Politics, Society etc.

[wheresmysnare]

Ok just to get this straight, we pay taxes to Government in the hope that they do something useful with it.

Lets look at practical terms and things that will impact you and me rather than big business / economic theory...

You have a really shit winter, the public roads are fucked outside your house, you can't get to work safely, usually this would be sorted by the government and their highways agency but you have no goverment.

Who fixes the road? A private company - ok easy

Who pays for it? - The road users

Who knows you uses the roads and not? - A privately funded company - who pays for them - fuck knows

Who regulates who contirbutes payment? A private credit control company who seek recoveries from those who didn't pay - again who pays for them

Think of all the pies that the Government has it's finger in, you get to pay your contribution to all of it's many facets in one convenient tax. I mean, do you propose to have 100's of direct debits coming out of your bank account to pay for each private instituion.

AT the end of the day not everyone in soceity is financially independent, thats a fact of life, if you propose that we all pay our own way to private companies as we please you are condemning those who can't go out and work to a life on the streets.

[Necrocetaceanbeastiality]

Mmmm, doubt it.  I looked quickly and the estimate I found was 262 million deaths in just the 20th century.

It's one of those delectable monster cookies.

But throughout history?

And slightly on topic, I think a better taxation system would be one where you could dictate how your government spends your taxes. For instance, you could say "Fuck no, you ain't spending my money on buying missiles."

[alvarezbassist17]

Ok just to get this straight, we pay taxes to Government in the hope that they do something useful with it.

Yes, I understand that this is the talking point of statism, but I reject it on the grounds that because the revenues that government receives to provide these services is not based on voluntary contributions that are made based on quality, only forced contributions, i.e. taxes, the linkage of the profits and losses inherent in a market is broken; every single thing that is done by government is inevitably arbitrary.  Now this may sound evil to you, and I'm not saying that the government never gets lucky and makes a right choice, but there is virtually no mechanism to combat poor government investments because it's not like you can vote on an issue as specific as a road in your area or something, no matter how locally you're voting.  So as consequences of not having these mechanisms, you get things like the post office, the public school system, the road system, social security, medicare, medicaid, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, out of control welfare policy, farm subsidization, etc. that are all broke as a joke, that are dragging us down the tubes because our obligations are so much greater than our GDP, which is propped up significantly by government spending anyways.  On top of all of those, you get things like the Dept of Agriculture, the Dept of Education, the Federal Reserve (which has done more to ruin the world economy than 99.9% of people know), the EPA, the Minerals Management Service, Dept of Energy, I could go on for pages and pages.  All that these organizations do is completely weigh down our economy so we have absolutely no possible way of climbing out of our debt, and you really think once the world currency market stops buying dollars like there's no tomorrow and everything catches up with us that we're going to be able to afford all of this wealth redistribution bullshit?  You know that taxes aren't just an added inconvenience to an economy; they actually come from somewhere, right?  The point is, no matter what color statist you are, when you give the government the power to do shit like this, to manage our lives so in depth, it.  does.  not.  end.  and then, oops, your guy loses his chair and some guy from your complete opposite side has the same exact power you gave to your benevolent bureaucrat or politician.

Lets look at practical terms and things that will impact you and me rather than big business / economic theory...

You have a really shit winter, the public roads are fucked outside your house, you can't get to work safely, usually this would be sorted by the government and their highways agency but you have no goverment.

Who fixes the road? A private company - ok easy

Who pays for it? - The road users

Who knows you uses the roads and not? - A privately funded company - who pays for them - fuck knows

Who regulates who contirbutes payment? A private credit control company who seek recoveries from those who didn't pay - again who pays for them

Think of all the pies that the Government has it's finger in, you get to pay your contribution to all of it's many facets in one convenient tax. I mean, do you propose to have 100's of direct debits coming out of your bank account to pay for each private instituion.

Dude seriously, your argument is so bogus.  Why are you so obsessed with convenience?  I know i couldn't possibly sound more pretentious saying this, but having studied free market theory and economic history to a very deep degree, let me draw a kind of extreme analogy for where it sounds like your logic ends to me.  "Oh well I could walk two ways to work: one way I take an alleyway and get raped in the cornhole by gangsters every time I walk there, but I save five minutes over the other route.  Hmmm, out of convenience, I think I'll take the alley."  And that's even assuming that the government way would be more efficient, which I wholeheartedly dispute as well.

