The Conservative Voice

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

You mean the "anything goes" attitude towards everyone. Y'know, like...equality?

Adrian, the kind of government that, if I remember correctly, you would want to see would never result in equality. By its very nature, the unequal distribution of wealth and power results in grave inequality.

The kind of horrible power you attribute to an overreaching government would just be replaced by someone else as you remove more and more power from the government.

Barring ignorance to history and modern politics, I honestly don't see how anyone can trust trust a multi-billion dollar company to go about their business unfettered by government restrictions and controls than a democratically-elected government with a respectable turnover rate.

Hell, even if the US government has too much power over its own economic system, the US government still has an enormous problem with corruption because of the companies trying very hard to control its own regulation and buying politicians. The recent healthcare debacle in the year from the announcement right up to the President signing the bill is enormous evidence of this.

I think I and others who don't ascribe to your ideals can see just much power people and companies like that can have if the government just decided to stop regulating them. The government dictators would just be given the moniker of "CEO" instead of "Senator."

[Tiberius]

Adrian, the kind of government that, if I remember correctly, you would want to see would never result in equality. By its very nature, the unequal distribution of wealth and power results in grave inequality.

Stop thinking mathematical equality and start thinking social equality. It is impossible by definition to have everyone exactly the same. Some people have brown hair, others have blond. Some people have rich parents, others have poor. We aren't talking about equality meaning person A being identical to person B, we are talking about equality meaning that no matter who you are, how much you earn, or what your hair colour is, you are treated the same by the government and by society in general.

The kind of horrible power you attribute to an overreaching government would just be replaced by someone else as you remove more and more power from the government.

I fail to see how. Baseless assertions don't make for good argument; present your case properly.

Barring ignorance to history and modern politics, I honestly don't see how anyone can trust trust a multi-billion dollar company to go about their business unfettered by government restrictions and controls than a democratically-elected government with a respectable turnover rate.

You can trust companies to do one thing, and that is to listen to their consumers. Why? Because in a world with no government restrictions on business, the consumers have all the power. They set the prices; they tell the company what to pay their employees; they are in control.

Hell, even if the US government has too much power over its own economic system, the US government still has an enormous problem with corruption because of the companies trying very hard to control its own regulation and buying politicians. The recent healthcare debacle in the year from the announcement right up to the President signing the bill is enormous evidence of this.

There would be no point or benefit in "buying" politicians when the politicians have no control over the economy in the first place. If you want to end corruption; remove the corruptible from any proper position of power. It's that simple.

I think I and others who don't ascribe to your ideals can see just much power people and companies like that can have if the government just decided to stop regulating them. The government dictators would just be given the moniker of "CEO" instead of "Senator."

Yet another assertion.

[lrh9]

Tiberius, you have to play by your own standard. If you can't make baseless assertions, back up your assertion that governments of the world mess around too much in the economy and its their fault we're in this mess.

Fair is fair.

C'mon.

[Tiberius]

I believe I have backed up my assertions multiple times in other parts of the forum.

[lrh9]

By the way, I can prove I'm not making a straw man. Many libertarian leaders oppose many things in favor of the proletariat. Example: Minimum wage. The American national Tea Party leader came out against it.

---

Charity alone cannot meet the needs of the people.

Even people who argue that regulation harms the economy cannot deny the existence of a horrid wealth disparity. A situation of gross profit with gross poverty calls for intervention.

[Tiberius]

Ah, minimum wage. It would be a point in your favour if it weren't for the fact that minimum wage laws force companies to hire less employees, and therefore contribute to the unemployment rates of the nation. Minimum wage and low unemployment; you can have one or the other, but you cant have both (and have a successful and stable economy that is).

There are members of the proletariat that are glad for any work, even for amounts lower than the minimum wage. I hardly see how giving people money is working against them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M10ufvIcrO8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9yqnypMYXc

[lrh9]

It is a known fact that the United States is the first world democracy with the least regulated economy, however countries with many socialist features fare better than the United States on many indicators such as mortality, gun deaths, teen pregnancy, etc.

---

We can have both.

Capitalism creates an inherent conflict between the proletariat and their employers. The goal of the proletariat is to earn as much as possible. The goal of the employers is to reduce costs. They want to pay as little as possible.

