you know i'm a democrat but he is right it is unconstitutional and he can stop all these kickback and earmark it would also stop republicans from doing the same shit when they(hopefully never) get back into power.
You know what, King? Since you were appointed by Bob Riley, who stole the Alabama Gubernatorial election in 2002 by rigging crooked electronic voting machines, YOUR position as AG is unconstitutional. Why don't you START by looking on to that?
And if you can't bring yourself to do that, how about starting with the unconstitutional imprisonment of Don Siegelman so he couldn't run against Riley again?
This is a strange time for you to suddenly START worrying about the Constitution.
ROFLMAO... really? This just plays into the "trailer trash, no front teeth, stupid hicks" stereotype. He may not look it but everything coming out of his mouth says it.
You are correct. There are many bad things that are not unconstitutional. You are correct about slavery. Until the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865, slavery was protected by the Constitution.
Note also that rape and murder are not forbidden by the Constitution. Criminal and civil law are part of our statutory law and common law system. I don't think there are any common law crimes now, but I'm not sure.
If both parties are the same, why do Libertarians historically vote three to one in favor of the Republicans when presented with a choice (according to the Cato Institute). Apparently most people who call themselves Libertarians think there IS a difference.
Alabama are also looking into giving back all of the pork used in buying their votes in appropriates bills!!! Oops....wait...that didn't happen....weird...
I think the AG has an interesting point at least. I was for reform, but feel a little sick by what was stripped from the bill and what was stripped from "reform" in order to get something passed.
I personally don't see current legislation as making much of a dent in insurance prices for the masses, and judging by the skyrocketing price of insurance stocks lately, neither do investors.
IS IT TIME?! Go to USRevolution2 (dot com) and get the flag of the Second American Revolution. They're made in Texas and look exactly like Betsy Ross' flag, but with a Roman numeral "II" in the center of the 13 stars. They make great gifts for family, friends and recovering Liberals.
The USA gave conservatives the keys to the palace for 8 years and they went wild, broke the economy, started two wars and lost both; when a US city got washed away they reacted with callous disregard that bordered on racist - even the American people are not stupid enough to hand the keys back over to them, esp when they have nothing positive to offer - what are they going to run on? National security? Compassion? Economic know-how? Some conservative please explain what they are going to run on?
@davis80smusic We get it, the Republicans suck, but isn't the democratic policies now proposed just more of that? More government intrusion, more regulation, more deficit spending?
At least in principle this is an accurate description. But why is your assesment that it is not the same? I would like to hear that.
I think the Republicans are the party of no ideas, the Democrats that of bad ones, and I rather have bad than worse at this point, preferebly neither, preferebly good - ie libertarian.
sounds like our viewpoints are pretty close , both parties suck - currently I don't see the dems giving tax breaks to the wealthy, starting wars they can't win, taking away a woman' right to choose, gay-bashing, or letting wall street do whatever the fuck they please - so Dems are the lesser of two evils - I'm down with libertarian principles, but until they gain political strength we are stuck with the two existing parties - doesn't mean I like it, but it's the reality -
If the parties goverend like they campaign, thre would be an actual choice, now there isn't. They are the same.
The dems campaign on social liberties and win their votes that way and they never deliver, the republicans dampaign on economic liberties and they also never deliver.
Freedom is better in both the economic and social sphere, to bad the only party for both is the libertarians and nobody votes for them.
I don't accept it, it's not reality, it's the retardation of democracy.
the retardation of democracy is the reality we live with - I'm not saying we shouldn't try to change it, but one party promises eternal war and freedom for wall street only, while the other responds at least somewhat to voter pressure to end war and reign in wall street - until a revolution comes and libertarian principles are the norm, I will to the best of my ability choose the party that best suits my and what I think is in the country's best interests - currently it's the Dems over the GOP
Responding to voter pressure can be just as bad as responding to corporate pressure. The problem is the idea, the concept, and the way the government tallies favor to people that fund them - be it moronic voters or greedy copper barons.
I'm not going to chose a party just because it's the lesser of two evil, that's not a choice, that's retarded. If somebody offers me the choice of being raped by a blue or a red dildo, I chose neither.
When change is required, Congress must act. There is no reason why we should rank 27th in world in healthcare received by the average citizen. All the while CEO salaries are among highest on Wall Street. 45,000 Americans die every year for lack of insurance. Meanwhile companies profit by denying claims, refusing to cover pre-existing conditions, and dropping at-risk individuals.
I expect my congressional representatives to vote in America's interest and support healthcare reform.
It's not change that is required, it is improvement, and you have to be economically illiterate to believe in a thid payer system.
CEO salaries? Eh, what does that have to do with the health care reform... they are high because they can loot the taxpayer, Obama voted for the TARP, remember that.
Profit is a good thing, And insurance is not how health care should be paid for. If you get insurance first when you get sick then it's your own damn fault.
Were we a wiser people, we would adopt a single-payer plan. This would not only cover everyone, but also lower the costs of treatment.
Insurance CEO profits have a lot to do with costs. Every million dollar of their multi-million dollar salaries come from high priced premiums, denied claims, and the like. (continued)
Single payer is just another thrid party payer system, which is the problem. You should pay for your care, make your own choices, shop around, force medical providers to be competitive.
No they don't the bonuses are a miniscule expenditure. But yeah, they get too much pay, which is because the system is designed to over useage of insurance.
You need the free market system back in health care, then it will work as it should.
When companies are not over watched, they have a tendency to abuse consumers and workers. For example, consider the industrial revolution, businesses destroyed individuals. Look at the US in the 1920s. Conservative courts and presidents virtually eliminated the power of the FED and allowed big business to run amok. Workers had no protection or voice. Profit was paramount. And it nearly destroyed the nation. Big Business has done the same thing again following two decades of deregulation. conti
Why do you think big business will behave any better now if we reduce regulation than they have in the past when regulations were looseness? Even under existing regulation, they deny treatments to dying patients. What will they do if regulations ceased?
They would cover the people who have paid for there care.
There only needs to be a few simple laws, against defrauding customers, against unstable payment models (against ponzi schemes like medicare, medicaid and social security) and upholding contract. That's it.
Regulation doesn't help, they are in fact a problem. State legislators are lobbied by interest organizations and pay them to put in ridiculous things in the insurance that drives up the price, like chiropractors and viagra.
Why do you think big government, which only incentive structure is to be reelected is worse than big business that has to attract customers by being cheaper and better than their competitors?
And as far as this whole discussion goes, you make such a huge assumption, why for the love of god should we have a system where the care is paid for by insurance companies/government (third parties) in the first place? It is stupid. You only need insurance for disasters - that's it!
You're an atheist right? You consider yourself rational? Then why do you have faith that some men would make better decissions for all of us than we would for ourselves?
You do realize that the modern state is just another form of church and religion?
As a rational human being I can never wrap my mind around how somebody can understand that to have faith in clergy is absurd, but to have faith in the state-clergy somehow makes sense. It's the same stupid thing. It's myth. It's religion.
The state is necessary. Without the state, we would not have a common currency, paved roads, sewage disposal, the police, many medicines, air travel, protection from foreign attack, any enforcement of contracts, building codes, safe drinking water, public education, and so on.
When I was in the military, I visited a place with no government regulation -- Somalia. No government, complete anarchy, and no gun control. I pity the people who live there, and they would envy you.
Uh, there was common currency before the state, which was much more stable.
And all those things you talk about, could be done better by volountary means. There's no rational reason to assume they would have to be done by the state.
But okay, let's say I accept it is a necessery evil, then why make that necessery evil so large? It should be minimal.
Somalia? Well do you know that they are doing better now with no government then the ever did WITH? I pity the people in Ethiopia more.
Destroyed? You need to read history, the life expectancy shot trough the roof and people had a better life in all aspects.
Yes, look at the 1920s, irresponsible monteray policy by the FED led to a depression. Which lasted so long because of intervention, ever heard of the depression of the 1920s? You know why, the government did nothign and it was over in 18 months.
Dergulation? This happeened again because of easy credit and government guarantees. Like in the 20s the FED is to blame.
The FED was essentially stripped of its power the 1920s. The Taft Court struck down minimum wage laws, supported the rights of businesses to sell inferior produces, enabled big business to endanger the property of normal citizens without liability, destroyed unions and disdained the rights of workers, approved of child labor, and so on. (continued)
No they wouldn't they would have to offer conditions which workers would accept. Working conditions were getting better and better in the US improving steadily. In the begining of the 19th century the US was a thrid world country, but because of the limited government the country prospered.
Business just volountary means and have to serve the customer, the government have all the guns, they can do whatever they want. The free market always work better than tyranny.
There was no common currency before the US began issuing money. Spanish currency was widely used. Banks would each print their own banknote which proved very confusing. Individuals doing business had to refer to the most recently-issued specie circular to determine the true value of a banknote to determine current value as banks often suffered frequent monetary declines. A dollar issued by one bank might be worth 80 cents while of another bank might be worth 17 cents. (continued)
Stripped? You need to read your history, they didn't have any powers back then, they were in charge of one thing, and that they did poorly, it was the money supply.
MInimum wage laws are stupid, the price workers out of the market and replace them with capital.
Unions are stupid, they like vampires raise the price of their work above their production capacity, burden companies and destory them, like vampires they move from sector to sector and drain them
The reason why we could get away with child labor in the west is because we got so prosperous from the free market system that our children no longer needed to work.
That is also the system that best provides the growth essential to give poor a better quality of life, better education, better health care and in all aspects of life.
It all comes down to the principle of it. Volountary interaction is better than force and coercision. The pen is mightier and the sword.
Child labor ended only when it was declared illegal by law.
Anarchy is not a better means of government that an democratic republic. I would rather laws being made by individuals we have the power to vote out of office than see it depend on the good will of corporations whose only goal is profit. Of course, profit is made by paying workers as little as possible and charging customers as high as they can. (continued)
The US didn't start issuing Money until Hsmilyon betrayed the constituion and started a central bank, which later was dissolved because it created a bubble by Andrew Jackson.
And no, just because you make something a law doesn't mean it is followed.
Anarchy is the only rational government, but that takes rational ability to understand, something most religious people don't have today.
Laws are not made by anyone you vote on, they are made by lobbyists and beaurocrats.
You are confusing the Bank of the United States with the Second Bank of the United States. The first Bank of the United States was indeed the brainchild of Hamilton, and approved by President Washington. Both of these men were among the Framers of the Constitution. The vast majority of the Framers approved of the Bank. (I don't know of any Framer that opposed it.) Andrew Jackson attacked the Second Bank at least in part for personal reasons. The result was a deep recession (or panic). (continue
As for the people I met in Somalia, I suspect only the ones carrying the big guns are happy -- assuming they are still alive. I imagine the women have tired of being raped by armed gangs. I think the small businessmen wish the police would prevent the local warlord from seizing their property at will. I am fairly sure they all miss running water, electricity, and decent medical care, They would welcome some government regulation in exchange. (continued)
Then make it possible for all of them to have guns, that's the only real problem.
You think the reason for their troubles is that they don't have a government? No. They used to have a government that raped their women and children, that worked worse than today
Somalia is better of now than they were before
You think running water, police, electricity, medical care somehow is produced by a magical machine that the government has? Religion...
We can take the stupid state, they certainly can't.
What defense would a gun bring to a 13-year-old girl faced by a gang intent on rape? She has a choice between gang rape and death.
In anarchies, the functions of government are assumed by local charisma individuals to whom are drawn those most likely to be criminals in a democratic government. They outnumber any combination opposing them and murder those individuals who speak out. They can rape, kill, and ravage at will. Who can stop them? (continued)
In an anarchy, there would be no educators, no public schools, no universities, no hospitals, no sewage system, no highway system, no criminal justice system, no airports, and so on. I'm fairly sure the people of Somali would gladly trade their warlords in for a constitutional democratic republic that offers them these benefits and many more.
Surely you don't suppose the best thing we can do for abused Somalis is yo send them weapons?
Yes there would be, but they would all be funded trough different means.
No highway system? No, there are more private roads in this world than there are public ones.
All those things you bring up do not have to be done by government, and for the most part of history have not been done by the government,.
The government produces nothing of value, they take from one hand and give them to the other, and very inefficiently I might add, as there is no choice involved.
If there is no government in Somalia, then there is obviously nothing preventing them all from having guns. With the elephant in the room being the obvious fact that the free market (completely unencumbered by government interference) hasn't met the demand for guns.
There's a difference in demand and want. It will take time, but as the Somalia economy is growing, unlike most economies in Africa, they seeing the benefits of an increased purchasing power.
The thing is, the free market is the most efficient system to deliver goods and services to the people who want it as fast as it can and develop as much as possible. That doesn't mean you snap your fingers and have a magic society, it takes time, but it takes less time than if you have a dumb government,
A democratic republic is not a tyranny. Requiring businesses to pay employees a working wage, providing safety regulations to prevent injury, insisting that products not endanger the buyer, denying companies the right to sell contaminated foods, preventing industrial are all good things that were lacking before an elected government forbade it. (continued)
No real economist will call the post-war recession of 1921 a "depression." Only Tom Woods and a hand full of other Austrian School revisionists define it as a depression because they're absolutely desperate to find an example of a non-interventionist recovery from an economic downturn.
There was no comparison to the Great Depression. 1921 unemployment never exceeded about 10% and the Dow only dropped by 50%. In 1933 unemployment was 25% and the Dow had dropped by 90%.
Seeing as you've (apparently) never read anything BUT the works of Austrian School economists and people who write for von Mises, I'm not surprised you have such a faerie tale view of the free market.
As for Hazlitt's book, Atlas Shrugged is probably the only book to have done more damage to the general public's ability to have a rational view of commerce and the free market.
Oh I've read other books as well, some Marx, Engel, Spencer, Proudhon. As far as mainstream economics, I've had several courses in it, and for me, it is just comedy.
In my experience there are two sorts of economists, there are those that understand Hazlitt and the importance of unseen consequences, and there are those that doesn't get it
The second one completely fail to even comprehend the most basic scientific philosophy, the other one stand a chance at understanding it.
As for blaming people for not having insurance, when a worker loses a job as many have during the recession, they also lose their insurance. That's not the worker's fault. Also insurance companies have a annual and lifetime cap on how much they will cover. Most medical bankruptcies occur to individual who do have private medical insurance, but the companies refuse to cover all the required treatment. That's not the patient's fault. This happens to thousands every year. Reform is needed.
And who came up with that stupid idea? Why should health care be tied to employment? It's stupid. Get away with it!
Medical bankrupticies is a common myth, but it's a miniscule amount of the actual bankrupicies.
As far as coverage, you should get what you pay for, sadly the system is so heavily regulated that men have to pay for maturnity leave and breast cancer and women for Viagra. It's ridiculous.
Reform is needed, a reform that will not retard the market further.
Passing Gramm-Leach and CFMA which allowed huge institutions previously regulated by the FED or SEC to merge and operate without regulation, and stacking the SEC, FDA, and EPA with industry lobbyists who don't regulate is not an example of "more regulation." It's an example of less regulation.
Likewise, increasing spending while cutting taxes is indeed an example of "more deficit spending." Ironically, by comparison, increasing spending while raising taxes is NOT an example of "more of that."
Repealing GlassSteagall Act ? That's an infinitely insufficient explenation, but yeah, if that is done then what you should blame is FDIC. FDIC creates an incentive for risk, that's the problem, not that you let busiensses do stuff. Most busienssses affect by this legislation did noting.
As far as the myth of derugulation goes, that is it.
Regulatiosn increased from 122 00 0 to 266 000. Banks were forced to take on loans they knew they couldn't pay back, one lawyer in such a case was Obama.
Keep acting like the majority don't realize who's in the majority here. You party retards deserve to go to jail when you can't afford this "health care reform".
"The net effect, according to the CBO, is that over 10 years, the plan would end up reducing the national deficit by $130 billion."
At least Obama is concerned about the economic affect - discusses it openly, even if he distorts - Bush didn't try to pay for his plan - so who is the better president in that regard? - you should give Obama credit for making it an issue - the GOP has nothing positive to offer ,and a party with nothing but Obama hate to run on is going to pay at the ballot box
Who do you think your BSing? Obuma didn't make this an issue. This has been an agenda since the creation of UN AGENDA21 /CONDEX, and the Clinton admin. Old man Bush even had a hand in it.
Even the gov accounting proves it's unfunded. Why do you think it was pushed off for years before it's implemented? "They" had to use "tabacco science" creativity to make it look like the numbers would work.
ALL B.S. Unless you got the "medicaid NO PAY" like some state we know.
@davis80smusic. If they managed to reduce the deficit they can only do so by denying more costs than they take on. In effect making care worse for everyone.
As far as the CBO goes, they are useless, let's use the "wisdom of the crowds" instead, which is far more accurate than government lackey's appraising. Well the wisdom of the crowd in the futures market tells us this will be a bad idea, and so does current and earlier history from around the world.
I see your point - how it looks to me is this: there's going to be deficit spending no matter what, it's going to grow no matter what, the GOP says fuck the American people's health care, all that matters is company profits, the Dems say let's give the American people healthcare, like almost everyone else in the world has - both paths are bad economics, but one favors the people - it's the lesser of two evils - I go with the one that gives health care to more expectant mothers and children
Profit is a good thing. And no politicans gives you anything without taking from others.
Remember:
"If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else's expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves." - T.Sowell
In terms of economics the democrats are not the lesser of two evils, they are the worst of evils, expanding government didn't work, just look at FDR.
I haven't heard Obama or the Dems say that universal health care will come free of charge, what they say, and what I think everyone agrees on, is that currently, and for the last 3 decades, healthcare costs have been exploding and hurting the economy, yet have given substandard results compared to other industrialized nations - everyone says something has to be done, the GOP sat on their hands because they're bought and paid for by the insurance companies - at least the Dems are doing something
You know what also has been exploding over the past three decades? Government involvement in health care.
There's nothing wrong with the standard of care in the US, any such indication is absurd, the problem is that there are too many costs involved with health care and that choice has been removed from the payer and put into the hands of third parties - government and lobbyists.
The GOP dropped the ball on this one and now the Dems are picking it up to trash a window. Change isn't always good
the founding father's never envisioned the republican party being so worthless, even dangerous, to the well being of the american people. if we have to go state by state, democratic senator by democratic senator to cover democratic americans, then we will. every republican in every republican district will be left out of healthcare reform, as they should be, as they seem to want to be. fuck 'em. if they won't pass reform as a political body, then we'll pay to parcel it to those who deserve it.
@junkforkaryn , oKay, well I have an IQ of 143, I'm getting double masters in Engineering and in Economics, and I'm against this plan.
I also have the priviledge of first hand experience from the Swedish health care system and an understanding in this subject more immensly cause I have been debating it for 8 years.
And it is insufficient to call it reform, what it really is is an expansion of governmetn intrusion into the health care industry. Which is what has caused the current problems.
@Visfen you're in luck, mr. smartypants, educated dumb-asses like you would still get to buy overpriced insurance with the clear knowledge, or not, that the insurance can be dropped the moment you get sick. isn't that cool? the rest of us would like a little competition for the insurance industry with an offering of a public plan. reform the health insurance industry and spend the money on decent healthcare for everyone. simple solutions don't need 8 years of debate.
@junkforkaryn Why would I buy it? There is a mandate to keep me on as a customer if I get sick, I rather just pay the fine for not having an insurance, save the money and invest it in commodity markets and in growing economies
You don't compete with government, because they don't play fair. They get their funding trough taxation, which means it is impossible to compete with
Dumb solutions take8years to sort out, I started as a socialist on the issue, now because I understand it, I'm libertaria
@Visfen --no disrespect, but you are a 23 year old college student in sweden....lol. come back when you've grown up a bit and have some real life experience under your belt. also, take a closer look at american corporations, most of them are subsidized by tax dollars--you know, too big to fail?
@junkforkaryn Well no disrespect but you're a 49 year old uneducated American, come back when you've gotten a rudimentary understanding of how competition works and how an economy grows, the difference between cost and price and the unseen consequences of government involvement.
No offense, but I know these things better than you. Maybe you should listen? What's the harm?
As far as corporations go, why the hell would you think I support that? Subsidies are always inefficient and stupid.
"expansion of governmetn intrusion.. Which is what has caused the current problems"
Incorrect. We have unequivocally the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but have narrower coverage than every other developed nation. The key difference between our country and others is the lack of a strong government-run component in our healthcare and/or insurance
Clearly, the privatized system we have hasn't worked well in terms of cost and we see by example how others easily compete on quality.
@boulderbum7 Well prices are really an irrelevant comparisson as other countries have fixed prices.
Yes, coverage is a problem, and the cause for is that there are governemnt guarantees for the poor and mandates on quality of care. This however affects the development in a larger scale because a market needs diversity of purchasing power to cater and develop different technologies.
The biggest problem with all health care in the west is third party payer. Be it single or private insurance.
Cost is very relevant. If other countries have a better way to containing them while maintaining similar quality care, then we should look to them as a model in our reform!
As it happens, the countries with the biggest cost savings accomplish it through government intervention. Canada pays less for drugs because of gov negotiated prices. Germany has highly cost-regulated public options. England has the gov-run NHS
Private insurance/health care has proven too costly. "Free market" care fails.
Yes costs are relevant, and then you have to look at the cost benefit.
The problem in the system is that there is no "budget" alternative for those with lower purchasing power.
Canada pays less for drugs because the entire global drug market is subsidized by the US market.
The only way to actually decrease the cost is to increase efficiency, which is done in the labor market by removing restrictions, and which is done in the whole by allowing for competition and innovation.
My undergraduate degree is in History. I focused on American history. I have studied economics and the economic history of the United States, There are no reputable economists historians who agree with you.
@LarcheOsborne. That's probably because most historians and most economic historian come from the neoclassical school of economics. That they don't agree with me is not much of an argument.
The problem with the neoclassical school goes back to the foundation of the scientific process, in which we have to change the conditions of a test to estimate cause and effect. You can't do that in society so good economic theory is based on theoretical understanding and not empirical ones.
I'm sorry, but I must take the word of professional historians and economists first. While certainly not infallible, they typically form opinions that conform to the historical realities of the time.
Society is better served by a gradual progress of reform. American reform has always consisted of two steps forward and one step back. Drastic radical change of any sort is apt to backlash and cause instability and revolution. Anarchy would be a radical and drastic change. (change)
@LarcheOsborne Okay, well what do you tell Christians who tell you they must listen to their pastor? Because to me, that is just what you told me that you must do.
The idea that a panic is created by pointing at a bank is absurd, what kind of power do people suppose simple men have?
But this is not a step forward in any way. Subsisides for doctors to go along, billion of dollar to start government agencies, and a system that will result in less innovation and more death.
When I disagree with Christians, I point to empirical evidence and literary reading of the Bible. In the case at hand, I look at the anarchy that once existed Beirut and now exists in Somali. Anarchy has reigned over many societies. It always results in a lost of technological progress and needed social benefits such as trash removal and sewer services, and most frequently in a great loss of life.
@LarcheOsborne The thing though to understand about societal structure, and Somalia, is that a change in how a country is governed is not a gurantee that everything will be great - just that it will get better, and do so faster.
As far as empirical argumentation and god goes I suggest that is insufficient, because the oncept is so theoretical. I rather like the arguments about how god has to exist in a plane which oppose the laws of logic.
As far as anarchy in society goes, read about Iceland.
Iceland is a wonderful place, but is not an anarchy. It has a government and a police force. It's government has intervened in industry, pushing them to make innovations which protect the environment.
