(I'm curious as to how you think the government could provide for the general welfare and other stuff without money though...)
The Federal government was funded by tariff and excise taxes before 1913. If the government stuck to it's constitutional functions outlined in Article 1 Section 8, and refrained from encroaching in other areas, the revenue from tariff's alone would be more than adequate to finance the government.
Depends on the republican. A neocon like Bush, McCain, etc? Hell no.
However, there are still some republicans that actually respect the constitution, liberty, and dedicate themselves to fighting government expansion such as Ron Paul that voted against the patriot act, spoke out and voted against authorizing the president to preemptively invade other countries, and much more. He'd get my vote in a heartbeat.
Putting a mobile weapon system on commercial airlines that pass over foreign countries will make them a target if any hostilities ensue. I'm sure the United States government wouldn't allow a foreign country to fly planes over its territory with these weapons, yet I doubt we'll even be asking other countries if doing so over their territory is acceptable. Yet another reason to avoid flying when possible these days.
"War on poverty had moderate success until reagan gutted it"
Actually, that spending increased under Reagan. When liberals talk about "gutting" a program they're refering to an increase of only 3 percent instead of 5 percent.
"War on drugs? don't be a dipshit drughead and it won't be a problem, i don't particularily care of potentially extremely explosive drug labs to be running in the house next door."
You wouldn't have those labs if the drugs were legal. The price would go down from drug company manufacture and it would no longer make sense to make it yourself. There also wouldn't be the massive gang wars over drug territories, and the horrible suppressions of privacy and liberty that have surfaced as a result of these destructive policies.
"We don't have, and never tried, public healthcare in this country - that's part of the problem, healthcare expenses are astronomical because of the inefficient duplication of services and expenses. FurthermoGun control, most of what you think of as gun control is curteously of the carebears like hillary. It's reactionary, misguided, ineffective and a nuisance. I think "zomg i have to have guns" people are nuts, but I also think the past attempts by carebears at gun control are a joke.re the perscription drug program the republicans pushed through was designed to be a hand out of the big pharma and the insurance industries and is a disgrace. I look at canada and the UK's public health care systems and I see far fewer problems than this joke of health care the "Free market" is providing."
That's quite incorrect. Before FDR stuck his nose into healthcare we had charity hospitals, doctors making home calls, hospital stays that cost a weeks pay instead of several months pay, and routine operations that are done the same way now as they were then were orders of magnatude cheaper. Health care was not only more widely available, but a lot less expensive.
"As for more succesful examples of government solutions: endangered species act"
Of course, there was the example of the bald eagles where they banned DDT to save their eggs leading to the inability to control mosquito populations in developing central and American Countries where the US pushed their weight around and resulted in millions of people dying of malaria infections. But that's a small price to pay when a few birds are at stake.
"EPA (Before it's teeth were pulled by Bush II)"
Ah yes, the EPA which is one of the biggest polluters out there. But really, keep telling yourself it's only the name that matters.
"FEMA under Clinton"
Didn't work then, and doesn't work now. The agency uses it's power to prevent real help and squanders it's budget. In New Orleans they refused to let people out of the superdome, refused to allow any private aid that would have actually worked, such as the red cross or even Wal-Mart which had shipments of fresh water and supplies destined for New Orleans, and collaborated with the local government to try to confiscate everyone's weapons, which left the population at the mercy of criminals with no way to defend themselves. Great program, indeed!
"Gun control, most of what you think of as gun control is curteously of the carebears like hillary. It's reactionary, misguided, ineffective and a nuisance. I think "zomg i have to have guns" people are nuts, but I also think the past attempts by carebears at gun control are a joke."
Gun control is a sinister idea in the first place, meddling with the people's right to defend themselves. It really shows liberals true colors when it comes to respecting liberties and rights.
"(Read this entire thing before reacting) Public Education is better than private education for the most part, excepting where it's been gutted by dumbass republicans. It has room for improvement, just like private education - they both have exceptionally bad examples and good examples. On aggregate public education, which by the laws of our coun
Liberal's trying to fix things? Please see the war on drugs, war on poverty, politically correct crusades, etc. for a close reflection of liberals (or conservatives for that matter) trying to fix things.
Oh, and if you would point out the "evidence" that the magical free market (MFM) doesn't solve problems I'd like to see it. I'd also like to see an example of a government solution that actually works too, while you're at it. Every government solution I've seen makes the matter much worse (gun control, public education, health care, etc.).
"I want to nominate you for Twit of the Year Award."
"What is needed is less politics in government funding."
Oh man, you're killing me. "less politics in government funding"???? Give me a break. These are the same people that publicly regard a budget increase of only 3% instead of 4% a spending cut. Government is tied to politics, and we'll never be able to remove or eliminate politics from any government funding. I hereby nominate you as President Of the Twits.
"NIH and the NSF are setup to do just that - hand out grants based on merits of the research not the politics."
Right, and those that judge the merit of the research aren't put in place for political reasons, just like any other government decision. Perhaps you also think it will actually work properly instead of politicians playing favorites with their favored research companies that respond in kind with campaign donations in exchange for research money.
"Honestly, when was the last time we've seen a senator or representative out asking his state where they stand on a given issue and then actually voting that way in Congress? I can't speak for anyone else, but I sure haven't seen it lately."
That got thrown out with the 17th amendment that allowed popular election of the senators. They used to have to answer to the state legislatures, because they were appointed by the state legislatures, and were meant to be the state government's representation at the federal level. The state governments would also recall and replace them if they stopped representing the will of the state government in question. Is it any wonder that senators don't listen to the state legislatures anymore, and that when state governments stopped having any representation in congress state's rights went down the tube and were replaced with federal power? Should it really be any surprise that the 9th and 10th amendments are routinely ignored?
"Technically, Tactical Nukes and most other items that would be classified as WMD would fall under the term of ordnance, not arms. This is a significant distinction as during the time the Constitution was drafted they did have military tech that was considered ordnance such as cannon etc. The Bill of Rights mentions nothing of ordnance, only of a right to bear arms."
Even if we take that argument at face value (I don't) you run into the 9th amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and 10th amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.". The right to "bear ordinance" wasn't taken away by the constitution and the 9th and 10th amendments prohibit the federal government from doing anything or making any law not specifically authorized by the constitution, meaning the federal government cannot enact legislation of any kind on this matter.
However, it does mean that only the state governments, or local (if not prohibited by it's own charter or by the state that it's in) can legislate on it, assuming it doesn't violate a different part of the constitution, or that state's constitution.
That's only if we assume your argument is correct, otherwise no level of government could prohibit or regulate those types of weapons while still being consistent with the constitution.
"How can you possibly reconcile this with the idea that the US is any kind of democracy?"
If you're speaking out against the power of the state, you should probably stop using the word democracy to support your arguments. All democracy produces is mob rule where a majority of citizens can vote to take away the rights of the minority. If you want to limit state power, there needs to be absolute limits on government power, and chained down by a constitution explicitly defining what the government is allowed to do, and must include carefully planned checks and balances, as well as mechanisms to halt government expansion. We don't have that in the United States because a very crucial part of the checks and balances system was destroyed with the 16th and 17th amendments. (Income tax & direct election of senators)
When the senators were appointed by the state legislatures, they very rarely approved of a supreme court justice that made rulings that increased federal power, which almost always came at the expense of state power. Further, the senate was instramental in stopping federal largess because the federal never had power to directly tax it's citizens, and had to get most of their funding apportioned from the states, which the states had an incentive to minimize.
