CDZ The right to complain?

[ScorpioRising007]

a 1600 square foot home is not a very big house.

Try living out of a rundown trailer with no heat or air-conditioning, 1600 square feet will seem like a mansion. That is what my wife and I lived out of before I became a truck driver.

 

[Toronado3800]

I need some verbiage fellow board members.

Looking around I see a bunch of people with well fed bellies, 1600+ square foot houses in a desirable neighborhood (with few of THEM here as these folks say, not me), ridiculously new cars not a wrench one in the garage, paid servants to mow their status symbol lawns for them and needlessly expensive cell phone plans.

This isn't exactly a small part of town either.

So when I hear them complaining about taxes or something it isn't that they don't have a right to complain, we all do, but it seems somewhat....something.

Everyone should complain about taxes, what is it that you believe gives those in government the rights to OUR labor?

What is the phrase I'm looking for?

I also need a qualifier because at some point even the rich can complain about the system they got rich under or in spite of.

If you have a problem with it, then you should advocate that the government get rid of all regulations, so that all of us can get rich instead of those they favor with regulations.

I believe if not for big government and some redistribution the rich would be richer and the masses would have nothing. From my point of view we tried that experiment during the renaissance and industrial revolution and conditions were soo terrible folks invented labor unions and turned to socialism even in America where we had the west and territorial gains to exploit.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a socialist. I just like higher tax brackets and deductions for being a good American.

You believe incorrectly, the big government is using regulations and patents to promote monopolies, which would otherwise be impossible, as without the government, would require a business to own all resources associated with their product.

As an example, the healthcare industry was limited to specified areas before Obamacare made things even worse, these limitations prevented competition, creating psuedo-monopolies, which caused prices to rise.

Another example is medicine. The government requires a long and expensive process before medicine is okay'd for shelves. Even after that process is completed, the medicine can be patented, allowing the business to hike prices.

As yet another example, how do you think regulations affect smaller businesss versus big corporations? Or taxes for that matter. Don't you think bigger corporations have an easier time accomading the added costs?

What do you think regulations and liscensing for starting a business is for? Don't you think there would be more business owners, more choices, without regulations? Everyone would be able to succeed instead of being forced to work for someone else. Do you know how difficult it is for a new business to pay for the liscensing and employee insurance that they're forced by the government to get? These are all tactics which the government uses to assist the big corporations in becoming monopolies. If the government weren't involved, competition would be at an all-time high, as nobody would be prevented from competing, and poverty would be at an all-time low, because employees would be in high demand.

The industrial revolution was not an example of a free market, in fact, the industrial revolution was EXTREMELY highly regulated. Better yet, if you want to see what the government gets us with its regulations, feel free to investigate the Great Depression and 2008 recession, BOTH were results of government intervention in the economy.

IF the government knew how to run businesses, they wouldn't be in government.

-I might need some help here with the reference to the industrial revolution being highly regulated. Gimme a link or some reading to do.

-As far as the government promoting monopolies, we agree there. The push seems to be promoting larger and larger company mergers. Is it in our interest to keep the Chinese from buying this or that U.S. company? That is the only straw I can grasp. Are monopolies bad for the economy, yes, monopoly evil outweighs economy of scale good in my book. I think its what business owners call "big government interference" that prevents monopolies but I suspect although we use different verbiage we agree here that monopolies are bad.

-I agree with the patent office being part of big government. Is it necessary....I think so. I also think the power of wealth lets the wealthy use it more effectively.

-Big government makes it possible for people to open a business. Want some protection in your personal finances from what happens in your small business, turn to some weird government regulations. On the bigger scale, Trump's business goes bankrupt, Trump keeps his mansion, that's big government keeping his creditors from taking everything he owes and using some socialist tax deductions or welfare from you and I to pay back Trump's creditors in the name of promoting entrepreneurship.

-From my personal life I think regulations affect small business less. Wanna see some racism and nepotism in hiring practices, lets go visit some small businesses. Law enforcement notices repeated crimes which involve more people. Want to steal something from a train parked in a siding? Do it once get away with it. Do it a few times and you'll get caught because the railroad cops know where the seals were on and off and can figure out when the train was stopped where.

-IMO technology is causing medical prices to rise. If you could sign off that you would want no treatment invented after y2k your insurance company would make more money off you. Unfortunately I want every this or that stem cell / ALS / Heart transplant / chemo treatment available to keep me and my kids alive. I'm not here to defend any one line of Obamacare. The math and regulations are way too complicated. We also need to admit this is a new economic problem the Greeks did not have. Spending a half million dollars to prolong my life when I'm 74 is not a sound investment but its one I hope is made! Want to see a cheap source of bedframes though see a big business moving a container of them about. Health Insurance is big business.

During the Industrial Revolution, the government started picking and choosing which forms of energy it wanted to succeed and fail in the form of environmental regulations, this trend of pretending a problem exists and then pretending to fix it through regulating what type of coal businesses could burn, for one example. Naturally, seeing that this could be used to promote monopolies, other stats began following suit. Even today, the government still creates further regulation on power companies in an effort to prop up the 'clean energy' industry.

The only reason the Chinese can buy companies in the first place is because the US government chooses to make it difficult for businesses to operate in the US. Monopolies don't help the economy, this is one of many reasons that the government has a negative impact on the economy through ANY actions whatsoever. The government is only needed for monopolies to form, and this is inherently negative. As I said, the government does not prevent monopolies, it promotes them.

It's not necessary, it only prevents competition. Patents are one of the ways that monopolies are promoted, which is inherently bad. Without patents, businesses are left at the mercy of their consumers, forcing them to continue innovating, providing better service, and in general having to perform better than their competition. This is all thrown out the window with patents.

No, government does not make it possible to form a business, their regulations make the cost of starting a business astronomical. A business has to hire someone to go through the 6000 pages of regulations to find the ones they have to adhere to, then they have to pay for employee insurance, they need a liscense, and they need to accomodate said regulations, followed by paying 60% of their earnings to the government, WHILE also making sure that their product wasn't already patented by some big corporation. These things a pre-established business can accomodate, however it makes starting a NEW business nearly impossible. The government is not required for a new business to form, they only make association with them required in THIS Nation. One would otherwise only need to fulfill a demand. On the topic of the government bailing out a business by throwing money at them which they stole from other businesses and individuals, I want to point out that this is one of many reasons I want the government out. This is not capitalism, it Corporatism, which is one of the methods that the government uses to promote monopolies. For example, EA Games, Twitter, and Facebook are all subsidized for millions of dollars, as are several 'green energy' companies which otherwise cannot compete.

Simply disagreeing with who someone should hire doesn't make them racist, it means you think they should hire who YOU think is more qualified, OR in the case of affirmative action, who the government believes is more qualified based on information they don't have, and experience they don't have, since they never met the individual they are forcing a business to hire based on their skin color. Beyond this, I already detailed above and in my previous post as to how regulations affect un-established businesses more than pre-established businesses. One only needs to note that a business which is established has more money, and would therefor have less money after the government steals 60% of their earnings.

I already detailed how the process regulations force businesses to go through in order to get their product on the market, and patents, cause prices to rise. What YOU'RE noting is not the advance in technology, it's the result of creating psuedo-monopolies and the government's inherent inability to properly calculate the prices and demand of comodities, the "Economic Calculation Problem". As I mentioned earlier, the process and the patents result in a monopoly on this specific product, resulting in competitors being disallowed from selling said product at a lower price or higher quality. One only needs to ask themselves whether or not they would buy the more expensive of two products which are exactly the same to realize the problem with government involvement in the market.

W/O government Bob is just a guy selling cars trying not to lose his house if he can't sell enough.

With government Bob starts a business Called "Honest Auto" with big government protection from people he owes money to. The fellow has his big government created Honest Auto pay him. Bob is insulated from his creditors. His Business is an entity now thanks to some big government laws. Honest Auto can go bankrupt and the force of law enforcement and the U.S. military keeps me if I'm one of Bob's creditors from taking Bob's house.

Do I have this right?

 

[Skull Pilot]

a 1600 square foot home is not a very big house.

Try living out of a rundown trailer with no heat or air-conditioning, 1600 square feet will seem like a mansion. That is what my wife and I lived out of before I became a truck driver.

Why would I want to try that?

And besides the average size of new homes is something like 2400 square feet so 1600 is not a big house

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Everyone should complain about taxes, what is it that you believe gives those in government the rights to OUR labor?
If you have a problem with it, then you should advocate that the government get rid of all regulations, so that all of us can get rich instead of those they favor with regulations.

I believe if not for big government and some redistribution the rich would be richer and the masses would have nothing. From my point of view we tried that experiment during the renaissance and industrial revolution and conditions were soo terrible folks invented labor unions and turned to socialism even in America where we had the west and territorial gains to exploit.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a socialist. I just like higher tax brackets and deductions for being a good American.

You believe incorrectly, the big government is using regulations and patents to promote monopolies, which would otherwise be impossible, as without the government, would require a business to own all resources associated with their product.

As an example, the healthcare industry was limited to specified areas before Obamacare made things even worse, these limitations prevented competition, creating psuedo-monopolies, which caused prices to rise.

Another example is medicine. The government requires a long and expensive process before medicine is okay'd for shelves. Even after that process is completed, the medicine can be patented, allowing the business to hike prices.

