Only because the Supreme Court says we do.
Well, that is its function, after all.
Of course, that's what the Soviets said about themselves, too. But if any of the common people disagree, they had no recourse, neither here nor there.
I don't see your purpose here.
Is it about minimizing the differences between the USSR & the USA?
Well, again, all regimes are murderous in their own way, including ours.
There are differences in magnitude.
Our nation didn't grow as large as it did because of Manifest Destiny.
I disagree.
Manifest Destiny had much to do with growth.
Ref....
Manifest destiny - Wikipedia
"In the 19th century,
manifest destiny was a widely held belief in the
United States that its settlers were destined to expand across
North America. "
Yes, perhaps this is true. Back in college, I did a fair amount of research into their agricultural system for a Soviet geography class I took. One stat that sticks in my mind is that the "peasant plots" (which individuals could use to farm whatever they wanted and sell on the market, apart from their duties to the collective) only comprised less than 10% of the arable land but accounted for a third of the Soviet food supply.
Another problem was not so much that the farms weren't producing, because they were. The main problem was transportation. A large percentage of crops would rot in the warehouses waiting to put on trains that didn't run very well. But this was a problem that went back to Tsarist times, as their railroad and transportation system was way behind the West. I remember one of the first things Andropov did when he came to power was fire the head of the Soviet railroad directorate. (See? They can get fired in the USSR, too.)
Transportation problems with Soviet agriculture were due to the Soviet system.
Contrast their poor railroads with the success of the private sector in Americastan.
Prosecute...if you can prove it. That's where the courts and the lawyers come into the picture, and they're another large part of the problem. Sometimes, one might wonder what's going on when people get off on technicalities or such vagaries as "insufficient evidence."
Legal systems are all imperfect.
Nonetheless, prosecution for crimes is necessary to keep dishonest folk in line or in jail.
I only call it as I see it. The fact that employers are so cheap and aren't willing to pay decent wages should be proof enough that they have a scornful and disdainful attitude towards those below. But then, it's also in the things they say, such as "only the little people pay taxes."
Where you see scorn, I see economics.
The wages you decry are the result of increasing profit...not punishing anyone.
I'm not saying this is true for *all* of them, so please don't get your dander up. I'm not referring to you. But I can't believe that you've never heard of this phenomenon before.
Oh, I hear it all the time from lefties.
The Victimhood Olympics is always on.
Relatively speaking, I think the US was at its peak around WW2 up to about the late 60s/early 70s, at which point we started a slow decline to the point we're at now.
WW2 was far from a peak.
We had....
- Rationed goods
- Shortages
- Rampant discrimination of all sorts
- Death & destruction
And the decline began as civil rights legislation was passed, as workplace equality increased, as the standard of living rose?
Holy cow....we see things very differently.
It's not that the markets aren't free enough. It's just that the logical result of free market competition will ultimately lead to one or more businesses losing out and going belly up (or merging with the competition), which will lead to fewer choices and potential monopolies. There's no way to stop that under laissez-faire conditions, without government intervention (such as what Teddy Roosevelt did).
I don't know why you're pushing this, when all along I've said that preventing monopolies
is crucial for free markets. It seems you're arguing against me by advocating my values.
Regarding this specific point, I'm arguing that the same arguments used against big government can be just as easily applied against big business. The individual voter or consumer is in the same boat, either way.
No, this argument fails.
If you don't like one car manufacturer, you can buy from another.
If you don't like government, you've no option but to move elsewhere.
And that option becomes ever more difficult if the fed is the problem.
If you were right, then socialist countries, eg, USSR, PRC, N Korea, Cuba, would've
exhibited as much liberty as Canuckistan, Oz, Norway, or USA. But none do.
Countries without free enterprise are horror shows of oppression.
I don't think it's specious speculation, because I've seen such things happen in the real world.
When & where did you see business competition & choice evaporate?
I've been in business for almost half a century, & I've found that I've
always had choices for contractors, vendors, & customers.
Where I've not had choice is with government & government created
monopolies, eg, utilities.
Another industry which has gone tremendously downhill as a result of deregulation: Airlines with their "fortress hubs." I'll give the EU some credit as they're ahead of us on this one with tougher regulations to prevent abuses by the airlines. Not only that, but the airline recognized by many as the best in the world (Emirates) is government-owned (
The Emirates Group - Wikipedia). Our own privately owned airlines can't even rank above the third tier when compared on a global scale.
Domestic airline service has indeed gone downhill for economy class, but this is a response
to market conditions. Most people want the cheapest rates, & that's where the airlines go.
If a government owned airline gives better value, do you think they're
But if you want service, you can always pay for business or first class.
I note that the Emirates Group is not government run (per your source).
But how would they fare if they did business in a US environment instead
of the richest area in the world? I wager they'd emulate US companies.
Then under your system, we wouldn't really have a democracy or freedom anymore. It would be taking a giant step backwards towards feudalism. Human rights would only go the highest bidder.
My system?
What on Earth are you talking about?
The freedom to choose where I spend my money will destroy human rights & send us to feudalism?
So when I switched from Amerigas to Baker Propane, democracy died a little?
Oh, dear.
We're far apart, & I see no common ground emerging.
So I'll annoy some other posters pestering me to respond.
