Why the HELL are you NOT a Libertarian?

reply to post by poet1b


See, you keep bringing in these rules. Regulations. Etc.

Crime is crime. Period.

You keep going back to having to control the market.

I have always been about law. Real LAW. Not the pseudo bull# the government convinces people is law. That is not law, it is the way government protects their buddies. Instead of criminal charges, fines are given.

Bull#. You have to realize, the Constitution provides two avenues to stop true crime.

The use of civil court based on Common Law and criminal court where grand juries, originally just a group of a certain amount of citizens that if they got together, they could bring up anyone on criminal charges.

See how such a system would be nice.

Tell me, why is that not in use now?

Can you actually remove a right from the Constitution and it be lawful?

Do you know what I am talking about?

reply to post by poet1b

As I have already pointed out, black markets are regulated by the gangs and cartels, and they are much more heavy handed than government.

Yeah right, the four pair of socks I buy from the guy standing on the corner of my block is a gang member. The fruits and vegetables I buy from the woman down the street is part of cartel. How clueless are you? Hell, that has got to be the main reason the so called war on drugs exist anyway, to disguise the fact that black markets sell everything under the sun, only they do it in defiance of government policy. Maybe if you're lucky Guido the Godfather will start selling unicorns, so you can be happy after you've taken your little pills.

These markets also flourish much better when they are legalized and regulated.

Yeah no doubt the sock business would be much better off "legalized and regulated", if only they would "legalize" bananas and oranges. Come on, Poet, wake the hell up!

The person you defended did claim that there hasn't been a free market since the mid 1850ties, you backed him up, you are also making the claim. Follow the links back, you are caught once again to play deceptive games.

Do you have a license to back pedal?

The market place does not struggle to be free, it is not a person. The market does not struggle at all, it is what it is.

Semantics, this is the best you can do?

You are the one who brought up banks, and the wiki links prove you wrong and me right. SnL functions began expanding before Reagan, and deregulation under Reagan was the principle cause. Your over analysis of "It's a Wonderful Life" aside, SnLs did very well during that era.

No, I did not bring up banks. As usual those little colored pills have you confused. Over analysis of "It's a Wonderful life"? I spent a single paragraph you dunce. Let's pretend you didn't offer up that movie as historical evidence. I have grown fond you my friend, but it is hard not to tease.

When you stop attacking me by parroting right wing attack points, I will stop making fun of you for these lame attempts.

I'm not attacking you brother, just your silly ideas.

As far as Reagan's presidency goes, 1984 was his best year, which was as much a result of stiff fiscal policy from the Carter years to reign in inflation, to Reagan's following of classic Keynesian economic theory through massive government spending through creation of debt. After 1984 it was all down hill, with ever increasing deficits, the SnL disaster, on and on.

Look, I didn't bring up Regan, you did. I am not a fan of politicians Poet, and I am not a Reganite, understand? Carter, Regan, Bush I, II, Clinton, Lincoln, Jefferson, Adams, they were all opportunists, and a certain rottenness to them, okay? I don't want to play your stupid partisan politic game. The greatest part of being a Libertarian is not having to worry about my own party becoming elected and screwing things up.

Regulations worked fine under Clinton, and business thrived. Only under neocon free market admins who do not believe that businesses should be regulated, and who therefore do not regulate, does crime run rampant, Thus proving your wrong.

Go have your partisan political party with someone who likes to take little colored pills. Regulation is a scam, and does not protect anyone other than those who have been licensed to receive special privileges. Regulation has never worked.

Gingrich believed in the free market with more religious zeal than you do. You cling to the same ideology as Gingrich, and your pretension otherwise is a sham.

Yeah right, some clown who has lived off of a teachers salary and then government salaries is more of a free market zealot than a private business man. Hey, would you like to buy a unicorn? I got them real cheap pal.

I scanned through Marx communist ideology as a kid, recognized what nonsense it is, and never looked back.

Well, that settles it then, doesn't it? You are clearly smarter than I, because I actually had to read Marx to figure that out. Wonder why you keep insisting I and the O.P. go to that www.marxist.org link you provided? Is that site filled with scanners like you? Read only the important parts did you?

You on the other hand actually spent time studying it, and yet you still don't recognize its intentions, which I quickly saw scanning through the nonsense as a kid. This is why you, and so many other students of Marx, now embrace free economics. It is hardly a coincidence.

