I have no problem with prison labor. I do have a problem with b&*@*$~# charges.But being able to profit from prison labor creates a market for more prison labor, which leads to pressure for more b&*@*$~# charges.
As do private for-profit prisons.
It seems like a perverse incentive structure to me also.
I've edited this down to my biggest concerns. Your response, BT?Fraud, such as lying about how safe a car is would be criminal.This is where I always hit a stop. If government has no regulatory power, and if individual private citizens lack the resources, how would fraud ever be discovered and/or prosecuted?
Simply getting rid of government regulation means that big business has NO regulation. Marketplace competition, left undirected, trends to the lowest common denominator, not the highest.
I would say that fraud and theft would be reported to law enforcement who could prosecute it. Civil action could also be taken. The massive and costly regulatory bureaucracies aren't necessary to prosecute fraud and theft. Unfortunately law enforcement and the courts have an abysmal record in this area, but so do the EH&S regulatory organs in the US.
I still think there would be checks against corporate corruption even without most of the regulatory agencies which are basically useless or worse than useless. Civil and criminal law and well educated consumers could be more effective checks than our current disastrous system.
If I may, you guys seem to keep going round and round on this what-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg question.
Bitter Thorn and the Libs believe that the government agencies are worthless and don't work well. This is true.
Professor Cirno and the left-leaning Democrats (social-dems?) believe the megacorporations get away with murder. This is true.
BT & co. believe that if you eased up on regulations and let the market fix these problems, things would get better. This is, imho, false.
The good Prof & co. believe that if you strengthened regulations, these problems could be taken care of by government intervention and things would get better. This is, imho, false.
At least, that's how it looks to me.
EDIT: I realize that there are many posters who don't fall into the two camps I've delineated, but nothing works quite so well as reductio ad absurdum.
Ha, ha, you fell into my trap!
No, it doesn't imply that at all.
But I know nobody is going to agree with me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Civil and criminal law and well educated consumers could be more effective checks than our current disastrous system.
Again, as pointed out earlier, I know of very few consumers who can perform a double-blind safety and effectiveness test of a medication in their home. How would harmful ingrediants that don't manifest side effects for years ever be detected, without an agency specifically existing to test for them?
Free Market "Solution": I get a bunch of investors, start a food and drug testing company, and charge what I want. People either pay or they deserve to die. When my competition appears, I drop my prices to near-zero until they go under, meanwhile remaining solvent by accepting bribes from pharma companies to give them fictitious clean reports. Unfortunately that's sort of exactly what the government does a lot of now, so what we need to do is pass an amendment banning closed books, conflicts of intetest, and bribes (aka lobbying). In other words, clean up government, don't abolish it.
If I may, you guys seem to keep going round and round on this what-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg question.
Bitter Thorn and the Libs believe that the government agencies are worthless and don't work well. This is true.
Professor Cirno and the left-leaning Democrats (social-dems?) believe the megacorporations get away with murder. This is true.
BT & co. believe that if you eased up on regulations and let the market fix these problems, things would get better. This is, imho, false.
The good Prof & co. believe that if you strengthened regulations, these problems could be taken care of by government intervention and things would get better. This is, imho, false.
At least, that's how it looks to me.
EDIT: I realize that there are many posters who don't fall into the two camps I've delineated, but nothing works quite so well as reductio ad absurdum.
I believe that if we eased up on SOME regulations while keeping the very most important basic ones AND made the whole thing accountable and transparent, the market would fix the rest, and things would get better.
I agree with points #1,2, and 4 though.EDIT-Ninja'd by Kirth
I don't quite agree with you. Or at least I don't think we're quite there yet. Largely because everywhere the worker's revolution has been tried it's been a horrible failure.
I'll limit myself to saying that there is only one place that a genuine, successful worker's revolution has ever occured and that was in the Soviet Union. The very sad history of what happened there is way outside the purview of this thread, of course, but there is a very rich and lengthy literature of socialist analysis of why it went to shiznit. Personally, I'd recommend starting with Leon Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed.
As for the other so-called socialist countries (Cuba, China, North Korea, Yugoslavia, etc.) I think it's important to point out that not a single one of these countries issued out of a worker's revolution. They were either peasant-based, as in the case of all the ones listed above, or were imported on the bayonets of the Red Army (Eastern Europe) and, in each case, the state issuing out of the revolution was one explicitly modeled on the bureaucratic, anti-internationalist Stalinist regime of the Soviet Union.
It's enough to break a socialist goblin's heart.
Well, it's been fun and a blast trolling for the socialist revolution, but I'll have to leave you now, because I've got a date with Dejah Thoris. Hubba hubba!
Well, I was including the fact that it went shiznit as part of the horrible failure.
And I, and IIRC Marx, thought Russia was more of a peasant's revolution than he'd anticipated.
The peasant question in the Russian Revolution, the backwardness of Russia in 1917 and Marx's opinion about the prospects of a revolution in Russia are all interesting topics.
I'll probably start up a separate thread to address them in the coming hours.
Also, Dejah says "Hi".
Civil and criminal law and well educated consumers could be more effective checks than our current disastrous system.Again, as pointed out earlier, I know of very few consumers who can perform a double-blind safety and effectiveness test of a medication in their home. How would harmful ingrediants that don't manifest side effects for years ever be detected, without an agency specifically existing to test for them?
Free Market "Solution": I get a bunch of investors, start a food and drug testing company, and charge what I want. People either pay or they deserve to die. When my competition appears, I drop my prices to near-zero until they go under, meanwhile remaining solvent by accepting bribes from pharma companies to give them fictitious clean reports. Unfortunately that's sort of exactly what the government does a lot of now, so what we need to do is pass an amendment banning closed books, conflicts of intetest, and bribes (aka lobbying). In other words, clean up government, don't abolish it.
I'm always in favor of making government more transparent and accountable, but I disagree as to how we make the government less corrupt. I tend to think power corrupts, and we have centralized vast amounts of money and power in the federal government. Corporations buy politicians and bureaucrats because it's a good investment. Perhaps if the government didn't exert major influence in every aspect of our lives it wouldn't be such a good investment.
1. I tend to think power corrupts, and we have centralized vast amounts of money and power in the federal government.
2. Corporations buy politicians and bureaucrats because it's a good investment.
3. Perhaps if the government didn't exert major influence in every aspect of our lives it wouldn't be such a good investment.
1. I agree completely and without question. However, major corporations have also centralized vast amounts of money and power in themselves -- in some cases, more than the federal government. They therefore scare me just as much as, if not more than, the government. I don't believe that, with less regulation, they would suddenly turn around and lead us to a Utopia.
2. Yes. This is what we need to guard against, which leads to the thrid point.
3. Perhaps if the government's influence were required to be directed towards keeping the megaconglomerates in check, instead of being their partner -- and instead of micromanaging our personal lives -- then teh government might be made to serve a useful (if not indispensible) purpose?
1. I tend to think power corrupts, and we have centralized vast amounts of money and power in the federal government.
2. Corporations buy politicians and bureaucrats because it's a good investment.
3. Perhaps if the government didn't exert major influence in every aspect of our lives it wouldn't be such a good investment.
1. I agree completely and without question. However, major corporations have also centralized vast amounts of money and power in themselves -- in some cases, more than the federal government. They therefore scare me just as much as, if not more than, the government. I don't believe that, with less regulation, they would suddenly turn around and lead us to a Utopia.
2. Yes. This is what we need to guard against, which leads to the thrid point.
3. Perhaps if the government's influence were required to be directed towards keeping the megaconglomerates in check, instead of being their partner -- and instead of micromanaging our personal lives -- then teh government might be made to serve a useful (if not indispensible) purpose?
How do we achieve number three?
How do we achieve number three?
That's the $64,000 question, isn't it? If I knew the answer, I'd be off doing it!
At a minimum, like I said before, we'd need to outlaw lobbying and other blatant forms of conflict of interest (like the financial regulators retiring from government into cushy multimillion dollar corporate sinecures as soon as pro-lobby laws are passed). That would require a definitive Supreme Court ruling that the federal government's Constitutional authority to "regulate interstate trade" is fatally compromised in cases of conflict of interest, and that engaging in those practices is therefore unconstitutional.Past that, I'm where I usually am -- I can see the problem, and can recommend a solution, but fall short as to how to effectively implement it.
The obvious answer is to not allow 2, by not requiring politicians to go begging to rich donors for campaign contributions.
If giving money to politicians was considered bribery not free speech, then politicians wouldn't owe their jobs to the rich and we might get a more diverse set of them.
Are you suggesting public financing?
I would, but several Supreme Court decisions have pretty much rendered it pointless.
Public financing won't work if it has to compete with unlimited private financing, since that either puts us on the hook for the arms race or handicaps whoever takes the public money.
You have to stop the legalized bribery before public financing can work. And since the SC has ruled that money == speech, you can't do that.
You'd have to do something about the Citizen's United decision as well.
Of course, none of this really matters, even beyond Constitutional issues since you'd have to get Congress to pass it and they're already owned.
Though many of them hate the fundraising treadmill. Most of a Congressman's working day is spent calling donors and asking for money.
I'd say this is one of few issue SCOTUS actually got right.
I prefer limiting government to censoring free speech.
I'd say this is one of few issue SCOTUS actually got right.
I prefer limiting government to censoring free speech.
Wait -- you endorse the main factor leading to government corruption, and then blame the government for being corrupt?
Steven Seagal to Harry Dean Stanton: "Is that kind of like a Zen riddle?"Bribery isn't "free speech." It's bribery.
I wonder how many companies (or other special interest groups) actually "buy" candidates, that is give candidates money to change how they would have voted otherwise, versus how many companies give money to candidates that already align with their viewpoint in order to promote that viewpoint.
Anyone else see this?
I have, fortunately, only been the victim of a violent crime once, and, let me tell you, if I had been armed I would have mowed them down with no hesitation.
I've only read this one article, haven't even watched the video yet, but I'm on this guy's side.
I reserve the right to change my mind once I read more, however.
I'd say this is one of few issue SCOTUS actually got right.
I prefer limiting government to censoring free speech.Wait -- you endorse the main factor leading to government corruption, and then blame the government for being corrupt?
Steven Seagal to Harry Dean Stanton: "Is that kind of like a Zen riddle?""Bribery" isn't "free speech." It's bribery. Plain and simple.
Is it bribery when issue advocacy groups run adds stating where candidates stand on the issues? Unions, civil rights groups, and other issue advocates pool their resources to get their message out. It's not all about big evil corporations buying politicians. I think we can agree that we don't want civil rights and environmental groups to have their political speech criminalized. On the other hand if the government is going to restrict political speech by groups like businesses wouldn't you also have to restrict the political speech of unions for example? I don't think those restrictions are fair to members of either group.
It's not hard to see where sinecures are a problem, but how do you regulate something like that? Some people leave the public sector for more lucrative jobs in the private sector. They don't all have nefarious motives. So how do you structure ethics laws to reduce or eliminate abuse of the revolving door without punishing everyone? I have friends who have had highly technical jobs in the military, transitioned to civil service positions then transitioned to more lucrative corporate contracting positions. They have done well for themselves, but these highly classified and highly technical fields are small worlds. These kinds of public to private transitions are common. If we make the rules much more strict won't regular people get hurt in the process? Aren't the wealthiest most influential players the ones who are most likely to find a way around the new rules too? I hardly think it's plain and simple.
Anyone else see this?
I have, fortunately, only been the victim of a violent crime once, and, let me tell you, if I had been armed I would have mowed them down with no hesitation.
I've only read this one article, haven't even watched the video yet, but I'm on this guy's side.
I reserve the right to change my mind once I read more, however.
Is that the story of the pharmacist that shot a kid, chased after another kid. Came back and got his other gun and double-tapped the first kid? If so, then I think he was fine up until he decided to shoot the kid already bleeding out on the ground again this time with his shot-gun.
Should it be 1st-degree, I'm not entirely convinced. In the heat of the moment with anger and adrenaline running through one's body, I can see someone doing it, but that finishing shot certainly isn't self-defense.
It's not hard to see where sinecures are a problem, but how do you regulate something like that? Some people leave the public sector for more lucrative jobs in the private sector. They don't all have nefarious motives. So how do you structure ethics laws to reduce or eliminate abuse of the revolving door without punishing everyone?
As a start, "If you pass a series of regulations (or lack thereof) that are highly advantageous to Company 'A,' it's a conflict of interest for you to subsequently go to work for Company 'A.' Even more obviously: "If you are currently being paid by Company 'B,' it is a conflict of interest for you to be a part of legistlation that affects Company 'B.'"
Yes, few people might not get the exact plum job they had envisioned, but we'd eliminate the culture of "play on our side for the government, and we'll make it worth your while" that's currently almost expected.
If you haven't, check out The Inside Job, about the subprime loan bust. It comes right out and names a lot of the names we've been obliquely dicussing as if they were academic examples.
Anyone else see this?
I have, fortunately, only been the victim of a violent crime once, and, let me tell you, if I had been armed I would have mowed them down with no hesitation.
I've only read this one article, haven't even watched the video yet, but I'm on this guy's side.
I reserve the right to change my mind once I read more, however.
Interestingly enough, I was considering posting that same article here.
My heart goes out to the guy, but if you're worried about someone doing damage to you, you don't ignore them twice on the way to either chase someone else down or get another weapon, you make sure they aren't going to get up and cack you in the back. By intentionally doing things out of order, it shows premeditation and murder. Should he be sentenced to life for it, however? Certainly not.
Is that the story of the pharmacist that shot a kid, chased after another kid. Came back and got his other gun and double-tapped the first kid? If so, then I think he was fine up until he decided to shoot the kid already bleeding out on the ground again this time with his shot-gun.
Should it be 1st-degree, I'm not entirely convinced. In the heat of the moment with anger and adrenaline running through one's body, I can see someone doing it, but that finishing shot certainly isn't self-defense.
Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into Parker as he lay on the floor unconscious. At the trial, prosecutors argued that Ersland crossed into the wrong when he shot the unarmed and unconscious Parker five more times.
If you're going to shoot someone in self-defense, good for you. If, when he hits the floor, you give him a quick coup de grace before chasing down his buddy, I'm still with you. But if you're going to leisurely come back later, and shoot the same guy five more times while he's in a coma from the head shot you already gave him (instead of calling the cops to come collect his body), then I'd say you have some seriously profound psychological issues.
If you haven't, check out The Inside Job, about the subprime loan bust. It comes right out and names a lot of the names we've been obliquely dicussing as if they were academic examples.
I, for one, will check out that book. Last year, I read The Great Financial Crisis by Fred Magdoff and John Bellamy Foster, two Marxist/Keynsian economists associated with the Monthly Review crowd, and they had some interesting things to say about the subprime meltdown that I most certainly hadn't heard in the mainstream reporting (surprise, surprise).
If you haven't, check out The Inside Job, about the subprime loan bust. It comes right out and names a lot of the names we've been obliquely dicussing as if they were academic examples.I, for one, will check out that book.
To save you some time: The doccumentary film.
As with most so-called "documentaries," I had to mentally edit for the producer's bias and ignore obvious gaffs (Eliot Spitzer telling us not to spend too much on call girls? What will they think of next?) in order to see if there was anything good underneath all that. What I found interesting was that the same like 4-5 people, over the course of literally decades, repeatedly made the situation progressively worse and worse, and then all lived happily ever after.
But if you're going to leisurely come back later, and shoot the same guy five more times while he's in a coma from the head shot you already gave him (instead of calling the cops to come collect his body), then I'd say you have some seriously profound psychological issues.
Or some serious fight-or-flight. And does "leisurely" come from your watching of the video or is it just a good descriptive word that bolsters your argument? (Serious question--not intended as baiting.)
If you haven't, check out The Inside Job, about the subprime loan bust. It comes right out and names a lot of the names we've been obliquely dicussing as if they were academic examples.I, for one, will check out that book.To save you some time: The doccumentary film.
What I found interesting was that the same like 4-5 people, over the course of literally decades, repeatedly made the situation progressively worse and worse, and then all lived happily ever after.
[Rushes over to Netflix]
Why read when you can watch a movie?
Thanks.
And does "leisurely" come from your watching of the video or is it just a good descriptive word that bolsters your argument? (Serious question--not intended as baiting.)
I'll admit I haven't watched the video, just read the articles. Still, order of oprations is critically important in math -- why ignore it when it comes to homicide?
It's not hard to see where sinecures are a problem, but how do you regulate something like that? Some people leave the public sector for more lucrative jobs in the private sector. They don't all have nefarious motives. So how do you structure ethics laws to reduce or eliminate abuse of the revolving door without punishing everyone?As a start, "If you pass a series of regulations (or lack thereof) that are highly advantageous to Company 'A,' it's a conflict of interest for you to subsequently go to work for Company 'A.' Even more obviously: "If you are currently being paid by Company 'B,' it is a conflict of interest for you to be a part of legistlation that affects Company 'B.'"
Yes, few people might not get the exact plum job they had envisioned, but we'd eliminate the culture of "play on our side for the government, and we'll make it worth your while" that's currently almost expected.
If you haven't, check out The Inside Job, about the subprime loan bust. It comes right out and names a lot of the names we've been obliquely dicussing as if they were academic examples.
As you know it goes well beyond law makers and even regulators. Do you apply the laws to everyone in the federal government? Wouldn't that be a pretty strong disincentive to work in the public sector? How would this impact service members transitioning to civilian life?
I made it through some of "The inside Job". I wasn't impressed.
Anyone else see this?
I have, fortunately, only been the victim of a violent crime once, and, let me tell you, if I had been armed I would have mowed them down with no hesitation.
I've only read this one article, haven't even watched the video yet, but I'm on this guy's side.
I reserve the right to change my mind once I read more, however.
Interestingly enough, I was considering posting that same article here.
My heart goes out to the guy, but if you're worried about someone doing damage to you, you don't ignore them twice on the way to either chase someone else down or get another weapon, you make sure they aren't going to get up and cack you in the back. By intentionally doing things out of order, it shows premeditation and murder. Should he be sentenced to life for it, however? Certainly not.
I need much more information about the specifics of the case. First degree murder seems like over charging to me.
It seems to me that the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the pharmacist could not reasonably perceive the robber as a threat in those circumstances. That seems like it would be very difficult.
My searches haven't come up with anything very detailed, and I don't know how exactly the prosecution made its case.
More gun runner lunacy, “The evidence we have gathered raises the disturbing possibility that the Justice Department not only allowed criminals to smuggle weapons but that taxpayer dollars from other agencies may have financed those engaging in such activities,”.
As you know it goes well beyond law makers and even regulators. Do you apply the laws to everyone in the federal government? Wouldn't that be a pretty strong disincentive to work in the public sector? How would this impact service members transitioning to civilian life?
Unless those service members are spending their time in the service working for a particular corporation (which one would hope they aren't, as the armed forces are supposedly for national defense, not a mercenary private security force), and then want to muster out and go to work for that same corporation, it shouldn't affect them at all. I'd go slowly, too -- start with lawmakers and regulators, then see if there is egregious bribery going on somewhere else.
As you know it goes well beyond law makers and even regulators. Do you apply the laws to everyone in the federal government? Wouldn't that be a pretty strong disincentive to work in the public sector? How would this impact service members transitioning to civilian life?Unless those service members are spending their time in the service working for a particular corporation (which one would hope they aren't, as the armed forces are supposedly for national defense, not a mercenary private security force), and then want to muster out and go to work for that same corporation, it shouldn't affect them at all. I'd go slowly, too -- start with lawmakers and regulators, then see if there is egregious bribery going on somewhere else.And it's the highest levels that matter. Having generals move directly to defense companies does bother me. They may have had a significant say in contracts with those same companies. The same with congresscritters, their high-ranking staff, department heads, cabinet members etc.
Lower-level bureaucrats or regular servicemen are much less of an issue.
I agree that the contracting process has rampant corruption at every level of government.
How about judges? Sinecures seem to be less of an issue with the judiciary, but there is ample judicial corruption.
Eep!
That's nutzoid.
I think the term police state is reasonable here too, but I think the government has too much power.
Unrelated to first link, but good summary of our government at work
The lefties at Salon are actually balls on accurate on this article.
Lightbulb Law Repeal Fails, but Fight for Lightbulb Freedom Lives
BTW, the cfl's aren't made in the US anymore IIRC.
TSA Outrage: Tennessee Woman Arrested For Protesting TSA Grope of Her Daughter July 13, 2011
Reading the article, it appears that TSA did not actually touch the daughter at all -- if I understand it correctly, the woman refused to go through the scanner (and wouldn't allow her daughter to do so) and then started yelling "I won't let you take naked scans of us or grope my daughter's crotch!" No TSA officer touched the daughter, inappropriately or otherwise.
1. Has anyone seen the scans? X-ray scans do NOT look like Playboy spreads, unless you're into grayscale skeletons.
2. If you're afraid of someone seeing your skeleton, you can opt for the pat-down (I wouldn't, but hey, whatever). I'm sure there are TSA agents who go too far. I'm equally sure that it's not realistic to assume that all of them will.
All that said, I personally don't feel the "heightened security" is doing a whole hell of a lot. I'm against it. But I'm just as much against the blatant lies and misrepresentations that people make about it. I know it's sort of expected now that everyone lies and misrepresents everything, but I'd prefer to work towards reversing that trend, rather than accelerating it.