Uhh that proves his point. In an unregulated free market the only mechanism to enforce property rights is personal force. That's why in feudal Europe land owners had armed defenses. It requires the government to step in and protect private property rights. Your statement is why China's lack of regulation and government intervention to protect private property is bad.
The Chinese government is regulating the land by denying private ownership. Socialists would prefer our government owning all land "allowing" the citizens to maintain it under strict guidelines and oversight -ala China.
I think hightop was arguing, a la the standard libertarian bullet point, that the solution to this type of corporate malfeasance would be a strongly enforced code of property rights (the Rothbard model). In this case, each poisoned landholder would sue for damages. Naturally, this does little to prevent the problem in the first place, or protect the less well-off from those with, say, larger influence. Neo-feudalism, indeed. I doubt we'll get an insightful reply about these problems, however.
If the polluters knew the strict risks of polluting the land from threat of lawsuits instead of our current corporatist system of paying off the big government/EPA "regulators" to be allowed to pollute, there would be less pollution.
Highly debatable/unlikely. But hey, vague and unsupported claims are easy to make so...have fun at it.
So, if we had the exact same system we had in 1970, the one that forced us to create the EPA in response, things would be different. RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT.
We should let polluters define environmental laws. We should let wall street define finance laws and practices we should let doctors define mal-practice laws we should factories define OSHA laws We should let drilling companies define safety laws And in most cases, through lobbying they already do. and thats' why you get things like financial collapses / bailouts, oil spills in the gulf, polluted air and rivers, and worker accidents. Genius! Not.
Look, the left has ideology - the tea party doesn't have ideology so much as some principles. We believe that left to itself, the government will grow until it stifles growth and taxes and controls everybody into submission. The reduced revenues will eventually impact all of our wealth - and only a few governmental fat cats will live well. If you are sane, and look at the long-term picture, you resist giving more power to the government. They are not here to help you.
First. Distinguish "ideology" and "principles" first and how this is relevant. I'm guessing that the former is bad, and the latter is good, but as far as I'm concerned, they're basically the same word. Second. Define "left to itself". We live in a republic, after all, so we can regulate the size of the government. The last few years has shown that we're perfectly capable of going too far in this shrinking government attack, especially in rhetoric. Libertarians and right-wing extremists seem to think that government is some inherent evil. I don't. Government's just a tool. Like a gun, it can be used for evil, and it can be used for good - contrary to what you state, government can help, and has helped us. Whether it was creating the Interstate Highway System, destroying segregation, defeating Hitler, and so on and so on.
Both the left and the right have ideology, anyone who tells you differently is trying to sell you something. I don't believe this because We, the People have the ability to constrain our government. That is the wonderful nature of our system of government, when it does things that We, the People don't like, we can elect new people to change it. As far as taxation, there is little actual evidence that even relatively high levels of taxation stifle growth in any meaningful way. Look at the period between WWII and Vietnam, we had income tax rates as high as 91% and yet people were still able to become wealthy, run businesses, raise families, and live their lives mostly free of government interference. In addition, during that time we built the interstate highway system, sent men to the moon, and began a course of technological innovation that has come to fruition over the last 15 years. So, your "principles" don't square with the facts. The reduced government revenues you seem so fond of are making it so that only a few corporate fatcats enjoy the fruits of American labor. Only the very top of the income spectrum has experienced wage growth over the last decade, the direct result of policies that lower taxes on the rich and raise taxes and fees on the rest of us. The American system of government is supposed to help We, the People. I agree that it has been corrupted by the influence of corporations and other monied interests, but the solution is not less government, it is less government collusion with corporations and the rich.
Possibly partly because of the corruption mentioned above - I see no evidence that we the people can constrain the size of the government - or governmental spending. All I see around me are governments that keep growing. Can you show me some samples of where the citizens of a country successfully decreased the size of a government? Just a small example is the massive increase of spy agencies that we have at the federal level since 9/11. Do you feel safer? Are you content with thinking that if the government thinks that they are necessary, it's a good use of your tax dollars? And back to the ideology question, I thought this statement defining the difference between conservatives and progressives made a lot of sense. Conservatives believe that people are generally self-serving and need to be carefully watched for bad behavior. Progressives believe that people are basically good. As for me, I believe that if you give politicians a bunch of money and power, they will do whatever it takes to keep that money and power (and get more). As such, I would like to reduce their numbers and power. Do you really think that more politicians and more bureaucrats will be good for the country? That they are just there to help the citizenry? That even a good politician will remain uncorrupted for long?
As I've said before... Tea party ideology, and what it will lead to? Democrats retaking the house in 2012; that's what it will lead too New Poll: Republicans Suffering In Tea Party Districts A new poll from the Pew Research Center shows that support for the Tea Party — and with it the Republican Party — has dropped precipitously in the last year. Now just 20% say they agree with the Tea Party, less than the 27% who disagree. But the news gets worse for Republicans: their favorability has dropped even further in Tea Party districts. This is part of an ongoing trend, with polls this year consistently showing a narrowing of support for the Tea Party movement. In April, Pew found that as recognition of the Tea Party grew, their favorability declined. Specifically, disapproval rose 15 points between March 2010 and April 2011. And as TPM reported in September, according to a CBS/ORC Poll, fully 53% of the public had an unfavorable opinion of the Tea Party compared to a meager 28% with a favorable view. By October, the Occupy Wall Street movement had eked out a higher approval rating than the Tea Party. Despite this trend, the new numbers represent a new low not only for the Tea Party but for the Republican Party. Whereas before, the growing disapproval of the Tea Party came from Democrats, moderates, and even moderate Republicans, these numbers show that Republican favorability has fallen steeply in Tea Party districts, 41% favorable to 48% unfavorable. Just a few months ago in March, GOP approval in these districts was a much higher 55%. Last November, when Republicans swept up dozens of seats to take the House of Representatives in the midterm elections, the Tea Party’s favorability was way up, meaning today’s numbers do not bode well for Republicans trying to hold the House in 2012. Moreover, during the last election cycle, approval of the Tea Party in these 60 districts — including 17 freshmen elected in 2010 — had outstripped disapproval, now approval is about the same as disapproval, 25% to 23%. And while Tea Party disapproval has steadily increased across the board, the debt-ceiling debacle this summer seems to have been a turning point in public opinion both of the Tea Party and the Republican Party. This fall, Republican intransigence against Obama’s jobs plan didn’t help them either. As all eyes turn towards 2012, Republicans need to shake off what appears to be buyers’ remorse in these key districts.
