MORE regulation of corporations, LESS regulation of individuals...

**Alaskan Rover** · 05-11-2010, 11:21 AM

To me it just seems logical. We need more governmental regulation of corporations and business and LESS regulation of individual citizens.

I am not your usual "lib'. It's hard to really fit myself into a certain box, I just don't fit. I am an environmentalist who believes wholeheartedly in increased governmental regulation of business, yet at the same time, I believe vehemently in personal freedom, and privacy. As long as what we do doesn't harm others, the environment or animals, we should be allowed to live our lives without scrutiny, governmental or otherwise. The contructs of society deem we should, for the most part, be accepting of the differences between people. We are a society comprised of many cultures and individuals...homogeny kills any essence of diversity, and thus the essence of our society.

Those same rules of privacy and freedom from intervention, should NOT apply to business, lest we devolve back to a world of "Boss Tweed" and "Taminy Hall". Corporations have MUCH too much potential for power and leverage to allow them to do business unregulated.

Corporations exist for one purpose only: the derivation of profit. Profit is their motive and their essence...and this is becoming increasingly so. They do not exist for the betterment of society, although I would be remiss and foolish to think that many of them don't benefit society. They exist to make a profit for their owners. If regulations stood in the way of increased profit, corporations would rather not have regulations, and would like to think of industry as self-regulating. The Gulf spill is a good example of that.

Utter, unequivicable NONSENSE. There is no facet about industry that is self-regulating, except maybe price. Environmental regulations are a good example. No company would diminish it's potential profit flow for the sake of environmental regulation unless FORCED. This bullshit that the market would force them to is just that...BULLSHIT. If there were not regulations in place, companies would STILL be dumping poison in the Hudson River...we would STILL have no lists of ingredients on our food...we would STILL be using poison such as DDT, and spewing even more pollution than we are now. To think otherwise is merely a sign of brainwashing.

On the private citizen-side of things, however, it seems conservatives are doing everything in their power to ensure that individuals have LESS freedom and LESS privacy. Yet at the same time run on a bandwagon that touts freedom for the individual...what's up with THAT shit????? Someone on here accused my of being hypocritical. Conservatives touting freedom and constitutional rights while at the same time doing everything in their power to UNDERMINE those same rights is the absolute ULTIMATE of hypocracy!!!!

The McCarthyism of the 1950s and early 1960's were part and parcel of that deranged, brainwashed thinking. Fucking hypocritical bastards. PATRIOT Act; nazist laws in Arizona; the debridement of freedom in favor of a fucked up security state are delusioned examples of Conservative Right brainwashing.

You cannot have freedom and privacy by systematically excising it.

**ilikecandy** · 05-11-2010, 12:01 PM

Funny that you mention DDT, a good example of how well intentioned environmental regulations can be responsible for the deaths of many, many people

In an ideal free market, with clearly defined ownership and unfettered trade, no regulation would be necessary. Because we dont have that, negative externalities do arise. But even so, your capacity for oversight is much higher as a consumer and a shareholder than it is as a voter

**Alaskan Rover** · 05-11-2010, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

Funny that you mention DDT, a good example of how well intentioned environmental regulations can be responsible for the deaths of many, many people

In an ideal free market, with clearly defined ownership and unfettered trade, no regulation would be necessary. Because we dont have that, negative externalities do arise. But even so, your capacity for oversight is much higher as a consumer and a shareholder than it is as a voter

I knew someone would mention the DDT, that's why I slipped it in there. There is no question that DDT is a very efficient mosquito killer. However, the chemical bond structure of the molecule makes it very dangerous to various biological niches. Its water insolubility is only one factor. DDT tends to bio-persist, and thus accumulates aggregately in the environment, not to mention aggregately in individual animals. It is an environmentally dangerous bio-toxin. I believe we were right to ban it. There is good potential for a malarial vaccine, especially in the last decade...however, there just isn't the research money out there for a really good malarial vaccine, otherwise progress would be MUCH farther along. You can partly blame this on the pharma profit-incentive approach. A drug company is not going to do the research in a drug if the profit-potential is low. Selling drugs to very poor Sub-Saharan countries is low profit potential, so THERE AGAIN, profit fears rears it's medusa head.

As to no regulation being necessary in an IDEAL free market economy, I don't see that. First, "ideal" is an exercise in fiction, as you know. How are the parameters of an "ideal" market devised? They may be wholly different than anything we have now, and so dwells upon mere speculation. In a more "real" thought exercise on "market control vs. free market" take industrial river dumping: Industrial pollution river dumping peristed the U.S. from the early 1800's through the 1960's. That's a century and a half of dumping heavy-metal pollutants into rivers! Did the "market" work towards discontinuing such dumping?? NOT in the least!! Did the consumers?? NOT in the least?? They basically WERE the market. Did the companies themselves seek to involuntarily stop such dumping? Again, NOT in the least. Currents did not begin to change, in this regard, until the early 1960's...when books like Rachel Carson's 'Silent Spring" began to speak out againt such travesty, in turn motivating the public to urge the federal gov to enact and enforce regs against industrial dumping.

I am just wondering: Where was that purported "consumer oversight" during those 160 years of toxic river dumping?? The logic supporting "market self-regulation" and "consumer oversight" has as many HOLES as swiss cheese and SMELLS like limberger cheese.

**ilikecandy** · 05-11-2010, 02:01 PM

we're a lot closer to an ideal free market than we ever will be to an ideal regulator

taking away freedom more often than not is detrimental to efficiently benefitting society, even if it is the freedom to pollute (again, ideally that pollution comes with a cost that represents the cost to society)

**jon turner** · 05-11-2010, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Alaskan Rover

As long as what we do doesn't harm others, the environment or animals, we should be allowed to live our lives without scrutiny, governmental or otherwise.

In this sentence, you are implicitly advocating for regulation for individuals, though I do agree with you that there should be a heightened level of regulation over commerce versus an individual's actions. Business, and particularly corporations, primary motivator is profit, and often society and the environment suffer in return. Individuals can have the same motivator, but they are less inclined to, because they are more closely tied to their local community and environment that they work within.

In response to the other post:

The argument for true "free markets" is BS, and if you want some examples, revisit the early days of industrialization when we had no child labor laws, no environmental regulation, no health and safety regulations, etc. Once society began to organize in an industrialized structure, moving from cooperative structures to corporate structures, social and environmental factors began to decline. Look at the environmental and social conditions of countries around the world with far fewer government regulations and far greater government corruption and ask yourself if you want to live there? Our own corporations do business in these places precisely because they can take advantage of these less regulatory environments resulting in the negative externalities mentioned, a direct result of having a structure more akin to true "free markets" (look at Shell Oil and other oil companies' ventures in Nigeria and other 3rd world countries among countless other examples).

It is the government's role to interact with private enterprise in a manner that creates an environment in which business does not act in a way harmful to society or environment, "the commons" so to speak. I wouldn't advocate that our government does this well; business has had it's hand in the government too closely for some time now. But, I do think our government does it better than many others in the world.

**Alaskan Rover** · 05-11-2010, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

we're a lot closer to an ideal free market than we ever will be to an ideal regulator

taking away freedom more often than not is detrimental to efficiently benefitting society, even if it is the freedom to pollute (again, ideally that pollution comes with a cost that represents the cost to society)

Maybe that is like saying 1.9 million light years away is a lot closer than 3.2 million light years away.

"Taking away freedom more often than not is detrimental to efficiently benefitting society..." We agree on that point, as long as your talking about the freedoms of individual citizens.

"...even if it is the freedom to pollute..."
I equate the freedom to pollute to the freedom to commit murder. There is NO freedom to do EITHER, nor should there be.

"(again, ideally that pollution comes with a cost that represents the cost to society.)" The cost to society?? How can you derive the cost to society WITHOUT considering the cost to the future generations of society? Such would be, and IS, pure folly.

Industry simply will not self-regulate...pure and simple. Consumer oversight is more often than not short-sighted., as long as the consumer feels the least bit of comfort in his purchase, lethargy and apathy quickly ensue...killing consumer oversight.

Where is consumer oversight in regards to plastic bags by the millions clogging our land? ....and countless other such examples.

Consumer oversight simply doesn't work when the consumer is too dim-witted or too self-absorbed to subscribe to ideas of consumer responsibility.

The same is true for corporations subscribing to corporate responsibility for THEIR industrial activity.

**Alaskan Rover** · 05-11-2010, 02:41 PM

Jon Turner:
sorry, I didn't see your post while I was replying to Ilikecandy's post. I pretty much agree with everything you stated. In reply to your first statement, I realize there must be at least some regulations of individuals, or we would have a society based on anarchy. Such limited regualtion is part and parcel of the tenets of society.

I also like your signature: "Ride fast...live slow" !! I try to live by that code....I'm not always successful, but I try. If we can slow down our lives a notch or two, I think we would be so much the better. I think we spend too much time thinking about tomorrow, and not enough time living for today. I like that. I might make your sig quote a bumper sticker and put that on the back of my rig.

**ilikecandy** · 05-11-2010, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Alaskan Rover

I equate the freedom to pollute to the freedom to commit murder. There is NO freedom to do EITHER, nor should there be.

awesome.

**Alaskan Rover** · 05-11-2010, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

awesome.

At the very LEAST, I would equate it to 1st degree felony Aggravated Assault.

**tommyvee** · 05-11-2010, 03:35 PM

[/QUOTE]
Originally Posted by Alaskan Rover View Post
I equate the freedom to pollute to the freedom to commit murder. There is NO freedom to do EITHER, nor should there be.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

awesome.

And in Bhopal, pollution did kill around 20,000 people, so the equivalence of pollution and murder is often more than theoretical. I don't understand how anyone can believe in self-regulation when there is no historical evidence of such, but an infinite number of counter examples.

After plenty of years as a corporate employee, I think belief in corporate self-regulation betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how capitalism works. Any management team that reduces stock holder returns in the interests of environmental protection (beyond legal requirements) will eventually be replaced by management that maximizes shareholder return.
So legal requirements are the only practical way to protect the air we all breath and the water we all drink.

Belief in "self-regulation" just demonstrates the power of ideology to obliterate common sense and simple observation of the world we live in.

**bushman** · 05-11-2010, 03:51 PM

The Indian gubberment was a major partner in the Union Carbide plant at the time of the disaster and now the sole owner of the plant. Who should have been (is) regulating the Indian Govt.?

**ilikecandy** · 05-11-2010, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by tommyvee

And in Bhopal, pollution did kill around 20,000 people, so the equivalence of pollution and murder is often more than theoretical. I don't understand how anyone can believe in self-regulation when there is no historical evidence of such, but an infinite number of counter examples.

After plenty of years as a corporate employee, I think belief in corporate self-regulation betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how capitalism works. Any management team that reduces stock holder returns in the interests of environmental protection (beyond legal requirements) will eventually be replaced by management that maximizes shareholder return.
So legal requirements are the only practical way to protect the air we all breath and the water we all drink.

Belief in "self-regulation" just demonstrates the power of ideology to obliterate common sense and simple observation of the world we live in.

you have completely omitted the power of the consumer in your model of capitalism

and while i acknowledge that sometimes that and the power of the shareholder is not enough, regulations are generally a poor, inefficient response. a tax, though also not perfect, is usually a better alternative

**Downbound Train** · 05-11-2010, 04:11 PM

Nice try Candy but you are dealing with government trusting freedom haters. They drank the kool-aide long ago. They have thousands of "facts" that the like minded Marxist community pumps out like so much shit from a goose. They think that the government shaping everyones behavior to suit their utopian dream trumps a free mans right to choose. The arrogance from these "know it all" immoral Statist douche bags makes me sad.
They think they represent "progress". They don't. They are taking us back to a time when governments dominated the people. History's grave yard is packed with societies whos governments destroyed them. Don't worry though Candy. They'll do it better this time. They are smarter than the thousands who failed before them. Freedom doesn't work. Just look at how the world changed since 1776. America succeeded by accident and now we need government to fix it all. There is no God, there is no Heaven. So we need our elected gods to create heaven here on earth so there is no more pain and unfairness in the world. Utopia Candy. We're shooting for Utopia again. It'll work this time! just ask AK R.

