What If...

[henry quirk]

"But you have been quite explicit. You only want to wreck things."

Liar. I never said I only want to wreck things. There's a context you're ignoring.

#

"You do not want to upgrade or improve anything. Your entire mantra is to only 'wreck things' since - and you said it - that is good."

Liar. You ignore my posts about free enterprise, about minarchy, about self-responsibility -direction, and -regulation. You fixate, like a good lil propagandist, only on what supports your assertion.

#

"Why this sudden admission that regulations can be good and are necessary."

Minimal, sensible regulations as needed by a watchman minarchy (which, as you know, I've written about before, in-forum, several times).

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

How many rules were created, Bruce? List them, please. If you do, and we go through them, one by one, I guarantee we'll find nine tenths (or more) of them are unnecessary.

I can't tell you, in that particular instance my financial advisor(an Edward Jones agent) called me in because one of the rule changes was they were required to inform all their clients. He started reading off the changes in the system to protect clients and after 10 minutes I said whoa, enough, stop, where do I sign. His assistant brought in 6 papers for me to sign.

The bottom line is I don't know, but you can be rest assured outfits like jones had people fighting onerous rules all the way through the process. Plus that was just one example of why the rules are necessary. For every rule made there are dozens of people plotting to get around it.

Sensible, minimal regulation serves the majority (a majority which is expected to be self-regulating and -responsible), so -- by definition -- such regs must be sensible, minimal.

You're kidding right? Capitalism has never been "self-regulating and -responsible", quite the contrary rape and pillage the gospel.

[henry quirk]

"For every rule made there are dozens of people plotting to get around it."

Sure, but that's how it 'is'. One reg, 500 regs, doesn't matter: someone is gonna (try to) navigate 'round it.

So: if folks naturally and normally try to break the rules, isn't it better to have a handful of sensible, easily understood, demonstrably enforceable regs than volumes of overblown, self-conflicting, arcane, almost impossible to enforce regs?

Isn't 'mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else' better than 10,000 loophole-plagued codifications that favor the guy with the fatter wallet?

#

"Capitalism has never been "self-regulating and -responsible", quite the contrary rape and pillage the gospel."

When did I bring up capitalism? I didn't, but: since 'you' did...

I've been unambiguous: I'm no fan of capitalism. By defintion, it favors 'capital' and therefore lends itself to melding with 'state'. I favor 'free enterprise' which is all about the individiual.

Having said that...

Capitalism (even the state capitalism we're saddled with now) can be self-regulating cuz the folks who transact 'can' self-regulate. Absolutely, capitalism (in any form) discourages self-regulation. Much easier to bilk folks who've been taught to 'not' cover their own keisters (who've been taught to rely on others for protection), but this is not the same as sayin' capitalism (more accurately, 'capitalists') 'can't' self-regulate.

I'll concede tte point, however, since -- at this late stage of American capitalism -- it's unlikely the big fish will ever play by the same rules foisted up on the small fry.

So: do we toss capitalism out and replace it with state socialism? We're more than half way down that road already. Here's the thing: at some point state capitalism becomes indistinguishable from state socialism. The Central Commitee or Politburo is really no different than the Board of Directors.

Now, I know we have democracy (one man, one vote) as the bulwark against the concentration of power, but -- really -- how's that workin' out for us?

When you and me step into the voting booth, we merely get to choose from a selection arranged by other folks, folks we don't know, don't have the ear of; folks with agendas that may not mirror our own.

We think we can reform the process by addin' layer after layer of regulation to it, but, practically speaking, we just muddy the water makin' it easier still for us to get hoodwinked.

So: I suggest, have suggested, will continue to suggest, we should move in another direction, one encouraging self-direction and -responsibility for each and every one, where 'government' is properly seen as limited proxy, where corporation stands as naked to the world as the corner independent. Remove 'their' protections and privilege, don't chain and hobble 'me'.

Yep, some stuff, some people, are gonna get (really 'need' to get) wrecked. Killing' cancer isn't easy or painless. Healthy cells are whacked hard gettin' to the cancerous ones.

