Even if you assume that he meant that government provides infrastructure, even that point is a lie. The business owner DID build the infrastructure -- they paid for the roads and the schools and they pay the cops' salaries. The ifreman, again, provided by money taken from the businessman. Even if the government is allocating the funds, it didn't CREATE a thing. It took money (at gunpoint) and gave it to other people to build stuff. I think we should be clear about that, if we keep this up, the last businessman will eventually flee to more friendly lands taking the last job with him. Try to build a road then. Try to get money for schools when people who have money flee the country. Won't happen. American would then be a giant ghetto.
Just as I thought. You have no real rebuttal, so you do what most people do when presented with that situation. You dismiss the argument that was made. If you did have a rebuttal, I'm waiting for it. Please tell me how completely reactive policies make things better. Show me a country the size of ours with completely reactionary laws that is a place you would want to live in. Explain to me how limited enforcement improves our lives.
Totalitarian much? "Too many people" is never an excuse to permit an armed monopoly on authority to implement a proactive police state. Leftists terrify me.
So you're ok with nanny statists stepping in to further socially engineer (via proactive punishment measures) free will and all remnants of "caveat emptor" out of not only your life....but my life? How considerate of you....
Sure....cause so far, leaving it up to the individual organization to regulate themselves have not really worked out too well has it?
We have laws that present consequences for willfully and wontonly violating legal and natural rights....are these "individual organizations" immune? and in the case of the occasional "accident"....if "individual organization" restaurant accidently serves up tainted food, will the sickened customers go back? Will they abstain from telling their friends, family, and coworkers (who will tell their circle) they got food poisoning from "Fat Tom's BBQ"? and to that, will Fat Tom stay in business long if he continues to offer an unsafe, inferior product? To worker safety.... If "individual organization" foundry is constantly plagued by accidents, are the employees prohibited from lodging complaints and seeking recourse for willfully ignored practices that cause them? Is the employee stripped of their rights and free will to seek employment elsewhere.. or speak publicly about chronic, unaddressed safety hazards at the foundry? Can the foundry survive as an ongoing enterprise if they're plagued by civil suits or can't attract enough employees that will risk life and limb for a few dollars? Labor / Commerce premptive regulatory oversight and punishment are little more than a hidden tax on productivity. and given the inherent propensity for government entites to expand in scope, expense and authority...permitting them arbitrary power to dream up and met out punishment BEFORE any legal or natual rights are violated is the epitome of the proactive police state. (I'm certain you, and many others may consider my views "extreme"...which is cool.... but they're largely philosophical, and rooted in my individualist/tribal anarchist "ideals"... which basically surround an aversion to "premptive punishment" laws, and laws that swerve too far oustide natural law or offer consequences for violating anything other natural rights)
Agreed. This is definitely an area of societal policy where most of the West just scratches their heads when observing America. For example, you'd never have this debate in Australia. They understand the worth of certain base regulations. The same goes for Canada mostly.
For those who don't know what "premptive" means....I don't either... "preemptive" was what I was shooting for
I see it more as people in the other countries don't have a culture of questioning what is done to them. They just submit to government regulation like sheep to the slaughter. Some of those nations had periods in their history where they actively purged anyone who dared question the power or legitimacy of government, e.g. Germany. In other cases, many left who found that regulations were too burdensome and came to the US to start businesses, e.g. the Italian immigrants. If, as you claim, "they" had any understanding of the worth of "certain base" regulations, they could answer the very simple challenge I issued to Glock: Find evidence, such as a study, that said regulatory body has created statistically significant change in the area in which it attempts to regulate. It should not be difficult to do.
Sure. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/speci...Air-The-Long-Fight-Against-Air-Pollution.html There are plenty more.
i dont know i cant really remember if it was him or maybe someone else, but im pretty sure someone brought up something about him either being ashamed of his white heritage or plain just not liking it. could be mistaken, thats why im asking the question.
and to be honest the only color that matters on wall st. is green, everything else is irrelevant lol.
That's silly. No one has anything to do with their ancestry. If you hate where you came from then jump off of a building because you can't change your ancestry.