from Politics Daily http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/03 … contest%2F
"As reported by Details magazine, Paul, while campaigning recently in Kentucky's coal country, maintained that there should be no federal regulation of the mining industry: "If you don't live here, it's none of your business." Asked about the Big Branch mining disaster in West Virginia, where an explosion killed 29 miners last April, Paul said,
'Is there a certain amount of accidents and unfortunate things that do happen, no matter what the regulations are? The bottom line is I'm not an expert, so don't give me the power in Washington to be making rules. You live here, and you have to work in the mines. You'd try to make good rules to protect your people here. If you don't, I'm thinking that no one will apply for those jobs.'
I'm not an expert. Don't give me the power in Washington to be making rules. Ponder the implications of this. So members of Congress who are not oil industry engineers should not regulate deep off-shore drilling? Actually, by Paul's logic, legislators should not impose any health, safety, or environmental standards on any industry. And the answer to such tragedies as mining disasters is . . . well, nothing. The workers in unsafe facilities can simply quit their jobs -- that is, unless they've already been blown apart due to bad company practices.
Paul wants to become a senator so he can do nothing. No doubt, that's an attractive notion for some Kentucky voters; he's been leading Democrat Jack Conway in the polls. But when the economy is in the dumps following a crash of free-wheelin' Wall Street, when climate change is a continuing threat, and when U.S. global competitiveness is slipping, doing nothing ought not be a top-priority item. Worse, Paul is celebrating his lack of knowledge, while suggesting that no one in Washington is really capable of governing. As his comments about the BP oil spill suggested, he would have no problem granting corporations free rein -- even after they screw up. His motto could be "BP Knows Best..."
You're a congressman. There are problems with the farm industry -- a recent report (http://hubpages.com/hub/Dihydrogen-Mono … own-Killer) released that there is a dangerous chemical in the farm land, and that "we need to do something!"
You have to write a law determining what to do about DHMO (DiHydride Monoxide). GO. Do it now. The entire country is watching you.
What's that you say? You know nothing about farming? You have no idea what DHMO is, or what to do with it? you have no idea how much DHMO is appropriate for the situation? You have no idea what the ramifications of your legislation are going to be? You don't know what kind of chemicals are used in farming AT ALL?
Your expertise is in something COMPLETELY unrelated to this field?
... but people like Doug Hughes are demanding you do something, otherwise they won't vote for you?
What would YOU do in that situation? be the bigger man and admit you know nothing of the situation? or take the sleazy political way out and listen to the lobbyists who want to write the legislation for you (thus giving themselves bonuses)?
Sounds to me Like RAND PAUL is doing the RIGHT thing in admitting he knows nothing about mining regulation, and that 600 people in Washington shouldn't have such massive control over something like mining regulations because there is simply NO WAY IN HELL that John Kerry, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Hilary or Bill Clinton, Obama, Voinovich, Strickland, or any of the other people in Washington know ANYTHING about the mining industry.
He has a doctorate in Ophthalmology, not mining......
I agree with Evan here.
However, I think Paul should be able and willing to set common-sense safety regulations. I mean, how hard is it to get an expert in there to talk to him for an hour about what kind of safety should be in place (if Paul can't figure out common sense safety regulations on his own)?
I see what you tried to do there. Lame.
Plenty of the Senators and Congressmen are quite expert on the industries subject to the jurisdiction of the committees on which they serve. And of course they get a lot of help from lobbyists who apparently help write the bills.
and that would cost money that wouldn't have had to be spent in the first place. And that money would be taken by force from the taxpayers.
it's money that doesn't have to be stolen or spent. After all, we don't have "sandwich making regulations"...
Rand Paul isn't a very deep thinker, to put it politely.
It's always easy to attack a person who cannot respond...
It's always easy to attack somebody who's clueless like Ron Paul and who fires off answers without thinking about the implications.
I think he means attacking politicians that cannot respond. He is right, but they also give us license to do that by entering the public eye. If we cannot talk about people that aren't on this forum...we pretty much can't have a political forum.
...coming from the guy who would follow Keynes off a cliff...
As usual, you don't get the broader implications. No regulation doesn't mean that there will be no avenues to peruse in the event of something like the WV explosion or the BP oil spill.
Or perhaps you agree with the "no fault" clause of Workman's Compensation or the fact that the government capped the damages that could be sought against BP. If the government had not interfered in that way: 1) You'd see much more stringent workplace safety rules because liability would be unlimited and 2) BP would have gone out of business due to damages from litigation thus sending a warning to other oil companies that they'd better get serious about safety or the same could happen to them.
By the by, you are aware that the Clinton Administration encouraged deep oil drilling by offering tax credits to companies that drilled in deep waters, are you not? Without such credits, oil platforms would have been built much closer to the shoreline, which would have increased the options open to the cleanup operation.
