There is! Prohibit fraud, enforce contract law, and enforce laws against assault, murder, etc. Regulations exist to PREVENT crime, which is impossible, as no matter how much regulation there is, there is always a way around it, given that you know the right people. Instead, simply revoke the charter of those companies which commit such crimes, and prosecute those who had a direct hand in it, or knowingly participated in any conspiracy to commit such crimes.
The RIAA and MPAA wouldn't exist in a free market, because there isn't a copyright in a truly free market. This is one of the few compromises allowed by the founding fathers, in the interest of promoting scientific achievement--a very limited copyright term might facilitate this, but the current regime of perpetual copyright amounts to fascism (ie the merging of government and corporate power).
Long work weeks and child labor disappeared due to increases in productivity due to mechanization, not due to government say-so. If the government could simply change things by saying the word, then we'd all be billionaires, wouldn't we? Of course, we can't, because that would either simply kill off all business, or drive prices up by a factor or several million. Understand that child laborers in the free market were not slaves, but were working because their families didn't make enough to survive. Without those jobs, their families would have starved to death. Those cases that you tend to hear of where children were horribly abused were where they had no real protectors (ie parents). In those cases, it was the very government that you want to give more power and authority to that forced those children into the workhouses. http://www.fff.org/freedom/0999f.asp Those who lived with their parents were not abused so badly as socialists would have you believe.
The fact is that it was the very government intervention you champion that created the monopolies you rail against, and continue to do so today (although now it is more like duopolies or some other multiple of oligopolies). By creating regulations that apply to all members of an industry, you find that it increases the costs associated with operations in a disproportionate amount on the smaller companies. In effect, regulations CREATE monopolies. This is why Walmart has recently been pushing for a health care mandate for all businesses, as it would drive their smaller competitors into the ground. In a free market, a company is free to "price fix" or "dump" goods on the market, but in doing so, they only create opportunities for new businesses to rise up and take over their market. Why do you think Microsoft is losing market share? Because the government said they have to?
Also, you should understand that in 100 years, Britain went from being a backwater to being the preeminent world power due to industrialization, and her citizens standard or living was raised from that of serfs to that of a middle class. The same thing happened in the US, and the same thing is happening in China. Workers aren't weak little people that need protection from greedy, evil capitalists in top hats and monocles, they are the people who will rise through the ranks and join those at the top through hard work, and the sacrifice of small pleasures now for great riches later. Or at least, they would have, if our government hadn't created an artificial divide between labor and management, and raised dozens of barriers to such social mobility, and made it more profitable to become a union leader than a manager in a factory.
But then, I suppose you thought prohibition was a good idea as well? They are the same concept, just taken to different extremes.
Truly, the so called "liberal" is the greatest enemy of society. In pursuit of a "living wage", he destroys jobs, cutting off the careers of entry level workers before they can begin. In pursuit of social harmony, he clamps down on speech. In pursuit of woman's rights, he makes slaves of women. In order to fund his "projects", he steals savings away from everyone. In pursuit of safety, he abducts people in the night away to months or years of torture. Make no mistake, these people don't limit themselves to one party, but they exist everywhere that a man would sacrifice for his future and produce for his neighbors, in order to steal from him, and make themselves fat and rich. They exist throughout both major political parties, simply because they are the ones that people vote in, because the people have realized that they can vote money away from those who have it, and give it to themselves. They have existed since the first man made the first tool which was useful for production. They caused Rome to fail and they spawned that abhorrent system known as Feudalism. Whenever their policies create problems, they claim that they just didn't
No, they don't. Local workers pay local taxes, and local factories follow local regulations. If they still had to pay those, there wouldn't be any importation of consumer goods to America, due to the shipping costs and tariffs involved.
If that many people want it, then the people selling it will expand. It's not a difficult concept. It's not like there would be anything stopping expansion (minus government intervention).
That's the thing about people who want big government, they aren't willing to even give freedom a chance, they would rather wave their hands around finding reasons to steal freedom while making their friends rich off of "cheap Chinese crap" as you put it.
