Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/20/13 09:06 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/20/13 08:28 PM, MOSFET wrote: My source, debunk as you please.
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/03/striking-relationship-between-gun-safety-laws-and-firearm-deaths/4902/

it uses the Brady campaign as a Source who have been known to greatly smudge their statistics use some reliable

They use the Brady campaign as a Source to determine a state's "legislative strength". Do you disagree with these values? You can draw your own conclusions about them, my point wasn't related to this measurement.

The other data is available from WISQARS by the CDC. Does the CDC also smudge their statistics?

Notice that California has 12367 gun deaths from 2007-2010, the highest of any state, yet it has a death rate of about 8, whereas Nevada has 1603 gun deaths from 2007-2010, but a death rate of about 16. California has a population of 38.0mil and Nevada has a population of 2.76mil, a ratio of about 14. the gun death ratio between California(12367) to Nevada(1603) is about 7.7

At 8/20/13 06:08 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/20/13 05:58 PM, MOSFET wrote:

To make it a good law, the government needs to have a way of enforcing that law, without impinging on peoples freedoms too much. And it really needs to be a national law, because no matter how strong a gun law in one state, it's only as weak as its neighboring states. For example, California has very strict gun laws, but most of the guns in California have been acquired from neighboring states, like Nevada.

and states like california with strict gun control have the most gun violence California Chicago and NYC make up a fourth of overall national gun crime know why they have less access to firearms for regular law abiding citizens.

Actually it has less to do with citizens not having access than it does with aggressive gun laws, making it easier for the police to convict illegal gun owners. Naturally the more restrictive gun rights are the more you'll find criminals, wouldn't you agree? A second factor is population density, most conservative sites compare gun deaths by state, not by population density. Obviously if there are less people around you, there is less of a chance for stray bullets hitting innocent bystanders. But then when you take into consideration population density, then having one death in a sparse population accounts for a big increase in gun violence.

My source, debunk as you please.
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/03/striking-relationship-between-gun-safety-laws-and-firearm-deaths/4902/

and those laws would be overreaching and illegal in accordance with existing Supreme Court rulings. Japan was disarmed during its occupation by the US after the War and after three generations its non existent. try that with america which has over 450 MILLION firearms in civilian hands. and the 2nd amendment will never get repealed from libtards like Feinstein and Bloomberg.

Most of those firearms are concentrated among 33% of the American population. And the ratio of Americans who own guns vs all Americans has been declining every decade. When it get's to a certain point, I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult for the government to confiscate all the guns if they wanted to.

Also, the Supreme Court rulings can be overturned. Difficult to do, but possible and has been done before.

The real question is how much do you want to the government to go in enforcing the current laws.

they can enforce the current laws which are proven FINE. the FBI statistics and experts say it all

If the number of gun deaths are acceptable to you, then that's fine. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." Right? However, for some, the current level of deaths are unacceptable and the current level enforcement is not enough. If that's not the case then why is the question "Is the second amendment worthless?" even coming up?

At 8/20/13 04:06 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/20/13 03:42 PM, lolomfgisuck wrote:

At 8/19/13 09:04 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: No because the current laws are fine

You just admitted that there where loopholes... clearly the laws aren't fine.

i forgot the quotations for "loophole" sorry posted on my phone. the current laws are fine. the government can't regulate private transactions between private citizens regardless so the gun show "loophole" isn't a loophole regardless what people like you think.

It is a loop hole for criminals and crazies to gain access to a guns. You've stated yourself that these types of people shouldn't have guns, but without proper enforcement, they can acquire them regardless of what the law says. Simply having a law that says it's illegal for these people to have guns is not really a law, it's just good advice. To make it a good law, the government needs to have a way of enforcing that law, without impinging on peoples freedoms too much. And it really needs to be a national law, because no matter how strong a gun law in one state, it's only as weak as its neighboring states. For example, California has very strict gun laws, but most of the guns in California have been acquired from neighboring states, like Nevada.

Gun control can work if implemented properly, but often just laws are merely gestures and half-way measures that don't do a whole lot regarding the larger issue of gun homicides. If you want an example of effective gun control, look at Japan. Which really shows that to have effective gun control, you need to repeal the 2nd, and maybe the 4th as well.

The real question is how much do you want to the government to go in enforcing the current laws. If you say we have an enforcement issue, then clearly you don't think we go far enough and the 2nd and 4th amendments are impediments in enforcing these laws.

militia was put in for that and if the government become overreaching or tyrannical and that right is open for everyone (minus felons or mentally unstable) it should not be restricted.

If the government becomes tyrannical, what happens to the 2nd amendment and the rest of the constitution becomes irrelevant. To say it is to keep the US government in line is laughable, It does no such thing. Is sure as hell didn't stop President George Washington from mobilizing the federal "militia" against US citizens in what is known as the Whiskey Rebellion.

What I see the 2nd amendment doing now is getting US citizens into an arms race among themselves and the militarization of the police to compensate for all that lethal force, making law enforcement costly and increasing your taxes.

And just so you know, the 2nd amendment will also allow government sympathizers to be armed. So really it's more like US citizens sitting on top a powdered keg, and hoping the government cares enough not to let it explode. If the government gets tyrannical, I think they'll care less about it's citizens than trying to consolidate power at that point.

Really, for the common citizen, all guns are good for is personal safety(debatable), and sport. And just like there are restrictions on the freedom of speech, there should also be restrictions on the right to bear arms. A gun registry would go a long way to help keep guns away from felons and especially the mentally unstable. BUT NO, it's too much like Hitler's gun policy, even though prior to Hitler's plan German citizens weren't even allowed to even have guns, and citizens had them confiscated if they did have guns.

It's not enough to say it's illegal for felons and crazy people to have guns, it needs enforcement as well. As Abe Lincoln says

Laws without enforcement are just good advice

At 7/21/13 02:49 PM, BigFatKid wrote: I've read a lot of news articles in my area, and there are some politicians of a certain ethnicity, and they state in their articles that their goal is help the kids of their own ethnicity. There are some articles about a few politicians in my area, and it kept mentioning how he or she is a "Latino role model" or "a good role model who helps with the Latino community and Latino students," just because the said politician has ancestry in a Latin American country. Some people in the comments section said it was unnecessary to bring up his ethnicity nonstop in the article. While it's great to assist children, especially those that are struggling, there are children who are struggling with various issues who are of any ethnicity, race, faith, and background.

I think if we want to be progressive, we should help all of each other. There's nothing wrong with "ethnic pride" in my opinion, but I think it's unnecessary to help kids just because they are of a certain ethnicity or race. Some people I've heard say they do things like that as a political force. I also think it would lessen racism if we stopped with stuff like that. It divides us.

What do you think? Is it okay to help out certain kids because they're of a certain race/ethnicity, or should people just help all children?

Depends.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with identity politics. It's an important vehicle to express a group's concerns. In fact, silencing these people will probably lead to more racism down the road. If they aren't allowed to articulate their view of the world, how are we ever going to make a laws that are fair to everyone?

I wouldn't worry about that politician. He is probably running for office in a small Latino community. If not, then I don't see him winning any sort of election with that kind of talk.

At 7/14/13 11:31 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/14/13 01:35 PM, Fim wrote: I don't understand how it can be classed as SYG when he knowingly and deliberately put himself into a situation that spiralled into an altercation.

If this wer merely an assault case, Zimmerman likely would have been convicted if your fact were proven true.

However, here, because it was lethal force used, Zimmerman could still claim self defense even if he delibiberately assaulted Martin, if Martin escalated it from simple assault to a lethal (or close) situation.

This doesn't sound right to me. I don't think it's ok to stalk someone, and if they retaliate then it's ok to use deadly force.

Edward Snowden isn't a hero, he didnt' save anyone's lilfe, and he hasn't revealed anything new about government we didn't already know. Anyone who thought that the government hasn't been collecting this kind of data has been living under a rock. Heck, the NSA has been collecting phone records since before Diffie-Hellman or RSA.

I wouldn't call this guy a traitor either. Although, he has betrayed the trust that's been given to him when he was given that security clearance. You don't start releasing sensitive material and then fly to foreign countries, that's highly suspicious.

No, Edward Snowden is just another libertarian moron.

I just wanted to point out that paleozoic era is followed by the Mesozoic era when dinosaurs ruled the earth.
So I guess paleo-conservatives do have to worry about the impending lizard invasion and the establishment of the new world order of dinosaur rule. Also, Paleo-conservatism is a riff on Paleo Diet, aka caveman diet.

At 6/17/13 07:32 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Bloody weekend violence leaves 7 dead, 46 shot

just a little reminder that gun control doesn't work chicago being a prime example seeing it has such "progressive gun laws". now just a refresher didn't this support my statement on higher gun crime rates in Blue states?

Drop in the bucket, Illinois has a much higher population density than your typical red state. I'm a bit confused when you said that blue states have higher gun crime rates. Since your average red state seems to have more gun violence per person than your average blue state. But I certainly agree that blue states have more gun crime overall.

At 6/12/13 06:57 PM, Sense-Offender wrote:

At 6/12/13 04:20 AM, YellowisCOOL wrote: McDonalds and Burger King have the best burgers in my opinion.

Anybody can make a better burger than the ones at those places.

Home made burgers are better, than any fast food joint.
But my favorite burgers when going out are from Five Guys Burger and Fries.

Best Burger for a heart attack is the Baconater from Wendy's. The only vegetarian ingredient is the bun.

At 6/9/13 04:59 PM, MOSFET wrote:

above link

Whoops, here's the link https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Alex_Jones

At 6/9/13 02:03 PM, Poniiboi wrote:

At 6/9/13 01:52 PM, Migel wrote:
Water fluoridation is a good example, it's quite a problem to force each citizen to use if it's not necessary.

But it IS poison. So your point is... nothing? Sorry, but just because you link a 30 second video of Jones screaming out of his thousands of hours of radio time doesn't mean anything. All that makes you is a news spinner that doesn't get paid to do it. Way to copy the media you choke on, guys. But they're getting PAID to do it!

Reading up on Alex Jones in encyclopediadramatica is probably all I'll ever need to know about the guy.

One line in the above link stands out to me.
:He can prove all his theories are true; he merely chooses not to.

I get this thread now.

At 5/28/13 04:37 PM, Poniiboi wrote:

At 5/28/13 03:15 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: I don't care about the applications of it

Everything you need to know right there. "I don't care about the applications of it." Which means everything you say is useless bullshit.

Double posting. Don't care.

Why should the Federal Reserve care about the applications, when all they care about is something akin to "balancing the load"? Does a power company care whether you have the AC on or not?

If the fed were a water Utility, should they care if someone stole water from you from your outdoor faucet?
Should they even care if there are any leaky pipes in the system, when they aren't even in control of the means of distribution.

I feel like you're assigning more responsibility to the Federal Reserve than they are actually able to be responsible for. Fair distribution outside their domain of influence isn't one of them.

Doesn't the patriot act allow for this?

I'm going to guess that Republicans are going to smack Holder around like a pinata, and the Democrats are going to let Holder play the part of the whipping boy. meanwhile, the Patriot Act will still be there and this warrant-less wiretapping will become the new normal.

At 5/14/13 08:33 AM, Korriken

At 5/14/13 05:50 AM, MOSFET wrote: Somehow I feel conservative groups are exploiting 501c4 (Citizen's United) more than liberal groups.

Actually, you'd be amazed how at many groups on BOTH sides do this.

I just find it funny that the leftists on this forum refuse to acknowledge such.

and I find it funny that the leftists think its OK for the IRS to only focus on one side, the side that isn't theirs.

ok both sides do this. tbh, I dont hear much about left leaning super pacs, probably because there not as many?
what I find funny is that right wingers will donate to these pacs more due to their irrational anger. go on and donate, waste your money

At 5/14/13 05:54 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Why not look investigate into those tax dodgers in Occupy Wall Street?

how do you know they haven't been investigated yet?

I feel they really didn't have to do any sort of targeting to get a huge swath of conservative based non-profits.

Somehow I feel conservative groups are exploiting 501c4 (Citizen's United) more than liberal groups.

Not to further derail the topic, but I have a serious question in regard to this post: I am college educated, physically and mentally able (diabetic and mild autistic, but otherwise generally able), and I want to earn my living like a responsible citizen...plus being unemployed is really, really boring, and enduring the generalizations of total strangers about leeching off the system gets pretty tiresome.

But out of all the jobs I've applied for in the past three years, from degree-applicable to entry-level, I've only gotten one interview (two years ago), and I'm still unemployed, stuck collecting Social Security and Medicaid to pay my expenses. What is your response to this? Can you offer any insight that might be able to help? In short, do you have more to say to me than "get a job?"

A bit of advice, if you're in IT/Comp Sci related field. Don't wait up for an employer to train you. you need to train yourself now. Start making apps. Study for Certs. Stay current with technologies. Work towards something you can show to show to employers. But, once you get that first job, getting your second is much easier, but you still got to study and stay current with technologies on your own.

Back on topic.
I voted for Obama the first time because McCain didn't seem to know what he was doing, and his VP pick seemed even more clueless. McCain gets brownie points for telling that one woman she was wrong about obama. I voted for Obama the 2nd time, because of Romney. If Romney followed his Bain strategy, he'd borrow tons of money, take a some off the top for himself, and saddle the US with way more debt than what some Obama haters think Obama has spent. HIs 47% did bother me but it didn't bother me as much as his joke about being unemployed. Also, Romney's "offend everyone in the world" tour didn't re assure me that he'd be able to handle foreign affairs well.

Mainly I voted for Obama because it felt like I was trolling the republican party. If Jon Huntsman ever gets the nomination, I might vote for him. Otherwise It looks like Hilary in 2016.

I think the main reason why Washington is hesitant to go in is the lesson from the Iraq war. Just because there is evidence of Sarin use, doesn't speak to it's reliability.

They are also hesitant because the opposition happens to be mainly composed of radical islamists. Which is why Syrian Christians have fully backed Assad, a group we are pretty sure will be turned into second rate citizens once the opposition comes to power. Clearly Assad is in the wrong, and so are the groups that support him, but we also don't really like the opposition either.

The problem with the Republican party is not the religious views of the base, but the rigidity by which they hold them. Atheists can be just as militant and tribal as your most zealous religious fanatic.

At 4/11/13 06:35 PM, morefngdbs wrote: to those who say that "Things Are Not That Bad" I say you've reached 50 million Americans on the foodstamp system
Could You Please Tell ME EXACTLY
HOW MANY It Takes Before You Will Say It Is Now Bad ? ? ? ? ?

When we get recessions and unemployment that were as bad when we were on the gold standard. Then I'll agree that the current system is pretty terrible.

At 4/10/13 02:27 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 4/10/13 07:19 AM, MOSFET wrote: How can you be sure it beats the current system, if it supposedly hasn't been tried yet?

Anything is better than slavery to the government.

The current state of affairs in the US is not that bad. you're over reacting.

It was government money. Guess where they get their money from?

China probably.

And where is this presidential/executive branch power to declare war unilaterally? You seem to support this concept of presidents declaring wars, so i take it you support the war in Iraq? Case in point, things like Vietnam and Iraq are what happens when you give the exec branch the power to declare war.

What does this have to do with the free market again? Some wars I agree with others i do not is all I can say about this.

I go on vacation several times a year. you need to lighten up.

You are not a world leader. You're responsibilities do not even hold a candle to the responsibilities of a president.

BTW, and this is somewhat unrelated, the left likes to complain about "fairness". Is it fair that we have people who can't even afford to eat, but the president can go on vacation whenever he feels?

It's completely fair, I never begrudged any president from taking a break, sometimes you need to relax to get when wrestling with the nation's problems. Also nothing to do with the free market.
:Is it fair for a president who has never served in the military, to send our sons and daughters to risk their lives in pointless wars?
pointless wars? never. However, all presidents are the commander in chief of the military regardless of their background.

People will fly no matter how safe or unsafe it is. After Gahdhaffi blew up that airliner and killed all onboard, did people stop flying? How about when that Air France flight went down in the atlantic and killed every one...did that stop poeple from flying? How about in the 80s, when an engine of a plane FELL OFF, and crashed, killing everyone on board? Did people stop flying then? No. How about the Boeing 787 fleet being grounded because of faulty engineering? No fatailites from these incidents, but does THAT stop people from flying? People don't care about the risk of flying, so the TSA is indeed useless.

But, let's assume for a moment, that the TSA serves it's function of Transportation Security. Do you see any reason why Trasportation Security requires purchasing billions of dollars in ammunition and machines guns?

Safety here is not just for people on the plane, it's also people on the ground and in buildings and property. Once all planes are bomb proof and are difficult to commandeer and are crash proof, then you'll see less reason for these screenings and pat downs.

Airplanes are already nearly impossible to commandeer, due to cockpits being locked, and bulletproof. Plus, flight attendants and captains are trained in self defense now. Not to mention the likelihood that passengers would probably bum rush anyone who tried anything.

I don't disagree that all this is an overreaction, just saying the risk-cost-benefit analysis proves all this TSA stuff isn't as wasteful when you consider the property damage and loss of human life at stake, which includes more than the plane and people on the plane.

The problem is, the frivolous spending affects all of us. If i can't spend money I don't have, why can the government?

you can, it's called a loan.

It's not people that didn't want to raise the debt ceiling, just republicans, and more precisely free market libertarians. They couldn't accept anything else Obama had to offer, so instead we got the sequestration. And secretly free market libertarians love it. Why don't you?

They couldn't accept what Obama had to offer, because he made no offers! I can't believe you buy into propaganda so easily! Republicans didn't agree with Obama, so what does he do?

"I didn't get my way, so i'm gonna cut funding to essential parts of infrastructure. I COuLd cut the wasteful spending, but no, I'll cut important things so people demonize republicans!"
The whole purpose of the way our govt is set up, is to compromise. You don't just take your ball and go home when you don't get your way, meanwhile putting people, and the economy as a whole, in danger.

Seems I have pegged you wrong. you're not a free-market libertarian, you're just anti-obama. Anyway, this is getting too political going back to how the free-market sucks.

Back to airport safety, the FAA is now required to shut down numerous control towers across the nation, because, instead of cutting waste spending, he cut FAA funding. Does shutting down control towers at busy airports seem like a good idea to you, economically, or from a safety perspective?

So then you agree, there's no free-market solution to be had here.

So, what recourse would you have if a gun dealer decided to sell to mexican drug lords in a free-market?

gun dealers would be punishable by law, just as they are now. Selling guns to a felon is a felony, so it's not really in the interest of a gun dealer to sell to felons. you don't get a fine, you go to prison for many years for it.

To have that kind of enforcement you'll need more than just a law saying it's illegal. In order to make sure that gun dealers do not sell to felons or catch them in the act, they'll need to be under constant surveillance, and follow strict government regulations. All this sounds anti-thesis to free-market principles.

well, i guess i'll just come to your house and rob you at gun point. After all, the 16th amendment says i can, as long as it's for my retirement fund, right?

income tax do not come with threats of violence. You are very much in the wrong here.
BTW, deadline to file your income taxes is in 5 days.

At 4/9/13 11:07 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

WTF? How can you say free markets wouldn't work if it's never been tried? Which system sounds better? An economy run by the people, and said people being free to make they're own economic choices? Or an economy that is planned and run by the govt, who throw small buisiness and and middle and lower class families under the bus to help their campaign contributors?

Free markets may not be the answer, but one thing is for sure, it beats the current system of tyranny and constant poverty.

How can you be sure it beats the current system, if it supposedly hasn't been tried yet?

Which have been paid back with interest.

hmm. I haven't gotten any checks...you?

you didn't pay for the bailout either.

lack of oversight in the drone program is a problem, but this has nothing to do with the free-market. War is constitutionally a government enterprise. Still the complaint is valid.

Wars are a constutional govt enterprise, when actually declared...which hasn't been since 1942

the declaration is a formality, And the constitution doesn't specify the format on how it's to be declared. Every military engagement needs to be authorized by congress which is pretty much the same thing as a declaration without using the word declaration of war in the title of the law. The only time the president can make war without congress's approval is in the country's self-defence.

like who exactly, I'm curious, but still nothing to do with the free-market.

Like pot dealers and consumers being in jail for decades while rapists and murderers go free. BTw, economic freedom, and personal freedoms are the same thing.

It is recognized as bad law and is slowly being reversed. More and more states are legalizing the weed. But the effects of allowing marijuana has a negative effect on the economy overall. Pot smokers are as a group are unproductive.

They cost millions of dollars because of what is involved to keep the president safe. Do you really expect him to pay for a charter flight and open himself and his family to assassination attempts by crazy people?

I expect him to stay in the White House and do his damn job

I go on vacation several times a year. you need to lighten up.

I'm sure the calculation was made that the airlines would be in big trouble if no one felt safe taking flights. While not 100% fool proof, (nothing is 100% fool proof), it's much more difficult now for terrorists to sneak on board and to most people it's worth the extra in taxes and the humiliation in the airport. However, your complaint is valid.

BULLSHIT. Most people know the TSA is a waste of money, and is completely ineffective. They have caught exactly ZERO terrorist, and in fact, people like the underwear bomber a couple years ago, managed to get through.

BTW, how exactly does stripping grannies to their underwear, and groping 5 year olds contribute to "safety"?

I doesn't, it's a risk-cost assessment. Since the underwear bomber, it has been understood that terrorists will use any social convention against the public, even strapping 5 year olds and grannies with explosives is a potential risk. But It's just scaremongering. What are the chances that a kid or granny is going to be forced by terrorists to board a plane with explosive underwear? probably zero, but when making these assessments, you can't assume zero. With billions of dollars in damages and thousands of lives are at stake. even allowing that potential threat, no matter how remote, is unacceptable in that formulation, which concludes that it's not a waste of money.

Safety here is not just for people on the plane, it's also people on the ground and in buildings and property. Once all planes are bomb proof and are difficult to commandeer and are crash proof, then you'll see less reason for these screenings and pat downs.

People DO NOT need to cut back when the govt does. That's propaganda fear mongering. The government does NOT need to cut infrastructure, defense, etc just because they're not getting they're way. They should be forced to cut back on useless things like $20,000 to a california police dept. to buy talking urinal cakes to warn against drunk driving. THAT'S what needs to be cut. But no, Obama thinks it's cool to cut airport funding and fire departments, all because people don't want to raise the debt ceiling again. He's an evil, wicked piece of shit and i wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire.

Even frivolous wasteful spending is a pay check to someone. Make a cut in spending, and someone is going to lose a paycheck and their economic freedoms. Doesn't matter if it's business or government.

It's not people that didn't want to raise the debt ceiling, just republicans, and more precisely free market libertarians. They couldn't accept anything else Obama had to offer, so instead we got the sequestration. And secretly free market libertarians love it. Why don't you?

Pfft. You don't have recourse. Hell, the governemnt was SELLING GUNS TO MEXICAN DRUG LORDS, and not a single one of those fucks has served a day in jail. Don't act like the people have any say in what the government gets away with.

So, what recourse would you have if a gun dealer decided to sell to mexican drug lords in a free-market?

Exactly, thats why we have welfare, universal healthcare, unemployment benefits, etc.

Stealing is stealing, no matter what you're incentive is.

16th amendment says it's not.

At 4/9/13 11:13 AM, Ononymous wrote: Have you guys noticed how when Chavez died the right didn't celebrate, but when Maragret Thatcher died leftists threw fucking street-parties?

Stay classy, leftards.

I haven't noticed, I don't live in the same bubble you do.

Anarchy is just a result from a breakdown of society. So any sort of governance, even a dictatorship, is better.

Minarchism can work on a small scale, like in a small town. Unfortunately, it doesn't scale well to larger enterprises. It will fail to provide any economic security without increasing the scope and size of its powers, then it's not be Minarchism anymore. If the roles of the minarchist state do not increase, it'll just will be ineffective at performing it's job as a watchman.

Imagine you have a small town with roofers, manufactures, veterinarians, a local food market, etc. I can see a minarchism working here, because it can be self-regulating with unwritten rules. Everyone can know each other, and if you do something wrong you'll be ostracized and lose your business as a result. When you begin to increase scope to that of a nation, information becomes asymmetric, the human mind can not keep up with all these relationships to make an informed choice about a product to enforce these unwritten rules. For example I either don't know or don't care that some company caused a localized disaster in your town. I'll still buy their product based on the limited information I have at the time, or maybe I don't care because I want to take advantage of the lower prices. So, you need to empower the role of government to write down those unwritten rules and focus on the features that people think a free-market( but fails to scale) will bring.

- A fair competitive market.
- upward mobility
- opportunity to succeed.

At 4/8/13 11:31 PM, LemonCrush wrote: It's not deregulation, it's just regulation of certain aspects favoring one party at the expense of the other.

then nothing can be deregulation according to this definition. because deregulation will favor one party at the expense of another.

I:t's the same shit Bush did and Obama does now. btW, if Greenspan was an, ahem, "ayn rand fanboy" why does his entire financial policy contradict it? lol

Many of the regulations put into place after the Crash in the 1920s, namely the Glass-Steagall Act (1933) were subsequently dismantled by the GLB.

That isn't deregulation though. That simply replacing one set of regulations with another, that favor a different party. Far from the true hands off approach of "deregulation"

That's the problem I have with free-marketeers making policy. Everything sounds good until you put it into practice. Then you go and hide behind the idea that it wasn't really dregulation in the first place because the policy clearly failed and favored one party over the other. According to you, the free-market should just work. Basically you're making a "no true Scotsman" informal fallacy here.

If my taxes are being used for what it's constitutionally permitted t be used for, i have no issues. it's when i'm paying taxes to bailout failing banks,

Which have been paid back with interest.

or bombing kids in wherever Obama feels like blowing up this week,

lack of oversight in the drone program is a problem, but this has nothing to do with the free-market. War is constitutionally a government enterprise. Still the complaint is valid.

or imprisoning non-violent offenders,

like who exactly, I'm curious, but still nothing to do with the free-market.

or paying for Obama's vacations,

They cost millions of dollars because of what is involved to keep the president safe. Do you really expect him to pay for a charter flight and open himself and his family to assassination attempts by crazy people?

or a para-military TSA force,

I'm sure the calculation was made that the airlines would be in big trouble if no one felt safe taking flights. While not 100% fool proof, (nothing is 100% fool proof), it's much more difficult now for terrorists to sneak on board and to most people it's worth the extra in taxes and the humiliation in the airport. However, your complaint is valid.

THAT'S when i have a problem. Many americans are paying WAY WAY more than their "fair share" and are FORCED to live within their means. The govt on the other hand, just takes and takes, and spends and spends. no matter how much they take, it will never be enough, because they aren't held accountable. They don't know how to manage money. Millions of americans are cutting back, and the economy shows that. It's the govts turn to start living within it's means.

Living within your means will be no different than in a free-market economy. However, being upset at how the government spends it's money is completely valid. You do realize that when the government starts to cut back, people need to cut back even further. Government jobs are still jobs. The money the government spends is reintroduced back into the economy. The money paying for TSA equipment goes to engineers and technicians that helped produce them. True, it isn't free(as in speech), but I would gladly give up a little bit of economic freedom to eliminate some of the randomness of a truly free market.

I thought we do have recourse in government. The 1st amendment, freedom of speech to voice our grievances, and the ability to vote. Being specific about what you don't like government is doing is good, but arguing for a free-market system, which is a poorly defined term and comes in many flavors, and can lead to ambiguous laws that nobody wants, and is easily exploited by corporations to screw the little guy.

It's not really JUST about money, but morality as well.

Exactly, thats why we have welfare, universal healthcare, unemployment benefits, etc.

At 4/6/13 01:39 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: Under an idea minarchist system corporations would actually be less common seeing how the barriers of entry for small businesses would be minimal

Just because you and other people say it, doesn't make this assertion true. Making government more impotent may remove some of the barriers that the government built up, but that doesn't mean that big business can't put their barriers of their own. They'll still use propaganda, price everyone out of the competition, reduce workers wages so they can't accumulate wealth to pose a threat, all without government intervention. I'm sure big businesses can innovate other ways to put up barriers to new entrants.

How many liberals have I come across who ALREADY know that free-market types agree that certain important regulations are in order? Zero! That's right, none. They all start off with the misinformed idea that they're arguing against total anarchy. Why do they always cling to that tired, tired strawman?

A free market means different things to different people. The cacophony of ideas coming out from free-market types as a group seems to want anarchy. While you, personally, may see some sense in some laws and regulations, there will be another free-market advocate who doesn't share your feelings.

At 3/22/13 09:56 AM, UltraHammer wrote:

At 3/21/13 07:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote: It's not that simple. Things such as location, brand loyalty, marketing, timing, and others play a HUGE role that can, and often does, easily distort the supply and demand metric

...and? Your point?

I don't speak for Camarohusky. But I think the point is that the free market doesn't mean more competition, and it doesn't mean more innovation, and it's also not fair. What does location, brand loyalty, marketing, timing have to do with increasing competition, being innovative, or being fair? More often than not, the opposite is true. All you free market fan boys present as the main reason for having a free market in the first place. It's just goes to show that in either system, you have to pay to play.

Honestly, I feel the "free market" suffers from the "no true scotsman" fallacy. It's ambiguous and takes positive sounding words for it's own that I feel are really independent from free market, like innovation, competition, and fairness. A free market is none of those things, yet it wants to be, so its more palatable. I think, it's not the free market people like yourself want but the much hyped about features.

Innovation is independent of the market, but certain innovations thrive while others fail depending on the system, certainly. Yet we had massive innovations coming from NASA and the military. But there will always be people trying to innovate, whether in a free market, or a government run operation.

There can be competition and fairness in a free market, if everyone behaves. Just like there would be a utopia if everyone acted nice and worked toward the good of others. Can rules and regulations get out of hand? Certainly. These must be identified, and loosened. But, there are some good rules and regulations that promote a fair and competitive market.

At 3/15/13 02:16 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

Because employees and customers will be able to take their labor, or money, elsewhere, because competition (choice) will be rampant, and readily available.

Sounds nice, but I really don't see this.

How is a free market is going to lead to rampant readily available competition in the long run. In the short run you might have some people willing to lose their money on this risk, and it will be awesome at first, but the market will die down and will stagnant. That's not a problem of regulation or free-market, it's a problem of the market in general. Making it suddenly a freer-market is not going to solve the problem in the long-run.