**stupendous man** · 05-11-2010, 04:24 PM

Without government there is no market, there is no capitalism. In anarchy, everyone is deprived.

The corporation as a person is the worst legal construct of our system.

**deliberate** · 05-11-2010, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

Nice try Candy but you are dealing with government trusting freedom haters. They drank the kool-aide long ago. They have thousands of "facts" that the like minded Marxist community pumps out like so much shit from a goose. They think that the government shaping everyones behavior to suit their utopian dream trumps a free mans right to choose. The arrogance from these "know it all" immoral Statist douche bags makes me sad.
They think they represent "progress". They don't. They are taking us back to a time when governments dominated the people. History's grave yard is packed with societies whos governments destroyed them. Don't worry though Candy. They'll do it better this time. They are smarter than the thousands who failed before them. Freedom doesn't work. Just look at how the world changed since 1776. America succeeded by accident and now we need government to fix it all. There is no God, there is no Heaven. So we need our elected gods to create heaven here on earth so there is no more pain and unfairness in the world. Utopia Candy. We're shooting for Utopia again. It'll work this time! just ask AK R.

that was pretty funny; I almost thought you were being serious for the first few sentences.

**Alaskan Rover** · 05-11-2010, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

Nice try Candy but you are dealing with government trusting freedom haters. They drank the kool-aide long ago. They have thousands of "facts" that the like minded Marxist community pumps out like so much shit from a goose. They think that the government shaping everyones behavior to suit their utopian dream trumps a free mans right to choose. The arrogance from these "know it all" immoral Statist douche bags makes me sad.

They think they represent "progress". They don't. They are taking us back to a time when governments dominated the people. History's grave yard is packed with societies whos governments destroyed them. Don't worry though Candy. They'll do it better this time. They are smarter than the thousands who failed before them. Freedom doesn't work. Just look at how the world changed since 1776. America succeeded by accident and now we need government to fix it all. There is no God, there is no Heaven. So we need our elected gods to create heaven here on earth so there is no more pain and unfairness in the world. Utopia Candy. We're shooting for Utopia again. It'll work this time! just ask AK R.

DBT seems to have an uncanny ability to totally misrepresent ideas and facts.

Downbound, the fact that you just totally disregard the second part of the thread title does not surprise me in the least.

In case you missed it...I said "...and LESS regulations of individuals." That your failed to see that, doesn't mystify me (well, it does, sort of), but it does highlight just how brainwashed you are in that words that LITERALLY say one thing, somehow get morphed into their opposite when they get to your brain.

Where in the world do you gather that I am in favor of limiting an INDIVIDUAL'S freedom? As I'd stated, I would like to less restrictions on individual freedoms and more privacy.
'
Downbound, people are NOT corporations (even if the Supreme Court thinks they are). An over-simple statement to be sure, yet one that you seem unable to comprehend.

Because people and corporations are different, they should have different constraints placed on them, and should abide by a different set of rules and laws. Is that too hard to understand?

Let me say it again: I would like to see LESS regulations infringing on an individuals freedoms and privacy. And I would like to see more regulations pertaining to corporations.

Like I said, you Conservative Right folks make a big speech about freedom and liberty, and yet do everything you can to LIMIT freedom and privacy!!!

Who were the biggest supporters of the Patriot Act? Conservatives.

Who are the biggest supporters of a bio-metric national ID card? Sidewalk facial-recognition cameras? The REAL ID national ID program? Fingerprinting school children? The Nazi-like new laws in Arizona? Fucking CONSERVATIVES, that's who!!

Downbound, your thinly-veiled hypocracy is showing. You're an absolutely ignorant, hypocritical, brainwashed conservative douchebag...and worse, you talk about freedom and at the same time support doing away with freedom, liberty and privacy...and you are so fucking brainwashed, you don't even realize you're doing it.

**bushman** · 05-11-2010, 05:41 PM

You forgot one, voter ID. You have to have one to cash your intitlement, check but not to vote, you need one to sign up for food stamps, but not to vote, you need one for a section 8 housing voucher, but not to vote, you need one to get on an airplane, but not to vote. If a photo ID was required to vote, Al Franken would still be a unfunny comedian , not a U.S. Senator.

**jon turner** · 05-11-2010, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by bushman

You forgot one, voter ID. You have to have one to cash your intitlement, check but not to vote, you need one to sign up for food stamps, but not to vote, you need one for a section 8 housing voucher, but not to vote, you need one to get on an airplane, but not to vote. If a photo ID was required to vote, Al Franken would still be a unfunny comedian , not a U.S. Senator.

I'm pretty sure every time I voted I had to show photo ID; it's definitely required in Colorado. Yup, www.vote411.org will give you what's required for each state, but in order to register to vote, you need a DL number or tax ID number. Then, to vote in person, you need a valid ID. I'm not sure where you get your other info from. I searched to see what you need to apply for food stamps, and nowhere did it mention anything about voter ID. It did say you needed a valid ID (driver's license) and proof of citizenship, income info, residency info, etc.

BTW, Alaskan Rover, if you like my sig, you should check out the music of Tim Barry. The words are from his song Avoiding Catatonic Surrender. They are also in the song West Wye by Avail, Tim's band before he started playing solo.

**bushman** · 05-11-2010, 07:46 PM

My bad. Not voter ID but picture ID. MN. does not have it, nor does WI, in fact Gov. Jim Doyle vetoed 3 times a requirment for a picture ID to vote. I wonder why he would do that?

**Downbound Train** · 05-11-2010, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by Alaskan Rover

DBT seems to have an uncanny ability to totally misrepresent ideas and facts.

Downbound, the fact that you just totally disregard the second part of the thread title does not surprise me in the least.

In case you missed it...I said "...and LESS regulations of individuals." That your failed to see that, doesn't mystify me (well, it does, sort of), but it does highlight just how brainwashed you are in that words that LITERALLY say one thing, somehow get morphed into their opposite when they get to your brain.

Where in the world do you gather that I am in favor of limiting an INDIVIDUAL'S freedom? As I'd stated, I would like to less restrictions on individual freedoms and more privacy.
'
Downbound, people are NOT corporations (even if the Supreme Court thinks they are). An over-simple statement to be sure, yet one that you seem unable to comprehend.

Because people and corporations are different, they should have different constraints placed on them, and should abide by a different set of rules and laws. Is that too hard to understand?

Let me say it again: I would like to see LESS regulations infringing on an individuals freedoms and privacy. And I would like to see more regulations pertaining to corporations.

Like I said, you Conservative Right folks make a big speech about freedom and liberty, and yet do everything you can to LIMIT freedom and privacy!!!

Who were the biggest supporters of the Patriot Act? Conservatives.

Who are the biggest supporters of a bio-metric national ID card? Sidewalk facial-recognition cameras? The REAL ID national ID program? Fingerprinting school children? The Nazi-like new laws in Arizona? Fucking CONSERVATIVES, that's who!!

Downbound, your thinly-veiled hypocracy is showing. You're an absolutely ignorant, hypocritical, brainwashed conservative douchebag...and worse, you talk about freedom and at the same time support doing away with freedom, liberty and privacy...and you are so fucking brainwashed, you don't even realize you're doing it.

The act of regulation is by defininition the government taking an individuals or group of individuals freedom.

Don't tell me I'm for the Patriot act and biometric ID then call me a hypocrite. Where have I showed support for either. I'm not a Neo-Con like Karl Rove. I could not be more against a National Biometric ID. What could possibly be more "Big Brother-ish?
I don't know what parts of the Patriot Act you are referring to but I think you'd be supprised what I (and most constitutional conservatives) think of parts of it.
Are you confusing Republicans for conservatives again?

BullshitInspector · 05-11-2010, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by Alaskan Rover

I am an environmentalist who believes wholeheartedly in increased governmental regulation of business, yet at the same time, I believe vehemently in personal freedom...

Uuuuh... theres your problem right there, you are holding two completely contradictory ideas.

Its like saying that you belong to the KKK but you believe in racial equality.

**ilikecandy** · 05-12-2010, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

Nice try Candy but you are dealing with government trusting freedom haters. They drank the kool-aide long ago. They have thousands of "facts" that the like minded Marxist community pumps out like so much shit from a goose. They think that the government shaping everyones behavior to suit their utopian dream trumps a free mans right to choose. The arrogance from these "know it all" immoral Statist douche bags makes me sad.
They think they represent "progress". They don't. They are taking us back to a time when governments dominated the people. History's grave yard is packed with societies whos governments destroyed them. Don't worry though Candy. They'll do it better this time. They are smarter than the thousands who failed before them. Freedom doesn't work. Just look at how the world changed since 1776. America succeeded by accident and now we need government to fix it all. There is no God, there is no Heaven. So we need our elected gods to create heaven here on earth so there is no more pain and unfairness in the world. Utopia Candy. We're shooting for Utopia again. It'll work this time! just ask AK R.

Well self-regulation, or more accurately profit driven regulation isnt obvious - its hard to see someone NOT doing something. But I'll give these guys what I think is an easy to see example - organic food

**Downbound Train** · 05-12-2010, 07:23 AM

Freedom requires responsibility. Including the consumers responsibility to hold companies responsible for their actions by voting with their dollars. Regulation is just one more act by the nanny state to suck personal responsibility from free people.

Liberals can't even imagine a world where free people, educating themselves and voting with their dollars determine how thing should be vs do-gooder government know it all's screwing things up with endless bureaucracy and unintended consequences.

With the flood of information available to consumers today there should be less and less regulation not more and more.

I always go back to the mortgage crisis. Do you really think it could have happened if the consumer (consumer meaning not just retail mortgage buyers but anyone exchanging money in the industry) didn't wrongly believe the government was properly regulating the products they were buying and trading?

**skifishbum** · 05-12-2010, 07:47 AM

Less Regulatin
More Percolatin

**jon turner** · 05-12-2010, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by BullshitInspector

two completely contradictory ideas.

Regulation and freedom aren't necessarily contradictory. Regulating businesses and corporation from environmental destruction and predatory practices inhibits a few while giving people the freedom to breathe clean air and work in a safer environment, etc.

Government is "for the people, by the people" and should serve the people. When it does this well, and in general, it does in the US, we all benefit. Just like we hold our businesses accountable through consumer action, we have to hold our government accountable through our votes and voices and participation.

It's not a one is right, one is wrong thing. We need both business and government, and we need to continue to improve our systems and learn from the past.

You can state that organic food is a perfect example of business growing without regulation, but it is regulated. In order to label a food certified organic, it must be certified by the USDA. Yes, there are some local farms who essentially are organic but don't want to pay for the certification, but this is generally on a local scale and transactions are often directly between farmer and consumer (the ideal business model for sustainable practices btw), so the consumer has the option to make that judgement for themselves. When you look at the national and international scales, there is significant regulation to insure to the consumer that what they are buying is organic (though often the label becomes less meaningful when you are looking at industrial scale farming). Overall, though, organic food is an excellent example of how business and government both played a role in developing the organic food system.

login area

STORIES

VIDEOS

FEATURED FILM

STORIES

VIDEOS

FEATURED FILM

STORIES

VIDEOS

FEATURED FILM

SKI

SNOWBOARD

AVI SAFETY

MEN'S CLOTHING

WOMEN'S CLOTHING

BRANDS

ATHLETES

Featured Resorts

Resorts by Location

Thread: MORE regulation of corporations, LESS regulation of individuals...

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

MORE regulation of corporations, LESS regulation of individuals...

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

Most Recent Video

Most Recent Blog

Most Recent Photo

Home

Ski

Snowboard

Surf

Travel

Gear

Shop

Company