Republicans Represent the People

[theVOID]

Indeed they do. They do because the people paying them tell them to do so because they are bought and paid for. Their masters become the wealthy and powerful and not the people who elected them into office. That's not a result of the government's level of involvement in the economy. That's a result of someone wanting said politician to legislate favorably to the individuals who bought them.

So we agree on the effect but not the cause it seems.

People have been sold this Keynesian shit hook-line and sinker, because of this they vote for politicians who advocate the same principles that ultimately fuck them over. It's not a coincidence that the time that Keynesianism started into full swing was the same time that the wealth disparity started accelerating world wide, nor is it a coincidence that here in NZ we moved away from interventionist economics and the opportunities and motivations for corruption simultaneously decreased.

That amongst a great many other things to me suggests that it is more a problem of government power and naive public support for increased power that creates the opportunities for corruption, rather than corporate interests that push governments towards creating the conditions they want. If the later was the case why bother with general increased regulations at the same time? The increasing regulations come at the same time, suggesting that it is the overall types of powers the government has that provide opportunity, not corporations pushing from the base up for specifics, at least not to the same extent - They corrupt government and create a problem, the solution is seen as more regulation and bigger government which creates more opportunities for advantages that are exploited leading to even more problems the solution to which is seen as even more regulation and government - It's a toxic cycle, just like the Keynesian solution to debt is to borrow and spend - Neither make any sense.

Aaaand I'm going to have to stop you right here.
No.

I don't know if it's different in your country or not (I highly doubt it, but I don't honestly know) but that's now how this happens in most cases. If the government did not have the power to legislate the economy, then that's not going to stop people who want legislation of the economy from making exceptions.

You give the government that type of power and the amount of effort needed to create legislation that falls into that sphere is far greatly reduced. If the government did not have that sort of power over other people's productivity and consensual trade then passing a law to take advantage of it would be MUCH harder, it would stick out like a sore thumb - The legislation would not pass as easily, the opposition who complains about anything to seek election, and the media always looking for a good ride, would highlight the out of the ordinary giving people the opportunity to express outrage - When the legislation is seen as 'standard economic fare' however there isn't nearly as much interest.

You want to stop the special interests from getting favorable legislation as easily? That ^^^ is what you do.

It's happened in my country and given one of the threads you started about the ... I think it was some law that got passed that banned smoking in your country? It sounds like something we have in common. Don't pretend like CEOs are going to be perfect angels in a non-stop free market theVoid-Approved society because you're just being naive.

You think corporations pushed for the smoking laws? No. That is just our government being nanny state jerkoffs.

No I don't think CEOs or Markets are "perfect angels" as I've said countless times, I see CEO's as people perusing self interest and free markets as a system where they cannot get the taxpayer backed advantages that they want. Free markets, or more concisely, minimal-interventionist economics, does away entirely with the EXACT favorites and conditions that corporations want. Most of them simply will not break the law to get it, so they lobby governments, finance campaigns and pay people off to get intervention into the markets from on high all to suit themselves.

An interesting fact that supports my position is the significant lack of corporate support for Ron Paul, you would think that as a non-interventionist the corporations would be crawling all over him, because according to your confused analysis of the situation, he is exactly what they want. That is NOT the case, the average donations to Ron Paul's campaigns are $70 and 96% of donations are from individuals, that is absolutely dwarfed by the special interest support for the corporatists in the GOP and Dems.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52317.html

Government non-interferance in the economy gives these abusers at least equal opportunity for many of the abuses they already commit.

No it does not, the advantages they get through taxpayer funding completely dwarf the opportunities they would have in a free market.

Again, see the lack of support for the free market candidates from corporations and the correlation between Keynesianism and the wealth disparity. The evidence suggests the total opposite.

Yes. Thanks to small government anti-regulation pro-business interests that heavily de-regulated the market lowered taxes and funded a pair of illegal and expensive wars without paying for any of it in the budgets except by cutting popular social programs and forcing the government to intervene on a woman's uterus.

You haven't had deregulation! Small government isn't pro business either, it's anti-corporatism. Corporate welfare is "pro-business" and that is absolutely a big government Keynesian position, not a small government non-interventionist position.

