Rule of law vs Rule by law

[JohnM]

Counter points:

Saw the 2 minute clip. Milton has a point, but I don’t agree with him fully. I think what the Nobel Laureate miss is this.

Isaiah 5:8
8 Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!

You pursue self interest, you pursue it fully legally/ethically/morally, you provide value and nothing else to others, but imagine if it would interfere with others’ interests in the long run, then what?

Not only that, I Timothy 6:10
10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

Probably Ben applies brakes at some point but what if others don’t? What if the others begin to do all sorts of evil with whatever they have gained or if their very gain itself is evil (meaning you deprived others place of living etc.). Who would address it then?

What Milton don’t see is this. He would like a free reign for brain but probably not for brawn! Brain power should be regulated just like brawn power is controlled (if I phrased it or conveyed it correctly). Don’t you think?

So I guess regulations are inevitable but should be done carefully.

(Will this thought qualify me for Nobel?? My bad, how quickly I forgot my own preaching that is love of money! )

[Mark_Rocka]

You pursue self interest, you pursue it fully legally/ethically/morally, you provide value and nothing else to others, but imagine if it would interfere with others’ interests in the long run, then what?

Can you give some examples? I can’t think of any way of providing value to others to the point of it being detrimental. If that happened, you would no longer be providing value.

Probably Ben applies brakes at some point but what if others don’t? What if the others begin to do all sorts of evil with whatever they have gained or if their very gain itself is evil (meaning you deprived others place of living etc.).

Another area where examples would help clarify. Let’s explore these thoughts, though.

You have a business making the best widgets on Earth. Everyone wants your widgets and you sell them at a fair price. You become ridiculously wealthy selling your widgets, but one day, someone invents a better widget and you start losing market share. Your customers like the new widgets more.

In a completely free market, you have 2 choices. 1 - innovate. You improve your widgets, streamline your production, lower costs, or all of the above and compete with your new competitors. 2 - you retire and close up shop.

In a government managed economy like we have, you have a 3rd choice. Buy the politicians to squeeze your competitors out of business. It happens ALL of the time. Do you think the FDA makes us safer? Over 2000 FDA approved drugs have been recalled because they were killing people. Did you know Tesla can’t sell their cars online in most states because those states require a dealership have a physical dealership? How is it better for the customer to pay more for a car from a dealership than to save money by buying online?

He would like a free reign for brain but probably not for brawn! Brain power should be regulated just like brawn power is controlled (if I phrased it or conveyed it correctly). Don’t you think?

I think I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t see it that way. The system we have ensures that the brain and brawn power is regulated by the least brainy, most power hungry among us, On the whole, normal people don’t run for office.

“The most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.”- J.R.R. Tolkien

[MissMaggie]

Oh my John… honestly I was just expressing a frequent notion I have in my usual cheeky and sarcastic way.

You are indeed well versed, and chaptered, in scripture and eloquent in your presentation. My first reaction is - AMEN brother

[MissMaggie]

I’ve been away for a couple days and just returned to this thread and it’s gone in different directions, so I’m working my way from top to bottom. Sorry if my responses are not fitting in chronologically.

In recent years, I’m seeing more and more stories of rights violations involving deprivation of property and liberties and it’s maddening. Clerical errors or just flat out corruption leading to families losing their homes and businesses. Municipalities using asset forfeiture laws to generate operating revenue and ruining lives in the process. Police officers and deputies manufacturing evidence and creating bogus charges just to make quotas issued by their departments to justify their existence and budgets without regard to the damage they do to families and the public trust.

It should concern the government, but it does not. I believe government is the cause of so many of these issues.

[MissMaggie]

There must be some “wise men” behind this federal taking control and there must be some rationale behind it for doing so too.

I’m not sure if I understand what you’re saying here @jmonickaraj1 . It’s my own hang up on the word “must”. Will you clarify please?

I do agree with Mark though on this. I believe we must have some government, but once a government grows beyond a certain point, there’s no end. The thirst for relevance and power is too much for many individuals to quench.

[MissMaggie]

@jmonickaraj1, Mr. Friedman is spot on. He dared to tell truth about our nature as humans. He told his opponents things they didn’t want to believe about themselves. He told them the reasons their methods have never and will never work. In truth, capitalism and a free market has lifted more people out of poverty than charity ever can. Yes, as crazy as this may sound to so many, self-interest is the best thing for the greater-good. There are so many wonderful videos out there of Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell and others and their message is still true today. And yes, their notions and theories do not necessarily gel with biblical principals, nor should they and that’s OK. But go check out more of his lectures.

If you get a chance and if you haven’t already, read “Atlas Shrugged”. It’s long and has a slow start, but it can put things into perspective. Phil Donahue was a fairly noted liberal/socialist, but I have to give him credit. I think he was one of the best interviewers ever. He gave his guests a chance, he let them speak and make their points. Even those he disagreed with including the likes of Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and others.

