Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ahtman wrote:Perhaps if they changed the title of the bill to"We haven't thought this through we just thought it sounds good and even though it hurts the poor and middle class more we all hope someday we're rich and take advantage of it Bill", or is that to wordy?

The poor and middle class make a million or more a year?

Your jokes don't work as well when you skim the thing you're responding to and get it backwards.

Meh, I actually stnad much more in support of THE Fair Tax than either the Flat Tax or this proposal. I count myself as a Libertarian who votes Republican.

I count myself as a former Libertarian who grew up and realized that humanity's successes and progress are largely the products of cooperation, rather than selfishness. Galt's Gulch is a fantasy land which could never work.

Mannahnin wrote: Galt's Gulch is a fantasy land which could never work.

Let us also never mind that it turns out as a de facto communist metropolis.

Call me crazy, but I almost believe cooperation comes about as a result of selfishness. We want to do better for ourselves, and we realize that in order to achieve such improvement, it is more efficient to dole out work to those who can do it most efficiently, than to try and do everything ourselves. While it may appear to be selflessness and cooperation...it's still all because human beings are lazy selfish creatures.

I consider myself rather cynical, and I personally dislike democracy. I'd rather have a meritocracy or a benevolent dictatorship, however given as neither of those government types are plausible, I feel that we might as well live with democracy until we can establish one of those forms of government. However, I feel that the job of government should be limited to maintaining the peace, and defense. It may be some kind of inner idealist, but I feel that human beings work better when left to their own devices, rather than try to be controlled.

Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains. - Winston Churchill

=Raises hand as a young conservative=

I guess I'm heartless then. Ah well.

biccat wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:When GE pays no taxes and even Warren Buffet is saying that he believes that rich are not doing their part it's pretty obvious.

Here is the chart that shows who actually pays taxes

You forgot your "#NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement" tag.

No, no i didn't! These are facts. You can look them up.

"Well, let’s start with the ultra-rich. Bajillionaire Warren Buffett has argued that he isn’t being asked to pay his share. He went around his office, asking people what share of their income they pay in income taxes. Buffett’s 17.7 percent tax rate compared a bit too favorably with the 30 percent tax rate paid by his secretary.

So it appears that the tax system favors the super-rich over working stiffs.

And Buffett went a step further, putting his money where his mouth is. Last November he issued a challenge to his fellow billionaires:

I’ll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists.

So far, no-one has taken him up on this bet."

"For those unaccustomed to the loopholes and shelters of the corporate tax code, GE's success at avoiding taxes is nothing short of extraordinary. The company, led by Immelt, earned $14.2 billion in profits in 2010, but it paid not a penny in taxes because the bulk of those profits, some $9 billion, were offshore. In fact, GE got a $3.2 billion tax benefit. "

ChrisWWII wrote:Call me crazy, but I almost believe cooperation comes about as a result of selfishness. We want to do better for ourselves, and we realize that in order to achieve such improvement, it is more efficient to dole out work to those who can do it most efficiently, than to try and do everything ourselves. While it may appear to be selflessness and cooperation...it's still all because human beings are lazy selfish creatures.

I consider myself rather cynical, and I personally dislike democracy. I'd rather have a meritocracy or a benevolent dictatorship, however given as neither of those government types are plausible, I feel that we might as well live with democracy until we can establish one of those forms of government.

I'm actually 100% in agreement with you on most of that, except that "until we can establish..." part. I'm fairly confident that representative democracy is the best possible functional government, and that despite all its flaws, I wouldn't actually want a benevolent dictatorship, even if I was the dictator.

There are certainly fixable flaws and improvements we can make on our system. I think that despite (IMO) the US having the best framework for a government, some other countries seem to outshine us in their practical execution of democracy, and in achieving good outcomes for their people in terms of happiness, prosperity, and health. And I prefer to exercise the humility of recognizing that and wanting to learn from and emulate it when other countries get things right, rather than resting on the US' laurels and pretending like we're #1 at everything. I also try to learn from history. When I look at the past decade of tax incentives and see how our economy's doing, then look back at the tax rates at other times in our history when we were doing better, I see a conflict.

