The Election

[bladestarr]

Nope, that's exactly what I meant, check the order of the nations and the types

[pfrsue]

BladeStarr said:

Back when the country first began, any person could open up a hot dog stand on the corner and earn their livelihood by working and slowly gaining wealth, now with regulations such as zoning restrictions and the FDA no one can open up a hot dog stand legally without already having the money to pay for lawyers, pay for inspectors and spend the time and money it takes to follow all of these regulations.

Actually, you pay for a license, but you don't pay for inspections. Inspections are run by the state anyway. And really, I'm all for tight regulations in the food service industry.

As another example. There are fields in Iowa (where I am) that are being left unused because the government is PAYING the farmers not to use them. This is called a government subsidy, which artificially raises the prices of goods to protect the thousand or so farmers that need the price of the good to be high. Now if there was no subsidy then more efficient organization could take over those farms after they fail and produce tons of corn much more efficiently, thus saving the lives of many children that would normally starve to death due to the cost of food being too expensive.

Sure, if we produced commodities to our true potential, the prices would certainly drop to the basement. And then the cost of raising crops/livestock/etc. would turn out to be far higher than any income derived from them. (It's frightently close to that now... which is why the smaller farms are shutting down at an incredible rate and even the bigger producers are in trouble.) Then there'd be no producers at all and where would we be?

Just my two cents.

Sue

[DocD83]

the cost of regulating business (which only makes things much more expensive and not better)

The reason we have government regulation of the private sector in the first place is because the private sector screwed it up royally at some point in the past.

but we would also be working in a more efficient economy where things cost less and are worth more, because a free market will create the greatest value for consumers at the lowest cost.

Except when someone monopolizes an industry because the anti-trust legislation is gone.

Before I was a Libertarian I was an EXTREMELY liberal Democrat, and I realized that if EVERYONE has 30% more of their income every paycheck nobody will NEED welfare or social security

Without going into deatil of my and my family's personal financial situation, let me tell you that you are flat out wrong here.

out of all those people keeping all that money (including me) what are the odds that a good amount of them will give at least some portion of that money to private charities or to people directly? Pretty good.

Hahahahahahahaha....oh, you're serious....HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Most people would probably do 30% more eating or drinking or videogame buying, especially in the States.

As much as I chafe at the swipe you just took at American materialism, you're right. We're not a country of savers.

People then begin to think that the government should take care of everything, thus we move from a capitalist government to a socialist government then finally a Big Brother 1984 communist government.

That's one hell of a jump there, from getting an unemployment check to "1984"? I tell ya, you're not exactly doing a good job of converting me to the Libertarian side.

On top of that, we can also assume that private charities will then receive 30% more donations,

You're back on this again? Won't happen. Besides, even if it did there aren't enough private charities. A 50% jump would still leave them swamped.

They're coming through your kitchen window looking for yours. Look at the number of bankruptcies every single year. You think those people would suddenly change their tune because they have 30% more cash to mismanage?

Many many bankruptcies are not really the fault of the guy going bankrupt. For example, having a narrow field of specialty during an economic shift could leave you jobless or vastly underemployed through no fault of your own. You might have seen something like that on the news lately....

Also, the capitalist system is generally not very good at accounting for externalities, which is why we have things like the EPA and federally subsidized student loans.

Without federal student loans I would never in my life be able to afford college, even with an extra 30% on my menial labor's wages.

Without needless government regulations, the cost of constructing things will not be nearly so high, and corporations will be able to work on the projects rather than the federal government.

Ummm, no. Government regulation does add to the cost of construction, but (a) it usually isn't a huge percentage unless you're building through some really ecologically delicate areas, and (b) a lot of the added costs of regulation are things I think we all want: building codes for fire/earthquake safety, environmental protection, protection of the people in the building (asbestos regulatiions, for instance), and protection for the people working on the building (they used to estimate ten deaths for every floor completed on a skyscraper).

And as for the wages of soldiers, war is actually detrimental to the economy, as it CREATES instability.

Instability, to some extent, is actually desirable. Very stable things, once they get going in one direction, will tend to keep going in one direction. So a tiny downturn would cause a long slow slide down, whereas we can usaully count on it swinging back up again with instability in there.

And I'm not sure what you mean to do with the military as a whole, but if your new plan requires major cutbacks or elimination you can forget trying to make me Libertarian--but that's a whole other debate.

Medications and procedures would be MUCH cheaper if the market was not regulated nearly as much as it is. Regulation kills the free market, which in turn kills the people.

So cheap the drug companies would never be able to pay for research? Yep, that sounds about right.

Remember, the big regulatory thing with drug companies now is the length of time a drug remains under patent, because that's the only way to recoup the investment. No regulation = no patents = dirt cheap prices on current drugs = no new drugs.

now with regulations such as zoning restrictions and the FDA no one can open up a hot dog stand legally without already having the money to pay for lawyers, pay for inspectors and spend the time and money it takes to follow all of these regulations.

As I said before, these kinds of things are there because, at some point in the past, SOMEONE SCREWED UP ROYALLY. Are you familiar with "The Jungle"? Everyone likes to talk about healthcare, and how much you could put towards it if you didn't have these pesky things like the EPA (which I'm no fan of, BTW) and the FDA, but you need these things or else disease rates in this country will just explode.

Prior to the creation of the FDA, we had quacks cris-crossing the country selling snake oil and calling it medicine.

From watching the History Channel, I know a few tidbits about this: Most patent medicines were more than 70% morphine by volume, and the ingredients were not listed. Some patent medicines contained huge quantities of radium. Unshielded x-ray machines with viewing scopes were used for sizing shoes.

Well okay so maybe I was exaggerating a bit, but it is proven that war is bad for the economy.

Is it? The modern airline and aerospace industry can be traced back to the end of WWII, as just one example.

Anyways, as far as these "protections" go from the FDA, if the FDA did not exist, then watchdog groups like Consumer Reports still exist, and it won't be long at all before a company finds themselves bankrupt because no one will buy their product as everyone knows that it is not safe.

So, sucks to be the people who used it before Consumer Reports could get to it, eh? Would consumer Reports pay for my funeral?

The market takes care of itself, and people are not going to knowingly buy a bad product if they can help it.

They can repackage the same crap faster than Consumer Reports can get to it. They won't know it isn't safe. Besides, "everyone knows" diet pills are unsafe, yet they still sell them like hotcakes.

About Splenda: accusations of that type zing around for decades with varying levels of credibility. Olestra screws up your digestive system, Sweet N Low causes cancer, saran wrap leaches chemicals if you use it in the microwave, whatever that fat is with the really long shelf life screws up brain functioning in children, and a cup of water heated in the microwave can explode on you. Most of all that is bunk--Olestra didn't faze me, you need to eat your body weight in Sweet N Low to get cancer, Snopes doesn't put much stock in the saran wrap deal, the brain thing is still hotly debated, and you can only have water from a microwave cause you harm if you're an idiot. Don't forget the Yellow #5 thing--complete bunk but still widely believed.

If that hot dog vendor sold a bunch of bad hot dogs, he would be out of business VERY quickly.

If he, for instance, though rat poison was a preservative, then he would make a lot of people very sick before he was stopped--and thats just one hot dog stand. What if Lays does something bad? The number of people harmed would be in the thousands.

I've said to a few American friends I have that it's shocking that in this day and age the two party system still stands.

It's not technically a two party system, it's just that two parties come to preeminence. Which has its benefits--compare two parties to the fiasco of California's recall of Davis. Three hundred parties. No way could that be a fair election just because no one has the time to get to know more than three or four.

The US government will not change in any discernable or appreciable way without some kind of radical revolution. That's the principal it was built on, and it's the principal it'll one day collapse on.

That's why everyone should vote to give me dictatorial powers for two years (and a huge yacht to retire on). I'll fix it all without collapsing the economy...too badly....

If a company's product may harm people, and they have to take on the full burden of this action, then they will be much more careful and thourough with their testing. Any flaws in this line of thinking? Please share!

They just have to be careful to make sure the harmful effects are hard to identify as coming from their product. With delayed reactions, finding out what hurt you is a pain in the ass. As an example, on saturday I was outside all day, and at some random time I started to have an allergic reaction on my neck. I have no idea what it was, and I have no hope of finding out. I had fish at the restaurant earlier, but that was hours before so I can't say it had anything to do with the restaurant. A bug bite? Maybe, but one I've never had before. Poison ivy? Didn't stick around long enough. It's no big deal because I lived, but what if your daughter takes the new over the counter fever med and keels over in a week?

[DARTHMADLER]

My cynical two cents worth:

The libertarian system will fail for the same reason the communist system failed, the socialist system is failing and the capitalist system is failing: They all failed to take into account human nature.

All systems look hot on paper.

[dajaymann]

I wish I had a quarter for every time my head exploded while reading this bloody forum. First the metric thing in AVP, now this. I would be playing a lot of games at the arcade with those quarters, I tell you.

And that's all I have to add. Discuss amongst yourselves.

[Lissa]

Actually, Jim Carrey is pretty cute, when his face isn't completely stretched out of form.

Yes. That's all I have to add to this discussion.

[Al]

The US government will not change in any discernable or appreciable way without some kind of radical revolution. That's the principal it was built on, and it's the principal it'll one day collapse on.

I don't think a 'radical revolution' is terribly likely. I can, however, certainly see two people with the necessary charisma breaking rank to create a bipartisan party. For example, if John McCain and Joe Lieberman (just pretend, people) were to join forces and run in '08, I think a substantial percentage of the population would say the hell with Red and Blue and vote Purple. I predict something like that will go down in the next decade or two.

Aside from that little comment, I have nothing to add. I'm just gonna sit over here with Jay and let my brains leak out of my ears.

Al

[bladestarr]

---> I wear purple!
---> I wear green!