AT the end of the day not everyone in soceity is financially independent, thats a fact of life, if you propose that we all pay our own way to private companies as we please you are condemning those who can't go out and work to a life on the streets.

This would take a long time to fully respond to, but suffice it to say that nobody wants people to be out on the streets, that's what charities and myriads of other privately funded organizations are for.  Not to mention the fact that you have corporations like Target that do more for individual communities than you can shake a stick at, and no one forces them to, and you bet your fuckin ass they would give more if they got to keep more than $.50 of every dollar they made.  And nothing helps the poor and disadvantaged like having their dollar be worth more, for example being able to buy a double cheeseburger at mcdonald's.  Obviously it's not great food, but tell that to someone in Africa, that you can pick up pennies on the sidewalk for 15 minutes and buy a double cheeseburger.  That is what the market does.  And every single industry where the price isn't constantly falling is doing so not because of the market, but because of government failure. Health care, energy, and schooling being prime examples.

But I mainly want two things: for the safety nets to be private, and when I have more time to explain that I will, it's obviously not that I want disabled people or people down on their luck to be completely screwed and starving on the street.  And for us to stop incentivizing people to be financially dependent on a subsidy in the form of cash, regulatory or legal benefits from the government, which is EXACTLY what we're doing to a fucking gigantic degree, and that goes for private companies just as much as individuals.  The government should not be in the business of handing out advantages to anyone, but only protect the lives, liberties and property rights of its citizens.  There is not one area or industry that I can think of that would not be benefited by a strict adherence to private property rights and free market principles, and I believe I can reasonably argue that for any case.

[alvarezbassist17]

Mmmm, doubt it.  I looked quickly and the estimate I found was 262 million deaths in just the 20th century.

It's one of those delectable monster cookies.

But throughout history?

And slightly on topic, I think a better taxation system would be one where you could dictate how your government spends your taxes. For instance, you could say "Fuck no, you ain't spending my money on buying missiles."

You either really want a cookie or are misunderstanding my point   But yeah, you get what I'm saying, since governments started becoming dominant forces in society.

And that's totally my whole point with all the free market stuff.  That is how you choose precisely to whom your money goes, to whom you give support is one of the main ideas behind the whole thing.  It's like a virtually instant mechanism, especially when you compare it to the speed of trying to change governments.

I'm going to post links to some great Libertarian lectures on every topic I can find when I get a little bit of time.  Busy busy summer.

[Necrocetaceanbeastiality]

Same bro. Been soaking up as much of Seattle with the fiancee before we move to Portland.

[tarkil]

fiancee ?

wa wa wee wa !!

[Necrocetaceanbeastiality]

Yeah dude. No idea when the wedding will actually happen, but I'll keep all you fellas updated. It'll probably be in Portland somewhere. All you cool, nearby dudes are super invited. I love all you guys.

[tarkil]

Send some details man ! How come you're getting married ?!?


To stay on topic : a nice paper on Wall Street "reform".
What a shame !!

[Necrocetaceanbeastiality]

Why am I getting married?

Why not?

[alvarezbassist17]

To stay on topic : a nice paper on Wall Street "reform".
What a shame !!

Do you agree with this guy?  It sounds to me like he's for even more draconian measures than those put in place by this financial overhaul bill, and while I disagree with the whole of this bill, I definitely don't do so because it didn't go far enough in regulating banks. 

He's really missing the point: that the CDOs and derivatives and all that aren't inherently bad things.  Reducing risk by pooling together investments is not bad, unless, and here's the key point, the underlying assets are far overvalued, or are in reality riskier than their price says they are.  The whole problem with the housing crisis was that the mortgage market as a whole became so overvalued, and as a result its investments seemed less risky than they would have without Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (who, to the chagrin of every American and many worldwide, are not touched in this financial overhaul bill, I might add) buying mortgages off of bank's balance sheets, political activist groups and legislative action strong-arming banks into making loans to people they might not have otherwise, numerous tax incentives for people to buy homes, and most importantly, the Federal Reserve constantly pumping new money into the banking system, thereby lowering interest rates to record lows, rates that STILL HAVEN'T CHANGED.  So with all of these things putting the housing market on steroids, making people think that housing prices can go nowhere but up (think stock prices in the 1920s and prices of stocks for computer companies in the 1990s) combined with interest rates being so ridiculously low, these investments were made to seem artificially secure, when in reality no matter how many times you securitized or bundled these shitty loans, they would all have to come tumbling down at some point because there truly wasn't enough resources to support the hyper-inflated market.  Think about it, at the end of the boom, people as an aggregate had borrowed against so much of their property's equity, they had to count on prices rising to pay their mortgage.  What kind of financial gymnastics would you have to do to get people to bet on that investment?

