I'm searching for the other side of this argument. It sounds good to hate on unions and regulation until some people die in a weakly regulated, non unionized industry.
So where are the anti-regulation/anti union now that another mine has exploded?
- Thread starter Upgrade Dave
- Start date
And where was the GUB-MINT when Katrina drowned?
Or the banks collapsed?
Or the schools failed?
Or the towers fell?
FEMA, SEC, Dept of Education, Defense Department
The goobermint is not the answer to every problem in society. Less government authority and more personal authority will probably save more lives than anything we have today.
Or the banks collapsed?
Or the schools failed?
Or the towers fell?
FEMA, SEC, Dept of Education, Defense Department
The goobermint is not the answer to every problem in society. Less government authority and more personal authority will probably save more lives than anything we have today.
Last edited:
So the mining industry should have more autonomy? That's your answer.
I'm saying the mining industry SHOULD NOT HAVE the corporate shield, which is only provided by government, not the marketplace.
No its not the answer to every problem in society. And, it may not be The Answer to any problem. But it does have a role in promoting the general welfare -- as in the health, happiness, prosperity, well-being and liberty of its people. In that regard, government has a duty to do those things within its power, i.e., provide for the safety of its people through legislative regulation, to educate and defend its people, etc., -- in promotion of the general welfare.
If those things aren't the proper role of government, then the argument is that there just shouldn't be a government. We should all simply exist in the state of nature, strongest survive, kill or be killed.
Some people probably dream of anarchy.
QueEx
I'm curious, too. How does the marketplace make mines safer? It's naked capitalism and bought and paid for government protection (by not regulating) that's caused the death of more miners.
I noticed Cruise went on a ramble about the government and didn't mention unions. Maybe he's a union fan. They aren't government. They're flawed, as is any organization run by people, but they're the best protection the working class have against corporations that would rather endanger the lives of their workers than spend money to make them safer.
You mean all of the ills under the conservative GW resign?
FEMA was just fine under Clinton, public schools did much better prior to Reagan, the Towers Fell under the Conservative president.
You fail to note that the public sector, corporate loving conservatives are the government you bitch about. We need more liberal policies.
Bullshit. Reagan through GW gutted the US Bureau of Mines and OSHA. Gail Norton, the former Secretary of the Interior under GW who was charged at overseeing these departments is now under investigation for violating the public trust while in office. It's not the government it's who is in the government that is fucking it up.
You won't get an answer from any of these so called conservatives/libertarians/republicans/right wingers on this one.
Anarchy. No rulership or enforced authority or established order.
If something goes wrong, people can come together to find a solution. Why have these "leaders" and "rulers" and "authorities" do it? All it does is lead to corruption, waste, property destruction, and loss of life (wars).
You don't get wars in anarchy.
It is utterly despicable that corporations can "OWN" property yet no one is held responsible for its actions.
I believe that is called moral hazard.
In the 19th century, when there was no corporate shield, industry thrived and the standard of living leaped from generation to generation.
With the corporate shield, you see the slow decline of Western civilization.
So, maybe it's a good thing after all.
Every man decides his association. I may not be a big fan of unions, but it's not my place to tell another man how to live his life, if it doesn't interfere with my own.
Well, if that's the case, government is no solution. As you say, the wrong person will make things worse. So, why give Washington DC the rope to hang us?
If something goes wrong, people can come together to find a solution. Why have these "leaders" and "rulers" and "authorities" do it? All it does is lead to corruption, waste, property destruction, and loss of life (wars).
You don't get wars in anarchy.
It is utterly despicable that corporations can "OWN" property yet no one is held responsible for its actions.
I believe that is called moral hazard.
In the 19th century, when there was no corporate shield, industry thrived and the standard of living leaped from generation to generation.
With the corporate shield, you see the slow decline of Western civilization.
So, maybe it's a good thing after all.
Every man decides his association. I may not be a big fan of unions, but it's not my place to tell another man how to live his life, if it doesn't interfere with my own.
Well, if that's the case, government is no solution. As you say, the wrong person will make things worse. So, why give Washington DC the rope to hang us?
Could you be more specific as to:
- What corporate shield are you referring to that the mining industry should not have; and
- How the mining industry is protected from responsibility (liability), criminal and civil, by that corporate shield ? ? ?
QueEx
What did I tell you!
