Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Separation of Economy and State

Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2016 9:03:32 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
America's founding fathers got many ideas right, with the US Constitution in essence being a free trade and mutual defense treaty. The idea that religion and state must be separated had become apparent to these men in the years prior to formation of America government based on individual rights. Yet, the founders left protectionist tariffs in the Constitution. Then with a court bastardization of the Commerce Clause, creation of central banking, and national income tax, economy and state became intertwined. Later, solidified in academia with macro-economics with ideas that government is the savior of economy. This benevolent savior would protect people from wild economic swings.

Today, most people vote for their own pocket books. People vote for the politician that promises to put the most money in their pocket, or punish those that they feel have too much. These people are not voting on principles, only their own selfish desire to take another's currency. This is causing as much harm to humanity as any thearchy ever had.

Real and perceived economic problem have at the source a government policy or program, everything from outsourcing to wealth inequality to (insert your own economic issue).

As Shapeshift.io CEO Erik Voorhees said talking about separation of money and state, "It is that narrative of human development under which I believe that we now have other fights to fight, and I would say in the realm of Bitcoin it is mainly the separation of money and state. Money is absolutely as fundamental to our lives as religion, and for many people it is far more fundamental to their lives as religion. It affects how your life unfolds. The choices that you make about money dictate the ramifications of your life and those around you. And so, to have an institution like money so controlled by a central entity " by a monopoly " is absurd. It is immoral. We should get rid of it."
Separation of money and state will happen regardless, governments will only select the pain level.

Today, a few appointed or elected personnel determine the fate of billions. Look back to 2008, the story is that a very few regulators failed to stop the financial crisis. A nation's economy should not be in the hands of a few regulators that are always surprised by what the economy really does. The state has a proven record of transferring wealth to politicians and their crony financiers at the expense of the rest of us.

If your economic issue requires state violence against peaceful people, maybe your issue is reprehensible.

We have a moral duty to separate economy and state.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 3:25:57 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
A government working for economic benefit is for sale. When the state sets an economic policy there are winners and losers, the winners are the one's that provide contributions to the elected officials.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 3:30:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 3:25:57 PM, Chang29 wrote:
A government working for economic benefit is for sale. When the state sets an economic policy there are winners and losers, the winners are the one's that provide contributions to the elected officials.

But but but...centralized economie run by political hack iz good!
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 3:31:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 3:30:50 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/16/2016 3:25:57 PM, Chang29 wrote:
A government working for economic benefit is for sale. When the state sets an economic policy there are winners and losers, the winners are the one's that provide contributions to the elected officials.

But but but...centralized economie run by political hack iz good!

And people forgets after 4 years anyways so economie iz good even if it is bads!
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 3:36:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 3:30:50 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/16/2016 3:25:57 PM, Chang29 wrote:
A government working for economic benefit is for sale. When the state sets an economic policy there are winners and losers, the winners are the one's that provide contributions to the elected officials.

But but but...centralized economie run by political hack iz good!

Someone else to blame.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 6:49:34 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/10/2016 9:03:32 AM, Chang29 wrote:
America's founding fathers got many ideas right, with the US Constitution in essence being a free trade and mutual defense treaty. The idea that religion and state must be separated had become apparent to these men in the years prior to formation of America government based on individual rights. Yet, the founders left protectionist tariffs in the Constitution. Then with a court bastardization of the Commerce Clause, creation of central banking, and national income tax, economy and state became intertwined. Later, solidified in academia with macro-economics with ideas that government is the savior of economy. This benevolent savior would protect people from wild economic swings.

Today, most people vote for their own pocket books. People vote for the politician that promises to put the most money in their pocket, or punish those that they feel have too much. These people are not voting on principles, only their own selfish desire to take another's currency. This is causing as much harm to humanity as any thearchy ever had.

Real and perceived economic problem have at the source a government policy or program, everything from outsourcing to wealth inequality to (insert your own economic issue).

As Shapeshift.io CEO Erik Voorhees said talking about separation of money and state, "It is that narrative of human development under which I believe that we now have other fights to fight, and I would say in the realm of Bitcoin it is mainly the separation of money and state. Money is absolutely as fundamental to our lives as religion, and for many people it is far more fundamental to their lives as religion. It affects how your life unfolds. The choices that you make about money dictate the ramifications of your life and those around you. And so, to have an institution like money so controlled by a central entity " by a monopoly " is absurd. It is immoral. We should get rid of it."
Separation of money and state will happen regardless, governments will only select the pain level.

Today, a few appointed or elected personnel determine the fate of billions. Look back to 2008, the story is that a very few regulators failed to stop the financial crisis. A nation's economy should not be in the hands of a few regulators that are always surprised by what the economy really does. The state has a proven record of transferring wealth to politicians and their crony financiers at the expense of the rest of us.

If your economic issue requires state violence against peaceful people, maybe your issue is reprehensible.

We have a moral duty to separate economy and state.
--
The issue with your hypothesis is that by separating these two, what will eventually happen is the economy will no longer be subjected to certain rules and regulations; much like the Catholic Church is today. This will undoubtedly lead to the disproportionate concentration of power in the hands of the corporate elite. Now, let me restate: the disproportionate concentration of power in the hands of anyone or anything, irrespective of whether or not it's a government entity or a private entity is akin to authoritarianism. The role of the Government is to provide a check on the power of corporations and the economy so that no one player gains too much power to exploit other people.

I don't like three things: big government, big corporations, and big unions; but if the Government is bigger than the other two, I'd prefer that scenario.

Are you implying that the concentration of power in the hands of corporate elite is not totalitarianism?
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 10:26:40 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 6:49:34 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 4/10/2016 9:03:32 AM, Chang29 wrote:
America's founding fathers got many ideas right, with the US Constitution in essence being a free trade and mutual defense treaty. The idea that religion and state must be separated had become apparent to these men in the years prior to formation of America government based on individual rights. Yet, the founders left protectionist tariffs in the Constitution. Then with a court bastardization of the Commerce Clause, creation of central banking, and national income tax, economy and state became intertwined. Later, solidified in academia with macro-economics with ideas that government is the savior of economy. This benevolent savior would protect people from wild economic swings.

Today, most people vote for their own pocket books. People vote for the politician that promises to put the most money in their pocket, or punish those that they feel have too much. These people are not voting on principles, only their own selfish desire to take another's currency. This is causing as much harm to humanity as any thearchy ever had.

Real and perceived economic problem have at the source a government policy or program, everything from outsourcing to wealth inequality to (insert your own economic issue).

As Shapeshift.io CEO Erik Voorhees said talking about separation of money and state, "It is that narrative of human development under which I believe that we now have other fights to fight, and I would say in the realm of Bitcoin it is mainly the separation of money and state. Money is absolutely as fundamental to our lives as religion, and for many people it is far more fundamental to their lives as religion. It affects how your life unfolds. The choices that you make about money dictate the ramifications of your life and those around you. And so, to have an institution like money so controlled by a central entity " by a monopoly " is absurd. It is immoral. We should get rid of it."
Separation of money and state will happen regardless, governments will only select the pain level.

