posted
I think many of the people on this board can vouch for me being perfectly capable of arguing when I feel its worth arguing.
However, I argue with people who listen to evidence. You look at the evidence, and then you dismiss it. You are an ideologue.
And if you are so enamored of evidence, where have you posted your list of situations where the removal of anti-fraud and corporate theft oversight has not resulted in an increase in fraud and corporate theft?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Ken Lay used his political connections to persuade the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to deregulate natural gas. This allowed Enron, one of the largest natural gas companies in the U.S., to take advantage of its position in the market place. It also allowed Lay to push electric deregulation on a state-by-state basis and on a federal level.
Here's the point I am trying to make. The deregulation of the electricity and energy supply industry is not what caused the massive fraud committed by Enron's accountants and executives. Those regulations were first put in place to help out cronies of FDR and others maintain government sanctioned monopolies. They made it a crime to compete with the local electric company.
quote: These corporate victories set the stage for an "energy crisis" in California and other states.
The responsibility for this fiasco lies with California for regulating their energy production so much that new power plants have not been built there for 25 years. They regulated themselves into a position where they were dependent on power pumped in from states as far away as Texas.
quote: But I damn well expect accountability, and I demand a way to seek redress against a fraudulent company.
I don't disagree with you on this matter. Its how the gov. achieves this goal that matters to me. Also, the stock market is a gamble. The only reason any individual should be investing in a private company is if they know enough about that company to deem them a worthwhile risk. Now, I understand that if companies committ fraud and lie about earnings, people cannot properly invest.
However, those who invested in internet companies in the late 90's knew that those companies were not turning profits. Those people knew they were speculating on future gains. Those people have no right to be bailed out by anyone.
quote: If the food industry suddenly had no regulations would I dare buy food I didn't grow for fear it was bad?
This is a very good point. I have not as yet said that all regulations are bad(not on purpose anyways). Merely that regulations which violate private property are bad. If an item is sold with the understanding that it is ment for human consumption, and said item is not fit, then the seller has committed fraud.
quote: Yet the environment is shared property. The air I breathe, the water I drink, all come from a shared source. If you taint this shared property then you should be punished.
We are in agreement.
quote: You honestly believe that no one in the US will starve to death if they just sought out charity.
I never claimed that no one would starve to death.
quote: You argue that government should be about property. Why?
Because it is the sole source of our wealth. Without private property we have nothing, we become the People's State of America. The same reasons that communism failed, are the reasons why private property is so important.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: You look at the evidence, and then you dismiss it. You are an ideologue.
I sincerly apologize for offending you by dismissing whatever "evidence" it was that you submitted.
I am indeed an ideologue. I have beliefs about how this country become successful and about the rights of all people to freedom. You seem to think that because I disagree with you, I am committing some horrible offense. Well dangit man, but forward some arguments! If I don't respond in a way that satisfies you, use that as a weapon against me, show what it was that you said, and how I ignored it.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Robespierre, the problem with all your theories is that they rely on the assumption that people will always act in a responsible and sensible manner. As this is clearly shown throughout history to pretty much never be the case, the need for safety nets seems obvious to me.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: they rely on the assumption that people will always act in a responsible and sensible manner.
I disagree. This is what the function of the government is. By living here, we agree to delegate our use of physical force to the government in order to protect our interests. When someone is un-reasonable and violates our agreed upon laws, the government uses its physical force to remedy the situation.
The poor are a different case. Regulation of industry and government safety nets are a seperate issue. I believe the the ultimate responsibility for an individual's well being lies solely with that individual.
posted
"Regulation of industry and government safety nets are a seperate issue."
I don't believe that they are. In both cases -- regulation and safety nets -- the government enforces rules which are not always obviously cost-effective because various externalities and social costs justify these expenses.
In other words, environmental regulations are necessary because corporations and consumers cannot be counted upon to act in enlightened-enough self-interest, or else define self-interest too narrowly; safety nets are necessary for the same reasons.
Were people perfect, I agree that no government would be necessary.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You seem to misunderstand what I'm debating with you. While I do disagree about many of the other things you've said, what I dispute is your assertion that
quote:If the government would stick to enforcing private property laws, piracy would be of no concern. Yarr.
I've shown quite clearly that even with enforcement beyond private property concerns, "piracy" (by which I'm assuming you mean corporate theft and fraud, as Chris's post clearly referred to in its usage of the term) is still common, which strongly suggests that piracy without regulations preventing it would become even more common (that is what usually happens when one removes a limiter, nay?).
Then I shew several examples of piracy that had occurred in the past on a large scale which do not occur today on a large scale, due almost exclusively to regulations preventing their occurence. You ignored all but one of these of these rather completely, and only briefly attempted to disputethe savings and loan scandal, rather incompetently. Perhaps I say this because you ignored the pump and dump schemes being used to artificially create bubbles by misleading investors -- nothing at all was outside the bounds of private property there, people "freely" invested as they saw fit (which was being manipulated), pumping the stock up for the banks, who then cashed out sending stocks plummeting. At no point was anyone's private propety taken from them illegitimately -- they took it from themselves, because the banks were allowed to manipulate them in a number of ways. Current regulations prevent such a thing from ever happening again, just as it would were those regulations to be repealed.
But I digress. You have yet to show me a single shred of evidence for the removal of corporate theft and fraud regulations reducing the amount of corporate theft and fraud. I think I shall wait for that, since you are the one advocating the change in the system.
quote: But I digress. You have yet to show me a single shred of evidence for the removal of corporate theft and fraud regulations reducing the amount of corporate theft and fraud.
I have said previously:
quote: Stealing is quite clearly a crime against private property. I do not advocate the legalization of theft.
quote: There are lots of laws on the books which prevent theft. These are NOT government regulations of commerce.
quote: Fraud is also already covered, there need not be extra regulations against fraud.
quote: I'm glad you finally get it that regulations don't have anything to do with lying cheating or stealing.
posted
"By living here, we agree to delegate our use of physical force to the government in order to protect our interests. When someone is un-reasonable and violates our agreed upon laws, the government uses its physical force to remedy the situation."
All too often they don't. The government is made up of politicians, many of whom depend on large contributions by companies. These politicians then work to pass laws that lessen protection of our interests. All legal. Unfair, unjust, but legal.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I believe the the ultimate responsibility for an individual's well being lies solely with that individual."
And I say again, corporations exist solely to remove legal and financial responsibility from an individual. This can be good or bad, but it does not remove the corporation from liability.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: And I say again, corporations exist solely to remove legal and financial responsibility from an individual. This can be good or bad, but it does not remove the corporation from liability.
Liability for what? For the existence of the poor?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That wasn't what you asserted. Read your quote again. You quite clearly say that if regulations were removed, the problems with fraud and corporate theft would go away. None of your further quotes in any way support, substantiate, or make reasonable that statement.
And no, many regulations have lots to do with cheating and stealing. For instance, conflict of interest regulations largely prohibit cheating and stealing, not by direct forbiddance, but by forbidding actions which often lead to cheating and stealing. Your system would (presumably, given your stances) abolish conflict of interest regulations. Why would then the numerous problems that have been had in the past (and some of which we still have) with conflict of interest situations not arise, as you asserted?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: You quite clearly say that if regulations were removed, the problems with fraud and corporate theft would go away.
Show me where I so clearly said this. Perhaps what you have misread is my statement that if government enforced private property rights, piracy would not be a problem. Since piracy is a crime against private property, I would suggest that by definition, I was correct.
quote: For instance, conflict of interest regulations largely prohibit cheating and stealing, not by direct forbiddance, but by forbidding actions which often lead to cheating and stealing.
