Comcast and Time Warner fund event for regulator while seeking merger approval

[Captain Obvious]

ok - what's wrong with this picture?

Can anyone guess?

Hooray for capitalism where a monopoly can basically further influence the government potentially into a much bigger monopoly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2014/08/13/comcast-and-time-warner-fund-event-for-regulator-while-seeking-merger-approval/?wpmm=AG0003386


Comcast and Time Warner Cable are spending more than $130,000 on a dinner to honor one of the federal regulators who will rule on their controversial merger plan, according to records of the companies’

[donttread]

ok - what's wrong with this picture?

Can anyone guess?

Hooray for capitalism where a monopoly can basically further influence the government potentially into a much bigger monopoly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2014/08/13/comcast-and-time-warner-fund-event-for-regulator-while-seeking-merger-approval/?wpmm=AG0003386

Fire everyone involved.

[Stoney]

The problem is the regulation.

[donttread]

The problem is the regulation.

The problem is a 6 figure party for a federal employee sponsored by those he regulates.

[del]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME

[Stoney]

The problem is a 6 figure party for a federal employee sponsored by those he regulates.

A five figure party would solve your problem, or four, or three...?

[Mister D]

The problem is the regulation.

Of monopolies?

[Mister D]

“We absolutely dispute the notion that our contributions have anything to do with currying favor with Commissioner Clayburn or any honoree,” Fitzmaurice said. “Such claims are insulting and not supported by any evidence.”

That's great and all but it gives the appearance of impropriety. That's probably best avoided.

[donttread]

A five figure party would solve your problem, or four, or three...?

Three figure, yes, that would solve the problem

[Stoney]

Of monopolies?

I don't know about this specific example, but many are monopolies because the local government chooses one over another. But my point would be that if there were no federal regulations then there would be no reason for party for the regulators.

[countryboy]

Hooray for capitalism where a monopoly can basically further influence the government potentially into a much bigger monopoly.

That's not capitalism. Duh.....

"But, but, but, Walmart sucks!"

[Captain Obvious]

That's not capitalism. Duh.....

"But, but, but, Walmart sucks!"

Well, what sailed over your walnut sized brain is the point that monopolies technically are illegal in this country.

And yet we have many of them like the cable industry and Microsoft for example.

But don't let those big boy concepts confuse you, it's almost time to be restocking your kitchen with those plastic Walmart forks.

[Mister D]

I have noticed a tendency to the effect that when something goes wrong it's not capitalism.

[Captain Obvious]

I have noticed a tendency to the effect that when something goes wrong it's not capitalism.

Probably because in a textbook capitalistic society shit like this doesn't happen.

[Mister D]

Probably because in a textbook capitalistic society shit like this doesn't happen.

Honestly, I'm sure I'l take some flack for this but how is that any different from the ol' 'it's not really communism/socialism when people die'?

[donttread]

That's not capitalism. Duh.....

"But, but, but, Walmart sucks!"

For freedom to live the megacorps must die. Not be regulated, die

[Captain Obvious]

Honestly, I'm sure I'l take some flack for this but how is that any different from the ol' 'it's not really communism/socialism when people die'?

Not sure what you mean.

[Mister D]

Not sure what you mean.

Some admirers of socialism/communism say that the USSR and other murderous regimes weren't really socialist/communist. IOW, when the dream of a new world turned into a nightmare it wasn't because there are flaws within socialism/communism. It just wasn't practiced properly or at all by these regimes. Similarly, when there are problems with the market or with capitalism generally then it's not because capitalism has flaws. It's just not practiced properly.

[Captain Obvious]

Some admirers of socialism/communism say that the USSR and other murderous regimes weren't really socialist/communist. IOW, when the dream of a new world turned into a nightmare it wasn't because there are flaws within socialism/communism. It just wasn't practiced properly or at all by these regimes. Similarly, when there are problems with the market or with capitalism generally then it's not because capitalism has flaws. It's just not practiced properly.

OK, that's what I thought you meant but wanted to be sure.

Do you think we thrive in a purely capitalist society? Assuming not, at what point on the "capitalist - something else" spectrum would we land?

[Stoney]

I have noticed a tendency to the effect that when something goes wrong it's not capitalism.

