Losing respect for Rand Paul

[The Grand Nudger]

 results in poorer transport infrastructure, schools without teaching materials and hospitals without the skilled staff to save lives (not to mention the many myriads of other things that governments do which nobody thinks about when they cheer rich people evading their duty to pay taxes).

Which, in turn, inhibits the free or efficient movement of capital in and of itself. The point of all this bullshit we're being sold isn't to help markets be free or move capital, it's to consolidate it upward and -prevent- it from moving once consolidated.

---

Socialism well practised is far, far better at protecting individual liberties than any form of profit driven economic system that will ever be devised. Don't kid yourself otherwise.

Why would it be?

........................because it's explicitly focused on them, rather than seeing them as a barrier to profitability? Any company would -love- to be able to write a law or effect a situation that forces you to buy their product. Even better yet, to just give them your money without having to exchange a product in return. They often enlist the governments help to do so, lol.

[vulcanlogician]

I'll put exactly the right amount of trust into free market capitalism - you have to prevent failures of the free market (extremely interesting topic IMO). It's the field I find the most interesting to study, personally. I love striking that balance... seeing how the corporations are so cleverly exploiting things, and devising regulations that actually prevent them, but not interfering more than what keeps the playing field even. There is plenty of regulation to be had, and plenty we're missing (like a huge amount of environmental regulation!). But it just shouldn't be excessive in any way.

That's basically where I stand on the issue. You can write it off as me being a libertarian, but really I just see there being so much power in free markets, that it would be a crying shame to have a purely socialist society, where you lose all of that beautiful efficiency.

First of all let me say that the only political views I completely write off are ignorance (not technically a political view, but certainly a voter demographic) and fascism which you are neither. In fact, we are both anti-authoritarian, so we're on the same page there. I respect your view regardless of the fact I disagree on unbridled capitalism.

Look, from 1880-1910, American workers had a hell of a time. If capitalism worked so well without regulation those should have been the times when everyone was living the high life, but it was horrible.

Libertarians get this gleam in their eye when they think of unregulated capitalism like it's going to open doors for everyone everywhere.

And whats with this "we need less regulation" stuff? Granted, there are regulations that mess with efficacy, but I think the task at hand there is to figure out precicely which regulations need to go and work from there. Some laws are unjust-- it's true. But if that's the case, you don't hear people say "Y'know, we need less laws." That's because there's important laws like murder and theft laws that keep us all safe. So it is with regulations.

[The Grand Nudger]

I strongly doubt that we have enough of the good regulations™ yet, for that matter.

"Less regulation!" is the mating call of the robber baron...not a useful ideology for good governance. There should be exactly as much regulation as we require, even if that amounts to a mountain of regulation.

---

lol, adden-

I hear stuff like "These regulations are just too complicated, I never know if what I;m doing is kosher"..and all I can think to myself when I hear it..is that maybe that just means those people are bad at business? Free market and all..that means they shouldn't be in business.  Deregulation as an overriding ideology subsidizes ignorance, incompetence, and injustice, and John Q Consumer picks up the tab.

[Pat Mustard]

Why would it be?

Study the Danish economy and how it got to be there. You're doing an economics degree over there, any academic worth his salt will show you just how much socialist and social democratic policies have shaped the country into pretty much the closest thing we've got to Utopia on this planet right now (and yes I am aware of the provenance of that name. Instead of reading Rand in school, I read More and Plato).

You've got to remember, lad that you're young yet. You've not hit the real world and have the economic effects of the current system slap you in the face yet. I've seen what capitalism does to the vast mass of the population (and even at that being from Ireland I've only nibbled round the edges of its destructive effects, being lucky enough to having been born in one of the richest countries on the planet, what happens in, say, India to the unemployed is far harsher than what happened to me). When you've seen what happens when you're not the perfect drone (and even when you) are, you'll hopefully lose your childish infatuation with Randian libertarianism.

[shadow]

Why would it be?

........................because it's explicitly focused on them, rather than seeing them as a barrier to profitability?  Any company would -love- to be able to write a law or effect a situation that forces you to buy their product.  Even better yet, to just give them your money without having to exchange a product in return.  They often enlist the governments help to do so, lol.

Ah, I'm talking more about classic differences between conservative and liberal ideology regarding social freedoms. In that realm, libertarianism provides completely. I support people being able to do what they want if it harms no one else, for example, legalizing drug use, gay marriage, et cetera, which are consistent with a libertartian ideology. Obviously I'm not referring to a total abolition of the enforcement human rights... I don't think I ever suggested that?

