Tea Party Free Market; Explain why it's a good thing

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Since when is Air "property"? Nice try, but a swing and a miss.

I'll assume you are saying they are "State Run" because they are Socialists. In Socialism, as far as I know, the government controls pay. The Corporation controls the business.

Are you stating that the state should control the pollution put out by the Coal plants there or are you stating that it's the Governments fault for the polluted air?

Air within the bounds of my property is also my property. Thus, if somebody is polluting the air within the bounds of my property then they are violating my property rights.

I guess you've never heard of mineral rights. They can mine the land under you if they want, and they can also pollute the air above you.

Face it.....................according to the corporations and those in the government who support them, you only have rights to the surface, not the minerals under you, nor the air above you, just what is on the surface.

The government only supports pundits, or those who have sway with the politicians, known as the lobbyists, who happen to have a bunch of money given to them by the corporations.

I used to joke that the United States of America was the best government that money could buy.

Sad to see that it came true.

So what you're saying is that the government helps corporations violate property rights? Tell me something I don't know. The problem is when people try to portray this as being the free market, which is not the case.

 

[AntiParty]

Air within the bounds of my property is also my property. Thus, if somebody is polluting the air within the bounds of my property then they are violating my property rights.

I'm kind of at a laughing point here.

I understand that you think the people should own the air they live on.

Are you stating that Corporations shouldn't be able to do anything that affects the air of the American citizens? Because it seems like you are jumping from the smog issue in china to stating, "Any citizen can manage a local factory's air pollutants if they desire". What if a Large Soda Liberal decided they couldn't deal with any pollutants at all?

Your entire perspective is flawed.

Is your point here that corporations should be able to pollute other people's property to a certain percentage? If so, it would seem ironic considering you were just blaming the free market for the smog issue in China, whereas now you're making excuses for polluters.

Nice reflection. (Not really)

YOU believe in the free market. The free market is the cornerstone of pollution profit.
A market that has to set standards such as keeping lead paint off of baby toys isn't a free market.

Welcome to politics

 

[AntiParty]

Air within the bounds of my property is also my property. Thus, if somebody is polluting the air within the bounds of my property then they are violating my property rights.

I guess you've never heard of mineral rights. They can mine the land under you if they want, and they can also pollute the air above you.

Face it.....................according to the corporations and those in the government who support them, you only have rights to the surface, not the minerals under you, nor the air above you, just what is on the surface.

The government only supports pundits, or those who have sway with the politicians, known as the lobbyists, who happen to have a bunch of money given to them by the corporations.

I used to joke that the United States of America was the best government that money could buy.

You seem to think that a "Free" market will do what is best for America. We have regulated markets and they don't do what's best for America, yet there are a few shining stars.

You should research the topic more.

Sad to see that it came true.

So what you're saying is that the government helps corporations violate property rights? Tell me something I don't know. The problem is when people try to portray this as being the free market, which is not the case.

You are clearly one of the simple thinkers that think no regulation works best. Yet we have high regulation and it needs more regulation.

Libertarian is a good movement. But it's not always correct. Not everyone should have the Liberty to do everything. Your news says Liberty no matter what, common sense stands in the way.

"Liberty" should be a cornerstone of every party. But this movement of Liberty no matter what the consequences is an ignorant movement.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm kind of at a laughing point here.

I understand that you think the people should own the air they live on.

Are you stating that Corporations shouldn't be able to do anything that affects the air of the American citizens? Because it seems like you are jumping from the smog issue in china to stating, "Any citizen can manage a local factory's air pollutants if they desire". What if a Large Soda Liberal decided they couldn't deal with any pollutants at all?

Your entire perspective is flawed.

Is your point here that corporations should be able to pollute other people's property to a certain percentage? If so, it would seem ironic considering you were just blaming the free market for the smog issue in China, whereas now you're making excuses for polluters.

Nice reflection. (Not really)

YOU believe in the free market. The free market is the cornerstone of pollution profit.
A market that has to set standards such as keeping lead paint off of baby toys isn't a free market.

Welcome to politics

Yes, apparently the government giving corporations permission to violate private property rights, the very foundation of free market capitalism, is somehow "free market" in your mind. Welcome to politics indeed, where we can just redefine terms to mean whatever we want, apparently.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I guess you've never heard of mineral rights. They can mine the land under you if they want, and they can also pollute the air above you.

Face it.....................according to the corporations and those in the government who support them, you only have rights to the surface, not the minerals under you, nor the air above you, just what is on the surface.

The government only supports pundits, or those who have sway with the politicians, known as the lobbyists, who happen to have a bunch of money given to them by the corporations.

I used to joke that the United States of America was the best government that money could buy.

You seem to think that a "Free" market will do what is best for America. We have regulated markets and they don't do what's best for America, yet there are a few shining stars.

You should research the topic more.

Sad to see that it came true.

So what you're saying is that the government helps corporations violate property rights? Tell me something I don't know. The problem is when people try to portray this as being the free market, which is not the case.

You are clearly one of the simple thinkers that think no regulation works best. Yet we have high regulation and it needs more regulation.

Libertarian is a good movement. But it's not always correct. Not everyone should have the Liberty to do everything. Your news says Liberty no matter what, common sense stands in the way.

"Liberty" should be a cornerstone of every party. But this movement of Liberty no matter what the consequences is an ignorant movement.

Well this is such a convincing post I've changed my mind completely.

 

[Anonymous1776]

Explain to me why a totally free market is a good thing..

The primary reason free markets are desirable is inherent in the name -- freedom. Participants in a free market experience mutual benefit through voluntary exchange. If they didn't benefit, they wouldn't participate. Free markets pair those who desire a good or service with those who can produce that good or service. Free markets provide consumers with the best quality product for the lowest price due to competition among producers.

Contrary to the claims of free market opponents, free market advocates openly acknowledge the important role of government in the market. Government is necessary to keep the market free through prosecution of fraud and coercion and as an impartial mediator in disputes.

To the degree societies stray from freedom and free markets, the standard of living suffers. While no system is perfect, the free market system has proven to be the most efficient, beneficial economic system devised by man. I don't think it's any mistake that the best system is also the most free. Just as people are most happy when free, their markets are most efficient and beneficial when they are free as well. That anyone would oppose freedom in economics or other areas defies logic and reason. Therefore, those who value freedom should always be very suspicious of those who do not, as they are usually motivated by a narrow self-interest rather than the general interest of their fellow man.

 

[Anonymous1776]

The regulated market allows competition. We have what is called a "highly regulated market" by some today and we still see competition.

Sure, some regulations, provided they are applied evenly, don't inhibit competition. However, when applied unevenly or not at all, such as with businesses in foreign countries, competition can be affected greatly. The minimum wage comes to mind as a glaring example. In any case, they do increase costs, usually unnecessarily.

The funny thing is you probably back Citizens United because you think "corporations are people" . . .

Corporations are groups of people who should have a voice in how they are governed, just like an individual. We make laws and regulations that corporations must adhere to, yet they should have no voice in the matter? That's tyrannical. Not to mention corporations are subject to a separate tax. As our founding fathers discovered, taxation without representation is fundamentally unjust and unfree.

. . . yet hate regulations like lead paint in childrens toys.

That's a strawman argument. While I've yet to find anyone who favors lead paint in childrens' toys, many free market advocates find regulations designed to outlaw lead paint in childrens' toys unnecessary. Retailers and independent consumer advocate groups have an interest to insure consumer products are safe and of good quality, and toy manufacturers have an interest to not tarnish their brand.

The Uniteded States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) Commerce claus. The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,"

So do you back the Constitution or Free Markets? Your "party" seems to be at an impass on their platform.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Much of the constitution is supportive of the free market, while other parts are not. I would argue that parts of the Commerce Clause are not.

 

[Anonymous1776]

Since when is Air "property"? Nice try, but a swing and a miss.

Since when is it not? How can one own land without owning the air above it? If the air above the land wasn't apart of the property, it would be impossible to build a structure, such as a house or building, on the land.

Miss indeed!

 

[AntiParty]

Since when is Air "property"? Nice try, but a swing and a miss.

Since when is it not? How can one own land without owning the air above it? If the air above the land wasn't apart of the property, it would be impossible to build a structure, such as a house or building, on the land.

Miss indeed!

American Government has always owned our land. Ever read a history book? I have a book dated 1902 that clearly states, "The government owns all of the land in America"

If you think you are special then you have a lot in common with the Indians that were here before us.

Could this be a minority/power connection? Or will it just be another Fox News junkie farting ignorance. We will see.

 

[Anonymous1776]

Since when is Air "property"? Nice try, but a swing and a miss.

Since when is it not? How can one own land without owning the air above it? If the air above the land wasn't apart of the property, it would be impossible to build a structure, such as a house or building, on the land.

Miss indeed!

American Government has always owned our land. Ever read a history book? I have a book dated 1902 that clearly states, "The government owns all of the land in America"

Wrong. Individuals can privately own property in the United States. Further, private property is a fundamental element of the free market.

Again:

How can one own land without owning the air above it? If the air above the land wasn't apart of the property, it would be impossible to build a structure, such as a house or building, on the land.

Could this be a minority/power connection? Or will it just be another Fox News junkie farting ignorance. We will see.

What we will see is if anyone aside from you can make sense of this . . .