Today, a few appointed or elected personnel determine the fate of billions. Look back to 2008, the story is that a very few regulators failed to stop the financial crisis. A nation's economy should not be in the hands of a few regulators that are always surprised by what the economy really does. The state has a proven record of transferring wealth to politicians and their crony financiers at the expense of the rest of us.

If your economic issue requires state violence against peaceful people, maybe your issue is reprehensible.

We have a moral duty to separate economy and state.
--
The issue with your hypothesis is that by separating these two, what will eventually happen is the economy will no longer be subjected to certain rules and regulations; much like the Catholic Church is today. This will undoubtedly lead to the disproportionate concentration of power in the hands of the corporate elite. Now, let me restate: the disproportionate concentration of power in the hands of anyone or anything, irrespective of whether or not it's a government entity or a private entity is akin to authoritarianism. The role of the Government is to provide a check on the power of corporations and the economy so that no one player gains too much power to exploit other people.

Today, corporations and government work together, Government provides the coercive coercive power for corporations to exploit the people. Government also provides an endless supply of fiat currency on demand, regulations to prevent foreign and domestic competitors for entering the market, and subsides to keep profits up. A separation of economy and state will benefit individual liberty, and that corporations out of government.


I don't like three things: big government, big corporations, and big unions; but if the Government is bigger than the other two, I'd prefer that scenario.

A separation of economy and state ends all three. It creates the big individual.


Are you implying that the concentration of power in the hands of corporate elite is not totalitarianism?

Corporations can not use coercive power, thus individuals can easily select other options. Whereas with government, some will say that a imaginary social contract allows jackbooted thugs to put bayonets to the back of non-compliant people and march them to cages for punishment. Not one corporation can put any person in jail for failure to purchase their market offering.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 10:41:14 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 10:26:40 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 6:49:34 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 4/10/2016 9:03:32 AM, Chang29 wrote:
America's founding fathers got many ideas right, with the US Constitution in essence being a free trade and mutual defense treaty. The idea that religion and state must be separated had become apparent to these men in the years prior to formation of America government based on individual rights. Yet, the founders left protectionist tariffs in the Constitution. Then with a court bastardization of the Commerce Clause, creation of central banking, and national income tax, economy and state became intertwined. Later, solidified in academia with macro-economics with ideas that government is the savior of economy. This benevolent savior would protect people from wild economic swings.

Today, most people vote for their own pocket books. People vote for the politician that promises to put the most money in their pocket, or punish those that they feel have too much. These people are not voting on principles, only their own selfish desire to take another's currency. This is causing as much harm to humanity as any thearchy ever had.

Real and perceived economic problem have at the source a government policy or program, everything from outsourcing to wealth inequality to (insert your own economic issue).

As Shapeshift.io CEO Erik Voorhees said talking about separation of money and state, "It is that narrative of human development under which I believe that we now have other fights to fight, and I would say in the realm of Bitcoin it is mainly the separation of money and state. Money is absolutely as fundamental to our lives as religion, and for many people it is far more fundamental to their lives as religion. It affects how your life unfolds. The choices that you make about money dictate the ramifications of your life and those around you. And so, to have an institution like money so controlled by a central entity " by a monopoly " is absurd. It is immoral. We should get rid of it."
Separation of money and state will happen regardless, governments will only select the pain level.

Today, a few appointed or elected personnel determine the fate of billions. Look back to 2008, the story is that a very few regulators failed to stop the financial crisis. A nation's economy should not be in the hands of a few regulators that are always surprised by what the economy really does. The state has a proven record of transferring wealth to politicians and their crony financiers at the expense of the rest of us.

If your economic issue requires state violence against peaceful people, maybe your issue is reprehensible.

We have a moral duty to separate economy and state.
--
The issue with your hypothesis is that by separating these two, what will eventually happen is the economy will no longer be subjected to certain rules and regulations; much like the Catholic Church is today. This will undoubtedly lead to the disproportionate concentration of power in the hands of the corporate elite. Now, let me restate: the disproportionate concentration of power in the hands of anyone or anything, irrespective of whether or not it's a government entity or a private entity is akin to authoritarianism. The role of the Government is to provide a check on the power of corporations and the economy so that no one player gains too much power to exploit other people.

Today, corporations and government work together, Government provides the coercive coercive power for corporations to exploit the people. Government also provides an endless supply of fiat currency on demand, regulations to prevent foreign and domestic competitors for entering the market, and subsides to keep profits up. A separation of economy and state will benefit individual liberty, and that corporations out of government.

In some cases, yes, the Government does; but in most cases, the Government acts as a check against big corporations. Trust me, the increase in power of corporations won't lead to freedom for the people. This a fantasy. The reason for the financial meltdown was because business weren't regulated enough. This is well-known: the Glass-Stiegal Act had been repealed.


I don't like three things: big government, big corporations, and big unions; but if the Government is bigger than the other two, I'd prefer that scenario.

A separation of economy and state ends all three. It creates the big individual.

There's no such thing as the Big Individual. Don't fool yourself into following market fundamentalism. It doesn't work. You want to see an example of unrestrained corporate power? Go back to the industrial revolution in Britain or the US. Look at how much poverty there was, and the squalor that people lived in. Children were working in mines, in dangerous conditions, with no recourse for justice. The Government stayed out of the way of corporations and businesses, and look what happened.


Are you implying that the concentration of power in the hands of corporate elite is not totalitarianism?

Corporations can not use coercive power, thus individuals can easily select other options. Whereas with government, some will say that a imaginary social contract allows jackbooted thugs to put bayonets to the back of non-compliant people and march them to cages for punishment. Not one corporation can put any person in jail for failure to purchase their market offering.

Corporations don't use coercive power in the same manner as government. The government may have access to soldiers and firearms; but corporations can harm people psychologically and emotionally and this is just as damaging. If there's no regulation on corporations, what's to stop them from paying slave-wages to low-skilled immigrants or Americans? Or to promote products that are detrimental to our health, as they did with cigarettes? If corporations have unrestrained power, who's to say whether or not they will not resort to the use (eventually) of private security forces to further their agenda and business interests; who's to say that they won't influence the police to turn a blind eye to corporate crime? What's to prevent them from controlling the private lives of employees? Or to impose draconian rules in the workplace, with every action of the employee monitored and recorded?

Also, business executives are not subject to elections, and are therefore not accountable to the people; but only to their shareholders. In a world where corporations have unrestrained power, firms will collude to control the market, the supply chain, the promotion of products, etc.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 11:36:31 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 10:41:14 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:

Corporations don't use coercive power in the same manner as government. The government may have access to soldiers and firearms; but corporations can harm people psychologically and emotionally...

