Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,617 Year: 4,874/9,624 Month: 222/427 Week: 32/103 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Does Republican Platform Help Middle Class?
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 421 of 440 (614028)
04-30-2011 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 414 by crashfrog
04-27-2011 12:07 AM


I don't recall making any claims about who was, or wasn't, a "caring person"; to me it seems more like a function of personal incentive. Someone who makes money as a direct percentage of company profits - the owner and CEO, for instance - has a lot to gain, personally, by making the decision to violate the property rights of others and steal from them by polluting into their water, rather that paying for costly disposal of hazardous wastes.
They also have a lot to LOSE personally, by making decisions that that show most any type of disregard for the general public, some of whom they depend on to buy their product or service. Companies lose, and go out of business all the time. The only time it’s in the news is when the company is big enough/corrupt enough for the owner to walk away with a golden parachute. The other 99% of the time, the owner loses most everything he has.
They might even write an article in Forbes redefining "property rights" as the right to violate other people's property rights to their air and water. A bureaucrat, on the other hand, gets paid the same regardless, basically, so what's their incentive to "mission creep" besides the legitimate need for regulation?
Paid the same, you seem to think that money is the only thing that controls human activity, but it often comes in second or third, when it comes to individual motivation. Carol Browner qualifies/qualified as a tyrant by most standards the U.S. founders used to describe one. The world is full of people who practically live to give other people orders, whether it’s in business or government. Leaders are needed in both, but there are far fewer people who are qualified to be leaders than those who wish they were. There are zealots, busybodies, who puff themselves up and get their jollies watching others submit to their commands, and whatever monetary rewards that can come from it vary greatly in importance to them. Even so, in some cases, such as that of a president, or a bureaucrat like Browner, the monetary rewards can be huge. The U.S. president’s salary is currently $400,000 per year, plus benefits. Somewhere between half and three quarter of a billion dollars was spent to get him elected. Little if any of it was his own money of course, but if there’s that much financial interest in getting him elected, do you suppose he may get a few gifts, depending on where he visits, where he speaks, or what special interest he endorses? That can be equally, or more true, when it comes to an unelected bureaucrat like Browner. How many companies wouldn’t be glad to give her a gift, or a contribution for anything she wants to do, if only she conveniently fails to notice some environmental misstep they’re making? The harsher she is in general, the bigger gifts she can get to not be harsh sometimes.
But another danger about bureaucrats like Browner is how they can cater to special interests that seek to undermine the U.S. society and its values. At one time, Browner was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for global governance and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change. Enemies of the U.S. certainly agree, and gifts to Browner for using her position of power to shrink the U.S. economy a lot more likely than your claims of gifts and rewards to company CEO’s who enthusiastically poison the air and water to sicken and kill people who buy their products.
Some environmentalists are blaming "climate change" for the recent tornadoes in Alabama. The possibility of eliminating tornadoes by addressing climate change (and shrinking the economy) seems to excite them very much.
And what actions are you talking about, specifically?
The ones that were described in that link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by crashfrog, posted 04-27-2011 12:07 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2011 9:54 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 426 by Jon, posted 04-30-2011 10:03 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 434 by ZenMonkey, posted 05-02-2011 1:10 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 422 of 440 (614029)
04-30-2011 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by Dr Adequate
04-27-2011 1:42 AM


The Founding Fathers knew perfectly well that left to themselves some people will enrich themselves unjustly at the expense of others;
marc9000 writes:
And where did they reference this? Where does it say that in the constitution? Which Federalist paper?
I based my assertion on the proposition that the Founding Fathers were neither retarded nor gibbering mad.
So you have nothing? You are a history revisionist in every sense of the word. If the founders had any issues at all with restrictions of free markets, they would have made plenty of reference to it, not only in the constitution/declaration/bill of rights, but in other documented speeches, letters, etc.
Obviously some people enrich themselves unjustly at the expense of others. For example, muggers. Burglars. Pickpockets. Swindlers. Forgers.
We’re talking about free market activity, not thieves. If you equate free market activity with thievery, then you’re no believer in free markets, or the structure of the U.S. government.
I do not need to quote the Federalist Papers or the Constitution to demonstrate that the Founding Fathers knew this, any more than I need to quote the Federalist Papers or the Constitution to prove that they knew that grass is green and water is wet. These are facts universally conceded.
The founding fathers may have known it, but they also knew that it was none of their business, and none of the governments business. That's a historical fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-27-2011 1:42 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by Jon, posted 04-30-2011 9:56 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 432 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-01-2011 12:22 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 423 of 440 (614030)
04-30-2011 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 417 by Dr Adequate
04-27-2011 4:09 AM


Since the War of Independence was not to any degree fought over the meaning of the General Welfare Clause, which had not at that time been written, this hardly seems to apply.
U.S. history 101, it was in every degree fought over repeated injuries and usurpations by the King of Great Britain, as listed in the Declaration of Independence. Different ideologies of who determines general welfare.
Perhaps this explains why the Founding Fathers had different interpretations of the General Welfare Clause, rather than a single collective interpretation.
Their interpretations varied somewhat, but there was enough agreement about limiting government to keep its powers narrowly defined, and allow definitions of the general welfare to be debated and decided in each case. A good example of general welfare applying to a future action that the founders couldn’t have forseen was the U.S. interstate highway system. By the 1950’s, its time had come, it promoted the general welfare as a compliment to the constitutional requirement of posting roads, and accomplished something that individual citizens couldn’t do for themselves. Things like that are what the general welfare clause was intended to address, not government retirement programs and government health care. (though it’s quite likely that presidents Jefferson or Madison would have vetoed an interstate highway system — they would have said let each state do it their own way)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-27-2011 4:09 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 424 of 440 (614031)
04-30-2011 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 421 by marc9000
04-30-2011 9:30 PM


They also have a lot to LOSE personally, by making decisions that that show most any type of disregard for the general public, some of whom they depend on to buy their product or service.
Not really. There are plenty of clueless or apathetic folks - like yourself! - who are completely unaffected by the notion of saving a couple of bucks at the expense of an aquifer or two. I mean, you didn't stop buying electricity, right? Even though your power company contributed to the improper storage of a fly ash pond which resulted in tens of millions of gallons of groundwater being contaminated with heavy metals?
Did you even know about it? It probably wasn't your water, so why would you care?
So, no. I don't see much of a market incentive against pollution. Indeed, pollution is the economics-textbook example of an "externality", a "cost of doing business" that doesn't actually fall on those engaged in the transaction.
Paid the same, you seem to think that money is the only thing that controls human activity, but it often comes in second or third, when it comes to individual motivation.
Usually people don't pick their own pockets. I don't know if that makes money their "top priority" but clearly monetary incentives influence behavior. That's the fundamental truth underlying economics.
Carol Browner qualifies/qualified as a tyrant by most standards the U.S. founders used to describe one.
Again - her actions are restrained by laws. So, no, she's not a "tyrant", she's a public servant executing the duties of her office. She just happened to rub the writer of your article the wrong way - probably, she regulated his business or something - and you've taken a great deal of self-motivated grousing at face-value.
The U.S. president’s salary is currently $400,000 per year, plus benefits.
True. How much should it be? It's kind of a 24-7 deal, even on vacation he's not really ever on vacation.
How much should it be when your guy is president?
Enemies of the U.S. certainly agree, and gifts to Browner for using her position of power to shrink the U.S. economy a lot more likely than your claims of gifts and rewards to company CEO’s who enthusiastically poison the air and water to sicken and kill people who buy their products.
Here you go with the conspiracy theories again. What's your evidence that Browner was taking bribes? And why do you think that the people being poisoned by the hypothetical CEO are the ones who would buy his products? Why would it have to be? What if he poisons Kentucky streams and just sells the power to Tennessee?
Some environmentalists are blaming "climate change" for the recent tornadoes in Alabama.
Which is obviously and scientifically valid. Given the reality of climate change, the reality of its effects on weather and the creation of storm systems, it's not reasonable to suggest that climate change was not involved. What else is the explanation for almost five times the number of tornadoes so far in this storm season, and more than double the previous record? That's just a coincidence?
The possibility of eliminating tornadoes by addressing climate change (and shrinking the economy) seems to excite them very much.
Nobody's suggesting that it's possible to eliminate tornadoes, but it's worth addressing the factors that apparently created more than four times the usual frequency of such storms. Don't you think Alabama's economy just shrinked as a result of the destruction? How much money can 300 dead people (and rising) spend?
The ones that were described in that link.
You answered generally. I asked you which actions specifically.
Do you understand the difference between "general" and "specific"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by marc9000, posted 04-30-2011 9:30 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 429 by marc9000, posted 04-30-2011 10:26 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 425 of 440 (614032)
04-30-2011 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by marc9000
04-30-2011 9:40 PM