*shrug*

'nuff said (cuz nobody agrees or gives a shit anyway).

[tw]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Liar. I never said I only want to wreck things. There's a context you're ignoring.

Correct. What you advocate is "wreck shit".

Moderates build, create, and upgrade things. Extremists want to 'wreck shit'.

[henry quirk]

"For every rule made there are dozens of people plotting to get around it."

Sure, but that's how it 'is'. One reg, 500 regs, doesn't matter: someone is gonna (try to) navigate 'round it.

So: if folks naturally and normally try to break the rules, isn't it better to have a handful of sensible, easily understood, demonstrably enforceable regs than volumes of overblown, self-conflicting, arcane, almost impossible to enforce regs?

Isn't 'mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else' better than 10,000 loophole-plagued codifications that favor the guy with the fatter wallet?

#

"Capitalism has never been "self-regulating and -responsible", quite the contrary rape and pillage the gospel."

When did I bring up capitalism? I didn't, but: since 'you' did...

I've been unambiguous: I'm no fan of capitalism. By defintion, it favors 'capital' and therefore lends itself to melding with 'state'. I favor 'free enterprise' which is all about the individiual.

Having said that...

Capitalism (even the state capitalism we're saddled with now) can be self-regulating cuz the folks who transact 'can' self-regulate. Absolutely, capitalism (in any form) discourages self-regulation. Much easier to bilk folks who've been taught to 'not' cover their own keisters (who've been taught to rely on others for protection), but this is not the same as sayin' capitalism (more accurately, 'capitalists') 'can't' self-regulate.

I'll concede tte point, however, since -- at this late stage of American capitalism -- it's unlikely the big fish will ever play by the same rules foisted up on the small fry.

So: do we toss capitalism out and replace it with state socialism? We're more than half way down that road already. Here's the thing: at some point state capitalism becomes indistinguishable from state socialism. The Central Commitee or Politburo is really no different than the Board of Directors.

Now, I know we have democracy (one man, one vote) as the bulwark against the concentration of power, but -- really -- how's that workin' out for us?

When you and me step into the voting booth, we merely get to choose from a selection arranged by other folks, folks we don't know, don't have the ear of; folks with agendas that may not mirror our own.

We think we can reform the process by addin' layer after layer of regulation to it, but, practically speaking, we just muddy the water makin' it easier still for us to get hoodwinked.

So: I suggest, have suggested, will continue to suggest, we should move in another direction, one encouraging self-direction and -responsibility for each and every one, where 'government' is properly seen as limited proxy, where corporation stands as naked to the world as the corner independent. Remove 'their' protections and privilege, don't chain and hobble 'me'.

Yep, some stuff, some people, are gonna get (really 'need' to get) wrecked. Killing' cancer isn't easy or painless. Healthy cells are whacked hard gettin' to the cancerous ones.

-----

and: what exactly do you, tw, know about moderation or moderates?

Nuthin'.

You're the most extreme extremist in-forum.

You're lack of self-assessment and -knowledge pretty disqualifies you for anything.

'nuff said, to you.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

So: if folks naturally and normally try to break the rules, isn't it better to have a handful of sensible, easily understood, demonstrably enforceable regs than volumes of overblown, self-conflicting, arcane, almost impossible to enforce regs?

Ideally, yes, but enforceable is the problem. In a country founded on living by the rule of law, the courts decide. That means the law has to cover every conceivable end run, or the law has to say you have to follow the rules made by X agency that cover every conceivable end run.

Isn't 'mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else' better than 10,000 loophole-plagued codifications that favor the guy with the fatter wallet?

OK I'm minding my own business and keeping my hands to myself while my business is poisoning the water supply, the air, or food. That doesn't work. Like Pittsburgh back in the day, the people who made the city a nightmare lived out of town where the air and water were safe.

When did I bring up capitalism? I didn't, but: since 'you' did...
I've been unambiguous: I'm no fan of capitalism. By defintion, it favors 'capital' and therefore lends itself to melding with 'state'. I favor 'free enterprise' which is all about the individiual.

I brought it up because as you well know, that's reality, that's what we live under.

