Independence for Middle East Oil

[Durandal]

The government really has no right to force companies to make a minimum MPG.

Of course it does. The government enforces minimum safety and efficiency standards all the time. Enforcing a MPG minimum would be no different. Didn't you know that electronic devices have to meet such standards? OH NO! THE GOVERNMENT IS SCREWING THE POOR CORPORATIONS!

If people want to buy gas guzzlers, the government cannot stop them in a time of peace. It is funny that folks who think the government should are the biggest critics of other 'national security' measures like the Patriot Act.

Oh don't be a fucking moron. The PATRIOT Act is restriction of civil liberties on the basis of national security. Enforcing a MPG minimum would be yet another example of the government enforcing standards and operating minimums for consumer products, which is something it routinely does.

If i want something, and somebody wants to sell it to me, and it's not something like an atomic bomb, and I pay the appropriate sales tax, why the hell should i not be permitted to buy it?

There could be a variety of reasons. The product may not meet government-mandated minimum safety or efficiency standards, and thus the person in question would not be allowed to sell it. Minimum safety and efficiency standards are in your best interest.

But feel free to play the world's smallest violin for the poor, fledgling automotive mega-corporations, who aren't allowed to skimp on safety and efficiency so they can price-gouge consumers into oblivion to line their pockets at the expense of public health.

and what is 'corporate' and what is 'individual'? Is a one-person business like a tiny used bookstore any more 'corporate' than the UAW? Waitasec... yes. The tiny used bookstore makes money, just like a big business (assuming the big business is honest and not a corrupt piece of shit like Enron). The UAW in some places makes money (or takes it in an honest manner), but where there's no 'right to work', it FORCES auto workers to join regardless if they want to ('closed shop'). Also, someday the small one-man bookstore might be a big used bookstore enterprise, with shareholders and everything; the UAW is not a 'business' and thus it cannot.

'corporate' is just a collection of individuals who happen to be in a business.

No, a corporation is a legal individual. Legally, there is no distinction.

Both have three basic rights:

1. The right to make money
2. The right to spend money
3. The right to work for money

Nowhere does the right to seek profit by selling unsafe products exist. And gas-guzzling SUVs happen to be unsafe for the environment and thus for the population.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Danielsben, I consider myself a libertarian, but there are a few regulations that need to exist for the simple reason that libertarianism assumes an informed populace. People are fucking stupid. A government needs to have a few safety standards and in the case of oil, which the country literally needs in order to survive right now, should have a few common sense regulations on its usage.

Examples:

Laws againt Fraud, price fixing etc
Emissions standards for fossile fuels, and a minimum MPG
CLean water safety standards
Copyright laws
cant think of any more at this point....

Sometimes, political ideaology must yield to practicality.

[admiral_danielsben]

The government really has no right to force companies to make a minimum MPG.

Of course it does. The government enforces minimum safety and efficiency standards all the time. Enforcing a MPG minimum would be no different. Didn't you know that electronic devices have to meet such standards? OH NO! THE GOVERNMENT IS SCREWING THE POOR CORPORATIONS!

A question: if the corporations are legal individuals, then 'the government is screwing the poor individuals'? Wouldn't that be a violation of an individual's civil liberties?

And there is a difference - a big difference - between selling defective and obviously unsafe vehicles and vehicles that happen to use a gallon of fuel in less than 27.5 or whatever miles. Using more gas does not kill anyone.

If people want to buy gas guzzlers, the government cannot stop them in a time of peace. It is funny that folks who think the government should are the biggest critics of other 'national security' measures like the Patriot Act.

Oh don't be a fucking moron. The PATRIOT Act is restriction of civil liberties on the basis of national security. Enforcing a MPG minimum would be yet another example of the government enforcing standards and operating minimums for consumer products, which is something it routinely does.

Why is it so damn routine? 'Standards' without obvious measures in public safety are simply intrusions on one's liberties. Plus, it's not a 'one-size-fit's-all' world. There are people who NEED gas-guzzlers, some of whom won't be able to afford them if they are slapped with taxes. And if the government helps the 'poor' with special grants, they are redistributing wealth without the consent of those who will pay (which is essentially slavery). What right does the government have in restricting what an individual WANTs or NEEDs, anyway, if it doesn't fucking explode or something under ordinary circumstances?

If i want something, and somebody wants to sell it to me, and it's not something like an atomic bomb, and I pay the appropriate sales tax, why the hell should i not be permitted to buy it?

There could be a variety of reasons. The product may not meet government-mandated minimum safety or efficiency standards, and thus the person in question would not be allowed to sell it. Minimum safety and efficiency standards are in your best interest.

But feel free to play the world's smallest violin for the poor, fledgling automotive mega-corporations, who aren't allowed to skimp on safety and efficiency so they can price-gouge consumers into oblivion to line their pockets at the expense of public health. [/qupte]

SAFETY standards aren't a bad idea. EFFICIENCY - what efficiency? Why should the government be determining how efficient something works, if people are too stupid not to want something more efficient, or need the less efficient vehicle?

