Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Donald Trump and Dictatorial Taste
#61
(03-19-2017, 03:38 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Big business itself is relatively easy to evade.

Not if it is powerful enough to make itself the state.

There are two kinds of states, on one hand you have states where the government is an agent of the popular will and on the other hand you have states that are basically the collective property of private interests. The former tend to be democracies, the later autocracies or narrow oligarchies. Libertarianism is the ideological propaganda of Oligarchy.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Reply
#62
(03-19-2017, 03:38 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(03-18-2017, 09:26 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(03-18-2017, 04:09 AM)Galen Wrote:
(03-17-2017, 04:17 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(03-17-2017, 02:50 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Which is what injunctions generally do; protect corporations, not the people.

Eric, (insult redacted), but you do realize that he just said that the statutory rules and Executive Department regulations were less (not more) strict than common law injunctions against corporations.

I find it ironic that Eric (insult redacted) is basically arguing the libertarian position on regulatory capture.  It is a virtual certainty that the Obtuse One did not realize that he was arguing a libertarian position.

In a crony-capitalist world both government and Big Business are to be evaded if one isn't in on the scam and relishes freedom.

One can only have a crony capitalist world if the government is big enough for politicians to dish out favors for their friends in big business.  Big business itself is relatively easy to evade.  Government is not.

Not if Big Business has taken over the state, and not if Big Business has deputized Big Government to control the People.  Feudalism, one of the old forms of tyranny, implies a weak state but one in which the manorial lord has all power over the serf. One might be safe from the caprice of the King who is simply the biggest landowner in the country only to be under the rule of some lord who has the power of life and death over one. If one is under the absolute power of such a lord one has no freedom. "Obey or die" is not freedom.

Libertarianism is a utopian dream. There is not and has never been a libertarian state; there is no convincing evidence that a libertarian society would not turn into a new form of feudalism.
"Organization cannot make a genius out of an incompetent. On the other hand, disorganization can scarcely fail to result in inefficiency". - Dwight Eisenhower.

Reply
#63
(03-20-2017, 07:04 AM)Odin Wrote:
(03-19-2017, 03:38 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Big business itself is relatively easy to evade.

Not if it is powerful enough to make itself the state.

There are two kinds of states, on one hand you have states where the government is an agent of the popular will and on the other hand you have states that are basically the collective property of private interests. The former tend to be democracies, the later autocracies or narrow oligarchies. Libertarianism is the ideological propaganda of Oligarchy.

ROFLAMO

Odin have you learned nothing about history?  Or is your head so full of bullshit you can't.

States that attempt to base themselves on popular will are inherently unstable.  Democracies either degenerate into tyrannies of the majority or into chaos.  Which of course is why the US is not a democracy and never has been.  It is of course a Republic.

As for Oligarchy, it is more or less the natural state for mankind.  There is a class that rules and a class that is ruled.  But in no case has there ever been such a class, ruled or ruling that was frozen in stasis without the intervention of the state
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#64
(03-20-2017, 09:32 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(03-19-2017, 03:38 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(03-18-2017, 09:26 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(03-18-2017, 04:09 AM)Galen Wrote:
(03-17-2017, 04:17 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Eric, (insult redacted), but you do realize that he just said that the statutory rules and Executive Department regulations were less (not more) strict than common law injunctions against corporations.

I find it ironic that Eric (insult redacted) is basically arguing the libertarian position on regulatory capture.  It is a virtual certainty that the Obtuse One did not realize that he was arguing a libertarian position.

In a crony-capitalist world both government and Big Business are to be evaded if one isn't in on the scam and relishes freedom.

One can only have a crony capitalist world if the government is big enough for politicians to dish out favors for their friends in big business.  Big business itself is relatively easy to evade.  Government is not.

Not if Big Business has taken over the state, and not if Big Business has deputized Big Business to control the People.  Feudalism, one of the old forms of tyranny, implies a weak state but one in which the manorial lord has all power over the serf. One might be safe from the caprice of the King who is simply the biggest landowner in the country only to be under the rule of some lord who has the power of life and death over one. If one is under the absolute power of such a lord one has no freedom. "Obey or die" is not freedom.

Libertarianism is a utopian dream. There is not and has never been a libertarian state; there is no convincing evidence that a libertarian society would not turn into a new form of feudalism.