Management has no accountability. Back before the corporate model became widespread in the United States (19th century), if you made a bad business decision, you were financially ruined.
If you made negligent or harmful decisions, you went to jail.
Today, with the corporate shield, mining conglomerate and corporate executives have no fear of personal retribution for their actions.
Instead, they just get to say... it's the company's fault. Goodbye while I collect a huge severance package and do the same stuff at another company.
Corporations are a violation of human rights, in my opinion.
Whenever you have a good point it's totally destroyed when you outlandishly ridiculous statements like this one.
If people were so good at coming together to take care of societal needs, we wouldn't need Social Security or the vast majority of regulations and laws we have. I fail to see how you have the theories without even attempting to see how they would apply to real people.
That's their thing. They "hate" government but they still run for office. They get in, gut all the regulatory agencies, stand back while shit collapses (mines, financial sector,bridges, whatever), then harp on the failure of government. The whole while, they're corporate sponsors are making so much money, it's cheaper to pay the fines than actually make corrections.
Before you just charged into these conclusions, I was expecting you to first to describe and explain the "Corporate Shield" that you referred to above, which is the concept upon which your conclusions rest.
For example: You're saying management has no accountability because of the corporate shield. Well, please describe, in detail, the corporate shield -- and then show us how that shield prevents management's accountability.
Typically, one faces "jail" for violation of the criminal law.
"Negligence" - is <u>not</u> typically a criminal law concept (an exception being the garden variety of criminally negligent homicide statutes). Negligence is a "tort" concept -- used in the application of civil law where one person seeks damages from the harm caused by anothers' negligent conduct.
Example: B runs stop sign, hits A breaking A's neck. A sues B for negligence (B's failure to pay attention = negligence, that is, B failed to do what a reasonable person in B's shoes would do = Pay-a-fucking-tention.
Could you please point out examples where people have gone to jail, in this country, whether in your back then or now, for negligence.
There you go again with that "corporate shield". Please explain that concept. How does it work. Where can I find it, read it, examine it, analyze it ???
Another vague concept. Please elaborate. How are corporations, vel non, a violation of anyone's human rights. Please be specific.
QueEx
The corporate model is based on the European crown/business model (East India Company) which is based on the Vatican Catholic Church. Remember Christoper Columbus claimed his funding to the "New World" was granted to convert souls for the Catholic Church. Corruption is intrinsic to capitalism because capitalism's only true goal is to make make profit. The only check to this dynamic is the collective will of the people, which is government. No single person can combat the organize force of a large business entities Government sets the rules and enforces them. When the government becomes incapable of enforcing these rules, it is because it has been infiltrated by organize business forces, what FDR called Economic Royalists and what is now refereed to as corporatists or multinationals.
Did you ever think that maybe government creates these problems so they can "SOLVE" them?
The Federal Reserve causes old people to go broke in the 1920s, so the Federal Government can "SOLVE" it with Social Security.
The Federal Reserve causes banks to fail by loosening credit, then drastically reducing it.
The Federal government then "SOLVES" it by creating the FDIC and the SEC.
All the while the problems get bigger and worse than before. So, the Federal government "SOLVES" them again with more government, more taxes, and more restrictions on our personal liberties.
Instead of addressing each point... I will just say the corporate shield is the protection a natural person has to affect other people and property without negative consequences using the protection of the corporate legal structure.
This allows that person to avoid personal responsibility for their actions, while receiving personal benefits from those actions.
The biggest threat to corporations, the government, and capitalism is COMPETITION!
Anarchy is PURE COMPETITON!
So the government is both incompetent, as you put forward at the beginnning of this thread, and machiavellian at the same time. It was the government's fault that old people were dying poor and in substandard, third world conditions. Not only it's fault but it's goal so that it could create Social Security.
It's difficult to debate such ridiculous thinking that sits on both sides of the argument.You have to pardon me on this one, Que.
Pure, unfiltered bullshit with no foundation in reality. There is not one example of a strong anarchist society with a sound, comfortable citizenry. In such a society, the inequalities that slow this nation now would be exasperbated, not abated. The Massy mines are a great example of what would happen if people were just left alone and that's with some loosely enforced regulations.
So the government is both incompetent, as you put forward at the beginnning of this thread, and machiavellian at the same time. It was the government's fault that old people were dying poor and in substandard, third world conditions. Not only it's fault but it's goal so that it could create Social Security.