Micro-aggressions anyone?

If there's no regulation on corporations, what's to stop them from paying slave-wages to low-skilled immigrants or Americans?

Make it legal for people to quit jobs again?

Or to promote products that are detrimental to our health, as they did with cigarettes?

Which is still legal despite Government having control of the economy?

If corporations have unrestrained power, who's to say whether or not they will not resort to the use (eventually) of private security forces to further their agenda and business interests.

Umm...maybe create laws to protect your life and property from private security forces? (we may already have these laws, just a wild guess.)

who's to say that they won't influence the police to turn a blind eye to corporate crime?

They already do that? (do you know who I am officer, judge???)

What's to prevent them from controlling the private lives of employees? Or to impose draconian rules in the workplace, with every action of the employee monitored and recorded?

Again, make quitting your job legal?

Also, business executives are not subject to elections, and are therefore not accountable to the people; but only to their shareholders.
Allow people to choose to buy from China instead of them possibly?

In a world where corporations have unrestrained power, firms will collude to control the market, the supply chain, the promotion of products, etc.

Power to do what in a global market? I don't care if Washington DC suddenly blew up in a nuclear catastrophe, and businesses had zero regulations in the market. There is no way you would suddenly, magically, start buying your crap from Joe America instead of China. Not a chance.

This rant is just more hackneyed strawmanning of the free market because you can't possibly bear the shocking thought that the government and politicians in general really don't give a care about you, especially after election season every 4 years. Just because the customer is always right to a businessman, that does not in any way, shape, or form mean that the voter is right to your dear, dear career politicians.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 12:05:47 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 10:41:14 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 4/18/2016 10:26:40 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 6:49:34 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 4/10/2016 9:03:32 AM, Chang29 wrote:


Today, most people vote for their own pocket books. People vote for the politician that promises to put the most money in their pocket, or punish those that they feel have too much. These people are not voting on principles, only their own selfish desire to take another's currency. This is causing as much harm to humanity as any thearchy ever had.

Real and perceived economic problem have at the source a government policy or program, everything from outsourcing to wealth inequality to (insert your own economic issue).

As Shapeshift.io CEO Erik Voorhees said talking about separation of money and state, "It is that narrative of human development under which I believe that we now have other fights to fight, and I would say in the realm of Bitcoin it is mainly the separation of money and state. Money is absolutely as fundamental to our lives as religion, and for many people it is far more fundamental to their lives as religion. It affects how your life unfolds. The choices that you make about money dictate the ramifications of your life and those around you. And so, to have an institution like money so controlled by a central entity " by a monopoly " is absurd. It is immoral. We should get rid of it."
Separation of money and state will happen regardless, governments will only select the pain level.

Today, a few appointed or elected personnel determine the fate of billions. Look back to 2008, the story is that a very few regulators failed to stop the financial crisis. A nation's economy should not be in the hands of a few regulators that are always surprised by what the economy really does. The state has a proven record of transferring wealth to politicians and their crony financiers at the expense of the rest of us.

If your economic issue requires state violence against peaceful people, maybe your issue is reprehensible.

We have a moral duty to separate economy and state.
--
The issue with your hypothesis is that by separating these two, what will eventually happen is the economy will no longer be subjected to certain rules and regulations; much like the Catholic Church is today. This will undoubtedly lead to the disproportionate concentration of power in the hands of the corporate elite. Now, let me restate: the disproportionate concentration of power in the hands of anyone or anything, irrespective of whether or not it's a government entity or a private entity is akin to authoritarianism. The role of the Government is to provide a check on the power of corporations and the economy so that no one player gains too much power to exploit other people.

Today, corporations and government work together, Government provides the coercive coercive power for corporations to exploit the people. Government also provides an endless supply of fiat currency on demand, regulations to prevent foreign and domestic competitors for entering the market, and subsides to keep profits up. A separation of economy and state will benefit individual liberty, and that corporations out of government.

In some cases, yes, the Government does; but in most cases, the Government acts as a check against big corporations. Trust me, the increase in power of corporations won't lead to freedom for the people.

Trust you, you support the state!?!

This a fantasy. The reason for the financial meltdown was because business weren't regulated enough.

The meltdown was not caused by the lack of regulation. The regulations made the meltdown worse.

This is well-known: the Glass-Stiegal Act had been repealed.

Simply not true, not commercial bank got into trouble due to engaging in investment banking.



I don't like three things: big government, big corporations, and big unions; but if the Government is bigger than the other two, I'd prefer that scenario.

A separation of economy and state ends all three. It creates the big individual.

There's no such thing as the Big Individual. Don't fool yourself into following market fundamentalism. It doesn't work. You want to see an example of unrestrained corporate power? Go back to the industrial revolution in Britain or the US. Look at how much poverty there was, and the squalor that people lived in. Children were working in mines, in dangerous conditions, with no recourse for justice. The Government stayed out of the way of corporations and businesses, and look what happened.

We must create the big individual!

The industrial revolution and free markets have carried more people out of poverty and more kids out of the labor force than any government has.


Are you implying that the concentration of power in the hands of corporate elite is not totalitarianism?

Corporations can not use coercive power, thus individuals can easily select other options. Whereas with government, some will say that a imaginary social contract allows jackbooted thugs to put bayonets to the back of non-compliant people and march them to cages for punishment. Not one corporation can put any person in jail for failure to purchase their market offering.

Corporations don't use coercive power in the same manner as government. The government may have access to soldiers and firearms; but corporations can harm people psychologically and emotionally and this is just as damaging.

"A company hurt my feelings" is not equal to "the government took all my stuff and locked me in a cage".

If there's no regulation on corporations, what's to stop them from paying slave-wages to low-skilled immigrants or Americans?

The big individual is not forced to accept a low wage.

Or to promote products that are detrimental to our health, as they did with cigarettes?

Government profits much more on cigarettes that the companies. If a person want to smoke, that is up to only them, nobody else's business.

If corporations have unrestrained power, who's to say whether or not they will not resort to the use (eventually) of private security forces to further their agenda and business interests; who's to say that they won't influence the police to turn a blind eye to corporate crime?

A role for voluntary funding of government to protect a person's property and Liberty, from anyone including other levels of government. I think most people would pay for police force to protect Liberty, but not pay a dime to police forces that kill people to protect corporate interests. The Eric Garner killing was an example of the police killing a man for selling cigarettes outside of corporate/government systems.

What's to prevent them from controlling the private lives of employees? Or to impose draconian rules in the workplace, with every action of the employee monitored and recorded?

The big individual can take skills to another employer or start their own business.


Also, business executives are not subject to elections, and are therefore not accountable to the people; but only to their shareholders. In a world where corporations have unrestrained power, firms will collude to control the market, the supply chain, the promotion of products, etc.

Corporations must respond to people to stay in business, unless working with government. If a person does not want a company's products they are not forced to purchase.