The problem with most pundits on here is that they've never run a business or been trained in how to run a business. The things you think about as a business owner are much different than those you think about as a drone employee. The big thought on most employers' minds is the need to minimize risk. That need will do more than any regulation to keep risks down.
Rand Paul is a Libertarian, and a Constitutinionalist like me. There is NO authority in the Constitution for the federal government to regulate mining. Certainly the states have that power, and it is very difficult to believe that federal employees are somehow anointed with superior, even super-human abilities, just because they're federal. Thus, I see no real reason to insist there be federal regulation of mining, except as it crosses state borders.
There is nothing holy or superior about federa vs state regulation, even though lots of people TRY, using lots of false logic and flat out lies, to say there is. Mostly, these people believe in a false religion of sacredness of Washington DC and actually believe that centralized beaurocrats are morally, intellectually, and spiritually superior - and argue that states would fail to do the job, etc, etc. In reality, the federal government is by far the most inefficient and most incompetent at pretty much everything the states could or should do. And that includes administering the land within their borders.
The oil and gas industry is HEAVILY regulated and yet accidents happen. I don't think more safety regulations is what the fed should be working on. They should be finding out what's in the healtcare bill and how they are going to pay for it! After all they had to pass it before they could know what's in it!
actually, everything he said made a lot of sense.
Why are politicians - who know nothing about mining - writing legislation about mining?
That makes a lot of sense. How is he shooting himself in the foot?
Why do you think that government knows best? Why do you think that government has the RIGHT to do these things? Is the Constitution REALLY dead to you?
Paul isn't running for congress to do NOTHING - he's running for congress to restore the constitution "thingie" (as you put it). The tenth Amendment PREVENTS Congress from writing legislation of the sort.
It's mind-boggling to hear people demand that "following the Constitution" and "admitting that you don't know crap about an industry, and thus shouldn't be the one in charge of writing a law about it" are BAD qualities in a candidate!!
Utterly mind boggling!!
Because those politicians are elected by the public to serve the public interest. It's their job to regulate the mining industry.
News flash: coal mining, especially as practiced in Eastern Kentucky, is devastating to the environment. The Eastern half of the US basically gets its drinking water from the mountains that the coal industry is destroying. We get cheap electricity now in exchange for no clean drinking water 10 years down the road.
The politicians can hire experts in mine engineering to advise them on the best regulations. But the coal industry is not going to regulate itself through some magical market.
The market supports cheap coal and cheap electricity, not environmental regulation. This is where libertarianism runs into reality. Market forces will not protect Appalachian forests and watersheds.
no, their job is to make sure that the Constitution is obeyed, and regulating the Constitution is NOT a part of the Constitution.
And you're wrong about libertarianism - if a coal mine pollutes another person's land, then they are allowed compensation. Don't bash the ideology until you've actually thought it through.
Who enforces the compensation? The government maybe?
And why wait until the damage is done to bring the government in to enforce compensation to the injured party? Just make sure people follow regulations in the first place.
if the people get sued after the fact ONCE, then it won't happen again.
Who's going to enforce it? perhaps the private police force and the system of private courts.
Ding - ALL DONE... it seems your argument was only half-baked!
Private police and courts? That's crazy. We have enough trouble now controlling public police and keeping the courts honest.
So... You just argued for my point.
The reason that public courts and police are corrupt is because there's no comptition.
"Private" police have an unsavory history of lynchings, brutality and discrimination. Did you ever happen to see the "Ox-Bow Incident." It's one of the greatest American movies, a tale about a lynching in the wild west of the 1800s. It starred Henry Fonda and may have been Anthony Quinn's first movie role.
so you equate mob rule with private police?
Evan, would you please explain EXACTLY how private police would work? Would individual citizens select who would protect them and pay accordingly, or would entire communities hire one company? If individual citizens do the hiring, what happens to the children of individual citizens who don't hire police? Would a well-to-do citizen receive better protection than a poor citizen, because they can pay for it?
If entire communities hire one company, who decides who to hire? Would it be up for vote? If so, who would monitor the voting?
Sorry if these seem like dumb questions, but I am genuinely trying to figure out how this could work.
You want me to explain how an entire industry could run properly? even though i have no vested interested in doing so?
You want me to invent an industry?
Well.. i suppose i'll give it a shot, but please note that I'm not an expert.
OK here goes:
1- Who's the criminal?If we privatized things, then the value of a contract between entities would be the way to decide "who to arrest and who not to arrest" - if you broke a contract, you'd be hunted down.
2- Who decides if a "crime" was committed? Because contracts would be the way to decide how to do things, enforcers and translators would be a valuable thing to invest in; profits would be able to be made! Because they'd be valuable, there would be people who would go about starting up "contract interpreter companies" or whatnot - this would by your system of private courts.
3- But wouldn't they be corrupt?! probably a few would be - but who wants to use a corrupt system of courts? People would simply stop using corrupt courts and they'd go bankrupt unless they changed their wicked ways! --the same reason why people choose not to buy iPhones because they only let you use one cruddy service provider (apple's taking quite the hit on that) -- The same reason why people don't like to shop at sleazy car dealerships, people wouldn't like working with sleazy judges.
Also, as Ralph Deeds pointed out, the current system IS already corrupt. The current system allows for a government-favored monopoly on court decisions! That ain't freedom, friend!
4- The enforcers would be...? Once again, I'm pulling most of this out of my bum! Because opening a private police force and a private court system would be HIGHLY ILLEGAL in our current system, I have no 100% assured way of knowing how it would work exactly -- it's like asking me to design the best video game ever!!!
I would imagine that, as far as large areas would go (i.e., malls, amusement parks, private roads, etc), they would simply hire their own police forces to enforce the contracts that are made between individuals.
"But what about individuals?!", you ask. Well, is it really going to be very different from what we have today? You report X as stolen to a private police force, they go around trying to find the culprit, and then they bring it to a court system dedicated to answering these problems!
5- But where do they get their authority?! Where does the current system of police get their authority to arrest people? Via politicians? Via tax payer money? -- yes, all of the above. we pay their salaries via taxes... but we don't get any competition. So all i"m proposing is to allow competition into the system - those that suck won't get re-hired; those that are good will!!
6- But you won't get protection unless you hire the police!!! this isn't a very valid argument: when was the last time a police officer escorted you home? or protected you home? Never? yeah. that's what I thought.
Since I'm simply explaining how a private system could work, i feel i only need to explain how the system would at least MATCH the services provided by the government currently. Anything more would simply be icing on the cake!
A brief and short possible system of private courts and police.
I'm going to make this into a hub for future reference.
Evan I think you missed the main question: how do you get police protection if you can't afford it?
What if someone richer than you steals something from you, and you can't afford to pay the private police and private court to go after the thief? Even more likely, what if the guy with the money uses his greater wealth to pay a more powerful police force?
That's the root of the problem right there. Right now police protection is public. You own it just as much as I do, and you are entitled to just as much protection as I am under the law. If we change things to a free market basis, if I have no money, I have no protection.
And more to the point, considering the OP - if a multi million dollar coal company decides that they want the coal that's buried under my land in the mountains of Eastern Ky, and all I own is that land, a truck, a shotgun, and a trailer... How in the hell do you imagine that I am going to be able to get the same level of police and court representation as that corporation? They have millions of dollars - I have nothing. Who's going to represent me if the only motive is profit?
Similarly, who protects a child who is being abused by his parents?
And, to Evan, regarding your comment about not having police protection now. Right now, if someone is circling my house and peeking in my windows, I can call the police and they will be here within a few minutes (this actually happened to me).
Also, if I hear the next-door neighbor punching and throwing his wife around the house, I can call the police and they will come within a few minutes to protect her. This also happened - I called the police when my neighbor was beating on his wife and they arrived very quickly.
How would the libertarian system deal with crime committed against those who can't help themselves?
I simply can't see why you assume that everyone is too poor to hire police!
To answer your question BLUNTLY - maybe people will *gasp* have to make sacrifices to pay for things they value!!!
I've been in quite a few poor neighborhoods and the people have tvs, toasters, refrigerators, microwaves, running water, electricity, and many other luxuries... maybe protection would be more valuable than one of these things?
You're simply making the outlandish - but very popular and very sympathetic - argument that we need to make sure that everyone can afford everything. This is nonsense. If you can't buy something... then... you can't... buy something...
Unlike the government, I can't print money out of thin air!
So poor people, thus, don't get police protection, and it's their own damn fault, eh?
Stupid poor people - it's their own fault for choosing the wrong parents and having bad luck in life.
If there is a demand for police protection, someone will find a way to provide it. Yes, even for poor people. Look at Wal-Mart. Poor people are helped all the time by that company to afford things they otherwise wouldn't. Hell Wal-Mart is in large part responsible for the relative affordability of big screen TV's today.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/In … Again.aspx
But they're an evil money-grubbing corporation, so they can't ever do good, right?
They are owned by far right wing Christians who give heavily to extremist organizations. They are alleged to abuse their employees and to not care what goes in in the over seas factories they buy from.
There may be truth to your statements. However please note that a large majority of clothing manufacturing companies are in Asia and have a HORRIBLE track record in reguards to fairness and safety. That being said nearly all department stores buy from the same factories.......
You didn't directly answer the question about the child being abused by a parent, so does that mean you think that's an acceptable consequence of a purely libertarian society?
I didn't say we need to make sure everyone can afford everything. We were specifically talking about private police versus public. Surely you can see there are some HUGE problems that most people would not be willing to tolerate in the name of libertarianism. People have formed governments for a reason -- they can offer benefits that private enterprise simply cannot.
Evan, I don't know why you think this is so special? We see this in lawless states all the time.
Have you not read "Atlas Shrugged" aka the Libertarian Manifesto? If you had you would realize that the fat, bald Socialists will, in the end, be overcome by the tall, handsome anarchists and we will all live happily ever after- well, all but the Socialists who will be "Left Behind" to wallow in their own filth. The free-market system can solve even the most complex social problems and in the end is our only chance for salvation.
oh, and one other thing.
I'm afraid the idea that "politicians can save us from ourselves" is a fairly ill-conceived doctrine.
Do you believe that they can actually properly regulate every industry there is? it's hopeless.
Senators don't have much opportunity to "restore the Constitution," whatever that means, other than approving Supreme Court appointments.
I also agree with Paul to a point. Trying to Federalize everything is not a solution but away to create distance from the problem. If everyone looks to a Federal government to fix everything then apathy ensues. The government should be no more than the people it serves and if mining, or other industries are confined to an area you would hope they would be the experts at running mines, or whatever. Why are their mines there if they don't know how to run them safely and efficiently. Why would anyone work there if they didn't trust their safety to the guidelines.
The problem with the analogy of the off shore drilling is that it has international issues and the Federal governement as well as the surounding state governments should protect our borders from any issue, like off shore drilling. It isn't even a enviromental issue but a security one as well, which concerns the whole nation.
If it is important to us than we should do something about it. We are the goverment, i.e. "We the people of the United States of America..."
Excuse me???? Miners die in an explosion. The owner is notorious for ignoring the law and regulations regarding safety, disabling devices that would shut down equipment when explosive methane gas builds up.
Rand Paul suggests that NO laws are a good idea, because if things are dangerous enough, workers will refuse to work. This is stupidity at its worst. Every day, we put our lives on the line, depending on devices to be safe, built to some standard. Elevators, automobiles, bridges, food are constructed and harvested to standards which reduce the risk to the consumer. It's not perfect or absolute, but it's better than the alternative.
Libertarians like Paul live in a fantasy world where the rich can do as they wish, including deceiving and killing the worker and/or consumer with the expectation that market forces would even things out eventually. If you spend a little time asking yourself with every product you consume - could this kill me if the producer used to much pesticide (to bost the yield & profit). Will my car (or some other car) fail because of a manufacturing defect which the government had no authority to force a recall and fix on? Without the requirment of a safe workplace, will my employer demand I work in conditions of extreme heat or cold?
if the guy was "notorious for ignoring the law and regulations" then why was the government so inept at getting him in jail?
what's that, you say? because government CAN'T regulate everyone everywhere all the time?
If the guy doesn't follow regulations, and the government can't seem to arrest him... then what makes you think that MORE regulations will get him to pay attention?
"The owner ignored X completely, and thus we should have more X to make him stop ignoring X." ... not a sound argument.
And you're grossly misrepresenting libertarianism, so i'll grossly misrepresent the Republicrat position: All y'all think that stealing money from your neighbor, and then building bombs to nuke Iraqi children is a good idea!!
Will the flouride the government puts in our water help our teeth? Or does the consumption of flouride lower our intelligence over a period of time.
Why are they dumping a toxic chemical in our drinking water and telling us not to worry. "It is just peachy"
Americans have been drinking fluoride in their tap water for three generations now. I doubt there's some communist conspiracy afoot Arthur.
I am suddenly tempted to watch Dr. Strangelove again.
Mandrake: Yes, Jack?
Ripper: Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?
Mandrake: Well, I can't say I have.
Ripper: Vodka, that's what they drink, isn't it? Never water?
Mandrake: Well, I-I believe that's what they drink, Jack, yes.
Ripper: On no account will a Commie ever drink water, and not without good reason.
Mandrake: Oh, eh, yes. I, uhm, can't quite see what you're getting at, Jack.
Ripper: Water, that's what I'm getting at, water. Mandrake, water is the source of all life. Seven-tenths of this earth's surface is water. Why, do you realize that seventy percent of you is water?
Mandrake: Uh, uh, Good Lord!
Ripper: And as human beings, you and I need fresh, pure water to replenish our precious bodily fluids.
Mandrake: Yes. (he begins to chuckle nervously)
Ripper: Are you beginning to understand?
Mandrake: Yes. (more laughter)
Ripper: Mandrake. Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rain water, and only pure-grain alcohol?
Mandrake: Well, it did occur to me, Jack, yes.
Ripper: Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation. Fluoridation of water?
Mandrake: Uh? Yes, I-I have heard of that, Jack, yes. Yes.
Ripper: Well, do you know what it is?
Mandrake: No, no I don't know what it is, no.
Ripper: Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?
Dr. Strangelove is my all time favorite movie.
My dentist whom I trust thinks fluoride has virtually eliminated tooth loss due to decay. Gum issues are now the big problem.
"I'm not an expert. Don't give me the power in Washington to be making rules."
As per your advice, I pondered the implications of this and realized you are absolutely ignorant as to how our government functions. Obviously the people within the state and closer to the coal mining industry should make the rules pertaining to their own industry and not bureacrats in Washington who are neither close to the industry, nor educated on the subject. The federal govt is far too inefficient to handle these issues effectively and thus Rand believes it should be left to state officials who have experience on the matter.
Obviously you believe everyone in Washington is some kind of all seeing, all knowing oracle who can decide for the lives of all citizens and all industries more effectively than the people that actually are living and working in these environments and their closest representatives respectively.
Perhaps you are advocating for communism where the state power and govt and are the all knowing all seeing entities that you believe the federal govt should be? For those of us who have actually read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers as well as our Founding Fathers views on the proper role of Government, this statement is abundantly clear and your Government worshiping philosophy is anti-American and inefficient when handling such matters.
I am not sure why so many people believe that you need to be an expert in an industry to have any say in regulating it. You can rely on experts.
That's one reason why Congress has hearings - to question authorities on different sides of an issue the Congress must decide.
That is exactly right. Actually, all three branches of government rely heavily on experts to function.
sylvie, where are those "experts" going to come from? will they be angels with halos over their head, trying selflessly to make life better for everyone?
or will they be humans from the industry in question -- who've been working at a company for 20+ years -- who will pass regulations which SEEM good, but will likely benefit their type of company more than others?
Obviously he's a commie prevert. Where's Joe McCarthy when we need him?
rlaframboise wrote -
"Obviously the people within the state and closer to the coal mining industry should make the rules pertaining to their own industry and not bureacrats in Washington who are neither close to the industry, nor educated on the subject. The federal govt is far too inefficient to handle these issues effectively and thus Rand believes it should be left to state officials who have experience on the matter."
So you think that the states with the highest concentrations of blacks should have written civil rights legislation in the 60's (on a state-by-state basis). They were going to be the most affected, and they had the most experience.
What you don't know - or don't want others to consider is how money talks. In a state like West Virginia, the coal companies can BUY the state legislatures. Then the coal companies can write the legislation they want.
I am not suggesting that Congress is above corruption. But on the topic Rand was speaking to - a perfect example - local legislation of mine safety is a plan for disaster. Suggesting that the 'free market' will fix it - because workers will elect to not go to work in the mines - suggests that they will let their families starve.
You don't get it. Southern states were losing business and people because of the Jim Crow laws. Do you have any idea who was most against the "blacks have to get up and give a white person their seat" law? Bus companies. They weren't stupid. By discriminating against paying customers, the knew they'd lose said customers. It was the politicians, once again trying to engineer society to their liking, that forced bus companies to adopt racist, job killing policies.
That's what Rand Paul was talking about. Getting the feds involved has exacerbated the situation because of the policies like affirmative action and the furor over quotas we've had since the 1960's.
So - let me get this straight - you Do think that amending the civil rights did not have to be done by the Federal Government. We could have relied on the states to integrate on their own.
Let me guess - your state allows medical marijuana.
No what I'm saying is that those states which chose to enshrine racist laws would have lost population and businesses. If there was anything the Civil Rights movement demonstrated, it was the fact that people cannot handle having inconsistencies like laws that create a group of second class citizens thrown in their face. If the various state governments that allowed Jim Crow laws on the books kept them, people would have voted with their feet and those racist states would have suffered economically for it.
You didn't take history in school, I suppose. Let me educate you about the 60's. People were murdered for registering blacks to vote. The racist states were run by racists who profied enormously from the double standard and they weren't about to change anything. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
Yeah I saw Mississippi Burning, I know people were killed for registering people to vote. What you don't seem to get is the idea of voting with your feet. Plenty of blacks did that in the 1920's. They went to the growing industrial centers of the North and West. Jim Crow laws were a big reason industry didn't grow in the South like it did the North and West. It's also a reason why the South was so backward compared to the rest of the US. Like I said, there are economic disadvantages to racism.
LOL. You watched Mississippi Burning and consider that an education in the history of the civil rights movement?
That's right, the market will take care of everything! Baloney!
Let's look at this shining example of libertarian thinking. Here's what was proposed.
When states were in violation of the US Constitution, it was NOT the role of the federal government to intervene. The poorest people in these impoverished states should have moved to where the oppression was more tolerable. At some point in time the stupid, bigoted white crackers running the racist states would have become enlightened and progressive and implemented racial equalty on their own.
ONE HUNDRED YEARS after the civil war, the South hadn't budged from a policy of oppressing the black minority. And in classic wingnut - 'blame-the-victim' thinking - it's the fault of the BLACK MINORITY for not leaving en masse. Do a reality check here. Had millions of blacks left the South suddenly and together, would they have been welcome anywhere in the US - when there was neither housing nor jobs for such a sudden exodus?
Suppose such an exodus had caused an economic collapse in the South. Do you think that the white crackers would have offered EQUALITY as an inducement for the working class they needed? Or would they have offered to turn down the temperature in hell and gone back to business as usual when the negros were back in place.
The philosophy of Rand Paul and the libertarians who post here is proof why libertarians should not be elected to positions of authority.
I believe the basis of most Jim Crow laws were due to Plessy v. Ferguson. You never did mention that one did you. In that case the Supreme Court basically gave the go ahead for states to enact laws that created second-class citizens. Not every state went that way though. Much like the difference in the standard of living between the free and slave states, those states which enacted Jim Crow laws, like the South, ended up much poorer and much more backward than those states which allowed more freedom. I think there is a lesson there, I wonder if you can understand it.
I understand that if we did it the libertarian way - there would still be segregation in the South. There would still be white terrorism against the black minority. And your idea is that because the racist economic model is less efficiant than one which promotes racial equality - things would change naturally. Racism is not rational - it took an external force to mandate change.
You hate the idea of an external force so much that you would prefer centuries of terrorism and injustice to a federal mandate for justice.
Maybe or maybe not, since we didn't go down that road, we'll never know. But you don't seem to realize that with your fetish for external force, you've now opened the door to civil war. Maybe using force to abolish Jim Crow laws was the right thing to do, but once you make an exception for something like that, how do you keep someone from usurping that power and starting a pogrom here in the States. We did, after all, put people into concentration camps here in the States during World War II, even though there was no evidence the German, Italian or Japanese citizenry were in any way disloyal. The Nisei, for their part, did fight on our behalf, which I'm not too sure we deserved.
So yeah, you could say I have something against the use of external force. It is, as Washington was wont to say, a troublesome servant and fearful master.
If a state started putting people in camps (even if it was wildly popular), I would hope you would not want to wait for free market forces to sort it out. As an interesting side note, when I was in college there was a lot of scholarly debate over why the election of Lincoln was terrible for the country. The argument was that Lincoln caused a civil war. But had there been no attempt to stop the Southern states from maintaining the institution of slavery, they would have eventually done so themselves because it would not have been economically viable to maintain slavery in the long-run. The counter argument was that advances in technology would actually have allowed Southern states to maintain the viability of slavery in perpetuity.
"if a state started putting people in camps...."
... then there WOULDN'T BE A FREE MARKET!!!! ....
"... I would hope you would not want to wait for free market forces to sort it out."
... ooohhh... so your sentence directly contradicts itself? interesting.
AND! as an added bonus, your sentence actually illustrates the glory of libertarian / free-market ideologies!!! -- When was the last time a business started putting people in camps? Was it government that did that? yeah... it was government...
actually, segregation and slavery are not very cost effective.
If the slave owners didn't have government support in hunting down slaves (and acquiring for free those that were NOT run away slaves) via the Fugitive Slave Act, slavery just wouldn't be efficient. In addition to hunting down runaway slaves, the slaves themselves would only be working hard enough to not-get-beaten. Why bother working hard when you'll just be expected to work harder for no compensation.
Not all human decisions are based upon cost/benefit. Some are emotion-based and extremely irrational. Your argument does not take that into account at all.
Bigotry is not based upon the bottom line.
Actually, racial and ethnic hatred is part of the bottom line - for those at the top. In the post war South, tensions between poor whites and poor blacks were actively encouraged. This keeps poor people distracted from the real issues.
This is the same thing that happened in Burundi and Rwanda which led up to the genocide in 1994.
And it is the same thing that's happening now with the rise of anti -immigrant feelings. Keep the poor and middle class resentful of the folks who are coming here to work hard and make a better life. Meanwhile, keep laying people off, cutting wages, denying health insurance benefits, forcing people into usurious loans... if someone complains, just say "it's those illegals coming here and stealing your jobs!"
so, if people CHOOSE to use THEIR property in a way that is inefficient, just because they're racists, then they'll LOSE money for it?
Sounds like they're punishing themselves for their bigotry....
but... i guess we NEED to have government come in and claim ownerships of everyone's property for their own good.
