What do you guys think about Rand Paul?

[QUOTE="bogaty"]

[QUOTE="fatamericandude"] 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.

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.

Which is exactly the end result of a libertarian system of limited government and lassez faire capitalism. Private enterprise becomes the state, but the rule of law never applies to them. It's a fatally flawed system of governance.

[QUOTE="fatamericandude"]

[QUOTE="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.

bogaty

Which is exactly the end result of a libertarian system of limited government and lassez faire capitalism. Private enterprise becomes the state, but the rule of law never applies to them. It's a fatally flawed system of governance.

Of course you are! You're smuggling in the word "authoritarian", you're comparing private and public authoritarianism.fatamericandude

No I'm not. The word "authoritarian" isn't intrinsically tied to countries like the USSR.

Language is all an inter-subjective consensus. The inter-subjective consensus is, as you admit, that "authoritarianism"="State"fatamericandude

I agree that the word connotes an oppressive, dictatorial regime, that's not what it denotes, and I'm challenging the word's connotation. There is no reason why you can't apply the dictionary's definition of authoritarianism to entities separate from the government.

Now you're just using a broad, uncommon,and trivial definition of "authority". I mean, we could just as easily call influence "authority".fatamericandude

I am broadly applying the word authority in a somewhat unorthodox fashion, but my definition is by no means vague, uncommon or trivial. Private businesses have the authority to dictate what you can and cannot wear to work, they dictate your working conditions, and they even can dictate what it is you cannot put in your body. That's a considerable amount of authority held over an individual's life.

[QUOTE="fatamericandude"]

[QUOTE="bogaty"]

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.

bogaty

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.

[QUOTE="bogaty"]

[QUOTE="fatamericandude"] 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

DMAngara90

Which is exactly the end result of a libertarian system of limited government and lassez faire capitalism. Private enterprise becomes the state, but the rule of law never applies to them. It's a fatally flawed system of governance.

[QUOTE="bogaty"]

[QUOTE="fatamericandude"] 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!

fatamericandude

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.

[QUOTE="DMAngara90"][QUOTE="bogaty"]

Which is exactly the end result of a libertarian system of limited government and lassez faire capitalism. Private enterprise becomes the state, but the rule of law never applies to them. It's a fatally flawed system of governance.

fatamericandude

It IS tied to oppressive states, however.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="fatamericandude"]

Language is all an inter-subjective consensus. The inter-subjective consensus is, as you admit, that "authoritarianism"="State"-Sun_Tzu-

I agree that the word connotes an oppressive, dictatorial regime, that's not what it denotes, and I'm challenging the word's connotation. There is no reason why you can't apply the dictionary's definition of authoritarianism to entities separate from the government.

Connotation=Denotation. The meaning of words is all decided by consensus.

[QUOTE="fatamericandude"]Now you're just using a broad, uncommon,and trivial definition of "authority". I mean, we could just as easily call influence "authority".-Sun_Tzu-

I am broadly applying the word authority in a somewhat unorthodox fashion, but my definition is by no means vague, uncommon or trivial.

No, its broad because it can encompass anything like a parent's authority over a child (which nobody seriously questions).

Private businesses have the authority to dictate what you can and cannot wear to work, they dictate your working conditions, and they even can dictate what it is you cannot put in your body. That's a considerable amount of authority held over an individual's life.

[QUOTE="fatamericandude"]

[QUOTE="DMAngara90"] Quote for Truth. A government that is accountable to people is the form of governance in it which all people's rights are protected in the most equal fashion. DMAngara90

[QUOTE="fatamericandude"]

[QUOTE="bogaty"]

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.

DMAngara90

[QUOTE="DMAngara90"][QUOTE="fatamericandude"] Obviously now that the spill has already happened we need to allow impartial investigators assess teh full extent of the damage. But it does not mean that we ought to put the safety of oil rigs in the hands of government regulators. BP could much better prevent another accident of this magnitude. How much money has BP made on this accident? Oh wait, they've already lost billions. It just makes good business sense for BP to invest in safety.

fatamericandude

And the employee can quit those contracts at any time he wills. Granted he might have a harder time making future contracts, but its not like he'll lose any of his liberty, which he WOULD if he tried to secede from the Dominant Mafia, er I mean the State.

fatamericandude

[QUOTE="fatamericandude"]

[QUOTE="bogaty"]

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.

gsu91

[QUOTE="fatamericandude"]

And the employee can quit those contracts at any time he wills. Granted he might have a harder time making future contracts, but its not like he'll lose any of his liberty, which he WOULD if he tried to secede from the Dominant Mafia, er I mean the State.

-Sun_Tzu-

Employee: "Hey boss, I quit"

Employer: "There's the door, dont let it hit you on the way out"

Subject: "Hey government I secede"

Government: *sends in tanks and helicopters*

Remember Waco or Ruby Ridge? There's no comparison

Employee: "Hey boss, I quit"

Employer: "There's the door, dont let it hit you on the way out"

fatamericandude

[QUOTE="fatamericandude"]

Employee: "Hey boss, I quit"

Employer: "There's the door, dont let it hit you on the way out"

Hewkii

The government is better at making corporations honor contracts and they no longer turn a blind eye to violence employers, ever heard of civil suits?gsu91

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="fatamericandude"]

And the employee can quit those contracts at any time he wills. Granted he might have a harder time making future contracts, but its not like he'll lose any of his liberty, which he WOULD if he tried to secede from the Dominant Mafia, er I mean the State.

fatamericandude

Employee: "Hey boss, I quit"

Employer: "There's the door, dont let it hit you on the way out"

Subject: "Hey government I quit. I'm going to found my own community and we will not pay any taxes to you, and at the same time I will not take advantage of any benefits you offer"

Government: *sends in tanks and helicopters*

Remember Waco or Ruby Ridge? There's no comparison

I love how the majority of the people in this thread don't understand Rand Paul's stances on any issues

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="fatamericandude"]

And the employee can quit those contracts at any time he wills. Granted he might have a harder time making future contracts, but its not like he'll lose any of his liberty, which he WOULD if he tried to secede from the Dominant Mafia, er I mean the State.

fatamericandude

Employee: "Hey boss, I quit"

Employer: "There's the door, dont let it hit you on the way out"

Subject: "Hey government I secede"

Government: *sends in tanks and helicopters*

Remember Waco or Ruby Ridge? There's no comparison

Flawed analogy.

An individual cannot secede. They can give up their citizenship and leave however. Besides, you're ignoring the real issue which is, once again, the need for the rule of law and independent regulators to enforce and oversee said law. One need look no further than the treatment of illegals or even minimum wage peons at places like Wal-Mart. They're regularly forced to work unpaid hours, have pay deferred, have hours cut just enough to ensure that they don't get access to a benefits package, or any other myriad offenses.

Shame that corporations have bought off unethical legislators to subvert the rule of law in order to allow said corporations to hire illegals, avoid taxation, steal benefits and pensions, and bust unions.

I love how the majority of the people in this thread don't understand Rand Paul's stances on any issues

stupid4

I love how the majority of the people in this thread don't understand Rand Paul's stances on any issues

Which would protect the individual from being terminated before birth. fidosim

[QUOTE="fidosim"]Which would protect the individual from being terminated before birth. Hewkii

Accidents happen, it sucks but it happens. BP regrets it happening get over itgsu91

a fetus didn't choose to be in the womb, but in most cases the pregnant woman made the choice to have sex.matthayter700

[QUOTE="fidosim"]Which would protect the individual from being terminated before birth. Hewkii

[QUOTE="matthayter700"]a fetus didn't choose to be in the womb, but in most cases the pregnant woman made the choice to have sex.Hewkii

[QUOTE="Hewkii"][QUOTE="fidosim"]Which would protect the individual from being terminated before birth. PannicAtack

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Hewkii"] well yeah, that position makes sense if you don't value the individual rights of the woman.matthayter700

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Hewkii"] well yeah, that position makes sense if you don't value the individual rights of the woman.matthayter700

[QUOTE="fidosim"]Which would protect the individual from being terminated before birth. Hewkii

Oh my God. Please tell me you know who Thomas Hobbes is.Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Oh my God. Please tell me you know who Thomas Hobbes is.fidosim

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Oh my God. Please tell me you know who Thomas Hobbes is.fidosim

No!!!Theokhoth

People don't have the right to infringe on the rights of others, so disalowing abortion with the idea that the fetus is a human life doesn't infringe on the woman's rights any more than disallowing me from deciding life or death for someone else infringes on mine. fidosim

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]

[QUOTE="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.

bogaty

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.

What will I learn from reading those books? Nothing. You're the one that fails to understand the basic principles behind the Libertarian movement while at the same time make outlandish clams about said movement. What will The Jungle teach me? What does that have to do with what I said? Corruption and malpractice are going to happen in any type of economic system. You still have poorly run industries in a modern, state regulated economy. Sweat shops exist in developingnations. People work in them because it's best that is available. Would you rather work on a farm or in a factory? Live in poverty and collect trash from a dump or work in a factory? Sweatshops do not create poverty and they would not see a resurgence in the US if the market was de-regulated.

I have only read about half of The Shock Doctrine: its a well written piece sensational rhetoric. "shock capitalism" is not on some type of rise. It has not started with the neo-con movement. How did FDR get the new deal passed? According toNaomi Klein's logic, the shock of the Great Depression was used by FDR as a tool to get hispolicies through. Of course there is little criticism of the left in the book, Naomi would rather attack Milton Friedman (one of the great Economic minds of the 20th Century) for wanting to re-organize the education system in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. Why is this a bad thing exactly? Why is using this disaster as a stepping stone bad? Apparently it just is.