Not one company has ever threaten me, yet daily governments take currency from this peaceful man for not other offence than engaging in voluntary exchange for mutual benefit.

What corporation has forced you to interact with it (without government sanction like utilities)?
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 12:14:57 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
A businessman cares much about your individual money and how you choose to spend it than a politician cares about your individual vote.

If you have money and are free to choose what to do with it, you have power over the business man EVERY SECOND, EVERY DAY.

If you are free to vote, the politician will ONLY care about you around election time, and ONLY if you are a swing voter. (extremely rare situation)

Politicians in general have increasingly low accountability, and the trend is going down, not up.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 12:30:21 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
This rant is just more hackneyed strawmanning of the free market because you can't possibly bear the shocking thought that the government and politicians in general really don't give a care about you, especially after election season every 4 years. Just because the customer is always right to a businessman, that does not in any way, shape, or form mean that the voter is right to your dear, dear career politicians.
--
I don't expect the Government to give a damn about me. That's not the point. I want them to make laws and to enforce them effectively. That's all I care about. I care about the institutions that protect us, and prevent us from killing each other and exploiting other people. It's institutions that define society, nothing else.

Your rant about free-market fundamentalism is a fantasy. If we completely separate the economy and the State, how do you presume to make laws that interfere with the actions of business? You may be able to quit to your job, but at what price, at what penalty? If there's no regulation or rules, then they can do anything.

I don't know why you have so much faith in corporations. They don't give a damn about either: all they care about is their bottom line. You need government, and anyone who thinks that they don't is completely delusional. If you allow corporations free reign without setting up the rules of the game, there will be a situation in which an oligopoly will be created who will wield a disproportionate amount of power.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 12:35:20 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 11:36:31 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/18/2016 10:41:14 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:

Corporations don't use coercive power in the same manner as government. The government may have access to soldiers and firearms; but corporations can harm people psychologically and emotionally...

Micro-aggressions anyone?

I'm surprised that so easily dismiss the importance and seriousness of mental health issues in society.

If there's no regulation on corporations, what's to stop them from paying slave-wages to low-skilled immigrants or Americans?

Make it legal for people to quit jobs again?

Are people going to a job they need to earn a living? Come on, live in the real world.

Or to promote products that are detrimental to our health, as they did with cigarettes?

Which is still legal despite Government having control of the economy?

The point is about them being legal, it's the fact they misled the public deliberately for many decades, and the Government let them do it.

If corporations have unrestrained power, who's to say whether or not they will not resort to the use (eventually) of private security forces to further their agenda and business interests.

Umm...maybe create laws to protect your life and property from private security forces? (we may already have these laws, just a wild guess.)

Again, if the Government is separate, why would they make laws regulating the activities of businesses?

who's to say that they won't influence the police to turn a blind eye to corporate crime?

They already do that? (do you know who I am officer, judge???)

If there are no laws against corporations, then they can get away with crime because no law exists. Duh!

What's to prevent them from controlling the private lives of employees? Or to impose draconian rules in the workplace, with every action of the employee monitored and recorded?

Again, make quitting your job legal?

Again, if you need a job, are you going to quit? Especially, if you're not entitled to any unemployment benefit to help whilst you're looking for a job.

Also, business executives are not subject to elections, and are therefore not accountable to the people; but only to their shareholders.
Allow people to choose to buy from China instead of them possibly?

Really? Do you speak Chinese?

In a world where corporations have unrestrained power, firms will collude to control the market, the supply chain, the promotion of products, etc.

Power to do what in a global market? I don't care if Washington DC suddenly blew up in a nuclear catastrophe, and businesses had zero regulations in the market. There is no way you would suddenly, magically, start buying your crap from Joe America instead of China. Not a chance.

The Global market? What global market? Are you telling me that a handful of countries don't control the world economy? Not to mention some corporations.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 12:41:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 12:30:21 PM, augcaesarustus wrote:
This rant is just more hackneyed strawmanning of the free market because you can't possibly bear the shocking thought that the government and politicians in general really don't give a care about you, especially after election season every 4 years. Just because the customer is always right to a businessman, that does not in any way, shape, or form mean that the voter is right to your dear, dear career politicians.
--
I don't expect the Government to give a damn about me. That's not the point. I want them to make laws and to enforce them effectively. That's all I care about. I care about the institutions that protect us, and prevent us from killing each other and exploiting other people. It's institutions that define society, nothing else.

Your rant about free-market fundamentalism is a fantasy. If we completely separate the economy and the State, how do you presume to make laws that interfere with the actions of business? You may be able to quit to your job, but at what price, at what penalty? If there's no regulation or rules, then they can do anything.

I don't know why you have so much faith in corporations. They don't give a damn about either: all they care about is their bottom line. You need government, and anyone who thinks that they don't is completely delusional. If you allow corporations free reign without setting up the rules of the game, there will be a situation in which an oligopoly will be created who will wield a disproportionate amount of power.

There is a huge difference between supporting a government that enforces contracts and protects your individual property and person from businessmen, and supporting a government that makes long lasting bad policies directly harming citizens because the voters allow the government to have the power to sell favors to businessmen.

Governments should not the power to sell billions in subsidies to businessmen, nor should they have the power to sell regulations that destroy competition and the free market.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 1:01:01 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
In some cases, yes, the Government does; but in most cases, the Government acts as a check against big corporations. Trust me, the increase in power of corporations won't lead to freedom for the people.

Trust you, you support the state!?!

This a fantasy. The reason for the financial meltdown was because business weren't regulated enough.

The meltdown was not caused by the lack of regulation. The regulations made the meltdown worse.

This is well-known: the Glass-Stiegal Act had been repealed.

Simply not true, not commercial bank got into trouble due to engaging in investment banking.

Incorrect. Why didn't the meltdown start or have as much effect in other countries? Because those countries had 'sounder' banking regulations.



I don't like three things: big government, big corporations, and big unions; but if the Government is bigger than the other two, I'd prefer that scenario.

A separation of economy and state ends all three. It creates the big individual.

There's no such thing as the Big Individual. Don't fool yourself into following market fundamentalism. It doesn't work. You want to see an example of unrestrained corporate power? Go back to the industrial revolution in Britain or the US. Look at how much poverty there was, and the squalor that people lived in. Children were working in mines, in dangerous conditions, with no recourse for justice. The Government stayed out of the way of corporations and businesses, and look what happened.

We must create the big individual!

The industrial revolution and free markets have carried more people out of poverty and more kids out of the labor force than any government has.

Absolutely rubbish!

Are you implying that the concentration of power in the hands of corporate elite is not totalitarianism?

Corporations can not use coercive power, thus individuals can easily select other options. Whereas with government, some will say that a imaginary social contract allows jackbooted thugs to put bayonets to the back of non-compliant people and march them to cages for punishment. Not one corporation can put any person in jail for failure to purchase their market offering.

Corporations don't use coercive power in the same manner as government. The government may have access to soldiers and firearms; but corporations can harm people psychologically and emotionally and this is just as damaging.

"A company hurt my feelings" is not equal to "the government took all my stuff and locked me in a cage".

The Government doesn't take people's stuff. The reason why a company doesn't take your stuff is because we have the Government to protect us from this. In some countries, companies are able to force farmers of their land with no or little reimbursement. In the US, Monsanto exploits farmers by binding them by contract to only buy seeds from Monsanto; if the farmer attempts to regrow the seed, they can be fined by the company. Now, you may argue that the farmer has engaged in a contract, so tough-luck for the farmer. But if the farmer was about to go out of business and their only option was to accept the deal that Monsanto offered.... then, what should a person do?

Also, companies that force farmers off their land don't need the Government to help to do that, they just need a few thugs with some guns. There are so many cases of this happening in South American countries, or in Asia. If anything, the reason why companies have been, more or less, good to society is because of the laws and protections that the Government offers. Without that protection, the may well be forcing people of their land to build a highway or something else without any compensation.

If there's no regulation on corporations, what's to stop them from paying slave-wages to low-skilled immigrants or Americans?

The big individual is not forced to accept a low wage.

No but the immigrant is, or the unskilled labourer is. If a single mother has a job that pays $5 per hour, she has to ask herself whether or not the cost of quitting that job and getting another one outweighs the time and effort that it takes to get that job, without receiving any income during that time. It's not an easy decision to make. It's not like one can just quit their job, send in one resume and then all of a sudden, they have a job. This is just common-sense.

Or to promote products that are detrimental to our health, as they did with cigarettes?

Government profits much more on cigarettes that the companies. If a person want to smoke, that is up to only them, nobody else's business.

The point isn't about profit, it's that the Cigarette companies misled people for so many years by promoting cigarettes as being beneficial to a person's health. They were willing to encourage people to consume a dangerous product even though they knew it was dangerous. It was only when the Government implemented laws that they stopped doing it.

If corporations have unrestrained power, who's to say whether or not they will not resort to the use (eventually) of private security forces to further their agenda and business interests; who's to say that they won't influence the police to turn a blind eye to corporate crime?

A role for voluntary funding of government to protect a person's property and Liberty, from anyone including other levels of government. I think most people would pay for police force to protect Liberty, but not pay a dime to police forces that kill people to protect corporate interests. The Eric Garner killing was an example of the police killing a man for selling cigarettes outside of corporate/government systems.

What's to prevent them from controlling the private lives of employees? Or to impose draconian rules in the workplace, with every action of the employee monitored and recorded?

The big individual can take skills to another employer or start their own business.

If they have the skills and the capital to do so. Again, it's not so easy for someone to just quit their job, and start a business; or even find a job. Just because you might have found a job easily, doesn't mean that everyone else can. There are University graduates who spend months and months looking jobs and can't find any.

Also, business executives are not subject to elections, and are therefore not accountable to the people; but only to their shareholders. In a world where corporations have unrestrained power, firms will collude to control the market, the supply chain, the promotion of products, etc.

Corporations must respond to people to stay in business, unless working with government. If a person does not want a company's products they are not forced to purchase.

Not one company has ever threaten me, yet daily governments take currency from this peaceful man for not other offence than engaging in voluntary exchange for mutual benefit.

No company has ever threatened you because the Government is there to protect you. Perhaps if there was no strong authority, then maybe you would be threatened by a company. That there is competition, and that you have choice is because of the rules and regulations set by the Government; otherwise you might find yourself only being able to buy iPhones, if you live in live in New York; and only Samsung Galaxy if you live in Los Angeles. This is what happened during prohibition; gangs controlled certain territory and usually had agreements with other gangs to not encroach in that territory. If there are no competition regulations, what's not to prevent a similar situation occurring where Apple and Samsung collude in such manner?
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 1:03:03 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 12:41:05 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/18/2016 12:30:21 PM, augcaesarustus wrote:
This rant is just more hackneyed strawmanning of the free market because you can't possibly bear the shocking thought that the government and politicians in general really don't give a care about you, especially after election season every 4 years. Just because the customer is always right to a businessman, that does not in any way, shape, or form mean that the voter is right to your dear, dear career politicians.
--
I don't expect the Government to give a damn about me. That's not the point. I want them to make laws and to enforce them effectively. That's all I care about. I care about the institutions that protect us, and prevent us from killing each other and exploiting other people. It's institutions that define society, nothing else.

Your rant about free-market fundamentalism is a fantasy. If we completely separate the economy and the State, how do you presume to make laws that interfere with the actions of business? You may be able to quit to your job, but at what price, at what penalty? If there's no regulation or rules, then they can do anything.

I don't know why you have so much faith in corporations. They don't give a damn about either: all they care about is their bottom line. You need government, and anyone who thinks that they don't is completely delusional. If you allow corporations free reign without setting up the rules of the game, there will be a situation in which an oligopoly will be created who will wield a disproportionate amount of power.

There is a huge difference between supporting a government that enforces contracts and protects your individual property and person from businessmen, and supporting a government that makes long lasting bad policies directly harming citizens because the voters allow the government to have the power to sell favors to businessmen.

Governments should not the power to sell billions in subsidies to businessmen, nor should they have the power to sell regulations that destroy competition and the free market.
--
I agree. Governments should not be going these kind of things. I also believe that the Government should provide other services, like healthcare, education and unemployment benefits.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 1:27:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 1:03:03 PM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 4/18/2016 12:41:05 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/18/2016 12:30:21 PM, augcaesarustus wrote:
This rant is just more hackneyed strawmanning of the free market because you can't possibly bear the shocking thought that the government and politicians in general really don't give a care about you, especially after election season every 4 years. Just because the customer is always right to a businessman, that does not in any way, shape, or form mean that the voter is right to your dear, dear career politicians.
--
I don't expect the Government to give a damn about me. That's not the point. I want them to make laws and to enforce them effectively. That's all I care about. I care about the institutions that protect us, and prevent us from killing each other and exploiting other people. It's institutions that define society, nothing else.

Your rant about free-market fundamentalism is a fantasy. If we completely separate the economy and the State, how do you presume to make laws that interfere with the actions of business? You may be able to quit to your job, but at what price, at what penalty? If there's no regulation or rules, then they can do anything.

I don't know why you have so much faith in corporations. They don't give a damn about either: all they care about is their bottom line. You need government, and anyone who thinks that they don't is completely delusional. If you allow corporations free reign without setting up the rules of the game, there will be a situation in which an oligopoly will be created who will wield a disproportionate amount of power.

There is a huge difference between supporting a government that enforces contracts and protects your individual property and person from businessmen, and supporting a government that makes long lasting bad policies directly harming citizens because the voters allow the government to have the power to sell favors to businessmen.

