What do you guys think about Rand Paul?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
He's been on the news quite a lot these days. He's is the republican nominee for the Senate seat in Kentucky. He's the son of Ron Paul and has similar political views. He has said he would repeal the Civil Rights laws of 1965 that made it illegal for restaurants and other businesses discriminate based on race. He says that the government should have no business in deciding who businesses should or should not serve. Thoughts?gsu91
Actually, I don't believe he said he'd repeal the Civil Rights law. He said he disagreed with one of the ten main points of the law. He has said some things regarding regulatory powers and private enterprise that I do find profoundly disurbing though. He follows the usual Libertarian creed of selfishness and narcisism and truly believes, despite all the recent evidence, that a market unregulated by government will be a just, fair, and open one. It's idiotic. He seems to think that BP should be able to regulate and investigate themselves and would never, ever lie about or fudge numbers on something like a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
[QUOTE="gsu91"]He's been on the news quite a lot these days. He's is the republican nominee for the Senate seat in Kentucky. He's the son of Ron Paul and has similar political views. He has said he would repeal the Civil Rights laws of 1965 that made it illegal for restaurants and other businesses discriminate based on race. He says that the government should have no business in deciding who businesses should or should not serve. Thoughts?bogaty
Actually, I don't believe he said he'd repeal the Civil Rights law. He said he disagreed with one of the ten main points of the law. He has said some things regarding regulatory powers and private enterprise that I do find profoundly disurbing though. He follows the usual Libertarian creed of selfishness and narcisism and truly believes, despite all the recent evidence, that a market unregulated by government will be a just, fair, and open one. It's idiotic. He seems to think that BP should be able to regulate and investigate themselves and would never, ever lie about or fudge numbers on something like a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
He also wants to get to rid of all government subsidies. Except those to doctors. Because, you know, he's a doctor and he gets money from that.He defends BP right? That's enough of a reason to dislike him right there.
He's been on the news quite a lot these days. He's is the republican nominee for the Senate seat in Kentucky. He's the son of Ron Paul and has similar political views. He has said he would repeal the Civil Rights laws of 1965 that made it illegal for restaurants and other businesses discriminate based on race. He says that the government should have no business in deciding who businesses should or should not serve. Thoughts?gsu91As ideologically sound as his statements were, some things you just don't say. If you want to make libertarianism more mainstream, criticizing civil rights legislation is certainly something one should avoid doing.
I'm pretty sure he will win the election in Kentucky in Novembergsu91He's a hypocrite when it comes to Medicare. He holds politically toxic views on the Civil Rights Act. Tea Party gains have not been strong at all, either.
The problem that I have with Rand Paul, and more broadly, the problem that I have with the American libertarian movement, or at least what is considered to be the American libertarian movement, is that people like Dr. Paul are completely indifferent to private authoritarianism, and they sometimes even go so far to protect said authoritarianism (like with Paul defending the practice of segregated restaurants), and because of that I can never see myself supporting people like him in an election.
Isn't Private Authoritarianism an oxymoron? The Government has a monopoly on force or at least it shouldgsu91It should. However, Libertarianism is anti-government. It's idealistic result would be total freedom of the individual. However, the the actual result is a private individual using his power to control other people, creating 'private authoritarianism.' Libertarianism ends up creating what it set out to destroy.
I think your mistaking libertarianism for anarchism, libertarians assert that the government should protect individual rights and that it should provide for the common defensegsu91
Yet they refuse to believe that an individual has any rights when they are up against corporate malfeasance. "You bought a can of salmon contaminated with botulism? Tough break pal! Should've been more circumspect in your selection. What's that? Your wife and kid died? Well, not to worry, once the word gets out, I'm sure the fish companies stock value will tumble..."
Isn't Private Authoritarianism an oxymoron? The Government has a monopoly on force or at least it shouldgsu91How is it an oxymoron? Private entities can and do enact authoritarian policies all the time, and these policies are protected either by said entity's private police or by the government as long as the policy in question is in compliance with the law.
I think he should not be allowed within a thousand yards of any govt building, nevermind working in one.
[QUOTE="gsu91"]I think your mistaking libertarianism for anarchism, libertarians assert that the government should protect individual rights and that it should provide for the common defensebogaty
Yet they refuse to believe that an individual has any rights when they are up against corporate malfeasance. "You bought a can of salmon contaminated with botulism? Tough break pal! Should've been more circumspect in your selection. What's that? Your wife and kid died? Well, not to worry, once the word gets out, I'm sure the fish companies stock value will tumble..."
