"Libertarianism is a bad political philosophy"

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: GPIRS88 The concept of property rights. You as an individual have a right to your property (land, finances and body). If im Raytheon and my factory is polluting your air or contaminating the lakes you drink from guess what you have a right to sue me and I will lose assuming your local gov't does their job.

LOLOL!!!! Ah yes, of course, the infamous 'courts' solution.

I seem to recall a rather mixed record of efforts to sue tobacco companies. And the Bush League made it illegal to sue gun makers. And when the market-friendly GOP passes Tort reform to limit court rewards, exactly how effective to you anticipate massed lawsuits will be?

And now you're suggesting that we're going to sue Exxon Mobile, GM, Ford and America's utilities for global warming? Yeah, that'll work.

Who do we sue for Americas 2 million automobiles currently polluting the atmosphere? After all, both the EPA and the U.S. Supreme Court have ruled that excessive CO2 is a dangerous pollutant.

Or the energy companies and their pollutants? How do we go about suing them? Or U.S. agriculture, who is polluting our continently coast lines and reefs with chemical runoff? Or the fishing industry that is over-fishing the oceans?

Dang, I'm unclear how the courts could possibly deal with it if Americans seriously decided to sue American industry for pollution. Why not simply stop it from happening in the first place with the necessary regulations?

.

[GPIRS88]

And now you're suggesting that we're going to sue Exxon Mobile, GM, Ford and America's utilities for global warming? Yeah, that'll work. Who do we sue for Americas 2 million automobiles currently polluting the atmosphere? After all, both the EPA and the U.S. Supreme Court have ruled that excessive CO2 is a dangerous pollutant

Okay lets say I'm ford. You bought a car from me. In doing so you agreed in a trade that you will use my product in exchange for your money. You wont win in the courts because at the end of the day I didnt turn on the engine, I dont drive it during rush hour and I didnt put gasoline in it. This was all you.

I think you would make a better case for manslaughter because how many deaths avg per year from car accidents?

But even if you tried. Cars, guns and tobacco are all products that require a consumer which is you. If you smoke, drive and hunt you cant blame me for giving your aunt cancer then shooting her and running her over. It was your responsibility to use my products and i cant control how you use it.

Why not simply stop it from happening in the first place with the necessary regulations?

Where do we draw the line in preventive regulation? Cars kill more people than tobacco does that mean we all stop driving?

And lets look at safety regulation even if i invented a car that ran on hopes and dreams I need to take my car over to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and come up with 10 prototypes to crash. How can I as a small business afford such a test.

Regulation stops innovation and in order for countries to have strong a economy you either make products better faster and cheaper or you innovate and create a whole new industry.

If you dont want to smoke but it feels soo good buy an e-cig :)

YouTube - Gamucci Electronic Cigarette / E-cigarette E-Cig Description

As far as "global warming" goes...i think its called climate change now and yes the polar ice caps are melting here but so are the polar ice caps on mars. (so unless the martians stop i refuse to stop burning my tires outside).

(not saying man doesnt have an impact but i think we should look into it more since scientist have been caught lying about their studies)

[soothsayer]

I seem to recall a rather mixed record of efforts to sue tobacco companies.

You should be proud of the results of these efforts, because they mimic precisely the Energy Producing Corps / U.N. & Western Governments "globalwarming" collusion/extortion process.

Congress essentially sold-out millions of potential litigants against the tobacco companies (not that they had a case) for their medical bills for smoking-related ailments and continued medicare coverage for them (hey, don't cost them nothin'.. just print more money) in exchange for establishing The American Legacy Foundation which traces its origin to the sixth section of the 1998 tobacco settlement. U.S. tobacco manufacturers agreed to give the new foundation $250 million in March 1999 and each subsequent year until 2003, for a total endowment of $1.45 billion.

All the legal fees for law firms associated with the suit and other backroom "deals" The State Tobacco Lawsuits all the senators' college film and advertising student children who got massive funding for their inane truth.com PSAs and the billions extorted into dubious "foundations" that are essentially a moneywell for lawyers, congressmen and women, state politicians and their buddies in advertising who can divert expense into their campaign media efforts:
Archive | July 17, 2000 | The American Legacy Foundation's "Truth Campaign":  Using tobacco funds for anti-smoking ads
we can hardly conclude that anti-smoking campaigns persuade smokers to give up the habit. All this raises questions about the American Legacy Foundation and whether it will use its tobacco billions to successfully reduce teenage tobacco use.

Far more likely, the foundation’s ultimate legacy will be a massive transfer of wealth from tobacco consumers and the retail market to well-to-do foundation officials and advertising executives.


