Why Obama is wrong when he says business needs the government

[8537]

You realize that government stepped in to assume the role of law enforcement right? Was not unusual for the property owners to resolve that on scene in the past.

So now we've come full circle from "The government doesn't enforce those rights" to "Well, there was this time in the past (and in Somalia today) where private citizens resolved enforcement on their own"

We don't live in that time or place.

Still doesn't make the case that business needs government. If anything, government has always needed business.

Show me a place any where in the world at any time in history where a market economy succeeded without public enforcement of personal and intellectual property rights.

Business can't flourish in an environment where those rules do not exist. Government makes and enforces those rules.

 

[8537]

Amazing.

Was Henry Ford making cars before 1722? Or are the lines on this map just property marks?

I suppose telling you those lines are streets for pedestrian and horse traffic would be news.

No, those are streets! In fact, some of them are...post roads! a constitutional duty of...hold it now...government! And they existed before Henry Ford built the first car.

And even worse, that big area towards the top? That's a COMMON!!! In 1722 the people of Boston believed in a publicly managed common ownership. Like Marx, 100 years before his birth!

 

[saveliberty]

Government has assumed that role, which benefits government.

 

[saveliberty]

Was Henry Ford making cars before 1722? Or are the lines on this map just property marks?

I suppose telling you those lines are streets for pedestrian and horse traffic would be news.

No, those are streets! In fact, some of them are...post roads! a constitutional duty of...hold it now...government! And they existed before Henry Ford built the first car.

...and you think they were built for cars at the time?

Please link to where they were built by the federal government...

 

[8537]

I suppose telling you those lines are streets for pedestrian and horse traffic would be news.

No, those are streets! In fact, some of them are...post roads! a constitutional duty of...hold it now...government! And they existed before Henry Ford built the first car.

...and you think they were built for cars at the time?

No, quite the contrary - that claim was made by an earlier poster to which I was responding.

Please link to where they were built by the federal government...

Why do you keep moving the goalposts? Who said the federal government built all roads? The federal government has a constitutional duty establish and post roads.

 

[Katzndogz]

Wow.

Amazing.

Was Henry Ford making cars before 1722? Or are the lines on this map just property marks?

The government didn't build horse paths or the roads cut by carts either. The government flat hadn't at all at that time, built roads since the Romans tiled roads in Britian!

Roads weren't built, they were formed by use. Are liberals really that stupid? Seriously? The government didn't build any roads, certainly not in 1722 before there ever was a government.

 

[saveliberty]

Was Henry Ford making cars before 1722? Or are the lines on this map just property marks?

I suppose telling you those lines are streets for pedestrian and horse traffic would be news.

No, those are streets! In fact, some of them are...post roads! a constitutional duty of...hold it now...government! And they existed before Henry Ford built the first car.

And even worse, that big area towards the top? That's a COMMON!!! In 1722 the people of Boston believed in a publicly managed common ownership. Like Marx, 100 years before his birth!

The Common's purpose has changed over the years. It was once owned by William Blaxton (often given the modernized spelling "Blackstone"), the first European settler of Boston, until it was bought from him by the Puritan founders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. During the 1630s, it was used by many families as a cow pasture. However, this only lasted for a few years, as affluent families bought additional cows, which led to overgrazing, a real-life example of the Tragedy of the commons.[7] After grazing was limited in 1646 to 70 cows at a time,[8] the Boston Common continued to host cows until they were formally banned from it in 1830 by Mayor Harrison Gray Otis.[9]


Execution of Ann Hibbins on Boston Common, on charges of witchcraft, June 19, 1656. Sketch by F.T. Merril, 1886The Common was used as a camp by the British before the American Revolutionary War, from which they left for the Battle of Lexington and Concord. It was used for public hangings up until 1817, most of which were from a large oak which was replaced with gallows in 1769. In 1660 Mary Dyer was hanged there by the Puritans for preaching Quakerism.

Boston Common - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, someone donated the land they owned to the city. It became a park. Way to rewrite history.

 

[8537]

Amazing.

Was Henry Ford making cars before 1722? Or are the lines on this map just property marks?

The government didn't build horse paths or the roads cut by carts either. The government flat hadn't at all at that time, built roads since the Romans tiled roads in Britian!

Roads weren't built, they were formed by use. Are liberals really that stupid? Seriously? The government didn't build any roads, certainly not in 1722 before there ever was a government.

The US government didn't build post roads?

