voting
Saturday before last I took the 12 year old to the courthouse for early voting.
I voted for people and propositions I think, over the long haul, will reduce the size, scope, power, and intrusiveness of government and/or against people and propositions I think, over the long haul, would expand the size, scope, power, and intrusiveness of government.
Pretty much the opposite of most you, I'm guessin'.
Don't kid yourself, we have all kinds of people here.
Hey, I'm only goin' by what I see posted here, the bulk of which seem to support 'expanded size, scope, power, and intrusiveness'.
-----
Haven't dug into any of it yet, but it seems Congress is now deadlocked (again), and the Republicans did slightly better than the Democrats on the state level. Couple that with House Dems self-hobbling as they (continue to) try to 'get Trump' and we've got a largely impotent federal gov and mostly business as usual state by state.
Works for me.
An impotent federal government is much much better than the one we have had for the last two years. I love political gridlock in DC.
Don't you hate it when the government interferes?
On this date in 1933 that President Franklin D. Roosevelt announced the Civil Works Administration. Intended as a short-term agency charged quickly to create jobs for millions of unemployed Americans through the hard winter of 1933–34, it was closed in March of 1934– having provided work for 4 million workers who laid 12 million feet of sewer pipe and built or improved 255,000 miles of roads, 40,000 schools, 3,700 playgrounds, and nearly 1,000 airports.
CWA was effectively replaced by the Works Progress Administration (WPA), which operated on a much larger scale. Almost every community in the United States had a new park, bridge or school constructed by the agency.
"I love political gridlock in DC."
"Don't you hate it when the government interferes?
We know the power of the internet was all but banned from the public until laws made access possible.
Some laws restrict free markets. Others make free markets possible. A free market cannot exist without regulation. DSL (the first broadband) was kept from this nation for almost 15 years - until regulation finally made it publically available.
Unfortunately that is too complicated for extremists who only see the world in 'black and white' - as ordered to believe by talk show hosts. All regulation is bad? Only to extremists. Reality is always found in details. Not in blanket religious propaganda promoted by talk show hosts.
Not all, just anything beyond 'mind your your own business and keep your hands to yourself'.
Most regulation can be phrased that way, but there's disagreement on the definitions of terms.
No, not definition, 'scope'.
To me, 'my business' means '[i]my[/i] business'. To a buttinsky, 'my business' means 'my business, Henry's business, your business, his business, her business, etc.'.
Regulations aren't per person.
Regulations are crafted by people.
People like me skew toward the minimal (my biz as 'my' biz); buttinskys skew toward the maximum ('your biz 'is' my biz)
But they damn well affect us individually.
No surprise (since I've said it over and over) I skew toward minimal regs, toward maximum individual autonomy. So: a deadlocked gov is, to me, a most excellent thing. If it's at war with itself, it's probably gonna leave me be (and won't, for the length of time it wars with itself, be foistin' up new regs [and mebbe won't be doin' a good job overseein' the old regs]).
You see it different (also no surprise).
Regulations cover a type of business. If you and Henry are doing the same type of business, the regulation should cover both of you. Otherwise, it's a bill of attainder.
To me, 'my business' means 'my business'.
Silly emphasis removed because those emotions are only relevant to children.
Purpose of a business is its product; serving its customers. Not to serve the enrichment of a business owner. American corporations that have been operating with that contempt and corrupt attitude are eventually confronted by bankruptcy. Then these corrupt people blame laws - not their attitude. Unfortunately, we all must suffer as such corporations (ie Enron) operate as a self serving entities only to enrich top management.
Enron employees even laughed as they enriched themselves on CA electricity markets at the expensive of grandmothers. Actual recordings played on the so many honest news sources. That attitude similar to what Henry Quick endorses.
Another example of how America is harmed by wackos who want all regulations removed - because some extremist talk show host has ordered them how to think.
What was needed for some markets? We know finance markets cannot be over regulated. We know the auto industry have earned the regulations that exist. And we know responsible businesses (ie Silicon Valley hardware companies) do not have massive regulations due to not being corrupt. Those businesses make better products - do not enrich themselves as the expense of all others.
Your business is to serve your customers - to advance America. Not to enrich yourself at the expense of all others as you want.
The only regulation (law, principle, etc) worth a damn is...
Mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself (or else).
Anything else is overkill and nitpicky (which is the sphere of the buttinsky).
Now, do we have new ground to cover here, or are we just goin' round and round?
If it's the former then let's have it; if it's the latter, then I'm done.
There are many private regulations. My workplace just went through ISO 27001 certification, which proves that we enforce a standard of practices for information security. It's a harder process than, say, food safety processes that restaurants go by for their system of government inspection.
Often, there is a call for government regulation when private regulations have failed... and vice versa.
When I say 'my business', in context, I'm talkin' about my life, my affairs, not strictly my 'profit-makin' enterprise'.
As for 'my profit-makin' enterprise', I already covered that with you, tw: you were wrong then and you're wrong now.
When I say 'my business', in context, I'm talkin' about my life, my affairs,
Which explains why you need flame-throwers. How dare they make laws that restrict that right to bear arms. Henry quirk has the right to do anything he wants.