ChrisWWII wrote: However, I feel that the job of government should be limited to maintaining the peace, and defense. It may be some kind of inner idealist, but I feel that human beings work better when left to their own devices, rather than try to be controlled.

Here's the thing, though: That's a false dichotomy. I'd rather not be controlled, but I sure as heck wouldn't want to be left to my own devices in a world as complex as our own. For example, without food and drug regulations, I'd be completely at the mercy of anyone who wants to sell or market a drug, unless I wanted to get a pharmacy or medical degree and buy and staff my own laboratory. Similarly, without regulatory and safety standards, how could I trust a tire for my car, unless I had my own testing facility?

The vast majority of modern human life is interdependent like this. I need government agencies to provide not just a military, but police, fire departments, EMTs, safety and health inspectors, public health disease investigators, judges, public defenders and prosecutors, etc., etc., ad nauseum. If I wanted to live by myself in the hills, hunt, farm, and meditate, I could theoretically live on my own without the support of others. But everything which makes modern civilization as wonderful and comfortable as it is is dependent on cooperation with and dependence on other people.

Mannahnin wrote:
There are certainly fixable flaws and improvements we can make on our system. I think that despite (IMO) the US having the best framework for a government, some other countries seem to outshine us in their practical execution of democracy, and in achieving good outcomes for their people in terms of happiness, prosperity, and health. And I prefer to exercise the humility of recognizing that and wanting to learn from and emulate it when other countries get things right, rather than resting on the US' laurels and pretending like we're #1 at everything. I also try to learn from history. When I look at the past decade of tax incentives and see how our economy's doing, then look back at the tax rates at other times in our history when we were doing better, I see a conflict.

I don't have the tax/economic background to argue with you on that point, but I'm definitely not saying that we should go and rest on our laurels chanting USA! USA!. I'm all for admitting whent things aren't working right. However, I see a lot of the problems like inefficiency, slow response time, redtape, corruption, etc. etc. as a direct result of democracy, electing leaders based on popularity more than anything else.

Now, I know a benevolent dictatorship is impossible (aboslute power, corrupts absolutely), and meritocracy is also extremely difficult to fairly emplace (who decides who is able?), which is why I list those as my 'ideal' forms of government. I fully stand by Winston Churchill's statement that democracy is the worst frorm of government, except everything else we've tired so we've got to live with the system, not becausdit's the best, but because it's better than anything else available to humans at this point. If and when a true benevolent dictator arises, a human who does only what is for the best for his people/species, I'll be the first to step up behind him or her. They'll have to prove that they're benevolent first though, which is going to be the hard part.

Here's the thing, though: That's a false dichotomy. I'd rather not be controlled, but I sure as heck wouldn't want to be left to my own devices in a world as complex as our own. For example, without food and drug regulations, I'd be completely at the mercy of anyone who wants to sell or market a drug, unless I wanted to get a pharmacy or medical degree and buy and staff my own laboratory. Similarly, without regulatory and safety standards, how could I trust a tire for my car, unless I had my own testing facility?

The vast majority of modern human life is interdependent like this. I need government agencies to provide not just a military, but police, fire departments, EMTs, safety and health inspectors, public health disease investigators, judges, public defenders and prosecutors, etc., etc., ad nauseum. If I wanted to live by myself in the hills, hunt, farm, and meditate, I could theoretically live on my own without the support of others. But everything which makes modern civilization as wonderful and comfortable as it is is dependent on cooperation with and dependence on other people.

Ah, here is where I think we have our biggest point of disagreement. You think that the government is needed to relegate all these bodies, yes? The medical companies, the food suppliers, the manufacturers, etc. I disagree, I think that they are capable of managing themself with a tool more powerful than any government legislation: money.

See, to my mind, when I see people ask 'who will stop the medical companies from selling us bad drugs?' and 'who will stop the food companies from selling diseased food?' and my answer is 'We will. With our wallets." In all honesty, I know this is pure idealism, as silly as the idea of utopian communism, but it's what I believe.