And what right do you have to determine what's in my 'best interest'? For that matter, what right does the government have in doing so? And if you apply it to other fields.... the government restricting my right to get pornography because it's not in my 'best interest'?

and what is 'corporate' and what is 'individual'? Is a one-person business like a tiny used bookstore any more 'corporate' than the UAW? Waitasec... yes. The tiny used bookstore makes money, just like a big business (assuming the big business is honest and not a corrupt piece of shit like Enron). The UAW in some places makes money (or takes it in an honest manner), but where there's no 'right to work', it FORCES auto workers to join regardless if they want to ('closed shop'). Also, someday the small one-man bookstore might be a big used bookstore enterprise, with shareholders and everything; the UAW is not a 'business' and thus it cannot.

'corporate' is just a collection of individuals who happen to be in a business.

No, a corporation is a legal individual. Legally, there is no distinction.

My point exactly. Except, as above, you seem to still differentiate, at least in verbage.

Both have three basic rights:

1. The right to make money
2. The right to spend money
3. The right to work for money

Nowhere does the right to seek profit by selling unsafe products exist. And gas-guzzling SUVs happen to be unsafe for the environment and thus for the population.

The usage of gasoline has rather little bearing on 'unsafe for the environment'. Consider how many vehicles with low emisssions w/o low gas mileage - and vice versa. There's a kind of efficiency you don't touch on - engines can produce different amounts of emissions off the same tank of gas. And the only other danger to the environment posed by burning oil is oil spills - a safety issue.

And, while evidence for global warming exists, it's not proven it was caused by humans.

[admiral_danielsben]

Danielsben, I consider myself a libertarian, but there are a few regulations that need to exist for the simple reason that libertarianism assumes an informed populace. People are fucking stupid. A government needs to have a few safety standards and in the case of oil, which the country literally needs in order to survive right now, should have a few common sense regulations on its usage.

Examples:

Laws againt Fraud, price fixing etc
Emissions standards for fossile fuels, and a minimum MPG
CLean water safety standards
Copyright laws
cant think of any more at this point....

Sometimes, political ideaology must yield to practicality.

Of the things you mention, only the 'minimum MPG' (no obvious safety problem) and 'price fixing' (why shouldn't two businesses deal that way - if you don't like it, open your own!) is overly impugning of civil liberties. The 'emmissions standards' could be justified, albeit somewhat with difficulty, as a safety issue. Clean water standards should be handled locally, but are nonetheless a safety issue.

And laws against fraud, as well as copyright laws, are needed. Copyrighting Microsoft code might be a bit of a stretch (it should really be patented), but trademarks and anti-fraud legislation are a function of the government and protect both producers and consumers alike.

[Illuminatus Primus]

What a loon.

Why shouldn't two companies price fix? Open your own?

Sorry fuckmook, seniors in this country have difficulty opening their own multi-national pharmecutical corporations.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Of the things you mention, only the 'minimum MPG' (no obvious safety problem) and 'price fixing' (why shouldn't two businesses deal that way - if you don't like it, open your own!)

Beause it requires a shitload of capital in an ohligopolic(sp) system like ours to open say, a pharmaceutical company. Not only that, but price fixing does away witht eh competition which keeps saftey and quality of goods up in a free market system. That is why.

The problem is, Gasoline is something that at this point, our soceity needs to survive. Raising prices like we would do in order to combat a shortage will literally kill people. While raising prices in certain food items after a bad harvest isnt bad due to substitute goods, no viable alternative exists right now for fossil fuels.

The 'emmissions standards' could be justified, albeit somewhat with difficulty, as a safety issue. Clean water standards should be handled locally, but are nonetheless a safety issue.

Yes, yes they are.

[Durandal]

A question: if the corporations are legal individuals, then 'the government is screwing the poor individuals'? Wouldn't that be a violation of an individual's civil liberties?

Corporations are individuals, but don't pretend that every person is exactly the same in the eyes of the government. Corporations are people who sell products, basically, and they have to follow certain rules that people who don't sell products don't have to.

And there is a difference - a big difference - between selling defective and obviously unsafe vehicles and vehicles that happen to use a gallon of fuel in less than 27.5 or whatever miles. Using more gas does not kill anyone.

Ah, so the Libertarian metric for whether or not something is bad is whether or not it kills anyone? Using inefficient cars is a waste of gas, period, and in reality (a place Libertarians are apparently unfamiliar with), the US is dependent upon foreign oil. And that oil just happens to be controlled by a few royal families who just happen to be religious fundamentalist nutcases who've formed a cartel and have us by the balls. The less dependent we are on them for oil, the better, and enforcing a minimum MPG on cars like sedans and SUVs is one way to make that a reality.

Why is it so damn routine? 'Standards' without obvious measures in public safety are simply intrusions on one's liberties. Plus, it's not a 'one-size-fit's-all' world. There are people who NEED gas-guzzlers, some of whom won't be able to afford them if they are slapped with taxes. And if the government helps the 'poor' with special grants, they are redistributing wealth without the consent of those who will pay (which is essentially slavery).

