Two points I disagree with Dr. Paul on

[YumYum]

The first thing I don't agree with Dr. Paul on is his advocacy of "Free Environment". He didn't talk about this very much in his book, and maybe I have it wrong, but I believe he saying that the "Free Market" will protect our environment.

The other thing I don't agree with him on is with regards public prayer in schools. I do believe in religious freedoms, and that kids should be protected to pray whenever they want, but the school shouldn't pray through a loud speaker to all the classes. He thinks this should be left up to the counties or states to make this decision; not the Federal government. The reason I don't agree is because I live in the Bible Belt where they did pray on the loud speaker every morning. Kids that are not religious are made to feel out of place; even looked down on. If nothing else, the Federal government should keep an even playing field for all kids across the Nation where this issue is concerned. Kids should not feel alienated because they do not share a popular belief system. Only the Federal government can give that protection.

[pappy]

did you go to public school?

[YumYum]

did you go to public school?

Yes, and I also went to a fundamentalist private school for one year. But my experience was in the public school system.

[Bruno]

The first thing I don't agree with Dr. Paul on is his advocacy of "Free Environment". He didn't talk about this very much in his book, and maybe I have it wrong, but I believe he saying that the "Free Market" will protect our environment.

The other thing I don't agree with him on is with regards public prayer in schools. I do believe in religious freedoms, and that kids should be protected to pray whenever they want, but the school shouldn't pray through a loud speaker to all the classes. He thinks this should be left up to the counties or states to make this decision; not the Federal government. The reason I don't agree is because I live in the Bible Belt where they did pray on the loud speaker every morning. Kids that are not religious are made to feel out of place; even looked down on. If nothing else, the Federal government should keep an even playing field for all kids across the Nation where this issue is concerned. Kids should not feel alienated because they do not share a popular belief system. Only the Federal government can give that protection.

It is not the responsibility, duty, or within the constitutional intentions of the federal government to ""even the playing field" or to ensure kids don't feel alienated.

[pcosmar]

I was under the impression the he supported Property rights and the END of the Department of Education.

[WarDog]

Visit the Ron Paul Library you have to inform yourself on this cause your way off due to indoctrination unbeknown to yourself and myself until now. Government institutions like Public schools. Here is an example. There is more than enough Web Sites to learn from

http://www.barefootsworld.net/uscivilflag.html

http://www.freemantv.com/radio/guestspots.shtml

http://www.freemantv.com/radio/guestspots.shtml

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/13_33_freemason_sig.htm

[LibertyEagle]

Where in the Constitution does it give the federal government the right to even be involved in education, in the first place? Please answer me that.

So because you don't like something, you think the only way to solve it is a one-size-fits-all solution? Isn't that the same rhetoric that the Values' Voters use to justify their use of big government to force their own agenda down everyone's throat? It is this justification of using big government to do unconstitutional things, that has caused this uncontrolled behemoth we call government, today.

[Bruno]

. Only the Federal government can give that protection.

btw - FAIL

[Epic]

1. Study free-market environmentalism. Protection and extension of private property will "internalize" all the externalities. http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#p242

2. Government shouldn't be doing schools. Read something by John Taylor Gatto. http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm I wrote an essay on this subject, too, here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=197965

[YumYum]

It is not the responsibility, duty, or within the constitutional intentions of the federal government to ""even the playing field" or to ensure kids don't feel alienated.

It is the responsibilty of the government to make sure we are treated equally at our job and at school. If a kid went to a school, and was of a different race than the majority, and was looked down on and belittled by the majority, the school would be held accountable if it didn't correct the situation. The government protects our rights.

[Bruno]

It is the responsibilty of the government to make sure we are treated equally at our job and at school. If a kid went to a school, and was of a different race than the majority, and was looked down on and belittled by the majority, the school would be held accountable if it didn't correct the situation. The government protects our rights.

REALLY? That is the job of the federal government?

Which article and section is that in?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[anaconda]

1. Study free-market environmentalism. Protection and extension of private property will "internalize" all the externalities. http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#p242

2. Government shouldn't be doing schools. Read something by John Taylor Gatto. http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm I wrote an essay on this subject, too, here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=197965


How do we prevent Yellowstone National Park from turning into condos, office space, and strip malls? Would the states of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana have the Constitutional freedom to preserve the land? And, if so, this is clearly not a free market undertaking. Just curious. This has been a Ron Paul sticky point for me also. Maybe Bill Gates would be willing to buy it and preserve it. But would his estate be empowered and willing to follow through in perpetuity? I'm pretty sure I am naive about this.

Help me forum libertarian environmentalists!

[Romulus]

you're wrong yumyum, the gov doesnt protect own rights - it infringes on them!

[bunklocoempire]

It is the responsibilty of the government to make sure we are treated equally at our job and at school. If a kid went to a school, and was of a different race than the majority, and was looked down on and belittled by the majority, the school would be held accountable if it didn't correct the situation. The government protects our rights.

Jobs:

:confused: Equally treated? What if your work ethic is crap? The government should force someone to accept your crap work ethic like unions do? Can't or won't perform well? Join a club that will force people to accept your lack of drive and reason it with "equality". No, no, no.

Bunkloco

[Epic]

How do we prevent Yellowstone National Park from turning into condos, office space, and strip malls? Would the states of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana have the Constitutional freedom to preserve the land? And, if so, this is clearly not a free market undertaking. Just curious. This has been a Ron Paul sticky point for me also. Maybe Bill Gates would be willing to buy it and preserve it. But would his estate be empowered and willing to follow through in perpetuity? I'm pretty sure I am naive about this.

Help me forum libertarian environmentalists!

If that's what people value the land most for - as demonstrated by their actions, guided by subjective valuations - then that's what should happen with the land.

See this thread on the environment: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=204349

One of my posts:


Consider the concerns of people who worry that others will impede technological progress and use of natural resources.

You are complaining that people who don't even use force against you will not be nice enough to your special interest. You are asserting that you "own" some part of their property and should have a say in how it is used (even though the property is not yours).

But consider the alternative. Consider that force is used against people to make sure they don't use their own land the way they want. Now, their complaint - that force was used against them such that they weren't able to enjoy their own property how they wanted - is a much stronger complaint than yours.

In a sense, a pure market society with private property rights is the ultimate form of democracy without the coercion of a state. Each person's actions and preferences exert forces that alter the landscape of the voluntary interaction system.

So, you see, my adherence to the libertarian ethic is not an obstacle to helping the environment. It is value-neutral. A libertarian society does not make judgement calls as to what happens with what property - it simply allows each person the maximum impact upon their own sphere of influence. A libertarian society would be shaped by the subjective value sets of all the individual in such a society. The principle of liberty is the only known way to integrate the various conflicting preferences of all individuals. Keep in mind that people have various preferences - other people may value quality of life more, while you value environmental preservation. Your views are no more "right" than theirs - value is subjective, as Mises would tell us.

The interplay between the subjective values of all individuals would unleash the sentimental equality of modern democracy, without the logistical logjam and implicit coercion. Campaigning would be for hearts and minds, not votes and lobbyist money. Ostracism and boycotts often take the place of force and jailing.

I hope this is helpful.

More links from a technical standpoint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-ma...vironmentalism
http://www.commonsblog.org/about_freemkt.php
http://www.votemary2008.com/index.ph...ronment-part-1
http://www.amazon.com/Healing-Our-Wo.../dp/0963233661
youtube.com/watch?v=j27XJ0vjr0Y

From a praxeological point of view, in a free society, if a particular plot of land is being used by a set of individuals in order to harvest the resources, we can conclude that the society economic - the aggregate array of subjective values of the populace (as revealed by their actions) - attributes a higher value to this property when its resources can be used in production rather than preservation.

In other words, If a group of individuals own the land, we can only conclude that those individuals are using their property in the most socially optimal way. If society values that property for its nature value, then it will be bought up by people who care about that. If society values that property for its natural resources, the individuals who perform that will bid more, acquire the land, and use it for that.

[Arklatex]

You trust the Government to clean the environment?

They can't do anything right. My yard is much better taken care of.. no toxic waste, no DET, no contractor coming in tell me what's up etc. Government would come in, spray insecticide, herbicide, fungicide, tax me give me a swine flu shot and leave.

[Dr.3D]

How do we prevent Yellowstone National Park from turning into condos, office space, and strip malls? Would the states of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana have the Constitutional freedom to preserve the land? And, if so, this is clearly not a free market undertaking. Just curious. This has been a Ron Paul sticky point for me also. Maybe Bill Gates would be willing to buy it and preserve it. But would his estate be empowered and willing to follow through in perpetuity? I'm pretty sure I am naive about this.

Help me forum libertarian environmentalists!

I'm still trying to find where in the Constitution it says the Federal Government may designate land as a National Park.

[erowe1]

Anybody who believes the government should fund schools at all, require anybody to send their kids to any school of any kind at all, or have any say at all over what goes on in any of the schools people do end up sending their kids to of their own free choice, probably disagrees with Ron Paul on a whole lot more than just two things. And particularly so in the case of a person who believes that it is at the federal level that the government should do these things.

[Bman]

It is not the responsibility, duty, or within the constitutional intentions of the federal government to ""even the playing field" or to ensure kids don't feel alienated.

It's not the governments job (any level) to educate our children, period. It's when we go down these paths that we shouldn't even be involved with, we end up with all this craziness.

[Original_Intent]

REALLY? That is the job of the federal government?

Which article and section is that in?

Win.

[YumYum]

REALLY? That is the job of the federal government?

Which article and section is that in?

Yes, the federal government protects equal opportunity. Our Constitution didn't.(remember slavery?) So, because our Constitution had this one big flaw, it made it possible for all the Republicans to pass voting rights laws and allowing freedmen to become citizens after the Civil War. Civil rights continued clear up into the sixties. The federal government had to make admendments to our Constitution to protect fellow Americans, and education is included. What do you think of "Jim Crow"? Do you think "seperate but equal is okay?"

[erowe1]

Yes, the federal government protects equal opportunity. Our Constitution didn't.(remember slavery?) So, because our Constitution had this one big flaw, it made it possible for all the Republicans to pass voting rights laws and allowing freedmen to become citizens after the Civil War. Civil rights continued clear up into the sixties. The federal government had to make admendments to our Constitution to protect fellow Americans, and education is included. What do you think of "Jim Crow"? Do you think "seperate but equal is okay?"

Then you disagree with Ron Paul on TONS of things. Not just the two you mentioned.

In fact, I don't know how a person can believe that the federal government should ensure that Mississippi must have equal opportunity without also believing that it should ensure that Iraq have equal opportunity. If you believe in this top down model of soverignty, then global government is a natural, and it seems to me necessary, corollary. Fortunately, Ron Paul doesn't believe that. Unfortunately, almost every other politician does.

[phill4paul]

I predict this will be an enlightening thread. Please keep it civil.:)

[A. Havnes]

[QUOTE=YumYum;2327588]The first thing I don't agree with Dr. Paul on is his advocacy of "Free Environment". He didn't talk about this very much in his book, and maybe I have it wrong, but I believe he saying that the "Free Market" will protect our environment.
QUOTE]

I'm working on an essay called "You Can be an Environmentalist and a Libertarian" that covers this very topic. What Ron Paul asserts is that property rights can protect the environment better than government.

The other night, I popped in an old "Zoo Life with Jack Hannah" video, and while I love wildlife, I was expecting to hear a bunch of zookeepers complaining about a lack of federal laws against cutting down rainforests, etc. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised.

When I was a kid, zoos had these weird parking meter-looking things throughout the zoo. Think along the lines of those strange tubs you spin pennies down nowadays. Anyway, the video explained that the zoos would use the money people donated through these "parking meters" to buy chunks of rainforest and other diminishing forests, swamps, etc. Since the zoo now owns the land, foresters, hunters, etc. can't legally go in and do their thing. No government intervention necessary, and it works really well.

So, you can hug trees and be a Libertarian, too! :D

[Matt Collins]

How do we prevent Yellowstone National Park from turning into condos, office space, and strip malls? Would the states of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana have the Constitutional freedom to preserve the land? And, if so, this is clearly not a free market undertaking. Just curious. This has been a Ron Paul sticky point for me also. Maybe Bill Gates would be willing to buy it and preserve it. But would his estate be empowered and willing to follow through in perpetuity? I'm pretty sure I am naive about this.

Help me forum libertarian environmentalists!


Look at what libertarian thinker Dr. Mary Ruwart has to say on the issue:
http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_list.php?Category=8



“If national parks were sold to conservation groups, they'd get much better care than they do now. Government hasn't been a very good steward to our parks, contrary to popular opinion.

“For example, earlier in its history, Yellowstone employees were encouraged to kill wolf, fox, lynx, marten and fisher because visitors enjoyed watching the deer, elk, longhorn sheep, etc. that these species preyed upon. The expanding population of hoofed mammals destroyed the shrubs and berries that fed the bear population. As a result, bears began to invade camp sites, so park rangers had to start removing them. Now wolves are being reintroduced to Yellowstone.

“Yellowstone may yet be saved, but other parks under bureaucratic stewardship haven't fared so well. Ravena Park in Seattle was established by a couple who wanted to protect the giant Douglas firs that grew in that area. Up to 10,000 a day came to visit and attend the nature lectures, walk the trails and admire the majestic trees. The city eventually bought the park and made it public. Within 15 years, all the Douglas firs were gone. The bureaucrats overseeing the park could only profit by selling trees as cordwood, so that's what they did.

“These stories are not unique. People act in the their own selfish interests. When they own a property, they profit most by caring for it. When they simply have bureaucratic oversight, they profit most from exploiting it.

“A libertarian government recognizes this pattern and privatizes the environment. The owners profit when they protect it and lose when they don't. When government doesn't interfere, people do what's right in order to do what's best for themselves.”




In other words, sell it off to the Sierra Club!

[Bruno]

Then you disagree with Ron Paul on TONS of things. Not just the two you mentioned.

In fact, I don't know how a person can believe that the federal government should ensure that Mississippi must have equal opportunity without also believing that it should ensure that Iraq have equal opportunity. If you believe in this top down model of soverignty, then global government is a natural, and it seems to me necessary, corollary. Fortunately, Ron Paul doesn't believe that. Unfortunately, almost every other politician does.

+ 1

[dannno]

Well most of us here don't believe in compulsory education.. therefore if you don't like that your child's school holds prayers in the morning, you would then be able to take them to a different school, home school, move to another town, etc.. but if the Federal Government makes a mandate across the country, then we're all subject to that mandate and if we don't agree with it we have to move to a whole different country!! One of the reasons why the U.S. ensures free travel is so that people can easily move to another area and become more happy and prosperous without going through the rigmarole of changing place of residence legally.

[dannno]

The environment is pretty easy..

I argue that Ron Paul is the biggest environmentalist out of all of the leftists because he believes in protecting property rights. That means you don't have the right to pollute my air, water or land through seepage. This allows for contained waste disposal on the least desired, aka cheapest parcels of land, but not much else. Government regulations allow companies to pollute which goes against property rights.

[awake]

1. The free market does have the power to deal with the environment. The market has provided for humanity this long, it has flourished our existence on this earth in the face of much greater challenges than what is presently affecting us, what makes you believe it would suddenly fail us on the climate change issue? If not purposely prevented from providing that role, through government destruction of it, the market is our only method of overcoming such 'dire' circumstances. We are being slowly indoctrinated through lies and deception to cripple our only means of protection; If what they say is true and the effects of climate change are what they say they will be, than we will need the free market more than ever.

2. Local control over issues such as school prayer would allow some one like yourself to make the case to change it much easier than dealing with the Federal Government.

[anaconda]

If that's what people value the land most for - as demonstrated by their actions, guided by subjective valuations - then that's what should happen with the land.


But which "people" are doing the "valuing?" Some individual might have inherited Yellowstone as it was passed on through their family for generations and if they were not appreciative of nature they would simply sell it to land developers. Are you saying that the land developers should run a national poll and find out if sufficient consumers would pay a cover charge for entry to Yellowstone?

[anaconda]

I'm still trying to find where in the Constitution it says the Federal Government may designate land as a National Park.

It doesn't. Thus my question about how (or if) a Constitutional Republic can expect to have open wilderness that is not eventually developed.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The first thing I don't agree with Dr. Paul on is his advocacy of "Free Environment". He didn't talk about this very much in his book, and maybe I have it wrong, but I believe he saying that the "Free Market" will protect our environment.

The other thing I don't agree with him on is with regards public prayer in schools. I do believe in religious freedoms, and that kids should be protected to pray whenever they want, but the school shouldn't pray through a loud speaker to all the classes. He thinks this should be left up to the counties or states to make this decision; not the Federal government. The reason I don't agree is because I live in the Bible Belt where they did pray on the loud speaker every morning. Kids that are not religious are made to feel out of place; even looked down on. If nothing else, the Federal government should keep an even playing field for all kids across the Nation where this issue is concerned. Kids should not feel alienated because they do not share a popular belief system. Only the Federal government can give that protection.


Read Murray Rothbard and you will quickly change your position. The Government is adversely HARMING our Environment. They won't you let clear undergrowth so fires are far worst than they otherwise would be, they don't have a profit oriented approach so they don't care about litter nearly as much as someone who privately owns the land.

Think about it this way. Who has a greater incentive to keep a clean environment. A Government full of managers, with no stake in ownership, or someone who owns the land and is trying to make a profit by admissions?

There is a huge market for sight seeing, preservation, fishing, etc. Those lands in private hands would do FAR FAR better in nearly every conceivable way. By the way, you wouldn't have Eco-zealots calling for Cap and Trade, because all you have to do is setup Civil courts specifically for the ability to be reimbursed from any externalities caused by plants, etc.

Again, read Murray Rothbard.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It doesn't. Thus my question about how (or if) a Constitutional Republic can expect to have open wilderness that is not eventually developed.

Read Murray Rothbard. Is there, or is there not a market for sight-seeing, fishing, hiking, biking, preservation, etc.?

[Bman]

Then you disagree with Ron Paul on TONS of things. Not just the two you mentioned.

In fact, I don't know how a person can believe that the federal government should ensure that Mississippi must have equal opportunity without also believing that it should ensure that Iraq have equal opportunity. If you believe in this top down model of soverignty, then global government is a natural, and it seems to me necessary, corollary. Fortunately, Ron Paul doesn't believe that. Unfortunately, almost every other politician does.

But one thing I think Ron Paul also understands is that people cannot have states which go on witch hunts if the people of that state do not want a large government. The problem with states rights is when those rights go in conflict of the amendments. Of course the best option is to keep things private and allow private businesses to make their own decisions. But when those decisions are to use the state to enforce their decision against another, they should not be surprised when the state gets thrown right back in their face.

[jsu718]

It doesn't. Thus my question about how (or if) a Constitutional Republic can expect to have open wilderness that is not eventually developed.

There is always a need for ranch land and farm land, and there is always a demand for camp-friendly areas. My question is this... is there a need for open wilderness that is not eventually developed? You seem to think it is something incredibly vital and fragile, so much so that in a free market it would disappear in favor of something else. You do realize that almost all of the land in the US is "undeveloped", right? That includes privately owned land.

[YumYum]

I've read your responses and I want to add a few things. I was attacked, that because I don't agree with Ron Paul on a few points, then I must not agree with him on everything else, which is nonsense. I'd hope to think we are not clones on this board; Ron Paul encourages discussion and debate. If we all thought the same way there would be no discussion and debate. Regarding education, while there is no provision for public education, we have public education because it is the will of the people. Strict Constitutionalists base everything on what the Constitution says, and yet they seem to overlook the will of the people. The Constitution says nothing about the government protecting the people from food manufacturers putting sawdust in my canned meatloaf, yet after the public read Upton Sinclair's novel, "The Jungle", the public outcry demanded that the government make laws to protect Americans from eating food that was trashed by greedy businessman who cared nothing for their fellow human's health. There was a public outcry to protect and preserve government lands, so the government has provided parks and designated wildernesses for us to enjoy.

My issue isn't with National Parks. I lived in Southern Missouri, and the problem with water pollution is horrible. Tyson Foods owns a chicken processing plant where they dump chicken guts in a major river. Tyson is too powerful and rich for the county or state government to stop this activity. When Clinton was governor, his biggest political contributor was Tyson Foods, and Clinton would not interfere with Tyson polluting Arkansas. The residents of Missouri have begged for this polluting to stop, but to no avail. No County Commissioner dares to stand up to Tyson. My point: only our powerful Federal government can shut Tyson down and stop the polluting. That is why we are a republic and not a democracy; this protects the little guy and the minorities. The Constitution is not perfect, as Ron Paul has stated on many occasions, but it is still a great document. Our federal government is not perfect, but it is our government, and instead of eliminating some the federal departments that were created in response to the will of the people: we need to clean them up.

[Dr.3D]

It doesn't. Thus my question about how (or if) a Constitutional Republic can expect to have open wilderness that is not eventually developed.

Seems like having a park in a state, should be the job and decision of the state it is in.
If the state feels it can not afford a park, then the park isn't a good idea in the first place.

If the state feels it can afford a park, then it would have open wilderness that is not eventually developed.

When I was a kid, we used to camp every year on a piece of land that was essentially, open wilderness. That piece of land was owned by Dow Chemical and they never did anything to ruin the pristine nature of it. After the National Park Service took over the land, they built roads down to the beach and pretty much ruined it for everybody. Now you can't even camp there anymore.

I wish Dow Chemical still owned that land.

[pcosmar]

. When Clinton was governor, his biggest political contributor was Tyson Foods, and Clinton would not interfere with Tyson polluting Arkansas. The residents of Missouri have begged for this polluting to stop, but to no avail. No County Commissioner dares to stand up to Tyson. My point: only our powerful Federal government can shut Tyson down and stop the polluting. That is why we are a republic and not a democracy; this protects the little guy and the minorities. The Constitution is not perfect, as Ron Paul has stated on many occasions, but it is still a great document. Our federal government is not perfect, but it is our government, and instead of eliminating some the federal departments that were created in response to the will of the people: we need to clean them up.
It sounds more like the government is protecting the polluter.
What about the Local Sheriff and the local people? Are they unable to close the plant? Are the unarmed?
Are they unable to sue in court and make the business unprofitable?

There are several options other than a corrupt Federal Government.

[erowe1]

I've read your responses and I want to add a few things. I was attacked, that because I don't agree with Ron Paul on a few points, then I must not agree with him on everything else, which is nonsense.

From what I've seen in this thread, you're exaggerating what people have said. I don't think anybody said you must disagree with Ron Paul on everything, just that you must disagree with him in certain important ways that you might not have known. Somebody making the observation that your views are different than Ron Paul's is not an attack. If somebody told me something about myself that was merely a true fact about what I believe, such as accusing me of thinking the federal government is too powerful, I wouldn't reply that they had made an ad hominem attack. It's simply true, based on things you've said here, that your view of the role of the federal government differs from Ron Paul in multiple important ways, not just the two (n.b. two < a few) that you mentioned. Incidentally, based on this last post of yours, it looks like we can add another thing to the list. Ron Paul believes the federal government has no business dictating to food companies that they can't put sawdust in their food, and he's (correctly) against the entire existence of the FDA. The government has no right to involve itself in that, and if the "people" demand that it should, then the people are demanding that evil be done in their name, and it is part of the reason we have a Constitution to make sure that the people are not empowered to do such things.

There are people of all kinds of political persuasions here, perhaps some who follow RP virtually completely, and others who differ markedly from him. We're glad to have all types here.

[0zzy]

Does the 14th amendment not exist on this board? just because you don't like it shouldn't mean you should ignore it.

[RM918]

Whenever someone says something the state does is 'the will of the people', I get suspicious. Is that actually how it came about? Everyone got up and demanded state schools?

[erowe1]

Does the 14th amendment not exist on this board? just because you don't like it shouldn't mean you should ignore it.

I can't speak for others. But you just hit the nail on the head. I don't like the 14th. Fortunately neither does Ron Paul. No, we shouldn't ignore it. But we should speak out against it. Its being in the Constitution does not magically transform it from being wrong to being right. The same goes for most of the post Civil War amendments. Probably the only good ones are the presidential term limit and the repeal of prohibition (which merely undoes an earlier bad one).

[coyote_sprit]

It is the responsibilty of the government to make sure we are treated equally at our job and at school. If a kid went to a school, and was of a different race than the majority, and was looked down on and belittled by the majority, the school would be held accountable if it didn't correct the situation. The government protects our rights.

Government has no place legislating morality in the workplace. Unlike the public schools they are entirely private and if they aren't then they should be.

[YumYum]

It sounds more like the government is protecting the polluter.
What about the Local Sheriff and the local people? Are they unable to close the plant? Are the unarmed?
Are they unable to sue in court and make the business unprofitable?

There are several options other than a corrupt Federal Government.

The sheriff's brother-in-law was/is a plant manager for Tysons. The issue was rejected by the local courts, so out-of-state environmental groups have taken it to the federal courts. I do not know where it stands as of now. You must remeber, this is a very impoverished area. Where I lived could have been the location for the filming of the movie "Deliverance". People there are not sophisticated enough to organize. As far as showing up with guns, isn't that a little extreme?

[dannno]

My issue isn't with National Parks. I lived in Southern Missouri, and the problem with water pollution is horrible. Tyson Foods owns a chicken processing plant where they dump chicken guts in a major river. Tyson is too powerful and rich for the county or state government to stop this activity. When Clinton was governor, his biggest political contributor was Tyson Foods, and Clinton would not interfere with Tyson polluting Arkansas. The residents of Missouri have begged for this polluting to stop, but to no avail. No County Commissioner dares to stand up to Tyson. My point: only our powerful Federal government can shut Tyson down and stop the polluting. That is why we are a republic and not a democracy; this protects the little guy and the minorities. The Constitution is not perfect, as Ron Paul has stated on many occasions, but it is still a great document. Our federal government is not perfect, but it is our government, and instead of eliminating some the federal departments that were created in response to the will of the people: we need to clean them up.

Why do you think that the Federal Government are the only people who can stop them?? The Federal Government is probably a big part of the problem since they regulate pollution rather than enforce property rights.

Wouldn't you rather have property rights enforced in this situation? They can easily be enforced by the courts. If the courts make the wrong decision, you can appeal to the Supreme Court, who SHOULD uphold property rights and rule in favor of whoever is suing Tyson.


I just don't understand where the disagreement with Ron Paul is on this.. he wants property rights to be enforced, YOU want property rights to be enforced.. the difference is you haven't outlined exactly how you want Tyson to stop polluting and under what grounds.

I guess I'm asking for you to explain why upholding property rights, as Ron Paul advocates, is not a better solution than what you came up with, which doesn't make any sense. Why should the government be deciding what corporations to put out of business? You know Tyson is just going to donate a bunch of money to Senators and Congressmen and get the legislation they want passed the way they want it passed anyway.. Why not stand up for the government protecting private property rights through the court system?

[Icymudpuppy]

This is indeed an interesting subject.

Historically speaking, many human civilizations with an agriculture based economy have gone through the same process towards extinction.

1. The best agricultural land is cultivated and provides wealth and success to it's owners.

2. The best land is sold or inherited into smaller and smaller parcels each with a residence on it.

3. Soon, the entirety of the best land is covered with residences and becomes a city, and the farmers work less suitable land in the outskirts.

4. Eventually, even the mediocre farmland is covered with urbanity, and the civilization collapses as food becomes scarce.

It happened to Babylon. It happened to the Cahokians. It happened to the Mayans. It happened to the Angkor Civilization. There are many examples. It happened to the Kent Valley just east of Seattle which used to be one of the most fertile valleys IN THE WORLD!

For this reason, I don't see the free market protecting farm land. Though I don't think the government can either. I don't know what the solution is here.

[dannno]

The sheriff's brother-in-law was/is a plant manager for Tysons. The issue was rejected by the local courts, so out-of-state environmental groups have taken it to the federal courts. I do not know where it stands as of now. You must remeber, this is a very impoverished area. Where I lived could have been the location for the filming of the movie "Deliverance". People there are not sophisticated enough to organize. As far as showing up with guns, isn't that a little extreme?

Taking it to court is the right path, but the government controls pollution through regulation so courts rarely ever are used to protect private property rights. That needs to change.

[dannno]

For this reason, I don't see the free market protecting farm land. Though I don't think the government can either. I don't know what the solution is here.

Central banks make cities artificially more dense by taking money from everyone through the hidden inflation tax and bringing into the cities where it can be used as capital to create greater profits.

You can blame the farm thing on the Fed, too. You can blame our wars and pretty much every problem we have on the Fed at some level.

[Icymudpuppy]

Central banks make cities artificially more dense by taking money from everyone through the hidden inflation tax and bringing into the cities where it can be used as capital to create greater profits.

You can blame the farm thing on the Fed, too. You can blame our wars and pretty much every problem we have on the Fed at some level.

There is no evidence that the Cahokian civilization of mississippi, or the Angkor Civilization of Southeast Asia used money at all, their taxes were taken as maize or rice respectively. The rest of the historical civilizations I listed used precious metal or gemstones as currency. No central banks, no fiat monetary system. Your postulation is not viable.

[Bruno]

i can't speak for others. But you just hit the nail on the head. I don't like the 14th. Fortunately neither does ron paul. No, we shouldn't ignore it. But we should speak out against it. Its being in the constitution does not magically transform it from being wrong to being right. The same goes for most of the post civil war amendments. Probably the only good ones are the presidential term limit and the repeal of prohibition (which merely undoes an earlier bad one).

+ 1776

[dannno]

There is no evidence that the Cahokian civilization of mississippi, or the Angkor Civilization of Southeast Asia used money at all, their taxes were taken as maize or rice respectively. The rest of the historical civilizations I listed used precious metal or gemstones as currency. No central banks, no fiat monetary system. Your postulation is not viable.

Are you kidding???

I just said the Central Bank takes money from outlying areas as a hidden tax.. You just said these past civilizations used a direct tax for farmers in outlying areas.. same thing!!! My postulation is 100% correct buddy.

[pcosmar]

The sheriff's brother-in-law was/is a plant manager for Tysons. The issue was rejected by the local courts, so out-of-state environmental groups have taken it to the federal courts. I do not know where it stands as of now. You must remeber, this is a very impoverished area. Where I lived could have been the location for the filming of the movie "Deliverance". People there are not sophisticated enough to organize. As far as showing up with guns, isn't that a little extreme?

So the people voted in to power a man that had connections to Tyson. That is the same as voting FOR Tyson.
The people made their choice.

As far as the question of guns. That is what ALL political power boils down to. Politics is Force.
It is supposed to be in the hands of the people, If it is not, then the people are subject to those that have the guns.
Look around, who do you see with guns?
http://www.portagame.com/images/swat-team-posing.jpg

http://media.cpoy.org/61/images/C61-12-SchuA-03.jpg

[specsaregood]

You can blame the farm thing on the Fed, too. You can blame our wars and pretty much every problem we have on the Fed at some level.

When did you come to this conclusion? Within the past 2 years?

[anaconda]

This is indeed an interesting subject.

Historically speaking, many human civilizations with an agriculture based economy have gone through the same process towards extinction.

1. The best agricultural land is cultivated and provides wealth and success to it's owners.

2. The best land is sold or inherited into smaller and smaller parcels each with a residence on it.

3. Soon, the entirety of the best land is covered with residences and becomes a city, and the farmers work less suitable land in the outskirts.

4. Eventually, even the mediocre farmland is covered with urbanity, and the civilization collapses as food becomes scarce.

It happened to Babylon. It happened to the Cahokians. It happened to the Mayans. It happened to the Angkor Civilization. There are many examples. It happened to the Kent Valley just east of Seattle which used to be one of the most fertile valleys IN THE WORLD!

For this reason, I don't see the free market protecting farm land. Though I don't think the government can either. I don't know what the solution is here.

Very interesting thoughts. Here in the U.S. we sure get a lot of factory-farmed food a la Monsanto, etc. Along with their history of PCB's, highly toxic pesticides, and genetically modified crops. There are people on this forum that are far more learned than I who will say that this is due to big government, rather than a "free market" run amok...

[YumYum]

Very interesting thoughts. Here in the U.S. we sure get a lot of factory-farmed food a la Monsanto, etc. Along with their history of PCB's, highly toxic pesticides, and genetically modified crops. There are people on this forum that are far more learned than I who will say that this is due to big government, rather than a "free market" run amok...

Free markets do run amuck. While our government is corrupt, it has taken measures to protect the public. DDT was banned by our government. Why didn't the free market remove DDT? Why did the free market allow DDT in the first place? I will give an example of non-government intervention. It is a popular pesticide that is currently being used and we have all eaten it. I speak Spanish, and a friend of mine was raised on a farm in Mexico. He says they use Kerosene mixed with water as a pesticide; they can't afford commercial pesticides, and in the dry season they have a huge problem with bugs. His families produce ends up on our dinner table. No interference from evil government here. When will the capitalist free market remove kerosene from my food?

[anaconda]

Free markets do run amuck. While our government is corrupt, it has taken measures to protect the public. DDT was banned by our government. Why didn't the free market remove DDT? Why did the free market allow DDT in the first place? I will give an example of non-government intervention. It is a popular pesticide that is currently being used and we have all eaten it. I speak Spanish, and a friend of mine was raised on a farm in Mexico. He says they use Kerosene mixed with water as a pesticide; they can't afford commercial pesticides, and in the dry season they have a huge problem with bugs. His families produce ends up on our dinner table. No interference from evil government here. When will the capitalist free market remove kerosene from my food?

Great comments. Thanks. I would only add that I think in a truly "free market" economy we would have independent for-profit laboratories testing products and auditing their manufacturing or growth. If they are reliable they will be trusted by the consumer and corporations would want their approval. This type of structure might have prevented DDT from being used. If some consumers want to take a chance on DDT, so be it.

[dannno]

When did you come to this conclusion? Within the past 2 years?

No, a little over 2 years ago, I'm a quick learner ;)

[specsaregood]

No, a little over 2 years ago, I'm a quick learner ;)

And just think about how many other people have come to the same conclusion in the same period of time! Amazing, Amazing....

[AutoDas]

Free markets do run amuck. While our government is corrupt, it has taken measures to protect the public. DDT was banned by our government. Why didn't the free market remove DDT? Why did the free market allow DDT in the first place? I will give an example of non-government intervention. It is a popular pesticide that is currently being used and we have all eaten it. I speak Spanish, and a friend of mine was raised on a farm in Mexico. He says they use Kerosene mixed with water as a pesticide; they can't afford commercial pesticides, and in the dry season they have a huge problem with bugs. His families produce ends up on our dinner table. No interference from evil government here. When will the capitalist free market remove kerosene from my food?

you're right. the free market would not have banned DDT, a chemical that prevented over 500 million inevitable deaths to malaria in third world countries according to the National Academy of Sciences. but won't somebody think of those bird shell eggs! *cough* (http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html#ref6)

[dannno]

Free markets do run amuck. While our government is corrupt, it has taken measures to protect the public. DDT was banned by our government. Why didn't the free market remove DDT? Why did the free market allow DDT in the first place? I will give an example of non-government intervention. It is a popular pesticide that is currently being used and we have all eaten it. I speak Spanish, and a friend of mine was raised on a farm in Mexico. He says they use Kerosene mixed with water as a pesticide; they can't afford commercial pesticides, and in the dry season they have a huge problem with bugs. His families produce ends up on our dinner table. No interference from evil government here. When will the capitalist free market remove kerosene from my food?

The government causes what is called "moral hazard" by having an FDA that claims to be protecting the general public from harmful products.

If the government didn't do this, then people wouldn't just go out and buy things unless they knew where it came from. If there is a brand that they can trust, or a local farmer who they know then they can buy from them. Eventually consumers expand their circle of trust to more brands as they become familiar with them.

The problem is that government controls labeling through standards. I don't want to eat any trans fat, but the government says that companies can put "0 grams" of transfat per serving if it is less than a half of a gram. If a company did this and I found out then I would stop buying their products... but the government did this, so what am I supposed to do as a consumer who wants to avoid transfats? Technically I can check the ingredients, but the purpose was to show you how government can help private enterprise be deceptive with their poisons, whereas private enterprise would eventually come out with the truth in order to create a loyal, trusting consumer base to buy their information products. If they didn't, then another publication could come out with this information and people would begin turning to them for consistent information. The company that provides the most consistent, reliable information for the longest period of time will become the most trusted source rather than relying on some monolithic, corruptable, small group of men.

Private enterprise would do a much better job of keeping harmful substances out of our food because there is no inherent reason to trust these individual informing enterprises, whereas a lot of people tend to trust the government even though they KNOW that they make mistakes and worse..

[dannno]

Oh, and YumYum, some people believe that many of the pesticides in use today are far WORSE than DDT..

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3050961.html


And our government supports them while banning DDT...

Not sure which side is correct, but I can't really trust many of the studies that have been done because they were done in an environment where the government is able to ban or control substances rather than determine injury and award..

Not to mention it is probably difficult to test the substance considering it is banned.. I would imagine that you probably need proper permits to do studies on DDT.

[erowe1]

Free markets do run amuck. While our government is corrupt, it has taken measures to protect the public. DDT was banned by our government. Why didn't the free market remove DDT? Why did the free market allow DDT in the first place? I will give an example of non-government intervention. It is a popular pesticide that is currently being used and we have all eaten it. I speak Spanish, and a friend of mine was raised on a farm in Mexico. He says they use Kerosene mixed with water as a pesticide; they can't afford commercial pesticides, and in the dry season they have a huge problem with bugs. His families produce ends up on our dinner table. No interference from evil government here. When will the capitalist free market remove kerosene from my food?


Great example of how the free market is superior to government intervention. Banning DDT has led to millions of deaths by malaria around the world. DDT is great at killing bugs. That's the point. That's why it existed in a free market.
http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.442/healthissue_detail.asp
http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html

This thread started out with you saying there were just these two token issues where you disagree with Ron Paul. And with each new post you make you reveal more ways, and not small ones either. I think it would be easier to list the few issues where you actually do agree with him.

As for your question for when the free market will remove kerosene from your food, that will happen whenever sufficient demand for it exists. If consumers want food that has gone through a process of certifying that it wasn't sprayed with kerosene, and they're willing to pay the extra cost for the growing of that food and that certification process, then entrepreneurs will recognize that opportunity to make a profit by offering that service. They will do a better job than the government will at lower cost. Despite governments extending their reach into this sort of thing more and more, there still exist good examples of profit driven companies that do this. When Jewish people want food that is certified kosher, for example, they don't rely on the government, they look for the stamp of approval of various private groups that do that.

[YumYum]

Great example of how the free market is superior to government intervention. Banning DDT has led to millions of deaths by malaria around the world. DDT is great at killing bugs. That's the point. That's why it existed in a free market.
http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.442/healthissue_detail.asp
http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html

This thread started out with you saying there were just these two token issues where you disagree with Ron Paul. And with each new post you make you reveal more ways, and not small ones either. I think it would be easier to list the few issues where you actually do agree with him.

As for your question for when the free market will remove kerosene from your food, that will happen whenever sufficient demand for it exists. If consumers want food that has gone through a process of certifying that it wasn't sprayed with kerosene, and they're willing to pay the extra cost for the growing of that food and that certification process, then entrepreneurs will recognize that opportunity to make a profit by offering that service. They will do a better job than the government will at lower cost. Despite governments extending their reach into this sort of thing more and more, there still exist good examples of profit driven companies that do this. When Jewish people want food that is certified kosher, for example, they don't rely on the government, they look for the stamp of approval of various private groups that do that.

You are reading something into my post that I didn't say. Does Ron Paul have to do all of your thinking for you? I agree with Ron Paul on his foreign relations policies and I posted the two subjects that I disagree with him on domestically. We can either fix the federal government or destroy it. If you want to destroy our federal government, why don't you have the courage and just admit it? You have probably never heard of The Gilded Age and Social Darwinism. Did the Free Market correct this attitude of the extreme wealthy? It might have, given more time, with a revolution such as they had in France. Some things need to be corrected by the Free Market, such as the current economic crisis we are now in. But some things need immediate action; otherwise thousands of deaths could result. Remember the Firestone/Bridgestone fiasco? They had a faulty tire and they knew it. They decided it would be cheaper to allow people to die in car accidents and pay a settlement to the victim's families than to recall every tire. The bottom line was more important than human life. Oh, sure, many people now refuse to buy Firestone tires, but is it fair that humans had to die while Firestone played their Public Relations game? The Free Market works and it will correct bad business practices. But there are many examples where government needs to step in to save lives.

[AutoDas]

NHTSA’s initial role. In 1998, State Farm Insurance (Bloomington, Illinois) notified NHTSA of 21 US cases of Firestone tire tread separations, but the agency took no immediate action. State Farm reported another 30 cases in 1999, again without substantial action by the agency (24 (http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/25/1/90#MXG001C24)).

[RM918]

You are reading something into my post that I didn't say. Does Ron Paul have to do all of your thinking for you? I agree with Ron Paul on his foreign relations policies and I posted the two subjects that I disagree with him on domestically. We can either fix the federal government or destroy it. If you want to destroy our federal government, why don't you have the courage and just admit it? You have probably never heard of The Gilded Age and Social Darwinism. Did the Free Market correct this attitude of the extreme wealthy? It might have, given more time, with a revolution such as they had in France. Some things need to be corrected by the Free Market, such as the current economic crisis we are now in. But some things need immediate action; otherwise thousands of deaths could result. Remember the Firestone/Bridgestone fiasco? They had a faulty tire and they knew it. They decided it would be cheaper to allow people to die in car accidents and pay a settlement to the victim's families than to recall every tire. The bottom line was more important than human life. Oh, sure, many people now refuse to buy Firestone tires, but is it fair that humans had to die while Firestone played their Public Relations game? The Free Market works and it will correct bad business practices. But there are many examples where government needs to step in to save lives.

Do you believe the Gilded Age was full-on free market, unfettered capitalism? Do you believe the government had nothing to do with helping out those businesses?

[YumYum]

NHTSA’s initial role. In 1998, State Farm Insurance (Bloomington, Illinois) notified NHTSA of 21 US cases of Firestone tire tread separations, but the agency took no immediate action. State Farm reported another 30 cases in 1999, again without substantial action by the agency (24 (http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/25/1/90#MXG001C24)).

The agency didn't respond. So, then it needs to be cleaned up. Who would have stopped Firestone? State Farm? This problem started with Firestone back in the seventies, and they kept putting the blame on everybody but themselves. The Free Market didn't fix the problem, and neither did the government; both should be held accountable.

[dannno]

The agency didn't respond. So, then it needs to be cleaned up. Who would have stopped Firestone? State Farm? This problem started with Firestone back in the seventies, and they kept putting the blame on everybody but themselves. The Free Market didn't fix the problem, and neither did the government; both should be held accountable.

No, this is a case of moral hazard... People depend on these type of agencies when they should be more dependent on information that would normally be provided by the free market, but is not, due to perceived government monopoly on the information.

[JeNNiF00F00]

You are reading something into my post that I didn't say. Does Ron Paul have to do all of your thinking for you? I agree with Ron Paul on his foreign relations policies and I posted the two subjects that I disagree with him on domestically. We can either fix the federal government or destroy it. If you want to destroy our federal government, why don't you have the courage and just admit it? You have probably never heard of The Gilded Age and Social Darwinism. Did the Free Market correct this attitude of the extreme wealthy? It might have, given more time, with a revolution such as they had in France. Some things need to be corrected by the Free Market, such as the current economic crisis we are now in. But some things need immediate action; otherwise thousands of deaths could result. Remember the Firestone/Bridgestone fiasco? They had a faulty tire and they knew it. They decided it would be cheaper to allow people to die in car accidents and pay a settlement to the victim's families than to recall every tire. The bottom line was more important than human life. Oh, sure, many people now refuse to buy Firestone tires, but is it fair that humans had to die while Firestone played their Public Relations game? The Free Market works and it will correct bad business practices. But there are many examples where government needs to step in to save lives.

We don't have a free market.

[YumYum]

Do you believe the Gilded Age was full-on free market, unfettered capitalism? Do you believe the government had nothing to do with helping out those businesses?

No, it was encouraged by the Lincoln Republicans who were advocates of Henry Clay's "American System", which enforced the protective tariff, a strong centralized government and subsidized railroads. But these are also the same politicians who stood by the Eastern bankers who were in favor of the gold standard; just as Ron Paul is. A free market utopia in this system is wishful thinking. Just because you have a free market doesn't mean you won't have crooks.

[YumYum]

No, this is a case of moral hazard... People depend on these type of agencies when they should be more dependent on information that would normally be provided by the free market, but is not, due to perceived government monopoly on the information.

You have a valid point. Most Americans are too dependent and trusting on the government for information. But let me ask you, before there was the FDA, do you think it was okay for a manufacturer to put anything he wanted to in a food product? People could put cow piss in cough medicine and claimed it worked miracles.

[Wampy]

People could put cow piss in cough medicine and claimed it worked miracles.

They still do, the government said so. That's why I am forced to show my ID and be entered into a database to get the cold medicine that actually works for me. Funny, my sudafed did not come with a box of ammo...

That is why I cannot buy simple amino acids at the health store that I could 10 years ago. I can't wait until they classify vitamin C as being just as dangerous and in need of control as crack.

I trust Consumer Reports much more than I do the government. All of these stements both ways really cleared an issue for me though. It's clear that the government effort to nanny us is flawed in so many ways. It is also clear that things slip by in a free market as well. The biggest difference is that the government takes much more of our money and strips us of so many personal choices in the process. At least a free market won't limit so many of my choices, or drive up taxes in the process. Yes, I think I will stick with Consumer Reports. I think I have heard, "but it's for the children" one too many times in place of true data driven analysis.

[dannno]

You have a valid point. Most Americans are too dependent and trusting on the government for information. But let me ask you, before there was the FDA, do you think it was okay for a manufacturer to put anything he wanted to in a food product? People could put cow piss in cough medicine and claimed it worked miracles.

The government should protect against fraud.

If I sell you a bottle of yellow liquid and say that it's a secret recipe, then it's pretty much up to you whether you want to test it out by giving a little to your dog first, or maybe taking a quarter dose to see if it tastes like urine, etc.. Or you can simply choose not to buy it and stick with name brands that you trust.

If i tell you that the bottle of yellow liquid contains lemon juice, sugar and water by labeling it as such, when in fact it contains a bunch of rat poison, then I have committed fraud.

Worst case scenario somebody sells the rat poison or some tasteless poison as a secret recipe.. well, I don't see how they couldn't be tried for murder if they sold something that was disguised as lemonade that caused death upon drinking to anybody, though I don't think people should be held responsible for allergic reactions unless they committed fraud that caused somebody to have something they were allergic to.

[erowe1]

You are reading something into my post that I didn't say. Does Ron Paul have to do all of your thinking for you? I agree with Ron Paul on his foreign relations policies and I posted the two subjects that I disagree with him on domestically. We can either fix the federal government or destroy it. If you want to destroy our federal government, why don't you have the courage and just admit it? You have probably never heard of The Gilded Age and Social Darwinism. Did the Free Market correct this attitude of the extreme wealthy? It might have, given more time, with a revolution such as they had in France. Some things need to be corrected by the Free Market, such as the current economic crisis we are now in. But some things need immediate action; otherwise thousands of deaths could result. Remember the Firestone/Bridgestone fiasco? They had a faulty tire and they knew it. They decided it would be cheaper to allow people to die in car accidents and pay a settlement to the victim's families than to recall every tire. The bottom line was more important than human life. Oh, sure, many people now refuse to buy Firestone tires, but is it fair that humans had to die while Firestone played their Public Relations game? The Free Market works and it will correct bad business practices. But there are many examples where government needs to step in to save lives.

Yes. I have heard of the gilded age and social darwinism. Two more great concepts to keep in mind when considering the superiority of the free market to central planning. The gilded age was a time of greed and injustice committed by major corporations who were what they were because of the special privileges the got from the government in opposition to any semblance of a free market. It was precisely because of the ways that the worst examples from the gilded age differed from a free market (i.e. a market with no government involvement) that they became bad. If we had a free market, then there wouldn't have been the so-called robber barons and a so-called gilded age that would need fixing. That's just another case of demanding a government solution to a government problem.

As for the Firestone example, that's not from the so-called gilded age. That's a pretty recent problem that happened in our present America where we have already put the government in control of keeping us safe and controlling the products we buy. So it's a great example of how much of a failure the government is at that. Do I think we would have better checks against faulty tires resulting in traffic accidents and deaths if we got the government out of the picture and relied on methods that would exist in a free market? You better believe I do!

Also, none of this is because of Ron Paul doing my thinking for me. Every single objection against freedom that you've raised is one that free market economists have addressed many times. If you wanted to approach the subject with an open mind, rather than confidently repeating your claims about free market failures as though they are unquestionable religious dogma, then there's no shortage of material for you to read so that you could think critically about all those bits of conventional wisdom your high school history teacher told you. You might start by just looking around at all the freely available materials at www.mises.org.

[Bruno]

They still do, the government said so. That's why I am forced to show my ID and be entered into a database to get the cold medicine that actually works for me. Funny, my sudafed did not come with a box of ammo...

That is why I cannot buy simple amino acids at the health store that I could 10 years ago. I can't wait until they classify vitamin C as being just as dangerous and in need of control as crack.

I trust Consumer Reports much more than I do the government. All of these stements both ways really cleared an issue for me though. It's clear that the government effort to nanny us is flawed in so many ways. It is also clear that things slip by in a free market as well. The biggest difference is that the government takes much more of our money and strips us of so many personal choices in the process. At least a free market won't limit so many of my choices, or drive up taxes in the process. Yes, I think I will stick with Consumer Reports. I think I have heard, "but it's for the children" one too many times in place of true data driven analysis.

Welcome, Wampy!! :)

[PaulaGem]

No, this is a case of moral hazard... People depend on these type of agencies when they should be more dependent on information that would normally be provided by the free market, but is not, due to perceived government monopoly on the information.

People don't read the label on their breakfast cereal now, it simply isn't possible to analyze purchases that thoroughly. Produce comes from all over the world now, we have no way of monitoring how it was handled and grown in South America.

I believe consumer protection is an appropriate role for the national government. I believe if there was an honest representational government in place and that government decided there should be consumer protection administered by honest public servants so that people could take something off a grocery shelf safely or buy clothes at the store and know that they weren't produced in an overseas sweat shop, or buy effective drugs at a reasonable price; I would be very happy with the performance of that government in that area because it would give me the freedom to be more productive and contribute to society in other ways.

[YumYum]

Yes. I have heard of the gilded age and social darwinism. Two more great concepts to keep in mind when considering the superiority of the free market to central planning. The gilded age was a time of greed and injustice committed by major corporations who were what they were because of the special privileges the got from the government in opposition to any semblance of a free market. It was precisely because of the ways that the worst examples from the gilded age differed from a free market (i.e. a market with no government involvement) that they became bad. If we had a free market, then there wouldn't have been the so-called robber barons and a so-called gilded age that would need fixing. That's just another case of demanding a government solution to a government problem.

As for the Firestone example, that's not from the so-called gilded age. That's a pretty recent problem that happened in our present America where we have already put the government in control of keeping us safe and controlling the products we buy. So it's a great example of how much of a failure the government is at that. Do I think we would have better checks against faulty tires resulting in traffic accidents and deaths if we got the government out of the picture and relied on methods that would exist in a free market? You better believe I do!

Also, none of this is because of Ron Paul doing my thinking for me. Every single objection against freedom that you've raised is one that free market economists have addressed many times. If you wanted to approach the subject with an open mind, rather than confidently repeating your claims about free market failures as though they are unquestionable religious dogma, then there's no shortage of material for you to read so that you could think critically about all those bits of conventional wisdom your high school history teacher told you. You might start by just looking around at all the freely available materials at www.mises.org.


You want to blame our corrupt government for the gilded age, which it played a big part, no doubt, and I agree to a point. But what about the capitalist? Are they without guilt? Did somebody hold a gun to their heads and make them greedy? Was our government wrong to make anti-trust laws? Wal Mart is an example of free market. There is nothing that they are doing wrong or illegal, but they have destroyed thousands of mom and pop businesses and they treat their employees terribly. I'd like to know what country has this free market utopia you keep harping about. The minute a country has free market utopia, something or someone wrecks it. Take Nigeria, for example. When they had a dictator, the country was booming. Gas was 12 cents a gallon and the average wage was $25 an hour. Then the dictator was thrown out and democracy was installed; now the Nigerians are suffering more than ever. That is why we need "fair market", not "free market". The Unions in this country came about for a reason. The way the coal miners were treated in West Virginia, was that free market? The Unions were a natural response to the oppression of the coal mining company’s greed. The Mafia has ruined the Unions. HA! There you go, the Mafia! Now there is an example of "free market". I think you need to read "1984" and "The Jungle". By the way, this forum is helping me to change my way of thinking. If Firestone was a part of free market utopia, then they would have volunteered to correct their wrongs. They would have done it from the kindness of their heart if they had practiced free market utopia.

[krazy kaju]

The first thing I don't agree with Dr. Paul on is his advocacy of "Free Environment". He didn't talk about this very much in his book, and maybe I have it wrong, but I believe he saying that the "Free Market" will protect our environment.

YouTube - Free market environmentalism by Walter Block Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrTsaSUFfpo)

YouTube - Free market environmentalism by Walter Block Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4p-BQInK-g)

YouTube - Free market environmentalism by Walter Block Part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB1O2K411gM)

YouTube - Free market environmentalism by Walter Block Part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WhqTtil7Ls)

YouTube - Free market environmentalism by Walter Block Part 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm0A5eoY8Tk)

YouTube - Free market Environmentalism with Terry Anderson, part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lVMLwLg5rk)

YouTube - Free market Environmentalism with Terry Anderson, part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B-_8RuAc9c)

YouTube - Free market Environmentalism with Terry Anderson, part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC7dyUFEECU)

In other words, the free market protects the environment much more efficiently than the government ever could.

[ClayTrainor]

Wal Mart is an example of free market. There is nothing that they are doing wrong or illegal, but they have destroyed thousands of mom and pop businesses and they treat their employees terribly.


1. Wal-mart employees always have the option to quit, and find a better job. I know several who work there and don't feel like they're "treated terribly", and only 1 of them has plans to stay there for any length of time.

2. Wal-mart pays as well as Mom and Pop shops usually did, provides at least as many employment opportunities, and even offers potential to move up to higher positions and pay scales, which mom and pop shops often don't and can't.

3. Individual consumers (you and me) are choosing wal-mart over mom and pop shops, which is why wal-mart is winning.

4. Small business can still compete with wal-mart. Convenience stores offer products that can be found at wal-mart, yet they charge almost twice as much. How can they possibly stay in business, when wal-mart comes to town?




The minute a country has free market utopia, something or someone wrecks it.

You think a free-market utopia, has existed?

Utopia:
"ideally perfect state" - Princeton

Utopias don't exist, they are a fantasy. A free-market is the best argument in favor of a "fair" market, for everyone. The use of collective force (government), does not ensure a fair market.



Take Nigeria, for example. When they had a dictator, the country was booming. Gas was 12 cents a gallon and the average wage was $25 an hour. Then the dictator was thrown out and democracy was installed; now the Nigerians are suffering more than ever. That is why we need "fair market", not "free market".

lol, so is this an argument in favor of a dictator or something? Do you think "democracy" leads to a free-market? You have some serious misunderstandings of what a free-market is, if this is what you believe.

The lack of a dictator and the existence of democracy is not an indicator of free-markets.

Rule of Law for individuals is very important for a free-market to function properly, dictators and democracy are not in favor of this concept.



The Unions in this country came about for a reason.

Are they destroying your economy, like they are up here in Canada?

[PaulaGem]

I'm so sick of these people who bad mouth wal-mart, with absolutely no basis.

1. Wal-mart employees always have the option to quit, and find a better job. I know several who work there and don't feel like they're "treated terribly", and only 1 of them has plans to stay there.

2. Wal-mart pays as well as Mom and Pop shops usually did, and even offers potential to move up to higher positions and pay scales, which mom and pop shops often don't.

3. Individual consumers (you and me) are choosing wal-mart over mom and pop shops, which is why wal-mart is winning.

4. Small business can still compete with wal-mart. Convenience stores offer products that can be found at wal-mart, yet they charge almost twice as much. How can they possibly stay in business, when wal-mart comes to town?




Example of small businesses that have really been hurt by Walmart & the "Big Box" stores, the small metaphysical bookstores I have dealt with for 20 years. Books had a small markup and when Boders & the like took over the market it really hurt them.

Jewelry and other sidelines took up the slack, but now I don't sell chain because in order for me to handle it I have to mark it up at least 50% - when I do I'm too clse to what Walmart sells it for retail.

Sam Walton originally tried to give back to the community by supporting small manufacturers, that concept died with him.

[erowe1]

You want to blame our corrupt government for the gilded age, which it played a big part, no doubt, and I agree to a point. But what about the capitalist? Are they without guilt? Did somebody hold a gun to their heads and make them greedy?

No. And the government did not make them greedy any more than it made you and me greedy. Nor should the government do anything to get in the way of their pursuit of more money or of yours or mine, pursuits which, in a free market, we will find most successful when we provide free people with the very best goods and services they demand. What the government did in the 19th century and does even more egregiously today is to use its monopoly of force to manage the economy in ways that privilege certain individuals and corporations according to whatever ways best serve the interests of the politicians and bureaucrats who make those corporatist laws. The result is that profits go to those anointed parties rather than to whomever best provides the goods and services that free people would gladly pay for.


Was our government wrong to make anti-trust laws?


Yes. Of course it was wrong. I can't fathom how anyone who supports Ron Paul would think otherwise.



Wal Mart is an example of free market.

No it isn't. Walmart is a business, not a "free market." Nor can any honest observer claim that the economy in which Walmart exists is a free market economy. It isn't. Not even close.



I'd like to know what country has this free market utopia you keep harping about.

None. I'm not a utopian. But I am for drastic changes. Changes that go in the direction of more freedom, not less. Some countries are better than others. America prior to the early 20th century was one of the best free market economies, notwithstanding its offenses in your so-called gilded age. Hong Kong throughout the British mandate and even still today is another example of a place that's better than most others. Switzerland and New Zealand are relatively good.

But I'm convinced that we can and ought to outdo all of those examples in freedom. We shouldn't look back to some high water mark of our past and try to get there and stop. We should look at the freedom that our classically liberal forefathers, like Jefferson, envisioned and consider it the starting point from which we ought to improve more and more with future revolutions like theirs, and not one from which we are doomed only to devolve back again into tyrannies more oppressive than the one from which they freed themselves, such as that in which we now live.

[ClayTrainor]

Example of small businesses that have really been hurt by Walmart & the "Big Box" stores, the small metaphysical bookstores I have dealt with for 20 years. Books had a small markup and when Boders & the like took over the market it really hurt them.

Competition is a bitch.

I'm in marketing for a living, and i've lost money because of competition on multiple occasions. I've had to shut down my business for 2 months, with absolutely no money coming in, because of competition.

It's a pain in the ass sometimes, for us little guys, but that's how markets are supposed to work. We compete for the consumer dollars, because the consumers are the ones who decide which businesses deserve to live and die, through their purchases, not democracy or anything like that.




Sam Walton originally tried to give back to the community by supporting small manufacturers, that concept died with him.

Yea, that's cool. I think wal-mart supports a lot of good charities, to this day, however. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17803920/

I have nothing against a corporation that consumers have declared the winner. It used to be Kmart, now it's wal-mart. Sega used to be a top video game competitor, but now it's Microsoft vs Sony vs nintendo. Nobody needs to cry about Sega employees losing their jobs, just like we don't need to cry about mom and pop shops.

[Krugerrand]

But I'm convinced that we can and ought to outdo all of those examples in freedom. We shouldn't look back to some high water mark of our past and try to get there and stop. We should look at the freedom that our classically liberal forefathers, like Jefferson, envisioned and consider it the starting point from which we ought to improve more and more with future revolutions like theirs, and not one from which we are doomed only to devolve back again into tyrannies more oppressive than the one from which they freed themselves, such as that in which we now live.

Good post. This last part needed some music playing in the background.

[YumYum]

1. Wal-mart employees always have the option to quit, and find a better job. I know several who work there and don't feel like they're "treated terribly", and only 1 of them has plans to stay there for any length of time.

2. Wal-mart pays as well as Mom and Pop shops usually did, provides at least as many employment opportunities, and even offers potential to move up to higher positions and pay scales, which mom and pop shops often don't and can't.

3. Individual consumers (you and me) are choosing wal-mart over mom and pop shops, which is why wal-mart is winning.

4. Small business can still compete with wal-mart. Convenience stores offer products that can be found at wal-mart, yet they charge almost twice as much. How can they possibly stay in business, when wal-mart comes to town?

You think a free-market utopia, has existed?

Utopia:
"ideally perfect state" - Princeton

Utopias don't exist, they are a fantasy. A free-market is the best argument in favor of a "fair" market, for everyone. The use of collective force (government), does not ensure a fair market.


lol, so is this an argument in favor of a dictator or something? Do you think "democracy" leads to a free-market? You have some serious misunderstandings of what a free-market is, if this is what you believe.

The lack of a dictator and the existence of democracy is not an indicator of free-markets.

Rule of Law for individuals is very important for a free-market to function properly, dictators and democracy are not in favor of this concept.


Are they destroying your economy, like they are up here in Canada?


You apparently do not know what conditions are like in the Midwestern part of the U.S. Both my Aunt and Uncle work for Wal-Mart, and they both have college degrees. They are abused by their management and none of their fellow employees like working there; in fact, they hate it. You say they can go find another job? Not likely. There are hardly any new jobs, and they are searching franticly. Besides, here in the U.S. we are in a recession. I did a paper on Wal-Mart and Sam Walton’s policy was to treat the employees (not management) and the vendors like shit; only the customers matter. They number one reason people shop at a store is because of location, the second is convenience. It is convenient to shop at Wal-Mart because it carries a large selection of items, not because it is cheaper. It is convenient to shop at a convenient store because it is convenient. So, what does all this have to do with what I said? Wal-Mart is an example of free market utopia and their employees are miserable. If not, why is Wal-Mart demanding in their new program “Project Impact”, that their employees have to start being friendlier to their customers? Wal-Mart employees are not friendly; and for a reason. They are overworked and tired. You would think that in a free market utopia they would be happy and smiling all the time. I am not advocating dictatorship. I am pointing out that there is no free market utopia which you subscribe to, and even if you had free market utopia, it wouldn’t last because evil, corrupt business people would ruin it. It’s a fantasy, and China is showing how capitalism truly works.

[pcosmar]

and China is showing how capitalism truly works.

:confused:
you re in favor of slavery? of state controlled economy? state sponsored environmental rape?
:confused:

[Krugerrand]

You apparently do not know what conditions are like in the Midwestern part of the U.S. Both my Aunt and Uncle work for Wal-Mart, and they both have college degrees. They are abused by their management and none of their fellow employees like working there; in fact, they hate it. You say they can go find another job? Not likely. There are hardly any new jobs, and they are searching franticly. Besides, here in the U.S. we are in a recession. I did a paper on Wal-Mart and Sam Walton’s policy was to treat the employees (not management) and the vendors like shit; only the customers matter. They number one reason people shop at a store is because of location, the second is convenience. It is convenient to shop at Wal-Mart because it carries a large selection of items, not because it is cheaper. It is convenient to shop at a convenient store because it is convenient. So, what does all this have to do with what I said? Wal-Mart is an example of free market utopia and their employees are miserable. If not, why is Wal-Mart demanding in their new program “Project Impact”, that their employees have to start being friendlier to their customers? Wal-Mart employees are not friendly; and for a reason. They are overworked and tired. You would think that in a free market utopia they would be happy and smiling all the time. I am not advocating dictatorship. I am pointing out that there is no free market utopia which you subscribe to, and even if you had free market utopia, it wouldn’t last because evil, corrupt business people would ruin it. It’s a fantasy, and China is showing how capitalism truly works.

Some places are finding creative ways to compete. I have a liking for my nearby Do It Best (http://doitbest.com/main.aspx) hardware store. They are a small, locally owed store. They support the business by being affiliated with Do It Best (http://doitbest.com/main.aspx) that provides them a comprehensive line of products online that can be shipped to the store for free. It's a great business model that I support when they have a competitive price for products I want.

[YumYum]

:confused:
you re in favor of slavery? of state controlled economy? state sponsored environmental rape?
:confused:

No, but isn't that what we have here? That is one of the reasons why I supported Ron Paul in his run for the presidency. I want freedom, but I am beginning to believe that the utopia that we all demand is just a pipe dream. We have all the evils you just mentioned, and so does China, but the difference is that China's program is working: ours is not.

[fisharmor]

You apparently do not know what conditions are like in the Midwestern part of the U.S. Both my Aunt and Uncle work for Wal-Mart, and they both have college degrees.

My wife has a college degree and does not work. I have a 2-year degree and I program computers for a decent wage. This point is irrelevant.


They are abused by their management and none of their fellow employees like working there; in fact, they hate it. You say they can go find another job? Not likely. There are hardly any new jobs, and they are searching franticly. Besides, here in the U.S. we are in a recession.

This is the essence of what a union is supposed to correct. The fact remains that if they don't like it, they can do something else. I don't know what your family history is like, but only one grandparent of mine was not a child of someone who picked up stakes and moved across a freakin' major ocean to get a better life.
You sound like you're arguing that the government has a responsibility to make sure we get a decent job right next to our house.


I did a paper on Wal-Mart and Sam Walton’s policy was to treat the employees (not management) and the vendors like shit; only the customers matter. They number one reason people shop at a store is because of location, the second is convenience. It is convenient to shop at Wal-Mart because it carries a large selection of items, not because it is cheaper. It is convenient to shop at a convenient store because it is convenient. So, what does all this have to do with what I said? Wal-Mart is an example of free market utopia and their employees are miserable. If not, why is Wal-Mart demanding in their new program “Project Impact”, that their employees have to start being friendlier to their customers? Wal-Mart employees are not friendly; and for a reason. They are overworked and tired. You would think that in a free market utopia they would be happy and smiling all the time.

Well, I don't live in the midwest, I live on the east coast. There are an awful lot of happy employees at the local Wal-Mart, and they generally wear turbans. Perhaps a little perspective is in order... perhaps you should contrast your uncle & aunt's situation with one of subsistence farming and systematic state-sponsored gang rape of your family when the US military isn't blowing up your shit.


I am not advocating dictatorship. I am pointing out that there is no free market utopia which you subscribe to, and even if you had free market utopia, it wouldn’t last because evil, corrupt business people would ruin it. It’s a fantasy, and China is showing how capitalism truly works.

No, if anything China is beating us at the wrong game.
What we're trying to get across is that businesses can't get engaged in the practices you decry without some sort of government protection. That is the theme of this thread if you go back and re-read it.

Oh, and I had to throw this in about the national parks.... I visited Yellowstone, but I went back for a second visit to Philmont Scout Ranch. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philmont) A private venture that not only showed me nature, but trained me in how to safely deal with the bears I actually did run into. At Yellowstone, all I saw was a bunch of stinking pools of sulphur.

[ClayTrainor]

You apparently do not know what conditions are like in the Midwestern part of the U.S. Both my Aunt and Uncle work for Wal-Mart, and they both have college degrees.
Funny, i don't have a college degree, many people around here come up with similar arguments you did, and yet i'm successful.

I think we can finally conclusively prove that college doesn't mean shit in the real world.



They are abused by their management and none of their fellow employees like working there; in fact, they hate it.

First off, describe "Abuse". It sounds like they should quit, and pursue other options, and if they are being physically abused, they can sue for millions or lay criminal charges.



You say they can go find another job? Not likely. There are hardly any new jobs, and they are searching franticly.

They can't find a new job, other than wal-mart? Weird, i found a career online, and started up my own successful business without hardly searching at all, and i don't even have a college degree.



Besides, here in the U.S. we are in a recession. I did a paper on Wal-Mart and Sam Walton’s policy was to treat the employees (not management) and the vendors like shit; only the customers matter.
Only the customers should matter. Where do you think the paycheck comes from?

When the employees are treated as more important than the customers, a problem unfolds. See GM Bailouts ;)

Imagine if sony was more worried about providing social welfare, than making good tv's and video game systems. Do you honestly think they'd create nearly as many jobs?



They number one reason people shop at a store is because of location, the second is convenience. It is convenient to shop at Wal-Mart because it carries a large selection of items, not because it is cheaper.

It's cheaper and convenient. 2 good reasons to shop there. Thanks for clarifying :)



It is convenient to shop at a convenient store because it is convenient. So, what does all this have to do with what I said?

Really? You don't get it?

Let me put it into terms a 5 year old can understand.

Just because Mom and Pop's porcelain dog store got put out of business by wal-mart, does not me there is a problem. Mom and Pop gotta adapt to consumer demands, because they themselves are consumers. They can open up another store, that competes with wal-mart. You already admitted that convenience stores exist, because there is a demand for convenience. There's a great idea for mom and pop! "Mom and Pops Variety" ;)

Provide a service that people want, and you will have consumers, which will in turn fund jobs which is the cure for poverty. Capitalism. Jobs are a product of consumer choice, not the other way around.





Wal-Mart is an example of free market utopia and their employees are miserable.
There you go with that word utopia again :rolleyes:

I do not know a single misreable wal-mart employee, and i know several. I'm sure they exist, as every single place of employment i've worked at has had it's fair share of misreable employees. I could've chosen to work at a wal-mart, when i was younger. I decided to work my ass off at a lumber yard, doing hard labor, because it paid like $2 more per hour.

Are your friends who are so pissed at wal-mart willing to do hard-labor, instead?



If not, why is Wal-Mart demanding in their new program “Project Impact”, that their employees have to start being friendlier to their customers?
They don't have a right to satisfy their customers?

Maybe some of the employees have been rude, and have been driving away business. You understand that business is what provides the jobs, right?

I'm not sure you do.... If employees were being rude to my customers, i'd fire their ass.



Wal-Mart employees are not friendly; and for a reason.

I disagree, wal-mart employees are at least as friendly as the korean convenience store owners.



They are overworked and tired. You would think that in a free market utopia they would be happy and smiling all the time.

Your use of the word utopia, is embarrassing. I suggest you stop. Anyone who can't push themselves beyond a job a wal-mart, is not a smart person, or has no real sincere motivation to be anything more. Sorry to put it to you bluntly.

They're probably miserable because they're failures. At least wal-mart gave them jobs, so they don't have to be fucking bums, or leeches on social welfare.



I am not advocating dictatorship. I am pointing out that there is no free market utopia which you subscribe to, and even if you had free market utopia, it wouldn’t last because evil, corrupt business people would ruin it.
You're putting words in my mouth, i would never subscribe to a utopian vison.

I subscribe to a voluntary society. I would never want anything preventing those "oppressed" employees from seeking work and opportunities elsewhere, but i'm not going to hand them money and a job, for simply existing, and hating their current job.



It’s a fantasy, and China is showing how capitalism truly works.

Capitalism:
"an economic system based on private ownership of capital" - Princeton University.

Please explain how China is a capitalist society?

How is owning things on a private level, destroying society? Should you not be allowed to own a business, a home, a car? Should these all be public assets, or private CAPITAL? Capitalism hasn't failed, it was hijacked by corporatism through democracy and statist collectivism. China is not even close to a free-market society.

YouTube - -DVD Version: INTRO - Individualism vs Collectivism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMYicq_SN1E)

[YumYum]

Funny, i don't have a college degree, many people around here come up with similar arguments you did, and yet i'm successful.

I think we can finally conclusively prove that college doesn't mean shit in the real world.



First off, describe "Abuse". It sounds like they should quit, and pursue other options, and if they are being physically abused, they can sue for millions or lay criminal charges.



They can't find a new job, other than wal-mart? Weird, i found a career online, and started up my own successful business without hardly searching at all, and i don't even have a college degree.


Only the customers should matter. Where do you think the paycheck comes from?

When the employees are treated as more important than the customers, a problem unfolds. See GM Bailouts ;)

Imagine if sony was more worried about providing social welfare, than making good tv's and video game systems. Do you honestly think they'd create nearly as many jobs?



It's cheaper and convenient. 2 good reasons to shop there. Thanks for clarifying :)



Really? You don't get it?

Let me put it into terms a 5 year old can understand.

Just because Mom and Pop's porcelain dog store got put out of business by wal-mart, does not me there is a problem. Mom and Pop gotta adapt to consumer demands, because they themselves are consumers. They can open up another store, that competes with wal-mart. You already admitted that convenience stores exist, because there is a demand for convenience. There's a great idea for mom and pop! "Mom and Pops Variety" ;)

Provide a service that people want, and you will have consumers, which will in turn fund jobs which is the cure for poverty. Capitalism. Jobs are a product of consumer choice, not the other way around.




There you go with that word utopia again :rolleyes:

I do not know a single misreable wal-mart employee, and i know several. I'm sure they exist, as every single place of employment i've worked at has had it's fair share of misreable employees. I could've chosen to work at a wal-mart, when i was younger. I decided to work my ass off at a lumber yard, doing hard labor, because it paid like $2 more per hour.

Are your friends who are so pissed at wal-mart willing to do hard-labor, instead?


They don't have a right to satisfy their customers?

Maybe some of the employees have been rude, and have been driving away business. You understand that business is what provides the jobs, right?

I'm not sure you do.... If employees were being rude to my customers, i'd fire their ass.



I disagree, wal-mart employees are at least as friendly as the korean convenience store owners.



Your use of the word utopia, is embarrassing. I suggest you stop. Anyone who can't push themselves beyond a job a wal-mart, is not a smart person, or has no real sincere motivation to be anything more. Sorry to put it to you bluntly.

They're probably miserable because they're failures. At least wal-mart gave them jobs, so they don't have to be fucking bums, or leeches on social welfare.


You're putting words in my mouth, i would never subscribe to a utopian vison.

I subscribe to a voluntary society. I would never want anything preventing those "oppressed" employees from seeking work and opportunities elsewhere, but i'm not going to hand them money and a job, for simply existing, and hating their current job.



Capitalism:
"an economic system based on private ownership of capital" - Princeton University.

Please explain how China is a capitalist society?

How is owning things on a private level, destroying society? Should you not be allowed to own a business, a home, a car? Should these all be public assets, or private CAPITAL? Capitalism hasn't failed, it was hijacked by corporatism through democracy and statist collectivism. China is not even close to a free-market society.

YouTube - -DVD Version: INTRO - Individualism vs Collectivism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMYicq_SN1E)


: "Funny, i don't have a college degree."

I know. I can tell. And it is not funny: it is sad. If you ever do decide to get an education be sure to take a course in debate. The dumb socialist professors will teach you to attack the issues and not the person. You don't make your point very well with ad hominem abusive attacks. My aunt and uncle are not failures.

[ClayTrainor]

: "Funny, i don't have a college degree."

I know. I can tell.
For someone speaking out against ad-hominem's, that sure is a nice one :o



And it is not funny: it is sad.
The fact that they can't progress beyond a job at wal-mart? I agree, it is sad. I'm an idiot who dropped out of college, and i was able to go way beyond a job at a department store with my career. No opportunities were handed to me.



If you ever do decide to get an education be sure to take a course in debate.
I just didn't let school get in the way of my education ;)

And by the way, i never directly insulted you or anyone you know, so you're kind of just copping out.



The dumb socialist professors will teach you to attack the issues and not the person.
Not once did i insult you, i'm just saying, if they truly can't figure out how to do anything in this world, besides work at wal-mart and they blame wal-mart, the only company willing to give them a job, they have the mentality of a failure.

Sorry that the truth hurts.


You don't make your point very well with ad hominem abusive attacks. My aunt and uncle are not failures.

i never directly called your aunt and uncle failures, i don't know them. I was talking about wal-mart employees in general, who blame wal-mart for their crappy financial situation.

To rehash:

First you said


Wal-Mart employees are not friendly; and for a reason.
They are overworked and tired. You would think that in a free market utopia they would be happy and smiling all the time.

Then i said


Anyone who can't push themselves beyond a job a wal-mart, is not a smart person, or has no real sincere motivation to be anything more. Sorry to put it to you bluntly.

They're probably miserable because they're failures. At least wal-mart gave them jobs, so they don't have to be fucking bums, or leeches on social welfare.

Learn to understand what i'm saying, and you'll realize i didn't insult you at all. I'm just pointing out mentalities that lead to failure. I have no idea who your aunt and uncle are, and not once did i insult them. If they're misreable, they work at wal-mart, and 100% blame wal-mart for being misreable, than yes, that is a good indication of being a failure. Most of the people i know working at wal-mart are trying very hard to earn careers elsewhere, and i have no doubt they will. They don't blame wal-mart for employing them, they thank them.

Being successful in life, is about being happy, not about being rich. Plenty of people working at wal-mart are just as happy as the people making minimum wage, or even large salaries anywhere else. I'm literally not any more happy now that i have a good income, vs when i made $12 at the lumber yard. Life is just good.

YouTube - Penn Jillette - Wal-Mart (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfgkjwBydwI)

[RedStripe]

States have no more right to include religious indoctrination/bullshit in their schools than does the Federal government in its school system (D.C. public schools).

Why? The 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was clearly passed to make the Bill of Rights restrict the state governments just as it restricts the federal government. I like the fact that the First Amendment freedom of speech protects (in theory, at least) my expression against censorship by my state government, just as it prevents the federal government from restricting my expression.

I have no problem with federal courts prohibiting the states from violating the Constitution, because the Constitution is basically meaningless anyway, and it's one less thing the government (at any level) can do.

Just because we don't like the federal government doesn't mean we have to like the state governments or want to make them more powerful. State governments are what we have to deal with the most on a day-to-day basis, and they suck.

[romeno182]

so a few questions to you all who seem to repeat r.paul statements like dogma:

what if workers create unions, to have more rights, is that free market?


when businnesses get extremely big they have too much power to influence the market and theres the danger of monopoly, should there be cosumer unions (private), antitrust agencies fighting the monopoly? how do you protect from fraud? only when a private subject goes to court?

[erowe1]

so a few questions to you all who seem to repeat r.paul statements like dogma:

what if workers create unions, to have more rights, is that free market?


when businnesses get extremely big they have too much power to influence the market and theres the danger of monopoly, should there be cosumer unions (private), antitrust agencies fighting the monopoly? how do you protect from fraud? only when a private subject goes to court?

If unions arise in a free market and function entirely without help of any kind from the state, then that's fine. If their employers fire all the union workers for joining that union, that's fine too. Likewise, if big corporations manage to get so big solely by free exchanges among free people without depending on intervention from the government, then that is also fine. But generally speaking, it unions and monopolies both depend on certain favors from the state for their existence, the support of unions as a way of mitigating against the power of big corporations is just another case of a government based solution to a government based problem.

This isn't repeating an RP statement like dogma (and I haven't read the entire thread, but I haven't seen anybody do that here at all). This is widely known among people who have studied free market economics. If you're interested in the subject, and not just as some curiosity for you to discard by repeating some line of conventional wisdom you heard from your high school history teacher, then you might try reading what some have written about this subject. One place you can start where you can find bite size articles on various subjects is mises.org.

I realize this is practically the same thing I said to Yum Yum above. But since you're virtually repeating her objection unaltered, I'll do the same with my answer.