Now the senators are directly elected, cannot be recalled and replaced by the state legislatures (which used to happen often) and can get away with much, much more. Throw in some campaign finance laws making it impossible for new parties to compete, as well as corrupting the 2 main parties, and voila! They now do what they want.
Being able to directly tax the citizens allowed the government to grow as large as it has, consuming a huge percentage of the annual wealth produced in this country and aggregating enough power to itself to legislate and regulate just about anything, from medicine, to cars, communications, haircuts, you name it. All while "expanding democracy".
"Unless what you put into your own body causes you to lose self-control, and results in a powerful and crippling addiction that makes you a burden on your community instead of a contributor to your community, and drives you to antisocial acts such as burglary, theft, and assault, in order to put more of whatever it is into your body."
If your addiction drives you to commit violent crimes, than you deserve the full penalties for those crimes. It's called responsibility. That does not mean, however, that you should be prevented from exercising your natural rights to conduct yourself peacefully, which includes all forms of drug use.
"At that point, what you put into your body becomes everybody's business, and everybody is probably going to make it really difficult for you to keep doing it."
At this point (committing violent crimes), you're violating the rights and property of others, and full penalties need be applied.
"If we could trust people to not be asshats, we wouldn't have to regulate automobiles.
If we could trust people not to be asshats, we wouldn't have to regulate the funding of political campaigns.
If we could trust people not to be asshats, we wouldn't have to regulate hunting, or firearms.
If we could trust people not to be asshats, we wouldn't need the IAEA, or term limits, or Child Protective Services, or Social Security."
Baloney. This country never used to regulate any of those issues, and had far less problems with them than we do now. Nowadays any conceivable problem that comes up has asshats like you trying to get government to use force to solve them, with poor results in every case.
"And if we could trust people not to abuse powerful and addictive drugs that destroy self control and compel their users to become burdens on society, we wouldn't have to regulate the precursors to those drugs."
You don't have to trust them. You can choose to personally avoid people that are known drug users and decline to interact with them. The argument that they become a burden to society (ie, take up social services money paid for by taxes) wouldn't be a concern if we didn't have a huge nanny welfare state and stopped using government to solve social problems. Drug use in and of itself does not infringe on the liberty of anyone. Sticking a gun, or threatening to stick a gun in someone's face to intimidate them to stop conducting peaceful activity is the act of tyrants.
Read your W-2 form, the amount withheld is right there!
I'm well aware of that. When it's taken from you before you even get it, it doesn't seem as much as if you had a huge $12,000 bill for it at the end of the year. Most people wouldn't put the money away for it, and there would be massive protests about the government. That would be a good thing, and would open a lot of people's eyes.
Back to the topic, our government may have a hand in this. I believe it may be illegal (I don't know if it is criminal/felony, criminal/misdemeanor and/or civil) to harm the shareholder's interests. Google isn't being evil if its just obeying the law. Losing China's business would likely be considered to be a violation.
Even if it fell under the law, I highly doubt they'd be prosecuted for refusing to censor search engine queries, and subsequently being banned from doing business in China. It would greatly annoy investors, sure, but I just can't see them being prosecuted for it. Would make for a pretty landmark case if they were though, but obviously, not happening now.
That's not acceptable. People there know they are being kept in the dark. Simply telling them that they are is adding insult to injury.
No. That is a very good thing, people in china should feel insulted that their government is forcing search companies to censor their search results. Maybe they'll actually start thinking of doing something about it.
It's the same reason I don't like income tax withholding in the U.S. If people saw a huge lump sum bill at the end of the year from the IRS and saw how much money the government is costing them, they might actually do something about that too. Being informed is always better.
I want to make sure that I understand you properly here. Are you suggesting that the proper solution to a monopoly abusing its power is to do nothing and simply wait it out?
It depends on what you mean by "do nothing." As far as government action is concerned, yes, I do advocate the government doing nothing. That's not what government is there for, and there are better alternatives. What I do advocate if customers are not being properly satisfied is consumer action. For example, if you didn't like what Standard Oil did, and wanted to break their monopoly, you might decide to purchase oil from a very small competitor, even if it meant paying a substantial premium. No company achieves 100 percent market share, there always ends up being someone willing to provide the product or service for a high price. Or, simply do without their products or services entirely.
If enough people do that, it provides incentive for the monopoly to provide the quality and service their customers want. Generally, people won't do this unless the monopoly is abusing it's power substantially to the point that it's no longer satisfying their needs. So no, I don't think you have to just "suck it up" as there are things you can do to mitigate it. I also don't consider a monopoly that naturally formed in a free market (very rare, it's usually with government help as with SO) that's still satisfying it's customers to be a bad thing.
As far as SO blocking their competitors from transporting oil across it's railways, there isn't anything inherently illegal or wrong about that. (Ignoring for the moment that those rails were paid for by government funds and leases, actions that greatly pushed SO towards monopolistic control) It was legally their private property and at their disposal. If someone wanted to transport goods through your property, they would have to get your permission. It would be a gross violation of your rights if the government forced you to allow them to pass, as you're supposed to have sovereign rights over your own property.
If we are both agreed that companies have a tendency to abuse their positions of power (just as government will), and that - when a company achieves significant monopolistic power and abuses that power - it is fantastic for that company but poor for anyone else who wishes to compete (and, as a result, the consumers [unless you care to assert that less competition is generally better for consumers?] ), what is your solution for minimizing the overall damage?
For starters it's important to not fall into the trap of allowing a solution that does more harm than the original problem. Aka, the common phrase "something must be done about " and then pointing at government with the demand that they fix it. Any issue of any kind that is put under government control is transfered from a scientific, economic, educational, medical, religious, etc. issue into a political issue to be decided by politicians and those who have managed to buy political influence.
Monopolies that occur in a free market are usually temporary, and only exist while said monopoly provides a far superior service to anything anyone else has to offer. As long as the monopoly continues to provide excellent products and/or services at low prices, it's possible for it to maintain it's monopoly, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not going to complain about superior products and services. It's precisely when the monopoly starts to abuse power that things decline for them. If they ignore what their customers want, provide bad service, and raise their prices, it provides an opportunity for another company or individual to provide better service at a better price and win over some market share.
The mechanisms in a free market to deal with the symptoms of a monopoly gone bad are already in place. On the other hand, once government begins (long, long, time ago) abusing it's power there's very little that can stop it. The federal government has removed the state legislatures from having a say in how things are run, given itself authority to directly tax the citizens, packed the supreme court with justices that make decisions that demonstrate that they either can't read simple words or have direct contempt for the constitution, assumed authority on just about every aspect of your life, and contributed to the dumbing down of the American populace through it's costly and inefficient government schools. But worst of all, indoctrining our children to be good little citizens who don't question their government.