Pretty much, yeah (just like you and him and her).
Now, do we have new ground to cover here, or are we just goin' round and round?
You're the one who looped back. If you don't want to cover new ground, don't try to put it on me.
How you define your business and how others define their business
will conflict, whether in the scope of profit-making enterprises or not. There is no platonic ideal of "my business". Regulation provides the common framework for resolving those conflicts. If you don't like the regulation, you can work to change it.
Pretty much, yeah (just like you and him and her).
The flame-thrower reference was to your post about burning people to death to sterilize the ground they walked on. Minding your own business and keeping your hands to yourself?
Pretty much, yeah
Yeah, and that's been wrung dry across several threads too.
As for me loopin' back: cuz we ain't coverin' new ground...not me, you, tw, or anyone.
"Well, if you don't wanna [insert verb] then why are you here?"
Damned good question.
#
"The flame-thrower reference was to your post about burning people to death to sterilize the ground they walked on."
Well, at least you're not a creep.
Yeah, and that's been wrung dry across several threads too.
You've never actually answered it, unless you're referring to Golgotha, where the answer was to rustle up a posse.
"The flame-thrower reference was to your post about burning people to death to sterilize the ground they walked on."
Well, at least you're not a creep.
I mean, the root of the "joke" was that immigrants are so disgusting and diseased that merely shooting them isn't sufficient; the ground they touched needs to be cleansed , right? I didn't miss the "humor"; I don't recognize it as such. Especially in this thread, in the context of asserting your right to do as you please.
"You've never actually answered it"
Yes, I did. Several times.
As I say: I support the 'night watchman' model, meaning sensible, minimal, courts, law enforcement, and military.
#
"I didn't miss the "humor"; I don't recognize it as such."
Okay. Humor is subjective.
"You've never actually answered it"
Yes, I did. Several times.
As I say: I support the 'night watchman' model, meaning sensible, minimal, courts, law enforcement, and military.
That answers nothing. Sensible and minimal mean different things to everyone. Law enforcement and the courts are the mechanisms by which laws and regulations are enforced.
But you've never answered how your ideal sensible minimal government or lack thereof handles two entities whose views of what is "their business" are in conflict, if the only regulation is "Mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself (or else)."
"you've never answered how your ideal sensible minimal government or lack thereof handles two entities whose views of what is "their business" are in conflict, if the only regulation is "Mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself (or else)."
Yeah, I have (in one way or another), but here's the short form:
Joe gets robbed (robbin' someone is 'bout as basic an example of somebody not minding his own business or keepin' his hands to himself as you can get]).
Joe contacts the cops who investigate. If the cops find sufficient evidence to finger Stan, they arrest him.
The court reviews the evidence and if it concurs with the cops: San is tried.
If convicted, Stan goes to jail; if acquitted Stan goes free.
Really, you needed me to spell this out for you?
Same applies if you're talkin' about rape, murder, trespassin', or any any other circumstance where somebody doesn't mind their own business and keep their hands to themselves.
Now where it might get a little fuzzy (for you) is when it comes to contracts and the like.
For that we got to cover this...
Extrapolated out from 'mind your own biz and keep your mitts to yourself' is:
'Self and property are sacred'.
'Self-defense and common defense are a justification for violence.'
'A contract is a contract.'
The first two are self-explanatory, the third, not so much.
Here goes: contracts can only be arrived at when all parties understand and agree to the terms. If there is a violation of this (lying about terms; failure to hold to terms, successful coercion to accept terms) then, in a real sense, someone has not minded there own business or kept their hands to themselves cuz by way of their lies, failures, or coercion they have monkeyed around with another's property (which is friggin' sacred).
So: cops , courts, trial, etc.
Satisfied?
What if there's no contract, and two entities still disagree about what is "their business"?
Can you not conceive of a situation where two people could claim to be minding their own business, and still come into conflict? Whether one or both of them are making the claim honestly? Or do you just want to find some flaw with whatever example I come up with, and dismiss the general concept?
But anyway, here: Your uphill neighbor dumping toxic waste on his side of your property line.
"Your uphill neighbor dumping toxic waste on his side of your property line."
Shit, i thought you were tryin'.
If the waste isn't physically impingin' on me and mine, then he ain't messin' with me and I got no call to do diddly.
If the waste is makin' me and mine sick, or damagin' my property, well that's a horse of another color.
Try harder.
As conceiving a circumstance: you're the one askin' questions; the burden of conception is on you, not me.
#
"you just want to find some flaw with whatever example I come up with, and dismiss the general concept"
Yep, just like you wanna find flaws in my notions so you can dismiss 'em.
Let's not play games here, HM. We both know what you're up to.
If the waste isn't physically impingin' on me and mine, then he ain't messin' with me and I got no call to do diddly.
If the waste is makin' me and mine sick, or damagin' my property, well that's a horse of another color.
You could have gotten sick for any number of reasons. He's just minding his own business, dumping on his own property.
Yep, just like you wanna find flaws in my notions so you can dismiss 'em.
If your notions rely on everyone agreeing on what "their own business" is, I've found the flaw already.
Also, do you have to wait until you get sick before you can demand the poisoning stop?
"You could have gotten sick for any number of reasons. He's just minding his own business, dumping on his own property."
That's what the court is for: to arbitrate between the irreconcilable and to determine guilt and compensation.
#
"If your notions rely on everyone agreeing on what "their own business" is, I've found the flaw already."
Are you stupid?
I used to not think so.
If I was suggestin' a 'happy time utopia' why would i say there'd be courts, cops, and soldiers? Hell, the very first example I gave was 'robbery' (clearly Stan had a different view of what was his to mind than Joe who takes him to task for it).
You're just tired and not tryin', or you're stupid.
I'm gonna go with the first (bein' the generous soul I am).
"You could have gotten sick for any number of reasons. He's just minding his own business, dumping on his own property."
That's what the court is for: to arbitrate between the irreconcilable and to determine guilt and compensation.
Arbitrate based on what? The cop's or the judge's feelings on what people's own business is?
"Also, do you have to wait until you get sick before you can demand the poisoning stop?"
Obviously, if I can't prove he's harming me, mine, or my property, I need to mind my own goddamned business.
If I think he is, and I can't get him to cool it, I call the cops and the investigation begins (along with a temporary cease & desist order till shit is sorted out).
The evidence showing the dumping is hurtin me and mine, or that dumpin' is not hurtin' me and mine.
If he's dumpin' X and X is found on my property, in my blood, and if X makes living things sick...you see? You get it?
How is "harm" defined? Especially to property? Lower perceived value? Death of plants? If you keep bees, and he coats his property in insecticide, does that harm you?
"How is "harm" defined? Especially to property? Lower perceived value? Death of plants? If you keep bees, and he coats his property in insecticide, does that harm you?"
if my bees die and the investigation shows it was cuz of his poison then, yeah, that harms 'me' cuz he's deprived me of my property.
So a claim of 'harm' has to be demonstrable, be physical...obviously.
I'm almost done here (cuz you're wastin' my time) Make your next post worth my while or I'm out.
Libertarian Theory (pretty damn close to my view)
This approach assumes that individuals take precedence over government. They inherently possess certain rights which the government should preserve and promote. This view assumes that human beings are capable of choice and development on their own without the help of government. Government should merely provide the institutions and mechanisms which will enable individuals to exercise their rights and pursue their private interests. Individuals are more important than the political community, and their rights and interests supersede those of the community. Libertarians see government as necessary because the clash of individual interests creates conflict. This requires institutions which can mediate these differences. The ideal government as envisioned by libertarians would be one in which general, impersonal laws and disinterested judges provide the peace and security under which each person can pursue private interests. Thus, the libertarian has a notion of justice that is purely procedural in nature. A procedural view of justice sees the political system as legitimate as long as it applies fair rules and procedures equally to all persons. Persons using these procedures to obtain vastly different results is not seen as being unjust. For example, a college admissions system may be based on merit. High school seniors will be admitted to college if they achieve a certain grade point average and adequate scores on college admissions tests. Those who do not meet the standards are not admitted. Though this system differentiates between people, it is procedurally just because it applies what are believed to be appropriate standards equally to all persons.
Communitarian Theory (here's where most of you pinkos live)
This perspective emphasizes the positive role that government plays in the lives of its people. This view asserts that individuals are not completely independent, but rather, have an inherent need for association with their fellows in the political community. Whereas the individualist-libertarian approach assumes that people can choose and develop on their own, the communitarian approach contends that people need the community and its values to nurture their development and enable them to make proper choices. Under this view, democratic government exists not only to recognize and protect individual rights and to satisfy personal interests, but also to bring individuals together into a political community to solve public problems. Politics is not a necessary evil to be limited in scope and function. Thus, communitarians recognize that the “public interest” creates responsibilities that may override the individual’s rights. Whenever a conflict occurs between individual rights and the public interest, the communitarian resolves the conflict on the side of the public interest. Thus, the political majority may sometimes need to impose certain values on individuals who find themselves in the minority. Communitarians take a substantive view of justice. Whereas the libertarian is satisfied with fair procedures as a measure of justice, the communitarian is more likely to look at the fairness of the results obtained. This view contends that vast inequalities among individuals are potentially damaging to society as a whole and supports the use of government power to achieve greater justice. In college admission systems for example, communitarian theory supports affirmative action on behalf of minorities to redress institutional inequalities. Thus a college may give admissions preference to minority group members in order to increase their numbers in higher education and obtain a just result for all elements in society, even though such action may discriminate against individuals who are not minorities.
if my bees die and the investigation shows it was cuz of his poison then, yeah, that harms 'me' cuz he's deprived me of my property.
So a claim of 'harm' has to be demonstrable, be physical...obviously.
Aren't your bees trespassing?
Aren't your bees trespassing?
His bees can trespass. Because he has the right to do anything he wants. His neighbor's bees cannot because he now uses laws to protect himself from any neighbor who exercised those same freedoms.
A double standard found in extremist rhetoric. He need not be responsible. His neighbor must.
They might be. In the same way I don't want my neighbor's dog shittin' on my lawn, my neighbor might not want my bees flittin' through his airspace.
If he complains, and has merit in his complaint, I'm obliged to curb my bees.
#
tw,
Quoting Glinda: "fuck you".
If he complains, and has merit in his complaint, I'm obliged to curb my bees.
If you look at it another way, most regulation is just agreeing on the complaint/merit beforehand.
Indeed. That was what I was trying to get at originally. And while it may be "beforehand" for future potential disputes, it was usually in direct response to past disputes.
Plus, I can't stop thinking about this:
In terms of "get off my back and let me be", private regulation is usually MORE onerous than government regulation. It can be, because it doesn't have to stop and worry about rights. It just boldly goes ahead.
Like the MPAA movie ratings system (PG, R, etc) - not a product of government - private regulation just says outright whether a 12-year-old or 16-year-old can watch a movie, without considering rights at all.
At times it can be wonderfully beneficial and work better than government - see
UL - but damn, a private auditor can fuck you way harder than a government regulator, and charges you for it!
Yeah, there are definitely times when private regulation works beautifully but if I'm going to choose between getting poisoned and seeking redress and government banning use of the toxin preemptively, I probably look to government. I'm not sure there is a simply applied concept for teasing out individual cases where private is more useful. We have to case by case this which we do when Presidents stop enforcement of regulations and people do or do not get pissed. Humans are involved so it's complicated.
In terms of "get off my back and let me be", private regulation is usually MORE onerous than government regulation. It can be, because it doesn't have to stop and worry about rights. It just boldly goes ahead.
Reflecting on this, I think about gated communities and parking, paint, and flag rules which can get pretty petty and personal.
When it comes to interstate, federal is the only solution, although the feds have made some questionable claims whether a situation is interstate commerce or not.
Gated and HOAs are the Devils doing.
"If you look at it another way, most regulation is just agreeing on the complaint/merit beforehand."
Based on *one-size-fits-all precedent.
Nah, that doesn't suck at all, Toad.
#
"Indeed. That was what I was trying to get at originally."
No it wasn't, HM. You were just applyin' a dull razor to my notions: that's it, that's all, g'night Gracie.
#
Me, not seein' how "get off my back and let me be" connects or leads to or is related to 'private regulation'. Conflatin' & besmirchin': that's tw's game, Toad.
#
"private regulation"
Nuthin' wrong with private regulations (like how 'you' run your household, for example) as long as private doesn't trump public (which, in the minimal 'night watchman' affair I propose, is **minimal but encompassing).
#
"gated communities"
If dumbasses wanna live in 'em, that's on them. Leave folks to their self-selected hells, I say
#
"I'm not sure there is a simply applied concept for teasing out individual cases..."
Of course there is, Griff.
#
"When it comes to interstate (commerce) federal is the only solution"
Of course not, Bruce.
*largely arrived at through the machinations of shysters (well-paid parasites)
**for latecomers, the memory-challenged, and the plain-ass retarded:
'Mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself (or else).
...out from which extends:
'Self and property are sacred.'
'Self-defense and common defense are a justification for violence.'
'A contract is a contract.'
Me, not seein' how "get off my back and let me be" connects or leads to or is related to 'private regulation'.
Never tried to go into an R-rated movie when you were 16?
"Indeed. That was what I was trying to get at originally."
No it wasn't, HM. You were just applyin' a dull razor to my notions: that's it, that's all, g'night Gracie.
How you define your business and how others define their business will conflict, whether in the scope of profit-making enterprises or not. There is no platonic ideal of "my business". Regulation provides the common framework for resolving those conflicts.
I saw my very first porno ('Alice in Wonderland' with Kristine DeBell [what a piece of ass she was {mebbe still is}]) in the Joy Theater in Rayne, Louisiana. My buddy Bart (a perv before hs time) found out the flick was comin' to town. Bein' an aficionado of all things Blue, Bart made his plans, enlisted me, and we went, we saw, we were blown away.
As I recall: it was advertised as an R movie, but it wasn't R, no sir, it wasn't R at all.
Anywho: there's the age of minority and there's the age of marjority and never the twain shall meet ('cept at midnight leadin' into the 18th birthday). Simply: kids -- bein' kids -- don't get the full measure of autonomy adults do.
This means I get to order mine around right up to 12:01am (as his 18th begins). All his future, adolescent demands for 'freedom' mean nuthin' to me (cuz, me, I'm a [loving] bastid).
No, the full measure of autonomy comes to a body with age, not fully realized from birth, meaning: I got no problem with kids gettin' the short end of the stick.
#
HM,
Nice try (at a save) but, nope, no soup for you.
I get to order mine around right up to 12:01am (as his 18th begins)
Could you order him to go alone to an R-rated movie, if that's what you wished to do?
This prohibition doesn't bother you, to the point where you minimize it for the purposes of our discussion.
But that was just one example. These kinds of private prohibitions/regulations are all around us. This is water.
Employers are really restrictive to employees -- specifying what to wear, what to say, how many minutes late you can possibly be, what punishments will be doled out, etc. etc.
On a scale, all these restrictions affect the average person way more than anything the government ever does to them, don't you think? On a scale, on average.
It's like, how can you be considered "free" if you have a boss you report to for half your waking hours?
The rules are part of the contract you make with the employer.
You're inflating it.
#
"all these restrictions affect the average person way more than anything the government ever does"
The big difference: if you don't like restrictions levied by an employer, you can quit and that employer can't tell you shit, can't do jack ('cept fill the position with some other jerk). Try that trick with 'government'.
Age restrictions on movies: can't grt worked up about those either. They're 'kids'...they'll grow into their autonomy.
#
"It's like, how can you be considered "free" if you have a boss you report to for half your waking hours?"
Then don't work for that bosss, if it grinds your gears. Work for someone else, work for yourself, go on the dole, starve. Ain't no one gonna stop you.
Me: I self-employ. My 'masters' are my bills and my biology, not a 'boss'. Clients sometimes get 'bossy', but I kill that shit before it starts in the work contract.
Anyway: yeah, there are all manner of 'restrictions' a body has to contend with, and a goodly chunk of 'em are volitional on our part.
if you don't like restrictions levied by an employer, you can quit and that employer can't tell you shit, can't do jack ('cept fill the position with some other jerk). Try that trick with 'government'.
I have a similar trick I do with government.
One of the more nasty restrictions of the government is, if you own and/or ingest a particular naturally-growing plant, the government will put you in a cage.
Yet despite this being the case, me and several of my friends have owned and ingested the plant, one dude for four decades, and none of them has ever been put in a cage. None of them is even the slightest bit concerned about this possibility.
It turns out that this is part of how the law works. Although law itself is often
bizarre, the actual application of it is much more
practical, and that is built in, in many ways.
If you get away with it, it is "legal" for you, in a weird practical sense.
If the government "big brother" orders you not to avoid hiring someone strictly based upon them being gay, as a society we weigh whether the importance of you being compelled as such outweighs the gay individual being restricted by an even more onerous "private regulation" i.e. your prejudice. The greater Freedom ™ is achieved by a government regulation overturning a "private" regulation.
This is the basis and moral concept of regulatory frameworks that uphold our unalienable rights of life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Without a kindergarten teacher on the playground, bullies will and DO take control of everything, INCLUDING everyone else's ability to have Freedom ™. This is America 101.
Parties, politicians and PACs that want "less regulation" are, or represent, bullies that want to bully everybody and take everything away from everybody less powerful than them. Throughout time immemorial, this is the story of human nature and human civilization. The disappearing "middle class" of America was made possible by tediously beating back the tentacles of business greed, through organized labor movements and wildly successful socialist policies that created the prosperity bubble of the 1950s that everyone fetishizes so much, without (apparently) questioning how it was made possible, and HOW TO PROTECT IT from the wolves that are ALWAYS at the door.
Parties, politicians and PACs that want "less regulation" are, or represent, ...the wolves that are ALWAYS at the door.
Made readable especially if that last run-on sentence were broken down into a sentence for each concept or point. It reads too much like a lawyer's brief. I could not figure out who was the party of the first part. And never did find the relevant verb in that first sentence.
Example: "Parties, politicians and PACs that want "less regulation" are, or represent, bullies. Those bullies want to bully everybody and want to take everything from the less powerful." Is that what you were trying to say?
"Parties, politicians and PACs that want "less regulation" are, or represent, bullies that want to bully everybody and take everything away from everybody less powerful than them."
Of course. This is what happens when *State Capitalists are in charge.
You wouldn't have that kinda shit with Free Enterprise.
#
"If the government "big brother" orders you not to avoid hiring someone strictly based upon them being gay" (or black or female or disordered or disabled or...) be clever and don't hire 'em for a 'legit' reason.
Really, the only reason anyone runs a'foul of EO is cuz they were too stupid to put one over on 'civil servants'.
*the more masculine version of tw's beloved State Socialists.
From the era of free enterprise-
Whoa, see how easy it is to get carried away and move from regulations to entirely throwing away markets? The thing that raised billions out of abject poverty, and continues to do so in China and India faster than anyone thought possible? Using an example of abject poverty during a time when it still existed, which was over a century ago in this country?
Go, educate yourself on what Free Enterprise is, what State Capitalism is.
That picture, for example, shows the result of the latter, not the former.
Any 'system' offers opportunity for abuse, but sweat shops, onerous child labor, etc. are strictly the result of protected 'capital', not risky 'enterprise'.
By definition: Capitalism is only about 'capital', so it's natural for the Capitalist to see himself protected by the Big Stick, hence he works to see regs minimized on himself and maximized on his competition. The Capitalist always has an eye open for bringing every penny into 'his' coffers (not his competitor's and sure as shit not his customer's or employee's). Capitalism is a Keynesian exercise that promotes intrusive, irresponsible, playin' favorites, muckin' with culture, government (rule by the powerful).
By definition: Free Enterprse is only about the trading individual as he transacts with other trading individuals. The Big Stick is excluded ('cept as final arbiter of dispute) so it's natural for the Free Enterpriser to be cautious and moderate (he has no safety net to catch him or teat to nourish in bad times). 'Too big to fail' is alien to the Free Enterpriser cuz the reality of failure looms (the wolf is always at the door). Free Enterprise is an Austrian exercise. Free Enterprise promotes less intrusive, responsible, largely silent, neutral, government (proxy-hood).
By definition: Capitalism is only about 'capital', so it's natural for the Capitalist to see himself protected by the Big Stick, hence he works to see regs minimized on himself and maximized on his competition. The Capitalist always has an eye open for bringing every penny into 'his' coffers (not his competitor's and sure as shit not his customer's or employee's). Capitalism is a Keynesian exercise that promotes intrusive, irresponsible, playin' favorites, muckin' with culture, government (rule by the powerful).
By definition: Free Enterprse is only about the trading individual as he transacts with other trading individuals. The Big Stick is excluded ('cept as final arbiter of dispute) so it's natural for the Free Enterpriser to be cautious and moderate (he has no safety net to catch him or teat to nourish in bad times). 'Too big to fail' is alien to the Free Enterpriser cuz the reality of failure looms (the wolf is always at the door). Free Enterprise is an Austrian exercise. Free Enterprise promotes less intrusive, responsible, largely silent, neutral, government (proxy-hood).
Thank you for explaining this--it's actually really helpful to see how you've broken down what you view as the causes and effects of different systems, and to understand what you mean when using different terms.
This makes it easier to see that our views are based on similar concerns. And, of course, unless either one of us is omnipotent, or has a PhD in several different fields, much of this is interpretation of information and analysis we've received from outside sources.
That's an interesting cleaving of free enterprise and capitalism. I've all ways understood them to be interchangeable.
Evidently I'm not alone...
From
People often use the terms free enterprise, free market, or capitalism to describe the economic system of the United States. A free enterprise economy has five important characteristics. They are: economic freedom, voluntary (willing) exchange, private property rights, the profit motive, and competition.
From
Individual freedom of consumers and producers
The benefits to producers and consumers of the US Free Enterprise System include; freedom of owning private property, producers producing at their own profit, both consumers and producers can control themselves, increased efficiency and adequate use of the available resources. This system has limited government restrictions and regulations.
free enterprise
noun - an economy that relies chiefly on market forces to allocate goods and resources and to determine prices
Synonyms:
laissez-faire economy, market economy, private enterprise
Antonyms:
non-market economy
an economy that is not a market economy
Types:
capitalism, capitalist economy
an economic system based on private ownership of capital
venture capitalism
capitalism that invests in innovative enterprises (especially high technology) where the potential profits are large
Type of:
economic system, economy
the system of production and distribution and consumption
Flint,
"much of this is interpretation of information and analysis we've received from outside sources."
In my case: while defintions and whatnot come from dictionaries and whatnot, my experience of the difference between Free Enterprise and Capitalism is first hand.
As I say: I self-employ, and I do so in a gray area sphere (information). I find it, convey it, wash my hands of it. What I do is largely unregulated ('cept by 'legit' private investigators who are always lookin' to call down the fire on someone they think is takin' their business). Mine is truly a 'free' enterprise. I have no formal regulators to oversee me, no safety net, no teat. If I don't work, or if I work but fail, there's no line for me to stand in to get a check. If I'm screwed over by a client, the current iteration of the courts is of little use to me.
Having worked 9 to 5, with all the benefits and all the strictures, serving multiple overseers, ain't no way in Heaven or Hell I'd ever give up the autonomy I have now for the 'security' I had then.
As I reckon things: Free Enterprise, with all it's dangers and neck-breakin', life-wreckin' possibilities, is superior to State Capitalism with it's abattoir-like confinements and 'regulations'. Only thing State Capitalism is better than is State Socialism (and not by much).
#
Bruce,
Investopedia (I think) has three small articles (one on Free Enterprise, one on Capitalism, one comparing/contrasting the two). Also: run a general search using '*free enterprise vs capitalism'. You should get hits for links to formal analysis of the differences as well as essays doin' the same.
I'd do the work for you (cuz I'm a 'fuck you, I told ya so' kinda guy), but this old Ipad I'm workin' from ain't none too swift. Besides: you're a big boy. If you really wanna know, you'll climb over the garden wall yourself.
*Free enterprise, for the record, is synonomous with 'free (open, unregulated) market' (something Capitalists discourage [which makes them different from commies how?]).
But you see my point, we're comparing fruit over the phone when I'm holding an apple and you an orange. Gets real muddled if we're not using names the same way.
Yeah, now I know exactly what you're wrong about. :lol2:
I couldn't resist, the Devil made me do it. :blush:
^This^, on
WORLD KINDNESS DAY? :eyebrow:
Oh, the humanity! ... :p:
...but. in case it does...
Go fuck yourself, Bruce.
Go fuck yourself, Bruce.
So again the characteristic of a wacko extremists is evident. Explains why he approves of Nazis, White Supremacists, and KKK - just like Trump.
Profanity makes more sense (justifies all conclusions) when one is an extremist.
Actually he is being kind. Otherwise he would resort to what is most often implemented by extremists - assault weapons.
...and fixate only on 'go fuck yourself, Bruce'.
I know why you do this.
Bein' a State Socialist (but bein' unwilling to out yourself) you avoid dealing with the substance I've offered (cuz then you'd have to acknowledge I don't fit into your lil box of 'Nazis, White Supremacists, and KKK'), and you'd have out yourself as the true extremist.
Your methods are old news.
You're old news, not even worth droppin' a profanity on.
Whoa, see how easy it is to get carried away and move from regulations to entirely throwing away markets? The thing that raised billions out of abject poverty, and continues to do so in China and India faster than anyone thought possible? Using an example of abject poverty during a time when it still existed, which was over a century ago in this country?
Posted as a warning about a race to the bottom returning to a time with no regulation. We got through it and it did lift everyone. It was however no heaven on earth to be wished for again.
...but. in case it does...
Go fuck yourself, Bruce.
No, it was a joke, and I did apologize if you remember.
As far as fucking myself, damn, I wish I could. ;)
As far as fucking myself, damn, I wish I could.
Have we humans become so wacko that you want to become a new species?
Yeah, but I didn't/don't get it.
'splain it to me.
#
"Have we humans become so wacko that you want to become a new species?"
I'm pretty damn sure you and me ain't the same strain.
Yeah, but no one suggestin' that.
Not even minimalistic 'me' is suggestin' 'no regulation'.
Yeah, but I didn't/don't get it.
'splain it to me.
We've been going back a forth, with me and I'll bet others, misunderstanding your thoughts on free enterprise, and equating it with capitalism, as most people do. The joke was now that you've cleaved the two terms into different scenarios it doesn't matter because I so used to telling you your wrong. Hey, I didn't say it was a good joke.:p:
#
"Have we humans become so wacko that you want to become a new species?"
I'm pretty damn sure you and me ain't the same strain.
I'm not able to lick anything down there... can't even see anything down there. :rolleyes:
Not even minimalistic 'me' is suggestin' 'no regulation'.
Nonsense. You make those 'no regulations' demands constantly. Then make minor concessions when even you realize that rationalization was bogus.
"The joke was now that you've cleaved the two terms into different scenarios it doesn't matter because I so used to telling you your wrong"
Okay.
##
"You make those 'no regulations' demands constantly."
No. I constantly say the reg ought to be 'mind your business, keep your hands to yourself, or else'.
#
"make minor concessions"
On the subject(s) at hand: I concede nuthin' to nobody (certainly not to an extremist commie like you).
-----
"free enterprise equated with capitalism by most people"
True, and more than a little frustrating cuz the two aren't interchangable (and that's not me makin' some idiosyncratic assessment).
The difference between the two is as obvious and profound as the difference between Keynesian and Austrian. Hell, even tw knows the difference between Free Enterprise and Capitalism and he's no more intelligent than Koko.
Hey, don't be insulting Koko. :haha:
Hey, don't be insulting Koko. :haha:
Let him continue. He demonstrates what defines a wacko extremist.
Better that he vent here rather than with his weapons on a crowd.
Yes, you give him the will to live. :haha:
Just the opposite.
His kind sap the will outta my kind.
Friggin' vampires.
I live anyway....I is chockablocked with juicy VITALITY.
Reminded of this thread when I came upon this quote today.
"Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself."
-- John Stuart Mill
Contextually, is Mill only talking about law or also social constructs which continue due to a lack of meddling?
This is in the intro to "On Liberty" in which he's working out the role of utilitarianism in governing, but he's admitting that there is a "tyranny of the majority" that applies outside of government. And fighting that is just as important as fighting government tyranny. (although he had not seen the horrors of the 20th century yet, this was 1869)
He goes on to say
"Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism."
Wonder what he would think about a prevailing social norm of diversity? Kind of leads into a "everything in moderation, including moderation itself" vibe.
To frame this in other contemporary notions:
Seems that it would recognize diversity achieved through societal peer pressure as being expected and acceptable while that obtained through societal bullying to be illegitimate and best prevented. Bullying can come from greater society; or, any self serving subset. This suggests limitations on the means of achieving diversity rather than moderation in end results would be the goal.
"There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism."
The limit, of course, is the tip of one's nose, the edges of one's life.
'Mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else.'
It's 'or else' that introduces the conundrum: how does one defend one's 'self' against against the weight of all others, how do you stake out the edges of your life and say 'this far and no farther' and make it stick?
Bluntly: how do you preserve autonomy?
The answer is obvious.
Become politically active? ;)
Be a porcupine, they achieve all that and still manage to reproduce.
Is Porcupine a form of Kung Fu like Drunken Monkey?
If you're lookin' to waste time: go for it.
Become politically active?
Long before one should become politically active, one should become secually active. We all learned that in the 60s. If in doubt, consult a large library of 60s and 70s rock and roll.
Long before one should become politically active, one should become secually active. We all learned that in the 60s. If in doubt, consult a large library of 60s and 70s rock and roll.
If you can explain what 'secually active' entails, I might consider it. If it involves secession then you're talking the 1860's.🎩
That's rather vague.
There are many ways to skin a cat.
If you're lookin' to waste time: go for it.
Example: Through non-violent protest, folks from my workplace were very successful getting curb cuts put in throughout the city and University making it possible for wheel-chair bound individuals to live regular lives and become less dependent.
If you can explain what 'secually active' entails, I might consider it. If it involves secession then you're talking the 1860's.🎩
Ha!
"Through non-violent protest, folks from my workplace were very successful getting curb cuts put in throughout the city and University making it possible for city planners, architects, and concrete companies to make a buck offa taxpayers."
:thumb:
henry, don't you care about people in wheelchairs?
I believe we are done. I've enjoyed our little talk.
Don't forget there are many people who are smarter, meaner, better equipped, and a better shot than you are. Always.
henry, don't you care about people in wheelchairs?
Nope.
I believe we are done. I've enjoyed our little talk.
This is why people get called Nazis.
Yeah, this is why I've evolved into more of a pragmatist. To become such an individualist that you oppose government assisting in the liberation of others makes no sense to me. Government exists, if you want good governance you have to engage with it. Libertarianism has become a way to convince people not to engage with their government assuring government which does not represent their interests.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Libertarianism is on the opposite side of the political spectrum of authoritarianism/fascism.
The good authoritarian idea is we make curb cuts because sidewalks should work well for everyone.
The bad authoritarian idea is that we hobble the "privileged" abled so that disabled people have "equality".
We need the abled to engineer, spec, and build those curb cuts. So hobbling them is a total disaster and won't lead to equality at all! Source: pretty much every authoritarian nation ever.
If we were rich, and had plenty of engineers, we could develop wheelchairs that could easily manage curbs and even climb stairs.
[YOUTUBE]yihwW4ywGqE[/YOUTUBE]
"Don't forget there are many people who are smarter, meaner, better equipped, and a better shot than you are. Always."
And some of 'em are in wheelchairs.
"Yeah, this is why I've evolved into more of a pragmatist. To become such an individualist that you oppose government assisting in the liberation of others makes no sense to me. Government exists, if you want good governance you have to engage with it. Libertarianism has become a way to convince people not to engage with their government assuring government which does not represent their interests."
...equals...
Yeah, this is why I've evolved into a slave. To be a free man and oppose being turned into a resource for others makes me scared. Governors exist. And, since we all want to be on the governors' good side we should do as told. Libertarianism is 'bad' because it reminds people the governors are employees and governors don't like that. Libertarianism is 'wrong' because it highlghts the natural tension between those who govern and those governed, a tension governors very much want to eliminate so as to better 'govern' (rule).
...equals...
I've accepted my lot, which is to be bent over. Libertarians, with all their shennanigans, endanger my lube supply.
If we were rich, and had plenty of engineers, we could develop wheelchairs that could easily manage curbs and even climb stairs.
Alas, people with disabilities are not generally rich.
https://disabilitycompendium.org/sites/default/files/user-uploads/2016_AnnualReport.pdf
In thirty states, the employment percentage gap between those with a disability and those without
was 40 percentage points or greater; only three states showed an employment percentage gap less than 33.3 percentage points.
Doing sensible things to help close that gap would seem to benefit us all.
I think he's saying if we were a rich (first world) nation, with plenty of engineers (edumacated people) we could...
Well we are and we have, but why waste resources(money) on improvements for a minority, when we could use those resources to increase the resources of the ruling class by exporting jobs, destroying small business, and keep enough unemployed to maintain a pool of minions at our beck and call?
Yeah, I was thinking about the efficiency of universal design over each (unemployed) person buying a better chair. I met a rich dude with a couple super chairs. He has one that he can hunt out of which is pretty sweet.
We don't give them more capable wheelchairs because we don't want to see them on our front doorsteps, interrupting our lives, to sell us something, collecting for charity, doing surveys; or, politicking. There's enough of a problem with ambulatory people doing that. They'll need background checks, testing and licensing, wheelchair registration, and age restrictions. New laws will have to be passed to regulate what they're allowed to do with more capable wheelchairs and they'll have to volunteer to do a hitch in the new minion corps.
Then they'll be more like us. We don't want to create just another elitist segment of the population. Those who are already elitists and can afford better wheelchairs on their own probably don't want uppity minions with better wheelchairs trying to mingle with them anyway. Won't somebody think of the wheelchair dependent elite!
ADA compliance isn't cheap. It may be that a million climbing chairs is cheaper than all of ADA compliance.
Makes you wonder how that coverage didn't make it into Obamacare.
No wonder at all, the wheelchairs are the domain of the medical equipment suppliers who along with the drug pushers, doctors, and insurances companies, formed a formidable force to overcome. There was a lot of horse trading to get the bill passed, but instead of future improvements in subsequent sessions of congress it became a war zone.:(