Paying taxes is not slavery, you blithering idiot. I had this exchange with BlkberryTheGreat less than a week ago. It was a stupid claim then, and it's a stupid claim now.

What right does the government have in restricting what an individual WANTs or NEEDs, anyway, if it doesn't fucking explode or something under ordinary circumstances?

It's not restricting what an individual wants or needs, because no one needs an SUV that gets shitty gas mileage. The largest market segment for SUVs is, naturally, soccer moms. And you'll be hard-pressed to convince me that they need one of those gas-guzzling pieces of shit as opposed to a mini-van.

SAFETY standards aren't a bad idea. EFFICIENCY - what efficiency? Why should the government be determining how efficient something works, if people are too stupid not to want something more efficient, or need the less efficient vehicle?

Because low efficiency is wasteful, you idiot. And here in the real world, a place you are apparently unfamiliar with, we have a finite supply of fuel resources. So it's in everyone's best interest to conserve.

And what right do you have to determine what's in my 'best interest'? For that matter, what right does the government have in doing so? And if you apply it to other fields.... the government restricting my right to get pornography because it's not in my 'best interest'?

Oh please. Viewing pornography causes no objective harm. Wasting fuel resources, however, does. Wanna know why? Because it's fucking wasteful. Do you think that we have an infinite supply of oil? Or does the Libertarian mantra go something like, "I'm the only person in existence, and the only thing that matters is there here and now"?

My point exactly. Except, as above, you seem to still differentiate, at least in verbage.

And not all persons obey the same rules, you idiot. If I don't sell products, I don't have to worry about sales tax, now do I? If I don't own a gun, I don't have to worry about registering my gun ownership, do I? If I don't own a car, I don't have to worry about renewing its registration, do I?

But corporations are people who have to worry about meeting government standards for the products they sell. Deal with it.

The usage of gasoline has rather little bearing on 'unsafe for the environment'. Consider how many vehicles with low emisssions w/o low gas mileage - and vice versa. There's a kind of efficiency you don't touch on - engines can produce different amounts of emissions off the same tank of gas. And the only other danger to the environment posed by burning oil is oil spills - a safety issue.

And those low emissions are compensated for because you have to fill the fucking thing up twice as much.

Of the things you mention, only the 'minimum MPG' (no obvious safety problem) and 'price fixing' (why shouldn't two businesses deal that way - if you don't like it, open your own!) is overly impugning of civil liberties. The 'emmissions standards' could be justified, albeit somewhat with difficulty, as a safety issue. Clean water standards should be handled locally, but are nonetheless a safety issue.

Excuse me? So if the Big Five record companies are fixing CD prices (which is precisely what they did), you should open your own record label? I swear, you get better and better every minute.

In this wonderful place called "Reality," Joe Consumer (who is most likely to be upset over price fixing) has to worry about raising a family, putting his kids through school, paying the rent and going into work. He's not going to launch an idealistic crusade because a he has to pay $20 for Britney's latest crap.

Even if he does want to open his own label, do you have any suggestions as to where he'll get the money? Suppose he does manage to open his own label. How is he going to pay artists the millions of dollars they'd expect from a label? How is he going to compete with a cartel which has been found guilty of price fixing? They can simply undercut him in your world, and there's absolutely nothing he can do about it, because in Libertarian World, the recording industry would be totally unregulated.

But of course, only an idiot would do such a thing. Joe Consumer has a family to worry about, and his responsibilities to them take precedence over his apparent civil obligation to change an entire fucking industry if he doesn't like the way things are done.

Is it just me, or are these Libertarian types generally single males with absolutely no concept of responsibility to anyone but themselves? The ideology would certainly fit.

[admiral_danielsben]

What a loon.

Why shouldn't two companies price fix? Open your own?

Sorry fuckmook, seniors in this country have difficulty opening their own multi-national pharmecutical corporations.

Why can't seniors open a local pharmaceutical producer, especially if a group pools together? Because government regulations make it damn near impossible to accomplish - by over-regulating so that it takes a decade or more to produce a medicine, only large multinational corporations can take the hit and last long enough to make money.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What a loon.

Why shouldn't two companies price fix? Open your own?

Sorry fuckmook, seniors in this country have difficulty opening their own multi-national pharmecutical corporations.

Why can't seniors open a local pharmaceutical producer, especially if a group pools together? Because government regulations make it damn near impossible to accomplish - by over-regulating so that it takes a decade or more to produce a medicine, only large multinational corporations can take the hit and last long enough to make money.

And without the 10 years of lab testing, and proofs, you end up with a drug that has horrible side effects and KILLS PEOPLE.

[Gil Hamilton]

Why can't seniors open a local pharmaceutical producer, especially if a group pools together? Because government regulations make it damn near impossible to accomplish - by over-regulating so that it takes a decade or more to produce a medicine, only large multinational corporations can take the hit and last long enough to make money.

You think that it's "government regulations" that prevent senior citizens from opening there own multi-million dollar pharmaceutical firm to compete with established pharmaceutical corporations? It sounds like you are doing something with chemicals found in a pharmacy, but it's not selling it.

