you cant claim its moral to look a peaceful man in the eye and tell him to give him your money for the common good or else you will lock him in a cell.. if someone uses their freedom for an immoral act are you sure that is an indictment of freedom? i would take an Amoral market over an immoral state. possibly getting fucked is way better than definitely getting fucked.. and if we compared the combined deaths of irresponsible companies to the deaths of irresponsible governments, i wonder ???
@xsickzackx "you cant claim its moral to look a peaceful man in the eye and tell him to give him your money for the common good or else you will lock him in a cell"
and yet that's how the usa funds its military, builds its highways and paves its streets.... for the common good.
combined deaths of govts to privates? our govts goes to war for private interests - oil companies, northrop defense company
amorality is the problem my friend not which dogma or system
@khemeticone so here you argue that the US military is funded for the common good, and then in the very next argument you say that our govt goes to war for private interests? obviously you are wrong on at least one of those counts, id say its the first.. if there wasnt an all powerful state that we subjugated our will to, then private companies wouldnt be forced into playing that lobbyist game.. if a for-profit war is funded through involuntary taxation then government rule is the culprit.
@xsickzackx exactly. military is funded for common good but "private" interests often hijack it. you're against taxing for common good but enjoy highways, streets & military protection. if there was no common taxation & usa be attacked, should we all just grab our guns or let a few private individuals decide our enemies like northrop? either way either way you enjoy highways and streets. don't get caught up in dogma. the culprit is corruption & it's private & public.
@khemeticone private interests will always hijack it because private sector will always be smarter than govt beaurocrats. if we can create a car that can drive cross country without a driver(google has), then obviously we can figure out how to pave roads without using a violent threat of imprisonment on anyone who doesnt want to pay. and BRO, how could advocating freedom be considered dogma? whats dogma about dont tell me what to do with my life and money? treat me how you want to be treated?
@khemeticone lol what sounds more like dogma? A. "treat me how you want to be treated".. or B. "financially support all of my causes or else you will be thrown into jail, and no you do not get a say, as this is a contract you were born into, but its for the common good, even if its war" u would not look me in the eye and take my money for your cause against my will, so how could you justify authorizing another to do the same? cant you see the massive contradiction??
On the pinto: if someone gets hurt because of it, sue Ford. If they keep doing it, you didn't sue them hard enough. Plain and simple. As for consumers not being aware? Educate yourself. If you find they withheld that from you on purpose, sue them. If they keep doing that, sue them harder. Honestly, Ford should have gone out of business for this. The fact that they didn't reflects a failure of the government court system. Not markets.
Hear, hear. I like "sheep marching for the rights of wolves," too, though I fear "marching" is mixing metaphors a touch. Perhaps "sheep howling for the rights of wolves?"
Nice to see you get something "right" according to my views sometimes. I really like the phrase of "sheep marching for the rights of wolves," btw.
Another thing to keep in mind is the problem of pollution. A company makes a product and dumps toxic waste into rivers or air, causing disease in the population but incurring no cost to the company. It's not really a "free market" when people are involuntarily stuck with the cost of someone else's business.
@aluisious You are drastically misrepresenting the definition of a free market. In a free market, you don't have the right to force a cost upon someone else. You can't pollute my water and claim "free market". Its my water, or my neighbor's or anyone else who the river passes by, so property rights still protect my right to not let you pollute my property. A free market depends on property rights, and only government has made it legal for companies to pollute my property.
@pthompson2010 what if the area is more grey and it involves lets say... food that isn't cooked properly (so it might have bacteria in it) - and you wouldn't be able to find out the recipe because that would be a copy right - i find libertarian ideology of freemarket to be TOO extreme - private school's aren't BETTER than public schools - especially not in canada + and plus what if you are too poor to own property - does that mean you have no right to stop corporations?
@ray1351 Property doesn't mean only your land and your house. Property is your body, your labor, your ideas, your capital, etc. Contract rights cover the case you are talking about. Youd made a contract with the restaurant to buy the food. YOu didn't make a contract to purchase bacteria that would harm you, so if they didn't deliver the product you bought, at the very least it is fraud, at worse, they are liable for any harm to you because they told you they were selling you ham, not mold, etc.
@pthompson2010 So basically, you have to go through all the legal terms and lengths of reading a contract? even if you are getting lets say.. a doughnut? - nice.
@ray1351 No no no, the "contract" is; I ask for a donut, you ask for $2. That is a contract. If I ask for a donut, you ask for $2, and I give you the money, and you give me a donut with poison in it, obviously you broke the contract. No jury is going to logically think that I should have expected that poison was part of the donut's ingredients.
@ray1351 But lets say the contract is this; I ask for a motorcycle, and you ask for $500. So I give you the money and you give me the motorcycle. Then I drive it on the freeway and crash and die. My wife can try to sue you for making an unsafe motorcycle, but in reality, no jury would logically conclude that you kept the danger of driving a motorcylce on the freeway from me. You held your end of the contract, its not like you sold me an exploding motorcycle and hid that fact from me.
@pthompson2010 also you think a jury is logical? since when? also, if there isn't a standard - why would corporations not try to reduce the amount of airbags in a car for example - they are still selling you a car with air bags - and a car is still a car with or without airbags - Another problem is copyrighting and what counts as private property or not - if a drug needed for a heart disease for example, has a patent on it - what is stopping them from charging you astronomicalprices?priceoflife?
@ray1351 As far as a jury goes, no, not all juries, (or most) are logical, but the jury exists to decide the "grey areas" you speak of. When you leave those decisions to the government, you ensure that speacial interest groups make the decision, rather than a jury of your peers. You think FDA laws protect all consumers equally from all food suppliers? Hell no. Monsanto products and other big suppliers donate to government officials, and those government officials favor certain products.
@pthompson2010 That is why you have publicly funded elections, and politicians who cant become lobbyists - look at sweden or denmark - they are not suffering like americans are with current laws where bribing is perfectly legal through a loophole. - USA does need radical change but libertarian change is too savage. the idea of turning someone away from a hospital because they don't have enough money or because they didn't think of that is morally wrong.
@ray1351 The one libertarian in the presidential race is the one guy who actually worked as a doctor, and gave free medical care all the time. He has plenty of patients who have come forward talking about how he didn't charge them when they couldn't pay. Again, you talke about how people would be dying on the street, but libertarians, like Ron Paul are the kind of people who don't let that happen. Politicians and big government advocates force it to happen all the time.
As far as publicly funded elections, now you want the government officials being in charge of taxing more and giving it fairly to the candidates? That will lead to one thing, fascism. The government is already corrupt, and your sollution is to give them control of how tax dollars get spent on elections. Those countries you speak of are no bettger off than us, and they are taxed out the ass. They can't do anything about it because they have little control of their government.
@pthompson2010 last i checked canada is far far from being a fascist country (this will probably be my last comment for today i have calc homework todo :P) - canadians are perfectly happy and have control of their government - you say countries don't have control of their government and yet you can't prove it - the countries i have mentioned have the highest rates of satisfaction and happiness in life (yes there is a study on it:. google is your friend)
@ray1351 Well, I guess your first problem is you assume that you speak for everyone. How do you know all Canadians are perfectly happy? Maybe that same mindset that allows you to think that; as long as you are part of the majority, then your laws are just, is the same mindset that allowed you to think you speak for all of Canada.
@ray1351 In Proteanview's case of the Ford Pinto being unsafe, when you buy a Pinto instead of a Hummer, you are already entering into a contract by which you know you are spending less to get a less safe car. If you bought the Hummer, youd be safer, but poorer. You make that choice. If Ford lies and tells you that the safety standards are greater than they are, and that is part of the reason you entered into the contract to buy it, then they have defrauded you.
@ray1351 But you already knew a Pinto would do worse in a crash than a Hummer. It is smaller, lighter, with fewer safety features, etc. Picking out which safety features you chose not to pay for when choosing the Pinto over the Hummer is reall up to you. If the missing part by the gas tank was a known defect and it had caused deaths, Ford's only legal obligation is to not hide that fact, but they have no obligation to fix it, anymore than they have an obligation to put in anti-lock brakes.
@pthompson2010 if you compare a hummer vs a hummer made of much weaker material - the money to get a "hummer" isn't enough of a contract - if you don't specify you get ripped off if you over specify it becomes overly complicated and you would need a lawyer with you 24/7
That is an unrealistic example. Nobody would live their life in such a manner that every single purchase they make is so important that they need a lawyer all the time. For the important stuff (buying a home) you get a lawyer, or agent, etc. For a donut, you don't need anyone because it is very rare that you would ever be ripped off or harmed. If you were, you'd get a lawyer, but that obviously isn't very often and the threat of being poisoned by your donut is low enought for you not to stress
@pthompson2010 you are completely dismissing it by saying it won't happen often? - thats just an example and why would you ever wait to be POISONED before being able to do anything - there are too many factors that are left un checked
@ray1351 Ford could spend more on each car to put in anti-lock brakes, an airbag, OnStar, etc. But you are paying less because you don't care about those. If they lie and say the car has those, and it doesn't, than they are committing a crime. If the missing part in the story Proteanview is talking about is gone, but Ford says it is in the car, or that it doesn't actually matter, and it's proven that they lied, then they are guilty of fraud, endangerment, and possibly involuntary manslaughter.
@ray1351 None of those laws go away just because a market is "free". By no means does a free market mean that fraud or theft are allowed. A free market simply means that transactions are voluntary. In order for them to be volungary, you need property rights and contract laws which protect you if you are forced to make a transaction involuntarily (theft, fraud, etc). If you sell me poison in my donut, you made me involuntarily buy poison by hiding the fact that it was in the donut.
@ray1351 The free market isn't anarchy. You still have a right to sue if someone defrauds you by withholding information you requested (like whats in the food you bought, how safe the car is,etc) Your property rights protect you from having to inhail the pollution from a factory next door, or drink from the river that runs through your land, or anyone elses who doesn't want polluted water. Property rights, contract rights, and a court system protects individual property and capital.
Easiest example; you wouldn't buy milk without knowing if it's expired, but if someone put a date on it that turned out to be obviously wrong, and you bought rotten milk, you have a legal right to sue because they defrauded you in their contractual obligation to give you the product you asked for. You paid the money, they have a legal obligation to give you the product you though you were getting. Government isn't needed on the front end of that transaction, only the back end if their is fraud
@pthompson2010 What would oblige someone to put a date on it? especially considering the fact they they could have a monopoly - lets look at the major computer companies google and yahoo - they both have an agreement to not hire eachother's employees - that decreases "competition" - what is stopping people from charging more than needed ? the freemarket? ofcourse not - that gives absolute power to anyone with a monopoly or if companies agree to not compete becuase they can profit more --
@ray1351 Only governments create monopolies so I'm not even going to get into that one, but if you like, give me any example of a monopoly, and I'll show you how either it wasn't a real monopoly, or how the government actually created it. Government is the only natural monopoly.
