PDA

View Full Version : Economic: Corporations: Corporations and Regulations




Beardbar
12-13-2011, 12:34 AM
Hi All,

I have supported Ron Paul from the get go. In 2008 I would get home from work and put 8 foot ron paul sign on the top of my car, on the weekends I would get with other supporters on the corners holding up the sign.

I am however a liberal, but a fiscal conservative. I do believe in things like free health care for all, College education for every american citizen. I believe those are however the responsibility of the states and not the federal governments.

I wanted to get some discussion about Corporations however. I am fearful and perhaps this is a lack of understanding. I believe corporations are not people, and are inherently evil by design, not by the fault of the people that work for them.

What brings this up is the documentary gaslands and the process called fracking (not battlestar gallatica). Where they deregulate and made natural gas exempt from the clean air and water acts and proceeded to frack up the water supply.

I am trying to explain to my wife, and others why Ron Paul is a good choice, but the fact that he is for deregulation turns them off. To me, in order to deregulate, you have to establish law so that individuals can file suits. How can you establish law with out regulation? How does the free market system handle big corporations like this?

I am not great at presenting my questions so I hope you all get the gist of what I am asking.

kuckfeynes
12-13-2011, 01:48 AM
To begin with, there's simply no federal authority for it. Nor for the free health care or college education.

I could explain why those things are bad too, but suffice to say that it's a state's decision if they wish to experiment with them.

As for the issue itself, much has been written on pollution. It basically boils down to the courts' failure to protect property rights. Regulation usually just succeeds in doing two things: give large corporations a competitive advantage allowing them to grow bigger than the market would normally allow, and give those bloated corporations license to operate with impunity under the guise of a watchful state agency. Thus having the unintended result of fostering more pollution.

Some good resources for further reading...
Great Tom DiLorenzo article from 1992 (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/why-socialism-causes-pollution/)
Rothbard's Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution (http://blog.mises.org/4939/law-property-rights-and-air-pollution-by-murray-rothbard/)
Mises.org thread (http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/24978.aspx)

jkm1864
12-13-2011, 10:18 AM
You need to study real free market principles.......


If You were the only guy in Your city that could repair cars then You could charge what ever You want up to a point right? Now if people don't like Your prices then they will drive to another city thus bringing down the price You can charge right? Now apply this to the medical industry.....


You can't apply this rule to the medical industry because the govenment restricts the ammount of doctors thus lowering supply. The govenment also pays medicade and free medical for the poor which drives the prices through the roof. If everyone had to pay for their own healthcare there is no way a hospital will be able to charge 50k for two hours worth of work because people would refuse to pay.

Beardbar
12-13-2011, 09:45 PM
Kuckfeynes: Thanks those links were great. Mises.org guy better articulated exactly the questions I had in mind. Cheers.

Mitt Romney
12-14-2011, 11:34 AM
Hey Beardbar. Thanks for bringing up a legitimate point for discussion. I think others have addressed your general question about how to deal with corporations, pollution, health care, etc.

May I make a few simple observations and follow-up questions? If government is to regulate due to "potential" of harm to someone's health, property, or other factors, would you agree that also is best handled by the local governments? In addition, do you think that perhaps the court of law is a better avenue to use to resolve such matters rather than having the government set rules that restrict private enterprises from coming up with safter or better methods?

For instance, if you ban fracing (or any other practice) due to a situation in which one corporation truly caused injury, why shouldn't others be allowed to find a means to perform fracing in a safe manner using technological or other means?

More specifically in regards to the Gaslands documentary. I'm one that is a stickler for being factually accurate when exposing the dangers or threat of something, whether it be the government, a politician, a drug, a process, or whatever it may be. I think you have to be very careful to not go on the offensive without having the facts or data to back yourself up. My problem with Gaslands is that it seeks a lot of emotional response rather than providing facts. Also, there are a lot of statements that really have holes in them. One of the biggest HUH? moments for me is the fact that fracing is occurring so much lower in the ground than where people get their drinking water from. That alone is a huge red flag for me.

I'd be interested in what you think of this article: http://thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/energy/9301-firewater-and-other-urban-fracing-legends

The article is obviously negative toward Gaslands but I'm curious how the producers of the documentary would respond to some of the questions or allegations brought forward in the article.

Beardbar
12-14-2011, 10:34 PM
Hi Mitt, I just finished reading your article, they raised some good points. I am a fairly skeptical person so will do my due diligence. For the record I do believe all of this can be handled at the local level.

http://1trickpony.cachefly.net/gas/pdf/Affirming_Gasland_Sept_2010.pdf

I am reading this now, just started looks to be a long read, so lets read it together.

P.S. I am not going to vote for you.