You'll find far more corruption, scandals, and greed in government than you'll ever find in a real free market. And even if you didn't, if you don't like a company you can refuse to do business with them. Just as I do with DRM filled music, movies and software. Contrast that with government, where if I tell the IRS to go to hell and refuse to pay taxes, I'd get federal agents showing up at my front door pointing a gun at my face and bringing me to prison. Government doesn't have to satisfy the needs of the customer to survive, because it can just use force to get what the politicians want.
Oh, and on the last point, there won't be any successors. As long as we're using magic to install me as absolute potentate, we're also using magic to make me invincible, omniscient, omnipotent and immortal. See? There are easy solutions to everything!;)
Obviously tounge in cheek, but well, there's a very distinguished line between easy and practical.:P
If my theoretical example isn't convincing as to why a government might be justified in taking antitrust actions, the history of Standard Oil should be.
Well, it certainly is interesting to note that the Standard Oil case is hailed as the most important reason to have anti-trust laws. And going by the way the media portrays it, it doesn't look unreasonable. But if you pay a bit more attention to the facts, some things become evident.
For one, over the timespan of Standard Oil, quality increased dramatically. At the time, kerosine was the primary product, used to replace whale oil in lamps, and a host of other applications. New refining techniques gave a more pure fuel to burn, that reduced bad smells and burned for a longer period of time. Even when Standard Oil controlled 90% of the U.S. oil market, quality continued to improve.
Efficiency in refining the fuel greatly increased. Less waste product was produced, and products were discovered that could be made of from the byproducts of oil refinement. Transportation costs, refinement costs, drilling costs, all decreased, and with it, the price per unit of fuel decreased steadily as well.
So far the evils of the company has produced ever higher qualities, at lower prices. Pretty standard for an unmolested free market. This is supposed to be bad? Sure, Standard Oil bought up small refining companies, distributors, pushed railway companies around for better terms and volume discounts, but the bottom line of better quality and lower prices resulted.
And to show the free market was more effective at disrupting Standard Oil in it's later years after it started being anti-competitive, the market share of Standard Oil began to fall off dramatically as every time they would create problems by jacking up the price to bring in more short term profit, it opened an opportunity for another company to undercut them. By the time of their famous anti-trust trial in 1911, their market share had fallen to 64 percent, down from 90 percent.
I fail to see how government anti-trust legislation is necessary here, and if this is the best that big government advocates can come up with, they lack a leg to stand on. Especially since all the "benefit" we've gotten from anti-trust legislation, has been dwarfed by the number of companies that have used those laws to buy politicians and keep competition out.
It is because of this exact problem that I feel the only rational solution is to install me as absolute potentate. I know myself to be uncorruptable, so therefore I am the only person I can trust to have in charge.;)
That's nice in theory, unfortunately it doesn't work out that way in the real world. Even if you were running everything the way you want it to be run now, you'd be setting dangerous precedents that would be abused by your successors. That's not a legacy I'd want to leave behind.
There's a difference between what you're describing and what constitutes actions taken against a monopolistic company. The "hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations" you refer to aren't in place to prevent a monopoly from forming - they're there for other consumer safety reasons. It's easy to assert this because we don't currently have, nor have we had in the past, an automobile manufacturing monopoly.
Yup, not a monopoly, a bit closer to an oligopoly. You've got the big 3 (chrysler, ford, gm) and then you have imports and that's about it. You'll also notice that very few, if any new car companies have been started in the U.S. for decades.
As to whether or not politicians get purchased by companies, that's an entirely different beast. I'm on the same page as you there, in that I agree that large corporations tend to leverage their influence within the political sphere to try to avoid any sort of interference from competition. However, the fact that monopolies do this only strengthens my point that governments should take a keen interest in trying to prevent monopolies from getting to that point.
That's a very difficult point to defend. You're trying to argue that because politicians are so easy to corrupt, government should expand it's regulatory power to protect itself from corporate lobbyists? This seems to be the opposite of common sense. After all, when politicians don't have anything to sell, be it "protections" from antitrust prosecutions, handouts (taken from the populace at gunpoint), or competition stiffling regulations, lobbyists stop buying. Since keeping government completely out of a specific area is far easier than trying to "maintain a balance" once it's involved, it's very unwise to allow government into a new area without carefully considering the unintended consequences.
How exactly do you propose the government break up these companies before they become monopolies? Hard limit on how many employees they're allowed to hire? How much profit they're allowed to make? Take a step back for a moment and remember that government operates by force, and delegating a substantial amount of power to it leaves it's use to those with the most political influence. This leads me right back to my original point. Anti-trust regulations have led to the opposite of what the founders of those programs intended. You're trying to make corporations less powerful, yes? Well, trying to get the government to stamp them out isn't going to do any good. All it'll achieve is giving the corrupt politicians more power to sell.
It really shouldn't surprise you to see a government program do the opposite of what the original founders of it wanted. The war on alcohol (prohibition) was supposed to reduce violence, and instead esculated it. The war on poverty created a government dependent underclass that stopped taking responsibility for itself. The war on drugs created the same problems as prohibition.
Government interferences in the medical profession was intended to make it affordable for the poor. The exact opposite happened. Now doctors no longer make house calls, charity hospitols have disappeared, routine operations cost over 10 times more than they did before the government got involved. Even allowing for the medicare contribution, adjusted for inflation, seniors pay more than double what they did before the program began.
Considering that congress usually doesn't even read the bills it passes, why anyone would want to rely on government is puzzling.
What you wrote is nice in theory, but it's the opposite of what really happens. Typically, antitrust laws create MORE large conglomerates and monopolies than would exist without them. The reason for this is barriers to entry. Antitrust laws as well as other regulations create a hostile environment to start a new business. This is by design, and it's the reason that several very large companies actually welcome heavy regulations.
For example, if you were a skilled mechanic and metalsmith, and wanted to start a new car company, how would you deal with the hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations that must be adhered to before you could put your car designs into mass production? An already established company such as Ford, GM, etc. would have the procedures to deal with it already in place, and the cost associated with it already prepared. Can you come up with billions of dollars to comply with regulation on your newly formed company? I didn't think so. The only entities that can are already established, large companies There's a reason we haven't had a new startup American car company in decades, even though the concept is very simple, and clearly the economy would benefit from having more American car manufacturers.
The reason this happens is obvious. Who has more incentive, more resources, more determination to keep the antitrust laws honest than a car company would have to get government to pass legislation that makes starting a new car company, and hence more competition too dificult and expensive? Politicians are too easy for corporations to buy, and a government solution will never work.
On the other hand, taking your example, who's to say what people will do. Some people may resent it and go out of their way to get milk elsewhere, such as buying raw milk products from a farm (tastes a lot better and healthier too). Or if the milk company is charging too much money for their milk, they may just buy apple juice or soda instead. Retailers may get fed up with the distribution and manufacturing chain of that company and opt to purchase milk from local farms, etc. But under today's system, all the monopolistic company would have to do is buy a few senators to get legislation passed to ban raw milk products, putting local farmers out of business because they won't be able to pasturize their milk. Oh wait, that already happened...