Governments should not the power to sell billions in subsidies to businessmen, nor should they have the power to sell regulations that destroy competition and the free market.
--
I agree. Governments should not be going these kind of things. I also believe that the Government should provide other services, like healthcare, education and unemployment benefits.

Then, convince others to voluntarially fund education, healthcare, and other benefits, do not use force. When government can take from one person and give the stolen funds to another, it will only expand. The US government is for sale because of its control of economic matters.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 12:23:46 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 1:01:01 PM, augcaesarustus wrote:
The industrial revolution and free markets have carried more people out of poverty and more kids out of the labor force than any government has.

Absolutely rubbish!

Are you implying that the concentration of power in the hands of corporate elite is not totalitarianism?

Corporations can not use coercive power, thus individuals can easily select other options. Whereas with government, some will say that a imaginary social contract allows jackbooted thugs to put bayonets to the back of non-compliant people and march them to cages for punishment. Not one corporation can put any person in jail for failure to purchase their market offering.

Corporations don't use coercive power in the same manner as government. The government may have access to soldiers and firearms; but corporations can harm people psychologically and emotionally and this is just as damaging.

"A company hurt my feelings" is not equal to "the government took all my stuff and locked me in a cage".

The Government doesn't take people's stuff. The reason why a company doesn't take your stuff is because we have the Government to protect us from this. In some countries, companies are able to force farmers of their land with no or little reimbursement. In the US, Monsanto exploits farmers by binding them by contract to only buy seeds from Monsanto; if the farmer attempts to regrow the seed, they can be fined by the company. Now, you may argue that the farmer has engaged in a contract, so tough-luck for the farmer. But if the farmer was about to go out of business and their only option was to accept the deal that Monsanto offered.... then, what should a person do?

Also, companies that force farmers off their land don't need the Government to help to do that, they just need a few thugs with some guns. There are so many cases of this happening in South American countries, or in Asia. If anything, the reason why companies have been, more or less, good to society is because of the laws and protections that the Government offers. Without that protection, the may well be forcing people of their land to build a highway or something else without any compensation.

If there's no regulation on corporations, what's to stop them from paying slave-wages to low-skilled immigrants or Americans?

The big individual is not forced to accept a low wage.

No but the immigrant is, or the unskilled labourer is. If a single mother has a job that pays $5 per hour, she has to ask herself whether or not the cost of quitting that job and getting another one outweighs the time and effort that it takes to get that job, without receiving any income during that time. It's not an easy decision to make. It's not like one can just quit their job, send in one resume and then all of a sudden, they have a job. This is just common-sense.

Or to promote products that are detrimental to our health, as they did with cigarettes?

Government profits much more on cigarettes that the companies. If a person want to smoke, that is up to only them, nobody else's business.

The point isn't about profit, it's that the Cigarette companies misled people for so many years by promoting cigarettes as being beneficial to a person's health. They were willing to encourage people to consume a dangerous product even though they knew it was dangerous. It was only when the Government implemented laws that they stopped doing it.

If corporations have unrestrained power, who's to say whether or not they will not resort to the use (eventually) of private security forces to further their agenda and business interests; who's to say that they won't influence the police to turn a blind eye to corporate crime?

A role for voluntary funding of government to protect a person's property and Liberty, from anyone including other levels of government. I think most people would pay for police force to protect Liberty, but not pay a dime to police forces that kill people to protect corporate interests. The Eric Garner killing was an example of the police killing a man for selling cigarettes outside of corporate/government systems.

What's to prevent them from controlling the private lives of employees? Or to impose draconian rules in the workplace, with every action of the employee monitored and recorded?

The big individual can take skills to another employer or start their own business.

If they have the skills and the capital to do so. Again, it's not so easy for someone to just quit their job, and start a business; or even find a job. Just because you might have found a job easily, doesn't mean that everyone else can. There are University graduates who spend months and months looking jobs and can't find any.

Also, business executives are not subject to elections, and are therefore not accountable to the people; but only to their shareholders. In a world where corporations have unrestrained power, firms will collude to control the market, the supply chain, the promotion of products, etc.

Corporations must respond to people to stay in business, unless working with government. If a person does not want a company's products they are not forced to purchase.

Not one company has ever threaten me, yet daily governments take currency from this peaceful man for not other offence than engaging in voluntary exchange for mutual benefit.

No company has ever threatened you because the Government is there to protect you. Perhaps if there was no strong authority, then maybe you would be threatened by a company. That there is competition, and that you have choice is because of the rules and regulations set by the Government; otherwise you might find yourself only being able to buy iPhones, if you live in live in New York; and only Samsung Galaxy if you live in Los Angeles. This is what happened during prohibition; gangs controlled certain territory and usually had agreements with other gangs to not encroach in that territory. If there are no competition regulations, what's not to prevent a similar situation occurring where Apple and Samsung collude in such manner?

Your unquestion devotion to the state is very depressing! It appears that you have never questioned anything that was presented in any class. Here is a couple of questions your statist education should be able to answer quickly.

The 2008 financial crises, please explain how repeal of a regulation, Glass-Stiegal Act, caused the crises, focusing on the how, why, and what triggered it, and which banks that failed were operating as both commercial and investment banks, including how the Act would have saved AIG and other non-banking institutions?

Since, the imaginary social contract includes repeal of Glass-Stegal act, in this theory how is the social contract not to blame for the meltdown?
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 7:17:46 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Your unquestion devotion to the state is very depressing! It appears that you have never questioned anything that was presented in any class. Here is a couple of questions your statist education should be able to answer quickly.

The 2008 financial crises, please explain how repeal of a regulation, Glass-Stiegal Act, caused the crises, focusing on the how, why, and what triggered it, and which banks that failed were operating as both commercial and investment banks, including how the Act would have saved AIG and other non-banking institutions?

Since, the imaginary social contract includes repeal of Glass-Stegal act, in this theory how is the social contract not to blame for the meltdown?
--
OK. I cannot clearly answer your question, because I don't know enough about it. The point I will make, which I think I made before is that Government regulation can be bad; can lead to monopolies; and can lead to destructive consequences for the economy. But this doesn't mean that all government regulation, full stop, is bad. The financial meltdown might have been caused by too much regulation; but it is also possible that not enough regulation could also cause a similar situation. Regulation has to be common-sense. Whilst I cannot answer your question properly, I have read briefly that there are situations in which markets fail, and the majority of economists support regulation. Now, if there's some kind of conspiracy around this, then fine, I've been brainwashed, and don't know any better. But, if life has taught me anything, it's that conspiracies don't exist; we only like to think that they do because they clearly explain the world in black and white when in actual fact the world is more complicated. So, ultimately, what I am saying is that the financial meltdown, like everything else is complicated.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 9:29:49 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 7:17:46 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
Your unquestion devotion to the state is very depressing! It appears that you have never questioned anything that was presented in any class. Here is a couple of questions your statist education should be able to answer quickly.

The 2008 financial crises, please explain how repeal of a regulation, Glass-Stiegal Act, caused the crises, focusing on the how, why, and what triggered it, and which banks that failed were operating as both commercial and investment banks, including how the Act would have saved AIG and other non-banking institutions?

Since, the imaginary social contract includes repeal of Glass-Stegal act, in this theory how is the social contract not to blame for the meltdown?
--
OK. I cannot clearly answer your question, because I don't know enough about it. The point I will make, which I think I made before is that Government regulation can be bad; can lead to monopolies;

Please name a harmful non-government authorized monopoly, I am prepared for any of the supposed robber barons. A harmful monopoly requires government action to maintain it.

and can lead to destructive consequences for the economy. But this doesn't mean that all government regulation, full stop, is bad. The financial meltdown might have been caused by too much regulation; but it is also possible that not enough regulation could also cause a similar situation. Regulation has to be common-sense. Whilst I cannot answer your question properly, I have read briefly that there are situations in which markets fail, and the majority of economists support regulation. Now, if there's some kind of conspiracy around this, then fine, I've been brainwashed, and don't know any better. But, if life has taught me anything, it's that conspiracies don't exist; we only like to think that they do because they clearly explain the world in black and white when in actual fact the world is more complicated. So, ultimately, what I am saying is that the financial meltdown, like everything else is complicated.

You did not address the social contract theory question, if a law or repeal of a law caused the crises, then how was the social contract not guilty? The question is in line with your belief in law and regulation.

It is not complicated, and not a conspiracy.

Here is a simple article explaining why the cause was not deregulation. http://www.forbes.com...

Next, about the a partial cause of the housing bubble, http://www.nytimes.com...

Lastly, Americas financial system is designed for periodic failures. Fiat money must have corrections to clear mal-investment due to misallocation of resources caused by no method of coordination between savers and borrowers. https://mises.org...
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 1:23:09 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 9:29:49 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 7:17:46 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
Your unquestion devotion to the state is very depressing! It appears that you have never questioned anything that was presented in any class. Here is a couple of questions your statist education should be able to answer quickly.

The 2008 financial crises, please explain how repeal of a regulation, Glass-Stiegal Act, caused the crises, focusing on the how, why, and what triggered it, and which banks that failed were operating as both commercial and investment banks, including how the Act would have saved AIG and other non-banking institutions?

Since, the imaginary social contract includes repeal of Glass-Stegal act, in this theory how is the social contract not to blame for the meltdown?
--
OK. I cannot clearly answer your question, because I don't know enough about it. The point I will make, which I think I made before is that Government regulation can be bad; can lead to monopolies;

Please name a harmful non-government authorized monopoly, I am prepared for any of the supposed robber barons. A harmful monopoly requires government action to maintain it.

From my own personal experience, and based on what people in other countries have told me, oligopolies in the supermarket industry have created a non-competitive environment in which these supermarkets sell products at high prices because there's no competition. There was nothing preventing other supermarkets from entering the market, and recently they have entered, injecting competition into the industry; but for a long time these supermarkets had dominated almost 80% of the industry. This is an example of a harmful non-government authorized monopoly - harmful, in the sense that they are selling at higher prices, thereby contributing to a situation in which people have less disposable income, which then affects the wider economy. Now, in the United States, there's generally lots of competition in all industries, so there isn't really an example I can provide.

You did not address the social contract theory question, if a law or repeal of a law caused the crises, then how was the social contract not guilty? The question is in line with your belief in law and regulation.

It is not complicated, and not a conspiracy.

If the law or the repeal of a law caused the crisis, then the social contract is guilty. This does not invalidate the potential benefit of the social contract theory as a whole, however. A contract can be bad, and it can be good as well. There are examples in which a social contract is good.

Here is a simple article explaining why the cause was not deregulation. http://www.forbes.com...

Next, about the a partial cause of the housing bubble, http://www.nytimes.com...

Lastly, Americas financial system is designed for periodic failures. Fiat money must have corrections to clear mal-investment due to misallocation of resources caused by no method of coordination between savers and borrowers. https://mises.org...
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 4:12:59 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 3:30:50 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/16/2016 3:25:57 PM, Chang29 wrote:
A government working for economic benefit is for sale. When the state sets an economic policy there are winners and losers, the winners are the one's that provide contributions to the elected officials.

But but but...centralized economie run by political hack iz good!

Says all Bernie people.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 4:13:50 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 6:49:34 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 4/10/2016 9:03:32 AM, Chang29 wrote:
America's founding fathers got many ideas right, with the US Constitution in essence being a free trade and mutual defense treaty. The idea that religion and state must be separated had become apparent to these men in the years prior to formation of America government based on individual rights. Yet, the founders left protectionist tariffs in the Constitution. Then with a court bastardization of the Commerce Clause, creation of central banking, and national income tax, economy and state became intertwined. Later, solidified in academia with macro-economics with ideas that government is the savior of economy. This benevolent savior would protect people from wild economic swings.

Today, most people vote for their own pocket books. People vote for the politician that promises to put the most money in their pocket, or punish those that they feel have too much. These people are not voting on principles, only their own selfish desire to take another's currency. This is causing as much harm to humanity as any thearchy ever had.

Real and perceived economic problem have at the source a government policy or program, everything from outsourcing to wealth inequality to (insert your own economic issue).

As Shapeshift.io CEO Erik Voorhees said talking about separation of money and state, "It is that narrative of human development under which I believe that we now have other fights to fight, and I would say in the realm of Bitcoin it is mainly the separation of money and state. Money is absolutely as fundamental to our lives as religion, and for many people it is far more fundamental to their lives as religion. It affects how your life unfolds. The choices that you make about money dictate the ramifications of your life and those around you. And so, to have an institution like money so controlled by a central entity " by a monopoly " is absurd. It is immoral. We should get rid of it."
Separation of money and state will happen regardless, governments will only select the pain level.

Today, a few appointed or elected personnel determine the fate of billions. Look back to 2008, the story is that a very few regulators failed to stop the financial crisis. A nation's economy should not be in the hands of a few regulators that are always surprised by what the economy really does. The state has a proven record of transferring wealth to politicians and their crony financiers at the expense of the rest of us.

If your economic issue requires state violence against peaceful people, maybe your issue is reprehensible.

We have a moral duty to separate economy and state.
--
The issue with your hypothesis is that by separating these two, what will eventually happen is the economy will no longer be subjected to certain rules and regulations; much like the Catholic Church is today. This will undoubtedly lead to the disproportionate concentration of power in the hands of the corporate elite. Now, let me restate: the disproportionate concentration of power in the hands of anyone or anything, irrespective of whether or not it's a government entity or a private entity is akin to authoritarianism. The role of the Government is to provide a check on the power of corporations and the economy so that no one player gains too much power to exploit other people.

I don't like three things: big government, big corporations, and big unions; but if the Government is bigger than the other two, I'd prefer that scenario.

