Some people just won't get it.

So I'll give an example.

Let's say someone wants to start up a business. A bar.

So the government comes out with new laws and regulations, and this person has to get all sorts of permits. On top of it, he gets taxed on various things he buys for resale.

But the raw materials were already taxed and regulated before he buys it, so both the transportation company and the factory have already had to consider the price, because if they don't calculate in the taxes and fees (and whatever permits they need for carrying the item, which also costs money) they won't make a profit and just forget about having a business.

So by the time it gets to the restaurant or bar, its price might have tripled from the original price and the bar has no choice but to sell it at a price that is way beyond what it supposed to cost and you the consumer keep complaining about just "how expensive" it is and you think they are trying to rip you off and you shake your fist at the bar or the company who made it.

Meanwhile the government gets all this money, and it's all thanks to the new laws and regulations, which were started off as a legislation at the Congress and finally the president and the supreme court approved it to be a law.

The more they keep doing this..and this time let's say it's not about taxation, but laws about what you can and cannot do and what is legal and illegal, the more and more laws they have to implement, because someone someway will find a backdoor to go around the laws.

Eventually the people who never even considered breaking the laws are the victims, since those who want to avoid the laws, will avoid it anyway, regardless if they are illegal or not, that's their least concern.

Meanwhile you..sitting at home, you can't even board a plane anymore with a waterbottle.

To top it off, if it's a very unpopular law, they use fear. That means, you will feel threatened and scared and you try to find safety by turning to the government for security. At the end, you traded your own freedom for more security and as Benjamin Franklin said, whoever trades their freedom for more security will loose both.

This is what happened in the Roman Empire and the Greek Empire as well.

Rome started off as a republic. The elected senate in control and they deal with everything regarding the concerns and care of the public. But due to expensive wars and conquest, the republic started to find itself running out of money. Not to mention more and more regulations and laws were brought in to collect more taxes and to "stop the invaders and terrorists" (Gauls, Huns, Vandals).

Eventually they elected a dictator (Ceasar) and the whole place went down and eventually disintegrated as the empire couldn't finance itself anymore, massive unemployment and morale problems, as people started to blame each other (racism too) and various state-heads and departments for the poverty and weak control. And then the whole thing collapsed and the entire Roman empire ripped into pieces , civil wars and various warlords started to rule sections of the Roman empire, eventually becoming new independent states.

If you don't learn from history, you are bound to repeat it..and it happened over and over.. and I can see it's happening in the USA, but I know, the majority dismiss this whole problem, because everybody thinks that "everyone else, but me" sort of mentality and that's exactly the major problem today.

I can't explain this better, but I know that many just can't get this through their head.

there is no easy answer to finding a balance,,,,

the other side of the argument is that
less laws = more freedoms = chaos


we do need a consensus of some sort in the communities we live as to how we wish to collectively contribute to and maintain them

we dont need a society where people just do whatever they wish whenever they wish and some are permitted not to contribute anything while others continue contributing even through their worst struggles

I think if laws are applied EQUALLY to the members of a community and for the BENEFIT of the community, they are justified

if only a few benefit off of the many, than it becomes unjustified


IMHO

Only scared, Lib, Progressives need more laws and regulations so, they'll feel nice and cozy.

Consider this: unrestrained capitalism is not a sustainable form of govenment. Why? Innate human greed. Historically, monarchies are the only form of government that succeeded long term, and it appears that socialism may also be sustainable. Why? Because socialist countries redistribute the immnense wealth that would otherwise be held by just a few of their citizens, wealth that would benefit no one but those citizens. And before you throw up the Soviet Union as an example, it was never a socialist society. Now that capitalism has come to Russia, howver, the wealthy are becoming wealthier, the poor becoming poorer, just like here in the US.

If you'll recall President Reagan's "tricle down" theory, he believed that allowing the wealthy to keep more of their money would result in their reinvesting that money in new businesses, which would result in more and better jobs for the people of America. Guess what? That never happened. They just banked it. Most economists will confirm this as a fact.

So here's what I belive. If the US continues continues to placate its weathy at the expense of its masses, it will most certainly end up as just another failed experiment in government. Unrestrained capitalism does not work!

And, by the way, I'm liberal and progessive, and I'm not afraid of anyone.

the government does so well with the regulatory powers they already have. why should we be concerned with them adding additional regulations?

MMS was on top of their game before the BP oil spill..

Financial oversight committees were certainly on top of the banking crisis.

FDA and USDA are always ahead of the curve when it comes to keeping the food supply safe.. What is a couple of million bad eggs?

FAA keeps the skies safe as can be..

DHS keeps bombers off of planes.. well.. most of the time.. but aren't those naked body scanners cool?