My beliefs are based on empirical evidence and sciences which are based on empirical evidence and logical conclusions which confirm to that evidence. I reject beliefs that are illogical or based on the supernatural. (continued)
@LarcheOsborne Anarchy during the middle ages, the character limit left that out. It is a very good example of how DRO's would work. Same for Ireland during this time in history.
It worked well, far less people died in wars and by violence in these countries during the middle ages than the mainstage of constant war in Europe.
Government doesn't create anything. We do, you and I, violence, which is what the state is a form of, only creates missery.
Then why would you believe in a state? It's an illegitimate supernatural organization, it is nothing more than "some men making rules for all other". Sure we wont, we legitimize it by mob rule, but that was done with witch burning as well.
It's a terrible organizational structure, because the voter is not rational. He doesn't vote on how a society should behave, but how a society should benefit him, and that is what Jefferson refered to as the natural progression of things.
@LarcheOsborne (cont) The reason why it is insufficient is that we do not have any intertempolar or interdimensional knowledge and therefor or best understanding of societal organizational structure can not merely come from the documented. Such an absurd proposition would mean that abolishing slavery was bad, because we didn't know what would happen.
We can understand societal structure from how countries progress by the laws of logic and when they move towards certain principels.
Abolition of slavery was the most important step taken toward a free society. By the way, Slavery was abolished by passage of the 13th Amendment. With that constitutional amendment, Congress and the Union army freed the slaves. Note that freeing the slaves was the largest confiscation of private property by the US government in US history.
In an anarchy, no laws exist to prevent slavery.
Your last statement implies historical determinism. I reject that theory.
But that was illegitimate property. There are other kinds of illigetimate property as well, as owning land. You can not own land, you can only own property. You can own a farm, you can own the trees, but you can not own a physical space.
Not historical determinism, but a wider understading of consequences. There was murder long before guns. Suggesting that the gun is the problem when there is a gun murder is to have somewhat of a twisted morality, murder is wrong, guns are just a material thing
What comes after gun control then? Knife control? After that - Rock control? After that - stick control?
It's an absurd understanding of what the problem of violence is. It is not the amount of guns that cause gun deaths, it is the amount of people who use the gun in that fashion.
As can be seen in Scotland where knife murders are rising trough the roof.
Guns have nothing to do wtih violence, they are merely an instrument. There used to be more violence and fewer guns. No correlation!
Assaults with knives or clubs are far less likely to kill the victim than are assaults with fire arms. I read a report long ago (at least 15 years ago that demonstrated that assault with a fire arm was 20 times more likely to kill a victim than was an assault with a knife. I have no way of knowing but I suspect that club assaults are far less lethal than than firearm assaults as well. (continued)
I'm glad you forbid slavery in you anarchy ideal state. But I must ask, without a government to ban slavery and no police to enforce the ban, how would the law be passed, and who would enforce it? Who will judge those accused of such crimes? States with large large cities and loose gun control laws have the highest rate of gun deaths. (continued)
Anarchy doesn't mean there wont be a police, a judge, schools, internet, courts, laws, it simply means it will be done in the market place trough volounteerism instead of some politican just on a whim saying "THE PENALTY FOR BEING NAUGHTY SHALL BE...." . I think that idea is absurd.
Washington had the strictest gun laws and their violence is immense, the wild west had tons of guns, no gun laws, and they had less crime than Ohio has now.
Some justice is conducted by private companies. Look at all the contracts you have signed, all the guarantees or warranties on the items you buy, and all the contracts you enter into when you open and use new software or DVDs. You will not that by using that item, you are agreeing to private arbitration. (continued)
That means you cannot sue in civil court if the product injuries you, ruins your computer, or what ever. You must make your case before a judge paid by the company at a place of the company's choosing. The location of the Court might be clear across the nation.
Who will the judge favor in the case? You or the company that pays him?
I like our system of government far better than private justice. A federal judge cannot be fired for ruling against the government. I like that. (continued)
When you used many products, you implicitly agree to binding arbitration even if you do not realize it. You can not sue in a public court. You are required to sue in a private court selected by the company you are suing, You must sign a similar agreement to work for some companies. (continued)
This recently became a major issue when several American women working in Iraq were raped by coworkers. Some tried to sue the men who abused them in civil court, but were told by their employers, who pointed to the fine print in their contracts that they could not.
Congressional Democrats are working to change the law to allow employees of government contractors to sue in open court if certain rights are abused. Congress has no power over contractors not employed by the government.
Whatever atribations you sign now can only work as an indicator or suggestion as to how it will be in a better system.
And to differentiate between public and private courts in such a system will be absurd, all courts will be private, and the court will not be chosen by the company, it will be chosen by the consumer.
The rape contracts are absurd. And I know about it. Blackwater would be out of businesses now if not for their political connections.
I have one problem with it though, it is not the juristriction of US law, it is that of Iraqi. But this issue has nothing, little and less to do with DRO's or anarchian theory. You're not going to find me supporting Blackwater, which is merely another way for the government to fund their violence in a bizarre way where they can escape the fewinsufficient laws and regulations put up by the minisucle choice we do have in a democracy
Contracts with weird fine print will be sorted out by the market
As to DROs, what are you referring to? Immigration detention facilities?
Actually violations of American law by or against American citizens overseas can be legally heard in American court. Judging from the nature of these crimes they are best tried in US courts.
You are correct about Blackwater. Its criminal activities should brought to light in court, and they should be held accountable for their crimes.(continued)
I never believed Iraq to possess WMD at the time we invaded. I thought the invasion to be illegal. In the past, Iraq did possess and use WMD, but the remaining stock had been destroyed after UN threats,
I would not be disappointed to Bush administration officials face trial for launching that war,
That's absurd, so the US jurisitriction is infinite?
No rational believed they had WMDs, the informations was clearly factred, as always the state lies to fit its agenda. Sadly though, some people don't get it, they cant' see the forest for all the trees.
The only WMDs they did have the US gave to them. (Biological weapons)
I will not be disappointed if Obama officials face trials for continuing it when promising to end it. He's just like Bush.
The Court reach is defined by the Congress. Is by not means infinite, but it is broad. On occasion, the Court is force to settle disputes between states, disagreements between a state and the federal government, or answer questions from a US Appeals Court. I can't of any other cases they must take. The Supreme Court selects the cases it wants to hear. (continued)
Also. federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They are not allowed any jurisdiction over certain crimes and civil suits They cannot hear strictly intrastate cases unless it involves federal law or a constitutional violation. On the other hand, only federal courts can hear certain cases, such as bankruptcy for example.
You can in certain cases. For example, if an American flies to Thailand, engages in sex with minors, he or she can be charged and convicted for that behavior upon returning to the US. Let's look at a different crime. A terrorist murders a tourist abroad, that terrorist can be tried in US courts. Yet another example, a Colombian drug-lord makes millions by selling drugs that eventually in up in the US. That person can be tried in US court.
Congress can extend US jurisdiction should it like.
That's absurd. I would suggest none of those things are any of US concern, except perhaps the one who sells drugs, if he does sell them in the US.
But I'm completely against any restrictions on drugs.
Anyway, in order to really understand Anarchy you have to understand that what we desire is simpy a society based on volounteerism, no force, and simple spontaneous rules. We want no government, because what will replace it will work under market forces that have to benefit the customers.
Contracts are very tricky business. I have a JD, I studied contracts in law school, but I still have an attorney to review any major contract I sign.
Question: There was a time before laws prohibited and unions were created that a child could sign a binding contract with a millionaire backed by a battalion of sharp lawyers. Think a child could understand what he or she had agreed to? Read your mortgage contract and try to make sense of all the boilerplate legalnese therein. I guessing not.
The reason the contracts are imensly long and hard to understand is because there are so many laws and there is no competition. So they have to cover themsleves from all different angles.
Instead of just saying "3 years warremty unless you tamper with it". It becomes a whole avalanche of different laws regarding safety issues, usage, etc.
So you have to understand that the result is a product of the conditions.
I have no problem with children writing laws they understand.
Products sold in the US must meet state and usually federal safety standards. These standards are necessary for the protection of the consumer; For example, Chinese toy makers have tried to ship the US toys painted with lead-based paint. This could (has often has) damage the mind of the child. Safety inspectors turned them around, Chinese has also shipped contaminated human and animal food to the US. Many families lost pets as a result.. Many people died in China from the food. (continued)
Contracts are made when one party consideration (an item of value, a promise of money, or whatever) in return for some action or item. (This is a very crude definition,) (continued)
When an item of great value is exchanged, a house for example, the seller is legally responsible, thanks to regulation to ensure that the home is livable. It must be a safe place to live. Some, but not all, of these rights can be waived. For example, I once live in a condo, and my cat destroyed the carpet. I sold it, knocking a couple grand off the price because of the carpet. Our agreement to sell at a lower price was listed in the contract. (continued)
When I hire a lawyer before buying my home, I expect him or her to clearly explain to me all rights that mortgage contract give me, and what rights and duties remain with the sell. I want to be sure that, should the seller has been less than honest, he or she is liable for damages. The seller must allow me to bring a certified individual ti ensure the electrical and gas system are safe. These are rights I received from government regulations. I would not have them if were not for government.
That's absurd, you would most certainly have those rights if not for the government. The government doesn't give you the right to write contract, in fact, the only thing a government does is TAKE away rights.
i think your problem here is that your looking at what is right now, and because of lack of immagination, you don't understand what could replace it
In Russia people had the same feeling about everything. Who woudl run the restaurants, who would work the farms, who would transport the food
All those things you say the government gives you could be handled by the private sector. Most roads in the world are private, all roads used to be, ports are private, airports, landmarks, schools, hospitals, etc. There's no need for them to be owned by the government, short of a lack of knowledge in what has been and what could be.
Roads don't just disslove because government don't own them. There are private roads all over the world, and even in France. They work BETTER than other roads.
Before WW II, Ike led a large contingent of of US soldiers across the continental US. He to take dirt roads and often faced delay when his military vehicles encountered mud several feet deep.
As President, Ike began construction of the Interstate Highway System. America was joined as it never was before. Construction and maintenance of the Interstate Highways facilitated massive trade between states, movements of people, and no private industry could have built it at that price. (continued)
I checked up on DROs as you suggested, and they are simple arbitration courts that handle civil suits, When you appear before a arbitration court, do you really believe they blank their minds of the fact they are being paid by one of the parties? This is a clear conflict of interest? A real judge will recuse himself or herself if they were some who was involved with a party. And if you lose on a RDO, even though the other party lied under oath, there is no appeal.
Suppose you were a stranger entering a small anarchist community. What if some guy attacked you with a knife because you looked at his girl, and you were tried by a local DRO. The members of the court might even know the victim. There is no public police force to collect evidence that might clear you, and the victim's girlfriend testifies that you attacked the victim first. You would sentenced for a murder you did commit and there no appeal.
Of course, there are no laws in an anarchy, so the court will never pass judgment on you, but the community might just kill you for revenge.
I prefer a justice system like ours. I would submit to a civil law court such is found in continental Europe, but not a DRO with bias for my opponent.
Why would I? There is unsufiicnet evidence to suggest I did such a thing.
And no, anarchy doesn't mean republicanism, courts will handle cases on a market place. There could be internet conferences all over the world to deal with an accused.
Yes there are laws in Anarchian society, but they are formed trough volounteerism and spontaneous, not by the whim of rulers. And the different coruts will have to have someqhat similar structure because of market demand.
Uh, they are being paid by the customer. The customer votes in the market. That is ultimately where their concern will lie if anything, but no, considering courts will have to compete in order to survive they will have to be fair.
No appeal? What are you talking about. You seem to be trying to understand the anarchian spontanous order simply trough explaining what similar structure does today. Have some imagination, why would there be no appeal? Makes little, less and no sense to me.