As yet another example, how do you think regulations affect smaller businesss versus big corporations? Or taxes for that matter. Don't you think bigger corporations have an easier time accomading the added costs?

What do you think regulations and liscensing for starting a business is for? Don't you think there would be more business owners, more choices, without regulations? Everyone would be able to succeed instead of being forced to work for someone else. Do you know how difficult it is for a new business to pay for the liscensing and employee insurance that they're forced by the government to get? These are all tactics which the government uses to assist the big corporations in becoming monopolies. If the government weren't involved, competition would be at an all-time high, as nobody would be prevented from competing, and poverty would be at an all-time low, because employees would be in high demand.

The industrial revolution was not an example of a free market, in fact, the industrial revolution was EXTREMELY highly regulated. Better yet, if you want to see what the government gets us with its regulations, feel free to investigate the Great Depression and 2008 recession, BOTH were results of government intervention in the economy.

IF the government knew how to run businesses, they wouldn't be in government.

-I might need some help here with the reference to the industrial revolution being highly regulated. Gimme a link or some reading to do.

-As far as the government promoting monopolies, we agree there. The push seems to be promoting larger and larger company mergers. Is it in our interest to keep the Chinese from buying this or that U.S. company? That is the only straw I can grasp. Are monopolies bad for the economy, yes, monopoly evil outweighs economy of scale good in my book. I think its what business owners call "big government interference" that prevents monopolies but I suspect although we use different verbiage we agree here that monopolies are bad.

-I agree with the patent office being part of big government. Is it necessary....I think so. I also think the power of wealth lets the wealthy use it more effectively.

-Big government makes it possible for people to open a business. Want some protection in your personal finances from what happens in your small business, turn to some weird government regulations. On the bigger scale, Trump's business goes bankrupt, Trump keeps his mansion, that's big government keeping his creditors from taking everything he owes and using some socialist tax deductions or welfare from you and I to pay back Trump's creditors in the name of promoting entrepreneurship.

-From my personal life I think regulations affect small business less. Wanna see some racism and nepotism in hiring practices, lets go visit some small businesses. Law enforcement notices repeated crimes which involve more people. Want to steal something from a train parked in a siding? Do it once get away with it. Do it a few times and you'll get caught because the railroad cops know where the seals were on and off and can figure out when the train was stopped where.

-IMO technology is causing medical prices to rise. If you could sign off that you would want no treatment invented after y2k your insurance company would make more money off you. Unfortunately I want every this or that stem cell / ALS / Heart transplant / chemo treatment available to keep me and my kids alive. I'm not here to defend any one line of Obamacare. The math and regulations are way too complicated. We also need to admit this is a new economic problem the Greeks did not have. Spending a half million dollars to prolong my life when I'm 74 is not a sound investment but its one I hope is made! Want to see a cheap source of bedframes though see a big business moving a container of them about. Health Insurance is big business.

During the Industrial Revolution, the government started picking and choosing which forms of energy it wanted to succeed and fail in the form of environmental regulations, this trend of pretending a problem exists and then pretending to fix it through regulating what type of coal businesses could burn, for one example. Naturally, seeing that this could be used to promote monopolies, other stats began following suit. Even today, the government still creates further regulation on power companies in an effort to prop up the 'clean energy' industry.

The only reason the Chinese can buy companies in the first place is because the US government chooses to make it difficult for businesses to operate in the US. Monopolies don't help the economy, this is one of many reasons that the government has a negative impact on the economy through ANY actions whatsoever. The government is only needed for monopolies to form, and this is inherently negative. As I said, the government does not prevent monopolies, it promotes them.

It's not necessary, it only prevents competition. Patents are one of the ways that monopolies are promoted, which is inherently bad. Without patents, businesses are left at the mercy of their consumers, forcing them to continue innovating, providing better service, and in general having to perform better than their competition. This is all thrown out the window with patents.

No, government does not make it possible to form a business, their regulations make the cost of starting a business astronomical. A business has to hire someone to go through the 6000 pages of regulations to find the ones they have to adhere to, then they have to pay for employee insurance, they need a liscense, and they need to accomodate said regulations, followed by paying 60% of their earnings to the government, WHILE also making sure that their product wasn't already patented by some big corporation. These things a pre-established business can accomodate, however it makes starting a NEW business nearly impossible. The government is not required for a new business to form, they only make association with them required in THIS Nation. One would otherwise only need to fulfill a demand. On the topic of the government bailing out a business by throwing money at them which they stole from other businesses and individuals, I want to point out that this is one of many reasons I want the government out. This is not capitalism, it Corporatism, which is one of the methods that the government uses to promote monopolies. For example, EA Games, Twitter, and Facebook are all subsidized for millions of dollars, as are several 'green energy' companies which otherwise cannot compete.

Simply disagreeing with who someone should hire doesn't make them racist, it means you think they should hire who YOU think is more qualified, OR in the case of affirmative action, who the government believes is more qualified based on information they don't have, and experience they don't have, since they never met the individual they are forcing a business to hire based on their skin color. Beyond this, I already detailed above and in my previous post as to how regulations affect un-established businesses more than pre-established businesses. One only needs to note that a business which is established has more money, and would therefor have less money after the government steals 60% of their earnings.

I already detailed how the process regulations force businesses to go through in order to get their product on the market, and patents, cause prices to rise. What YOU'RE noting is not the advance in technology, it's the result of creating psuedo-monopolies and the government's inherent inability to properly calculate the prices and demand of comodities, the "Economic Calculation Problem". As I mentioned earlier, the process and the patents result in a monopoly on this specific product, resulting in competitors being disallowed from selling said product at a lower price or higher quality. One only needs to ask themselves whether or not they would buy the more expensive of two products which are exactly the same to realize the problem with government involvement in the market.

W/O government Bob is just a guy selling cars trying not to lose his house if he can't sell enough.

With government Bob starts a business Called "Honest Auto" with big government protection from people he owes money to. The fellow has his big government created Honest Auto pay him. Bob is insulated from his creditors. His Business is an entity now thanks to some big government laws. Honest Auto can go bankrupt and the force of law enforcement and the U.S. military keeps me if I'm one of Bob's creditors from taking Bob's house.

Do I have this right?

No, without the government, Bob isn't losing 60% of his incom to a government which believes it has more rights than Bob. Bob is also fulfilling a demand, and if he's doing it well, he has no need to worry about any such thing, especially since Bob won't be thrown in jail or fined for selling his own products without the government's permission. Bob also doesn't have to worry about the economy, since without government involvement competition would be at an all-time high. Bob also would have an easy job finding a job if he mismanages his business. Bob also can buy private security, which is twice as effective and half the cost of police, so if Bob is worried about other people, he's much safer, since private security doesn't take an average of 15 minutes to get there and outline your body in chalk,AND Bob can ACTUALLY arm himself since there wouldn't be a government attempting to ensure they're the only people who are armed.

No, WITH government, Bob has to worry about 6000 pages of regulations he must adhere to, and the fact that other auto industries have an advantage because they're subsidized. You know, since when a big corporation goes bankrupt, the government bails them out. Bob wouldn't become a success because the government is busy screwing him over while helping the pre-established corporations. Meanwhile, without said government, Bob wouldn't need a freaking loan because Bob would be making more money without all of the regulations destroying the economy.

 

[ScorpioRising007]

I need some verbiage fellow board members.

Looking around I see a bunch of people with well fed bellies, 1600+ square foot houses in a desirable neighborhood (with few of THEM here as these folks say, not me), ridiculously new cars not a wrench one in the garage, paid servants to mow their status symbol lawns for them and needlessly expensive cell phone plans.

This isn't exactly a small part of town either.

So when I hear them complaining about taxes or something it isn't that they don't have a right to complain, we all do, but it seems somewhat....something.

What is the phrase I'm looking for?

I also need a qualifier because at some point even the rich can complain about the system they got rich under or in spite of.

Yeah I agree too many people are well off of this country and don't care about the people living out of trailer parks barely making it by on low wage jobs who desperately need help from the government to even make it by.

We need to tax the hell out of them is what we need to do. Funnel that money down to the working poor. Free healthcare through heavy taxation, free education through heavy taxation, free college through heavy taxation, poor family's get 400-500 month at least in food stamps through heavy taxation, the government provides more subsidized housing to those who struggle to make ends meet through heavy taxation.

I believe in Robin Hood economics take the money from the rich and upper middle class and redistribute it to the working poor. If they don't like the taxes or agree to it then maybe the best thing for this country would be a civil war between the rich and the poor, the poor need to get that money redistributed to them by any means necessary if they have to.

 

[dblack]

Yeah I agree too many people are well off of this country and don't care about the people living out of trailer parks barely making it by on low wage jobs who desperately need help from the government to even make it by.

We need to tax the hell out of them is what we need to do. Funnel that money down to the working poor. Free healthcare through heavy taxation, free education through heavy taxation, free college through heavy taxation, poor family's get 400-500 month at least in food stamps through heavy taxation, the government provides more subsidized housing to those who struggle to make ends meet through heavy taxation.

I believe in Robin Hood economics take the money from the rich and upper middle class and redistribute it to the working poor. If they don't like the taxes or agree to it then maybe the best thing for this country would be a civil war between the rich and the poor, the poor need to get that money redistributed to them by any means necessary if they have to.

Why be such a pussy about it? Why hide behind government? Grow some balls and just go take their shit yourself. Or, if you don't have the courage to do it by yourself, form a mob. Legislation just enriches the suits in Washington.