Yep, you're a bona fide genius. Hey! Would you like to buy some real estate? I got a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow real cheap.

I didn't begrudgingly admit Locke recognized property rights, it is one of the first and key elements I pointed out.

Oh yeah, you've been a real zealous defender of private property.

Your intellectual dishonestly is prime example of the foolishness that embraces free market communism.

Oh yeah, this coming from the guy who scanned Marx and is now an expert on him. Tell me, are you a graduate of Evelyn Wood? Well, we can't all be special geniuses like you, and most of us just have to read the whole book before understanding it. Did you watch all of "It's a Wonderful Life" or did you scan that too? Maybe that's why you think a paragraph is an over analysis. How long did it take you to read Kant's A Critique of Pure Reason? Two, maybe three minutes?

[edit on 15-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

[edit on 15-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


The woman selling cheap socks, and the guy selling fruit isn't engaging in black market activity, any more than the kid mowing lawns under the table, but at least you have lightened up.

Your characterization of the market as a person is deeper than semantics, it is all about the obsession with the markets, and your whole voodoo approach to economics. Face it, economics is more religion than it is science.

Yeah, you went a little too deep into "It's a Wonderful Life". It was a paragraph too long. It is a nice movie, great to watch at Christmas time, don't take it too seriously.

For someone who claims not to embrace any political philosophy, you certainly are passionate about the core of Reagan's economical beliefs. I only bring them up because it shows a clear failure of trying to implement free market economics.

And of course you choose to deny the economic success of the nineties under Clinton, which prove free market economics wrong, but no, you have no political biases.

There was a time when public service was looked upon as an honorable endeavor.

There is a little rottenness in us all.

The U.S. government has been regulating business since before we became a nation, and it has worked very well for the most part. Do you know what a cow catcher is and why old time trains had them?

Just because Newt worked the system doesn't mean he wasn't passionate about the free market concept. The fact that someone like Newt was so passionate about the free market concept might be a clue.

Um, yeah, I am a defender of the rights of property, which is why I am against the free market system which encourages theft through fraud. I have been pretty consistent on this.

I spent at least a half hour on Kant's "A Critique of Pure Reason".

I am no expert on Marx, I was just quickly able to see through the BS, and the whole utopian dream thing.

Yes, I corrected the start stop mistake.

reply to post by endisnighe


I thought I replied to this, sorry.

Regulations are laws designed to prevent crime, or at least they should be.

We both know how screwed up our legal system is, my belief is that the people who believe in the free market system have done a great deal of the screwing up. This is just one of the ways our laws have gotten so screwed up.

Yes, I hear what you are saying in your additional comments on the law.

Maybe we should stop writing laws based on economic ideals, and return to laws based upon wrong and right.

reply to post by poet1b


That is what I have been saying all along. Just enforce the basic tenet of the Constitution. No need to make 600,000+ statutes. No need to set up all this crap.

EPA. Hmmm. A company pollutes, this infringes on the rights of others by many different things. This also harms people.

You have a criminal court for crime. You have civil court for damage due to harm.

That is all you need. Period. Enforce the LAW. Do not set up a huge bureaucracy to create a corporatocracy. That is what it is. The government is in bed with business. The government does not want it's partners to go broke, so the government protects them.

It is quite a simple scenario. By creating more and more bureaucracy you create a more complex system that causes the very things you are railing against.

Imagine, if say you and 30 other people harmed by a corporation could go to the courthouse after you held a grand jury meeting. You filed your case in a criminal court and the court order a warrant for the arrest of the corporate leaders. You then proceed to prove their harm. The jury finds them guilty. They go to jail.

See how simple of a system was in place?

See how bad the system that is so complex and run by the government becomes? They no longer even go after the crooks, unless the crooks do something so bad there is no way to cover it up.

Bernie Madoff come to mind? Where are the bureaucrats that were told he was a criminal and they did nothing about it? Are they up on charges?

Keep it simple stupid. Period.

Let us take another example. Let us use your corruptibility of a local government. A group of citizens are being railroaded and criminalized by local cops. The group gets together and forms a grand jury. They present evidence and decide there is enough to go forward. They go to the court and ask for a warrant. A trial is held.

Simple, effective and why the government destroyed that one as quick as they could.

You need to realize that the more complex of a system you build, the more inefficient it becomes.

Some would say something like this would damage the flow of government. The hell it would. It would make the system flow like butter baby. No longer could the big guy squash the small guy.

Are you starting to get the reason why some of us are calling to go back to a Constitutional governance?

Right from the Bill of Rights. Check these out.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

You need to read up on Common Law.

It does not take a cop or government official to swear out a warrant. A group of citizens can swear out a warrant or at least we USE TO be able to.

We need our Constitution back NOW! That would get rid of these DAMN criminals, be they politicians or companies!

reply to post by poet1b

The woman selling cheap socks, and the guy selling fruit isn't engaging in black market activity, any more than the kid mowing lawns under the table, but at least you have lightened up.

Oh yeah? Tell that to the Judge fella. Actually 42.00 (B) of the LAMC was once much easier to access online than it is today. Maybe that is because that law was finally repealed, but I doubt it. I do know, from personal experience of being ticketed myself, that ticket I am now looking at, and fought in court, using as one citation Chalmers v City of Los Angeles, and had the case dismissed. Even so, at least once or twice a week I see police officers harassing the street vendors and issuing tickets.

In Los Angeles, even the kid mowing lawns, "under the table", as you put it, faces sanctions by the L.A. police department, and if they are ignorant to the State Constitution, and other court cases, they could face fines for their actions. Those who know the law, must deal with the thugs who act under color of law, but outside of that attempt at extortion, the market remains unregulated. It is the free market you claim does not exist.

Your characterization of the market as a person is deeper than semantics, it is all about the obsession with the markets, and your whole voodoo approach to economics. Face it, economics is more religion than it is science.

Yeah right, first you dismiss the street vendors who deal in a black market as being nothing more than kids with their lemonade stands and lawn mowers then you deflect with your deeper than semantics rhetoric. Sigh.

Yeah, you went a little too deep into "It's a Wonderful Life". It was a paragraph too long. It is a nice movie, great to watch at Christmas time, don't take it too seriously.

Yet you are the one who brought this film up as evidence that S&L's had checking accounts back when Jimmy Stewart was alive and a young man. You offered this up as some sort of historical evidence. It ain't me that is taking that film seriously pal.

For someone who claims not to embrace any political philosophy, you certainly are passionate about the core of Reagan's economical beliefs. I only bring them up because it shows a clear failure of trying to implement free market economics.

Give me a break here, I never brought up Reagan, you did. I merely responded to your misrepresentation of history, that is all. I don't care why you keep bringing up politicians, neither do the street vendors who sell their wares on the black market, a free and unregulated market.

And of course you choose to deny the economic success of the nineties under Clinton, which prove free market economics wrong, but no, you have no political biases.

And, of course, you keep bringing up politicians, foolishly ascribing success of economies to the administration of Presidents. Frankly, I was an employee during the Clinton and Regan years so did not do so well, as employees rarely do. It was not until I walked away from this one sided contract, where I had no say in the contract I was expected to enter into agreement with, that life began to change for me. Reagan was a poser as a conservative and expanded government just as every President since Lincoln had, and every President since. Reagan had some good rhetoric, better than yours, but it was rhetoric none the less, and I voted for him, and then I voted for Bush, then fed up with Bush, I voted for Clinton, but none of them have anything to do with me. I vote because it is my privilege to do so.

There was a time when public service was looked upon as an honorable endeavor.

Yep, and there was a time when public education was considered education and not government baby sitting. There was a time that people thought they lived in the "freest country in the world", then realized the U.S. imprisons more per capita than any other industrialized nation past and present. There was a time when people thought marijuana was a "gateway" drug and that drug users were criminals. There was a time when people actually believed that Republicans were conservatives. There was a time when being a public servant meant a modest salary and they actually served the public, not the other way around. Those days are long over my friend.

There is a little rottenness in us all.

All the more reason to view government with a skeptical eye and keep them from expanding, and do what is necessary to reduce their power.

The U.S. government has been regulating business since before we became a nation, and it has worked very well for the most part. Do you know what a cow catcher is and why old time trains had them?

If you are trying to equate the English government over the colonies as U.S. government I suppose that is true, and certainly since Congress fixed the price of gold to silver there has been regulation under our current Constitution, which is why I never claimed there was a free market prior to 1850. Even black marketeers had to deal with the consequences of that fixing of silver to gold, but that became moot once the Fed debased the currency and began issuing fiat money. Now people have to deal with a debased currency. God Bless regulation!