AGW accomplishes this by the larger corporations colluding with governments to cannibalize and overtake smaller multinational energy corps, increase taxes, reduce consumption and preserve their monopolies.
The American Legacy fiasco was only the national warm-up for this global play.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: GPIRS88 Okay lets say I'm ford. You bought a car from me. In doing so you agreed in a trade that you will use my product in exchange for your money. You wont win in the courts because at the end of the day I didnt turn on the engine, I dont drive it during rush hour and I didnt put gasoline in it. This was all you. I think you would make a better case for manslaughter because how many deaths avg per year from car accidents? But even if you tried. Cars, guns and tobacco are all products that require a consumer which is you. If you smoke, drive and hunt you cant blame me for giving your aunt cancer then shooting her and running her over. It was your responsibility to use my products and i cant control how you use it.

Nice side-stepping non-answer. So in effect, as long as no one's buying the offending product, then lawsuits are the perfect solution. But if people are actually buying them, tough luck.

So in other words, you're 'solution' to the excesses of capitalism is full of sh!t.

Quote by: GPIRS88 Where do we draw the line in preventive regulation? Cars kill more people than tobacco does that mean we all stop driving?

You don't know? Wherever the voters decide to draw the line. For instance, during the smoggy '60s, did the free market decide it was time to end killer smog and flammable rivers? Hell no... they had to be dragged kicking and screaming by a Congress that was under pressure by the huge grass roots environmental movement.

So who's going to save us from ourselves now? The free-market? Fuque no, the libertarian free-marketeers are the very one's leading the There-is-no-Global-Warming skeptics movement.

Quote by: GPIRS88 And lets look at safety regulation even if i invented a car that ran on hopes and dreams I need to take my car over to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and come up with 10 prototypes to crash. How can I as a small business afford such a test.

Hell, you're biggest problem is hardly the government... it's big auto. Who ended the hopes of Preston Tucker or the Electric Car? The government? Or big auto and big oil using their influence on the government.

.

[MandM]

If Americans don't learn to come together soon this nation is going to be in a massive amount of trouble.

12 Huge Problems That Americans Need To Work Together On....

12 Huge Problems That Americans Need To Come Together On And Start Facing Before It Is Too Late

[soothsayer]

You don't know? Wherever the voters decide to draw the line. For instance, during the smoggy '60s, did the free market decide it was time to end killer smog and flammable rivers? Hell no... they had to be dragged kicking and screaming by a Congress that was under pressure by the huge grass roots environmental movement.

The initial ecology movement was a grassroots movement and merits a lotof credit, but as the academia-driven crusade quickly spread to sportsmen, commercial fishermen and recreational users of waterways local to plants and factories, strong market forces soon played the strongest role, which you deliberately overlook.
Another credit I'll give the initial movement that sparked it was that as it evolved in combination with other small, previously unorganized interest groups, numbers sufficiently grew to give courage to local employees who may have hated their outdoor areas polluted, but threw up their hands previously because of needing their paychecks.

However, the environmentalist movement is also a case history in the kind of legislative/corporate collusion I rail against. I cant look it up now, but in an animal rights thread i provided links to a small time family farmer who fought his state govt for environmental laws because the mega farm nearby was destroying local health and quality of life.
The politicians got to "look green" to the voters, got their campaign coffers stuffed by the megafarms, and the voter now suffers because the industrial livestock processing plant now meets the letter of the law (its experts told the legislators what to write--this is why every bill is so convoluted and takes 2000 pages) but the local people still have to smell the stink from the huge waste lagoon surrounding their lands.

[GPIRS88]

Quote by: Sonart . Nice side-stepping non-answer. So in effect, as long as no one's buying the offending product, then lawsuits are the perfect solution. But if people are actually buying them, tough luck.

If i sell you a car with bad brakes and told you they were good i would be punished by gov't for I in effect have put your life in danger directly and therefore violating your right to life.

So in other words, you're 'solution' to the excesses of capitalism is full of sh!t. You don't know? Wherever the voters decide to draw the line. For instance, during the smoggy '60s, did the free market decide it was time to end killer smog and flammable rivers? Hell no... they had to be dragged kicking and screaming by a Congress that was under pressure by the huge grass roots environmental movement.

My solution to excess capitalism is the laws of supply and demand. If there are too many car companies making gas guzzling, earth destroying cars then maybe I should let a few of them fail. (like we did with GM)
Grass roots environmental movements are a non gov't entity. Libertarians favor the individual and the people. In a libertarian society gov't would have enough of a spine to not be backed by corporate entities and serve the interest of the individual.

So who's going to save us from ourselves now? The free-market? Fuque no, the libertarian free-marketeers are the very one's leading the There-is-no-Global-Warming skeptics movement.