What a Joke
We’re talking about free market activity, not thieves.
How many cars do you think Mr. Akerson has built recently?
If you equate free market activity with thievery, then you’re no believer in free markets, or the structure of the U.S. government.
Now that is some funny shit, man! A total load of crap... but funny.
You are a history revisionist in every sense of the word. If the founders had any issues at all with restrictions of free markets, they would have made plenty of reference to it, not only in the constitution/declaration/bill of rights, but in other documented speeches, letters, etc.
The Founders, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, documented speeches, letters, etc. are all irrelevant.
The founding fathers may have known it, but they also knew that it was none of their business, and none of the governments business. That's a historical fact.
Oh! There you go again... telling another funny! These jokes of yours crack me up!
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by marc9000, posted 04-30-2011 9:40 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 426 of 440 (614033)
04-30-2011 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 421 by marc9000
04-30-2011 9:30 PM


The possibility of eliminating tornadoes by addressing climate change (and shrinking the economy) seems to excite them very much.
How does it shrink the economy?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by marc9000, posted 04-30-2011 9:30 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 430 by marc9000, posted 04-30-2011 10:28 PM Jon has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 427 of 440 (614034)
04-30-2011 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 418 by ZenMonkey
04-27-2011 4:25 PM


You mean the guy who just turned down the opportunity to receive a heart transplant?
That’s exactly the one I mean. Whether or not he turned it down is absolutely irrelevant.
Your point is irrelevant. You have a single case of one inmate who could have received an relatively expensive procedure, but won't. This is hardly evidence of a widespread demand for expensive medical procedures among the US inmate population as a whole.
You were the one that provided evidence of the widespread demand. From your link;
quote:
In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prisoners were entitled to the same medical and dental treatment as everyone else in their communitities.
You're wrong, and if you actually looked at the documentation I provided in Message 411, you'd see that it's not my opinion, it's a fact. The free market offers no solution to the cost of health care.
The free market can’t offer solutions to increased government involvement in their business, they can’t offer solutions to government corruption.
Considering that you have nothing to counter these facts other than the bare assertion that government is to blame, I can see why you now have nothing left to say.
As I can see you have nothing to address the documented increasing government involvement in healthcare laws. Prison inmates HAVE NOT not always had access to the health care of today’s technology. Only recent laws / court rulings have changed it. Increased government involvement.
Also, exactly who do you mean when you refer to the people who costly medical technologies developed by and for? Do you somehow think that medical researchers are saying, "Well, we don't want this new antibiotic to go to those sorts of people. It's only for our sort of people."? Do you know anything about medical ethics at all?
The medical researchers say, we want this new antibiotic to go to anyone who has the money to pay for it. At least, that’s what they said back when free markets still actually had much to do with health care.
Dr Adequate was using citations from the Constitution itself, as well as a pertinent statement from Alexander Hamilton, and a clear factual analysis of the subsequent history of the interpretation of the General Welfare clause. Exactly what part of that is "far left talking points from the internet?" Do you have a particular site in mind that you think he plagiarized from?
He gets it from history revisionists of the Democrat party. It’s everywhere. But you won’t find historical facts like the following on any of his reference sites.
quote:
President James Madison on March 3, 1817 vetoed a public works bill saying: "Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled 'An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,' and which sets apart and pledges funds 'for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,' I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States and to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated."
Madison; "The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers."
In 1854, President Franklin Piece vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. (To approve the measure) would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
The letter and spirit? In 1854? The actual meaning of the constitution was alive and well many decades after it was written. But it seems 225 years is just too long for some people.
quote:
President Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill for charity relief, saying, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
Why didn’t Cleveland invoke the general welfare clause? Because he knew how the constitution and bill of rights limited its use? That if Hamilton wanted a loose interpretation of the general welfare clause specified in the constitution, he didn’t get his wish? He was outvoted?