So they don't actually punish cheating and stealing then? Driving a car often leads to speeding, should we then outlaw the sale of autos to prevent this crime? How about we enforce the laws we already have, and if someone cheats or steals, we prosecute them.
quote: Why would then the numerous problems that have been had in the past (and some of which we still have) with conflict of interest situations not arise, as you asserted?
quote: Oh, I realize that's your opinion Henry, it just seemed strange. How can someone be so out of touch while maintaining such high popularity? For instance, Pauly Shore is out of touch with what the people want - Orlando Bloom is not. How do we know? The people want more of one and less of the other. Maybe Bush is just out of touch with the minority? If so, that really stands to reason, doesn't it?
Point conceded. I actually meant out of touch when I wrote that, but you have a strong position. If their popularity is based on being 'in touch' then there may be bigger issues. I need to express my opinion in stronger (possibly accusatory) terms:
The leadership of this administration,at best, grasps the values of the majority of the middle class but seems to ignore the issues. At worst, they decieve in appearing to accept the values.
If true, that is an interesting logic delimma. We have either liars or folks that are very niave. In all aspects I prefer that they are lying, because the niave can be devestatingly destructive in blind adherence to false premises.
quote: Good, I don't tend to limit myself to any one group of thought. Some that might apply are: Libertarian, Federalist, and Classical Liberal(as in free trade and free markets).
Hey Robes - Federalist makes it clearer. There aren't many of you out there (at least professed - most label themselves Libertarians). It, in part, helps me see where the basis for your ideas are gathered.
I will not waiver from the concept of a capitalistic practice that creates a reasonable opportunity for the distribution of wealth. I was making a mistake in debating tactics that a government would employ in attempting to negate the negative effects of a downturn in the economy. Your point is, most probably, that the government should not be involved one iota in any sort of economic action outside of managing the Treasury of the United States. The logic would extend to issuance of currency as well - that would not be a federal government (government at any level for that matter) activity.
So, that really makes this interesting. Your concept would include the rights of the priviledged (property owners) as predominate and the necessary basis for determining power. To make this viable, votes would have to be restricted to the property owners (now, before everyone gets carried away, we already restrict voting so this isn't new), otherwise it would open the doors for the non owners to be dissatisfied and vote their own into power. By these further restrictions on voting, our representative form of government could continue with limited changes. This is quite a move to the past.
How do you propose overcoming the issues that have historically been the demise of federalism (and those like ways of thinking)? Federalism has most often been damaged by in-fighting of the few, rebellion of the many and devastation of the economy.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: perhaps you missed the quote when I last quoted you?
You have been less and less coherent as the thread has progressed. I suggest you restate just what it is that you seem to think I am wrong about.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could you give some examples of my incoherency? Perhaps those examples reside where the examples of removing regulations resulting in less "piracy" also are?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The logic would extend to issuance of currency as well
I do have issues with the Federal Banking system. Mainly the fact that one man may sway the economy to his whims. The goal of the money supply managers should be to keep prices stable. Not to allow undue inflation or deflation.
quote: the rights of the priviledged (property owners) as predominate and the necessary basis for determining power.
The power of who over whom?
Property owners are not the priviledged. Anyone who is born is an owner of private property, themselves.
quote: restricted to the property owners
previous explanation eliminates this issue.
quote: How do you propose overcoming the issues that have historically been the demise of federalism (and those like ways of thinking)?
I can't say that I have any special solution for preventing people from voting away their freedoms and eroding the protection of their property.
I would point out what a failure the articles of federation were. These documents allowed a very sloppy sort of direct democracy where everything was up for vote. The framers of the constitution wanted to avoid this chaos of mob rule, at least the federalists like Alexander Hamilton did. The concept is that there exist certain rights which may not be revoked or otherwise altered by the mob.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was considering it in the context of your insistence that all oversight regulations be removed and that only criminal statutes against private property violations remain.
Theft and fraud have been just as illegal in the past as they are now, but nowadays they don't get so bad as to deal major blows to our economy; in the past they did. So yes, I think that if the government stuck to enforcing criminal statutes on private property violations there would be many, many private property violations, and that it is absurd to think otherwise.
