djschnei

22 ms·

181.
by djschnei 9y ago
Thank you for explaining your concerns in a civil way. So this is a hypothetical problem or something that's manifested in the past but regulation then stopped?
182.
by djschnei 9y ago
Yup, I don't hold your opinion so I am uninformed. Asked for your POV, but I'm too dumb to even attempt to explain it to. Must revert to personal slights and putdowns. Ahhhh, politics in 2017.
183.
by djschnei 9y ago
Breaking news Law proposed which would allow EvilCorp to charge more money for the services which cost more to provide.
184.
by djschnei 9y ago
Can someone explain to me how it's evil for them to charge more money for a "bigger pipe"? Their networks can only service so much traffic; not sure why supply and demand are seen as evil in this case.
185.
by djschnei 9y ago
Never said I was an opponent or proponent of 'Net Neutrality'. I was merely commenting on the interesting turn of events where the obvious ramifications of a centralized bureaucracy 'hurt' the perceived well being of th
186.
by djschnei 9y ago
Seriously! I'm playing the world's tiniest violin for 90% of people upset over this. Reaping what they sow, if you ask me.
187.
by djschnei 9y ago
Hate to say "I told you so", but conservatives (sometimes) and libertarians have been warning the country for ever about the pitfalls of centralizing important things like this under an unaccountable federal bureaucracy. If you&#
188.
by djschnei 9y ago
You live in a fantasy world if you think our corporate and environmental regulations are limited to just the things that protect your rights. "Simplifying the tax code would remove the government's ability to tax!" <-- an
189.
by djschnei 9y ago
I'd write some document, call it the law-of-the-land, make everyone that wanted to stay agree with it, everyone else could leave. It would set up some very precise and strict rules about what I (the government) was allowed to do. I w
190.
by djschnei 9y ago
I am 100% in line with mainstream libertarians. I don't think we should keep "corporate" regulations. I think the government should wield its power to prevent one person from infringing on another person's rights, whet
191.
by djschnei 9y ago
Government IS the check on corporate power! You are the one who is misunderstood. As a libertarian, I believe governments are vital to a civil society (never said I was an anarchist). I believe governments SHOULD have (granted to it by t
192.
by djschnei 9y ago
"if the government was any smaller, the environment would DIE!" "People need rulers!" We wouldn't get along.
193.
by djschnei 9y ago
hahah yes, the old "you believe in smaller government so you must want unlimited corporate power" argument. Not sure there is an easier way to illustrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the libertarian position.
194.
by djschnei 9y ago
Back to the individual? The government should protect you from corporations, other individuals, other countries from infringing on your rights to do what you see best. Not dictate or meddle in every aspect of your life. They should be a
195.
by djschnei 9y ago
Far from an appropriate analogy. More like, spilling coffee on my keyboard makes it work like shit. Better fix it by pouring more coffee on it!
196.
by djschnei 9y ago
Uhhhhh, making our lives less political is now considered entirely unrealistic? Fun times...
197.
by djschnei 9y ago
I apologize. Should have said "the president shouldn't govern the economy." You are right, the president does have immense control and influence over the economy. "what is your vision for the economy?" is an easy
198.
by djschnei 9y ago
solution: Make the political system have less influence in our lives. Make politicians less valuable to purchase
199.
by djschnei 9y ago
The president doesn't govern the economy...
200.
by djschnei 9y ago
of coursssssse he did....
201.
by djschnei 9y ago
Is there video of the interview?
202.
by djschnei 9y ago
It was a play on words... wasn't being serious.
203.
by djschnei 9y ago
screw the states and their autonomy!
204.
by djschnei 9y ago
Don't say that like it's some long running historical understanding of what the word "right" means. If that is now the definition, it's a new definition much more ambiguous than the old. A right used to mean someth
205.
by djschnei 9y ago
I would be careful of suggesting the idea of property you're referring to is somehow "the original capitalist system". Many economic and political theorists in the mid 19th century and earlier talked about property rights in
206.
by djschnei 9y ago
> But it's what the capitalist system of property rights consistently produces in the real world. No... ignoring property rights consistently produces crony-capitalism. > they are made up as are ethics and morality. Doesn't
207.
by djschnei 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism =/= http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PropertyRights.html
208.
by djschnei 9y ago
Crony-capitalism is literally the opposite of a free-market! So, you think property rights are a made up impossibility? Advocating for them is a waste of time? Nothing lives on a spectrum? Don't care how you answer. This is a wast
209.
by djschnei 9y ago
No, I'm not agreeing. The distinction between cronyism and free-market capitalism is important. You're claiming it isn't - I'm claiming it is. Simply: Property rights = Free-market =/= Cronyism It's like if
210.
by djschnei 9y ago
I said there were tons of examples historically and that America was one of them (and obviously not in every aspect... these types of things are always on spectrums and not devoid of anomalies)

More ›