[admiral_danielsben]

A question: if the corporations are legal individuals, then 'the government is screwing the poor individuals'? Wouldn't that be a violation of an individual's civil liberties?

Corporations are individuals, but don't pretend that every person is exactly the same in the eyes of the government. Corporations are people who sell products, basically, and they have to follow certain rules that people who don't sell products don't have to.

And there is a difference - a big difference - between selling defective and obviously unsafe vehicles and vehicles that happen to use a gallon of fuel in less than 27.5 or whatever miles. Using more gas does not kill anyone.

Ah, so the Libertarian metric for whether or not something is bad is whether or not it kills anyone? Using inefficient cars is a waste of gas, period, and in reality (a place Libertarians are apparently unfamiliar with), the US is dependent upon foreign oil. And that oil just happens to be controlled by a few royal families who just happen to be religious fundamentalist nutcases who've formed a cartel and have us by the balls. The less dependent we are on them for oil, the better, and enforcing a minimum MPG on cars like sedans and SUVs is one way to make that a reality.

Very simple ways to combat this. 1. Open more local oil facilities, by rolling back the draconian restrictions. 2. lobby the government to establish tariffs on foriegn oil. 3. develop cheap non-oil alternatives. A car that burns corn oil?

Why is it so damn routine? 'Standards' without obvious measures in public safety are simply intrusions on one's liberties. Plus, it's not a 'one-size-fit's-all' world. There are people who NEED gas-guzzlers, some of whom won't be able to afford them if they are slapped with taxes. And if the government helps the 'poor' with special grants, they are redistributing wealth without the consent of those who will pay (which is essentially slavery).

Paying taxes is not slavery, you blithering idiot. I had this exchange with BlkberryTheGreat less than a week ago. It was a stupid claim then, and it's a stupid claim now.

Taxes are not slavery. Tariffs, sales taxes, fines, whatever. INCOME TAXES are redistribution of wealth. Taking from those who have money (oftentimes because they, i don't know, EARNED it) is. Especially income taxes - they punish those who earn wealth, but not those who have it an loll around doing nothing. Having a man work for the livelihood of another is the definition of slavery.

What right does the government have in restricting what an individual WANTs or NEEDs, anyway, if it doesn't fucking explode or something under ordinary circumstances?

It's not restricting what an individual wants or needs, because no one needs an SUV that gets shitty gas mileage. The largest market segment for SUVs is, naturally, soccer moms. And you'll be hard-pressed to convince me that they need one of those gas-guzzling pieces of shit as opposed to a mini-van.

So? If a soccer mom wants the SUV over the minivan? You're restricting what she wants.

SAFETY standards aren't a bad idea. EFFICIENCY - what efficiency? Why should the government be determining how efficient something works, if people are too stupid not to want something more efficient, or need the less efficient vehicle?

Because low efficiency is wasteful, you idiot. And here in the real world, a place you are apparently unfamiliar with, we have a finite supply of fuel resources. So it's in everyone's best interest to conserve.

When prices go up for oil when it runs low (assuming it does - it might not happen for centuries), alternatives will become more economical. So will conservation. It's called 'supply and demand'.

And what right do you have to determine what's in my 'best interest'? For that matter, what right does the government have in doing so? And if you apply it to other fields.... the government restricting my right to get pornography because it's not in my 'best interest'?

Oh please. Viewing pornography causes no objective harm. Wasting fuel resources, however, does. Wanna know why? Because it's fucking wasteful. Do you think that we have an infinite supply of oil? Or does the Libertarian mantra go something like, "I'm the only person in existence, and the only thing that matters is there here and now"?

Our oil supply is not infinite - but there's a lot of oil yet to be exploited, especially counting more difficult-to-find resources that will become more economical as the easier ones run low and prices go up. And my mantra is precisely NOT that. It is "Why should another person work for my livelihood, or I work for theirs?".

And 'objective harm'? Don't you know that pornography corrupts kid's minds? of course, that's no reason to ban it.

My point exactly. Except, as above, you seem to still differentiate, at least in verbage.

And not all persons obey the same rules, you idiot. If I don't sell products, I don't have to worry about sales tax, now do I? If I don't own a gun, I don't have to worry about registering my gun ownership, do I? If I don't own a car, I don't have to worry about renewing its registration, do I?

But corporations are people who have to worry about meeting government standards for the products they sell. Deal with it.

Standards for what? Safety, i can accept. but efficiency? Let's say there are some customers who want something because it is inefficient (ya know, like a Dodge Viper). If there were strict restrictions on fuel, DaimlerChrysler would have to either sell fewer Vipers or more Neons - with nothing to do with demand, just regulation.

The usage of gasoline has rather little bearing on 'unsafe for the environment'. Consider how many vehicles with low emisssions w/o low gas mileage - and vice versa. There's a kind of efficiency you don't touch on - engines can produce different amounts of emissions off the same tank of gas. And the only other danger to the environment posed by burning oil is oil spills - a safety issue.

And those low emissions are compensated for because you have to fill the fucking thing up twice as much.

So?

Of the things you mention, only the 'minimum MPG' (no obvious safety problem) and 'price fixing' (why shouldn't two businesses deal that way - if you don't like it, open your own!) is overly impugning of civil liberties. The 'emmissions standards' could be justified, albeit somewhat with difficulty, as a safety issue. Clean water standards should be handled locally, but are nonetheless a safety issue.

Excuse me? So if the Big Five record companies are fixing CD prices (which is precisely what they did), you should open your own record label? I swear, you get better and better every minute.

YES! Get a loan, a CD burner, a microphone, a couple of budding neighborhood bands, and a few hundred CD's, and start selling them online or in a local store or even in front of a grocery store or something. If the price-fixing is set at above market price, you might be able to squeak in below those big bands. If they don't change their policy, they'll have you for competition.

In this wonderful place called "Reality," Joe Consumer (who is most likely to be upset over price fixing) has to worry about raising a family, putting his kids through school, paying the rent and going into work. He's not going to launch an idealistic crusade because a he has to pay $20 for Britney's latest crap.

Even if he does want to open his own label, do you have any suggestions as to where he'll get the money? Suppose he does manage to open his own label. How is he going to pay artists the millions of dollars they'd expect from a label? How is he going to compete with a cartel which has been found guilty of price fixing? They can simply undercut him in your world, and there's absolutely nothing he can do about it, because in Libertarian World, the recording industry would be totally unregulated.

If they can undercut him, why should you worry? And you don't start out with the best artists. Like i said, you can try neighborhood kids who'd be happy to get a few bucks plus a portion of the proceeds. When you have more money and are bigger, you can sell more.

And there are tons of small businessmen who launch their own 'crusades'. Some of them are actually, i don't know, successful? Remember how, back in the 1970's, a bunch of college drop-outs began to compete with major corporations like IBM and Sperry-Rand? Where do you think Apple Computer, among many other companies, came from? SMALL BUSINESS!

But of course, only an idiot would do such a thing. Joe Consumer has a family to worry about, and his responsibilities to them take precedence over his apparent civil obligation to change an entire fucking industry if he doesn't like the way things are done.

So, if he doesn't want to, he doesn't have to. If his (or her) family is more important, he does not.

Is it just me, or are these Libertarian types generally single males with absolutely no concept of responsibility to anyone but themselves? The ideology would certainly fit.

Those with less responsibilities (young singles) are more willing to take risks, due to the nature of them being responsible only to themselves. That is why more small businesses are formed by them, although there are many couples w/o children who might be willing to take the risk *together*.

Why in God's name should I be responsible to anyone besides myself and those who I care for, anyway? What right do you have to say 'you greedy idiots must pay for others'?

And I'm glad you find me amusing. Or maybe not. I really don't care. I'd rather simply get on with the debate. Besides, i think 'libertarian lunatic' would be an excellent custom title, don't you think?

[Durandal]

Very simple ways to combat this. 1. Open more local oil facilities, by rolling back the draconian restrictions. 2. lobby the government to establish tariffs on foriegn oil. 3. develop cheap non-oil alternatives. A car that burns corn oil?

1 requires destroying wild-life and entire ecosystems. The reason Middle Eastern oil is so attractive is because it's found in the middle of a fucking desert.

Good luck with 2. The Middle East would never put up with it because they know they've got us by the balls.

3 requires time, money and research, and lots of all three.

Taxes are not slavery. Tariffs, sales taxes, fines, whatever. INCOME TAXES are redistribution of wealth. Taking from those who have money (oftentimes because they, i don't know, EARNED it) is. Especially income taxes - they punish those who earn wealth, but not those who have it an loll around doing nothing.

That's ridiculous. Slavery is being forced to work for no compensation, you idiot. The government is not robbing people of all of their compensation; they're taxing it, because that's what governments do. You and I might not like the income tax, and might both be against it, but equating it to slavery is absurd.

Having a man work for the livelihood of another is the definition of slavery.

No, the definition of slavery is work for no compensation. Under your idiotic definition, anyone who works for anyone else is a slave.

So? If a soccer mom wants the SUV over the minivan? You're restricting what she wants.

Because she wants something that's wasteful of a product in a world where we do not have very much of said product, much less infinite resources of it.

When prices go up for oil when it runs low (assuming it does - it might not happen for centuries), alternatives will become more economical. So will conservation. It's called 'supply and demand'.

And what happens to all those low-MPG cars when the shit hits the fan? Will everyone just patiently wait for an alternative fuel source to just appear? The idea is to have a smooth transition from oil to something else that's more easily renewable. Waiting for oil prices to skyrocket before doing anything is a stupid idea, as is allowing our current, very limited supply to be wasted away, banking on the hopes and prayers that an alternative energy source will appear before oil gets kicked out the door.

Our oil supply is not infinite - but there's a lot of oil yet to be exploited, especially counting more difficult-to-find resources that will become more economical as the easier ones run low and prices go up.

And these difficult-to-find ones are guaranteed to exist? We're only going to address the problem when oil prices skyrocket? The idea here is to make our existing supply last as long as possible, so we can find alternative fuel sources in time and not have to worry about running around looking for untapped reserves.