You have to pardon me on this one, Que.
Pure, unfiltered bullshit with no foundation in reality. There is not one example of a strong anarchist society with a sound, comfortable citizenry. In such a society, the inequalities that slow this nation now would be exasperbated, not abated. The Massy mines are a great example of what would happen if people were just left alone and that's with some loosely enforced regulations.
You know this thing called the world wide web. You know this very website you are using. Guess what?
It is an example of anarchy in action.
No government regulation. No government interference. NO government bureaucrat telling you what to read, how to read, where to read. NO government tax/fee/charge to visit any website. NO government censor saying what search engine to use, what you can download, or how long you can use the web.
You are free to do whatever you feel like.
While there are dangers, such as spyware/adware/viruses/trojans, there are communities everywhere to help you with your problem, answer your questions, and resolve your issues.
Of course, the government will find a way to stop this and take control, because THE GOVERNMENT HATES COMPETITION!
They will say the web is too unsafe, too unpredictable, too difficult, too depraved. They will create some crisis, or emergency, or some excuse to regulate it, control it, tax it.
The web (in fact the internet) is an everyday example of how the entire world comes together to share, interact, trade, and benefit, WITHOUT GOVERNMENT!
Ah, isn't the Internet a government invention? DARPA And isn't spyware/adware/viruses/trojans inventions and tools of the private sector?
Like I thought. You were just talking out of the side of your neck. You took the easy (and popular) way out to just point to government as being the evil, the problem, the culprit, the whatever -- ignoring that "people" run government. Of course, you'll just argue that those who criticize your approach are just pro-government.
Perhaps, there's a method to the madness. If "Bad Government" was your problem, you'd be after the individuals that run it and make it bad. Instead, you try to appear to be against government, per se -- an anarchist. You know that anarchy crap is just bullshit, right? LOL
Your existence on this board, like your existence in society, is contingent upon your acceptance of and obedience to the rules. That's government, albeit in this instance, BGOL Government. Break the rules, and there could be consequences. Obviously, you like living in BGOLdom as evidenced by your willing acceptance of the rules (you're not trying very hard to get banned) -- and I doubt you've the nerve to seek the overthrow of the U.S. government.
Bottom line: you're just talking out the side of your ass.
QueEx
<font size="6"><Center>
Massey’s Mining Money</font size><font size="4">
The company and its CEO, Don Blankenship, have
never been shy about involvement in the political process</font size></center>
FactCheck
April 9, 2010
The West Virginia coal mining disaster that took more than two dozen lives this week brought Massey Energy Corp., the nation’s fourth largest coal company, into the spotlight. The company and its CEO, Don Blankenship, have never been shy about involvement in the political process. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Massey’s political action committee plus individuals associated with the commpany have given more than $307,000 in all to federal candidates since the 1990 election cycle. The overwhelming majority – 91 percent – has gone to Republicans.
Blankenship spent several million dollars on top of that in a 2004 West Virginia Supreme Court race, becoming a poster boy for those who oppose traditionally funded judicial elections and the conflicts that attach themselves to campaign contributions in such races. Blankenship’s favored candidate, Brent Benjamin, won the election, and proceeded to rule in Massey’s favor in a case brought by a smaller coal company. The smaller firm claimed that Benjamin should have recused himself, taking the claim all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 2009, the Court agreed, saying in Caperton v. Massey that "the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.”
Blankenship likely never expected that his involvement in the court race would become an impetus for turning West Virginia into a model for those wanting to overhaul state judicial selection. Last month Gov. Joe Manchin signed into law a pilot program that will provide candidates for the state’s highest court with public financing in 2012, as long as they abide by voluntary spending limits. West Virginia is now just the fourth state to publicly finance judicial elections, along with North Carolina, New Mexico and Wisconsin.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/masseys-mining-money/
Massey’s Mining Money</font size><font size="4">
The company and its CEO, Don Blankenship, have
never been shy about involvement in the political process</font size></center>
FactCheck
April 9, 2010
The West Virginia coal mining disaster that took more than two dozen lives this week brought Massey Energy Corp., the nation’s fourth largest coal company, into the spotlight. The company and its CEO, Don Blankenship, have never been shy about involvement in the political process. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Massey’s political action committee plus individuals associated with the commpany have given more than $307,000 in all to federal candidates since the 1990 election cycle. The overwhelming majority – 91 percent – has gone to Republicans.
