[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Fairness to humanity in what regard? I would argue that for every instance of unfairness gov’t regulation has rectified, one could point to another it has facilitated. Until that is acknowledged by the mainstream, I don’t see how the situation is going to change.
[/quote]
For example, it isn’t fair that businesses get to profit from natural resources at the expense of the environment? If preserving the environment is a moral imperative then business must take responsibility for its actions in this regard. The government may enact regulations that are imbalanced in favor of big business to correct these environmental issues. What is fair and right for us (humanity) may not be fair for business–especially small business. This regulation could in fact end up creating monopolies within industry.
Is this acceptable regulation even if it is unfair and imbalanced toward small business but protects individuals? At what point is the creation of monopolies by the government to protect individuals right?
I still do not believe all government regulation has been inherently biased in favor of big business–especially since most regulations that have been enacted have been put in place to limit the impact a business has on its surroundings. Big business has a bigger impact by sheer definition of the term.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
sactown1 wrote:
A monopoly is an exclusive governement grant of trading privilages, not a product of a free market place. Find me one monopoly in recent history that has maintained itself without the help of government.
And I don’t think the position here is that every regulation ever was wrong - but that regulations have become a lucrative business opportunity when their role isn’t minimized.
[quote]sactown1 wrote:
A monopoly is an exclusive governement grant of trading privilages, not a product of a free market place. Find me one monopoly in recent history that has maintained itself without the help of government.[/quote]
What do you define as ‘help of government’?
If the economic barriers to entry are high enough then a hands off government policy would allow the monopoly to continue.
[quote]sactown1 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
sactown1 wrote:
A monopoly is an exclusive governement grant of trading privilages, not a product of a free market place. Find me one monopoly in recent history that has maintained itself without the help of government.
I believe that someone already said this, but regulation are suppose to be for the people, not for the industry being regulated. That is exactly why we elected representative for constituencies all around the country.
For the most part of course, regulation in industry is built to be fair for everyone, public and private ownership alike. My personal opinion is exportation of the labor market is the main cause of the large retail dominance.
Just a function of the small guy not being able to keep up with companies with cost cutting strategies that are above the means of a local shops.
Also, I am personally a proponent of more regulated pubic business investment system. Say a quarterly investment strategy where you could only remove monies after quarterly statements on the businesses are presented (markets adjust accordingly).
There of course needs to be regulations on the way these profit margins are portrayed. Plus, this would eliminate all those faggy day traders (money for nothing).
By no means am I saying that what I have stated is fact, but mere personal opinion. But seriously, milk is sort of a known quantity. The costs are pretty general, land, cows, barns, taxes, etc.
So really that item already possesses some fairly established cost, so it is probably right for the regulations to be put in place, so other farmers that are not being dicks are not put out of business.
The problem with this example is that it illustrates why many people are in favor of regulation in the first place–we fear big corporations and what they are capable of accomplishing with their power and lobbies.
I know you’re a smart guy Lifticus, but I think you have this exactly wrong – big corporations couldn’t accomplish anything with their power and lobbies if there weren’t the governmental power to effect the things they were lobbying and campaigning for…
I think a blanket statement that regulation is bad is false. Ther are many example where regulation has helped–child labor, anti-trust, etc. It’s a question of who regulations are designed to help that needs to be addressed. I personally don’t trust big businesses to regulate them-selves.[/quote]
I think a blanket statement that regulation is bad is false. Ther are many example where regulation has helped–child labor, anti-trust, etc. [/quote]
Bullshit. Regulation had nothing to do either of those. Child labor was declining far before any regulation of it. It’s call prosperity. If child labor where still required for families to survive, there would be no regulation on it.
Anti-trust…please. You weren’t serious were you?
I am not going to argue about zero regulation, although I do believe we would be better off. The fact is the shear amount of regulation has skyrocketed in the last 50 years. We got along fine without most of it and now we are handcuffed by most of it.
It not the job of the gov’t to interfear with the transactions I choose to make and the people I choose to make them with. 99 out 100 MANDATORY regulations presented as consumer protect, actually hurt the consumer.
You want to protect the consumer, make standards or regulatory adherance OPTIONAL. Post a big fucking sign on your window saying you comply with the applicable gov’t standards or regulations. If the CONSUMER values that you have an advantage. 9 times out of 10 I’ll go where I can save some money. I really don’t give a shit if my barber is certified. I really don’t give a shit if the guy building my addition right now is licensed. He’s my neighbor and I know he does good work.
The problem with this example is that it illustrates why many people are in favor of regulation in the first place–we fear big corporations and what they are capable of accomplishing with their power and lobbies.
I know you’re a smart guy Lifticus, but I think you have this exactly wrong – big corporations couldn’t accomplish anything with their power and lobbies if there weren’t the governmental power to effect the things they were lobbying and campaigning for…
I think a blanket statement that regulation is bad is false. Ther are many example where regulation has helped–child labor, anti-trust, etc. It’s a question of who regulations are designed to help that needs to be addressed. I personally don’t trust big businesses to regulate them-selves.
lol, do you still stand by this?[/quote]
I know, this guy is walking contradiction. First he watches Mad Max one too many times and doesn’t want any gov’t, now he’s talking about his non exsistant gov’t regulating big business. So we are all resonsible for protecting ourselves from thugs and criminals, but we can’t make our own decisions on who we trade with. I guess you think we should turn all the police officers and military personnel in regulatory police and bureaucrats?
You guys do realize that this thread was started almost 2 years ago, right?
Lifty has been an expert on, and a vapid follower of, at least two totally different philosophies.
These postings from him are from when he was converting from being a total fanatic for communism.
Once you understand that he has changed his belief system more often than he has changed his socks, the level of his stupidity becomes painfully obvious.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
You guys do realize that this thread was started almost 2 years ago, right?
Lifty has been an expert on, and a vapid follower of, at least two totally different philosophies.
These postings from him are from when he was converting from being a total fanatic for communism.
Once you understand that he has changed his belief system more often than he has changed his socks, the level of his stupidity becomes painfully obvious.
[/quote]
Or the ability to change his mind when he is confronted with overwhelming arguments, a gift that you do make fun of because you completely lack it yourself?
Plus, I do not think that his underlying have changed much, he has just found a better way to achieve his goals.
[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
You guys do realize that this thread was started almost 2 years ago, right?
Lifty has been an expert on, and a vapid follower of, at least two totally different philosophies.
These postings from him are from when he was converting from being a total fanatic for communism.
Once you understand that he has changed his belief system more often than he has changed his socks, the level of his stupidity becomes painfully obvious.
Or the ability to change his mind when he is confronted with overwhelming arguments, a gift that you do make fun of because you completely lack it yourself?
Plus, I do not think that his underlying have changed much, he has just found a better way to achieve his goals.
[/quote]
In the span of 2 years? That’s not something to be proud of, nor does it warrant a pat on the back. That is nothing but a ignorant mouthy child who thinks people actually want to be a witness to his transformation. Evidently his audience includes frog-licking euro-trash.
You have no fucking clue what has changed in my belief system. I don’t broadcast my learning curve to idiots on an internet message board. I don’t post any of my opinions until I am sure of my position. Agree or disagree with those opinions, but don’t judge what you have no clue about.