Oris Watch Replica | Fake Ulysse Nardin Watches | Replica Glashutte Watch | Replica Glashutte Watch | Vacheron Constantin Fake Watches | Daniel Roth Replica | Bvlgari Fake Watches | Fake A Lange & Sohne | Richard Mille Fake | Bvlgari Fake Watches | Daniel Roth Replica | Fake Hublot Watches | Breitling Fake Watches | Christian Dior Replica Watch | Patek Philippe Watch | Fake IWC Watches | Gucci Fake | Fake Tudor | 2009 New Arrival Replica Watches | Fake A Lange & Sohne

It just goes to show you how effective government propaganda has been at limiting the scope of acceptable debate that most people here assume that if you disagree with anything "liberal" (which really means progressive, which is anything but liberal, since it entails enormous government activity, backed with violence and paid for with stolen, borrowed or counterfeited money) than you must be, by default, a Republican and love George W. Bush. I have news for you guys. Many Republicans do not love, or even lik Bush. Ron PAul for one stood against him at every opportunity and voted against him far more consistently than any Democrat with the possible exception of Kucinich.

But, that is irrelevant, since the author is writing from a free market, libertarian perspective. The "other side" he speaks of is the side of human freedom, the side where force os rejected as a means of achieving any ends, no matter how noble, because to force others to do anything is immoral. In a free market, where corporations (who are in effect government agencies) do not have access to the protection of the state (and make no mistake, regulation is written by and for the protection of large corporations), and there are no regulatory barriers to entry, choice and competition will effectively function to punish bad actors, and limit the size and power of businesses, while also exposing them to 100% full financial liability for their actions. Furthermore, in a free market that lacks government interference in money, only real value backed currency will emerge as a medium of exchange, safeguarding the savings and investments that are today destroyed by the Federal Reserve's easy credit and inflationary "liquidity injections."

Lastly, this notion that banks want deregulation is absurd. Bernie Madoff is a creature of the SEC. If not for the repeated audits done by the SEC vetting Madoff, individual investors would be on their own, doing their own due diligence and likely would not have invested in such an obvious scam. The regulatory apparatus didn't stop him, far from it! It helped him appear legitimate! These large banks that are failing were doing the very bidding of government in making home ownership affordable through sub-prime loans, and without the implicit backing in taxpayer dollars that comes with the FDIC, and all the other agencies like HUD and Treasury, etc., they would never have written those loans, nor would anyone have bought their derivatives, because they would be exposed to the actual risk involved, and would have nowhere to turn for a bailout.

Government regulation created this bubble, it created these perverse incentives, and now it is rewarding failure and deceit with your money, encouraging even more unsound risk and borrowing, and all the so-called "liberals" in the Democrat party can think of is more of the same. Ask any homeless person if they thought spending more money they didn't have and going further into debt would have saved them from the streets. It's absurd, but Krugman and Geithner and Obama all think Keyenes was right, when clearly, Zimabwe alone proves him wrong. It's a real shame that they offer no genuine alternative to their revoltingly corrupt and spendthrift Republican counterparts. It's such a joke to hear them say that Bush was a free market deregulator, when the guy not only came up with the first $800 billion bailout, but he increased the size and scope of government more than anyone since Johnson, maybe even FDR! It's statism,statism, statism, all the time and everywhere. Give more power, take more money, and authorize more force to feed the maw of Moloch, right?

Wrong. On the other side lies peace, freedom, voluntarism and prosperity. It's not about Democrats versus Republicans, people! Wake up, the real conflict is we the people, our rights and freedoms, versus the violence of the state.

I dont think vincent said he was a republican. Try reading the article again.

For the record, GWB presided over the largest increase in the regulatory budget in the last fifty years.

Ownership is a reflection of will. You cannot own someone else because they have a will and make choices. You can own real property and make it bend to your will, and this includes your body. It is impossible to separate your body and your will(currently), but I think you should be able, for example, to sell kidneys.

I am not claiming that the Federal Government can or cannot take my property, I am merely saying that it is unethical. There are two types of law, natural and artificial law. The Constitution is artificial, and natural law can only be found discovered through reason. I promote or oppose actions based on natural law. This can also be thought of as "Laws of God" versus "Laws of Man." I want to avoid that being an atheist; I will lose my street cred.

As for regulation with financial instruments, I will answer that in two weeks.