There is no global warming. Its called Climate Change and we arent even sure if its caused 100 percent by man. Again, if states handled the environmental issue at a local level it would still be more effective then any orders given out by Washington.

Hell, you're biggest problem is hardly the government... it's big auto. Who ended the hopes of Preston Tucker or the Electric Car? The government? Or big auto and big oil using their influence on the government. .

A collusion between gov't and corporations would not exist in the libertarian society. I would be able to make my car and advertise it as much as I want and maybe even sell a few in a free society.

At the end of day though any call for more regulation or more gov't over site will cost money. And you can only borrow so much from overseas before your dollar collapses

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

[grandpa]

Quote by: GPIRS88 If i sell you a car with bad brakes and told you they were good i would be punished by gov't for I in effect have put your life in danger directly and therefore violating your right to life. My solution to excess capitalism is the laws of supply and demand.

If profits weren't imposed as a primary concern, and consumers and workers were mentally put in a match of consequence versus profitability, I assume consequence would win. But concerns over product safety are allowed, and to a considerable extent encouraged, to take a backseat to short-term profits.

Grandpa h.

[GPIRS88]

Quote by: grandpa If profits weren't imposed as a primary concern, and consumers and workers were mentally put in a match of consequence versus profitability, I assume consequence would win. But concerns over product safety are allowed, and to a considerable extent encouraged, to take a backseat to short-term profits. Grandpa h.

1. Is it wrong to make money?

2. No business can survive on purely short-term profits. In order to succeed you must look into long term sustainability and the best way to do that is through repeat business. If I make a crappy car today who will be willing to buy that crap tomorrow? (congress?)

I need to make a good product from the beginning and ensure the safety of my customers so they will come back to me:)

No one seriously says "Apple is evil" or "Google is evil" when they make money. Why are we afraid of people making money? these companies provides jobs to our communities and encourages our economic growth. If we regulate and tax them like no tomorrow then they either leave or go somewhere else.

[soothsayer]

2. No business can survive on purely short-term profits. In order to succeed you must look into long term sustainability and the best way to do that is through repeat business. If I make a crappy car today who will be willing to buy that crap tomorrow? (congress?)

except renault, who through EU tax rules preferences making their inferior models the only ones affordable to many europeans, allowing them to continue economically producing them and not needing to improve them as they have an artificially enabled market

If we regulate and tax them like no tomorrow then they either leave or go somewhere else.

that's the global socialist corporatocracy's goal... concentrate global monopolies and prevent freedom that would allow "upstarts" into the fold

[GPIRS88]

except renault, who through EU tax rules preferences making their inferior models the only ones affordable to many europeans,

that's the global socialist corporatocracy's goal... concentrate global monopolies and prevent freedom that would allow "upstarts" into the fold

Agreed

Both are examples of gov't intervention in to the free market. In a Libertarian society gov't would allow big corporations to fail and encourage upstarts from individuals. :)

[soothsayer]

your tax dollars at work:



Regulators Hired by Toyota Helped Halt Investigations - Yahoo! News

Regulators help halt 4 probes of Toyota
Records say ex-officials worked for automaker

Published on Saturday, Feb 13, 2010

Former auto industry regulators hired by Toyota helped end at least four U.S. investigations of unintended acceleration by company vehicles in the last decade, warding off possible recalls, court and government records show.
Christopher Tinto, vice president of regulatory affairs in Toyota's Washington office, and Christopher Santucci, who works for Tinto, helped persuade the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to end probes, including those of 2002-2003 Toyota Camrys and
Solaras, court documents show.
Both men joined Toyota directly from NHTSA — Tinto in 1994 and Santucci in 2003.
While all automakers have employees who handle NHTSA issues, Toyota might be alone among the major companies in employing former agency staffers to do so.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: GPIRS88 If i sell you a car with bad brakes and told you they were good i would be punished by gov't for I in effect have put your life in danger directly and therefore violating your right to life.

And once again, you're changing the subject. Right now, you're talking about a car causing specific, direct injuries to specific people involved with some sort of malfunction. Let's forget about the Pinto concept - The Ford Pinto and the Price of Life - in which the Ford Motor Co. cynically determined that paying off a few lawsuits is cheaper than fixing a design flaw.

(not to mention that you just now said, "punished by the government")

I'm talking about global warming, so can we try and stick to the subject, hmmmm?

Meaning... if automobiles are the second highest producers of greenhouse pollutants, and human produced greenhouse gases are the proven causes of global warming, and global warming is a serious, long term threat to life on earth, then exactly how are lawsuits going to solve that problem. Or, for that matter, if the Energy industry is the number one highest producer of greenhouse gases, do we individually sue them as well?