"But because I'm so nice, I'm going to give you directions to a free market libertopia. It's a land with no official government, no taxes, no lawsuits, and no regulations. Private militias provide security. Businesses print their own money. There are no business licenses, no medical regulations, no welfare, no subsidies."
I never indicated that I wanted no government, it's essential for certain, limited functions. National defense (yes, national defense, not international offense), provision of a legal venue for peacefully resolving disputes, protecting the safety of the people from domestic and foreign agression, to respect and acknowledge the natural rights of it's citizens, coining money and punishing counterfeiting, and low, uniform taxation to cover those functions. You'll notice that many of those functions are carefully enumerated as powers of congress in article 1 section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Certainly, not all of them are listed, and that's because they're intended to be done at the state and local levels, where it's far more appropriate.
For example, there's no provision in the constitution authorizing congress to make murder illegal. The only crimes mentioned were counterfeiting, piracy, and treason. All common law is supposed to fall under the state and local governments. It is the massive federal government assuming authority on just about every subject, with piles of regulations, legislation, and taxation. All this while taxing a huge percentage of the country's annual wealth while returning next to nothing in real services to the average american that is the cause of so many problems in the U.S. today.
You seem to have no concept of what limited government really means, and seem to have no problem with it consuming half of your earnings every year at the point of a gun just so politicians to stick their nose into whatever the crisis of the day they decide to legislate on.
Actually there's quite a lot of evidence that the current system hurts the poor a LOT more than a free market ever could.
Let's start with the main things that keep people in poverty.
First, taxes. Taxes consume over 50 percent of a poor persons income, in one way or another. High taxes on the rich and corporations decrease investment, as well as increase operating costs for businesses. Since every company has those costs, they constitute a cost of doing business which is reflected in higher prices for consumers, including poor people. Poor people also have to pay income tax, social security tax (15% because your employer has to match it, which is money they now can't legally pay you, yet is another cost of business), medicare taxes, sales tax, excise tax (see gasoline taxes, cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes, etc.), property tax (even if you don't own your apartment, the property tax is reflected in higher costs for landlords, which is reflected by higher rents.)
Second, regulations. Cost for businesses to comply with regulations can be staggering depending on the industry. Especially the medical industry. Again, this increases the cost of doing business which is reflected by prices.
Medical care. Medical care has shot up dramatically since the government got involved. Before medicare and other such boondoggles by the government, hospital stays would cost a few days pay instead of a few months pay. Major operations were a tiny fraction of what they cost today. Doctor visits to the home were very common, and would often take in patients that needed care and couldn't afford it for free. You can't do that now, because to cover all the regulations by government, a doctor has to charge an astronomical price. America used to have the best health care system in the entire world.
Welfare. Welfare is a tiny fraction of a the total amount of money the government leeches take from the people, and very few of what remains make it back to poor people. So, not only is it grossly inefficient, it also traps people into the welfare lifestyle. Your benefits improve if you are a single parent, or you have more children, yeilding incentives to break apart the family unit which is vital for values, stability, and mobility. Perhaps the worst part about welfare is it gives people a false sense of security, people think the government will be there for them when they have problems, so they don't prepare financially for the future. Also, many people resent it, and will refuse to support private charity (which works a hell of a lot better than welfare).
Legal costs. Even if poor people don't bear them directly, because the government has so many laws on the books, companies have to spend a ton of money on legal defense, which is again, reflected in the prices of goods and services.
Subsidies. In addition to sucking up tax dollars, subsidies generally promote legal monopolies, through the sheer amount of legal and paperwork a company would have to do in order to get them. However, they provide a competitive advantage to those that already have attained them, helping them to maintain their monopoly and shut down competitors. Competition is one of the main driving forces in the free market that force businesses towards lower prices, higher quality, more efficiency.
Business licences. In just about every major city, you need a business licence in order to start a successful business. Those costs can be staggering, for instance in NYC, a licence for a small business that just cuts someone's hair can run in the tens of thousands. Not to mention you need a cosmetic licence to do so. If you were a poor person and was looking to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, you'd have to pay for years of schooling, and pay tens of thousands to get a business licence, just to do it. Even if you already know how to do it. In a free market, you could just start the business. If you performed poorly, word would get out that you give poor quality hair cuts,
However, there are times when you lose your fourth amendment rights, primarily when you are searched to protects the immediate and direct safety of others. These searches are not considered "reasonable" under the fourth amendment. Instead, they're legal because in certain circumstances you lose your fourth amendment rights entirely. I don't know if this is right or good, but that's how it is.
There is no provision in any part of the constitution that suspends your fourth amendment rights to protect the safety of others. There's a reason that they're called rights and not priviledges. You don't have to ask permission to exercise a right, and having government inspections and searches at airports is not constitutional. That doesn't do much good, however, since the constitution is routinely ignored, and considered "just a goddamned piece of paper."
This is where things get scrambled when government gets mixed with private enterprise. A private airline should be legally allowed to conduct searches of passengers as a condition of using their service, just as a private company or individual should be able to tell you whether or not you can smoke on their property. If you didn't like it, you could use another airline, or another method of travel, and everything stays voluntary. But when the government requires it, now no one has a choice except the politicians.
My mistake in assuming you meant subsidy.
But you hit the nail on the head. Currently, private property rights are not established in space, and that will be a serious impediment. Private property rights are essential for a free market to thrive. Without it, investment stops because there's no legal mechanism in place to protect your property.
Here's another very good article about this subject.
Why would you want to see legislation to encourage that? The last thing we need is another subsidized industry. Left to the free market, asteroids will be mined when it's cheaper than just doing mining or recycling on earth. Further, it will be at the risk of a private citizen, private company, or any number of other peaceful, voluntary arrangements, and not to the general public. The force of government is not needed. Why people keep looking to the government for solutions, especially when it fails so badly at almost everything it does is baffling.
I wouldn't say he had a "legal" option for spying. Courts that issue warrants must be open for public review. A secret court doesn't fulfill that obligation. The president has a first and foremost duty to defend the constitution, it is the first oath he must make before taking office. Bush has taken so many actions that have blatantly violated it, it isn't even funny. What makes it worse is that congress hasn't done anything substantive about it, making it obvious that it condones the behavior.
Sure, Bush wasn't the first president to order a war without a formal declaration by congress. He wasn't the first to censor free speech (Remember the "free speech" zones which consisted of a chain link fenced in area topped off with razor wire), he wasn't the first president to sign legislation that permitted gross violations of due process (patriot act, and for those of you that say it only applies to non-citizens, think again), and he most certainly wasn't the first to completely ignore article 1 section 8 of the constitution (Enumeration of federal powers). Not to mention he did absolutely nothing to stop existing federal abominations that were blatant abuses of power that aren't authorized by the constitution.
But saying "They did it too!" is no defense. We need to demand better than that from our president. But as always, they'll come up with their strawman of the decade (drugs, poverty, communism, terrorism, etc.) to wage their "war" on and scare people into giving up more liberty.
That's a nice thought. Too bad someone who does that in China is subject to going to prison if caught. The U.S. government isn't too far behind if we keep letting it get away with assuming more power.
Slashdot Mirror
(I'm curious as to how you think the government could provide for the general welfare and other stuff without money though...)
