Slashdot Mirror

Although the 10th Amendment seems to make things clear, the remainder of the Constitution is vague enough to grant the federal government almost unlimited power (ie. the interstate commerce clause -- virtually no business is conducted exclusively within state lines today).

Except that's not true, the USA Constitution sets specific limits on what the federal government can do, if a power is not enumerated it does not have that power. The "Jeffersonian philosophy is clearly one of reason, individualism, liberty, and limited government--all of which are, in different ways, anathema to modern liberals and conservatives." James Madison said "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce;... the powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and prosperities of the people. (The Federalist, #45, emphasis ours)". Quotes from others on that page also support the constitutional idea that the federal government only has the powers specifically granted to it. Federalist #45, mentioned above states:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Quite simply states had to be convinced the federal government would not have unlimited government otherwise they would never have ratified the Constitution.

In many cases, it also makes no sense for individual states to manage things like environmental and health policy on a one-by-one basis. With one or two exceptions, the USA has functioned as a singular entity for over 100 years.

Health is one of the things individual states pretty much control, that's in part why there are problems with the affordability of medicine and health care. Each state decides who can sell insurance in the state, and what the insurance must cover. If I, living in one state, cross the state line and find cheaper insurance in another state I can not buy that insurance to use in the state I live in. There is no free market in insurance, but did the Health Insurance reform bill congress passed and Obama signed change that? No.

Falcon

Dude, you've obviously never read The Virtue of Selfishness. For the record, I was a registered Libertarian for 30 years, until I changed to Democrat in 2008 so I could vote for Barack Obama and Steve Novick in the primary.

Better smack it harder.

here, let me break it down to the most bare bones obvious choices:

1. no government or weakened government = unfettered corporate power (what you get with your ideology, but don't admit it or don't realize it)

No, let me break it down to the basics. The government grants corporations their corporate charter. With no government there are no corporations.

3. strong government = curtailed corporate power (where we should go)

Any government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take it away. Let's look at a couple of Thomas Jefferson's quotes:
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
And in The Forgotten Essentials of Jefferson's Philosophy. "To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

but what you seem to want is obviously far, far worse. with no government or weakened government, the only power around, without any checks or balances on it, are the corporations.

Point to one place where I said I did not want any government. On second thought, forget it. I don't want to continue with someone who puts words in my mouth I did not say.

Falcon

It's still government and it's still the source of everything that is wrong with this country.

Educate yourself.

1. You have a free market available to you. If you didn't want a Wintel machine, you could have bought a Mac, or any number of others.

2. The fact you miss is that the Lenova is affordable for you BECAUSE it comes with MSC products installed. You even state your preferred s/w or OS vendors were out of your price range. If you feel screwed, go tell them!

3. Again, there is no law that forces MSC to be on any machine. MSC has never used force or fraud to impose their products upon you. You made the choice. Maybe you should go complain to your preferred s/w or OS vendor and ask them why they can't be as smart as MSC in making their product affordable and available to you?

4. I support your ability to erase and dispose of unwanted products on your machine. And there is no law to prevent you from erasing them at will, and installing what YOU want. That is the free market, the "Unseen Hand" that Adam Smith wrote about in 1776. http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-intro.htm
Do you really WANT laws that would mandate the type of software that can, or cannot be marketed?

5. You made the choice to buy a product with full knowledge of it's s/w contents. And now you're complaining about it. Seems to me the problem is with your judgement, not with MSC or anyone else.

I mean no offense in my words, but I hope you learn to appreciate the free market, and the high morality of capitalism.

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx? ct=225&h=51

If you have a widget and are asking for $2.00 for it and i refuse to buy it at that price, one could say that your greed stoped me from buying it. Or that my greed stoped you from selling it to me.

It's not greed. It's relative value, which is subjective, true, but the pejorative term "greed" is inappropriate here. The widget is worth $2 to me, but it is worth much less to you. If we don't have a meeting of the need, or mind, on the value, then we have no deal. Simple as that.

There's also market conditions and economics to consider. If the widget cost me $1.50 to make, and you won't buy it unless it is $1.25 or less, then I would be nuts to sell it to you for your price.

As you suggest, there's a strong case for calling you greedy for not being willing to meet my price and thus putting pressure on me to take less for it.

Additionally, you would be committing theft if you forced me somehow (such as via government price-control) to sell it to you for less than the price I was willing to take for it.

Economics is fun, that's for sure. Try reading Ayn Rand's book "The Virtue of Selfishness" for an interesting take on this.

I especially disagree with their position on drug patents which (given how much of the actual research is paid for with tax dollars) is down right hypocritical.

-- MarkusQ

Pardon, that last link should be:
The Objectivist Center. Really should verify those links before typing 'em in...

Objectivist Center and the Reason Foundation. The Reason Foundation publishes the libertarian magazine Reason and as Doom Ihl' Varia said in a previous post, the OC is concerned with promoting Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. Both are entities which support laissez-faire capitalism.

I am surprised they joined in on this. Not because the project is in line with their ideas, but because they should (according to their beliefs) be promoting the removal of the state from regulatory functions such as these.

Objectivism holds that there is nothing wrong with charity, so long as one is pursuing one's own values in providing it. As Ayn Rand said, charity is a marginal issue: it is not especially noble to engage in it, but if pursued prudently and seriously, and not at the cost of other important values, it can be a source of good for one's society and ultimately one's self. Objectivists tend to view their donations to causes as investments in some kind of improvement: a better culture, a better city, etc. But like investments, these require attention to make sure they are paying off.

I question your interpretation of history. Here is a reference since you left that out:

Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr.
By Ron Chernow
ISBN:0679438084

Chernow labors mightily to set Standard's commercial accomplishments reasonably straight. He identifies correctly the factors that account for the early growth of the firm (entrepreneurship, economies of scale, technological innovation) and its ability to maintain market leadership. He also identifies correctly the changing market conditions at the turn of the century that eroded Standard's market share prior to the antitrust suits. Indeed, Chernow even admits that the subsequent legal actions may have been "superfluous." --D.T. Armentano, author of Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure

Its not the corporations responsibility to inform you of defective products. The only loophole is for products with safety concerns. And many people had to die to get those laws passed, and its rather limited product range.
-
My government supports terrorism.

"value must always be given for value received."

this does not preclude charity, as Rand's definition of "value" was not exclusively monetary. romantic relationships, for example, involve exchanged values.

Rand was a second-rate romance novelist

romantic (in the true sense) does not equal "romance". I won't bother to defend the merits of her novels, except to mention that it's through the government system of education that I learned of Rand. quite ironic. philosophers ignore her, but literary types do not. that's quite an argument from authority, and unneeded. her novels stand up for themselves. even if you have problems with her philosophy, she has said more for artistic integrity than any other writer I know.

you're clearly trolling by comparing Objectivism to socialism. Leonard Peikoff, heir of Ayn Rand, is leader of the Objectivist cult. I would like for him and his goombahs to leave Objectivism, which is a philosophical school, and not a fixed canon (usually misinterpreted). there are exiled, saner groups such as David Kelley's , but they do not control the all important "For more information" cards which fall out of the novels. Ayn Rand made many foolish decisions in her life, and thinking Peikoff somehow worthy was her biggest.

her philosophy was not reductionist, but unfinished. she never wrote a systematic exposition of it. what she did write was not always on target. but her ideas, being the kernel of the libertarian movement (and much more), were hardly irrelevant.