It seems far more efficient and timely simply to nip the problem in the bud and determine that the public good is best served through pre-emptive regulation.


.

[ironeagle]

It osunds to me like many of you are against Oligarcy, which is government ran by corporations. So am I, but capitolism is not oligarcy. I already said what I meant about people being fooled by altruism, but I'll say it again, basicaly too much altruism deprives people of individuality, individual rights, self confidence, self esteam and promotes the theft of freedom and individual choice. It also becomes very apparent to me many of you socialists seem to want your cake and to eat it to, because unless you guys don't buy products you don't need, unless you have given up your land, and money and food for everyone else, and unless you walk to school and work, not drive or ride in a car I see no difference between you and the non-socialists. You contribute to the problem but put all the responsibility of the effects on other people. Libertarians can be environmentlaists too, so can capitolists, it's not just a socialist idea, but not everyone is going to agree with you, it doesn't make them capitolist just because they don't feel that it's non of your business what car they drive.

Proof positive that socialism is destructive has been made in the examples of the bailouts, medicaid, medicare, and other programs, and if UHC passes it will soon be another example of how socialism fails the entire country. Because of socialism, the government forced mortgage companies to sell houses to people who can't afford them, leading to the mortgage crisis, then socialism in the form of the bailouts reduced the value of our dollar, causing more families to lose homes, businesses to close, causing more unemployement, etc. Socialist programs have caused state budget crisis in many state including Iowa where I am from. Again people who envy profits because thye don't have any do not prove tht capitolism is bad they only prove they are jealous and that if they cry loud enough another socialist will try to help them take that hardworkers money so they don't have to work hard.

[grandpa]

Quote by: GPIRS88 Is it wrong to make money?

For the most part, yes, it is wrong. And this is largely because the state-capitalist system generally demands this of us. Money commonly symbolizes our ideological slavery.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: ironeagle It osunds to me like many of you are against Oligarcy, which is government ran by corporations. So am I, but capitolism is not oligarcy.

Call it what you want, but we do have a government run by the wealthy primarily for the wealthy. It's therefore not enough to offer critical assessment
to see how the system can be "improved". We have to argue against its authority, plain and simple.

Grandpa h.

[lukas8u]

But here's the thing Grandpa- I think the only thing we can do is improve it. Sure it's government for the wealthy right know, but is no government to protect the people better?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: ironeagle So am I, but capitolism is not oligarcy.

It's not? And exactly what's to stop it?

Good intentions? Since when have good intentions held sway over the corporate bottom line?

Libertarians are apparently a bunch of silly-ass dreamers who ignore the overwhelming evidence of history in favor of some airy-fairy utopian dream of how it was in pre-industrial colonial America.


.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: soothsayer except renault, who through EU tax rules preferences making their inferior models the only ones affordable to many europeans, allowing them to continue economically producing them and not needing to improve them as they have an artificially enabled market

Apart from the fact that it isn't true. Renault just lost 3 billion Euros last year. Secondly they don't make hugely cheap cars, even in the small car market. For example the basic model for the new Clio costs £11,209 and the Ford Fiesta Studio costs £11,536; hardly a major price difference if the Renault is, as you contest, so very inferior. Furthermore the most basic of the new VW Polo (and in my opinion is far better value car than both of them) costs £9,910.

Thirdly the reason that Renault haven't gone under, unlike GM, etc, is because despite losses, Renault still make cars people want to buy and are practical in the 21st century. With the exception of Ford, the US car manufactors were backward thinking and pathetic, and diserved to go under. Ford aren't much better, but enough to get by. And in fairness the new Focus is a cool car (though not as cool as the VW Golf). Though the problem with VW is that their cars cost more than those of their sister companies, the Skoda Fabia is the same car as the Polo and costs about £1,000 less. The problem is the (outmoded) Skoda reputation and the tedency to quickly devalue.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: grandpa For the most part, yes, it is wrong. And this is largely because the state-capitalist system generally demands this of us. Money commonly symbolizes our ideological slavery. Grandpa h.

This is where we part company, grandpa. I can't counter it as eloquently as Rand, so I'll just quote a little...

Quote by: Ayn Rand, [I Atlas Shrugged[/I]]So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Anconia. “Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil? “When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor–your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil? “Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions–and you’ll learn that man’s mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth. “But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made–before it can be looted or mooched–made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can’t consume more than he has produced.’ “To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss–the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery–that you must offer them values, not wounds–that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men’s stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade–with reason, not force, as their final arbiter–it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability–and the degree of a man’s productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil? ...

You can find the rest of this piece here.