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

"Too big to fail" refers to the consequences of huge enterprises legally subject extremely great loses that also are themselves significantly detrimental to our national economy.
I believe all such USA cases were due to the corporation's imprudence and/or illegal activity and/or government regulators or legislators failing to exercise due diligence and oversight, and/or undue influence of lobbyists.

It doesn't help when our legislators act unintelligently.  Commercial interests were granted the opportunity to participate within government sponsored entities in order to increase the pool of available wealth for federally insured loans; that worked well.  Commercial participants were able to be represented on the GSEs' boards; that was reasonable.

GSEs' were then permitted to deal with loans or portions of loans that were not federally insured; thus GSEs' were indirectly exposing the federal government to increased risks.  That's less than intelligent.  The underlying cause of that foolishness might have been unstated confidence that home values can only increase and never decrease.

[Banks were permitted to sell 100% of a loan to a GSE before the signatures initializing those loans were dry.  In such cases, and/or in the cases of federally insured loans, banks were unconcerned with the possibility of overvalued collateral or the creditability of the lender because the banks had "no skin in the game"].

Respectfully, Supposn

Am I the only member of this group old enough to remember a drug that was being used worldwide prior to the completion of USA drug passing through extensive studies regarding the dangers inherent to the drugs?  Due to the drug, additional births of permanently deformed infants were occurring world-wide. The only USA babies so born were due to their parents or physicians circumventing USA's regulations and the drugs were used by pregnant women.

Respectfully, Supposn

Regulations are simply some special interest's welfare program- every where and always.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on September 12, 2013, 07:47:27 AM
Regulations are simply some special interest's welfare program- every where and always.

Exactly. The reason both the Energy and Education Departments should be eliminated.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on September 12, 2013, 07:47:27 AM
Regulations are simply some special interest's welfare program- every where and always.

I'm shocked at his trust in Govt.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on September 12, 2013, 07:47:27 AM
Regulations are simply some special interest's welfare program- every where and always.

Toward Liberty, SupSaleMgr & Solar, you all generally agree upon this.  It's a position you share with anarchists and Libertarians.  There are many conservatives, (I suppose you all label them as "RINOs") opposing your position in this matter.
Regarding my position I again refer to the post:
[Re: "Libertarians' positions regarding traffic lights?", reply #5 - Mar 7th, 2013 at 8:50am,   
http://www.libertariansforum.com/cgi-bin/freedom/YaBB.pl?num=1362596754/0
/////////////////////////////////////////////
Keauxbi & Zophos, a traveler ran out of a hotel, threw is bags into a cab. He then jumped into the cab and shouted "take me to the airport as fast as you can"!!

The driver pulled out from the curb and quickly accelerated.  The cab reached 90+ and the driver made no effort to slow it down for intersections.

When the cab began running through red lights, the traveler cried out in terror,
"I'm in a hurry but don't get us killed"!!!

The drive casually answered "relax; I'm an expert driver.  I learned from my brother".
This continued one red light after another.
To all of the terrorized traveler's cries, the driver's answer was always the same; "I'm an expert driver.  I learned from my brother".

That was until they reached a green light intersection where the driver executed a severe emergency stop.
The passenger lifted his bloody head off the cab's floor and screamed, "You go through one red light after another at over 90MPH and when you're doing more or less than 100MPH you then come to an immediate halt for a green light!  WHY!!

The driver answered "We must stop here at this intersection.  My brother drives on that other road".

That's the fault I find with your Libertarian contention that you and all others be permitted to exercise their own unrestricted individual good judgment.  That strategy leaves all of us others dependent upon not encountering you or one of your brothers on some dark night.

That's among the reasons most of us are not Libertarians or anarchists.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on September 13, 2013, 07:48:53 AM
Toward Liberty, SupSaleMgr & Solar, you all generally agree upon this.  It's a position you share with anarchists and Libertarians.

Wrong, Conservatives actually like laws/rules and Govt, it's libs that always want to use Govt to cahnge and add burdensome rules.

Though I can't speak for Towardliberty, I believe he wants no Govt.

By the way, I got your email, I'll see if I can fix it when I get a chance.

Obvious troll is obvious.

He's having an argument with the voices inside his head, and he's losing rather badly.

Just let him.

Quote from: kopema on September 13, 2013, 10:38:47 AM
Obvious troll is obvious.

He's having an argument with the voices inside his head, and he's losing rather badly.

Just let him.

I'm guessing old hippie, I grew up with them, some grew up, others continued stuck in socialist ideals, like the Clintons.

Quote from: Solar on September 13, 2013, 01:37:45 PM
I'm guessing old hippie, I grew up with them, some grew up, others continued stuck in socialist ideals, like the Clintons.

An over-aged radical anarchist puts down the bong long enough to realize:  Hey, maybe not ALL laws are evil!  Then feels the need to share that "brilliant epiphany" with the poor, ignorant Bible-thumping knuckle-draggers -- who all figured this out by the time we were eight?

Yeah.  Sounds about right.

This is what I keep telling you about trying to educate adult liberals:  it's too damned late.  An intellectual infant in an adult body is bad enough.  But an overgrown emotional infant is even worse.  A converted hippy is every bit as narcissistic as the other kind.  Knowing next-to nothing is even worse than knowing absolutely nothing; he's incapable of learning at anything like a normal rate, and his urge to blame US for that will only continue to grow.

Quote from: kopema on September 13, 2013, 04:18:55 PM
An over-aged radical anarchist puts down the bong long enough to realize:  Hey, maybe not ALL laws are evil!  Then feels the need to share that "brilliant epiphany" with the poor, ignorant Bible-thumping knuckle-draggers -- who all figured this out by the time we were eight?

Yeah.  Sounds about right.

This is what I keep telling you about trying to educate adult liberals:  it's too damned late.  An intellectual infant in an adult body is bad enough.  But an overgrown emotional infant is even worse.  A converted hippy is every bit as narcissistic as the other kind.  Knowing next-to nothing is even worse than knowing absolutely nothing; he's incapable of learning at anything like a normal rate, and his urge to blame US for that will only continue to grow.

I know what you were saying, but not all libs pay close attention to politics, they live on emotional soundbites so as to stay current with their homies when hanging out so they can fit in, it's when you challenge one to actually justify their position and explain it, is when a few have an epiphany, or they are mugged by the scum they claim to support..
I know it's possible, I've turned a few around myself, but honestly, I no longer have the patience for liberal views, which is why I started this forum.

I believe it literally comes down to core values, most were raised to believe that taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong, libs blur that line, and as long as they are playing Robin hood at the ballot box, they can justify theft as wealth redistribution.

It would appear that Obozo is having that effect on a large portion of libs today,  where having to purchase Commiecare even when they don't want or need it (mugged by govt).
I always point out how they are funding my health care, and they'll never have the quality care I get today.
That really frosts them.

Quote from: Supposn on September 13, 2013, 07:48:53 AM
Toward Liberty, SupSaleMgr & Solar, you all generally agree upon this.  It's a position you share with anarchists and Libertarians.  There are many conservatives, (I suppose you all label them as "RINOs") opposing your position in this matter.
Regarding my position I again refer to the post:
[Re: "Libertarians' positions regarding traffic lights?", reply #5 - Mar 7th, 2013 at 8:50am,   
http://www.libertariansforum.com/cgi-bin/freedom/YaBB.pl?num=1362596754/0
/////////////////////////////////////////////
Keauxbi & Zophos, a traveler ran out of a hotel, threw is bags into a cab. He then jumped into the cab and shouted "take me to the airport as fast as you can"!!

The driver pulled out from the curb and quickly accelerated.  The cab reached 90+ and the driver made no effort to slow it down for intersections.

When the cab began running through red lights, the traveler cried out in terror,
"I'm in a hurry but don't get us killed"!!!

The drive casually answered "relax; I'm an expert driver.  I learned from my brother".
This continued one red light after another.
To all of the terrorized traveler's cries, the driver's answer was always the same; "I'm an expert driver.  I learned from my brother".

That was until they reached a green light intersection where the driver executed a severe emergency stop.
The passenger lifted his bloody head off the cab's floor and screamed, "You go through one red light after another at over 90MPH and when you're doing more or less than 100MPH you then come to an immediate halt for a green light!  WHY!!

The driver answered "We must stop here at this intersection.  My brother drives on that other road".

That's the fault I find with your Libertarian contention that you and all others be permitted to exercise their own unrestricted individual good judgment.  That strategy leaves all of us others dependent upon not encountering you or one of your brothers on some dark night.

That's among the reasons most of us are not Libertarians or anarchists.

Respectfully, Supposn

Your hypothetical is wide the mark, good sir.

Libertarians and anarchists are not against law and order. Anarchists would simply favor a voluntary system of private law, a la customary law or the law merchant. And libertarians would insist that the law be rational- ie only include crimes against person and property, rather than statutes making crimes out of acts which involve no victims. This need for a rule of law, rather than a rule of men, is paramount in libertarian thought.

Supposn, we have a set of regulations called the Constitution.

When a regulation is implemented by government that exceeds the scope of, or which is not enumerated within that set of regulations called the Constitution it is tyranny.

No matter the justifications you or anyone else can throw out there for said regulations.

Not quite so respectfully,

Daidalos

Quote from: TowardLiberty on September 14, 2013, 06:34:32 AM
Your hypothetical is wide the mark, good sir.

Libertarians and anarchists are not against law and order. Anarchists would simply favor a voluntary system of private law, a la customary law or the law merchant. And libertarians would insist that the law be rational- ie only include crimes against person and property, rather than statutes making crimes out of acts which involve no victims. This need for a rule of law, rather than a rule of men, is paramount in libertarian thought.

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