Employers have this vast amount of capital, but they don't want to pay their employees and they don't want to hire more employees. It's not an issue about not having the capital to hire. It's about them not wanting to. There should be intervention.

I bet at least 50% of the average pay increase for people working for an hourly wage comes from an increase in the minimum wage.

---

Absence of government regulation?

Say goodbye to OSHA.

Say goodbye to minimum wage.

Say goodbye to collective bargaining.

Say goodbye to environmental protection.

Say goodbye to legal standards for safety of consumption.

Say goodbye to mandatory vital services.

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGdXcGJw9NHD...26index=25

---

Still waiting for you to back up the "bad government" assertion.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Stop thinking mathematical equality and start thinking social equality. It is impossible by definition to have everyone exactly the same. Some people have brown hair, others have blond. Some people have rich parents, others have poor. We aren't talking about equality meaning person A being identical to person B, we are talking about equality meaning that no matter who you are, how much you earn, or what your hair colour is, you are treated the same by the government and by society in general.

Yes, yes, humanity comes in all different flavors and colors. I get that.
People with power and affluence are going to live in a different world than someone who doesn't have either one of those. There are billions of movies and various media of all sorts about this, but beyond that you haven't given me any reason that my government treats me or yours you any differently than anyone else on legal terms right now.
The only solution your idea offers is for government to completely ignore me, to allow the powerful to take the freedom and choice of the powerless.

I fail to see how. Baseless assertions don't make for good argument; present your case properly.

A baseless assertion is an assertion without due reason to be made. I have plenty of current and past examples to show both individuals and entire business working and working hard to make sure their bottom line is as fat as it can be, even over human life.
Many of the 'government overreach' rules and regulations are a direct result of a problem that needed to be solved.
Case and point: the history of unions, the 8-hour workday, and minimum wage in the United States.

You can trust companies to do one thing, and that is to listen to their consumers. Why? Because in a world with no government restrictions on business, the consumers have all the power. They set the prices; they tell the company what to pay their employees; they are in control.

I have absolutely no reason why listening to their customers is a higher priority than earning the greatest profit they can this quarter. Perhaps if one was only the result of the other, but there are ways around that, depending on the size of the company's bank account and influence.

There would be no point or benefit in "buying" politicians when the politicians have no control over the economy in the first place. If you want to end corruption; remove the corruptible from any proper position of power. It's that simple.

You misunderstand.
This partly depends on what the government does control, because if I remember your views correctly, you believe government should only have control on things like police, firemen, the justice system, and perhaps a few things I'm forgetting.
Having influence over all of those things is important and highly, highly beneficial in addition to having no stops in being able to pollute or sell dangerous mercury-ridden products.
Imagine that plus them being able to have the courts turn a blind eye to their dangerous products with a side helping of pollution (think Erin Brokovich, which is a real thing that happened), and being able to treat their own lower employees however they want without a justice system at their backs.

When things have happened like that, (as with the case of Erin Brokovich), even when word and overwhelming popularity got word out, it was still an uphill battle against the offending company because of what they've been able to do with just a good PR firm and lawyers.

Removing the corruptable is pointless because by the time you've done that, then there's not even a necessity to corrupt anyone. They can just do it.

I think I and others who don't ascribe to your ideals can see just much power people and companies like that can have if the government just decided to stop regulating them. The government dictators would just be given the moniker of "CEO" instead of "Senator."

Yet another assertion.

... based on companies like Humana who decided to let a man die rather than pay for a man's new pancreas, effectively sentencing him to death.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXkpxV7mnqY

Honestly, I would have spent more time providing examples with more thorough searches, but it's nearly 5am and I'm exhausted. Not saying though that there isn't a grand wealth of examples of everything I've asserted.

---

By the by, eliminating minimum wage will certainly help with unemployment.
It'll put those people into unyielding poverty with less than enough money to live on, but you can tell people that you have a job, I guess.

It's only slightly better than solving unemployment by unpaid internships except that they can get free coffee from the breakroom. Not really worth it.

[lrh9]

Life is too short to argue with people who dream of no government.

[theVOID]

There's your straw friend back for another visit I see.

Quick poll, how many people here have ever said they wanted no government? My guess is zero.