And my mantra is precisely NOT that. It is "Why should another person work for my livelihood, or I work for theirs?".

I guess you never plan to raise a family then.

Standards for what? Safety, i can accept. but efficiency? Let's say there are some customers who want something because it is inefficient (ya know, like a Dodge Viper). If there were strict restrictions on fuel, DaimlerChrysler would have to either sell fewer Vipers or more Neons - with nothing to do with demand, just regulation.

Different standards for different classes of cars. I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

So?

So our supply is still being dwindled, and the air is still being polluted just as much. Using less gas means less air pollution.

YES! Get a loan, a CD burner, a microphone, a couple of budding neighborhood bands, and a few hundred CD's, and start selling them online or in a local store or even in front of a grocery store or something. If the price-fixing is set at above market price, you might be able to squeak in below those big bands. If they don't change their policy, they'll have you for competition.

Dear God, you must be delusional.

If they can undercut him, why should you worry? And you don't start out with the best artists. Like i said, you can try neighborhood kids who'd be happy to get a few bucks plus a portion of the proceeds. When you have more money and are bigger, you can sell more.

Tell you what: Why don't you adopt this business plan and tell me if it works out?

And there are tons of small businessmen who launch their own 'crusades'. Some of them are actually, i don't know, successful? Remember how, back in the 1970's, a bunch of college drop-outs began to compete with major corporations like IBM and Sperry-Rand? Where do you think Apple Computer, among many other companies, came from? SMALL BUSINESS!

And there are tons more who fail dismally.

Those with less responsibilities (young singles) are more willing to take risks, due to the nature of them being responsible only to themselves. That is why more small businesses are formed by them, although there are many couples w/o children who might be willing to take the risk *together*.

Why in God's name should I be responsible to anyone besides myself and those who I care for, anyway? What right do you have to say 'you greedy idiots must pay for others'?

You live in a free society, but there must exist a balance between societal need and individual liberty. At the end of the day, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

And I'm glad you find me amusing. Or maybe not. I really don't care. I'd rather simply get on with the debate. Besides, i think 'libertarian lunatic' would be an excellent custom title, don't you think?

More like "Crack-Smoking Moron." Like I said, run off and try forming your own record label. I'll sit here and patiently await news of your imminent success.

[SirNitram]

I see our Libertarian Moron has entirely evaded my reply. It must be because I point out that Corporations have no rights, and he can't refute that..

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

YES! Get a loan, a CD burner, a microphone, a couple of budding neighborhood bands, and a few hundred CD's, and start selling them online or in a local store or even in front of a grocery store or something. If the price-fixing is set at above market price, you might be able to squeak in below those big bands. If they don't change their policy, they'll have you for competition.

Thanks. I'll be putting that in my sig as the fucking most moronic sugestion I've heard in months.

[admiral_danielsben]

I see our Libertarian Moron has entirely evaded my reply. It must be because I point out that Corporations have no rights, and he can't refute that..

Yes, I can. Corporations are individuals - groups of individuals. Therefore, corporations have individual rights.

[SirNitram]

I see our Libertarian Moron has entirely evaded my reply. It must be because I point out that Corporations have no rights, and he can't refute that..

Yes, I can. Corporations are individuals - groups of individuals. Therefore, corporations have individual rights.

Lookie there! No evidence at all; just a bald faced lie in an attempt to save face.

Furthermore, even if we accept your completely nonsensical non-answer, there is still no basis for the rights you claimed exist! There is no 'right to make money' anywhere in any US legal document, or even historical document. Similarly, the 'Right to spend money' and the 'right to work for money' are completely manufactured by Libertarian indoctorine.

Finally, just because Corporations are small collections of individuals does not grant them rights that supercede that of the populace at large; you know, those people who would suffer because of increased pollution and gas prices.

In short, Danielsben, you are full of shit. Have a very nice day, and feel free to try again and fail miserably anytime.

[admiral_danielsben]

YES! Get a loan, a CD burner, a microphone, a couple of budding neighborhood bands, and a few hundred CD's, and start selling them online or in a local store or even in front of a grocery store or something. If the price-fixing is set at above market price, you might be able to squeak in below those big bands. If they don't change their policy, they'll have you for competition.

Thanks. I'll be putting that in my sig as the fucking most moronic sugestion I've heard in months.

Thank you for putting that piece of wisdom into your sig. I am considering putting it in my sig, as well. That's how stubborn i am.

Yes, i'm such a 'block-head' that I think it's a good idea. And apparently, you are calling me a moron for it. If you really want to refute my ideas, respond to them! Duranadal at least had that much sense. If you don't like something, do something about it, for god's sakes! That's the whole point of my suggestion.

Perhaps you don't have the time, resources, or ability to take such risks, or maybe you just don't want to establish a business. So I will suggest a less extreme solution: don't buy it! With very few exceptions, you can do without something. You don't really need that Brittney Spears CD, do you? For gasoline or other more essential goods, you can drive 10 miles to a cheaper gas station (or even bike to work, or walk, or take a bus, if possible). You can do the same for a grocery store (drive to another one), or you can buy from a wholesale warehouse and get the 60-packs, or you can buy everything from a gas station or Wal-Mart, or you could even grow your own veggies and hunt and fish (if that is what you choose). The point is, choice.

And as in 'price-fixing' i don't mean a guild that forces all businesses to charge the same price. I mean two individual stores who decide to do so. Of course, if their price is too expensive, either alternatives will come up or folks will stop buying it.

And the businesses must be honest about it. If they try to say they aren't price-fixing but they are, that's a problem. If they announce it to everyone, everyone will know it - even those who will avoid the businesses or start their own in response.

[SirNitram]

I request proof that the 'magic hand of the free market' Danielsben worships actually works like he says he does. Economics theory is a shiny thing, yes, but it bears such a tiny relation with reality as to bear evidence for it's claimed capabilities. And no, economic professors waxing poetic mean nothing except that economics professors like economic theory; I want evidence that it works in the real world.

[admiral_danielsben]

I see our Libertarian Moron has entirely evaded my reply. It must be because I point out that Corporations have no rights, and he can't refute that..

Yes, I can. Corporations are individuals - groups of individuals. Therefore, corporations have individual rights.

Lookie there! No evidence at all; just a bald faced lie in an attempt to save face.

Furthermore, even if we accept your completely nonsensical non-answer, there is still no basis for the rights you claimed exist! There is no 'right to make money' anywhere in any US legal document, or even historical document. Similarly, the 'Right to spend money' and the 'right to work for money' are completely manufactured by Libertarian indoctorine.

Finally, just because Corporations are small collections of individuals does not grant them rights that supercede that of the populace at large; you know, those people who would suffer because of increased pollution and gas prices.

In short, Danielsben, you are full of shit. Have a very nice day, and feel free to try again and fail miserably anytime.

Could you tone down on the insults? I'm trying to debate, not use name-calling.

More seriously,
The constitution (or really, the 9th and 10th Amendments) gives all rights not mentioned in it (or the amendmentS) to the states, or the people. since it says nothing about money. Therefore, people have a right to make money (unless the states abridge it). And also, the constitution isn't everything. Note that the 16th Amendment permits income taxes; I disagree with the concept behind them. 'the right to make money' was NOT respected by any authoritarian society (whether the Soviet Union or feudal England). The relatively free societies respected and still respect it. (If you look at history, the most advanced nations have traditionally had the freest economies. The Arabs in AD 1000 had a freer economy than Europe did. England had a freer economy than most of Europe in the 18th century and by the nineteenth was the most prosporous. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the US has been among the freest, and went from a coastal backwater to a global superpower). A truly free economy, by its nature, respects the right to make money, spend it, and work for it. If not, it's not really a free economy, but either a mixed economy (which is what most are today, they partially respect those rights) or a command economy (which do not respect them at all). A free economy almost always respects other rights as well - free speech (save libel or slander), free religion, etc. And those freedoms also lead to prosperity - Spain's economy, even with new world gold, largely collapsed after they banished Jews and Muslims and sicced the Inquisition on people. In 1400, Spain was one of the wealthiest states in Europe, and by 1900 it was one of the poorest (at least in Western Europe).

And in regards to 'suffering', government policies (and UN policies, too) have caused as much if not more than any in history. Limits can kill, even ones that are made for public safety reasons (sometimes). Banning DDT, for instance, resulted in the re-emergence of malaria in the 1970s-1990s. The question is: were the cancer cases eliminated by banning DDT worth the added deaths from malaria? And should governments or the UN be ones to decide that? May I also point out how the high wages and benefits demanded by major unions like UAW have resulted in companies establishing themselves overseas and leaving the US, resulting in unemployment - which, even counting 'welfare' is a considerably worse state than a lower-paying job. And the wages charged by the 'benedict arnold's are considerably higher than those which could be earned by those same 3rd-world workers as farmers or vagrants.

Whenever you find yourself asking, "there oughtta be a law..." you should tell yourself: "Why should there be a law? Would the costs of the law be worth it? What would the costs be, for that matter? Would it cause more suffering than it would solve?"

[SirNitram]

Could you tone down on the insults? I'm trying to debate, not use name-calling.

No. You can whine about style over substance, but I will be politer when you become smarter.

More seriously,
The constitution (or really, the 9th and 10th Amendments) gives all rights not mentioned in it (or the amendmentS) to the states, or the people. since it says nothing about money.

Irrelevent babble snipped. You are flat out lying again! Corporations do not get rights. There is no scrap of paper or reliable precident for 'Uh, there's no direct reference so corporations get it!', no matter how much you may masturbate to your propaganda.

Again, even if we believe your lies that corporations get rights, you are committing the same fallacies the 'War Of Northern Aggression! We Was Innocent!' retards do. The 9th and 10th Amendments are not No-Limits Fallacies, please stop employing them as such.

And in regards to 'suffering', government policies (and UN policies, too) have caused as much if not more than any in history.

Is it Tu Quoue, or Red herring? It matters little. A fallacy.

Whenever you find yourself asking, "there oughtta be a law..." you should tell yourself: "Why should there be a law? Would the costs of the law be worth it? What would the costs be, for that matter? Would it cause more suffering than it would solve?"