If the food companies sell us bad food, we just stop buying their product, and find someone else who WON'T sell us bad food. The others will have to match their quality to compete. The same holds true with drug companies and any other service industry. Company trying to screw over the common man, or sell dangerous goods? GO to their competitors who seel quality products, they'll be forced to compete. In my little capitalist utopia, their is still a plce for the government, and that place is keeping monopoly and collusion under control. Basically, to make sure there are competitors to go to, and that there are no cabals.

In all honesty, I think even collusion is somnething that can be solved with competition. If you've got a group of companies colluding to make a cheap crappy product, when the people want something else...one of those companies will break ranks to provide the new product, and make a fortune off the people who want a better product.

THat's my idealist beliefs, at least, and why I have faith in as much laisez-faire economics as possible. IMO, relying on the government for regulation means relying on the goodwill of those humans, while relying on capitalism is relying on the greed of humanity. I think relying on greed is a safer bet than relying on good will.

You should read up about the tobacco companies.

I know this song, and I knew the words back in the 80s. As I said, I grew up Libertarian. The problem is that greed is shortsighted, and that consequences for the abusers are ignored or negated if they have enough money. Do you remember the beginning of Fight Club, where the narrator explains the nature of his job? Evaluating the cost of safety recalls for auto manufacturers to determine if it will cost more to do the recall, or to pay off the settlements for people who die?

As Kilkrazy noted, the power of market forces and competition to safeguard people from predation has been conclusively demonstrated to be functionally nonexistent.

Read up on the tobacco companies. Or on working conditions in factories a hundred years ago. Or on the history of monopolies. It just doesn't work. Profit trumps other considerations, and those who don't have money are at the mercy of those who do. It's still this way, to an extent, but less so.

The Green Git wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:What do you consider would be a fair division of national income?

First of all, I'd have to reject the whole notion of dividing national income in the first place. The money of the citizens does not belong to the nation; it belongs to each of the individuals that resides in the nation.

That said, it's up to each to go out and earn what they want or need. That's "Fair". I need a new car, I go exchange the talents, skills and abilities at my disposal for money. Once I get enough I can buy the car (or take out a loan).

Yeah yeah talents etc. I have talents and skills to steal your new car cuz I need a new car. I don't need taxes paying for cops. You do.

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Right, because the new budget would put 8 year olds in the factories. I think everyone needs to calm down here.

I think that was in reaction to Fraz's post, not the budget.

So you're saying Communism is NOT a party? Its like everything I've been told is a lie...

What are you talking about? Papa Fraz, did you forget your meds again?

Mannahnin wrote:I know this song, and I knew the words back in the 80s. As I said, I grew up Libertarian. The problem is that greed is shortsighted, and that consequences for the abusers are ignored or negated if they have enough money. Do you remember the beginning of Fight Club, where the narrator explains the nature of his job? Evaluating the cost of safety recalls for auto manufacturers to determine if it will cost more to do the recall, or to pay off the settlements for people who die?

Oh, I know. Like I said, it's my idealist capitalist utopia. I know we NEED the government to do these things, but that's the idealist in me thinking about it.

Read up on the tobacco companies. Or on working conditions in factories a hundred years ago. Or on the history of monopolies. It just doesn't work. Profit trumps other considerations, and those who don't have money are at the mercy of those who do. It's still this way, to an extent, but less so.

I would say that the fact that the working coniditions in factoires have improved so much in the West over the past 100 years to be an example of how public pressure eventually resulted in imporement. Like I said, it's a capitalist utopia that's about as realistic as the communist one. I don't pretend to think it's ever going to be a reality.

But public pressure didn't really do anything, until backed up by labor and safety laws. There's a recent documentary worth checking out; trailer below.




And here's a quickie under 10-min video about the fire:




One of the reasons so many people died was because the building was designed to maximize productivity at the expense of ingress/egree routes. That's greed for you- maximizing profit over safety. Another was that management locked many of the doors to control the movements of the workers and help management check purses to make sure women weren't shoplifting. The owners were acquitted of wrongdoing under the existing laws, and even though they lost a judgment of $75 per death in a civil suit, they got back ~$400 per death from their insurance company. One of them got arrested again two years later for locking doors in his factory, and was fined $20.

I guess I don't understand why, if you recognize that both Libertarianism and Communism are unworkable, idealistic systems, you'd identify as either of them in a politics thread. Heck, in a fantasy world which doesn't actually resembly reality, I might like to be a Gryffindor, or an Avenger, or a Harper. But I don't identify any of those as my political affiliation.

Mannahnin wrote:But public pressure didn't really do anything, until backed up by labor and safety laws.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to say that organized labor is public pressure?

Gah. I was in a union for too long. I see what you were saying now. "...labor (laws) and safety laws."

And in a democracy, public pressure can create laws and regulation. Triangle Shirtwaist is a classic example that, in the capitalist utopia, would result in people not buying from them anymore, making it unprofitable for the company. In reality, it created public outcry that resulted in the government passsing legislation to force the company to adapt. Same result, different mechanic. One works, the other doesn't. Ideally, to my mind we'd have the former, but we have to make do with the latter.

See, I don't view Libertarianims as 'unworkable'. I view Ayn Rand's capitalist paradise as unworkable. I view benevolent dictatorship as unworkabele, and I view communism as unworkable. However, the libertarian ideals of less government intervention in everything, not just economics is something I believe is a good for society. I don't want government OUT of the economy, I see that they have an important place. What I want is to see government's role in the economy limited to the absolute minimum. THAT I do not see as unworkable.

ChrisWWII wrote: Triangle Shirtwaist is a classic example that, in the capitalist utopia, would result in people not buying from them anymore, making it unprofitable for the company. In reality, it created public outcry that resulted in the government passsing legislation to force the company to adapt. Same result, different mechanic. One works, the other doesn't. Ideally, to my mind we'd have the former, but we have to make do with the latter.

I think you're going to an awful lot of trouble in order to embrace unfettered capitalism, to the point where you're willfully ignoring significant elements of human nature; notably the decision to withhold purchasing products from unethical companies, which almost no one does.

ChrisWWII wrote:
What I want is to see government's role in the economy limited to the absolute minimum.

I've always been sort of bewildered by the degree of hostility some people express with respect to the state.

dogma wrote:
I think you're going to an awful lot of trouble in order to embrace unfettered capitalism, to the point where you're willfully ignoring significant elements of human nature; notably the decision to withhold purchasing products from unethical companies, which almost no one does.

It's idealism. Some see a world devoid of war, or whatnot. I see a world where unfettered capitalism governs itself. It goes against human nature, but that's why it's an ideal. It's something to strive for.

I've always been sort of bewildered by the degree of hostility some people express with respect to the state.

The problem I have with the state, is that I think that no one man or organization can really 'control' the economy, and trying to will only screw things up in the end. However, I also acknowledge we need the government, because until we can form afore mentioned capitalist utopia, human nature will stop self-regulating capitalism. However, we should keep the government's involvement to a minimum...no need to meddle too much with something we can't fully understand.

Mannahnin wrote:Your jokes don't work as well when you skim the thing you're responding to and get it backwards.

I did misread it. I thought this was another "here we go again" flat tax thread. I'll commit seppuku after I've seen the new Thor movie, unless the movie does it for me.

ChrisWWII wrote:And in a democracy, public pressure can create laws and regulation. Triangle Shirtwaist is a classic example that, in the capitalist utopia, would result in people not buying from them anymore, making it unprofitable for the company. In reality, it created public outcry that resulted in the government passsing legislation to force the company to adapt. Same result, different mechanic. One works, the other doesn't. Ideally, to my mind we'd have the former, but we have to make do with the latter.

Yeah, pretty much. I think if we're not on the same page, they're pretty much adjacent. In reality, public shaming of a company only does so much good, and lasts only so long. I prefer not to shop at Wal-Mart, but my wife doesn't care as much and still shops there occasionally, just because they're cheap. Once upon a time everyone knew that Amway was a shady (semi)pyramid scheme, and they changed the name they operated under in the US to "Quixtar". Recently they started using Amway here again; I guess their market research showed that people had largely forgotten their sins.

ChrisWWII wrote:See, I don't view Libertarianims as 'unworkable'. I view Ayn Rand's capitalist paradise as unworkable. I view benevolent dictatorship as unworkabele, and I view communism as unworkable.

I can see that. It's just that IME Libertarianism is a range which includes Ayn Rand's fantasies. I should know; my mother was into both and I'm named after a character in one of her books. I've known a number of nice Libertarians, and I know (and respect, and to some extent share) the ideals they uphold. But IMO those ideals really don't work in practice, any more than Communism does.

ChrisWWII wrote:However, the libertarian ideals of less government intervention in everything, not just economics is something I believe is a good for society. I don't want government OUT of the economy, I see that they have an important place. What I want is to see government's role in the economy limited to the absolute minimum. THAT I do not see as unworkable.

Yup. That's the difference. IMO, and from what I've observed of history, "absolute minimum" is somewhere below the level that enables tragedies like the Triangle Shirtwaist fire. I expect you meant "absolute minimum which still keeps minimum health and safety regs", but other people don't. Right now the NH house and senate, stuffed with recently-elected Libertarians and Tea Partiers, just passed a misleadingly named "right to work" bill which abolishes our state's minimum wage law, and attacks the collective bargaining rights of workers.

The rhetoric going around this country right now, and the legislation and deregulation advocated by certain parties, are, in my opinion, undoing progress and setting us back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Your jokes don't work as well when you skim the thing you're responding to and get it backwards.

I did misread it. I thought this was another "here we go again" flat tax thread.

Haven't you pigeonholed me as a socialist yet?

Ahtman wrote:I'll commit seppuku after I've seen the new Thor movie, unless the movie does it for me.

Kirby designs, man! Just focus on the Kirby designs! If you're that skeptical about the writing and acting, just be sure to be high or drunk and enjoy the visuals.

Deregulation also fails a very important test: If a half implemented solution creates a worse situation than a fully implemented solution then reality dictates trying to do it will result in making things worse.

The proponents of deregulation argue that many regulations are essentially written by the industry, and serve a better purpose of locking out competition than anything else.

While this argument rings true, the problem is that the same situation that had lead to regulations controlled by industry means deregulation is controlled by industry. So if you deregulate, you'll inevitably end up with all the regulations meant to screw over competitors still in place, but the useful safety, labor and antitrust regulations being gutted. So even if the libertarians are actually right, they're still pushing (hell, pushed for and got) disastrous policies.

Mannahnin wrote:
Yeah, pretty much. I think if we're not on the same page, they're pretty much adjacent. In reality, public shaming of a company only does so much good, and lasts only so long. I prefer not to shop at Wal-Mart, but my wife doesn't care as much and still shops there occasionally, just because they're cheap. Once upon a time everyone knew that Amway was a shady (semi)pyramid scheme, and they changed the name they operated under in the US to "Quixtar". Recently they started using Amway here again; I guess their market research showed that people had largely forgotten their sins.

Close enough, I guess. Glad we agree on that at least. Wal-Mart is another thing entirerly which I won't get into here.

I can see that. It's just that IME Libertarianism is a range which includes Ayn Rand's fantasies. I should know; my mother was into both and I'm named after a character in one of her books. I've known a number of nice Libertarians, and I know (and respect, and to some extent share) the ideals they uphold. But IMO those ideals really don't work in practice, any more than Communism does.

Well, yes. Libetarianism covers a wide range of topics. My personal view of Ayn Rand is she is to libertarianism as Karl Marx is to communism. She wrote some books about it which talk about an ideal world where the system she's espoousing works perfectly. Lots of nice quotes, etc. etc. but the political system contained just doens't work without the authors hand controling everything. (Though I did like Anthem, but that's basically a copy pasted version of Zamyatin's We...both good books too, imo).