Well I can't speak for All libertarians but I believe that civil suits should be used against corporate malfeasance[QUOTE="gsu91"]Isn't Private Authoritarianism an oxymoron? The Government has a monopoly on force or at least it should-Sun_Tzu-How is it an oxymoron? Private entities can and do enact authoritarian policies all the time, and these policies are protected either by said entity's private police or by the government as long as the policy in question is in compliance with the law. Example? And if its in compliance with the law whats the problem?
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="gsu91"]Isn't Private Authoritarianism an oxymoron? The Government has a monopoly on force or at least it shouldgsu91How is it an oxymoron? Private entities can and do enact authoritarian policies all the time, and these policies are protected either by said entity's private police or by the government as long as the policy in question is in compliance with the law. Example? And if its in compliance with the law whats the problem? Laws can be authoritarian. An example would be corporate arbitration for issues dealing with individual people. It is always on the corporation's side and is allowable under the law. Is it authoritarian? Yes.
[QUOTE="gsu91"]He's been on the news quite a lot these days. He's is the republican nominee for the Senate seat in Kentucky. He's the son of Ron Paul and has similar political views. He has said he would repeal the Civil Rights laws of 1965 that made it illegal for restaurants and other businesses discriminate based on race. He says that the government should have no business in deciding who businesses should or should not serve. Thoughts?bogaty
Actually, I don't believe he said he'd repeal the Civil Rights law. He said he disagreed with one of the ten main points of the law. He has said some things regarding regulatory powers and private enterprise that I do find profoundly disurbing though. He follows the usual Libertarian creed of selfishness and narcisism and truly believes, despite all the recent evidence, that a market unregulated by government will be a just, fair, and open one. It's idiotic. He seems to think that BP should be able to regulate and investigate themselves and would never, ever lie about or fudge numbers on something like a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Libertarian's do not follow a creed of narcissism and selfishness. Lets try to not purposely slander a party we do not agree with.
And I would love to hear what you mean by "recent evidence".
[QUOTE="bogaty"][QUOTE="gsu91"]I think your mistaking libertarianism for anarchism, libertarians assert that the government should protect individual rights and that it should provide for the common defensegsu91
Yet they refuse to believe that an individual has any rights when they are up against corporate malfeasance. "You bought a can of salmon contaminated with botulism? Tough break pal! Should've been more circumspect in your selection. What's that? Your wife and kid died? Well, not to worry, once the word gets out, I'm sure the fish companies stock value will tumble..."
Well I can't speak for All libertarians but I believe that civil suits should be used against corporate malfeasanceDoesn't do much good for tose who are killed or permanently maimed because of a lack of regulation and oversight. Not to mention the conditions workers would be forced to toil under. It'd be like a return to the sweat shops of the Victorian era (or present day China). Proactive policies of regulation and enforcement are what's needed in rein in the excesses of corporate greed. Not reactive things such as civil suits.
We need to bring back strong, independently run regulatory bodies AND enforce those rules. Sadly, the "free market" idiots still hold sway and we're still heading the other direction.
Well I can't speak for All libertarians but I believe that civil suits should be used against corporate malfeasance[QUOTE="gsu91"][QUOTE="bogaty"]
Yet they refuse to believe that an individual has any rights when they are up against corporate malfeasance. "You bought a can of salmon contaminated with botulism? Tough break pal! Should've been more circumspect in your selection. What's that? Your wife and kid died? Well, not to worry, once the word gets out, I'm sure the fish companies stock value will tumble..."
bogaty
Doesn't do much good for tose who are killed or permanently maimed because of a lack of regulation and oversight. Not to mention the conditions workers would be forced to toil under. It'd be like a return to the sweat shops of the Victorian era (or present day China). Proactive policies of regulation and enforcement are what's needed in rein in the excesses of corporate greed. Not reactive things such as civil suits.
We need to bring back strong, independently run regulatory bodies AND enforce those rules. Sadly, the "free market" idiots still hold sway and we're still heading the other direction.
