youtube.com— Spread the message of freedom and individual liberty by rating and commenting on this video, as well as reposting it.
Mar 24, 2009View in Crawl 4
to everyone the video title comes not from me who posted it on digg but from the video maker who is a huge Ron Paul supporter and the titile/his title should be seen as kind of sarcasm.....
Law is different from regulation.Laws ensure there is no 'funny business'. Perhaps specific committees whose, sole job it would be is to ensure there is no funny business, can be appointed to larger examples like AIG. That, and let companies fail when they deserve to. You know what prevents people from cheating? The knowledge that they will lose their jobs and their livelihood. Assuming we enforce the law properly.
Exactly. Look who blew the whistle on Enron. Was it regulators, who are continually lauded on Digg despite their impotent ineffectiveness?? Or was it a few "shorts," those eeeevil hypercapitalists constantly disparaged by the media?? Same with Madoff. The SEC spent f**kin' DECADES ignoring warning signs and explicit warnings, but their incompetence is almost guaranteed to lead to MORE money from this idiotic Congress. And the same WILL BE true with the CFTC and precious metal price manipulation now being done to control the warning signs of inflation. In all these cases, bureaucratic regulatory failure will be REWARDED WITH MORE TAX MONEY. Then people will wonder why things are always so f**ked-up, despite the perverse incentives I just repeatedly outlined off the top of my head.
Was it "deregulation" for Bush to spend $20 Billion MORE inflation adjusted tax dollars on regulation than Clinton spent on it?? Help me out with the NewSpeak here, ok?? I don't get it, because I'm one of those people who always wanted LESS SPENDING, and what I want HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED IN MY LIFETIME. EVER. Ok, so the money's out. Clearly spending BILLIONS more on it makes the NewSpeak proponents nervous, so how 'bout the (Clinton signed it, but we'll ignore that) repeal of Glass-Steagel?? That was "deregulation," right? Nope.I could have repealed that law in LESS than one page. Congress took more than 900 pages of (regulation?? What the f**k ELSE could 900 pages of Congressional bulls**t be? Asswipe when it's recycled??) to do it. The complexity is what made Phil Gramm's UBS-wife rich just like a whole bunch of well-connected Democrats. Deregulation -- the real kind -- would not have taken so much LAW, let alone so damn much money. Please, stop cooperating with the media's anti-libertarian NewSpeak-rewriting of the history of Dubya's fiscal failure. There are LOTS of better words for an expensive failure than "deregulation." I nominate "f**kedregulation," but various less tawdry choices also describe the situation better than the media's bigoted NewSpeak.
You're correct. Most Paul and Obama supporters want the same things. We want to live in peace and prosper however we believe they're attainable in different ways. Also, you're correct in saying that there should be oversight, rules, and regulations...but not of the people but of the government! Our government's sole job should exclusively be to defend our rights and protect us from force and coercion. Period. However, government shouldn't protect us from making bad personal decisions. And to answer your hypothetical question, If for any reason Walmart tried to force or coerce people to become serfs, our government should step in as a mediator and halt them, but they shouldn't regulate every aspect of our lives just to benefit the government protected corporations... (Which is what they're doing today) A government that has a lot of control over its people will always be bought off... It's a fact. Your desire of having a powerful government w/ oversight, rules and regulatory bodies, where everybody is taken care of, is completely Utopian and completely unrealistic. History proves that big government is guaranteed to be bribed or coerced by greedy and power hungry individuals... There's no way around it. -I guess where we differ is that I have confidence in the majority of the people, while you have confidence in a powerful small minority of people. -I don't think our lives need to be centrally managed and controlled whereas you believe that we need to be told what to do with every aspect of our lives. -I think people do best to make their own personal decisions even if sometimes the decisions are bad , and you don't think people should make their own personal decisions, even if they're bad for themselves. -I have confidence in myself and in my own decisions, you don't have confidence in yourself and in your own decisions.-I accept the possibility of failure while you don't think the government should allow rich and poor people to fail.-I think government should protect people from force, you believe the government should use force on people... Even if the government says it's for our own good.The sad truth is that our politicians pass regulations that clearly protect the big corporations from competition, all under the disguise that they're protecting us, the consumer... It's total baloney and I wish you would see that. Corporations can only use force if they get the support from the government. Period.
Left right politics is for the birds....Who cares what party Ron Paul is? -- Call him a classical Liberal or a conservative, a pro life libertarian --- either way he speaks liberty and makes any American proud.
Yes I love it!!People pointing out Capitalism does not rely on the government intervention for an unfair advantage! -- So many people think this is capitalism at its finest when this could not be further from the truth. That is a merger of the State and private sector = fascism! Look at NAFTA ---- Government managed trade (intervention) -- NAFTA is NOT Free Trade, it is government managed trade. We can all thank the crooks on Capital Hill for selling out our American entrepreneurs to third world countries with little or any taxes and regulations to compete with so the corporations could produce cheaper goods and allowed them a larger profit. They (third world countries) now have all of our production jobs and how can American entrepreneurs compete with these corporations who can exploit this? – We cannot! It is why we make almost nothing here and hand over Our Fiat currency for tangible items. 110% created by government force. Forcing us to go along with thisAll government is force and they have nothing without using it on the people.RON PAUL IS MY PRESIDENT!!!