If you don't believe some of this or don't understand what I'm trying to say, please ask questions of me.  I'd really like you on my side

I'm just saying that none of these regulations would have prevented the housing bubble, or any other bubble for that matter.  But it doesn't matter anyways, the bubble today is in the United States' bond market.  You wanna talk about an overpriced market?  There it is for you. 4% on a 30-year bond in our kind of inflationary environment?  You gotta be kidding me.

[wither-I]

it even works on a prius...


Obama Bumper Sticker Removal Kit - Available at BSRemoval.com - feat. Brad Stine

[Jerry_Curls]

Haha I posted that one facebook and some bitch friend was like "where is the don't like button". wah wah!

[Jerry_Curls]

Talk to me people.  It's been awhile since I've gotten in a good argument in this thread, I have a hankerin haha.

Something I've been thinking about lately: I just wonder why people so vehemently defend government as opposed to private action all of the time in so many facets of life and why I have to try so hard to convince them otherwise.  It's just really weird to me that our society has become that way over history, to just jump straight to government to solve all of the world's problems, almost like drones.  It's crazy to me that that's how the human condition has evolved, not to always favor freedom and realize that freedom is what we become more able to and should work towards, but to favor more and more control and micro managing of the world.  In the modern era I give Hollywood a lot of credit, but it's kind of like that short discussion we had in the vegetarians thread, that it almost seems like a socio-biological instinct to want to defer to government just as people usually, instinctively like meat (IMHO).

Just something I think about, I'd love your opinions.

Maybe that "need" is created by people with power so that they can keep some power over the masses ?
I'm not talking about the bullshit conspiracy theories like New World Order, or whatever, but just that from everything I saw in the past (which is not much since I'm not that old compared to governments, democracies, etc.), people in power pretty much never do what's good for the people, but what's good for them to stay in power and benefit from that !

I'm sorrryy? So many journalists, pundits, globalists, etc. have consistently shown to us they want a new world order. They put out the facts for everyone to see that they are setting up a system of control that is akin to 1984. The slaves working for the Pharoahs as they think they are. Please prove that a new world order won't, or doesn't because it seems like we are in the beginning of it, exist.

Look up the video for 7/21 called "White House Apologizes After USDA Employee Fired" at the 6:21 mark. Just a little slip from a globalist; "Like it or not, the new world order."

There is so much proof it's astonishing.

[Necrocetaceanbeastiality]

First of all, the phrase "new world order" is not synonymous with the phrase "one world government". Second of all, governments of regions as small as the US barely function efficiently and in my mind, a one world government would function exponentially more inefficiently just due to the 7 BILLION people under it's control. It's just...unbelievably impractical.

Seriously, 7 BILLION people. You'd think quite a large number of those people would say "no way".

And then what? Establish a one world government anyway? That's an attempt at world domination, man. Do you really think that people wouldn't notice that? Wouldn't fight it? That's completely ridiculous.

[alvarezbassist17]

Yeah, I kinda have a hard time with the prospect of world enslavement too, but I get a lot more disheartened when I see how hard I have to work to get people to actually understand what freedom is and how it really is better than coercion.  I do hope that the difference between the kind of tyranny that's been going on in America for years and has been getting worse for years and the kind of NWO shit Jerry is talking about would be discernible to the general public. 

That said, I am for one world currency: GOLD   That is how you can actually put a real check on government, and especially military spending.  Why do you think the 1800s were so relatively peaceful, especially compared to the 1900s?  Most governments weren't allowed to print up money to buy military supplies.  Seems obvious what needs to be done, END THE FUCKING FEDERAL RESERVE.

[alvarezbassist17]

I love Peter Schiff

Why Not Another World War?
By Peter Schiff
Published 07/22/10

There is overwhelming agreement among economists that the Second World War was responsible for decisively ending the Great Depression. When asked why the wars in Iran and Afghanistan are failing to make the same impact today, they often claim that the current conflicts are simply too small to be economically significant.