Those regulatory bodies made the economy stagnate the last time they were in full force
[QUOTE="bogaty"][QUOTE="gsu91"] Well I can't speak for All libertarians but I believe that civil suits should be used against corporate malfeasance gsu91
Doesn't do much good for tose who are killed or permanently maimed because of a lack of regulation and oversight. Not to mention the conditions workers would be forced to toil under. It'd be like a return to the sweat shops of the Victorian era (or present day China). Proactive policies of regulation and enforcement are what's needed in rein in the excesses of corporate greed. Not reactive things such as civil suits.
We need to bring back strong, independently run regulatory bodies AND enforce those rules. Sadly, the "free market" idiots still hold sway and we're still heading the other direction.
Those regulatory bodies made the economy stagnate the last time they were in full force Oh, you mean made it grow? I guess you forgot about the Democratic president, whose party platform is Social-Democratic, created a surplus. The economy definitely didn't crash during a period of deregulation and tax cutting. :|[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="gsu91"]Isn't Private Authoritarianism an oxymoron? The Government has a monopoly on force or at least it shouldgsu91How is it an oxymoron? Private entities can and do enact authoritarian policies all the time, and these policies are protected either by said entity's private police or by the government as long as the policy in question is in compliance with the law. Example? And if its in compliance with the law whats the problem? During Jim Crow, if a black man went to a Whites only restaurant, and the owner told him to leave and the black man didn't listen to him, the owner could easily have him removed by just calling the police. And just because something is legal doesn't mean there isn't a problem with it. For almost a hundred years it was legal to own slaves (slavery is also another form of private authoritarianism), and yet there is a clear problem with slavery, even though at the time the practice was harmonious with the law.
[QUOTE="xTheExploited"]The guys a moron. gsu91He's a doctor so I dont think you can call him a moron Just because you're intelligent doesn't mean you're a moron who lacks common sense.
[QUOTE="bogaty"]
[QUOTE="gsu91"]He's been on the news quite a lot these days. He's is the republican nominee for the Senate seat in Kentucky. He's the son of Ron Paul and has similar political views. He has said he would repeal the Civil Rights laws of 1965 that made it illegal for restaurants and other businesses discriminate based on race. He says that the government should have no business in deciding who businesses should or should not serve. Thoughts?limpbizkit818
Actually, I don't believe he said he'd repeal the Civil Rights law. He said he disagreed with one of the ten main points of the law. He has said some things regarding regulatory powers and private enterprise that I do find profoundly disurbing though. He follows the usual Libertarian creed of selfishness and narcisism and truly believes, despite all the recent evidence, that a market unregulated by government will be a just, fair, and open one. It's idiotic. He seems to think that BP should be able to regulate and investigate themselves and would never, ever lie about or fudge numbers on something like a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Libertarian's do not follow a creed of narcissism and selfishness. Lets try to not purposely slander a party we do not agree with.
And I would love to hear what you mean by "recent evidence".
Selfishness and narcissism are exactly the credo of the libertarian movement. Hell, they're the central themes of all of Ayn Rand's books, which the movement is based upon!
As for recent evidence. Where to start? Well, we were forced to bail out a bunch of private investment banks becasue a bunch of idiot legislators we bought off and repealed Glass-Steagall. Crooks like Greenspan claimed that self-regulation was the way to go. What we got was collusion, cronyism, lies, and outright theft.
Same thing in the mining industry. Removal of independently run regulatory agencies and mining accidents and fatalities are through the roof.
Letting BP carry out their own inspections and safety audits certainly seems to have worked out well, too.
This is what scares me. Kentucky holds a lot of clout in the Senate.Kentucky are state is small, but our senators are big news (look at McConnell, he is the most powerful Republican senator)
For those interested he is leading polls by quite a lot.
I don't honestly know what to think of Rand Paul.
dercoo
Well I can't speak for All libertarians but I believe that civil suits should be used against corporate malfeasance[QUOTE="gsu91"][QUOTE="bogaty"]
Yet they refuse to believe that an individual has any rights when they are up against corporate malfeasance. "You bought a can of salmon contaminated with botulism? Tough break pal! Should've been more circumspect in your selection. What's that? Your wife and kid died? Well, not to worry, once the word gets out, I'm sure the fish companies stock value will tumble..."
bogaty
Doesn't do much good for tose who are killed or permanently maimed because of a lack of regulation and oversight. Not to mention the conditions workers would be forced to toil under. It'd be like a return to the sweat shops of the Victorian era (or present day China). Proactive policies of regulation and enforcement are what's needed in rein in the excesses of corporate greed. Not reactive things such as civil suits.