I repeat, where do you have any evidence that removing regulatory oversight results in fewer private property violations? The same laws against private property violations are on the book, and enforced when its possible, so why do the impact of the violations vary depending upon our oversight regulations?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I repeat, where do you have any evidence that removing regulatory oversight results in fewer private property violations?
Since I don't say that removing regulations will result in fewer crimes against private property, why do you insist on asking this question?
I merely call for enforcement of the law. I do not support the idea that repealing the relevent regulations, ones which violate private property, would result in more crimes against said private property. If you will look back at all that I have said, you will see that I have referred only to those regulations which violate private property. So I think you need to explain why removing regulations that violate private property will result in more crimes against private property.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stick to means get rid of other things, y'know. Since the other laws about corporations are the regulations (as you've made quite clear), it certainly seems to me you said that getting rid of non-private property protection laws (that is, sticking to private property protection laws, as you explicitly stated), including corporate regulations, would result in "piracy" being no concern.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: it certainly seems to me you said that getting rid of non-private property protection laws
For the umpteen-billionth time, no. I did not advocate the removal of all laws that don't concern private property. I merely called for the removal of the regulations, AND ONLY THE REGULATIONS, which concern themselves with limiting our private property rights. I want to remove undue government intrusion into private affairs.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Property owners are not the priviledged. Anyone who is born is an owner of private property, themselves.
Well Robespierre - as we go along in this I now wish I had chosen Voltaire as my screen name (I may yet re-register). I was having an interesting time with your choice of names - Robespierre is remembered as the staunch Republic of Virtue guy or as a suspicious, paranoid near his death. Voltaire would have loved to discuss issues with Robespierre (and argue just to argue - sounds kinda fun).
It is a great leap to take my statement of power as power of who over who (although one could easily say those with greater power have it over someone). My intent is what I call real power - the ability to make the governance rules. All the laws, the determination of morality and its coloring of the laws, establishing the rights and priviledges and in general establishing the future direction of a society, government or movement. That's the real meat.
That is the power to influence. Many ways are chosen - You are attempting to do so here with words. America is (recently) doing so on the battlefield. Machiavilli preferred befriending. Robespierre liked controlling a revolution (or was it counter-revolution - France can be so confusing). Voltaire just liked to talk...
Your taking 'All Men are Created Equal' and turning it into "All Men are Personal Property' is most brilliant in an evangelistic way. I tip my hat.
I will take the Power thingy one more step - Those in power will (I have yet to see it different - and history only records a very few saints that supposedly did not succumb) fall into their ideology as their guiding force, develop doctrines supporting the same and eventually a criminal justice system follows. It comes in all flavors - Communism, democracy, repulic, monarchy, religious, etc. and all the flavors of each. Unrestricted, even the best turn into too much of a good thing. A healthy dose of fear of reprisal goes along way in helping those in power be self governing. Unrestricted, most federalist-like based solutions has become a case of those that have more are in charge - something I consider very much like drinking wine and coffee together - I very much enjoy each separately, but together they leave a peculiar, unpleasant taste.
I am not the author of this concept, merely the messenger.
quote: Those in power will ... fall into their ideology as their guiding force, develop doctrines supporting the same and eventually a criminal justice system follows.
Then the matter becomes a question of the ideology of those in power. The current system in the US seems to be somewhat blurred, with ideology not meaning as much as victory. However, during the time of the revolution, those in power were desperately fighting for the freedom to conduct their own affairs. The colonies were full of industrious and trade minded people. They wished to exploit their new land, to their own benefit, not to the benefit of the crown. So having directly expirienced the lack of certain personal property rights, they made this an important component of their new government.
I like our system of government just fine as it is written. However, its actual operation strays from that written form greatly. The greatest breakdown in my opinion, has been the functioning of the supreme court. This issue has been taken up previously in other threads and I maintain that we need to discover a method of appointing judges that will protect the constitution and personal freedom, aside from party loyalty.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