Just because Newt worked the system doesn't mean he wasn't passionate about the free market concept. The fact that someone like Newt was so passionate about the free market concept might be a clue.

Lip service to the free market while living off of the public dole is the last thing the free market needs.

Um, yeah, I am a defender of the rights of property, which is why I am against the free market system which encourages theft through fraud. I have been pretty consistent on this.

You've been pretty consistent with double speak is all. You are not defending private property any more than I am advocating communism or socialism. You want to regulate ownership, be honest.

I spent at least a half hour on Kant's "A Critique of Pure Reason".

Well then clearly I overestimated you, as I didn't think it would take you longer than five minutes to roll your eyes over that tedious tome. Of course, maybe you just roll your eyes at the big books because you find it difficult to read. Certainly you've been guilty of ascribing words and thoughts to me that I never asserted. That, I suspect, is what happens when you scan over instead of actually reading.

I am no expert on Marx, I was just quickly able to see through the BS, and the whole utopian dream thing.

No, you are certainly no expert on Marx, and frankly just because I read Das Kapital that doesn't make me an expert on Marx either, but he was a Utopian, just like you. Consider your own words:

There was a time when public service was looked upon as an honorable endeavor.

You lament the Utopia that never existed, in an age that was filled with propaganda.

Yes, I corrected the start stop mistake.

Yes sir, I picked up on that and made good on my promise.

reply to post by endisnighe


The U.S. constitution is just the framework for government, it doesn't establish the laws and procedures necessary to run the huge organization that is necessary to keep the U.S. functioning as a nation.

It is the job of congress, as per the U.S. constitution to write the laws that set up the various groups necessary to govern the U.S., do all those things the constitution says that the federal government must do, protect the borders, look after the general welfare, coin money, regulate interstate congress, and all that.

Congress writes all the laws that creates all of these agencies through law, determines how bank charters are issued, how patents are applied for, and all the numerous details that go into these decisions. This is what congress is supposed to do according to the constitution.

The agencies established by the congressional laws to carry out these necessary goals is managed by the executive branch, as per the constitution. The Treasury department finds a place to build a mint, hires people, writes contracts for bank charters according to congressional law.

Environmental pollution is a serious problem. Congress writes the laws establishing an executive branch to deal with pollution. They need to hire scientists to determine what is considered harmful to the environment, and how much of this stuff is allowed to be released into the environment, an how to dispose of that hazardous wastes. The executive branch needs scientists and people knowledgeable in these areas to determine this stuff and enforce the laws. This stuff is important, and can't be dealt with on some quasi as needed basis.

Common law courts can not deal with all of these issues, it is far too much, and far too complicated. You idea of how to deal with these things is way too simplistic, and way too unrealistic. You want everything to be determined by some citizen court system, and that is not what the U.S. constitution establishes.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


The black market deals in goods that are deemed to be illegal, or provides goods that escape high taxes, not to sell socks or vegetables.

You problem seems to be at a local level, and I have already addressed that.

The government isn't going to let street vendors develop, because our sidewalks are not for retail space, they are to provide a place for people to walk. The police shut these vendors down because they want to use public places as their personal places of business, and that is not what these public places are for. If someone wants to sell clothing, they need to get a shop which they pay for to display their goods, and not expect people to walk around them on the sidewalk.

Next thing you know you have vendors fighting over key locations to sell goods on public sidewalks and then they trash the place and create problems for the local government to deal with. Not only that, but they take away business from the people who have invested their money to open shops, who have provided the space to allow people to shop, and who pay the taxes for police protection and public works. The street vendors expect to get everything for free that everyone else has to pay for.

This has all just gone off the deep end.

What you are describing is a bunch of hippie commune type nonsense, just proving me right that the whole free market concept is just communism repackaged.

reply to post by poet1b

It is the job of congress, as per the U.S. constitution to write the laws that set up the various groups necessary to govern the U.S., do all those things the constitution says that the federal government must do, protect the borders, look after the general welfare, coin money, regulate interstate congress, and all that.