We need to bring back strong, independently run regulatory bodies AND enforce those rules. Sadly, the "free market" idiots still hold sway and we're still heading the other direction.
First off, E. Coli outbreaks and madcow disease are recent examples of a companies distributing dangerous food to costumers. Even in a regulated market this stuff happens. To somehow implied that these events would increase in a free market, or that Libertines don't care if others die, is absurd
As for your comment on workers: I am not sure what to say. Implementing Libertarian policies would not return the country to the early 1900's. I honestly believe that you need to read a few books about the Libertarian movement and the free market. I am not trying to be a jerk, but what you are saying here makes no sense.
"private" and "authoritarianism" are mutually exclusive terms. "authoritarianism" denotes a state which has lots of authority over teh lives of its subjects. "Private" denotes an enterprise independent of the state, usually relying on voluntary exchange between parties. Aside from the bona-fide mafia, there are no private tyrannies. You're free to associate and dissociate yourself with privatecompanies as you please. Comparing restaurants or businessesthat choose not to serve ethnic minorities to actual authoritarian regimes like those of the USSR, or various marxist and fascist governments around the world is incredibly offensive and insensitive to the people who really live under such regimes.The problem that I have with Rand Paul, and more broadly, the problem that I have with the American libertarian movement, or at least what is considered to be the American libertarian movement, is that people like Dr. Paul are completely indifferent to private authoritarianism, and they sometimes even go so far to protect said authoritarianism (like with Paul defending the practice of segregated restaurants), and because of that I can never see myself supporting people like him in an election.
-Sun_Tzu-
[QUOTE="gsu91"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] How is it an oxymoron? Private entities can and do enact authoritarian policies all the time, and these policies are protected either by said entity's private police or by the government as long as the policy in question is in compliance with the law. -Sun_Tzu-Example? And if its in compliance with the law whats the problem? During Jim Crow, if a black man went to a Whites only restaurant, and the owner told him to leave and the black man didn't listen to him, the owner could easily have him removed by just calling the police. And just because something is legal doesn't mean there isn't a problem with it. For almost a hundred years it was legal to own slaves (slavery is also another form of private authoritarianism), and yet there is a clear problem with slavery, even though at the time the practice was harmonious with the law. Slavery is NOT a private tyranny. It does NOT rely on voluntary exchanges, agreements, or negotiations between free parties. Slavery is an INSTITUTION created by the State. Even the south recognized this. A Missouri district court recognized this in the Dred Scott case.
[QUOTE="dercoo"]This is what scares me. Kentucky holds a lot of clout in the Senate.Kentucky are state is small, but our senators are big news (look at McConnell, he is the most powerful Republican senator)
For those interested he is leading polls by quite a lot.
I don't honestly know what to think of Rand Paul.
DMAngara90
We have a good presidential track record.;)
Though as Kentucky is between a Midwest and southern state we can represent the interest of multiple regions.
During Jim Crow, if a black man went to a Whites only restaurant, and the owner told him to leave and the black man didn't listen to him, the owner could easily have him removed by just calling the police. And just because something is legal doesn't mean there isn't a problem with it. For almost a hundred years it was legal to own slaves (slavery is also another form of private authoritarianism), and yet there is a clear problem with slavery, even though at the time the practice was harmonious with the law. Slavery is NOT a private tyranny. It does NOT rely on voluntary exchanges, agreements, or negotiations between free parties. Slavery is an INSTITUTION created by the State. Even the south recognized this. A Missouri district court recognized this in the Dred Scott case. Yup, there is no slavery in Man's Natural state[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="gsu91"] Example? And if its in compliance with the law whats the problem?fatamericandude
I never stated what I think of Rand Paul, silly me.
I think he's a real breath of fresh air. It's nice to see that a principled limited-government libertarian might occupy a seat in teh Senate which is dominated by Statists from the left and the "right"
I think this reveals one important thing about American politics, and especially the election of Barack Obama. Americans voted for Barack Obama and teh democrats in 2008 because they simply wanted to do away with Bush's failed policies. They were not spurning the center-right ideal of limited government.
Now about the Civil Rights act, I fully agree with Rand Paul's assessment. It violates private property rights and the right to freedom of association of the owners of businesses. If ethnic minorities don't like that, then they should follow S.B. Fuller's example and start businesses of their own which cater to minorities, or start their own de-segregated businesses. The State, much less the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, has no business dealing with whom private enterprises choose to serve.
[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]
[QUOTE="bogaty"]
Actually, I don't believe he said he'd repeal the Civil Rights law. He said he disagreed with one of the ten main points of the law. He has said some things regarding regulatory powers and private enterprise that I do find profoundly disurbing though. He follows the usual Libertarian creed of selfishness and narcisism and truly believes, despite all the recent evidence, that a market unregulated by government will be a just, fair, and open one. It's idiotic. He seems to think that BP should be able to regulate and investigate themselves and would never, ever lie about or fudge numbers on something like a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
bogaty
Libertarian's do not follow a creed of narcissism and selfishness. Lets try to not purposely slander a party we do not agree with.
And I would love to hear what you mean by "recent evidence".
Selfishness and narcissism are exactly the credo of the libertarian movement. Hell, they're the central themes of all of Ayn Rand's books, which the movement is based upon!
As for recent evidence. Where to start? Well, we were forced to bail out a bunch of private investment banks becasue a bunch of idiot legislators we bought off and repealed Glass-Steagall. Crooks like Greenspan claimed that self-regulation was the way to go. What we got was collusion, cronyism, lies, and outright theft.
Same thing in the mining industry. Removal of independently run regulatory agencies and mining accidents and fatalities are through the roof.
Letting BP carry out their own inspections and safety audits certainly seems to have worked out well, too.
BP's CEO has spent millions trying to avoid accidents. Do you think BP LIKES losing millions of barrels of oil instead of refining it and selling it? You think they LIKE having to pay billions to clean up the mess and compensate those who suffered from this accident? At least if BP suffers, someone's gonna get fired. You think regulators ever lose their jobs when tehy screw up? You think ANYONE at teh SEC or FTC or Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac will lose their jobs because of teh financial crisis? HELLZ NO!"private" and "authoritarianism" are mutually exclusive terms. "authoritarianism" denotes a state which has lots of authority over teh lives of its subjects. "Private" denotes an enterprise independent of the state, usually relying on voluntary exchange between parties. Aside from the bona-fide mafia, there are no private tyrannies. You're free to associate and dissociate yourself with privatecompanies as you please. Comparing restaurants or businessesthat choose not to serve ethnic minorities to actual authoritarian regimes like those of the USSR, or various marxist and fascist governments around the world is incredibly offensive and insensitive to the people who really live under such regimes. Not once have I compared any private business to the USSR or any other brutal, oppressive state. Moreover, while authoritarianism is most commonly used to describe states, that doesn't make "private" and "authoritarianism" mutually exclusive terms. There is nothing about the definition of authoritarianism that makes it inherently contradictory to the practices of private entities. Private businesses can and do wield tons of authority over the lives of their subjects, their subjects being their employees and even their potential customers.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]
The problem that I have with Rand Paul, and more broadly, the problem that I have with the American libertarian movement, or at least what is considered to be the American libertarian movement, is that people like Dr. Paul are completely indifferent to private authoritarianism, and they sometimes even go so far to protect said authoritarianism (like with Paul defending the practice of segregated restaurants), and because of that I can never see myself supporting people like him in an election.
fatamericandude
Not once have I compared any private business to the USSR or any other brutal, oppressive state. -Sun_Tzu-
Of course you are! You're smuggling in the word "authoritarian", you're comparing private and public authoritarianism.
Moreover, while authoritarianism is most commonly used to describe states, that doesn't make "private" and "authoritarianism" mutually exclusive terms. -Sun_Tzu-
Language is all an inter-subjective consensus. The inter-subjective consensus is, as you admit, that "authoritarianism"="State"
There is nothing about the definition of authoritarianism that makes it inherently contradictory to the practices of private entities. Private businesses can and do wield tons of authority over the lives of their subjects, their subjects being their employees and even their potential customers. -Sun_Tzu-Now you're just using a broad, uncommon,and trivial definition of "authority". I mean, we could just as easily call influence "authority".
[QUOTE="bogaty"]
[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]
Libertarian's do not follow a creed of narcissism and selfishness. Lets try to not purposely slander a party we do not agree with.
And I would love to hear what you mean by "recent evidence".
fatamericandude
Selfishness and narcissism are exactly the credo of the libertarian movement. Hell, they're the central themes of all of Ayn Rand's books, which the movement is based upon!