@pthompson2010 when i say monopoly i mean the way internet explorer comes pre-installed in windows - would you prevent that from happening? - it doesn't come pre installed with a competitor - also for google - you cannot avoid it because it has such a massive presence on the internet - also corporations are able to keep their monopolies due to copyright laws - for example, how lots of streaming websites get shut down but youtube is ok because its massive (yes there is copyrighted content on here
@ray1351 You are making a complaint, but you are proving my point. I don't promote a system where larger companies get to brake laws because they can buy politicians, you do. My system requires the politicians to protect property rights, and enforce laws, that is all. You want a system that give that governmetn the right to make business decisions for the companies. You complain about youtube breaking copywrite laws like that is something I endorse. This isn't a free market we live in.
@ray1351 When I talk about property rights, that includes the intellectual property of the artists who's songs get illegally spread on youtube. They have the right to their intellectual property (songs) and we have been stealing them on youtube. That is illegal, and that isn't part of a free market. If people understood property rights, they'd know that youtube is complicit in this theft and should be prevented from doing it.
@ray1351 The very government you want to give more power to is the government which is bought by large companies like youtube (google) to steal others property. In a free market, the people understand that this is theft, and a company like youtube is punished severely for doing it. In our current system "Corporatism", the company buys influence and the government infringes on the property rights of the artists. This is crony capitalism, not free market capitalism.
@pthompson2010 also, before i go i have to say, it is quite amusing talking to you although i am a democratic socialist :P - but i find it interesting that a libertarian and a socialist have more in common with eachother than with the establishment - at least we can agree on getting corporate money out of politics and all that - but i only aggree with you when personal liberties are involved - oh well - but i really do believe that if government is done correct (denmark) it works.
@ray1351 my money is my personal liberty. It is an extension of my labor, my ideas, and my body, so I should have every freedom with it that I have with my body. There is no distinction. If you think government should have the right to steal my money, then you think they have the right to steal anything else from me, and in democracy, they do. That is why I'm not a socialist or advocate of democracy. It is mob rule by the 51%. How often are you in the 51% and how often in the 49%?
@ray1351 The problem I see with your mindset is that you want the government to have the power to force companies to make random decisions, but in giving the government that power, you give them the power which those same corporations exploit through political influence. In my mindset, the government doesn't have that power, so a company can give a politician all the money they want, the politician still doesn't have the power to corrupt the market to favor that specific company.
@ray1351 The problem is that the government has the monopoly power of democracy (51% mob rule) because we gave them that power. The company never has that power. They only exert it through the government. You won't stop a company from finding a way to influence the government, you have to stop the government from having the power which the company wants. All a government should be able to do is protect individual liberty and property rights.
@ray1351 Pre-emptive consumer protection is no better than pre-emptive war. You give the government the power to force you to give up your capital on their terms, instead of your own. Sometimes it ends up being for your own good, but many times it doesn't, because the laws aren't made for your own good, they are made to benefit the politicians who pass them. They are sold to you as good for society just to get them passed. But who says what's good for society is going to be good for me?
@ray1 I'd bet you support gay marriage, but you also support the government having the power to make decisions which are "good for society", thus the government makes decisions that gays can't marry, because 51% of the people think its bad. I don't think its bad, so why does the government have the power to say its bad? They have that power because you think they should have it in other areas, just ont the areas you disagree with. Libertarians don't think they should have that power in any area
@ray1351 Proteanview thinks they should have the power to ban transfat because its bad, and thus a law banning me from buying it is "good for society", but I am healthy as hell, and happen to like it sometimes, so why can't I buy it? because Proteanview has decided its bad for me? Well maybe I've decided that black people are bad for society, should we have a government that has the power to enslave them because 51% of the people think they are bad for society?
The Ford Pinto may have not have been "safe" cars, but no car is 100% safe. It doesn't matter if you have an SUV, people can still get killed in cars. Even today, if you get into an accident in a tiny smart car you're more likely to die, rather than an SUV. People know this. But it should be the right for us to choose something. Laws haven't stopped smart cars. I don't need a law. I won't drive the smart car.
I wish you would make a car guaranteed to not explode on impact....if it is possible. If you told me you made a car (that is not a toy car....) guaranteed to not harm anyone (in the car) if it gets in an accident, I wouldn't buy it. If it's sounds too good to be true, it probably is (not true).
Y would I try to own a business...instead of work for a good business? Could I learn a lot from working with a good business, a high in quality, popular business? Y turn a good worker into a bad (or dis-functional worker?). I think collective knowledge could be good...human collective labor could be good...oh...A wolf in Sheep's clothing....leading the sheep. Is that your point? Do you think people will one day make coats out of human hair? Can one turn bad workers into better workers??????
Sounds terrible....you heard this terrible story about the pinto (pento). Good, If the story is true, then truth-telling was important....and businesses (or other agencies) reported the truth. Is this your point? If business hide information because they think the information will harm sells, yet may save lives, a competetor, who points out the fraud, and offers a better product will...make more money!!!??? Or wonder why people bought cheap cars...instead of taking the bus...or a taxie???
"knives have been recently discovered that they have the potential to kill people, so lets outlaw and regulate knife manufactures so that they cant hire, give benefits to american families" Hairspray can blind a person, so stop making hairspray, kids can choke on food so stop making food, you can hurt the masses by catering to a few.
Facts: The car was no more fire-prone than other cars of the time. The fatality rates were actually LOWER than similar-sized cars. And, oh yeah, this document supposedly showing that Ford was greedy and unfeeling was a document based on NHTSA regulations. Yes, that phrase everyone says is so indicative of free market greed is FROM THE GOVERNMENT!
How about the fact that Pintos would NOT explode upon impact, it was all a bogus scare brought on by attention-seeking media? See the scientific examination of the evidence:
The free market is not enough to solve problems. It is only a start. It is the best form of government there is. Once you have a free market, you still need PEOPLE to act. A free market alone is not enough, but it's part of the solution.
if the need for consumer education is proven to exist (i think it certainly does), the free market will provide this education through private entities. In order to compete for your business, these entities would want to be accurate and unbiased. The government monopolizes and subsidizes this issue. As a result, the FDA is a joke. If Ford can accurately estimate lawsuits and still profit from NOT being ethical, then I'd say those who'd sued Ford didn't sue for enough money.
Good point but it's not the major issue for most Libertarians and I think many Libertarians would agree that government has the right to stop economic aggression by monopolies and unsafe or misleading practices by business. Why not address real Libertarian issues such as why both US Parties continue to rob you blind through protection of a banking monopoly over the currency, funding of neo-colonialism, and Federal wealth redistribution schemes,
I'd say some of the markets in America are still free, but certainly not finance, insurance, medicine, agriculture probably some more im forgetting.
I'd still say theres some free market aspects in tech (things like google). No one force people to buy the apple ipad, but we do anyways. Of course apple does attempt to use government power to stop competitors from competeing so mabye thats a bad example.
I'm not sure about Microsoft. I know they supposedly had anti-competitve behaviors a few years back, but I'm not sure if they used the government to secure their power. nontheless, I feel if you've seen Ayn Rand's statements on how no monopoly can stay in power without special privelege for the governemnt came true. Now people use macs, people use linux, and google compete with them as well in other areas.
There is no such thing as a free market, hasn't been for a long time. NY City restaurants have some of the filthiest kitchens in the country, in spite of the rating system, in spite of the Board of Health inspectors, in spite of the precious government, because any government inspector can be slipped a 50 dollar bill to blind him to the filth. Government intervention is usually what causes the problems, the price of food skyrocketed after Bush's ethanol debacle. Flour tripled in price.
>government intervention is what causes the problems
I don't get you libertarians (i'm guessing is what you are). Its like you literally don't know why those were put there in the first place. I guarantee you that the regulation the government instated in the food industry was atleast, overall, somewhat effective.
Its like you all missed history class in highschool
@dethdakiller0 Libertarians are not against the concept of regulations, they're against the state monopoly on them which most of the time simply translate into barriers to entry, meaning making it harder for competition to form against the corporations which are in bed with the state. Private regulatory firms exist today and work fine. See underwriter's laboratories
@dethdakiller0 I am a Libertarian. I didn't need to learn it in school, I've seen it first hand, I've seen back room deals, I've seen handouts, payoffs, bribes to everyone from health inspectors to building, plumbing, electrical inspectors and everyone in between. If you put your faith in our corrupt government to protect you, you should forget what you learned in History Class.
There is NO FREE MARKET in America! She's BROKE! All the U.S. have is the media using deceptive measures to keep the American populous satisfied with false statistics, entertainment: i.e. Kim K. Rihanna, Beyonce, who's splitting up, what people are wearing, etc.
I totally agree with you on this on Pro but I must say: you cannot trade paper for gold thus the FREE MARKET argument is a myth among the pseudo-wealthy in the West compared to the TRUE WEALTH in the East.
In a true anarchy, punishment would be based on restitution rather than retribution. If you open a restaurant, you will have to have insurance that specifies that if you harm or kill your clients, the insurance company will pay X amount of dollars to the victim or their estate. In order to avoid outrageous premiums, your restaurant will have to submit to the insurance company's standards and be inspected by their experts. Nobody will risk eating at your restaurant otherwise.
HFCS is a sugar perservitive takes several months to break down in your body a sugar that takes months to break down no shit diabetics are on the rise
economic conservatives tend not to discuss this issue so it isn't popular but in order for the free market to function in a way that is best for the population, a KEY ROLE of government is to disseminate free, unbiased information (just like it has a responsibility to provide free education up to a certain level). In a real free market you have COMPETITION & FREEDOM, meaning COMPETITORS could have ads ridiculing the corporation producing the Pinto & warning potential buyers about those dangers.
AGAIN, no one is forcing you to buy a Pinto. you are unable to see what a free market is really like b/c if we had one, the corporation producing the Pinto once the reputation for their cars caught on would go out of business, but instead we have corporatism. Government constantly props up certain companies and picks winners and losers so that they DO NOT have to produce products that consumers want to buy to stay in business. this is why people are so unsatisfied with corporate products today.
this is DUMB. part of the responsibility of government is to make sure everyone has access to INFORMATION in this case pertinent to consumers so that when accidents happen it is documented & then people can make the appropriate choice based on those reports as to whether or not they would like to purchase a Pinto. now, if the car has a record of being unsafe on the road & exploding, then it becomes a danger to OTHER drivers & therefore government should not allow the car to be produced or sold.
