It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why I will never support the Libertarians.

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I believe I said somewhere that my test for a law is whether or not it exists to only save me from myself or protect my rights from others.

I have not been advocating for no laws, but for the bare minimum. The regulatory state we have is embarrassingly overwrought and top-heavy and one of the big reasons why so much of our industrial base has moved overseas.

My husband works in the quality control area for a major corporation (I know; that makes him the devil), but over the course of the past 5 years he's been in his current job, it has gone from one that a single person (him) could do to one that is being done by a full 11 people. That's how much new regulation has been added in that time. Every regulation that is added adds to the final cost.

For one example of stupid regulation - every change the company makes in how it makes their product, they have to justify with an actual study that justifies to the government that change will not negatively impact the product. It doesn't matter how insignificant the change might be. They might just change the brand of equipment. But it takes time and money to conduct that study and it's tedious. Not only that, but it discourages innovation in production because it takes so much time and money. It's not enough to just notify them you are changing how you do things. You have to prove it won't be bad.




posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


If someone you love dies because some company took a short cut, then it will impact you.

What you claim about the reasons companies are moving overseas is completely wrong. Companies move overseas so that they can take advantage of low labor rates which are a combination of lack of labor laws to protect the workers, slave labor conditions where the people have no freedoms, currency manipulation, and willingness to violate environmental protection laws. Whether or not you recognize this, it does impact your life, and is a major reason things have gotten so messed up.

But as far as strict rules for making changes, even production overseas has to follow these policies in order to export their products into first world nations.

What you most likely do not realize is that Insurance companies drive most of these requirements these days, and they are far worse than government.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   


But, then, a libertarian understands that's part of accepting the responsibility for his or her actions. If he or she can't handle their vices, they deserve to suffer for them.


And...Boom goes the dynamite.

edit on 11-11-2013 by YayMayorBee because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


And the regulation you demand is the reason why half of your paycheck is gone and why the cost of goods and services skyrockets.

Imagine if you had all or almost all of your pay check and could demand with your spending habits how companies should conduct themselves.

Business is about about one thing... the bottom line. Regardless of regulation, laws, or morals; its about making money. Being said, how you spend your money is the best way to tell these companies how you feel they should do business.

Wal-mart thrives because of the socialist undertones that our economy lives by. Goods are valued on one thing... price. I would imagine that if everyone received 95% of their paychecks and layered with business being able to conduct business without being burdened by regulation, you would have a very different marketplace. A marketplace that would be DRIVEN by the consumer. Drizzle on the sweet freedom of digital information (aka the internet) people would be able to spend their money as they see fit at businesses they wish to patronize.

Next thing you know, price is not the ONLY driving factor of a good or service, but the quality or the quality of service you receive.

Its scary to most because that fear is based on the current system. But a lack of regulation would also open a whole new industry of people trying to make money by testing the products you consume. This already happens (I trust what i read on ATS more so than I do the FDA)

This (abundance of) trust in government is scary. Visit your local DMV or post office and you should know exactly what I am talking about. Because a LAW that is punishable by jail time mandated by the state equals zero accountability by the ones providing the service.

If you sold a product, any product, and a LAW said that product was or service was mandated and paid for by tax payer money; I don't care who you are but you would charge 10 times the value and not give a crap about quality of the product as long as it met the lowest possible qualifications of the mandate because the LAW is the only thing you have to appease opposed to a consumer with money to spend.


Lastly, companies move overseas because (as i said) they are about making money (drr) but the MARKET demands that prices be ridiculously low and produce, produce, produce AND "feel good" regulation that make it IMPOSSIBLE for a company to deliver a product as cheap as the market demands.

The market demands cheap because we only get 60-70% of our paychecks (maybe less) to pay for all the BS regulation.
edit on 11-11-2013 by YayMayorBee because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   

blackthorne
reply to post by ketsuko
 


but your own post contradicts itself. for most of this country's existence those groups of people were discriminated against. wasn't this country supposed to be equal treatment, equal rights for all? not just white anglo saxon protestant men? (women had no vote remember up until 1914. just shy of 100 years)

as for libertarians. a couple of elections ago, bill maher had the libertarian presidential candidate on his show. bill asked him about regulations. he said "no regulations."

what about health regulations and inspections on food.

still no regulations, market will work it out.

so, if a company sells tainted meat and people get sick and die, that is okay?

if that happens, then people will just stop going there.

how many people have to die until that happens?

the candidate had no answer for that. government DOES have a small role in public life.





Once again, if the market demands safety of their food then PRIVATE services will provide the means to test food and the market will adjust.

Further, these companies would be driven by the consumer and not a law which would make accountability far greater than that of a mandated law.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by YayMayorBee
 


And competition will exist and people will be able to say one company is better than the other so it's best to follow products that are rated by this company over the other. Right now we just have to accept whatever the government says is acceptable, meanwhile the private sector could say "no amount of bug juice is acceptable". The only problem that could happen is if competition ceases to exist. But right now, the FDA has no competition and that's what makes it scary. They allowed pink slime of all things to be digested by millions of Americans each day.
edit on 11-11-2013 by Em2013 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by iwilliam
 


My rebuttal will be that your fear is based on the current system. Us libertarians are first and foremost LIMITED GOVERNMENT and if you are an American libertarian its (my opinion) that you believe in Constitution and limiting powers of the government set by the document which we all hold so dear.

