RE: Howtheworldworks (Part 1)

thunderfoot is my …
thunderfoot is my bearded man in the sky

If the company owns …
If the company owns the portion of the river they’re dumping into, they won’t dump into it because they’ll have to clean it up themselves, and that costs more than proper disposal. Not cleaning it up, would mean the property value of the factory would drop drastically and they will lose their business. If the river is owned by somebody else, then it is a simple matter of vandalism, which means they’ll have to pay for the restoration, plus other fees. I.E it becomes unprofitable to pollute

So you see, what …
So you see, what was once a value for value, voluntary exchange for mutual benefit becomes a matter of “pay the man this, or we’ll arrest you”
the government loves this because it gives them a function, a way to get power without actually creating anything of value. This is why both major parties support these regulations..
As for toxic waste, if somebody dumps waste into a river they dump onto the property of the state therefore a fine is justified, or you can privatize the river

What is a “decent …
What is a “decent wage”??
minimum wage 40 years ago here in the U.S was enough for one man to support a small family, these days 2 parents working for minimum wage can barely support one kid. Who decides what a decent wage is? if a worker is willing to work for a wage, that means he has no better option, I.E it is an improvement over what he had before, but this is logic im talking about
Here comes the government and says to the worker: we can FORCE that greedy employer to give you more $

It works like this: …
It works like this:
A group of workers decide that they don’t like the wages they get, so they form a union. They realize that since they are the majority, they can put pressure on the employer to raise the wages, and give benefits etc. They forget, that nobody forced them to work there in the first place, and that the alternative to the job they have was a lack of a job, and probable starvation/death. I.E. since they CHOSE to work there, that means the alternative was less desirable

The idea of free …
The idea of free market is that the government keeps it’s nose out. End of.

The regulation may be forced, but being told to keep toxic waste contained or pay people a decent wage is hardly an unjustified act. You think the law would be
in place if people did that across the board of their own volition?

The idea of …
The idea of free-market capitalism is that force can only be used against those who intiate it’s use…
If you steal from me, you have initiated force against me, therefore it is objectively moral for the government to arrest you and submit you to the court system which will decide if you’re guilty or not.
Regulation of trade/or trade barriers is the intiation of force against business owners who have not initiated force against anybody, remember: every law is backed by the threat of a gun

There’s the problem …
There’s the problem. The government MUST maintaint a utilitarien perspective or it only serves a few, select people. Which is what you seem to fear it doing.

You can’t have it both ways.

The federal reserve …
The federal reserve doesn’t create freedom. Government laws which restrict who banks can lend to and who they cannot lend to aren’t about freedom either. The idea was to give poor people the “freedom” to get loans which they couldn’t afford, at the expense of the taxpayer, but they didn’t mention that second part to us.
The result was the same as every other time in history when the government regulated trade: An inflated value bubble, followed by a collapse.
Altruism = death.

Patrick Henry …
Patrick Henry helped found a government which put out LAWS to PROTECT individual and group FREEDOMS. The government needs to protect the customers alongside the business owners, ok? So there are regulations on the behaviours of both. Total freedom for any or either would result in a total anarchy, and dispite some romantic notions, arachies are BAD for large societies,

I like how the …
I like how the notion of voting dropped from your argument. The government is elected by people who believe they have a good head on their shoulders.

You take a far to simple and broad a look at things. Cars would not be banned for being somewhat dangerous, they transport food, medicine etc. They are integral to the emergency services. You would not be protecting anyone by banning cars. To make them safer, people are made to take test and obey speed limits. Do you contest this logic?

“Laws are in place …
“Laws are in place in an attempt to protect people”
by this definition any law is justifiable. The government could pass a law saying that you cannot drive a car, and nobody could object because cars kill many people
This is the same logic that is used to suggest that the government has the right to restrict a banker’s lending practice. The absurd notion in play is that the government is a better judge of who deserves a loan and who doesn’t, than the lender who’s capital is on the line

But it’s the same …
But it’s the same principle, the laws are in place in an attempt to protect people.

It doesn’t matter if you change the name or not, if they pass a bill that prohibits you from doing something and you do it, you’ve broken the law.

Given the origonal argument being about emancipation, I fail to see destructive influences being more prevelant.

I say again, people aren’t perfect, they need moderation, not totalitarien view points.

I want to …
I want to physically smack him - I doubt he’d move even then if it’s gonna about my country and more importantly LIE when he does .

Agreed.
Agreed.

Well, we do have a …
Well, we do have a half-way system for individual rights. As long as their are laws limiting human behavior in any way, there is some inhibition of individual rights.

As for Patrick …
As for Patrick Henry: You are talking about one of the founders of the United States. These brave men understood that partial freedom isn’t any better than no freedom. When I say freedom from government regulation Im talking about your right to start a business without having to get permission from the government, or to trade without the government giving special priviledges to one party over the other, which is what they did with the real estate market. TF needs to learn more about this

You are confusing …
You are confusing Rule of Law with Regulation of Trade.
If you kill somebody, there is a court system in place to convict you. That’s rule of law.
If the government has the power to restrict business creation through trade barriers which we have now, or to create a federal reserve bank which can print money, and create special interest rates for GSEs, that’s regulation of trade.
I know that people vote for laws, but thats cuz they don’t understand that these laws are destroying the country

I’m not saying the …
I’m not saying the government gets it right all the time, but to have total free will means no society. No rule of law can never be a good thing. This is why democracy is the best system you’ve got. People do vote for laws to be put in place, this exercises their freedom, it doesn’t suppress it.

Well Patrick Henry …
Well Patrick Henry had a problem with perspective. He may have intended to run an honest business that turned a modest profit and left a stream of happy customers in it’s wake, but not everyone is like that I’m afraid. There are those out there quite happy to lie, embezzle and con. Like it or not you DO need SOME regulation. I’m not talking every so often just saying “Nope, can’t do that this time”, I mean a consitant and fair law applied to protect people from malicious intent.

Furthermore, you …
Furthermore, you say that your main argument is that TF isn’t a socialist.
Well, sorry if I get that impression when I watch a video that says that regulators are a way to keep business from messing up. Meanwhile any professional economist will tell you that it was precisely government involvement in the real estate lending business that prompted the banks to do something as stupid as giving out subprime mortgages. Bankers have been free to do this for decades, but they never have till now

I’ve been studying …
I’ve been studying this issue for some time now and the most important thing you need to understand is that a “mixed economy” means free trade principles can be broken. It’s like a half-way point between communism and a free-market system. Would you settle for a half-way system of individual rights?
A mixed economy means the government can restrict business, bottom line. When Patrick Henry said “give me liberty or give me death”
he didn’t mean “It’s okay to control my business sometimes”

Ok, I would like to …
Ok, I would like to point out I was arguing with you over slavery and wether TF was a socialist. I know next to (may as well be) nothing about the economic crisis. I’m still not arguing with you over this topic. Drop it.

I also realise that TF can and has been wrong. I also disagree with him from time to time.

However, he proposes SOME regulation, he proposes a mixed government and deposes extremist scenarios. That I agree with, it’s perfectly reasonable and not a precurser to total socialism

I loved the earth …
I loved the earth clockwise rotaion.
laughed like

What facts and …
What facts and logic. There is no logic behind a free market. I mean HTWW basically owned himself once he brought up the oil argument. He was comparing things that have completely different applications.
And there is a reason why we have government intervention. Because people do ed up things. That is why we have the FDA. Companies were making things that were doing harm to people, even killing them.