Hillary or Trump: Which of These is the Lesser of Two Evils?

[Pat Mustard]

How much regulation are the repubs supposed to think is necessary?  Their mantra has been deregulation for some time now.  The difference between you as a libertarian and a repub probably isn't economic.  It's almost -certainly- social.
(I feel for you, btw, libertarianism has become so useful as a cover for far right conservatism that even the libertarian party can't fight the spin)

That last bit is quite true.  It doesn't really leave me with a political name, unless I want to smash together socially democract fiscally republican.  But even that isn't quite true.  Republicans talk about deregulation, but they appear to be in favor of deregulation if it benefits corporate America but not if it benefits individual employees or smaller businesses. They like protectionism, emimant domain for private gain, crony capitalism, and licensing to protect existing business in practice.  That is what Trump's wall and 45% tarriff are about.  But you are right that I wouldn't throw banking regs, environmental laws, social security, or a host of other regs out the window.

The problem with deregulation is that it is always favourable to the big beasts. When you remove rules designed to limit certain behaviours from a system it is always the rich and powerful who exploit the lack of brakes on the system. Without severe government regulation of wokers rights we'd have ten year olds working twelve hour shifts and longer (in fact we do, the children are simply hidden away in countries like Bangladesh), and we do know what happens when rules regulating what can be sold, what guarantees are required and whether company x can buy company y are removed from the financial crash of 2008, and many earlier financial and stock market crashes.

Regulation of markets and government intervention are the only two mechanisms we have to ensure the capitalist system which is the current orthodoxy from eating itself every thirty years.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that some people forget, sometimes, that capitalism is a system we designed and support to serve a single purpose, the betterment of our lives.  No matter how much money it prints, or how successful the system is -itself-, if the people who support it live in poverty or insufferable conditions, then it no longer serves the only purpose for which it exists.

[abaris]

I think that some people forget, sometimes, that capitalism is a system we designed and support to serve a single purpose, the betterment of our lives.  No matter how much money it prints, or how successful the system is -itself-, if the people who support it live in poverty or insufferable conditions, then it no longer serves the only purpose for which it exists.

It's as old as humanity itself. At least developed humanity. But I always like to make a distinction between a free market and capitalism. A free market serves the people, capitalism is the extreme. If allowed to run unchecked it's as bad as all the other isms, since it will only serve itself without any regard of the people. And that's more an more the system we have. The religion of making money, over dead bodies, if necessary.

[Rhondazvous]

I think that some people forget, sometimes, that capitalism is a system we designed and support to serve a single purpose, the betterment of our lives.  No matter how much money it prints, or how successful the system is -itself-, if the people who support it live in poverty or insufferable conditions, then it no longer serves the only purpose for which it exists.

At what point did we abandon this purpose and become an ever widening polarization between capitalists and labor? I marvel at people who call themselves capitalists when they don't have a drop of capital.

No matter what ideals we started out with, somewhere along the way we sold our car for gas money.

[abaris]

At what point did we abandon this purpose and become an ever widening polarization between capitalists and labor?  I marvel at people who call themselves capitalists when they don't have a drop of capital.

No matter what ideals we started out with, somewhere along the way we sold our car for gas money.

I draw the line at the fall of the communist block. Capitalism no longer felt the need of presenting a smiling face, since there wasn't an opposing model anymore. For me, consiously having lived through these years, it's rather obvious. Regarding humans as some sort of expendable commodity has taken off after 1989. Maybe there were some other contributing factors, such as increasing globalization, but the 90ies were the first real decade of valuating individuals by how much money they were able to make. To be fair, it already started in the mid to late 80ies, but it only became glaringly obvious later on.

[Minimalist]

I think that some people forget, sometimes, that capitalism is a system we designed and support to serve a single purpose, the betterment of our lives.  No matter how much money it prints, or how successful the system is -itself-, if the people who support it live in poverty or insufferable conditions, then it no longer serves the only purpose for which it exists.

You're forgetting the "Let them eat cake" attitude of the super rich.  This system is working fine.  For them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Until their heads wind up piled in baskets.  Which is kind of how the poor unwashed masses roll. Simple self preservation ought to compel them to let a little more "trickle down"......but I guess we never learn.

[abaris]

You know, I'm hardly the one coming up with conspiracy theories. But this last decade with it's ever increasing surveilance and rolling back on civil liberties, always made me wonder, if they're not preparing already. For the day when the system is rigged to explode. A police state is better suited to deal with any given insurgency than any democracy.

[Minimalist]

I'm sure that has crossed someone's mind, Ab.  Probably why encryption drives them nuts.

You know, Bill Maher is always carrying on about how there are 5 million arab soldiers and why can't they stop ISIS? 



He doesn't seem to grasp that those armies are not designed to project power across borders.  They are designed to keep the ruling elites safe from their own people.

[The Grand Nudger]

It wouldn't help them if that was the case Abaris.  Train a dog to be ruthless, and you shouldn't be surprised when it bites you.  These increasingly intrusive systems are just as easily turned on their owners.