Capitalism (even the state capitalism we're saddled with now) can be self-regulating cuz the folks who transact 'can' self-regulate. Absolutely, capitalism (in any form) discourages self-regulation. Much easier to bilk folks who've been taught to 'not' cover their own keisters (who've been taught to rely on others for protection), but this is not the same as sayin' capitalism (more accurately, 'capitalists') 'can't' self-regulate.

The only time they self regulate is when it's part of collusion between themselves to screw us.

I'll concede tte point, however, since -- at this late stage of American capitalism -- it's unlikely the big fish will ever play by the same rules foisted up on the small fry.

Agreed.

So: do we toss capitalism out and replace it with state socialism? We're more than half way down that road already. Here's the thing: at some point state capitalism becomes indistinguishable from state socialism. The Central Commitee or Politburo is really no different than the Board of Directors.

Tossing them out is a pipe dream, they won't quit without a fight and have the money, guns, and lawyers to win.

Now, I know we have democracy (one man, one vote) as the bulwark against the concentration of power, but -- really -- how's that workin' out for us?

When you and me step into the voting booth, we merely get to choose from a selection arranged by other folks, folks we don't know, don't have the ear of; folks with agendas that may not mirror our own.

We think we can reform the process by addin' layer after layer of regulation to it, but, practically speaking, we just muddy the water makin' it easier still for us to get hoodwinked.

The only way to fix it is to be involved from selecting the dog catcher on up, and not leave the selection to others until we get in the voting booth. I know I'm guilty, I went to the primary election a couple weeks ago only because of a referendum to buy another piece of ground for open space and saddle the taxpayers with an 8 million dollar mortgage for the next 30 years. But anyway, of all 30 odd candidates running, I didn't know one... even the ones who may have been running for reelection.

So: I suggest, have suggested, will continue to suggest, we should move in another direction, one encouraging self-direction and -responsibility for each and every one, where 'government' is properly seen as limited proxy, where corporation stands as naked to the world as the corner independent. Remove 'their' protections and privilege, don't chain and hobble 'me'.

Yep, some stuff, some people, are gonna get (really 'need' to get) wrecked. Killing' cancer isn't easy or painless. Healthy cells are whacked hard gettin' to the cancerous ones.

*shrug*

'nuff said (cuz nobody agrees or gives a shit anyway).

I wouldn't say nobody agrees, I think most people feel it can't be done, (see money, guns, and lawyers), so the best we can do is pressure legislators to protect the public from them with regulations. Not ideal, but maybe possible.

[henry quirk]

"In a country founded on living by the rule of law, the courts decide. That means the law has to cover every conceivable end run, or the law has to say you have to follow the rules made by X agency that cover every conceivable end run."

How's that workin' out, tryin' to codify every conceivable circumstance, and puttin' all your faith in men and women who present themselves as being Bastiat's 'finer clay'?

#

"OK I'm minding my own business and keeping my hands to myself while my business is poisoning the water supply, the air, or food.

Most definitely you 'not' minding your own biz or keepin' your hands to yourself. I went through this sequence of specious thinkin' with Happy Monkey (I think...might be wrong) a few months back. HP offered the same example. If you have a mind to, you can find the thread by goin' here...

https://cellar.org/search.php?searchid=10204920

#

"The only time they self regulate is when it's part of collusion between themselves to screw us."

Would you, in their position, automatically try to screw the other guy, the little guy?

#

"Tossing them out is a pipe dream, they won't quit without a fight and have the money, guns, and lawyers to win."

Tossin' out the tyrant doesn't happen via the ballot box or in court.

#

"The only way to fix it is to be involved from selecting the dog catcher on up..."

I disagree.

#

"I wouldn't say nobody agrees, I think most people feel it can't be done, (see money, guns, and lawyers), so the best we can do is pressure legislators to protect the public from them with regulations. Not ideal, but maybe possible."

A while back, well before you and me, some folks (about a third of the population) decided to break with the powers that be. These folks were countered by another third of the population who liked things as they were, and both sides had to deal with a third of the population who largely didn't give a crap one way or the other.

I imagine the break down is close to that in the here and now.