I could continue, but hey... More regulation works for me..

a lot of the laws are just based to get money, with a guise as to our benefit... but atlantis is right on what he posted, there are to many frivolous laws that make for all the high prices. taxes, building codes, health codes, unions, interests and price fixing from the distributors are all causes for high prices.

i agree, the rich hoard the money and not put it back into the system. they use that to control everything, including the government.

More laws also = MORE LOOPHOLES FOR LAW BREAKERS TO USE TO WRIGGLE OUT OF BEING PUNISHED!

Our justice system is made to bleed money from you. it is also intentionally made super confusing to prevent Laymen from understanding any of it.

We have FAR too many laws on the books now. It seems congresses solution to everything is to make new laws.

You cannot define law in Black and White. It must be written with the Spirit and Intent in mind to prevent people from trying to get out of their responsibilities with loopholes.

I disagree. There is a fair amount of law necessary, yes. But over regulation and having the government taking control eventually lead to the degradation of freedom.

What you are looking for is a balance.

I mind my own business while the government keeps order with police force and just fair amount of laws, that still for the better good of everyone. Not the other way, when the government shakes me down to the last penny and gives it to someone who are too lazy to work.

UH-OH!!

Ya' done went and opened dat can-o-worms.

Not gonna' make many friends of those welfare extensioners who suck the t1t of the Gov.

Now, I ain't talkin' bout folks who are just now losing their jobs.

It's about those who have been on past their allotted time.

They the ones who ain't really lookin' any longer and just skatin' on our money.

Get a job!

Agreed. Marcus Schrenker is an Indiana businessman who defrauded his client of billions of dollars. He's scheduled to appear in court today, supposedly to plead guilty and receive a ten year sentence--he'll be out in five. Is that right? Not even a little bit. "Businessmen" like Schrenker deserve the death penalty for destroying the lives of the people he bilked. Just another example of laws that have no bite, laws written to protect the wealthy. Laws that serve little or no purpose need to be replaced with laws that achieve their intended purpose. Schrenker destoyed thousands of lives. Let his punishment fit his crime.

I have lost my job for an entire year and even today I couldn't get hired for the job type I was studying for. Right now I make about less than half of the money (it wasn't much to begin with) I used to make and it's an "opportunity job" meaning, work isn't always available every day and sometimes I have to sit home for a week. Still, I'm proud to say I have never ever taken government handout money. I managed to survive just long enough on my own until the next job came along (my friend helped me out) and even though I hate what I do now (working for a sub contractor) I don't really have a choice.
Those who take the unemployment checks make more money by doing nothing than I do, even though I have to get up at 6am and sometimes stay until 7pm , because maybe in a few days, I have to wait a week until I work again.

actually, I think we agreed, it is about balance and even then it will never be a perfect world with no abuses,,,

I never took 'handouts 'either, as for decades it was also my taxmoney the government was 'using'

and my unemployment, over one year came to about 6 grand,,an amount much less than what my employers benefitted from my work over the years,,,

Let's talk about deregulation, specifically the dereguation of the TV broadcasting industry. When I was a child, TV stations aired three minutes per hour of commercials. Now they're broadcasting 18. Almost a third of what you see on TV is commercials. The FCC and federal government are fine with that. Are you? That in itself removes the quality fom quality broadcasts.

And what about cable and sattelite TV services? Do you agree that what you're billed for the service you receive is reasonable? I'll bet not. I subscribe to 250 channels, the vast majority of which I have no interest in. But my provider says that I must subscribe to all 250 of them to receive the 15 that I want. I don't subscribe to any premium channels (HBO, Showtime, etc.), yet my monthly bill is nearly $100. I categorize that as the raping of America. Anyone agree?

lol,, well, I wouldnt mind free television which aired five networks which broadcast FACTUAL news instead of constant commentaries and whose shows didnt have the vulgarity and pointless sexual reference and inuendo,,,,

but thats progress for ya,, I guess

the more we want, the more we have to sacrifice to get it,,,

Commercial television is intended to be supported entirely by the commericals it airs, not by its viewers. Stations that don't air commercials must, of course, charge viewers for their content. but. . . here's an example of the rape I mentioned:

The satellite service I subscribe to pays 3 or 4 cents per month to each of the local televisions stations it rebroadcasts to my home. That's 5 stations at--let's say--4 cents each,or 20 cents for all 5. In return, they receive $5. That's over 100 times what they charge in gross profit.

And customers really should be able to select the individual channles they wish to receive and pay for, and not be forced to subscibe to an entire group of channels in order to receive their desired channels.

Under regulation is just a bad. Look at the abuses we have had when regulation is diminished in areas where greed can over whelm the sensibilities.

Balance is the ideal.

Oh and the generalized statement that your money goes to lazy people is a bit prejudice don't ya think?

leads to dictator ship?...our last 2 presidents have as close to dictators as possible without the title...