I read right here in this thread that roads weren't built until the car was invented. The map was an obvious attempt to demonstrate that roads existed before cars. Somehow, that point has flown over the conservatarian head.

 

[8537]

I suppose telling you those lines are streets for pedestrian and horse traffic would be news.

No, those are streets! In fact, some of them are...post roads! a constitutional duty of...hold it now...government! And they existed before Henry Ford built the first car.

And even worse, that big area towards the top? That's a COMMON!!! In 1722 the people of Boston believed in a publicly managed common ownership. Like Marx, 100 years before his birth!

The Common's purpose has changed over the years. It was once owned by William Blaxton (often given the modernized spelling "Blackstone"), the first European settler of Boston, until it was bought from him by the Puritan founders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. During the 1630s, it was used by many families as a cow pasture. However, this only lasted for a few years, as affluent families bought additional cows, which led to overgrazing, a real-life example of the Tragedy of the commons.[7] After grazing was limited in 1646 to 70 cows at a time,[8] the Boston Common continued to host cows until they were formally banned from it in 1830 by Mayor Harrison Gray Otis.[9]


Execution of Ann Hibbins on Boston Common, on charges of witchcraft, June 19, 1656. Sketch by F.T. Merril, 1886The Common was used as a camp by the British before the American Revolutionary War, from which they left for the Battle of Lexington and Concord. It was used for public hangings up until 1817, most of which were from a large oak which was replaced with gallows in 1769. In 1660 Mary Dyer was hanged there by the Puritans for preaching Quakerism.

Boston Common - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, someone donated the land they owned to the city. It became a park. Way to rewrite history.

So, you agree that the government acquired land and turned it into a common?

Never have I seen someone try so hard to disagree with the obvious.

 

[saveliberty]

No, those are streets! In fact, some of them are...post roads! a constitutional duty of...hold it now...government! And they existed before Henry Ford built the first car.

And even worse, that big area towards the top? That's a COMMON!!! In 1722 the people of Boston believed in a publicly managed common ownership. Like Marx, 100 years before his birth!

The Common's purpose has changed over the years. It was once owned by William Blaxton (often given the modernized spelling "Blackstone"), the first European settler of Boston, until it was bought from him by the Puritan founders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. During the 1630s, it was used by many families as a cow pasture. However, this only lasted for a few years, as affluent families bought additional cows, which led to overgrazing, a real-life example of the Tragedy of the commons.[7] After grazing was limited in 1646 to 70 cows at a time,[8] the Boston Common continued to host cows until they were formally banned from it in 1830 by Mayor Harrison Gray Otis.[9]


Execution of Ann Hibbins on Boston Common, on charges of witchcraft, June 19, 1656. Sketch by F.T. Merril, 1886The Common was used as a camp by the British before the American Revolutionary War, from which they left for the Battle of Lexington and Concord. It was used for public hangings up until 1817, most of which were from a large oak which was replaced with gallows in 1769. In 1660 Mary Dyer was hanged there by the Puritans for preaching Quakerism.

Boston Common - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, someone donated the land they owned to the city. It became a park. Way to rewrite history.

So, you agree that the government acquired land and turned it into a common?

Never have I seen someone try so hard to disagree with the obvious.

No it was used for public use while it was still privately held.

 

[8537]

The Common's purpose has changed over the years. It was once owned by William Blaxton (often given the modernized spelling "Blackstone"), the first European settler of Boston, until it was bought from him by the Puritan founders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. During the 1630s, it was used by many families as a cow pasture. However, this only lasted for a few years, as affluent families bought additional cows, which led to overgrazing, a real-life example of the Tragedy of the commons.[7] After grazing was limited in 1646 to 70 cows at a time,[8] the Boston Common continued to host cows until they were formally banned from it in 1830 by Mayor Harrison Gray Otis.[9]


Execution of Ann Hibbins on Boston Common, on charges of witchcraft, June 19, 1656. Sketch by F.T. Merril, 1886The Common was used as a camp by the British before the American Revolutionary War, from which they left for the Battle of Lexington and Concord. It was used for public hangings up until 1817, most of which were from a large oak which was replaced with gallows in 1769. In 1660 Mary Dyer was hanged there by the Puritans for preaching Quakerism.

Boston Common - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, someone donated the land they owned to the city. It became a park. Way to rewrite history.

So, you agree that the government acquired land and turned it into a common?

Never have I seen someone try so hard to disagree with the obvious.

