Open Thread: Philosophy of Government Debate

if the federal government has any authority under the constitution in the above mentioned areas.
Should people feel governmental regulation necessary in these areas, change the constitution or handle these matters at the state level.

1. The more government intervenes, the worse the situation gets. Government is incapable of allocating resources to effectively solve problems, we all know that. Also, through free market competition, businesses are forced to compete for workers, which means they must offer higher benefits and salaries, and of course a safe work place. Beyond that, depending on the mutually agreed upon voluntary contract between the business owner and the employee, the employee could demand compensation for injuries because of employer neglegance. Of course, we need to privatize the courts too to have an effective system of law.

2. No, setting a minimum wage is never desirable. Again, it should be set via the voluntary contract between an employer and an employee. Through the free market, again, employers are forced to compete for workers by offering higher wages. Also, EVERY TIME the government artificially intervenes and demands an increase in the wages, there is a rise in unemployment. It is no mystery why. Businesses are forced to fire the lowest marginal worker (ie, the one government is trying to protect) because of the raise in minimum wage. Just like everything else in the economy, there is a supply and demand curve, and the hiring of labor is no exception. If a business hires Joe Schmoe at $6.00/hr and the minimum wage is raised to $7.00/hr, Joe doesn't get a raise, he gets fired. So, it always ends up hurting the people they are trying to help.

3. No, government should never get involved in safety. How do politicians know what the appropriate safety measures are (the FAA kept us so safe on 9/11!)? Safety, and the liability thereof, must be placed where it belongs, on the business. In Ron Paul's book he talks about the guy who was in government and then went into private business. He realized that government regulations are worthless because the standards are ridiculously high. Again, this should be handled via the free market and competition. Government is unable to allocate the resources that it stole through taxation effectively to solve this problem.

I'm not sure about four and five but I guarentee government intervention has a negative effecct. Decisions are always made for political reasons, and they never concern actual effectiveness or improvement. Go to www.lewrockwell.com or www.mises.org if you haven't already. The Austrian school of economics, which Ron Paul is in, has shown that all government intervention is a failure, and is never preferable to the free market (even in areas we would associate with the Constitution!).

There shouldn't be a debate.

'Follow the Constitution" pretty much sums it up.

1. The case law is very specific on this point in that a manufacturer of equipment should ensure that dangerous equipment is made as safe as possible and thus they are liable. The company using the product may also be liable for any negligence in maintaining the equipment.

2. Minimum wage is necessary unless you want most workers to be paid $1 a day (why do companies run for USA - to pay lower wages). This also ties in with our unsustainable economic model. Being young and in debt with many student loans I find it troubling to find a job that I could actually pay my loans and still live - I guess when we have over inflation of the economy with stagnant wages (of at least 10-15 years ago) one has a hard time to get ahead or at least tread water.

3. Case law is specific to this. Nuclear reactors are an inherently dangeroous activity as is demolitions and such and therfore the law provides for strict liability of those issues. Polluters can be sued under nuisance theories. Yes, gov't must regulate for the safety and welfare of its citizens (watch Erin Brockovich, read about 3 mile island, etc...).

4. Corporate law is great. It is a way for individuals to engage in business activities and not be sued personally (it's the abuse of this that is the problem). But state legislatures routinely modify coporate law to benefit the lobbyists of the larger more profitable corporations - that is unfair.

5. Public airwaves are regulated through the FCC. However, I do feel that such regulation should not be overly burdensome to the individual and that unless that signal is purchased or otherwise in use then the individual should be able to freely access them (this is a great topic considering the move from analog to digital)

I think the revolution should address people's concerns on more ideological and philosophical grounds as well as substantive parliamentary procedures.

1. Religion - Too many times in these threads do people hammer out the word of God while Dr. Paul, in what I have seen, avoids the religious issue - it is not a matter to be dealt with on the Federal level but is used to "swing" elections. I understand end time philosophy and believe that is better left at the church than in political discourse.

2. Civil Rights - I have talked to many people who believe that a return to constitutional principles would eviscerate civil rights and bring a return to slavery, the hatred of homosexuals, the degredation of women's rights and so forth. This is a very real fear among people because of the blatant hypocrisy of "created equal" but not until you get a special law passed to protect a suspect class. This is a truth that needs to be addressed in a meaningful and educated manner (without refering to the Old or New Testament).

3. Parliamentary Procedures - Congress and the president have engaged in makeing procedure changes at whim and with no notice to the people therefore to challenge them is almost impossible. Executive Orders and other such documents that purport to evade the constitution should be banned or limited to explicit circumstances, and the constitution should be strictly enforced.

4. Government Agencies - FBI and CIA roles should be clearly defined and not used to harrass, coerce, degrade, or otherwise oppress a citizen's fundamental right to due process both substantively and procedurally. Guilty until proven innocent must end. There should be a sunshine provision and the gov't reports should not only be offered under freedom of information requests but be PUBLISHED regardless of any such request.

5. Search and seizure - Probable cause must exist to warrant a valid search. Where I live it is the norm for police to as to search your car pursuant to a routine traffic stop. If you do not authorize such the police then begin on a tirade of "well, what do you have to hide?" My answer is I have everything to hide from oppressive governements whether local, state, or national.

Hope I was able to add to the dialog on this issue as a viable and sustainable third party to protect and ensure the rights of people without exception should be the way to proceed. I could go on ad nauseum but will stop here. Thanks for the post.

Peace, Prosperity, Liberty.

Ron Paul is the ONLY campaign I have ever donated to. Thank you Dr. Paul.

