The argument is that we need regulation to prevent monopolies, I'm pointing out that monopolies exist with and without regulation. That in fact under the current system of heavy regulation you have a monopoly over private business in the form of government regulation. You can't compete with government, and it's become near impossible to change government.

 

with private monopolies you could at least to compete against them, good luck competing against a federal government.

 

You're saying it again, but I'm still not sure what you're implying. Regulation is probably too broad of a term since it can encompass pretty much anything the government puts forth, from environmental policies to anti-piracy laws to collusion.

 

I don't see how a Federal antitrust law saying that a particular business, e.g. AT&T, cannot have more than a certain percentage of the telecommunications industry is somehow a government monopoly over that particular industry.

---

Eric, are you a follower of Austrian Economics? :woot: :turned:

---

hailtoyourvictory, the only reason you say that a Free Market would fail in the modern day, is because those same Economics/Business classes are being taught by predominantly Keynesian Professors...

---

That's far from the only reason, but okay.

---

Eric, are you a follower of Austrian Economics? :woot: :turned:

Yes sir and a huge supporter of it as well.

---

You're saying it again, but I'm still not sure what you're implying. Regulation is probably too broad of a term since it can encompass pretty much anything the government puts forth, from environmental policies to anti-piracy laws to collusion.


I don't see how a Federal antitrust law saying that a particular business, e.g. AT&T, cannot have more than a certain percentage of the telecommunications industry is somehow a government monopoly over that particular industry.

Just look at the main fields of commerce in America today.


1 education almost a complete monopoly by the federal government the department of education morphed out of regulation into a monopoly on education. It even reaches into secondary education what percent of student loans are exclusively through the federal system?


2 energy - if regulations is supposed to prevent monopolies why do most people only have one choice for their electricity? Because when government can't completely control an industry they build a network of no competition and sell it to the highest bidder. It's why you only have one option for your power land line phone and cable.


There's endless examples where government is not a referee as ytram put it but rather an active player seeking to eliminate competition through regulation.

---

Eric, I grew up in a town with two black kids and they were brothers. Do you really think that every business in town that didn't serve those two kids would go out of business?


Pretty stupid assertion.

Maybe not right away in that town. But how much would that town thrive once word was spread they didn't serve those two black kids? You seem to fear racism so much that you invite the greatest offender of racism to protect you and that's government.


It was government that made black slaves it was government that stole lande from natives it was government that created the war on drugs to target minorities it is government that profiles minorities it is government that establishes different districts to keep minorities legislatively at a disadvantage it is government that puts abortion clinics in minority communities to on record control population it is government that under funds minority schools, and so I ask why do you think government would protect those two black kids?

---

A free market works the same as a game of Monopoly; everyone starts out the same but soon one player gains an advantage is able to exploit that to remove the other players from the game. Every game ends up with the final player holding a complete monopoly over the once free market, their wealth and power is completely unchallenged and they can effectively do as they please. 

 

Free market in the real world end up the same; a true free market will always result in a monopoly. 

 

Your assertion might be true if there were a finite amount of wealth.  There isn't, so a comparison of a real world free market economy to a game of Monopoly is laughable.  

 

And much has been said in this thread about regulation staving off monopolies, yet it was deregulation of the phone companies in the mid '90s that did much to promote competition.  Local exchange companies (LECs) now face competition from Competitive local exchange companies (CLECs), cable and satellite providers.  This, in turn, was a great benefit to consumers, which saw products and services become better and less expensive.  How many remember having to pay for long distance calls?  

---

Where would they sue them?  Florida courts have no jurisdiction over anyone in Georgia.  They'd have to sue them in federal court.   But what federal law have they violated?   You've done away with federal pollution laws and left it all to the individual states.  

 

Sorry I missed this post earlier, 

 

As for this case if states where responsible for their own pollution, states would enter into contracts with each other. These contracts would have arbitrators to settle disputes it could very well be federal arbitrators but it would be up to the states and how they negotiated the contracts on who was responsible for what. 

 

What does Spain do when France's pollution affects there area, they work it out. The same principle would work with states, they would work it out. It would be vastly different than what you have now instead of one central power you'd have 50 localized powers pursuing their interest for their people, that was the purpose of establishing states in the first place. 

---

Sorry I missed this post earlier, 

 

As for this case if states where responsible for their own pollution, states would enter into contracts with each other. These contracts would have arbitrators to settle disputes it could very well be federal arbitrators but it would be up to the states and how they negotiated the contracts on who was responsible for what. 

 

What does Spain do when France's pollution affects there area, they work it out. The same principle would work with states, they would work it out. It would be vastly different than what you have now instead of one central power you'd have 50 localized powers pursuing their interest for their people, that was the purpose of establishing states in the first place. 

 

And what would happen if they can't agree on a contract?   Does Georgia just keep sending pollution into Florida?  Or does Florida send their air force to take out the source of the pollution with a few well-placed smart bombs? 

 

These types of disputes between states are why we scrapped the Articles of Confederation in the first place and wrote a Constitution,  which established a central government.  It was because the states squabbled over all sorts of issues like this.  

 

It seems like it would be a lot simpler and more efficient to have a national pollution law that applied to all the states.  Then you don't have 50 states all negotiating treaties with each other as if they were separate countries. 

---

And what would happen if they can't agree on a contract?   Does Georgia just keep sending pollution into Florida?  Or does Florida send their air force to take out the source of the pollution with a few well-placed smart bombs? 

 

These types of disputes between states are why we scrapped the Articles of Confederation in the first place and wrote a Constitution,  which established a central government.  It was because the states squabbled over all sorts of issues like this.  

 

It seems like it would be a lot simpler and more efficient to have a national pollution law that applied to all the states.  Then you don't have 50 states all negotiating treaties with each other as if they were separate countries. 

 

That's ludicrous when was the last time a nation bombed another nation for pollution? Why then would it even be a remote possible that neighboring states couldn't avoid physical conflict in this situation?

 

I'm not saying you'll have no federal oversight and maybe the states would agree to all be held to a single standard, who knows but how effective is the EPA in it's current form? 

 

That's what federal control gets you. 

 

edit: The EPA's budget last year was 7.9 Billion dollars, this year its 8.2 Billion dollars. That means we spend on average 164 Million PER STATE on the EPA, you don't think local governments could be just a little more efficient with that? Just a little? 

---

Maybe not right away in that town. But how much would that town thrive once word was spread they didn't serve those two black kids? You seem to fear racism so much that you invite the greatest offender of racism to protect you and that's government.


It was government that made black slaves it was government that stole lande from natives it was government that created the war on drugs to target minorities it is government that profiles minorities it is government that establishes different districts to keep minorities legislatively at a disadvantage it is government that puts abortion clinics in minority communities to on record control population it is government that under funds minority schools, and so I ask why do you think government would protect those two black kids?

 

You're living in a bubble. The owner of a local restaurant told two different African-American children to leave her restaurant on two different occasions because "we don't serve [BAD WORD REMOVED] in here", her exact words. These incidents are common knowledge, yet her business thrives. I would not be surprised if she gained customers.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

You're living in a bubble. The owner of a local restaurant told two different African-American children to leave her restaurant on two different occasions because "we don't serve [BAD WORD REMOVED] in here", her exact words. These incidents are common knowledge, yet her business thrives. I would not be surprised if she gained customers.

 

I'm not denying that in some areas racism is still alive an well, so that begs the question what purpose does the heavy regulation serve if it didn't eliminate the problem?

 

In a deregulated society you'd still have those same people acting as horribly as they do now, heck a few might join them. But the majority would support business that was in line with modern viewpoint, inclusive establishments. You can't legislate or regulate away prejudices, so why set a standard that allows a federal politician to decide how you'll run your business? 

 

Also keep in mind I only oppose discrimination laws at the FEDERAL level, if individual States or Communities want to say to be on our town, our state, our county you have to abide by these rules than so be it. 

 

Again I'll point out you turn to the very establishment for protection from racism that in itself is the biggest offender of racism, government. 

---

I'm not denying that in some areas racism is still alive an well, so that begs the question what purpose does the heavy regulation serve if it didn't eliminate the problem?

 

In a deregulated society you'd still have those same people acting as horribly as they do now, heck a few might join them. But the majority would support business that was in line with modern viewpoint, inclusive establishments. You can't legislate or regulate away prejudices, so why set a standard that allows a federal politician to decide how you'll run your business? 

 

Also keep in mind I only oppose discrimination laws at the FEDERAL level, if individual States or Communities want to say to be on our town, our state, our county you have to abide by these rules than so be it. 

 

Do you think the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery was a good idea, or would you leave that up to the states, too?  

---

Do you think the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery was a good idea, or would you leave that up to the states, too?  

 

The Federal Government is to ensure that States uphold the constitutional rights guaranteed to all in the constitution. Slavery was taking away an individuals rights in total. Of Course I'd oppose any State's establishment of Slavery it defies the idea of equal liberty and equal responsibility. 

 

Government in it's most basic form is the protection of property rights, slavery is a complete violation of ones right to own themselves, a core fundamental of libertarian philosophy. 

---

Do you think the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery was a good idea, or would you leave that up to the states, too?  

 

We shouldn't have needed it, but man being man it was necessary. And then the Federal Government, along with the several states, turned right around and created a segregated society where minorities were disenfranchised; free but powerless. Then we had the Civil Rights Movement and that evolved from a civil justice movement into a cash cow. Just like the all those other charitable organizations (the March of Dimes, AHA, ALA, etc.) they'll never declare victory and go home so long as there's money to be made buying politicians and suing deep pockets. Now the bad guys are the ones who get to over rule every American's inherent right to Freedom of Association in the name of "anti-discrimination" law. But don't worry, they know better what you should do with your life, property, business, diet, mode of transportation, retirement savings, healthcare, ad nauseum than you do.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

In 2004, Ron Paul was literally the only person in congress to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


From Wikipedia:


"is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations")."



Do you agree with Ron Paul's opposition of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

You really don't understand what Ron Paul was voting against in 2004, do you? It's pretty clear from your posts so far you haven't a clue, and you're trying to equate that vote to a lack of support for the premise of Civil Rights Act of 1964. Perhaps you should do a little research?


I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but his vote in 2004 was as deeply rooted in the libertarian viewpoint as anything else he ever supported. Whether you agree with him or not, he was being consistent.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Regulation creates monopolies. Mega-Corporations regularly lobby for tighter controls on the market that benefit them over the competition. Whichever corportation can shell out enough dough for a congressman to vote their way has the upperhand. If anything should be regulated or outright banned, it's lobbying. It has turned this country into a corporatist oligarchy.

---

Regulation creates monopolies. Mega-Corporations regularly lobby for tighter controls on the market that benefit them over the competition. Whichever corportation can shell out enough dough for a congressman to vote their way has the upperhand. If anything should be regulated or outright banned, it's lobbying. It has turned this country into a corporatist oligarchy.

Only in the current (American) system. In a system where the people are still sufficiently and elections are not determined by the size of the candidates' campaign fund regulation still serves it's original purpose. 

---

Never mind. Misread.

---