Yup. That's the difference. IMO, and from what I've observed of history, "absolute minimum" is somewhere below the level that enables tragedies like the Triangle Shirtwaist fire. I expect you meant "absolute minimum which still keeps minimum health and safety regs", but other people don't. Right now the NH house and senate, stuffed with recently-elected Libertarians and Tea Partiers, just passed a misleadingly named "right to work" bill which abolishes our state's minimum wage law, and attacks the collective bargaining rights of workers.

The rhetoric going around this country right now, and the legislation and deregulation advocated by certain parties, are, in my opinion, undoing progress and setting us back.

Yes, my view of 'absolute minimum' is 'the government keeps the currency working, keeps the banks working, and makes sure companies aren't breaking the law, whatever the law may be'. I personally think that that limit is reasonable enough that most people can agree on it. My blood only tends to boil when i see the government trying to control companies with laws etc. E.g. When it comes to polluion, I prefer 'pollution credits' to simply passing a law saying that you can produce x tons of pollution a year.

My thoughts about unions are still up in the ari, and I need to do more studying before I can state an educated opinion on that, instead of just spouting out whatever I heard from my favourite news station. I am generally in favor of deregulation, but I also know we can't afford to go back to the Robber Barons era. While deregulation is a good, it can't go too far. That just hurts more people than it helps.

ChrisWWII wrote:
Yes, my view of 'absolute minimum' is 'the government keeps the currency working, keeps the banks working, and makes sure companies aren't breaking the law, whatever the law may be'. I personally think that that limit is reasonable enough that most people can agree on it. My blood only tends to boil when i see the government trying to control companies with laws etc. E.g. When it comes to polluion, I prefer 'pollution credits' to simply passing a law saying that you can produce x tons of pollution a year.

My thoughts about unions are still up in the ari, and I need to do more studying before I can state an educated opinion on that, instead of just spouting out whatever I heard from my favourite news station. I am generally in favor of deregulation, but I also know we can't afford to go back to the Robber Barons era. While deregulation is a good, it can't go too far. That just hurts more people than it helps.

So in reality, you're in favor of a vastly more powerful government than what we have now? Cause following the law is the last thing on a corporations mind, outside of a few high profile cases the penalty for a corporation of any real size breaking the law will be substantially less than what they made breaking the law.

The Green Git wrote:What would be "fair" is taking the total tax bill and dividing it equally among the taxpayers. That's fair.

Because obviously, peopel who aren't lucky must be lazy.

Yes, that's right. The main thing involved with being rich is almost invariably luck, not skill. Luck of being born rich, luck of finding that one perfect job, luck of finding that one lucrative contract luck of knowing just the right people, luck of being in the right place at the right time, etc. And then once you get it, it's easier to get it again, because of the way our society works.

ChrisWWII wrote:Well, yes. Libetarianism covers a wide range of topics. My personal view of Ayn Rand is she is to libertarianism as Karl Marx is to communism. She wrote some books about it which talk about an ideal world where the system she's espoousing works perfectly. Lots of nice quotes, etc. etc. but the political system contained just doens't work without the authors hand controling everything. (Though I did like Anthem, but that's basically a copy pasted version of Zamyatin's We...both good books too, imo).

Feeling more and more kinship here. Despite its flaws, I quite enjoyed Anthem as well.

ChrisWWII wrote:

Yup. That's the difference. IMO, and from what I've observed of history, "absolute minimum" is somewhere below the level that enables tragedies like the Triangle Shirtwaist fire.

The rhetoric going around this country right now, and the legislation and deregulation advocated by certain parties, are, in my opinion, undoing progress and setting us back.

Yes, my view of 'absolute minimum' is 'the government keeps the currency working, keeps the banks working, and makes sure companies aren't breaking the law, whatever the law may be'. I personally think that that limit is reasonable enough that most people can agree on it.

