If you hated political threads before

Triathlon Forum
42

Okay, so here’s one for you. When I was in the military, I was still paying full and normal federal and state taxes. So not only was I drawing what can only be considered a truly meager salary, but was I not also, in effect, paying part of my own salary?

Regarding optional charities rather than social programs, the place I work now has a United Way campaign, which is contributed to only by those trying to get ahead, and it viewed most cynically by many people, as it is the Corporation’s pet charity. They have about a 40% participation rate, and there is a 3 month drive every year in which they basically strongarm everyone into giving. They even track who does and does not contribute, and publish a list of the most generous donors within the firm every year.

I don’t contribute because I do not support most of their activities, and frankly, I find the way it is administered to be untenable. At my last firm, we had CFC, which allows you to give to any nationally recognized charity directly out of your paycheck, and more than 80% of all employees participated. The entire drive consisted of the mailing and an email telling you the enrollment deadline. I gave very generously through that program.

So I agree that to a certain extent, if you let people give to the programs they deem worthy, you will find people to be very generous. Unfortunately, the government will then have difficulty funding Black Ops projects, wasteful NASA programs, and $150M propane farms. Once again, I don’t see it happening.

43

So, should the meat industry be unregulated? Should they be allowed to do whatever the market will bear, sort of like they’ve been doing? Should the chemical industry be unregulated? Who cleans up after they are out of business? Should the national parks be opened to anyone who wants to develop them? Without taxes, these things (and many others) would be a nightmare for the US public.

Look at the behavior of every industry in the US. Do you really feel that these companies would “do the right thing”? Really? Not a chance. Cars would still not have seat belts.

As for abortion, are you aware that there is at least one major religion that considers the life of the unborn to be secondary to the health and life of the mother? That the fetus is not a person until it is born?

Oh, the government asks you every time it uses your money. It’s called an election.

Ken Lehner

44

They possess no more authority than that, for any other actions (regulation, wealth redistribution, social engineering) require the diminution of rights to achieve their ends

So, in your libertarian view, there should be no anti-monopoly regulation? Any company should be allowed to dominate its market so completely that it can bar the entry of any possible competitor? Any industrial company can pollute as much as it wants on its own property, then dissolve the corporation before anyone finds out or is affected? Same for the food industry, doing whatever they want without disclosure?

Sounds wonderful. Sign me up.

Ken Lehner

45

So, in your libertarian view, there should be no anti-monopoly regulation? Any company should be allowed to dominate its market so completely that it can bar the entry of any possible competitor? Any industrial company can pollute as much as it wants on its own property, then dissolve the corporation before anyone finds out or is affected? Same for the food industry, doing whatever they want without disclosure?

WRT monopolies: correct. There should be laws against unfair competition, not monopolies per se. In a free market, companies big and small should have their rights to compete protected. Economic theory says that monopolies can introduce inefficiencies, but so long as they’re not acting to squelch competition (i.e. anti-trust behavior), then I have no problem with them. Examples of monopolies acting on a local or global basis with an unequivacoble net positive impact on society: Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Visa/MasterCard.

WRT pollution: depends on your specific question. Libertarians believe in property rights, which means that if the pollution is contained to the property, fine. If it spills over, they should held accountable for the damage to other people / property. This is an involved discussion, but very reasonable cases have been made the property-rights system of environmental protection would work better than the haphazard one we have.

WRT food industry: haven’t thought about it enough. Obviously, if a food company harms someone, they should be held accountable. Don’t know enough to say how I think the FDA should be changed.

The question here is not whether anti-trust behavior, pollution, or unhealthy food should be prevented / held accountable by the legal / government system. It’s simply a question of how. Libertarians focus on the crimes themselves (anti-trust behavior, whether by a monopoly or not; pollution damage to others’ health or property; etc.) and punish them. Social welfarists focus on the symptoms and correlations, thereby overregulating society and, often times, worsening the problems they intended to solve.

46

So, should the meat industry be unregulated? Should they be allowed to do whatever the market will bear, sort of like they’ve been doing? Should the chemical industry be unregulated? Who cleans up after they are out of business? Should the national parks be opened to anyone who wants to develop them? Without taxes, these things (and many others) would be a nightmare for the US public.

I would like someone to explain how these things owuld not function without taxes? If we did away with taxes, national parks would close down or individuals would take them over? Could pepole not donate money to these causes? Could they not donate money to a preservation fund? The world would not be a “child to parent” relationship.

As for regulation of food. Penalties would have to be severe for companies that abuse their right to not be regulated. The way it now doesn’t work so hot either. Be negligent, get sued, go bankrupt, start a new company under a new name with new backing. Only insiders know “who is who”.

If you poison people intentionally or through negligence, you never work in the industry again.

This has been said over and over in other threads. Look at cigarettes. They are taxed and fined over and over. all that happens is they raise the price of their product so that the customers pay their own lawsuit rewards. No executive in the tabacco business has taken a pay cut or sold his house to pay those fines. That has to stop.

We act like regulation hs worked miracles. all regulation does is give breaks to those that make the greatest campaign contributions. Gee I wonder why beef is so protected?

Not buying a company’s prodyct is the worse thing customers can do to a company. If a company lets the meat get contaminated, and they are not allowed to restart a new business … that will happen once. It will be a lesson other companies soon take notice of.

Look at the behavior of every industry in the US. Do you really feel that these companies would “do the right thing”? Really? Not a chance. Cars would still not have seat belts.

If there choice is do the right thing, or be out of business forver, I say Yes. Now they lok at a situation and say "will we make more than enough profits to pay the fines and re-establish ourselves? Or, if we get caught and pay the fines, will customers still buy our product after we raise te prices?

As for abortion, are you aware that there is at least one major religion that considers the life of the unborn to be secondary to the health and life of the mother? That the fetus is not a person until it is born?

I already explained the reasons behind abortion being illegal (the same thing you said, the fetus is infring the mother’s right to life). I just didn’t agree with them. Actually, I said it made me sick that we vie a fetus like that, but that’s more opinion than is really relevant here.

Oh, the government asks you every time it uses your money. It’s called an election.

I’m asking them to give me a choice of giving it to them or not. Once somebody steals my money, I don’t really care how they use it. i want my money back.

Do any of the choices involve eliminating social security or health coverage? No. Some choices. I choose socialism A or socialism B.

I cannot believe that there’s so much opposition for wanting a government like the one outlined in our documents. Do those that are all for government driven programs (insurance, retirement, jobs, etc) consider themselves socialists? why not?

Gotta go … department meeting.

47

I’ll try to give you my take on each thing you mentioned: Meat that crosses state lines should be subject to federal standards. Meat sold within a state is not interstate commerce and is subject to state regulation.

The chemical industry should be subject to federal regulation to the extent that a chemical plant in one state produces pollution which affects another state, usually a fairly easy case to make. If they are not subject to federal regulation, it’s up to the state who cleans up after they shut down.

National parks are not an issue because they shouldn’t exist. If a non-profit group or a state wants to have a park, so be it.

I’m not saying we have to rely on industries to regulate themselves, I’m just saying that the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government very little power to do it. In my examples, the states would have a much higher burden and one might end up paying more in state taxes than they do in federal taxes now. Then again, that’s what our founders contemplated.

As for the last statement “Oh, the government asks you every time it uses your money. It’s called an election.” We had elections for 90 years during which slavery was legal. Does that mean it’s OK? Face it, people will vote for some pretty stupid stuff if it puts someone else’s dollars in their pockets.

In reality, I have no hope of this country returning to its constitutional roots. I have very little hope of stopping the drift toward socialism and an all-powerful federal government. All I can hope for is a slowing of the trend. Protest votes won’t do it, so I cannot in good conscience vote Libertarian.

48

Basically, this seems to come down to 2 opinions on the average citizen …

  1. The average citizen has an adult mind and will more times than not make responsible decisions and will choose to help its fellow man, and the country will prosper because of this.

  2. The average citizen does not have an adult mind and will do whatever it wants and pleases, and not help its fellow man unless it is made to, and the country will suffer without a providing government.

I am a #1 person. I think if given liberty and responsibility that Americans will come through for each other and that we will be even happier, prosperous, and more independent than we currently are. I feel this is something we OWE to those that died in the Revolutionary, Civil, and World Wars (including smaller wars). I also think the govnemrnet will clean itself up while having much of its power minimized. It is not a good feeling to not trust your current government.

I think person #2 views the government as a parental body out of necessity. That the citizens of America are not responsible enough to handle the burden that is freedom. So, a strong centralized and providing (socialistic … again not a bad word) is required because without it, the country will go down the crapper.

IMO, and I hope this isn’t rehash … but the more powerful the governent gets, the more wasteful, inefficient, corrupt, etc I see it getting. I can also see where it won’t take too long to where there’s nothing we (the people, elections will get narrower and narrower) can do about it.

There’s a quote that goes something like “Once liberty is lost, only blood can bring it back”. I fear that’s where this may end up. Not today, not tomorrow, but sometime in the future … people will look around and notice that they have neither freedom nor security (as Franklin said) and will be fighting mad. when that (or if that) ever happens I don’t know.

So, essentially I see this issue coming down to 2 things …

  1. Do you believe in the ideas written in the constitution and other documents?

  2. Do you think that your neighbor and yourself can handle the responsibility of protecting and ensuring (and are you willing) freedom.

How you answer those questions should determine your next course of action.

49

I’m with you too.

50

"1. The average citizen has an adult mind and will more times than not make responsible decisions and will choose to help its fellow man, and the country will prosper because of this.

  1. The average citizen does not have an adult mind and will do whatever it wants and pleases, and not help its fellow man unless it is made to, and the country will suffer without a providing government. "

Yep, the main problem we face today is that too many voters are full of #2. :slight_smile:

51

I’m a Libertarian, somewhat of a dreamer, but more than anything else I am a realist. We are never going to return to a government that reflects the model presented in the constitution. I wonder how many folks even could describe the model presented in the constitution?

Seriously, we have already given our government (and they’ve taken power without us caring) enough power that everyone knows it won’t decrease. The government knows this too. It will gradually grow until we basically “do as they say” (if we’re not already there) or be punished. We’ll always have elections, but they’ll be of a more narrow nature: Candidate 1: I want to raise your taxes 20% and increase funding for health care, so that all of our citizens are cared for. Candidate 2: I want to raise your taxes 20% and increase funding for defense so that we can provide you security. Some democracy. Some choice. More often than not we end up selecting “whomever we view at the least dishonest”.

Anyway, I have spoken my heart in these posts. I feel a tremendous amount of pride in what our forefathers tried to set up. But, the feeling of helplessness and despair is just as great. Where we have gone will not (and likely can not) be undone. We were are heading will not (and likely cannot) be changed or reversed. It is a one-way street. It really saddens me that liberty will be all but vanished under the umbrella of “for the greater good” and “in favor of security”. I’ll think we’ll find that it won’t be good nor secure. Sure “we have more liberty than other countries”, yeah … many countries have “nect to none”. It’s not hard to have more than that.

I really 100% buy into what the founding fathers wrote. I 100% believe that liberty (i.e. uiltimate choices) are a gift from God the creator (I am actually surprised at how often the founding fathers said that). I think they are rights that cannot be taken away … but are. More each day.

I would willingly give my life to protect and ensure freedom and liberty … but, I don’t know who to fight. The government? My neighbors? (I’m not talking terrorist activity here or anything, don’t misread me) How do I get the government to stop gaining more and more power? How do I get voters to stop giving away more and more rights? How do I get the govenrment to follow its own documents when they don’t (or refuse) want to? How do I convince a government that enjoys increasing to power to relinquish much of that power in the name of liberty?

I do not fear for the immediate future … but by the time my son is 30 (27 years from now) what behaviors, products, etc will be illegal? What free choice will remain? How much tax will the government take for the “greater good”? 50%? 75%?

I have love for my country, passion for this cause, and pride in liberty. But, honestly, I don’t know what to do.

52

You said:

"Basically, this seems to come down to 2 opinions on the average citizen …

  1. The average citizen has an adult mind and will more times than not make responsible decisions and will choose to help its fellow man, and the country will prosper because of this.

  2. The average citizen does not have an adult mind and will do whatever it wants and pleases, and not help its fellow man unless it is made to, and the country will suffer without a providing government.

I think that individuals in this country are split between these two personas - but that’s only part of the story. The real problem is that corporate America wants to be thought of as good citizens (#1), but are mostly #2 citizens - i.e. corporations folllow their profit motive without fail - and if the environment is damaged or people hurt on the way, then that’s too bad for them! The vast majority of Americans are happy that we have environmental protection, food and drug regulations, and other standards to counteract corporate selfishness. I understand that libertarians don’t agree - and that’s while they’ll remain a very small minority interest in this country.

53

Well, my “State of the Union” post seems to have died, but after watching last night I’m seriously starting to think we need a new major political party. One less concerned with “major issues” and and with a little more concern for the actual state of the country. It’ll never happen, but talking about it makes me feel smart and important.