It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by subject x
For the "Ron Paul never said that" folks....sorry. I've been hearing him say that he's against government regulation of the market. To me, that just leaves self regulation
A tip- if, instead of jumping up and down hollering "RP never said that!!!", you were to say "oh, no, that's not what he was saying. Let me explain what he really meant", you'd probably have a better chance of winning more support. I'm sure Dr. Paul would agree.
Ron Paul: Well, they have to pay, everybody knows that, and I think they know that, too. So they might as well concede to this. But I don’t think BP is being a good example of the free enterprise system. You know, I think that they’re very much in tune with big government, and here the process is sort of suspicious. Under what law have they done this? There’s not even an executive order, not even a congressional approval, and here they’re dealing with 20 billion dollars. I think they should pay 100 billion dollars if there are a 100 billion dollars worth of damage.
David Asman: They should pay… by the way, isn’t there an actual provision in this supplemental bill that they’re trying to push through Congress, a 100 billion dollars, or whatever it is now, to force some of the cleanup that BP should be paying? Aren’t they forcing some of the costs of this on tax payers instead of BP?
Ron Paul: That’s right. And that’s exactly the opposite of what it should be. It should be the corporation that did the damage that should pay for this. So I just don’t like the process; I think they should pay and there are legal ways of doing this. But I’m very suspicious of how this has come about. And this whole idea that somebody defends the rule of law and says that you shouldn’t beat up on a corporation and drive them into bankruptcy, yeah, they should be dealt with in a legal fashion and hopefully they don’t go bankrupt. Fortunately, they are a wealthy company.
So they should pay the bills and I think they’re capable of doing this. But this whole idea that you have to close down all oil wells in the Gulf, and that means it will hurt BP even more plus all the oil companies, plus all the people who now are going to lose their jobs in addition. And this is absurd to say that because Obama issues an order, closes down all the other oil rigs, that they make BP pay for that damage. They have enough to pay for.
Originally posted by seachange
Its very frustrating to see you say that because I disagree completely that I didn't explain in full. First I explained how Ron Paul has never advocated for self-regulation, then I explained what regulation free-market proponents do want.
Ron Paul, being a politician, is likely more in favor of a mandated civil court system as the primary regulatory framework for businesses (corporations would not exist under a free-market but businesses would exist).
Whats clear is that is is certainly at the very least in favor of the civil court system.
While I don't object to mandated civil court systems, I believe that ethical shopping is the far-and-away winner when it comes to regulating businesses. By ethical shopping practices, I mean people should join consumer unions or buy goods with certain certifications. For example, buying only UL-certified electronics, and buying only fair-trade certified bread would be examples of ethical shopping programs.
Living wages are something that a system of civil court is unable to address, the US Federal government is unable to address although people are fooled into thinking such a ridiculous thing, but ethical shopping practices can address. That is the main point and hopefully you can see the value in it.
Originally posted by Dasher
reply to post by AwakeinNM
And the right to print money allows the Feds to get away with such unwise conduct.
The states should not and do not have that right. Money should be a national issue, but deregulated and locked down so that it is not manipulated by The Corrupt Money Changers.
I find it interesting that people are not responding to the post I just linked to. It says a lot about the thoughts and subconscious of people.
Oh, and nothing is wrong with competition. If one state can offer a product cheaper than another, then there is probably a good reason, so stop whining (not you personally, AwakeInNM).edit on 10/2/2011 by Dasher because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by subject x
I guess you, like Dr. Paul, have a better opinion of humanity than I have. Everthing I see tells me that the vast majority don't care, just buying whatever's cheapest, and have no interest in being educated otherwise.
The corps. already exist, and they're not going anywhere peacefully. If the government tried to dissolve them, they'd just move to another country. If no country would take them, they'd buy one.
Once the money has gone from corporate wealth to private wealth, there's not much to sue for, and since we already have corporations, the private wealth is legally protected. Go ahead, sue Exxon into recievership. Shut them right down. The owners will take the write-off, and open up under a new name, maybe in a new country.
I see the value [in ethical shopping], and agree 110% in principal. However, as I just mentioned, I don't believe that's going to happen.
So here we have a system in which the corps. are beyond the control of civil court, and the populace to ignorant/apathetic/distracted to exert control via ethical shopping. That pretty much leaves them effectively self-regulating. If the world was a fair, equal, ethical place, it might be different, but it's not.
Did you purchase a product today from a firm who has been hit for repeated environmental abuses?