I'll accept the criticism for a one liner that to me makes sense. In other threads and in past years I've argued that government regulation, socialism, is the vehicle that allows the corruption of politicians and bureaucrats. If the government could not favor one business over another there would be no need for business to flow money to politicians.

I would not say the system is in any way perfect. But I think it would be difficult to demonstrate that government regulation has done anything more than the private sector has or could do to protect consumers, who by the way have some responsibility to "caveat emptor."

I remember when we used to look for the United Labs endorsement on goods. I see they still exist but I haven't seen one of their labels in a long time. There's Consumer Reports, Angie's List, and others.

It seems we all complain about the influence of business on our government. I suggest to you that nothing we can do will reduce that influence aside from taking the ability of government to treat one business differently than another.

And no, we don't have pure capitalism or pure socialism and there has, to my understanding, never been a communist society beyond someone promising followers a better life.

No we don't have a purely capitalist society. And that I believe is the problem.

[Mister D]

I don't have much time right now. Let me quickly ask a question and make a comment. What does a "purely capitalist society" mean? That we don't regulate business at all? To me, this sounds like "the USSR wasn't a truly communist society". Stoney touches on that as well. Real life (i.e. practice) and theory are rarely if ever the same.

Sorry. bbl

[Captain Obvious]

I don't have much time right now. Let me quickly ask a question and make a comment. What does a "purely capitalist society" mean? That we don't regulate business at all? To me, this sounds like "the USSR wasn't a truly communist society". Stoney touches on that as well. Real life (i.e. practice) and theory are rarely if ever the same.

Sorry. bbl

There really cannot be an absence of regulation, the government's role should be to regulate adequately, whatever that means. To provide a playing field that's fair and free, more specifically to not allow unfair business practices. Crony capitalism shouldn't be present.

[Stoney]

There really cannot be an absence of regulation, the government's role should be to regulate adequately, whatever that means. To provide a playing field that's fair and free, more specifically to not allow unfair business practices. Crony capitalism shouldn't be present.

Crony capitalism shouldn't be present. But it is. And it can not be eliminated, won't be eliminated because when business can influence politicians with resources and politicians can attract resources from business in return for favors, there will be favors.

We keep saying that we need to eliminate crony capitalism. I agree. I see only one way to do it.

[Captain Obvious]

Crony capitalism shouldn't be present. But it is. And it can not be eliminated, won't be eliminated because when business can influence politicians with resources and politicians can attract resources from business in return for favors, there will be favors.

We keep saying that we need to eliminate crony capitalism. I agree. I see only one way to do it.

But that's probably the one distinction that separates our version from a prototypical capitalistic society, again whatever that means.

There is no fair competition, freedom of competition is questionable often.

Hundreds of years ago capitalism meant something specific, today it means something different. Are we still clinging on to centuries old definitions or are we doing it wrong?

[countryboy]

Well, what sailed over your walnut sized brain is the point that monopolies technically are illegal in this country.

And yet we have many of them like the cable industry and Microsoft for example.

But don't let those big boy concepts confuse you, it's almost time to be restocking your kitchen with those plastic Walmart forks.
As I said, that is not capitalism. But in typical troll fashion, all you've got are personal attacks. :lame:

[Chris]

I'll accept the criticism for a one liner that to me makes sense. In other threads and in past years I've argued that government regulation, socialism, is the vehicle that allows the corruption of politicians and bureaucrats. If the government could not favor one business over another there would be no need for business to flow money to politicians.

I would not say the system is in any way perfect. But I think it would be difficult to demonstrate that government regulation has done anything more than the private sector has or could do to protect consumers, who by the way have some responsibility to "caveat emptor."

I remember when we used to look for the United Labs endorsement on goods. I see they still exist but I haven't seen one of their labels in a long time. There's Consumer Reports, Angie's List, and others.

It seems we all complain about the influence of business on our government. I suggest to you that nothing we can do will reduce that influence aside from taking the ability of government to treat one business differently than another.

And no, we don't have pure capitalism or pure socialism and there has, to my understanding, never been a communist society beyond someone promising followers a better life.

No we don't have a purely capitalist society. And that I believe is the problem.