 

[Toronado3800]

I believe if not for big government and some redistribution the rich would be richer and the masses would have nothing. From my point of view we tried that experiment during the renaissance and industrial revolution and conditions were soo terrible folks invented labor unions and turned to socialism even in America where we had the west and territorial gains to exploit.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a socialist. I just like higher tax brackets and deductions for being a good American.

You believe incorrectly, the big government is using regulations and patents to promote monopolies, which would otherwise be impossible, as without the government, would require a business to own all resources associated with their product.

As an example, the healthcare industry was limited to specified areas before Obamacare made things even worse, these limitations prevented competition, creating psuedo-monopolies, which caused prices to rise.

Another example is medicine. The government requires a long and expensive process before medicine is okay'd for shelves. Even after that process is completed, the medicine can be patented, allowing the business to hike prices.

As yet another example, how do you think regulations affect smaller businesss versus big corporations? Or taxes for that matter. Don't you think bigger corporations have an easier time accomading the added costs?

What do you think regulations and liscensing for starting a business is for? Don't you think there would be more business owners, more choices, without regulations? Everyone would be able to succeed instead of being forced to work for someone else. Do you know how difficult it is for a new business to pay for the liscensing and employee insurance that they're forced by the government to get? These are all tactics which the government uses to assist the big corporations in becoming monopolies. If the government weren't involved, competition would be at an all-time high, as nobody would be prevented from competing, and poverty would be at an all-time low, because employees would be in high demand.

The industrial revolution was not an example of a free market, in fact, the industrial revolution was EXTREMELY highly regulated. Better yet, if you want to see what the government gets us with its regulations, feel free to investigate the Great Depression and 2008 recession, BOTH were results of government intervention in the economy.

IF the government knew how to run businesses, they wouldn't be in government.

-I might need some help here with the reference to the industrial revolution being highly regulated. Gimme a link or some reading to do.

-As far as the government promoting monopolies, we agree there. The push seems to be promoting larger and larger company mergers. Is it in our interest to keep the Chinese from buying this or that U.S. company? That is the only straw I can grasp. Are monopolies bad for the economy, yes, monopoly evil outweighs economy of scale good in my book. I think its what business owners call "big government interference" that prevents monopolies but I suspect although we use different verbiage we agree here that monopolies are bad.

-I agree with the patent office being part of big government. Is it necessary....I think so. I also think the power of wealth lets the wealthy use it more effectively.

-Big government makes it possible for people to open a business. Want some protection in your personal finances from what happens in your small business, turn to some weird government regulations. On the bigger scale, Trump's business goes bankrupt, Trump keeps his mansion, that's big government keeping his creditors from taking everything he owes and using some socialist tax deductions or welfare from you and I to pay back Trump's creditors in the name of promoting entrepreneurship.

-From my personal life I think regulations affect small business less. Wanna see some racism and nepotism in hiring practices, lets go visit some small businesses. Law enforcement notices repeated crimes which involve more people. Want to steal something from a train parked in a siding? Do it once get away with it. Do it a few times and you'll get caught because the railroad cops know where the seals were on and off and can figure out when the train was stopped where.

-IMO technology is causing medical prices to rise. If you could sign off that you would want no treatment invented after y2k your insurance company would make more money off you. Unfortunately I want every this or that stem cell / ALS / Heart transplant / chemo treatment available to keep me and my kids alive. I'm not here to defend any one line of Obamacare. The math and regulations are way too complicated. We also need to admit this is a new economic problem the Greeks did not have. Spending a half million dollars to prolong my life when I'm 74 is not a sound investment but its one I hope is made! Want to see a cheap source of bedframes though see a big business moving a container of them about. Health Insurance is big business.

During the Industrial Revolution, the government started picking and choosing which forms of energy it wanted to succeed and fail in the form of environmental regulations, this trend of pretending a problem exists and then pretending to fix it through regulating what type of coal businesses could burn, for one example. Naturally, seeing that this could be used to promote monopolies, other stats began following suit. Even today, the government still creates further regulation on power companies in an effort to prop up the 'clean energy' industry.

The only reason the Chinese can buy companies in the first place is because the US government chooses to make it difficult for businesses to operate in the US. Monopolies don't help the economy, this is one of many reasons that the government has a negative impact on the economy through ANY actions whatsoever. The government is only needed for monopolies to form, and this is inherently negative. As I said, the government does not prevent monopolies, it promotes them.

It's not necessary, it only prevents competition. Patents are one of the ways that monopolies are promoted, which is inherently bad. Without patents, businesses are left at the mercy of their consumers, forcing them to continue innovating, providing better service, and in general having to perform better than their competition. This is all thrown out the window with patents.

No, government does not make it possible to form a business, their regulations make the cost of starting a business astronomical. A business has to hire someone to go through the 6000 pages of regulations to find the ones they have to adhere to, then they have to pay for employee insurance, they need a liscense, and they need to accomodate said regulations, followed by paying 60% of their earnings to the government, WHILE also making sure that their product wasn't already patented by some big corporation. These things a pre-established business can accomodate, however it makes starting a NEW business nearly impossible. The government is not required for a new business to form, they only make association with them required in THIS Nation. One would otherwise only need to fulfill a demand. On the topic of the government bailing out a business by throwing money at them which they stole from other businesses and individuals, I want to point out that this is one of many reasons I want the government out. This is not capitalism, it Corporatism, which is one of the methods that the government uses to promote monopolies. For example, EA Games, Twitter, and Facebook are all subsidized for millions of dollars, as are several 'green energy' companies which otherwise cannot compete.

Simply disagreeing with who someone should hire doesn't make them racist, it means you think they should hire who YOU think is more qualified, OR in the case of affirmative action, who the government believes is more qualified based on information they don't have, and experience they don't have, since they never met the individual they are forcing a business to hire based on their skin color. Beyond this, I already detailed above and in my previous post as to how regulations affect un-established businesses more than pre-established businesses. One only needs to note that a business which is established has more money, and would therefor have less money after the government steals 60% of their earnings.

I already detailed how the process regulations force businesses to go through in order to get their product on the market, and patents, cause prices to rise. What YOU'RE noting is not the advance in technology, it's the result of creating psuedo-monopolies and the government's inherent inability to properly calculate the prices and demand of comodities, the "Economic Calculation Problem". As I mentioned earlier, the process and the patents result in a monopoly on this specific product, resulting in competitors being disallowed from selling said product at a lower price or higher quality. One only needs to ask themselves whether or not they would buy the more expensive of two products which are exactly the same to realize the problem with government involvement in the market.

W/O government Bob is just a guy selling cars trying not to lose his house if he can't sell enough.

With government Bob starts a business Called "Honest Auto" with big government protection from people he owes money to. The fellow has his big government created Honest Auto pay him. Bob is insulated from his creditors. His Business is an entity now thanks to some big government laws. Honest Auto can go bankrupt and the force of law enforcement and the U.S. military keeps me if I'm one of Bob's creditors from taking Bob's house.

Do I have this right?

No, without the government, Bob isn't losing 60% of his incom to a government which believes it has more rights than Bob. Bob is also fulfilling a demand, and if he's doing it well, he has no need to worry about any such thing, especially since Bob won't be thrown in jail or fined for selling his own products without the government's permission. Bob also doesn't have to worry about the economy, since without government involvement competition would be at an all-time high. Bob also would have an easy job finding a job if he mismanages his business. Bob also can buy private security, which is twice as effective and half the cost of police, so if Bob is worried about other people, he's much safer, since private security doesn't take an average of 15 minutes to get there and outline your body in chalk,AND Bob can ACTUALLY arm himself since there wouldn't be a government attempting to ensure they're the only people who are armed.

No, WITH government, Bob has to worry about 6000 pages of regulations he must adhere to, and the fact that other auto industries have an advantage because they're subsidized. You know, since when a big corporation goes bankrupt, the government bails them out. Bob wouldn't become a success because the government is busy screwing him over while helping the pre-established corporations. Meanwhile, without said government, Bob wouldn't need a freaking loan because Bob would be making more money without all of the regulations destroying the economy.

Now your numbers might be as accurate as Donald's, be careful with that when typing or being video taped, I do some accounting. Your point is valid that there are taxes, regulations and costs though.

With government Bob doesn't have to worry about having his house taken away or going to jail if he is anything like good his company, the government created entity which can sue, get sued and somehow be found guilty pays. Ask Mr. Wells Fargo

Curious, would as many people go into business if not for corporate protections? And I'm not saying small business owners don't use their homes as equity ever. Just they don't have to.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

You believe incorrectly, the big government is using regulations and patents to promote monopolies, which would otherwise be impossible, as without the government, would require a business to own all resources associated with their product.

As an example, the healthcare industry was limited to specified areas before Obamacare made things even worse, these limitations prevented competition, creating psuedo-monopolies, which caused prices to rise.

Another example is medicine. The government requires a long and expensive process before medicine is okay'd for shelves. Even after that process is completed, the medicine can be patented, allowing the business to hike prices.

As yet another example, how do you think regulations affect smaller businesss versus big corporations? Or taxes for that matter. Don't you think bigger corporations have an easier time accomading the added costs?