What happen if a defendant who might be innocent of a crime has no money to pay for the judge. The plaintiff does have money. Do you really believe the judge will lack bias? To what court could the innocent defendant appeal to?
If the police is hired by individuals, isn't it just a little likely that they will ignore evidence that implicates their employer and "find" incriminating evidence against his opponents?
In an anarchy, there is no law, so why do you need judges? (continued)
The US is a good nation in which to live for most people. We have ignored the poor too long, and the justice system is not perfect. But I've seen several other nations, and, except for Western Europe, I would dread living in those places.
I've seen anarchy in countries. Where it exists, powerful, brutal men willing to kill rule by the support of gun-carrying, immoral bullies and killers. Average citizens, armed or otherwise, don't stand a chance. (continued)
You haven't ignored the poor, you've tried to help them ad absurdum and only made things worse. In fact before FDR came iwht his reign of statist terror and the stupid state program the poverty rate was dropping much faster.
More people got out of poverty during the 19th century than the 20th century, that is a fact you are well aware of if you've read history. Heck, millions came to the country with nothing, and they prospered because they were free.
To compare FDR to Stalin is absurd. Stalin was responsible 20 million deaths. I have read history; my undergraduate degree was in history.
Much or the wealth created during the 19th century came from two sources -- 1) slave labor in the South and 2) America's industrial revolution, which, if I remember correctly, took the form of cloth mills, railroad lines, and the like. If you research the wealth made during this period, you will discover that both the worker and the consumer suffered (cont
I have visited several plantation homes when I lived in the South, and the tour guides often say something like, "The plantation began losing money in 1865, and forced to sell much of its farmlands as a result." I always find this amusing because they never say why the plantation began to lose money. What happened in 1865? The 13th Amendment was ratified, freeing the slaves. Without slave labor, the south became a desolated, angry, religious, and reactionary land inhabited by the poor. (continue
As for the industrial labor of the 19th century, it was dangerous, unending, and under paid. Much of the work was done by children, because they could be paid less. If a worker were injured by a faulty machine, the employer had not liability to the worker or his or her family. Before you laud those who were successful in that era, you should also examine the rights, safety. and living conditions of that period. (continued)
The workers and consumers certainly didn'y surfer. That is absurd. People saw an increase in purchasing power, in quality of life, in life expectancy, in all aspects of life. From being a third world nation where you hardly got by on your family farm people got things like electricity, housing, health care, etc.
Of course it was dangerous by our standards. But you can't invent the car before the wheel, progress takes time. It was BETTER. That is what matters. Development matters.
Of course times were worse then, we've had a million and more innovations since then, our producivity and efficiency has increased ten-fold.
But that is not what matters. What matters is the growth. If thing got better, and they did, much more so than during the 20th century.
So simply looking at the conditions then doesn't reflect any understanding in the actual growth. You're confusing distance with speed, speed is what matters. And you get that by liberty.
I didn't, I said he was statist. A proponent for more government power.
As far as the 19th century goes, no, most of the wealth was created after the ciivl war. And before that you saw a higher growth in the northern state that had already absolished slavery.
The industrial revolution can be traced in almost every country in the world to a period of liberalization. The exception is the Soviet Union and China who did it by starving millions of their people.
Have you seen the countries in Africa that have the same kinf of intrusive state we have in the west? Their economies can't handle it, they dissolve, turn into police state, brutal dictaorship where there is absolute poverty and chaos.
Of the poorest nations on earth, only one has a growing economy. Somalia. The rest of them are shrinking and starving while this anarchian middle age-culture is growing.
I do believe in gun control, for the state, not the people. We need to defend ourselves.
Most of the countries in Africa are poor, often contain rival peoples within colonial-drawn borders, and ruled by men with weapons sold them by advanced nations and paid for by the labor of the people.
Somalia is an exceptionally unruly nation ruled by warlords who brutally "tax" the poor. The most successful men in Somalia are the thugs who send young men and boys to sea in hopes of hijacking some ship.
Somalia is a failure than can hardly feed its own people when the seasons are good. (contin
Somalia is a failed country, nobody disagrees with that, but they are doing better now than they ever did under a government. They are doing much better than most African countries.
In time they will catch up, because a spontaneous order will be in place when they are wealthy enough. The largest problem in Afrcia is that they are so poor that they can't even be libertarian which helped the Asian countries out of their poverty, they need full freedom to even stand a chance to develop.
In what way is Somalia doing better than other African nations? Death could come at any time should they offend one of the gunmen who controls their area. They lack resources, and only the warlords can bargain with the foreign nations that possess the metals, computers, books, and knowledge they need. Any wealth acquired by the poor majority are instantly stolen. Their major means of income comes from kidnapping westerners. Where will the wealth come from? (continued)
Most of the wealth in Somalia is created by agriculture not by stealing. They got lots of sheep and goats, and exports things as charcoal, bananas and sugar.
Wealth always comes from production, and that is where it will comes from, that is where it is coming from. They have a weird kind of eldar customary law that has made it possible for them to have some kind of stability and trade.
I'm not saying Somalia is a model, they are far behind, but they do prove to do better without a government.
Asian nations are hardly libertarian. In fact, many nations favor industry at the expense of the workers. Would you rather be a worker in the US or doing the same work in Hong Kong? If your employer injured you through negligence, which court system and laws are more likely to grant you justice.
Many nations have fallen into anarchy , over the course of history, and a successful and free anarchy has arisen from none.
The areas in China that are seeing growth are the free trade areas.
Hong Kong and Singapore are very libertarian and Japan, South Korea and Taiwan were so all of them, at least when their economies were growing.
I rather work in Hong Kong than the US, for sure. Especially considering the ongoing switch from dollar as a rserve currency and expanding social programs and spending in your country.
That in Hong Kong.
What about US anarchy in the civil war? Smallest state. Largest growth.
You would considerable rights in Hong Kong, in respect to political freedom, workers rights, and privacy. You seem to think you'll be working in the penthouse. The vast majority of people make little money and work as menial labor, on construction crews, at dockyards, truck drives, clerks, and other mundane tasks.
What US state was an anarchy during the Civil War? This should be good.
The Asian countries you refer to have strong central governments that are often intertwined with big business.
Hong Kong indeed in a wealthy country (although it is nominally a part of China). Its government in industrial and over 90 percent of its people work in the service industry, namely international transactions based on stocks and currencies backed by foreign currencies. The government is very active in the management of businesses. Hong Kong has no effective natural resources to speak of. (continued)
When the United States was fighting for independence, we were governed by the 2nd Continental Congress if I remember correct. It continued to run the new nation until 1787. It was weak and ineffective, but it did pass at least one important and lasting act -- The Northwest Ordinance. States governments were strong and followed existing English Common Law. They were not anarchies. In 1787 the US Constitution went into effect.
Keynesian economics as well as several other economic models explain how government intervention can aid the people of a nation.
Private companies work in areas that bring a profit. As a child in the deep South I knew of areas that had no running water. There was bot enough profit to run the piping. But you could buy a coke there. Finally the government provided water.
And by the way, by building sewers to carry off human waste, governments saved more lives that private companies ever will.
As for de-arming the government, don't forget that the US military (on which I agree we spend too much) defends the nation from foreign attack. Do you really believe anarchist principles can be forged the Army, AF, Marines, and Navy to work as a single entity? There were real Spanish anarchist communities that provided armies to the Republican cause during the Spanish Civil War, and even they had a chain of command and followed orders (continued)
never sit down to fast at a political luncehon, you might break the nose of the guest of honor.
when the heat is turned up, then the politicians begin to see the light.
pissedtaxpayer 2 years ago
booooo
pissedtaxpayer 2 years ago
Reform the campaign contribution rules to only allow personal human contributions and limit those to $2000 max per election cycle.
When real people give them money they will start to give a damn. Fuck the lobbies.
ipxzor 2 years ago
you know i'm a democrat but he is right it is unconstitutional and he can stop all these kickback and earmark it would also stop republicans from doing the same shit when they(hopefully never) get back into power.
doink1422 2 years ago
You know what, King? Since you were appointed by Bob Riley, who stole the Alabama Gubernatorial election in 2002 by rigging crooked electronic voting machines, YOUR position as AG is unconstitutional. Why don't you START by looking on to that?
And if you can't bring yourself to do that, how about starting with the unconstitutional imprisonment of Don Siegelman so he couldn't run against Riley again?
This is a strange time for you to suddenly START worrying about the Constitution.
TrollBuster9090 2 years ago
ROFLMAO... really? This just plays into the "trailer trash, no front teeth, stupid hicks" stereotype. He may not look it but everything coming out of his mouth says it.
libradaj 2 years ago
better have those AG start investigating Bush Chaney for an illegal war and war crimes.
marniespeaks 2 years ago
They better be careful, I AM SURE that this is not the first time a politician has accepted "bribes", and it damn sure wasnt just the Republicans.
clnmike 2 years ago
not everything bad is Unconstitutional... like slavery was constitutional an era ago..
PersonalJesus348 2 years ago
You are correct. There are many bad things that are not unconstitutional. You are correct about slavery. Until the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865, slavery was protected by the Constitution.
Note also that rape and murder are not forbidden by the Constitution. Criminal and civil law are part of our statutory law and common law system. I don't think there are any common law crimes now, but I'm not sure.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
I love his accent.
"Cornhusker kickback."
MooseOfReason 2 years ago
An Alabama lawyer is intellectual equivalent of a fourth grader in most other states.
Richardgwm 2 years ago
Comment removed
usrevolution2 2 years ago
That's hilarious! You are joking right? Because that's really funny. Nice spoof on right-wing stupidity, thumbs up!!
TheRamenAvenger 2 years ago
"They are the same."
If both parties are the same, why do Libertarians historically vote three to one in favor of the Republicans when presented with a choice (according to the Cato Institute). Apparently most people who call themselves Libertarians think there IS a difference.
cato. org/pubs/pas/pa580. pdf
TrollBuster9090 2 years ago
lotta fox news on TPM
Ccolebrooked 2 years ago
Hey, I hear the senators and reps from
Alabama are also looking into giving back all of the pork used in buying their votes in appropriates bills!!! Oops....wait...that didn't happen....weird...
CMVoiceofreason 2 years ago
I think the AG has an interesting point at least. I was for reform, but feel a little sick by what was stripped from the bill and what was stripped from "reform" in order to get something passed.
I personally don't see current legislation as making much of a dent in insurance prices for the masses, and judging by the skyrocketing price of insurance stocks lately, neither do investors.
boulderbum7 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IS IT TIME?! Go to USRevolution2 (dot com) and get the flag of the Second American Revolution. They're made in Texas and look exactly like Betsy Ross' flag, but with a Roman numeral "II" in the center of the 13 stars. They make great gifts for family, friends and recovering Liberals.
usrevolution2 2 years ago
The USA gave conservatives the keys to the palace for 8 years and they went wild, broke the economy, started two wars and lost both; when a US city got washed away they reacted with callous disregard that bordered on racist - even the American people are not stupid enough to hand the keys back over to them, esp when they have nothing positive to offer - what are they going to run on? National security? Compassion? Economic know-how? Some conservative please explain what they are going to run on?
davis80smusic 2 years ago 2
@davis80smusic We get it, the Republicans suck, but isn't the democratic policies now proposed just more of that? More government intrusion, more regulation, more deficit spending?
At least in principle this is an accurate description. But why is your assesment that it is not the same? I would like to hear that.
I think the Republicans are the party of no ideas, the Democrats that of bad ones, and I rather have bad than worse at this point, preferebly neither, preferebly good - ie libertarian.
Visfen 2 years ago
sounds like our viewpoints are pretty close , both parties suck - currently I don't see the dems giving tax breaks to the wealthy, starting wars they can't win, taking away a woman' right to choose, gay-bashing, or letting wall street do whatever the fuck they please - so Dems are the lesser of two evils - I'm down with libertarian principles, but until they gain political strength we are stuck with the two existing parties - doesn't mean I like it, but it's the reality -
davis80smusic 2 years ago 2
If the parties goverend like they campaign, thre would be an actual choice, now there isn't. They are the same.