As indicated by the top rated comments here, we can't possibly expect the typical undergrad libertarian to grasp any counter to their mantra that the free market will just magically solve everything. My old roommate tried to argue that private police forces were a good idea. For some reason they have it in their heads that government is always bad and that somehow businesses acting selfishly cares about the public more. look @lukewarmstormed that response made no sense.
@tarkana613 Businesses only care about the public as much as the public forces them too. If you refuse to do business with companies that provide unsafe products and services then their selfishness will force them to care because they want to make a profit and can only do so if they have customers. The answer is simple, boycott businesses that don't do what you want and other businesses will emerge to fill the niche. There's nothing magical about economics 101.
I lean heavily towards Free Market based on Austrian economics but I'm not gonna throw my hat into the argument because Protean makes some valid points. But if you're mad about McDonald's using trans-fats... ok, I understand it's unhealthy, but if McD's stops using trans-fats does that make McD's food healthy? No, it's still garbage to be putting in your body you're just getting picky on the quality of the garbage. I just think you're making a bit of a null argument on McD's is all.
Read section V on "Product Safety" if you want real answers on how a truly free market would deal with situations like this: mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf
The only way a company could get away with putting their customers in danger is if their customers let them do it. If Ford knew that the customers would boycott them for their actions then they wouldn't take that risk. You're right that it's a cost-benefit analysis. The problem is that customers aren't properly doing research on the products they buy and aren't making sure they vote with their wallets when they get poor service. That's why we have consumer watchdog groups like Consumer Reports.
@ReligionIsACrutch you're wrong. a company would and did do it because they thought they could conceal it. and the only way customers would boycott is if people were already injured or killed. so, like the video says, after a few dozen people die, the free market adjusts? you're more interested in protecting "freedoms" of businesses than human lives? yeah, consumer reports tells us what happens after the affects have been felt. so companies should be allowed to kill a few first? crazy
@khemeticone It's not about protecting the freedoms of businesses. It's about protecting my freedoms. I don't want the government controlling my life. I want to be able to make my own decisions, including how safe the cars I drive will be. If you want really safe cars then only do business with companies that have extreme safety controls in place (and pay more for it). Don't complain about companies you do business with just because you didn't take any personal responsibility to research them.
@dethdakiller0 How exactly would that monopoly be able to maintain itself? Through force? Through ideology? In a free market there would be no artificial barriers to entry unlike today. If one business was overcharging people than that would be a huge profit incentive for competition to emerge and offer services/goods at lower prices than said business. The competition would therefore reap said business profits. Monopolies are really only sustainable when you've lobbied the state.
.................. Thru shear power. If you control 95% of a market, your competition literally can't stand up to you. That company could either straight up buy them out, or just open a shop next door that is slightly cheaper. Then after the new store goes out of business, they can rack up the prices again.
How are all you people uninformed about the late 19th century america. For fuck's sake, even walmart does these tactics.
@dethdakiller0 Power through what means? Today businesses use the state as a tool to reduce competition or at least the threat of it. Businesses in a free market only exist as long as people are willing to trade with them. If you're going to buy out all your competition than competitors have every incentive to just start up businesses for sole purpose of cashing in when they're bought out.
That's not a sustainable business strategy, since there are practically innumerable potential competitors.
"...store goes out of business, they can rack up the prices again." Then they'll be in this cycle forever, also this assumes that simply lowering prices slightly is enough to bankrupt your competitors. This ignores things like higher quality services, increased selection etc.
Walmart? That's a corporation i.e. would not exist on a free market.
I'm sorry, but do you not know that EVERYTHING i'm talking about already happened? The government had no regulations & what not, no child labor, no minimum wage, no safety standards... And almost every product was controlled by a monopoly of some sort.
Look up Standard Oil, its literally the epidemy of what i'm talking about. Look up Carnegie Steel is an example too.
Fucking americans, god damn it learn the history of your own fucking country.
@dethdakiller0 History can easily be skewed by those who write it. Standard oil was not a monopoly, neither was carnegie steel. And it's not any coincidence that the top oil companies have remained almost the same for a long time. The state regulation more often than not simply help in the creation of cartels by erecting barriers to entry making it extremely hard if not outright illegal to compete with the state created cartels.
Also in regards to child labor, you have to realize that people back then were not nearly as wealthy as people are today. If the kids many families didn't go out and work they were not going to be able to feed themselves.
Sorry, you just spout the exact same bullshit as he. but atleast you don't have a radio show and tell people to go kill obama's friends (yes, glenn beck told a crazy person to kill a bunch of left-wing politicians)
Think of all the recalls that are going around...it seems daily. Its this very reason that they're issuing all the recalls in the first place, becaue the lawsuits are not cheaper now. Its cheaper to make your product as cheaply as possible and than issue recalls if there is a big enough prob
Thats right, enough people stop giving someone business...rather its death or just the reputation that it causes death...it encourages people to stop buying.
This is an example of a government going from a democracy to a fascist government. If these politicians weren't bought out, we'd be more free today. Ralph Nader needs to be President. He fixed so much crap back in the day.
@Apocalypse487 The reason Ralph Nader was more effective back in the day was because we had more freedom not less. People read and sought out consumer advocates to inform them. Now with the reg.s people have become lazy having a false sense of security. Bus. are motivated to buy off gov. So we end up with bus. protections being implemented into law by powerful corps which = reduced competition and ^prices.
IM sorry but this is probably your worst video. Because it makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about. You are talking about past issues that have been fixed. There is a difference between regulation that still upholds peoples rights and government control.
It's perfectly sane because its still better then no freedom. We already have the proper regulations so i dont know what you are bitching about.
Here come the Randites to tell us how better off we would be without government... enjoy the myopic diatribes!
Even though there's countless examples of the failure of deregulation, the most glaringly recent being the collapse of the economy in 2008; We will continue to hear how we need to rely on ourselves, not government. (apparently the icons of capitalism tho, needed trillions in government bailout money to survive in the "free market", that's trillions of YOUR dollars btw)
@TZ3k Are you retarded? You really think we stepped back from regulation and that somehow made the economy collapse? We never lowered regulation, and continue to increase it. Over regulation is what kills economies.
But it really doesn't matter since america wont be around very long. We have a dying birthrate. brought on by the feminist movement and social "progression" and people thinking over population is even close to being an issue.
@TheAnonHordeI prefer the term mental disability to retard, but anyone can learn, so don't give up hope!
Of course i don't think it was a step back from regulation, It was a 30 year long march back from the regulations put in place after the great depression.
And its not ALL deregulation, its actual regulations lobbied for by wall street that contributed as well.
Let me as u, are u gullible enough to believe Wall Street can regulate itself, Like Moody and S&P?
You kidding me? The economy was FAR from deregulated . Wall street was heavily regulated . The Mortgage markets were heavily regulated. Ever heard of the Truth in lending act? The Home mortgage disclosure act? Regulation B? Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act? There was heavy regulation of the banks and mortgage companies. Credit would have not been so readily so available to banks and the mortgage market had not the federal reserve printed the notes and created artificial demand.
what you fail to realize protean is that the government is not some sort of an angel that will save you. in this world you can only rely on yourself. instead of the government telling McDonalds how to make their fitlth you should simply not go there. it's not so hard. if i can do it then so can you. if we got rid of the government then maybe the people could use the money they saved on taxes to buy REAL food instead of going to McDonalds.
Just because big govt does a few good things does not mean I want them in my life. I've dealt with the govt as a small business owner. All they do is meddle and fuck things up. And they don''t protect you either, they just pretend to so they can get your money. The free market isn't the answer to all problems, but govt is the answer to almost no problems.
Protean, you have a good point on unethical business behavior. However, there does get to be a point where too much regulation stifles job creation and innovation. Happy balance.
Thats the problem though. Its not that government is inherently bad, and it wasn't always like it is today.
It CAN be fixed, It probably won't even take revolution to make that happen either. Look at the Tea Party for example, they're all fucking retards, but they still have a pretty good piece of political power. Imagine if all the reasonable people in this country all decided they were fed up with our broken two party (its the same party btw, just diff faces. Imagine it.
Remember the Chinese wheat in dog food killing a few dogs. Well I got concerned that Chinese wheat might be in the human food chain. Since I bake, I started calling flour manufactures. I found one who used only American grown wheat. Told them they should label their flour as American Grown (King Arthur). They listened changed their packaging and informed consumers are rewarding them. I did not waste my time lobbing gov. to label Chinese wheat. I utilized a free market solution.
Without regulations now how do you explain that both Wendy's and Burger King went trans fat free? Could it be without regulation they are listening to the demands of their consumers. Many Chinese restaurants are MSG free and promote it without regulations. The Pinto got horrible press and believe me their competition put out ads, "our cars don't explode." Ford took a major hit in sales and they had to pay the people they harmed. Gov. fines only enrich the gov. they don't help the harmed.
Weren't wendys & BK required, by regulations, to post that their foods have transfat? Which made them want to not have that there, because average people are all "HUURRRRR DURRRRRRR TRANSFAT CAUSE SUPER AIDS AND CANCER OF THE PENIS"
@dethdakiller0 I believe it was Dr. Mary Enig from Maryland that first blew the whistle on transfats. Back in the 70's Scientist were all raving that Margarine was healthier for you. So Dr. Mary Enig and her findings were ridiculed in 1978. She was right and the scientist to afraid to speak up back then were wrong.
News shows like 60 min outed BK and Wendys long before the regulation about using transfats. And Mcd's still uses transfats in-spite of the nutrition chart requirement.
Well, even if BK & wendys don't use transfats, McDonalds still does. and McDonlads is the most popular fast food chain the in the unitedstates, and the whole world.
Your argument that consumers will stop going to places and thus regulations are unnecessary, doesn't hold much water if the biggest seller still isn't self regulating.
I personally don't like fast food very much. I never liked McDonalds, and the last time i actaully got fast food was a few months ago at taco bell.
The point of this argument wasn't if people should/could eat at McDonalds, its if the gov't should require them to display if they have transfats in their foods on their menus. The whole point of this is more freedom, to do what you want, and to have information. the point is not at all to physically consumers from buying some items.