The federal government has, of course, failed to protect our borders, they created the Federal Reserve and delegated "coining of money" to that "quasi-public" institution, and assuming you meant regulate interstate commerce, they have expanded the meaning of that to regulate anything and everything, and if one is paying attention it is hard to see how Congress has actually looked after the general welfare, "and all that" included establishing Justice, which goes to the highest bidder these days, and of course providing for the common defense, which has been turned from defense to offense, and Congress hasn't used its authority to declare war since World War II.

Congress writes all the laws that creates all of these agencies through law, determines how bank charters are issued, how patents are applied for, and all the numerous details that go into these decisions. This is what congress is supposed to do according to the constitution.

Congress legislates, and very rarely do they legislate law, and the creation of all the so called alphabet agencies has been a perpetual disaster that has done much damage to the Peoples Rights. Eliminate the vast majority of those bloated bureaucracies and the federal government would be in a much better position to do what the Preamble actually mandated them to do.

The agencies established by the congressional laws to carry out these necessary goals is managed by the executive branch, as per the constitution. The Treasury department finds a place to build a mint, hires people, writes contracts for bank charters according to congressional law.

The alphabet agencies established by Congress, and some established by the Treasury, and Executive branch have virtually all abrogated and derogated the Rights of many individuals, and need a serious overhaul if not total elimination.

Environmental pollution is a serious problem. Congress writes the laws establishing an executive branch to deal with pollution. They need to hire scientists to determine what is considered harmful to the environment, and how much of this stuff is allowed to be released into the environment, an how to dispose of that hazardous wastes. The executive branch needs scientists and people knowledgeable in these areas to determine this stuff and enforce the laws. This stuff is important, and can't be dealt with on some quasi as needed basis.

This is one of the truest statements you've made in this thread, but it appears you missed End's point on the matter. Business does not need to be "regulated" in this matter, if they are polluting, they are acting criminally and should be treated so. There should not be any "license" to pollute, no "carbon credits", none of the B.S. that comes with regulation, just simply laws, REAL LAWS, that establish Justice and demand remedy from polluters. That, I am pretty sure, was End's point.

Common law courts can not deal with all of these issues, it is far too much, and far too complicated. You idea of how to deal with these things is way too simplistic, and way too unrealistic. You want everything to be determined by some citizen court system, and that is not what the U.S. constitution establishes.

It is unclear what you mean by "common law" courts, but the courts in this country, in a large part, all the way up to the SCOTUS, deal with common law principles, including stare decisis, and common law is a major factor in our Constitutional republic. All the courts are public, and therefore determined by the public, or "citizen" if you wish. The government serves the people and not the other way around.

reply to post by poet1b

The black market deals in goods that are deemed to be illegal, or provides goods that escape high taxes, not to sell socks or vegetables.

There you go scanning again and not bothering to actually read. Section 42.00 (B) of the LAMC has declared street vending "illegal", and it matters not what that vendor is selling, simply that they are selling it on a public sidewalk or street that has placed this activity in the black market, get it?

You problem seems to be at a local level, and I have already addressed that.

Local, state, and federal. This stupid so called "health care" Bill makes criminals out of those who refuse to comply. There will be doctors who will refuse to comply, and I deal with a dentist currently who is an immigrant and has no license to practice dentistry in this country, so that is black market as well, and I suspect more and more doctors will forgo licensing schemes due to Congress' outrageous insurance scam of a legislation, in favor of practicing medicine for those who need it and willing to pay cash.

The government isn't going to let street vendors develop, because our sidewalks are not for retail space, they are to provide a place for people to walk. The police shut these vendors down because they want to use public places as their personal places of business, and that is not what these public places are for. If someone wants to sell clothing, they need to get a shop which they pay for to display their goods, and not expect people to walk around them on the sidewalk.

The public places are public which means they belong to the public. The argument, of course, is that it isn't "fair" to the "brick and mortar" businesses who have gone through all the regulatory crap of licensing schemes, zoning ordinances and so on, but as I all ready stated, the LAMC Section 42.00 (B) is also unconstitutional, and it took me less than 15 minutes to have my own case dismissed due to that. I refused to plead, cited the California State Constitution, and when the judge argued a bit, I mentioned Chalmers v The City of Los Angeles, and that judge clearly knew the case, and it that was, as they say, was that, case dismissed.