What do you think regulations and liscensing for starting a business is for? Don't you think there would be more business owners, more choices, without regulations? Everyone would be able to succeed instead of being forced to work for someone else. Do you know how difficult it is for a new business to pay for the liscensing and employee insurance that they're forced by the government to get? These are all tactics which the government uses to assist the big corporations in becoming monopolies. If the government weren't involved, competition would be at an all-time high, as nobody would be prevented from competing, and poverty would be at an all-time low, because employees would be in high demand.

The industrial revolution was not an example of a free market, in fact, the industrial revolution was EXTREMELY highly regulated. Better yet, if you want to see what the government gets us with its regulations, feel free to investigate the Great Depression and 2008 recession, BOTH were results of government intervention in the economy.

IF the government knew how to run businesses, they wouldn't be in government.

-I might need some help here with the reference to the industrial revolution being highly regulated. Gimme a link or some reading to do.

-As far as the government promoting monopolies, we agree there. The push seems to be promoting larger and larger company mergers. Is it in our interest to keep the Chinese from buying this or that U.S. company? That is the only straw I can grasp. Are monopolies bad for the economy, yes, monopoly evil outweighs economy of scale good in my book. I think its what business owners call "big government interference" that prevents monopolies but I suspect although we use different verbiage we agree here that monopolies are bad.

-I agree with the patent office being part of big government. Is it necessary....I think so. I also think the power of wealth lets the wealthy use it more effectively.

-Big government makes it possible for people to open a business. Want some protection in your personal finances from what happens in your small business, turn to some weird government regulations. On the bigger scale, Trump's business goes bankrupt, Trump keeps his mansion, that's big government keeping his creditors from taking everything he owes and using some socialist tax deductions or welfare from you and I to pay back Trump's creditors in the name of promoting entrepreneurship.

-From my personal life I think regulations affect small business less. Wanna see some racism and nepotism in hiring practices, lets go visit some small businesses. Law enforcement notices repeated crimes which involve more people. Want to steal something from a train parked in a siding? Do it once get away with it. Do it a few times and you'll get caught because the railroad cops know where the seals were on and off and can figure out when the train was stopped where.

-IMO technology is causing medical prices to rise. If you could sign off that you would want no treatment invented after y2k your insurance company would make more money off you. Unfortunately I want every this or that stem cell / ALS / Heart transplant / chemo treatment available to keep me and my kids alive. I'm not here to defend any one line of Obamacare. The math and regulations are way too complicated. We also need to admit this is a new economic problem the Greeks did not have. Spending a half million dollars to prolong my life when I'm 74 is not a sound investment but its one I hope is made! Want to see a cheap source of bedframes though see a big business moving a container of them about. Health Insurance is big business.

During the Industrial Revolution, the government started picking and choosing which forms of energy it wanted to succeed and fail in the form of environmental regulations, this trend of pretending a problem exists and then pretending to fix it through regulating what type of coal businesses could burn, for one example. Naturally, seeing that this could be used to promote monopolies, other stats began following suit. Even today, the government still creates further regulation on power companies in an effort to prop up the 'clean energy' industry.

The only reason the Chinese can buy companies in the first place is because the US government chooses to make it difficult for businesses to operate in the US. Monopolies don't help the economy, this is one of many reasons that the government has a negative impact on the economy through ANY actions whatsoever. The government is only needed for monopolies to form, and this is inherently negative. As I said, the government does not prevent monopolies, it promotes them.

It's not necessary, it only prevents competition. Patents are one of the ways that monopolies are promoted, which is inherently bad. Without patents, businesses are left at the mercy of their consumers, forcing them to continue innovating, providing better service, and in general having to perform better than their competition. This is all thrown out the window with patents.

No, government does not make it possible to form a business, their regulations make the cost of starting a business astronomical. A business has to hire someone to go through the 6000 pages of regulations to find the ones they have to adhere to, then they have to pay for employee insurance, they need a liscense, and they need to accomodate said regulations, followed by paying 60% of their earnings to the government, WHILE also making sure that their product wasn't already patented by some big corporation. These things a pre-established business can accomodate, however it makes starting a NEW business nearly impossible. The government is not required for a new business to form, they only make association with them required in THIS Nation. One would otherwise only need to fulfill a demand. On the topic of the government bailing out a business by throwing money at them which they stole from other businesses and individuals, I want to point out that this is one of many reasons I want the government out. This is not capitalism, it Corporatism, which is one of the methods that the government uses to promote monopolies. For example, EA Games, Twitter, and Facebook are all subsidized for millions of dollars, as are several 'green energy' companies which otherwise cannot compete.

Simply disagreeing with who someone should hire doesn't make them racist, it means you think they should hire who YOU think is more qualified, OR in the case of affirmative action, who the government believes is more qualified based on information they don't have, and experience they don't have, since they never met the individual they are forcing a business to hire based on their skin color. Beyond this, I already detailed above and in my previous post as to how regulations affect un-established businesses more than pre-established businesses. One only needs to note that a business which is established has more money, and would therefor have less money after the government steals 60% of their earnings.

I already detailed how the process regulations force businesses to go through in order to get their product on the market, and patents, cause prices to rise. What YOU'RE noting is not the advance in technology, it's the result of creating psuedo-monopolies and the government's inherent inability to properly calculate the prices and demand of comodities, the "Economic Calculation Problem". As I mentioned earlier, the process and the patents result in a monopoly on this specific product, resulting in competitors being disallowed from selling said product at a lower price or higher quality. One only needs to ask themselves whether or not they would buy the more expensive of two products which are exactly the same to realize the problem with government involvement in the market.

W/O government Bob is just a guy selling cars trying not to lose his house if he can't sell enough.

With government Bob starts a business Called "Honest Auto" with big government protection from people he owes money to. The fellow has his big government created Honest Auto pay him. Bob is insulated from his creditors. His Business is an entity now thanks to some big government laws. Honest Auto can go bankrupt and the force of law enforcement and the U.S. military keeps me if I'm one of Bob's creditors from taking Bob's house.

Do I have this right?

No, without the government, Bob isn't losing 60% of his incom to a government which believes it has more rights than Bob. Bob is also fulfilling a demand, and if he's doing it well, he has no need to worry about any such thing, especially since Bob won't be thrown in jail or fined for selling his own products without the government's permission. Bob also doesn't have to worry about the economy, since without government involvement competition would be at an all-time high. Bob also would have an easy job finding a job if he mismanages his business. Bob also can buy private security, which is twice as effective and half the cost of police, so if Bob is worried about other people, he's much safer, since private security doesn't take an average of 15 minutes to get there and outline your body in chalk,AND Bob can ACTUALLY arm himself since there wouldn't be a government attempting to ensure they're the only people who are armed.

No, WITH government, Bob has to worry about 6000 pages of regulations he must adhere to, and the fact that other auto industries have an advantage because they're subsidized. You know, since when a big corporation goes bankrupt, the government bails them out. Bob wouldn't become a success because the government is busy screwing him over while helping the pre-established corporations. Meanwhile, without said government, Bob wouldn't need a freaking loan because Bob would be making more money without all of the regulations destroying the economy.

Now your numbers might be as accurate as Donald's, be careful with that when typing or being video taped, I do some accounting. Your point is valid that there are taxes, regulations and costs though.

With government Bob doesn't have to worry about having his house taken away or going to jail if he is anything like good his company, the government created entity which can sue, get sued and somehow be found guilty pays. Ask Mr. Wells Fargo

Curious, would as many people go into business if not for corporate protections? And I'm not saying small business owners don't use their homes as equity ever. Just they don't have to.

The point wasn't the number, though it's far more than that when you add up emloyee insurance and liscensing. The number is actually closer to 40%, so it's still roughly half of everything they make.

As a matter of fact, Bob does have to worry about that, the government will kidnap and imprison anyone who violates their arbitrary laws, and is not above stealing your property, and in fact will steal it for little to no reason. In fact, they steal your money every time you get a paycheck. Meanwhile, without the government, Bob wouldn't have to worry about this, because he wouldn't need a loan without the government stealing his money to give to the Corporations in the form of subsidies and bailouts. You can't even tell me WHY a person who can hire private security and is allowed to arm themselves would hjave to worry about people stealing their stuff, you only said "He totally has to worry about it" without quanitfying. As it is, the government can throw anyone in jail if they so desire, because they make to rules, so even if it WERE the case, it's a much bigger problem now. I actually can't even debunk the rest of that paragraph because your english was so terrible, what even were you trying to say?

Yes, in fact, without government intervention more people would go into business, because the government is using regulations and taxes to make it as difficult as possible. I already explained all of the red tape, and you failed to ever justify any of it. Tbhen again, you'd have a VERY hard time explaining to me why a monopoly on violence and arbitration should be able to decide who can and cannot start a business. Nothing even makes them qualified, they're just politicians, they get where they are by practicing being a lying sociopath.

 

[Toronado3800]

-I might need some help here with the reference to the industrial revolution being highly regulated. Gimme a link or some reading to do.

-As far as the government promoting monopolies, we agree there. The push seems to be promoting larger and larger company mergers. Is it in our interest to keep the Chinese from buying this or that U.S. company? That is the only straw I can grasp. Are monopolies bad for the economy, yes, monopoly evil outweighs economy of scale good in my book. I think its what business owners call "big government interference" that prevents monopolies but I suspect although we use different verbiage we agree here that monopolies are bad.

-I agree with the patent office being part of big government. Is it necessary....I think so. I also think the power of wealth lets the wealthy use it more effectively.

