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.
There is a theory that seems almost holy to Libertarians and which many posters dodge like hell. So if there are any Libertarians who would like to take a crack at responding directly to a point, I'd like to hear their views. Of course, if they all use the same dodges and analogies I got from another Libertarian, then quit asking why no one takes you guys seriously.
Here it the central economic theory I've heard from Libertarians and why I dispute it:
"The Market Will Correct Itself". They claim if a company is not nice, people won't buy its' products and services, they won't work there and The Magical Market will make the bad ol' company go away! Wrong. It doesn't.
Without government regulation, companies hurt people (e.g. unsafe working conditions, denial of health benefits, toxic dumping, unsafe oil rigs etc...).
They make harmful products (e.g. dangrous drugs, cars that blow up etc...).
They treat employees horribly (e.g. discrimination, wrongful term, etc...).
And no - those companies don't disappear if they are bad because "the Magical Market Corrects All".
The Market does little to correct anything a company does, once it gets big enough. That's just plain fact.
So the biggest flaw I find in Libertarianism is the belief that companies will regulate themselves, if simply left alone. History proves this is not the case.
This is why a strong centralized government and reasonable level of regulation is necessary to the well-being of citizenry.
I would welcome any commentary from Libertarians on this and will not stoop to the petty insults, labeling etc... that the weak use as their only means of debate. However, I will challenge you if your reasoning is flawed! Cheers, FS
Cable companies aren't granted monopoly status by law.
Yes they are. You obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about.
They were granted temporary monopolies because the alternative is that no one would have laid the fiber, but that's not really an issue now.
Wrong again. They still have legal monopolies, and I fail to see why that isn't an issue.
It has a monopoly on first class mail, dipstick. Is everything you believe untrue?
They do have a government-granted monopoly on certain types of deliveries, but that's a element of our constitutional commitment to have national mail delivery (get rid of USPS, and large portions of the country would be without mail service).
In other words, they have a monopoly. Nothing in the Constitution says the USPS has to have a legal monopoly. Your theory about national mail service is also bogus.
As for monopolies that came into being without any government assistance? Standard Oil is an obvious example. AT&T was another. U.S. Steel was for a period.
Nope. Standard Oil never had a monopoly, and AT&T had a legal monopoly. U.S. Steel also never had a monopoly.
When it comes to being wrong, you're batting 1000.
The Green Party supports private property rights? When did that start?
At least in this country, Greens has been at the forefront of pushing the idea that companies don't have the right to pollute the land of private citizens.
You mean it pushes the idea that you don't have the right to pollute your own land. It's against the law to pollute the private property of other people and always has been. That's why pollution problems always occur on government own property.
At least in this country, Greens has been at the forefront of pushing the idea that companies don't have the right to pollute the land of private citizens.
You mean it pushes the idea that you don't have the right to pollute your own land. It's against the law to pollute the private property of other people and always has been. That's why pollution problems always occur on government own property.
No, it's not. Go to the area surrounding any industrial area in this country and tell me it's "against the law to pollute the private property of other people".
You mean it pushes the idea that you don't have the right to pollute your own land. It's against the law to pollute the private property of other people and always has been. That's why pollution problems always occur on government own property.
No, it's not. Go to the area surrounding any industrial area in this country and tell me it's "against the law to pollute the private property of other people".
The free market is always a better solution than the government!
In England and Scotland, for example, unlike in the United States, the right to fish for sport and commerce is a privately owned, transferable right. This means that owners of fishing rights can obtain damages and injunctions against polluters of streams. Owners of these rights vigorously defend them, even though the owners are often small anglers clubs with modest means. Fishers clearly gain, but there is a cost to them also. Free-Market Environmentalism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
You mean it pushes the idea that you don't have the right to pollute your own land. It's against the law to pollute the private property of other people and always has been. That's why pollution problems always occur on government own property.
No, it's not. Go to the area surrounding any industrial area in this country and tell me it's "against the law to pollute the private property of other people".
The free market is always a better solution than the government!
In England and Scotland, for example, unlike in the United States, the right to fish for sport and commerce is a privately owned, transferable right. This means that owners of fishing rights can obtain damages and injunctions against polluters of streams. Owners of these rights vigorously defend them, even though the owners are often small anglers clubs with modest means. Fishers clearly gain, but there is a cost to them also. Free-Market Environmentalism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
No, it's not. Go to the area surrounding any industrial area in this country and tell me it's "against the law to pollute the private property of other people".
The free market is always a better solution than the government!
In England and Scotland, for example, unlike in the United States, the right to fish for sport and commerce is a privately owned, transferable right. This means that owners of fishing rights can obtain damages and injunctions against polluters of streams. Owners of these rights vigorously defend them, even though the owners are often small anglers clubs with modest means. Fishers clearly gain, but there is a cost to them also. Free-Market Environmentalism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
How does that work exactly? The article only mentions the English example as a way to discuss Love Canal and National Park fees and taxes.
In England, couldnt I as a corpoartion purchase large swathes of a river, then dump as much pollutants into it as I wanted? After all I own it, right? The value in the river isnt in the fishing but the dump site.
If you have more links describing how it works, that would be great. All Im getting from goole is a dispute with spain over internatiional fishing or people trying to sell their fishing rights.
In England, couldnt I as a corpoartion purchase large swathes of a river, then dump as much pollutants into it as I wanted? After all I own it, right?
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.
What else is interpretation? You sound like spoiled child that didn't get their way.
I'm not spoiled I just want my government to follow the fucking constitution. There is no power of judicial review granted in the constitution. Period. Prove me wrong and don't cite case law because case law is based on judicial review.
Did the generation that framed the Constitution intend judicial review to be part of the constitutional scheme?
Judicial review was initially taken for granted and presumed to exist. Many members of the Framing generation presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to a constitution.
Why did the Framing generation presume that judicial review was to exist?
They held this presumption because of colonial American history. In England, the by-laws of corporations had been subject to the requirement that they not be repugnant to the laws of the nation. The early English settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts were originally corporations. Eventually, legislation from all the English colonies was limited by the principle that it could not be repugnant to the laws of England. Under this standard, colonial lawyers appealed around 250 cases from colonial courts to the English Privy Council and the crown reviewed over 8,500 colonial acts.
In 1787, the Framers of the Constitution simply presumed that judges would continue this practice by voiding legislation repugnant to the Constitution. A few Framers worried about the power; however, they expected it would exist. As James Madison stated, “A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void.” In fact, the word “Constitution” in the Supremacy Clause and the clause describing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction appeared to give textual authorization for judicial enforcement of constitutional constraints on state and federal legislation. Indeed, before Marbury, Justice Chase noted that, although the Court had never adjudicated whether the judiciary had the authority to declare laws contrary to the constitution void, general opinion, all the Supreme Court bar, and some of the Supreme Court justices had so decided.
By 1803, as Chief Justice Marshall acknowledged in Marbury, “long and well established” principles answered “the question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land.” Marshall concluded that “a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts . . . are bound by that instrument.” Accepting the well-established and long-practiced idea of limited legislative authority, American constitutional law recommitted itself to a practice over four centuries old.
The Ethics of Prosecutors - Boston College
What else is interpretation? You sound like spoiled child that didn't get their way.
I'm not spoiled I just want my government to follow the fucking constitution. There is no power of judicial review granted in the constitution. Period. Prove me wrong and don't cite case law because case law is based on judicial review.
The Constitution didnt simply spontaneously generate out of some unknown void, the Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition, dating back to, and before, the Magna Carta. The Constitution is the product of law, written by men who understood the law and accepted the doctrine of judicial review, which predated the Constitution. Judicial review was practiced in Colonial America and the Framers fully expected laws passed by Congress to be subject to review by the courts, thus further defining the meaning and understanding of the Founding Document:
Did the generation that framed the Constitution intend judicial review to be part of the constitutional scheme?
Judicial review was initially taken for granted and presumed to exist. Many members of the Framing generation presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to a constitution.
Why did the Framing generation presume that judicial review was to exist?
They held this presumption because of colonial American history. In England, the by-laws of corporations had been subject to the requirement that they not be repugnant to the laws of the nation. The early English settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts were originally corporations. Eventually, legislation from all the English colonies was limited by the principle that it could not be repugnant to the laws of England. Under this standard, colonial lawyers appealed around 250 cases from colonial courts to the English Privy Council and the crown reviewed over 8,500 colonial acts.
In 1787, the Framers of the Constitution simply presumed that judges would continue this practice by voiding legislation repugnant to the Constitution. A few Framers worried about the power; however, they expected it would exist. As James Madison stated, A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void. In fact, the word Constitution in the Supremacy Clause and the clause describing the Supreme Courts jurisdiction appeared to give textual authorization for judicial enforcement of constitutional constraints on state and federal legislation. Indeed, before Marbury, Justice Chase noted that, although the Court had never adjudicated whether the judiciary had the authority to declare laws contrary to the constitution void, general opinion, all the Supreme Court bar, and some of the Supreme Court justices had so decided.
By 1803, as Chief Justice Marshall acknowledged in Marbury, long and well established principles answered the question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land. Marshall concluded that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts . . . are bound by that instrument. Accepting the well-established and long-practiced idea of limited legislative authority, American constitutional law recommitted itself to a practice over four centuries old.
The Ethics of Prosecutors - Boston College
Consequently, theres no need for the power of judicial review [to be] granted in the constitution, judicial review was already part of the very legal fabric from which the Constitution was created.
In England, couldnt I as a corpoartion purchase large swathes of a river, then dump as much pollutants into it as I wanted? After all I own it, right?
dear, yes you could dump in the river if you owned it all and the oceans too but you could not afford to buy the entire planet. So, people down stream have rights too and they would sue you!!!
Its ok though BO will be defeated and Romney will pick 2-3 conservatives for the court. THe liberals can go to Cuba where they belong.
We have a winnah!yes but review by whom? Both Madison and Jefferson felt each branch of government could and should review. Also, Marbury was not an important case for 100 years indicating it was not obvious to anyone that the Court should hold supreme power to write or interpret the Constitution.
Its ok though BO will be defeated and Romney will pick 2-3 conservatives for the court. THe liberals can go to Cuba where they belong.
Its ok though BO will be defeated and Romney will pick 2-3 conservatives for the court. THe liberals can go to Cuba where they belong.
Would he though? Romneycare, and his enthusiasm for bailouts and other big government programs, doesn't really say much for his commitment to limited government. Hard to see why he'd nominate justices who would bust on his own ambitions.
Romney will nominate whoever the "Moral Majority"/"Tea Party"/whatever they're calling themselves these days want him to nominate.
Correct...The final arbiters were meant to be the people, via fully informed and properly empowered juries.Well, I guess you could defer to the guy who actually wrote the clause, as to what he meant by it:If the people are the ultimate arbiter of the constitution, my guess is that the General Welfare clause means something different than most libertarians believe.
The Federalist #41
Perhaps, but Jefferson said the final arbiter should be the people. If you invoke Jefferson to hold up people and slap down judges, be careful what you wish for. After all, correct me if I'm wrong, but your disdain for democracy seems to arise from the power of the people to vote themselves wealth distribution.
Well, I guess you could defer to the guy who actually wrote the clause, as to what he meant by it:If the people are the ultimate arbiter of the constitution, my guess is that the General Welfare clause means something different than most libertarians believe.
The Federalist #41
And you'd be wise to do so. And you can also disagree with him about what it meant then, and what it means now. The fact that he wrote it in no way makes his subsequent editorial about it the final word.
Well, I guess you could defer to the guy who actually wrote the clause, as to what he meant by it:
The Federalist #41
And you'd be wise to do so. And you can also disagree with him about what it meant then, and what it means now. The fact that he wrote it in no way makes his subsequent editorial about it the final word.
I gotta disagree with this. There was a certain intent when crafting the constitution, and if we're not going to accept the framers' own explanations after the fact then why even bother deferring to the document at all?
Well, I guess you could defer to the guy who actually wrote the clause, as to what he meant by it:
The Federalist #41
And you'd be wise to do so. And you can also disagree with him about what it meant then, and what it means now. The fact that he wrote it in no way makes his subsequent editorial about it the final word.
I gotta disagree with this. There was a certain intent when crafting the constitution, and if we're not going to accept the framers' own explanations after the fact then why even bother deferring to the document at all?
And you'd be wise to do so. And you can also disagree with him about what it meant then, and what it means now. The fact that he wrote it in no way makes his subsequent editorial about it the final word.
I gotta disagree with this. There was a certain intent when crafting the constitution, and if we're not going to accept the framers' own explanations after the fact then why even bother deferring to the document at all?
Because he's not alive to tell us how to apply it on a case by case basis.
