John, your end of the conversation continues to be too vague as to have a meaningful dialogue. I asked for examples in my previous post, but rather than provide them, you instead asked me for examples and continue with these vague statements.
I have no desire to discuss theory or hypotheticals. My goal is to understand the real world we live in now. Statements like the one above don’t serve that purpose.
If you’re interest in this discussion is mainly theory, I’m going to have to respectfully bow out.
Mark, fair enough. An example for corporate dictatorship is this. Now some companies in the guise of implementing scrum, they do intellectual property stealing. While they have clauses for protecting their confidential, restricted and other information, they don’t respect their consultant’s knowledge property as much. When the deliverable can be an installed, configured software product, instead of letting you provide that, the management would expect you to even train their cheap, ;less qualified associates in them typing but you providing the steps to them to install and configure. They use a perverted form of agile and call it “pair programming”. While it is risk management for them, as a consultant it introduces risk to you from a newly developed competitor. I have seen consultant manages this risk by intentionally doing misleading steps, crashing some installs to confuse the person etc. If you want to be honest to deny such requests, you are out. Buying a car does not make you automatically entitled to a knowledge transfer for building a car. You only get user manual. While the case is similar with software services, nowadays management violates that with the blessings of their board. You won’t see a paired programming for CEOs to bring down their salaries, will you? Not all companies do these cheap things though, many respect that, but I do see a changing trend. A case for virtue vs manipulation. You (I mean not you) want to create a “dog eat dog” world. Fine, but why ask for protection cover?
Regarding your Zuckerberg and his software argument:
If? They have.
No, it isn’t.
Yes. Absolutely. Technically, the software is his and the shareholder’s so, it’s our software.
First of all, we don’t live in a Democracy, the USA is a Republic. Does FB intrude into free and fair elections? Of course it does. So does the print media, radio, broadcast and cable networks like CBS, NBC, ABC, FOXNews, CNN, etc. So does YouTube and a whole host of internet news sources. So do political adds on billboards and on homeowner’s lawns. So do people calling me on my phone around election time and people knocking on my door. Everyone tries to affect an election, that’s called campaigning.
Yes.
Yes. Life is not fair.
Mark Zuckerberg and FB shareholders. Are you claiming that people affected by this “unfairness” are not being allowed to live in peace? By the government?
I use FB. I understand that the management of FB is at one end of the political spectrum. Even though I may be at the other end of the political spectrum, I can stop using FB at any time. Just like I can turn my TV or radio off, or stop buying that newspaper that says things I don’t agree with. I can unsubscribe from that YouTube channel that I find offensive. That’s on me.
I’m not aware of a politically opposite leaning social media platform on the level of Facebook, so you’re right in that they don’t have that type of competition. I could, if I wanted to, start up a social media company of that sort and nurture it and grow it to the popularity level of FB and it becomes a viable competitor to FB. Yay. Do you think the government won’t come after me just because I’m a competitor? My company is going to offend just as many people and treat just as many people unfairly as FB does. Someone will lobby Congress and they’ll come after me and my shareholders and I’ll be hauled in to testify in front of Congress, just like they did to Zuckerberg. The government in this case is not letting me and shareholders live in peace.
Our founding fathers did not install this government to control us. We The People are to control the government. Of the people, by the people, for the people. Our present government has grown way beyond its intended purpose and it is indeed controlling us now and sadly, so many people are willing to be treated like sheep and want to impose that submission on others. We rebelled once and fought for our liberty and sent our tyrants packing. It’s not unthinkable that it could happen again. Just sayin’.
This question is based on a false premise.
I don’t expect any body to control brawn power. Who is expecting some body to control brawn power? What evidence do you have that brain power is more dangerous than brawn power?
Because the opponents of Capitalism are usually pushing Socialism. Because if not capitalism, then what? What would we have? Most likely some form of Socialism. What other options have you? Is it holier than thou? No.
Who said regulation is socialism? I never said that. Socialism is Socialism. I also never said no regulation. Almost every time I discuss big government and over regulation, it seems - no regulation - is thrown back at me. I don’t why that is.
I don’t know what that means.
I don’t. But that sounds familiar, what is that from? Or is it a Greta thing?
John, it might help if we had more information on what you’ve been dealing with. You’ve been wronged by some government body it seems. You’ve referenced a letter you wrote a couple times. Also, where do you live? These might give us a better understanding of where you’re coming from. Anyway, I wish you well.
If I haven’t already stated my position, I’ll do it here. I believe that the government’s role in society is to protect life, liberty, and property. No more. Intellectual property is property, so I believe the government should step in and arbitrate said theft.
I do NOT believe that the government should place regulations on the interactions beyond a simple “You can’t steal someone else’s intellectual property.” We have more regulations today than ever before, and our progress has been greatly hindered as a result. If you haven’t already, I encourage you to watch the 2 documentaries on Dr. Burzynski to see how regulations have literally killed countless people that the good doctor could have saved… all in the effort to protect corporate interests.
Also, let me be more specific. When I say “examples” I’m talking about actual, real world examples with names, specific actions, and something tangible that I can go read about. Perhaps your story actually happened to you, but for me, this example is still a hypothetical.
If we’re to continue this discussion, I would like tangible examples so we can each look at the specifics on our own. It’s the only way I can truly understand your position.
I fully understand, which is why I’m taking time to provide you example for the other ones. I don’t make baseless allegations. In corporate dictatorship example, I have valid legal evidences to support my case to be disregarded as hypothetical. Moreover this is not isolated, many go through this. To circumvent such stealing, software vendors are now constantly modifying the software to protect their interests and protect their business partners. Which itself is a circumstantial evidence to knowledge stealing.
OK as long as government protects one’s life, liberty and property, I’m fine. Let us see they do that in my case! Now world is watching and this is pressure to the senator’s office. Again it should not cost my life (millions of dollar) to get life protection. And I thought regulations were meant to only clarify the constitutional rights for a specific circumstance. Too much regulation may not be warranted but no regulation? I’m not sure. I’ll check out Dr Burzynski.
So, it would seem to me that regulations aren’t working to protect you from those stealing from you. To me, that’s like the folks saying “We’re being overrun by illegal immigrants. We need new laws.” If the laws currently on the books aren’t working, why would we think new laws would work?
What gets my goat is that people advocating for more regulations are quick to forgive the government for its countless failures while simultaneously expecting perfection from the free market. No, a free market solution won’t be perfect, but we can look at both history and the current world around us and see very clearly that the less government interferes in the market, the more prosperous the people become.
Check out this Freedom Index. You’ll note that the more free the country, the wealthier they tend to be.
That’s why I don’t advocate for more regulation. Despite the pitfalls of the free market, history is clear that any protection the government provides will almost certainly come at a cost higher than that which it’s protecting us from.
Which is why I used control within quotes. Not in the sense of controlling your free will. I meant, in the sense of controlling intruding into others in an unapparent way. Anyway I have to give you an example. I will provide along with for Mark.
Ooops my bad. It was meant to be “brawn power infraction” and “brain power infraction”. You need to cut some slack for my English.
I’m fine then but I believe Mark is more for no regulation so I was a little concerned. Say for example, you are a family with kids. Poor but happy. Now a free market candy man or the pied piper of Hamelin comes. Trouble, isn’t it?? I’m not expecting a government to do a father/mother role, but the protection for the gullible mass from candy man etc.
You figured it!
What I meant was, anything allowed to be done (market regulations) should be founded on these law principles - judgment, mercy and faith. By judgment, being fair; by mercy, as less punishment as possible; by faith, never discount and provide room for hope to someone. Regulations should make the impacting one provide these to the impacted one, The impacting one should not be able to get away with fine prints etc. I see “life is not fair” as a cop out. Individual may not do it, you can’t expect them to be… But the desired form of government, by whatever name you call it, should be derived from this principle. This reinforces life and liberty! I think any philosophy that deviates from this should always be viewed with suspicion and refined accordingly - capitalism or socialism or whatever ism for that matter.
I live in Ohio. I’ll share the details with you sometime.
I’ve read Burt Folsom’s entire book FDR, New Deal or Raw Deal. If you’re ever interested in seeing exactly why I loath regulation, that book spells it out nicely. Under FDR’s New Deal, business leaders were allowed to come together to set regulations in their own industries. Who do you think those regulations helped, the consumer, or the authors of the new regulations?
As specific examples, a tailor was thrown in jail for pressing suits for 5 cents cheaper than his competitors that were located in better areas. Those industry leaders came together and made price fixing legal, as did countless other industries. Anyone selling a product or service cheaper than the regulations demanded were thrown in prison.
Another example is a battery manufacturer that was put in prison because his employees decided to accept less than minimum wage in order to keep the company running and not lose their jobs entirely. The owner literally had to run his company from the confines of a prison cell.
Folsom’s book has references to these stories. That’s exactly how most regulations work today, and it’s why I say the most regulation we need is protection of life, liberty, and property. The market can work out the rest.
I’m not sure what that means, sorry. I get that we have a bit of language barrier that we’re dealing with; I’m trying. English is a second language for you then? I admire you for how well you speak and understand it. I’ve tried other languages, but have only gotten very basic skills. Just out of curiosity, where are you from?
That’s what I thought you meant.
I honestly don’t mean to be picking on you and I hope you’ll forgive me for asking, but what is brawn power infraction?
Of course, no worries, but please be patient if I do misunderstand something or ask for clarification.
I don’t think @Mark_Rocka is for no regulation, unless I’ve misunderstood him, which I don’t think I have. But I’ll let him speak for himself.
At first, the pied piper provided a valuable service, that of leading rats out of town with his pipe and the townspeople paid for this service. That’s capitalism at its finest. The townsfolk had a need and he had a solution, they entered into a contract and the exchange of service for compensation was done. He shouldn’t be expected to provide his service for free should he? When he encountered a town unwilling to pay for his services however, he should have moved on to the next town. Instead he retaliated by using his pipe to lead the children away from their parents. That’s kidnapping and yes, the government should step in. In another version of the story, Mr. Piper enters into contract with a town on the town’s promise of payment and then after the work is done, the town refuses payment. Mr. Piper then has recourse through the legal system. Government has a role to play in this scenario too. If however Mr. Piper takes the law into his own hands and goes all psychotic and steals our children, as the story goes, then yeah, government steps in there as well. There’s all sorts of appropriate purposes for government and regulation, but ONLY those stated in our Constitution. Keep in mind, I am only referring to the Federal government. States and local municipalities are free to make their own laws as long as they do not conflict the US Constitution.
Cool, I look forward to it. I’m from Chillicothe, Ohio, nice to meet you
Nice to “meet” you too, Maggie! Sounds like you must be an hour away from me. Now that the senator office expects me to go to federal court, I will share a copy of the letter to you. Went and got a few books on constitution law from library, Maybe will spend full time for a month on this.
Introduction to constitutional law 100 cases - Randy Barnett et al
Represent yourself in court - Paul Bergman
US Constitution for dummies - Dr Michael Arnheim
Good Mr Piper explanation! I think Candy man and Mr Piper can be good memory markers. Now whenever Free Market Capitalism discussion comes up, “Free Market Candy Man” should come to mind to everyone! And I can give at least 4 instance of conflict or improper application scenario. In one instance, I made immigration change their policy! Can you imagine? So until liability can be set, the lawyers are not going to kill their cash cow.
I came here very long ago but originally from Tamil Nadu, India.
I mean, it was physical bullying (muscle, weapon etc) vs intellectual bullying (fine prints, rigging the game, bait, some other legal as well for which I will think and give example).
Agreed Mark! Less regulations would sway towards more justice. And constitution must be made to act as a “catch-all”, in practice.
In the examples you quote, I would not tie it to the regulation. Regulation just determined those violations. But it is the courts that gave the punishment. Punishment should commensurate with the crime. Judiciary should be held accountable. I would assume the courts forgot the “mercy” principle here in interpreting the law for application. I would say they should not be thrown in jail unless it was a willful violation after court’s warning.
Thanks. I approached 3 attorneys an year or more ago, none was willing. (Democracy is dead right there!) So I’m not sure. I’m afraid, I will have to represent myself. Before I appear before court, I will have to make sure I have people court verdict in favor me. I think then it will be a slam dunk. This case would require a top attorneys or top firm representation as it involves family law, immigration law, constitutional law and I can even add employment law. Do you know of any? But even to go to the attorneys, I will need to do my homework otherwise they will easily compromise it. As it is not going to be in anyone of their interest that I get justice!
Guess what, truth is told already! I bumped into an reported admission from the president himself, and it seems like both democratic and republic parties have understood and probably have agreed in a bi-partisan manner, that immigration laws have forced feds to break up families! How come? Do not the officers of fed take oath to uphold the constitution? How then can they deprive families of their life, liberty and property violating the constitution? Shouldn’t they have used discretion, and if no discretion, shouldn’t they have escalated to a higher up level up to the congress and to the president? Keep or deport families, no in between! Now, shouldn’t the officers be impeached for constitutional violation?
Check out the link at 5:28 for a last year CNN screen shot bottom message in yesterday’s Fox News channel report.
This should pressure judges (or the deep state Goliath’s behind them!) to deliver justice!
I think the problem here is that you’re substituting “should” for “what is.”
A lot of things in this country “should” be done that aren’t. The Clintons “should” be in prison right now for a number of reasons. America SHOULD NOT have been at war during any time since WWII, because the constitution clearly states that congress must make a declaration of war before we fight one. There is no provision in the constitution for congress to delegate their power to the president, as they did with the war powers act. That law is unconstitutional, but it has been law for over 40 years.
The constitution demands the states are to make nothing but gold and silver money. Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States
Paragraph 1 - No State shall …make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts…
There is no provision for the federal government to make paper or digital currency.
Our government is corrupt just like every other government on the planet. Governments naturally have a monopoly on the use of force against innocent people, so they naturally attract the type of people who want to exploit that power.
Just take a look at how many people become millionaires while working a job that pays around $200k a year. Does that sound legit to you?
Mark, thanks for acknowledging that this country is stained! The people who brag about democracy or rule of law are unable to correct their government, strange isn’t it? I’m with you on declaration of wars, gold/silver reserve etc. I think it is better they need corrected whatever be the after-effects of doing so.
Senator Clinton office is probably the root of all troubles I have to go through. And maybe that’s why the Clinton’s are being exposed now. Here is the scoop. In 2004, I had filed for EAD (Employment Authorization Document) extension some 60 days prior to expiry. When EAD expired, the consulting company would not let me continue in spite of my arguments that the law had not demanded an EAD to work, and it had only demanded an Employment Authorization, which in my case was, the expired Document plus the receipt notice of a pending EAD petition. Until a decision is made one should be allowed to work, which is the proper interpretation. But they had set bad policies! After I wrote to senator Clinton in 2004, the language of the law was changed in 2005/2006 to “Employment Authorization Document” (or ID) from “Employment Authorization”. (This can be easily verified from archives unless they removed the audit trail in which case it would be obstruction of justice!). Mischief! This arbitrary or sudden change without enough thought was a constitutional violation! Maybe the office (or the deep state) didn’t like my questioning their policies, they couldn’t openly state it, and maybe they started doing things in an underhanded way??
Later on I had 2 other complaints in immigration laws/policies - one I shared privately, one I shared to an immigration attorney. I don’t know if it was a coincidence, the 3 items and only those 3 were made as a president executive proposal just before Obama left office when senator Clinton was pursuing presidency ambitions. Those weren’t acted upon immediately but are corrected now.
So I would say if people were to pressure (or expose) government to correct all bad policies and show vigor to make judges and attorneys accountable, there is hope.
I agree on people becoming millionaire in dubious ways. Everyone has 24 x 7 but some have so much “value” to the society that they are so apart from the rest?? In some cases, to some extent yes, but in most cases it is doubtful. Is that real value or looted value (doing 3 card Monte!!)?
You’re most welcome there, Maggie! Seems like Ben and Mark have already, now it is your turn!
Btw, just watched Atlas Shrugged part 1. Part 2 & 3 are to go. I know how the “bad” guys play. In the largest democracy in India, EVM’s (Electronic Voting Machines) were introduced lately. So you know how that goes.
Lord to Cain in Genesis 4:7 - “7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.” But there is protection under the shadow of the Almighty which is now in Christ!