Of course free markets don't work in the way a single person wants them to, they work in the say EVERYONE wants them to, because people are free to transact as they will. If you really want what's best for people, shouldn't you give them the freedom to choose for themselves what they want? Or are you so cynical as to think that either you or some sycophantic bureaucrat knows what is best for EVERYONE? Don't you realize that there are a million unintended consequences for every government intervention in a market, consequences that the government is slow to recognize? How many people have been fired because their jobs were no longer profitable at the new minimum wage? How many careers were ended before they started, due to the elimination of entry level jobs (think about how many minorities are oppressed by this)?
It's unfortunate that we have an entrenched "hate the rich" class warfare mentality in this country. We'd all be a lot better off without it.
Free markets provide a way. If there is a market for such a brand, someone will open a farm, raise the cows (cruelty free), get the leather, pay the workers good wages (maybe even make it here in America), etc. If people want that enough to boycott other brands, then the new startup will do quite well, and will be able to lower its prices as it grows, and economies of scale kick in. Eventually, you wind up with a much better quality product at a perhaps slightly higher price.
That is, unless they have to spend 75% of their income on paying taxes and hiring people to handle regulatory compliance, which is what drove all those companies you mentioned over to China in the first place.
Yeah...maybe more regulations AREN'T such a great idea...
Because nothing else says dignity like starving to death in the countryside, or prostituting themselves for the same price.
People work in factories, even sweatshops VOLUNTARILY, because it's the best option for them. Contrary to popular belief (propaganda), China does not consist of 990 million slaves and 10 million rich people. There is a middle class emerging, and a lower class that is working their way there, thanks to industrialization. It's exactly what happened in every other industrialized country. It's just that that process gets a bad reputation since it is a transitional period between total oppression (whether feudalism or Communism) and freedom (free markets and democracy).
America is currently heading in the opposite direction. Just as Rome descended into serfdom to maintain their power structure and welfare state, so shall the US. God help us all.
I thought they made those randomly. If there are only ten of them, that seems to indicate that there are a few certain "correct" answers, which kind of throws the whole test into doubt now, doesn't it?
No,they were the "wretched, centered only in self" generation. As soon as it wasn't convenient or pleasurable to accept sex in society, they dropped it (along with all of their other values).
There is a very simple way to deal with it. Private ownership. When someone owns it, they will protect it, and will keep it clean. If you want to sue someone for pollution, all you have to do is make your case in court. In the case of global warming, you would make a case in court, prove damages, show that the defendant in question contributed to those damages, and if your claims didn't hold up, then your case would get thrown out. If it did, then you get your money.
Understand that a tax on carbon emissions is a tax on life itself. People make carbon dioxide just from living. I don't think it's fair to tax people for living.
But the market doesn't decide the price, the government does. A government that just happens to be starving for money. Hmm, a potentially unlimited, ill-defined tax on something that everyone uses, but is considered "evil". Surely they wouldn't abuse their unlimited authority to get cash money from those evil people who are polluting (ie everyone).
Right, so how long before we all have meters attached to our throats that measure how much CO2 we produce? How much are we going to be taxed for living? Are we going to get credits for planting trees, already owning trees, or using other means to reduce atmospheric CO2? Are we going to account for nature's contribution, or do we have to pay taxes on that as well (while they conveniently ignore where CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere by nature)?
This is just a tax so gubmit can get bigger and more intrusive. Indeed, the bill doesn't even have any specific terms, despite it being longer than Moby Dick. The EPA just gets to make up whatever it wants at any time in the future and it's called law.
Slashdot Mirror
There is! Prohibit fraud, enforce contract law, and enforce laws against assault, murder, etc. Regulations exist to PREVENT crime, which is impossible, as no matter how much regulation there is, there is always a way around it, given that you know the right people. Instead, simply revoke the charter of those companies which commit such crimes, and prosecute those who had a direct hand in it, or knowingly participated in any conspiracy to commit such crimes.
The RIAA and MPAA wouldn't exist in a free market, because there isn't a copyright in a truly free market. This is one of the few compromises allowed by the founding fathers, in the interest of promoting scientific achievement--a very limited copyright term might facilitate this, but the current regime of perpetual copyright amounts to fascism (ie the merging of government and corporate power).
Long work weeks and child labor disappeared due to increases in productivity due to mechanization, not due to government say-so. If the government could simply change things by saying the word, then we'd all be billionaires, wouldn't we? Of course, we can't, because that would either simply kill off all business, or drive prices up by a factor or several million. Understand that child laborers in the free market were not slaves, but were working because their families didn't make enough to survive. Without those jobs, their families would have starved to death. Those cases that you tend to hear of where children were horribly abused were where they had no real protectors (ie parents). In those cases, it was the very government that you want to give more power and authority to that forced those children into the workhouses. http://www.fff.org/freedom/0999f.asp Those who lived with their parents were not abused so badly as socialists would have you believe.
The fact is that it was the very government intervention you champion that created the monopolies you rail against, and continue to do so today (although now it is more like duopolies or some other multiple of oligopolies). By creating regulations that apply to all members of an industry, you find that it increases the costs associated with operations in a disproportionate amount on the smaller companies. In effect, regulations CREATE monopolies. This is why Walmart has recently been pushing for a health care mandate for all businesses, as it would drive their smaller competitors into the ground. In a free market, a company is free to "price fix" or "dump" goods on the market, but in doing so, they only create opportunities for new businesses to rise up and take over their market. Why do you think Microsoft is losing market share? Because the government said they have to?
Also, you should understand that in 100 years, Britain went from being a backwater to being the preeminent world power due to industrialization, and her citizens standard or living was raised from that of serfs to that of a middle class. The same thing happened in the US, and the same thing is happening in China. Workers aren't weak little people that need protection from greedy, evil capitalists in top hats and monocles, they are the people who will rise through the ranks and join those at the top through hard work, and the sacrifice of small pleasures now for great riches later. Or at least, they would have, if our government hadn't created an artificial divide between labor and management, and raised dozens of barriers to such social mobility, and made it more profitable to become a union leader than a manager in a factory.
But then, I suppose you thought prohibition was a good idea as well? They are the same concept, just taken to different extremes.
Truly, the so called "liberal" is the greatest enemy of society. In pursuit of a "living wage", he destroys jobs, cutting off the careers of entry level workers before they can begin. In pursuit of social harmony, he clamps down on speech. In pursuit of woman's rights, he makes slaves of women. In order to fund his "projects", he steals savings away from everyone. In pursuit of safety, he abducts people in the night away to months or years of torture. Make no mistake, these people don't limit themselves to one party, but they exist everywhere that a man would sacrifice for his future and produce for his neighbors, in order to steal from him, and make themselves fat and rich. They exist throughout both major political parties, simply because they are the ones that people vote in, because the people have realized that they can vote money away from those who have it, and give it to themselves. They have existed since the first man made the first tool which was useful for production. They caused Rome to fail and they spawned that abhorrent system known as Feudalism. Whenever their policies create problems, they claim that they just didn't
No, they don't. Local workers pay local taxes, and local factories follow local regulations. If they still had to pay those, there wouldn't be any importation of consumer goods to America, due to the shipping costs and tariffs involved.
If that many people want it, then the people selling it will expand. It's not a difficult concept. It's not like there would be anything stopping expansion (minus government intervention).
That's the thing about people who want big government, they aren't willing to even give freedom a chance, they would rather wave their hands around finding reasons to steal freedom while making their friends rich off of "cheap Chinese crap" as you put it.
Of course free markets don't work in the way a single person wants them to, they work in the say EVERYONE wants them to, because people are free to transact as they will. If you really want what's best for people, shouldn't you give them the freedom to choose for themselves what they want? Or are you so cynical as to think that either you or some sycophantic bureaucrat knows what is best for EVERYONE? Don't you realize that there are a million unintended consequences for every government intervention in a market, consequences that the government is slow to recognize? How many people have been fired because their jobs were no longer profitable at the new minimum wage? How many careers were ended before they started, due to the elimination of entry level jobs (think about how many minorities are oppressed by this)?
It's unfortunate that we have an entrenched "hate the rich" class warfare mentality in this country. We'd all be a lot better off without it.
They have to keep variety if they are staying open year round. Look for winter crops, and you'll probably find that they are locally grown there.