No it was used for public use while it was still privately held.

The Massachusetts Bay Colony was the government entity of the time. They bought it to use it as a commons.

A commons. For common use. To this day, the people of Boston (Commoners) have maintained it as publicly owned property for use by commoners.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

their goal posts have wings.

No, those are streets! In fact, some of them are...post roads! a constitutional duty of...hold it now...government! And they existed before Henry Ford built the first car.

...and you think they were built for cars at the time?

No, quite the contrary - that claim was made by an earlier poster to which I was responding.

Please link to where they were built by the federal government...

Why do you keep moving the goalposts? Who said the federal government built all roads? The federal government has a constitutional duty establish and post roads.

 

[francoHFW]

After 30 years of voodoo tax rates our infrastucture is crappe compared to China and the EU, ya blind ideological brainwashed gits- not to mention our education system. And our ridiculously expensive and cruel Pub health system. Only the rich are prospering. The GOP is a neverending lying cheating disaster at this point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why does Quantum Windbag hate the people who are sworn to defend and protect America?



You quoted from FOX or the White House speech?

What did you quote? Something fully out of context? You tried implying the President was talking about what government does better than individuals.

And The Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District, authorized by an act of the California Legislature, was incorporated in 1928 as the official entity to design, construct, and finance the Golden Gate Bridge. The Golden Gate Bridge was financed with Municipal Bonds. It was not a private project. The War Department fought it because of national security.

Why do you, Quantum Windbag, hate the people who are sworn to defend and protect America?

----

Quasi-dope gets it wrong yet again.


History is full of examples of people like Quasi-doe-doe misrepresenting things or being gullible enough to put forth myth, lie, deceit as fact. Take this thread OP for an example. A thread linked to a post on a -- gulp -- goofy blog, which itself is a ripoff of a -- you guessed it , FOX News liability...

here is what the President really said:


OBAMA: [L]ook, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That's how we funded the GI Bill. That's how we created the middle class. That's how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That's how we invented the Internet. That's how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that's the reason I'm running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You're not on your own, we're in this together.

the above disservice brought to you by FOX and Friends: Fox & Friends Deceptively Edits Obama's Comments On Small Business

Apparently you cannot read, here is my link. I could be wrong, but I am willing to bet you it isn't Fox.

Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event in Roanoke, Virginia | The White House

So you quoted from the White House speech. You quoted something fully out of context. You tried implying the President was talking about what government does better than individuals, rather than what the President was actually speaking about -- individuals and American greatness.

okay. thanks for admitting your thread is bullshit.

Still waiting for you to show me what I got out of context.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/234948-futures-trading-scandal.html

You do know this has absolutely no tie in with my thread, don't you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1) Tell you what, put this into context for me. Tell me how hard work and intelligence isn't what makes people successful.

I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

2) Especially when you consider that he tried to argue exactly the opposite earlier.

And what this reminded me of was that, at the heart of this country, its central idea is the idea that in this country, if you’re willing to work hard, if you’re willing to take responsibility, you can make it if you try. (Applause.) That you can find a job that supports a family and find a home you can make your own; that you won’t go bankrupt when you get sick. That maybe you can take a little vacation with your family once in a while -- nothing fancy, but just time to spend with those you love. Maybe see the country a little bit, maybe come down to Roanoke. (Applause.) That your kids can get a great education, and if they’re willing to work hard, then they can achieve things that you wouldn’t have even imagined achieving. And then you can maybe retire with some dignity and some respect, and be part of a community and give something back. (Applause.)

What fracking context does a speech have that contradicts itself? How is that hard work will help you be a success all on your own unless you own a business?

Go ahead, put it into context for me, I dare you.

Unlike you, I actually read the speech, I didn't get my context from the news, I got it from him.

1) President Obama did not say hard work and intelligence isn't what makes people successful. He said it is not enough, that hard working people who are smart also got a helping hand along the way. That is always true. If there are any exceptions to this rule the number is infinitesimal in the great scheme of things. President Obama said "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

do you disagree with the above?

2) What did the President try to argue earlier other than what he restated in other words? There is no argument the President takes that is in opposition to anything else he said.

You're imagining things again. You keep hearing what you think people say rather than hearing what they actually say. It's okay. It's part of the Wingnut Syndrome.

Strange thing, there are lots of companies that get extra help from the government, and fail. Then we have companies that don't get help from the government, and some that actively fight them every day of their existence, and they succeed. Yet you want me to believe that the companies that succeed without government help, and the ones that succeed after fighting the government for years, all owe their success to the government.

On top of that you actually think I am for not believing that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nonsense.

America is made great by the blending of private and public sectors, each addressing issues both know best and which are appropriate for either to indeed address. In a modern industrialized society there is no hard, bold border between public and private.

What issues does the public sector know best?

Other than making life hard for the private sector.

Well, off the top of my head, water and sewer services, roads, fire, police, courts, defense, international relations, border control, health inspections, quality control for food, inspections of commericial vehicles and operators, air traffic control, inspections of commericial airplanes. Would you like more?

Excuse me?

First, nothing you have listed there is something the government knows best, some of them are not even things the government actually does. The ones that the government actually does do are things the government has declared are part of its monopoly of force.

Second, the government, the public sector, often calls in experts from the private sector to get advice on the best way to deliver those services because the public sector is run by a bunch of lawyers, not by people that actually understand the issues behind any of the services they have decided are exclusively in their purview,

I want to know what issues the public sector knows better than the private sector, not what services the public sector provides. Since you haven't named a single one I would definitely say I want more.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I would love to see the business climate if government didn't enforce physical or intellectual property rights.

Rightwing nirvana!

Strangely enough, Google has made billions by making as much as possible freely available to everyone.

Google has made billions by finding a more efficient way for people to access information. Try infringing on one of Google's patents and see how they feel about enforcing intellectual property rights.

Gee, how would they feel?

Unfortunately for you, I actually know the answer to that question.

Google gives away the Android operating system, the entire source code is open source. Unfortunately, it still costs manufacturers money to use it because Microsoft claims it violates a few patents, and it is simply less expensive to pay a fee than litigate the issue.

There is no patent on the algorithm they use for searches because that would mean that other people could charge them with violating their patents on it. In fact, there are companies that actually accuse Google of violating their patent on the idea of searching the Internet. Strangely enough, you are not supposed to be able to patent ideas.

Google actually didn't worry about patents until Apple ran into a massive problem in actual innovation and started suing everyone in sight. In 2008 Google had just over 300 patents, they were forced to start buying companies like Motorola in order to get get access to their patents to counter the constant suits from Apple and Microsoft.

The patent system is totally FUBAR and needs to be tossed out and rewritten from scratch, anything less than that will eventually doom this country to economic oblivion.

 

[Luissa]

What issues does the public sector know best?

Other than making life hard for the private sector.

Well, off the top of my head, water and sewer services, roads, fire, police, courts, defense, international relations, border control, health inspections, quality control for food, inspections of commericial vehicles and operators, air traffic control, inspections of commericial airplanes. Would you like more?

Excuse me?

First, nothing you have listed there is something the government knows best, some of them are not even things the government actually does. The ones that the government actually does do are things the government has declared are part of its monopoly of force.

Second, the government, the public sector, often calls in experts from the private sector to get advice on the best way to deliver those services because the public sector is run by a bunch of lawyers, not by people that actually understand the issues behind any of the services they have decided are exclusively in their purview,

I want to know what issues the public sector knows better than the private sector, not what services the public sector provides. Since you haven't named a single one I would definitely say I want more.

Which ones does the government not do?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course they do! Any time there is a break in and police learn of it, they attempt to enforce the law by apprehending the suspect.

No, it doesn't. You attempted to deny that the government enforces property rights -a claim that is, on its face, wholly inaccurate and wrong. In fact, the most basic function of government is to enforce and protect intellectual and physical property rights.

You are either incredibly naive or really stupid.

Very well reasoned and detailed response their, windbag.

How is this then, the police don't investigate 98% of break ins, they don't have the resources. Most victims of burglaries have to go down to the station and file a report because police only respond to crimes in progress, not burglaries that are already over.

In fact, there was a story on the local news tonight about a woman that found her property on Craigslist, and then told the police where to find it. The police actually went on record to tell people that they should follow her example because it makes their job easier.

San Leandro: Burglary suspect found selling stolen goods on Craigslist | abc7news.com


By the way, go look up Kelo v City of New London, which is a perfect example of the government not enforcing property rights. The government essentially has the authority to take your property and give it to anyone they want to, all because the last thing they are worried about is your property rights.

The fact that you do not know that makes you either incredibly naive or incredibly stupid. The fact that you actually thought I couldn't back my assessment up leads me to believe it might be both.