@dethdakiller0 Consumers were informed before nutritional charts were required. Many news outlets and scientist outed the nutritional content of restaurants. When did anyone think a burger and fries was healthy? Getting gov. to babysit the population with increased regulations leads to fascism. Freedom means letting people make choices for themselves even bad choices and living with the results of those choices. I suppose I took away a different message from "Food Inc.," than you.
>implying requiring businesses to give more information is somehow hurting them
Look, if requiring more information is bad, then there is probably something really bad about that product. It should hurt a business in no way at all for them to display the ingredients/nutritious facts for their products.
The consumer should be protected by information. Thats all consumers really need. Saying more information instantly leads to fascism is retarded.
@dethdakiller0 Way to miss the point and misrepresent what I said. Having the information is good. A business not providing the information should lose customers and be outed by independent consumer advocates. Businesses that have healthier menu / calorie info. provided voluntarily will be rewarded and encouraged by increased business from customers who understand personal responsibility. What leads to fascism is government imposing requirements.
@libertyfizz Exactly right. You can't explain how the free market works to people that don't care. They expect the world to be bubble wrapped and served on a silver platter. People that don't vote with their wallets and don't do proper research into what they buy deserve what they get. If you eat fatty food without demanding nutritional information then you have no right to complain. People have to have personal responsibility and they're not prepared for it. They expect a nanny state.
@ReligionIsACrutch I answer in hopes that people who really haven't thought about it before can get a better understanding. Cause businesses can be pressured without the use of government to make better products and to provide better information.
So because people are too lazy to become informed consumers. We have to have an oppressive government? Inspection can be handled privately. There is already a working model. Underwriters Laboratory is not the gov. UL is independent but I doubt anyone would buy an electrical device without the UL mark. Depending on the gov. to save you is a fallacy. Look at the Gov. protection racket for some businesses. Fines enrich the gov. but do nothing for the harmed person.
Another example of improper titles is "workers compensation", which is nothing but an employer protection racket. A "free market" has never existed in this nation.
Most people who support free markets also support regulation, what they dont support is government interference in commerce, such as a) tariffs b) subsidies c) government price fixing d) bailouts e) earmarking f) restriction of competition
The reality is that there is a middle ground between no regulation and over-regulation and this is a really challenging sweet spot to find.
@deathByStupid Usually regulations are lobbied for by businesses who want to limit competition. Many regulations are only imposed on new startups old businesses are grandfathered in.
Yeah, so people dying in pintos sucks, but these questions dont exist in a vacuum. Compared to what? Compared to state regulation? Yeah thanks I'll take the pintos.
@nightpotato people getting sick from trans fats compared to regulation which prevents them from being sold. people having to ask for the recipe (not just menu) at every restaurant they go to before feeding their kids as opposed to nyc banning trans fats. food should have a standard. we shouldn't rely on, "well when enough people get sick and die, the public will stop going and the business will fold"
@khemeticone I'm not questioning the problem you bring up. I'm saying your solution is FAR worse than the problem you are trying to solve. I'd rather check the ingredients on my packages than give a coercive monopoly on the use of force ultimate decision making authority over what I eat.
the problem: even though you are a paying customer, you have to request the actual recipe for every dish you're interested in & go from place to place until you find one w/o trans fats.
the problem: you have no idea what every new ingredient is & find out about the side effects once too many get sick
the solution: trans fats banned. you can sit down at a restaurant and know that the food came from a clean kitchen & that it doesn't have ingredients that will make you sick.
@khemeticone What if I want to eat trans fats? What gives you the right to use coercion to prohibit me from buying trans fats? You don't have the right to use coercion to force people to serve you the kind of food you want to eat. I'm a vegetarian, but that doesn't give me the right to ban pepperoni pizza even though in a lot of situations finding vegetarian meals is a pain in the ass.
@nightpotato right then. well the next time you sit down to dinner with your 6 year old daughter, don't get upset when you learn that one of the ingredients in the pasta was motor oil or rat feces. you wouldn't want to intrude on the freedom of businesses. i mean, maybe some of us want restaurants which serve this & we don't think they should have to tell anyone. your daughter will love you for standing up for her, er, their freedom
@khemeticone Yeah, it's called taking responsibility. I plan on ensuring for my own health and the health of those I care about without threatening coercion on those around me. As I said, I'm a vegetarian and I read all my package labels. If I want to be healthy, I need to be responsible. If you need some nanny to ensure your health, and your family's health you are already doing it wrong.
@nightpotato Being a vegetarian, is the suppose to mean you know more? I am one too, I do not feel more knowledgeable because of it.
I read labels for everything I buy. However there are some things missing from those labels. This is why a lot of my food needs extra research and calls to corporations who put me in a loop half the time.
More disclosure needs to be given in big and small business. It needs to also be in plain view. No more phone calls would be nice.
@BornOfSong I agree no such thing as vegetarian superiority. Generally vegetarians are better informed. Labels are a another fallacy. You pointed out they aren't clear and don't end having to be informed. There are consumer advocates out there. "Eat This Not That," is good even for the lazy consumer. Bus. faced with regulations are motivated to spend money on gov. which leads to corruption. And warped industry protections i.e. liable laws, subsidies and reducing competition = ^ prices.
@BornOfSong ...I don't know how I was claiming superiority because of my vegetarianism. I was saying that I have dietary restrictions too, but that doesn't make me feel entitled to coerce people to abide by MY preferences. If you want to maintain a certain diet then take the initiative and do whatever it takes. If you don't want to take the effort then stop trying to use coercion to make up for your laziness. Don't rely on the state to be your mother.
@khemeticone You do realize that the government actually has allowable limits for rat feces and motor oil in your food. The gov. doesn't impose a zero tolerance level for either. Gov. isn't out to save you. All gov. does is gives you a false sense of security as it increases prices to sustain itself. Inspections for restaurants are announce not surprise and happen once or twice a year. So what about the other 363 days of the year?
you cant claim its moral to look a peaceful man in the eye and tell him to give him your money for the common good or else you will lock him in a cell.. if someone uses their freedom for an immoral act are you sure that is an indictment of freedom? i would take an Amoral market over an immoral state. possibly getting fucked is way better than definitely getting fucked.. and if we compared the combined deaths of irresponsible companies to the deaths of irresponsible governments, i wonder ???
xsickzackx 1 week ago
@xsickzackx "you cant claim its moral to look a peaceful man in the eye and tell him to give him your money for the common good or else you will lock him in a cell"
and yet that's how the usa funds its military, builds its highways and paves its streets.... for the common good.
combined deaths of govts to privates? our govts goes to war for private interests - oil companies, northrop defense company
amorality is the problem my friend not which dogma or system
khemeticone 1 week ago
@khemeticone so here you argue that the US military is funded for the common good, and then in the very next argument you say that our govt goes to war for private interests? obviously you are wrong on at least one of those counts, id say its the first.. if there wasnt an all powerful state that we subjugated our will to, then private companies wouldnt be forced into playing that lobbyist game.. if a for-profit war is funded through involuntary taxation then government rule is the culprit.
xsickzackx 1 week ago
@xsickzackx exactly. military is funded for common good but "private" interests often hijack it. you're against taxing for common good but enjoy highways, streets & military protection. if there was no common taxation & usa be attacked, should we all just grab our guns or let a few private individuals decide our enemies like northrop? either way either way you enjoy highways and streets. don't get caught up in dogma. the culprit is corruption & it's private & public.
khemeticone 1 week ago
@khemeticone private interests will always hijack it because private sector will always be smarter than govt beaurocrats. if we can create a car that can drive cross country without a driver(google has), then obviously we can figure out how to pave roads without using a violent threat of imprisonment on anyone who doesnt want to pay. and BRO, how could advocating freedom be considered dogma? whats dogma about dont tell me what to do with my life and money? treat me how you want to be treated?
xsickzackx 6 days ago
@khemeticone lol what sounds more like dogma? A. "treat me how you want to be treated".. or B. "financially support all of my causes or else you will be thrown into jail, and no you do not get a say, as this is a contract you were born into, but its for the common good, even if its war" u would not look me in the eye and take my money for your cause against my will, so how could you justify authorizing another to do the same? cant you see the massive contradiction??
xsickzackx 6 days ago
within first 30 seconds
whoooo someone watched fight club
HellfireRedeemer 3 weeks ago
I would say similar things about a lot of forms of Marxism (particularly "orthodox Marxists"). Like orthodox Marxists right-wing libertarians are forever going on that any example of capitalism causing a bad outcome or consequence is not "real" Capitalism© and anything economically inefficient or dealing with a group is "socialism". Just like orthodox Marxists consider anything bad caused by a type of socialism to not be "real" Socialism® yet insist that any kind of cronyism is "capitalism".
A86 3 weeks ago
Most American capitalist "libertarianism" is a religious cult. It has all the trappings of one.
1) Prophets/Founders/Leaders are not to be questioned. (Ayn Rand, Friedrich von Hayek, Ludwig von Mises are never wrong)
2) The Higher Power always does right. ("The Market" is always self-correcting)
3) Impervious to facts/evidence/logic that undermine it. (Examples of successful socialism or good intervention are invalid)
4) Questioners are heretics. (Doubters are "statist", "collectivist", etc.)
A86 3 weeks ago
On the pinto: if someone gets hurt because of it, sue Ford. If they keep doing it, you didn't sue them hard enough. Plain and simple. As for consumers not being aware? Educate yourself. If you find they withheld that from you on purpose, sue them. If they keep doing that, sue them harder. Honestly, Ford should have gone out of business for this. The fact that they didn't reflects a failure of the government court system. Not markets.
hallavast 3 weeks ago in playlist Proteanview Playlist
Smoking Marajuana is a right!
Ban transfats.
InvincibleNumanist 3 weeks ago in playlist Proteanview Playlist
Hear, hear. I like "sheep marching for the rights of wolves," too, though I fear "marching" is mixing metaphors a touch. Perhaps "sheep howling for the rights of wolves?"
Tredicity 3 weeks ago in playlist Proteanview Playlist
wait i thought you support ron paul?
halflifeproductionz 3 weeks ago
I suppose I'll have to make a video, because this is easily the most I've ever disagreed with Proteanview
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago in playlist Proteanview Playlist
Nice to see you get something "right" according to my views sometimes. I really like the phrase of "sheep marching for the rights of wolves," btw.
Another thing to keep in mind is the problem of pollution. A company makes a product and dumps toxic waste into rivers or air, causing disease in the population but incurring no cost to the company. It's not really a "free market" when people are involuntarily stuck with the cost of someone else's business.
aluisious 2 months ago
@aluisious You are drastically misrepresenting the definition of a free market. In a free market, you don't have the right to force a cost upon someone else. You can't pollute my water and claim "free market". Its my water, or my neighbor's or anyone else who the river passes by, so property rights still protect my right to not let you pollute my property. A free market depends on property rights, and only government has made it legal for companies to pollute my property.
