Toronado3800
Gold Member
- Nov 15, 2009
- 7,608
- 560
- 140
- Thread starter
- #41
I said fewer specifically because, unless Hong Kong has no regulations, there aren't any current examples of "no regulations", however having no regulations would be optimal in every way.Economies are consistently better in locations with fewer regulations.I'm not for any of the regulations, that includes ones which "help" the economy, as factually the government is incapable of doing anything to help the economy. That includes both 'opening the door to' and the regulations which occur after.Ok. Once you use big government to open the door to corporations existing, corporate guilt in court and corporate bankruptcies you open the door to all kinds of regulations of these new entities big government has created to help artificially spur the economy.
IMO ppl want to have it both ways. No regulations and all the benefits and regulations protecting them.
Now, if you want to remove government interference in the economy, remove it. If you want to have it to some degree but not others we need to discuss the individual regulations (some of which are pointless) not some made up number of papers that need filed.
I do not want the regulations "protecting them", businesses don't need "protections", they need freedom from the government's regulations so they can actually thrive AND without the government stangling out their competition.
I want NO regulations, no degrees or exceptions, I've already traced back every problem with the economy to the government, and explained to you how.
Here is where we sort of agree.
While I think it is a necessary evil, I see the mere creation of a corporation as a big government thing. Why should someone be given the right to create something to remove his obligation to creditors?
Notice I said I think its necessary. Corporations allow greater growth because risks can be spread out over the country as a whole in a very socialist way. In effect it lets us compete better with the Chinese or whoever.
The government uses its power to remove the competition for the corporations, this is not necessary, as it givs consumers fewer options and damages the economy.
The government is not a necessary evil, evil is never necessary, especially when that evil infringes on the rights of individuals and turns the populace into slaves, stealing the fruits of their labor as if it's entitled to it.
You know, on an idealistic level I agree with you.
Also I notice you said fewer regulations not none. I can't see removing them all but heck, I bet we could remove or streamline 10 a day for a year. One of my recent adventures was keeping us at work in the good graces of all the states we drop ship to. Ridiculous. All that paperwork is stupid. We're a business. I'll pay taxes in California if that's the law. Just make it easy to!
In a non-idealistic way I think the "evil" of our government, and the U.S.A. does have an evil side, is less than the evil of men. SOMEHOW these laws and just the way things work smoothly if you are lazy and generally fit in keeps people on the up and up I think. No laws, a madman seems to rise to power and you get some strongman mafia like country or the often cited Germany thing where the normal need protected from the vicious. Or weak from strong or whatever.
Perhaps I was beat down by a few years on the fringe of law enforcement and dealing with folks where I live. We're not very nice here in the Midwest. There is the guy who says "it should be James Earl Ray day!" for example and all the dirty fellows who chuckle along with him giving their quiet recessive support.
The government has no incentive to do anything efficiently, they steal your money regardless of whether you like how they do things or not. That's why doing ANYTHING government-related is a pain.
You say that like the government is NOT made up of men, when in fact it is, and their best interest is to expand their own power and benefits from said power. Those in government are just as evil as you would assume anyone else is, but with the addition of granting themselves extra rights that they don't allow the people to have. As a matter of fact, these laws do not work for reasons I've underlined in previous posts in this very thread, however, if we're expanding that beyond regulations, they're currently trying to steal away our second amendment rights(And basically admitted in court that they believe they can "for the greater good") and were only stopped by "Defense Distributed" putting their schematics online for the 3D Printer. The government also abuses their power to decide which victimless crimes we, the people, are not allowed to commit. For example, an individual doing drugs in their own home They also decide whether they can steal people's children as well.So, no, as a matter of fact, creating a monopoly on violence and coercion which has to infringe on the rights of the people to exist, and expands naturally over time, does not work.
You have exactly 0 examples of a stateless society resulting in a madman rising to power, quit talking out your ass.
Criminal activity is a direct result of the government. Those who are part of the Church of the Omnipotent State believe that legislating something results in it becoming impossible to do that thing, when in fact, prohibition only leads to an expansion of criminal activity. For example, the black market on drugs, and everything Chicago deals with. If it wasn't for the government, the war on drugs and all of the resulting violence would not exist.
"You have exactly 0 examples of a stateless society resulting in a madman rising to power, quit talking out your ass."
Maybe we're going to play a game of words but I'd say madmen rise from revolutions?
Or do you need me to get an example from ore "Ur" history?