starving in mud huts, but you couldn't get much above that. Relevant historical example: http://www.mises.org/story/336 Also see: http://www.mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx
- lendrick, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1In a purely socialist society, you end up with government-owned means of production. In a purely capitalist society, you end up with a government owned by the means of production. In both cases, you have too much concentration of power.
- Robbothehood, on 11/27/2007, -1/+2Okay tehbored, you need to come back here and restate that you meant social democracies. Those are the ones with the highest standard of living these days.
- tehbored, on 11/27/2007, -2/+1I meant social democracies. I thought that was obvious enough.
- beck001, on 11/27/2007, -3/+2I am not so sure Monopolies can be stopped... Powerful, able people will always band together for their own interests. The imbalance I see is a strong federal government that corporate interests are able to use against the people. A history of the Labor movement in the US would exemplify my point. If the weapon of 'Big Government' were not there to subjugate the people wouldn't a free people be able to fight?
- ChimpFlix, on 11/27/2007, -1/+5So-called "monopolies" in an actual free market will not be able to sustain themselves. Competition (in the guise of those clever things known as PEOPLE) will always provide alternatives to monopolies.
- billybob217, on 11/27/2007, -0/+0Then how come monopolies were such a big problem?
If there is only monopolies, people have no choice...
it is either a job w/ them or nothing; it is either use that product or live w/out it and that is problem especially if it is vital... People can only do so much w/out effecting their lives or that of their families...
When competition arises, a monopoly just buys it up and incorporates it into its system....
There has to be protection against monopolies... The lines have to be drawn... Where it needs to be drawn can be debated... But you have to understand a line needs to be there... - beck001, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1Maybe, just maybe "free-markets" are a lot like Unicorns? truthfully I am not all that educated about economics, but it seems to me the Industrialists at the turn of the century, Pullman (?), Carnegie (?) Rockefeller (?) were quite able to bend markets (were their markets considered "free" before they started manipulating them?) to their will because they were powerful enough to do so. Weren't those folks actions the impetus for the Sherman Anti-trust Act? Also weren't these industrialists using Government power where they could to suppress markets like the labor market? I guess I would love to know what books I can read that describe "real" possibilities for free-markets, free-markets that will not be corrupted and control by the few at the detriment of the majority.
I am all for a capable individual getting fully rewarded for their labor and effort, and I am totally opposed to any figure using attained power to block me from opportunities, especially if it is the power of the Government.
Anecdotally, I worked for a company a few years ago, and in a meeting the goal was to find "Barriers to entry" into the market we could erect to protect ourselves. How ***** up is that, using our market dominance to stop other companies from accessing our market? Is that free-market behavior?
- billybob217, on 11/27/2007, -0/+0Then how come monopolies were such a big problem?
- ChimpFlix, on 11/27/2007, -1/+5So-called "monopolies" in an actual free market will not be able to sustain themselves. Competition (in the guise of those clever things known as PEOPLE) will always provide alternatives to monopolies.
- billybob217, on 11/26/2007, -74/+63I agree w/ you...
- rpi22, on 11/26/2007, -10/+16What is it going to take to make this thing go pop?
- CannonFodder89, on 11/26/2007, -9/+6Either when realization that Ron Paul isn't going to get elected kicks in, or when the realization that you can't work within government to bring about meaningful change kicks in.
I'm betting on the former.- GeneralGore, on 11/27/2007, -3/+1The diehard RP supporters will never stop. Even when he isn't elected they start saying the same kind of things as malakite33.
- flahavin, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1Do you mean the Ron Paul revolution or this piece of ***** system we call American Politics 0wn3d by the 2 party system?
- CannonFodder89, on 11/26/2007, -9/+6Either when realization that Ron Paul isn't going to get elected kicks in, or when the realization that you can't work within government to bring about meaningful change kicks in.
- DeadRooster, on 11/26/2007, -83/+22Lib-er-tar-ian: A republican that is ashamed to admit he/she is a republican.
- ionbattle, on 11/26/2007, -13/+22you sir are an ignorant, and I'm forced to compound a word for emphasis, *****-mouth.
- cmulle2, on 11/26/2007, -7/+5You had a valid point until you made yourself sound like a 14 yr old
- masterm1nd, on 11/26/2007, -0/+7The top story here right now is a video of a kangaroo masturbating on camera in the back of a TV interview for ***** sake!
Irrefutable proof!
http://digg.com/videos/comedy/Kangaroo_plays_with_ ... .
- masterm1nd, on 11/26/2007, -0/+7The top story here right now is a video of a kangaroo masturbating on camera in the back of a TV interview for ***** sake!
- cmulle2, on 11/26/2007, -7/+5You had a valid point until you made yourself sound like a 14 yr old
- masterm1nd, on 11/26/2007, -3/+7I always thought it was stupid when people tell others to "read a book", but in your case, I think I'd let it slide.
- DeadRooster, on 11/27/2007, -10/+5I guess I touched a nerve here with my comment. It really is HILARIOUS to me though because I have several friends that up until very recently called themselves republicans that now call themselves libertarians. When I remind them that just a year or so ago they were staunch republicans, they get really pissed.
I'm sorry if I offende
- ionbattle, on 11/26/2007, -13/+22you sir are an ignorant, and I'm forced to compound a word for emphasis, *****-mouth.