Closed AccountMar 24, 2009Submitter
to everyone the video title comes not from me who posted it on digg but from the video maker who is a huge Ron Paul supporter and the titile/his title should be seen as kind of sarcasm.....
alexgrantMar 25, 2009
Law is different from regulation.Laws ensure there is no 'funny business'. Perhaps specific committees whose, sole job it would be is to ensure there is no funny business, can be appointed to larger examples like AIG. That, and let companies fail when they deserve to. You know what prevents people from cheating? The knowledge that they will lose their jobs and their livelihood. Assuming we enforce the law properly.
Closed AccountMar 25, 2009
Cassandra is the proper analogy. Doomed to both be telling the truth & totally-ignored by the people you're trying to give a clue.
Closed AccountMar 25, 2009
Exactly. Look who blew the whistle on Enron. Was it regulators, who are continually lauded on Digg despite their impotent ineffectiveness?? Or was it a few "shorts," those eeeevil hypercapitalists constantly disparaged by the media?? Same with Madoff. The SEC spent f**kin' DECADES ignoring warning signs and explicit warnings, but their incompetence is almost guaranteed to lead to MORE money from this idiotic Congress. And the same WILL BE true with the CFTC and precious metal price manipulation now being done to control the warning signs of inflation. In all these cases, bureaucratic regulatory failure will be REWARDED WITH MORE TAX MONEY. Then people will wonder why things are always so f**ked-up, despite the perverse incentives I just repeatedly outlined off the top of my head.
Closed AccountMar 25, 2009
Was it "deregulation" for Bush to spend $20 Billion MORE inflation adjusted tax dollars on regulation than Clinton spent on it?? Help me out with the NewSpeak here, ok?? I don't get it, because I'm one of those people who always wanted LESS SPENDING, and what I want HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED IN MY LIFETIME. EVER. Ok, so the money's out. Clearly spending BILLIONS more on it makes the NewSpeak proponents nervous, so how 'bout the (Clinton signed it, but we'll ignore that) repeal of Glass-Steagel?? That was "deregulation," right? Nope.I could have repealed that law in LESS than one page. Congress took more than 900 pages of (regulation?? What the f**k ELSE could 900 pages of Congressional bulls**t be? Asswipe when it's recycled??) to do it. The complexity is what made Phil Gramm's UBS-wife rich just like a whole bunch of well-connected Democrats. Deregulation -- the real kind -- would not have taken so much LAW, let alone so damn much money. Please, stop cooperating with the media's anti-libertarian NewSpeak-rewriting of the history of Dubya's fiscal failure. There are LOTS of better words for an expensive failure than "deregulation." I nominate "f**kedregulation," but various less tawdry choices also describe the situation better than the media's bigoted NewSpeak.
Closed AccountMar 25, 2009
The Republican party would be A LOT less credible when they talk about "small government" (and they're bad enough as it is!).
thinbevMar 25, 2009
You're correct. Most Paul and Obama supporters want the same things. We want to live in peace and prosper however we believe they're attainable in different ways. Also, you're correct in saying that there should be oversight, rules, and regulations...but not of the people but of the government! Our government's sole job should exclusively be to defend our rights and protect us from force and coercion. Period. However, government shouldn't protect us from making bad personal decisions. And to answer your hypothetical question, If for any reason Walmart tried to force or coerce people to become serfs, our government should step in as a mediator and halt them, but they shouldn't regulate every aspect of our lives just to benefit the government protected corporations... (Which is what they're doing today) A government that has a lot of control over its people will always be bought off... It's a fact. Your desire of having a powerful government w/ oversight, rules and regulatory bodies, where everybody is taken care of, is completely Utopian and completely unrealistic. History proves that big government is guaranteed to be bribed or coerced by greedy and power hungry individuals... There's no way around it. -I guess where we differ is that I have confidence in the majority of the people, while you have confidence in a powerful small minority of people. -I don't think our lives need to be centrally managed and controlled whereas you believe that we need to be told what to do with every aspect of our lives. -I think people do best to make their own personal decisions even if sometimes the decisions are bad , and you don't think people should make their own personal decisions, even if they're bad for themselves. -I have confidence in myself and in my own decisions, you don't have confidence in yourself and in your own decisions.-I accept the possibility of failure while you don't think the government should allow rich and poor people to fail.-I think government should protect people from force, you believe the government should use force on people... Even if the government says it's for our own good.The sad truth is that our politicians pass regulations that clearly protect the big corporations from competition, all under the disguise that they're protecting us, the consumer... It's total baloney and I wish you would see that. Corporations can only use force if they get the support from the government. Period.
oldskoolpatriotMar 26, 2009
Left right politics is for the birds....Who cares what party Ron Paul is? -- Call him a classical Liberal or a conservative, a pro life libertarian --- either way he speaks liberty and makes any American proud.
oldskoolpatriotMar 26, 2009
Yes I love it!!People pointing out Capitalism does not rely on the government intervention for an unfair advantage! -- So many people think this is capitalism at its finest when this could not be further from the truth. That is a merger of the State and private sector = fascism! Look at NAFTA ---- Government managed trade (intervention) -- NAFTA is NOT Free Trade, it is government managed trade. We can all thank the crooks on Capital Hill for selling out our American entrepreneurs to third world countries with little or any taxes and regulations to compete with so the corporations could produce cheaper goods and allowed them a larger profit. They (third world countries) now have all of our production jobs and how can American entrepreneurs compete with these corporations who can exploit this? – We cannot! It is why we make almost nothing here and hand over Our Fiat currency for tangible items. 110% created by government force. Forcing us to go along with thisAll government is force and they have nothing without using it on the people.RON PAUL IS MY PRESIDENT!!!