Free markets provide a way. If there is a market for such a brand, someone will open a farm, raise the cows (cruelty free), get the leather, pay the workers good wages (maybe even make it here in America), etc. If people want that enough to boycott other brands, then the new startup will do quite well, and will be able to lower its prices as it grows, and economies of scale kick in. Eventually, you wind up with a much better quality product at a perhaps slightly higher price.
That is, unless they have to spend 75% of their income on paying taxes and hiring people to handle regulatory compliance, which is what drove all those companies you mentioned over to China in the first place.
Yeah...maybe more regulations AREN'T such a great idea...
Because nothing else says dignity like starving to death in the countryside, or prostituting themselves for the same price.
People work in factories, even sweatshops VOLUNTARILY, because it's the best option for them. Contrary to popular belief (propaganda), China does not consist of 990 million slaves and 10 million rich people. There is a middle class emerging, and a lower class that is working their way there, thanks to industrialization. It's exactly what happened in every other industrialized country. It's just that that process gets a bad reputation since it is a transitional period between total oppression (whether feudalism or Communism) and freedom (free markets and democracy).
America is currently heading in the opposite direction. Just as Rome descended into serfdom to maintain their power structure and welfare state, so shall the US. God help us all.
No, that is another aspect of the same beast. Only if they incite violence is it a crime.
Meanwhile, in England...
We've found a witch! May we burn her?
I like my gods like I like my governments, non-sentient and bloodthirsty, with lots of terror driven followers.
That's why I vote a straight Cthulhu ticket. That means voting for either Republicans or Democrats. After all, why pick the lesser of two evils?
If I were him, I would have applied for a bailout, then gave myself a nice hefty bonus before going bankrupt.
It's the American Dream!
This is abuse, arguments are down the hall.
I thought they made those randomly. If there are only ten of them, that seems to indicate that there are a few certain "correct" answers, which kind of throws the whole test into doubt now, doesn't it?
The answer is a definite maybe.
The market decided. The problem is, the government didn't like the decision, so Komrade Bush decided he knew better.
Komrade Obama, of course, agreed wholeheartedly.
No, they have to INFORM all lienholders.
Just be glad I'm not Wells Fargo, or this would have counted as notice.
I certainly wouldn't, but my alternate personality thinks you're nuts!
And when I can't pay up, I'll just ask the government for another bailout to pay the attorney fees and damages!
When a bailed out bank sues itself, we lose.
No,they were the "wretched, centered only in self" generation. As soon as it wasn't convenient or pleasurable to accept sex in society, they dropped it (along with all of their other values).
...therefore people don't have the right to do what they want with their own property.
Just finishing your thought for you.
Especially if you have friends in Congress!
There is a very simple way to deal with it. Private ownership. When someone owns it, they will protect it, and will keep it clean. If you want to sue someone for pollution, all you have to do is make your case in court. In the case of global warming, you would make a case in court, prove damages, show that the defendant in question contributed to those damages, and if your claims didn't hold up, then your case would get thrown out. If it did, then you get your money.
Understand that a tax on carbon emissions is a tax on life itself. People make carbon dioxide just from living. I don't think it's fair to tax people for living.
But the market doesn't decide the price, the government does. A government that just happens to be starving for money. Hmm, a potentially unlimited, ill-defined tax on something that everyone uses, but is considered "evil". Surely they wouldn't abuse their unlimited authority to get cash money from those evil people who are polluting (ie everyone).
Not just porn, but all media is considered obscene by some
Governance by the lowest common denominator is far more degrading than anything in any of those movies.
Right, so how long before we all have meters attached to our throats that measure how much CO2 we produce? How much are we going to be taxed for living? Are we going to get credits for planting trees, already owning trees, or using other means to reduce atmospheric CO2? Are we going to account for nature's contribution, or do we have to pay taxes on that as well (while they conveniently ignore where CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere by nature)?
This is just a tax so gubmit can get bigger and more intrusive. Indeed, the bill doesn't even have any specific terms, despite it being longer than Moby Dick. The EPA just gets to make up whatever it wants at any time in the future and it's called law.
Throat mounted CO2 gauges, here we come.