Big business doesn't have to "take over the state", monopolies are created by the state.  In the modern format mostly through regulatory capture--but prior to that things were a little more direct.  As for businesses getting big to start with--well that's capitalism for you.  Expand or die.

As to Libertarianism I'll let the Libertarians answer for that, you know considering I'm not a Libertarian.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#65
(03-20-2017, 09:32 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(03-19-2017, 03:38 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(03-18-2017, 09:26 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(03-18-2017, 04:09 AM)Galen Wrote:
(03-17-2017, 04:17 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Eric, (insult redacted), but you do realize that he just said that the statutory rules and Executive Department regulations were less (not more) strict than common law injunctions against corporations.

I find it ironic that Eric (insult redacted) is basically arguing the libertarian position on regulatory capture.  It is a virtual certainty that the Obtuse One did not realize that he was arguing a libertarian position.

In a crony-capitalist world both government and Big Business are to be evaded if one isn't in on the scam and relishes freedom.

One can only have a crony capitalist world if the government is big enough for politicians to dish out favors for their friends in big business.  Big business itself is relatively easy to evade.  Government is not.

Not if Big Business has taken over the state, and not if Big Business has deputized Big Business to control the People.  Feudalism, one of the old forms of tyranny, implies a weak state but one in which the manorial lord has all power over the serf. One might be safe from the caprice of the King who is simply the biggest landowner in the country only to be under the rule of some lord who has the power of life and death over one. If one is under the absolute power of such a lord one has no freedom. "Obey or die" is not freedom.

Libertarianism is a utopian dream. There is not and has never been a libertarian state; there is no convincing evidence that a libertarian society would not turn into a new form of feudalism.
Did any of you happen to watch or listen to the expose on 60 Minutes last night about the abuse of the visa program by which American workers were not only displaced by foreign ones, but were also required to train their replacements in order to qualify for any severance? Truly shocking. No wonder we are in a much worse national malaise than during the fabled one of the Carter years!
Reply
#66
(03-20-2017, 03:10 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(03-20-2017, 09:32 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(03-19-2017, 03:38 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(03-18-2017, 09:26 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(03-18-2017, 04:09 AM)Galen Wrote: I find it ironic that Eric (insult redacted) is basically arguing the libertarian position on regulatory capture.  It is a virtual certainty that the Obtuse One did not realize that he was arguing a libertarian position.

In a crony-capitalist world both government and Big Business are to be evaded if one isn't in on the scam and relishes freedom.

One can only have a crony capitalist world if the government is big enough for politicians to dish out favors for their friends in big business.  Big business itself is relatively easy to evade.  Government is not.

Not if Big Business has taken over the state, and not if Big Business has deputized Big Business to control the People.  Feudalism, one of the old forms of tyranny, implies a weak state but one in which the manorial lord has all power over the serf. One might be safe from the caprice of the King who is simply the biggest landowner in the country only to be under the rule of some lord who has the power of life and death over one. If one is under the absolute power of such a lord one has no freedom. "Obey or die" is not freedom.

Libertarianism is a utopian dream. There is not and has never been a libertarian state; there is no convincing evidence that a libertarian society would not turn into a new form of feudalism.

Big business doesn't have to "take over the state", monopolies are created by the state.  In the modern format mostly through regulatory capture--but prior to that things were a little more direct.  As for businesses getting big to start with--well that's capitalism for you.  Expand or die.

As to Libertarianism I'll let the Libertarians answer for that, you know considering I'm not a Libertarian.
This has been achieved over the past three decades or so mostly by the merger and buyout mania which made the victors bigger and bigger, creating a state of what is often referred to as oligopoly, a condition where there are only a few large sellers for a given product. The next step below total monopoly. This does not create a very stabilizing mood for the country and society.
Reply
#67
(03-20-2017, 07:04 AM)Odin Wrote:
(03-19-2017, 03:38 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Big business itself is relatively easy to evade.

Not if it is powerful enough to make itself the state.

It would be helpful if you provided an example of this happening.  I have yet to find a historical example of this process.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#68
(03-20-2017, 03:05 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: ROFLAMO

Odin have you learned nothing about history? Or is your head so full of bullshit you can't.