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago in playlist Proteanview Playlist
@pthompson2010 what if the area is more grey and it involves lets say... food that isn't cooked properly (so it might have bacteria in it) - and you wouldn't be able to find out the recipe because that would be a copy right - i find libertarian ideology of freemarket to be TOO extreme - private school's aren't BETTER than public schools - especially not in canada + and plus what if you are too poor to own property - does that mean you have no right to stop corporations?
ray1351 3 weeks ago in playlist Proteanview Playlist
@ray1351 Property doesn't mean only your land and your house. Property is your body, your labor, your ideas, your capital, etc. Contract rights cover the case you are talking about. Youd made a contract with the restaurant to buy the food. YOu didn't make a contract to purchase bacteria that would harm you, so if they didn't deliver the product you bought, at the very least it is fraud, at worse, they are liable for any harm to you because they told you they were selling you ham, not mold, etc.
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago
@pthompson2010 So basically, you have to go through all the legal terms and lengths of reading a contract? even if you are getting lets say.. a doughnut? - nice.
ray1351 3 weeks ago
@ray1351 No no no, the "contract" is; I ask for a donut, you ask for $2. That is a contract. If I ask for a donut, you ask for $2, and I give you the money, and you give me a donut with poison in it, obviously you broke the contract. No jury is going to logically think that I should have expected that poison was part of the donut's ingredients.
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago
@ray1351 But lets say the contract is this; I ask for a motorcycle, and you ask for $500. So I give you the money and you give me the motorcycle. Then I drive it on the freeway and crash and die. My wife can try to sue you for making an unsafe motorcycle, but in reality, no jury would logically conclude that you kept the danger of driving a motorcylce on the freeway from me. You held your end of the contract, its not like you sold me an exploding motorcycle and hid that fact from me.
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago
@pthompson2010 also you think a jury is logical? since when? also, if there isn't a standard - why would corporations not try to reduce the amount of airbags in a car for example - they are still selling you a car with air bags - and a car is still a car with or without airbags - Another problem is copyrighting and what counts as private property or not - if a drug needed for a heart disease for example, has a patent on it - what is stopping them from charging you astronomicalprices?priceoflife?
ray1351 3 weeks ago
@ray1351 As far as a jury goes, no, not all juries, (or most) are logical, but the jury exists to decide the "grey areas" you speak of. When you leave those decisions to the government, you ensure that speacial interest groups make the decision, rather than a jury of your peers. You think FDA laws protect all consumers equally from all food suppliers? Hell no. Monsanto products and other big suppliers donate to government officials, and those government officials favor certain products.
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago
@pthompson2010 That is why you have publicly funded elections, and politicians who cant become lobbyists - look at sweden or denmark - they are not suffering like americans are with current laws where bribing is perfectly legal through a loophole. - USA does need radical change but libertarian change is too savage. the idea of turning someone away from a hospital because they don't have enough money or because they didn't think of that is morally wrong.
ray1351 3 weeks ago
@ray1351 The one libertarian in the presidential race is the one guy who actually worked as a doctor, and gave free medical care all the time. He has plenty of patients who have come forward talking about how he didn't charge them when they couldn't pay. Again, you talke about how people would be dying on the street, but libertarians, like Ron Paul are the kind of people who don't let that happen. Politicians and big government advocates force it to happen all the time.
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago
As far as publicly funded elections, now you want the government officials being in charge of taxing more and giving it fairly to the candidates? That will lead to one thing, fascism. The government is already corrupt, and your sollution is to give them control of how tax dollars get spent on elections. Those countries you speak of are no bettger off than us, and they are taxed out the ass. They can't do anything about it because they have little control of their government.
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago
@pthompson2010 last i checked canada is far far from being a fascist country (this will probably be my last comment for today i have calc homework todo :P) - canadians are perfectly happy and have control of their government - you say countries don't have control of their government and yet you can't prove it - the countries i have mentioned have the highest rates of satisfaction and happiness in life (yes there is a study on it:. google is your friend)
ray1351 3 weeks ago
@ray1351 Well, I guess your first problem is you assume that you speak for everyone. How do you know all Canadians are perfectly happy? Maybe that same mindset that allows you to think that; as long as you are part of the majority, then your laws are just, is the same mindset that allowed you to think you speak for all of Canada.
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago
@ray1351 In Proteanview's case of the Ford Pinto being unsafe, when you buy a Pinto instead of a Hummer, you are already entering into a contract by which you know you are spending less to get a less safe car. If you bought the Hummer, youd be safer, but poorer. You make that choice. If Ford lies and tells you that the safety standards are greater than they are, and that is part of the reason you entered into the contract to buy it, then they have defrauded you.
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago
@ray1351 But you already knew a Pinto would do worse in a crash than a Hummer. It is smaller, lighter, with fewer safety features, etc. Picking out which safety features you chose not to pay for when choosing the Pinto over the Hummer is reall up to you. If the missing part by the gas tank was a known defect and it had caused deaths, Ford's only legal obligation is to not hide that fact, but they have no obligation to fix it, anymore than they have an obligation to put in anti-lock brakes.
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago
@pthompson2010 if you compare a hummer vs a hummer made of much weaker material - the money to get a "hummer" isn't enough of a contract - if you don't specify you get ripped off if you over specify it becomes overly complicated and you would need a lawyer with you 24/7
ray1351 3 weeks ago
That is an unrealistic example. Nobody would live their life in such a manner that every single purchase they make is so important that they need a lawyer all the time. For the important stuff (buying a home) you get a lawyer, or agent, etc. For a donut, you don't need anyone because it is very rare that you would ever be ripped off or harmed. If you were, you'd get a lawyer, but that obviously isn't very often and the threat of being poisoned by your donut is low enought for you not to stress
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago
@pthompson2010 you are completely dismissing it by saying it won't happen often? - thats just an example and why would you ever wait to be POISONED before being able to do anything - there are too many factors that are left un checked
ray1351 3 weeks ago
@ray1351 Ford could spend more on each car to put in anti-lock brakes, an airbag, OnStar, etc. But you are paying less because you don't care about those. If they lie and say the car has those, and it doesn't, than they are committing a crime. If the missing part in the story Proteanview is talking about is gone, but Ford says it is in the car, or that it doesn't actually matter, and it's proven that they lied, then they are guilty of fraud, endangerment, and possibly involuntary manslaughter.
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago
@ray1351 None of those laws go away just because a market is "free". By no means does a free market mean that fraud or theft are allowed. A free market simply means that transactions are voluntary. In order for them to be volungary, you need property rights and contract laws which protect you if you are forced to make a transaction involuntarily (theft, fraud, etc). If you sell me poison in my donut, you made me involuntarily buy poison by hiding the fact that it was in the donut.
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago
@ray1351 The free market isn't anarchy. You still have a right to sue if someone defrauds you by withholding information you requested (like whats in the food you bought, how safe the car is,etc) Your property rights protect you from having to inhail the pollution from a factory next door, or drink from the river that runs through your land, or anyone elses who doesn't want polluted water. Property rights, contract rights, and a court system protects individual property and capital.
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago
Easiest example; you wouldn't buy milk without knowing if it's expired, but if someone put a date on it that turned out to be obviously wrong, and you bought rotten milk, you have a legal right to sue because they defrauded you in their contractual obligation to give you the product you asked for. You paid the money, they have a legal obligation to give you the product you though you were getting. Government isn't needed on the front end of that transaction, only the back end if their is fraud
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago
@pthompson2010 What would oblige someone to put a date on it? especially considering the fact they they could have a monopoly - lets look at the major computer companies google and yahoo - they both have an agreement to not hire eachother's employees - that decreases "competition" - what is stopping people from charging more than needed ? the freemarket? ofcourse not - that gives absolute power to anyone with a monopoly or if companies agree to not compete becuase they can profit more --
ray1351 3 weeks ago
@ray1351 Only governments create monopolies so I'm not even going to get into that one, but if you like, give me any example of a monopoly, and I'll show you how either it wasn't a real monopoly, or how the government actually created it. Government is the only natural monopoly.
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago
@pthompson2010 microsoft or google
ray1351 3 weeks ago
@ray1351 Yahoo. MSN, Apple, etc.
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago
@pthompson2010 when i say monopoly i mean the way internet explorer comes pre-installed in windows - would you prevent that from happening? - it doesn't come pre installed with a competitor - also for google - you cannot avoid it because it has such a massive presence on the internet - also corporations are able to keep their monopolies due to copyright laws - for example, how lots of streaming websites get shut down but youtube is ok because its massive (yes there is copyrighted content on here
ray1351 3 weeks ago
@ray1351 How is that a free market?
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago
@ray1351 You are making a complaint, but you are proving my point. I don't promote a system where larger companies get to brake laws because they can buy politicians, you do. My system requires the politicians to protect property rights, and enforce laws, that is all. You want a system that give that governmetn the right to make business decisions for the companies. You complain about youtube breaking copywrite laws like that is something I endorse. This isn't a free market we live in.
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago
@ray1351 When I talk about property rights, that includes the intellectual property of the artists who's songs get illegally spread on youtube. They have the right to their intellectual property (songs) and we have been stealing them on youtube. That is illegal, and that isn't part of a free market. If people understood property rights, they'd know that youtube is complicit in this theft and should be prevented from doing it.
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago
@ray1351 The very government you want to give more power to is the government which is bought by large companies like youtube (google) to steal others property. In a free market, the people understand that this is theft, and a company like youtube is punished severely for doing it. In our current system "Corporatism", the company buys influence and the government infringes on the property rights of the artists. This is crony capitalism, not free market capitalism.
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago
@pthompson2010 also, before i go i have to say, it is quite amusing talking to you although i am a democratic socialist :P - but i find it interesting that a libertarian and a socialist have more in common with eachother than with the establishment - at least we can agree on getting corporate money out of politics and all that - but i only aggree with you when personal liberties are involved - oh well - but i really do believe that if government is done correct (denmark) it works.
ray1351 3 weeks ago
@ray1351 my money is my personal liberty. It is an extension of my labor, my ideas, and my body, so I should have every freedom with it that I have with my body. There is no distinction. If you think government should have the right to steal my money, then you think they have the right to steal anything else from me, and in democracy, they do. That is why I'm not a socialist or advocate of democracy. It is mob rule by the 51%. How often are you in the 51% and how often in the 49%?
