The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Will it make you happy if I point out that many groups of regulators are inefficient, some lazy, and some corrupt? If it will make you happy, I will both reject and denounce bad regulators - just as I would any group which performs its' job poorly.

Do you believe that the incidence of dishonesty and corruption among "regulators" is any different than it is among those who are regulated?

If so, why. Please present your facts and abundant proofs..

As for the rest, the answer is no. You don't really give a **** about what I would put and you certainly don't intend to treat myself or anyone else here with similar respect when we request it of you. So why would I bother? You don't deserve it. You're clearly only asking for this as some sort of attempt to get my goat, which has failed.

Accept my opinion on the matter or not, I really don't give a ****.

Cycloptichorn

Yeah, I'm well aware of the pro-business asshole position on the question, thanks.

But you can't possibly fathom it and will always sneer at it because you don't have a clue as to what business is really all about and how economics actually work.

You act as if this isn't connected in large part to the concept of Federalism and State's rights, a subject which you and other right-wingers slavishly defend all the time. If more and more of the functions which are currently being ran individually by the states - with varying levels of success - were instead ran by the Feds, you'd certainly see a lot more standardization, and dare I say, more efficiency with such things; but I doubt you'd actually work to make such a situation happen. In fact, you consistently support candidates who fight very, very hard indeed to keep that from happening.

Once again you are clueless. If you think federal regulations and agencies are a model of enlighted efficiency, you have obviously never tangled with them.
Quite simply, with absolutely no practical experience, you are talking out of your ass.

How do you account for the contradiction between your two positions - that states SHOULD retain individual control over business that goes on within their jurisdiction, but that they shouldn't have different setups and requirements for doing that business?

Further proof of your limited ability to actually think.

Prefering State regulations to Federal regulations is not an unwavering endorsement of State regulations.

It isn't necessary for all States to have the same regulations (although that could be helpful if they all adopted the policies of the most business friendly states), but it is necessary for economic health that their regulations are easy to understand and easy to comply with.

The concept of State Rights is not predicated upon a belief that a State's government will always get everything right. One need only look to California to prove that is not the case. It is predicated upon the belief that by diffusing power among State governments rather than concentrating it in the Federal government, government has a closer link of accountabilty to the citizens and less of an ability to **** everything up.

You love Government, and believe it to be the benign shepherd of its flock.

Not only has this been refuted time and time again throughout history, it defies all understanding of human nature.

Part of your problem is that you don't seem to comprehend that both government and corporations are nothing more and nothing less than the people who fill their positions.

Government is not some fundamental force for Good, while Corporations are a fundamental force for Evil.

I've little doubt you sneer at what you perceive to be the Manichean notions of neo-cons, and yet your view could not be more Manichean: Federal Government = Light; Corporations = Darkness. You actually consider regulators White Knights!

Private Enterprise in preferable to Governmental control, not because Private Enterprise = Light and Government = Darkness, but because Private Enterprise is far more accountable for it's follies, it's errors, and its malfeasance than Government.

Clearly Government has an important role in enforcing corporate accountability, but then so do the police have a similar role in enforcing personal accountabilty and yet who among us is favor of the police regulating virtually all aspects of our lives?

We are all better off when we enoy the fullest extent of freedom that a healthy society can allow. This means freedom from Corporate control and freedom from Governmental control.









Cycloptichorn

You love Government, and believe it to be the benign shepherd of its flock.

Not only has this been refuted time and time again throughout history, it defies all understanding of human nature.

Part of your problem is that you don't seem to comprehend that both government and corporations are nothing more and nothing less than the people who fill their positions.

Government is not some fundamental force for Good, while Corporations are a fundamental force for Evil.

You love Government, and believe it to be the benign shepherd of its flock.

It is predicated upon the belief that by diffusing power among State governments rather than concentrating it in the Federal government, government has a closer link of accountabilty to the citizens and less of an ability to **** everything up.

I'm not really interested in your rants, Finn.... suffice it to say that I've never posited that gov't is all good and corporations are all bad. Ever.

The truth is that neither can be trusted. We need people watching out for the excesses of both of them.

Cycloptichorn

I don't think ot was so much a rant as a specific set of replys to things you wrote.

And who will "watch out" for the people who are "watching out" for the "excesses of both of them (government regulators and free people engaged in commerce)?

You have reduced your argument to absurdity.