So you mean "do not have a government".

I Wear Pants;1022196 wrote:So you mean "do not have a government".

Did I say that? In order to have a government at all they have to participate in the economy? They can't just protect our life, liberty, and property?

Cleveland Buck;1022203 wrote:Did I say that? In order to have a government at all they have to participate in the economy? They can't just protect our life, liberty, and property?

Are you only talking about the federal level?

I Wear Pants;1022212 wrote:Are you only talking about the federal level?

Yes, for this discussion, although I would prefer that at all levels. There is nothing to say that the states can't regulate things, and I don't care what the other states do as long as it doesn't affect me.

Cleveland Buck;1022084 wrote:How will that solve the problem? The lobbyists will just buy new politicians when their limits are up. The only way to solve the problem of cronyism is to eliminate the government's ability to grant them favors.

There is no question the more time congressmen spend in elected office, the more corrupt they become. Therefore, limiting their time limits their corruptability. Today's congressmen/women get married to those that can virtually promise their election...or at least give them enough cash to pull it off.

Have you ever wondered how a politician, say someone like Harry Reid, can get elected as a middle class income earner, and after 4 or 5 terms, become a multi-millionaire and land baron? I could rattle off hundreds of more names, but his came to mind first. How is it the longest tenured congresspeople become so utterly rich? Don't you believe folks like Frank, Dodd, Reid, Pelosi, Kerry, etc. are beholden to their special interests more than American values, solving problems, and making our country the best it can be?

This whole Keystone pipeline denial by the President of the United States is near-treasonous behavior, if not impeachable. How is it we've developed into a country where pandering to those whom will help him get re-elected trumps jobs, growth, less-dependence of foreign oil, and a more sound energy policy for EVERYONE?

BGFalcons82;1022218 wrote:There is no question the more time congressmen spend in elected office, the more corrupt they become. Therefore, limiting their time limits their corruptability. Today's congressmen/women get married to those that can virtually promise their election...or at least give them enough cash to pull it off.

Have you ever wondered how a politician, say someone like Harry Reid, can get elected as a middle class income earner, and after 4 or 5 terms, become a multi-millionaire and land baron? I could rattle off hundreds of more names, but his came to mind first. How is it the longest tenured congresspeople become so utterly rich? Don't you believe folks like Frank, Dodd, Reid, Pelosi, Kerry, etc. are beholden to their special interests more than American values, solving problems, and making our country the best it can be?

This whole Keystone pipeline denial by the President of the United States is near-treasonous behavior, if not impeachable. How is it we've developed into a country where pandering to those whom will help him get re-elected trumps jobs, growth, less-dependence of foreign oil, and a more sound energy policy for EVERYONE?

Of course they are, but if you throw them out and the next group can come in and take care of those same special interests, they will get the same deal.

Cleveland Buck;1022223 wrote:Of course they are, but if you throw them out and the next group can come in and take care of those same special interests, they will get the same deal.

You know, if the laundry is still dirty after the first wash, you put it back into the washing machine until the laundry is clean. These lobbyists would eventually have the light of day shine upon them as today they are well hidden under a 10-term congressperson. I never said 1 election would cure it...or even 2. Eventually, we'd get back to electing "statesmen" and not cronies, which, by the way, is how it was originally intended.

On a sub-note: I know this board abhors Rick Perry, but his idea of only coming to Washington half as much is certainly a very good idea to me.

I'm off subject now and didn't intend to get that way. I'll refrain from further non-Piracy discussion.

Cleveland Buck;1022217 wrote:Yes, for this discussion, although I would prefer that at all levels. There is nothing to say that the states can't regulate things, and I don't care what the other states do as long as it doesn't affect me.

So you think that industries will provide adequate regulations for themselves? Even when it oftentimes costs more?

I Wear Pants;1022254 wrote:So you think that industries will provide adequate regulations for themselves? Even when it oftentimes costs more?

When the government enforces property rights, the free market regulates itself and is much stricter than some half ass regulations that are designed to limit competition. If a company pollutes your land, you take them to court. It costs a lot more than some regulations that someone else paid for a loophole in. If a bank lends out more money than they have, in a free market they would be insolvent. With a market money supply, no bank is going to forgo lending that money to creditworthy people or businesses to speculate in stocks and derivatives when those would not artificially inflated or backed up by sovereign governments. The key is enforcing property rights. Without that then you will have the problems that cause people to look to the government for solutions.

That is where we strayed in the 19th century. When banks failed from printing too many notes, the government gave them a pass and robbed the people who had deposits in the banks. When factories began polluting everywhere, they decided it was good for business for the courts to side with the factories instead of the land owners whose lands were defaced. Just enforcing property rights would have allowed the market to solve the problems and we wouldn't have had the clamoring for the government to take care of us.

Cleveland Buck;1022281 wrote:When the government enforces property rights, the free market regulates itself and is much stricter than some half ass regulations that are designed to limit competition. If a company pollutes your land, you take them to court. It costs a lot more than some regulations that someone else paid for a loophole in. If a bank lends out more money than they have, in a free market they would be insolvent. With a market money supply, no bank is going to forgo lending that money to creditworthy people or businesses to speculate in stocks and derivatives when those would not artificially inflated or backed up by sovereign governments. The key is enforcing property rights. Without that then you will have the problems that cause people to look to the government for solutions.

That is where we strayed in the 19th century. When banks failed from printing too many notes, the government gave them a pass and robbed the people who had deposits in the banks. When factories began polluting everywhere, they decided it was good for business for the courts to side with the factories instead of the land owners whose lands were defaced. Just enforcing property rights would have allowed the market to solve the problems and we wouldn't have had the clamoring for the government to take care of us.

This seems to suggest that a company should be allowed to pollute their own land.

And that doesn't work because of the costs involved with litigation intrinsically benefiting the corporation over the individual.

I Wear Pants;1022345 wrote:This seems to suggest that a company should be allowed to pollute their own land.

And that doesn't work because of the costs involved with litigation intrinsically benefiting the corporation over the individual.

It suggests that they can do whatever they want to their own land as long as it doesn't affect anyone else's land, air, water, or property.

And when discussing hypothetical free markets, you can't point to costs of anything as if it were similar to today. Who knows how cheap it would be to get a lawyer in a free market. Lawyers might be dirt cheap up front if they knew the courts were enforcing property rights and it would be more likely they would win the case.

https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/One-Page-SOPA_0.pdf

It's sad that no one is talking about this. And no one in the media is talking about it either. Probably deliberately.

No one ever talks about the terrible legislation that the Obama administration passes. They didn't say anything about the bill he signed allowing the military to detain Americans, either.

tk421;1050507 wrote:No one ever talks about the terrible legislation that the Obama administration passes. They didn't say anything about the bill he signed allowing the military to detain Americans, either.

Yes we did. And NDAA (the bill you're talking about) was very much bipartisan. Both parties fucking blow.

Reddit and a bunch of activist groups threw a shit fit about NDAA. Just no one who gets their information from the news on television would have heard about it.

well, that's the vast majority of the public.

G4 had a minute or two clip about it. something about websites shutting down for a day or something. i obviously didnt care and wasnt paying attention.

I saw that Google, FB, Twitter and Wikipedia are contemplating a mass shut-down for a day in protest of this. I think if they put up a page that linked to info about why they're doing it than it could potentially cause enough outrage that the thing gets shit canned like it should. This is beyond ridiculous. And I'm not some up-tight conservative.

Reddit is blacking out for a day and Wikipedia may too. If Wikipedia or Google blackout it will probably work

I Wear Pants;1051529 wrote:Reddit is blacking out for a day and Wikipedia may too. If Wikipedia or Google blackout it will probably work

the internet is too big. people will go elsewhere. i wont hesitate to go back to Excite!

It's despicable, but there is nothing to stop them from passing it. The Fascist party owns the White House and all but a handful in the House and Senate. There is only one way to get rid of it, and that is elect the only candidate that truly opposes this with every fiber of his being.

Glory Days;1051615 wrote:the internet is too big. people will go elsewhere. i wont hesitate to go back to Excite!

Google and Wikipedia people will not go without.
And so are you for this then and why?

I Wear Pants;1051715 wrote:Google and Wikipedia people will not go without.
And so are you for this then and why?

He is for anything the government tells him to be for.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/under-voter-pressure-members-of-congress-backpedal-on-sopa.ars

About damn time. I've called my reps at least three times about this bullshit and apparently a bunch of other people have too.

"Another member of Congress that has been feeling the heat from voters is Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). After reddit members raised $15,000 in 48 hours for his anti-SOPA challenger, Ryan came out with a clear statement of opposition to the legislation."

Surprise surprise, these scumbags listen when money starts to get involved. Can we get that shit out of politics already so we don't have industries or companies paying for bullshit bills like these and citizens having to scrounge up their very limited funds to try to raise enough of a racket for these cunts to listen?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71445.html