Are you implying that the concentration of power in the hands of corporate elite is not totalitarianism?

Corporations become limited liability companies under government protection. You cannot have large corporations without a large government, I hope you realize that.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 4:16:44 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 12:30:21 PM, augcaesarustus wrote:
This rant is just more hackneyed strawmanning of the free market because you can't possibly bear the shocking thought that the government and politicians in general really don't give a care about you, especially after election season every 4 years. Just because the customer is always right to a businessman, that does not in any way, shape, or form mean that the voter is right to your dear, dear career politicians.
--
I don't expect the Government to give a damn about me. That's not the point. I want them to make laws and to enforce them effectively. That's all I care about. I care about the institutions that protect us, and prevent us from killing each other and exploiting other people. It's institutions that define society, nothing else.

Your rant about free-market fundamentalism is a fantasy. If we completely separate the economy and the State, how do you presume to make laws that interfere with the actions of business? You may be able to quit to your job, but at what price, at what penalty? If there's no regulation or rules, then they can do anything.

I don't know why you have so much faith in corporations. They don't give a damn about either: all they care about is their bottom line. You need government, and anyone who thinks that they don't is completely delusional. If you allow corporations free reign without setting up the rules of the game, there will be a situation in which an oligopoly will be created who will wield a disproportionate amount of power.

I like this idea that you "need" government, with special emphasis on that word in particular. There are various societies that live in peace and harmony without a necessary government that reigns over them. Look at the Amish, for example.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 4:18:12 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 1:03:03 PM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 4/18/2016 12:41:05 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/18/2016 12:30:21 PM, augcaesarustus wrote:
This rant is just more hackneyed strawmanning of the free market because you can't possibly bear the shocking thought that the government and politicians in general really don't give a care about you, especially after election season every 4 years. Just because the customer is always right to a businessman, that does not in any way, shape, or form mean that the voter is right to your dear, dear career politicians.
--
I don't expect the Government to give a damn about me. That's not the point. I want them to make laws and to enforce them effectively. That's all I care about. I care about the institutions that protect us, and prevent us from killing each other and exploiting other people. It's institutions that define society, nothing else.

Your rant about free-market fundamentalism is a fantasy. If we completely separate the economy and the State, how do you presume to make laws that interfere with the actions of business? You may be able to quit to your job, but at what price, at what penalty? If there's no regulation or rules, then they can do anything.

I don't know why you have so much faith in corporations. They don't give a damn about either: all they care about is their bottom line. You need government, and anyone who thinks that they don't is completely delusional. If you allow corporations free reign without setting up the rules of the game, there will be a situation in which an oligopoly will be created who will wield a disproportionate amount of power.

There is a huge difference between supporting a government that enforces contracts and protects your individual property and person from businessmen, and supporting a government that makes long lasting bad policies directly harming citizens because the voters allow the government to have the power to sell favors to businessmen.

Governments should not the power to sell billions in subsidies to businessmen, nor should they have the power to sell regulations that destroy competition and the free market.
--
I agree. Governments should not be going these kind of things. I also believe that the Government should provide other services, like healthcare, education and unemployment benefits.

Healthcare from gov. is firstly a form of coercion and secondly an unnecessary extension of government power which will further destroy medical innovation and the quality of the healthcare.

Education is not the primary role of government, at least not higher education.

Unemployment benefits? Why should you benefit for not working?
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 4:19:11 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 1:23:09 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 4/19/2016 9:29:49 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 7:17:46 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
Your unquestion devotion to the state is very depressing! It appears that you have never questioned anything that was presented in any class. Here is a couple of questions your statist education should be able to answer quickly.

The 2008 financial crises, please explain how repeal of a regulation, Glass-Stiegal Act, caused the crises, focusing on the how, why, and what triggered it, and which banks that failed were operating as both commercial and investment banks, including how the Act would have saved AIG and other non-banking institutions?

Since, the imaginary social contract includes repeal of Glass-Stegal act, in this theory how is the social contract not to blame for the meltdown?
--
OK. I cannot clearly answer your question, because I don't know enough about it. The point I will make, which I think I made before is that Government regulation can be bad; can lead to monopolies;

Please name a harmful non-government authorized monopoly, I am prepared for any of the supposed robber barons. A harmful monopoly requires government action to maintain it.

From my own personal experience, and based on what people in other countries have told me, oligopolies in the supermarket industry have created a non-competitive environment in which these supermarkets sell products at high prices because there's no competition. There was nothing preventing other supermarkets from entering the market, and recently they have entered, injecting competition into the industry; but for a long time these supermarkets had dominated almost 80% of the industry. This is an example of a harmful non-government authorized monopoly - harmful, in the sense that they are selling at higher prices, thereby contributing to a situation in which people have less disposable income, which then affects the wider economy. Now, in the United States, there's generally lots of competition in all industries, so there isn't really an example I can provide.

You did not address the social contract theory question, if a law or repeal of a law caused the crises, then how was the social contract not guilty? The question is in line with your belief in law and regulation.

It is not complicated, and not a conspiracy.

If the law or the repeal of a law caused the crisis, then the social contract is guilty. This does not invalidate the potential benefit of the social contract theory as a whole, however. A contract can be bad, and it can be good as well. There are examples in which a social contract is good.

What social contract? I never signed a contract.


Here is a simple article explaining why the cause was not deregulation. http://www.forbes.com...

Next, about the a partial cause of the housing bubble, http://www.nytimes.com...

Lastly, Americas financial system is designed for periodic failures. Fiat money must have corrections to clear mal-investment due to misallocation of resources caused by no method of coordination between savers and borrowers. https://mises.org...
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 4:37:41 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 4:19:11 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
What social contract? I never signed a contract.

Lol xD
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 4:38:27 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 4:37:41 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 4/20/2016 4:19:11 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
What social contract? I never signed a contract.

Lol xD

Sigged too huh?

What about "I take microagressions, microseriously?"
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 4:43:05 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 4:38:27 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 4/20/2016 4:37:41 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 4/20/2016 4:19:11 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
What social contract? I never signed a contract.

Lol xD

Sigged too huh?

Yes! It's a great response.

What about "I take microagressions, microseriously?"

Ah, but now you're just fishing.. ;P
Jk, I'd add it, but I don't want to take any of these away atm, and don't have enough space.

But honestly, I agree with a lot of what you say, keep it up. :)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 4:44:57 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 4:43:05 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 4/20/2016 4:38:27 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 4/20/2016 4:37:41 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 4/20/2016 4:19:11 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
What social contract? I never signed a contract.

Lol xD

Sigged too huh?

Yes! It's a great response.

What about "I take microagressions, microseriously?"

Ah, but now you're just fishing.. ;P
Jk, I'd add it, but I don't want to take any of these away atm, and don't have enough space.

But honestly, I agree with a lot of what you say, keep it up. :)

Lol, I will. First I need to watch these lobster killing videos.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.