• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A question for the bluest of liberals...

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What part of your life do you want regulated?

Do you honestly expect the Federal government to stop at regulating just the businessmen? You don't think empowering the government to protect us from our own harmful decisions will not escalate into a system of total disregard of individual rights? Free speech? Let's regulate! Prostitution? Let's OUTLAW. Drugs? Let's OUTLAW and create a drug war. Poverty? Let's regulate the marketplace in order to artifically equalize society (yea right!), and then wage a war on poverty! Personal decisions about one's own body? Well hell if you're going to ban the salting of pre-cooked food within city limits, let's do away with the harmful abortion procedures!

Fairness Doctrine? Let's embrace!

Give me a break!
 

tacomancer

Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
41,717
Reaction score
22,304
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I cannot say how blue I am, personally, I think I am fairly close to center, other people may disagree where I stand.

Personally, I don't wish to regulate anything, at least not for its own sake. Ultimately, I see it as a necessary evil.

The rest of your post is just a rant.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I cannot say how blue I am, personally, I think I am fairly close to center, other people may disagree where I stand.

Personally, I don't wish to regulate anything, at least not for its own sake. Ultimately, I see it as a necessary evil.

The rest of your post is just a rant.
A rant with some good points! Liberals, in my opinion, are the biggest hypocrites in the political arena. They support "civil liberties" and "minority rights" only in terms that they can understand. They fail to recognize that the smallest minority is the individual, and you cannot support the rights of minorities unless you support the fundamental rights of the individual (which don't include stealing from one group of minorities in order to finance the living standards of another group).

You failed to answer the question. How do liberals expect the government will only stop at regulating the business affairs of individuals, and not continue to regulate every other aspect of our lives. Those who seek to control the economy seek to control every aspect of an individual's life.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,117
Reaction score
21,520
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
What part of your life do you want regulated?

Do you honestly expect the Federal government to stop at regulating just the businessmen? You don't think empowering the government to protect us from our own harmful decisions will not escalate into a system of total disregard of individual rights? Free speech? Let's regulate! Prostitution? Let's OUTLAW. Drugs? Let's OUTLAW and create a drug war. Poverty? Let's regulate the marketplace in order to artifically equalize society (yea right!), and then wage a war on poverty! Personal decisions about one's own body? Well hell if you're going to ban the salting of pre-cooked food within city limits, let's do away with the harmful abortion procedures!

Fairness Doctrine? Let's embrace!

Give me a break!
weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee off we go down the slippery slope, slippery slope, slipper slope, off we go down the slippery slope, 'cause fallacies are cool.
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What part of your life do you want regulated?

Do you honestly expect the Federal government to stop at regulating just the businessmen? You don't think empowering the government to protect us from our own harmful decisions will not escalate into a system of total disregard of individual rights? Free speech? Let's regulate! Prostitution? Let's OUTLAW. Drugs? Let's OUTLAW and create a drug war. Poverty? Let's regulate the marketplace in order to artifically equalize society (yea right!), and then wage a war on poverty! Personal decisions about one's own body? Well hell if you're going to ban the salting of pre-cooked food within city limits, let's do away with the harmful abortion procedures!

Fairness Doctrine? Let's embrace!

Give me a break!

AND THE CORRECT ANSWER IS...

"As an individual, I want none of my life regulated, but I do want others to be regulated. In order to have others regulated, I have to agree to submit to being regulated myself."
Thomas Jefferson









PS Thomas Jefferson never said that. I lied. I made it up with me own pea brain.
 