The Federal government was funded by tariff and excise taxes before 1913. If the government stuck to it's constitutional functions outlined in Article 1 Section 8, and refrained from encroaching in other areas, the revenue from tariff's alone would be more than adequate to finance the government.
"Would you ever vote for a republican?"
Depends on the republican. A neocon like Bush, McCain, etc? Hell no.
However, there are still some republicans that actually respect the constitution, liberty, and dedicate themselves to fighting government expansion such as Ron Paul that voted against the patriot act, spoke out and voted against authorizing the president to preemptively invade other countries, and much more. He'd get my vote in a heartbeat.
Putting a mobile weapon system on commercial airlines that pass over foreign countries will make them a target if any hostilities ensue. I'm sure the United States government wouldn't allow a foreign country to fly planes over its territory with these weapons, yet I doubt we'll even be asking other countries if doing so over their territory is acceptable. Yet another reason to avoid flying when possible these days.
"War on poverty had moderate success until reagan gutted it"
Actually, that spending increased under Reagan. When liberals talk about "gutting" a program they're refering to an increase of only 3 percent instead of 5 percent.
"War on drugs? don't be a dipshit drughead and it won't be a problem, i don't particularily care of potentially extremely explosive drug labs to be running in the house next door."
You wouldn't have those labs if the drugs were legal. The price would go down from drug company manufacture and it would no longer make sense to make it yourself. There also wouldn't be the massive gang wars over drug territories, and the horrible suppressions of privacy and liberty that have surfaced as a result of these destructive policies.
"We don't have, and never tried, public healthcare in this country - that's part of the problem, healthcare expenses are astronomical because of the inefficient duplication of services and expenses. FurthermoGun control, most of what you think of as gun control is curteously of the carebears like hillary. It's reactionary, misguided, ineffective and a nuisance. I think "zomg i have to have guns" people are nuts, but I also think the past attempts by carebears at gun control are a joke.re the perscription drug program the republicans pushed through was designed to be a hand out of the big pharma and the insurance industries and is a disgrace. I look at canada and the UK's public health care systems and I see far fewer problems than this joke of health care the "Free market" is providing."
That's quite incorrect. Before FDR stuck his nose into healthcare we had charity hospitals, doctors making home calls, hospital stays that cost a weeks pay instead of several months pay, and routine operations that are done the same way now as they were then were orders of magnatude cheaper. Health care was not only more widely available, but a lot less expensive.
"As for more succesful examples of government solutions: endangered species act"
Of course, there was the example of the bald eagles where they banned DDT to save their eggs leading to the inability to control mosquito populations in developing central and American Countries where the US pushed their weight around and resulted in millions of people dying of malaria infections. But that's a small price to pay when a few birds are at stake.
"EPA (Before it's teeth were pulled by Bush II)"
Ah yes, the EPA which is one of the biggest polluters out there. But really, keep telling yourself it's only the name that matters.
"FEMA under Clinton"
Didn't work then, and doesn't work now. The agency uses it's power to prevent real help and squanders it's budget. In New Orleans they refused to let people out of the superdome, refused to allow any private aid that would have actually worked, such as the red cross or even Wal-Mart which had shipments of fresh water and supplies destined for New Orleans, and collaborated with the local government to try to confiscate everyone's weapons, which left the population at the mercy of criminals with no way to defend themselves. Great program, indeed!
"Gun control, most of what you think of as gun control is curteously of the carebears like hillary. It's reactionary, misguided, ineffective and a nuisance. I think "zomg i have to have guns" people are nuts, but I also think the past attempts by carebears at gun control are a joke."
Gun control is a sinister idea in the first place, meddling with the people's right to defend themselves. It really shows liberals true colors when it comes to respecting liberties and rights.
"(Read this entire thing before reacting) Public Education is better than private education for the most part, excepting where it's been gutted by dumbass republicans. It has room for improvement, just like private education - they both have exceptionally bad examples and good examples. On aggregate public education, which by the laws of our coun
Liberal's trying to fix things? Please see the war on drugs, war on poverty, politically correct crusades, etc. for a close reflection of liberals (or conservatives for that matter) trying to fix things.
Oh, and if you would point out the "evidence" that the magical free market (MFM) doesn't solve problems I'd like to see it. I'd also like to see an example of a government solution that actually works too, while you're at it. Every government solution I've seen makes the matter much worse (gun control, public education, health care, etc.).
"I want to nominate you for Twit of the Year Award."
"What is needed is less politics in government funding."
Oh man, you're killing me. "less politics in government funding"???? Give me a break. These are the same people that publicly regard a budget increase of only 3% instead of 4% a spending cut. Government is tied to politics, and we'll never be able to remove or eliminate politics from any government funding. I hereby nominate you as President Of the Twits.
"NIH and the NSF are setup to do just that - hand out grants based on merits of the research not the politics."
Right, and those that judge the merit of the research aren't put in place for political reasons, just like any other government decision. Perhaps you also think it will actually work properly instead of politicians playing favorites with their favored research companies that respond in kind with campaign donations in exchange for research money.
"Honestly, when was the last time we've seen a senator or representative out asking his state where they stand on a given issue and then actually voting that way in Congress? I can't speak for anyone else, but I sure haven't seen it lately."
That got thrown out with the 17th amendment that allowed popular election of the senators. They used to have to answer to the state legislatures, because they were appointed by the state legislatures, and were meant to be the state government's representation at the federal level. The state governments would also recall and replace them if they stopped representing the will of the state government in question. Is it any wonder that senators don't listen to the state legislatures anymore, and that when state governments stopped having any representation in congress state's rights went down the tube and were replaced with federal power? Should it really be any surprise that the 9th and 10th amendments are routinely ignored?
Craig
"Technically, Tactical Nukes and most other items that would be classified as WMD would fall under the term of ordnance, not arms. This is a significant distinction as during the time the Constitution was drafted they did have military tech that was considered ordnance such as cannon etc. The Bill of Rights mentions nothing of ordnance, only of a right to bear arms."
Even if we take that argument at face value (I don't) you run into the 9th amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and 10th amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.". The right to "bear ordinance" wasn't taken away by the constitution and the 9th and 10th amendments prohibit the federal government from doing anything or making any law not specifically authorized by the constitution, meaning the federal government cannot enact legislation of any kind on this matter.
However, it does mean that only the state governments, or local (if not prohibited by it's own charter or by the state that it's in) can legislate on it, assuming it doesn't violate a different part of the constitution, or that state's constitution.
That's only if we assume your argument is correct, otherwise no level of government could prohibit or regulate those types of weapons while still being consistent with the constitution.
Craig
"How can you possibly reconcile this with the idea that the US is any kind of democracy?"
If you're speaking out against the power of the state, you should probably stop using the word democracy to support your arguments. All democracy produces is mob rule where a majority of citizens can vote to take away the rights of the minority. If you want to limit state power, there needs to be absolute limits on government power, and chained down by a constitution explicitly defining what the government is allowed to do, and must include carefully planned checks and balances, as well as mechanisms to halt government expansion. We don't have that in the United States because a very crucial part of the checks and balances system was destroyed with the 16th and 17th amendments. (Income tax & direct election of senators)
When the senators were appointed by the state legislatures, they very rarely approved of a supreme court justice that made rulings that increased federal power, which almost always came at the expense of state power. Further, the senate was instramental in stopping federal largess because the federal never had power to directly tax it's citizens, and had to get most of their funding apportioned from the states, which the states had an incentive to minimize.
