Indecision 08 Wingnut thread

[LMNO]

i started out talking about libertarian philosophy which is seldom practiced ( the constitution which is fairly simple and fairly libertarian is probably the best example i can give and it is interpreted and re interpreted as i said all laws will be)

The reason it isn't practiced is because it forgets to take into account HUMANS.

politicians represent the people

laws/regulations are simplified/clarified in a way that keeps the corrupt companies from fucking us w/o lube and still let the companies do business (reach around).

when the laws fail (they will ) they get fixed corrected w/o the excessive regulation complexity that leads to the corruption we have now.

Look, I get the idealistic view.  But as soon as you introduce stupid fucking primates, they're gonna do their level best to fuck things up.

My question to you is:  How does your idealistic views compensate for stupid fucking monkeys on every level of the process, from the citizenry to the politicians to the companies?

[LMNO]

Also, because it got left behind on the last page:

the complexity of an economy as enormous as in the US or Europe require a certain amount of ambiguity in laws and regulations. guidelines that protect workers in one sector of the economy could very well harm them in another sector. for that reason, it is necessary to have fairly openly interpretable laws so that the courts are free to decide and enforce the proper outcomes of different situations on a case-by-case basis.

the government's job, in my opinion, is not to describe specific processes for business to follow but to foster an open environment where both businesses and individuals can thrive. a massive "simplification" of laws and regulations could easily choke the life out of the economy by restricting business practices too much.

i think the best way to deal with corporate and political corruption is to expand the judicial system, put regulations in place to protect it from corruption, have heavy oversight of the judiciary, and make the services offered by the courts much more widely accessible. companies tend to fear loss of revenue much more than they fear enforcement of existing laws, and having a judicial system willing and able to impose punitive fines and other measures in retaliation for unethical behavior is a much better and more efficient solution than just legislating the crap out of what companies are "allowed to do" in the first place.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

stupid monkeys and the fact that they're trying to legislate things that they largely don't understand. add to that the fact that so many politicians these days are more concerned with looking like they're trying to fix problems than with actually fixing them, and it's surprising that we've managed to build and maintain what we have, to say nothing of "improving" it.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I've looked at the liberal, conservative and libertarian platforms and I've played in all three. What I've found, is that none of the three philosophies even attempt to take into account reality, or human nature. Conservatives and Libertarians think that somehow, magically, with no government interference, markets will be regulated by the will of consumers, rather than the scheming of manipulative corporations that spin the hell out of consumers. For their plans to work we would need corporations that felt their best interests were served by an informed and intelligent population and we would need consumers to actually pay attention to what's going on around them. I have become convinced over the years that neither of these things are gonna happen, therefore Free Markets are doomed to fail, mostly because humans are greedy, lazy and stupid... in general.

The Liberals, however, have an equally idiotic condition to their philosophy. They actually think that we can solve problems by increasing the size, scope and powers of the government... perhaps believing that Our government has the interests of the People at heart, or that our government is unlikely to be corrupted. Yet, we've had presidents on the payroll of corporations since President Harding and probably before.

Government can't solve people's problems and people are too stupid or lazy to solve their own problems.

Thus, my political decision making focuses not on 'markets' and economy, but rather on the side items, particularly social freedoms and civic issues. I feel that currently the Democrats are slightly ahead of the Republicans on this one... not much, but a little.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

it helps to have a coherent idea of what it is exactly that you want to gain, or at least what you don't want to lose. that draws borders in the behavior of corporations. i tend to think that the conservatives are idiots for thinking the government can't help, and liberals are idiots for thinking help will come from the wrong part of the government. the legislative and executive branches are easily corruptible and basically powerless to effect behavior anyway. the judicial branch, which for some reason is the redheaded stepchild of government, is what needs to bear the weight of ensuring ethical behavior (which, as it happens, is what it was designed for).

[Elder Iptuous]

You may be new enough here that you haven't met the barstool yet.


In other words, it would be extremely nice if congress could get together in bipartisan unity and write a law that would be broad enough to limit all corruption, yet not infinge on an individual's personality, flexible enough to cover all future possibilities, and integrate seamlessly with Big Industry's commitment to responsible growth, equitable pay for all its workers, and fair play within the market.

Do you believe in the tooth fairy, too?

Ah.  That is a problem.  You can protect the innocent (from overreaching .gov) at the cost of some bad being gotten away with, or you can  make sure that no bad goes unpunished at the cost of fvcking some innocents along the way.  It's a continuum that you draw a line in with the law.  I think your a little further to the latter end than i am.

Maybe the reason i think the barstool really ISN'T there is because people try to sit on it and they fall to the floor because they have a size 7 poopshoot from an overreaching .gov

[LMNO]

In case you were wondering, this country isn't in the tank from too much government interference in corporate affairs.


Yes, the gvt has had much to do with sticking the US in a pile of shit.  But it wasn't because they were restricting the free market.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

i think america suffers from a chronic and advanced case of addiction to quick fixes.

[Elder Iptuous]

In case you were wondering, this country isn't in the tank from too much government interference in corporate affairs.


Yes, the gvt has had much to do with sticking the US in a pile of shit.  But it wasn't because they were restricting the free market.

I assume by 'restricting' you mean an even handed strangle of the market?  Of course not.  it is meddling in various points and places at the behest of lobbyists and interest groups... 

[LMNO]

Nope.


Well, yes, they're doing that, too.   But regulation (what the libertarian ideologists complain about) didn't tank the economy.

[fomenter]

Its also a brilliant cover for undermining workers rights.

or corruption happens any where the corrupt happen to be.
  no philosophy/ideology is immune from this

edit or political party is immune from this

I'm a little to old for the kind of starry eyed idealism you accuse me of see above . nothing works right,  doesn't mean simpler is not better

i started out talking about libertarian philosophy which is seldom practiced ( the constitution which is fairly simple and fairly libertarian is probably the best example i can give and it is interpreted and re interpreted as i said all laws will be)

The reason it isn't practiced is because it forgets to take into account HUMANS.

the ideal of the representative gov relies on a  intelligent ethical well educated population (of monkeys/humans) and we are lost on all three counts
-more government more regulation wont fix any of them 

if each amendment to the constitution had 3873 lines of virtually incomprehensible legalesse and a gov agency with 1000s of lawyers to interpret it do you think you would have more freedom ? i am just trying to make a obvious point obvious - simple is often better  and always simpler.

[Elder Iptuous]

Nope.


Well, yes, they're doing that, too.   But regulation (what the libertarian ideologists complain about) didn't tank the economy.

The economy is barely beginning to tank.
and I'm in the 'shirking monetary policy responsibility off onto private banking screwed us' camp.

[LMNO]

the ideal of the representative gov relies on a  intelligent ethical well educated population (of monkeys/humans) and we are lost on all three counts
-more government more regulation wont fix any of them 

I didn't say it would.  It would, however, make it temporarily harder for the bastards.  Or, you gotta choose the bastards you can live with. I prefer the beurocratic bastards to the capitalistic bastards.

if each amendment to the constitution had 3873 lines of virtually incomprehensible legalesse and a gov agency with 1000s of lawyers to interpret it do you think you would have more freedom ?

We do.  All laws are built on, or vetted by, the constitution.

i am just trying to make a obvious point obvious - simple is often better  and always simpler.

Better for whom?

[LMNO]

Nope.


Well, yes, they're doing that, too.   But regulation (what the libertarian ideologists complain about) didn't tank the economy.

The economy is barely beginning to tank.
and I'm in the 'shirking monetary policy responsibility off onto private banking screwed us' camp.

Wait, what?  The bankers didn't cut taxes of the to 1%, raise deficit spending, and start a war.  Not even the Jewish ones.

The banker clamored for deregulation of the housing system, then developed the Sub Prime mortgage.

[Elder Iptuous]

Wait, what?  The bankers didn't cut taxes of the to 1%, raise deficit spending, and start a war.  Not even the Jewish ones.

The banker clamored for deregulation of the housing system, then developed the Sub Prime mortgage.

The congress delegating monetary policy to the FED is what allows them to have deficit spending and all the crap that ensues.....
...I don't understand the Jewish reference...
Deregulation of the housing was just fine.  Stupid lenders, stupid borrowers, .gov sponsored creditors; let the sleep in it.  But no, .gov has to come meddle in it again...