Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I recommend Sowell's "The Vision of the Anointed" . A few quotes from that book:
In case you have not grasped it the anointed are liberals.
As long as there is no foreign competition or substitute goods or services corporations love regulations. It creates barriers to entry and the costs are ultimately paid by consumers.
Unfettered mercantile trade with regulations favors the most unscrupulous practices, E.g. outright cheating. Every contact requires some contact law. Complete elimination of government from the economy is absolutely impossible.
This is not a liberal vs. Libertarian issue. It is an issue that requires everyone to observe and rework their way of thinking about government and industry.
Unfettered mercantile trade with regulations favors the most unscrupulous practices, E.g. outright cheating. Every contact requires some contact law. Complete elimination of government from the economy is absolutely impossible.
This is not a liberal vs. Libertarian issue. It is an issue that requires everyone to observe and rework their way of thinking about government and industry.
Not impossible...
And what cheating? I'm sure we agree on a lot, but I'm wondering what you see as unscrupulous behavior or cheating.
And what cheating? I'm sure we agree on a lot, but I'm wondering what you see as unscrupulous behavior or cheating.
How about selling someone a product with a warranty and you fail to honor the warranty? It's called contact law. Or should we do away with contact law?
It's hilarious that many of the statistics and data that he uses comes from Heritage Foundation and an anti-environmental libertarian think tank that he funds. That said, it's great that he think that corporate welfare is bad, but like most libertarians he has no answers to the problems beyond, "do away with government regulations." which is so broad a statement that it's meaningless.
Libertarian economic theories, if you can call them that, are more Pollyannish than anything a wide-eyed liberal could ever come up with. They assume that things will just work out because the market is somehow a Star Wars Force-like thing that will bring balance if it can, and ignores the rather unsavory past experiences with the laissez-faire approach.
You notice that too. The libertarian view is far too dependant on people doing what is right without a stick or even a carrot. It is like with social safety nets, people say we need to remove them and let it be charities and religious organizations. OK, but what happens when not enough people give to these whether it is foods, money or time and energy? Nobody answers that part...
You notice that too. The libertarian view is far too dependant on people doing what is right without a stick or even a carrot. It is like with social safety nets, people say we need to remove them and let it be charities and religious organizations. OK, but what happens when not enough people give to these whether it is foods, money or time and energy? Nobody answers that part...
Extreme libertarians are as childish and naïve as one world, save everybody, America is the bad guy leftists, and more deluded than wild west wannabe right wing nut jobs.
Extreme libertarians are as childish and naïve as one world, save everybody, America is the bad guy leftists, and more deluded than wild west wannabe right wing nut jobs.
This is not the question. The question is has more and more government created the wealth and power gap. It indeed the Billionaire Class controls government then they are most assuredly using it for their own benefit. Do all these government programs, including Obamacare and Wall Street bailouts end up benefit the top 1%? And by increasing government are we increasing the disparity of wealth?
In an op-ed for the Washington Post Charles Koch writes that he fundamentally agreed with Bernie Sanders that the system is rigged to the advantage of the wealthy. Where he disagrees with Sanders is how to remedy the problem. He believes that Government, and more specifically the money that government spends, is the vehicle that the wealthy use in order to expand their influence so more government will only exasperate the problem.
As a Bernie supporter I totally understand his point of view and would wonder how Bernie world respond. How does one remedy a problem by increasing the influence of the primary cause? It is a good question.
Excerpts from the op-ed:
" The senator is upset with a political and economic system that is often rigged to help the privileged few at the expense of everyone else, particularly the least advantaged. He believes that we have a two-tiered society that increasingly dooms millions of our fellow citizens to lives of poverty and hopelessness. He thinks many corporations seek and benefit from corporate welfare while ordinary citizens are denied opportunities and a level playing field.
I agree with him."
"Democrats and Republicans have too often favored policies and regulations that pick winners and losers. This helps perpetuate a cycle of control, dependency, cronyism and poverty in the United States. These are complicated issues, but it’s not enough to say that government alone is to blame. Large portions of the business community have actively pushed for these policies."
"I applaud the senator for giving a voice to many Americans struggling to get ahead in a system too often stacked in favor of the haves, but I disagree with his desire to expand the federal government’s control over people’s lives. This is what built so many barriers to opportunity in the first place.
This is shockingly hypocritical coming from a man who pours millions of dollars into elections, to influence state and local politicians to vote according to his interests.
How about selling someone a product with a warranty and you fail to honor the warranty? It's called contact law. Or should we do away with contact law?
Most libertarians are not anarchists. Most favor government enforcing contracts.
This is shockingly hypocritical coming from a man who pours millions of dollars into elections, to influence state and local politicians to vote according to his interests.
His business interests or his interest in making the US a constitutional republic again? Is it actually possible he has some unselfish interests just like Warren Buffet but the two disagree on policies?
You have to play the game by the current rules even when you are trying to change those rules.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
