To rhadamanthus: Funny, I thought the contradiction would be what you asked me to prove, and what you requested a citation on to be the contradiction. :grin: At any rate, you're completely right when you say, "That's not a case of regulation causing issues, that's outright corruption, made easy precisely because of a lack of regulation." In light of that, I think we could both agree that there should be tougher regulation on government to prosecute frauds and to protect property rights. However, I don't agree with regulation when it impedes on an individual's right to manage their property as they see fit, in as much as they aren't depriving others of the same liberty. In other words, I don't like that the government allows big tobacco to regulate the nicotine content of cigarettes in that industry (which doesn't really benefit society; rather, it allows big tobacco to keep any competition out of the industry). As for what you asked for proof on, you need look no further than to look at the sort of regulation I mentioned above in the case of big tobacco. More often than naught, regulations are implemented by government in the guise of improving society when in actuality, they benefit big business. This is often the case with FDA approval of drugs (there are many instances of the FDA rushing drugs, that were later found to be unsafe, to market due to pressure from the big pharmaceuticals companies), in farm subsidies (which often benefit corporate agriculture and make it harder for small farms to compete). I'm not saying that the government shouldn't regulate at all, but rather that they should regulate when necessary to protect people's rights, and not to benefit moneyed interests.
Here is evidence of dumb-ass socialists who would rather giver away their money (and everyone else) to a corrupt and violent government, rather than take the responsibility themselves to create jobs and help people. Brain-washed morons. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/za2Paxbn_1k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Not to be difficult, but this sounds a lot like the usual libertarian paradox, i.e., "I dislike regulation, except when it is needed." More often than not, I find that most libertarians are really against bad regulation. Subjectivity aside, I'm left wondering what's so repellent about the idea of simply "fixing" regulation instead of "eliminating" it. It's like using nuclear weapons to control a mosquito outbreak. Sure, the mosquitoes are gone, but you've made a much bigger problem.
There is nothing in any of that which suggests private enterprise shouldn't hire and employ people creating jobs. I have plenty of problems of things the govt. does, and I'm all in favor of changing those things. That doesn't mean taxes aren't necessary. Some people believe America that isn't a third world nation, with healthier citizens is actually a good thing, and worth the money it costs. You seem to care less about those things. You are entitled, but your positions are noted, and your lack of interest in the welfare of our nation as a whole, or its citizens as individuals has been noted.
Well, I don't think regulation should be all together eliminated. You could say we'd agree. We should fix our regulatory framework to protect people's rights, and eliminate the regulations that aren't doing so. I don't think there's anything paradoxical about it. If the regulation isn't there to protect people's individual rights then it shouldn't be on the books.
I don't think anyone disagrees that we should have good regulations and not bad ones. The issue is what specific regulation you think are good or bad. For example, Ohio's Republican Governor decided to get rid of (or not extend) his Democratic predecessor's regulation banning new private ownership of exotic animals. As it turned out, such a regulation might have been useful in light of recent events. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/10/20/349054/kasich-animals-bamals/
I find this opinion to be a little bit idyllic. In todays world economy, most every person would believe that their moneyed interests, whether that includes their tangible assets, their education/services they can sell, their ability to find a job, or even their ability to find people to buy their services/goods to, and their rights to be entwined.
Guys like Hightop are fighting hard for our economic freedom. And by that I mean our freedom to sell our kidney to the highest bidder.
Well, you did say you were "against intervention in markets". Incidentally, this is a major part of the libertarian party's official platform: No argument, except that the subjective nature of this sort of standard makes it less then plausible from a practical standpoint. It's rather analogous to the Potter Stewart line about p*rnography: "I know it when I see it." More to the point, regulation is incredibly important for the critical areas of our economy (specifically banks) as the 2008 crisis readily demonstrated. To quote myself from a previous thread: Consistent libertarian theorists (well, American libertarians anyhow) sound ridiculous when they extend the "deregulate" mantra to the logical extreme. "Moderate" libertarians have yet to explain (at least, as far as I've seen) how they intend to delineate "good and necessary" regulation from "bad" regulation. IMO, this is a real problem within American libertarian political rhetoric.