Blankenship spent several million dollars on top of that in a 2004 West Virginia Supreme Court race, becoming a poster boy for those who oppose traditionally funded judicial elections and the conflicts that attach themselves to campaign contributions in such races. Blankenship’s favored candidate, Brent Benjamin, won the election, and proceeded to rule in Massey’s favor in a case brought by a smaller coal company. The smaller firm claimed that Benjamin should have recused himself, taking the claim all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 2009, the Court agreed, saying in Caperton v. Massey that "the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.”
Blankenship likely never expected that his involvement in the court race would become an impetus for turning West Virginia into a model for those wanting to overhaul state judicial selection. Last month Gov. Joe Manchin signed into law a pilot program that will provide candidates for the state’s highest court with public financing in 2012, as long as they abide by voluntary spending limits. West Virginia is now just the fourth state to publicly finance judicial elections, along with North Carolina, New Mexico and Wisconsin.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/masseys-mining-money/
good thread, been movin' the last week but I'll be back in about a week. Been thinkin about this scenario lately and trying to seek out the best market-based solution to the troubles in the mining industry. No doubt the govt will intervene with more regulations but it will ultimately make the problem worse.
Good luck! I think you will concluded with your mindset that the best market solution to safety is that it's they're own fault. They should have read the employment agreement and no one forced them to go down the mine to feed their families. In actuality, this thread is redundant. It is all covered in the Corporate Externalities thread. The mine company reaps the profits, the only actual raison de etre for their mining coal and everything else is just the cost of doing that, which they are charged.
At least you're consistent; even if consistently wrong.
The free market theory has its place, but you've NEVER been able to point out where it has worked, on its own. And, the reason you can't, is that it and any other theory when put into practice necessarily requires interaction with people. People are Imperfect and any theory in which they interact is itself, inherently imperfect.
People WILL act in what they perceive to be their best interest. They will and do manipulate whatever they can, for their best interest. Although altruism may be a high and noble goal, it does not naturally exist for even when people purport to act for the benefit of another, they are still acting out of benefit for self.
If man could be left alone and counted on to behave in the absence of some stimuli, we wouldn't have a whole body of law made-up of tens of thousands of statutes, books, treatises and commentary -- all commonly known as the "Criminal Law." And what is criminal law but the "Regulation" of human conduct?
Left on its own at the hand of humans, if for no other reason, the free market would consume the very people that it requires to make it work.
Thus, it must be regulated.
QueEx
But, how can you knock the raisons?
Are you arguing that people coming together in a business relation to make money is wrong ???
Surely, no matter the business form, whether corporate, sole proprietorship, partnership, etc., the business and its owners and relators have to be held responsible for any harm caused. But, I'm failing to see how the profit relation itself, vel non, is somehow wrong.
QueEx
But, how can you knock the raisons?
Are you arguing that people coming together in a business relation to make money is wrong ???
Surely, no matter the business form, whether corporate, sole proprietorship, partnership, etc., the business and its owners and relators have to be held responsible for any harm caused. But, I'm failing to see how the profit relation itself, vel non, is somehow wrong.
QueEx
My point is that capitalism is a concept that maximizes a fundamental human trait, greed. Channeling this toward a somewhat civilized (for lack of a better term) pursuit to advance humanity to an extent. You will agree that pure unadulterated capitalism is parasitic and will consume itself, which we have seen times after time in western history.
I'm with you QueEx, I have posed this question to Lammar before. He has not or will not site any instances in which pure capitalism has worked. There is no society in the history of the world in which it has worked. Arguing theory and practice are two different things.
So the government is both incompetent, as you put forward at the beginnning of this thread, and machiavellian at the same time. It was the government's fault that old people were dying poor and in substandard, third world conditions. Not only it's fault but it's goal so that it could create Social Security.
You have to pardon me on this one, Que.
Pure, unfiltered bullshit with no foundation in reality. There is not one example of a strong anarchist society with a sound, comfortable citizenry. In such a society, the inequalities that slow this nation now would be exasperbated, not abated. The Massy mines are a great example of what would happen if people were just left alone and that's with some loosely enforced regulations.