[The Grand Nudger]

Notice the "lib"..in "liberal"?  What do you think libertarianism offers on social freedoms that isn't contained within liberalism?  "Liberals" want to legalize our precious pots..it;s their practical need to poach conservative votes that keep them from doing so. Chasing lunatics.

Being "tough on drugs" strongly slides any given person or politicians overall position away from the left, towards the center and even center right. At least in usian politics.

[Brian37]

Yeah, I think libertarians are principled folks. Truly I'll take them over your average Republican dickhead any day, but they simply put too much trust in free market capitalism. It's tantamount to believing in unicorns to think that laissez faire capitalism will solve everything. We had that once: it seriously sucked, and we've been trying to replace it ever since. Why do you think unions came about in the first place? Greed? Hell no! Survival.

I'll put exactly the right amount of trust into free market capitalism - you have to prevent failures of the free market (extremely interesting topic IMO). It's the field I find the most interesting to study, personally. I love striking that balance... seeing how the corporations are so cleverly exploiting things, and devising regulations that actually prevent them, but not interfering more than what keeps the playing field even. There is plenty of regulation to be had, and plenty we're missing (like a huge amount of environmental regulation!). But it just shouldn't be excessive in any way.

That's basically where I stand on the issue. You can write it off as me being a libertarian, but really I just see there being so much power in free markets, that it would be a crying shame to have a purely socialist society, where you lose all of that beautiful efficiency.

I really hate this false dichotomy. It is not a choice between a nanny state, like China, or North Korea, vs a no rules market. When people shit on the west, I like Che supporters, I say fuck them. Just because I hate a totalitarian run market, does not mean I want a free for all market either.

I really HATE the misuse of the word "capitalism" and BOTH right and left have far too many that have  NO FUCKING CLUE what that means.

REALITY, every damned nation, open or closed, more pluralistic, theocracy, or worship of state, ALL have powers that invest in the global market. There is not one nation, open or closed that does not invest in the global market. 

China is a form of "authoritarian capitalism" as to which one political party benefits the most. North Korea is a family kleptocracy and so is Cuba. In America, we have currently the other horrible side of the same coin. Instead of an ideology, religion, bullying everyone, we have a class bullying everyone. BUT the result is the same, no checks on power, with America we do have a constitution that is supposed to break up any and all monopolies, and a SCOTUS, up until 40 years ago, did do a better job to prevent abuse of power.

THE KEY is abuse of power. But if you think it is throw out the private sector, that will NEVER happen on a planet of 7 billion. In the west though, WHEN citizens care to act, they have the opportunity to keep power in check and prevent abuse. It is just that currently for the past 40 years America has sucked at using our voices. I do not think all is lost. I do see a current and growing push back.

[vulcanlogician]

Instead of reading Rand in school, I read More and Plato).

 on Plato. What do you think Plato would think of capitalism? .... (We already know how he would feel about Trump.)

[shadow]

Why would it be?

Study the Danish economy and how it got to be there. You're doing an economics degree over there, any academic worth his salt will show you just how much socialist and social democratic policies have shaped the country into pretty much the closest thing we've got to Utopia on this planet right now (and yes I am aware of the provenance of that name. Instead of reading Rand in school, I read More and Plato).

This is actually the whole reason I'm studying in Denmark - because I studied their society in a transportation geography class and thought it was brilliant. I'm not doing an econ degree, I'm majoring in Business and Environment because I've made it my goal in life to practically implement sustainability. So I study socialism and these systems extensively - it's the other half of my degree. I just don't have faith in NGOs and democracy because I've seen them fail at accomplishing these things that I value so much, and I don't want to be powerless, so I'm learning business too.

You've got to remember, lad that you're young yet.

*lass 

When you've seen what happens when you're not the perfect drone (and even when you) are, you'll hopefully lose your childish infatuation with Randian libertarianism.

If you actually disagree with my arguments, then address those, but calling me out for being young and stereotyping me is not something I can comment on.

[The Grand Nudger]

This is actually the whole reason I'm studying in Denmark - because I studied their society in a transportation geography class and thought it was brilliant. I'm not doing an econ degree, I'm majoring in Business and Environment because I've made it my goal in life to practically implement sustainability.

A kindred spirit.  Prepare for disappointment and lower earning potential.  The playing field isn't level..but that's not a failure of free market dynamics..is actually free market actors leveraging their significant pull (and to a massive extent poor people making choices among the options practically available to them). Maybe one day you can be one of the good ones that uses the same dirty shit to better effect.