6 ms·

Your calling someone a corporatist who has fought against every corporate bailout thrown together in Washington? Thats rather silly mate. I'm not very into an

Your calling someone a corporatist who has fought against every corporate bailout thrown together in Washington? Thats rather silly mate. I'm not very into any 1 ism myself, but I've studied enough to realize that there are pointed differences between corporatism and capitalism. The Pauls seem to be capitalists. Many others who claim to be capitalists are corporatists.

ebbv 13y ago
He fights against bailouts, sure. But he also fights against all regulation.
- jimzvz 13y ago
  Regulation is exactly what enables corporatism.
  - ebbv 13y ago
    Uhh, no. Regulation is what requires corporations to dispose of pollutants properly instead of just dumping them in rivers. Regulation is what requires corporations to give workers proper safety warnings, equipment and training rather than just putting them in harm's way. Regulation is what requires corporations to disclose their accounting to investors instead of telling them whatever they want. Regulation is what requires corporations to pay full time workers overtime, give breaks and sick time, and just generally treat them like human beings. Regulation is for corporations what criminal law is for individuals. It's what prevents the worst of us from behaving as badly as they would otherwise. Not all regulation is automatically good, just like not all criminal laws are automatically good. But there is a reason it exists, and it has an important role to play.
    - waffle_ss 13y ago
      Actually yes, regulation also gives favored status to corporations. For example, the "Big Three" credit rating agencies who were given the federal gov't's blessed "NRSRO" status, who controlled 95% of the market share on credit ratings and who ended up being a a major cause of the 2008 bank failure due to their malfeasance in rating debt. Another example is Bell Systems("Ma Bell")'s stifling of innovation as they held a government-sanctioned monopoly over telephone service via the Communications Act of 1934. Ma Bell would have had no reason to build you an iPhone as they had the market cornered.
      - ebbv 13y ago
        As I said, some regulation is bad just like some criminal laws are bad. Just because there's been bad regulation doesn't mean you get rid of all of it, just like you wouldn't get rid of all criminal laws just because the system has been abused in the past.
      - threeseed 13y ago
        You do know that 5 year olds can understand this, right ? REGULATION = GOOD REGULATION + BAD REGULATION Arguing against "regulation" means arguing against the good and the bad. Which is the height of stupidity since you're effectively arguing for companies to do whatever they want, whenever they want with zero consideration of anybody else.
    - jimzvz 13y ago
      Maybe we have a different definition of corporatism because none of your points have anything to do with it. Regulation allows Company A to influence the government to implement regulation that favours Company A and hinders Company B or individuals X. Now perhaps regulation is required to a certain extent (especially with regards to the environment) but many of the potential issues are already covered by criminal law. What is certain is that without regulation, corporatism would become very difficult.
      - Anechoic 13y ago
        Regulation allows Company A to influence the government to implement regulation "Regulation" doesn't allow Company A to influence the government, the First Amendment allows Company A to influence the government. In your statement, regulation is the effect, not the cause.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > "Regulation" doesn't allow Company A to influence the government Depends on the content of the regulation. Regulation that gives particular companies special voices on public policy does, in fact, give "Company A" a special ability to influence the government to implement policy in a way detrimental to competing "Company B" that is not granted a similar voice. There's quite a lot of regulation that does this in one form or another (usually, with safeguards that notionally serve to avoid abuse, but there is plenty of room for debate about how well those safeguards work.)
    - paddy_m 13y ago
      Regulation is what requires corporations to disclose their accounting to investors instead of telling them whatever they want. Actually, regulation prevents consumers from making choices with their investment decisions. By putting publicly traded companies in a special class, and only allowing individuals to invest in those companies, they vastly limit choice. Regulation is what requires corporations to pay full time workers overtime, give breaks and sick time, and just generally treat them like human beings. In America this is the case, however, over the whole world there is a relatively free market. For competitive job marekets/professions where is necessary to pay workers overtime and give them sick leave to continue employment, those benefits are given. Across the whole world, those benefits aren't necessary to hire some professions, jobs for those professions leave the US. In theory regulation would protect us from predatory industries, in practice we often suffer from regulatory capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture.
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      And it's what enables corporations and corporatism entirely. There's no contradiction in what you're saying and what you're replying to.
    - mgarfias 13y ago
      The EPA exists to allow companies to pollute and skim some tax dollars in the process. In the time before zoning laws and complex regulation, if a company dumped something toxic, the legal frameworks were in place to sue them for the harm they had done. Now they're allowed to pollute a set amount via a regulators ok.
    - mgarfias 13y ago
      The EPA exists to allow companies to pollute and skim some tax dollars in the process. In the time before zoning laws and complex regulation, if a company dumped something toxic, the legal frameworks were in place to sue them for the harm they had done. Now they're allowed to pollute a set amount via a regulators ok.
  - rubikscube 13y ago
    Succinctly and accurately put. I know there's more that agree on HN, but those who repeat the government lines verbatim from their government school seventh-grade textbooks seem to be the most vocal around here.
    - anon1385 13y ago
      Maybe they are vocal because they don't want to die in their workplace? It seems quite reasonable to have strong view on such a topic. You view humans as disposable resources for making profit. Most of us view humans as human beings. Don't be surprised when your fringe views meet with opposition. Some recent libertarian deregulation success stories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Savar_building_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Savar_building_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Thane_building_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Thane_building_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Pakistan_garment_factory_fires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Pakistan_garment_factory_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Dhaka_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Dhaka_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_explos...
  - nitid_name 13y ago
    Try using "Regulatory Capture" as a buzz word in these sorts of discussions. It carries the entire weight of the argument in one convenient term.
- nhangen 13y ago
  He fights against senseless, bloated regulation because he is a libertarian, and that's what libertarians do...they fight against bloated government in order to enforce only that which is required for the country to function.
  - mieses 13y ago
    He fights against regulation at the federal level, not at the state and local level, which is more constitutionalist than absolute libertarian. This would allow states to implement consistent laws where it makes sense and different laws where it doesn't. Rand Paul is not for a libertarian utopia without rules, like most people here claim.