States that attempt to base themselves on popular will are inherently unstable. Democracies either degenerate into tyrannies of the majority or into chaos. Which of course is why the US is not a democracy and never has been. It is of course a Republic.

The US is both a democracy and a republic, they are not mutually conflicting terms. The whole "we are a republic, not a democracy" talking point comes from artificially narrow definition of democracy and outright intellectual dishonestly.

Modern liberal democracies have these things called rights which exist exactly to prevent a tyranny of the majority.

(03-20-2017, 03:05 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: ROFLAMO

Odin have you learned nothing about history? Or is your head so full of bullshit you can't.

States that attempt to base themselves on popular will are inherently unstable. Democracies either degenerate into tyrannies of the majority or into chaos. Which of course is why the US is not a democracy and never has been. It is of course a Republic.

As for Oligarchy, it is more or less the natural state for mankind. There is a class that rules and a class that is ruled. But in no case has there ever been such a class, ruled or ruling that was frozen in stasis without the intervention of the state

(03-20-2017, 03:10 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Big business doesn't have to "take over the state", monopolies are created by the state.  In the modern format mostly through regulatory capture--but prior to that things were a little more direct.  As for businesses getting big to start with--well that's capitalism for you.  Expand or die.

As to Libertarianism I'll let the Libertarians answer for that, you know considering I'm not a Libertarian.

You think all those Gilded Age monopolies and trusts were created by the state? It took state power in order to break up those monopolies.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Reply
#69
(03-20-2017, 03:30 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: This has been achieved over the past three decades or so mostly by the merger and buyout mania which made the victors bigger and bigger, creating a state of what is often referred to as oligopoly, a condition where there are only a few large sellers for a given product. The next step below total monopoly. This does not create a very stabilizing mood for the country and society.

Our anti-trust laws have not been strongly enforced for decades, it's time for a new era of trust-busting.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Reply
#70
(03-20-2017, 03:30 PM)Galen Wrote:
(03-20-2017, 07:04 AM)Odin Wrote:
(03-19-2017, 03:38 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Big business itself is relatively easy to evade.

Not if it is powerful enough to make itself the state.

It would be helpful if you provided an example of this happening.  I have yet to find a historical example of this process.

During the Gilded Age many state governments were pretty much under the thumb of corporate interests.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Reply
#71
(03-20-2017, 05:19 PM)Odin Wrote:
(03-20-2017, 03:05 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: ROFLAMO

Odin have you learned nothing about history?  Or is your head so full of bullshit you can't.

States that attempt to base themselves on popular will are inherently unstable.  Democracies either degenerate into tyrannies of the majority or into chaos.  Which of course is why the US is not a democracy and never has been.  It is of course a Republic.

The US is both a democracy and a republic, they are not mutually conflicting terms. The whole "we are a republic, not a democracy" talking point comes from artificially narrow definition of democracy and outright intellectual dishonestly.

Modern liberal democracies have these things called rights which exist exactly to prevent a tyranny of the majority.

(03-20-2017, 03:05 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: ROFLAMO

Odin have you learned nothing about history?  Or is your head so full of bullshit you can't.

States that attempt to base themselves on popular will are inherently unstable.  Democracies either degenerate into tyrannies of the majority or into chaos.  Which of course is why the US is not a democracy and never has been.  It is of course a Republic.

As for Oligarchy, it is more or less the natural state for mankind.  There is a class that rules and a class that is ruled.  But in no case has there ever been such a class, ruled or ruling that was frozen in stasis without the intervention of the state

(03-20-2017, 03:10 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Big business doesn't have to "take over the state", monopolies are created by the state.  In the modern format mostly through regulatory capture--but prior to that things were a little more direct.  As for businesses getting big to start with--well that's capitalism for you.  Expand or die.

As to Libertarianism I'll let the Libertarians answer for that, you know considering I'm not a Libertarian.

You think all those Gilded Age monopolies and trusts were created by the state? It took state power in order to break up those monopolies.

1.  The Founders feared democracy and rightly so.  However, that does not preclude Republics from having democratic institutions.  However the US is not now, nor ever has been a democracy.

2.  Institutions that prohibit the tyanny of the majority usually indicate that the state in question is a Republic which is what most of your "modern democracies" actually are.

