Donald Trump

eh

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

"

The regulation limit is beyond moronic. An intelligent solution if certain regulations were deemed unnecessary would be to get rid of those specific regulations. Not being able to implement a new one that's actually important without getting rid of two others, though? That's a toddler's idea of a solution.

I agree, that proposition is debatable. I'm not completely against regulations. It just depends on the nature and reason for the regulation. I'm not completely unreasonable and recognize that the Lassez-Faire notion of letting the market decide everything is completely moronic.

I disagree. The way I see it, the historical problem with laissez-faire has been that it doesn't last. To be fair, this is because single large businesses tend to emerge (and merge) creating dense concentrations of economic power, then use that power politically. When a large business wields government power against its smaller competitors, stifling them before they can become big enough to capture serious marketshare, that's not laissez-faire anymore, it's a regulatory mixed market with corporations controlling said regulations via political corruption.

Or, to perhaps put it more succinctly: designs of laissez-faire systems have not yet solved the monopoly/oligopoly problem yet.

Or: corporatism isn't capitalism.

As a conservative, I feel decentralization is more the answer than smaller government. The concentrations of power in large corporations can be wielded justly or unjustly, but in case of the latter a weak government stands no chance... so why argue for one? However, a massive Federal bureaucracy is no better, concentrating government power in one place to make one neck for one leash.

At some point, when historians are documenting America's fall over the course of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the thing they will cite is the continual erosion of municipal and state political power and its assimilation by the massive Federal system.

The biggest cultural enemy to decentralization is systematic intolerance. I'm not talking the isolated intolerance of one bigot who doesn't bake a cake, but the organized intolerance of society towards one bigot who doesn't bake a cake. We are apparently willing to legislate that one person out of his right to do with his property as he wishes, to say what he wishes, to believe what he wishes... simply because he's wrong. And, yes, he was, but now we all are.

Scrotie, you're a thoughtful individual, but I feel that you're far too enamored with the idea that businesses will just do the right thing if only the regulatory environment permitted.

As an aside, what do you think of the (admittedly radical) idea of banning the stock market?

Karl Marx argued that capitalism will always lead to corporatism, which will lead to economic crisis. A good 95% of what he predicted has happened. However Marx's writing were more a critique of capitalism, rather than offering solutions.

In a democratic society with free markets, even without political corruption, concetration of wealth will lead to concetration of power. The one who controls the means of production, and the energy market, practically owns the world. Remember that the great days of the american dream, like before WW2, and from the 50s-early 70's, it was the zenith of Goverment intervension, and economic inequality was at it's lowest.

However this has nothing to do with what Marx wrote about. There is a misconception that socialism is big goverment and small buiseness, while in the original writing socialism was about NO goverment and NO buiseness(privately owned). The means of production were not supposed to be owned by the goverment, but by the WORKING CLASS. Goverment owened means of production was the Lenin school of thought and it was supposed to be a transitory period of time, until the workers are educated and gain "class consiousness". This never happened. Also Marx envisioned socialism within a democratic society, not an authoritarian one like the Soviet Union.

The concept of big goverment intervension on privately owned buiseness(what today is thought as socialism, or what Bernie Sanders was for), is the school of thought of Roosevelt's New Deal economics, and the modern European "Democratic Socialism" system. In theory it could be good, cause Goverment can be used as tool for reducing economic inequality, and providing basic human needs, like education and health care, for those who cannot afford it. In practice, Goverment intervention, especially in the US, mostly helps the interests of Big Buiseness, rather than helping create a more just society.

But to put it on dumb terms, big goverment and big buiseness equals Fascism, and in that sense, both Hillary and Trump seems to more or less fit the bill (not entirely of course). If i was american i would definetely vote third party. They say that this is always a mistake. For me not more people doing it is a mistake, perpetuating this rediculous 2 party rulership, which is not THAT different than Soviet Union's one party leadership. Having only 2 parties, which IMO are not THAT different to begin with, is not democracy. It is true that in most so called democratic countries, there are usually to parties as well, but at least the opposing voices are heard more. It is not rare for third parties to get 5-10% of the votes. Sometimes even more.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I disagree. The way I see it, the historical problem with laissez-faire has been that it doesn't last. To be fair, this is because single large businesses tend to emerge (and merge) creating dense concentrations of economic power, then use that power politically. When a large business wields government power against its smaller competitors, stifling them before they can become big enough to capture serious marketshare, that's not laissez-faire anymore, it's a regulatory mixed market with corporations controlling said regulations via political corruption.

If the "market" decides everything, corporate monopolies are only a matter of time. The economy will go in whatever direction leads to the most profits for the biggest corporations and without any regards for anything else. I believe that's a fact based on historical examples. A system with no economic regulations will go in that direction each and every single time for the same reason that water runs down hill.

I'm not "pro" regulation, certainly not in the sense that Obama and the liberals want to regulate everything, but I just recognize there is a need for some common sense regulations. They can be extremely minimal, but some need to exist. If certain regulations become counter intuitive to their original purpose/intent, then they need to be removed.

There needs to be a more streamlined way of removing such regulations. What I would do is hire a group of people to examine regulations, and flag specific ones, along with a short paragraph as to why it should be removed. These would be business owners, and economic people, not political hacks. The flagged regulations would be placed under further examination, such as what would the impact of removing the said regulation be, etc, and then put the bad ones into a discard pile.

"

Antnee wrote:

Scrotie, you're a thoughtful individual, but I feel that you're far too enamored with the idea that businesses will just do the right thing if only the regulatory environment permitted.

I'm not an anarchist. I made that very clear in advocating for a decentralized government instead of a weak one.

I believe firmly that capitalism requires a system of individual rights, enforced by government, in order to exist. When force and fraud are permitted, capitalism is eroded, because capitalism requires the mutual consent of owners, free from coercion, for property to trade hands. To stand up to those who would attempt these things, government needs to be strong enough to win a war against them.

Laissez-faire is French for "hands off." And that is in reference to the tendency for government to become corrupted and become the very instrument which destroys the liberty of its people via coercion. However, it's silly to pretend that a purely hands-off approach will protect the people from the enemies of liberty.

Unfortunately, this means the function of government is to use force. It exists to coerce would-be coercers, and to force the fraudsters to fulfill their own promises. Government is a weapon intended for self-defense.

And it needs money. The stronger it needs to be to win against its enemies, the more money it needs.

The point I'm getting at is that by no means do I assume that everyone will be a saint, especially not heads of major corporations. Because if this, government is necessary. But I don't forget the foundation of all of this: liberty and trade by mutual consent. To protect as much of that liberty as possible, some must be conceded to government; to best protect trade by mutual consent, some property must be seized by government without consent. But the idea here is to keep it to a minimum which still ensure the defense of liberty.

The tolerant left strikes again, quite literally.

"

Xavderion wrote:

The tolerant left strikes again, quite literally.

They have already repaired it:

^ good shitpost

Here's the guy btw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQclegtrJj4

"I have 4 or 5 family members who were sexually assaulted." Isn't that something you would know for sure? Sounds to me he forgot the lines he was supposed to say. Probably some DNC sponsored shit.

"

Xavderion wrote:

^ good shitpost

Here's the guy btw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQclegtrJj4

"I have 4 or 5 family members who were sexually assaulted." Isn't that something you would know for sure? Sounds to me he forgot the lines he was supposed to say. Probably some DNC sponsored shit.

They'd need balls the size of watermelons to still be doing shit like that with O'Keefe still in play.