Intrusion

[steve74baywin]

The thing that many people miss is that the simple protection of Individual Rights negates the need for regulating corporations for the most part or perhaps entirely.

You're talking to a reformed Libertarian :) I haven't missed that argument... I just don't buy it. On paper, it's bulletproof. But we don't live on paper. We live in a complex world and the idea that our forefathers were somehow infallible and godlike and the words they put down in the Constitution will somehow be our salvation if we will just adhere to their principles with Mormon-like fervor... it sounds like a trap to me. The Constitution of the US is probably the greatest document a country has every based itself on, but it isn't gospel. It isn't perfect. Our forefathers weren't gods. The Constitution isn't a world unto itself... it must be taken in the context of the world we actually inhabit.

I agree the constitution could be better, it could be written slightly different and then never changed.

I was wanting to ask you what regulations against corporations we have now you think helps us the people, that wouldn't be done in a Libertarian gov.
Also, Can you give me some examples of how we would need more than protection of Individual rights?

Compiling into one paragraph all the examples we all come across on a daily basis would be a task that I don't have time for Steve. I will humbly bow out of that job. Maybe in another few years when my kids are older and I actually have some free time to campaign.

Please then, just give me two or three. I thought it would be hard for you to even come up with one, but if your saying there are tons then it should only take you a minute to list a few here right now.
In all fareness I only asked you for some, I did not ask you to list them all.

[steve74baywin]

Here is a something on the increase of lawyers in this country.

http://www.legalreform-now.org/menu1_4.htm

"Why the number of lawyers has increased so dramatically

During the 19th century, many people without formal training helped others with legal matters, in and out of court. Even most lawyers of Abraham Lincoln’s time did not attend law school, pass a bar exam or hold a professional license. Rather, they studied under other lawyers and were eventually allowed to argue in court. And it was also common for people to represent themselves, often with the help of popular books such as Every Man His Own Lawyer, by John G. Wells, a legal guide that moved west in the wagons, saddlebags and steamer trunks of millions of Americans.

At the end of the 19th century, the American Bar Association set out to turn lawyering into a profession, with the idea that increased status would generate higher fees. To accomplish this, it fashioned a code of ethics and urged states to adopt minimum educational requirements and a professional entrance (bar) examination for anyone who wanted to call himself a lawyer.

By the late 1920s, most states had fallen into line.

But to make the practice of law more lucrative, it wasn’t enough just to raise the professional image of lawyers. It was also crucial to keep accountants, insurance companies, bankers and just plain business folk from practicing law at cheaper rates. So, soon after the 1929 stock market crash made times even tougher for attorneys, the ABA began a successful push to establish a lawyer monopoly over lawyering. But unfortunately, instead of clearly defining the practice of law in language all could understand (and competitors could resist), ABA rules gave state court judges (lawyers all) the power to enforce the new lawyer monopoly on a case-by-case basis. As you might guess, this resulted in little joy for non lawyer practitioners. Non lawyers in the gray area of whether an activity was considered the practice of law could not take a chance as it was not defined.

As the Great Depression deepened, lawyers faced with dwindling legal business pressured criminal prosecutors and state judicial authorities to go to court to close down non lawyer practitioners. Judges apparently eager to support the interest of their professional brethren soon banned non lawyers from handling all matter of activities that they had performed for decades, including real estate closings, title searches, negotiating insurance settlements and providing tax advice. By the onset of World War II, lawyers had successfully carved out a legal monopoly that would remain securely and profitably in their hands for decades. And legal reform became difficult."

And yes, it happened after 1900
In fact, according to this people hardly used lawyers before 1920's, they went themselves or with friends.
And as usual, the gov was used to regulate who could practice law, fast forward to today and this is why it is so hard to take a big corp to court.

[Velokid1]

Please then, just give me two or three. I thought it would be hard for you to even come up with one, but if your saying there are tons then it should only take you a minute to list a few here right now.
In all fareness I only asked you for some, I did not ask you to list them all.

Steve, you're using unfair tactics here, i.e. trying to paint me into a corner and make it look like my unwillingness to engage you is admission of my being wrong. Do you have kids? A marriage? A full-time job? Two jobs? C'mon dude.

One example then: the wealthy AND their corporations should be subject to higher tax rates than working class individuals. That's something I am sure you disagree with, as do most Libertarians.

First one that came to mind. Now you owe my kid 10 minutes of your time. :)

[steve74baywin]

Please then, just give me two or three. I thought it would be hard for you to even come up with one, but if your saying there are tons then it should only take you a minute to list a few here right now.
In all fareness I only asked you for some, I did not ask you to list them all.

Steve, you're using unfair tactics here, i.e. trying to paint me into a corner and make it look like my unwillingness to engage you is admission of my being wrong. Do you have kids? A marriage? A full-time job? Two jobs? C'mon dude.

One example then: the wealthy AND their corporations should be subject to higher tax rates than working class individuals. That's something I am sure you disagree with, as do most Libertarians.

First one that came to mind. Now you owe my kid 10 minutes of your time. :)

That was not my intent to paint you in a corner. I seriously believe there aren't any, so I couldn't get a grasp on your concern. I was sincerely trying to understand, I needed an example. I could not think of any.

Taxes- Well as a Libertarian there would be zero tax on income for individuals. From what I understand there were taxes on some goods from before 1800 to 1913, I don't fully know what was taxed and the legalities behind it.
I was speaking of regulations on corporations. I believe the concerns mentioned here was about regulations on corporations that are good for us the people.
Others on here also mention how these regulations are needed, so maybe they can provide a regulation on a business that is good for us.

[Gypsie]

lead paint on a child's toy. Lead paint is cheaper and lasts longer than some other paint. It has a side effect of raising lead levels in children when put into the mouth, as children's toys often are. If left up to a company to regulate for themselves they may use this toxic paint.

Doesn't the underwriters laboratories test electrical appliances to confirm that they won't start fires?

Both of these examples could lead one down the path to finding outrageous regulations that are way beyond stupid, though I would lean to believing that these areas of oversight has prevented many more serious calamitous events.

FDA: many wacky rules, many more consumer protections.

[steve74baywin]

lead paint on a child's toy. Lead paint is cheaper and lasts longer than some other paint. It has a side effect of raising lead levels in children when put into the mouth, as children's toys often are. If left up to a company to regulate for themselves they may use this toxic paint.

Doesn't the underwriters laboratories test electrical appliances to confirm that they won't start fires?

Both of these examples could lead one down the path to finding outrageous regulations that are way beyond stupid, though I would lean to believing that these areas of oversight has prevented many more serious calamitous events.

FDA: many wacky rules, many more consumer protections.

Okay, lets see. I don't know if there is a regulation not allowing lead paint in toys, probably so.
Let's see how things happened. At some point we discover lead paint is bad. Probably has been on toys and walls for a bit. Without a gov rule saying a company can't do it, what would happen. Well, for starters most companies wanting to sell toys, that is what they want (to sell toys), would probably stop using lead paint, if they didn't they'd lose sales and then be hated and looked at as idiots for still making toys with lead. Problem almost solved completely. Now they could lie and still use the lead paint. They could do that still today, perhaps the gov checks it, but that there would probably be criminal, to lie and say there is no lead paint could land someone behind bars even in a Libertarian gov, in fact todays system would probably just give them a fine to the corporation, which could afford it. In a Libertarian one if they injured a childs brain they be in jail. They could choose to not tell you what kind of paint they use. Good, people would buy the toys I make instead because I tell them what kind of paint I use. And people would always be free to get the paint on toys checked for lead. Even today a company might use that paint. Was this regulation in place before the toys from China came here with lead paint?
That was a good example, a hard one for me to minimize the impact.
Now I'm am going to see if there is such a regulation and what the penalty is. In todays system the buck is passed, no ONE person would probably go to jail for lying about the paint.

[Gypsie]

for starters most companies wanting to sell toys, that is what they want (to sell toys), would probably stop using lead paint,
Why start using something that costs more if you don't have to...http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/busin ... 1lead.html

they didn't they'd lose sales and then be hated and looked at as idiots for still making toys with lead.
Which one's would be the idiots...The patsy's hired to apply the paint, the buyer of the paint, the maker of the paint, the CEO, the share holders demanding a high profit margin. I'm sure there would be a cartload of fingers to point once the parent of the sick or dead child could get a day in court. By the time the problem made itself known (ie that they were using a toxic substance on the toy) they would have sold millions of them and supplied a war chest to defend against claims of the 'alleged harm' caused by the 'allegedly toxic substance'


Problem almost solved completely. Now they could lie and still use the lead paint. They could do that still today, perhaps the gov checks it, but that there would probably be criminal, to lie and say there is no lead paint could land someone behind bars even in a Libertarian gov,
So it would still be illegal to use lead based paint but the liertarians would wait for the harm to present before taking any action hoping that profit would take a backseat to goodness and light? Who would pay the medical expenses while this worked it's way through what I can only imagine as an extremely busy court system in this unregulated environment...That could be good for the company that continues to profit while the day in court waits it's turn.

in fact todays system would probably just give them a fine to the corporation, which could afford it. In a Libertarian one if they injured a childs brain they be in jail. They could choose to not tell you what kind of paint they use. Good, people would buy the toys I make instead because I tell them what kind of paint I use. And people would always be free to get the paint on toys checked for lead. Even today a company might use that paint. Was this regulation in place before the toys from China came here with lead paint?
That was a good example, a hard one for me to minimize the impact.

This last part opens a whole pandoras box of litigation and burden of proof and reliance on persons researching their investments...I think most folk would like to buy a box of Lincoln logs knowing that touching them won't make you sick without having to pay a lab to test one to assure it is made of safe products. Then if you do find it to be unsafe do you take it back, get your $15 dollars and move on? Really that's all your out if you don't like the product.

This argument is difficult because it only highlights the bitter selfishness of "Mega-Corp's" desire for profit at the expense of all else. What happens to the employees of the company that loses it's legal battle for using unsafe products. Does it still make toys? Who goes to jail? Line worker that applied the paint? Buyer of the paint? CEO? Shareholder?

Everything looks rosy with the right color glasses. Everything looks dark with blinders on.

[ruckman101]

The fact we even have legislation to protect consumers points to the inability of companies to be ethical first, and profitable second. The exceptions are certainly not the norm.


neal

[Kubelwagen]

If those who are that concerned about it could put half of their effort to good instead of evil, we would all be better off.

What if I, looking for more ways to survive, I start making incandescent bulbs for those who want them. (no evil yet)
I sell them to people who still want them in Florida, and then maybe some people in Georgia.
So far I see nothing evil.
I wonder if any group of people would try to stop me?
I could see some from the gov showing up, pushing their force around with guns to stop me from doing this. (Evil now present) Imagine that, I am just making bulbs for a few people who want them. Then some group of men, with weapons to kill, show up and use violence to force me to stop. (evil) These men are paid money from a gov that uses guns and force (evil) to get it from people.

Sorry to jump in so late with a quote from the first page, but didn't see anyone address this.

1) The exclusion from the "ban" of "specialty" bulbs would seem to create enough loop holes for someone to run an artisan locally produced special bulb store without the risk of jackbooted thugs swarming the premises.

2) As for cops carrying guns. Imagine that, people who break laws frequently are willing to resort to violence to avoid being arrested. Heck, I live in Portland so I've got ample evidence in the local paper of police using too much force. BUT - in your example above there would be plenty of warning in the form of writs, letters, summons etc. before the cops showed up. During which time one could take recourse in the law to at least try to preserve the business.

3) If you really think that humans can survive without rule enforcement (and if you can believe that I sort of envy you, cause I can't) just pop on up to a nature area that's not being patrolled and see the mess made by your fellow primates.

[Velokid1]

What about drunk driving? Should there not be a law against drinking and driving? Let the repercussions of a drunk driving accident serve as the deterrent instead of a law regulating driving behavior?

I mean, you drive drunk, you kill someone, that gets pretty messy. A year in prison, shame, five years probation, thirty grand in attorney fees, guilty conscience. Maybe that should serve as the deterrent instead of trampling someone's personal freedoms and telling them that they can't have a couple beverages before driving.

[RSorak 71Westy]

I agree Velo I've always thought DD laws were like the pot law in TN, there's no allowance, for personal use, if you're caught growing they assume it's for sale. Driving drunk and not crashing or harming another person or property should not be a crime. Now if you DO crash while drunk and hurt someone they should put you under the jail.

[Velokid1]

I was being facetious for the most part. Drunk driving laws are already very conservative and the punishments for violating them are severe, yet half the people I know have no problem taking their chances by breaking the law. The consequences of fucking up behind the wheel are dire and yet it's not an effective deterrent. So is the answer to not regulate either drunk drivers OR industry?

[steve74baywin]

for starters most companies wanting to sell toys, that is what they want (to sell toys), would probably stop using lead paint, Why start using something that costs more if you don't have to.

If people agreed lead paint was bad and a company still used it, do you not think people would buy there toys from another company? That would be a drop in the sale of toys. Opposite of there goal to sell toys.

they didn't they'd lose sales and then be hated and looked at as idiots for still making toys with lead.
Which one's would be the idiots...The patsy's hired to apply the paint, the buyer of the paint, the maker of the paint, the CEO, the share holders demanding a high profit margin.

The whole company, hence drop in sales, if people really didn't want lead paint on their toys, why on earth would they still buy them?

So it would still be illegal to use lead based paint but the liertarians would wait for the harm to present before taking any action hoping that profit would take a backseat to goodness and light? Who would pay the medical expenses while this worked it's way through what I can only imagine as an extremely busy court system in this unregulated environment...That could be good for the company that continues to profit while the day in court waits it's turn.

What would be illegal is hurting, harming, stealing and killing. This is why we say you would not need to spell out and make a law for the million ways to kill and hurt.
It would be a much simpler court case. Right now it is pretty messed up because right now most of the time and effort spent is in interpreting the massive amounts of law. In a Libertarian one the time spent would be in proving the guilt/crime took place. Not first interpreting the law, then attempting to prove guilt. You still have to show guilt or proof of the crime today, but after the massive interpretation of law.
The courts system would be far less busy, there wouldn't be any of the "regulating environment" part. It would be proving guilt of the hurting, stealing, killing of property, which includes one self.

This argument is difficult because it only highlights the bitter selfishness of "Mega-Corp's" desire for profit at the expense of all else. What happens to the employees of the company that loses it's legal battle for using unsafe products. Does it still make toys? Who goes to jail? Line worker that applied the paint? Buyer of the paint? CEO? Shareholder?

Once again, this a problem that exist because of the system we have today. Corporations would not be like they are today, buck passing would not be possible. There would be real owners, not owners hidden behind the "law society". In other words the corporations today are a legally created entity created by the perverse law society. Research corporations to see how today they are nothing like they first were allowed to be. Just like a case against them would be far easier in a Libertarian system, today it is very hard becuase the system has been bastardized.

Everything looks rosy with the right color glasses. Everything looks dark with blinders on.

I agree, oh I agree so much you can't imagine. The thing is if colored glasses have been put in ones face since birth, a person doesn't really know they are on.

What I see time and time again is problems are brought up that people think would still be in a Libertarian systems, but they don't realize these are problems first created by the current system due to it not being a Libertarian system. It was intentional too. Those in power wanted to create a massive confusing system so they could get away with the very things they get away with today. They turned things upside down on their head. They took away the observance of individual rights and made a system of "beg the king for privileges" instead.

[steve74baywin]

The fact we even have legislation to protect consumers points to the inability of companies to be ethical first, and profitable second. The exceptions are certainly not the norm.


neal

Not really, things can be twisted a thousand ways.
What it points to is that
1)things are not perfect and accidents happen.
2) We learn things as we go
3) money and power corrupts
4) people can be deceived
5) Men with power and influence can persuade the people to give up there rights for a false sense of security.
So some accident happens, or, we find out later that lead paint isn't good. Then some money hungry law maker/politician wants to make a law to stack the cards in his favor.
What we see is some people always wanting to attempt to control others that they will utilized some thing that just happens to get the people to allow them to regulate their freedom away from them with more and more legislation. The people believe in this false sense of security.

[steve74baywin]

Sorry to jump in so late with a quote from the first page, but didn't see anyone address this.

1) The exclusion from the "ban" of "specialty" bulbs would seem to create enough loop holes for someone to run an artisan locally produced special bulb store without the risk of jackbooted thugs swarming the premises.

2) As for cops carrying guns. Imagine that, people who break laws frequently are willing to resort to violence to avoid being arrested. Heck, I live in Portland so I've got ample evidence in the local paper of police using too much force. BUT - in your example above there would be plenty of warning in the form of writs, letters, summons etc. before the cops showed up. During which time one could take recourse in the law to at least try to preserve the business.

3) If you really think that humans can survive without rule enforcement (and if you can believe that I sort of envy you, cause I can't) just pop on up to a nature area that's not being patrolled and see the mess made by your fellow primates.

The loop holes you speak of normally get used only by the big corporations who exist due to this current system, who have the money and means to legally navigate this big law system created by this current system.

The thing is we'd have a gov that just protects Individual Rights, rights that are derived from property, which would be a gov to protect from hurting, killing and stealing. So many, many of the fears you and others have would still be protected by police.