Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

In a well functioning democratic political system ‘government’ is just a tool of the people it should reflect the decisions of the people as a whole. A political system dominated by wealth is not going to do that it will corrupt the system to serve the few, making decisions that reflect their interests. It will bring about bad governance, bad government.

The problem with right wing libertarians is that they don’t seem to want good governance, or good government, they just hate governments of all hues and in that hatred would hand even greater power to wealth so that it has even greater influence over society and whatever political system that remains.

This is a serious charge and it would be expected that any right wing libertarian would rush to their ideologies defence – but they don’t.

They don’t because the charge is true.

 

Balbie:

What you infer to be damaging criticism is a result of your inability to accept facts as they are, replacing them with what you would like them to be.

 

Balbie:

As to your last post, an assinine comment tends to be ignored rather than present a need to be responded to in a defensive way.

 

That charge is false. Which has been addressed multiple times In this thread. You apparently have put on your "earmuffs" anytime someone with differing ideologies speaks, and only hear what you want to hear.

Take the EPA for example. The EPA allows those with substantial amounts of money, to pollute the atmosphere through fines and permits, giving an unfair advantage to large corporations. And at the same time giving environmentalists a false sense of satisfaction. Everyday the EPA allows companies to dump all kinds of pollutants that are well beyond their regulations, just as long as they get their cut of the profits. Empowering the EPA only adds to the power of the wealthy. In free market regulation, the wealthy would be subject to the same laws as I am. Which is not the case today.

The wealthy should not be above the law, and that's exactly where the EPA puts them. Only in a free market will corporations be held accountable for their actions.

You've got your shit backwards

 

Indie

What ‘facts’ - can you please produce these supposed ‘facts’?

LOL – if it is so ‘asinine’ then shouldn’t it be rather easy to counter rather than having to evade giving an answer as you are doing?

 

Letlovin

OK for the fourth time I’ll ask you – can you actually produce any evidence that these things have been addressed in any rational or reasonable way?

I mean why have you not been able to produce anything so far?

Can you back this up? I mean I can easily quote your posts and what you have said and my responses to them – you on the other hand even when asked three times seem unable to produce any evidence of things you claim to have been said – why is that?

 

Letlovin

Ok lets look at the case of the EPA –

Why was it set up? Are you claiming that it was set up by large corporations to directly serve the interests of large corporations? If so can you give any evidence for that?

Are you claiming that the EPA has done nothing and is doing nothing to protect the environment? If so can you produce your evidence?

In many ways the EPA seems to be a monitoring body if this monitoring activity was stopped who or what would do the monitoring?

I believe that the EPA has the authority to investigate and seek penalties for the violations environmental laws, who or what would undertake this often very expensive activity in its absence?

*

Basically the EPA is a policing body – it monitors compliance of the law, investigates crimes and if necessary assembles a case to be passed on to the courts. Would you think that removing a police force from a city and leaving it up to the ‘free market’ as to what happened then would be a good thing? I mean if you have a corrupted police force do you reform it and get rid of the corruption or do you just disband them and let the individual citizens defend themselves?

I’ve known environmental protection agents in the UK and they were hard working and dedicated to human and environmental safety. They often had to sift through complicated data and analysis from multiple sources to write reports that had to be watertight because they would be scrutinized in great detail to see if there were any loopholes or technical get outs.

You seem to feel that as an individual you could take on a multi-million or billion dollar company on a completely equal footing, but the problem is that most people do not have the time, expertise and money to do that. And frankly I doubt you could going on the evidence of the post above where you admit you can’t remember what was posted a page before and couldn’t be bothered to go and look.

 

Letlovin

In a well functioning democratic political system ‘government’ is just a tool of the people it should reflect the decisions of the people as a whole and work in everyone’s interests.

(In this example you cite the EPA)

A political system dominated by wealth is not going to do that it will corrupt the system to serve the few, making decisions that reflect their interests. It will bring about bad governance, bad government.

(In such a situation something like the EPA could be corrupted)

The problem with right wing libertarians is that they don’t seem to want good governance, or good government, they just hate governments of all hues and in that hatred would hand even greater power to wealth so that it has even greater influence over society and whatever political system that remains.

(In other words disband the EPA getting that completely off the backs of wealth)

This is a serious charge and from your thinking here it would seem to remain true.

 

Man o Man Balbus* *

You runnin for office??
Right or wrong > your compassion is intense
But I would change the channel bout now- -

best,
jjack

 

Why sure. You should of asked sooner. Just read the thread thread entitled "Would YOU vote for RON PAUL?". Its located in Hip Forums > Hip News>Politics. You will find all of the evidence you'll need right there.

 

letlovin

OH LOL – I’ve read that thread and its not there – and I think the fact that you can’t produce the actual evidence proves you are lying – but please prove me wrong.

And how many times have I had to asked you now - OH yes this will be the FIFTH time.

 

Nope. Never claimed that.

Nope, never claimed that either.

Whover is being affected by the violation.

The State in which the crime was committed

No. Those are some nice apples you've got there....take a look at these oranges though.

Good for you. Irevelant

Do you have any evidence to support this idea?

 

You are out of touch with what's goin on in this country. Trying to communicate with you is like trying to teach the blind sign language.....and I'm not gonna hold your hand.

My time would be better spent teaching my dog how to ride a bike.

 

What did the EPA do after 9/11?

Oh yeah, they lied and said the air was safe to breathe when it wasn't and they knew it.

But Balbus still has blind faith in the system to serve and protect him.

The EPA is a joke which serves only corporate interests and couldn't give a shit less about the environment, unless it pertains to an issue they can exploit for their own gain to gain more power and control for the government.

 

Balbus

You really have no clue in regard to (among other things) how the EPA actually operates. Since I deal with the agency and their regulations on a near daily basis, I’ll make one attempt to enlighten you.

The EPA was created by executive order of Pres. Nixon as part a political trade off. The agency was authorized to promulgate its own rules and regulations and a system of funding was established (also part of a political trade off) based on matching revenues from fines and permits with monies from the public coffers, i.e. the more fees the agency collected from levying fines and permit fees, the more taxpayer money it was to receive -- this system is still very much in place. Congress also provides additional funding through any number of “environmental protection” measures.

The funding scheme is exactly what LetLovinTakeHold refers to saying, “The EPA allows those with substantial amounts of money, to pollute the atmosphere through fines and permits, giving an unfair advantage to large corporations.” It seems the agency’s attitude and policy is that pollution is OK so long as they are paid for it. The monies the agency receives in that respect are not used to clean up the (allowed) pollution or to prevent further pollution but only to sustain the bureaucracy and perpetuate the cycle. Since the offending polluters have been “punished” with a huge fine, the environmentalists are satisfied.

BTW, LetLovinTakeHold, made no claim, assertion or implication that the EPA was set up by “large corporations” – only that large corporations were given an unfair advantage by the agency’s policies and practices. Your question is along the lines of your usual tactics of implying that something was claimed or stated when it wasn’t.

The EPA could be termed a “monitoring agency” or a “policing agency” depending on one’s definition of either (you've used both terms).

You seem unaware that the agency has the authority to levy fines and “civil penalties” WITHOUT court action. In fact, relatively few EPA cases ever reach the court system. Most are satisfied by payment of fines (many times levied on a daily or quantity basis) or by the issuance of a permit to continue committing the “crime”. Either way the agency receives more money (from the fines and permit fees) and is subsequently rewarded for its “enforcement” by additional funds from the taxpayer. Would you think that everyone accused of a crime should be slapped with a huge fine or should permits be issued for the commission of crimes?

The work ethic of individual agents is not an issue. I’m reasonably sure that both the UK and the US environmental agencies include many individuals who believe their efforts and hard work will make a difference – just as I’m equally sure that both agencies include some looking only for a pay check and who couldn’t care less about any real impact (positive or negative) they might have. If the citizenry of the UK is satisfied with the environmental protection provideded by its government, I’m happy.

This is exactly the point: individuals nor small companies have the financial capacity of the multi-million or billion dollar corporations – this is how the EPA gives the big guys an advantage without producing ANY environmental benefit. The impact is usually removing the individual or small business from the business environment.

Heckling? Gratuitous, off-topic remark? No, of course not. Contributing to the dabate? No, again.

Since it’s very unlikely that you will find acceptable as “evidence” any documentation not supporting your beliefs, I’ve provided nothing other than factual information based on my own knowledge and first-hand experience. I will suggest that you do some real research of your own in regard to the USEPA. Hint: all of the facts are not to be found on the EPA’s website – that’s just another government agency making a case for its own existence and selling itself to the gullible. Wiki offers some factual information but doesn’t get even near the crux of the issue.

OK, bash away. In advance, I will concede that I may have missed some punctuation, may have produced some sentences which are less than grammatically correct, that my feet are too big and that my hair is thinning as I get older.

 

Not only can you, but there have been those who have. Take Apple Inc. for example, or Microsoft versus IBM. But then, why bother to compete with a large company when you can instead be first to market with an innovative product or service like Google, Facebook, etc. People who excel are usually those who put forth the effort to do so, and often begin with very little, working out of their house or a garage making whatever sacrifices needed in order to achieve their goals.

Private industry is the greatest wealth producer, which in turn provides the jobs necessary for growing populations. Government, more often than not, has a bad habit of trying to consume as much of the wealth produced and/or redistribute it in ways that are inefficient, wasteful, and corrupt.

 

I couldn't agree more

You have been told time after time throughout this thread that this statement is simply not true. Where is your evidence to support these claims? Why have you repeatedly avoided this charge? Why do you continue to support a stance that you cannot defend?

 

Balbie:

Have you given any thought to running for the office of PM?

 

Office of Poor Management???

 

Or, Office of Perpetual Mismanagement.