Now the senators are directly elected, cannot be recalled and replaced by the state legislatures (which used to happen often) and can get away with much, much more. Throw in some campaign finance laws making it impossible for new parties to compete, as well as corrupting the 2 main parties, and voila! They now do what they want.
Being able to directly tax the citizens allowed the government to grow as large as it has, consuming a huge percentage of the annual wealth produced in this country and aggregating enough power to itself to legislate and regulate just about anything, from medicine, to cars, communications, haircuts, you name it. All while "expanding democracy".
Craig
"Unless what you put into your own body causes you to lose self-control, and results in a powerful and crippling addiction that makes you a burden on your community instead of a contributor to your community, and drives you to antisocial acts such as burglary, theft, and assault, in order to put more of whatever it is into your body."
If your addiction drives you to commit violent crimes, than you deserve the full penalties for those crimes. It's called responsibility. That does not mean, however, that you should be prevented from exercising your natural rights to conduct yourself peacefully, which includes all forms of drug use.
"At that point, what you put into your body becomes everybody's business, and everybody is probably going to make it really difficult for you to keep doing it."
At this point (committing violent crimes), you're violating the rights and property of others, and full penalties need be applied.
"If we could trust people to not be asshats, we wouldn't have to regulate automobiles.
If we could trust people not to be asshats, we wouldn't have to regulate the funding of political campaigns.
If we could trust people not to be asshats, we wouldn't have to regulate hunting, or firearms.
If we could trust people not to be asshats, we wouldn't need the IAEA, or term limits, or Child Protective Services, or Social Security."
Baloney. This country never used to regulate any of those issues, and had far less problems with them than we do now. Nowadays any conceivable problem that comes up has asshats like you trying to get government to use force to solve them, with poor results in every case.
"And if we could trust people not to abuse powerful and addictive drugs that destroy self control and compel their users to become burdens on society, we wouldn't have to regulate the precursors to those drugs."
You don't have to trust them. You can choose to personally avoid people that are known drug users and decline to interact with them. The argument that they become a burden to society (ie, take up social services money paid for by taxes) wouldn't be a concern if we didn't have a huge nanny welfare state and stopped using government to solve social problems. Drug use in and of itself does not infringe on the liberty of anyone. Sticking a gun, or threatening to stick a gun in someone's face to intimidate them to stop conducting peaceful activity is the act of tyrants.
Craig
Read your W-2 form, the amount withheld is right there!
I'm well aware of that. When it's taken from you before you even get it, it doesn't seem as much as if you had a huge $12,000 bill for it at the end of the year. Most people wouldn't put the money away for it, and there would be massive protests about the government. That would be a good thing, and would open a lot of people's eyes.
Back to the topic, our government may have a hand in this. I believe it may be illegal (I don't know if it is criminal/felony, criminal/misdemeanor and/or civil) to harm the shareholder's interests. Google isn't being evil if its just obeying the law. Losing China's business would likely be considered to be a violation.
Even if it fell under the law, I highly doubt they'd be prosecuted for refusing to censor search engine queries, and subsequently being banned from doing business in China. It would greatly annoy investors, sure, but I just can't see them being prosecuted for it. Would make for a pretty landmark case if they were though, but obviously, not happening now.
That's not acceptable. People there know they are being kept in the dark. Simply telling them that they are is adding insult to injury.
No. That is a very good thing, people in china should feel insulted that their government is forcing search companies to censor their search results. Maybe they'll actually start thinking of doing something about it.
It's the same reason I don't like income tax withholding in the U.S. If people saw a huge lump sum bill at the end of the year from the IRS and saw how much money the government is costing them, they might actually do something about that too. Being informed is always better.
I want to make sure that I understand you properly here. Are you suggesting that the proper solution to a monopoly abusing its power is to do nothing and simply wait it out?
It depends on what you mean by "do nothing." As far as government action is concerned, yes, I do advocate the government doing nothing. That's not what government is there for, and there are better alternatives. What I do advocate if customers are not being properly satisfied is consumer action. For example, if you didn't like what Standard Oil did, and wanted to break their monopoly, you might decide to purchase oil from a very small competitor, even if it meant paying a substantial premium. No company achieves 100 percent market share, there always ends up being someone willing to provide the product or service for a high price. Or, simply do without their products or services entirely.
If enough people do that, it provides incentive for the monopoly to provide the quality and service their customers want. Generally, people won't do this unless the monopoly is abusing it's power substantially to the point that it's no longer satisfying their needs. So no, I don't think you have to just "suck it up" as there are things you can do to mitigate it. I also don't consider a monopoly that naturally formed in a free market (very rare, it's usually with government help as with SO) that's still satisfying it's customers to be a bad thing.
As far as SO blocking their competitors from transporting oil across it's railways, there isn't anything inherently illegal or wrong about that. (Ignoring for the moment that those rails were paid for by government funds and leases, actions that greatly pushed SO towards monopolistic control) It was legally their private property and at their disposal. If someone wanted to transport goods through your property, they would have to get your permission. It would be a gross violation of your rights if the government forced you to allow them to pass, as you're supposed to have sovereign rights over your own property.
If we are both agreed that companies have a tendency to abuse their positions of power (just as government will), and that - when a company achieves significant monopolistic power and abuses that power - it is fantastic for that company but poor for anyone else who wishes to compete (and, as a result, the consumers [unless you care to assert that less competition is generally better for consumers?] ), what is your solution for minimizing the overall damage?
;)
:P
For starters it's important to not fall into the trap of allowing a solution that does more harm than the original problem. Aka, the common phrase "something must be done about " and then pointing at government with the demand that they fix it. Any issue of any kind that is put under government control is transfered from a scientific, economic, educational, medical, religious, etc. issue into a political issue to be decided by politicians and those who have managed to buy political influence.
Monopolies that occur in a free market are usually temporary, and only exist while said monopoly provides a far superior service to anything anyone else has to offer. As long as the monopoly continues to provide excellent products and/or services at low prices, it's possible for it to maintain it's monopoly, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not going to complain about superior products and services. It's precisely when the monopoly starts to abuse power that things decline for them. If they ignore what their customers want, provide bad service, and raise their prices, it provides an opportunity for another company or individual to provide better service at a better price and win over some market share.
The mechanisms in a free market to deal with the symptoms of a monopoly gone bad are already in place. On the other hand, once government begins (long, long, time ago) abusing it's power there's very little that can stop it. The federal government has removed the state legislatures from having a say in how things are run, given itself authority to directly tax the citizens, packed the supreme court with justices that make decisions that demonstrate that they either can't read simple words or have direct contempt for the constitution, assumed authority on just about every aspect of your life, and contributed to the dumbing down of the American populace through it's costly and inefficient government schools. But worst of all, indoctrining our children to be good little citizens who don't question their government.