Next thing you know you have vendors fighting over key locations to sell goods on public sidewalks and then they trash the place and create problems for the local government to deal with. Not only that, but they take away business from the people who have invested their money to open shops, who have provided the space to allow people to shop, and who pay the taxes for police protection and public works. The street vendors expect to get everything for free that everyone else has to pay for.

I live in an area rife with street vendors and the concerns you are bringing up just don't exist. There is a problem with the thuggery of the police, most who are as familiar with the State Constitution and Chalmers v The City of Los Angeles as I am, but count on the ignorance of people to harass as many vendors as they can. Outside of that, it is business as usual. Many of these businesses do their business right in front of a 99 cents store that is always jam packed and the lines takes for ever to get through at the registers. The street vendors want to make a living an be left alone by intrusive government, and those brick and mortar businesses who foolishly went into agreement with B.S. regulations that only make the cost of doing business higher, have only themselves to blame, and have no right to insist that just because they agreed to be regulated, that everyone else has to also.

This has all just gone off the deep end.

No, just you, and quite a while ago. I keep telling you, lay off those pills.

What you are describing is a bunch of hippie commune type nonsense, just proving me right that the whole free market concept is just communism repackaged.

What I am describing is a free market filled with all types of people, most who have families and work their assess off to provide for them, but go ahead and piss all over their hard work and noble efforts, after all, you're the guy who can scan books and judge them by their covers.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I agree with you on most of this post, and this has been my stated stance from the beginning, over the last nine years, our government has been managed horribly by the free market ideology of the GW admin.

The fact that the free market philosophy of the GW admin has done such a terrible job of running our country over their 8 year term does nothing to support the idea that the free market philosophy has any merit.

The fact of the matter is that the "hands off, free market approach" of the GW admin is exactly why everything is doing so badly right now.

Clinton proved that regulations can work, and it government does its job effectively, U.S. government agencies can work with businesses to make them run better.

This has nothing to do with partisan politics, it is simply the facts.

I have personally worked quite extensively in very regulated industries dealing with hazardous materials on the business end. Well written regulations are very important. Bureaucrats and management typically don't understand the technical aspect. and often times you might as well be speaking Greek to them, and all they want to do is cover their behinds, while you are trying to keep things running. When you can point to the rules, and say, this is how is has to be done, it can save lots of time. Corporate bureaucrats are usually even worse than the government bureaucrats.

reply to post by poet1b


You know what my friend, you explaining your own experience working with hazardous waste material gives me a much better understanding of your profound need for regulation, and while I remain a staunch free market advocate, I can certainly understand the need for regulation of hazardous waste material. It is one of the few areas in the market I am willing to concede that some regulation is applicable. This does not justify regulating every aspect of the market place, however. I do not deal in hazardous waste, other than my own biological regurgitation. Why should I be regulated, or the guy selling socks, or shoes, or even fruits and vegetables?

I can not agree with you that Bush II's admin had anything to do with free markets, other than his own efforts to bolster black markets. Same goes for Clinton. Regulation advocates are the ones that seem to think Presidents have something to do with the success or failure of economies. In the end, even the Fed can't control the market, not banks, not anyone, as market forces act the way market forces do, regardless of the regulation, or lack thereof.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Arguing with you about what is the black market is semantics, so I am just going to say this, you don't sell black market goods in broad daylight, which is why it is called the "black" market. I will address this issue no more.

I don't agree with the healthcare plan, but I do agree that only licensed people should be practicing medicine.

Yeah, public places are public, and they shouldn't be used by people to run a private business. People shouldn't be allowed to turn our streets into markets. No one wants to be dodging vendors when they walk or drive down the street.

How do you think those sidewalks and streets got there in the first place? All that stuff you call crap is what enabled those streets and sidewalks to be built, along with the garbage collectors and the sewer system, and the rules that determine how power and communication lines are ran, and what areas must be kept clear so that people can get around.

We don't want to turn the U.S. into a third world nation. Your claim to use the space I paid for with tax dollars for a transit route as a space to conduct your private business is not acceptable.

What you are describing is a bunch of communistic crap that you now call the free market.

Thanks for proving my point.

reply to post by poet1b


Semantics will get us nowhere, which is why I have had little tolerance for them. You hope to relegate the black market to drugs and other illicit products, or services, and pretend that everyday goods can't be sold outside of a regulated market, and yet they are, each and every day. Who are you, or anyone else to tell the public where they can buy their products? The street vendors didn't create a demand for their product, they survive because the demand exists. Illicit drugs and services serves as a perfect illustration as to how much defiance the public will show when it comes to being told what they can and can not buy.



