Government vs Private Industry: People Should Know Better

[The Rabbi]

Yeah. Interstate commerce clause.
Read the document sometime. It'll amaze you.

 

[VaYank5150]

Yeah. Interstate commerce clause.
Read the document sometime. It'll amaze you.

[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

And this has WHAT to do with the Department of Transportation?

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah. Interstate commerce clause.
Read the document sometime. It'll amaze you.

[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

And this has WHAT to do with the Department of Transportation?

Look. Go to their website and look up what they do. Then come back and report.

 

[VaYank5150]

Yeah. Interstate commerce clause.
Read the document sometime. It'll amaze you.

[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

And this has WHAT to do with the Department of Transportation?

Look. Go to their website and look up what they do. Then come back and report.

That's what I thought. Thanks for playing.

 

[Ame®icano]

Army
Navy
Air Force
Marines
FBI
CIA
DOT
Secret Service

There's a handful. There are many more, but I doubt they'll matter to partisan hacks.

Those would be their constitutional duties.

The Department of Transportation is in the Constitution??

It's not. Exclude that one. For two reasons: not constitutional, and not working well.

 

[The Rabbi]

And this has WHAT to do with the Department of Transportation?

Look. Go to their website and look up what they do. Then come back and report.

That's what I thought. Thanks for playing.

Somehow I doubt you took my advice.
Look, it isn't my job to school you in what the gov't does. If you don't believe that the DOT is authorized from the commerce clause, then either put up some kind of argument or STFU. Just because the Constitution doesn't use the words DOT doesn't mean the agency is unconstitutional. Do you think NORAD is unconstitutional? After all, it isn't mentioned in the constitution either.

 

[VaYank5150]

Look. Go to their website and look up what they do. Then come back and report.

That's what I thought. Thanks for playing.

Somehow I doubt you took my advice.
Look, it isn't my job to school you in what the gov't does. If you don't believe that the DOT is authorized from the commerce clause, then either put up some kind of argument or STFU. Just because the Constitution doesn't use the words DOT doesn't mean the agency is unconstitutional. Do you think NORAD is unconstitutional? After all, it isn't mentioned in the constitution either.

So, then you would disagree with many on this board who are against healthcare reform because it is not complicitly spelled out in the Constitution?

 

[Contumacious]

There are certain things that gov't needs to do that cannot be done privately.....

........correct......such as........er........uhum............ahhhh........well let me research the issue .


.

Since you're a little slow, let me give you some ideas:
Patents. .

Rethinking Patent Law

But what is the evidence that patent law ever "worked"? Certainly, the U.S. has had a great history of invention. Some of these inventions might not have existed if patents did not exist. On the other hand, we may have had other inventions that would have existed except for patent law. The late economist Murray Rothbard says, in Man, Economy and State:

It is by no means self-evident that patents encourage an increased absolute quantity of research expenditures. But certainly patents distort the type of research expenditure being conducted. For while it is true that the first discoverer benefits from the privilege, it is also true that competitors are excluded from production in the area of the patent for many years... Moreover, the patentee is himself discouraged from engaging in further research in this field, for the privilege permits him to rest on his laurels....

And, as intellectual property lawyer Stephan Kinsella points out, "...maybe more money for R&D would be available if it were not being spent on patents and lawsuits."

The idea that patent law "used to work" relies heavily on the indefensible notion that someone could objectively determine whether "too little" invention is occurring. Gleick says, "[Patent law] fueled industrial progress in the early United States..." But how does he know? Did he examine the history of an alternate-universe United States and observe that it had less industrial progress? All we can say for certain is that the early United States had both patent law and rapid industrial progress. Perhaps it had rapid industrial progress despite patent law. Or perhaps it was powdery wigs that led to America's prosperity. We can gain an understanding of whether patent law "worked" only with the aid of a coherent theory of property rights and their effect on economic progress

.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

And this has WHAT to do with the Department of Transportation?

Look. Go to their website and look up what they do. Then come back and report.

That's what I thought. Thanks for playing.

You lazy ass...why don't you do some research before shooting your mouth off. The thing is...you think this whole thing is a big joke...us against them. It's people like you who refuse to tolerate views other than your own, that are dividing the country. Your refusal to accept a little encouragement to learn about your government outside of all your left wing loon sites is pathetic.

Here let me reply for you in a whiny ass libtard voice..."Well...he said this....and he said that...and he claimed that...it's up to him to prove it...."WWWWAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!

 

[The Rabbi]

That's what I thought. Thanks for playing.

Somehow I doubt you took my advice.
Look, it isn't my job to school you in what the gov't does. If you don't believe that the DOT is authorized from the commerce clause, then either put up some kind of argument or STFU. Just because the Constitution doesn't use the words DOT doesn't mean the agency is unconstitutional. Do you think NORAD is unconstitutional? After all, it isn't mentioned in the constitution either.

So, then you would disagree with many on this board who are against healthcare reform because it is not complicitly spelled out in the Constitution?

Yes.
I am against Obama's healthcare proposals because they suck and wont work.