What If...

[tw]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

It's not about 'no regulation'; it's about sensible, minimal regulation.

Minimal regulation, to you, is to 'wreck things'. Regulations must exist to have free markets. It was never a question of more or less regulation. It was always about regulations that the people "who come from where the work gets done" need.

More regulation or less regulation is simply the naive looking for solutions in their emotions. Adults, thinking like adults, first learn what works and then create informed standards. These same responsible people also know the purpose of every business deal is for both counterparties to prosper.

What made the internet possible. More regulations? Yes that is what happened - not the purpose. Regulations created massive and successful free markets. Corralled so many who were stifling innovation and growth. Those regulations empowered people who make America great. That was never corrupt scumbags such as the Donald. He is the perfect example (unfortunately) of why we need regulations.

[henry quirk]

"But most of those rules and regulations stem from some person or company abusing the public."

Sure, but do we need thousands of pages of regs, just on the federal level, to address that?

No, we don't.

#

"There were many people through larceny or ineptitude wiping out the nest egg of people getting ready to or already were retired. Bernie Madoff brought it to the front page by ripping powerful people. The result was a slew of new rules. The rules came late and for the wrong reason but they are still good rules. People will still get screwed but the perps won't walk away clean anymore."

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.

#

"Of course some of the rules are written to help the wife's cousin's coal mine keep a stranglehold on their market. That's why the rule makers have to be babysat by the voters."

Yes, most of the regs are meant to serve or benefit a minority. 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.

And, yes: 'we' should keep our feet on the necks of our employees. 'We' should never think of them as 'rulemakers'. They're servants, proxies, employees. They should be second-class citizens, not you or me.

[henry quirk]

"Minimal regulation, to you, is to 'wreck things'."

No, minimal, sensible regulation is just that: minimal and sensible regulation.

Wrecking things is sometimes what has to happen to get there.

Think of the 'controlled burn' as applied to politics/culture.


#

"Regulations must exist to have free markets."

Minimal, sensible regulations, yeah, mostly centered on contracts.

#

"It was never a question of more or less regulation. It was always about regulations that the people "who come from where the work gets done" need."

Agreed, and that, for the most part, means minimal, sensible regulation.

#

"Adults, thinking like adults, first learn what works and then create informed standards."

Agreed. and these standards are almost always favor sensible, minimal regulation.

[tw]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"Minimal regulation, to you, is to 'wreck things'."

No, minimal, sensible regulation is just that: minimal and sensible regulation.

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

Why this sudden admission that regulations can be good and are necessary. What changed? Are you alright? What happened to bombasticism? Or did you mistakenly listen to a moderate information source.

Oh those evil moderates. They will provide all perspective with the associated reasons why. Then one might be force to think for himself.

[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).

[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.

[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]

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).

[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.