As for recent evidence. Where to start? Well, we were forced to bail out a bunch of private investment banks becasue a bunch of idiot legislators we bought off and repealed Glass-Steagall. Crooks like Greenspan claimed that self-regulation was the way to go. What we got was collusion, cronyism, lies, and outright theft.
Same thing in the mining industry. Removal of independently run regulatory agencies and mining accidents and fatalities are through the roof.
Letting BP carry out their own inspections and safety audits certainly seems to have worked out well, too.
BP's CEO has spent millions trying to avoid accidents. Do you think BP LIKES losing millions of barrels of oil instead of refining it and selling it? You think they LIKE having to pay billions to clean up the mess and compensate those who suffered from this accident? At least if BP suffers, someone's gonna get fired. You think regulators ever lose their jobs when tehy screw up? You think ANYONE at teh SEC or FTC or Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac will lose their jobs because of teh financial crisis? HELLZ NO! Plus they will up to their necks with law suits, and I assure you they will try their hardest to avoid this accident again. Losing money is a better motivation than any regulation the government can impose on them[QUOTE="bogaty"]
[QUOTE="gsu91"] Well I can't speak for All libertarians but I believe that civil suits should be used against corporate malfeasance limpbizkit818
Doesn't do much good for tose who are killed or permanently maimed because of a lack of regulation and oversight. Not to mention the conditions workers would be forced to toil under. It'd be like a return to the sweat shops of the Victorian era (or present day China). Proactive policies of regulation and enforcement are what's needed in rein in the excesses of corporate greed. Not reactive things such as civil suits.
We need to bring back strong, independently run regulatory bodies AND enforce those rules. Sadly, the "free market" idiots still hold sway and we're still heading the other direction.
First off, E. Coli outbreaks and madcow disease are recent examples of a companies distributing dangerous food to costumers. Even in a regulated market this stuff happens. To somehow implied that these events would increase in a free market, or that Libertines don't care if others die, is absurd
As for your comment on workers: I am not sure what to say. Implementing Libertarian policies would not return the country to the early 1900's. I honestly believe that you need to read a few books about the Libertarian movement and the free market. I am not trying to be a jerk, but what you are saying here makes no sense.
If what I'm saying makes no sense, then perhaps you'd best do some reading yourself. A good place to start would be The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair which exposed the corruption and unsafe practices in the meat packing industry. It led to the Meat Inspection Act of 1906 which saw a decrease in gastro-intestinal illnesses of over 80%.
You might also want to look into the history of areas which adopted proto-Libertarian economic ideals such as Singapore under Raffles and Farquhar in the 1820s or Pullman, Il in the 1890s.
You might also give The Shock Doctrine a read. It highlights many of the failures and injustices done under the guise of liberarianism and "free" trade from the 1950s to present day.
The idea behind Libertarianism is as fundamentally flawed as Communism is because both philosophies are based on the idea that human beings, when left to their own devices, will behave in a rational manner. It's clearly not the case. In the case of libertarianism, the idea of the freedom of the individual and the freedom of the market will, in all cases, lead to a system of monopoly with the most ruthless and corrupt gaining ascendancy. You end up with a system that resembles something more like the mafia or a failed state run by petty warlords.
During Jim Crow, if a black man went to a Whites only restaurant, and the owner told him to leave and the black man didn't listen to him, the owner could easily have him removed by just calling the police. And just because something is legal doesn't mean there isn't a problem with it. For almost a hundred years it was legal to own slaves (slavery is also another form of private authoritarianism), and yet there is a clear problem with slavery, even though at the time the practice was harmonious with the law. Slavery is NOT a private tyranny. It does NOT rely on voluntary exchanges, agreements, or negotiations between free parties. Slavery is an INSTITUTION created by the State. Even the south recognized this. A Missouri district court recognized this in the Dred Scott case.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="gsu91"] Example? And if its in compliance with the law whats the problem?fatamericandude
OK, and what about cases such as indebtured servitude whereby a poor person illegal thrown off the commons during the Enclosure Acts in Scotland and Ireland agreed to sell themselves into virtual slavery in exchange for passage to the Americas? That was a "volutary" act brought about by desperation. These people agreed to work for a period of 7 years in order to pay off their passage. Once they arrived, they were turned into serfs or slaves and forced to continue working well past the agreed upon 7 years as the person who foot the bill for the passage decided to extend the service period required, in violation of the contract, by adding on the costs of everything from water to tools used by the worker on the job. That was a private institution and conducting this system and the worker had no right of redress and no recourse under rule of law. Those that did run were hunted and flogged or hung by privately run police forces.