The dems campaign on social liberties and win their votes that way and they never deliver, the republicans dampaign on economic liberties and they also never deliver.
Freedom is better in both the economic and social sphere, to bad the only party for both is the libertarians and nobody votes for them.
I don't accept it, it's not reality, it's the retardation of democracy.
Visfen 2 years ago
the retardation of democracy is the reality we live with - I'm not saying we shouldn't try to change it, but one party promises eternal war and freedom for wall street only, while the other responds at least somewhat to voter pressure to end war and reign in wall street - until a revolution comes and libertarian principles are the norm, I will to the best of my ability choose the party that best suits my and what I think is in the country's best interests - currently it's the Dems over the GOP
davis80smusic 2 years ago
Responding to voter pressure can be just as bad as responding to corporate pressure. The problem is the idea, the concept, and the way the government tallies favor to people that fund them - be it moronic voters or greedy copper barons.
I'm not going to chose a party just because it's the lesser of two evil, that's not a choice, that's retarded. If somebody offers me the choice of being raped by a blue or a red dildo, I chose neither.
I don't vote on interest, but on principle. :)
Visfen 2 years ago
When change is required, Congress must act. There is no reason why we should rank 27th in world in healthcare received by the average citizen. All the while CEO salaries are among highest on Wall Street. 45,000 Americans die every year for lack of insurance. Meanwhile companies profit by denying claims, refusing to cover pre-existing conditions, and dropping at-risk individuals.
I expect my congressional representatives to vote in America's interest and support healthcare reform.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
It's not change that is required, it is improvement, and you have to be economically illiterate to believe in a thid payer system.
CEO salaries? Eh, what does that have to do with the health care reform... they are high because they can loot the taxpayer, Obama voted for the TARP, remember that.
Profit is a good thing, And insurance is not how health care should be paid for. If you get insurance first when you get sick then it's your own damn fault.
The system is a disaster. Don't expand it.
Visfen 2 years ago
Were we a wiser people, we would adopt a single-payer plan. This would not only cover everyone, but also lower the costs of treatment.
Insurance CEO profits have a lot to do with costs. Every million dollar of their multi-million dollar salaries come from high priced premiums, denied claims, and the like. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Lower cost? No.
Single payer is just another thrid party payer system, which is the problem. You should pay for your care, make your own choices, shop around, force medical providers to be competitive.
No they don't the bonuses are a miniscule expenditure. But yeah, they get too much pay, which is because the system is designed to over useage of insurance.
You need the free market system back in health care, then it will work as it should.
Visfen 2 years ago
When companies are not over watched, they have a tendency to abuse consumers and workers. For example, consider the industrial revolution, businesses destroyed individuals. Look at the US in the 1920s. Conservative courts and presidents virtually eliminated the power of the FED and allowed big business to run amok. Workers had no protection or voice. Profit was paramount. And it nearly destroyed the nation. Big Business has done the same thing again following two decades of deregulation. conti
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Why do you think big business will behave any better now if we reduce regulation than they have in the past when regulations were looseness? Even under existing regulation, they deny treatments to dying patients. What will they do if regulations ceased?
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
They would cover the people who have paid for there care.
There only needs to be a few simple laws, against defrauding customers, against unstable payment models (against ponzi schemes like medicare, medicaid and social security) and upholding contract. That's it.
Regulation doesn't help, they are in fact a problem. State legislators are lobbied by interest organizations and pay them to put in ridiculous things in the insurance that drives up the price, like chiropractors and viagra.
Visfen 2 years ago
Why do you think big government, which only incentive structure is to be reelected is worse than big business that has to attract customers by being cheaper and better than their competitors?
And as far as this whole discussion goes, you make such a huge assumption, why for the love of god should we have a system where the care is paid for by insurance companies/government (third parties) in the first place? It is stupid. You only need insurance for disasters - that's it!
Visfen 2 years ago
You're an atheist right? You consider yourself rational? Then why do you have faith that some men would make better decissions for all of us than we would for ourselves?
You do realize that the modern state is just another form of church and religion?
As a rational human being I can never wrap my mind around how somebody can understand that to have faith in clergy is absurd, but to have faith in the state-clergy somehow makes sense. It's the same stupid thing. It's myth. It's religion.
Visfen 2 years ago
The state is necessary. Without the state, we would not have a common currency, paved roads, sewage disposal, the police, many medicines, air travel, protection from foreign attack, any enforcement of contracts, building codes, safe drinking water, public education, and so on.
When I was in the military, I visited a place with no government regulation -- Somalia. No government, complete anarchy, and no gun control. I pity the people who live there, and they would envy you.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Uh, there was common currency before the state, which was much more stable.
And all those things you talk about, could be done better by volountary means. There's no rational reason to assume they would have to be done by the state.
But okay, let's say I accept it is a necessery evil, then why make that necessery evil so large? It should be minimal.
Somalia? Well do you know that they are doing better now with no government then the ever did WITH? I pity the people in Ethiopia more.
Visfen 2 years ago
I responded to your comments, but I think I attached my comments to my last message instead of you.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
The libertarian 'faith' in the Free Market as a panacea of all that ails the human race dwarfs anything that organized religion has to offer.
TrollBuster9090 2 years ago
Destroyed? You need to read history, the life expectancy shot trough the roof and people had a better life in all aspects.
Yes, look at the 1920s, irresponsible monteray policy by the FED led to a depression. Which lasted so long because of intervention, ever heard of the depression of the 1920s? You know why, the government did nothign and it was over in 18 months.
Dergulation? This happeened again because of easy credit and government guarantees. Like in the 20s the FED is to blame.
Visfen 2 years ago
The FED was essentially stripped of its power the 1920s. The Taft Court struck down minimum wage laws, supported the rights of businesses to sell inferior produces, enabled big business to endanger the property of normal citizens without liability, destroyed unions and disdained the rights of workers, approved of child labor, and so on. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Big business had a free hand to act as it pleased, and it chose to abuse workers and pressure consumers. Government intervention was forbidden.
Why return the power to abuse back to big business?
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
No they wouldn't they would have to offer conditions which workers would accept. Working conditions were getting better and better in the US improving steadily. In the begining of the 19th century the US was a thrid world country, but because of the limited government the country prospered.
Business just volountary means and have to serve the customer, the government have all the guns, they can do whatever they want. The free market always work better than tyranny.
Visfen 2 years ago
There was no common currency before the US began issuing money. Spanish currency was widely used. Banks would each print their own banknote which proved very confusing. Individuals doing business had to refer to the most recently-issued specie circular to determine the true value of a banknote to determine current value as banks often suffered frequent monetary declines. A dollar issued by one bank might be worth 80 cents while of another bank might be worth 17 cents. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Stripped? You need to read your history, they didn't have any powers back then, they were in charge of one thing, and that they did poorly, it was the money supply.
MInimum wage laws are stupid, the price workers out of the market and replace them with capital.
Unions are stupid, they like vampires raise the price of their work above their production capacity, burden companies and destory them, like vampires they move from sector to sector and drain them
Child labor is better than starvartion
Visfen 2 years ago
The reason why we could get away with child labor in the west is because we got so prosperous from the free market system that our children no longer needed to work.
That is also the system that best provides the growth essential to give poor a better quality of life, better education, better health care and in all aspects of life.
It all comes down to the principle of it. Volountary interaction is better than force and coercision. The pen is mightier and the sword.
Visfen 2 years ago
Child labor ended only when it was declared illegal by law.
Anarchy is not a better means of government that an democratic republic. I would rather laws being made by individuals we have the power to vote out of office than see it depend on the good will of corporations whose only goal is profit. Of course, profit is made by paying workers as little as possible and charging customers as high as they can. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
The US didn't start issuing Money until Hsmilyon betrayed the constituion and started a central bank, which later was dissolved because it created a bubble by Andrew Jackson.
And no, just because you make something a law doesn't mean it is followed.
Anarchy is the only rational government, but that takes rational ability to understand, something most religious people don't have today.
Laws are not made by anyone you vote on, they are made by lobbyists and beaurocrats.
Visfen 2 years ago
You are confusing the Bank of the United States with the Second Bank of the United States. The first Bank of the United States was indeed the brainchild of Hamilton, and approved by President Washington. Both of these men were among the Framers of the Constitution. The vast majority of the Framers approved of the Bank. (I don't know of any Framer that opposed it.) Andrew Jackson attacked the Second Bank at least in part for personal reasons. The result was a deep recession (or panic). (continue
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Jackson didn't start the panic by criticizing the second bank, the panic started because the government got involved and increased the
money supply.
The vast majority of the framers were economically illiterate and believe in the myths of mercantalism, that is what the bank was about.
There is a good book on all of this though:
Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution--and What It Means for Americans Today
Thomas DiLorenzo.
Visfen 2 years ago
You don't understand what profit is.
Visfen 2 years ago
As for the people I met in Somalia, I suspect only the ones carrying the big guns are happy -- assuming they are still alive. I imagine the women have tired of being raped by armed gangs. I think the small businessmen wish the police would prevent the local warlord from seizing their property at will. I am fairly sure they all miss running water, electricity, and decent medical care, They would welcome some government regulation in exchange. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Then make it possible for all of them to have guns, that's the only real problem.
You think the reason for their troubles is that they don't have a government? No. They used to have a government that raped their women and children, that worked worse than today
Somalia is better of now than they were before
You think running water, police, electricity, medical care somehow is produced by a magical machine that the government has? Religion...
We can take the stupid state, they certainly can't.
Visfen 2 years ago
What defense would a gun bring to a 13-year-old girl faced by a gang intent on rape? She has a choice between gang rape and death.
In anarchies, the functions of government are assumed by local charisma individuals to whom are drawn those most likely to be criminals in a democratic government. They outnumber any combination opposing them and murder those individuals who speak out. They can rape, kill, and ravage at will. Who can stop them? (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
In an anarchy, there would be no educators, no public schools, no universities, no hospitals, no sewage system, no highway system, no criminal justice system, no airports, and so on. I'm fairly sure the people of Somali would gladly trade their warlords in for a constitutional democratic republic that offers them these benefits and many more.
Surely you don't suppose the best thing we can do for abused Somalis is yo send them weapons?
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Yes there would be, but they would all be funded trough different means.
No highway system? No, there are more private roads in this world than there are public ones.
All those things you bring up do not have to be done by government, and for the most part of history have not been done by the government,.
The government produces nothing of value, they take from one hand and give them to the other, and very inefficiently I might add, as there is no choice involved.
Yes, I do.
Visfen 2 years ago
Uh, the absolute defence, without that gun it is a certainity that she would be raped, with it she stands a chance to defend herself.
In anarchy there is no government. It is political atheism, we believe in self organizing system, you know, like evolution.
Good examples of how this worked far better than democracy or dictators can be seen in the middle ages Ireland and Iceland.
And as far as democracy goes, that is exactly what you described, people who are liked get elected.
Visfen 2 years ago
If there is no government in Somalia, then there is obviously nothing preventing them all from having guns. With the elephant in the room being the obvious fact that the free market (completely unencumbered by government interference) hasn't met the demand for guns.
TrollBuster9090 2 years ago
There's a difference in demand and want. It will take time, but as the Somalia economy is growing, unlike most economies in Africa, they seeing the benefits of an increased purchasing power.
The thing is, the free market is the most efficient system to deliver goods and services to the people who want it as fast as it can and develop as much as possible. That doesn't mean you snap your fingers and have a magic society, it takes time, but it takes less time than if you have a dumb government,
Visfen 2 years ago
A democratic republic is not a tyranny. Requiring businesses to pay employees a working wage, providing safety regulations to prevent injury, insisting that products not endanger the buyer, denying companies the right to sell contaminated foods, preventing industrial are all good things that were lacking before an elected government forbade it. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Democracy is definetly a form of tyranny.