There is, of course, much irony here. No one argues that World War II, with its genocide, tens of millions of combatant casualties, and wholesale destruction of cities and regions, was good for humanity. But the improved American economy of the late 1940s seems to illustrate the benefits of large-scale government stimulus. This conundrum may be causing some to wonder how we could capture the good without the bad.

If one believes that government spending can create economic growth, then the answer should be simple: let's have a huge pretend war that rivals the Second World War in size. However, this time, let's not kill anyone.

Most economists believe that massive federal government spending on tanks, uniforms, bullets, and battleships used in World War II, as well the jobs created to actually wage the War, finally put to an end the paralyzing "deflationary trap" that had existed since the Crash of 1929. Many further argue that war spending succeeded where the much smaller New Deal programs of the 1930s had fallen short.

The numbers were indeed staggering. From 1940 to 1944, federal spending shot up more than six times from just $9.5 billion to $72 billion. This increase led to a corresponding $75 billion expansion of US nominal GDP, from $101 billion in 1940 to $175 billion by 1944. In other words, the war effort caused US GDP to increase close to 75% in just four years!

The War also wiped out the country's chronic unemployment problems. In 1940, eleven years after the Crash, unemployment was still at a stubbornly high 8.1%. By 1944, the figure had dropped to less than 1%. The fresh influx of government spending and deployment of working-age men overseas drew women into the workforce in unprecedented numbers, thereby greatly expanding economic output. In addition, government spending on wartime technology produced a great many breakthroughs that impacted consumer goods production for decades.
So, why not have the United States declare a fake war on Russia (a grudge match that is, after all, long overdue)? Both countries could immediately order full employment and revitalize their respective manufacturing sectors. Instead of live munitions, we could build all varieties of paint guns, water balloons, and stink bombs.

Once new armies have been drafted and properly outfitted with harmless weaponry, our two countries could stage exciting war games. Perhaps the US could mount an amphibious invasion of Kamchatka (just like in Risk!). As far as the destruction goes, let's just bring in Pixar and James Cameron. With limitless funds from Washington, these Hollywood magicians could surely produce simulated mayhem more spectacular than Pearl Harbor or D-Day. The spectacle could be televised — with advertising revenue going straight to the government.

The competition could be extended so that the winner of the pseudo-conflict could challenge another country to an all-out fake war. I'm sure France or Italy wouldn't mind putting a few notches in the 'win' column. The stimulus could be never-ending.

If the US can't find any willing international partners, we could always re-create the Civil War. Missed the Monitor vs. the Merrimack the first time? No worries, we'll do it again!

But to repeat the impact of World War II today would require a truly massive effort. Replicating the six-fold increase in the federal budget that was seen in the early 1940s would result in a nearly $20 trillion budget today. That equates to $67,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country. Surely, the tremendous GDP growth created by such spending would make short work of the so-called Great Recession.

The big question is how to pay for it. To a degree that will surprise many, the US funded its World War II effort largely by raising taxes and tapping into Americans' personal savings. Both of those avenues are nowhere near as promising today as they were in 1941.

Current tax burdens are now much higher than they were before the War, so raising taxes today would be much more difficult. The "Victory Tax" of 1942 sharply raised income tax rates and allowed, for the first time in our nation's history, taxes to be withheld directly from paychecks. The hikes were originally intended to be temporary but have, of course, far outlasted their purpose. It would be unlikely that Americans would accept higher taxes today to fund a real war, let alone a pretend one.

That leaves savings, which was the War's primary source of funding. During the War, Americans purchased approximately $186 billion worth of war bonds, accounting for nearly three quarters of total federal spending from 1941—1945. Today, we don't have the savings to pay for our current spending, let alone any significant expansions. Even if we could convince the Chinese to loan us a large chunk of the $20 trillion (on top of the $1 trillion we already owe them), how could we ever pay them back?

If all of this seems absurd, that's because it is. War is a great way to destroy things, but it's a terrible way to grow an economy.

What is often overlooked is that war creates hardship, and not just for those who endure the violence. Yes, US production increased during the Second World War, but very little of that was of use to anyone but soldiers. Consumers can't use a bomber to take a family vacation.