Slavery is NOT a private tyranny. It does NOT rely on voluntary exchanges, agreements, or negotiations between free parties. Slavery is an INSTITUTION created by the State. Even the south recognized this. A Missouri district court recognized this in the Dred Scott case.[QUOTE="fatamericandude"]
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] During Jim Crow, if a black man went to a Whites only restaurant, and the owner told him to leave and the black man didn't listen to him, the owner could easily have him removed by just calling the police. And just because something is legal doesn't mean there isn't a problem with it. For almost a hundred years it was legal to own slaves (slavery is also another form of private authoritarianism), and yet there is a clear problem with slavery, even though at the time the practice was harmonious with the law. bogaty
OK, and what about cases such as indebtured servitude whereby a poor person illegal thrown off the commons during the Enclosure Acts in Scotland and Ireland agreed to sell themselves into virtual slavery in exchange for passage to the Americas? That was a "volutary" act brought about by desperation. These people agreed to work for a period of 7 years in order to pay off their passage. Once they arrived, they were turned into serfs or slaves and forced to continue working well past the agreed upon 7 years as the person who foot the bill for the passage decided to extend the service period required, in violation of the contract, by adding on the costs of everything from water to tools used by the worker on the job. That was a private institution and conducting this system and the worker had no right of redress and no recourse under rule of law. Those that did run were hunted and flogged or hung by privately run police forces.
agreeing to work for7 years in exchange for something is volutnary. but you're talking about a private institution behaving like a state, er I mean a mafia, in forcing people to work for them beyond teh 7 years[QUOTE="bogaty"]
[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]
Libertarian's do not follow a creed of narcissism and selfishness. Lets try to not purposely slander a party we do not agree with.
And I would love to hear what you mean by "recent evidence".
fatamericandude
Selfishness and narcissism are exactly the credo of the libertarian movement. Hell, they're the central themes of all of Ayn Rand's books, which the movement is based upon!
As for recent evidence. Where to start? Well, we were forced to bail out a bunch of private investment banks becasue a bunch of idiot legislators we bought off and repealed Glass-Steagall. Crooks like Greenspan claimed that self-regulation was the way to go. What we got was collusion, cronyism, lies, and outright theft.
Same thing in the mining industry. Removal of independently run regulatory agencies and mining accidents and fatalities are through the roof.
Letting BP carry out their own inspections and safety audits certainly seems to have worked out well, too.
BP's CEO has spent millions trying to avoid accidents. Do you think BP LIKES losing millions of barrels of oil instead of refining it and selling it? You think they LIKE having to pay billions to clean up the mess and compensate those who suffered from this accident? At least if BP suffers, someone's gonna get fired. You think regulators ever lose their jobs when tehy screw up? You think ANYONE at teh SEC or FTC or Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac will lose their jobs because of teh financial crisis? HELLZ NO!No, they hire comptrollers to examine the cost/benefit analysis of following a regulation or not. If they think they can make more money by ignoring a regulation, they do so. A quick search of various auto manufacturers and their policies regarding recall notices vs. assumed pay outs when things go wrong will turn up tonnes of evidence.
BP is in the business of making money for their shareholders. They spend as little as possible in regards to safety as they can get away with, gambling that nothing will go wrong.
Now that it has, you can see them lowballing the spillage figures, refusing to let NOAA scientists in to do independent investigations, and refusing to do the responsible thing and do whatever it takes to shut down the well as quickly as possible. They're trying half-baked solutions that will allow them to keep the well open in hopes of future profits.
They're lying about the true extent of the spill as their underwritten by insurance companies for such and event, but only to a certain extent. Further, they're lying about the volume of spill in order to limit their liability once the inevitable lawsuits come rolling in. They're doing what all corperations do which is to ensure that as much of the cost for cleanup as is possible will be socialized and borne by the taxpayer while as much of the profit from the well will go into the pockets of a few investors.
Will someone get fired? Sure, some mid level flunkie engineer will be sacrificed but I guarantee that not one single person on the board of directors or one single lobbyist who pushed for a repeal of the regulations that were supposed to prevent this sort of thing from happening will get as much as a slap on the wrist.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment