Legal Fairness

[Rage]

Do you guys think its fair for cigarette companies to not be able to advertise their product? Yeah smoking hurts you, but alcohol hurts you, diet pills hurt you, those E.D pills and B.C pills hurt you, but they get to advertise their product.

Personally I think it isn't fair.

[lily]

Are you just talking about TV? I hate to answer your question with a question, but is it fair that candy companies also don't get to advertise?


Me.....I pretty much TIVO everything, just so I don't have to watch any ads....but to answer your question.......in a free market, no I don't think it's fair, but I do think the market should decide, not the government.

[Buck Laser]

Do you guys think its fair for cigarette companies to not be able to advertise their product? Yeah smoking hurts you, but alcohol hurts you, diet pills hurt you, those E.D pills and B.C pills hurt you, but they get to advertise their product.

Personally I think it isn't fair.
They can advertise, just not on TV. I see tobacco ads in just about every periodical I read, although I don't think they advertise in mass circulation mags like TIME.

It took me 21 years after I started smoking to finally quit. Nicotine addiction is the deepest and most tenacious addiction there is, so now, even 35 years after I finally quit, I'm glad not to have the presence of smoking constantly before me.

Smokers complain about their "rights," but aren't able to realize what an imposition their smoking is on the rest of us. Purely from a selfish point of view, I'm glad it's almost gone.

[lauren]

In a free market I think they should be able to advertise.I thought this was an interesting question and I remembered something about Joe Camel not being allowed to be used by Camel because it appealed to children so I typed it in.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/30594.html


Very interesting article on the effects of cigarette advertising. But I believe that because of capitalism and the free market economy that tobacco companies, as well as every other company in other areas should be able to advertise, but not aim their advertisement at children that can be influenced.

[cronic]

It took me 21 years after I started smoking to finally quit. Nicotine addiction is the deepest and most tenacious addiction there is, so now, even 35 years after I finally quit, I'm glad not to have the presence of smoking constantly before me.

Smokers complain about their "rights," but aren't able to realize what an imposition their smoking is on the rest of us. Purely from a selfish point of view, I'm glad it's almost gone.

Whew.. what you wrote sounds so close to my story and feelings I .. I .. ohhh.. I just got a shiver ...just now.. weeeee.

ah.. ok.. better now..I just had to say I can relate & your not alone.

Its only been 2 years and 2 months for me Buck and I still have a craving.
After 25+ yrs of both smoking and drinking, I quit cold turkey.
Will the urge & the power of the want ever go away completely?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To the topic itself... I feel they should have the right to advertise.
I remember when I was young seeing the Marlboro and camel and lucky strike commercials. I also remember about when they stopped them and I think I know why.
because people don't want there kids seeing it on tv as it could be leading or tempting to them... I can understand this being a parent myself.
I was a smoker when my daughter was growing up and I'm not proud of it.

but my point is.. I never wanted her to smoke and thankfully she doesn't.

Advertising Cigarettes on TV:
Do I think they should have a right to do so?...Legally?... yes.. I do
Do I think they should?..
no.. because I don't want kids to be tempted by them ads either.

[Rage]

Check this out.

Could be offtopic, but its semantics on a free market. You might find someone you know in that thread.

http://politicalfever.org/american-politics/6479-truly-free-market-socialist.html

[firefox]

It took me 21 years after I started smoking to finally quit. Nicotine addiction is the deepest and most tenacious addiction there is, so now, even 35 years after I finally quit, I'm glad not to have the presence of smoking constantly before me

The key, IMHO, is to never do it more than once every few weeks or so. That way, you won't be doing it enough to make it a bad habit.

[Alonzo]

I don't really care about fairness to corporations, and I don't see how the pro's of having them advertise outweigh the con's.

Maybe we should require this picture on the front of every cigarette pack:

http://www.pickleheadsgang.com/smoking%20is%20bad.jpg

[Charles V]

I don't think that tobacco advertisement should be prohibitted. However, ignorance of the health issues involved should not be overlooked: simply continue placing health risk notices wherever that tobacco is being advertised.

Personally, I think that they're not approaching the issue correctly. Instead of imposing a moratorium on tobacco advertisement, impose it on smoking in public areas and locales. Discourages consumption and eliminates their contamination of non-smokers' breathing air.

[Rage]

I hear some smoking is like wine, a glass of wine a day is actually good for you. Maybe if they put some vitamin like inhalants in their cigarettes.... Just speculation. Thanks for the opinions guys, this thread may come in handy in a future debate.

[Alonzo]

I hear some smoking is like wine, a glass of wine a day is actually good for you.

You think light smoking is good for you?

I'm glad I don't have faith in humanity. How can you, in this day and age, actually think any amount of smoking is good for you?

[Charles V]

I hear some smoking is like wine, a glass of wine a day is actually good for you.

Wine, in moderation, is good. But I can't imagine how breathing in nicotine, lead, tar, and formaldehyde can be in any possible way beneficial. Poison, in whatever small quantities it is intaken, is never good, just less bad.

[Rage]

Maybe if they put some vitamin like inhalants in their cigarettes....

Don't insult me (figure of speech), apparently you didn't read that part, its speculation that it would be good for you. Of course, I also thought of whether or not they should take the poisons and nicotine out, but I thought that was an obvious implication.

[Alonzo]

Not sure who that's directed to, as you quoted yourself, but do you have any evidence to support that? Smoking being good for you, at all, seems like a ridiculous argument.

[Rage]

That was directed at who ever (now including yourself)

Wow, jesus christ.. Have you ever heard of a nebulizer? I was making reference to what they could to to make it better for you, I am not sure what to tell you guys but to re read the post, and google nebulizer.

[Alonzo]

I hear some smoking is like wine, a glass of wine a day is actually good for you. Maybe if they put some vitamin like inhalants in their cigarettes.... Just speculation.

Nope, didn't misread it.

And I'm not sure what smoking has to do with a nebulizer, and I'm not sure when cigarettes became, or can become, liquids.

[4Reaganomics]

It is not correct that we infringe upon their right to advertise the sale of a legal product.

The bigger problem I see is that these anti-tobacco organizations are allowed to run ads saying "tobacco corporations do this, this, and this", but tobacco corporations cannot even advertise on TV or place ads on TV in response to their critics.

Government seems to do very well from the sales of cigarettes along with the corporations. Christ, look at the tax rates on them

[Sublimating]

Nothing about how the tobacco industry is regulated makes any sense to me. For one why does the FDA allow the the marketing and distribution of a product that , when used correctly, will kill you?

Why is the federal government allowed to sue on our behalf yet we are discouraged and often not permitted to sue as individuals?

If the distribution of cocaine, weed, and other main stream drugs are illegal under the health and safety code why aren't cigarettes?

The limited ban on advertisement of tobacco products is just another ridiculous half measure on the part of the government which, in keeping with the established pattern, makes no sense.

[Rage]

You can look at it that way, but also note that this.

Have you ever seen a diet pill commercial? Those too, if use correctly, will weaken your heart and set you up for a heart attack.

And zo, it was speculation of a product to be if they could make it healthy for you. Maybe I made a mistake by wording my sentence saying that some smoking is good for you, when I know it isn't. Sometimes I have a problem articulating what I want to say, and what I wanted to say is if they could make it somewhat like a nebulizer.

Something that like, would coat your lungs and help the incoming blood absorb more oxygen. Having more oxygen in your blood can do wonders. You can run longer, faster; be stronger loose weight easier and faster. It would probably win their right back to advertise. As of their current product, yes, it is bad to smoke it cigarettes.

[Phyxius]

You can look at it that way, but also note that this.

Have you ever seen a diet pill commercial? Those too, if use correctly, will weaken your heart and set you up for a heart attack.

And zo, it was speculation of a product to be if they could make it healthy for you. Maybe I made a mistake by wording my sentence saying that some smoking is good for you, when I know it isn't. Sometimes I have a problem articulating what I want to say, and what I wanted to say is if they could make it somewhat like a nebulizer.

You need to watch Barbarians at the Gate. They already tried that in the 80's. Called 'em Premiers. The general consensus was that they tasted like sh*t and smelled like a fart... :dizzy:

[Osborn F. Enready]

None of this changes the fact that people have a right to consume what they want, harmless or not, deadly or not.

The example of cigarette advertising is a shameful example of how our nation has turned its back on the concept of a free market.

[Charles V]

None of this changes the fact that people have a right to consume what they want, harmless or not, deadly or not.

The example of cigarette advertising is a shameful example of how our nation has turned its back on the concept of a free market.

Shameless? Far from it.

The fact that people may smoke tobacco if they wish to should not prevent the government from discouraging its use. After all, lung cancer expenses are suffered through the social security system.

[Alonzo]

Libertarians are actually talking about being unfair to corporations who manufacture products that kill their consumers and offer no real benefits.

Wow, just wow.

[Elrathin]

Have you ever heard of a nebulizer?

What's a nebulizer have to do with smoking? A Nebulizer is not smoke it is a vapor (to be specific oxygen pumped through water with medication). I know because typically I have to get a nebulizer treatment about every other year because I get bronchitus.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Charles said:
Shameless? Far from it.

The fact that people may smoke tobacco if they wish to should not prevent the government from discouraging its use. After all, lung cancer expenses are suffered through the social security system.

I have no problem with educational and awareness campaigns to discourage the use of tobacco. I have a huge problem with a capitalist (claimed) system directly interfering in the market in a way that directly harms the market and the consumers, which is what they are doing. At the same time, they pass "sin taxes" on tobacco products that are most commonly used which directly affect the market as well as the bottom line of every consumer who uses the product.

Its criminal, as is the social security system as designed.

Alonzo said:
Libertarians are actually talking about being unfair to corporations who manufacture products that kill their consumers and offer no real benefits.

Wow, just wow.

Last I checked Alonzo, being a Libertarian meant owning your own body, and being able to consume products you WANT to consume without UNJUST government interference. This is obviously unjust interference on many levels, from the commercial restrictions to the rigged tax system layed on them.

People have a right to commit suicide, and companies have a right to market products that are dangerous if the consumer is made aware of the dangers, which they are through package labelling.

Besides Alonzo, its pretty clear you have no clue what a Libertarian is, so I am not suprised that you are shocked.

Elrathin said:
What's a nebulizer have to do with smoking? A Nebulizer is not smoke it is a vapor (to be specific oxygen pumped through water with medication). I know because typically I have to get a nebulizer treatment about every other year because I get bronchitus.

I could be wrong Elrathin, but I think Rage is saying he would like to see healthier alternatives to smoking tobacco that deliver the same effects, possibly through a nebulizer type system in individual cigarette shaped cylinders. It could be used to help people quit, ween off of tobacco, or simply as a healthier replacement.

[Alonzo]

Last I checked Alonzo, being a Libertarian meant owning your own body, and being able to consume products you WANT to consume without UNJUST government interference. This is obviously unjust interference on many levels, from the commercial restrictions to the rigged tax system layed on them.

So, by not having cigarette ads on TV, what rights do you lose? Do you not know what they are and you need those ads to inform you that they exist? And, even if that were the case, do you have a right to be informed of everything that exists?


People have a right to commit suicide, and companies have a right to market products that are dangerous if the consumer is made aware of the dangers, which they are through package labelling.

Cigarette companies have long downplayed dangers, and used things, such as a cartoon camel, that appeals more to kids than adults.

When cigarette companies show people in hospital beds endorsing their brands then maybe we can talk. Have some guy with that voice box thing holding up a pack of marlboro's and saying "Come to Marlboro Country. Come to where the flavor is. "

Besides Alonzo, its pretty clear you have no clue what a Libertarian is, so I am not suprised that you are shocked.

I understand libertarianism, if I didn't I wouldn't hate it as much. Though I admit sometimes I forget that they view corporations as people.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
So, by not having cigarette ads on TV, what rights do you lose?

If I am an owner of a tobacco farm or a cigarette producer, I lose my right to advertise my goods to a WILLING consumer in popular broadcast and advertising mediums... a right shared by all people who market legal goods.

Alonzo said:
Do you not know what they are and you need those ads to inform you that they exist?

I don't, but then again, I don't own a tobacco farm or a cigarette manufacturing company. There are people who do though, and the government has no right imposing force against them preventing them from gaining equal market access to their consumers.

Alonzo said:
And, even if that were the case, do you have a right to be informed of everything that exists?

In a country of free information, and free speech, I have a nearly unlimited right to information that is made public.

Alonzo said:
Cigarette companies have long downplayed dangers, and used things, such as a cartoon camel, that appeals more to kids than adults.

As do politicians and political parties, as well as snake-oil salesman..... point?

Alonzo said:
When cigarette companies show people in hospital beds endorsing their brands then maybe we can talk.

I am not in a hospital bed, nor are many cigarette smokers. Why should this be part of their advertising?

Alonzo said:
Have some guy with that voice box thing holding up a pack of marlboro's and saying "Come to Marlboro Country. Come to where the flavor is. "

So you think politicians and all other products should be held to the same level? Now you want to totally regulate advertising of all goods and services?

Alonzo said:
I understand libertarianism, if I didn't I wouldn't hate it as much. Though I admit sometimes I forget that they view corporations as people.

And yet again, you are so uninformed on the topic I wonder why I debate it with you.....

Show me a debate where I argue FOR corporate personhood? You can't.

[Rage]

What's a nebulizer have to do with smoking? A Nebulizer is not smoke it is a vapor (to be specific oxygen pumped through water with medication). I know because typically I have to get a nebulizer treatment about every other year because I get bronchitus.

You can look at it that way, but also note that this.

Have you ever seen a diet pill commercial? Those too, if use correctly, will weaken your heart and set you up for a heart attack.

And zo, it was speculation of a product to be if they could make it healthy for you. Maybe I made a mistake by wording my sentence saying that some smoking is good for you, when I know it isn't. Sometimes I have a problem articulating what I want to say, and what I wanted to say is if they could make it somewhat like a nebulizer.

Something that like, would coat your lungs and help the incoming blood absorb more oxygen. Having more oxygen in your blood can do wonders. You can run longer, faster; be stronger loose weight easier and faster. It would probably win their right back to advertise. As of their current product, yes, it is bad to smoke it cigarettes.

[brien]

There are many examples of unfairness in the legal system. The OJ trial is one of the more famous in the criminal side and the prosecution of the Cigarette companies is another on the Civil side. Anyone who thinks the legal system is fair, is well, misinformed.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I agree Brien, and good to see you again! ;)

[brien]

I agree Brien, and good to see you again! ;)

Thanks OS, ya know it is boating season so I come and go..I find is very amusing in one sense, but very disheartening in another sense, that citizens think the US legal system is fair.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I know what you mean Brien about the legal system, and its view of our rights, compared to what many "perceive" as fair.

One side of you wants to laugh, the other wants to scream.

Kind of how I feel about the never-ending struggle against sheeple who want to use government as a cudgel against anyone they don't agree with.......

[Milton Bradley]

Kind of how I feel about the never-ending struggle against sheeple who want to use government as a cudgel against anyone they don't agree with.......


Indeed.


This is the monied interets playing off the peoples prejudices, as Lincoln warned us about. ( DANG's signature )

[4Reaganomics]

ANY INTERFERENCE IN VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE IS UNFAIR and it is a complete injustice to the American people/

[brien]

Libertarians are actually talking about being unfair to corporations who manufacture products that kill their consumers and offer no real benefits.

Wow, just wow.

I love it when people who seem to know so little about Libertarians speak for them.

Libertarians do not force anyone to buy anything from any corporation. However there is a mountain of evidence of the government being unfair to corporations; eg the prosecution of the Tobacco Companies by the Congress of Democrats and Republicans who stole their money under the pretense of using it for health reforms. Much of the "settlement" money actually went into the general funds of state governments that spent it on anything but health related reforms. Now, tell me who is morally bankrupt here. These government theiving bastards are no better than the companies they called upon the carpet. Please give me a break, it is the government of Democrats and Republicans who are the crooks here..

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Spending_Tobacco_Settlement_Money.asp

http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=195&org_name=ntu

[Charles V]

At the same time, they pass "sin taxes" on tobacco products that are most commonly used which directly affect the market as well as the bottom line of every consumer who uses the product.

''Sin'' taxes, criminal? I disagree.

Uniform tax rate? Luxury products usually have a higher tax rate compared to first-necessity products.

I see no problem with raising taxes on vices that harm consumers' health. Discourages use, and finances the burden that the State's social security system will have to endure because of lung cancer.

ANY INTERFERENCE IN VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE IS UNFAIR and it is a complete injustice to the American people.

The purchase of tobacco is not being prohibited. Advertisement is.

[Alonzo]

brien, I said this:

Libertarians are actually talking about being unfair to corporations who manufacture products that kill their consumers and offer no real benefits.

Then you said this:

I love it when people who seem to know so little about Libertarians speak for them.

Followed by this:

However there is a mountain of evidence of the government being unfair to corporations; eg the prosecution of the Tobacco Companies by the Congress of Democrats and Republicans who stole their money under the pretense of using it for health reforms.

I think you made my point.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Charles said:
''Sin'' taxes, criminal? I disagree.

I respect your right to disagree, assuming you have some facts and examples to show how its doing ANYTHING it was proposed to do, and assuming of course you ignore the fact that this is arbitrary taxation to support things the government couldn't raise support for in the first place, on its own.

Charles said:
Uniform tax rate? Luxury products usually have a higher tax rate compared to first-necessity products.

And let me guess, you also believe in progressive income taxation and bi-partisan government?

Charles said:
I see no problem with raising taxes on vices that harm consumers' health.

Never mind that its government skewing what is claimed to be a free market as well as attempting to affect consumer choice through price controls based on arbitrary standards...based on the philosophy of protecting people from themselves.

Charles said:
Discourages use, and finances the burden that the State's social security system will have to endure because of lung cancer.

They shouldn't be offering national healthcare, or social security, so the fact is its people who champion THOSE PROGRAMS that are shifting THAT BURDEN on to taxpayers.

Don't blame the smokers for the burden, its the bi-partisan schmucks in office placing that burden on the taxpayers. Smokers would gladly accept their burden if the government would stop taxing them in every single aspect of life and leave them some money from their check, issued on THEIR LABOR.

I also notice you avoid addressing the burden the bi-partisan monopoly on power has put on Social Security by stealing from the fund?

Alonzo said:
I think you made my point.

If your point was that the bi-partisan government is corrupt, I would agree, he helped make your point.

[Alonzo]

My point was that libertarians are complaining about being unfair to corporations. In this case corporations that produce deadly products.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
My point was that libertarians are complaining about being unfair to corporations.

Exactly. Libertarians complain about UNFAIRNESS, but thank you for admitting your obvious tendency to side with unfairness.

It has 0% to do with the fact they are corporations, and 100% to do with the FACT THAT IT IS COMPLETELY UNFAIR, and goes directly against the FOUNDATION of CAPITALISM and FREE MARKET ECONOMICS.

Alonzo said:
In this case corporations that produce deadly products.

Name a product that is not deadly.

[Alonzo]

See brien, Osborn agrees with my point as well!

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
See brien, Osborn agrees with my point as well!

So, your point was that bi-partisan government is in essence unfair, and corrupted?

Yes, if so, I do agree.

[Charles V]

And let me guess, you also believe in progressive income taxation and bi-partisan government?

I don't have a strong opinion in favour or against a flat taxation rate or a progressive taxation rate - I can see the benefits and negatives of both, but I'd personally lean for the flat tax rate. On the second, I am puzzled as to how you could have possibly reached that conclusion.

They shouldn't be offering national healthcare, or social security, so the fact is its people who champion THOSE PROGRAMS that are shifting THAT BURDEN on to taxpayers.

Different discussion. Open a new topic if you must. However, the current reality is that such program is in fact in effect. Argument remains valid.

Never mind that its government skewing what is claimed to be a free market as well as attempting to affect consumer choice through price controls based on arbitrary standards...

I numbered the actual positives of increasing taxes on tobacco, you mentioned free market. Ideology should never supersede practicality.

In any case, what you support is a fully laissez-faire economy, and I am personally sceptical of it. But hey, maybe open a different discussion for that?*

---

* On the other hand, this is probably one of those topics which have been debated ad nauseam in these types of forums.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Charles said:
I don't have a strong opinion in favour or against a flat taxation rate or a progressive taxation rate - I can see the benefits and negatives of both, but I'd personally lean for the flat tax rate. On the second, I am puzzled as to how you could have possibly reached that conclusion.

It was a guess, but I was wrong obviously.

My question is what right does the government have to infringe on the market like this through taxation, when its right to tax is SUPPOSED to be limited and restricted to only what is necessary for operation of its essentials.

The reason these taxes are added on discriminately, is because the causes they are taxing for aren't supported enough by the people to pass a tax solely for those purposes.
Its an old and dishonest tactic the bi-partisan government has been using for decades.

Charles said:
Different discussion. Open a new topic if you must. However, the current reality is that such program is in fact in effect. Argument remains valid.

So your argument is that since its the status quo, don't analyze it, don't review it, just accept it with no further argument? Because it is in place makes it fair, correct, or legal?

Charles said:
I numbered the actual positives of increasing taxes on tobacco, you mentioned free market. Ideology should never supersede practicality.

It doesn't have to do with ideology, it has to do with guaranteed rights of individuals in a binding contract between Americans and their government, which they have the right to petition for redress, or remove if necessary.

Charles said:
In any case, what you support is a fully laissez-faire economy, and I am personally sceptical of it.

Why are you skeptical of equal individual rights in economics?

[Charles V]

Why are you skeptical of equal individual rights in economics?

Because equal legal individual rights in the economy does not equate to equal opportunities for those individuals: an unregulated economy allows those of high economic standing accumulate wealth, which in then passed on to their descendants, giving those an unfair advantage in the free market and thereby increase the rich-poor divide.

Also, a number of practical shortcomings of a laissez-faire market. The free market depends in essence on competition, and unregulated, corporations may devise ways in which to avoid competition. Competition law, therefore, is a necessary government intervention into the economy.

Also, the main and only goal of a corporation is to provide profits for its shareholders. They therefore hold little regard for the environment if damaging it involves gaining a larger profit: a Tragedy of the Commons example. Government regulation is needed to prevent this from happening.

Furthermore, in a highly-developed country, I find it unacceptable that education and healthcare are not a guaranteed right.

* Lack of time. Excuse only my partial response to your post.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Charles said:
Because equal legal individual rights in the economy does not equate to equal opportunities for those individuals

Equal access was NEVER intended to assure equal opprotunity. This is a capitalist system.

Charles said:
an unregulated economy allows those of high economic standing accumulate wealth, which in then passed on to their descendants, giving those an unfair advantage in the free market and thereby increase the rich-poor divide.

And you think government has a role to stop this?

Charles said:
Also, a number of practical shortcomings of a laissez-faire market. The free market depends in essence on competition, and unregulated, corporations may devise ways in which to avoid competition. Competition law, therefore, is a necessary government intervention into the economy.

I have no problem in getting rid of corporate personhood, thats a fallacy argument to begin with. However, I disagree about your argument regarding competititon law. Competition law is a product of the corporate personhood argument, because one group got bought in to Washingtons legislative branch and outlawed the actions of another.

Charles said:
Also, the main and only goal of a corporation is to provide profits for its shareholders.

No doubt. You will find me arguing little about the "good qualities" of corporations.
The problem is that corporations have more rights than individual business owners, mainly due to corporate personhood and corporate welfare, both eminating from the two party monopoly on power to benefit themselves mutually.

Charles said:
They therefore hold little regard for the environment if damaging it involves gaining a larger profit: a Tragedy of the Commons example. Government regulation is needed to prevent this from happening.

Once again, the example you use is an issue of corporate personhood, in application to responsibility for damages done. I am against corporate personhood.

Charles said:
Furthermore, in a highly-developed country, I find it unacceptable that education and healthcare are not a guaranteed right.

So you are in favor of the Norway welfare state idea then?

Charles said:
* Lack of time. Excuse only my partial response to your post.

No problem, my time here is sporadic also, take your time.

[Charles V]

Equal access was NEVER intended to assure equal opprotunity. This is a capitalist system.

Then there is a problem with the system. Not necessarily with capitalism as a principle, but with unregulated capitalism.


And you think government has a role to stop this?

The destruction of the middle class and the increase of the rich-poor divide in an unregulated capitalist system? Of course. For it's own preservation, actually. The threat to the established system has historically increased in direct proportion to the increase in number of the lower class.

I have no problem in getting rid of corporate personhood, thats a fallacy argument to begin with. However, I disagree about your argument regarding competititon law. Competition law is a product of the corporate personhood argument, because one group got bought in to Washingtons legislative branch and outlawed the actions of another.
No doubt. You will find me arguing little about the "good qualities" of corporations.
The problem is that corporations have more rights than individual business owners, mainly due to corporate personhood and corporate welfare, both eminating from the two party monopoly on power to benefit themselves mutually.
Once again, the example you use is an issue of corporate personhood, in application to responsibility for damages done. I am against corporate personhood.

I'm unsure how ''corporate personhood'' applies to either any of my arguments. The practices which I described don't arise from the fact that corporations are given natural rights as persons. Maybe a little elaboration? Or an alternative as to how these problems could be avoided in a completely unregulated market?

So you are in favor of the Norway welfare state idea then?

Swedish welfare cannot be applied in simply any type of society - so no.

However, my point is far from Swedish-like welfare. Education and healthcare are a guaranteed right, regardless of income, in essentially implemented every European country. And only Nordic countries have the system you describe.

It doesn't have to do with ideology, it has to do with guaranteed rights of individuals in a binding contract between Americans and their government, which they have the right to petition for redress, or remove if necessary.

Little has the 1st Amendment to do with this.

And yes, it has seemingly all to do with ideology. You mention the injustice of interfering in the free market - even when such interference discourages the use of a harmful vice.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Charles said:
Then there is a problem with the system. Not necessarily with capitalism as a principle, but with unregulated capitalism.

LOL.... that is an opinion, one which I don't share. You do realize all people have opinions, correct? You are attempting to lay a moral judgement on the economic system, based on YOUR values. Not everyone SHARES YOUR VALUES, nor could they, nor should they. Capitalism is about a FREE MARKET of values, goods and services.

Charles said:
The destruction of the middle class and the increase of the rich-poor divide in an unregulated capitalist system? Of course.

Why? Do you falsely believe all people should be of the same class? That education and labor ability, consistency and quality should play no role?

There is no such example in nature, which should tell you why a falsely constructed system of such shouldn't work.... its simply unnatural.

These people who perform the labor are essentially equal regarding their rights, but not equal in their ability, their desires, their drive, their intrests, etc., nor should they be.

Charles said:
For it's own preservation, actually. The threat to the established system has historically increased in direct proportion to the increase in number of the lower class.

Usually, that is because the upper class growth comes from the wholesale extortion, fraud or coercion of the lower classes through corruption of power and politics. You seem to want to highlight the class issue, but disregard or ignore the rest of the relevant causes and effects....or so it seems.

Charles said:
I'm unsure how ''corporate personhood'' applies to either any of my arguments. The practices which I described don't arise from the fact that corporations are given natural rights as persons. Maybe a little elaboration? Or an alternative as to how these problems could be avoided in a completely unregulated market?

These problems could be avoided by ensuring equal representation in courts for business as compared to individuals, something long gone in most countries and is becoming extinct in the U.S. as we speak. When defense or prosecution is a financial issue, as opposed to a justice issue, justice is the weakest link and the first sacrifice.

Our system in the U.S. has been gradually consolidating power (away) from its citizens since the late 1800's, as have most major power nations governments, to benefit corporations who have lodged themself in the political system through repeated and consistent buyoffs, illegal deals, and awards of government (peoples) lands to corporations. Its a matter of global political corruption, and a history of facillitating complacency in citizens long enough to finalize massive power grabs by government and their corporate backers in closed door, private sessions. Anymore, these sessions are open to the public in many cases simply because people are so far out of the loop, they don't recongnize what is happening.

For example, in the U.S., for the last 160 years it has been a bi-partisan system that has openly worked to isolate power amongst themselves, while working together to keep any challengers (third parties) out of the race in any aspect, local, state or national. This has allowed them 160 years of bi-partisan coercion, and favoritism for political favors for their wealthy corporate backers who are thanked by easing of restrictions against them, or stiffening restrictions for their competitors. What is consistent, is the transgression away from the Constitution and Bill of Rights under both parties who are pro corporation, and pro big government.

Its a complex problem, but I see your angle of attack as flawed in many ways as it is entirely too simple to see the real SOURCES of the problems, and I have to argue with your view of classism as a cause, as opposed to an effect.

Charles said:
Swedish welfare cannot be applied in simply any type of society - so no.

However, my point is far from Swedish-like welfare. Education and healthcare are a guaranteed right, regardless of income, in essentially implemented every European country. And only Nordic countries have the system you describe.

What you say above is a fallacy.

Explain to me how you can have a RIGHT to someone elses labor? That is slavery.

Education and healthcare are fields of labor that rely on costly education, that education is paid for by the people who seek it. How am I "entitled" to their labor?

I have a right to ACCESS healthcare, by my OWN MEANS and ABILITY.
I have a right to ACCESS education, by my OWN MEANS and ABILITY.

NOBODY owes me healthcare and education just because I am born, except my LEGAL GUARDIANS, or PARENTS, who are charged with my well being, and educational responsibilities until I reach majority age and gain full access to all of my natural rights as recognized by law.

You seem to be describing some type of Fabian Socialist system.

Charles said:
Little has the 1st Amendment to do with this.

And yes, it has seemingly all to do with ideology. You mention the injustice of interfering in the free market - even when such interference discourages the use of a harmful vice.

Whose choice is it to harm oneself?
Is the government to be empowered to prevent bad choices by individual citizens?

No government has the right to remove my power to consume what I wish, within my own body, by my own means, if it affects the rights of no other person.

No government lays claim on my life by birth, nor has a right to, nor my labor, earnings or any other aspect of my rational living.

[Charles V]

Whose choice is it to harm oneself?
Is the government to be empowered to prevent bad choices by individual citizens?

No government has the right to remove my power to consume what I wish, within my own body, by my own means, if it affects the rights of no other person.

No government lays claim on my life by birth, nor has a right to, nor my labor, earnings or any other aspect of my rational living.

Oh, but there's a large difference between banning advertisement and prohibiting consumption. The latter is not being done.

LOL....
You do realize all people have opinions, correct?

When two of the first three phrases in your posts contain these types of comments, it really demands an effort on my part to take you seriously. And it does really give an (inaccurate) first impression of your post.

You are attempting to lay a moral judgement on the economic system, based on YOUR values. Not everyone SHARES YOUR VALUES, nor could they, nor should they.

This is true. However, I consider certain ideas to be more than personal values, but rather, universal principles. In an ideal world, all men and women should be born equal, and differences amongst them should be determined solely by their actions in life.

While that seems utopian, any economic system should, at the very least, aim to reduce opportunity inequalities. You may, of course, disagree, but please open a new topic if you do, because, in all honestly, I'd be rather surprised, but discussion on the subject in this thread would probably further derail it.

Why? Do you falsely believe all people should be of the same class? That education and labor ability, consistency and quality should play no role?

My friend, I never stated such thing. But what I do think is that the best political community is one in which the middle class outnumbers both of the other classes. The destruction of the middle class through the creation of a two-class community of opposite economic extremes is a failure of the system.

Usually, that is because the upper class growth comes from the wholesale extortion, fraud or coercion of the lower classes through corruption of power and politics. You seem to want to highlight the class issue, but disregard or ignore the rest of the relevant causes and effects....or so it seems.
Its a complex problem, but I see your angle of attack as flawed in many ways as it is entirely too simple to see the real SOURCES of the problems, and I have to argue with your view of classism as a cause, as opposed to an effect.

The method that the upper class accumulated their wealth matters has historically mattered little to the lower classes. Revolutions, whether violent or not, have been instigated by the poor conditions of the lower class in extreme contrast to the upper.

In any case, that was more of a complementary comment rather than a full argument. Returning to topic:

These problems could be avoided by ensuring equal representation in courts for business as compared to individuals, something long gone in most countries and is becoming extinct in the U.S. as we speak.

Excuse my patent ignorance on this specific subject subject, but I'm still unsure what argument are you exactly trying to convey. First off, would granting equal representation not be considered ''corporate personhood''? Secondly, how do you integrate into your ''equal representation'' idea those corporate practices that are limited solely to businesses and do not apply to individuals, as, for example, competition law?

Explain to me how you can have a RIGHT to someone elses labor?

Possibly my choice of words was not correct. Medical care and education are not a natural right, they are a privilege that should be guaranteed.

May I note, however, that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights disagrees with this, as:

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Article 26
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

As per the principle of reducing opportunity inequalities, as I described earlier, society should ensure that all its members should be guaranteed basic necessities regardless of its socio-economic standing. And there are possibly no more basic necessities for equal opportunity and access to the free market that (1) education and (2) health condition. It is somewhat understandable that Haiti may not afford to guarantee such necessary privileges to its citizens, but it is unjust for a highly-developed to deny it.

[namguy]

They can advertise, just not on TV. I see tobacco ads in just about every periodical I read, although I don't think they advertise in mass circulation mags like TIME.

It took me 21 years after I started smoking to finally quit. Nicotine addiction is the deepest and most tenacious addiction there is, so now, even 35 years after I finally quit, I'm glad not to have the presence of smoking constantly before me.

Smokers complain about their "rights," but aren't able to realize what an imposition their smoking is on the rest of us. Purely from a selfish point of view, I'm glad it's almost gone.

I'm a smoker, have been since I've been 14. I have no intentions of quiting. I haven't a problem not being permitted to smoke in bars, that I don't frequent anyway, I haven't a problem not being aloud to smoke in restrauants, any establishment as far as that goes...no problem at all. I've no complants about the issue. Now, don't tell me I can't smoke in my car or in my house, now I have a big problem with that.

[namguy]

Are you just talking about TV? I hate to answer your question with a question, but is it fair that candy companies also don't get to advertise?


Me.....I pretty much TIVO everything, just so I don't have to watch any ads....but to answer your question.......in a free market, no I don't think it's fair, but I do think the market should decide, not the government.

Same here, I do the same thing.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Charles said:
Oh, but there's a large difference between banning advertisement and prohibiting consumption. The latter is not being done.

There is little difference when you understand that BOTH DIRECTLY AFFECT the PROFITABILITY of the company, and directly affect market access through inequality.....an inequality based on arbitrary standards with falsely imposed goals of protecting people from themselves.

Charles said:
This is true. However, I consider certain ideas to be more than personal values, but rather, universal principles. In an ideal world, all men and women should be born equal, and differences amongst them should be determined solely by their actions in life.

The most critical and functional portion of your statement above is "I".

That is one view of ideal, one view of what "should be" based on your moral and value principles. We all have differing values and principles, and different views on what "should be", so under what presumption would you use force to apply your vision to society?

Universal recognition logically stops at the self, and the variable in which the self places value and morals, therefore the self must be the lowest common denominator of universal application.....this is why moral and subjective values have no place in universal, national or state law, only protection of the self, dependent on individual responsibility for ones own actions. (all that we can logically be responsible, accountable for) That which is universal is self-evident.

To pre-suppose happiness is possible without recognition of the self, is to ignore the individualism, the volition of man.

I don't believe in force being used against innocent people who have not infringed the rights of others, period. Having a "right" to healthcare, and to education is the epitome example of such infringement as the obviousness of nobility of the cause reduces the obvious threat contained in the infringement itself, by playing on emotion and utopian, un-natural views of human nature.


Charles said:
While that seems utopian, any economic system should, at the very least, aim to reduce opportunity inequalities. You may, of course, disagree, but please open a new topic if you do, because, in all honestly, I'd be rather surprised, but discussion on the subject in this thread would probably further derail it.

I have no problem with that aim, as long as the power to do so is limited by the rights of individuals, and not used against those same rights.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not an adequate, reasonable or logical answer to the problems of human nature and natural inequality of means or individual ability.

Charles said:
My friend, I never stated such thing.

You have not, but you surely seem to be hinting at such......

Charles said:
But what I do think is that the best political community is one in which the middle class outnumbers both of the other classes.

Personally, so do I, but I don't believe in using force to make it so. A large reason it is so skewed right now is directly DUE to the use of force by both parties, in attempts to regulate the market economics and social issues... bringing about such inequality.

Monopolies are created by regulation, not by natural market forces.

Charles said:
The destruction of the middle class through the creation of a two-class community of opposite economic extremes is a failure of the system.

I agree, but it to fix it one must focus on the problem which is two party manipulation of the system for decades, and both sides willingness to use force of government to create monopolies, nearly untouchable corporate welfare, etc. Its been happening in many super power countries for about the same amount of time.....and as technology increases, so does the coercion between foreign governments against one another, both using their people as pawns in the game for earning, labor and resource collection.

Charles said:
Excuse my patent ignorance on this specific subject subject, but I'm still unsure what argument are you exactly trying to convey. First off, would granting equal representation not be considered ''corporate personhood''?

No, in the reference I was speaking I was addressing the role income plays in addressing the court to rectify problems on any level. One should not need be rich to access justice, as taxes pay for the justice system. Representation equality should be assured to any economic class citizen, business or corporation.

Charles said:
Secondly, how do you integrate into your ''equal representation'' idea those corporate practices that are limited solely to businesses and do not apply to individuals, as, for example, competition law?

As I stated, I am anti competition law and point to such ideas as part of the creation of monopolies.

Charles said:
Possibly my choice of words was not correct. Medical care and education are not a natural right, they are a privilege that should be guaranteed.

May I note, however, that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights disagrees with this, as:

I disagree completely with the U.N. version of Human Rights, as they are not logically sound, and beyond the means of any government to ensure when needed most. To promise such things is beyond logical ability, and setting up the naieve and the gullible for a fall of astronomical proportions when catastrophe occurs. (when needed most)

Charles said:
As per the principle of reducing opportunity inequalities, as I described earlier, society should ensure that all its members should be guaranteed basic necessities regardless of its socio-economic standing. And there are possibly no more basic necessities for equal opportunity and access to the free market that (1) education and (2) health condition. It is somewhat understandable that Haiti may not afford to guarantee such necessary privileges to its citizens, but it is unjust for a highly-developed to deny it.

This is all based in fabian socialist, utopian, illogical views of human nature.

It is an outright denial of individual responsibility, therefore simply unacceptable to me and several like me.

Also, you should know that while I may use strong words to define my position regarding/in relation to yours, it is not intended to offend, only to show the fact that there is indeed strong disagreement, while remaining open to debate the issues.

[Charles V]

There is little difference when you understand that BOTH DIRECTLY AFFECT the PROFITABILITY of the company, and directly affect market access through inequality.....an inequality based on arbitrary standards with falsely imposed goals of protecting people from themselves.

It makes a whole lot of difference. Prohibiting advertisement concerns itself with what the company can or cannot do. Prohibiting purchase now concerns itself with the rights of individuals.

If such ''arbitrary standards'' for limiting advertisement are health considerations, I cannot see a reasonable objection to doing so. After all, let's extrapolate the issue. If marijuana were to be legalized (a measure which I would support), it would however not be wise to encourage its usage (even if it reduces the profitability of a company) by permitting its free marketing. Would you not agree?

The most critical and functional portion of your statement above is "I".

Oh, certainly. It is my personal perspective. But do you not agree that we should all be born with equal opportunity, and that the economic system should strive towards that ideal?

Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not an adequate, reasonable or logical answer to the problems of human nature and natural inequality of means or individual ability.

Society contributes to a societal service. The libertarian analogy of ''theft'' is not accurate.

Personally, so do I, but I don't believe in using force to make it so.

But my friend, the natural trend of unregulated capitalism is the polarization of classes into those of extreme wealth and those who lack it. How else do you suggest to maintain the middle class as the dominant economic class in the political community if not by ensuring equal opportunity through societal services?

Monopolies are created by regulation, not by natural market forces.

Monopolies by regulation? Could you give me an example?

No, in the reference I was speaking I was addressing the role income plays in addressing the court to rectify problems on any level. One should not need be rich to access justice, as taxes pay for the justice system. Representation equality should be assured to any economic class citizen, business or corporation.

Oh, undoubtedly. But for the individual to have any legal basis to attack a corporation, there must be some economic regulation through legislation, no?

As I stated, I am anti competition law and point to such ideas as part of the creation of monopolies.

I fail to see how competition law actually limits competition. Explain?

I disagree completely with the U.N. version of Human Rights, as they are not logically sound, and beyond the means of any government to ensure when needed most. To promise such things is beyond logical ability, and setting up the naieve and the gullible for a fall of astronomical proportions when catastrophe occurs. (when needed most)

Unsound promises? Those are amongst the most basic promises that one may grant an individual for his own personal welfare. Education and healthcare. In those areas that the government is unable to provide them, that is where the UN's humanitarian efforts are concentrated.

However, there is no reason, in economic terms, why Western societies should not be able to provide basic services in the interests of equality of opportunity and minimum personal welfare: medical care and education.

It is an outright denial of individual responsibility, therefore simply unacceptable to me and several like me.

My friend, you seem to ignore the fact that individual responsibility is meaningless if the means to economic independence are not guaranteed to all, regardless of social standing. And for the umpteenth time, I reiterate what those are: basic medical care and education.

Also, may I point out that you used the word ''me'' in reference to yourself in your argument, when you attacked mine for using the function of ''I''?

Also, you should know that while I may use strong words to define my position regarding/in relation to yours, it is not intended to offend, only to show the fact that there is indeed strong disagreement, while remaining open to debate the issues.

I have no problem with strong language, as long as it is respectable language.:thumbsup:

[Osborn F. Enready]

Charles said:
It makes a whole lot of difference. Prohibiting advertisement concerns itself with what the company can or cannot do. Prohibiting purchase now concerns itself with the rights of individuals.

If such ''arbitrary standards'' for limiting advertisement are health considerations, I cannot see a reasonable objection to doing so. After all, let's extrapolate the issue. If marijuana were to be legalized (a measure which I would support), it would however not be wise to encourage its usage (even if it reduces the profitability of a company) by permitting its free marketing. Would you not agree?

I do not agree. Adults have a right to access information on the legal goods on the market, and advertising is part of that process.

Charles said:
Oh, certainly. It is my personal perspective. But do you not agree that we should all be born with equal opportunity, and that the economic system should strive towards that ideal?

Yes, I believe we should all be born with EQUAL RIGHTS, but no I do NOT believe the economic system should strive toward that ideal.

Equal rights, and equal opprotunity are totally different things.

Equal rights is easily attainable, whereas equal opprotunity is a myth and unobtainable.

Charles said:
Society contributes to a societal service. The libertarian analogy of ''theft'' is not accurate.

Again, you and I don't agree here.

If something is taken by FORCE or by THREAT OF FORCE, it is theft. If failure to "pay" results in imprisonment, theft of property and goods, that is theft.

Societal service is not what taxes are for, taxes are for NECESSARY COSTS of government. Our government is limited BY DESIGN, to prevent unnecessary taxation.... a quality the bi-partisan hedgemony on power for the last 160 years has sought to erode at every single opprotunity that they can create.

Charles said:
But my friend, the natural trend of unregulated capitalism is the polarization of classes into those of extreme wealth and those who lack it. How else do you suggest to maintain the middle class as the dominant economic class in the political community if not by ensuring equal opportunity through societal services?

I am not here to champion UNregulated capitalism. I am here to champion the system of capitalism that the U.S. drafted in its Constitution and Bill of Rights, which is a system of capitalism only regulated by the individual rights of those who make it up.

Fraud, Theft and Coercion can all be enforced under such a system, and that is all that need be regulated in my opinion, the point at which rights interact between business and business, consumer and consumer, and business and consumer.

The fact is, no matter how regulated any market, unregulated goods simply circumvent the regulations to reach the same market, if demand is present.

You create more taxes, business creates more tax shelters, while writing off the tax increase into the cost of goods consumers pay for. Its a vicious circle that only saps more income from working class individuals, the ones you claim you are trying to help.

The easiest way to allow a middle class to thrive is to stop taxing and regulating them into non-existence and to stop falsely turning the upper and lower class against them through propaganda.

Charles said:
Monopolies by regulation? Could you give me an example?

Name any monopoly? Bi-partisan monopoly on U.S. politics? Oil?(Cartel variation) World Bank??

The Myth of Natural Monopoly:
http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf

Name a monopoly that COULD exist without regulation that helped secure its existence?

Charles said:
Oh, undoubtedly. But for the individual to have any legal basis to attack a corporation, there must be some economic regulation through legislation, no?

No. There only must be an ability for the individual to appeal to the (objective) courts for rights violations perpetrated by another individual business, or corporation.

THEFT, FRAUD and COERCION are violations of individual rights, and are all that need be necessary to enforce to protect the rights of producers and consumers in the economic market.

Charles said:
I fail to see how competition law actually limits competition. Explain?

It helps to create monopoly, by creating loopholes to be exploited. As far back as the laws go, so goes the loopholes. They close one, another opens and its a never ending process of a dog chasing its tail.

Charles said:
Unsound promises? Those are amongst the most basic promises that one may grant an individual for his own personal welfare.

If you grant it from your own ABILITY, it surely is. One may not grant this "promise" on MY ability however, without MY CONSCENT.

Charles said:
Education and healthcare. In those areas that the government is unable to provide them, that is where the UN's humanitarian efforts are concentrated.

...and failing, as it always has, miserably, while the price tag for this failing service goes higher, and higher and higher.

I don't continue to pay into something that I get no return from. Its illogical.

Charles said:
However, there is no reason, in economic terms, why Western societies should not be able to provide basic services in the interests of equality of opportunity and minimum personal welfare: medical care and education.

There is one reason, and only one reason that matters..... we are not born into slavery to any other nation, the world, or any other entity. We all have individual rights, including labor rights, and property rights. No nation has CLAIM on any of our income, our goods, our services, our education, etc.

If people WISH to, and CHOOSE to champion the goal you put forth, that is their CHOICE, but no government has the right to lay such claim on MY rights without meeting force in return.

Charles said:
My friend, you seem to ignore the fact that individual responsibility is meaningless if the means to economic independence are not guaranteed to all, regardless of social standing.

Guaranteeing such things is impossible. Providing equal ACCESS is quite possible however, and the only thing a government has within its power to do without force.

Charles said:
And for the umpteenth time, I reiterate what those are: basic medical care and education.

Say it until the cows come home, it still won't change the fact you can't have a RIGHT to other peoples time, labor and education, which is what your "mythical rights" entail.
Try to put this theory to the test on someone like me and you will clearly see the fact.

I currently have no health insurance, and I feel its my right to have you provide it for me, so please send me your information and credit card numbers, ok?

[namguy]

I agree that businesses, any businesses should be free to advertize.

[Rage]

I agree that businesses, any businesses should be free to advertize.

I agree, but this thread points out the prejudices in our economy. Diet pills will wear your heart out and take years off your life. Head on doesn't work, and neither does kaboom. Why are they aloud to advertise while cigarettes companies aren't?

[Pookie]

Check this out.

Could be offtopic, but its semantics on a free market. You might find someone you know in that thread.

http://politicalfever.org/american-politics/6479-truly-free-market-socialist.html

You're posting a thread from another political forum, and that isn't a good idea here.
Anyway, back to the topic, I am glad cigarettes are not advertised. We don't need this.
Purrs,
Pookie

[nateb]

If it's a legal substance they should be allowed to advertise. They can advertise against smoking.

I hate smoking. I hate the smell and don't like being around it. I support rules that prohibit smoking in stadiums, public buildings, etc... Smoking is a very intrusive habit.

Considering all the other limitations on smoking, I can't see why they shouldn't be allowed to advertise.

Might as well remove the advertising rights of beer, liquor and twinkies then.

[namguy]

I agree, but this thread points out the prejudices in our economy. Diet pills will wear your heart out and take years off your life. Head on doesn't work, and neither does kaboom. Why are they aloud to advertise while cigarettes companies aren't?

Correct you are...

It all comes down to money just like everything else in this country. They apease the masses, and alot of people in this country look upon smoking as, oh my, smoking!!! What an evil. What B.S. it is in reality.