patrick.net

Dan8267 says

What you call a regulation is simply another name for law. Government regulates everything. Murder is regulated.

I think that statement encapsulates Progressive/Liberal thinking to a T. Government does NOT need to regulate "everything".

Just because we need a government to regulate crime, government does not need to regulate how humans privately engage with each other to hire people to drive us around.

socal2 says

I think that statement encapsulates Progressive/Liberal thinking to a T.

And once again, you are wrong.

1. The statement government regulates everything does NOT mean the same thing as government needs to regulates everything.
2. There are lots of things that government SHOULD NOT regulate but does because conservatives demand that government regulates these things including prostitution, public nudity and sex, sex between consenting adults, drug usage of adults including everything from weed to crack, alcohol consumption, foul language on public airwaves, music, movie content and ratings, etc.
3. Liberals actual want far less government control over behavior than conservatives do. The difference is that liberals believe that the only legal restrictions on behavior should be ones that prevent one person from violating the rights of another, say by polluting public air or physically harming a person or economically exploiting a person who is powerless to stop that. In contrast, conservatives are always calling for laws that allow one group of people to force their culture onto others, steal the wealth production of others, sexually degrade a person, and otherwise make people powerless over their own lives. Please challenge me on this so I can go into exquisite details.

That said, there should be laws regulating human behavior that harms other human beings. The entire history of the United States has been a story of how a few people with power can effectively enslave, in one form or another, great numbers of other people. Laws regulating what businesses cannot do exist precisely because of all the evil things done by businesses in the past.

It is ridiculous to suggest that capitalists will not harm people when they can legally do so and make a profit. Hell, capitalists routinely commit crimes in the name of profit. It is also ludicrous to suggest that free market will magically ensure that only enterprises that help the world profit. This is empirically false and one needs only to look at the slave trade as an indisputable counter-example.

In fact, conservatives are damn inconsistent about apply the free market principle to businesses. Drug regulations created by Nancy Reagon's War on Drugs stifles small businesses and innovations in the field of recreational drugs. Why aren't free market principles applied to this? Shouldn't the free market determine whether or not children, or at least adults, use what drugs, when, and how much? Oh, that's different. It's always different when the business practice isn't one you want. Well, not every person is going to agree with everyone else on the planet about which businesses should thrive and which should not. The entire idea of the free market is that the market would decide this. So, are you going to accept that entrepreneurs should be allowed to sell crack on school grounds to children?

This is what the free market looks like. This is capitalism without regulations.

This is what an entrepreneur and small business owner looks like.

socal2 says

Just because we need a government to regulate crime

Honey, crime is just what the government decides is crime. There is no such thing as "crime" other than what is declared illegal by mere power of fiat. Make rape legal and selling cars illegal and then rapists are law-biding citizens and GM is an organize crime syndicate.

The adult conversation is about what should be a crime and why. Merely declaring something a crime does not make it evil or a bad for society. One needs only to look at the Fugitive Slave Act or the American Revolution as examples. Some of the greatest heroes in American history were, by definition, felons including Harriet Tubman and George Washington, the terrorist as defined in the USA Patriot Act.

Dan8267 says

There are lots of things that government SHOULD NOT regulate

You could have just stopped right there and saved alot of pounding on the keyboard.

Last I checked, we are talking about Uber.

Bernie thinks the government needs to regulate how private citizens hire people to drive them around. If you agree with Bernie on Uber (do you?) than what the fuck can't the government regulate?

socal2 says

Last I checked, we are talking about Uber.

That's what started the discussion, but you proposed that all laws regarding business practices are inherently bad, and that is clearly not so as evident by the fact that even you are in favor of many regulations such as prohibitions on the sales of drugs and sex.

socal2 says

Bernie thinks the government needs to regulate how private citizens hire people to drive them around.

As do you. I don't see you complaining about businesses, Uber or other, being prohibited from hiring "illegal immigrants". That's a regulation.

The only question that is meaningful is exactly what set of regulations should exist, not whether or not there should be any. You have no idea what Sanders might want to make law because the article does not state that.

What you are arguing, as evident from the above quote, is that there should be no laws regulating "how private citizens hire people to drive them around", but you clearly don't believe that unless you think private citizens should be able to hire illegal immigrants to drive them around, mow their lawn, clean their houses, pick their strawberries, build houses, etc. Somehow I doubt a conservative could bring himself to agree to that.

Furthermore, by the principle you are proposing, private citizens should be able to buy crack from other private citizens. Do you apply your principles here?

