Republicans Represent the People

[theVOID]

How do you think they got those privilages?

1. Politicians thinking they are the masters of the economy who decide that they are going to allocate our resources for us.

2. Corruption.

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).

They get anti-competitive advantages, that doesn't make energy more efficient or cheaper, it means it's much harder for other companies to compete. If you're going to insist on spending taxpayer money on energy don't give it to a fucking private interest, give it to a R&D program at a university or research lab.

But in the vast majority of cases, companies lobby, bribe, cajole, and finance politicians until they pass laws to gain them special favors.

No shit sherlock, that's what I've been saying all along.

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.

Oh bullshit, the governments decided that they know best and can rule the economy from on high, corporations saw this as an opportunity to get the conditions they wanted and launched at it. If the government did not have the power to legislate commerce then there would be much much less opportunity to get these unfair conditions - They can't get those advantages from individuals without use of force, fraud or coercion, all things that are punishable. But if they get these advantages from government there is nothing we can do about it!

Corporations want the government to have control over the economy, that's their best way to get propped up given advantages.

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.

Are you shitting me? You're all broke and more controlled by corporate interests than ever! It has not fucking worked, things aren't more equal, the working class isn't better off, the rich don't have to work harder for their profits, it's had the complete opposite effect.

Keynesianism is a fucking disaster!

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.

No it doesn't, Government is the gatekeeper, I want to remove the gates entirely and puts up a fucking wall - Not one business gets taxpayer money, period.

Regulation IS different to policing, massively different! Policing does not presume guilt and does not restrict freedoms in the name of preventing action, it does not treat everyone in that position like a potential criminal, policing only acts on guilt.

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.)

Sure more rules for the people to follow, more things become illegal. You want more and more rules? Fuck that, we need less rules and harsher punishments. Punishing people that commit crimes with tough sentences is far more fair and effective than trying to stem it by imposing on everyone, even the people who wouldn't do wrong to begin with! It's also far far cheaper, so you don't end up a debt riddled mess like your country.

These regulations fuck more people over than the help.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e..._.28FCC.29

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.

A regulation IS a law, I never said it wasn't, I said Regulation is not POLICING.

So you think we should treat all restaurants like potential criminals and check up on them like some parole officer, all of which costs tons of money, because some restaurant somewhere will neglect their responsibilities and make someone sick? Fuck that, why should ethical companies suffer because of the unethical few? When it does occur that someone gets sick at a restaurant then the government should shut them down and fine or imprison the owners, they should not treat them like criminals before they have done something wrong.

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.

They do it anyway! At least I'm promoting a system that would make it fucking hard for them to do so, one in which their propagation isn't supported by the government and made legal.

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.

We should punish them when they do something wrong, not BEFORE.

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.

Safe food is food that does not make people sick. When you purchase food you do so under the promise that it won't make you sick - If a company does not comply then they are fined/shut down/imprisoned. You DO NOT need a big expensive government department to make that perfectly clear.

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.

Complete fucking straw man, I have covered this AT LENGTH already. If they neglect their responsibilities they do NOT get away with it, they get prosecuted!

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.

False dichotomy, you can replace regulations with tougher sentences, make it perfectly clear that "We're not going to watch you like a naughty child or a certain criminal, but if you do fuck up be warned that you are going to get fucking slammed for it".

That way you have more freedom and more protection. Deterrents are effective, you DO NOT need a watch dog for every little thing that could go wrong - When you take the second approach you balloon the government and have to spend tons of money to maintain it all.

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).

It's completely beside the point.

Your living standards are amongst the most unequal in the western world! Once the per capita GDP is adjusted for disparity you go from #4 to #17! You go back before the Keynesian mentality took over your country, back when there were less regulations, have a look at the numbers there. The US used to rank #1.

Stop playing devils advocate, if you present stupid scenarios you don't agree with then don't bother getting your nickers in a twist when I call bullshit.

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.

The FDA can't arbitrarily decide to throw out intellectual property laws, they concluded that the competitors already had the right to compete.

IP laws are one of the biggest government shams, one of the most lucrative exploitation of regulations that the corruptors have access to.

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.

That's not at all what happened. It wasn't just two companies, it was one big pharmaceutical and a number of independent pharmacies, the big pharma wanted to restrict their ability to compete freely and the FDA did NOT step in and relinquish the big pharma's IP, they said "you don't own that right".

The FDA didn't do shit, they pointed out the obvious, the Big pharma did not have the rights they were claiming, they couldn't have done a fucking thing about it anyway.

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.

You used to have the highest quality care per $ in the world, before the regulations.