There's a shred of truth to what you say. Mississippi was a bastion of de jure segregation and the poorest state in the union. And many blacks did move to the north to work in auto and defense plants. However, there was no mass exodus from the southern states. Besides there was and, still is, plenty of discrimination in the Midwest. One of the largest KKK klaverns, last I heard was in Indiana. In the 1950s I was in the Army and stationed at Ft. Benjamin Harrison near Indianapolis. Some S. Korean army visitors came to Ft. Harrison and I was delegated to entertain a couple of them on a weekend. I took them to a big amusement park nearby and what did we encounter at the gate? A huge sign which said "WHITES ONLY." The Koreans saw the sign and asked me about it. I said it didn't apply to them, and we went in without incident. It was very embarrassing. Later in Detroit in the 1960s housing and job discrimination was the rule.
You don't consider the migration of 1.7 million blacks from the South to the North a mass migration? Or the Second Great Migration after World War II? 5 million in that one. But that was, what, only 5-6% of the population? Wouldn't that be about 50% of the black population?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migr … merican%29
What's really funny, funny strange not funny haha, is that there is now a reverse migration back to the South. One would imagine that if Jim Crow laws were still in effect, you'd not see such a reverse migration.
Now I'll grant that you did see some Jim Crow-like laws enacted in the North and West due to the Great Migration, but that was due more to cultural differences and fear of change brought about by migration. Heck you see that with Hispanics today. Even today many descendants of the Great Migration exhibit Southern cultural norms.
In the mid 60s...I was a boy. The KKK marched in our town, giving out pamphlets and candy. I went home and gave the pamphlet to my dad. He read the first few lines and tossed it in the trash. He ranted something about ignorant hatred. Strange...I can still see that moment in my mind....the white pamphlet floating into the trash can.
Leaving coal mining and other industrial regulating up to the states would drive the companies crazy. The auto companies resisted the California emissions regulations and lobbied for federal regulation. It simply wouldn't work for a company to have to meet differing regulations in 50 states.
Not entirely true, Ralph. If every state had their own standards, a company would be forced to adopt the most restrictive standard of whatever states they wanted to do business in. Automakers really wanted federal guidelines because it would be much, much easier to influence the feds to change their guidelines than it would trying to do it with all 50 states.
I"m actually shocked that this forum is getting so much attention... mostly because the person insulting Rand Paul couldn't even spell the forum title properly.
Paul's arguments make sense and are the only opinions that actually use that "thingie" -- as Hughes put it -- known as the Constitution.
It's not hard to realize that every industry is capable of regulating itself, and Paul is right when he says he knows little about the industry.
Everyone argues that "he should just hire people to explain it to him"... but they fail to think one step beyond that: where do these "experts" come from? -- THE MINING INDUSTRY, duh!! Letting Washington, instead of the market, regulate the industry would simply allow the larger companies to hire "experts" to go to Washington and get the competition-destroying laws they need.
How bout the right-wing lunatics, the left-wing whackos meet up in the middle: FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION. Article 1 Section 8 + the Tenth Amendment clearly indicate that it's a STATE issue at best.
Let the industry compete without regulation and let competition bring out the best. Sounds great. Until reality comes along.
Comapny A is run guy an ethical CEO who spends money to make sure his mines don't blow up workers. His 'experts' are avaialble to Congress to explain what restrictions should be in place.
Copany B is fun by a sleeze-bag who cuts corners on worker safety, disconnecting safety devices and shutting down ventilation equipment if it interferes with production. Since he saves money he can undercut the prices of Company A, sell more coal, buy the mines of the competitors who DID implement safety
This is referred to as a race to the bottom. The competitive aspect of a free-market kills workers in this example. Thousands die each year in China under this kind of formula. That libertarians argue for this system is an example WHY they aren't capable.
Sounds like Massey Energy - the biggest, richest Coal Company in West Virginia.
Wonder why they are so successful?
Let's think about your argument for a few seconds:
... Because company A's place of work is safer, many people WANT to work there. most people who work at B hear regularly of what a safe and great place A's workplace is! Many B workers want to work at A, and are generally worried about their work place. They are constantly looking for different jobs.
... Because B's workplace is more dangerous, and thus less people want to work there, he has to pay his workers more compensation.... then company B's mine implodes, killing his workers. The mine is shut down, it is unable to get any work done, the workers families sue the sleeze-bag, and get billions out of him. Sleaze-bag is broke, his company goes under, and Company A is still working properly.
The problem with your scenario is that it can take many years to play out. By then, Company A is either out of business or has been sold to another sleazebag who competes at the same level as Company B.
This is the real world.
Also, in the real world, accurate information isn't available. Until OSHA was passed employers didn't keep accurate accident records. And even with OSHA there's a whole lotta' fudgin' goin' on.
OSHA hurts the small business. Aren't liberals for small businesses? The history of the OSHA is quite interesting, and it illustrates that the two parties are actually the same party.
During the Carter administration, he wanted an OSHA thing going on, and all the Republicans demanded it would severely hurt the local businesses and all that good stuff.
Then Nixon got in... And it got passed...
"OSHA hurts the small business."
How does OSHA hurt small businesses? Whatever small cost to small businesses resulting from OSHA must be balanced against improved workplace safety which benefits workers and reduces workers's compensation costs.
Obviously, you dont' run a small business. OSHA is one of the most absurd, beaurocratic, autocratic, and ineffective bunch around. The problem with OSHA, is that they have the God complex, and believe they are superior and wiser than ALL other life forms. Which results in them mandating all kinds of expensive and absurd "safety" actions or conditions or procedures or whatever you might call them, that have little or no effective safety improvement for small business.
Occupational Safety and Health are bad for small business - that's the libertarian theme. Maybe but it's good for employees who want to live to retirment age.
Actually - OSHA levels the playing field so that ethical employers aren't put out of business by companies with no scruples whatsoever. Anyone who trusts business to look for for the interests of employees or customers on their own - is living in a fantasy. (that's why they become libertarians.)
You obviously must live in academia like most liberals, businesses do look out for their customers, it is in their best interest.
As for their employees, what's really looking out for them? If these companies weren't being taxed to death for foreign entanglements overseas, ridiculous programs at home, hundreds of agencies that don't need to exist, creating dependency in future generations who are not bred on hard work perhaps they would have the ability to provide more effectively for their employees? And perhaps they would have the incentive to do so by competing with more ethical competitors, and perhaps the media could do its job and play watch dog?
You like most liberals believe that this benevolent government can be given the controls to regulate everything in our lives, I can take one look at what we do over seas and decide I don't want the government increasing their grip on anything.
This debate will go on forever, you don't believe in the honesty, integrity and ability of average people yet you foolishly believe in the honesty, integrity and ability of the federal government?
What do you think about states rights' Mr. Hughes? What is your opinion of the U.S. Constitution?
Honest businesses FAR outnumber corrupt ones, turn off MSNBC.
My opinion of the US Constitution is that it was created by man to serve man. Business should serve the same function and so should government. But a strong central government is the only force strong enough to to do battle for the average man against gobal economic cartels that have more clout than most countries. The idea that the US Constitution is a static force we must all worship (strictly according to the wingnut interpretation) without change is bunk. This isn't 1787 - the world changes and we must change with it.
Honest businesses do FAR outnumber dishonest ones - and the only way they can stay honest to the employee and customer is if there is a level playing field in terms of worker safety and product safety. Without the government operating as a referee, business becomes a race to the bottom - with workplace safety and product safety disintegrating as success in the business world is the prize for the most ruthless - not the most talented.
I'm flattered that you think I'm in academia. Nobody told you that you're supposed to mock me for misspellings since I'm notorious for not proofing my comments? Actually, I'm a mailman in Florida, very much a real-world, middle-class working stiff.
Your deep distrust of the federal government is inconsistent with your strange faith in state governments. Why not hate them all? Not sure what point you are trying to make with states rights. Most of the statements made about "states rights" on these forums reflect a deep misunderstanding of federalism under our Constitution. But you haven't really said anything about it.
Conservatives do not "trust" government at any level. Government by itself, in abstract, is just a collection of beaurocracies, or maybe a system of beaurocracies. When you populate it with people, then you introduce the very reasons it can't be trusted. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. State governments are not inherently more or less capable. The difference is that the state government is SMALLER and MORE ACCOUNTABLE to the people it is to serve. Our city governments are the closest, counties next, states next, and lastly, and most distant and least accountable and least responsible... the federal.
Of course it's illogical to "trust" any government. But when conservatives advocate for moving power and authority from the federal to the state, we're advocating for the movement of power closer to, and more responsive to, and more easily fixed when gone wrong by, the people themselves.
by SportsBetter5 years ago
Freedom of choice or government entitlements and regulations?
by mikelong6 years ago
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07 … k1%7C77674If businesses could play by the rules, perhaps they wouldn't need to be watched...
by Jack Lee12 months ago
It is a question that baffles me.You would think people who became a huge success in our capitalism system would embrace it and try to promote it. Yet, again and again, we see these folks adopt a liberal and progressive...
by Jack Lee9 days ago
Recently, with regard to illegal immigration, Califronia and other states and cites have decided to refuse to enforce federal laws. They have chosen to disobey federal laws and not help ICE in enforcing our immigration...
by William R. Wilson7 years ago
I got this in my email today. This is the sort of thing I hired Obama to do:Thoughts?
by GA Anderson3 years ago
Here is what the Federal Reserve describes as its charter:" The Federal Reserve System, often referred to as the Federal Reserve or simply "the Fed," is the central bank of the United States. It was...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.