The goal of an economy is to raise living standards. During the War, as productive output was diverted to the front, consumer goods were rationed back home and living standards fell. While it's easy to see the numerical results of wartime spending, it is much harder to see the civilian cutbacks that enabled it.

The truth is that we cannot spend our way out of our current crisis, no matter how great a spectacle we create. Even if we spent on infrastructure rather than war, we would still have no means to fund it, and there would still be no guarantee that the economy would grow as a result.

What we need is more savings, more free enterprise, more production, and a return of American competitiveness in the global economy. Yes, we need Rosie the Riveter — but this time she has to work in the private sector making things that don't explode. To do this, we need less government spending, not more.

Copyright © 2010 Euro Pacific Capital

[Necrocetaceanbeastiality]

That said, I am for one world currency: GOLD   That is how you can actually put a real check on government, and especially military spending.  Why do you think the 1800s were so relatively peaceful, especially compared to the 1900s?  Most governments weren't allowed to print up money to buy military supplies.  Seems obvious what needs to be done, END THE FUCKING FEDERAL RESERVE.

Fucking agreed.

[E-Money]

it even works on a prius...


Obama Bumper Sticker Removal Kit - Available at BSRemoval.com - feat. Brad Stine

haha dude thats fucking funny. 

[Nailec]

I love Peter Schiff

Why Not Another World War?
By Peter Schiff
Published 07/22/10

There is overwhelming agreement among economists that the Second World War was responsible for decisively ending the Great Depression. When asked why the wars in Iran and Afghanistan are failing to make the same impact today, they often claim that the current conflicts are simply too small to be economically significant.

There is, of course, much irony here. No one argues that World War II, with its genocide, tens of millions of combatant casualties, and wholesale destruction of cities and regions, was good for humanity. But the improved American economy of the late 1940s seems to illustrate the benefits of large-scale government stimulus. This conundrum may be causing some to wonder how we could capture the good without the bad.

If one believes that government spending can create economic growth, then the answer should be simple: let's have a huge pretend war that rivals the Second World War in size. However, this time, let's not kill anyone.

Most economists believe that massive federal government spending on tanks, uniforms, bullets, and battleships used in World War II, as well the jobs created to actually wage the War, finally put to an end the paralyzing "deflationary trap" that had existed since the Crash of 1929. Many further argue that war spending succeeded where the much smaller New Deal programs of the 1930s had fallen short.

The numbers were indeed staggering. From 1940 to 1944, federal spending shot up more than six times from just $9.5 billion to $72 billion. This increase led to a corresponding $75 billion expansion of US nominal GDP, from $101 billion in 1940 to $175 billion by 1944. In other words, the war effort caused US GDP to increase close to 75% in just four years!

The War also wiped out the country's chronic unemployment problems. In 1940, eleven years after the Crash, unemployment was still at a stubbornly high 8.1%. By 1944, the figure had dropped to less than 1%. The fresh influx of government spending and deployment of working-age men overseas drew women into the workforce in unprecedented numbers, thereby greatly expanding economic output. In addition, government spending on wartime technology produced a great many breakthroughs that impacted consumer goods production for decades.
So, why not have the United States declare a fake war on Russia (a grudge match that is, after all, long overdue)? Both countries could immediately order full employment and revitalize their respective manufacturing sectors. Instead of live munitions, we could build all varieties of paint guns, water balloons, and stink bombs.

Once new armies have been drafted and properly outfitted with harmless weaponry, our two countries could stage exciting war games. Perhaps the US could mount an amphibious invasion of Kamchatka (just like in Risk!). As far as the destruction goes, let's just bring in Pixar and James Cameron. With limitless funds from Washington, these Hollywood magicians could surely produce simulated mayhem more spectacular than Pearl Harbor or D-Day. The spectacle could be televised — with advertising revenue going straight to the government.

The competition could be extended so that the winner of the pseudo-conflict could challenge another country to an all-out fake war. I'm sure France or Italy wouldn't mind putting a few notches in the 'win' column. The stimulus could be never-ending.

If the US can't find any willing international partners, we could always re-create the Civil War. Missed the Monitor vs. the Merrimack the first time? No worries, we'll do it again!

But to repeat the impact of World War II today would require a truly massive effort. Replicating the six-fold increase in the federal budget that was seen in the early 1940s would result in a nearly $20 trillion budget today. That equates to $67,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country. Surely, the tremendous GDP growth created by such spending would make short work of the so-called Great Recession.

The big question is how to pay for it. To a degree that will surprise many, the US funded its World War II effort largely by raising taxes and tapping into Americans' personal savings. Both of those avenues are nowhere near as promising today as they were in 1941.

Current tax burdens are now much higher than they were before the War, so raising taxes today would be much more difficult. The "Victory Tax" of 1942 sharply raised income tax rates and allowed, for the first time in our nation's history, taxes to be withheld directly from paychecks. The hikes were originally intended to be temporary but have, of course, far outlasted their purpose. It would be unlikely that Americans would accept higher taxes today to fund a real war, let alone a pretend one.

That leaves savings, which was the War's primary source of funding. During the War, Americans purchased approximately $186 billion worth of war bonds, accounting for nearly three quarters of total federal spending from 1941—1945. Today, we don't have the savings to pay for our current spending, let alone any significant expansions. Even if we could convince the Chinese to loan us a large chunk of the $20 trillion (on top of the $1 trillion we already owe them), how could we ever pay them back?

If all of this seems absurd, that's because it is. War is a great way to destroy things, but it's a terrible way to grow an economy.

What is often overlooked is that war creates hardship, and not just for those who endure the violence. Yes, US production increased during the Second World War, but very little of that was of use to anyone but soldiers. Consumers can't use a bomber to take a family vacation.

The goal of an economy is to raise living standards. During the War, as productive output was diverted to the front, consumer goods were rationed back home and living standards fell. While it's easy to see the numerical results of wartime spending, it is much harder to see the civilian cutbacks that enabled it.

The truth is that we cannot spend our way out of our current crisis, no matter how great a spectacle we create. Even if we spent on infrastructure rather than war, we would still have no means to fund it, and there would still be no guarantee that the economy would grow as a result.

What we need is more savings, more free enterprise, more production, and a return of American competitiveness in the global economy. Yes, we need Rosie the Riveter — but this time she has to work in the private sector making things that don't explode. To do this, we need less government spending, not more.

Copyright © 2010 Euro Pacific Capital

i lold

kind of on topic: how would you come by an argumentation, typically found amongst anti-imperialistic leftists, who claim that wars are fought for money. i mean i can see that certain companies would make nice profits with a war but i dont see how america would profit from that (except you would claim that all of american government is bought by these companies (which is probablly true to a degree)

[alvarezbassist17]

Well, it's more of a political investment than a monetary investment.  The military industrial complex is a huge lobbying organization and definitely has an effect on the big-picture of our policies as well as the administration of smaller portions, but I don't think that's the main impetus, I really think it's just to appeal to/get the votes of the hawks and saber-shaking nationalists on the left and the right out there, and there's plenty on either side.  

The whole "we need to forcibly impose democracy on every non-democratic country in the world" thing has been huge since Woodrow Wilson and the League of Nations blah blah blah.  And I absolutely hate it, just as much as I hate hippies, and by the way, since the overwhelming majority of hippies vote Democrat, the joke's on them.  Democrats started all of the big wars of the 20th century and Republicans traditionally ended them.  This whole neoconservative, George Bush shit really boggles my mind because it's definitely the area where they act the most like leftists; Christian Republicans really do too, but the two groups tend very much to overlap.  A true conservative foreign policy relies on the building of defenses, not policing the fucking world, and retaliate only when attacked and when you can be assured that the retaliation will overwhelmingly only affect the party that engaged a country.  But that's not to say I'm a hippie pacifist who would allow enemies to walk all over a country, I just think that national defense operations should be for defense, ironically enough.  

Side note:  Good statistic - The US spends 7 times as much yearly (~$700 billion) as the next highest country (<$100 billion).  Gee, I wonder if that helps some socialist countries stay afloat since we provide their defense.

(except you would claim that all of american government is bought by these companies (which is probablly true to a degree)

I would like to slightly correct that statement.  I claim that the problem is not that the government is bought by these companies (which I mean it clearly is), but that it has both the ability to be bought, and the ability to give privileges to certain people and organizations over others.  If the government didn't have any say in the economy whatsoever (which I advocate with all of my heart), there would be no reason for corporations to lobby Washington to raise barriers of entry to their competition, among the myriad of other activities that go on.