Say I want to work for another wage, then I can't. How does the government know what a wage should be? They don't only people do.
Say I want more lax safety so I can get better pay, or another kind of safety, then I can't.
Say I want to use another licensing than that of the govenrment, then I can't.
All those things you brought could be done volountary and be done better. No reason to have force and the stupidity of a government monopoly involved
Visfen 2 years ago
No real economist will call the post-war recession of 1921 a "depression." Only Tom Woods and a hand full of other Austrian School revisionists define it as a depression because they're absolutely desperate to find an example of a non-interventionist recovery from an economic downturn.
There was no comparison to the Great Depression. 1921 unemployment never exceeded about 10% and the Dow only dropped by 50%. In 1933 unemployment was 25% and the Dow had dropped by 90%.
TrollBuster9090 2 years ago
No real economist? Well it was, since the first year of the depression was worse than the first of the great depression.
Revionists? Lol, haha, no, you're the revisonist you statist blockhead.
The great depression became great because of the great intreference of not-so-great men.
But heck, we can take the great depression as an example if you want, they cut spending in 45 by a third and the economy recovered.
Visfen 2 years ago
Here'sa couple of reading suggestion to help you better understand how the free market actually works:
Rothbard - Man, Economy and State & Power and Market (3)
Friedman (David) - The Machinery of Freedom (1)
Reisman - Capitalism (3)
Benson - The Enterprise of Law (4)
Caplan - The Myth of The Rational Voter (2)
Economics in on lesson - Henry Hanzlit (1)
The numbers indicate in which order you should read them.
If you want to read simply one, google the last one.
Visfen 2 years ago
Seeing as you've (apparently) never read anything BUT the works of Austrian School economists and people who write for von Mises, I'm not surprised you have such a faerie tale view of the free market.
As for Hazlitt's book, Atlas Shrugged is probably the only book to have done more damage to the general public's ability to have a rational view of commerce and the free market.
TrollBuster9090 2 years ago
Oh I've read other books as well, some Marx, Engel, Spencer, Proudhon. As far as mainstream economics, I've had several courses in it, and for me, it is just comedy.
In my experience there are two sorts of economists, there are those that understand Hazlitt and the importance of unseen consequences, and there are those that doesn't get it
The second one completely fail to even comprehend the most basic scientific philosophy, the other one stand a chance at understanding it.
Visfen 2 years ago
As for blaming people for not having insurance, when a worker loses a job as many have during the recession, they also lose their insurance. That's not the worker's fault. Also insurance companies have a annual and lifetime cap on how much they will cover. Most medical bankruptcies occur to individual who do have private medical insurance, but the companies refuse to cover all the required treatment. That's not the patient's fault. This happens to thousands every year. Reform is needed.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
And who came up with that stupid idea? Why should health care be tied to employment? It's stupid. Get away with it!
Medical bankrupticies is a common myth, but it's a miniscule amount of the actual bankrupicies.
As far as coverage, you should get what you pay for, sadly the system is so heavily regulated that men have to pay for maturnity leave and breast cancer and women for Viagra. It's ridiculous.
Reform is needed, a reform that will not retard the market further.
Visfen 2 years ago
Passing Gramm-Leach and CFMA which allowed huge institutions previously regulated by the FED or SEC to merge and operate without regulation, and stacking the SEC, FDA, and EPA with industry lobbyists who don't regulate is not an example of "more regulation." It's an example of less regulation.
Likewise, increasing spending while cutting taxes is indeed an example of "more deficit spending." Ironically, by comparison, increasing spending while raising taxes is NOT an example of "more of that."
TrollBuster9090 2 years ago
Repealing GlassSteagall Act ? That's an infinitely insufficient explenation, but yeah, if that is done then what you should blame is FDIC. FDIC creates an incentive for risk, that's the problem, not that you let busiensses do stuff. Most busienssses affect by this legislation did noting.
As far as the myth of derugulation goes, that is it.
Regulatiosn increased from 122 00 0 to 266 000. Banks were forced to take on loans they knew they couldn't pay back, one lawyer in such a case was Obama.
Visfen 2 years ago
hmmmm..... let see, I will now do an impersination of a LIB idiot......
"Bush, Bush, BUsh, Bush Bush, and Bush, Bush, BUsh....... Bush BUsh, BUsh BUsh....... ba ba ba ba Bush..... Bush Republican, Bush
KCUAC 2 years ago
Here's a Conservatard: "Obama is doing what Bush did, Bush good, Obama Bad, Bush Good Obama Bad..."
davis80smusic 2 years ago
@KCUAC
Explain to me how the republicans have changed their position since Bush?
All the republicans are today, are residual traces from that era and nothing more then being "Bush" obstructionist for profit.
Pleblian 2 years ago
Keep acting like the majority don't realize who's in the majority here. You party retards deserve to go to jail when you can't afford this "health care reform".
Where's my "single payer, HOPE and CHANGE" MR's??
bigc028282 2 years ago
Obama's plan is paid for, Bush's drug plan was not paid for - can you spot the difference!?
davis80smusic 2 years ago
"Obuma's plan is paid for". What f*cking planet are you living on.
"its the GOP the GOP the GOP the GOP, isn't the truth. Hows it feel to be like the 30% who were sucking Bushtards d!ck in the end??
The RepubliCONS will take the majority in 2010. BET?
bigc028282 2 years ago
"The net effect, according to the CBO, is that over 10 years, the plan would end up reducing the national deficit by $130 billion."
At least Obama is concerned about the economic affect - discusses it openly, even if he distorts - Bush didn't try to pay for his plan - so who is the better president in that regard? - you should give Obama credit for making it an issue - the GOP has nothing positive to offer ,and a party with nothing but Obama hate to run on is going to pay at the ballot box
davis80smusic 2 years ago
Who do you think your BSing? Obuma didn't make this an issue. This has been an agenda since the creation of UN AGENDA21 /CONDEX, and the Clinton admin. Old man Bush even had a hand in it.
Even the gov accounting proves it's unfunded. Why do you think it was pushed off for years before it's implemented? "They" had to use "tabacco science" creativity to make it look like the numbers would work.
ALL B.S. Unless you got the "medicaid NO PAY" like some state we know.
bigc028282 2 years ago
@davis80smusic. If they managed to reduce the deficit they can only do so by denying more costs than they take on. In effect making care worse for everyone.
As far as the CBO goes, they are useless, let's use the "wisdom of the crowds" instead, which is far more accurate than government lackey's appraising. Well the wisdom of the crowd in the futures market tells us this will be a bad idea, and so does current and earlier history from around the world.
GOP has nothing to do with this.
Visfen 2 years ago
I see your point - how it looks to me is this: there's going to be deficit spending no matter what, it's going to grow no matter what, the GOP says fuck the American people's health care, all that matters is company profits, the Dems say let's give the American people healthcare, like almost everyone else in the world has - both paths are bad economics, but one favors the people - it's the lesser of two evils - I go with the one that gives health care to more expectant mothers and children
davis80smusic 2 years ago
Profit is a good thing. And no politicans gives you anything without taking from others.
Remember:
"If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else's expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves." - T.Sowell
In terms of economics the democrats are not the lesser of two evils, they are the worst of evils, expanding government didn't work, just look at FDR.
Visfen 2 years ago
I haven't heard Obama or the Dems say that universal health care will come free of charge, what they say, and what I think everyone agrees on, is that currently, and for the last 3 decades, healthcare costs have been exploding and hurting the economy, yet have given substandard results compared to other industrialized nations - everyone says something has to be done, the GOP sat on their hands because they're bought and paid for by the insurance companies - at least the Dems are doing something
davis80smusic 2 years ago
You know what also has been exploding over the past three decades? Government involvement in health care.
There's nothing wrong with the standard of care in the US, any such indication is absurd, the problem is that there are too many costs involved with health care and that choice has been removed from the payer and put into the hands of third parties - government and lobbyists.
The GOP dropped the ball on this one and now the Dems are picking it up to trash a window. Change isn't always good
Visfen 2 years ago
the founding father's never envisioned the republican party being so worthless, even dangerous, to the well being of the american people. if we have to go state by state, democratic senator by democratic senator to cover democratic americans, then we will. every republican in every republican district will be left out of healthcare reform, as they should be, as they seem to want to be. fuck 'em. if they won't pass reform as a political body, then we'll pay to parcel it to those who deserve it.
junkforkaryn 2 years ago
@junkforkaryn, will you exempt them from the taxes as well then? That might actually be a real solution.
I wonder though, if without the republicans, if the democrats could get the money for this.
Visfen 2 years ago
@Visfen death and taxes are for everybody, my friend, healthcare reform is only for the smart people, or so it seems.
junkforkaryn 2 years ago
@junkforkaryn , oKay, well I have an IQ of 143, I'm getting double masters in Engineering and in Economics, and I'm against this plan.
I also have the priviledge of first hand experience from the Swedish health care system and an understanding in this subject more immensly cause I have been debating it for 8 years.
And it is insufficient to call it reform, what it really is is an expansion of governmetn intrusion into the health care industry. Which is what has caused the current problems.
Visfen 2 years ago
@Visfen you're in luck, mr. smartypants, educated dumb-asses like you would still get to buy overpriced insurance with the clear knowledge, or not, that the insurance can be dropped the moment you get sick. isn't that cool? the rest of us would like a little competition for the insurance industry with an offering of a public plan. reform the health insurance industry and spend the money on decent healthcare for everyone. simple solutions don't need 8 years of debate.
junkforkaryn 2 years ago
@junkforkaryn Why would I buy it? There is a mandate to keep me on as a customer if I get sick, I rather just pay the fine for not having an insurance, save the money and invest it in commodity markets and in growing economies
You don't compete with government, because they don't play fair. They get their funding trough taxation, which means it is impossible to compete with
Dumb solutions take8years to sort out, I started as a socialist on the issue, now because I understand it, I'm libertaria
Visfen 2 years ago
@Visfen --no disrespect, but you are a 23 year old college student in sweden....lol. come back when you've grown up a bit and have some real life experience under your belt. also, take a closer look at american corporations, most of them are subsidized by tax dollars--you know, too big to fail?
junkforkaryn 2 years ago
@junkforkaryn Well no disrespect but you're a 49 year old uneducated American, come back when you've gotten a rudimentary understanding of how competition works and how an economy grows, the difference between cost and price and the unseen consequences of government involvement.
No offense, but I know these things better than you. Maybe you should listen? What's the harm?
As far as corporations go, why the hell would you think I support that? Subsidies are always inefficient and stupid.
Visfen 2 years ago
"expansion of governmetn intrusion.. Which is what has caused the current problems"
Incorrect. We have unequivocally the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but have narrower coverage than every other developed nation. The key difference between our country and others is the lack of a strong government-run component in our healthcare and/or insurance
Clearly, the privatized system we have hasn't worked well in terms of cost and we see by example how others easily compete on quality.
boulderbum7 2 years ago
@boulderbum7 Well prices are really an irrelevant comparisson as other countries have fixed prices.
Yes, coverage is a problem, and the cause for is that there are governemnt guarantees for the poor and mandates on quality of care. This however affects the development in a larger scale because a market needs diversity of purchasing power to cater and develop different technologies.
The biggest problem with all health care in the west is third party payer. Be it single or private insurance.
Visfen 2 years ago
Cost is very relevant. If other countries have a better way to containing them while maintaining similar quality care, then we should look to them as a model in our reform!
As it happens, the countries with the biggest cost savings accomplish it through government intervention. Canada pays less for drugs because of gov negotiated prices. Germany has highly cost-regulated public options. England has the gov-run NHS
Private insurance/health care has proven too costly. "Free market" care fails.
boulderbum7 2 years ago 2
Yes costs are relevant, and then you have to look at the cost benefit.
The problem in the system is that there is no "budget" alternative for those with lower purchasing power.
Canada pays less for drugs because the entire global drug market is subsidized by the US market.
The only way to actually decrease the cost is to increase efficiency, which is done in the labor market by removing restrictions, and which is done in the whole by allowing for competition and innovation.
Visfen 2 years ago
And no, insurance is not free market care. You don't havea afree market in the us for care.
Visfen 2 years ago
Visfen,
My undergraduate degree is in History. I focused on American history. I have studied economics and the economic history of the United States, There are no reputable economists historians who agree with you.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
@LarcheOsborne. That's probably because most historians and most economic historian come from the neoclassical school of economics. That they don't agree with me is not much of an argument.
The problem with the neoclassical school goes back to the foundation of the scientific process, in which we have to change the conditions of a test to estimate cause and effect. You can't do that in society so good economic theory is based on theoretical understanding and not empirical ones.
Tom Woods do.
Visfen 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but I must take the word of professional historians and economists first. While certainly not infallible, they typically form opinions that conform to the historical realities of the time.
Society is better served by a gradual progress of reform. American reform has always consisted of two steps forward and one step back. Drastic radical change of any sort is apt to backlash and cause instability and revolution. Anarchy would be a radical and drastic change. (change)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
@LarcheOsborne Okay, well what do you tell Christians who tell you they must listen to their pastor? Because to me, that is just what you told me that you must do.
The idea that a panic is created by pointing at a bank is absurd, what kind of power do people suppose simple men have?
But this is not a step forward in any way. Subsisides for doctors to go along, billion of dollar to start government agencies, and a system that will result in less innovation and more death.
Visfen 2 years ago
When I disagree with Christians, I point to empirical evidence and literary reading of the Bible. In the case at hand, I look at the anarchy that once existed Beirut and now exists in Somali. Anarchy has reigned over many societies. It always results in a lost of technological progress and needed social benefits such as trash removal and sewer services, and most frequently in a great loss of life.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
@LarcheOsborne The thing though to understand about societal structure, and Somalia, is that a change in how a country is governed is not a gurantee that everything will be great - just that it will get better, and do so faster.
As far as empirical argumentation and god goes I suggest that is insufficient, because the oncept is so theoretical. I rather like the arguments about how god has to exist in a plane which oppose the laws of logic.
As far as anarchy in society goes, read about Iceland.
Visfen 2 years ago
Iceland is a wonderful place, but is not an anarchy. It has a government and a police force. It's government has intervened in industry, pushing them to make innovations which protect the environment.
My beliefs are based on empirical evidence and sciences which are based on empirical evidence and logical conclusions which confirm to that evidence. I reject beliefs that are illogical or based on the supernatural. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
@LarcheOsborne Anarchy during the middle ages, the character limit left that out. It is a very good example of how DRO's would work. Same for Ireland during this time in history.
It worked well, far less people died in wars and by violence in these countries during the middle ages than the mainstage of constant war in Europe.
Government doesn't create anything. We do, you and I, violence, which is what the state is a form of, only creates missery.
Empirical evidence is insufficient.
Visfen 2 years ago
Then why would you believe in a state? It's an illegitimate supernatural organization, it is nothing more than "some men making rules for all other". Sure we wont, we legitimize it by mob rule, but that was done with witch burning as well.
It's a terrible organizational structure, because the voter is not rational. He doesn't vote on how a society should behave, but how a society should benefit him, and that is what Jefferson refered to as the natural progression of things.
Visfen 2 years ago
@LarcheOsborne (cont) The reason why it is insufficient is that we do not have any intertempolar or interdimensional knowledge and therefor or best understanding of societal organizational structure can not merely come from the documented. Such an absurd proposition would mean that abolishing slavery was bad, because we didn't know what would happen.
We can understand societal structure from how countries progress by the laws of logic and when they move towards certain principels.
Visfen 2 years ago
Abolition of slavery was the most important step taken toward a free society. By the way, Slavery was abolished by passage of the 13th Amendment. With that constitutional amendment, Congress and the Union army freed the slaves. Note that freeing the slaves was the largest confiscation of private property by the US government in US history.
In an anarchy, no laws exist to prevent slavery.
Your last statement implies historical determinism. I reject that theory.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
But that was illegitimate property. There are other kinds of illigetimate property as well, as owning land. You can not own land, you can only own property. You can own a farm, you can own the trees, but you can not own a physical space.
Not historical determinism, but a wider understading of consequences. There was murder long before guns. Suggesting that the gun is the problem when there is a gun murder is to have somewhat of a twisted morality, murder is wrong, guns are just a material thing
Visfen 2 years ago
What comes after gun control then? Knife control? After that - Rock control? After that - stick control?
It's an absurd understanding of what the problem of violence is. It is not the amount of guns that cause gun deaths, it is the amount of people who use the gun in that fashion.
As can be seen in Scotland where knife murders are rising trough the roof.
Guns have nothing to do wtih violence, they are merely an instrument. There used to be more violence and fewer guns. No correlation!
Visfen 2 years ago
@LarcheOsborne In Anarchy there will absolutely be laws to prevent slavery.
Visfen 2 years ago
Assaults with knives or clubs are far less likely to kill the victim than are assaults with fire arms. I read a report long ago (at least 15 years ago that demonstrated that assault with a fire arm was 20 times more likely to kill a victim than was an assault with a knife. I have no way of knowing but I suspect that club assaults are far less lethal than than firearm assaults as well. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
I'm glad you forbid slavery in you anarchy ideal state. But I must ask, without a government to ban slavery and no police to enforce the ban, how would the law be passed, and who would enforce it? Who will judge those accused of such crimes? States with large large cities and loose gun control laws have the highest rate of gun deaths. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
How could law exist in an anarchy, and who would enforce it?
Who would judge the accused?
Who would fund hospitals, commutations enabling us to speak with people around the world, and scientific and technological research?
Who would educate the young?
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
@LarcheOsborne Private companies would do it.
Anarchy doesn't mean there wont be a police, a judge, schools, internet, courts, laws, it simply means it will be done in the market place trough volounteerism instead of some politican just on a whim saying "THE PENALTY FOR BEING NAUGHTY SHALL BE...." . I think that idea is absurd.
Washington had the strictest gun laws and their violence is immense, the wild west had tons of guns, no gun laws, and they had less crime than Ohio has now.
Visfen 2 years ago
Some justice is conducted by private companies. Look at all the contracts you have signed, all the guarantees or warranties on the items you buy, and all the contracts you enter into when you open and use new software or DVDs. You will not that by using that item, you are agreeing to private arbitration. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
That means you cannot sue in civil court if the product injuries you, ruins your computer, or what ever. You must make your case before a judge paid by the company at a place of the company's choosing. The location of the Court might be clear across the nation.
Who will the judge favor in the case? You or the company that pays him?
I like our system of government far better than private justice. A federal judge cannot be fired for ruling against the government. I like that. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Why would I by products where there is no warenty? Where the court is essentially only in favor of one of the contract holders? Makes no sense.
The court will have to be fair, if it is not, then nobody will use the court system.
But agian, for a better understanding of how the DRO system works, look at Iceland in the middle ages, you simply have to google it.
I do like the US system better than ours, you have actual people there to contribute to the process, but I like the market more.
Visfen 2 years ago
When you used many products, you implicitly agree to binding arbitration even if you do not realize it. You can not sue in a public court. You are required to sue in a private court selected by the company you are suing, You must sign a similar agreement to work for some companies. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
This recently became a major issue when several American women working in Iraq were raped by coworkers. Some tried to sue the men who abused them in civil court, but were told by their employers, who pointed to the fine print in their contracts that they could not.
Congressional Democrats are working to change the law to allow employees of government contractors to sue in open court if certain rights are abused. Congress has no power over contractors not employed by the government.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Whatever atribations you sign now can only work as an indicator or suggestion as to how it will be in a better system.
And to differentiate between public and private courts in such a system will be absurd, all courts will be private, and the court will not be chosen by the company, it will be chosen by the consumer.
The rape contracts are absurd. And I know about it. Blackwater would be out of businesses now if not for their political connections.
Franken, specifically is working on it :)
Visfen 2 years ago
I have one problem with it though, it is not the juristriction of US law, it is that of Iraqi. But this issue has nothing, little and less to do with DRO's or anarchian theory. You're not going to find me supporting Blackwater, which is merely another way for the government to fund their violence in a bizarre way where they can escape the fewinsufficient laws and regulations put up by the minisucle choice we do have in a democracy
Contracts with weird fine print will be sorted out by the market
Visfen 2 years ago
As to DROs, what are you referring to? Immigration detention facilities?
Actually violations of American law by or against American citizens overseas can be legally heard in American court. Judging from the nature of these crimes they are best tried in US courts.
You are correct about Blackwater. Its criminal activities should brought to light in court, and they should be held accountable for their crimes.(continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
I never believed Iraq to possess WMD at the time we invaded. I thought the invasion to be illegal. In the past, Iraq did possess and use WMD, but the remaining stock had been destroyed after UN threats,
I would not be disappointed to Bush administration officials face trial for launching that war,
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Dispute Resolution ORganizations.
That's absurd, so the US jurisitriction is infinite?
No rational believed they had WMDs, the informations was clearly factred, as always the state lies to fit its agenda. Sadly though, some people don't get it, they cant' see the forest for all the trees.
The only WMDs they did have the US gave to them. (Biological weapons)
I will not be disappointed if Obama officials face trials for continuing it when promising to end it. He's just like Bush.
Visfen 2 years ago
The Court reach is defined by the Congress. Is by not means infinite, but it is broad. On occasion, the Court is force to settle disputes between states, disagreements between a state and the federal government, or answer questions from a US Appeals Court. I can't of any other cases they must take. The Supreme Court selects the cases it wants to hear. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Also. federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They are not allowed any jurisdiction over certain crimes and civil suits They cannot hear strictly intrastate cases unless it involves federal law or a constitutional violation. On the other hand, only federal courts can hear certain cases, such as bankruptcy for example.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
You can not have juristriction in other countries, the idea is absurd.
Visfen 2 years ago
You can in certain cases. For example, if an American flies to Thailand, engages in sex with minors, he or she can be charged and convicted for that behavior upon returning to the US. Let's look at a different crime. A terrorist murders a tourist abroad, that terrorist can be tried in US courts. Yet another example, a Colombian drug-lord makes millions by selling drugs that eventually in up in the US. That person can be tried in US court.
Congress can extend US jurisdiction should it like.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
That's absurd. I would suggest none of those things are any of US concern, except perhaps the one who sells drugs, if he does sell them in the US.
But I'm completely against any restrictions on drugs.
Anyway, in order to really understand Anarchy you have to understand that what we desire is simpy a society based on volounteerism, no force, and simple spontaneous rules. We want no government, because what will replace it will work under market forces that have to benefit the customers.
Visfen 2 years ago
Contracts are very tricky business. I have a JD, I studied contracts in law school, but I still have an attorney to review any major contract I sign.
Question: There was a time before laws prohibited and unions were created that a child could sign a binding contract with a millionaire backed by a battalion of sharp lawyers. Think a child could understand what he or she had agreed to? Read your mortgage contract and try to make sense of all the boilerplate legalnese therein. I guessing not.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
The reason the contracts are imensly long and hard to understand is because there are so many laws and there is no competition. So they have to cover themsleves from all different angles.
Instead of just saying "3 years warremty unless you tamper with it". It becomes a whole avalanche of different laws regarding safety issues, usage, etc.
So you have to understand that the result is a product of the conditions.
I have no problem with children writing laws they understand.
Visfen 2 years ago
Products sold in the US must meet state and usually federal safety standards. These standards are necessary for the protection of the consumer; For example, Chinese toy makers have tried to ship the US toys painted with lead-based paint. This could (has often has) damage the mind of the child. Safety inspectors turned them around, Chinese has also shipped contaminated human and animal food to the US. Many families lost pets as a result.. Many people died in China from the food. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Contracts are made when one party consideration (an item of value, a promise of money, or whatever) in return for some action or item. (This is a very crude definition,) (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
When an item of great value is exchanged, a house for example, the seller is legally responsible, thanks to regulation to ensure that the home is livable. It must be a safe place to live. Some, but not all, of these rights can be waived. For example, I once live in a condo, and my cat destroyed the carpet. I sold it, knocking a couple grand off the price because of the carpet. Our agreement to sell at a lower price was listed in the contract. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
When I hire a lawyer before buying my home, I expect him or her to clearly explain to me all rights that mortgage contract give me, and what rights and duties remain with the sell. I want to be sure that, should the seller has been less than honest, he or she is liable for damages. The seller must allow me to bring a certified individual ti ensure the electrical and gas system are safe. These are rights I received from government regulations. I would not have them if were not for government.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
That's absurd, you would most certainly have those rights if not for the government. The government doesn't give you the right to write contract, in fact, the only thing a government does is TAKE away rights.
i think your problem here is that your looking at what is right now, and because of lack of immagination, you don't understand what could replace it
In Russia people had the same feeling about everything. Who woudl run the restaurants, who would work the farms, who would transport the food
Visfen 2 years ago
All those things you say the government gives you could be handled by the private sector. Most roads in the world are private, all roads used to be, ports are private, airports, landmarks, schools, hospitals, etc. There's no need for them to be owned by the government, short of a lack of knowledge in what has been and what could be.
Roads don't just disslove because government don't own them. There are private roads all over the world, and even in France. They work BETTER than other roads.
Visfen 2 years ago
Before WW II, Ike led a large contingent of of US soldiers across the continental US. He to take dirt roads and often faced delay when his military vehicles encountered mud several feet deep.
As President, Ike began construction of the Interstate Highway System. America was joined as it never was before. Construction and maintenance of the Interstate Highways facilitated massive trade between states, movements of people, and no private industry could have built it at that price. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
I checked up on DROs as you suggested, and they are simple arbitration courts that handle civil suits, When you appear before a arbitration court, do you really believe they blank their minds of the fact they are being paid by one of the parties? This is a clear conflict of interest? A real judge will recuse himself or herself if they were some who was involved with a party. And if you lose on a RDO, even though the other party lied under oath, there is no appeal.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
I definitely reject the idea of a DRO handling a criminal case. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Suppose you were a stranger entering a small anarchist community. What if some guy attacked you with a knife because you looked at his girl, and you were tried by a local DRO. The members of the court might even know the victim. There is no public police force to collect evidence that might clear you, and the victim's girlfriend testifies that you attacked the victim first. You would sentenced for a murder you did commit and there no appeal.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Of course, there are no laws in an anarchy, so the court will never pass judgment on you, but the community might just kill you for revenge.
I prefer a justice system like ours. I would submit to a civil law court such is found in continental Europe, but not a DRO with bias for my opponent.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Why would I? There is unsufiicnet evidence to suggest I did such a thing.
And no, anarchy doesn't mean republicanism, courts will handle cases on a market place. There could be internet conferences all over the world to deal with an accused.
Yes there are laws in Anarchian society, but they are formed trough volounteerism and spontaneous, not by the whim of rulers. And the different coruts will have to have someqhat similar structure because of market demand.
Visfen 2 years ago
Uh, they are being paid by the customer. The customer votes in the market. That is ultimately where their concern will lie if anything, but no, considering courts will have to compete in order to survive they will have to be fair.
No appeal? What are you talking about. You seem to be trying to understand the anarchian spontanous order simply trough explaining what similar structure does today. Have some imagination, why would there be no appeal? Makes little, less and no sense to me.
Visfen 2 years ago
What happen if a defendant who might be innocent of a crime has no money to pay for the judge. The plaintiff does have money. Do you really believe the judge will lack bias? To what court could the innocent defendant appeal to?
If the police is hired by individuals, isn't it just a little likely that they will ignore evidence that implicates their employer and "find" incriminating evidence against his opponents?
In an anarchy, there is no law, so why do you need judges? (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
The US is a good nation in which to live for most people. We have ignored the poor too long, and the justice system is not perfect. But I've seen several other nations, and, except for Western Europe, I would dread living in those places.
I've seen anarchy in countries. Where it exists, powerful, brutal men willing to kill rule by the support of gun-carrying, immoral bullies and killers. Average citizens, armed or otherwise, don't stand a chance. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
You haven't ignored the poor, you've tried to help them ad absurdum and only made things worse. In fact before FDR came iwht his reign of statist terror and the stupid state program the poverty rate was dropping much faster.
More people got out of poverty during the 19th century than the 20th century, that is a fact you are well aware of if you've read history. Heck, millions came to the country with nothing, and they prospered because they were free.
Kind of like Hong Kong.
Visfen 2 years ago
To compare FDR to Stalin is absurd. Stalin was responsible 20 million deaths. I have read history; my undergraduate degree was in history.
Much or the wealth created during the 19th century came from two sources -- 1) slave labor in the South and 2) America's industrial revolution, which, if I remember correctly, took the form of cloth mills, railroad lines, and the like. If you research the wealth made during this period, you will discover that both the worker and the consumer suffered (cont
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
I have visited several plantation homes when I lived in the South, and the tour guides often say something like, "The plantation began losing money in 1865, and forced to sell much of its farmlands as a result." I always find this amusing because they never say why the plantation began to lose money. What happened in 1865? The 13th Amendment was ratified, freeing the slaves. Without slave labor, the south became a desolated, angry, religious, and reactionary land inhabited by the poor. (continue
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
As for the industrial labor of the 19th century, it was dangerous, unending, and under paid. Much of the work was done by children, because they could be paid less. If a worker were injured by a faulty machine, the employer had not liability to the worker or his or her family. Before you laud those who were successful in that era, you should also examine the rights, safety. and living conditions of that period. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
The workers and consumers certainly didn'y surfer. That is absurd. People saw an increase in purchasing power, in quality of life, in life expectancy, in all aspects of life. From being a third world nation where you hardly got by on your family farm people got things like electricity, housing, health care, etc.
Of course it was dangerous by our standards. But you can't invent the car before the wheel, progress takes time. It was BETTER. That is what matters. Development matters.
Visfen 2 years ago
Of course times were worse then, we've had a million and more innovations since then, our producivity and efficiency has increased ten-fold.
But that is not what matters. What matters is the growth. If thing got better, and they did, much more so than during the 20th century.
So simply looking at the conditions then doesn't reflect any understanding in the actual growth. You're confusing distance with speed, speed is what matters. And you get that by liberty.
Visfen 2 years ago
I didn't, I said he was statist. A proponent for more government power.
As far as the 19th century goes, no, most of the wealth was created after the ciivl war. And before that you saw a higher growth in the northern state that had already absolished slavery.
The industrial revolution can be traced in almost every country in the world to a period of liberalization. The exception is the Soviet Union and China who did it by starving millions of their people.
Visfen 2 years ago
Have you seen the countries in Africa that have the same kinf of intrusive state we have in the west? Their economies can't handle it, they dissolve, turn into police state, brutal dictaorship where there is absolute poverty and chaos.
Of the poorest nations on earth, only one has a growing economy. Somalia. The rest of them are shrinking and starving while this anarchian middle age-culture is growing.
I do believe in gun control, for the state, not the people. We need to defend ourselves.
Visfen 2 years ago
Most of the countries in Africa are poor, often contain rival peoples within colonial-drawn borders, and ruled by men with weapons sold them by advanced nations and paid for by the labor of the people.
Somalia is an exceptionally unruly nation ruled by warlords who brutally "tax" the poor. The most successful men in Somalia are the thugs who send young men and boys to sea in hopes of hijacking some ship.
Somalia is a failure than can hardly feed its own people when the seasons are good. (contin
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Somalia is a failed country, nobody disagrees with that, but they are doing better now than they ever did under a government. They are doing much better than most African countries.
In time they will catch up, because a spontaneous order will be in place when they are wealthy enough. The largest problem in Afrcia is that they are so poor that they can't even be libertarian which helped the Asian countries out of their poverty, they need full freedom to even stand a chance to develop.
Visfen 2 years ago
In what way is Somalia doing better than other African nations? Death could come at any time should they offend one of the gunmen who controls their area. They lack resources, and only the warlords can bargain with the foreign nations that possess the metals, computers, books, and knowledge they need. Any wealth acquired by the poor majority are instantly stolen. Their major means of income comes from kidnapping westerners. Where will the wealth come from? (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Most of the wealth in Somalia is created by agriculture not by stealing. They got lots of sheep and goats, and exports things as charcoal, bananas and sugar.
Wealth always comes from production, and that is where it will comes from, that is where it is coming from. They have a weird kind of eldar customary law that has made it possible for them to have some kind of stability and trade.
I'm not saying Somalia is a model, they are far behind, but they do prove to do better without a government.
Visfen 2 years ago
Asian nations are hardly libertarian. In fact, many nations favor industry at the expense of the workers. Would you rather be a worker in the US or doing the same work in Hong Kong? If your employer injured you through negligence, which court system and laws are more likely to grant you justice.
Many nations have fallen into anarchy , over the course of history, and a successful and free anarchy has arisen from none.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
The areas in China that are seeing growth are the free trade areas.
Hong Kong and Singapore are very libertarian and Japan, South Korea and Taiwan were so all of them, at least when their economies were growing.
I rather work in Hong Kong than the US, for sure. Especially considering the ongoing switch from dollar as a rserve currency and expanding social programs and spending in your country.
That in Hong Kong.
What about US anarchy in the civil war? Smallest state. Largest growth.
Visfen 2 years ago
You would considerable rights in Hong Kong, in respect to political freedom, workers rights, and privacy. You seem to think you'll be working in the penthouse. The vast majority of people make little money and work as menial labor, on construction crews, at dockyards, truck drives, clerks, and other mundane tasks.
What US state was an anarchy during the Civil War? This should be good.
The Asian countries you refer to have strong central governments that are often intertwined with big business.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Actually, the median wage in Hong Kong is higher than in Swden.
When you were at war against the Brittish, for a while there you had no state. THen you created the smallest state in the world.
No, they don't. Only in an ineffcient way. There is no rational economic theory that explains how the state should benefit the people.
You can doubt it all you want, private companies do it.
I'm definetly opposed to this reform, will make it worse, but you wont get it until it is too late.
Visfen 2 years ago
Hong Kong indeed in a wealthy country (although it is nominally a part of China). Its government in industrial and over 90 percent of its people work in the service industry, namely international transactions based on stocks and currencies backed by foreign currencies. The government is very active in the management of businesses. Hong Kong has no effective natural resources to speak of. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
When the United States was fighting for independence, we were governed by the 2nd Continental Congress if I remember correct. It continued to run the new nation until 1787. It was weak and ineffective, but it did pass at least one important and lasting act -- The Northwest Ordinance. States governments were strong and followed existing English Common Law. They were not anarchies. In 1787 the US Constitution went into effect.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Keynesian economics as well as several other economic models explain how government intervention can aid the people of a nation.
Private companies work in areas that bring a profit. As a child in the deep South I knew of areas that had no running water. There was bot enough profit to run the piping. But you could buy a coke there. Finally the government provided water.
And by the way, by building sewers to carry off human waste, governments saved more lives that private companies ever will.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
As for de-arming the government, don't forget that the US military (on which I agree we spend too much) defends the nation from foreign attack. Do you really believe anarchist principles can be forged the Army, AF, Marines, and Navy to work as a single entity? There were real Spanish anarchist communities that provided armies to the Republican cause during the Spanish Civil War, and even they had a chain of command and followed orders (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago