AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 25, 2011 10:06:44 GMT -5
Yep, we are all forced. It is a thing called needs. Since we cannot produce it ourselves, we must pay someone to make it for us. Enter the corporations. If you are going to demand the salary, I demand competence. At present salary levels, too many fools are getting paid too much for not knowing enough. I have no problem with that if you are a private company. However, public companies should have a competence standard. The 85% rule would be good. Maybe this would make a good shareholder proposal. If you are a majority shareholder, or if you can persuade a majority of the shareholders, you can demand whatever you want. If you are a customer, and you are dissatisfied, you can demand better. IF you don't get what you want you can shop elsewhere. Government isn't a customer or a shareowner. They can demand nothing. They can protect the rights of the individual shareowners to do business. They can adjudicate claims and uphold contracts. This is the extent of government's legitimate power. The government should be permitted to do NOTHING ELSE.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 25, 2011 10:09:08 GMT -5
PBP, but government CAN meke laws, as they should to regulate industry. The constitution does give govt (congress) the right to make any other such laws as necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 25, 2011 10:20:58 GMT -5
As a result of making laws when necessary, resulting in onerous bureaucratic burdens, it is much easier to move facilities off shore, outsource staff.... then to have to hire knowledgable staff to navigate the maze of complicated, confusing and vague govt regulations.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 25, 2011 10:22:36 GMT -5
SF, good point. We have to start with competent legislators.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 25, 2011 11:01:15 GMT -5
All this discussion is really proving is that left leaning people feel the need to control the private sector, and another discussion later will prove that right leaning people feel the need to control morals and values. It really gets tiresome, how about we don't control either of them. I don't personally feel the need to control morals and values, but I feel very strongly people must be permitted to experience the consequences of their poor decisions. Smoke, have all the unprotected sex you want, get stoned to oblivion every day, ride your motorcycle without a helmet all the way to the fast food drive in and load up on cheesy fries. Just don't call me when you need "help" because you screwed yourself.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Mar 25, 2011 11:03:27 GMT -5
FY, reread my original comment. Then I will accept your apology. magic, don't twist words like the Tea Partiers. I said nothing about monopolies -just competence. I don't care if you never mentioned monopolies. What I am saying is that if you are dissatisfied with the compensation a CEO gets, buy from another corporation. What is difficult about this?
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Mar 25, 2011 11:04:13 GMT -5
All this discussion is really proving is that left leaning people feel the need to control the private sector, and another discussion later will prove that right leaning people feel the need to control morals and values. It really gets tiresome, how about we don't control either of them. I don't personally feel the need to control morals and values, but I feel very strongly people must be permitted to experience the consequences of their poor decisions. Smoke, have all the unprotected sex you want, get stoned to oblivion every day, ride your motorcycle without a helmet all the way to the fast food drive in and load up on cheesy fries. Just don't call me when you need "help" because you screwed yourself. I agree. Must be your minor libertarian views showing through.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 25, 2011 11:04:39 GMT -5
PBP, but government CAN meke laws, as they should to regulate industry. The constitution does give govt (congress) the right to make any other such laws as necessary. No, the Constitution doesn't permit Congress to make any laws it feels are necessary. Many Americans would be shocked to learn that there is no "Welfare Clause" in the Constitution; and that the government is only authorized to do a handful of things enumerated in the enumerated powers. If it was intended Congress do whatever it wanted- why enumerate? We have drifted off the path to the point where nearly 70% of what Congress does it has no Constitutional authority to do. Now, you can say "Judicial Review" this, and "precedent" that- but you're wrong. The Constitution is clear.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 25, 2011 11:07:32 GMT -5
I'm a libertarian leaning conservative- two things are holding me back from being full-fledged libertarian: the welfare state. People can't be free as long as one person's freedom to do stupid sh** imposes on another person's right to keep what they earn; and abortion-- I'm not a nano-second of conception person, but we have to determine scientifically when life begins and draw a line in the sand beyond which the natural rights of the human being developing in the womb supercedes the right of the mother to "choose".
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Mar 25, 2011 11:08:22 GMT -5
I'm a libertarian leaning conservative- two things are holding me back from being full-fledged libertarian: the welfare state. People can't be free as long as one person's freedom to do stupid sh** imposes on another person's right to keep what they earn; and abortion-- I'm not a nano-second of conception person, but we have to determine scientifically when life begins and draw a line in the sand beyond which the natural rights of the human being developing in the womb supercedes the right of the mother to "choose". What does the welfare state have to do with liberatarianism?
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Mar 25, 2011 11:28:48 GMT -5
Here is the Libertarian party's view on the welfare. 2.0 Economic Liberty Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society. www.lp.org/platform
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 25, 2011 12:52:40 GMT -5
I'm a libertarian leaning conservative- two things are holding me back from being full-fledged libertarian: the welfare state. People can't be free as long as one person's freedom to do stupid sh** imposes on another person's right to keep what they earn; and abortion-- I'm not a nano-second of conception person, but we have to determine scientifically when life begins and draw a line in the sand beyond which the natural rights of the human being developing in the womb supercedes the right of the mother to "choose". What does the welfare state have to do with liberatarianism? It exists. It must be done away with BEFORE we implement many libertarian reforms.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 25, 2011 12:59:34 GMT -5
PBP, see Article1, Section 8. I think that gives Congress broad powers. It allows them to regulate commerce and provide for general welfare.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Mar 25, 2011 13:14:43 GMT -5
What does the welfare state have to do with liberatarianism? It exists. It must be done away with BEFORE we implement many libertarian reforms. Still don't see how that lines up with Libertarian policy, as posted above, but whatever.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 25, 2011 13:16:04 GMT -5
So you are ok with gay marriage & people having abortions?
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Mar 25, 2011 13:17:13 GMT -5
PBP, see Article1, Section 8. I think that gives Congress broad powers. It allows them to regulate commerce and provide for general welfare. Not regulate commece in general, regulate commerce between the states and foreign countries.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Mar 25, 2011 13:18:16 GMT -5
So you are ok with gay marriage & people having abortions? I wouldn't do it, but everybody else can have at it, but at the same time you darned well better cut the federal government by 70%.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 25, 2011 13:19:13 GMT -5
PBP, see Article1, Section 8. I think that gives Congress broad powers. It allows them to regulate commerce and provide for general welfare.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Mar 25, 2011 13:20:56 GMT -5
>>Then you have to pay for lobbyists, PR campaigns to try and convince people you care about your customers, lawyers to fight customers' claims you don't want to pay,etc. The hell with them. << You can say the same thing about unions...which is why I say to hell with them, too!
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 25, 2011 13:25:00 GMT -5
PBP, see Article1, Section 8. I think that gives Congress broad powers. It allows them to regulate commerce and provide for general welfare. Not regulate commece in general, regulate commerce between the states and foreign countries. The purpose of the commerce clause is to keep the lanes of commerce open between the states-- it's to prevent internal protectionist policies between the states. It is NOT to regulate business.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 25, 2011 13:30:26 GMT -5
So you are ok with gay marriage & people having abortions? I have a problem with marriage, period. We don't need permission from the state in the arrangement of our personal affairs, or to live any (non-violent) way that we please. The problem with gay marriage is that it's really not about the "ability" to marry. It's about welfare. It's about Social Security and SSDI benefits, and health insurance (wage supplement) regulations forcing companies to pick up the tab for the whole "family". Yeah- we see you, libs. You can't get this stuff by us anymore. On abortion- I've been clear. At SOME POINT, we must determine, the unborn child MUST be afforded the protection of law.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Mar 25, 2011 13:32:57 GMT -5
Sounds like Paul has seen I Pronounce You Chuck and Larry one too many times....
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 25, 2011 13:38:39 GMT -5
It's not that there are no problems that libertarians have to work out. It's that we are so bogged down carrying the weight of the liberal welfare nanny state, trying to manage it, roll it back, and END it that we haven't spent a lot of time on serious issues. Once we're done with the silly games and hoop jumping of the liberal idiocy that touches every part of our lives-- we can start to free our minds to really think.