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago
@ray1351 The problem I see with your mindset is that you want the government to have the power to force companies to make random decisions, but in giving the government that power, you give them the power which those same corporations exploit through political influence. In my mindset, the government doesn't have that power, so a company can give a politician all the money they want, the politician still doesn't have the power to corrupt the market to favor that specific company.
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago
@ray1351 The problem is that the government has the monopoly power of democracy (51% mob rule) because we gave them that power. The company never has that power. They only exert it through the government. You won't stop a company from finding a way to influence the government, you have to stop the government from having the power which the company wants. All a government should be able to do is protect individual liberty and property rights.
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago
@ray1351 Pre-emptive consumer protection is no better than pre-emptive war. You give the government the power to force you to give up your capital on their terms, instead of your own. Sometimes it ends up being for your own good, but many times it doesn't, because the laws aren't made for your own good, they are made to benefit the politicians who pass them. They are sold to you as good for society just to get them passed. But who says what's good for society is going to be good for me?
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago
@ray1 I'd bet you support gay marriage, but you also support the government having the power to make decisions which are "good for society", thus the government makes decisions that gays can't marry, because 51% of the people think its bad. I don't think its bad, so why does the government have the power to say its bad? They have that power because you think they should have it in other areas, just ont the areas you disagree with. Libertarians don't think they should have that power in any area
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago
@ray1351 Proteanview thinks they should have the power to ban transfat because its bad, and thus a law banning me from buying it is "good for society", but I am healthy as hell, and happen to like it sometimes, so why can't I buy it? because Proteanview has decided its bad for me? Well maybe I've decided that black people are bad for society, should we have a government that has the power to enslave them because 51% of the people think they are bad for society?
pthompson2010 3 weeks ago
white hater
nothadnotbad 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (Donated) For Debates And Governance
Topics: THE WEAPON THAT CAN BREAK THE CYCLE OF WAR AND TERRORISM, Debated Issues, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
balanceddiet.yolasite.com
balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
SPREAD THIS BOOK AND CONQUER THE SPREADING EVIL BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE - FOR FREEDOM AND PEACE.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
The Ford Pinto may have not have been "safe" cars, but no car is 100% safe. It doesn't matter if you have an SUV, people can still get killed in cars. Even today, if you get into an accident in a tiny smart car you're more likely to die, rather than an SUV. People know this. But it should be the right for us to choose something. Laws haven't stopped smart cars. I don't need a law. I won't drive the smart car.
ggadguy 9 months ago
I wish you would make a car guaranteed to not explode on impact....if it is possible. If you told me you made a car (that is not a toy car....) guaranteed to not harm anyone (in the car) if it gets in an accident, I wouldn't buy it. If it's sounds too good to be true, it probably is (not true).
myndae 11 months ago
Y would I try to own a business...instead of work for a good business? Could I learn a lot from working with a good business, a high in quality, popular business? Y turn a good worker into a bad (or dis-functional worker?). I think collective knowledge could be good...human collective labor could be good...oh...A wolf in Sheep's clothing....leading the sheep. Is that your point? Do you think people will one day make coats out of human hair? Can one turn bad workers into better workers??????
myndae 11 months ago
Sounds terrible....you heard this terrible story about the pinto (pento). Good, If the story is true, then truth-telling was important....and businesses (or other agencies) reported the truth. Is this your point? If business hide information because they think the information will harm sells, yet may save lives, a competetor, who points out the fraud, and offers a better product will...make more money!!!??? Or wonder why people bought cheap cars...instead of taking the bus...or a taxie???
myndae 11 months ago
"knives have been recently discovered that they have the potential to kill people, so lets outlaw and regulate knife manufactures so that they cant hire, give benefits to american families" Hairspray can blind a person, so stop making hairspray, kids can choke on food so stop making food, you can hurt the masses by catering to a few.
stazandjeve 11 months ago
Then of course, there's the fact that people weren't forced to buy the pintos...
vspqbd 1 year ago
Facts: The car was no more fire-prone than other cars of the time. The fatality rates were actually LOWER than similar-sized cars. And, oh yeah, this document supposedly showing that Ford was greedy and unfeeling was a document based on NHTSA regulations. Yes, that phrase everyone says is so indicative of free market greed is FROM THE GOVERNMENT!
vspqbd 1 year ago
How about the fact that Pintos would NOT explode upon impact, it was all a bogus scare brought on by attention-seeking media? See the scientific examination of the evidence:
pointoflaw(DOT)com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pinto_Case(DOT)pdf
vspqbd 1 year ago
The free market is not enough to solve problems. It is only a start. It is the best form of government there is. Once you have a free market, you still need PEOPLE to act. A free market alone is not enough, but it's part of the solution.
AminCad 1 year ago
if the need for consumer education is proven to exist (i think it certainly does), the free market will provide this education through private entities. In order to compete for your business, these entities would want to be accurate and unbiased. The government monopolizes and subsidizes this issue. As a result, the FDA is a joke. If Ford can accurately estimate lawsuits and still profit from NOT being ethical, then I'd say those who'd sued Ford didn't sue for enough money.
hallavast 1 year ago
The free market is the best system, Of course the exception is safety.
rangergxi 1 year ago
Good point but it's not the major issue for most Libertarians and I think many Libertarians would agree that government has the right to stop economic aggression by monopolies and unsafe or misleading practices by business. Why not address real Libertarian issues such as why both US Parties continue to rob you blind through protection of a banking monopoly over the currency, funding of neo-colonialism, and Federal wealth redistribution schemes,
lorax2013 1 year ago
Hahah! Meow! Heard your cat in the background.
adventuremaniac 1 year ago
"There is NO FREE MARKET in America!"
theres one at ya mammas house
VegasSkateCulture 1 year ago
@VegasSkateCulture
I'd say some of the markets in America are still free, but certainly not finance, insurance, medicine, agriculture probably some more im forgetting.
I'd still say theres some free market aspects in tech (things like google). No one force people to buy the apple ipad, but we do anyways. Of course apple does attempt to use government power to stop competitors from competeing so mabye thats a bad example.
Not a lot though
pogoman555 1 year ago
@pogoman555
"Of course apple does attempt to use government power to stop competitors from competeing so mabye thats a bad example."
really? I've never heard of this. What about Microsoft? do they do the same? message me some links.
VegasSkateCulture 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VegasSkateCulture
I'm not sure about Microsoft. I know they supposedly had anti-competitve behaviors a few years back, but I'm not sure if they used the government to secure their power. nontheless, I feel if you've seen Ayn Rand's statements on how no monopoly can stay in power without special privelege for the governemnt came true. Now people use macs, people use linux, and google compete with them as well in other areas.
pogoman555 1 year ago
There is no such thing as a free market, hasn't been for a long time. NY City restaurants have some of the filthiest kitchens in the country, in spite of the rating system, in spite of the Board of Health inspectors, in spite of the precious government, because any government inspector can be slipped a 50 dollar bill to blind him to the filth. Government intervention is usually what causes the problems, the price of food skyrocketed after Bush's ethanol debacle. Flour tripled in price.
Cidriullo 1 year ago
@Cidriullo
>government intervention is what causes the problems
I don't get you libertarians (i'm guessing is what you are). Its like you literally don't know why those were put there in the first place. I guarantee you that the regulation the government instated in the food industry was atleast, overall, somewhat effective.
Its like you all missed history class in highschool
dethdakiller0 1 year ago
@dethdakiller0 Libertarians are not against the concept of regulations, they're against the state monopoly on them which most of the time simply translate into barriers to entry, meaning making it harder for competition to form against the corporations which are in bed with the state. Private regulatory firms exist today and work fine. See underwriter's laboratories
crazypants88 1 year ago
@dethdakiller0 I am a Libertarian. I didn't need to learn it in school, I've seen it first hand, I've seen back room deals, I've seen handouts, payoffs, bribes to everyone from health inspectors to building, plumbing, electrical inspectors and everyone in between. If you put your faith in our corrupt government to protect you, you should forget what you learned in History Class.
Cidriullo 1 year ago
There is NO FREE MARKET in America! She's BROKE! All the U.S. have is the media using deceptive measures to keep the American populous satisfied with false statistics, entertainment: i.e. Kim K. Rihanna, Beyonce, who's splitting up, what people are wearing, etc.
I totally agree with you on this on Pro but I must say: you cannot trade paper for gold thus the FREE MARKET argument is a myth among the pseudo-wealthy in the West compared to the TRUE WEALTH in the East.
EzraYisrael 1 year ago
Great piece there PV. Milton Friedman would retort with, 'how much *is* a life worth?", without batting an eyelid.
aiyic 1 year ago
Hes got a valid, point, but do we really have a choice in a free market?
tHecOmMeNtErSrEtUrN 1 year ago
how about the military indutrial complex?
even worse!
agent orange in Viet Nam is one that took one of my own cousins.
A green Beret in front of our army.
Planes spraying that defoilant over a few to save the many.
War is shit my Cousin used to say, insane is the perfect word to use, or just plane nuts !
I have the utmost respect for our personel putting there lives on the line pls don't misuderstand what I am trying to say here.
How about "Question authority !
waydeepinside 1 year ago
Meooow
JakeXVX 1 year ago
lol at the cat sound in the backround :P
inthaclub 1 year ago
In a true anarchy, punishment would be based on restitution rather than retribution. If you open a restaurant, you will have to have insurance that specifies that if you harm or kill your clients, the insurance company will pay X amount of dollars to the victim or their estate. In order to avoid outrageous premiums, your restaurant will have to submit to the insurance company's standards and be inspected by their experts. Nobody will risk eating at your restaurant otherwise.
ReligionIsACrutch 1 year ago
tell it to stefbot
natmanprime 1 year ago
Many libertarians tend to falsely assume that businesses will act in their long term interest when they clearly don't.
tommylehman 1 year ago
how is your raw diet going, proteanview?been watching, wondering if you still are at least part raw diet (etc).
ps...extra thumbs up for kitty cat in the background!
practicalmagic9 1 year ago
ROI. If it costs less to settle than the gain from the product they settle but still produce.