Anti-abortion is more common amongst the right mostly because of the GOP, the Dems do marginally better on social liberties some of the time. Neither of them do good enough.

And anti-war is amongst the most common policies for libertarians, both the right-libertarians like Ron Paul and the left libertarians like Chomsky.

Oh right. Paper money. That's why my government is in debt.

*Facepalm*

Do you not get what Keynesianism is? It is a fully fledged economic theory, not just "fiat vs gold".

Paper money isn't exclusively Keynesian and to be honest it's a relatively insignificant position in principle, you could have a fiat system with a fiscally responsible government just fine - Gold has such a huge appeal right now because Keynesian economic policies are destroying the value of currency and bolstering inflation, the reserve banks are printing money to buy government treasuries and bonds so the US doesn't go flat broke and have a debt crisis - This is only escalating as countries like China and Japan drastically lower the number of Government bonds they are buying - The Fed now buys 70% of us Government debt - How do they afford that? By printing more money - What are the effects of that? Lower purchasing power and rising prices that raise the cost of living, the single biggest problem for the working class. Gold standards force fiscal responsibility because you can't just fire up the printing press to inflate your way out of interest payments - If there wasn't such reckless fiscal management you would see but a fraction of the current support for a gold standard.

Which is pointless when the wealthy and powerful can still buy a sledgehammer.

It's much much much harder to knock down the wall that it is to slip your buddy some $$$ so he can open the gate... At least when you're swinging the sledge passers by (the public) and the guy who wants to take the gate manager's job (the opposition) have a chance to do something about it.

I don't give a damn about how many rules there are as long as they're effective at what they do and enforced as such. More rules doesn't mean worse and fewer doesn't always mean better. I'm sure that's a fallacious logical arguement whose name I've forgotten.
Punishing people more harshly means diddly poop if wealthy people can continue to buy their way out of trouble. White collar crime in most countries is very difficult to prosecute in most cases and your system doesn't make easier to charge them appropriately to the crime they commit.
I'd settle for equal enforcement of the law as much as humanly possible.

That's because there are such vague lines between what is and is not legal! If it was just plain and simple "no force, fraud, coercion and negligence" then it would be one hell of a lot easier to prosecute people, you would still have to prove guilt, but that's just the price of a fair trial, the problem is a fucking ton of fraud, coercion and negligence is protected by law, part of these special conditions.

The "more rules" end up treating normal people, small and medium sized businesses and ethical corporations as criminals, THAT is my main concern with them. They also raise the cost of doing business which lowers the amount of money available for reinvestment, less jobs, stagnant wages etc.

Still, that's a nice opinion you have of regulation but given your confusion over what laws are and what regulations are, you seem to have your own idea as to what constitutes which that doesn't seem to follow the defintions and uses I've come across anytime I reference them.

Laws and regulations are the same fucking thing, we are talking about regulations/laws as they pertain to the economy, that is what is generally meant by "regulations". I have no confusion here, you have misunderstood me if you think that.

Still, thanks to my state and local water regulators, I can be quite certain I'll be drinking clean water tonight. Thanks to the FDA, I can be reasonably certain that these peanut butter M&Ms I'm eating now won't injure my health (anymore than peanut butter M&Ms normally would given the ingredients list that's there thanks to the FDA.)

Bullshit! Suppose there is no FDA tomorrow, do you think they're going to start making poisonous chocolates? And even if they did the absence of a regulatory body DOES NOT suddenly make fraud and negligence legal, someone selling you unsafe food under the guise of safety is breaking both of those conditions - You do not need an organization dedicated to being a watch dog in order to secure those basic obligations.

By the by, your link was quite amusing. So the FCC is a corrupt company, sure, thanks to the media conglomerates that 'purchased' it.
Your solution to this is... to eliminate the FCC I'm guessing? How wonderful. Now those media conglomerates don't need to corrupt a regulating body to do whatever mischief they intend to inflict upon us. Good work.

As long as they aren't being fraudulent or coercive then I don't give a shit what they do. You don't need to establish some massive government department for that to be illegal, you need laws against them both, a legal system and members of the public who can file lawsuits and class actions if they feel something has been breached - That's a damn site better than their having to approach a commission to deal with it who is already in the pockets of the companies who are supposed to be 'restrained' by it.

