We MUST Get A Handle On This (problem)!

Greed is indeed an emotion, like love, hate, envy, etc. Greed is a "meme" as many in this forum like to repeat.

Government is indeed unnecessary, and if you could show me proof that I am wrong I would gladly admit that... but you can't. Government is detrimental to society as history has proven.

The Austrian School of economics is based upon human nature and has been the only correct economic theory for the past century.

 

As I said, research the late 19th and early 20th centuries in American history. If the abuses that were prevalent in the free market at that time aren't enough proof for you that government is a necessary shield between big business and the common man then it's obvious to me that no amount of proof is going to open your eyes.

 

I wouldn't agree that deregulation of banks and investment cause any problems, the problems were that the Obama and Bush Administration said they were to big to fail like IG Ins.. I surely don't think they were too big to fail, hell we would of been far better off now if allowed to fail. Much like IG, what you think would of happen if they didn't get a bailout? They would of had to sell a profitable line like their China contracts and would of been smaller as in not too big to fail but no, money was sent to them from the taxpayer? Makes no sense, no business should be bailed out by the taxpayer.

 

In that case I'm assuming you support a flat tax or something that takes all deductions out of the equation, something like the "Fair Tax". That is the only way you get business out of DC. That one move would eliminate most influence that business has with DC, they are there for a reason, usually a financial reason. Second, enforce the Constitution and disallowed by threat of torch and hot tar if any lawmaker suggest to do something like "ObamaCare" and vote them out. As far as I can see that is only coming from the right, the left seem to be happy with their lifelong politician that sell their own mother for reelection (sure there are plenty on the right), you have to vote them out!

 

Don't forget the rules to keep people from harming themselves. Gotta keep the loonies on the path.

I suspected that was your game. Pretty clever the way you try to disguise it as compassion and good will.

Would freedom be part of their well-being, or is that too much risk towards your ideal of a perfect world.

I am not the one treating them like an ant farm.

When few get together to decide what is best for the most, it inevitably results in less good will for those being discussed than if the few had never embarked on such a "noble" endeavor. What is "fair" is almost always mutually exclusive to what is right.

 

It would seem that many other obvious things have escaped your grasps. Why then would it be expected for you to accurately assess what amount of proof is necessary to establish the amount of government needed to protect common men from big business?

 

Hmm, what a great response. Don't contribute anything substantial to the discussion, I wouldn't want you to sprain something.

 

I don't support a flat tax, a progressive marginal tax rate is the best way to tax people. The constitution is a living document that has the ability to evolve. The supreme court has ruled on what it believes is constituional and no we aren't going to tar somenone for passing a law that is unconstitutional. We have the supreme court to make sure that laws that are passed fall with in the rules of the constitution. Law makers don't get thrown out for passing legislation that is unconsitutional either. Our process is designed with checks and balances, and the method does not involve removal from office or tarring people.

 

The government had a problem let's try to look at this logcially.

1. Problem - The economy was on the verge of collapse because banks did not have enough cash to meet the demands of depositors.

2. Solutions -
a. Let the banks fail
i. This would mean the FDIC would pay up to $250,000 for deposits and potential 100,000s of people employed by these banks would be out of work.
ii. Billions of dollars lost for business's and investors slowing the economy further and forcing mass layoffs in every industrial sector.
b. Bail out the banks
i. This would mean the banks were able to make good on their obligation to depositors and 100,000s of people would be able to keep their jobs.
iii. Business is are able to pay their obligations and hold onto most employees
c. Gaurantee the government would cover losses and let banks fail anyways.
i. This would mean the business in other industry would be able to meet their obligations and hold onto their employees.
ii. 100,000s of people in finance sector loose jobs as a result,
iii. Cost the same as option b with no way to recover funds spent.

I think option b seems like the best solution and I'm sure this is what Bush and Obama and their economic advisor were thinking as well. It was a tough choice and you might not like it, but I think it was the best alternative. If we didn't deregulate the banks there would have been no need to make the decision in the first place.

 

Okay, have that definition your way if you must. But I will continually and steadfastly support the reality that "greed" is something better kept in check (one way or the other). It is one of THE most destructive aspects of human nature, period.

You really WANT to believe that; sorry, I'm not ever buying that foolish notion.

I hate using the term "common sense applies", because there are so many exceptions in the minds of certain people. So, I'll stick with the idea that we DISAGREE profoundly, concerning the NEED for government. And I'll oppose you or anyone one else who promotes the idea that government is not needed. I think it is an insane 'belief'. If people weren't "human", I might buy what you're saying.

That really makes no sense to me; it points to a mindset far from reality itself.

In ANY case... don't try to sell me ANY notion that "government" is unnecessary; that to me, is ludicrous.

 

Do you think capitalism encourages or discourages greed?

How do you know human greed wouldn't be dampened under a different economic system?

If history serves, science shows that humans are wired to cooperate with each other...not the other way around.

 

Many who inadvertently or would purposefully harm themselves... DO endanger others. (Reality strikes again; live with it.)

I'm not disguising anything. They is a point where I care a great deal about self-preservation; just one reason I advocate for government, rules and regulations.

To a reasonable degree, yes. However, some people go too far in exercising their "freedoms"... thus infringing upon the freedoms/rights of others. Typically, it takes proper government can address that (peacefully). For example, I have had neighbors that they POLICE handled far better, than i likely would have in certain situations.

We can go out and DUEL each other in the streets (with guns, clubs and or knives)... OR we can have laws, rules and regulations (to include appointed OFFICERS charged with enforcing the same).

I'm not either. Corporations however, MUST be regulated; it is foolish to suggest they require NO REGULATION. To me, it's an insane notion.

Even so, a reasonable/practical consensus MUST be decided upon; myriad individuals and groups making up rules, just doesn't work in a nation like America.

 

You can eliminate the government in a capitalist system. Government is absolutely necessary in a capitalist system, because without government the system can't survive. Well it would survive, but would become something much worse.

In the first point in an anarchocapitalist system many people will die without home and starving. It is the problem, anarchocapitalism is inhuman, because it create a corporation system, corporations as we know will die, but a new system of corproations will be born, and it will be worse than actual.

 

No, capitalism is not the source of greed. Human beings have greed within themselves.

I think there may be some system that could dampen greed; but i admit to not knowing what that would be. I do realize that until we know of such a system, that the necessary checks and balances be placed and/or kept in place until then.

There is a measure of cooperation and competition within people; that is readily evident. The degree to which one or the other is beneficial, depends upon many things. I do know for certain, that many who CAN take extreme advantage over others, WOULD take that advantage. We cannot allow that, and expect that our society or civilization would benefit from such extremism. At some point, those who would TEND to manipulate or monopolize others... must be watched, regulated or even restrained.

If we weren't "human", we might find a way around that; as of yet, we haven't.

 

...Perry (supporter), being a part of THE PROBLEM.