Clearly, you have no problem with regulations, and since Sanders has not proposed any specific regulation, it is pure hypocrisy for you to attack him when you accept, nay demand, other regulations on businesses.

Again, it would be one thing to object to specific laws, but to object to the concept of businesses being required to comply to laws while insisting on laws prohibition business practices like drugs sales, prostitution, hiring of immigrants who don't fit under quotas, etc. is utter hypocrisy. It's a direct and indisputable contradiction.

As to whether or not I agree with what laws Sanders' would like to see enacted, there is no possible way I can answer that question before he actually proposes a bill.

Obligatory:

Dan8267 says

That's what started the discussion, but you proposed that all laws regarding business practices are inherently bad,

Nope.

Obligatory:

Bernie's poverty means just one thing to me: in a pool of criminals and sharks, he's the honest one. A senator must maintain two households, one in spendy DC as well as a quite significant entertaining bill for social occasions. That's tough to do on a senator's salary, even supplemented with SS. But he did it for 35 years and stayed honest and true to his convictions. He also gave more to charity than the grand majority of Americans do at any income level. For most people, when it comes to charity they stop at nothing. ($0)

Dan8267 says

So, are you going to accept that entrepreneurs should be allowed to sell crack on school grounds to children?

This is what the free market looks like. This is capitalism without regulations.

This is what an entrepreneur and small business owner looks like.

The criminally high profit of drug dealing (both illegal type and the legal big pharmas) is the result of government regulations on drugs!

Selling cracks on school grounds to children would be no more profitable than selling candies on school grounds to children if cracks were fully legal. Few would find the incentive to go through the trouble to sell either to children with little money to spend.

Dan8267 says

The entire difference between Uber vs. regular cab service is that Uber is not regulated by the taxi commissions

No. Uber is cheaper because it's not an oligopoly like most taxi services. I called up three different taxi companies listed in the Yellow Pages to comparison shop and literally the same guy answered all three calls and told me that all taxi numbers go to the same place and they charge the same rates. Free market my ass.

You are too dumb to realize that the taxi oligopoly (and price fixing) is the result of city taxi commission regulations. Uber is an attempt to get around the government taxi commissions. Bernie wants Uber to come under the same taxi commissions, yet uses Uber himself because it is cheaper while not being under the regulations of the taxi commissions.

YesYNot says

yet uses Uber himself because it is not regulated by the taxi commission!

This is not necessarily true. Uber has many benefits. The two biggest benefits seem to be that you can get an Uber really really quickly and they are cheap. If Uber becomes regulated, it may get more expensive, but it may still be cheaper than taxi cabs. They will still be easier to faster than cabs.

At best, you could mean that he uses Uber b/c it is cheap, which is b/c it is unregulated, but you are out on a limb that is barely tethered to the tree.

Only to people who are too dumb to realize taxi commissions regulate taxis via medallions, which would make taxi/uber limited in supply, hence expensive and slow / short in supply.

Plus, rich people who want a higher tax but don't voluntarily give money to the government are not hypocrites.

Only to people who are too dumb to realize the rich advocating raising taxes but do not voluntarily give money to government are really advocating their power to spend more of your money --- because they already own the government!

People who use Uber, but want a level playing field between local cabs and internet based cabs are not hypocrites. Same goes for those who use ecommerce sites, but want a sales tax levied to even that playing field.

Only if the advocacy is for abolish the taxi commission and all regulation on taxi, as a way of leveling the field.

How do you think the taxi commissions came about? Organized and paid for by taxi company owners who wanted the government to step in to limit supply, so they can raise prices! Slow response is just a side effect of reduced supply! Duh! What you want free taxis just like free healthcare from Uncle Bernie? When there is no taxi no healthcare for you, it is "free"! LOL

Reality says

Only to people who are too dumb to realize the rich advocating raising taxes but do not voluntarily give money to government are really advocating their power to spend more of your money --- because they already own the government!

Perhaps they just want to pay for the services that they received instead of loaning the government money (buying treasuries) to provide those services.

The first part (that the people who disagree with you are dumb) is a blind assertion and is frankly moronic. The second part is not true. Do you believe that all rich people are motivated purely by greed and self interest? Do you believe that all people are motivated this way? Are you motivated purely by greed and self-interest? Are you just projecting this on other people?

Reality says

How do you think the taxi commissions came about? Organized and paid for by taxi company owners who wanted the government to step in to limit supply, so they can raise prices! Slow response is just a side effect of reduced supply!

I agree that taxis are over-regulated. Getting a cab at O'Hare airport is a 30 minute affair for no reason. It is horrible. To get an Uber, you have to take a train off the airport grounds. Regular cabs are over-regulated, and Uber is underregulated IMO. But all Bernie said is that Uber is unregulated, and that is a problem. Well, they are not unregulated at the moment, but they are skirting laws that affect all other car service / taxi companies. One thing that Uber shows us, and Bernie must see is that something is horribly wrong with the regular taxi service. Uber is the most efficient method of moving people around quickly with a minimum of traffic and parking, which is good for governments who pay for roads and parking in some cases. If Bernie comes out and asks for Uber to limit the number of cars in use, then you have a point. Until then, you're just standing there with your dick in your hand arguing about imaginary boogie men in blue donkey suits. No worries, though. That is a marketable skill. You would make a good Fox News correspondent.

Ironman says

The average person gives $3K a year to charity and the median income is $52K. Bernie makes 4x the median and gives $8K. That doesn't sound like "more", it actually sounds like less, as a percentage of his income.

Oh my the percentage of income argument. Then you must be a strongly in favor of more progressive taxation since many of the 1%'s pay less as a percentage of income than many of the middle class. Oh right hypocrisy doesn't exist for right wingnuts, I forgot.

Funny how no one can come up with a transcript of the actual interview to see what the quote really was and in what context. You would think bloomberg would release the interview rather than their summary of it, but no not happening. Very curious, I wonder why not. There is only the right wingnut echo chamber endlessly bouncing back and forth what bloomberg says bernie said. Of course for the average brain dead right wingnut idiot having another brain dead right wingnut idiot blog it on the internet is the gold standard of proof.

A transcript would be a help. It seemed to be an off hand comment in relation to a question about minimum wage for servers who also get tips: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-06/bernie-sanders-takes-on-clinton-welfare-legacy-as-he-woos-iowa-unions

It's hard to find any reasonable articles on it, b/c there are so many hits of right wing sites giving 'gotcha journalism' their best effort.

That's just Liberal 101 do as we say.

Reality says

You are too dumb to realize that the taxi oligopoly (and price fixing) is the result of city taxi commission regulations.

No, I'm well aware that oligopolies have used government power to ensure their stability. You are too dumb to realize that nothing I said implies this isn't so.

You are also too dumb to realize that oligopolies and monopolies will always form in the absence of anti-trust laws. For example, De Beers. The fool most responsible for monopolies and oligopolies destroying the free market is Ronald Reagan, who effectively ended anti-trust enforcement. You want a free market? Then never vote Republican.

zzyzzx says

Spicoli was no liberal. Using him as a liberal icon illustrates your deep misunderstanding of what liberalism is.

That said, when an entertainer or a professional athlete makes millions of dollars, he isn't ass fucking your family over. You choose whether or not to buy that movie ticket or that baseball game ticket. No one is forcing you to buy it or coercing you in any way. You can easily choose not to participate. One can make the point that Americans value entertainment way more than they should, but that's a value judgement.

What's important is that when that CEO takes in tens of millions of dollars for producing little to no wealth, he is ass fucking your family. He's playing a zero-sum game that you cannot choose not to participate in. His ludicrous income isn't coming from millions of dollars of entertainment value he's created; it's coming directly from the wealth you, your spouse, and your children create in their jobs. That's a big mother-fucking difference.

No CEO is generating tens of millions of dollars a year. He's just siphoning tens of millions of dollars of wealth produced by thousand to tens of thousands of hard-working people. So yes, being pissed off at that is justified. When Britney Spears licks a hammer in her underwear, the money she makes doesn't come out of my pocket against my will. When a CEO lowers the salaries of thousands of employees so he can buy a massive yacht with the wealth those employees produced, that's fucking greed. When hard-working, honest American families lose their breadwinner's job because Goldman Sachs played zero-sum games that wretched the economy, that's fucking greed.

Just ask yourself...how many stockbrokers have farmhouses in Vermont...after 20 years of "Bern Socialism"

Ironman says

bob2356 says

Funny...

...how, once again, you can't defend the un-defendable with Bernie, so you just pound away at the keyboard with lines of bullshit.... What happened, you forgot to include fucking farm animals again in your reply, maybe you need to go back to the Dan School of Insults to "bone up"!

I take it that you are in favor of more progressive taxation then.

YesYNot says

A transcript would be a help. It seemed to be an off hand comment in relation to a question about minimum wage for servers who also get tips

No one has any idea what the comment was or in response to what. You only have what bloomberg says it was.

John Bailo says

Just ask yourself...how many stockbrokers have farmhouses in Vermont...after 20 years of "Bern Socialism"

This makes less sense than an ironman comment and that's a very very low bar.