-----------
--------
-----
--
!!!!!$#%$&^*$@^%#&!!!!!
---> I wear purple.... we rule until next cycle!
() ---> I......wear..... greeeeeeennnnn...... waaaah!

I think maybe 5% of our readers will get that reference. As for YOU Doc, if you want to discuss this further we can do it in private. I think I've wasted enough of these fine people's time on my bloviation. And besides every one of your points is at least an entire hour long conversation in and of itself.

I think Madler put it best, the human nature thing. I believe that a communist government is the ideal, however it is also the least practical as it would rely on a perfectly good benevolent dictator (or oligarchy) that would truly do what is best for the people. While I would argue that Fidel Castro comes close to this type of leader (let the flame wars begin!) the other two major examples of communism (China and the dead USSR) fell flat on their faces because it was not a benevolent system, it was run by people that still wanted to do good for themselves rather than for the people. By the way, I realize that China has not yet fallen out of communism (at least politically), but their economic system is becoming more and more capitalist in every way.

And so as a result of this reasoning, I decided that Libertarian was the best way to go, because since we cannot really have good people at the top (absolute power corrupts absolutely), if we decentralize that power and give it to many, MANY people to mostly govern themselves, then each small group has a better chance of finding their own form of happiness. And thus ends my portion of this public debate. Any more questions or comments to me please e-mail me at [e-mail]. Thank you for your time, and I'm sorry for making your head explode buddy. ;D

[funkymartini]

1 question. The Libertarian website doesn't state their stance on civil rights?

The problem with the Libertarian approach, in my humble opinion, is that even now in a capitalist system the biggest motivater is not human rights, human safety, or anything like that, just profit, profit, profit. With Wal-Mart and Mcdonalds practically on the verge of world domination, where the heck would we be in a total free market? OK that is somewhat hyperbolic, but think about the enormous leverage that they have with 3rd world governments, and they're not above using it to strong arm them.

I mean THINK about it... tobacco companies openly marketing to children, drug companies selling products which they know are harmful (and this has happened.. there's well-documented accounts of drug companies suppressing studies which have proved they're products harmful, and possibly lethal).

Marketing is everything, you could have the worst product in the world, but if it's marketed well people will buy it. Case in Point: McDonald's.

Plus it would totally KILL small business, and any sense of community at a much faster rate than its happening now, as the Wal-Marts of America would pop up on every street corner, and the Microsofts would monopolize everything.

On the topic of social services, I can't remember the number, but a pretty damn high percentage of the people on the streets are mentally ill, and unable to take care of themselves, let alone hold a job. So uhh... 30% of zero is still zero. These people NEED those services.

Sociologically there will always be those people on the bottom rungs of the ladder who need assistance, and those on the top who control the vast majority of the wealth, as that is practically what capitalism is defined by, the social inequality.

We need governmental regulations, because it is simply HUMAN NATURE for the majority to oppress the minority, and those within the mainstream society will always be afforded more opportunities than those outside it. Who will fight for the rights and equality of the mentally ill, the handicapped, the first nations, the blacks, the ethnic and religious minorities, the women, the gays, lesbians, and everyone else who has had their voice taken away, and been shut out of the mainstream society?

[funkymartini]

But hey.. it's certainly nice to see someone so devoted to an ideal like that, and not jaded like everyone else. Big props to you for that!

Pooly, are you an NDPer? It would've been a tossup between NDP and Green for me last time, but I couldn't handle the thought of the Conservatives forming government.

[bladestarr]

Yo, can't you read??? I'm done here, e-mail!

[PoolMan]

funkymartini said:

Pooly, are you an NDPer? It would've been a tossup between NDP and Green for me last time, but I couldn't handle the thought of the Conservatives forming government.

I voted Green last time around. I couldn't stand the thought of Harper winning it, and the Greens needed the votes to get the funding (and they got it, yay!). NDP IS closer to my ideal than the Liberals or Conservatives, although I'm still touchy about all they did in BC when Clark was in power.

And now, back to American politics. Because there's only about 4 Canadians here.

<sarcasm>
I am so glad the US election has gone smoothly, and that we're not hanging on the balance of one state once again to dictate the outcome of the whole thing, one slowly miscounted vote at a time.
</sarcasm>

[Ms. Jellybean]

My God, I hate listening to the people in my history class making cracks about all candidates except Bush. Then, when poor little me (the only Libertarian in the effing school, I believe) tries to talk, I get shot down.

I'm feeding off of Pooly's sarcasm here. It's so nice to speak your mind in America, as long as you agree with the current administration...

[DocD83]

Where do you go to school, Ms Jellybean? Here, Bush was mocked mercilessly. Which is odd because my Thermodynamics prof did an informal survey this morning...with a third of the class asleep, half the class raised their hands to say they voted for Bush. So the school seems overwhelmingly pro-Bush, but everything leading up to the election has been anti-Bush.

[deusdragonexx]

Everything leading up to yesterday has been anti-Bush, yet his ineptness won again. For some reason, I can't wait for the next four years to be over