Still waiting, Cruise. The internet isn't a "society" it's a product, a government based product.
How?
Let me guess, by having to actually build working ventilation shafts and doing the necessary safety construction, prices will go up.
Are you saying people are products? I hate when corporations do that BS.
The interweb is a living organism. Without people, it does not exist. A mere "product" exists whether humans are here or not. The interweb is something much more.
It is a society, it is a great meeting place, it is a marketplace, it is a town hall, it is a library, it is a street corner.
If it is not a society, then what is your definition of a society?
Are you seriously saying only the government can get people to build safe work places?
Are you implying people are so childish and irresponsible that nothing can exist without government interference?
Do you believe a safe, productive mine can ONLY exist with big gubmint?
I understand why you don't trust your fellow man... but having BIG MOMMA GOVERNMENT tell everybody what to do is no answer, today.
Don't get me wrong Dave, I feel for the families & the miners that work in those conditions. It's kinda personal because my g-father worked in those coal mines, in West Virginia. We should honestly seek out what the company did, as opposed to what they didn't do, when assessing blame. If it's determined the company was negligent & didn't provide a safe work environment, people must be held accountable!
Question: Did their union allow their workers to perform in an unsafe work environment?
I'm just of the opinion that some of those issues can be addressed without more govt interference. I'm sure there is enough regulation in place currently, without creating more bureaucracy. Enforcement is the issue. You let me get a fine from the govt, they gon garnishee my check or just flat out take it from my checking acct. But this corp had umpteen safety violations and aint nobody from the regulatory board lost they job! Is this govt incompetence? Be real with me! Enforcement is the issue
Generations have worked in those mines and present regulations didn't stop this incident from happening, nor will it prevent the next incident. More govt is not the answer.
That's a very self serving answer but completely untrue. If no one logged on, the world wide web would still be there. It's not a "living organism" by any definition. Was it born or hatched? Is it male, female, or asexual? Living organisms don't have human creators, the web does.
Considering government is also my fellow man, I don't trust it very much either.
I don't have to imply, I'll say it: man is a fundamentally selfish, self destructive creature and if left to our own devices we would be back in the days before minimum wage, 40 hour work weeks and child labor laws. It wasn't private enterprise that decided that people needed leave time to deal with family issues, that was government.
And you still haven't cited one society that's thrived in anarchy. I don't expect you to because it's never happened.
Absolutely. Going back and forth between you and Cruise is daunting. It's like talking to your kids all day and then having to adjust to talking to adults.
This was a non-union mine, as were all the other mines that have had disasters over the last several years, which is why I put the union in my original question.
I'm not suggesting that there should be more regulations necessarily but they should be more tightly enforced. The previous administration spent a great deal of time cutting the funding from regulatory agencies and defanging legislation that would enforce rules on Massey and the other mining companies.
Lamarr, one of the frustrations I have with you is that your stated convictions are so strong, yet you are so uninformed at the same time you still vehemently defend your hollow arguments. The Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch Mine in Montcoal, WV, was not a union mine. 70% of the miners voted several times to unionize but were denied by management. And the GW administration so weakened enforcement of safety codes, enforcement was a joke. Yet you continue to rail against government enforcement as intrusion to private business's interest. I don't mind saying you sound ridiculous. This is information that can be readily accessed in newspapers, cable TV and more importantly on the net. You are dong a disservice to yourself by having blinders on and fitting ideology to the facts rather than letting facts shape your views. Do you really want issues solved?
source: Think Progress
I don't expect you to have a rational rebuttal to this.
Uh, no. The computers, wiring, network cards, and servers would still exist.
The world wide web would not exist if no one was there to use it.
Let me make it simple... a business does not exist without people. A society does not exist without people. A government does not exist without peole.
The BUILDING where the business is located still exists, with the floor, facade, doors, glass, and what have you. But, the business ceases to exist. Now, you could say the law dictates it still exists, but you need people to enforce, follow, or interpret the law.
Likewise, the world wide web does not exist without the people using it.
You still haven't defined what you call a society.
If everytime I give you an example of a successful example of anarchy, you start nitpicking how it isn't this or isn't that... you are basically saying you do not accept any example of anarchy becase you only want to believe in government, FACTS BE DAMNED!
Instead of me giving examples, why don't you give an example of a successful society outside of anarchy?