“Black This Out”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CONCHO][quote=bearishgurl]
How would deregulation address this or prevent it from happening in many more places all over the U.S.? . . . [/quote]

Deregulation won’t. But protection of private property will. If your business dumps poison on my property and causes me damage, I should be able to at a minimum sue you. If you do enough damage your corporate charter should be revoked with all assets liquidated and paid out to the victims and/or for cleanup, and potentially your managers or board members imprisoned. Strong courts, no limits on damages (see the recent documentary “Hot Coffee” for more on this topic), prison terms for offenders, a corporate “death penalty” to dissolve and distribute the capital of egregious offenders, and a good education system (to ensure competent juries) would all help towards this.

No system can totally protect you (including ours), but if you have a system that ensures offenders of property rights are punished, you can at least reduce the number of times things like this occur….[/quote]

CONCHO, the above was DomoArigato’s statement (not mine). Filing a lawsuit WAS mentioned in the video. HOWEVER, the +/- dozen affected neighbors would have to come up with a large retainer for a law firm to take on a case with a deep-pocketed defendant who no doubt has a *fleet* of attorneys already on retainer, who could bombard them with filings and other paperwork and delay it into oblivion and thus drive the plaintiffs into dropping it (when they ran out of $$, probably sooner and later). I think the video was made to bring attention to the problem to see if these owners could get sponsored by environmentally-minded agencies/individuals and/or law firms who could contribute to a legal fund and/or take the case on a contingency basis.

[CA renter]

[quote=patientrenter][quote=patb]If Ron Paul won the Primaries, you would see the GOP leadership
embrace Obama….[/quote]

That’s correct. Of course, they would do it subtly, by campaigning only very faintly for him. That way they’d know he would lose, and they would avoid the wrath of their own Republican rank and file after the loss.

For the people running Wall Street and the two parties, it matters less which party wins the contest than that they retain control over the winning party. Obama is firmly under control, following Geithner’s and Bernanke’s prescriptions, so he would be a very acceptable alternative to any establishhment Republican candidate. It’s the non-establishment candidates, in either party, that make them nervous.[/quote]

Truth. ^^^There it is.^^^

[CardiffBaseball]

Mr. Roboto, I am curious why you choose to pick out a terrible thing that’s happened and automatically assume that if we were to go the way of Liberty that we’d see an explosion in those stories?

At the risk of stating the obvious bad things do happen at times, and we can’t have a safety net for everything. Perhaps if folks had more of their money there would be other entrepreneurs popping up trashing those folks who would run their business with a lack of ethics.

The reality is that right now at this time, we are not ready for liberty in fact everything pointed to by OWS is going the way of world govt. which automatically implies world domination. However we’ve always had idealist leftists on campus now they are simply out marching. What we’ve not really had is an entire generation of young people influenced by a libertarian like Ron Paul.

Right now we have Dems who want to legislate their morals on us in the form of taxes for wealth redistribution. Or the pubbies who want to legislate more police state infrastructure etc. because they are law and order moralists. Both sides mean well, but I really want to make the choices for myself.

Deep down I seriously doubt the guy will win, but it’s encouraging to see so many young people coming to understand that essential liberties are more important than security safety nets (be they transfer payments or TSA checkpoint to protect us from terrorists)

[aldante]

Ok I will play.
Let’s look at the wildfires here in San Diego when president Bush with a flip of his wrist helped those “poor homeowners” rebuild. It was the humane thing to do right?
Or was it? Those homes 500k+ homes are built right back where they were….in the same wildfire prone area? Now let’s look at a single home lost to a fire that was not bailed out by the government. Why is that persons loss ok? Ok stay with me here because if you answered that it is not and he should be bailed out also….then you have made the leap that it is the governments job is to fix everyone’s problem. So my Leakey water pipes should be replaced by the government. How about my engine gasket? At this point you may see that I am leading you down the rabbit hole and say to yourself….” That is for the qualified government people to decide.”….. what happens the one time that the government makes a “wrong” choice? Who sets that straight?
I sat on then sidelines while the madness of greed in real estate took me out of this market for 7 years!!!!!!!! All the while the criminal homeowners who lied on their application were bailed out by every government program imaginable. WITH MY MONEY. And yes I am still PISSED about it. I spoke with one of those assholes today, he was wondering if he could get a refi even though he did a “strategic default” a couple of year ago on his “rental Property”(true Story)
I WILL DECIDE HOW I SPEND MY CHARITY MONEY. IF YOU FEEL SORRY FOR THESE PEOPLE GET OFF YOUR ASS AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT YOURSELF!!!!!!!!! But do not try and foist your morales on to me. In fact we may even have the same morales…..but I will never force you to give to charity.
By the way none of this is possible without the Federal Reserve. All of the “humanitarian” missions are pulled with off with currency that is indebting our kids. It is enslaving us. Do you really want to spend millions of dollars fronting Uganda?
A wise man once said that you are a slave to who you owe debt. We are all slaves because of ignorant thinking like yours.
I am tired of hypocrites who won’t change their lives to help the less fortunate but want everyone else to change their life. THERE IS MISERY EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD. PICK A PLACE A MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE. But do not tell me how to live my life.
By the way, the reason that the corporations are running roughshod over this country is because the government is so Frigging big that it is being bought off by special interest of the corporations. The answer is smaller more accountable government.
By the way if you doubt who is right on this topic do a little experiment. Go to YouTube and look up what all the other politicians were saying in 2002. Look up Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, all those people who said it was the governments job for every American to own a home…..Then look up Ron Paul. He tells us what will happen and it’s causes. So I would take his judgement over anyone else’s. that is what makes him Presidential. His courage to say the unpopular thing……and then to be proven right. that makes him Presidential. Did you know that he has over 110,000 individual donors to his campaign. Mitt has 24000 but has raised 5 times as much. He has raised more from the active military then all other candidates combined yet you think he I’s beholder to the corporation?
His popularity has only gained. Look around maybe you will learn something. Maybe if you have an open mind you too can be part of the Solution instead of being part of the problem.

[DomoArigato]

I’m still waiting for one of the Libertarians here to answer the question that I raised from my post above: How would deregulation address environmental pollution by corporations or prevent it from happening all over the U.S.?

Libertarians typically say “take ’em to court” in situations like this, but that is impractical. An individual with cancer who has had the value of their real estate decimated by pollution is not going to be able to win in court against a giant multi-billion-dollar corporation. They will most likely end up dead or bankrupt before ever collecting a dime. The victims of the Exxon Valdez oil spill fought Exxon in court for 20 years. So court is not a practical option.

The great thing about environmental regulation is that it is a form of strict liability. Environmental regulation can make it illegal for a Koch Industries subsidiary to pour formaldehyde into a stream. In a court-setting, where there is no regulation, the cancer-stricken individual is going to have to prove that it was the formaldehyde that gave them cancer. That may be tough to do and will for sure be expensive. A deregulated society will disempower individuals while empowering corporations to rape and pillage at will.

Another problem with deregulation is that it kills jobs:

Bill Black: The Anti-Regulators Are the Job Killers

The deregulation of the mortgage industry allowed for massive, fraudulent malinvestment to take place which resulted in a bubble. When that bubble popped, not only did all of that paper wealth disappear, but so did a lot of the never-would-have-been-created-without-the-bubble jobs. Think about all the MIT grads that went into finance as opposed to going into an occupation that results in the production of real goods. Think about all the people that became mortgage brokers so they could make a quick buck instead of using their time to build other skills that could have been used in the ‘real’ economy (as opposed to the fake finance economy).

There are some parts of Libertarianism that I like. For example, I was glad to see that the Fed was recently audited. I think both Occupy Wall Street and Libertarians are against the bailout of financial institutions (as am I).

However, there is a lot about Libertarianism that I don’t like. I’m not in favor of dismantling the public-school system. A lot of public elementary and high schools are closing in California which I think is a bad thing. The quality of higher education is also deteriorating which I think is a bad thing. To me, cuts to education are short-sighted and will hurt us in the long run. Additionally, I’m not in favor of having the top 1% pay a lesser tax rate than many of those in the bottom 80%. I don’t equate elimination of environmental regulations with ‘liberty’ as many Libertarians seem to do.

I also think Libertarian’s focus on the public debt is misguided. Japan has twice the debt-to-GDP ratio as the U.S. and their unemployment is below 5%:

Turning Japanese is a Boon

In summary, there are a few things that I like about Libertarianism, but mostly I see it as a way for the top 1% to manipulate the bottom 99% into dismantling the good parts of government (e.g., environmental regulation, public education, retirement programs like Social Security and Medicare) while leaving most of the bad parts of government (e.g., private contractors who gouge the taxpayer) in place.

[Anonymous]

Well said, Domo.

The libertarian alternative to environmental and safety regulations is ridiculously naive. There’s plenty of historical evidence that shows that market forces alone do not result in ethical business practices by powerful corporations.

In the bizzaro Ron Paul world, a pound of cure is somehow better than an ounce of prevention.

In the real world, financial settlements are feeble amends for the loss of of a life, and only occasionally a deterrent to bad behavior.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=DomoArigato]I’m still waiting for one of the Libertarians here to answer the question that I raised from my post above: How would deregulation address environmental pollution by corporations or prevent it from happening all over the U.S.?[/quote]

I’m “kind of” a libertarian but some things about the libertarian party aren’t to my liking but I’ll try to answer

First, I suggest avoiding making strawman arguemnt of ‘Libertarians typically say “take ’em to court’ ” whereby you tell someone what the their argument is so you can easily argue against it.

The answer to the question is that “deregulation” does not mean “no regulation”

Generally speaking, Libertarians beleive that regulations should be limited, for the most part, to violent crimes, property rights infringement and breach of contract.

I would put pollution under a property rights infringement. No reason a libertarian wouldn’t accept laws against this.

Libertarians have done a crappy job of marketing themselves, IMHO. Most people think a “free market” means a market where anyone can do whatever the hell they want and that “deregulation” means that nobody is restricted from doing anything.

A “free market” is one where all participants are free from having anyone else infringe on your property rights and I prefer “appropriate regulation” to “deregulation” whereby transactions between parties are regulated (to ensure property rights are upheld and contracts are not breached) but results are not regulated at all.

Most people need to adjust their thinking regarding what a libertarian is and is not.

Somehow, they have a reputation for supporting large corporations, which is also not accurate. In fact, the Libertarians I know object strongly to the whole concept of a limited liability corporation (I believe this is one of the OWS demands), which makes individuals less accountable.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=DomoArigato]How would deregulation address this or prevent it from happening in many more places all over the U.S.?[/quote]

It is also important to keep in mind – the current state of regulation did not prevent this from happening. If it isn’t illegal, then it should be. It it is illegal, well, it is still happening so the regulation didn’t really prevent it.

Next time, maybe post a video of someone robbing a house and ask “how would deregulation prevent this ?”

Would be about the same logic.

[aldante]

Here you go pri_dk……
I think your world of big government is the true “bizzaro world” http://www.cnbc.com/id/45031100

$40 billion lost in iraq…..pretty soon we will be talking about real money.

I will explain the Paul position. Big Government regulators protect the large companies that give big donations. Many examples abound but look no further then TARP. $700 billion was handed over to the banks who caused the financial crisis.
What happened to the small banks (all of whom may not have been evil) in this mess? Most small banks never did the type of irresponsible lending that C, GS, BAC, MER, LEH, Bear Sterns (I can’t remember the call symbol) Chase. But by the government (regulators) bailing out the big banks the small banks have to compete with the government backed banks. Guess who will win that battle. Do you even know that “ALLY” bank offeres much higher cd’s then most other banks? That is the former GM bank. You may remember GMAC was bailed out by our illustrious, smart, every omnicient regulators. That is a true life example of how our govenment rewards bad practices and pushs out good practices.
Now for the environment. The idea of Government is to intervene if one’s liberty is being infringed upon by another. So thus, there is a role for government (also defense) but bigger governemnt does not make it better. In fact it makes it much worse becasue these faceless beaurcrates write law without any liability.
In your bizarro world these faceless beaurcrats are trustworthy and all knowing. I call BS on that one.
Are there evil capitalist? Hell yes. The difference is that the market is far more efficent at rooting them out then the government.

This explains it pretty well:

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

[markmax33]

Domo,
Your statement above about deregulation can be easily proven wrong. The mortgage market failed because of GOV intervention in the market. The GOV artificially inflated the housing bubble through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those institutions allowed the private market to resell all of the risk to the GOV. If the GOV had not intervened and bought those loans the housing bubble would have deflated a LONG time ago.
Also your statement misses the fact that the banks have a federal reserve that was illegal based on the constitution. If we eliminated the federal reserve or curtailed the federal reserve’s power to bail out the banks this would have NEVER HAPPENED. The banks would have failed significantly earlier and never made those risky loans.
The problem with your post is we don’t have capitalism. We call it capitalism but we really have corporatism and you are mixing up your words. Keynesian economics leads to the bubbles in the business cycle because it supports the notion that 12 bankers can decide on monetary policy and which bubble to prop up until the market, eventually wins over and corrects. Remember if you left it to the market the bubbles would have never occurred. The market always wins.
Until the federal reserve is removed there needs to be a huge check and balance on banking system because it is rigged but it’s not because of capitalism because we don’t have that.

[markmax33]

Domo,
Education system – The libertarian position is NOT to dismantle our failing education system. On the national level the position is to end the Department of Education. That is far from “dismantling”. The department of education wasn’t even created until 1980. Since the creation of the department of education we have been in a steady decline in educational standards and we are 17th in the world. Why can’t we make state and local GOV decide how many tax dollars to collect and how to allocate them? Why should bueorcrats in Washington be skimming 50 cents on the dollar before the money gets to my local teachers?
I want my local teachers to get paid more and be able to use their expertise, drive and motivation toward teaching, not be forced into a curriculum that obviously isn’t working on a national level. How can a kid from the inner cities of DC have to take the same tests as a kid living Barrio Logan? They need to be taught differently to get to the same level. They will have different strengths based on demographics and it’s not a national issue. What if there are really good biotech jobs in one part of the country and the teacher can’t teach a critical class that would help them get a good job at the new biotech firm down the street?

[markmax33]

Domo,
It is actually EASIER to protect people with the libertarian view point. Many people don’t realize that most of the environmental regulations get snuck through congress or the EPA by the major companies to protect them. This makes it HARDER to fight the big companies because the complex laws have to be navigated by the atorneys. If you left it on the local level it would be MUCH easier and cheaper to sue and protect yourself. You must realize how the regulations get passed by the lobbies to actually protect themselves.
NEPA forces the GOV to buyoff on a new project and effectively shifts the liability to the GOV from the business owner.

[markmax33]

Domo,
Do you even know the Libertarian position on the environment? You call his world bizzaro when he has a really good idea that came from the constituion?
The libertarian position is that the environmental regulation we have is not authorized by the constitution. It is therefore defaulted into state and local governement. To me a bizaro world is one in which we disgard the constitution and stop reading Article 1 section 8. The constitution is a set of lessons learned from our founding fathers because England was a failing government. If you don’t like it, you should support a constitutional ammendment.
Wouldn’t you rather let your local or state government determine how to deal with the horned frog of the southwest that is only in San Diego county? Why would we let some idiot in Congress pass a bill he probably didn’t even read, probably didn’t have a chance to hear witnesses on the subject testify on the matter, etc?
It’s important pass the laws on the local and state level where your voice can actually be heard and the experts can actually have a say. The constution was written to protect your liberties because the founding fathers well knew that with too much control the GOV would become overpowering and bankrupt the country. Why are you so willing to give it up? I think that is bizaro.

[markmax33]

[quote=jeeman]People like his ideas.

However, he doesn’t come across Presidential. He comes across as an old Texas coot who hides out in a cabin in the wilderness. Something about the way he communicates makes him sound like he’s ranting, not debating. (And I’d support RP over Romney, if they were the only two left).

Just about every question he is asked has a response about the Fed.

“Are you pro-life?”

“Yes, I am, and ever since the Fed was instituted and eventually got us off the gold standard, and debased our monetary system, more people have been systematically killing their fetuses, so yes, if we abolish the Fed, we can overturn Roe vs. Wade.”[/quote]

Jeeman,
Your statement is very mis-leading and basically incorrect. Ron Paul’s personal views are pro-life. He correctly points out the constution gives no authority to the Federal Government to rule in the case Roe Vs Wade and that it should be left in the hands of the states. He says we should repeal that law because it’s unconstitutional and doesn’t fall under Article 1 section 8. Basically every state would get to vote on it and there would be some pro-life states and other states that would allow abortion. He WOULD NOT push for an ammendment to the constitution and ban it as you seem to suggest.
He does not come off a Coot and that’s rather silly of you to say. He is by far the smartest man in the room for every debate. He doesn’t have ENOUGH TIME to explain his position properly and they like to set him up with bad quesitons. You should realize when you are being tricked by the mainstream media, thus the Black This Out campaign that raised 2.5M in a day.

[markmax33]

.

[Author]

Posts