3.  Gilded Age Monopolies and Trusts were created by the state because on the federal level there was no laws to prevent their formation.  Capitalism requires businesses to expand or die, therefore they expand to their maximum possible extent.

At most a state that is hostile to monopoly formation can prevent them from happening, and break them up hen they do (See Sherman Anti-Trust act), but in no case has regulation of industry prevented the formation of monopolies--in most cases it has increased monopoly and oligopoly in industries through regulatory capture.

Also Odin you've not answered my question.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#72
(03-17-2017, 04:17 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(03-17-2017, 02:50 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(03-16-2017, 12:05 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:
(03-16-2017, 11:10 AM)The Wonkette Wrote:
(03-15-2017, 03:58 PM)Galen Wrote: I never thought of it that way but your right.  Should serve as an object lesson as to why governments need to be kept small. Smile
Yeah, except for the small detail that I enjoy breathing free air.  Reducing pollution is one of those "externalities" that the free market isn't very good at handling.

For the sake of argument, this could probably be handled by common law as well, and was well into the 20th century.  Injunctions stemming from personal injury claims were actually far stricter than later statutory rules.  Part of the reasoning behind them was to protect corporations from nuisance lawsuits in the interests of development.

Which is what injunctions generally do; protect corporations, not the people.

Eric, I know you're an ignoramus, but you do realize that he just said that the statutory rules and Executive Department regulations were less (not more) strict than common law injunctions against corporations.

You classical liberals seem to like injunctions. How about this one?





Or maybe you prefer this one:

https://www.britannica.com/event/Pullman-Strike

To hell with your stupid injunctions and "common law." We had NO protection against greedy pollution until Earth Day, the Clean Air and Water Acts and the EPA. Drump just wants to allow the greedy bosses to pollute as much as they want. SomeGuy, Kinser and Galen don't give a tinker's damn whether they live in a bleepin' garbage dump or not. They think it's better for the economy to live in a garbage dump. I don't think so. Garbage does not produce for the economy. Poison is not good for it either. Disease is not good for the economy. Climate change is ruining it. SomeGuy, Galen and Kinser haven't the foggiest notion that you need an environment in order to have an economy. They don't live on Planet Earth; they live in the Twilight Zone.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#73
(03-20-2017, 05:25 PM)Odin Wrote:
(03-20-2017, 03:30 PM)Galen Wrote:
(03-20-2017, 07:04 AM)Odin Wrote:
(03-19-2017, 03:38 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Big business itself is relatively easy to evade.

Not if it is powerful enough to make itself the state.

It would be helpful if you provided an example of this happening.  I have yet to find a historical example of this process.

During the Gilded Age many state governments were pretty much under the thumb of corporate interests.

That doesn't provide a historical example of private businesses setting themselves up as a state.  It merely indicates that politicians can be bought and sold.  Which isn't all that surprising really.  All men have a price.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#74
(03-20-2017, 05:53 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(03-20-2017, 05:25 PM)Odin Wrote:
(03-20-2017, 03:30 PM)Galen Wrote:
(03-20-2017, 07:04 AM)Odin Wrote:
(03-19-2017, 03:38 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Big business itself is relatively easy to evade.

Not if it is powerful enough to make itself the state.

It would be helpful if you provided an example of this happening.  I have yet to find a historical example of this process.

During the Gilded Age many state governments were pretty much under the thumb of corporate interests.

That doesn't provide a historical example of private businesses setting themselves up as a state.  It merely indicates that politicians can be bought and sold.  Which isn't all that surprising really.  All men have a price.

One other thing the Odin doesn't do is look at what happened to all the attempts the set up monopolies and trusts in the late nineteenth century.  Under laissez faire they died horrible twitching deaths for the most part.  None of them ever succeeded in their intended goal of controlling an industry.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#75
See, I knew it was pointless trying to reason with you wackos. Rolleyes
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Reply
#76
(03-21-2017, 07:04 AM)Odin Wrote: See, I knew it was pointless trying to reason with you wackos. Rolleyes

I suggest that you spend some time with the work of Gabriel Kolko.  He was not even close to being a libertarian.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Internet Trolls and Donald Trump gabrielle 22 648 02-22-2017, 02:53 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Academic freedom and Donald Trump pbrower2a 22 884 02-21-2017, 09:39 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)