Last edited:

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee off we go down the slippery slope, slippery slope, slipper slope, off we go down the slippery slope, 'cause fallacies are cool.
We certainly all love our slippery slopes, and try our best to go there as often as we can, but I do think it prudent for me to remind you that you misspelled the word "phalluses".
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee off we go down the slippery slope, slippery slope, slipper slope, off we go down the slippery slope, 'cause fallacies are cool.
Usually, a slipper slope fallacy ends with a doomsday prediction. IF this happens, then the catastrophic XYZ will certainly follow suite. But if you actually read the post, everything I said is already IN PLACE (with the exception of the very last sentence regarding the repeal of Roe v. Wade, which is not totally impossible). Other than the abortion reference, everything else has happened and there's no slippery slope. Free Speech is regulated, and has been regulated to a greater extent in the past (ie Fairness Doctrine), we have outlawed drugs, prostitution, and the salting of pre-cooked food within city limits (certain cities apply), etc. We have waged a costly war on drugs and a war on poverty and have attempted to artifically equalize the marketplace through government cohersion. Everything has already happened, there is no slippery slope. My intentions were to reveal the hypocrisy of civil rights minded liberals who think they're doing me a favor by championing for free speech, when they are the ones responsible (in part) for the taking away of constitutional (civil) liberties.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
A rant with some good points! Liberals, in my opinion, are the biggest hypocrites in the political arena. They support "civil liberties" and "minority rights" only in terms that they can understand. They fail to recognize that the smallest minority is the individual, and you cannot support the rights of minorities unless you support the fundamental rights of the individual (which don't include stealing from one group of minorities in order to finance the living standards of another group).

You failed to answer the question. How do liberals expect the government will only stop at regulating the business affairs of individuals, and not continue to regulate every other aspect of our lives. Those who seek to control the economy seek to control every aspect of an individual's life.
question for you: if our country just dropped all entitlement programs, what do YOU think would happen, practically?

and yes, the individual is a minority, but the business is not. business has no inherent rights, imo. regulating business is for the good of the people, do you want to buy tainted milk, do you want to die from an unregulated product? why not let the oil companines continue to self regulate their rigs? i understand the idea of less gov't, and gov't sometimes goes too far. but should heroin be legal?

as the middle class shrinks, please enlighten me as to how exactly we have equalized society. in fact, we haven't. Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
question for you: if our country just dropped all entitlement programs, what do YOU think would happen, practically?

and yes, the individual is a minority, but the business is not. business has no inherent rights, imo. regulating business is for the good of the people, do you want to buy tainted milk, do you want to die from an unregulated product? why not let the oil companines continue to self regulate their rigs? i understand the idea of less gov't, and gov't sometimes goes too far. but should heroin be legal?

as the middle class shrinks, please enlighten me as to how exactly we have equalized society. in fact, we haven't. Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Response to the question regarding entitlemen t programs:

Yes, doing away with ALL entitlement programs could be fatal for some elderly and disabled people. Usually, they'd have to be pretty isolated and without a stable family to support them. I am not for doing away with ALL welfare programs, just most of them. I think we could have a system where the taxpayer covers the misfortune of certain individuals. However, for the most part, welfare and the like are self-defeating to those who benefit from the programs. I believe personal responsibility should take precedence over general welfare. I'm not a total social darwinist. I believe in a safety net, but the liberal's idea of a safety net resembles a hammock.

Question for you: What do you suppose politicians do about the escalating deficits, unfunded liabilities, and rising costs associated with the sleuth of entitlement programs? Take the biggest programs, Social Security and Medicare, and tell me how is America going to continue to afford these programs when the demographic shift leaves us with three retirees for every one working individual. It is absolutely impossible to sustain in its current format, even if you tax 90% of the richest 1%. As a young twenty-something year old, I will end up paying, in my lifetime, far more than my parents or grandparents paid in taxes to sustain those who are retiring now...and I'll end up receiving less when I retire (due to inevitable cuts and higher taxes, not to mention extended borrowing, higher inflation, and an increased standard of living). What is your solution to these looming problems? No one is arguing to completely eliminate the governmental safety net, because that's a non-issue. THIS is an issue, and a fairly large neglected issue at that.

2) Businesses are associations of individuals who come together spontaneously by virtue of their own free choice. Government should not be regulating them anymore than they regulate your neighborhood get-togethers.

3) It is already possible to buy tainted milk. Regulation does not protect us from disaster, contrary to popular opinion. We should be able to buy the products and services we wish to buy without government restriction. The government's issue with making information more readily available to the consumer is all well and good, but it is no more efficient in getting out the message than Angieslist, Consumer Report, BBB, or a host of other informative network. With the invention and expansion of the internet, there's no longer an excuse to rely soley on the government for information. Is it ok for the government to restrict certain experimental drugs to terminally ill patients, because of side effects?!

4) Self-regulating oil rigs are possible without government oversight. First of all, out of all the billions of unregulated oil being pumped out of the deep sea ground, it might actually be safe to say the oil companies have been doing a fabulous job of avoiding this sort of catastrophe. Of course, it is still going to happen with or without intensive governmental regulation. The only thing the regulation will do is it will put smaller companies at a disadvantage, and it will rise the cost of oil, across the board (and with a higher price of oil, you get a higher price of EVERYTHING). But what about the federal government's role in the disaster? They were, after all, the ones who *own* the waters, and they leased the seabed to BP where the explosion took place. MMS is a scandalous, reprehensible, and failed regulatory agency. And also, the fed capped the amount that companies are liable for spills at $75 million. How many billions of dollars has the spill caused? If the government got out of the situation, and allowed a market to exist where every company was 100% responsible for all liabilities, perhaps the companies would behave a little more cautiously. Instead, we have a system where the government wishes to bail out every failing business in order to save jobs. Do you see the canundrum?

5) We should at least decriminalize drug punishments. I know legalization is too far of a reach, but we should at least be legalizing marijuana and decriminalizing all drugs and prostitution. The drug wars are caused because of the illegality of the drugs. Perhaps the level of drug users would increase if we legalized drugs. But I'm far more sympathetic to the inner-city child who gets killed as an innocent bystander in a drug war versus some individual who poisons himself over a period of a lifetime.

6) The middle class is not shrinking. Times are tough, but the shrinking middle class is a myth. The only thing that has changed over the years is our materialistic expectations. People assume that it requires two incomes to maintain a comfortable household, but that's only because they expect two cars in the garage, a larger house, a couple dunebuggies, etc. The good times are not behind us. Try being an optimist and looking at what your ancestors had to sacrifice and go without in order to provide you with a world of opportunity and invention. The middle class in America live like Kings and Queens did back in the 1600's. We live longer, we have more leisurely time, prices of things go down, etc.

And by the way, I said that we have ATTEMPTED to equalize society. You say we haven't, as if that's a bad thing. Maybe you would enjoy life in North Korea where everyone makes the same wage despite their meritous achievements. Maybe you're searching for some grand utopia that will resemble the Eloi lifestyle of the H.G. Wells's Time Machine. The sort of equality that you seek is something I so desperately wish to avoid. Equal protection under the law is fine. But equality of results is not.
 
Last edited:

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,603
Reaction score
22,539
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I'd guess the Bluest of liberals would be Vanity, because he was a flaming gay and flaming gays are usually liberal.

Now Hefty, he was more your log-cabin republican type, which would make him the bluest conservative.
 

Civil1z@tion

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
247
Reaction score
105
Location
US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
question for you: if our country just dropped all entitlement programs, what do YOU think would happen, practically?

and yes, the individual is a minority, but the business is not. business has no inherent rights, imo. regulating business is for the good of the people, do you want to buy tainted milk, do you want to die from an unregulated product? why not let the oil companines continue to self regulate their rigs? i understand the idea of less gov't, and gov't sometimes goes too far. but should heroin be legal?

as the middle class shrinks, please enlighten me as to how exactly we have equalized society. in fact, we haven't. Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here's a question, how exactly does removing entitlement programs the middle class never uses shrink the middle class (which as Elijah pointed out has not been shrinking...poverty rates have been stable for decades so the middle class can't be getting poorer and the only other option is the middle class moving into the upper class which hardly seems like a problem)? As a matter of fact, removing entitlement programs allows for fiscally responsible decreases of middle class tax rates which improves their purchasing power and standard of living. If you're worried about the middle class support entitlement repeal.

As for what would happen if entitlements were repealed, that depends on the entitlement. One universal effect would probably be increases in the amount given to private charities given that a) there would be more money in people's pockets, b) people wouldn't have the expectation that helping the poor is the government's job, and c) people are in general good and do want to voluntarily help others. For welfare and unemployment there would likely be an increasing in working among the poor (here's a study supporting this regarding unemployment). Medicaid repeal would probably lead to an increase in sickness among the poor (possibly compensated by private charity but not for sure). Repealing Medicare and social security completely would probably cause major problems for the elderly (who often can't go back to work), again possibly but not definitely compensated by private charity and/or family support structures. For these reasons I'm Ok with continuing Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security to some extent at least (maybe pruning back some), but I think unemployment benefits and welfare should probably be repealed.
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here's a question, how exactly does removing entitlement programs the middle class never uses shrink the middle class (which as Elijah pointed out has not been shrinking...poverty rates have been stable for decades so the middle class can't be getting poorer and the only other option is the middle class moving into the upper class which hardly seems like a problem)? As a matter of fact, removing entitlement programs allows for fiscally responsible decreases of middle class tax rates which improves their purchasing power and standard of living. If you're worried about the middle class support entitlement repeal.

As for what would happen if entitlements were repealed, that depends on the entitlement. One universal effect would probably be increases in the amount given to private charities given that a) there would be more money in people's pockets, b) people wouldn't have the expectation that helping the poor is the government's job, and c) people are in general good and do want to voluntarily help others. For welfare and unemployment there would likely be an increasing in working among the poor (here's a study supporting this regarding unemployment). Medicaid repeal would probably lead to an increase in sickness among the poor (possibly compensated by private charity but not for sure). Repealing Medicare and social security completely would probably cause major problems for the elderly (who often can't go back to work), again possibly but not definitely compensated by private charity and/or family support structures. For these reasons I'm Ok with continuing Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security to some extent at least (maybe pruning back some), but I think unemployment benefits and welfare should probably be repealed.
Entitlements couldnt be immediately eleminated without severe suffering by some. However entitlements can be eleminated over the time span of a generation without any significant suffering. If we slowly eleminate entitlements we would fix a lot of our money woes without seriously harming anyone. Entitlements do need to go away, but in a humain and fair way.
 

drz-400

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
551
Location
North Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A rant with some good points! Liberals, in my opinion, are the biggest hypocrites in the political arena. They support "civil liberties" and "minority rights" only in terms that they can understand. They fail to recognize that the smallest minority is the individual, and you cannot support the rights of minorities unless you support the fundamental rights of the individual (which don't include stealing from one group of minorities in order to finance the living standards of another group).

You failed to answer the question. How do liberals expect the government will only stop at regulating the business affairs of individuals, and not continue to regulate every other aspect of our lives. Those who seek to control the economy seek to control every aspect of an individual's life.
You should check out the bill of rights, its pretty nifty.
 

tacomancer

Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
41,717
Reaction score
22,304
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I'd guess the Bluest of liberals would be Vanity, because he was a flaming gay and flaming gays are usually liberal.

Now Hefty, he was more your log-cabin republican type, which would make him the bluest conservative.
I bet this guy is a liberal

 

TennesseeRain

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2010
Messages
222
Reaction score
87
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
A rant with some good points! Liberals, in my opinion, are the biggest hypocrites in the political arena. They support "civil liberties" and "minority rights" only in terms that they can understand. They fail to recognize that the smallest minority is the individual, and you cannot support the rights of minorities unless you support the fundamental rights of the individual (which don't include stealing from one group of minorities in order to finance the living standards of another group).

You failed to answer the question. How do liberals expect the government will only stop at regulating the business affairs of individuals, and not continue to regulate every other aspect of our lives. Those who seek to control the economy seek to control every aspect of an individual's life.
Do you mean like telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body? That kind of control?
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Do you mean like telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body? That kind of control?
Oh, so called conservatives are just as much about controling other people as liberals are. That's way I am a radical independent.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Response to the question regarding entitlemen t programs:

Yes, doing away with ALL entitlement programs could be fatal for some elderly and disabled people. Usually, they'd have to be pretty isolated and without a stable family to support them. I am not for doing away with ALL welfare programs, just most of them. I think we could have a system where the taxpayer covers the misfortune of certain individuals. However, for the most part, welfare and the like are self-defeating to those who benefit from the programs. I believe personal responsibility should take precedence over general welfare. I'm not a total social darwinist. I believe in a safety net, but the liberal's idea of a safety net resembles a hammock.

doing away with entitlement programs could be harmful to CHILDREN. most people don't get welfare without them, you know.

Question for you: What do you suppose politicians do about the escalating deficits, unfunded liabilities, and rising costs associated with the sleuth of entitlement programs? Take the biggest programs, Social Security and Medicare, and tell me how is America going to continue to afford these programs when the demographic shift leaves us with three retirees for every one working individual. It is absolutely impossible to sustain in its current format, even if you tax 90% of the richest 1%. As a young twenty-something year old, I will end up paying, in my lifetime, far more than my parents or grandparents paid in taxes to sustain those who are retiring now...and I'll end up receiving less when I retire (due to inevitable cuts and higher taxes, not to mention extended borrowing, higher inflation, and an increased standard of living). What is your solution to these looming problems? No one is arguing to completely eliminate the governmental safety net, because that's a non-issue. THIS is an issue, and a fairly large neglected issue at that.

as a middle aged adult, i have also paid far more than my parents. so?

2) Businesses are associations of individuals who come together spontaneously by virtue of their own free choice. Government should not be regulating them anymore than they regulate your neighborhood get-togethers.

neighborhood get togethers are not for-profit. to say that gov't should not regulate business is just ridiculous.

3) It is already possible to buy tainted milk. Regulation does not protect us from disaster, contrary to popular opinion. We should be able to buy the products and services we wish to buy without government restriction. The government's issue with making information more readily available to the consumer is all well and good, but it is no more efficient in getting out the message than Angieslist, Consumer Report, BBB, or a host of other informative network. With the invention and expansion of the internet, there's no longer an excuse to rely soley on the government for information. Is it ok for the government to restrict certain experimental drugs to terminally ill patients, because of side effects?!

your arguments are becoming kinda silly here. what business will self report if they have a defective product? in fact, what will stop them from making cheap products without regard to safety? not the market, becasue the market would never know.

4) Self-regulating oil rigs are possible without government oversight. First of all, out of all the billions of unregulated oil being pumped out of the deep sea ground, it might actually be safe to say the oil companies have been doing a fabulous job of avoiding this sort of catastrophe. Of course, it is still going to happen with or without intensive governmental regulation. The only thing the regulation will do is it will put smaller companies at a disadvantage, and it will rise the cost of oil, across the board (and with a higher price of oil, you get a higher price of EVERYTHING). But what about the federal government's role in the disaster? They were, after all, the ones who *own* the waters, and they leased the seabed to BP where the explosion took place. MMS is a scandalous, reprehensible, and failed regulatory agency. And also, the fed capped the amount that companies are liable for spills at $75 million. How many billions of dollars has the spill caused? If the government got out of the situation, and allowed a market to exist where every company was 100% responsible for all liabilities, perhaps the companies would behave a little more cautiously. Instead, we have a system where the government wishes to bail out every failing business in order to save jobs. Do you see the canundrum?

ah.....look what happened when the gov't failed and allowed the oil companies to be self regulating. I rest my case. and trust me, the gov't doesn't wnat to bail out those companies, but they do want to save jobs. sometimes it's necessary.
5) We should at least decriminalize drug punishments. I know legalization is too far of a reach, but we should at least be legalizing marijuana and decriminalizing all drugs and prostitution. The drug wars are caused because of the illegality of the drugs. Perhaps the level of drug users would increase if we legalized drugs. But I'm far more sympathetic to the inner-city child who gets killed as an innocent bystander in a drug war versus some individual who poisons himself over a period of a lifetime.

i have no problem with legailizing some drugs.

6) The middle class is not shrinking. Times are tough, but the shrinking middle class is a myth. The only thing that has changed over the years is our materialistic expectations. People assume that it requires two incomes to maintain a comfortable household, but that's only because they expect two cars in the garage, a larger house, a couple dunebuggies, etc. The good times are not behind us. Try being an optimist and looking at what your ancestors had to sacrifice and go without in order to provide you with a world of opportunity and invention. The middle class in America live like Kings and Queens did back in the 1600's. We live longer, we have more leisurely time, prices of things go down, etc.

i think the middle class IS shrinking. i don't like a king, btw.

And by the way, I said that we have ATTEMPTED to equalize society. You say we haven't, as if that's a bad thing. Maybe you would enjoy life in North Korea where everyone makes the same wage despite their meritous achievements. Maybe you're searching for some grand utopia that will resemble the Eloi lifestyle of the H.G. Wells's Time Machine. The sort of equality that you seek is something I so desperately wish to avoid. Equal protection under the law is fine. But equality of results is not.
i have never expected equality of results. to take the leap that i would like to live in NK is insulting and juvenile and a trite argument.

hhmm...........
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You should check out the bill of rights, its pretty nifty.
Are you kidding me? What part of the Bill of Rights would you like to examine, specifically? I would love to have this debate!
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Do you mean like telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body? That kind of control?
Yes, TennesseeRain, that is EXACTLY what I mean. We should be removing the regulation over the rights of individual in nearly all respects. We should legalize prostitution and drugs for the same reasons we should be legalizing economic transactions. Government regulation, oversight, laws, quotas, tariffs, rules, procedures, restrictions, etc. are all largely unnecessary. We need deregulation, decentralization, legalization, and simplification!
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"doing away with entitlement programs could be harmful to CHILDREN. most people don't get welfare without them, you know."

The welfare of children is very important. I don't mind CHIPS or other related govt. programs that offer health care to all needy children. I do believe that the parents are most responsible for their children's welfare, and private charity should take up the extent of the burden of caretaking for the needs of the less fortunate children. You can always win a debate about welfare when you bring up the children, because no rational human being will deny assistance to a needy child (both in terms of private charity and govt. assistance).

"as a middle aged adult, i have also paid far more than my parents. so?"

You didn't answer the question. You have definitely paid more in SS due to inflation and cost of living (inflation is largely caused by government spending), but I will be paying far more even after you adjust for inflation because future generations will inevitably HAVE TO cut my SS and Medicare benefits, and I rightly predict that I will also be paying record taxes.

"neighborhood get togethers are not for-profit. to say that gov't should not regulate business is just ridiculous."

What is so bad about profit? Profit = Progress. Profit = Success. Profit = More jobs, higher incomes, lower prices, higher quality, etc. Why should regulation only affect for-profit institutions? And how many of these non-profit foundation directors pay themselves a salary? Isn't that PROFITTING off of something? All profit is, is the money you come home with at the end of the day.

"your arguments are becoming kinda silly here. what business will self report if they have a defective product? in fact, what will stop them from making cheap products without regard to safety? not the market, becasue the market would never know."

Are you kidding me? What businessman WANTS to make defective products? Who wants to buy defective products? NO ONE! You can't profit off of defective products and no one wishes to buy defective products so businesses are very aware of their self-image. If they're not, they simply go out of business. When you have a free-enterprise system, prices inevitably go down, and quality goes up. History reveals the evidence.

"ah.....look what happened when the gov't failed and allowed the oil companies to be self regulating. I rest my case. and trust me, the gov't doesn't wnat to bail out those companies, but they do want to save jobs. sometimes it's necessary."

Have you even been paying attention? When the oil companies were self-regulating, how many oil spills occurred versus how many billions of barrels oil have been extracted out of deep sea ground? How about the role of the federal government? Are they at fault, at all? How about the scandalous MMS? Would you care to actually respond to the points?

"i have no problem with legailizing some drugs."

Of course, as a liberal democrat, I'm not surprised. But you're not a true liberal if you wish to simultaneously legalize drugs and then repress free speech. And liberal democrats are notorious for repressing free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to own property, etc. (as are conservatives). I'm the only true liberal in this debate.

i think the middle class IS shrinking. i don't like a king, btw.

Judging by this debate, it appears you have access to the Internet. I will bet money that you enjoy the comforts of a heated and/or air-conditioned housing, telephone communication, a car or two, some cable television, etc. None of the kings and queens of 1600 Europe enjoyed such luxury. They had to sweat it out in dark, damp castles. On the other hand, the greed of individuals and the pursuit to make profits ended up creating all the wonders of a capitalistic system. In the past, "middle-class" people would occasionally starve. Today, we have an epidemic of poor people eating too much. All of the evidence indicates that the middle class is doing fine, better than fine. Where is your evidence to the contrary?


"i have never expected equality of results. to take the leap that i would like to live in NK is insulting and juvenile and a trite argument."

If you yearn for an equalized society, than you got it in communism, the equal sharing of misery. If NK was insulting, perhaps Cuba would have been more cordial. If Michael Moore and Chomsky can love Cuban and Venezuelan system of politics, why can't you?
 

MKULTRABOY

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Government regulation, oversight, laws, quotas, tariffs, rules, procedures, restrictions, etc. are all largely unnecessary. We need deregulation, decentralization, legalization, and simplification!
I would describe you as disgruntled and naive on the point above. It sounds like you want to take us back to the 1930s or something. We are the country we are today partially because of our government as a channel for the people's needs. I dont see how you expect the system to not desintegrate by removing oversight and regulation and rules and procedures. It really just sounds like would be happy anarchist hippie farm BS to me. The moment this happens is the moment you realize you need all that regulation and oversight in many cases. Can current regulation be tweaked to be better? Sure, but Id rather not have the private sector lobbyists determining what needs to be regulated and what doesnt. I would rather the people did that.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I would describe you as disgruntled and naive on the point above. It sounds like you want to take us back to the 1930s or something. We are the country we are today partially because of our government as a channel for the people's needs. I dont see how you expect the system to not desintegrate by removing oversight and regulation and rules and procedures. It really just sounds like would be happy anarchist hippie farm BS to me. The moment this happens is the moment you realize you need all that regulation and oversight in many cases. Can current regulation be tweaked to be better? Sure, but Id rather not have the private sector lobbyists determining what needs to be regulated and what doesnt. I would rather the people did that.
I would argue that the goverment interference and centralized planning have caused greater damage versus any significant benefit. Maybe you don't mind the 50,000 page tax code, but I doubt it "helps" anyone. I don't think the government making it harder to open a business, acquire a license, or achieve economic success will help anyone. We can all have equal misery or unequal wealth, but not both. In the majority of the developing world, what do you honestly think is the biggest obstacle standing in the way of progress and opportunity? Throughout history, what has been the largest obstacle to achieving individual happiness? The GOVERNMENT.

Check this video out...

YouTube - Hernando De Soto - Capitalism at Crossroads
 

masonkiller

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
64
Reaction score
16
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
question for you: if our country just dropped all entitlement programs, what do YOU think would happen, practically?
Poverty would be nearly eliminated within a few decades. No more Projects. I noticed ElijahGalts statement:

Yes, doing away with ALL entitlement programs could be fatal for some elderly and disabled people. Usually, they'd have to be pretty isolated and without a stable family to support them. I am not for doing away with ALL welfare programs, just most of them.
We don't need any coercively funded welfare programs at all. There is a natural demand in our society to help those who truly cannot help themselves. If there weren't, entitlement programs wouldn't exist in the first place. This video explains it in better detail:


and yes, the individual is a minority, but the business is not. business has no inherent rights, imo. regulating business is for the good of the people, do you want to buy tainted milk, do you want to die from an unregulated product?
Do you think you're the only person worried about unregulated products harming us? Considering that safety evaluation of products is in high demand, private services would respond to the demand and they could do it better, and more efficiently. Also they couldn't be paid off as long as people were worried about such a thing. If people want something, somebody will see that business oppurtinity and do whatever they can to satisfy those potential customers.

why not let the oil companines continue to self regulate their rigs?
Why not let oil companies have the ability to fail if they mess up instead of allowing them this monopoly?

but should heroin be legal?
Yes. You own yourself, therefore you have the right to put whatever you want into your body.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom