Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If companies are left to fend for themselves, and sink or swim without any sort of legislative or other governmental action that favors them over others, then, yes, they will be effectively (and brutally) regulated by the marketplace...
If companies are left to fend for themselves, and sink or swim without any sort of legislative or other governmental action that favors them over others, then, yes, they will be effectively (and brutally) regulated by the marketplace...
The problem with this dogma is that as a poorly managed, inefficient business begins to struggle in the brutal marketplace, its owners will cut corners in an attempt to survive, endangering the lives and safety of both employees and consumers. The damage inflicted on society would be considerable until such time as the business dies.
If companies are left to fend for themselves, and sink or swim without any sort of legislative or other governmental action that favors them over others, then, yes, they will be effectively (and brutally) regulated by the marketplace...
The problem with this dogma is that as a poorly managed, inefficient business begins to struggle in the brutal marketplace, its owners will cut corners in an attempt to survive, endangering the lives and safety of both employees and consumers. The damage inflicted on society would be considerable until such time as the business dies.
What do you think the General Welfare clause is?
"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. ." - Thomas Jefferson
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.- Madison
"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison
What do you think the General Welfare clause is?
"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. ." - Thomas Jefferson
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.- Madison
"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison
Yet another big flaw with regard to libertarianism: the inability (or unwillingness) of its disciples to accept the principals of judicial review and the rule of law. The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, consequently the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.
What do you think the General Welfare clause is?
"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. ." - Thomas Jefferson
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.- Madison
"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison
Yet another big flaw with regard to libertarianism: the inability (or unwillingness) of its disciples to accept the principals of judicial review and the rule of law. The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, consequently the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.
He never does.Yet you are not able to explain WHY this inability is flawed.
Try again.
He never does.Yet you are not able to explain WHY this inability is flawed.
Try again.
He tells you like the oligarchy sees it on the drive-by and hits the road.
The ultimate judicial review is the jury box...But you already knew I'd say that.Nice circle jerk
It's logically flawed to say that judicial review is the last word in dispute resolution, as has been postulated by fervent defenders of libertarianism in this very thread, and also maintain an unwillingness to accept the fundamental principles of judicial review itself.
I know you won't actually take this criticism seriously, just make sure you mop up when you're done.
The ultimate judicial review is the jury box...But you already knew I'd say that.Nice circle jerk
It's logically flawed to say that judicial review is the last word in dispute resolution, as has been postulated by fervent defenders of libertarianism in this very thread, and also maintain an unwillingness to accept the fundamental principles of judicial review itself.
I know you won't actually take this criticism seriously, just make sure you mop up when you're done.
If companies are left to fend for themselves, and sink or swim without any sort of legislative or other governmental action that favors them over others, then, yes, they will be effectively (and brutally) regulated by the marketplace...
The problem with this dogma is that as a poorly managed, inefficient business begins to struggle in the brutal marketplace, its owners will cut corners in an attempt to survive, endangering the lives and safety of both employees and consumers. The damage inflicted on society would be considerable until such time as the business dies.
Couldn't employees simply quit?
Couldn't consumers simply stop buying the product?
Shouldn't individuals be responsible for their own choices?
I tug nobody's junk...And libertarians aren't a monolith.The ultimate judicial review is the jury box...But you already knew I'd say that.Nice circle jerk
It's logically flawed to say that judicial review is the last word in dispute resolution, as has been postulated by fervent defenders of libertarianism in this very thread, and also maintain an unwillingness to accept the fundamental principles of judicial review itself.
I know you won't actually take this criticism seriously, just make sure you mop up when you're done.
So you're obliviously disagreeing with the guy whose cock your tugg'n on.
Even better.
"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. ." - Thomas Jefferson
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.- Madison
"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison
Yet another big flaw with regard to libertarianism: the inability (or unwillingness) of its disciples to accept the principals of judicial review and the rule of law. The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, consequently the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.
Fail.
And you were doing so well too.
Yet another big flaw with regard to libertarianism: the inability (or unwillingness) of its disciples to accept the principals of judicial review and the rule of law. The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, consequently the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.
Fail.
And you were doing so well too.
The supreme court interpreted the constitution to give themselves an unenumerated power that supposedly supersedes both of the other branches. In one fell swoop they gave themselves a monopoly on the interpretation and manipulation of language.
As I have pointed out in the past...The Supreme Court exists because of the constitution so therefore it exists solely in the context of the constitution not the other way around and definitely not outside of it as they seem to believe.
Couldn't employees simply quit?
Couldn't consumers simply stop buying the product?
Shouldn't individuals be responsible for their own choices?
I tug nobody's junk...And libertarians aren't a monolith.The ultimate judicial review is the jury box...But you already knew I'd say that.
So you're obliviously disagreeing with the guy whose cock your tugg'n on.
Even better.
And here I was foolishly under the mistaken impression that you wanted to have a serious adult conversation, for a change.
The problem with this dogma is that as a poorly managed, inefficient business begins to struggle in the brutal marketplace, its owners will cut corners in an attempt to survive, endangering the lives and safety of both employees and consumers. The damage inflicted on society would be considerable until such time as the business dies.If companies are left to fend for themselves, and sink or swim without any sort of legislative or other governmental action that favors them over others, then, yes, they will be effectively (and brutally) regulated by the marketplace...
