Quote from: red_dirt on February 17, 2014, 11:35:47 AM
Mountain Shield makes some good points with respect to wealth and its regulation.
Adam Smith makes regular references to Royal Commissions and what amounts to
the set of rules regulating of commerce (the name of that category of regulations
escapes me at the moment.) In his inimitable way, Smith caresses the issues in such a
way as to provide us a perspective that both allows for the existence of regulation while
at the same time keeps us in control of it, as opposed to the reverse.
Monopoly laws, anti-trust, and so forth. Some in the Tea Party go off the deep end and
want to do away with all regulation.  This makes us look a little uninformed.

But it is the issue of Chinese ownership Mountain Shield touches on that I think deserves
a look. How many of us see Asian trade as funneling the proceeds of our entire economy
into the accounts of a handful of communist leaders?  We hear things like, "The Chinese
are buying our debt," without really thinking about what we are hearing.

Uhh, No we do not!
I don't know where you're hearing that nonsense, but that is not anywhere in the TEA platform, nor being echoed by it's members.
That's LIBertarian BS, and I emphasize LIB, because the left is watering down the Libertarian movement over being lied to by the Dim party, they needed somewhere else to go, and hating anything to do with Republican, they chose the Libertarian party.

So please, don't confuse the TEA with LIBertarians lite.

Quote from: red_dirt on February 17, 2014, 11:35:47 AM
Mountain Shield makes some good points with respect to wealth and its regulation.
Adam Smith makes regular references to Royal Commissions and what amounts to
the set of rules regulating of commerce (the name of that category of regulations
escapes me at the moment.) In his inimitable way, Smith caresses the issues in such a
way as to provide us a perspective that both allows for the existence of regulation while
at the same time keeps us in control of it, as opposed to the reverse.
Monopoly laws, anti-trust, and so forth. Some in the Tea Party go off the deep end and
want to do away with all regulation.  This makes us look a little uninformed.

But it is the issue of Chinese ownership Mountain Shield touches on that I think deserves
a look. How many of us see Asian trade as funneling the proceeds of our entire economy
into the accounts of a handful of communist leaders?  We hear things like, "The Chinese
are buying our debt," without really thinking about what we are hearing.

But the history of anti-trust is not one of some efficient and rational regulation, whereby monopolistic behavior is identified and corrected. Rather it was a political tool for inferior competitors to use the court system to win market share denied to them by the consumers.

If we do not understand that we risk being uninformed about the reality of the situation- which is often the reverse of what we are led to believe.

Same goes for monopolies and cartels, which are creatures of the state, not the market.

For on the market, where no legal protection forestalls competition, any above average profit will induce competition and replication. Greed is the great destroyer of the monopoly, therefore the power of the state is necessary to protect it.

Quote from: Solar on February 17, 2014, 11:45:46 AM
Uhh, No we do not!
I don't know where you're hearing that nonsense, but that is not anywhere in the TEA platform, nor being echoed by it's members.
That's LIBertarian BS, and I emphasize LIB, because the left is watering down the Libertarian movement over being lied to by the Dim party, they needed somewhere else to go, and hating anything to do with Republican, they chose the Libertarian party.

So please, don't confuse the TEA with LIBertarians lite.

I take issue with that.

If regulations are instances of welfare, and protectionism, then the TEA party better get on board with the libertarian message of free markets and private property, or it is letting the left water down the movement.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 17, 2014, 12:21:09 PM
I take issue with that.

If regulations are instances of welfare, and protectionism, then the TEA party better get on board with the libertarian message of free markets and private property, or it is letting the left water down the movement.

Read it again, and this time take context of my response into consideration.
Note: I differentiate between LIBertarian, and Libertarian, they are not the same, the current crop backing the party, haven't a clue what Libertarianism means, all they know is free drug use etc.
They are the influx of libs as I mentioned.

Quote from: Solar on February 17, 2014, 12:46:05 PM
Read it again, and this time take context of my response into consideration.
Note: I differentiate between LIBertarian, and Libertarian, they are not the same, the current crop backing the party, haven't a clue what Libertarianism means, all they know is free drug use etc.
They are the influx of libs as I mentioned.

Oh ok.

Well I don't follow the Libertarian party. I don't even consider them libertarians, in the full sense of the word, for they seek political power.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 17, 2014, 01:14:46 PM
Oh ok.

Well I don't follow the Libertarian party. I don't even consider them libertarians, in the full sense of the word, for they seek political power.

You can't change the system if you aren't willing to participate in it.
It's like war, if someone attacks you, you have two options, surrender, or fight back.

We're fighting back!

Quote from: Solar on February 17, 2014, 01:18:06 PM
You can't change the system if you aren't willing to participate in it.
It's like war, if someone attacks you, you have two options, surrender, or fight back.

We're fighting back!

Ah but that is where we share different goals. I do not wish to change the system. For then MY system would be imposed on others and that would not be just.

I want to destroy the system.

There is no good or rational form of political power, in my view.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 17, 2014, 01:20:00 PM
Ah but that is where we share different goals. I do not wish to change the system. For then MY system would be imposed on others and that would not be just.

I want to destroy the system.

There is no good or rational form of political power, in my view.

I do!
I understand your view, so you're saying the Founders were wrong?

Thanks for picking up on that statement about "zero regulation." Now that I think about
it, those statements were made in another forum by a known and suspected RINO troll whose
aim seems to be to infiltrate the forum and cause us to look like nuts.
Always good caution and good to have critical eyes on the ball.
The Libertarians are, in spite of a few good ideas, a screwy lot. I see them as the creative
fringe, occasionally contributing.

Quote from: red_dirt on February 17, 2014, 01:45:53 PM
Thanks for picking up on that statement about "zero regulation." Now that I think about
it, those statements were made in another forum by a known and suspected RINO troll whose
aim seems to be to infiltrate the forum and cause us to look like nuts.
Always good caution and good to have critical eyes on the ball.
The Libertarians are, in spite of a few good ideas, a screwy lot. I see them as the creative
fringe, occasionally contributing.

No prob.
When it comes to facts, I never let innocuous assertions about the goal of TEA go unanswered, we have too many that read this forum for the truth, and little untruths spread quickly, like the Dims claim we're racist, which is totally laughable.

Oh, and can you do me a favor and use the quote function?

Quote from: Solar on February 17, 2014, 01:41:08 PM
I do!
I understand your view, so you're saying the Founders were wrong?

Wrong for leaving the articles.... yes.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 17, 2014, 03:31:06 PM
Wrong for leaving the articles.... yes.

So the Founders were wrong, and the greatest most productive, inventive Nation in history was a mistake?
You do realize the American experiment is a perfect example as to why your Utopian ideal would never work.

If we, as a Republican form of govt, one based on the rule of law can become this corrupted, what makes you think yours would be any different?

QuoteWhen it comes to facts, I never let innocuous assertions about the goal of TEA go unanswered

I appreciate that, but I think if you surf the so-called Tea Party or "conservative" forums, blogs, and e-zines, you are going to find my concern and observation to be a little more than "an innocuous assertion."  I'd do the search myself, but long ago I found bantering back and forth with members on conservative forums to be a waste of time and energy.

On that note, while I am learning to use the quote function, thank you Solar, I've been meaning to add, to

QuoteAnd this constitutes a start toward a meta theory of socialism.

that it might also be a pretty good place to finish it.

Quote from: red_dirt on February 17, 2014, 05:52:09 PM
I appreciate that, but I think if you surf the so-called Tea Party or "conservative" forums, blogs, and e-zines, you are going to find my concern and observation to be a little more than "an innocuous assertion."  I'd do the search myself, but long ago I found bantering back and forth with members on conservative forums to be a waste of time and energy.

I understand your point, and that's the reason I pointed out that repeating it does nothing to educate the lib or casual reader of this forum.
I wasn't chastising you, just using your comment as a teaching moment for those trying to learn about Conservatism.

Allow me to repeat something I say quite often. We strive to be a final word in what it means to be a Conservative.
As you obviously know, Conservatism isn't necessarily a political movement, but rather a way of life.

Quote from: Solar on February 17, 2014, 04:28:58 PM
So the Founders were wrong, and the greatest most productive, inventive Nation in history was a mistake?
You do realize the American experiment is a perfect example as to why your Utopian ideal would never work.

If we, as a Republican form of govt, one based on the rule of law can become this corrupted, what makes you think yours would be any different?

Where you see success I see Roman style tyranny heading toward an epic collapse.

I guess that is what separates us.

Obviously a system of polycentric law, which lacks a law monopolist, would not have the same institutional features as a republican form of government. Therein lies an answer to your question.