Would you trust corporations to self-regulate?

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


You ignore the fact that history clearly demonstrates that effective government regulation of business has given us our periods of strongest economic performance, while elimination of regulations has lead to our worst economic destruction.

The fifties, sixties, and nineties being proof that regulation works, while the twenties and the last decade proof that de-regulation does not work. You probably don't even know about the massive Florida land speculation bubble in the twenties, or the numerous ponzi schemes that collapsed the stock market and our banking system, all done on de-regulation schemes.

reply to post by poet1b


I understand the purpose of representative government. Like so many other things it looks good on paper but fails in the real world.

How is watching state and federal government act in opposition to the will of the people being duped by propaganda?

reply to post by poet1b


Certainly belittling ideas rather than working towards them makes them "impossible," but by no means is it idealistic. It is the way things are. The only reason so many corporations that are hated are still around now is because of government interference.

The power you have now is less than that of a servant or slave. The repercussions you fear from a free-market system (including the dismantling of corporate laws), are exactly what you live under now. I do not understand why you are in denial of what is nor why you are placing the rotten fruit of a regulated system in the place of a free-market system (Which has not been instituted since the days in which education was inherently a rare commodity. Nowadays it is not so rare inherently, but is kept so by REGULATIONS).

Fingers in your ears won't make the noise stop, it only prevents you from hearing it.

And more so, free-market is not "no regulations," but rather, it is regulations determined by consumers and local governments. You are still missing large portions of these concepts when rationalizing your point of view. Again, it does help give me a way to continue connecting common fallacies to clarifications, but it would be better for you to increase in knowledge and then also in understanding so that you could express that understanding.

To sum up, a free-market, when wisely and diligently instituted is less work and more effective than a centrally/nationally regulated system. This was proven in the establishment and rapid rise to power that our nation took. There is a very clear path towards regulation since just before the civil war and we have rapidly transformed into an Empire since, mostly in the last 80 - 90 years.

reply to post by poet1b


What you are calling regulations has led to strong corporations (which you fear and superimpose onto free-market ideas), irresponsible waste management (which should be a fear also), restricted freedoms for entrepreneurship (which you generally fear), lack of recourse for the common man (which you fear and superimpose onto free-market ideas).

You have the right desires, but you are inverting the rationalization for an unknown reason.

reply to post by Cassius666


What it takes is diligent citizens. And in that light, the people get the government they deserve.

reply to post by daskakik


Radically untrue. Representative government, like free-market principles are what made this country solidify and rise in power so rapidly. The dismantling of the acceptance of such ideas is what is causing the problems that exist now. The problems that exist now are a direct result of central government interference which is a direct result of an unwise citizen base. To return to the good fruit of free-market ideas and representative government, we must shake off the false liberty we are living under and stop being confused about the cause of the sickly effects plaguing our current culture.

reply to post by poet1b

The fifties, sixties, and nineties being proof that regulation works, while the twenties and the last decade proof that de-regulation does not work. You probably don't even know about the massive Florida land speculation bubble in the twenties, or the numerous ponzi schemes that collapsed the stock market and our banking system, all done on de-regulation schemes.

You people love making up your own versions of economic history that aren't based on facts....... the 50's were okay I won't deny that, but I don't see how that has anything to do with regulation since the U.S was the worlds freest economy at that time and was one of the few standing economies. The 60's were horrible, many recessions in that time period that interventionist love to ignore.

The 70's were also horrible, rampant inflation, high unemployment and many other economic problems. The 80's also had many economic problems that people seem to have forgotten.

The 90's were okay as well, but that success had nothing to do with regulation that economic growth was largely due to Greenspan's monetary inflationism that caused the recession of 2001..... that he attempted to cure with more monetary inflationism that eventually caused the crash of 2008.

reply to post by Dasher


Both free markets and representative government don't exist in the real world the way they are laid out on paper. This is a fact.

Even Washington sent an army to put down the uprising caused by taxing farmers that sold their excess grains as whiskey.

The whiskey excise was immediately controversial, with many people on the frontier arguing that the tax unfairly targeted westerners.[8] Whiskey was a popular drink, and farmers often supplemented their income by operating small stills.[9] Farmers living west of the Appalachian Mountains distilled their excess grain into whiskey, which was easier and more profitable to transport over the mountains than the more cumbersome grain. A whiskey tax would make western farmers less competitive with eastern grain producers.