When that happens, I think a lot of libertarians really aren't prepared for a real free market. For example, how do we price things into a previously government regulated market? Now that you're free to paint your fence orange, make your living doing auto repair in your garage, and play your music as loud as you like-- are you prepared to compensate your neighbors? I think we'll have a lot of interesting discussions such as the market price of peace and quiet between neighbors.
You can marry your man, your woman, three of each, and the dog-- but are you all prepared to support yourselves? Or are you really just looking for "benefits" paid by others? And you can love Jesus, and obey your vision that you should have 19 kids, but you'd better be prepared to raise them, and support them. I don't think your company should have an obligation to support your family choices.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Mar 25, 2011 13:41:42 GMT -5
The problem is Paul your thinking that Libertarianism is anarchy, down to the local government level, when really it is about putting the decisions at the lowest level possible, be it a HOA, city council or county commissioner. I still want liberty but I don't want anarchy.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 25, 2011 13:43:47 GMT -5
It isn't about welfare, it is about getting all the same rights as other married couples. If you have a problem with the "welfare" benefits of marriage, then you need to go after the whole institution, not just the gay portion.
So, say the govt. official said 21 weeks = person. Then you would be ok with with a person getting an abortion at 12 wks? After all, it is legal at that point.
I came with that date because I don't believe a baby born before 21 weeks has ever survived & it gives a person the opportunity to get the results of a quad screen & any subsequent test time to make a choice.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 25, 2011 13:46:58 GMT -5
Not regulate commece in general, regulate commerce between the states and foreign countries. The purpose of the commerce clause is to keep the lanes of commerce open between the states-- it's to prevent internal protectionist policies between the states. It is NOT to regulate business. bluerobin was responding to your claim that there is no welfare clause in the constitution. He is pointing out the clause that indicates otherwise.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 25, 2011 13:47:00 GMT -5
Sounds like Paul has seen I Pronounce You Chuck and Larry one too many times.... It's either that, or you have to admit that there's a natural right of gays to marry in every state anytime they want. Everything else can be covered by civil unions, and private legal agreements- power of attorney, contracts, etc. No, it's about 'benefits'. It's really about radical, liberal gays getting their mitts on Social Security.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Mar 25, 2011 13:47:26 GMT -5
FY, reread my original comment. Then I will accept your apology. magic, don't twist words like the Tea Partiers. I said nothing about monopolies -just competence. And just what is it that you expecting me to apologize for? Your entire quote was "Yep, we are all forced. It is a thing called needs. Since we cannot produce it ourselves, we must pay someone to make it for us. Enter the corporations. If you are going to demand the salary, I demand competence. At present salary levels, too many fools are getting paid too much for not knowing enough. I have no problem with that if you are a private company. However, public companies should have a competence standard. The 85% rule would be good. Maybe this would make a good shareholder proposal. " You speak of public companies and the 85% rule would be good. Perhaps you just mean the 85% rule would be good only for the companies you want it to be good for?
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Mar 25, 2011 13:49:36 GMT -5
Sounds like Paul has seen I Pronounce You Chuck and Larry one too many times.... It's either that, or you have to admit that there's a natural right of gays to marry in every state anytime they want. Everything else can be covered by civil unions, and private legal agreements- power of attorney, contracts, etc. No, it's about 'benefits'. It's really about radical, liberal gays getting their mitts on Social Security. 1955 Brown V Board of Education provided that seperate but equal is inherently unequal. No it's really about icky gayness.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 25, 2011 14:02:30 GMT -5
Sounds like Paul has seen I Pronounce You Chuck and Larry one too many times.... No, it's about 'benefits'. It's really about radical, liberal gays getting their mitts on Social Security. Wow you are thick headed- Angel D explained it quite well- if you have a problem with the 'benefits' then end the benefits- don't just discriminate on which people can get them because you have a problem with their lifestyle. I don't think the government has any reason to be involved with marriage anyway- leave it to the churches.
|
|