When you show that demanding vehicles not be wasteful is harmful, you will have a smidgen, a tiny scrap, an infinitismal start of an argument. Right now all you have is fallacies. Go away.

[Guardsman Bass]

I've got a question; suppose you DID reduce the amount of oil used by the U.S. Would that actually eliminate dependence on foreign sources(i.e. is Saudi oil cheaper than homegrown varieties)?

[Durandal]

Perhaps you don't have the time, resources, or ability to take such risks, or maybe you just don't want to establish a business. So I will suggest a less extreme solution: don't buy it!

You could say the same about Windows or practically anything. At the end of the day, you want it, and it's not fair that you should have to pay obscene amounts of money for it. People are entitled to a fair compensation for their goods and services; they are not entitled to form cartels which fix prices to maintain atmospherically-high prices on goods that cost far less to produce.

The thing about corporations is that they automatically have the upper hand in a free market. In a totally unregulated market, corporations can simply gouge consumers all they want, form cartels to ensure that the consumer has nowhere else to go and stomp out any competition that arises by undercutting it. Witness Wal-Mart. And if they could get away with such behavior, they would, and in some cases, have. They have the money to ensure the perpetuation of such a situation. Corporations are single-minded entities. They care about profits and nothing else. Why the fuck do you think labor unions were formed? Because white-collar businessmen can't be trusted to give a fuck about the people who work for them or the people they sell to.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

YES! Get a loan, a CD burner, a microphone, a couple of budding neighborhood bands, and a few hundred CD's, and start selling them online or in a local store or even in front of a grocery store or something. If the price-fixing is set at above market price, you might be able to squeak in below those big bands. If they don't change their policy, they'll have you for competition.

Thanks. I'll be putting that in my sig as the fucking most moronic sugestion I've heard in months.

Thank you for putting that piece of wisdom into your sig. I am considering putting it in my sig, as well. That's how stubborn i am.

Yes, i'm such a 'block-head' that I think it's a good idea. And apparently, you are calling me a moron for it. If you really want to refute my ideas, respond to them! Duranadal at least had that much sense. If you don't like something, do something about it, for god's sakes! That's the whole point of my suggestion.

It's so fucking obvious describing its stupidity is difficult. Basically no one will buy enough CDs of your local band to even break even, never mind start threatening the record business. Even if you can get a good band (who would probably sell their songs to a real company not you) you'll never sell enough to start impacting their sales because you'll only have a handful of titles and nothing big and popular. Hell even if you did the recording company could just offer that band a better deal.

Perhaps you don't have the time, resources, or ability to take such risks, or maybe you just don't want to establish a business. So I will suggest a less extreme solution: don't buy it! With very few exceptions, you can do without something. You don't really need that Brittney Spears CD, do you?

Your solution to bring down record companies is to not buy CDs. Brilliant. Except for the vast majority of people will just accept $20 CDs and buy them anyway.

For gasoline or other more essential goods, you can drive 10 miles to a cheaper gas station (or even bike to work, or walk, or take a bus, if possible).

Cheaper gas station? The point of this is price fixing! And SUPRISE! Many people cannot bike to work or take a bus, never mind walk.

You can do the same for a grocery store (drive to another one), or you can buy from a wholesale warehouse and get the 60-packs, or you can buy everything from a gas station or Wal-Mart, or you could even grow your own veggies and hunt and fish (if that is what you choose). The point is, choice.

Oops, except for "choice" here means "buy over priced needs" or buy nothing but shit.

And as in 'price-fixing' i don't mean a guild that forces all businesses to charge the same price. I mean two individual stores who decide to do so. Of course, if their price is too expensive, either alternatives will come up or folks will stop buying it.

Too bad that never happens.

And the businesses must be honest about it. If they try to say they aren't price-fixing but they are, that's a problem. If they announce it to everyone, everyone will know it - even those who will avoid the businesses or start their own in response.

Of course no one admits price fixing.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Look at Microsoft. If you want to get an OS that works with all major software you need to spends hundreds of dollars! Other small businesses do exist with their own OSs (Linux) but what do you know, Microsoft ha s pretty much all control of the market and can do whatever it wants.

[RedImperator]

I see our Libertarian Moron has entirely evaded my reply. It must be because I point out that Corporations have no rights, and he can't refute that..

Yes, I can. Corporations are individuals - groups of individuals. Therefore, corporations have individual rights.

Lookie there! No evidence at all; just a bald faced lie in an attempt to save face.

Under the law, corporations ARE considered individuals. It's a legal fiction that was basically created so that if the company goes under, the personal assets of the people in charge and the shareholders aren't at risk. A corporation doesn't have to be a huge thing--about 60% of the family farms my company (which IS a huge corporation) deals with are incorporated themselves.

Note that I am in no way supporting danielsben's claim that corporations are entitled to the same rights as actual human beings. Individual rights are unalienable; corporate rights exist, theoretically, so they can function in such a way that they're beneficial for society (by eliminating personal risk from investing) and are granted by the state.