"I agree with you 100% (well, I guess I agree more with Mr. Mill, since I am totally against many of our drug laws, not only b/c they don't work, but also for the reasons you've stated)."
Hopefully we'll get to the point where they are unecessary, though I don't envision it in my lifetime.
"I don't however see the parallels between that and doing away with LL. If marijuana were legal, meaning it was available for legal use by adults (21+ I suppose), you would agree with making it just as hard, if not harder to get than cigarettes, right?"
I don't know, maybe it is going from High School in California to the Navy and then to Hawaii, but I have yet to live anywhere that weed is inaccessable. Fuck, more of my friends smoke weed than cigarettes. In fact, irony of irony's, I've actually been given shit by a couple of my pot head friends for smoking 'cancerous' cigars around them. Madness. In any case, I would keep it out of the hands of minors as weed, despite how old you are, is a disctracting influence. The high only lasts a few hours, or a night if you get really ripped, but it makes constructive action all but impossible.
"This is how I see it in comparison to LL. We're not making it any harder or easier for people to invest in companies. We'd only be changing the rules of the game, which is the same thing we do with legal substances such as alcohol and cigarettes."
And you don't see that as adverse to an economy which does, lets be honest, get alot of its drive from the stock market?
"You seem to be arguing that eliminating LL would discourage investment, because it would mean investment carried a little bit more risk. Well, to appeal to the gambler in you wink.gif, capitalism isn't supposed to be "fair," right Ror??"
I wouldn't mind, but then, I wouldn't mind making military service a requirement for citizenship. I know better than to force what I find acceptable on others, as my views are embraced by a minority, even amongst fellow conservatives.
"I agree with you to an extent. I find that campaign finance reform has resulted in similar results-- it's like a dam holding back the flood. Once you patch up one hole, the water of corruption simply finds another way to leak out (aren't I the poet this evening)."
Yes you are
"However, in regards to corporate corruption, I don't see this as more regulation, rather, I see this as decentralization. I see it as a way to instill more corporate control not in the often inept hands of the SEC, rather, in the hands of the small shareholders who own it. That sounds like good capitalism to me."
If it works sure, but if it doesn't?
"Ror, we live in a liberal society as a whole. We tried hands off economics back in the day, and frankly, it doesn't work."
Agreed.
"So the question is how much regulation is too much, and when does it become a hinderance as opposed to a benefit? I don't see eliminating LL as more "nannying," I see it as empowering. BTW, what are your opinions on the social security system? Do you believe in safety nets, or fiscal responsibility? I think I know the answer, and I'd like to know how eliminating LL and SS are vastly different."
Just like government, as little regulation as possible, and never more than what is strictly needed. And I would eliminate SS too, I used to have a quote from Calvin Coolidge in my sig. Do you remember it?
"The collection of any taxes which are not absolutely required for the public welfare is only a species of legalized larceny." - Calvin Coolidge (1872-1933)
Social Security is not an absolute requirement, either is welfare, or, for that matter, LL. But the difference between LL and the others is simple: LL benefits the individual at the cost of the corporation, the corporation which would not exist save for that individual, and I think that is its own merit.
"I'm confused. You don't like social safety nets because they result in government coddling, yet you like such coddling in the private sector....?"
Sure, why not? I don't support Universal Health Care, not because of the service it provides, but because of who is providing the service. Corporations are a great evil, but far far less of an evil than governmental control, if for no other reason, than that individuals are able to control corporations to a greater degree than they can their elected officials.
"They can choose not to invest, much like I can choose not to buy a car if I don't want to invest in its maintenance and upkeep."
And if enough people stopped buying cars, the automobile industry would disappear. If enough people don't invest. . .
"I think any system that encourages (mind you, ENCOURAGES, not mandates) a better citizenry is always better. "
I agree, but laws don't encourage behavioural patterns, they dictate them by force.
Threaded Mode
