Thread: Where Do We Draw The Line?

I'm beginning to get that idea Ryan....

Now, I like being Canadian, but I wish we would have a serious look at loosening up some restrictions that just seem completely stupid to me.

I'd like to buy my beer at the corner store, I'd like to be able to own and use a shotgun for trap shooting without having to submit myself to privacy invasion....I won't even mention a hand gun for sport shooting.

I was speaking to the owner of a local cigar shop in my area and it seems our government is hell bent on putting him out of business. he can only buy his products from a government authorized distributor and absolutely positively cannot have a smoking section where his clients can sample a cigar or pipe tobacco. it seems that in its efforts to keep us healthy, our government has banned smoking in all business establishments...including those that make their living from smoking and pay their share of taxes. It just seems kinda crazy that this guy has a license to sell perfectly legal products, but does not have the right to let his clients use those products anywhere but in their home.

I'm waiting for the cops to come for me as I enjoy a cigar while on my favorite trout stream

I love this type of discussion started by people who are concerned about the nanny state.
It is a reality that if the government did no mandate certain things, private enterprise / capitalism would not 'compete fairly to the best interest of the consumer'. They would collude, and lie, cheat and steal to get as much money out of your pocket as possible.

And generally, government step in in new areas only when private industry has screwed up.

The EPA was started because industry kept dumping their pollution wherever it was financially most sound without caring about consequences.
The FDA was started because industry was lying about the products and treatments they sold.
There are healthcare regulations precisely because as a society, the majority of the people agree it is wrong to turn away people from the ER if they can't pay.
There are federal roads because some president whose name I forgot discovered that moving troops from one side to the other proved nearly impossible without them.
There are state and federal parks because noone else would pay for them.
And just be glad that energy is regulated or you might have an electricity grid like Japan with 2 different frequencies and voltages.
And while noone really likes them, zoning laws and various regulations keep populated areas livable and limit the ability of 1 griefer to spoil the lives of the entire neighborhood.

If you want to have a society that is greater than a local rural community, you have to accept the fact that that means there will be limitations.

Bruno,

You have articulated your points very well. There's not much I can argue about in your examples, but I do have one little bone to pick

There are certain areas (gas prices are the most obvious one) where government not only turns a blind eye to collusion and price fixing, but actually encourages it.

In the Greater Toronto Area gas prices do not vary by more than 0.5 cents per litre. That's 2 cents a gallon. Every gas station just happens to have the same price at the same time. As if by magic, their price signs all change at exactly the same time to exactly the same price. Now, just in case you don't know, the GTA (Greater Toronto Area) covers about a 40 mile wide stretch and has a population of about 4 million people.

I once talked with an independent gas station owner (they are mostly all gone now) and was very clear...if you don't toe the line and sell at the agreed on price, you simply will not get gas.

I like using the parks system, the roads, the hospitals and libraries, but why do they have to be offset with things like gasoline prices?

Just along the lines Bruno brought up, in just about every case the reason Govt expanded was to deal either with issues the citizens demanded they deal with or to deal with private industries that took advantage of no regulation and put profit ahead of all else. Look at the Govt back in the 1800s when it was small, very small and you will find Govt didn't expand because some bureaucratic was a megalomaniac and just wanted Govt to increase in size.

To me this is all a manufactured issue anyway. When you talk to people about Govt they recite the talking points like a parrot but when you bring up things that affect them directly and specifically they want Govt to be big and bigger.

As far as gas prices go what do you want Govt to do? The prices are mostly driven by investors and speculators and much is outside the U.S Do you want the Govt to set gas prices or tell wholesalers or retailers what they can charge? Now that is big intrusive Govt.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

As far as gas prices go what do you want Govt to do? The prices are mostly driven by investors and speculators and much is outside the U.S Do you want the Govt to set gas prices or tell wholesalers or retailers what they can charge? Now that is big intrusive Govt.

Nope...I just want them to enforce competition regulations. They investigated Apple with price fixing on e books, they investigate insider trading...

Gasoline is the classic text book case of an oligopoly and there's way too much money that goes between oil companies and government for either side to stir up trouble.

Late edit: between the USA and Canada, we have enough oil to be self sufficient for much longer than it would take to come up with alternative fuels. Here's the reality; we can keep buying oil from theocratic dictatorships that have no concern for freedom or we can use our own oil, which is many orders of magnitude more ethical and will build our economy and make more jobs and prosperity. The tired old story of oil prices being driven up by speculators outside our respective countries is wearing thin. We both lost an opportunity recently with the keystone pipeline proposal. The US ends up still feeding the sheiks of Saudi Arabia and Canada has to sell its oil to China...talk about a lose-lose situation.

But that's a different topic altogether

Ill put my 2 cents Joe,
As pixelfixed put it, if they are going to foot the cost, they can make the rules.

As an x-smoker I have a little sympathy for the shop owner, lets face it, most of us enjoy a smoke of some sort once in a while, however, smoking puts a massive strain on out health care system and IMO should be outlawed, its borderline suicide (IMO- touchy subject).
Again IMO the government is a running business and will take any necessary steps to protects its own interests (or ours ).
I have recently seen the light and realize now that if im not satisfied with the way my country is running, I should pick a country who does things better and migrate.

Just my two cents...

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

When you talk to people about Govt they recite the talking points like a parrot but when you bring up things that affect them directly and specifically they want Govt to be big and bigger.

My favorite slogan along these lines was 'Get your gov hands off my Medicare!'.

Originally Posted by joebehar

We both lost an opportunity recently with the keystone pipeline proposal.

It's not as simple. The cost of using your tar sands is pretty steep. That is if you factor in all the costs many of which are currently externalized. The numbers I saw were about $120/barel, so if the oil price drops below you loose money. The whole process was started with political deals and not a result of free market calculation of cost vs. benefit.

Originally Posted by gugi

It's not as simple. The cost of using your tar sands is pretty steep. That is if you factor in all the costs many of which are currently externalized. The numbers I saw were about $120/barel, so if the oil price drops below you loose money. The whole process was started with political deals and not a result of free market calculation of cost vs. benefit.

Additionally, if you get beyond 120$, then the supply will increase significantly, leading to a decrease in price. In other words, the price would hover around the break even point, which makes it pointless from an investor point of view.

The biggest problem I have with government is that it does absolutely nothing well or efficiently.

Social Security - Bankrupt.
Post Office - Bankrupt.
Medicare - Bankrupt and full of fraud.
Obamacare will push us over the financial cliff.

Once the politicians get in your pocket, you never get them back out. Income tax was supposed to be temporary. The government makes more on a gallon of gas than the oil company does. This money is supposed to build roads, but now it isn't enough. Name one government agency that is well run.

The EPA is attempting a HUGE power grab by declaring CO2 of all things to be a pollutant. Obama keeps pushing green power and is wasting billions on companies that know they are going to fail before they are started. Solyndra for example.

The real problem is no term limits and career politicians. Have you noticed how ALL of them are rich? The founders never intended for public service to be a lifetime job.

They make laws and then exempt themselves from these laws. This is runaway government.

Originally Posted by gugi

My favorite slogan along these lines was 'Get your gov hands off my Medicare!'.


It's not as simple. The cost of using your tar sands is pretty steep. That is if you factor in all the costs many of which are currently externalized. The numbers I saw were about $120/barel, so if the oil price drops below you loose money. The whole process was started with political deals and not a result of free market calculation of cost vs. benefit.

Oil sands crude sells right now on the open market and it makes a profit...at about $90 a barrel. I don't think any company will sell at a loss of $30 a barrel.

It really is that simple, just like any other business. The people with an interest in this would have you believe that its a lot more complicated