ebbv 13y ago

He fights against bailouts, sure. But he also fights against all regulation.

jimzvz 13y ago
Regulation is exactly what enables corporatism.
- ebbv 13y ago
  Uhh, no. Regulation is what requires corporations to dispose of pollutants properly instead of just dumping them in rivers. Regulation is what requires corporations to give workers proper safety warnings, equipment and training rather than just putting them in harm's way. Regulation is what requires corporations to disclose their accounting to investors instead of telling them whatever they want. Regulation is what requires corporations to pay full time workers overtime, give breaks and sick time, and just generally treat them like human beings. Regulation is for corporations what criminal law is for individuals. It's what prevents the worst of us from behaving as badly as they would otherwise. Not all regulation is automatically good, just like not all criminal laws are automatically good. But there is a reason it exists, and it has an important role to play.
  - waffle_ss 13y ago
    Actually yes, regulation also gives favored status to corporations. For example, the "Big Three" credit rating agencies who were given the federal gov't's blessed "NRSRO" status, who controlled 95% of the market share on credit ratings and who ended up being a a major cause of the 2008 bank failure due to their malfeasance in rating debt. Another example is Bell Systems("Ma Bell")'s stifling of innovation as they held a government-sanctioned monopoly over telephone service via the Communications Act of 1934. Ma Bell would have had no reason to build you an iPhone as they had the market cornered.
    - ebbv 13y ago
      As I said, some regulation is bad just like some criminal laws are bad. Just because there's been bad regulation doesn't mean you get rid of all of it, just like you wouldn't get rid of all criminal laws just because the system has been abused in the past.
    - threeseed 13y ago
      You do know that 5 year olds can understand this, right ? REGULATION = GOOD REGULATION + BAD REGULATION Arguing against "regulation" means arguing against the good and the bad. Which is the height of stupidity since you're effectively arguing for companies to do whatever they want, whenever they want with zero consideration of anybody else.
  - jimzvz 13y ago
    Maybe we have a different definition of corporatism because none of your points have anything to do with it. Regulation allows Company A to influence the government to implement regulation that favours Company A and hinders Company B or individuals X. Now perhaps regulation is required to a certain extent (especially with regards to the environment) but many of the potential issues are already covered by criminal law. What is certain is that without regulation, corporatism would become very difficult.
    - Anechoic 13y ago
      Regulation allows Company A to influence the government to implement regulation "Regulation" doesn't allow Company A to influence the government, the First Amendment allows Company A to influence the government. In your statement, regulation is the effect, not the cause.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > "Regulation" doesn't allow Company A to influence the government Depends on the content of the regulation. Regulation that gives particular companies special voices on public policy does, in fact, give "Company A" a special ability to influence the government to implement policy in a way detrimental to competing "Company B" that is not granted a similar voice. There's quite a lot of regulation that does this in one form or another (usually, with safeguards that notionally serve to avoid abuse, but there is plenty of room for debate about how well those safeguards work.)
  - paddy_m 13y ago
    Regulation is what requires corporations to disclose their accounting to investors instead of telling them whatever they want. Actually, regulation prevents consumers from making choices with their investment decisions. By putting publicly traded companies in a special class, and only allowing individuals to invest in those companies, they vastly limit choice. Regulation is what requires corporations to pay full time workers overtime, give breaks and sick time, and just generally treat them like human beings. In America this is the case, however, over the whole world there is a relatively free market. For competitive job marekets/professions where is necessary to pay workers overtime and give them sick leave to continue employment, those benefits are given. Across the whole world, those benefits aren't necessary to hire some professions, jobs for those professions leave the US. In theory regulation would protect us from predatory industries, in practice we often suffer from regulatory capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    And it's what enables corporations and corporatism entirely. There's no contradiction in what you're saying and what you're replying to.
  - mgarfias 13y ago
    The EPA exists to allow companies to pollute and skim some tax dollars in the process. In the time before zoning laws and complex regulation, if a company dumped something toxic, the legal frameworks were in place to sue them for the harm they had done. Now they're allowed to pollute a set amount via a regulators ok.
  - mgarfias 13y ago
    The EPA exists to allow companies to pollute and skim some tax dollars in the process. In the time before zoning laws and complex regulation, if a company dumped something toxic, the legal frameworks were in place to sue them for the harm they had done. Now they're allowed to pollute a set amount via a regulators ok.
- rubikscube 13y ago
  Succinctly and accurately put. I know there's more that agree on HN, but those who repeat the government lines verbatim from their government school seventh-grade textbooks seem to be the most vocal around here.
  - anon1385 13y ago
    Maybe they are vocal because they don't want to die in their workplace? It seems quite reasonable to have strong view on such a topic. You view humans as disposable resources for making profit. Most of us view humans as human beings. Don't be surprised when your fringe views meet with opposition. Some recent libertarian deregulation success stories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Savar_building_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Savar_building_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Thane_building_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Thane_building_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Pakistan_garment_factory_fires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Pakistan_garment_factory_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Dhaka_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Dhaka_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_explos...
- nitid_name 13y ago
  Try using "Regulatory Capture" as a buzz word in these sorts of discussions. It carries the entire weight of the argument in one convenient term.
nhangen 13y ago
He fights against senseless, bloated regulation because he is a libertarian, and that's what libertarians do...they fight against bloated government in order to enforce only that which is required for the country to function.
- mieses 13y ago
  He fights against regulation at the federal level, not at the state and local level, which is more constitutionalist than absolute libertarian. This would allow states to implement consistent laws where it makes sense and different laws where it doesn't. Rand Paul is not for a libertarian utopia without rules, like most people here claim.