Strawman. Wasn't my arguement.

Were you not advocating health inspectors on the grounds that someone somewhere might be doing something negligent? How is that not treating the innocent like the guilty before they have the opportunity to do wrong?

You're damn right they do it anyway. Yet, you're promoting a system that makes it harder for them to do by removing the vast majority of the regulations and laws that prevent them from taking advantage of an unsuspecting public and robbing them blind with far fewer roadblocks to do so.

Here is the typical false use of the word 'stealing' or 'robbery' I suspect. How exactly are the Robbing the people?

My argument is that the same powers that result in regulations also give out the advantages and privileges, taxpayer funding etc to special interests as well as treating EVERYONE like a potential criminal because someone else somewhere else will do something wrong - that is ultimately WORSE than no powers at all - None of that disallows these organizations being prosecuted for committing a crime.

At least with a regulating government, fire can be fought with fire and even with all this talk about how bad my government is doing, all of the industrialized nations on this planet are at least as regulated and are doing anywhere from worse to far better.

You have the most corrupt government in the western world and it's getting worse, even though you are becoming more and more regulated. What you need is NOT more regulations, but cracking down on and more thoroughly punishing people who break the ones you already have. Send a message that people fuck with society get imprisoned or shut down, not that they'll get more red tape to dodge.

You're naive in the sense that you believe that less regulation means these corrupting companies, CEOs, and other powerful people are going be regulated by market forces they can control and a government with no power to tell them what they can or cannot do with their product or their money (other than, I assume taxes.)

Not "regulated", just forced to play by the same rules as everyone else and are open to punishment if they do not. In the free markets if they use the same tactics that they use on the government to get an advantage they don't just get to pass a law and call it legal, avoiding all responsibilities for their actions and taking a bit fat chunk of taxpayer cash while they're at it.

I'd hate to see the news report on how many got sick, injured, or killed as a result of that.

Depends how many business owners want to go to jail or get shut down doesn't it? It would be fuck all more at best, and the consequences for those that would do wrong are much worse while at the same time the ethical businesses aren't forced to suffer for it and the taxpayers aren't forced to fund it. It's exactly like saying "we could prevent domestic crime If we sent someone around to homes on a regular basis" and that probably would be true, but it's not worth 1. Sacrificing the freedoms of the innocent couples 2. treating people like potential criminals by default 3. using taxpayer funds to finance it.

You need a "big expensive government department" to make sure they comply and enforce the rules that they may break. Being fined/shut down/imprisoned is a result of enforcement of regulations that would be gone under your system, assuming the individuals enforcing those laws aren't also removed due to them only existing as a 'big expensive government department."

The police are not regulators! And you would need no more laws than those that apply to EVERY interaction between parties, those of not using Force, fraud, coercion or neglecting their responsibilities. If you can't see how that is more effective that having regulations like "This must be stored like x and this like y and you must wear these gloves when doing z" and paying an entire government department to go and investigate every one of these needless stipulations then your a lost cause.

It is not enforcing what are otherwise specific market regulations, it is enforcing the essential rights people have in transactions of all types, the right to be free from force, to not be lied to, to not be mislead and manipulated and to not have the consented terms violated. One set of rules for everyone, not a million rules for a million different situations.

It's not a strawman at all. You just don't appear to understand the results of the kind of society based on your own ideas on how governments should be run or even the role of regulations in society.

Yes it was a straw man.

You do not need a myriad of tiny bullshit nitpicking regulations, you need a consistent and consent focused approach.

Yes, if they "neglect their responsibilities" then they will get prosecuted for doing so.

Which is a problem why?

But what dictates those responsibilites?

The people who consent to the agreement. If I agree to buy food from you under the pretense that it is safe to eat then you have the responsibility to live up to that agreement. If I agree to work for you under the pretense that I will be free from physical harm then you have the responsibility to live up to that agreement. If I agree to work for you then I obtain certain responsibilities too, like turning up on time, doing my job properly etc.

Who enforces them?

the police and courts

At what point is what they're doing even considered a crime?

Agreeing to terms with somebody and then failing to live up to those responsibilities is the crime.

We're going around in circles here, so let's just cut it for now and move on to the next round.