Whiskey Rebellion

You people are in denial or reality.

Representative government is by far the most successful form of government, and when strong regulations were in place, and high taxes on the rich is when our economy did its best.

That you want to pretend differently shows that you chose to live in an idealistically unrealistic world.

Sorry, but the sixties and the nineties were our best periods of economic performance, and to pretend that the U.S. is not successful is just pure denial.

Free market principles is what screwed out economy up. The only way to be free is to establish a fair set of evenly enforced rules, and history has demonstrated this to be true.

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


RE: The 90's were also boosted by the technology sector. Obviously that's an anomaly with no parallel. It will be interesting to see how emerging tech plays a part in The Great Depression II.

Along those lines, it will be interesting to see, specifically, that since most of our manufacturing can be done by machines or is done by nations in their industrial revolution, if we make a healthy return to agriculture.

A great example is Oregon. Their economy was depressed decades before the rest of the nation due to the logging industry slow-downs, and corporate terrorism and the resulting regulations. The common response has been the boosting of localized agriculture, "sustainable business practices" in general, and a popular push towards innovative and gentle living.

While much of the thinking is socialist in the more highly populated areas, most people are friendly to "whatever works" or "live and let live" mentalities, so it really does present itself a place with a good future.

reply to post by daskakik


I don't usually say something like: This country was once a free-market.
I usually say something like: What made this country excel was the free-market principles it followed more closely in it's beginning.

The example you are using certainly is valid to show that the decline of "freedom" is always something that must be pushed against, but to compare it to the institution of laws which state that a business entity has the same sovereign rights as a human along with perpetuity, does not exemplify understanding of the related factors.

Originally posted by poet1bFree market principles is what screwed out economy up. The only way to be free is to establish a fair set of evenly enforced rules, and history has demonstrated this to be true.

Under a system which declares human a business entity and endows it with inalienable rights is not a free market. Stockholm syndrome is obviously real as you are defending those who have structured/facilitated your enslavement.

Regulations, taxes and voting should all be done from the bottom up. Defending a centralized system in any way is akin to demanding a king rescue you from the evils he created (whether real [corporations endowed with human rights] or boogeymen [CIA asset bin Laden]).

reply to post by poet1b


Wait, your saying representative government and heavy regulations are good but free market is bad.

Dasher is saying representative government and free market are good and regulation is bad.

Rockdisjoint is saying that not all regulations are equal and that they don't guarantee anything.

I'm saying that government and big business work together so that free markets and representative government are not implemented as proposed.

So, who's you people?

Originally posted by Dasher
reply to post by daskakik

 

I don't usually say something like: This country was once a free-market.
I usually say something like: What made this country excel was the free-market principles it followed more closely in it's beginning.

This happened less than 20 years after the revolutionary war. This was the beginning. What beginning are you talking about?

Giving corporations the same rights as humans is wrong but that has nothing to do with the point that I was trying to make which is that representative government doesn't always represent the will of the people. Even when the government are the very same people that signed the constitution and the bill of rights.

reply to post by daskakik

I answered you plainly and precisely.

Originally posted by Dasher
reply to post by daskakik
The example you are using certainly is valid to show that the decline of "freedom" is always something that must be pushed against, but to compare it to the institution of laws which state that a business entity has the same sovereign rights as a human along with perpetuity, does not exemplify understanding of the related factors.

reply to post by subject x


You (and conservative libertarians like Ron Paul) are asking the wrong questions... or perhaps looking at the matter wrong.

The problem isn't whether or not you regulate Capitalism. Though surely, the history of Capitalism has suggested a need for regulation to anyone who has researched the history of unrestrained exploitation of workers, resources, land, consumers, and ecosystems; Adam Smith and Hayek THEMSELVES have called for a certain level of regulation, welfare, and so on. The problem is Capitalism ITSELF... and specifically, becoming the cornerstone to our society.

At the end of the day, blind profit motive is inhuman, inhumane, exploitative, and dangerous. Despite the good/wondrous things that may erupt from Capitalism, it is still an exploitative (and therefore oppressive) and unsustainable system. When our society's only motive is profit, we cannot expect markets to magically give us all the things we want/need, we cannot expect markets to magically protect ecosystems, non-renewable resources, air/land/water quality, or indigenous peoples. What we can expect is that businesses (and the larger machine of the economy) will promote behavior in people towards maximizing profit, and despite peoples' best intentions, this is the wrong system to expect sustainability out of. Despite the private sector's insistence, voting with your dollar is NOT Democracy, it's an ineffective and improper abstraction from real Democracy that removes the power of the people to affect necessary change against the tides of rich and/or powerful entities (whether in government or business).

So, whether or not you regulate Capitalism, it is Capitalism itself that is the problem. It is market-worship (and application of Capitalist ideologies to all facets of life) itself that is the problem, and tweaking regulation/de-regulation won't solve what's rotten at the core. We are, yet again, relegated to choosing the lesser evils in a neverending and exponential battle against the oppression/destruction of large centralized markets and large centralized governments.

reply to post by Dasher

You are talking about giving rights to corporations. I was talking about representative government not representing the people.

The action was taken by President Washington. The first president. It was the beginning and it started off with government strong arming so saying that the US has ever had free markets is wrong.

Ok i assume this may have been stated already but i feel that if so it needs to be said again. Corporations CAN NOT be trusted to self regulate. Back during the industrial revolution corporations were allowed to self regulate and there were problems abound with that practice. Along with the perpetuation of child labor and locking up workers for hours and hours without breaks. Added to this is the fact that in the lard and sausage industry there was no quality control which would be bad since any kids who fell into the lard would be cooked in and there were rats and such and human flesh in the sausages. Basically when you take government regulations out of production and such you will get shoddy workmanship and workplace accidents abound.

Originally posted by daskakik
Dasher is saying representative government and free market are good and regulation is bad.

No, I have clearly said many times that central/national regulation is bad. Local regulation, determined by local citizens, combined with consumer responsibility will regulate the market.

I realize that this is a complex topic with many perspective being voiced rapidly and most in an incomplete manner, but some of the misconceptions of free-market thinking are really surprising as they would be self-clarified with a bit of intellectual diligence.

Originally posted by daskakik
I'm saying that government and big business work together so that free markets and representative government are not implemented as proposed.

I fully agree. I might have said "big government" in the context of your statement instead of just "government" as I am not an anarchist in any way. I advocate what could be termed (or used to intend slander based upon the user) a Confederated Tribal System.

Local tribes would exercise a majority of governing sovereignty and would be granted the right to issue taxes, laws, and require military service as per local voting. Monies would be apportioned for larger governing bodies (states) that are also sovereign with certain inherent limitations and modernization would be voted upon by a representative government. A national system would be largely for convenience and highly limited. When I say convenience, I am speaking regards to facilitating inter-state commerce, laws, etc. Integration of state and local databases should be allowed, however, without access to add to or modify those databases except by direct cooperation of a local entity (tribe) and a person's home entity (tribe). Those outside of tribes would relinquish their voting rights to the laws determined by local people and would be subject to state systems as well.

I could imagine conservative and liberal and moderate places to live, with a rich and diverse development of local culture as a fruit. To note, a primary premise for the largest national and limited governing entity would be for the protection and strength that uniting the tribes and states would provide. If New York is attacked, any tribe for which it is reasonable to do so should provide military assistance and expect the same support vice versa.

More shepherds working more closely with the flock would certainly decrease the likelihood of wolves invading our systems.

reply to post by daskakik


I very much understand what you are saying.
I was/am delineating, very specifically, that your example is, certainly, proof that we must fight against the loss of freedom, but it is not as grievous as more modern attacks on freedom, nor was it as clear-cut in terms of it's unrighteousness.

You say we have not had a PERFECTLY free-market system. I made it clear that I made no such claim (at least not intentionally, if I did so at any time). However, we did operate by free-market principles overall and to equate the utter disarming of individuals economically and politically with a debate over whether or not a tax was justified or biased is disingenuous. (I understand the event culminated into a physical issue, but that does not change the root of it)

I do not believe that all government should be castrated inherently (who want's a police force unable to do anything about a robber in their home?), but that which we call government should be minimized and considered/reconsidered often.