No we have what is called a mixed economy, a nice way of saying state capitalism, not free market capitalism.

So the question becomes is state capitalism perfect? No, as you point out, there's little the state does well. Also, as you point out, it sells political favors to the highest bidding rent seekers, and in so doing picks winners and losers, which it is incapable of doing. Another failing is its creation of monopolies and stifling of competition--monopolies don't stem from capitalism but from governments.

Would free market capitalism be perfect? No, no one has ever claimed it would be. Just that it works better than state capitalism or other systems at picking winners and losers. It is in fact its imperfections that are its virtues, as seen in The Virtue of Market Inefficiency (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/30061-The-Virtue-of-Market-Inefficiency). And the freedom of the free market drives knowledge, innovation and prosperity, as seen in What Creates Wealth? (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/30045-What-Creates-Wealth).

[Stoney]

But that's probably the one distinction that separates our version from a prototypical capitalistic society, again whatever that means.

There is no fair competition, freedom of competition is questionable often.

Hundreds of years ago capitalism meant something specific, today it means something different. Are we still clinging on to centuries old definitions or are we doing it wrong?

I think we've evolved into a blend that we call capitalism.

I was shopping today for a flavored butter or margarine. I noticed that a "olive oil spread" had canola oil and several other ingredients. But it wasn't called "canola oil and several other ingredients.

I don't know that capitalism is different. I just think we've decided that we need some government intervention.

[Captain Obvious]

I think we've evolved into a blend that we call capitalism.

I was shopping today for a flavored butter or margarine. I noticed that a "olive oil spread" had canola oil and several other ingredients. But it wasn't called "canola oil and several other ingredients.

I don't know that capitalism is different. I just think we've decided that we need some government intervention.

Do you think that a capitalist economy, blended or otherwise should provide a playing field where entrepreneurs especially small ones have a better than average chance of success?

Or large ones for that matter. For example, a new big box general retail to compete with Walmart.

Or a PC operating system.

[Chris]

Do you think that a capitalist economy, blended or otherwise should provide a playing field where entrepreneurs especially small ones have a better than average chance of success?

Or large ones for that matter. For example, a new big box general retail to compete with Walmart.

Or a PC operating system.

What you're asking government to do, basically pick winners and losers according to some ill-defined "provide a playing field," akin I suppose to leveling the playing field, is what creates the problems we see today.

[Stoney]

Do you think that a capitalist economy, blended or otherwise should provide a playing field where entrepreneurs especially small ones have a better than average chance of success?

Or large ones for that matter. For example, a new big box general retail to compete with Walmart.

Or a PC operating system.

I think nature works all that out. I haven't quite come to terms with the issue of intellectual property yet. But without government intervention I don't see big corporations as a problem. They have the same problems that government has. Without government GM and Chrysler would be gone along with some of our largest banks. Maybe GE got on a down slide some time ago. Its natural for everything to die and something else to be born to take its place.

[Captain Obvious]

I think nature works all that out. I haven't quite come to terms with the issue of intellectual property yet. But without government intervention I don't see big corporations as a problem. They have the same problems that government has. Without government GM and Chrysler would be gone along with some of our largest banks. Maybe GE got on a down slide some time ago. Its natural for everything to die and something else to be born to take its place.

Maybe, but the fact that our auto industry for example is virtually destined to fail in the long run and requires federal taxpayer bailouts to stay afloat smacks at the essence of "free market".

[Captain Obvious]

What you're asking government to do, basically pick winners and losers according to some ill-defined "provide a playing field," akin I suppose to leveling the playing field, is what creates the problems we see today.

You completely missed the point, as usual.

[Stoney]

Maybe, but the fact that our auto industry for example is virtually destined to fail in the long run and requires federal taxpayer bailouts to stay afloat smacks at the essence of "free market".

How is it designed to fail?

Federal bailouts intervene in nature.

[Captain Obvious]

How is it designed to fail?

Federal bailouts intervene in nature.

Destined, not designed.

When your most significant manufacturing cost - labor is twice that of your foreign competitors you will not, in the long run be able to compete.

To compete, the US auto industry either needs subsidization (bailouts, tariffs) or produce an inferior product which they've been doing pretty consistently for decades now.

