Trump

[SHOCKvalue]

So, then Kansas makes absolutely no regulations about pollution, emissions, etc. Creates an environment where pollution is totally unregulated, and gives tax incentives for placing polluting businesses right on the Nebraska border, so most of the airborne pollutants end up there.

Nebraska figures that if they're getting the pollution anyway, they may as well have the businesses that create it, so they match Kansas laws on pollution and create a 50 hour work week before overtime is paid. The businesses that had been in Kansas just move across the border.

Now what does Kansas do?

You're sorta bad about putting words into people's mouths.

[SHOCKvalue]

There needs to be a little balance in this discussion, lest we forget our history.

This is what they were called when there were no restrictions.

Robber Baron was a term applied to a businessman in the 19th century who engaged in unethical and monopolistic practices, wielded widespread political influence, and amassed enormous wealth.

Today the robber baron's are the political class, bureaucrat class and the crony capitalist class. They exist on both sides of the isle, and their highest concentrations reside in the DC metro area.

[wu_shizzle]

Today the robber baron's are the political class, bureaucrat class and the crony capitalist class. They exist on both sides of the isle, and their highest concentrations reside in the DC metro area.

Preach!

[wufan]

So, then Kansas makes absolutely no regulations about pollution, emissions, etc. Creates an environment where pollution is totally unregulated, and gives tax incentives for placing polluting businesses right on the Nebraska border, so most of the airborne pollutants end up there.

Nebraska figures that if they're getting the pollution anyway, they may as well have the businesses that create it, so they match Kansas laws on pollution and create a 50 hour work week before overtime is paid. The businesses that had been in Kansas just move across the border.

Now what does Kansas do?

I said I don't believe in laissez-faire. The belief in a smaller federal government necessitates none of your hypotheticals. Taking the rules away from the State means that it is up to the state to make that decision. I don't believe that moving to DC makes men better able to understand the needs of Kansas; rather I believe the reverse to be true.

Now, if you believe man to be a victim of his surroundings, then you should vote for well educated democratic socialists. They have great ideas on the best way for you to be governed from afar, and will insure that you never have to know success or failure.

[wufan]

If we are honest and balanced in what we say, we have to recognize that big business has been in bed with some level of government from the beginning of time (whether it be local/state or national government). Some of our earliest was when man stole water from others. The latest example we have are man made earthquakes.

I don't know if this is aimed at me, but I don't see how this has anything to do with my argument. Also...man made earthquakes; oh the humanity!

[WuDrWu]

.......................... and will insure that you never have to know success or failure.

Pretty good points, except at the end. You in fact WILL know failure with socialism, eventually. You might get away with it for a bit, but that's all.

[Aargh]

My (exaggerated) point earlier about states' rights taking precedence over Federal regulation was to show that states would end up competing for businesses to locate in their states. This would be very good for businesses, capitalism, and stockholder profits, but it could lead to a least common denominator for public health, worker safety, consumer safety, etc.

When all the states play under the same ground rules for businesses, it avoids the temptation for a state to bid down regulations compared to other states. That can lead to a downward spiral and end up with the entire country operating under 3rd World conditions for the environment and for workers. I'm not convinced that's a good thing.

Colorado exercised states' rights and legalized recreational marijuana. Western Kansas law enforcement is screaming bloody murder over what it's doing to their limited resources. States' rights is a great academic concept, and in theory it sounds really good. In practice the abuses could make that form of government less workable than our current form of government.

There is no form of government that will ever be "popular".

[wufan]

My (exaggerated) point earlier about states' rights taking precedence over Federal regulation was to show that states would end up competing for businesses to locate in their states. This would be very good for businesses, capitalism, and stockholder profits, but it could lead to a least common denominator for public health, worker safety, consumer safety, etc.

When all the states play under the same ground rules for businesses, it avoids the temptation for a state to bid down regulations compared to other states. That can lead to a downward spiral and end up with the entire country operating under 3rd World conditions for the environment and for workers. I'm not convinced that's a good thing.

Colorado exercised states' rights and legalized recreational marijuana. Western Kansas law enforcement is screaming bloody murder over what it's doing to their limited resources. States' rights is a great academic concept, and in theory it sounds really good. In practice the abuses could make that form of government less workable than our current form of government.

This sums up pretty well a fundamental difference in the way we view the world. I believe that man is mostly good most of the time, and is best equipped to govern himself. If he is given the opportunity to choose his will he will choose to improve himself and his community. You believe that man is mostly evil most of the time and must not make his own decisions, for if he does he will most certainly choose to destroy his environment and fellow man out of greed. I struggle with the idea that some other man (federal) suddenly becomes good by not living in the community he impacts.

[jdshock]

I struggle with the idea that some other man (federal) suddenly becomes good by not living in the community he impacts.

Just as a clarification, @Aargh:'s argument is not really about the morality of various governments or individuals. It is about the incentives in place for states. In a system with a great deal of state authority, we should see a race to the bottom in terms of corporate regulation. It's a prisoner's dilemma situation. Even if each state would be better off if every state chose greater corporate regulation, each state will choose deregulation. A federal government isn't swayed by the same incentives at the state level since the federal government shouldn't care if the corporation is in Kansas or 30 miles west in Colorado.

[shocka khan]

This sums up pretty well a fundamental difference in the way we view the world. I believe that man is mostly good most of the time, and is best equipped to govern himself. If he is given the opportunity to choose his will he will choose to improve himself and his community. You believe that man is mostly evil most of the time and must not make his own decisions, for if he does he will most certainly choose to destroy his environment and fellow man out of greed. I struggle with the idea that some other man (federal) suddenly becomes good by not living in the community he impacts.

Today's business environment and the pressure to 'manage' earnings creates an environment conducive to fraud:

http://www.ey.com/GL/en/Newsroom/News-releases/news-EY-fraud-and-corruption-risks-impact-corporate-international-expansion

Not to mention adulteration of products (putting sawdust in your parmesan cheese), collusion to increase airfares (I believe The Economist recently ran an article about that - we pay 10 percent more than other countries for our airfares).

To me, these plus the Pharma example, pretty much tell us that businesses will do anything to maximize profits, pressures to maximize profits are higher than ever before, and the incentives (i.e. keeping you job) are high.

The federal government is a safety net to make sure that our food and water is pure, that we are being charged fairly for goods and services we consume, that competition is fair and above board and that your savings and investments are protected. Even now, when you would probably say that the government is way too big, our investigators are being stretched thin.

There's lots of evidence out there that unfettered capitalism is inherently evil.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

I wouldnt go as far as to say capitalism itself is evil. But it does make people do some pretty shitty things.

[SHOCKvalue]

Colorado exercised states' rights and legalized recreational marijuana. Western Kansas law enforcement is screaming bloody murder over what it's doing to their limited resources.

No way.

I'd bet good money the LE agencies in western Kansas are hardcore loving themselves some roadside shakedowns... sorry, "civil asset forfeitures", these days. It must be like a king extracting his undeserved ransoms out there. Like they discovered the end of the rainbow.

The rural LE departments of western Kansas are probably getting purchase orders prepared as we speak so that they can walk around looking like Seal Team Six.

"Big government" and law enforcement agencies who abuse their power and lack accountability go hand in hand with one another. They're twinkies.

[wu_shizzle]

This sums up pretty well a fundamental difference in the way we view the world. I believe that man is mostly good most of the time, and is best equipped to govern himself. If he is given the opportunity to choose his will he will choose to improve himself and his community. You believe that man is mostly evil most of the time and must not make his own decisions, for if he does he will most certainly choose to destroy his environment and fellow man out of greed. I struggle with the idea that some other man (federal) suddenly becomes good by not living in the community he impacts.

"Is it true that Government self interest is somehow nobler than Economic self interest?"

[MoValley John]

No way.

I'd bet good money the LE agencies in western Kansas are hardcore loving themselves some roadside shakedowns... sorry, "civil asset forfeitures", these days. It must be like a king extracting his undeserved ransoms out there. Like they discovered the end of the rainbow.

The rural LE departments of western Kansas are probably getting purchase orders prepared as we speak so that they can walk around looking like Seal Team Six.

"Big government" and law enforcement agencies who abuse their power and lack accountability go hand in hand with one another. They're twinkies.

Not happening. The federal government quit sharing assets seized during drug busts. All seized assets now stay with the feds. Furthermore, the small amount of pot confiscated from each person coming out of Colorado usually doesn't meet the threshold of having any assets seized.

What is happening is recreational pot smokers accidenally bring their little stash across state lines. They get a speeding ticket and are caught with a little devils lettuce. This bogs down the courts, costs law enforcement time and money and has become burdomsome. You can't protect and serve if you are spending all of your time and money in court.

[MoValley John]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/holder-ends-seized-asset-sharing-process-that-split-billions-with-local-state-police/2015/01/16/0e7ca058-99d4-11e4-bcfb-059ec7a93ddc_story.html