Being said if you have limited government, the influence a company and its money would have on the government itself would be null and vice versa. A company could not "buy" a politician because the politician would simply not have the authority. A politician could not tax one product to sway a consumer to buy something or outlaw another product.

As for monopolies. Yes, they would probably (or maybe not) exist, but if your good/service is superior in every way and the market has dictated its superiority, then a monopoly may begin to emerge. HOWEVER, if a company abuses its consumer then the free market will allow (Without the burden of regulation and mandates) a new company to compete against yours.

Why can't anyone see that the regulations themselves ONLY ALLOW big business to create something? The licenses, the FDA approval, the FCC approval, the application for permits... the list goes on and on and on.

A company would be forced by its consumer to deliver (at a steady pace) a product at a price they can afford and safe to consume.

Regulation or not

Would you purchase products from a company that you knew was unsafe? Not Affordable? Abused the environment? Abused its workers?

Hell, I would say that because of the internet, free and true capitalism actually has the best chance now more than ever.

Why do you think the organic industry has gained popularity at the rate it has since the age of instant digital information? What about the craft beer industry?

Back to my original point, the Federal government has (was suppose to) have extremely limited power but because of REGULATION has become very powerful. This regulation has happened through the market and business.

Big business LOVES regulation because the bigger you are, the easier it is to conduct the business.

Do you know how much money I would need to start a car company? A cell phone company? A drug company?

Now with regulation of things like food... what do you think is going to happen? You wont be able to cook in your own house without a license and through "regulation" be forced to buy a permit to BBQ a steak.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Em2013
reply to post by YayMayorBee
 


And competition will exist and people will be able to say one company is better than the other so it's best to follow products that are rated by this company over the other. Right now we just have to accept whatever the government says is acceptable


You really need to get out more. There are plenty of private organizations rating products and services.
Are you aware of these.

www.bbb.org...

www.jdpower.com...://www.consumerreports.org/cro/index.htm


www.consumerreports.org...



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by olaru12
 


Would you ever buy a car without visiting consumer reports? What about hiring a mover without reading its BBB status?

Heard of Yelp?

The consumer when (most of the time) faced at parting with his/hers money (especially in a big way) will do their homework.

This furthers my point that the "need" for the government to protect us from the market it actually hilarious and almost insulting


edit on 11-11-2013 by YayMayorBee because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-11-2013 by YayMayorBee because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by YayMayorBee
 


My only thought is that they are not really very well acquainted with the true inner workings of what it actually takes to bring something to market.

Most reputable companies already carry higher standards than most government entities impose on them except where the current regulatory regime is actually trying to kill the business or the regucrat in question is trying to look useful and creates new standards out of whole cloth just for the heck of it (yes, they can do that).



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
/treply to post by ketsuko
 


The market has succeeded in very small ways (my example was the craft beer industry) AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENS.

Hell, I am drinking Budweiser "black crown" as I type this.

Big companies FORCED to compete with the small guys because the market said "we like craft beer" AND we pay more for it.


edit on 11-11-2013 by YayMayorBee because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   
We've become the great new Rome.

Immorality has to do more nowadays less based on reasoning and feeling and more on doctrine scriptures drafted out by men 2000+ years ago whose society regularly 1. Enslaved people 2. Murdered the 'unrighteous' 3. Had child sacrifices

If you are going to follow the Torah and the 613 Laws of Moses, then go ahead. Don't nit pick and say "Well, we can't do this anymore because it's morally wrong" "But this one is okay since God said so and I think He was right in this instance".

No one should have their rights infringed upon including the religious, the non-religious, the heterosexual, the homosexual, the old, the young, the liberal, and the conservatives.

Problem is is that if you believe in forcing your will and world view upon people that you have no direct contact with (does this sound a bit like being a sociopath?), you're going to have 'degraded moral laws' due to the fact that you will always have opposition in opinion and the majority rules.

Libertarians believe that the people come first and that the government was to be a limited body of SERVICE given to serve the people. In history, we're not the only ones who believed this. For example...

“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.” -- Thomas Jefferson (yeah, THAT guy, the one whose name is synonymous with constitution).

“Occupants of public offices love power and are prone to abuse it.” -- George Washington (The first American President, not the inventor of instant coffee)

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.” -- Ronald Reagan (no smarty pants comments for this one).

I'm sorry you don't like the idea of letting people live their lives with you forcing your will upon them. I'm sorry you can't stand the fact that people are living 'unmorally' even when they are THOUSANDS of miles away from you to the point you feel inclined 'to do something about it.'

I'm a Libertarian. I'm confrontational. And I don't understand the irrational attitude about letting people run their own lives if it doesn't cause detriment to others.


edit on 11-11-2013 by longlostredemption because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by YayMayorBee
 



And the regulation you demand is the reason why half of your paycheck is gone and why the cost of goods and services skyrockets.


If that were true, then my paycheck would be twice what my fathers paycheck was, because business was far more regulated in the time of my father than the current time. Instead, De-regulation has lead to my paycheck being half of my fathers.

"Wal-mart thrives" because the people in China have no rights because they live under a military dictatorship, without any laws that protect the people from abuse, that protect the liberty of the people. Is that your idea of a good life? Not to mention very lopsided trade treaties that greatly favor the international bankers.


Next thing you know, price is not the ONLY driving factor of a good or service, but the quality or the quality of service you receive.


Sorry, but price is driven by supply and demand. When only a few suppliers of the goods and services are in the market, they control supply, and when it comes to things necessary for survival, they control demand as well.


If you sold a product, any product, and a LAW said that product was or service was mandated and paid for by tax payer money; I don't care who you are but you would charge 10 times the value and not give a crap about quality of the product as long as it met the lowest possible qualifications of the mandate because the LAW is the only thing you have to appease opposed to a consumer with money to spend.


And the same problem exists with monopolies.

It all goes back to this fantasy.


Imagine if you had all or almost all of your pay check and could demand with your spending habits how companies should conduct themselves.


Our spending habits have absolutely no control over how companies conduct themselves. We have no way of knowing how companies conduct themselves, we are too busy having our lives completely dictated by those same companies in this current world.



Once again, if the market demands safety of their food then PRIVATE services will provide the means to test food and the market will adjust.


No it does not. Private corporations did not start testing food until political pressure created laws forcing those companies meet FDA requirements. That you claim different proves that you are completely ignorant of history.


Being said if you have limited government, the influence a company and its money would have on the government itself would be null and vice versa. A company could not "buy" a politician because the politician would simply not have the authority. A politician could not tax one product to sway a consumer to buy something or outlaw another product.


Sorry, but this is idealistically nonsense. The corporation would then bypass the government, and do what they want to do. The corporation takes what it wants to take, and nothing can stop it, because government is to weak to defend the liberties of the people. The entire reason the U.S. government was formed is to protect the rights of citizens from corporations.

You really need to read some history. Look at the typical economic model of the third world.

There are plenty of countries controlled by the super rich, and no one wants to live there.

This idealistic fantasy that markets can self regulate, and force business to act morally is pure drivel.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 



Most reputable companies already carry higher standards than most government entities impose on them


Please name those companies, because my experience is just the opposite.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by longlostredemption
 


Don't forget that a corporation is a form of government.

Then you will know what TJ was talking about.


edit on 12-11-2013 by poet1b because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 06:23 AM
link   

olaru12

Em2013
reply to post by YayMayorBee
 


And competition will exist and people will be able to say one company is better than the other so it's best to follow products that are rated by this company over the other. Right now we just have to accept whatever the government says is acceptable


You really need to get out more. There are plenty of private organizations rating products and services.
Are you aware of these.

www.bbb.org...

www.jdpower.com...://www.consumerreports.org/cro/index.htm


www.consumerreports.org...


You didn't understand what I was saying at all. I was saying we have to abide by the FDA which is not at all privatized. If they say it's okay then we have to accept it. I'm also very well aware of those three scams, I would not rely on those worth anything.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 





Our spending habits have absolutely no control over how companies conduct themselves. We have no way of knowing how companies conduct themselves, we are too busy having our lives completely dictated by those same companies in this current world.



LOL

Your entire rebuttal is basically one big dodge of personal responsibility.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Sorry, worth more than my job or my husband's job to name where we work or have worked in the past.

In general, neither of us would work for any place that we feel would intentionally bilk their customers, and at the level and type of job he works at, he is certainly in a position to know how his company comports itself.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


this post should be posted in the rant section. it seems very bias and pretty ignorant on the views of other people. you should do some research before you go putting words in other peoples mouths.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by YayMayorBee
 


I absolutely agree with you on the tenth-also a conservative/tea party point.

Yet my point is there is lots of issues the tenth doesn't cover.

For example, the ignoring of existing laws, immigration laws and the like. The there's selective enforcement like the federal obstruction of justice codes, selectively applied to political targets but ignored when it comes to "safe Havens" and failure to turn convicted felons to I.C.E.. That surely qualifies as obstruction of justice.

Pork barrel monies to states, Lobbyist monies, The Fed...the list is long and distinguished. None of which are particularly Constitutional issues that I know of anyways.

Even those items that would fix with 10th amendment enforcement are symptoms of the moral decline. The tenth never would have gone out of style without a bunch of crooks behind it. Yes?

Look, All I'm saying is it isn't just the constitution, it's people of good will, some of their own accord, some fearing the consequences of violating the Constitution because people who care, watch and react.

Therefore, a moral group has a better chance of survival than a live and let live mentality. The latter sounds good, but sooner or later we get what we have now. Not enough people willing to do the dirty work of watching and addressing those that get out of line.

Liabilities with moral codes? OF COURSE!!

But from what I've experienced, far less than no code of an outright lip-service to one.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join