Free to choose

[Cecilie1200]

I'd rather deal with my life's problems, than have the government take care of me.

Good...

Be sure to remember that if your house ever catches on fire

Where are you going with this? The only way someone can get on with their life after a house fire is if government helps them? SHIT HAPPENS. It isn't the role of government to correct every curveball life might throw at you.

He thinks that the fact that the fire department is paid for by your local community government, that must mean you want the government to do everything for you, up to and including wiping your nose and ass.

 

[Bern80]

Bern80, We are more on the same side here. I believe in the Free Market, as the best way of civilized exchange. I would even argue for the Gold Standard, seeing the result as less manipulative in relations to the ups and downs of the value of currency, which is subject to scheme after scheme. This makes the dollar too unstable. There are those that profit greatly from that, and I find the ethics questionable. In a free exchange where both sides are in agreement be it trade, barter, or purchase, I find nothing wrong at all, within the law.

I would agree that we should probably be back on the gold standard and would be all for abolishing a the federal reserve

Contracts can forcibly deprive you of your money, while even giving you substandard service, the government protecting the Corporation over you. Be it problems with Cell Phones, Cable, Leases, Etc... it is easy to find yourself paying for something that could have even been misrepresented, with little or no recourse. Usually you will find the Government is involved with regulation, that makes it harder and more expensive for you.

I would agree that contracts can do that. But they are still contracts. That is, it isn't valid unless you agree to it. I think their is a fine line between businesses putting the finer details in as fine a print as they can find and laziness on the part of the consumer, is all.

 

[Intense]

Bern80, We are more on the same side here. I believe in the Free Market, as the best way of civilized exchange. I would even argue for the Gold Standard, seeing the result as less manipulative in relations to the ups and downs of the value of currency, which is subject to scheme after scheme. This makes the dollar too unstable. There are those that profit greatly from that, and I find the ethics questionable. In a free exchange where both sides are in agreement be it trade, barter, or purchase, I find nothing wrong at all, within the law.

I would agree that we should probably be back on the gold standard and would be all for abolishing a the federal reserve

Contracts can forcibly deprive you of your money, while even giving you substandard service, the government protecting the Corporation over you. Be it problems with Cell Phones, Cable, Leases, Etc... it is easy to find yourself paying for something that could have even been misrepresented, with little or no recourse. Usually you will find the Government is involved with regulation, that makes it harder and more expensive for you.

I would agree that contracts can do that. But they are still contracts. That is, it isn't valid unless you agree to it. I think their is a fine line between businesses putting the finer details in as fine a print as they can find and laziness on the part of the consumer, is all.

I respect Contracts. I prefer Contracts where each side has an obligation that they fully intend to fill. Case in point, I have a small business that I used to advertise with Verizon and It's predecessor's. Every mistake they made over the years cost me, never them. Bad mistakes, always a blow off. Once they were the only game in town. Now they are not. Scheme after scheme, scam after scam, they have both impressed themselves with their hype, and destroyed their market through incompetence and bureaucracy. One tiny example.

 

[Bern80]

Bern80, We are more on the same side here. I believe in the Free Market, as the best way of civilized exchange. I would even argue for the Gold Standard, seeing the result as less manipulative in relations to the ups and downs of the value of currency, which is subject to scheme after scheme. This makes the dollar too unstable. There are those that profit greatly from that, and I find the ethics questionable. In a free exchange where both sides are in agreement be it trade, barter, or purchase, I find nothing wrong at all, within the law.

I would agree that we should probably be back on the gold standard and would be all for abolishing a the federal reserve

Contracts can forcibly deprive you of your money, while even giving you substandard service, the government protecting the Corporation over you. Be it problems with Cell Phones, Cable, Leases, Etc... it is easy to find yourself paying for something that could have even been misrepresented, with little or no recourse. Usually you will find the Government is involved with regulation, that makes it harder and more expensive for you.

I would agree that contracts can do that. But they are still contracts. That is, it isn't valid unless you agree to it. I think their is a fine line between businesses putting the finer details in as fine a print as they can find and laziness on the part of the consumer, is all.

I respect Contracts. I prefer Contracts where each side has an obligation that they fully intend to fill. Case in point, I have a small business that I used to advertise with Verizon and It's predecessor's. Every mistake they made over the years cost me, never them. Bad mistakes, always a blow off. Once they were the only game in town. Now they are not. Scheme after scheme, scam after scam, they have both impressed themselves with their hype, and destroyed their market through incompetence and bureaucracy. One tiny example.

Verizon's customer service does leave some to be desired. Thankfully I haven't had to utilize it much. That is the beauty of free market competition though. If they screw up enough, they will find themselves without customers.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I would agree that we should probably be back on the gold standard and would be all for abolishing a the federal reserve



I would agree that contracts can do that. But they are still contracts. That is, it isn't valid unless you agree to it. I think their is a fine line between businesses putting the finer details in as fine a print as they can find and laziness on the part of the consumer, is all.

I respect Contracts. I prefer Contracts where each side has an obligation that they fully intend to fill. Case in point, I have a small business that I used to advertise with Verizon and It's predecessor's. Every mistake they made over the years cost me, never them. Bad mistakes, always a blow off. Once they were the only game in town. Now they are not. Scheme after scheme, scam after scam, they have both impressed themselves with their hype, and destroyed their market through incompetence and bureaucracy. One tiny example.

Verizon's customer service does leave some to be desired. Thankfully I haven't had to utilize it much. That is the beauty of free market competition though. If they screw up enough, they will find themselves without customers.

Once upon a time, there was one telephone company, and they charged whatever they wanted, and treated you like shit when you had to contact them, because you had no choice but to either take it or live without a phone.

And then the free market was introduced to the telephone business, and suddenly there was a plethora of phone providers out there, vying to kiss your ass and bending over backward to give better deals than their competitors, and customers could suddenly tell their telephone provider to fuck off and die if they weren't nice enough.

For some reason I've never understood, this concept frightens leftists.

 

[Bern80]

Once upon a time, there was one telephone company, and they charged whatever they wanted, and treated you like shit when you had to contact them, because you had no choice but to either take it or live without a phone.

And then the free market was introduced to the telephone business, and suddenly there was a plethora of phone providers out there, vying to kiss your ass and bending over backward to give better deals than their competitors, and customers could suddenly tell their telephone provider to fuck off and die if they weren't nice enough.

For some reason I've never understood, this concept frightens leftists.

Simple. Look at the last few pages. They simply don't believe that's what's taking place. They seem to think corporate america is a conspiracy and all these 'competitors' are actually colluding with each other to hatch new ways to screw people over. Which of course makes no practical sense whatsoever. They presume because they see on the news the isolated Enron's or AIGs that the best way to attain wealth is by screwing people. Except that runs totally counter to free market principles. The best way to earn your customers money is to do what they want and they'll happily give it to you because to them it is a fair trade.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Once upon a time, there was one telephone company, and they charged whatever they wanted, and treated you like shit when you had to contact them, because you had no choice but to either take it or live without a phone.

And then the free market was introduced to the telephone business, and suddenly there was a plethora of phone providers out there, vying to kiss your ass and bending over backward to give better deals than their competitors, and customers could suddenly tell their telephone provider to fuck off and die if they weren't nice enough.

For some reason I've never understood, this concept frightens leftists.

Simple. Look at the last few pages. They simply don't believe that's what's taking place. They think it's corporate america is conspiracy and all these 'competitors' are actually colluding with each other to hatch new ways to screw people over. Which of course makes no practical sense whatsoever.

Oh, I understand that it frightens them. I just don't understand WHY. As you said, their fear makes no practical sense, so I don't get why they have it.