Yes, but the hangup is in the "the law" part. Many Libertarians seem to think that we need no or almost no laws controlling or regulating anything, despite history demonstrating that that is a recipe for a lot of deaths, suffering, and poverty.

ChrisWWII wrote:My thoughts about unions are still up in the ari, and I need to do more studying before I can state an educated opinion on that, instead of just spouting out whatever I heard from my favourite news station. I am generally in favor of deregulation, but I also know we can't afford to go back to the Robber Barons era. While deregulation is a good, it can't go too far. That just hurts more people than it helps.

Smart move, withholding judgment when you know you need more information. I wish more of us had that much sense. I'm in a similar position on unions. I support the idea of collective bargaining and the importance they have historically. But I also recognize that they lead to some abuses and excessive inefficiencies in some cases as well. I'm a bit leery of "deregulation" as being a good thing in general. Usually there was some reason those regulations were instituted in the first place. And when it's the companies which would profit most who are shaping the decision to deregulate, you have to be at least a little wary of letting the fox guard the henhouse! Look at Enron.

Requia wrote:So in reality, you're in favor of a vastly more powerful government than what we have now?

I believe the government should have the power to enforce the authority given to it in the Constitution, and only that power. What exactly this power is, of course, open up to interpretation of the Supreme Court. However big or small the resultant government is, is the government size I stand for as a libertarian.

Mannahnin wrote:Feeling more and more kinship here. Despite its flaws, I quite enjoyed Anthem as well.

Really a book more people should read.

Yes, but the hangup is in the "the law" part. Many Libertarians seem to think that we need no or almost no laws controlling or regulating anything, despite history demonstrating that that is a recipe for a lot of deaths, suffering, and poverty.

Yes, that's where I differ from a lot of Libertarians. (I also disagree with them on foreign policy, but that is, again another topic.) A lot believe in the capitaist utopia as I like to call it, where things regulate themselves. And while I sympathize with theme, and share that ideal, I also see that humans aren't perfect enough to pull that off yet. We need a guiding hand, and that hand is the government. I'd even say that the Constitution supports this claim. The US government is beholden to its citizens, and if acting in the best intests of its citizens means regulating corporations a bit, then so be it. Just don't create a hostile business environment. I much more a fan of 'carrot' policies when it comes to businesses than stick.

Smart move, withholding judgment when you know you need more information. I wish more of us had that much sense. I'm in a similar position on unions. I support the idea of collective bargaining and the importance they have historically. But I also recognize that they lead to some abuses and excessive inefficiencies in some cases as well. I'm a bit leery of "deregulation" as being a good thing in general. Usually there was some reason those regulations were instituted in the first place. And when it's the companies which would profit most who are shaping the decision to deregulate, you have to be at least a little wary of letting the fox guard the henhouse! Look at Enron.

Thanks. As of now, my personal ideas that circle in my head are that the union's time is past...but I keep hearing evidence that contradicts that idea, so I hold back from making a final decision in the end. I think the difference in being leary of deregulation may be an outlook and ideals thing. I honestly believe it's possible to make it in the fox's best interest to guard the hen house, and once the fox understands this...it'll go along with the ride.

You're kind of reciting a talking point here. There's been two hundred years of executive, legislative, and judicial history which have defined and substantially expanded the powers and authority of government. This is not necessarily contrary to what the founders would have wanted or intended, though. Jefferson (among others) clearly advocated that future generations should be free to change what they needed to and felt appropriate.

We literally CAN'T go back to "just the stuff that's defined in the Constitution". It'd be nonfunctional.

Post was edited to include more detail, basically I'm for keeping it to the Constitution..but reading the Constitution as 'guidelines' rather than 'dogma'. It's why we have the Supreme Court around, to try and keep official interpretations of the Constitution up to date, without constantly ammending the dman thing.

Read the Constitution like the Bible I say, recognize that there is wisdom in there, but also recognize that it is old, and may need to be read as metaphor or as guidelines.