-Big government makes it possible for people to open a business. Want some protection in your personal finances from what happens in your small business, turn to some weird government regulations. On the bigger scale, Trump's business goes bankrupt, Trump keeps his mansion, that's big government keeping his creditors from taking everything he owes and using some socialist tax deductions or welfare from you and I to pay back Trump's creditors in the name of promoting entrepreneurship.

-From my personal life I think regulations affect small business less. Wanna see some racism and nepotism in hiring practices, lets go visit some small businesses. Law enforcement notices repeated crimes which involve more people. Want to steal something from a train parked in a siding? Do it once get away with it. Do it a few times and you'll get caught because the railroad cops know where the seals were on and off and can figure out when the train was stopped where.

-IMO technology is causing medical prices to rise. If you could sign off that you would want no treatment invented after y2k your insurance company would make more money off you. Unfortunately I want every this or that stem cell / ALS / Heart transplant / chemo treatment available to keep me and my kids alive. I'm not here to defend any one line of Obamacare. The math and regulations are way too complicated. We also need to admit this is a new economic problem the Greeks did not have. Spending a half million dollars to prolong my life when I'm 74 is not a sound investment but its one I hope is made! Want to see a cheap source of bedframes though see a big business moving a container of them about. Health Insurance is big business.

During the Industrial Revolution, the government started picking and choosing which forms of energy it wanted to succeed and fail in the form of environmental regulations, this trend of pretending a problem exists and then pretending to fix it through regulating what type of coal businesses could burn, for one example. Naturally, seeing that this could be used to promote monopolies, other stats began following suit. Even today, the government still creates further regulation on power companies in an effort to prop up the 'clean energy' industry.

The only reason the Chinese can buy companies in the first place is because the US government chooses to make it difficult for businesses to operate in the US. Monopolies don't help the economy, this is one of many reasons that the government has a negative impact on the economy through ANY actions whatsoever. The government is only needed for monopolies to form, and this is inherently negative. As I said, the government does not prevent monopolies, it promotes them.

It's not necessary, it only prevents competition. Patents are one of the ways that monopolies are promoted, which is inherently bad. Without patents, businesses are left at the mercy of their consumers, forcing them to continue innovating, providing better service, and in general having to perform better than their competition. This is all thrown out the window with patents.

No, government does not make it possible to form a business, their regulations make the cost of starting a business astronomical. A business has to hire someone to go through the 6000 pages of regulations to find the ones they have to adhere to, then they have to pay for employee insurance, they need a liscense, and they need to accomodate said regulations, followed by paying 60% of their earnings to the government, WHILE also making sure that their product wasn't already patented by some big corporation. These things a pre-established business can accomodate, however it makes starting a NEW business nearly impossible. The government is not required for a new business to form, they only make association with them required in THIS Nation. One would otherwise only need to fulfill a demand. On the topic of the government bailing out a business by throwing money at them which they stole from other businesses and individuals, I want to point out that this is one of many reasons I want the government out. This is not capitalism, it Corporatism, which is one of the methods that the government uses to promote monopolies. For example, EA Games, Twitter, and Facebook are all subsidized for millions of dollars, as are several 'green energy' companies which otherwise cannot compete.

Simply disagreeing with who someone should hire doesn't make them racist, it means you think they should hire who YOU think is more qualified, OR in the case of affirmative action, who the government believes is more qualified based on information they don't have, and experience they don't have, since they never met the individual they are forcing a business to hire based on their skin color. Beyond this, I already detailed above and in my previous post as to how regulations affect un-established businesses more than pre-established businesses. One only needs to note that a business which is established has more money, and would therefor have less money after the government steals 60% of their earnings.

I already detailed how the process regulations force businesses to go through in order to get their product on the market, and patents, cause prices to rise. What YOU'RE noting is not the advance in technology, it's the result of creating psuedo-monopolies and the government's inherent inability to properly calculate the prices and demand of comodities, the "Economic Calculation Problem". As I mentioned earlier, the process and the patents result in a monopoly on this specific product, resulting in competitors being disallowed from selling said product at a lower price or higher quality. One only needs to ask themselves whether or not they would buy the more expensive of two products which are exactly the same to realize the problem with government involvement in the market.

W/O government Bob is just a guy selling cars trying not to lose his house if he can't sell enough.

With government Bob starts a business Called "Honest Auto" with big government protection from people he owes money to. The fellow has his big government created Honest Auto pay him. Bob is insulated from his creditors. His Business is an entity now thanks to some big government laws. Honest Auto can go bankrupt and the force of law enforcement and the U.S. military keeps me if I'm one of Bob's creditors from taking Bob's house.

Do I have this right?

No, without the government, Bob isn't losing 60% of his incom to a government which believes it has more rights than Bob. Bob is also fulfilling a demand, and if he's doing it well, he has no need to worry about any such thing, especially since Bob won't be thrown in jail or fined for selling his own products without the government's permission. Bob also doesn't have to worry about the economy, since without government involvement competition would be at an all-time high. Bob also would have an easy job finding a job if he mismanages his business. Bob also can buy private security, which is twice as effective and half the cost of police, so if Bob is worried about other people, he's much safer, since private security doesn't take an average of 15 minutes to get there and outline your body in chalk,AND Bob can ACTUALLY arm himself since there wouldn't be a government attempting to ensure they're the only people who are armed.

No, WITH government, Bob has to worry about 6000 pages of regulations he must adhere to, and the fact that other auto industries have an advantage because they're subsidized. You know, since when a big corporation goes bankrupt, the government bails them out. Bob wouldn't become a success because the government is busy screwing him over while helping the pre-established corporations. Meanwhile, without said government, Bob wouldn't need a freaking loan because Bob would be making more money without all of the regulations destroying the economy.

Now your numbers might be as accurate as Donald's, be careful with that when typing or being video taped, I do some accounting. Your point is valid that there are taxes, regulations and costs though.

With government Bob doesn't have to worry about having his house taken away or going to jail if he is anything like good his company, the government created entity which can sue, get sued and somehow be found guilty pays. Ask Mr. Wells Fargo

Curious, would as many people go into business if not for corporate protections? And I'm not saying small business owners don't use their homes as equity ever. Just they don't have to.

The point wasn't the number, though it's far more than that when you add up emloyee insurance and liscensing. The number is actually closer to 40%, so it's still roughly half of everything they make.

As a matter of fact, Bob does have to worry about that, the government will kidnap and imprison anyone who violates their arbitrary laws, and is not above stealing your property, and in fact will steal it for little to no reason. In fact, they steal your money every time you get a paycheck. Meanwhile, without the government, Bob wouldn't have to worry about this, because he wouldn't need a loan without the government stealing his money to give to the Corporations in the form of subsidies and bailouts. You can't even tell me WHY a person who can hire private security and is allowed to arm themselves would hjave to worry about people stealing their stuff, you only said "He totally has to worry about it" without quanitfying. As it is, the government can throw anyone in jail if they so desire, because they make to rules, so even if it WERE the case, it's a much bigger problem now. I actually can't even debunk the rest of that paragraph because your english was so terrible, what even were you trying to say?

Yes, in fact, without government intervention more people would go into business, because the government is using regulations and taxes to make it as difficult as possible. I already explained all of the red tape, and you failed to ever justify any of it. Tbhen again, you'd have a VERY hard time explaining to me why a monopoly on violence and arbitration should be able to decide who can and cannot start a business. Nothing even makes them qualified, they're just politicians, they get where they are by practicing being a lying sociopath.

Are you an anarchist? Do you support any laws? Personally I'm for the patent office and incorporation. Artificial things both created by big government. I also believe in trade offs. If the government is creating an entity and letting the very thing it created fet found guilty or declare bankruptcy there better be some tradeoffs.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

During the Industrial Revolution, the government started picking and choosing which forms of energy it wanted to succeed and fail in the form of environmental regulations, this trend of pretending a problem exists and then pretending to fix it through regulating what type of coal businesses could burn, for one example. Naturally, seeing that this could be used to promote monopolies, other stats began following suit. Even today, the government still creates further regulation on power companies in an effort to prop up the 'clean energy' industry.

The only reason the Chinese can buy companies in the first place is because the US government chooses to make it difficult for businesses to operate in the US. Monopolies don't help the economy, this is one of many reasons that the government has a negative impact on the economy through ANY actions whatsoever. The government is only needed for monopolies to form, and this is inherently negative. As I said, the government does not prevent monopolies, it promotes them.

It's not necessary, it only prevents competition. Patents are one of the ways that monopolies are promoted, which is inherently bad. Without patents, businesses are left at the mercy of their consumers, forcing them to continue innovating, providing better service, and in general having to perform better than their competition. This is all thrown out the window with patents.

No, government does not make it possible to form a business, their regulations make the cost of starting a business astronomical. A business has to hire someone to go through the 6000 pages of regulations to find the ones they have to adhere to, then they have to pay for employee insurance, they need a liscense, and they need to accomodate said regulations, followed by paying 60% of their earnings to the government, WHILE also making sure that their product wasn't already patented by some big corporation. These things a pre-established business can accomodate, however it makes starting a NEW business nearly impossible. The government is not required for a new business to form, they only make association with them required in THIS Nation. One would otherwise only need to fulfill a demand. On the topic of the government bailing out a business by throwing money at them which they stole from other businesses and individuals, I want to point out that this is one of many reasons I want the government out. This is not capitalism, it Corporatism, which is one of the methods that the government uses to promote monopolies. For example, EA Games, Twitter, and Facebook are all subsidized for millions of dollars, as are several 'green energy' companies which otherwise cannot compete.

Simply disagreeing with who someone should hire doesn't make them racist, it means you think they should hire who YOU think is more qualified, OR in the case of affirmative action, who the government believes is more qualified based on information they don't have, and experience they don't have, since they never met the individual they are forcing a business to hire based on their skin color. Beyond this, I already detailed above and in my previous post as to how regulations affect un-established businesses more than pre-established businesses. One only needs to note that a business which is established has more money, and would therefor have less money after the government steals 60% of their earnings.

I already detailed how the process regulations force businesses to go through in order to get their product on the market, and patents, cause prices to rise. What YOU'RE noting is not the advance in technology, it's the result of creating psuedo-monopolies and the government's inherent inability to properly calculate the prices and demand of comodities, the "Economic Calculation Problem". As I mentioned earlier, the process and the patents result in a monopoly on this specific product, resulting in competitors being disallowed from selling said product at a lower price or higher quality. One only needs to ask themselves whether or not they would buy the more expensive of two products which are exactly the same to realize the problem with government involvement in the market.

W/O government Bob is just a guy selling cars trying not to lose his house if he can't sell enough.

With government Bob starts a business Called "Honest Auto" with big government protection from people he owes money to. The fellow has his big government created Honest Auto pay him. Bob is insulated from his creditors. His Business is an entity now thanks to some big government laws. Honest Auto can go bankrupt and the force of law enforcement and the U.S. military keeps me if I'm one of Bob's creditors from taking Bob's house.

Do I have this right?

No, without the government, Bob isn't losing 60% of his incom to a government which believes it has more rights than Bob. Bob is also fulfilling a demand, and if he's doing it well, he has no need to worry about any such thing, especially since Bob won't be thrown in jail or fined for selling his own products without the government's permission. Bob also doesn't have to worry about the economy, since without government involvement competition would be at an all-time high. Bob also would have an easy job finding a job if he mismanages his business. Bob also can buy private security, which is twice as effective and half the cost of police, so if Bob is worried about other people, he's much safer, since private security doesn't take an average of 15 minutes to get there and outline your body in chalk,AND Bob can ACTUALLY arm himself since there wouldn't be a government attempting to ensure they're the only people who are armed.

No, WITH government, Bob has to worry about 6000 pages of regulations he must adhere to, and the fact that other auto industries have an advantage because they're subsidized. You know, since when a big corporation goes bankrupt, the government bails them out. Bob wouldn't become a success because the government is busy screwing him over while helping the pre-established corporations. Meanwhile, without said government, Bob wouldn't need a freaking loan because Bob would be making more money without all of the regulations destroying the economy.

Now your numbers might be as accurate as Donald's, be careful with that when typing or being video taped, I do some accounting. Your point is valid that there are taxes, regulations and costs though.

With government Bob doesn't have to worry about having his house taken away or going to jail if he is anything like good his company, the government created entity which can sue, get sued and somehow be found guilty pays. Ask Mr. Wells Fargo

Curious, would as many people go into business if not for corporate protections? And I'm not saying small business owners don't use their homes as equity ever. Just they don't have to.

The point wasn't the number, though it's far more than that when you add up emloyee insurance and liscensing. The number is actually closer to 40%, so it's still roughly half of everything they make.

As a matter of fact, Bob does have to worry about that, the government will kidnap and imprison anyone who violates their arbitrary laws, and is not above stealing your property, and in fact will steal it for little to no reason. In fact, they steal your money every time you get a paycheck. Meanwhile, without the government, Bob wouldn't have to worry about this, because he wouldn't need a loan without the government stealing his money to give to the Corporations in the form of subsidies and bailouts. You can't even tell me WHY a person who can hire private security and is allowed to arm themselves would hjave to worry about people stealing their stuff, you only said "He totally has to worry about it" without quanitfying. As it is, the government can throw anyone in jail if they so desire, because they make to rules, so even if it WERE the case, it's a much bigger problem now. I actually can't even debunk the rest of that paragraph because your english was so terrible, what even were you trying to say?

Yes, in fact, without government intervention more people would go into business, because the government is using regulations and taxes to make it as difficult as possible. I already explained all of the red tape, and you failed to ever justify any of it. Tbhen again, you'd have a VERY hard time explaining to me why a monopoly on violence and arbitration should be able to decide who can and cannot start a business. Nothing even makes them qualified, they're just politicians, they get where they are by practicing being a lying sociopath.

Are you an anarchist? Do you support any laws? Personally I'm for the patent office and incorporation. Artificial things both created by big government. I also believe in trade offs. If the government is creating an entity and letting the very thing it created fet found guilty or declare bankruptcy there better be some tradeoffs.

Meanwhile, you have yet to justify either one, and in fact, have failed to justify ANYTHING you have argued for.In fact, your posts have only gotten shorter as you've been realizing that you can't.

Trade-offs aren't needed when it's clear that the government is the cause of everything wrong with the world. There are no benefits to its intervention, especially given that its mere presence requires that those entities in government be given additional rights that we the people don't have. The right to kidnap, imprison, and murder anyone that doesn't follow the rules they can create arbitrarily, and the right to steal the our property.

 

[Toronado3800]

W/O government Bob is just a guy selling cars trying not to lose his house if he can't sell enough.

With government Bob starts a business Called "Honest Auto" with big government protection from people he owes money to. The fellow has his big government created Honest Auto pay him. Bob is insulated from his creditors. His Business is an entity now thanks to some big government laws. Honest Auto can go bankrupt and the force of law enforcement and the U.S. military keeps me if I'm one of Bob's creditors from taking Bob's house.

Do I have this right?

No, without the government, Bob isn't losing 60% of his incom to a government which believes it has more rights than Bob. Bob is also fulfilling a demand, and if he's doing it well, he has no need to worry about any such thing, especially since Bob won't be thrown in jail or fined for selling his own products without the government's permission. Bob also doesn't have to worry about the economy, since without government involvement competition would be at an all-time high. Bob also would have an easy job finding a job if he mismanages his business. Bob also can buy private security, which is twice as effective and half the cost of police, so if Bob is worried about other people, he's much safer, since private security doesn't take an average of 15 minutes to get there and outline your body in chalk,AND Bob can ACTUALLY arm himself since there wouldn't be a government attempting to ensure they're the only people who are armed.

No, WITH government, Bob has to worry about 6000 pages of regulations he must adhere to, and the fact that other auto industries have an advantage because they're subsidized. You know, since when a big corporation goes bankrupt, the government bails them out. Bob wouldn't become a success because the government is busy screwing him over while helping the pre-established corporations. Meanwhile, without said government, Bob wouldn't need a freaking loan because Bob would be making more money without all of the regulations destroying the economy.

Now your numbers might be as accurate as Donald's, be careful with that when typing or being video taped, I do some accounting. Your point is valid that there are taxes, regulations and costs though.

With government Bob doesn't have to worry about having his house taken away or going to jail if he is anything like good his company, the government created entity which can sue, get sued and somehow be found guilty pays. Ask Mr. Wells Fargo

Curious, would as many people go into business if not for corporate protections? And I'm not saying small business owners don't use their homes as equity ever. Just they don't have to.

The point wasn't the number, though it's far more than that when you add up emloyee insurance and liscensing. The number is actually closer to 40%, so it's still roughly half of everything they make.

As a matter of fact, Bob does have to worry about that, the government will kidnap and imprison anyone who violates their arbitrary laws, and is not above stealing your property, and in fact will steal it for little to no reason. In fact, they steal your money every time you get a paycheck. Meanwhile, without the government, Bob wouldn't have to worry about this, because he wouldn't need a loan without the government stealing his money to give to the Corporations in the form of subsidies and bailouts. You can't even tell me WHY a person who can hire private security and is allowed to arm themselves would hjave to worry about people stealing their stuff, you only said "He totally has to worry about it" without quanitfying. As it is, the government can throw anyone in jail if they so desire, because they make to rules, so even if it WERE the case, it's a much bigger problem now. I actually can't even debunk the rest of that paragraph because your english was so terrible, what even were you trying to say?

Yes, in fact, without government intervention more people would go into business, because the government is using regulations and taxes to make it as difficult as possible. I already explained all of the red tape, and you failed to ever justify any of it. Tbhen again, you'd have a VERY hard time explaining to me why a monopoly on violence and arbitration should be able to decide who can and cannot start a business. Nothing even makes them qualified, they're just politicians, they get where they are by practicing being a lying sociopath.

Are you an anarchist? Do you support any laws? Personally I'm for the patent office and incorporation. Artificial things both created by big government. I also believe in trade offs. If the government is creating an entity and letting the very thing it created fet found guilty or declare bankruptcy there better be some tradeoffs.

Meanwhile, you have yet to justify either one, and in fact, have failed to justify ANYTHING you have argued for.In fact, your posts have only gotten shorter as you've been realizing that you can't.

Trade-offs aren't needed when it's clear that the government is the cause of everything wrong with the world. There are no benefits to its intervention, especially given that its mere presence requires that those entities in government be given additional rights that we the people don't have. The right to kidnap, imprison, and murder anyone that doesn't follow the rules they can create arbitrarily, and the right to steal the our property.

Sorry for the shorter replies, just trying to force you to talk about a point instead of the government kidnapping people.

I need to justify asking is you're an anarchist or asking if you like how big government gives birth to corporations?

I just don't understand. You are talking about the government kidnapping people now like you are against prisons?

Sorry for being soo offensive to you.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

No, without the government, Bob isn't losing 60% of his incom to a government which believes it has more rights than Bob. Bob is also fulfilling a demand, and if he's doing it well, he has no need to worry about any such thing, especially since Bob won't be thrown in jail or fined for selling his own products without the government's permission. Bob also doesn't have to worry about the economy, since without government involvement competition would be at an all-time high. Bob also would have an easy job finding a job if he mismanages his business. Bob also can buy private security, which is twice as effective and half the cost of police, so if Bob is worried about other people, he's much safer, since private security doesn't take an average of 15 minutes to get there and outline your body in chalk,AND Bob can ACTUALLY arm himself since there wouldn't be a government attempting to ensure they're the only people who are armed.

No, WITH government, Bob has to worry about 6000 pages of regulations he must adhere to, and the fact that other auto industries have an advantage because they're subsidized. You know, since when a big corporation goes bankrupt, the government bails them out. Bob wouldn't become a success because the government is busy screwing him over while helping the pre-established corporations. Meanwhile, without said government, Bob wouldn't need a freaking loan because Bob would be making more money without all of the regulations destroying the economy.

Now your numbers might be as accurate as Donald's, be careful with that when typing or being video taped, I do some accounting. Your point is valid that there are taxes, regulations and costs though.

With government Bob doesn't have to worry about having his house taken away or going to jail if he is anything like good his company, the government created entity which can sue, get sued and somehow be found guilty pays. Ask Mr. Wells Fargo

Curious, would as many people go into business if not for corporate protections? And I'm not saying small business owners don't use their homes as equity ever. Just they don't have to.

The point wasn't the number, though it's far more than that when you add up emloyee insurance and liscensing. The number is actually closer to 40%, so it's still roughly half of everything they make.

As a matter of fact, Bob does have to worry about that, the government will kidnap and imprison anyone who violates their arbitrary laws, and is not above stealing your property, and in fact will steal it for little to no reason. In fact, they steal your money every time you get a paycheck. Meanwhile, without the government, Bob wouldn't have to worry about this, because he wouldn't need a loan without the government stealing his money to give to the Corporations in the form of subsidies and bailouts. You can't even tell me WHY a person who can hire private security and is allowed to arm themselves would hjave to worry about people stealing their stuff, you only said "He totally has to worry about it" without quanitfying. As it is, the government can throw anyone in jail if they so desire, because they make to rules, so even if it WERE the case, it's a much bigger problem now. I actually can't even debunk the rest of that paragraph because your english was so terrible, what even were you trying to say?

Yes, in fact, without government intervention more people would go into business, because the government is using regulations and taxes to make it as difficult as possible. I already explained all of the red tape, and you failed to ever justify any of it. Tbhen again, you'd have a VERY hard time explaining to me why a monopoly on violence and arbitration should be able to decide who can and cannot start a business. Nothing even makes them qualified, they're just politicians, they get where they are by practicing being a lying sociopath.

Are you an anarchist? Do you support any laws? Personally I'm for the patent office and incorporation. Artificial things both created by big government. I also believe in trade offs. If the government is creating an entity and letting the very thing it created fet found guilty or declare bankruptcy there better be some tradeoffs.

Meanwhile, you have yet to justify either one, and in fact, have failed to justify ANYTHING you have argued for.In fact, your posts have only gotten shorter as you've been realizing that you can't.

Trade-offs aren't needed when it's clear that the government is the cause of everything wrong with the world. There are no benefits to its intervention, especially given that its mere presence requires that those entities in government be given additional rights that we the people don't have. The right to kidnap, imprison, and murder anyone that doesn't follow the rules they can create arbitrarily, and the right to steal the our property.

Sorry for the shorter replies, just trying to force you to talk about a point instead of the government kidnapping people.

I need to justify asking is you're an anarchist or asking if you like how big government gives birth to corporations?

I just don't understand. You are talking about the government kidnapping people now like you are against prisons?

Sorry for being soo offensive to you.

Claiming I'm offended is clearly your only defense since you can't counter my points.

No, you need to justify the government interfering in the economy, especially since I've already pointed out all of the damage it causes, and YOU have failed to address that point each time. All you've done is re-iterate that you support it, without arguing that it's somehow justified or does ANY amount of good.

What I am or am not is not an argument, making it irrelvant to the discussion. The effectiveness of my points an arguments do not rely upon whether I'm part of any given group.

 

[BlackSand]

I need some verbiage fellow board members.

Looking around I see a bunch of people with well fed bellies, 1600+ square foot houses in a desirable neighborhood (with few of THEM here as these folks say, not me), ridiculously new cars not a wrench one in the garage, paid servants to mow their status symbol lawns for them and needlessly expensive cell phone plans.

This isn't exactly a small part of town either.

So when I hear them complaining about taxes or something it isn't that they don't have a right to complain, we all do, but it seems somewhat....something.

Everyone should complain about taxes, what is it that you believe gives those in government the rights to OUR labor?

What is the phrase I'm looking for?

I also need a qualifier because at some point even the rich can complain about the system they got rich under or in spite of.

If you have a problem with it, then you should advocate that the government get rid of all regulations, so that all of us can get rich instead of those they favor with regulations.

I believe if not for big government and some redistribution the rich would be richer and the masses would have nothing. From my point of view we tried that experiment during the renaissance and industrial revolution and conditions were soo terrible folks invented labor unions and turned to socialism even in America where we had the west and territorial gains to exploit.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a socialist. I just like higher tax brackets and deductions for being a good American.

Add a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and end automatic payroll deductions ... And taxes will fall through the floor ...

.​

 

[Toronado3800]

Now your numbers might be as accurate as Donald's, be careful with that when typing or being video taped, I do some accounting. Your point is valid that there are taxes, regulations and costs though.

With government Bob doesn't have to worry about having his house taken away or going to jail if he is anything like good his company, the government created entity which can sue, get sued and somehow be found guilty pays. Ask Mr. Wells Fargo

Curious, would as many people go into business if not for corporate protections? And I'm not saying small business owners don't use their homes as equity ever. Just they don't have to.

The point wasn't the number, though it's far more than that when you add up emloyee insurance and liscensing. The number is actually closer to 40%, so it's still roughly half of everything they make.

As a matter of fact, Bob does have to worry about that, the government will kidnap and imprison anyone who violates their arbitrary laws, and is not above stealing your property, and in fact will steal it for little to no reason. In fact, they steal your money every time you get a paycheck. Meanwhile, without the government, Bob wouldn't have to worry about this, because he wouldn't need a loan without the government stealing his money to give to the Corporations in the form of subsidies and bailouts. You can't even tell me WHY a person who can hire private security and is allowed to arm themselves would hjave to worry about people stealing their stuff, you only said "He totally has to worry about it" without quanitfying. As it is, the government can throw anyone in jail if they so desire, because they make to rules, so even if it WERE the case, it's a much bigger problem now. I actually can't even debunk the rest of that paragraph because your english was so terrible, what even were you trying to say?

Yes, in fact, without government intervention more people would go into business, because the government is using regulations and taxes to make it as difficult as possible. I already explained all of the red tape, and you failed to ever justify any of it. Tbhen again, you'd have a VERY hard time explaining to me why a monopoly on violence and arbitration should be able to decide who can and cannot start a business. Nothing even makes them qualified, they're just politicians, they get where they are by practicing being a lying sociopath.

Are you an anarchist? Do you support any laws? Personally I'm for the patent office and incorporation. Artificial things both created by big government. I also believe in trade offs. If the government is creating an entity and letting the very thing it created fet found guilty or declare bankruptcy there better be some tradeoffs.

Meanwhile, you have yet to justify either one, and in fact, have failed to justify ANYTHING you have argued for.In fact, your posts have only gotten shorter as you've been realizing that you can't.

Trade-offs aren't needed when it's clear that the government is the cause of everything wrong with the world. There are no benefits to its intervention, especially given that its mere presence requires that those entities in government be given additional rights that we the people don't have. The right to kidnap, imprison, and murder anyone that doesn't follow the rules they can create arbitrarily, and the right to steal the our property.

Sorry for the shorter replies, just trying to force you to talk about a point instead of the government kidnapping people.

I need to justify asking is you're an anarchist or asking if you like how big government gives birth to corporations?

I just don't understand. You are talking about the government kidnapping people now like you are against prisons?

Sorry for being soo offensive to you.

Claiming I'm offended is clearly your only defense since you can't counter my points.

No, you need to justify the government interfering in the economy, especially since I've already pointed out all of the damage it causes, and YOU have failed to address that point each time. All you've done is re-iterate that you support it, without arguing that it's somehow justified or does ANY amount of good.

What I am or am not is not an argument, making it irrelvant to the discussion. The effectiveness of my points an arguments do not rely upon whether I'm part of any given group.

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.

 

[dblack]

The point wasn't the number, though it's far more than that when you add up emloyee insurance and liscensing. The number is actually closer to 40%, so it's still roughly half of everything they make.

As a matter of fact, Bob does have to worry about that, the government will kidnap and imprison anyone who violates their arbitrary laws, and is not above stealing your property, and in fact will steal it for little to no reason. In fact, they steal your money every time you get a paycheck. Meanwhile, without the government, Bob wouldn't have to worry about this, because he wouldn't need a loan without the government stealing his money to give to the Corporations in the form of subsidies and bailouts. You can't even tell me WHY a person who can hire private security and is allowed to arm themselves would hjave to worry about people stealing their stuff, you only said "He totally has to worry about it" without quanitfying. As it is, the government can throw anyone in jail if they so desire, because they make to rules, so even if it WERE the case, it's a much bigger problem now. I actually can't even debunk the rest of that paragraph because your english was so terrible, what even were you trying to say?

Yes, in fact, without government intervention more people would go into business, because the government is using regulations and taxes to make it as difficult as possible. I already explained all of the red tape, and you failed to ever justify any of it. Tbhen again, you'd have a VERY hard time explaining to me why a monopoly on violence and arbitration should be able to decide who can and cannot start a business. Nothing even makes them qualified, they're just politicians, they get where they are by practicing being a lying sociopath.

Are you an anarchist? Do you support any laws? Personally I'm for the patent office and incorporation. Artificial things both created by big government. I also believe in trade offs. If the government is creating an entity and letting the very thing it created fet found guilty or declare bankruptcy there better be some tradeoffs.

Meanwhile, you have yet to justify either one, and in fact, have failed to justify ANYTHING you have argued for.In fact, your posts have only gotten shorter as you've been realizing that you can't.

Trade-offs aren't needed when it's clear that the government is the cause of everything wrong with the world. There are no benefits to its intervention, especially given that its mere presence requires that those entities in government be given additional rights that we the people don't have. The right to kidnap, imprison, and murder anyone that doesn't follow the rules they can create arbitrarily, and the right to steal the our property.

Sorry for the shorter replies, just trying to force you to talk about a point instead of the government kidnapping people.

I need to justify asking is you're an anarchist or asking if you like how big government gives birth to corporations?

I just don't understand. You are talking about the government kidnapping people now like you are against prisons?

Sorry for being soo offensive to you.

Claiming I'm offended is clearly your only defense since you can't counter my points.

No, you need to justify the government interfering in the economy, especially since I've already pointed out all of the damage it causes, and YOU have failed to address that point each time. All you've done is re-iterate that you support it, without arguing that it's somehow justified or does ANY amount of good.

What I am or am not is not an argument, making it irrelvant to the discussion. The effectiveness of my points an arguments do not rely upon whether I'm part of any given group.

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.

Exactly. The corporate charter is the core of the problem. Government shouldn't be in the "business" of granting special rights to special organizations.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The point wasn't the number, though it's far more than that when you add up emloyee insurance and liscensing. The number is actually closer to 40%, so it's still roughly half of everything they make.

As a matter of fact, Bob does have to worry about that, the government will kidnap and imprison anyone who violates their arbitrary laws, and is not above stealing your property, and in fact will steal it for little to no reason. In fact, they steal your money every time you get a paycheck. Meanwhile, without the government, Bob wouldn't have to worry about this, because he wouldn't need a loan without the government stealing his money to give to the Corporations in the form of subsidies and bailouts. You can't even tell me WHY a person who can hire private security and is allowed to arm themselves would hjave to worry about people stealing their stuff, you only said "He totally has to worry about it" without quanitfying. As it is, the government can throw anyone in jail if they so desire, because they make to rules, so even if it WERE the case, it's a much bigger problem now. I actually can't even debunk the rest of that paragraph because your english was so terrible, what even were you trying to say?

Yes, in fact, without government intervention more people would go into business, because the government is using regulations and taxes to make it as difficult as possible. I already explained all of the red tape, and you failed to ever justify any of it. Tbhen again, you'd have a VERY hard time explaining to me why a monopoly on violence and arbitration should be able to decide who can and cannot start a business. Nothing even makes them qualified, they're just politicians, they get where they are by practicing being a lying sociopath.

Are you an anarchist? Do you support any laws? Personally I'm for the patent office and incorporation. Artificial things both created by big government. I also believe in trade offs. If the government is creating an entity and letting the very thing it created fet found guilty or declare bankruptcy there better be some tradeoffs.

Meanwhile, you have yet to justify either one, and in fact, have failed to justify ANYTHING you have argued for.In fact, your posts have only gotten shorter as you've been realizing that you can't.

Trade-offs aren't needed when it's clear that the government is the cause of everything wrong with the world. There are no benefits to its intervention, especially given that its mere presence requires that those entities in government be given additional rights that we the people don't have. The right to kidnap, imprison, and murder anyone that doesn't follow the rules they can create arbitrarily, and the right to steal the our property.

Sorry for the shorter replies, just trying to force you to talk about a point instead of the government kidnapping people.

I need to justify asking is you're an anarchist or asking if you like how big government gives birth to corporations?

I just don't understand. You are talking about the government kidnapping people now like you are against prisons?

Sorry for being soo offensive to you.

Claiming I'm offended is clearly your only defense since you can't counter my points.

No, you need to justify the government interfering in the economy, especially since I've already pointed out all of the damage it causes, and YOU have failed to address that point each time. All you've done is re-iterate that you support it, without arguing that it's somehow justified or does ANY amount of good.

What I am or am not is not an argument, making it irrelvant to the discussion. The effectiveness of my points an arguments do not rely upon whether I'm part of any given group.

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'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.

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.

 

[Toronado3800]

Are you an anarchist? Do you support any laws? Personally I'm for the patent office and incorporation. Artificial things both created by big government. I also believe in trade offs. If the government is creating an entity and letting the very thing it created fet found guilty or declare bankruptcy there better be some tradeoffs.

Meanwhile, you have yet to justify either one, and in fact, have failed to justify ANYTHING you have argued for.In fact, your posts have only gotten shorter as you've been realizing that you can't.

Trade-offs aren't needed when it's clear that the government is the cause of everything wrong with the world. There are no benefits to its intervention, especially given that its mere presence requires that those entities in government be given additional rights that we the people don't have. The right to kidnap, imprison, and murder anyone that doesn't follow the rules they can create arbitrarily, and the right to steal the our property.

Sorry for the shorter replies, just trying to force you to talk about a point instead of the government kidnapping people.

I need to justify asking is you're an anarchist or asking if you like how big government gives birth to corporations?

I just don't understand. You are talking about the government kidnapping people now like you are against prisons?

Sorry for being soo offensive to you.

Claiming I'm offended is clearly your only defense since you can't counter my points.

No, you need to justify the government interfering in the economy, especially since I've already pointed out all of the damage it causes, and YOU have failed to address that point each time. All you've done is re-iterate that you support it, without arguing that it's somehow justified or does ANY amount of good.

What I am or am not is not an argument, making it irrelvant to the discussion. The effectiveness of my points an arguments do not rely upon whether I'm part of any given group.

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'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.

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.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Meanwhile, you have yet to justify either one, and in fact, have failed to justify ANYTHING you have argued for.In fact, your posts have only gotten shorter as you've been realizing that you can't.

Trade-offs aren't needed when it's clear that the government is the cause of everything wrong with the world. There are no benefits to its intervention, especially given that its mere presence requires that those entities in government be given additional rights that we the people don't have. The right to kidnap, imprison, and murder anyone that doesn't follow the rules they can create arbitrarily, and the right to steal the our property.

Sorry for the shorter replies, just trying to force you to talk about a point instead of the government kidnapping people.

I need to justify asking is you're an anarchist or asking if you like how big government gives birth to corporations?

I just don't understand. You are talking about the government kidnapping people now like you are against prisons?

Sorry for being soo offensive to you.

Claiming I'm offended is clearly your only defense since you can't counter my points.

No, you need to justify the government interfering in the economy, especially since I've already pointed out all of the damage it causes, and YOU have failed to address that point each time. All you've done is re-iterate that you support it, without arguing that it's somehow justified or does ANY amount of good.

What I am or am not is not an argument, making it irrelvant to the discussion. The effectiveness of my points an arguments do not rely upon whether I'm part of any given group.

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'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.

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.

Economies are consistently better in locations with fewer regulations.

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.

 

[Toronado3800]

Sorry for the shorter replies, just trying to force you to talk about a point instead of the government kidnapping people.

I need to justify asking is you're an anarchist or asking if you like how big government gives birth to corporations?

I just don't understand. You are talking about the government kidnapping people now like you are against prisons?

Sorry for being soo offensive to you.

Claiming I'm offended is clearly your only defense since you can't counter my points.

No, you need to justify the government interfering in the economy, especially since I've already pointed out all of the damage it causes, and YOU have failed to address that point each time. All you've done is re-iterate that you support it, without arguing that it's somehow justified or does ANY amount of good.

What I am or am not is not an argument, making it irrelvant to the discussion. The effectiveness of my points an arguments do not rely upon whether I'm part of any given group.

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'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.

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.

Economies are consistently better in locations with fewer regulations.

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.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Claiming I'm offended is clearly your only defense since you can't counter my points.

No, you need to justify the government interfering in the economy, especially since I've already pointed out all of the damage it causes, and YOU have failed to address that point each time. All you've done is re-iterate that you support it, without arguing that it's somehow justified or does ANY amount of good.

What I am or am not is not an argument, making it irrelvant to the discussion. The effectiveness of my points an arguments do not rely upon whether I'm part of any given group.

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'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.

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.

Economies are consistently better in locations with fewer regulations.

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.

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.

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.