| This site cracks me up One post complains about how Government intrusion into the market gives unfair advantage to special interests while the very next demands yet more Government intrusion. You can't see the forest for the trees.
--
Time... beckoning me. |
|
 RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | said by I Use Dial:One post complains about how Government intrusion into the market gives unfair advantage to special interests while the very next demands yet more Government intrusion. You can't see the forest for the trees. Many of us are looking for a balance between government regulation and free market. It seems that every so often the balance shifts from one end to the other, but never stops in the middle.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us |
|
|
|
| said by Rob  ...the balance shifts from one end to the other, but never stops in the middle.
[/BQUOTE :That is completely correct; we get one or the other. Those of us who argue in favor of the free market do not argue that it will create perfection, but rather that it is the lesser of two evils. --
Time... beckoning me. |
|
RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | I think that's a terrible way to look at it. Why must we always accept the lesser of two evils? We should be able to find common ground. |
|
| said by Rob:Why must we always accept the lesser of two evils? We should be able to find common ground. Because power cannot be granted to the two parties simultaneously. You either give up control to the Government or you allow the free market to determine its own way. Once the Government has control then the special interests will take over.
The theory of common ground is a nice one, but over 100 years of regulating various industries has demonstrated that once the Government is in control it usurps all power because it has the authority to pass laws, which the market does not have.
The constitution was written to allow the nearest thing to 'common ground' through states' rights. In a true republic the states would be free to regulate these things as they see fit, but the Federal Government has taken those powers away.
--
Time... beckoning me. |
|
 FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | make it illegal for corporations like AT&T to lobby and participate in election contributions then it will be a hell of a lot better. |
|
| said by FBGuy:make it illegal for corporations like AT&T to lobby and participate in election contributions then it will be a hell of a lot better. There are at least two problems with this. There are already very strict laws on how much money a PAC can contribute, and corporations cannot contribute directly at all. Employees are free donate up to the max of $2400 per election, and people have the freedom of association. The elected officials are already paid off through the employees, so they are only going to create laws that make their positions stronger, like the McCain-Feingold bill, which gives substantial power to encumbents.
--
Time... beckoning me. |
|
FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| so are you saying that corporations pay their employees to contribute to campaigns? ok that should be illegal. corporations have no business in deciding how the government is run.
the government, however has a say in how large corporations are run. if not, then who does. |
|
| reply to I Use Dial
said by I Use Dial:said by Rob:Why must we always accept the lesser of two evils? We should be able to find common ground. Because power cannot be granted to the two parties simultaneously. You either give up control to the Government or you allow the free market to determine its own way. Once the Government has control then the special interests will take over. Hmmm seems to me the special interests are already in control now....
How about we make it so a candidate can only accept donations from individuals (no PACs) and only from those in the district or state they seek to represent. |
|
