Two thumbs up!

[Kevin_Kennedy]

UPS has said for years that they can deliver first class mail for less than half what the post office charges.

Lysander Spooner setup his own Post Office in the 1800's that undercut the USPS and forced their prices down, and was still successful. Eventually the federal government forced it to close, however. We need to legalize competition in that field.

if you want 10 different people opening your mail box Kevin ....go for it....when things never show up.....its not that it was never delivered....one of those 10 is a thief.....and there is a 95% chance it wont be the USPS guy.....

So people who work for the USPS are somehow more naturally good than those who work in the private sector?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The point of contention comes from the Mises article and it states:

"He truly believes that warehouses of federal workers, in Washington, D.C., remotely running our lives is the optimal plan."

Now you say Moore doesn't want federal workers remotely running our lives, but that's exactly what he does want. You say you don't know what anti-free market would mean, it would mean that you do not accept that the market is able to regulate itself and allocate resources more efficiently than any other system. Now, if you are anti-free market you do believe in federal workers running your life because you believe the market needs regulated. Therefore, you need federal workers to regulate it. Clearly Michael Moore believes regulation of the market is a good thing, and therefore the claim made in the article was correct.[/QUOTE

Kevin, "clearly"? Please, don't tell me what I believe, or even what Moore believes. Try and tell us what you believe - and leave the talking points home. I no more want federal workers running my life than I want insurance company employees running my life. But the fact remains, I have some control over federal bureaucrats (my vote) and zero control over insurance adjusters - less when insurance adjusters have lobbyists bribing members of Congress to do their bidding.

So you don't want the market to regulate itself and you don't want federal workers regulating the market, who's going to regulate it then?

who? THE PEOPLE.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So you don't want the market to regulate itself and you don't want federal workers regulating the market, who's going to regulate it then?

who? THE PEOPLE.

So the market?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wry, the notion that you have any control whatever of federal bureaucrats who, thanks to the merit system and unions, for all practiacl purposes can be fired only for shooting their bosses is so rediculous as to defy both logic and common sense.

Unfortunately that is true; that system needs reform too. I retired in 2005 as a manger in a large law enforcement agency. During my management career one of my jobs was to run internal affairs (Fortunately I never fired anyone for shooting me, though a number of deputies probably had an inclination). It takes months to fire a law enforcement officer do to the Peace Officers Procedural Bill of Rights. It is less of a burden to fire non peace officers.
That said, it's policy that determines what employees (are supppose to) do. Policy is determined by elected officials and that can be influenced by voters.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Lysander Spooner setup his own Post Office in the 1800's that undercut the USPS and forced their prices down, and was still successful. Eventually the federal government forced it to close, however. We need to legalize competition in that field.

if you want 10 different people opening your mail box Kevin ....go for it....when things never show up.....its not that it was never delivered....one of those 10 is a thief.....and there is a 95% chance it wont be the USPS guy.....

So people who work for the USPS are somehow more naturally good than those who work in the private sector?

when you are making 7.95 an hour working for Joes letter delivery .....yea....they are better

 

[Harry Dresden]

You being tongue in chee or do you actaully have some info?

your the one bringing this up.....you supply the info....as someone who actually works in this field....im laughing at what you said....and UPS has never said that.....they would have to charge more,because they have to make a profit,the PO doesnt...but UPS has said the PO should charge you to forward a letter.....yea they will do it for half price.....

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

if you want 10 different people opening your mail box Kevin ....go for it....when things never show up.....its not that it was never delivered....one of those 10 is a thief.....and there is a 95% chance it wont be the USPS guy.....

So people who work for the USPS are somehow more naturally good than those who work in the private sector?

when you are making 7.95 an hour working for Joes letter delivery .....yea....they are better

You know for a fact that UPS would pay their delivery men $7.95 an hour? And how much you make per hour doesn't make you an honest person. If you're inclined to steal then I'd wager you'd be willing to do so regardless of how much you're making.

 

[HUGGY]

Avatar, without proof or evidence, argues that 'natural law' governs capitalism. I disagree that no such thing as "free market forces" really exist. Greed producing monopolies destroys the competition that "free market forces" supposedly produce. No competition reinforces monopoly, which leads to oligarchic corporatism that corrups government and captures the consumer. Let's get real, gang, and look at the world the way it really is.

Yet it's the government's policies that create real monopolies.[/QUOTE]

That's ridiculous.

No one elects a government to create monopolies. What happens is the big money sneaks in the back door and buys legislation that allows monopolies.

 

[ba1614]

Yet it's the government's policies that create real monopolies.[/QUOTE]

That's ridiculous.

No one elects a government to create monopolies. What happens is the big money sneaks in the back door and buys legislation that allows monopolies.

Isn't it the crooked individuals who accept the funds from "big money" who are ultimately the ones responsible for accepting it?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The point of contention comes from the Mises article and it states:

"He truly believes that warehouses of federal workers, in Washington, D.C., remotely running our lives is the optimal plan."

Now you say Moore doesn't want federal workers remotely running our lives, but that's exactly what he does want. You say you don't know what anti-free market would mean, it would mean that you do not accept that the market is able to regulate itself and allocate resources more efficiently than any other system. Now, if you are anti-free market you do believe in federal workers running your life because you believe the market needs regulated. Therefore, you need federal workers to regulate it. Clearly Michael Moore believes regulation of the market is a good thing, and therefore the claim made in the article was correct.

Kevin, "clearly"? Please, don't tell me what I believe, or even what Moore believes. Try and tell us what you believe - and leave the talking points home. I no more want federal workers running my life than I want insurance company employees running my life. But the fact remains, I have some control over federal bureaucrats (my vote) and zero control over insurance adjusters - less when insurance adjusters have lobbyists bribing members of Congress to do their bidding.

So you don't want the market to regulate itself and you don't want federal workers regulating the market, who's going to regulate it then?

The law Kevin. Fairly written to benefit The People as well as business with consideration to the environment and our posterity. Or do you believe water, food and durable goods should be unregulated?
And the law needs to be enforced, does it not? By state and federal Justice Depts. and local agencies (yep, government employees, all) fairly paid and properly trained whose income is independent of the product or service they regulate.
Now, there is a problem here, and that problem is rarely discussed and solutions - while self evident - when discussed are opposed as a violaton of free speech. The solution is to make it a felony for any elected or apponted official to accept a bribe.
What is a bribe? I suggest anything - ANYTHING includes campaign donations - given to an elected official, his/her wife, husband, father, son, mother, daughter, dog or cat, yesterday, today or tomorrow. And the penalty for receiving, offering, tendering or promising anything - ANYTHING - for a vote is a felony, requiring prison time (minimum one year and a day) and a fine equal to ten times the value of the offer, plus a prohibition against the elected offical ever voting or holding elective office, apponted office, civil service employment or working as a lobbyist, for life.

 

[Avatar4321]

Isn't it the crooked individuals who accept the funds from "big money" who are ultimately the ones responsible for accepting it?

Of course not! They are the ones we need to trust to "save" us from that big money! it's the system that makes them take money.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Some posts give me the sense that Rod Sterling is above my right shoulder guiding me into the Twilight Zone.

I believe money and unfair influence must be taken out of the political process. How, I don't know, but until it is, our system of governence will remain flawed, and democracy as an ideal will be at risk.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yet it's the government's policies that create real monopolies.[/QUOTE]

That's ridiculous.

No one elects a government to create monopolies. What happens is the big money sneaks in the back door and buys legislation that allows monopolies.

In other words, government creates monopolies. But that obviously can't be attributed to capitalism or the free market because in a free market no companies would get such preferential treatment.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin, "clearly"? Please, don't tell me what I believe, or even what Moore believes. Try and tell us what you believe - and leave the talking points home. I no more want federal workers running my life than I want insurance company employees running my life. But the fact remains, I have some control over federal bureaucrats (my vote) and zero control over insurance adjusters - less when insurance adjusters have lobbyists bribing members of Congress to do their bidding.

So you don't want the market to regulate itself and you don't want federal workers regulating the market, who's going to regulate it then?

The law Kevin. Fairly written to benefit The People as well as business with consideration to the environment and our posterity. Or do you believe water, food and durable goods should be unregulated?
And the law needs to be enforced, does it not? By state and federal Justice Depts. and local agencies (yep, government employees, all) fairly paid and properly trained whose income is independent of the product or service they regulate.
Now, there is a problem here, and that problem is rarely discussed and solutions - while self evident - when discussed are opposed as a violaton of free speech. The solution is to make it a felony for any elected or apponted official to accept a bribe.
What is a bribe? I suggest anything - ANYTHING includes campaign donations - given to an elected official, his/her wife, husband, father, son, mother, daughter, dog or cat, yesterday, today or tomorrow. And the penalty for receiving, offering, tendering or promising anything - ANYTHING - for a vote is a felony, requiring prison time (minimum one year and a day) and a fine equal to ten times the value of the offer, plus a prohibition against the elected offical ever voting or holding elective office, apponted office, civil service employment or working as a lobbyist, for life.

You seem to be under the impression, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that a free market would somehow be without laws. There are still laws in a free market. Laws against fraud, for instance. What you don't need are onerous regulations that only serve to hamper business growth and competition. The government's duty in a free market would be to enforce contracts and prosecute fraud.

 

[Harry Dresden]

So people who work for the USPS are somehow more naturally good than those who work in the private sector?

when you are making 7.95 an hour working for Joes letter delivery .....yea....they are better

You know for a fact that UPS would pay their delivery men $7.95 an hour? And how much you make per hour doesn't make you an honest person. If you're inclined to steal then I'd wager you'd be willing to do so regardless of how much you're making.

did i say UPS?....i thought i said Joes Delivery Service.....yep thats what i said.....UPS has NO desire to deliver letters....and we in the PO are kinda monitored by the Postal Inspection service....you might steal...but you wont be stealing for long....if it comes to their attention that things are not showing up....they will set you up and catch you....and they WILL catch you.....and only an idiot would throw away the pay and benifits you get working here to steal something....a guy making 10 bucks an hour with very little or no benefits may not care as much....

 

[garyd]

Harry it's been around various places and been quoted by a hell of a lot of people other tha me so I don't know. I first heard the statement some years back perhaps 20 years ago.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

when you are making 7.95 an hour working for Joes letter delivery .....yea....they are better

You know for a fact that UPS would pay their delivery men $7.95 an hour? And how much you make per hour doesn't make you an honest person. If you're inclined to steal then I'd wager you'd be willing to do so regardless of how much you're making.

did i say UPS?....i thought i said Joes Delivery Service.....yep thats what i said.....UPS has NO desire to deliver letters....and we in the PO are kinda monitored by the Postal Inspection service....you might steal...but you wont be stealing for long....if it comes to their attention that things are not showing up....they will set you up and catch you....and they WILL catch you.....and only an idiot would throw away the pay and benifits you get working here to steal something....a guy making 10 bucks an hour with very little or no benefits may not care as much....

What about a casual? They only get $12/hour and no benefits. They're employed by the USPS and maybe they're more likely to steal then? At any rate, the fact is that theft can happen no matter what. The point is that it's illegal to steal. The Post Office could do it, some random person walking down the street could do it, or somebody from a private firm could do it. That's no reason to continue giving the Post Office, who has consistently lost money and been a drain on the economy, a monopoly in first class mail delivery.

 

[garyd]

The only way to take money and unfair influence out of the federal government is to get it the hell out of the economy to the greatest extent possible.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So you don't want the market to regulate itself and you don't want federal workers regulating the market, who's going to regulate it then?

The law Kevin. Fairly written to benefit The People as well as business with consideration to the environment and our posterity. Or do you believe water, food and durable goods should be unregulated?
And the law needs to be enforced, does it not? By state and federal Justice Depts. and local agencies (yep, government employees, all) fairly paid and properly trained whose income is independent of the product or service they regulate.
Now, there is a problem here, and that problem is rarely discussed and solutions - while self evident - when discussed are opposed as a violaton of free speech. The solution is to make it a felony for any elected or apponted official to accept a bribe.
What is a bribe? I suggest anything - ANYTHING includes campaign donations - given to an elected official, his/her wife, husband, father, son, mother, daughter, dog or cat, yesterday, today or tomorrow. And the penalty for receiving, offering, tendering or promising anything - ANYTHING - for a vote is a felony, requiring prison time (minimum one year and a day) and a fine equal to ten times the value of the offer, plus a prohibition against the elected offical ever voting or holding elective office, apponted office, civil service employment or working as a lobbyist, for life.

You seem to be under the impression, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that a free market would somehow be without laws. There are still laws in a free market. Laws against fraud, for instance. What you don't need are onerous regulations that only serve to hamper business growth and competition. The government's duty in a free market would be to enforce contracts and prosecute fraud.

there goes that theme music to the Twilight Zone again...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

[/B]

The law Kevin. Fairly written to benefit The People as well as business with consideration to the environment and our posterity. Or do you believe water, food and durable goods should be unregulated?
And the law needs to be enforced, does it not? By state and federal Justice Depts. and local agencies (yep, government employees, all) fairly paid and properly trained whose income is independent of the product or service they regulate.
Now, there is a problem here, and that problem is rarely discussed and solutions - while self evident - when discussed are opposed as a violaton of free speech. The solution is to make it a felony for any elected or apponted official to accept a bribe.
What is a bribe? I suggest anything - ANYTHING includes campaign donations - given to an elected official, his/her wife, husband, father, son, mother, daughter, dog or cat, yesterday, today or tomorrow. And the penalty for receiving, offering, tendering or promising anything - ANYTHING - for a vote is a felony, requiring prison time (minimum one year and a day) and a fine equal to ten times the value of the offer, plus a prohibition against the elected offical ever voting or holding elective office, apponted office, civil service employment or working as a lobbyist, for life.

You seem to be under the impression, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that a free market would somehow be without laws. There are still laws in a free market. Laws against fraud, for instance. What you don't need are onerous regulations that only serve to hamper business growth and competition. The government's duty in a free market would be to enforce contracts and prosecute fraud.

there goes that theme music to the Twilight Zone again...

Please feel free to continue ignoring the points I made and deflect and demean some more.