Anyone watch Fight Club? LOL Its more true than sick.
daeamarth 1 year ago
@daeamarth All in the name of capitalism (which at heart isnt bad, people are).
daeamarth 1 year ago
HFCS is a sugar perservitive takes several months to break down in your body a sugar that takes months to break down no shit diabetics are on the rise
anthonyww713 1 year ago
economic conservatives tend not to discuss this issue so it isn't popular but in order for the free market to function in a way that is best for the population, a KEY ROLE of government is to disseminate free, unbiased information (just like it has a responsibility to provide free education up to a certain level). In a real free market you have COMPETITION & FREEDOM, meaning COMPETITORS could have ads ridiculing the corporation producing the Pinto & warning potential buyers about those dangers.
joharmon86 1 year ago
AGAIN, no one is forcing you to buy a Pinto. you are unable to see what a free market is really like b/c if we had one, the corporation producing the Pinto once the reputation for their cars caught on would go out of business, but instead we have corporatism. Government constantly props up certain companies and picks winners and losers so that they DO NOT have to produce products that consumers want to buy to stay in business. this is why people are so unsatisfied with corporate products today.
joharmon86 1 year ago
this is DUMB. part of the responsibility of government is to make sure everyone has access to INFORMATION in this case pertinent to consumers so that when accidents happen it is documented & then people can make the appropriate choice based on those reports as to whether or not they would like to purchase a Pinto. now, if the car has a record of being unsafe on the road & exploding, then it becomes a danger to OTHER drivers & therefore government should not allow the car to be produced or sold.
joharmon86 1 year ago
As indicated by the top rated comments here, we can't possibly expect the typical undergrad libertarian to grasp any counter to their mantra that the free market will just magically solve everything. My old roommate tried to argue that private police forces were a good idea. For some reason they have it in their heads that government is always bad and that somehow businesses acting selfishly cares about the public more. look @lukewarmstormed that response made no sense.
tarkana613 1 year ago
@tarkana613 Businesses only care about the public as much as the public forces them too. If you refuse to do business with companies that provide unsafe products and services then their selfishness will force them to care because they want to make a profit and can only do so if they have customers. The answer is simple, boycott businesses that don't do what you want and other businesses will emerge to fill the niche. There's nothing magical about economics 101.
ReligionIsACrutch 1 year ago
I lean heavily towards Free Market based on Austrian economics but I'm not gonna throw my hat into the argument because Protean makes some valid points. But if you're mad about McDonald's using trans-fats... ok, I understand it's unhealthy, but if McD's stops using trans-fats does that make McD's food healthy? No, it's still garbage to be putting in your body you're just getting picky on the quality of the garbage. I just think you're making a bit of a null argument on McD's is all.
timongarretson 1 year ago
Read section V on "Product Safety" if you want real answers on how a truly free market would deal with situations like this: mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf
ReligionIsACrutch 1 year ago
The only way a company could get away with putting their customers in danger is if their customers let them do it. If Ford knew that the customers would boycott them for their actions then they wouldn't take that risk. You're right that it's a cost-benefit analysis. The problem is that customers aren't properly doing research on the products they buy and aren't making sure they vote with their wallets when they get poor service. That's why we have consumer watchdog groups like Consumer Reports.
ReligionIsACrutch 1 year ago
@ReligionIsACrutch you're wrong. a company would and did do it because they thought they could conceal it. and the only way customers would boycott is if people were already injured or killed. so, like the video says, after a few dozen people die, the free market adjusts? you're more interested in protecting "freedoms" of businesses than human lives? yeah, consumer reports tells us what happens after the affects have been felt. so companies should be allowed to kill a few first? crazy
khemeticone 1 year ago
@khemeticone It's not about protecting the freedoms of businesses. It's about protecting my freedoms. I don't want the government controlling my life. I want to be able to make my own decisions, including how safe the cars I drive will be. If you want really safe cars then only do business with companies that have extreme safety controls in place (and pay more for it). Don't complain about companies you do business with just because you didn't take any personal responsibility to research them.
ReligionIsACrutch 1 year ago
THAT IS NOT THE FREE MARKET!!!!! Thanks to the government for corporations.
bhartline4 1 year ago
@bhartline4
>doesn't know that without government intervention we end up having one monopoly (corporation) owning 99% of businesses without any way to remove them
Not informed of Rockefeller eh?
dethdakiller0 1 year ago
@dethdakiller0 How exactly would that monopoly be able to maintain itself? Through force? Through ideology? In a free market there would be no artificial barriers to entry unlike today. If one business was overcharging people than that would be a huge profit incentive for competition to emerge and offer services/goods at lower prices than said business. The competition would therefore reap said business profits. Monopolies are really only sustainable when you've lobbied the state.
crazypants88 1 year ago
@crazypants88
.................. Thru shear power. If you control 95% of a market, your competition literally can't stand up to you. That company could either straight up buy them out, or just open a shop next door that is slightly cheaper. Then after the new store goes out of business, they can rack up the prices again.
How are all you people uninformed about the late 19th century america. For fuck's sake, even walmart does these tactics.
dethdakiller0 1 year ago
@dethdakiller0 Power through what means? Today businesses use the state as a tool to reduce competition or at least the threat of it. Businesses in a free market only exist as long as people are willing to trade with them. If you're going to buy out all your competition than competitors have every incentive to just start up businesses for sole purpose of cashing in when they're bought out.
contd.
crazypants88 1 year ago
@dethdakiller0 contd.
That's not a sustainable business strategy, since there are practically innumerable potential competitors.
"...store goes out of business, they can rack up the prices again." Then they'll be in this cycle forever, also this assumes that simply lowering prices slightly is enough to bankrupt your competitors. This ignores things like higher quality services, increased selection etc.
Walmart? That's a corporation i.e. would not exist on a free market.
crazypants88 1 year ago
@crazypants88
I'm sorry, but do you not know that EVERYTHING i'm talking about already happened? The government had no regulations & what not, no child labor, no minimum wage, no safety standards... And almost every product was controlled by a monopoly of some sort.
Look up Standard Oil, its literally the epidemy of what i'm talking about. Look up Carnegie Steel is an example too.
Fucking americans, god damn it learn the history of your own fucking country.
dethdakiller0 1 year ago
@dethdakiller0
Oh, and btw, do you know what eventually removed these monopolies from power? FUCKING GOVERNMENT REGULATION. ANTI-TRUST LAWS.
dethdakiller0 1 year ago
@dethdakiller0 History can easily be skewed by those who write it. Standard oil was not a monopoly, neither was carnegie steel. And it's not any coincidence that the top oil companies have remained almost the same for a long time. The state regulation more often than not simply help in the creation of cartels by erecting barriers to entry making it extremely hard if not outright illegal to compete with the state created cartels.
Also I'm not an American.
contd.
crazypants88 1 year ago
@dethdakiller0 contd.
Also in regards to child labor, you have to realize that people back then were not nearly as wealthy as people are today. If the kids many families didn't go out and work they were not going to be able to feed themselves.
crazypants88 1 year ago
@crazypants88
"Standard oil was not a monopoly, neither was Carnegie steel"
Please, for the sake of all that is decent, stop watching glenn beck and stop spreading ignorance and lies.
"standard oil was not a monopoly"
I don't even...
dethdakiller0 1 year ago
@dethdakiller0 And you please stop making assumptions about me. I've never watched Glenn Beck...ever.
crazypants88 1 year ago
@crazypants88
Sorry, you just spout the exact same bullshit as he. but atleast you don't have a radio show and tell people to go kill obama's friends (yes, glenn beck told a crazy person to kill a bunch of left-wing politicians)
dethdakiller0 1 year ago
But now lawsuits are a lot more expensive.
Think of all the recalls that are going around...it seems daily. Its this very reason that they're issuing all the recalls in the first place, becaue the lawsuits are not cheaper now. Its cheaper to make your product as cheaply as possible and than issue recalls if there is a big enough prob
Thats right, enough people stop giving someone business...rather its death or just the reputation that it causes death...it encourages people to stop buying.
StuffedAnimalAdvisor 1 year ago
This is an example of a government going from a democracy to a fascist government. If these politicians weren't bought out, we'd be more free today. Ralph Nader needs to be President. He fixed so much crap back in the day.
Apocalypse487 1 year ago
@Apocalypse487 The reason Ralph Nader was more effective back in the day was because we had more freedom not less. People read and sought out consumer advocates to inform them. Now with the reg.s people have become lazy having a false sense of security. Bus. are motivated to buy off gov. So we end up with bus. protections being implemented into law by powerful corps which = reduced competition and ^prices.
libertyfizz 1 year ago
The problem is Government and big business are the same.
srt8taylor 1 year ago
IM sorry but this is probably your worst video. Because it makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about. You are talking about past issues that have been fixed. There is a difference between regulation that still upholds peoples rights and government control.
It's perfectly sane because its still better then no freedom. We already have the proper regulations so i dont know what you are bitching about.
TheAnonHorde 1 year ago
Here come the Randites to tell us how better off we would be without government... enjoy the myopic diatribes!
Even though there's countless examples of the failure of deregulation, the most glaringly recent being the collapse of the economy in 2008; We will continue to hear how we need to rely on ourselves, not government. (apparently the icons of capitalism tho, needed trillions in government bailout money to survive in the "free market", that's trillions of YOUR dollars btw)
TZ3k 1 year ago
@TZ3k Are you retarded? You really think we stepped back from regulation and that somehow made the economy collapse? We never lowered regulation, and continue to increase it. Over regulation is what kills economies.
But it really doesn't matter since america wont be around very long. We have a dying birthrate. brought on by the feminist movement and social "progression" and people thinking over population is even close to being an issue.
TDR had it right.
TheAnonHorde 1 year ago
@TheAnonHordeI prefer the term mental disability to retard, but anyone can learn, so don't give up hope!
Of course i don't think it was a step back from regulation, It was a 30 year long march back from the regulations put in place after the great depression.
And its not ALL deregulation, its actual regulations lobbied for by wall street that contributed as well.
Let me as u, are u gullible enough to believe Wall Street can regulate itself, Like Moody and S&P?
TZ3k 1 year ago
You kidding me? The economy was FAR from deregulated . Wall street was heavily regulated . The Mortgage markets were heavily regulated. Ever heard of the Truth in lending act? The Home mortgage disclosure act? Regulation B? Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act? There was heavy regulation of the banks and mortgage companies. Credit would have not been so readily so available to banks and the mortgage market had not the federal reserve printed the notes and created artificial demand.
Pentazoid111 1 year ago
what you fail to realize protean is that the government is not some sort of an angel that will save you. in this world you can only rely on yourself. instead of the government telling McDonalds how to make their fitlth you should simply not go there. it's not so hard. if i can do it then so can you. if we got rid of the government then maybe the people could use the money they saved on taxes to buy REAL food instead of going to McDonalds.
g1981c 1 year ago 2
@g1981c Too late if you died in a Pinto, figuratively speaking
aiyic 1 year ago
Just because big govt does a few good things does not mean I want them in my life. I've dealt with the govt as a small business owner. All they do is meddle and fuck things up. And they don''t protect you either, they just pretend to so they can get your money. The free market isn't the answer to all problems, but govt is the answer to almost no problems.
SmokeRingsPipeDreams 1 year ago
Why would a sheep march for the rights of wolves? Two main possibilities:
1) The sheep is fed by wolves.
2) The sheep plans to become a wolf one day.
Xisla 1 year ago
Protean, you have a good point on unethical business behavior. However, there does get to be a point where too much regulation stifles job creation and innovation. Happy balance.
Solitas777 1 year ago
@voltrabbit7
Thats the problem though. Its not that government is inherently bad, and it wasn't always like it is today.
It CAN be fixed, It probably won't even take revolution to make that happen either. Look at the Tea Party for example, they're all fucking retards, but they still have a pretty good piece of political power. Imagine if all the reasonable people in this country all decided they were fed up with our broken two party (its the same party btw, just diff faces. Imagine it.
dethdakiller0 1 year ago
Clearly a form of syndicalist-mutualism is the only answer
niriop 1 year ago
What grants corporations limited liability privileges?
It is the only entity which claims, by force, a monopoly on law.... Government
Freethought42 1 year ago
Remember the Chinese wheat in dog food killing a few dogs. Well I got concerned that Chinese wheat might be in the human food chain. Since I bake, I started calling flour manufactures. I found one who used only American grown wheat. Told them they should label their flour as American Grown (King Arthur). They listened changed their packaging and informed consumers are rewarding them. I did not waste my time lobbing gov. to label Chinese wheat. I utilized a free market solution.
libertyfizz 1 year ago
Without regulations now how do you explain that both Wendy's and Burger King went trans fat free? Could it be without regulation they are listening to the demands of their consumers. Many Chinese restaurants are MSG free and promote it without regulations. The Pinto got horrible press and believe me their competition put out ads, "our cars don't explode." Ford took a major hit in sales and they had to pay the people they harmed. Gov. fines only enrich the gov. they don't help the harmed.
libertyfizz 1 year ago
@libertyfizz
Weren't wendys & BK required, by regulations, to post that their foods have transfat? Which made them want to not have that there, because average people are all "HUURRRRR DURRRRRRR TRANSFAT CAUSE SUPER AIDS AND CANCER OF THE PENIS"
dethdakiller0 1 year ago
@dethdakiller0 I believe it was Dr. Mary Enig from Maryland that first blew the whistle on transfats. Back in the 70's Scientist were all raving that Margarine was healthier for you. So Dr. Mary Enig and her findings were ridiculed in 1978. She was right and the scientist to afraid to speak up back then were wrong.
News shows like 60 min outed BK and Wendys long before the regulation about using transfats. And Mcd's still uses transfats in-spite of the nutrition chart requirement.
libertyfizz 1 year ago
@libertyfizz
Well, even if BK & wendys don't use transfats, McDonalds still does. and McDonlads is the most popular fast food chain the in the unitedstates, and the whole world.
Your argument that consumers will stop going to places and thus regulations are unnecessary, doesn't hold much water if the biggest seller still isn't self regulating.
dethdakiller0 1 year ago
@dethdakiller0 if people who eat at McDonalds die that can only be a good thing. less degenerates, more oxygen.
g1981c 1 year ago
@g1981c
I personally don't like fast food very much. I never liked McDonalds, and the last time i actaully got fast food was a few months ago at taco bell.
The point of this argument wasn't if people should/could eat at McDonalds, its if the gov't should require them to display if they have transfats in their foods on their menus. The whole point of this is more freedom, to do what you want, and to have information. the point is not at all to physically consumers from buying some items.
dethdakiller0 1 year ago
@dethdakiller0
Physically *stop* consumers****
dethdakiller0 1 year ago
@dethdakiller0 Consumers were informed before nutritional charts were required. Many news outlets and scientist outed the nutritional content of restaurants. When did anyone think a burger and fries was healthy? Getting gov. to babysit the population with increased regulations leads to fascism. Freedom means letting people make choices for themselves even bad choices and living with the results of those choices. I suppose I took away a different message from "Food Inc.," than you.
libertyfizz 1 year ago
@libertyfizz
>that whole statement
>implying requiring businesses to give more information is somehow hurting them
Look, if requiring more information is bad, then there is probably something really bad about that product. It should hurt a business in no way at all for them to display the ingredients/nutritious facts for their products.
The consumer should be protected by information. Thats all consumers really need. Saying more information instantly leads to fascism is retarded.
dethdakiller0 1 year ago
@dethdakiller0 Way to miss the point and misrepresent what I said. Having the information is good. A business not providing the information should lose customers and be outed by independent consumer advocates. Businesses that have healthier menu / calorie info. provided voluntarily will be rewarded and encouraged by increased business from customers who understand personal responsibility. What leads to fascism is government imposing requirements.
libertyfizz 1 year ago
@libertyfizz Exactly right. You can't explain how the free market works to people that don't care. They expect the world to be bubble wrapped and served on a silver platter. People that don't vote with their wallets and don't do proper research into what they buy deserve what they get. If you eat fatty food without demanding nutritional information then you have no right to complain. People have to have personal responsibility and they're not prepared for it. They expect a nanny state.
ReligionIsACrutch 1 year ago
@ReligionIsACrutch I answer in hopes that people who really haven't thought about it before can get a better understanding. Cause businesses can be pressured without the use of government to make better products and to provide better information.
libertyfizz 1 year ago
So because people are too lazy to become informed consumers. We have to have an oppressive government? Inspection can be handled privately. There is already a working model. Underwriters Laboratory is not the gov. UL is independent but I doubt anyone would buy an electrical device without the UL mark. Depending on the gov. to save you is a fallacy. Look at the Gov. protection racket for some businesses. Fines enrich the gov. but do nothing for the harmed person.
libertyfizz 1 year ago
Another example of improper titles is "workers compensation", which is nothing but an employer protection racket. A "free market" has never existed in this nation.
(did I hear a 4 footed friend at 1:42?)
SlackerSlayer 1 year ago
Most people who support free markets also support regulation, what they dont support is government interference in commerce, such as a) tariffs b) subsidies c) government price fixing d) bailouts e) earmarking f) restriction of competition
The reality is that there is a middle ground between no regulation and over-regulation and this is a really challenging sweet spot to find.
Both extremes can lead to economic woes.
deathByStupid 1 year ago
@deathByStupid Usually regulations are lobbied for by businesses who want to limit competition. Many regulations are only imposed on new startups old businesses are grandfathered in.
libertyfizz 1 year ago
the free market is not bad its the lack of moral responsibilty
rast123456789 1 year ago
MIAOW at 1.41 !
Aelkamal 1 year ago
Yeah, so people dying in pintos sucks, but these questions dont exist in a vacuum. Compared to what? Compared to state regulation? Yeah thanks I'll take the pintos.
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato people getting sick from trans fats compared to regulation which prevents them from being sold. people having to ask for the recipe (not just menu) at every restaurant they go to before feeding their kids as opposed to nyc banning trans fats. food should have a standard. we shouldn't rely on, "well when enough people get sick and die, the public will stop going and the business will fold"
khemeticone 1 year ago
@khemeticone I'm not questioning the problem you bring up. I'm saying your solution is FAR worse than the problem you are trying to solve. I'd rather check the ingredients on my packages than give a coercive monopoly on the use of force ultimate decision making authority over what I eat.
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato
the problem: even though you are a paying customer, you have to request the actual recipe for every dish you're interested in & go from place to place until you find one w/o trans fats.
the problem: you have no idea what every new ingredient is & find out about the side effects once too many get sick
the solution: trans fats banned. you can sit down at a restaurant and know that the food came from a clean kitchen & that it doesn't have ingredients that will make you sick.
khemeticone 1 year ago
@khemeticone What if I want to eat trans fats? What gives you the right to use coercion to prohibit me from buying trans fats? You don't have the right to use coercion to force people to serve you the kind of food you want to eat. I'm a vegetarian, but that doesn't give me the right to ban pepperoni pizza even though in a lot of situations finding vegetarian meals is a pain in the ass.
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato right then. well the next time you sit down to dinner with your 6 year old daughter, don't get upset when you learn that one of the ingredients in the pasta was motor oil or rat feces. you wouldn't want to intrude on the freedom of businesses. i mean, maybe some of us want restaurants which serve this & we don't think they should have to tell anyone. your daughter will love you for standing up for her, er, their freedom
khemeticone 1 year ago
@khemeticone Yeah, it's called taking responsibility. I plan on ensuring for my own health and the health of those I care about without threatening coercion on those around me. As I said, I'm a vegetarian and I read all my package labels. If I want to be healthy, I need to be responsible. If you need some nanny to ensure your health, and your family's health you are already doing it wrong.
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato Being a vegetarian, is the suppose to mean you know more? I am one too, I do not feel more knowledgeable because of it.
I read labels for everything I buy. However there are some things missing from those labels. This is why a lot of my food needs extra research and calls to corporations who put me in a loop half the time.
More disclosure needs to be given in big and small business. It needs to also be in plain view. No more phone calls would be nice.
BornOfSong 1 year ago
@BornOfSong I agree no such thing as vegetarian superiority. Generally vegetarians are better informed. Labels are a another fallacy. You pointed out they aren't clear and don't end having to be informed. There are consumer advocates out there. "Eat This Not That," is good even for the lazy consumer. Bus. faced with regulations are motivated to spend money on gov. which leads to corruption. And warped industry protections i.e. liable laws, subsidies and reducing competition = ^ prices.
libertyfizz 1 year ago
@BornOfSong ...I don't know how I was claiming superiority because of my vegetarianism. I was saying that I have dietary restrictions too, but that doesn't make me feel entitled to coerce people to abide by MY preferences. If you want to maintain a certain diet then take the initiative and do whatever it takes. If you don't want to take the effort then stop trying to use coercion to make up for your laziness. Don't rely on the state to be your mother.
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato Onision tells me go vegan or die.
tHecOmMeNtErSrEtUrN 1 year ago
@khemeticone You do realize that the government actually has allowable limits for rat feces and motor oil in your food. The gov. doesn't impose a zero tolerance level for either. Gov. isn't out to save you. All gov. does is gives you a false sense of security as it increases prices to sustain itself. Inspections for restaurants are announce not surprise and happen once or twice a year. So what about the other 363 days of the year?
libertyfizz