You'll find far more corruption, scandals, and greed in government than you'll ever find in a real free market. And even if you didn't, if you don't like a company you can refuse to do business with them. Just as I do with DRM filled music, movies and software. Contrast that with government, where if I tell the IRS to go to hell and refuse to pay taxes, I'd get federal agents showing up at my front door pointing a gun at my face and bringing me to prison. Government doesn't have to satisfy the needs of the customer to survive, because it can just use force to get what the politicians want.
Oh, and on the last point, there won't be any successors. As long as we're using magic to install me as absolute potentate, we're also using magic to make me invincible, omniscient, omnipotent and immortal. See? There are easy solutions to everything!
Obviously tounge in cheek, but well, there's a very distinguished line between easy and practical.
If my theoretical example isn't convincing as to why a government might be justified in taking antitrust actions, the history of Standard Oil should be.
;)
Well, it certainly is interesting to note that the Standard Oil case is hailed as the most important reason to have anti-trust laws. And going by the way the media portrays it, it doesn't look unreasonable. But if you pay a bit more attention to the facts, some things become evident.
For one, over the timespan of Standard Oil, quality increased dramatically. At the time, kerosine was the primary product, used to replace whale oil in lamps, and a host of other applications. New refining techniques gave a more pure fuel to burn, that reduced bad smells and burned for a longer period of time. Even when Standard Oil controlled 90% of the U.S. oil market, quality continued to improve.
Efficiency in refining the fuel greatly increased. Less waste product was produced, and products were discovered that could be made of from the byproducts of oil refinement. Transportation costs, refinement costs, drilling costs, all decreased, and with it, the price per unit of fuel decreased steadily as well.
So far the evils of the company has produced ever higher qualities, at lower prices. Pretty standard for an unmolested free market. This is supposed to be bad? Sure, Standard Oil bought up small refining companies, distributors, pushed railway companies around for better terms and volume discounts, but the bottom line of better quality and lower prices resulted.
And to show the free market was more effective at disrupting Standard Oil in it's later years after it started being anti-competitive, the market share of Standard Oil began to fall off dramatically as every time they would create problems by jacking up the price to bring in more short term profit, it opened an opportunity for another company to undercut them. By the time of their famous anti-trust trial in 1911, their market share had fallen to 64 percent, down from 90 percent.
I fail to see how government anti-trust legislation is necessary here, and if this is the best that big government advocates can come up with, they lack a leg to stand on. Especially since all the "benefit" we've gotten from anti-trust legislation, has been dwarfed by the number of companies that have used those laws to buy politicians and keep competition out.
It is because of this exact problem that I feel the only rational solution is to install me as absolute potentate. I know myself to be uncorruptable, so therefore I am the only person I can trust to have in charge.
That's nice in theory, unfortunately it doesn't work out that way in the real world. Even if you were running everything the way you want it to be run now, you'd be setting dangerous precedents that would be abused by your successors. That's not a legacy I'd want to leave behind.
There's a difference between what you're describing and what constitutes actions taken against a monopolistic company. The "hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations" you refer to aren't in place to prevent a monopoly from forming - they're there for other consumer safety reasons. It's easy to assert this because we don't currently have, nor have we had in the past, an automobile manufacturing monopoly.
Yup, not a monopoly, a bit closer to an oligopoly. You've got the big 3 (chrysler, ford, gm) and then you have imports and that's about it. You'll also notice that very few, if any new car companies have been started in the U.S. for decades.
As to whether or not politicians get purchased by companies, that's an entirely different beast. I'm on the same page as you there, in that I agree that large corporations tend to leverage their influence within the political sphere to try to avoid any sort of interference from competition. However, the fact that monopolies do this only strengthens my point that governments should take a keen interest in trying to prevent monopolies from getting to that point.
That's a very difficult point to defend. You're trying to argue that because politicians are so easy to corrupt, government should expand it's regulatory power to protect itself from corporate lobbyists? This seems to be the opposite of common sense. After all, when politicians don't have anything to sell, be it "protections" from antitrust prosecutions, handouts (taken from the populace at gunpoint), or competition stiffling regulations, lobbyists stop buying. Since keeping government completely out of a specific area is far easier than trying to "maintain a balance" once it's involved, it's very unwise to allow government into a new area without carefully considering the unintended consequences.
How exactly do you propose the government break up these companies before they become monopolies? Hard limit on how many employees they're allowed to hire? How much profit they're allowed to make? Take a step back for a moment and remember that government operates by force, and delegating a substantial amount of power to it leaves it's use to those with the most political influence. This leads me right back to my original point. Anti-trust regulations have led to the opposite of what the founders of those programs intended. You're trying to make corporations less powerful, yes? Well, trying to get the government to stamp them out isn't going to do any good. All it'll achieve is giving the corrupt politicians more power to sell.
It really shouldn't surprise you to see a government program do the opposite of what the original founders of it wanted. The war on alcohol (prohibition) was supposed to reduce violence, and instead esculated it. The war on poverty created a government dependent underclass that stopped taking responsibility for itself. The war on drugs created the same problems as prohibition.
Government interferences in the medical profession was intended to make it affordable for the poor. The exact opposite happened. Now doctors no longer make house calls, charity hospitols have disappeared, routine operations cost over 10 times more than they did before the government got involved. Even allowing for the medicare contribution, adjusted for inflation, seniors pay more than double what they did before the program began.
Considering that congress usually doesn't even read the bills it passes, why anyone would want to rely on government is puzzling.
What you wrote is nice in theory, but it's the opposite of what really happens. Typically, antitrust laws create MORE large conglomerates and monopolies than would exist without them. The reason for this is barriers to entry. Antitrust laws as well as other regulations create a hostile environment to start a new business. This is by design, and it's the reason that several very large companies actually welcome heavy regulations.
For example, if you were a skilled mechanic and metalsmith, and wanted to start a new car company, how would you deal with the hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations that must be adhered to before you could put your car designs into mass production? An already established company such as Ford, GM, etc. would have the procedures to deal with it already in place, and the cost associated with it already prepared. Can you come up with billions of dollars to comply with regulation on your newly formed company? I didn't think so. The only entities that can are already established, large companies There's a reason we haven't had a new startup American car company in decades, even though the concept is very simple, and clearly the economy would benefit from having more American car manufacturers.
The reason this happens is obvious. Who has more incentive, more resources, more determination to keep the antitrust laws honest than a car company would have to get government to pass legislation that makes starting a new car company, and hence more competition too dificult and expensive? Politicians are too easy for corporations to buy, and a government solution will never work.
On the other hand, taking your example, who's to say what people will do. Some people may resent it and go out of their way to get milk elsewhere, such as buying raw milk products from a farm (tastes a lot better and healthier too). Or if the milk company is charging too much money for their milk, they may just buy apple juice or soda instead. Retailers may get fed up with the distribution and manufacturing chain of that company and opt to purchase milk from local farms, etc. But under today's system, all the monopolistic company would have to do is buy a few senators to get legislation passed to ban raw milk products, putting local farmers out of business because they won't be able to pasturize their milk. Oh wait, that already happened...