[edit on 16-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I appreciate the civility, even though we are supporting opposing points, I think it is important that this discussion takes place on forums like these.

When you work dealing with regulations on the technical end, it opens your eyes. Bureaucrats don't care, as long as they aren't getting exposed, they are more than happy to send someone else into a toxic environment. If you ever took the time to read what these corporations are doing to people and environments in third world counties, you would realize how important enforcing these regulations are.

One time I insisted that this bureaucrat do down with me and see what I was talking about, the guy was shaking in his boots, and he quit shortly afterward. It was such hypocrisy.

The Bush II admin has as much to do with free markets as the USSR had to do with communism, or Chairman Mao. That is what you get when you establish a government based on unrealistic ideals. Yes, the U.S. President can not control the markets, but they can exert a great deal of influence.

It is no coincidence that these large economic turn downs have all came after attempts to create Laissez Fair Free Markets. All you get is a system where the wealthy are able to avoid responsibility for their actions.

reply to post by poet1b


It is folly to point to any Presidential administration in our life time, or even our parents and insist that they are responsible for free markets, it is just not true. I can certainly understand how the Soviet Union, or China are responsible for their economic systems as that is what is necessary in order to have those types of systems, but was is necessary for a free and unregulated market is the government stay out, and as such any failures of the market can't be blamed on government.

As to the hazardous waste thing, I remain ambivalent, and suspect that perhaps much of what is hazardous waste, probably shouldn't be on the market. Then again, I am the one insisting that if there is a demand for the product, then that demand will be supplied.

I think that you and I both agree on the purpose of government, we just can't agree on how to achieve that purpose. I suspect that if a product in demand is hazardous, it is probably best handled by government and made public, in order to appease demand, but even still remain ambivalent on this, and if hazardous waste materials is to be in a private ownership type situation, then yes, regulation becomes necessary, but only there, and not outside of that jurisdiction.

No matter how hard you attempt to convince me that the clear regulations that have existed in our life time is a free market place, you will never get my agreement, nor any street vendors agreement. We know what a free market is.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


It is only reasonable that businesses operate in reasonable environments. In my community they have set up places for these types of flea market retail activities, and that is the better way to do it.

Most business does not need regulating, unless they are producing the goods by forcing people, and especially children, to work long hours in horrible conditions for slave level wages. With modern technology and current production capabilities, there is no excuse for these types of situations.

Edit to add, The Market System is older than civilization, but it has never been free, there have always been strings attached, there must be baggage for any exchange of goods and services. There is nothing free about an exchange, people do not freely part with their valuables. Nobody pays for anything they can get for free.


[edit on 16-5-2010 by poet1b]

reply to post by poet1b


If your community is small and all have easy access to these flea markets, I agree, and as long as vendors aren't turned away, or expected to make contracts with government in order to agree as well, then they will agree as well. However, if it is a large city, and all flea markets have been relegated outside of city limits, with the exception of once a week "farmers markets" and such, and even worse, compliance with this out of the way flea markets, means contracts that are one sided, then it just won't work, and the street vendors will go where the public is buying, and regardless of what the government is selling in regards to this, the public won't buy it and will keep buying what is in demand, at the best possible price for the best possible quality.

I am almost in agreement with you on your second paragraph but would argue that child labor laws are not regulation, they are valid laws that identify crime. I have been getting from you though, that you do not believe most businesses need regulating, which is what makes it so easy to call you my friend.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Ah, but regulations are laws which aim to protect our liberty and our property.

Back to Locke and the purpose of government once again.

Edit to add - All of civilization is based on a social contract known as the law. When someone breaks the law they break that social contract, and if discovered and proven guilty, they will be punished accordingly as it should be.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by poet1b]

reply to post by poet1b
]

I have told you that I have read Locke, and I admire his work, but I don't worship him the way you seem to, and if I had to worship a philosopher on law, that would have to be, hands down, Frederich Bastiat. Law is law, and regulations are not law, they are man made tools. Laws are not tools, they are principles that exist in nature. I guess this is the fundamental difference between us, that defines our views on government.