Ron Paul interview with John Stewart

[Texanmike]

I didn't catch it but was able to view it here:

Ron Paul Visits Jon Stewart’s Daily Show to Discuss Campaign | Video | TheBlaze.com

I think Paul's comments were well reasoned and a good counter to Stewart's central planning bias.

Yeah....right......Let The Marketplace Regulate Itself.

Gee......what an original-thought from Paul.

(You can tell he's no historian.)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6whSWn1RRM&feature=player_embedded]Great Depression - YouTube[/ame]​

First, I'm glad the Texans are going to whoop that ass this weekend. Second, you are the only poster who's style (as in HTML style) is annoying to me. To make matters worse I've never seen any sign of intelligence from you. Glad your team can be a punching bag this weekend.


Mike

 

[Vanquish]

Seriously though. I can't see why the man thinks that "free market" forces will regulate more stringently than actual laws.

I can understand the belief, although I don't agree with it. In the extreme, it's clear cut lunacy. But then again so is socialism. The reason both extremes are bat shit crazy notions is because they both stand in direct conflict with human nature. I could delve into exactly why that is so, but that's probably a discussion worthy of it's own thread.

I can definitely see both sides of it myself.

Theoretically, it makes sense that a corporation who treats workers badly wont have employees for long. A corporation that pollutes would get a bad reputation and therefore less business. A corporation that was known to cheat people on prices "should" stop getting business. But the reality is...that business might be the only one available at the time. Or they might have a store full of the lowest-priced items. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle, right? They'll reap what they sow, but depending on size they won't go out of business.

I see where you're at with socialism as well. Even a "perfect" socialist system would require the trampling of individual rights/ownership, the sacrifice of free will, and the ability to predict the future correctly. None of which should or can be done.

To be fair, I think a lot of people misuse the word socialism. It's an easy way to distill abstract fear into something concrete. I'd say of the 10000000 times I've seen socialism discussed here on USMB, only about three times was a discussion of the definition ever brought up...and I shudder to think of the three how many used the right definition.

Sweeping government power under the umbrella of "general welfare" scares me....but it's not as cut and dry as saying "the general welfare is never a good justification." That's a really simplistic discussion, but like you said...perhaps another thread is in order

 

[manifold]

Seriously though. I can't see why the man thinks that "free market" forces will regulate more stringently than actual laws.

I can understand the belief, although I don't agree with it. In the extreme, it's clear cut lunacy. But then again so is socialism. The reason both extremes are bat shit crazy notions is because they both stand in direct conflict with human nature. I could delve into exactly why that is so, but that's probably a discussion worthy of it's own thread.

I can definitely see both sides of it myself.

Theoretically, it makes sense that a corporation who treats workers badly wont have employees for long. A corporation that pollutes would get a bad reputation and therefore less business. A corporation that was known to cheat people on prices "should" stop getting business. But the reality is...that business might be the only one available at the time. Or they might have a store full of the lowest-priced items. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle, right? They'll reap what they sow, but depending on size they won't go out of business.

I see where you're at with socialism as well. Even a "perfect" socialist system would require the trampling of individual rights/ownership, the sacrifice of free will, and the ability to predict the future correctly. None of which should or can be done.

To be fair, I think a lot of people misuse the word socialism. It's an easy way to distill abstract fear into something concrete. I'd say of the 10000000 times I've seen socialism discussed here on USMB, only about three times was a discussion of the definition ever brought up...and I shudder to think of the three how many used the right definition.

Sweeping government power under the umbrella of "general welfare" scares me....but it's not as cut and dry as saying "the general welfare is never a good justification." That's a really simplistic discussion, but like you said...perhaps another thread is in order

Another thread and perhaps a fresh ideology, say, Social Libertarianism?

 

[Vanquish]

Go for it, Captain!

 

[Paulie]

Seriously though. I can't see why the man thinks that "free market" forces will regulate more stringently than actual laws.

The market can and does learn from its mistakes and progress. A regulation written in stone that discourages fair competition by compliance pricing smaller competitors out of the market is hard to progress from because it's tough to repeal laws already on the books.

No one said capitalism was perfect. Someone's always going to get burned by someone else. It's whether or not we learn from it and don't make the same mistakes again the next time that's what matters.

When government comes in and saves the day and bails out failure, no mistakes are learned from and they're made again. It's happened too many times to dispute that.

 

[LOki]

Seriously though. I can't see why the man thinks that "free market" forces will regulate more stringently than actual laws.

Free-marketeers who advocate de-regulation of the market, are not advocating lawlessness.

So first, you need to know that there is a very important distinction to be made between "law" and "regulation." It's an important distinction and until you understand it, you won't understand what the big deal is about "regulatory capture."

Try it on for size.

 

[Vanquish]

I understand the difference, however, what he's describing in the video is a system where businesses self-police on the largest scale, which is something that experience has shown me is naive.

The problem with companies learning "free-market lessons" is the time it takes for changes to occur. Why in the hell would we wait for thousands or millions of consumers to get hurt (possibly killed, depending on the product/company)...when we have a system in place that "isn't perfect" but can be tweaked by VOTING bums in and out...and through the legal system.

LOKi, your jargon (which I'm already familiar with) doesn't impress me. I'll admit that there's a glut of regulations, many of which could be changed or done away with. Your side won't make concessions in the other direction. The simplistic meme of "slash everything! our prices are inssssaaaaneeee!!" has taken root and won't let go. Or maybe that's "throw the government out with the bathwater"