Quote from: Supposn on September 15, 2013, 10:25:31 PM
Toward Liberty & Daidalos, I'm no less both of you a proponent of written law complying with a constitution as written, rather than laws determined by the whims and inconsistencies of individual persons or panels.

Toward Liberty, regarding "Anarchists would simply favor a voluntary system of private law ... ... And libertarians would insist that the law be rational- (i.e. only include crimes against person and property, rather than statutes making crimes out of acts which involve no victims) ":

I won't speculate as to what you mean by "private law"; the only thing that comes to my mind from that phrase is opposing parties all agreeing to accept the binding determination or arbitration of independent individual persons or panels of people.

As to your referring to acts without victims, I don't believe we agree upon who is not an uninterested party unaffected and unharmed by what I suppose you would describe as the only of concern to the principles directly involved.

If banks deliberately turn a blind eye at the overstated assessment of property values because they will immediately flip the mortgage as part of a bundle sold to GSE's, you don't consider the taxpayer shouldn't be concerned?
Because the law doesn't hold the government responsible for GSE's losses?  But the GSE's and government officials and people with influence over government officials and the GSE's themselves all winked at investors and/or brokers that sold those bundles to investors.  When the defecation hit the propeller, it turned out that those financial enterprises were all too big to fail and the taxpayers were on the hook for major portions of the losses.
This was all a repeat of the similar savings and loan fiasco but at a much grander scale.

I suppose you're opposed to public assistance and I believe that poverty is of some concern to our economy and thus to taxpayers.

We both agree that legal mutually agreed upon global trade transactions but I seem to recall us disagreeing as to annual trade deficits always immediately being detrimental to their nation's GDPs.
If you were to agree that's the case, you still would reject the concept of transferable Import Certificates.

I justify USA's final purchasers and users of foreign goods paying to eliminate the annual trade deficit of USA's goods' adjusted assessed values which would increase our numbers of jobs, our median wage, our sum of aggregate import and export trade.  This would all be reflected within a larger than otherwise GDP and additionally subsidize our exports of goods.

Even if you were to stipulate to all of that, I suppose as a libertarian you'd consider our trade deficit as victimless and the transferable Import Certificate policy as unjustified.
You would not recognize salary and wage earners as affected victims of our annual trade deficits'
detrimental economi consequences.

Respectfully, Supposn

Supposn, I'm curious and not trying to be insulting in the least.
But is English your first language? I ask only because your structure sometimes comes off as inside out or reversed, like "yes, we have no bananas", instead of "no we're out of bananas".

Sometimes what you write is so hard to follow, I never know if you are making a statement, or asking a question, simply confusing.

So what is your first language, because it will make it much easier to understand your posts if I can understand the dialect.

Government regulations, and regulator boards, are generally well and good as long as there are "checks and balances" in place to help reduce fraud and deception (political kick-backs, vote buying, and outright bribery, etc, etc). What we seem to have now is a system that is full of such corruption.

Many liberals of today are either unaware of, or lack the honesty to admit, the fact that out-of-control government regulations have been the cause of many horrific events seen throughout history. These horrific government regulated events include the Holocaust, the Stalinist purges, and many other specific events that killed millions and ruined the lives of countless others.

Btw Supposn, I'm thinking that the drug you mention was probably the German developed Thalidomide. If so, I'll remind you that this drug never gained FDA approval for marketing in the US. However, millions of Thalidomide tablets were distributed to US physicians and given to US women during a clinical trial program that in reality circumvented FDA regulations.

The bottom line is that government regulations are only as good as their intent, validity, and enforcement and in this respect, our system is woefully lacking (not sure about country you're in or from, but I suspect that it was/is Germany).

Quote from: Supposn on September 15, 2013, 10:25:31 PM
Toward Liberty & Daidalos, I'm no less both of you a proponent of written law complying with a constitution as written, rather than laws determined by the whims and inconsistencies of individual persons or panels.

Toward Liberty, regarding "Anarchists would simply favor a voluntary system of private law ... ... And libertarians would insist that the law be rational- (i.e. only include crimes against person and property, rather than statutes making crimes out of acts which involve no victims) ":

I won't speculate as to what you mean by "private law"; the only thing that comes to my mind from that phrase is opposing parties all agreeing to accept the binding determination or arbitration of independent individual persons or panels of people.

As to your referring to acts without victims, I don't believe we agree upon who is not an uninterested party unaffected and unharmed by what I suppose you would describe as the only of concern to the principles directly involved.

If banks deliberately turn a blind eye at the overstated assessment of property values because they will immediately flip the mortgage as part of a bundle sold to GSE's, you don't consider the taxpayer shouldn't be concerned?
Because the law doesn't hold the government responsible for GSE's losses?  But the GSE's and government officials and people with influence over government officials and the GSE's themselves all winked at investors and/or brokers that sold those bundles to investors.  When the defecation hit the propeller, it turned out that those financial enterprises were all too big to fail and the taxpayers were on the hook for major portions of the losses.
This was all a repeat of the similar savings and loan fiasco but at a much grander scale.

I suppose you're opposed to public assistance and I believe that poverty is of some concern to our economy and thus to taxpayers.

We both agree that legal mutually agreed upon global trade transactions but I seem to recall us disagreeing as to annual trade deficits always immediately being detrimental to their nation's GDPs.
If you were to agree that's the case, you still would reject the concept of transferable Import Certificates.

I justify USA's final purchasers and users of foreign goods paying to eliminate the annual trade deficit of USA's goods' adjusted assessed values which would increase our numbers of jobs, our median wage, our sum of aggregate import and export trade.  This would all be reflected within a larger than otherwise GDP and additionally subsidize our exports of goods.

Even if you were to stipulate to all of that, I suppose as a libertarian you'd consider our trade deficit as victimless and the transferable Import Certificate policy as unjustified.
You would not recognize salary and wage earners as affected victims of our annual trade deficits'
detrimental economi consequences.

Respectfully, Supposn

What I mean by private law is a simply a voluntary form of law. You have the right idea when discussing arbitration. The international system of commercial dispute resolution is a case in point. It is modeled after the old Roman lex mercatoria. Google customary law if you want to know more about this idea. Bruce Benson has done the best research.

It does seem that we do not agree what constitutes being a victim. In my understanding a victim is someone who has had their property or body aggressed against. So this would be things like fraud, theft, rape, assault, murder, etc

This does not include acts that merely involve negative consequences, as a consequence of peaceful activities. So if I start a new company and put another out of business, those in that firm might feel harmed by my actions, but since my actions were peaceful there is no rights violation and thus nothing for the law to be concerned with. We have to remember that market outcomes are based on consumer preferences. It is the consumer who decides which firms will earn profits and which losses. This is to help distinguish violent acts with harmful consequences for certain people from peaceful acts with negative consequences for others.

Regarding the GSE's, they wouldn't exist in a free society, for their very existence involves a property rights violation (taxation).

Though I am glad you brought up taxation in the context of this discussion about victims and the law, for clearly taxation is nothing but large scale theft and is therefore something that a free society would not tolerate.

Regarding the idea that annual trade deficits undermine GDP growth, I take issue on two levels. On the first, I dismiss the idea that the trade deficit is meaningful in the first place. Every trade is cash for goods. This notion of adding up exports and imports, across the nation, as if they occurred under the roof of a single firm, is patent nonsense.

And as far as GDP goes, that is another metric that I would suggest lacks internal consistency. For one thing prices are constantly changing, so they are poor guides for measuring value. Secondly, GDP includes government spending as an addition, where as some economists have argued it makes more sense to subtract it, leaving "private product remaining in private hands," for a more reliable indicator of economic growth. For let us recall that the government has no recourse to any profit and loss test to guide their decision making, and thus inherently misallocate resources.

And yes, any competition from overseas which results in lower wages for workers here involves no victims. The market makes no promises of any constant relationships. Prices, wages, interest rates, rents etc are always changing. As long as the outcome is part of the market process and consistent with the rule of law, there are no victims.

Quote from: Solar on September 16, 2013, 05:50:13 AM
Supposn, I'm curious and not trying to be insulting in the least.
But is English your first language? I ask only because your structure sometimes comes off as inside out or reversed, like "yes, we have no bananas", instead of "no we're out of bananas".

Sometimes what you write is so hard to follow, I never know if you are making a statement, or asking a question, simply confusing.

So what is your first language, because it will make it much easier to understand your posts if I can understand the dialect.

Solar, I do not recall within which group or to which poster I responded to but the wording of your question is so familiar as to lead me to suspect that you were the poster and thus (unless we've been corresponding within more than one group), this was the group where my reply was posted.  I'm a U.S. citizen, born in the USA to parents that were both U.S. citizens.  Our family spoke to each other almost entirely in English even within our own home.

I recall my life since the age of three and for as far as I can recall, the language I spoke, learned to read and to write in was English.  It has always been my language.

When my parents wanted to prevent my understanding their conversations they spoke Polish because I only know 2 or 3 Polish words.  My recollections of my life begin at the age of three.  I never left the continental United States prior to my entering the U.S. military service.  I regret that my parents didn't speak in Polish more often because I would now be bilingual.

I'm curious, precisely what phrasing do you or other members find confusing and can anyone of you suggest how I could have expressed their meaning more clearly?  I'd appreciate anyone's suggestion that would actually help me to improve my communicating skills.

Please send me a personal message and additionally inform me within this thread that you've sent me a personal message.  I don't know why I do not receive notifications of new postings to the threads I subscribe to.  I wonder if I would receive your messages?

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Telmark on September 16, 2013, 07:17:46 AM
Government regulations, and regulator boards, are generally well and good as long as there are "checks and balances" in place to help reduce fraud and deception (political kick-backs, vote buying, and outright bribery, etc, etc). What we seem to have now is a system that is full of such corruption.

Many liberals of today are either unaware of, or lack the honesty to admit, the fact that out-of-control government regulations have been the cause of many horrific events seen throughout history. These horrific government regulated events include the Holocaust, the Stalinist purges, and many other specific events that killed millions and ruined the lives of countless others. ...
... The bottom line is that government regulations are only as good as their intent, validity, and enforcement and in this respect, our system is woefully lacking. ...

Telmark, we apparently concur to some extent.
I'm less mistrustful of explicitly drafted government laws and regulations all created and enacted in the sunshine and publicly viewed.  I greatly dread bureaucratic (government or non-government) discretion that has power to affects me or mine and the inequities that evolve from the exercising of such discretion without granting me some reasonable rights of recourse.

All proposed laws and regulations should (to the greatest extent feasible), be explicitly drafted and diligently enforced.  All proposed or existing laws, regulations and policies should be judged upon their own individual merits.  There's no inherent benefit from more or less regulations.  It is the qualities not the numbers of our regulations that we should be considering.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on September 16, 2013, 10:03:31 AM
All proposed laws and regulations should (to the greatest extent feasible), be explicitly drafted and diligently enforced.  All proposed or existing laws, regulations and policies should be judged upon their own individual merits.  There's no inherent benefit from more or less regulations.  It is the qualities not the numbers of our regulations that we should be considering.

I think I figured out the problem here:  You're not speaking English at all; you're speaking Pedantic.

I would say you're "fluent" in that language, but it would be simultaneously redundant and a contradiction in terms.  Mindlessly reiterated banality always appears to flow smoothly, but it never really ends up making any damned sense.

Quote from: Telmark on September 16, 2013, 07:17:46 AM
Government regulations, and regulator boards, are generally well and good as long as there are "checks and balances" in place to help reduce fraud and deception (political kick-backs, vote buying, and outright bribery, etc, etc). What we seem to have now is a system that is full of such corruption.

Many liberals of today are either unaware of, or lack the honesty to admit, the fact that out-of-control government regulations have been the cause of many horrific events seen throughout history. These horrific government regulated events include the Holocaust, the Stalinist purges, and many other specific events that killed millions and ruined the lives of countless others.

Btw Supposn, I'm thinking that the drug you mention was probably the German developed Thalidomide. If so, I'll remind you that this drug never gained FDA approval for marketing in the US. However, millions of Thalidomide tablets were distributed to US physicians and given to US women during a clinical trial program that in reality circumvented FDA regulations.

The bottom line is that government regulations are only as good as their intent, validity, and enforcement and in this respect, our system is woefully lacking (not sure about country you're in or from, but I suspect that it was/is Germany).

Telmark, I iterate that we apparently concur to some extent.
Refer to reply #18 & 19.
You're correct; the drug was Thalidomide.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on September 16, 2013, 08:35:20 AM

Solar, I do not recall within which group or to which poster I responded to but the wording of your question is so familiar as to lead me to suspect that you were the poster and thus (unless we've been corresponding within more than one group), this was the group where my reply was posted.  I'm a U.S. citizen, born in the USA to parents that were both U.S. citizens.  Our family spoke to each other almost entirely in English even within our own home.

I recall my life since the age of three and for as far as I can recall, the language I spoke, learned to read and to write in was English.  It has always been my language.

When my parents wanted to prevent my understanding their conversations they spoke Polish because I only know 2 or 3 Polish words.  My recollections of my life begin at the age of three.  I never left the continental United States prior to my entering the U.S. military service.  I regret that my parents didn't speak in Polish more often because I would now be bilingual.

I'm curious, precisely what phrasing do you or other members find confusing and can anyone of you suggest how I could have expressed their meaning more clearly?  I'd appreciate anyone's suggestion that would actually help me to improve my communicating skills.

Please send me a personal message and additionally inform me within this thread that you've sent me a personal message.  I don't know why I do not receive notifications of new postings to the threads I subscribe to.  I wonder if I would receive your messages?

Respectfully, Supposn

No, it wasn't here, but thanks anyway for the explanation.
I wish I could give you an example, but it's not any one sentence in particular, rather entire paragraphs that seem to have no relevance to anything, or lack of a comma, or a left out question mark, which leaves one scratching their head..

Just read back through some of your oldest posts, since you won't read them as if you just wrote them and maybe you'll see what I was referring to.

Quote from: Supposn on September 16, 2013, 10:48:50 AM
Telmark, I iterate that we apparently concur to some extent.
Refer to reply #18 & 19.
You're correct; the drug was Thalidomide.

Respectfully, Supposn

I had a classmate in '68 or '69 that had no arms to speak of due to her mother's use of that particular drug. We all initially felt extremely sorry for her and her disability. But we soon realized that she neither wanted nor needed any pity from any of us. She was, arms or no arms, pretty much just one of the girls. I seem to recall that she might have been a cheerleader of some sort, but can't say for sure (it's been a long time). 

Note: this beautiful "straight-A" student did all of her writing assignments, etc, with her bare feet (and her writing was as good or better than most)!

This kind of thing often makes me think twice whenever I start to feel that I got a "raw deal" on this or that...

Quote from: Supposn on September 11, 2013, 07:01:59 PM
Government regulations have purposes.

A primary purpose of regulations should NOT BE to eliminate independent competition.
Properly drafted rules are meant to anticipate instances and prevent net detriments to our society due to the hindrances upon those less powerful or otherwise disadvantaged who are unable to properly defend themselves.  (In some instances even the wealthy and presumed more powerful can be at a disadvantage).

There are some that are prejudiced against government regulations without granting full consideration to the specific existing or proposed regulation in question.
Definition of "prejudice":
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice
a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge

There are certain contracts that are deemed to be illegal (regardless of the advantages perceived by all of the agreeing principles); because the agreement itself has been recognized as grievously contrary to others not directly participating within the agreement or the agreement is contrary to the publics' interests.

Respectfully, Supposn
government regulations, public interests, rights, non-direct participants

So long as said regulations are not beyond the intentionally very limited scope of those powers enumerated to the Federal Government by our Constitution.

Those regulations which go beyond the scope of such enumerated powers, are not only illegal, but a tyranny imposed upon the people which should be resisted, and challenged in our courts, and our polling places, at every turn.

UT OH

Quote from: Telmark on September 16, 2013, 07:17:46 AM
Government regulations, and regulator boards, are generally well and good as long as there are "checks and balances" in place to help reduce fraud and deception (political kick-backs, vote buying, and outright bribery, etc, etc). What we seem to have now is a system that is full of such corruption.

Many liberals of today are either unaware of, or lack the honesty to admit, the fact that out-of-control government regulations have been the cause of many horrific events seen throughout history. These horrific government regulated events include the Holocaust, the Stalinist purges, and many other specific events that killed millions and ruined the lives of countless others.

Btw Supposn, I'm thinking that the drug you mention was probably the German developed Thalidomide. If so, I'll remind you that this drug never gained FDA approval for marketing in the US. However, millions of Thalidomide tablets were distributed to US physicians and given to US women during a clinical trial program that in reality circumvented FDA regulations.

The bottom line is that government regulations are only as good as their intent, validity, and enforcement and in this respect, our system is woefully lacking (not sure about country you're in or from, but I suspect that it was/is Germany).

.

It should be said that the one and only reason that most drugs are so expensive in the US is the federal government. Bringing a new drug to market costs BILLIONS of dollars today. To recoup that cost, the drug companies charge HUGE prices for their products.

I would too!

But here I am, with glaucoma, in need of eyedrops, and the drug companies are charging something well north of $100 for my monthly dose. The FDA has caused the price to be that high, and the patent the company bought -- from the same federal government -- protects the drug company from competition and insures that I'll pay their price or go blind. 

Proof? Easy. Within the last two years, the BigPharma patent on an eyedrop solution they called "Xalatan" (latanoprost opthalmic solution) expired. Overnight, the generic equivalent was on the market for around $20. Even the "real thing" dropped to around $40. The patented version had been selling for around $140. Same stuff, same bottle, same amount, same package, same same same.

Quote from: TboneAgain on October 14, 2013, 07:04:42 PM
.

It should be said that the one and only reason that most drugs are so expensive in the US is the federal government. Bringing a new drug to market costs BILLIONS of dollars today. To recoup that cost, the drug companies charge HUGE prices for their products.

I would too!

But here I am, with glaucoma, in need of eyedrops, and the drug companies are charging something well north of $100 for my monthly dose. The FDA has caused the price to be that high, and the patent the company bought -- from the same federal government -- protects the drug company from competition and insures that I'll pay their price or go blind. 

Proof? Easy. Within the last two years, the BigPharma patent on an eyedrop solution they called "Xalatan" (latanoprost opthalmic solution) expired. Overnight, the generic equivalent was on the market for around $20. Even the "real thing" dropped to around $40. The patented version had been selling for around $140. Same stuff, same bottle, same amount, same package, same same same.

T Bone Again, among the concepts that our legislators considered when the y passed patent laws and enabled patent regulations was to promote the discovery development and publishing of technological devices and methods to further net benefit of global society.

Within post #81 of the thread
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/incrementally-replacing-income-taxes-with-a-general-consumption-tax/75/ ,
I stated within all determinations of questions requiring considerations of often equally valid concepts and factors, (within economic considerations), there are differences of opinions between even the most honest, knowledgeable and intelligently logical persons of good will.

Among the criticisms of our current patent laws are drug corporations' practices to slightly modify formulas of their soon to be expired drug patents thus extend their patent with little if any significant benefit due to the enacted modification.

Maybe the answer is to permit the patent to only apply to the modified version of the drug but permit the unmodified formula to drop down to become available within the public domain.  Opponents of such a law change would argue that this change would even more economically discourage research and development of new drugs.
Drug prices are greatly increased because conservative legislatures have succeed in prohibiting insurance plans that are partially or fully funded by our federal government from limiting the price they will approve for specific drugs.

The Federal Veterans Administration has been enacting that policy which significantly reduces their costs to USA taxpayers. Federally subsidized medical insures such as Medicare, Medicaid, and states' health insurance programs, (i.e. SHIPs) do not have that same power.  Additionally such power would indirectly affect prices for non-federal subsidized medial plans.

There's already the problem of inducing drug companies to spend for what's remedies of serious illness that have a low incidences of occurring and thus promise little economic benefit to a successful discoverer.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on September 11, 2013, 07:01:59 PM
Government regulations have purposes.

A primary purpose of regulations should NOT BE to eliminate independent competition.
Properly drafted rules are meant to anticipate instances and prevent net detriments to our society due to the hindrances upon those less powerful or otherwise disadvantaged who are unable to properly defend themselves.  (In some instances even the wealthy and presumed more powerful can be at a disadvantage).

There are some that are prejudiced against government regulations without granting full consideration to the specific existing or proposed regulation in question.
Definition of "prejudice":
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice
a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge

There are certain contracts that are deemed to be illegal (regardless of the advantages perceived by all of the agreeing principles); because the agreement itself has been recognized as grievously contrary to others not directly participating within the agreement or the agreement is contrary to the publics' interests.

Respectfully, Supposn
government regulations, public interests, rights, non-direct participants

Your anus has a purpose too. Not sure that means I am suppose to like it. Lol!

Quote from: Dan on December 22, 2013, 04:44:07 PM
Your anus has a purpose too. Not sure that means I am suppose to like it. Lol!

He would...

To all leftists, liberals and other people who think they are somehow being generous/enlightened to vote what others have earned into their own pockets, true small market conservatives do not trust the government's competency or it's good will.

That is how we frame literally every issue we are talking about here. We do not view large government involvement in our day to day lives as a force for good or even something neutral. At best, disconnected government functionaries will waste our tax dollars with all the indifference and lack of care that you would typically see in a line at the DMV. More likely, some a-hole special interest group is gaming the system to parasitically leach off of us. And at worst, some hipper than thou leftist is trying his hand at some hair brained social engineering scheme.

So when we look at something like regulation we usually do not frame it as how the government can protect us and help us live a better life. We frame it as how some leftist can circumvent the will of the people to force us to do as he wishes. Yes there is some value in certain levels of regulation, but leftists draw the line way, way, way further out than the typical poster on this board, your average tea party member or any small government conservative you are likely to meet.