Republicans Represent the People

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

You keep up this optimism that somehow an unregulated capitalist market is going to stomp out corruption when all its going to do is remove many of the limits between the corrupting forces (the wealthy wanting to be given favorable breaks) and the government that's supposed to be protecting their citizens from tyranny.

Tyranny? Ah, another corporophobe.

They get far bigger advantages from government that they do constraints. Do you think that the number of regulations on the market outweighs the cushy privileges, tax breaks and subsidies? No - Especially not for the bigger corporations, the regulations fuck over small to medium sized business far more because they don't get the massive welfare packages to account for it!

Your government just "regulated" the labor force again by changing the definition of disabled to extend to anxiety, bi-polar, HIV and so on, now over half the labor market qualifies as disabled, and the employees no longer have the burden of proof to demonstrate they are disabled, the employer has to prove that they aren't!

How do you think they got those privilages? Politicians just handed them to them out of the very idea that they should control the market? (Well, let's be honest here, some of them indeed did get this - the energy market comes to mind, though it's because electricity and heat are necessities of an industrialized nation, so they get their special favors and I support that).
But in the vast majority of cases, companies lobby, bribe, cajole, and finance politicians until they pass laws to gain them special favors. It wasn't the goverment that corrupted the market. The Market corrupted the market through the government by exercising their constitutionally guarented freedoms to petition their government, vote, and support their politicians.

Yes - I don't agree with all of the government interferances in the market or in society in general. It's a constant struggle in a flexible, democratic society where laws can come and go based on demand and ideaology. I think this is honestly one of the greatest things about this country and simultaneously leaves it so open to the kinds of corruptions we constantly have to fight against.

Although you're not advocating the extreme that, say, Adrian exonifies (anarcho-capitalism), your blank-slate full on capitalism leaves the metaphorical gates wide open for all of the abuses (and more) that you're rallying here and elsewhere against. You're lumping 'policing against negligence' as something different than regulations when their very definition leaves them as virtual synonyms with one another.

I even gave you the definition (though it was erased in the server crash, but if I have time, I'll attempt to re-write the post as it continued the "Rich" discussion awhile back, but I'll be moving out of my state this weekend, so I'm not 100% on that - I may just abandon the discussion to continue another day.)

1.A rule or directive made and maintained by an authority

As soon as you explain the difference between a 'regulation' and a 'law', then I'd like to hear it, because I'm pretty sure my local department of health, when it shuts down a restraunt for not following regulations, is enforcing a system that forces them to not neglect their duty to keep their food and eating environs sanitary and safe for people to do business with them.
That's a classic example of how such things work.

In a free market you CAN'T give the wealthy breaks, you can't give them any taxpayer money at all - they can only get what they want via trade. If they can do so through consensual trade then who fucking cares?

Bullshit.
That might be in the lawbooks and how that society is supposed to run, but it's not going to stop them from trying or succeeding. The lack of intervention also prevents something like the local health inspectors (a tax-paid government employee) from enforcing those pesky regulations against selling unsafe food in an unsafe environment.
This a GOVERNMENT employee telling a small BUSINESS that they CANNOT make their CONSENTUAL trades to WILLING customers because they do not meet FEDERAL REGULATORY STANDARDS on what constitutes safe food.
You can't have this both ways. You're either letting companies get away with murder (metaphorically AND literally) or you're hurting their freedoms. A regulated capitalistic system, ideally provides a middle ground that protects citizens and allows for as much freedom as possible without infringing on the rights and safeties of others. Less government interferance means more freedom but fewer protections. More government means more protections and fewer freedoms.

Cant' get clean water and an education without the government! Can't buy veggies without the government! No company will make safe products without regulations, right? That's bollocks. It's in the best interests of the companies to make safe products, not only will they lose customers otherwise, they can be prosecuted for negligence - You don't need some government official to go check up on them, you just need to arrest them when they do something wrong.

And what was that link? A rival company produced the same product cheaper and the FDA said "sure you can do that?" - That's an example of good competition, not some government win.

It is bullocks because it's a strawman arguement. Just because I'm playing the devil's advocate here for government doesn't mean I think the ideal society is a result entirely of the government's hand. I never made that arguement. I'm making the arguement that many of the US's current good living standards is a result of those regulations and influences and not those of pure market forces. In fact, many of the regulations that help society have come about in the exact same manner as those of the negative ones. (In fact, thanks to the US's plutocrats, the negative aspects are winning since the 5% that control 95% of the wealth still want 100%, but that's another arguement).

The way I see the link I posted is that one company attempted to sell their paroduct at a horrificially inflated price and failed because of the FDA's ruling. So you have a government regulatory agency that actively made a ruling on what can or cannot happen in the marketplace and instead of bowing to the pressure of the company that wanted to inflate their price, they said that the less expensive version of the product can be sold at that price. So... yay FDA. Particularly given that the two companies weren't even competing yet.

As far as what's in the best interests of companies - no - what's in their best interest is making as much money as possible by any means necessary. The best example of the worst of capitalism is what the healthcare insurance companies have been doing over here for decades.