How do you define individual rights? Don't people have a right to breathe clean air so then shouldn't there be a Clean Air Act? Should people who are wheelchair bound have a right to be able to work so shouldn't there be an Americans with Disabilities Act?
There are no individual rights for regular people, those who leech off the producers of society. There are only rights for people like John Galt.
Excellent post. I would rep you if it would let me. I think you encapsulate my biggest problem with libertarians. It's like there is no such thing as a pragmatic libertarian.
People like John Galt are as likely to exist as Homo Sovieticus or an Aryan Superman, or for that matter, Doctor Who. Tearing down traditional religion, Soviet Communism and whatever Randian boogeyman and replacing it with an authoritarian messiah of greed is hardly a step forward in human thought. If Ayn Rand is right, we might as well elect Vladimir Putin as Emperor of Earth.
I tend to lean toward the point of view that people have infinite rights that should only be limited when the conflict with the rights of others. I know that sounds a bit vague, but it's actually quite simple to apply to various situations. For example, people do have a right to clean air. That's why I'm supportive of regulation that establishes a cost to individuals and businesses for polluting (to compensate those whose right to clean air is violated). In the field of environmental economics, this is achieved through policy that grants either party in conflict a property right. In this situation, either the right to have clean air, or the right to produce something which creates emissions. Regardless of which party is endowed with the property right, an equilibrium prevails in which the cost to the party whose right is infringed is balanced with the cost to the perpetrator of compensating the party whose right is infringed. This same idea can be applied to other issues in which there is a conflict between people's rights. Rights are most definitely intertwined, as Rpr52121 stated. In general, the purpose of regulation is to arbitrate in situations like those mentioned. Just to address the regulation banning private ownership of exotic animals, why is it that the party responsible for letting those exotic animals out of captivity held responsible for the trouble they caused? To me, it makes more sense to hold that person responsible than to ban the private ownership of exotic animals, as though allowing only public ownership of exotic animals (public zoo's, etc.) would prevent those exotic animals from inadvertently being released from captivity.
Can't edit. This should read like this: Just to address the regulation banning private ownership of exotic animals, why is it that the party responsible for letting those exotic animals out of captivity isn't held responsible for the trouble they caused? To me, it makes more sense to hold that person responsible than to ban the private ownership of exotic animals, as though allowing only public ownership of exotic animals (public zoo's, etc.) would prevent those exotic animals from inadvertently being released from captivity.
In that particular case, the responsible party shot himself right after releasing the animals, so holding him responsible isn't possible. Doesn't matter to me though, I don't have nearly as expansive idea of what rights people should have. In my worldview, there is no problem at all with restricting a person's permission to own exotic animals even though the risk of affecting other people is remote. I'm more a Social Contract guy -- if people want to restrict their own rights collectively through legitimate political channels, more power to them. And, if some minority member doesn't like it, he can lump it.
Thanks for the trenchant post. Wrong thread though... http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=209808
WHAT THE HELL IS THIS? I'm terribly, terribly sorry, but this is just.............you are saying that people should, uh, use their own money to create jobs and help people. Seriously? Then you must be anti-capitalist, because in pure capitalism, the only incentive is greed and the pursuit of profit. And profit doesn't always equal more jobs and 'help people'. Job creation is a side-effect, not cause or ultimate goal, of profit. And take responsibility? WTF? Take responsibility for what? You are saying that somehow, I, the rich guy, should provide jobs and help people, not this strange entity of the people, by the people and for the people? What kind of nonsensical logic is this? The very basic idea that 'give away their money to a corrupt and violent government' is basically saying that government should not be taxing people! Oh wow, uh why did we form governments in the first place? Oh yeah, so that we could ascend from being cavemen and barbarians and actually form a frickin society. This is nuts. Also, for johndoe, I've got a question. Do you think that the government can ever, ever, have a situation where it does indeed know what is best for the people? And implement it successfully?