The difficulty of the act is, in itself, no reason not to 'try'.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Non-violent resistance to topple active regimes is successful 47% of the time. That's still successful twice as often as as violent resistance.
However success takes about 3.5% of the population actively protesting not watching on TV cheering them on. Time to start gathering friends and neighbors.
So that's only 1.25 million people in the streets vs the police with...



Oh, and the military but they wouldn't fire on the people kent state would they?

[glatt]

Henry,

The Revolutionary War worked because there was an ocean between us.

Or maybe you are talking about the so called Civil War. That one didn't work because there was no ocean between the North and South.

At this point in US History, it's not a region fighting for its independence like either of those two wars, it's an idea that some people have and some people don't. Any fighting would be a true civil war that would destroy the country. Much like Zaire or the former Yugoslavia. People just killing the neighbors they disagree with.

I can't get behind that, Henry.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It wouldn't have to be a war persay, if people stopped shopping at walmart it wouldn't last long. Look how Sears was dethroned. Same with other businesses who abuse the public trust, except the utilities and monopolies(duopolies) we rely on. Then again, they might straighten up and fly right out of fear of reprisal through regulation.

[henry quirk]

Bruce,

I take your stats with more than a couple of grains of salt.

One: I don't know where you got 'em.

Two: My gut tells me they're way off the mark.

#

Glatt,

"I can't get behind that, Henry."

Then you'll be on the other side (or sittin' on the sidelines).

As you like.

[xoxoxoBruce]

From here, but I think they got it from here.

[henry quirk]

"It wouldn't have to be a war persay"

I'm inclined to think otherwise.

#

"if people stopped shopping at walmart it wouldn't last long. Look how Sears was dethroned. Same with other businesses who abuse the public trust, except the utilities and monopolies(duopolies) we rely on. Then again, they might straighten up and fly right out of fear of reprisal through regulation."

No, Bruce, the war isn't against the corps. It's against the mechanism used by the corps, the machine that extends protection and privilege to the corps.

Again: in a true free market (free enterprise) the state doesn't favor the rich cuz -- bein' severely limited -- it can't favor the rich (or the poor or anyone).

You keep pointin' to the corps as the root of evil while I keep pointin' to the state.

We're talkin' past each other.

[henry quirk]

thanks for the link, Bruce

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"It wouldn't have to be a war persay"

I'm inclined to think otherwise.

No, Bruce, the war isn't against the corps. It's against the mechanism used by the corps, the machine that extends protection and privilege to the corps.

OK, but it's the corps wanting to do evil that causes them to buy politicians to help them screw other corps and/or the public, plus protect them. That's the root of the evil and that evil infects the politicians(and bureaucrats) that abet them. If the corps just wanted free enterprise they wouldn't do anything and your description of simple enforceable rules would work.

An example:
Medicare is far and away the largest purchaser of drugs in the world, but the law says they shall not negotiate price. Why did the politicians vote in favor of that restriction? Because they're toadies of big pharma, but the evil didn't come from the legislators, they're just errand boys.

Again: in a true free market (free enterprise) the state doesn't favor the rich cuz -- bein' severely limited -- it can't favor the rich (or the poor or anyone).

You keep pointin' to the corps as the root of evil while I keep pointin' to the state.

We're talkin' past each other.

I still think the corps are from where all evil flows. I know, hyperbolic.

But you're right about congress enabling them, and must be cleaned out. Unfortunately that can't happen when people are fat and happy so the maximum energy they'll expend is to pick a party and vote for whoever the party endorses... when they bother to vote.

My father got the nod from the Republicans and was reelected every 3 years near automatically for near 20 years.
Then he pissed off somebody and didn't get the nod so ran as an independant and won, but the next election they didn't take for granted the nod was enough, and really worked hard enough to beat him. Even back in the '70s party was everything.

So how do you keep the state/government from making these restrictions? Pass a law? That requires congress to make the law and they can just as easily throw it out. It would take a complete change of government style and that requires a new constitution. I think if you proposed that, most people would stick with the devil they know.

You know, you're not near as crazy as led us to believe.