"But because I'm so nice, I'm going to give you directions to a free market libertopia. It's a land with no official government, no taxes, no lawsuits, and no regulations. Private militias provide security. Businesses print their own money. There are no business licenses, no medical regulations, no welfare, no subsidies."
I never indicated that I wanted no government, it's essential for certain, limited functions. National defense (yes, national defense, not international offense), provision of a legal venue for peacefully resolving disputes, protecting the safety of the people from domestic and foreign agression, to respect and acknowledge the natural rights of it's citizens, coining money and punishing counterfeiting, and low, uniform taxation to cover those functions. You'll notice that many of those functions are carefully enumerated as powers of congress in article 1 section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Certainly, not all of them are listed, and that's because they're intended to be done at the state and local levels, where it's far more appropriate.
For example, there's no provision in the constitution authorizing congress to make murder illegal. The only crimes mentioned were counterfeiting, piracy, and treason. All common law is supposed to fall under the state and local governments. It is the massive federal government assuming authority on just about every subject, with piles of regulations, legislation, and taxation. All this while taxing a huge percentage of the country's annual wealth while returning next to nothing in real services to the average american that is the cause of so many problems in the U.S. today.
You seem to have no concept of what limited government really means, and seem to have no problem with it consuming half of your earnings every year at the point of a gun just so politicians to stick their nose into whatever the crisis of the day they decide to legislate on.
Actually there's quite a lot of evidence that the current system hurts the poor a LOT more than a free market ever could.
Let's start with the main things that keep people in poverty.
First, taxes. Taxes consume over 50 percent of a poor persons income, in one way or another. High taxes on the rich and corporations decrease investment, as well as increase operating costs for businesses. Since every company has those costs, they constitute a cost of doing business which is reflected in higher prices for consumers, including poor people. Poor people also have to pay income tax, social security tax (15% because your employer has to match it, which is money they now can't legally pay you, yet is another cost of business), medicare taxes, sales tax, excise tax (see gasoline taxes, cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes, etc.), property tax (even if you don't own your apartment, the property tax is reflected in higher costs for landlords, which is reflected by higher rents.)
Second, regulations. Cost for businesses to comply with regulations can be staggering depending on the industry. Especially the medical industry. Again, this increases the cost of doing business which is reflected by prices.
Medical care. Medical care has shot up dramatically since the government got involved. Before medicare and other such boondoggles by the government, hospital stays would cost a few days pay instead of a few months pay. Major operations were a tiny fraction of what they cost today. Doctor visits to the home were very common, and would often take in patients that needed care and couldn't afford it for free. You can't do that now, because to cover all the regulations by government, a doctor has to charge an astronomical price. America used to have the best health care system in the entire world.
Welfare. Welfare is a tiny fraction of a the total amount of money the government leeches take from the people, and very few of what remains make it back to poor people. So, not only is it grossly inefficient, it also traps people into the welfare lifestyle. Your benefits improve if you are a single parent, or you have more children, yeilding incentives to break apart the family unit which is vital for values, stability, and mobility. Perhaps the worst part about welfare is it gives people a false sense of security, people think the government will be there for them when they have problems, so they don't prepare financially for the future. Also, many people resent it, and will refuse to support private charity (which works a hell of a lot better than welfare).
Legal costs. Even if poor people don't bear them directly, because the government has so many laws on the books, companies have to spend a ton of money on legal defense, which is again, reflected in the prices of goods and services.
Subsidies. In addition to sucking up tax dollars, subsidies generally promote legal monopolies, through the sheer amount of legal and paperwork a company would have to do in order to get them. However, they provide a competitive advantage to those that already have attained them, helping them to maintain their monopoly and shut down competitors. Competition is one of the main driving forces in the free market that force businesses towards lower prices, higher quality, more efficiency.
Business licences. In just about every major city, you need a business licence in order to start a successful business. Those costs can be staggering, for instance in NYC, a licence for a small business that just cuts someone's hair can run in the tens of thousands. Not to mention you need a cosmetic licence to do so. If you were a poor person and was looking to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, you'd have to pay for years of schooling, and pay tens of thousands to get a business licence, just to do it. Even if you already know how to do it. In a free market, you could just start the business. If you performed poorly, word would get out that you give poor quality hair cuts,
However, there are times when you lose your fourth amendment rights, primarily when you are searched to protects the immediate and direct safety of others. These searches are not considered "reasonable" under the fourth amendment. Instead, they're legal because in certain circumstances you lose your fourth amendment rights entirely. I don't know if this is right or good, but that's how it is.
There is no provision in any part of the constitution that suspends your fourth amendment rights to protect the safety of others. There's a reason that they're called rights and not priviledges. You don't have to ask permission to exercise a right, and having government inspections and searches at airports is not constitutional. That doesn't do much good, however, since the constitution is routinely ignored, and considered "just a goddamned piece of paper."
This is where things get scrambled when government gets mixed with private enterprise. A private airline should be legally allowed to conduct searches of passengers as a condition of using their service, just as a private company or individual should be able to tell you whether or not you can smoke on their property. If you didn't like it, you could use another airline, or another method of travel, and everything stays voluntary. But when the government requires it, now no one has a choice except the politicians.
My mistake in assuming you meant subsidy. But you hit the nail on the head. Currently, private property rights are not established in space, and that will be a serious impediment. Private property rights are essential for a free market to thrive. Without it, investment stops because there's no legal mechanism in place to protect your property. Here's another very good article about this subject.
Anyway, that was me messing up my html tag, and accidently bolding the whole thing. That's all, carry on.
Why would you want to see legislation to encourage that? The last thing we need is another subsidized industry. Left to the free market, asteroids will be mined when it's cheaper than just doing mining or recycling on earth. Further, it will be at the risk of a private citizen, private company, or any number of other peaceful, voluntary arrangements, and not to the general public. The force of government is not needed. Why people keep looking to the government for solutions, especially when it fails so badly at almost everything it does is baffling.
I wouldn't say he had a "legal" option for spying. Courts that issue warrants must be open for public review. A secret court doesn't fulfill that obligation. The president has a first and foremost duty to defend the constitution, it is the first oath he must make before taking office. Bush has taken so many actions that have blatantly violated it, it isn't even funny. What makes it worse is that congress hasn't done anything substantive about it, making it obvious that it condones the behavior.
Sure, Bush wasn't the first president to order a war without a formal declaration by congress. He wasn't the first to censor free speech (Remember the "free speech" zones which consisted of a chain link fenced in area topped off with razor wire), he wasn't the first president to sign legislation that permitted gross violations of due process (patriot act, and for those of you that say it only applies to non-citizens, think again), and he most certainly wasn't the first to completely ignore article 1 section 8 of the constitution (Enumeration of federal powers). Not to mention he did absolutely nothing to stop existing federal abominations that were blatant abuses of power that aren't authorized by the constitution.
But saying "They did it too!" is no defense. We need to demand better than that from our president. But as always, they'll come up with their strawman of the decade (drugs, poverty, communism, terrorism, etc.) to wage their "war" on and scare people into giving up more liberty.
That's a nice thought. Too bad someone who does that in China is subject to going to prison if caught. The U.S. government isn't too far behind if we keep letting it get away with assuming more power.