Pixelante
Member
WARNING: This is a very long post, and I spent a good hour or so working on it. So if you're a TL;DR type, just skip it.
We've tried unleashing the free market before, although surely you were not alive to remember it. Are you familiar with what historians ironically refer to as the Gilded Age? It was a time brought into its prime by Andrew Jackson, who efficiently and completely corrupted the political system with special interests. Political parties and special interests controlled every aspect of the average person's life. Those parties and interests (known historically and henceforth referred to as 'Machines') provided almost everything for the communities they controlled: schools, jobs, social services -- but only if you gave them your vote. If you didnt support the Machine, you had no home, no job, no education, and no medical aid for you or your family. The only freedom you had outside of the Machine system was the freedom to starve in the street.
This allowed large infrastructure-based companies (oil, railway, steel, telegraph and later telephone) to monopolize whole markets, and predatorily price other competitors completely out of business. They then used their leveraged votes from their employees and their obscene war chests to protect themselves from domestic or foreign competition, and placed politicians in office who refused to make laws protecting citizens while also protecting big business.
In the first Supreme Court case addressing the matter of worker's rights, 1905's Lochner v New York, the Court ruled against workers. People were literally dying of whitelung from overexposure to flour particles, and were told they had no legal right to be protected. The only right they had was to starve. They were also told they had to right to work a limited number of hours, or earn a minimum wage.
Thus the era of Robber Barons was born, who remained impossibly wealthy even amidst the Great Depression (which was caused by insider trading because there was no SEC or any form of investment regulation), while everyone else starved, lost their savings, homes, and jobs. 0.01% of the American population controlled the whole country, and steamrolled the other 99.9% of people who wanted nothing more than to live day to day.
It took decades for the average working citizen to gain Fair Labor Standards. It took decades to eliminate child labor. It took decades to require employers to provide a minimum wage. It also took decades to get any form of health insurance from employers. We're still unable to remove corporate influence from our current elections as a result of the Supreme Court's past rulings on campaign finance -- rulings that were made at the height of Machine power by Justices on the Machine payroll.
The laws, regulations, and oversight committees we have now are a product of the experimentation we had with the 'free market' in the past. The conclusion we've drawn as a society is that the free market is anything but free.
Stephen Colbert once had the famous TV personality and Libertarian John Stossel on his show. He then proceeded to crush him with two simple questions:
"Why should the government be the only ones allowed to print money?"
"Who's to tell me I can't fly my commercial jet liner at the same altitude and vector as another jet liner? Won't invisible hand of the market sort that out?"
He's a career politician -- a better one than most, but still a career politician. That's what someone who runs for office and then never leaves once they get there is.
Quick question for you: Have you ever noticed that the vast majority of prominent Libertarians are very wealthy individuals? Did you ever think maybe they just don't want to pay taxes on their fortunes? My Regulation of Business lecture was taught by a prominent Libertarian who happened to be Chicago Alum who was a personal protege of Milton Friedman himself. Friedman's book on Libertarianism was our one and only required textbook. He was also a founding shareholder of CompUSA and was 8-figure-loaded. I learned nothing about regulation of business from him, and realized after only a couple weeks that this course was nothing but a utility to proseltyze students to the school of Libertarianism. It worked. We young people are very susceptible to the perceived awesomeness of Libertarians. We're young, healthy, and on the way to bigger and better things. We want to be counter-culture and contrarian. We're selfish and spoiled. We're sheltered by our baby boomer parents. We believe people are motivated to do the right thing because its the right thing to do. We have never known a time like the Industrial Revolution. We think we know what we're talking about when we say we shouldn't have to pay taxes, because what has the government ever done for us? You surely see where I'm going with this. The Libertarian ideal is nothing but a mirage, and if you fall for it, you'll wind up in one of two places: a sweatshop or a gutter (because there won't be any shelters -- nobody in a Libertarian world pays taxes to try and help the poor).
Here's a few more Libertarians: Penn Jillette, a fabulously wealthy entertainer. Bill Mahr, another fabulously wealthy TV personality and comedian. John Stossel, a long-time network TV personality. Milton Friedman, a tenured professor at Chicago for more than half his life, and filthy rich author. And of course, Ron Paul, a career politician who has been making at least $150,000 tax-free dollars for every year he has been in office, while giving himself a $3000 raise every year while simultaneously believing we shouldn't have a minimum wage (don't forget, Libertarians believe the market should decide what the minimum is -- a dollar a day works fine for them).
Our nation's larger political problems lie in our winner-takes-all system. We don't really have two parties who contest with each other. We have one party in power, and a party not in power that is trying to take that power away. There is no place for bipartisanship. There is no place for compromise. There is no place for alternative ideas. Only power and those who want to take it.
Our biggest step forward politically will be when we can modify our political system to include proportionate representation.
It's different when the government runs it because the government does not have a vested interest in wringing every penny from you that they can to improve their stock prices. The government has a Constitutionally-required Compelling Interest in protecting and providing for citizens and consistently improve their quality of life.Bob Labla said:
We've tried unleashing the free market before, although surely you were not alive to remember it. Are you familiar with what historians ironically refer to as the Gilded Age? It was a time brought into its prime by Andrew Jackson, who efficiently and completely corrupted the political system with special interests. Political parties and special interests controlled every aspect of the average person's life. Those parties and interests (known historically and henceforth referred to as 'Machines') provided almost everything for the communities they controlled: schools, jobs, social services -- but only if you gave them your vote. If you didnt support the Machine, you had no home, no job, no education, and no medical aid for you or your family. The only freedom you had outside of the Machine system was the freedom to starve in the street.
This allowed large infrastructure-based companies (oil, railway, steel, telegraph and later telephone) to monopolize whole markets, and predatorily price other competitors completely out of business. They then used their leveraged votes from their employees and their obscene war chests to protect themselves from domestic or foreign competition, and placed politicians in office who refused to make laws protecting citizens while also protecting big business.
In the first Supreme Court case addressing the matter of worker's rights, 1905's Lochner v New York, the Court ruled against workers. People were literally dying of whitelung from overexposure to flour particles, and were told they had no legal right to be protected. The only right they had was to starve. They were also told they had to right to work a limited number of hours, or earn a minimum wage.
Thus the era of Robber Barons was born, who remained impossibly wealthy even amidst the Great Depression (which was caused by insider trading because there was no SEC or any form of investment regulation), while everyone else starved, lost their savings, homes, and jobs. 0.01% of the American population controlled the whole country, and steamrolled the other 99.9% of people who wanted nothing more than to live day to day.
It took decades for the average working citizen to gain Fair Labor Standards. It took decades to eliminate child labor. It took decades to require employers to provide a minimum wage. It also took decades to get any form of health insurance from employers. We're still unable to remove corporate influence from our current elections as a result of the Supreme Court's past rulings on campaign finance -- rulings that were made at the height of Machine power by Justices on the Machine payroll.
The laws, regulations, and oversight committees we have now are a product of the experimentation we had with the 'free market' in the past. The conclusion we've drawn as a society is that the free market is anything but free.
Stephen Colbert once had the famous TV personality and Libertarian John Stossel on his show. He then proceeded to crush him with two simple questions:
"Why should the government be the only ones allowed to print money?"
"Who's to tell me I can't fly my commercial jet liner at the same altitude and vector as another jet liner? Won't invisible hand of the market sort that out?"
Now, no need to call me a liar. I pride myself on my political, financial, legal, and economic knowledge. It's what I went to college for. I have not at any point said anything I believe to be disingenuous. Yes, he did raise his hand to those questions. He also raised his hand to abolishing the Department of Education and the National Highway Institute. He also wants to abolish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Unemployment, and Disability Status. He claims to be a strict constitutionalist, but what he really is is a hardcore Libertarian.
I am quite familiar with Ron Paul and his policies both as a current Representative for Texas and his platform running for president, and nothing I say is bullshit. The least you could do is respect what I have to say rather than resort to ad hominem tactics.
He's a career politician -- a better one than most, but still a career politician. That's what someone who runs for office and then never leaves once they get there is.
He is a parrot politician. He's just a Libertarian one posing as a Republican because he knows that the majority of the American electorate has no idea what a Libertarian is or what they stand for, and that in Texas, only Republicans can get elected.
In some cases yes, and in some cases no. Remember, he is a politician. Everything he says is knowingly going to be processed by the media and by the electorate. He says what people want to hear him say. That's why he's honest about some things -- like wanting to end the Iraq Occupation, restore the Executive, and end the drug war; but more dishonest about others, like whether or not he wants to abolish Social Security and Medicare. I wouldn't be surprised to learn he wanted to abandon the FDA as well -- who needs to know what they're ingesting? It's up to you to decide what's more important to you. But remember that voting isn't just about what you want. It's about what you want for your neighbors, your family, your children, and our nation's future.
And that's fine. Vote for him if he's who you feel best supports your views. But do me a favor and look into some other fringe candidates who also support ending the War on Drugs, like Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, or Michael Bloomberg.
Quick question for you: Have you ever noticed that the vast majority of prominent Libertarians are very wealthy individuals? Did you ever think maybe they just don't want to pay taxes on their fortunes? My Regulation of Business lecture was taught by a prominent Libertarian who happened to be Chicago Alum who was a personal protege of Milton Friedman himself. Friedman's book on Libertarianism was our one and only required textbook. He was also a founding shareholder of CompUSA and was 8-figure-loaded. I learned nothing about regulation of business from him, and realized after only a couple weeks that this course was nothing but a utility to proseltyze students to the school of Libertarianism. It worked. We young people are very susceptible to the perceived awesomeness of Libertarians. We're young, healthy, and on the way to bigger and better things. We want to be counter-culture and contrarian. We're selfish and spoiled. We're sheltered by our baby boomer parents. We believe people are motivated to do the right thing because its the right thing to do. We have never known a time like the Industrial Revolution. We think we know what we're talking about when we say we shouldn't have to pay taxes, because what has the government ever done for us? You surely see where I'm going with this. The Libertarian ideal is nothing but a mirage, and if you fall for it, you'll wind up in one of two places: a sweatshop or a gutter (because there won't be any shelters -- nobody in a Libertarian world pays taxes to try and help the poor).
Here's a few more Libertarians: Penn Jillette, a fabulously wealthy entertainer. Bill Mahr, another fabulously wealthy TV personality and comedian. John Stossel, a long-time network TV personality. Milton Friedman, a tenured professor at Chicago for more than half his life, and filthy rich author. And of course, Ron Paul, a career politician who has been making at least $150,000 tax-free dollars for every year he has been in office, while giving himself a $3000 raise every year while simultaneously believing we shouldn't have a minimum wage (don't forget, Libertarians believe the market should decide what the minimum is -- a dollar a day works fine for them).
I agree that Ron Paul's prominence in the media and ability to attract people who are not usual voters (or who have become disillusioned with the system) is a positive thing. I think his particular message is not the right one, but I am glad he is espousing it.HCSmyth said:
Our nation's larger political problems lie in our winner-takes-all system. We don't really have two parties who contest with each other. We have one party in power, and a party not in power that is trying to take that power away. There is no place for bipartisanship. There is no place for compromise. There is no place for alternative ideas. Only power and those who want to take it.
Our biggest step forward politically will be when we can modify our political system to include proportionate representation.
Last edited:
