"Regulations, legislation and subsidization has led to monopolies and the maintaining of unethical and harmful business practices"
So laws forbidding pollution create harmful business practices, and antitrust regulation creates monopolies? There was far less regulation in the days of the robber barons - perhaps corporations were more responsible then? It is this kind of thinking that insists that if we lose the minimum wage, that somehow employers will magically pay more? Or that eliminating pollution regulations will stop pollution? Or that allowing Microsoft to buy up all its competitors will end its monopoly?
True - those with the money can buy legislation that it wants. The answer is not to ban legislation, it is to ban corporations from buying legislation. In fact, corporations should be banned from having legal presence as humans. And anyone found donating any money to a politician should be thrown in jail, together with the politician who takes it. Money is not "free speech", and corporations are not "people".
RE: What is freedom in the 21st century?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
What is freedom in the 21st century?
No, it's the thinking that if you don't like pollution, don't patron a polluting business. Don't like what a company pays their employees? Don't patronize them. Don't like a monopoly, encourage someone to compete with them.
Windows is a great example. Between them and Mac they have a pretty tight reign on the OS market, right? Except that some college kids came up with an OS that is open source and free and works GREAT. Better than either of the big boys.
Monopolies can only occur if business owners sell to the big guys. But if the small guy is nickled and dimed for doing business, then he is encouraged to sell his business for a windfall.
As for regulations reducing pollution, if that were the case, we'd see a dramatic drop in pollution rates over the last 5-10 years. We really haven't. You see, instead of actually stopping pollution, there's just a price on it now. You can't do it for free. But pay this negligible fee(carbon taxes) that the big guys can afford easily and it's no worries. Oh, the little guy can't afford that, guess he'll sell to the big guy now. Hell, they TRADE the ability to pollute on the stock market.
The ability to govern will always lead to those with influence and money taking the reigns and turning it to their favor. It has, EVERY, FUCKING, TIME. You can reset all you want. It'll just come back to that, again and again. That is academic, historical precedent and fact. Government always seeks to grow, control and always becomes the tool of those it is perceived to be against. The robber barons went on to control government. It's how they managed to continue profiting and growing more and more influential. That never stopped. They simply made what they do 'legitimate' in the eyes of the law.
If you are looking to save yourself and the world, you'd be a fool to rely on ink, paper and strangers to do it for you. And if you think that laws somehow equate to ethical or moral, maybe you should look more closely at the history of laws.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
"As for regulations reducing pollution, if that were the case, we'd see a dramatic drop in pollution rates over the last 5-10 years. We really haven't. "
Actually, regulations started in the 50's and 60's when the rivers were on fire and Love Canal poisoned neighborhoods, and LA smog was as thick as fog every day. Today, we have far more economic activity, and despite that, we dont have a commensurate increase in pollution.
Many rivers have been cleaned up, most cities now have breathable air, and where there is pollution, its because the laws have not been enforced.
In the days before regulation, people polluted like crazy.
Your notion is that if we abolished speed limits, the traffic would get smoother. An arguable question. German Freeways certainly work well. But if you removed all cops and traffic cameras? Hm. What could go wrong?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
If I dont like pollution, I can stop all pollution by not patronizing a polluting business? Right. Great solution, there, Einstein.
If you dont like socialism, dont patronise socialist businesses. If you dont like ISIS, dont patronise ISIS-run businesses.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
"As for regulations reducing pollution, if that were the case, we'd see a dramatic drop in pollution rates over the last 5-10 years. We really haven't. "
We really have in cases where the law has been changed. Tea party been in power for most of the past 6 years, and before that, Bush vetoed all regs. But WHEN regs were applied - acid rain, ozone hole - they worked very well. LA used to be smog so think you couldnt see your contact lenses.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
"nd if you think that laws somehow equate to ethical or moral, maybe you should look more closely at the history of laws."
Some do, some dont.
Depends on who writes them and for what reason. Look up the laws on genocide, slavery, child trafficking and murder.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit