Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Since the Kochs are the bad guys

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about 7 months ago

User Journal 60

Since the Kochs are the bad guys, I'm sure my stable of trusty analysts can help me see where these free market principles are insincerely or incorrectly spouted:

"I think one of the biggest problems we have in the country is this rampant cronyism where all these large companies are into smash-and-grab, short-term profits, and that's true even at the local level," Koch explained.

Since the Kochs are the bad guys, I'm sure my stable of trusty analysts can help me see where these free market principles are insincerely or incorrectly spouted:

"I think one of the biggest problems we have in the country is this rampant cronyism where all these large companies are into smash-and-grab, short-term profits, and that's true even at the local level," Koch explained.

Companies have created an environment in which entering an industry comes at a serious cost that off-sets innovation and economic development. Cab drivers can pay anywhere from $100,000 or $300,000 to get a medallion to drive a taxi, while hairdressers must pay for a two-year education for a license to style hair.

Koch freely admits the subsidies in place are ideal for large companies like his because they make more money through a marketplace that is difficult to enter.

Read the whole thing.

cancel ×

60 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 7 months ago | (#46388505)

That large scale capitalism automatically leads to crony capitalism, no matter what you do.

Piling profits in that way, makes an irresistible target for corrupt C-class executives, corrupt investors, and corrupt politicians, all who want a piece of the pie. The corrupt large scale globalist marketplace is the result, and it isn't just here in the United States, it's everywhere.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

Arker (91948) | about 7 months ago | (#46388691)

To a certain degree I actually think you are right.

But there is a very dramatic difference in the level of danger posed by crony capitalism itself, by itself, and a much higher level of danger posed by crony capitalism plus the kind of regulatory systems that we have. In isolation it's annoying but perhaps not fatal. But given a regulatory system to capture, the potential damage increases exponentially.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 7 months ago | (#46389111)

The regulatory systems that we have were invented, bought, and paid for by the crony capitalists. They are the natural result of a government bought and paid for by the merchants.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

Arker (91948) | about 7 months ago | (#46389177)

Yes, and my point is that given such a system it's impossible for it to be otherwise. Even if you had somehow managed an 'immaculate conception' and had a perfect system on day 1, no corruption at all, if that system has regulatory powers then it WILL be captured, given time.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 7 months ago | (#46389245)

Even if the regulatory powers are specifically denied, they will be captured, given enough time and money. They're just too profitable not to.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#46389407)

"they will be captured" only if the rest of the voters are asleep at the switch.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 7 months ago | (#46389869)

What the voters want doesn't matter- at all. It takes money to get your name on the ballot; both sides are already bought long before the election.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#46390013)

You're sounding like fustakrakich, or a Calvinist.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 7 months ago | (#46390153)

It is more that I am rather skeptical of democracy, at least in the democratic republic format. That is one reason I long for more subsidiarity- you still have the same problem, but the area and number of people involved is far smaller.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#46390627)

It's the worst form of government, except every other.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 7 months ago | (#46390995)

:-)

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 7 months ago | (#46394269)

And the best argument against it is a five minute discussion with the average voter. You wanted an alternative, I offered it to you... but, you know, monkey trap and all... You want an honest government, pick a number. You might get lucky.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#46395271)

I guess my surprise is that your simple phrasing of the obvious truth here on /. hasn't turned into a tsunami of reform, washing away all other silliness before it.
Must be some other drivers afoot, I reckon.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46401291)

Yeah, well, it's kinda like telling reluctant parents to get their kids vaccinated. I fully recognize I'm not getting through, but since I have lots of free time, I see no harm in carrying on.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46403683)

"If it makes you happy. . ."

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46412615)

Yes, democracy is a failure, but not for the reasons you say. It doesn't matter if "both sides are bought and paid for." It matters if you rely on people.

So, the people are gullible enough to believe the same lies over and over. But even if they weren't, the people would be stupid or short-sighted enough to still vote for their short-term selfish gains, depriving others of their rights in a heartbeat if it got them what they wanted.

That's why we need a republic. We got the first half: the process and the rules and the laws. But we don't have the second half: a judiciary willing to enforce those laws against the government.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46416141)

But we don't have the second half: a judiciary willing to enforce those laws against the government.

Well yes, those people are weeded out during the approval process. Am I expected to believe that the remainder will bite the hand that feeds? No sir, it's cronyism at its best. The judiciary is under the same gun as the rest.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46418181)

Well yes, those people are weeded out during the approval process.

If the approvers are Democrats, absolutely. If they are Republicans, maybe, and maybe not.

But that's because that's what the people want: they want a judiciary that will violate the law. That is part of what has to be taken into account, and wasn't, in the design.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46419347)

If the approvers are Democrats, absolutely. If they are Republicans, maybe, and maybe not.

ROFLMAO!!! The crap is coming out your ears! What an idiot you are! Damn! Thanks for the great laugh! Thank goodness I don't drink coffee. Laptop keyboards are expensive.

But that's because that's what the people want: they want a judiciary that will violate the law. That is part of what has to be taken into account, and wasn't, in the design.

Of course it was. Corruption is built into the system. It IS the system. Majority rule can't be done any other way. In fact all human hierarchies with powerful authority are corrupt by design, to protect the rulers. That's just nature. Again you are being a complete fool.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46419547)

If the approvers are Democrats, absolutely. If they are Republicans, maybe, and maybe not.

ROFLMAO!!! The crap is coming out your ears!

Hm. Let's see if you provide any evidence.

Nope, you don't.

It's not even really arguable: the obvious fact is that Democratic presidents universally pick judiciary candidates who don't respect the rule of law. Like Justice Breyer, they try to mold the interpretation of the law to fit their desired outcomes. His book Active Liberty explains why and how he does this, but the bottom line is that he will violate the text and clear meaning of the Constitution if he thinks it's for the good of the country. A clear example of this is where he says that political speech -- not money, speech -- may be restricted if the net result of that speech is that it -- in his view, not necessarily in the facts -- can drown out other speech. That's how he justifies supporting a law (like McCain-Feingold) that says political speech may be restricted, because he feels that if corporations can engage unfettered in political speech, that harms the democratic process. (Again, there's no evidence of this, it's just his feeling.)

But what Breyer fails to recognize is that the government literally has no authority to restrict such speech, regardless of how beneficial such a restriction might be, in his mind. Instead, he pledges fealty to his bastardized notion of "judicial modesty," which means he defers to the government of the people, instead of enforcing the people's mandated restrictions on the government. True judicial modesty means following the text and clear meaning of the law, not making up your own interpretations to justify letting the government do what it wants.

He is what Democratic presidents put on the bench: people who refuse to restrict government to the limits put in place by the law of the people.

But that's because that's what the people want: they want a judiciary that will violate the law. That is part of what has to be taken into account, and wasn't, in the design.

Of course it was. Corruption is built into the system. It IS the system.

Hm. Let's see if you provide any evidence.

Nope, you don't.

Majority rule can't be done any other way.

So you admit you're wrong, then.

Or do you really not know the fact that our system was designed to NOT be majority rule? That's what (again) the Democrats have been working hard to change. They want majority rule, because majority rule allows them to more easily violate the law. That's the whole point of the 17th Amendment. The Senate and House were designed to restrict the power of Congress, by giving them different interests. By putting both of them into the hands of the people, you give both houses of Congress the same interests, and you get majority rule ... something that violates the design of the system.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 7 months ago | (#46394305)

Yes, after reading through the comments, I noticed a strong echo... Calvinist.. You keep bringing that up. Was he a biologist?

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#46395277)

No, a theologian who popularized the notion that life is some kind of trap.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 7 months ago | (#46396979)

That's sounds kind of silly. Eventually we all "escape", so to speak...to whatever is next. But there is some truth to it. We cannot die. We can only rest for a while. Now, I don't know if that is "calvinist" or not. It sounds kinda zen to me.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46403661)

Calvinism is a very selective reading of the Bible which tries to undermine free moral agency. If Calvinism is correct, then Judas Iscariot was just doin' his job.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46404041)

Free "moral" agency has yet to be proven. The whole concept originated with man, as a means to acquire authority, the alpha male becomes a philosopher, the high priest, using an all powerful deity to justify himself. It's still a bunch of screaming chimps.

And really, every faction is selectively reading the bible. You people do the same to rationalize the bigotry against gays.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46406785)

What is "proven"? Of course it can't be proven, in a mathematical sense. But if you deny morality as such, you can't tell the difference between Joseph Stalin and Mother Theresa, because what difference, at this point, did either of them make?

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46411211)

I deny that morality came from anything other than man. Nature (that which created us) couldn't care less about Stalin or Mother Theresa. Man invented morality, for a specific purpose, hardly as honorable as you think it is. Stalin and Hitler and the church and all the other nasty people you can think of employed morality to gather followers to do their dirty work for them. So, let's call it what it is, indoctrination.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46412671)

At least you're honest. Many atheists these days think there is such a thing as objective morality without God. It's a desperately silly notion, I think.

But no, you're wrong that morality is simply indoctrination. Some of it is that, sure, but if you really understood the philosophy behind it, you wouldn't say that. Most Christian morality comes from attempts to understand God's nature from his revelations, with the view that morality comes from God's nature. Some sects certainly have taken it and then added on to it to get their desired social results, but that's not what I call morality.

Also, it's terribly queer to say it's about gathering followers to do dirty work. What dirty work were the early Christians doing for Paul? Loving each other and helping the poor? Nonsense on its face.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46412853)

Your anthropomorphized god is also an invention of man, which gives you the opportunity to apply your morality to it.

Loving each other and helping the poor?

By denying them legal and other rights? Not very "christian" of you...

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46413159)

Your anthropomorphized god is also an invention of man

I have no anthropomorphized God. God has no body, according to the Bible. God is spiritual, not physical. And as far as I know, being made in God's image is in the spiritual sense, not the physical sense.

... which gives you the opportunity to apply your morality to it.

Nope. In fact, that's completely backward from how the process works. I know you want to think it's not, but it is.

Loving each other and helping the poor?

By denying them legal and other rights? Not very "christian" of you...

You're lying. There is not a single person whom I would, in any way, deny any rights, except where those exercise of those rights involves using force against another person.

From your other comments, I think you're talking about gays. I am in favor of full legal equality for "gay" persons and their relationships. I've been in favor of what I sometimes call "decoupling" since the 90s, where government would essentially get out of the marriage business. Right now we have two marriages: social and civil. I am married by a church, and separately married by government. We should eliminate the former, and replace it with a simple framework that all existing and future marriages would be converted to, something like a civil union or domestic partnership, and the only restriction government would place on it would be people who are legally able to enter into contracts, who are not currently in another union/partnership (not that I am opposed to multi- relationships, but that problem can be solved later).

In this system, a. government would no longer define marriage, b. the rights/privileges/duties of marriage would be equally available to all couples. Everyone would be happy.

(As a side note, the sadfunny thing is that there is no marriage equality anywhere in the United States. There are existing unmarried and legally competent adult couples who are forbidden from marrying due to legally recognized immutable characteristics that exclude them. There is active discrimination, in every state in the Union, in marriage, against these people: close blood relationships, aka incestuous relationships. And the gay marriage proponents are terribly dishonest when they call gay marriage "marriage equality" while discriminating. My proposal is actual legal equality, not the bullshit fake equality we have today in several states.)

So maybe you meant something else, but no, in this case and every other I know of, I am not in favor of violating anyone's rights. I am more for full and equal civil rights for all than those supporting those "gay marriage" laws are.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46416171)

I have no anthropomorphized God.

Yes, you do. You apply man's "morals" or "values" to it in the attempt to validate man's authority. I never said anything about physical. It is you who has it backwards. Your god is in your image.... well.. in your imagination, but that's cool. and happiness

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46412631)

My "faction" does not selectively read the Bible, no.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46412999)

Eh, another lie. No surprise.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46413163)

As usual, you provide no evidence to back up your claim, this time that I selectively read the Bible.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46414151)

I provide no evidence that the sky is blue and water is wet, but there ya go. Some things are self evident.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46414237)

I provide no evidence that the sky is blue and water is wet, but there ya go. Some things are self evident.

You apparently don't know what "self-evident" means. That the sky is blue is not self-evident. In fact, it's not even true: at most you could say the fact that the sky appears blue means it has the properties of every color except for blue.

You could argue that water being wet is self-evident, as it is sortof definitional.

But you could not claim that my exegetical principles or practices are self-evident. That's just stupid.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

Arker (91948) | about 7 months ago | (#46390445)

You make it a two-part process though, and in fact that's pretty much what we have gone through in the US. First the powers that were denied had to be invented, interpreted into existence, then they began to attract, and ultimately be captured by, corruption. Just because we tried it once and have failed to hold the line at the first stage doesnt mean that we didnt benefit from it for a time, and it still might be a place where it's possible.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 7 months ago | (#46390499)

I've had the concept of a utopia beat out of me by experience.

These powers were invented corrupt. It's all just a big shell game.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#46390615)

It's a shell game for systemic reasons. How we attack and minimize those reasons is the sticky wicket.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 7 months ago | (#46390985)

Any attack will take more resources than are currently being used to keep the status quo. At which point, you've got the same problem.

Even revolution doesn't work- the brilliant insight of George Orwell was that all revolutions end up replicating the system they came from.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#46392341)

The revolution that is Christ is an individual one. With Caesar, we just do what we can.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46412567)

Even if the regulatory powers are specifically denied, they will be captured, given enough time and money. They're just too profitable not to.

You simply need a system that says government has no authority to do X.

And then, of course, proper enforcement of that.

Because in the U.S., we have the former, but not the latter.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 6 months ago | (#46413131)

All it takes is enough money to change the system. Or, at the very least, buy enough judges to ignore it.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46413291)

Well, no. Sometimes money can buy it, sometimes it can't. Usually, I think, it can't. But when you have a system so massive that there's so many places for purchase of the system such to affect the whole ... that's what we've got today.

The key is a small and open system with hard and specific limits on what that system is allowed to do. Is it a guarantee? Of course not. But to say it can't work is not really based on reality or even grounded theory.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 6 months ago | (#46413529)

To achieve that, you need to limit the amount of population the system represents. While I do advocate for that, even I can't see a clear path from grounded theory to reality for it.

If you allow freedom for even one individual to transcend the system, eventually that one individual will own all the systems.

Every system eventually gets upended by the individual overcoming the common good. It is the achilles heel of free markets.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46413643)

To achieve that, you need to limit the amount of population the system represents.

It depends on what you mean by "represents." Our federal system represents the members of the population only in a very limited sense, by law and by design. Again, we just haven't had enforcement of that, and we've allowed explict and intentional degradation of that design (e.g., the 17th Amendment). The population is only supposed to be represented in those areas the government is allowed to operate, most of which have nothing to do with domestic policy at all.

If you allow freedom for even one individual to transcend the system, eventually that one individual will own all the systems.

I don't know what you mean by "transcend." We should all transcend the system. The system should be smaller than us. That's how you know you're doing it right.

Every system eventually gets upended by the individual overcoming the common good. It is the achilles heel of free markets.

The system of government that protects free markets should be essentially orthogonal to free markets. It's only the achilles of free markets like it's the achilles of every other economic system. This is a political question, not an economic question: how do you design and enforce a system that is self-limiting? We designed one that was self-limiting, but due to human error, we no longer enforce it. You can't take human error out of the equation, so how do you account for human error and still give the thing a chance of success?

That's the challenge.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 6 months ago | (#46413753)

One way is to limit the markets themselves to 100,000 citizens or less. If you can easily travel to punch the head guy in the nose, that's a natural limit on the system.

At 300,000,000+ citizens, the system is broken because no one citizen can actually track down who is pulling the strings. Enforcement of the self limiting system becomes impossible because of chaos and complexity. It stopped being enforceable within a few years of being created, because it got too large.

The market always creates the government it wants. Want a small government, you need a small market.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#46389165)

crony capitalism plus the kind of regulatory systems that we have

How do you differentiate?

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

Arker (91948) | about 7 months ago | (#46392813)

Well by crony-capitalism I think we are really just talking about the normal human dynamics. People are not angels and we all need to caveat emptor for a reason. I dont expect any sort of change in governance will change that (at least, not in the short term) and people will always be looking for an unfair advantage. Annoying but it's part oflife and one way or another you accept it and deal with it, and society as a whole can accept it and deal with it and even turn it towards good ends. And markets do this, not perfectly on every occasion, but in aggregate they can handle this just fine. Every human society has.

But then this modern notion of a regulatory agency intervening in the market. With only the best intentions, of course. Justified, necessitated, by the imperfections in the market. But this is a fatal error because such an agency, in the long run, will follow two iron laws - like any beaureacracy it will only grow, and on top of that it will exacerbate the basic problems at play! Intended to solve a problem, they render that problem insoluble, every time. Because now the ambition and greed that the market would channel into mostly constructive pursuits, has a brand new target. Instead of scheming to screw their competitors or their suppliers or their customers (the normal garden variety corruption we can deal with) they will now scheme to control the regulatory agency, and with it, the market as a whole. With it, they can screw their competitors, their suppliers, and their customers, all together, and MUCH more effectively.

And the agency will always be captured, more likely sooner than later. Where on Earth, outside of the companies it's supposed to regulate, would such an agency find a pool of potential employees with the qualifications needed to understand a particular market well enough to be more effective than a bull in a china-shop, hmmm?

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#46393189)

Violently agree. But let's not kid ourselves: having somebody test the water and sample the meat is a Good Thing.
I submit that the issue is when you don't rotate the people out at high enough frequency. Acton said absolute power corrupts absolutely. But it seems empirically true that petty amounts of power corrupt over time.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

Arker (91948) | about 7 months ago | (#46393791)

Having someone test is a good thing, but why does it have to be a monopoly?

Why cant we have a market for testers? That way if one gets too cozy with the people they are supposed to be testing, when it gets out, they can lose their customers and go out of business - providing a good lesson to the remaining competitors.

With a state monopoly provider, they can screw up over and over again without any real consequences.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#46395261)

The (possibly dodgy) notion is that market-based testers are more easily rigged. Certainly if enough people sicken, word gets out that Smitty's Butcher Shop sucks. But the goal is to obviate the public health risk.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 7 months ago | (#46396817)

Why cant we have a market for testers?

Because markets, especially global ones, are short-term focused.

Make your money and tomorrow I'll be miles away. Focus on the quarterly stock price, because once I get my bonus, I skate.

Why can't we have a market for testers? Because what happens when testee can pay more than the government? If a private corporation is in charge of testing, then it would violate their charter not to take the bribe.

Remember, there are no markets in nature. They only exist to the extent that there is a sufficiently powerful arbiter. The reason our system is so out-of-whack is because the sufficiently powerful arbiter has had corruption institutionalized, most recently made permanent by a court decision known as Citizens United.

With a state monopoly provider, they can screw up over and over again without any real consequences.

Only if the recourse of the governed has been first removed, which is why you are seeing voter suppression efforts in the same states that are "right-to-work". Can't have everyone voting if there's a chance they'll mess up the cozy corporate-government relationship.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#46388911)

You're saying that the natural trinity of seller/marketplace/buyer isn't stable, and the seller always eats the marketplace?
I think that may be prevalent when the government forsakes its natural role of keeping the playing field level. And that is a result of the sellers neglecting to hold the government accountable.
I submit that the capitalist model more accurately cages sinful human nature, as opposed to the Socialist one, which tries to substitute a false government God.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 7 months ago | (#46389085)

Yes, because the seller has enough money to invent the government. It is the natural role of government to favor the seller- not to keep the playing field level. The same is still true in socialist governments which have a veneer of pretending to keep the playing field level, while really tilting the regulations towards the cronies of the committees. Socialism isn't a solution here either.

GK Chesterton was right- the only solution for the problem of capitalism, is more capitalists.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#46389195)

Yes, Chesterton, yes.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46412543)

That large scale capitalism automatically leads to crony capitalism, no matter what you do.

Um, unless you make it generally illegal. Which is the libertarian/conservative goal.

It's the socialists/Democrats/statists who miss your point the most: they offer regulation after regulation to combat "the influence of money on the system," which only plays into the hands of the crony capitalists.

Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 6 months ago | (#46413149)

If you make crony capitalism generally illegal, you'll have sacrificed the primary feature of the free market- the total and absolute right to private property.

FTFY (1)

RailGunner (554645) | about 6 months ago | (#46401789)

I'm sure my stable of trusty analysts

:1,$s/trusty analysts/intellectually dishonest libtrolls/g

Re:FTFY (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46403671)

Well, you're peeling back my sarcasm there, yes.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>