You seem to have an inability to think in anything other than extremes. To a rational mind, there is an significant difference between Congress being responsible for expenditures for the General Welfare, and doing "absolutely anything it wanted."
Explain that difference to me. What would the government be restricted in doing? What government activity couldn’t possibly be worded/described to fall under general welfare?
First, Tytler never said that; you're simply passing on yet another Made-up Quote for Conservatives. Second, considering that Tytler most significant book was on how best to translate Greek and Latin, that doesn't necessarily lend him a tremendous amount of authority in matters of political analysis. Third, if he did have something significant to say about democratic forms of government, it's not likely that Hamilton or anyone else would have known about it, as the book that Tytler did write on history was apparently published posthumously in 1850.
Again, you're presenting an argument ad absurdum. Way absurdum.
It doesn’t really matter who said it. It states that unlimited Democracy can’t last, and Hamilton said unlimited democracy can’t last. Do you believe the U.S. is still rising in prosperity? This link should give you a hint;
Private pay shrinks to historic lows as gov't payouts rise - USATODAY.com
quote:
Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds.
At the same time, government-provided benefits from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010.
The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all, he says. "This is really important," Grimes says.
You mean Federalist #45, in which Madison argues that the Federal government will never be stronger than the respective state governments, since among other reasons, only state legislatures can elect the President, just as only state legislatures can elect US senators? Madison appears to be a bit behind the times. In case you never heard of it, the US fought a civil war sometime in the middle of the 19th century, and one of the issues that that war decided was that the Union was in fact more than an association of independent sovereign states. History is not on your side, nor is it on Madison's. You are correct in saying that Madison was a vital formative force in the shaping of the American form of government. However, on this particular point - the meaning of the General Welfare clause and the subsequent power of Congress to tax and spend - Madison's view did not prevail.
Why did Grover Cleveland indicate that it did, 100 years later?
Because he knew that the text of the constitution proves it. Any founder who believed in a loose interpretation of the general welfare clause didn’t get ANY constitutional wording in his favor.
Do you have any data at all to back up any of these assertions? I'd be interested to see it.
I saw it all with my own eyes. If you don’t believe it, it’s an indicator that you may be out of touch with reality. What do you expect me to do, take some pictures of the empty test stations and post them here?
Data, please. Anything?
Did you notice the link about mission creep? Here it is again. You won’t read it of course, but the data is there.
Carol Browner, master of mission creep
Well, for sane people, the time to dig the well is not when you're dying of thirst. You don't put off funding the fire department until after the house is already burning down. But that's just for sane people, I guess.
The way to do something about losses of liberty due to government meddling should be anything but giving the government more power.
Who said the program failed? You?
It was discontinued, and its insignificance concerning cleanliness was reluctantly mentioned by the liberal news media.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-27-2011 4:25 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-01-2011 12:38 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 428 of 440 (614035)
04-30-2011 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by Meddle
04-27-2011 9:17 PM


Just to say that in the UK the average cost of a heart transplant is about 30,000 ($50,000) which is still quite a lot, but is a fraction of what you have to pay. Is this the marvels of the free market you talk of?
As I said above, the free market can’t provide solutions to government meddling in their affairs.
quote:
James R. Copland, the report's director, said that trial lawyers gross more than $49 billion annually. That, he said, is more than the U.S. operations of Walgreens, Boeing, or Allstate, more than twice as much as Archer Daniels Midland, more than three times as much as Motorola, and fully seven times as much as McDonald's.
http://madisonrecord.com/news/contentview.asp?c=185639
A trial lawyer’s television ad in my area claims that insurance companies make $60 billion per year. That adds up to $109 billion, and the money has to come from somewhere. Insurance companies don’t always mind government meddling — as I said earlier in this thread, companies in free markets will gladly spend money on anything, as long as it results in them getting more money somewhere else, and they don’t care where else. Our tort laws are fantastic tools for insurance companies to scare people into buying more insurance from them. More than an additional $49 billion worth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Meddle, posted 04-27-2011 9:17 PM Meddle has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 429 of 440 (614037)
04-30-2011 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 424 by crashfrog
04-30-2011 9:54 PM


Not really. There are plenty of clueless or apathetic folks - like yourself! - who are completely unaffected by the notion of saving a couple of bucks at the expense of an aquifer or two.
Here you go with the conspiracy theories again.
We do have irony!
How much should it be when your guy is president?
My POINT was, that his salary is microscopic when compared to the gifts / bribes / corruption that are involved in his actions. Just like EPA administrators.
Nobody's suggesting that it's possible to eliminate tornadoes, but it's worth addressing the factors that apparently created more than four times the usual frequency of such storms. Don't you think Alabama's economy just shrinked as a result of the destruction? How much money can 300 dead people (and rising) spend?
Of course nobodys suggesting that, because that would require some documentation, something that environmentalists seldom provide when they seek to destroy liberty by limiting the use of fossil fuels.
You answered generally. I asked you which actions specifically.
Do you understand the difference between "general" and "specific"?
I didn't bother - I had hoped your attention span would last at least halfway through my link, but now we see that you didn’t even make it to the bottom of page 2.
quote:
Last September Browner announced the release of a new EPA report setting forth a broad national agenda to protect children from environmental risks. She followed up the report with the creation earlier this year of the Office of Children's Health Protection at EPA.
There was no congressional mandate, but Congress meekly went along by failing to challenge the agency's justification of the program. Who would want to face reelection accused of being callous toward children? Especially when the EPA's kept researchers stand by ready to produce scare studies on EPA money (see box, p. 172).
"Setting fourth a broad agenda" - "creation of an office" - she doesn't follow laws, congress follows her laws. Gifts may have been exchanged, suggestions (possibly from outside the U.S.) may have been made.
Edited by marc9000, : added a quote that I forgot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2011 9:54 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 430 of 440 (614038)
04-30-2011 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by Jon
04-30-2011 10:03 PM


How does it shrink the economy?
Your jokes amuse me too. 6th grade economics - if the government restricts the use of fossil fuels to combat climate change, there will be less economic activity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Jon, posted 04-30-2011 10:03 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 431 by Jon, posted 04-30-2011 11:30 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 431 of 440 (614043)
04-30-2011 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 430 by marc9000
04-30-2011 10:28 PM


if the government restricts the use of fossil fuels to combat climate change
Has the government done this?
there will be less economic activity.
Do you have any proof for this?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by marc9000, posted 04-30-2011 10:28 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 368 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 432 of 440 (614048)
05-01-2011 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 422 by marc9000
04-30-2011 9:40 PM


So you have nothing?
You are, of course, lying.
You are a history revisionist in every sense of the word.
You are, of course, lying.
If the founders had any issues at all with restrictions of free markets, they would have made plenty of reference to it, not only in the constitution/declaration/bill of rights, but in other documented speeches, letters, etc.
What is this gibberish? I said that the Founding Fathers knew that some people, left to themselves, would enrich themselves unjustly at the expense of others.
This has nothing to do with the economic concept of a free market, in which transactions are voluntary.
If you equate free market activity with thievery ...
I did not, and if you think that this nonsense will fool anyone into thinking that I did, then you are a bigger fool then I took you for.
What I said, as anyone can see, is that thievery is an example of one person unjustly enriching himself at the expense of another, and that the Founding Fathers were aware of the existence of such examples.
The founding fathers may have known it, but they also knew that it was none of their business, and none of the governments business. That's a historical fact.
You appear to have got so wrapped up in the stupid lies you yourself have told about what I wrote that you've gone way over the border between reality and la-la land.
Back in reality, the Founding Fathers knew perfectly well that it was one of the most important functions of government to prevent one person from unjustly enriching himself at the expense of another. This is why they raised no objection to laws against burglary. Or counterfeiting. Or assassination for hire.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by marc9000, posted 04-30-2011 9:40 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 435 by marc9000, posted 05-02-2011 7:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 368 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 433 of 440 (614050)
05-01-2011 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 427 by marc9000
04-30-2011 10:03 PM


He gets it from history revisionists of the Democrat party.
You are, of course, lying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 427 by marc9000, posted 04-30-2011 10:03 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4594 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 434 of 440 (614114)
05-02-2011 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 421 by marc9000
04-30-2011 9:30 PM


marc9000 writes:
They also have a lot to LOSE personally, by making decisions that that show most any type of disregard for the general public, some of whom they depend on to buy their product or service. Companies lose, and go out of business all the time. The only time it’s in the news is when the company is big enough/corrupt enough for the owner to walk away with a golden parachute. The other 99% of the time, the owner loses most everything he has.
So it's good if a business owner loses business because consumers won't buy products from a known polluter, but it's bad if he loses business because government regulations restrict his ability to be a polluter? At least it seems that you're agreeing that pollution is not really such a good thing. Or maybe you actually think that smog, toxic waste, and acid rain are good for us.
I'm wondering, how exactly are consumers supposed to find out on their own who's a polluter? Blogs? The National Enquirer? Fox News? Are you personally going to investigate whether or not there's jet fuel in your milk, DDT in your carrots, and PCBs in your drinking water?
It's not historical revisionism to note that industries simply don't regulate themselves for the common good. Meat processing plants didn't voluntarily stop allowing rat droppings, the rats themselves, and workers' fingers from being mixed in with the sausage. Coal mine owners didn't decide on their own to stop sending men and boys down to work 12 hour shifts breathing coal dust. Big agricultural concerns didn't do studies on their own to see what massive use of pesticides was doing to the environment. They didn't do these things until the government, taking seriously its responsibility to the general welfare, got involved.
I will admit that every once in a while, companies do respond to consumer demand that they clean up their act. For example, Nike finally decided, after years of protests about its use of sweatshops in other countries, to stop attacking its critics and start monitoring working conditions abroad. However, they still make almost all of their goods in countries like China, where there is no environmental regulation, no labor laws, and workers make less than $2 a day. The point remains: companies will do whatever they can get away with in order to maximize their profits. Capitalism is founded on the principle that companies should do whatever they can get away with to maximize their profits.
By the way, the case of China illustrates why it takes federal regulation, not state regulation, to restrict harmful practices. Just as the US government is in no position to tell China to not dump toxic waste, if you depended on state regulation, Florida would be powerless to prevent hog farms in Georgia from flushing their waste downstream and across the state line. Environmental regulation is manifestly a federal issue.
To continue, this is from the above linked article on Nike in Business Week, a well known radical socialist propaganda outlet:
quote:
None of this means that Nike or any other businesses have come close to solving the sweatshop problem. Far from it. The monitoring systems set up by a Nike and handful of other Western outfits such as Mattel (MAT ) or Adidas have helped to address some of the more egregious problems at some factories, such as locked doors and unsafe chemicals, human rights experts say. But the inspections they do are limited and periodic and can't possibly catch all of even the most egregious problems.
In addition, only a handful of multinationals have serious monitoring efforts like Nike's in the first place. Most others, including retailers such as Wal-Mart (WMT ) and Target (TGT ), which have the most control over consumer prices, do virtually nothing, labor experts say. "What we do is a drop in the ocean out of the 90,000 or so factories that export to the U.S. from around the world," says FLA President Auret Van Heerden.
So given the above, can you come up with any companies that have actually gone out of business due to environmental regulation? Names and dates, please.
Seems that the only liberty you seem concerned with is the liberty to make as much money as you can.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by marc9000, posted 04-30-2011 9:30 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 436 by marc9000, posted 05-02-2011 7:25 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 435 of 440 (614215)
05-02-2011 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 432 by Dr Adequate
05-01-2011 12:22 AM


What is this gibberish? I said that the Founding Fathers knew that some people, left to themselves, would enrich themselves unjustly at the expense of others.
This has nothing to do with the economic concept of a free market, in which transactions are voluntary.
So therefore, it has nothing to do with this entire thread. Why did you bring it up? Because, like most liberals, the phrase enrich themselves at the expense of others is a demonization of free markets, and you’re now backpedaling because I nailed you on it?
Back in reality, the Founding Fathers knew perfectly well that it was one of the most important functions of government to prevent one person from unjustly enriching himself at the expense of another. This is why they raised no objection to laws against burglary. Or counterfeiting. Or assassination for hire.
Is this the worst smoking you’ve ever gotten before at EvC? You don’t handle it very gracefully. History revisionism isn’t going too well for you. You might try something different when comparing U.S. founders to todays liberalism. Something like what Message 415 contained;
Jon writes:
The Federalist Papers are irrelevant.
The Founders are irrelevant.
It’s much more honest. Misguided, but honest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-01-2011 12:22 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 437 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2011 8:56 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024