1. After the fact punishment. My reasoning is that it would be very bureaucratic for the government to determine what is safe and what is unsafe (which would provide an incentive for businesses do to the bare minimum) and they would have to audit businesses all the time to make sure they're not breaking the law. If employers knew that they could be sued for making unsafe working conditions, then that would deter them. Eventually the unsafe businesses would be selected out of the economy because they would keep losing money in lawsuits and wouldn't be able to keep their businesses open.

2. No minimum wage is needed. Wages adjust naturally to the economy.

3. I don't know enough about this to have an opinion.

4. The airwaves should work like the internet. They should be completely free and there should be a million channels and everyone gets a shot to make one and maintain it. Instead, right now we have a handful of large media corporations owning a limited number of channels.

----------
"We will never give up. We will never give in." - Dr. Ron Paul

1. Yes the employer should provide every means for a safe work enviroment and a minimal of preemptive legislation could ensure an honest disclosure to employees of potential job risk. After the fact punishment alone would not work because of our inept and bias judicial system.

2. No, there should not be a minimum wage. Perhaps there should be a maximum wage?

3. Yes there should be government regulation controlling any business that poses a risk outside the property (in time or space) that the business is located on/in.

4. A business owner should not be able to skirt responsability. Allowing people to hide behind a corporation to evade responsability is wrong. Whether they actually run the business or are making money through investment in the business they should have to shoulder any financial burden should the company be found liable for their actions.

5. You have to have some sort of regulation over the airwaves.

The problem/answer to most all questions about government boils down to money. Our government should not be a money making institution and should not be swayed by big money individuals or organizations nor should it be caretaker of every individual. Government intervention is nessessary in many cases but we will never have a 100 percent concensus on those boundaries. Capitolism is fine but capitolism run-a-mok is a bad thing.

God created the perfect world. We have been screwing it up ever since and these problems are the price we pay for our suposed advancements.

"The day is coming, burning like a oven, when all the wicked will be stubble"

I'm not sure on all the right answers. I know I have discussed a couple of these issues with my liberal friend, and the answers aren't easy.

1. As with anything else in life, the owner of the machine and/or the maker of the machine are responsible. If the machine was in good shape and not dangerous when the employer took possession, then the manufacturer is not responsible. The employer is responsible for maintaining the machine after he takes possession. Then, if something happens to the employee because of neglect by the machine's owner... the employer/owner is responsible, and should be able to be sued in a civil case, and fined/imprisoned in a criminal case. I'm not for the pre-emptive legislation in this case. The owner shouldn't have more laws and regulations to deal with... the laws and punishments are already on the books for causing injury to someone. No additional legislation needed.

2. The minimum wage is unnecessary and harmful. It actually hurts the poor, rather than helping. If you can't get a job that pays $7/hour... then you just can't/won't be employed. How is that good for the poor, uneducated, unskilled person?

3. This is the hardest one. I'm not sure yet on this one. In general, I'm for as little regulation as possible... however... having worked on nuclear reactors in the Navy, I know the difference in the safety ratings on Navy reactors vs. civilian reactors vs. other county's reactors. The US Navy has the safest reactors in the world. They are also very tightly regulated. The Russian navy had all sorts of nuclear accidents, and everyone knows what happened in Chernobyl. There is a safe way to do nuclear power... but unfotunately, it takes rules and regulations.

This question is hard on many levels. I understand it's a simple issue of property rights, but what good does it do to sue the company that violated your rights if you're already glowing in the dark and puking from radiation sickness?

4. I don't mind the stock market as an avenue to invest in companies, or to get people to invest in your company... but I don't think the government needs it's hands in there. They sure don't seem to prevent fraud like at Enron, MCI, etc.... so what good are they doing?

5. The airwaves belong to the people. In order to maintain a thriving democratic process, the people need to be informed. Dr. Paul doesn't have a problem with capitalism, but he does have a problem with monopoly capitalism. There should be anti-trust laws and "fairness doctorine" type laws in place to prevent media consolidation... but that's all. No censorship or anything like that... just laws to prevent someone from taking over all the media in a marketplace in order to spread propaganda.

My 2 cents.

Good question and these are the correct answers.

Are you independent thinkers or just sheeple?

These are excellent questions. Hopefully some of you have spent at least some time in your life thinking about them.

Share with us what you think!

"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Advocating for minarchical libertarianism since 1984...

1. The obligation of an employer to provide his employees with a safe working environment is limited to what can be reasonably expected. Employment is a contract. Works is being exchanged for money. It's important that the work is well understood, including the risks involved, by the worker. If a factory owner has his employees work on a dangerous machine, this is not a criminal act or a civil liability, unless he knowingly did not disclose the dangers, which resulted in injury. If wanton disregard is involved, it probably should be a criminal act. I don't believe the government should be responsible for a priori investigations (whack OSHA on Day 1).

2. There is nothing redeemable in the concept of a minimum wage.

3. All industries, including the nuclear industry, should be self-regulating.

4. No, corporate law is not good. Limiting liability of owners is not good. It turns the stock market into a lottery, not requiring the investor to take responsibility for what he is investing in. But I'm relatively open on this one.

5. Airwaves are like invisible roadways. There is a need for regulation in terms of who can broadcast when and where in order to minimize conflict, but it should be done like homesteading (or a wide open auction), and then the established right to broadcast should be bought and sold on the free market. The content need not be regulated. Broadcasters who want their right to broadcast to be protected should pay fees that alone would fund a regulatory agency.

"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Advocating for minarchical libertarianism since 1984...