Again, most Libertarians do not want to abolish the government. There is a clear and important role for the federal government.

In a true free market, monopolies are not common (I am not sure how you are linking freedom of individuals to monopolies). The United States will not turn into a failed state run by warlords. I am a Libertarian because I believe that maximizing economic and political freedom in the United States is the best direction that we can go in. It offers the best chance for everyone to succeed. I am not saying that people are perfect, this is NOT Objectivism. No system is perfect, but to Libertarians, the free market is the best solution.

however, there are situations that you can decide life and death for someone, often because your rights were infringed.Hewkii

[QUOTE="matthayter700"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"] I think this might be what Hobbes was talking about >_>Theokhoth

he's a "pro individual rights" Libertarianbelieves that abortion should be banned in all circumstances.Hewkii

[QUOTE="bogaty"]

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]

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.

limpbizkit818

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.

What will I learn from reading those books? Nothing. You're the one that fails to understand the basic principles behind the Libertarian movement while at the same time make outlandish clams about said movement. What will The Jungle teach me? What does that have to do with what I said? Corruption and malpractice are going to happen in any type of economic system. You still have poorly run industries in a modern, state regulated economy. Sweat shops exist in developingnations. People work in them because it's best that is available. Would you rather work on a farm or in a factory? Live in poverty and collect trash from a dump or work in a factory? Sweatshops do not create poverty and they would not see a resurgence in the US if the market was de-regulated.

I have only read about half of The Shock Doctrine: its a well written piece sensational rhetoric. "shock capitalism" is not on some type of rise. It has not started with the neo-con movement. How did FDR get the new deal passed? According toNaomi Klein's logic, the shock of the Great Depression was used by FDR as a tool to get hispolicies through. Of course there is little criticism of the left in the book, Naomi would rather attack Milton Friedman (one of the great Economic minds of the 20th Century) for wanting to re-organize the education system in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. Why is this a bad thing exactly? Why is using this disaster as a stepping stone bad? Apparently it just is.

Again, most Libertarians do not want to abolish the government. There is a clear and important role for the federal government.

In a true free market, monopolies are not common (I am not sure how you are linking freedom of individuals to monopolies). The United States will not turn into a failed state run by warlords. I am a Libertarian because I believe that maximizing economic and political freedom in the United States is the best direction that we can go in. It offers the best chance for everyone to succeed. I am not saying that people are perfect, this is NOT Objectivism. No system is perfect, but to Libertarians, the free market is the best solution.

Yup, there will always be corruption in any system, but it's certainly possible to limit it through the use of regulatory bodies. Quick look back at history shows that any time a market is self regulating, it leads to monopolies and corruption.

I can't see the US collapsing into a failed state ruled by warlords either. I can see it turning into a fascist police state in which laws are made via treaties by supra-national corporations in which the people have their rights to redress severely curtailed. In fact, I see that happening now and it's almost entirely due to "liberalizing trade". Libertarianism leads to corruption, monopoly, and and fascism.

[QUOTE="fatamericandude"]

[QUOTE="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.

bogaty

Which is exactly the end result of a libertarian system of limited government and lassez faire capitalism. Private enterprise becomes the state, but the rule of law never applies to them. It's a fatally flawed system of governance.

If the Rule of Law no longer applies to them then it's not longer capitalism...

You're thinking of Socialism or Crony Capitalism, in which there's a strong collaboration between the State and Business.

[QUOTE="bogaty"]

[QUOTE="fatamericandude"] 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!

fatamericandude

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.

Not to mention the bad publicity. You're ridiculously naive if you think they wanted this to happen or just didn't care.

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

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

[QUOTE="fidosim"]Which would protect the individual from being terminated before birth. Hewkii

You don't get it.

Might as well say making murder illegal is against individual rights because you're denying them their right to kill people.

Individual rights doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't cause harm to anyone or interfere with other's rights. Obviously from pro-life's viewpoint your denying someone their right to life.

I'm for early abortions btw.

There certainly is some concern about what the government should be allowed to enforce upon the people and what they shouldn't be able to do. In the end, the government should serve the people, not dictate their way of life. I don't like the direction that some liberals want to take the government - as a nanny-state. Individuals are powerless and have to follow government rules - of course, for the best of everyone. Dems have good intentions, but giving too much power to any government is never a good idea. What some people think is a good thing, may not jibe with others and so forth. The best person to determine my future course is me, not some bureacrat. Call that selfish, but how is that any more selfish than trying to impose your views of "what is right" on others. To me, that is selfish.