Using Mark’s Ben analogy, a government run amok, would be regulating the instruments and accessories he sells in the general store because of the materials used or where they come from or where they are built. What good does that do us? They’d be regulating the songs he teaches because well, some of them have words see, and some of those words are offensive to certain groups. And, well let’s face it, some of them are religious and we can’t have that, so… no songs mentioning God or Jesus or … They’d also find a way to monitor and censor what we discuss here on this forum. We wouldn’t even be allowed to have this discussion. They’d probably figure out a way to limit his income, or to take more of it from him.

The only one who should be allowed to control what is discussed here, is Ben. Ben should be free to provide products and services that his customers want, without interference from government. He should be allowed to make as much as he can and keep as much as he can and do with it whatever he wants. It’s no one else’s business - literally.

The idea that the Billionaires or the corporations are bad because they’re big and greedy and do nothing for the greater good is silly to me. A few years ago, “corporate jet owners” were demonized. What’s wrong with corporate jet owners or corporate jets? Someone had to design those jets. Several people educated those people that designed those jets. Other people built those jets. Others, maintain those jets and staff them. Pilots fly those jets. Those pilots were educated somewhere. Some of them served in the military and others went to flying schools staffed by other educators and office staff that used computers designed and built by other people… and housed in buildings designed by, built by and maintained by more people… Air Traffic Controllers manage the air space so those pilots of those corporate jets can get from one place to another safely and they were trained somewhere by other people and they use tools and technology designed, built and maintained by gobs of other people. And other people and businesses make and provide food for those corporate jets and others find, produce and deliver fuel for those corporate jets. And all those people pay taxes. This can go on for a very long time. It’s corporate jet owners like billionaires and large corporations and rich celebrities that just want a nice ride, that make all that possible. How is that bad?

[Mark_Rocka]

[MissMaggie]

I don’t think that all billionaire’s and corporation’s motivation is all for the love of money, as I just stated in my previous response in my typical carried away - way. Of course some of it is motivated by the love of money and that’s something the owners themselves will have to deal with, if not on earth, then at the judgement.

Even in the case of for the love of money motivation, evil is not always the default result. In some cases it is sadly though. And along with maintaining the military and building roads and a few select other items, it is appropriate for our government to intervene.

He would like a free reign for brain but probably not for brawn! Brain power should be regulated just like brawn power is controlled

I’ve read Milton Friedman over the decades and seen his lectures. I can’t recall hearing him ever expressing this notion.

So I guess regulations are inevitable but should be done carefully.

Well, yeah. But then who does it? Who’s definition of “carefully” is used. We’re all different. There is no perfect system. That’s why I sometimes throw up my hands and say things like -

I figure I’m not long for this earth and I don’t have any kids, so no grandkids and all sooooo… I’m not too concerned. And, I hear Heaven’s pretty neat, sooo I’ve got that goin’ for me.

Oh, and good onya for saying the love of money is the root of all evil. So many misquote that by just money is the root of evil.

[Mark_Rocka]

[JohnM]

Mark, baeadd diagram!! ; ) Seems misleading! Left side is fine but on the right side - “People who allow other people to live in peace” and “people who use government to control you” are not mutually exclusive.

First, can you clarify what is you - is it individual or can it be a group and a corporation??

Second, this needs defined - what is allowing people to live in peace? Then we will know the opposite, and from there we can find out who is responsible for the opposite, who would be the real enemy. This is how I would approach. In the diagram, I think they oversimplified it, made some inaccuracies, end result misleading information into people minds.

For clarity, let us take Mark Zuckerburg. He testified to this effect that his software had algorithms to control the reach of articles or advertisements to the users. He can promote one and demote another. If government interfered into this his discriminatory (again this terms needs defined) treatment, is that considered not allowing people (Zuckerburg) to live in peace?? After all, it is his software, therefore he should be free to do whatever he wants to do with it?? In doing so, he undermines democracy for example, in intruding into free and fair election, among other things. Ability to reach and the extent to which would then determine election result more than agenda. I understand you allow competition to offset that. But what if no viable competition yet? So shut up and put up until then?? This is unfair, this affects people. Now who in your opinion is not allowed to live in peace - Mark Zuckerburg or people affected by his unfairness?

Third, what exactly is “use government to control you”? Is it still a government if it does not “control” you? Let us extend this thought a little bit, and make it no government control at all. You are back to jungle rule - might is right. Why then the proponents of capitalism, who don’t care about fairness, stop short of proposing a no government, instead they want a little government to suit their convenience??

So my take is, when you expect a body to control brawn power, it is not unreasonable to expect brain power be regulated. In fact, brain power is more danger than brawn power.

Now are there not issues with regulations? Yes there are. Just like issues with muscle power policing, regulation issues need dealt with.

Another thing. For Maggie as well…

Why the proponents of free market capitalism always brings in socialism to answer/address issues? I mean on the videos. Is that a holier than thou approach. We are talking about holy or unholy. We are talking about regulations in a democracy. If regulation is socialism, then I would say policing is also a form of socialism in setting up a level playing field. If you can’t accept government control and regulation, leave everything to jungle law and see what happens in a free market! Will free then really be free??!!

Again there is so much evil perpetrated when government protection is given to pursue evil - after all isn’t it what they think is their freedom, I mean the proponents like Mr Friedman think, from my limited listening to him??

For people to be able to see my issue in the right perspective, I addressed it in this way in my letter. I called it “under the influence”. Excess power, money, ideology, sophistication, science and technological advances, people support etc impair people judging capacity. Their thinking is - it has not come to my door step so why should I care? Government, however, cannot escape accountability and liability, which is what they are for.

Imagine a no government except for judiciary. How will the judge pronounce the verdict when one party has a Goliath standing with them? Similarly what kind of justice would you get in an unregulated fully free market system when you are allowed to go unrestrained adding house to house, field to field leaving many to misery. Judge will be playing second fiddle to a bullying free market child. Shadow government is born by such bully association with the blessings of their beneficiaries.

Now what is gone for a toss? The weightier matters of the law - judgment, mercy, faith (Matthew 23:23).!

How dare you call such thing a democracy!

[JohnM]

I don’t think that all billionaire’s and corporation’s motivation is all for the love of money,

Maggie, I agree. I realize the inaccuracy in my corporate quote. But my quote would become a reality in an unregulated free market. As there are some even now doing dictatorship with regulations.

I’ve read Milton Friedman over the decades and seen his lectures. I can’t recall hearing him ever expressing this notion.

My communication issue. Never mind about it. I’ve shared my views in my previous post.

Who’s definition of “carefully” is used.

I’m thinking like the “reasonable” definition in “beyond reasonable doubt” for presumed guilt in a verdict. OR I should use a different word.

Mr. Friedman is spot on.

I think I see so many flaws in his thinking in the one or 2 videos I saw. Some points I agree like the amount of good is more from a free market person regardless of his intentions compared to the amount of good a good person intending to do good. But then you know what? This good is a speculation like a stock market. When unregulated, the evil the free market can do is also more, it can easily negate all the good and can make it even worse. Donahue asked good questions but then he seemed a little restrained. I need some time to think through to share my counter views. We will do sometime later. I’ll check out “Atlas Shrugged”.

I agree not all corporations are bad but some are turning into bad.

I’m not sure if I understand what you’re saying here @jmonickaraj1 . It’s my own hang up on the word “must”. Will you clarify please?

Or “has to be” or “I wonder” etc. Federal government does not have likes or dislikes, so there has to be some people behind it you know?

In recent years, I’m seeing more and more stories of rights violations involving deprivation of property

In my case, deprivation of life, and not property. Maybe will share later.

You are indeed well versed, and chaptered, in scripture and eloquent in your presentation.

Thanks! Language is an issue though but I manage.

[JohnM]

I think I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t see it that way. …

“The most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.”- J.R.R. Tolkien

Agreed, Mark.

I will provide appropriate example later for the other two points you wanted clarified.

[Mark_Rocka]

As there are some even now doing dictatorship with regulations.

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.

[JohnM]

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?

[MissMaggie]

Wow, so many things.

“People who allow other people to live in peace” and “people who use government to control you” are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, they really are.

Regarding your Zuckerberg and his software argument:

If government interfered into this his discriminatory (again this terms needs defined) treatment

If? They have.

is that considered not allowing people (Zuckerburg) to live in peace??

No, it isn’t.

After all, it is his software, therefore he should be free to do whatever he wants to do with it??

Yes. Absolutely. Technically, the software is his and the shareholder’s so, it’s our software.

In doing so, he undermines democracy for example, in intruding into free and fair election, among other things. Ability to reach and the extent to which would then determine election result more than agenda.

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.

I understand you allow competition to offset that. But what if no viable competition yet? So shut up and put up until then??

Yes.

This is unfair, this affects people.

Yes. Life is not fair.

Now who in your opinion is not allowed to live in peace - Mark Zuckerburg or people affected by his unfairness?

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.

Third, what exactly is “use government to control you”? Is it still a government if it does not “control” you?

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’.

Why then the proponents of capitalism, who don’t care about fairness, stop short of proposing a no government, instead they want a little government to suit their convenience??

This question is based on a false premise.

So my take is, when you expect a body to control brawn power, it is not unreasonable to expect brain power be regulated. In fact, brain power is more danger than brawn power.

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?

Why the proponents of free market capitalism always brings in socialism to answer/address issues? I mean on the videos. Is that a holier than thou approach.

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.

If regulation is socialism, then I would say policing is also a form of socialism in setting up a level playing field. If you can’t accept government control and regulation, leave everything to jungle law and see what happens in a free market! Will free then really be free??!!

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.

Now what is gone for a toss?

I don’t know what that means.

How dare you call such thing a democracy!

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.

[Mark_Rocka]

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.

[Mark_Rocka]

Now some companies in the guise of implementing scrum, they do intellectual property stealing.

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.

[JohnM]

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.

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.

[JohnM]

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.

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.

[Mark_Rocka]

To circumvent such stealing, software vendors are now constantly modifying the software to protect their interests and protect their business partners.

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.

https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index-new

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.