[countryboy]

Maybe, but the fact that our auto industry for example is virtually destined to fail in the long run and requires federal taxpayer bailouts to stay afloat smacks at the essence of "free market".
Are you seriously that ignorant?

[Captain Obvious]

Oh look, goober is here.

[countryboy]

Oh look, goober is here.
Yes, you're always here, unfortunately. But you still didn't answer my question. Are you seriously that ignorant?

[Chris]

Maybe, but the fact that our auto industry for example is virtually destined to fail in the long run and requires federal taxpayer bailouts to stay afloat smacks at the essence of "free market".

Government picking winners and losers through bail outs is exactly opposite the free market where GM and Chrysler would have failed.

[Chris]

How is it designed to fail?

Federal bailouts intervene in nature.


Exactly. Calling government planning free market is basically doublespeak.

[Captain Obvious]

Government picking winners and losers through bail outs is exactly opposite the free market where GM and Chrysler would have failed.

Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?

Wait, nevermind. I don't care.

[Chris]

Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?

Wait, nevermind. I don't care.


No, you don't, get it or care. Tell us something new, cap.

[Stoney]

Destined, not designed.

When your most significant manufacturing cost - labor is twice that of your foreign competitors you will not, in the long run be able to compete.

To compete, the US auto industry either needs subsidization (bailouts, tariffs) or produce an inferior product which they've been doing pretty consistently for decades now.

There's a third option.

[Chris]

Destined, not designed.

When your most significant manufacturing cost - labor is twice that of your foreign competitors you will not, in the long run be able to compete.

To compete, the US auto industry either needs subsidization (bailouts, tariffs) or produce an inferior product which they've been doing pretty consistently for decades now.


Destined, labor, Marx?

A better way is to make the US a tax and reg haven to drive down the cost of doing business here. That would keep businesses here, attract those that left to return, and even bring in foreign companies.

But no, the US follows your advice and taxes and regulates the hell out of business and drives them offshore and overseas where those havens exist. See 2014 Index of Economic Freedom (http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking) for the data to back that up.

[countryboy]

Destined, labor, Marx?

A better way is to make the US a tax and reg haven to drive down the cost of doing business here. That would keep businesses here, attract those that left to return, and even bring in foreign companies.

But no, the US follows your advice and taxes and regulates the hell out of business and drives them offshore and overseas where those havens exist. See 2014 Index of Economic Freedom (http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking) for the data to back that up.
Right, and then he blames it on "capitalism" when it all goes south. What a maroon.

[Captain Obvious]

Destined, labor, Marx?

A better way is to make the US a tax and reg haven to drive down the cost of doing business here. That would keep businesses here, attract those that left to return, and even bring in foreign companies.

But no, the US follows your advice and taxes and regulates the hell out of business and drives them offshore and overseas where those havens exist. See 2014 Index of Economic Freedom (http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking) for the data to back that up.

I made no advisories or recommendations, I merely attempted to define the environment.

Maybe old age is finally catching up to you. Or maybe you're being a miserable old fool. Or both.

[Chris]

I made no advisories or recommendations, I merely attempted to define the environment.

Maybe old age is finally catching up to you. Or maybe you're being a miserable old fool. Or both.

As per usual, cap resorts to boyish bluster when he can't defend his opinions.

You most certainly have argued for taxes and regs throughout this thread, one example: " the US auto industry either needs subsidization." Another: "our auto industry for example is virtually destined to fail in the long run and requires federal taxpayer bailouts."

[Peter1469]

It isn't capitalism.

But as a type of public utility, we shouldn't desire 100% capitalism until the delivery technology allows for it without a lot of infrastructure. (Which it may now.)

Then you get to the corruption issue. These companies buying the politicians. That is a separate issue that could be addressed if enough people were really interested.

[Stoney]

It isn't capitalism.

But as a type of public utility, we shouldn't desire 100% capitalism until the delivery technology allows for it without a lot of infrastructure. (Which it may now.)

Then you get to the corruption issue. These companies buying the politicians. That is a separate issue that could be addressed if enough people were really interested.

I guess you're right that it could be addressed. But what could you do to get people to act counter to their self interest and make it stick? I don't think you could do anything more than pass laws that would be and are ignored and try to repeal our ability to lobby on our behalf.

[Peter1469]

I guess you're right that it could be addressed. But what could you do to get people to act counter to their self interest and make it stick? I don't think you could do anything more than pass laws that would be and are ignored and try to repeal our ability to lobby on our behalf.

Transparency laws regarding campaign contributions would help.

[Stoney]

Transparency laws regarding campaign contributions would help.

And they might tend to intimidate some out of exercising their unalienable right to free speech, which is the intent of "transparency."

[Peter1469]

And they might tend to intimidate some out of exercising their unalienable right to free speech, which is the intent of "transparency."

That is a nice argument. I expect that only people fighting for the status quo would support it.

[Stoney]

That is a nice argument. I expect that only people fighting for the status quo would support it.

I would value a critique of my theory if you have one.

[Peter1469]

I would value a critique of my theory if you have one.

I did that already. I imagine that the only people who would challenge transparency laws regarding campaign contributions are those that want the status quo (i.e. corruption) to remain.

How would the courts respond to challenges? After Citizen's United, I imagine such laws would be struck down.

But I would argue that citizens have the right to know who is lobbying and influencing their elected officials. And if they see something that they don't like, they can vote for someone else in the next election.

Our politicians are corrupt. What are citizens going to do about it?

[Chris]

But is the problem lobbying, basically petitioning the government on grievances, the problem, or is government taking loggying gifts and campaign contributions in exchange for political favors. For this you'd need to link lobbying and contributions to advocacy and voting in the Senate and the House. You need to demonstration not the potential for corruption, but actual corruption and cronyism.

[PolWatch]

Super Pacs have managed to get around the intent of limiting influence of candidates. While individuals & corps are limited (and publicized) in direct campaign donations, Pacs are not. The idea that they are not part of the candidate's organization is laughable. We continue to have the best government money can buy...

[Peter1469]

But is the problem lobbying, basically petitioning the government on grievances, the problem, or is government taking loggying gifts and campaign contributions in exchange for political favors. For this you'd need to link lobbying and contributions to advocacy and voting in the Senate and the House. You need to demonstration not the potential for corruption, but actual corruption and cronyism.

Right. Transparency in campaign fiance and donations. Let the voters decide what is acceptable and what isn't. Glad to see at least one person on board.

[Chris]

Right. Transparency in campaign fiance and donations. Let the voters decide what is acceptable and what isn't. Glad to see at least one person on board.

Well, that is what I said would be insufficient. The fact that say the Koch brothers donate to so and so's campaign does not demonstrate corruption. Corruption comes from politicians doling out favors in how they vote.

[Chris]

Super Pacs have managed to get around the intent of limiting influence of candidates. While individuals & corps are limited (and publicized) in direct campaign donations, Pacs are not. The idea that they are not part of the candidate's organization is laughable. We continue to have the best government money can buy...

Still, it's the actions of politicians that are corrupt. That's where the transparency needs to focus. That's where regulations and restrictions need to be set.

[PolWatch]

hmmm...I wonder if it would be possible to make it illegal for any elected politician to vote/support any laws that directly affect anyone that donated to their campaign. Perhaps set a $$$ amount in donations as the stopping point?

[Peter1469]

Well, that is what I said would be insufficient. The fact that say the Koch brothers donate to so and so's campaign does not demonstrate corruption. Corruption comes from politicians doling out favors in how they vote.


With transparency laws voters could decide. If Google gives a senator a million, and Google gets a lucrative government contract.... well, think it over.

[Chris]

With transparency laws voters could decide. If Google gives a senator a million, and Google gets a lucrative government contract.... well, think it over.

I just don't think it's that obvious. It's more subtle. Something simple as introducing licensing rules that block competition, for example, Taxi companies/lobbyists donating campaign contributions to many politicians who vote new regulation to block Uber-like services done in the name of protecting consumers. Not that we don't see obvious instances, such as in deciding to keep or dump Ex-Im.

[Stoney]

hmmm...I wonder if it would be possible to make it illegal for any elected politician to vote/support any laws that directly affect anyone that donated to their campaign. Perhaps set a $$$ amount in donations as the stopping point?
I guess its just natural for some to see the solution to every problem as more government intervention, less liberty. But we must start to consider where that will necessarily end. Its not less freedom that we need.

[Stoney]

I did that already. I imagine that the only people who would challenge transparency laws regarding campaign contributions are those that want the status quo (i.e. corruption) to remain.

How would the courts respond to challenges? After Citizen's United, I imagine such laws would be struck down.

But I would argue that citizens have the right to know who is lobbying and influencing their elected officials. And if they see something that they don't like, they can vote for someone else in the next election.

Our politicians are corrupt. What are citizens going to do about it?
We can pass laws until we are blue in the face and they will only make lawyers happy. If we require your transparency you and others will find ways around such laws and nothing will change. Its better and would be more effective to remove the motivation for crony capitalism.

[Peter1469]

We can pass laws until we are blue in the face and they will only make lawyers happy. If we require your transparency you and others will find ways around such laws and nothing will change. Its better and would be more effective to remove the motivation for crony capitalism.

Don't leave us hanging..., what would you remove.

[Stoney]

Don't leave us hanging..., what would you remove.
I guess I'm a pretty poor communicator. I would remove the ability of government to regulate business so that there was no reason for business to lobby politicians to pass laws that would favor them against their competition. I have been very redundant about that point and yet you have apparently missed it.

[Peter1469]

I guess I'm a pretty poor communicator. I would remove the ability of government to regulate business so that there was no reason for business to lobby politicians to pass laws that would favor them against their competition. I have been very redundant about that point and yet you have apparently missed it.

How would you remove government's ability to regulate? Should the government not be able to prosecute a business that uses slave labor? What about a vaccine manufacturer that lies about its products effectiveness. Meh- not an issue for the government?

[Chris]

I guess I'm a pretty poor communicator. I would remove the ability of government to regulate business so that there was no reason for business to lobby politicians to pass laws that would favor them against their competition. I have been very redundant about that point and yet you have apparently missed it.


Nah, I get what you're saying in the context of this discussion. Let me draw a distinction, or a couple, about what it might regulate. Government, if we must have it, should be devoted to protecting rights, and that would include enforcing contracts people make. It should not promote agendas. That's one distinction that derives from the Declaration, another is the following that derives from the Constitution. Government, if it must do more than protect, must be limited to the benefit of all generally and no one one or group specially--common defense might serve general welfare, social and corporate welfare is special interest.

[donttread]

There's a third option.

Do we really pay twice what they pay in Japan and Germany?

[Stoney]

How would you remove government's ability to regulate? Should the government not be able to prosecute a business that uses slave labor? What about a vaccine manufacturer that lies about its products effectiveness. Meh- not an issue for the government?
Your term of slave labor is nothing more than an exaggeration meant to emotionalize the discussion. Maybe you just don't want to have a serious discussion. Maybe you're more interested in debate.

[Stoney]

Do we really pay twice what they pay in Japan and Germany?
Please explain.

[Peter1469]

Your term of slave labor is nothing more than an exaggeration meant to emotionalize the discussion. Maybe you just don't want to have a serious discussion. Maybe you're more interested in debate.

You are derailing the thread now.

You advocated for government not regulating. I gave examples where I would think people would want government regulation. Are you backing away from your assertion that the government should be stripped of its regulatory powers? Yes or no?

[Stoney]

You are derailing the thread now.

You advocated for government not regulating. I gave examples where I would think people would want government regulation. Are you backing away from your assertion that the government should be stripped of its regulatory powers? Yes or no?
I've made my arguments and you have yet to do anything but one liners and emotionalize. I'll keep reading your posts and hope for something thoughtful.

[Peter1469]

I've made my arguments and you have yet to do anything but one liners and emotionalize. I'll keep reading your posts and hope for something thoughtful.

OK. You advocated for government not regulating. I gave examples where I would think people would want government regulation. Are you backing away from your assertion that the government should be stripped of its regulatory powers? Yes or no?

[Stoney]

OK. You advocated for government not regulating. I gave examples where I would think people would want government regulation. Are you backing away from your assertion that the government should be stripped of its regulatory powers? Yes or no?

I'm not aware of slave labor in this country.





OK. You advocated for government not regulating. I gave examples where I would think people would want government regulation. Are you backing away from your assertion that the government should be stripped of its regulatory powers? Yes or no?

[Peter1469]

I'm not aware of slave labor in this country.

That was witty.

[Stoney]

That was witty.

So you're name calling now?

[Peter1469]

So you're name calling now?

Name calling? Will you say it is name calling if I ask if you are confused?

Rather you are dodging legitimate questions. Likely because you don't have an adequate answer.

[Stoney]

Name calling? Will you say it is name calling if I ask if you are confused?

Rather you are dodging legitimate questions. Likely because you don't have an adequate answer.

There is no slave labor that I'm aware of in this country. You may have a witty answer for that. I haven't seen it.

[Peter1469]

There is no slave labor that I'm aware of in this country. You may have a witty answer for that. I haven't seen it.

The issue is whether government regulation has a place..... Right, you don't want to honestly answer that. Got it.

[Stoney]

How would you remove government's ability to regulate? Should the government not be able to prosecute a business that uses slave labor? What about a vaccine manufacturer that lies about its products effectiveness. Meh- not an issue for the government?

Does this country have slave labor? Please tell me about it.

" What about a vaccine manufacturer that lies about its products effectiveness." Effectiveness is a subjective determination unless it is either nil or complete. I suspect the issue of lying would and should be handled through the legal system. But I don't believe lying is against the law. So I expect there would need to be shown some intent to de-fraud.

When I talk about government regulation I'm not talking about the basic laws we have against breaking one's leg or picking one's pocket that apply to all of us. I'm talking about things like subsidies used to make corn more expensive to put on the table than into the gas tank and grants to study the effects of treadmills on shrimp and funds used to support the losses of beach homes after a hurricane.

I don't consider those things that treat all of us equally as offensive because obviously if they treat us all equally then no one has an advantage that would cause a quid pro quo between business and politicians.

[Peter1469]

Does this country have slave labor? Please tell me about it.

" What about a vaccine manufacturer that lies about its products effectiveness." Effectiveness is a subjective determination unless it is either nil or complete. I suspect the issue of lying would and should be handled through the legal system. But I don't believe lying is against the law. So I expect there would need to be shown some intent to de-fraud.

When I talk about government regulation I'm not talking about the basic laws we have against breaking one's leg or picking one's pocket that apply to all of us. I'm talking about things like subsidies used to make corn more expensive to put on the table than into the gas tank and grants to study the effects of treadmills on shrimp and funds used to support the losses of beach homes after a hurricane.

I don't consider those things that treat all of us equally as offensive because obviously if they treat us all equally then no one has an advantage that would cause a quid pro quo between business and politicians.

The bolded. Then we never had a disagreement.

The part about vaccines- we have several pharmaceutical companies that have not been punished for fraud. Or not adequately punished. Our FDR is a prime example of how not to regulate: they get fees to oversee the approval process and they are supposed to make sure the products are safe. Conflict of interest.

[Stoney]

Witty reply.

[Chris]

The context of regulation was the kind captain talked about, leveling the playing field, picking winners and losers, never protecting rights or promoting the general welfare.

[Stoney]

The context of regulation was the kind captain talked about, leveling the playing field, picking winners and losers, never protecting rights or promoting the general welfare.

And of course Peter knows that.

[Peter1469]

Just making it clear that no sane person wants zero government regulation.

[Stoney]

Just making it clear that no sane person wants zero government regulation.

Witty.

[Peter1469]

Thanks

[Chris]

Just making it clear that no sane person wants zero government regulation.

Well poisoning.

[Peter1469]

Well poisoning.

Incorrect. Anyway, Stoney and I seem to be on the same page.

[Stoney]

Incorrect. Anyway, Stoney and I seem to be on the same page.

He's absolutely correct. And I don't know what you mean by being on the same page. You distorted my meaning to derail the discussion, knowing and with that purpose. Like I said before, you're more interested in wining a debate than participating in a discussion.

[Peter1469]

So we have serious arguments for zero government regulation- in our modern society?

[Chris]

Incorrect. Anyway, Stoney and I seem to be on the same page.

Of course it is, you've tried to associate insanity with arguing against government regulation.

Ironically your own example of pharmaceutical fraud going unpunished, a failure of government regulation, is itself an argument against.

[Stoney]

So we have serious arguments for zero government regulation- in our modern society?

It seems you would include regulations against fraud and maybe even threat and rape in your definition of regulation knowing that is not what we're talking about.

[Peter1469]

Of course it is, you've tried to associate insanity with arguing against government regulation.

Ironically your own example of pharmaceutical fraud going unpunished, a failure of government regulation, is itself an argument against.

Incorrect. Absence of government regulation would be correct.

[Peter1469]

It seems you would include regulations against fraud and maybe even threat and rape in your definition of regulation knowing that is not what we're talking about.

I didn't know what you included in the term government regulation. My point was that zero regulation is not feasible.

I am very much against heavy-handed and wasteful government regulation. Yet I am still pro-government regulation. Our modern society could not survive without it.

[Stoney]

I didn't know what you included in the term government regulation. My point was that zero regulation is not feasible.

I am very much against heavy-handed and wasteful government regulation. Yet I am still pro-government regulation. Our modern society could not survive without it.

Oh, so you don't read the posts you're replying to. Now I see the problem.

[Chris]

The kind of regulation we seem to agree on does require govertment by the state, which by peter's argument fails miserably anyhow. If exchane of good and services is considered contractual, even if only implied, fraud could be handled in private civil courts of arbitration. Concern for civil suit and, even more importantly, reputation would remove fraudsters from the market if they didn't take corrective action. Instead of society self-regulating, we succumb to the theory government will protect us.

[Peter1469]

I am talking about the modern American nation-state. We have a government.

Our government will continue to regulate businesses, etc. Let's stay productive and keep those regulations reasonable.

I am not interested in a theoretical debate of anarchism. We will get there soon enough when our current politicians crash the USD and economy.

[Chris]

I am talking about the modern American nation-state. We have a government.

Our government will continue to regulate businesses, etc. Let's stay productive and keep those regulations reasonable.

I am not interested in a theoretical debate of anarchism. We will get there soon enough when our current politicians crash the USD and economy.


Correction, we have a failure for government, despite your theories of perfecting it. Anarchy is not the chaos this government is driving us toward.

[Peter1469]

Correction, we have a failure for government, despite your theories of perfecting it. Anarchy is not the chaos this government is driving us toward.

I never mentioned perfecting government. I said we have a government that we will live with (until the economy crashes). I am trying to focus the discussion on reasonable regulations.

[Chris]

I never mentioned perfecting government. I said we have a government that we will live with (until the economy crashes). I am trying to focus the discussion on reasonable regulations.

Thing is you keep giving examples of government failing but still to look to it as reasonable solution. See Unicorn Governance (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/30079-Unicorn-Governance).

This is reason: Try something, it fails, try again, it fails, try again, it fails...at some point you reach the rational conclusion it doesn't work. To keep repeating it would be the insanity you well poisoned with earlier.

Also, my point is not about what is reasonable regulation--we agreed on that, protecting individual rights (Declaration), promoting general welfare (Constitution)--but what is the better way to implement those regulations, by central planning state or by liberty of society?

[Peter1469]

Thing is you keep giving examples of government failing but still to look to it as reasonable solution. See Unicorn Governance (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/30079-Unicorn-Governance).

This is reason: Try something, it fails, try again, it fails, try again, it fails...at some point you reach the rational conclusion it doesn't work. To keep repeating it would be the insanity you well poisoned with earlier.

Also, my point is not about what is reasonable regulation--we agreed on that, protecting individual rights (Declaration), promoting general welfare (Constitution)--but what is the better way to implement those regulations, by central planning state or by liberty of society?

Our society is currently operating under a government nominally linked to our constitution. Regulations are made at the local, state and federal level.

[Stoney]

Everything we propose regarding changing government is theoretical. For at least many of us, and certainly me, that's our purpose, to discuss and propose theoretical solutions to the mess we've created.

[Peter1469]

I proposed transparency laws so voters had all of the info about who is buying their politicians off before they vote.

[Chris]

Our society is currently operating under a government nominally linked to our constitution. Regulations are made at the local, state and federal level.

The Constitution has largely been ignored if not trampled on.

[Peter1469]

The Constitution has largely been ignored if not trampled on.

Agreed.