MUH FREE MARKET

>>136964294
YOU CUNTS ARE LETTING IT SLIDE

The food companies are the new cigarette companies.

>>136964294
>company known for hogging patents and using the law to bully competition
>free market

yeah nah ya pinko cunt

>shhhhhh anon, the free Market will find a way

>>136966234
just to clarify before you cunts twist my words, I do not condone or defend Monsanto either. They're utter dicks, and you would just be cherrypicking one bad company rather than critiquing an entire economic system.

Big companies only come from big government, remember that

File: '.jpg (15KB, 367x388px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 367x388px

>>136966234
>>136966440
You are missing the point
>Big companies only come from big government
>This is what libertarians actually believe

File: IMG_20170301_190752.jpg (1MB, 3456x4608px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3456x4608px

>tfw my company pays above market wages, provides solid career growth and continually BTFOs hippies and lefties
Feelsgoodmayne.png

Pic related

>>136966718
I'm not wrong

>what are lobbying
>what are subsidies
>what are bailouts
>what are preferential legislation

Small businesses simply can't afford the bullshit that big corporations can get away with, and they can get away with it exactly because people blame it on ALL businesses in general (the free market) instead of the government that makes bullshit happen.

The "point" you are implying that is that more government would have fixed Monsanto. The answer is less, because more business just means more ways Monsanto can get around it while the small businesses in the bottom still have to deal with Monsanto's patents and government-enforced control by law. Nobody seriously defends Monsanto, the communists say it's capitalism in full swing, the libertarians say it's a statist behemoth.

basically, you're retarded

>>136967372
You, again, seem to be missing the point, and now you are resorting to fallacies. I have NEVER been a defender of corporate lobbying, subsidies, bailouts or any kind of partnership between governments and big corporations.
>The "point" you are implying that is that more government would have fixed Monsanto
No, faggot, that's not my point. Don't put words in my mouth. My point is that regulations are necessary to prevent big companies from getting away with this shit. If they violate regulations, they must be punished. Remember that libertarianism is against any kind of regulation because it's 'bad for the market'.

Yet a decade earlier, one Monsanto pollution abatement plan in the archive from October 1969, singled out by Sherman, suggests that Monsanto was even then aware of the risks posed by PCB use.
In a section on “damage to the ecological system by contamination from PCBs,” it said: “The evidence proving the persistence of these compounds and their universal presence in the environment is beyond questioning.”
“Direct lawsuits are possible” it continued, because “customers using the products have not been officially notified about known effects nor [do] our labels carry this information.”
The plan offered three courses of action, each accompanied by “profit and liability” flow charts. The options were: “Do nothing”, “discontinue manufacture of all PCBs” or “respond responsibly,” admitting environmental contaminations, and taking remedial action.
Sherman said: “At the same time that Monsanto was telling the public that that PCBs were safe, they were literally graphing their potential legal liability against the lost profits and public image boost that might accompany being responsible and honest. At the end of the day, Monsanto went for the profits instead of for public health and environmental safety.”

Today Monsanto still does the same shit but with different products ie GMO's. Monsanto et al need gassing - that includes all employees you cunt >>136966743

File: 1494529781194.png (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

Pacific Power still parked their trucks full of fertilizer in extremely dangerous ways after several warning from the city but that didn't stop the Oregon Blast from happening and them getting away with manslaughter in the courts.

Then they forced dams in the county to stop producing power so they could monopolize energy in the area.
Nobody cares. You really think anyone gives a shit? People are cattle to be used and abused, 1984 wasn't a prediction it was an observation.

>>136968401
>it's not my point that more government would have fixed it
>I want more regulations
Pick one and only one, retard.

>>136968401
>No, faggot, that's not my point. Don't put words in my mouth.
>My point is that regulations are necessary to prevent big companies from getting away with this shit.
>STOP SAYING I THINK MORE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE FIXED MONSANTO
>WE NEED MORE GOVERNMENT THOUGH

reread yourself, monkeybrains.

>If they violate regulations, they must be punished.
jesus christ are you kidding me? fact is that regulations ARE already in place, reread your fucking article. They don't work, because the same government that "regulates" Monsanto is the one that enables it, dumbass. You can "regulate" it as much as you want, the bottom line is that Monsanto still has deep ties with the government system if you take even one fucking glance at who and what Monsanto lobbies to and their patent system that fucks with farmers the research effort made towards Monsanto alternatives and their shekel seeds. They're goddamn sue to high hell if you even try

>Remember that libertarianism is against any kind of regulation because it's 'bad for the market'.
And they are. Alongside deregulation is less state-support of corporations exactly like Monsanto, not even more bullshit that's partially caused by government

I got your point and I understood it fully. You're the one that's contradicting yourself

File: Nike.png (18KB, 1130x166px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 1130x166px

>>136969148
>>136969313
>AGAIN resorting to fallacies and putting words in my mouth
I am not saying we need more regulations. What i'm saying is that current regulations must be enforced. If your shitty puppet government does not enforce them, that's not my fucking problem.

>>136964294
This wouldn't happen in a free market. Monsanto wouldn't exist as you know it.

>>136969945
And how are you going to enforce regulations? By firing regulators or by hiring more? By regulating less or by regulating the regulators? You are a retard.

>>136964294
The problem with these retards is that they would sooner destroy everything than have any democratic accountability through anything approaching a government

>>136970180
>And how are you going to enforce regulations?
>You are a retard
Who's really the retard here? You are asking a very simple question. If a company violates the law, they must be forced to pay fines. It's very simple, but i don't expect an anarchist to understand that.
>>136970663
>Half of the post is an ad hominem, the other half is a straw man which i have already refuted
Kill yourself.

>>136971968
>how are you going to enforce regulations?
>they must be forced to pay fines

Or wait, maybe you were answering the second question.
>By firing regulators or by hiring more?
>they must be forced to pay fines

or the third?
>By regulating less or by regulating the regulators?
>they must be forced to pay fines

hmmm, looks like you avoid answering questions about your position. really makes me think

>>136971968
>If a company violates the law, they must be forced to pay fines
>company easily pays fine because of the tons of money government has helped them make; hell, they might just use an army of lawyers to loophole their way out
>they continue being shit because their government still helps them be shit
>wtf we need more enforcement of regulations! Repeat step 1 ad infinitum!

wow nice solution you got there

>the other half is a straw man which i have already refuted

What straw man? You have literally stated that you think government involvement (regulation or enforcement otherwise) can fix government-enabled problems, and not a free market approach as evidenced by the title of your goddamn thread

>>136972472

Sometimes I like to fine a company for being a bad bad company, but I only like fine them 0.0001% of their annual profits. Like idk why I do that, but it could be cause this new Benz that be chilling in ma driveway from all the lobbying. Man I love merica as a politician. You get to do whatever you want and these cuck libtards just want more regulations, which just gives me more job security! Best part is, I just put the blame on the badbad company. I'm a dirty middleman and no one is the wiser.

Thanks gen x, you fckin kikes.

>>136964294
The guy who invented diseal knew it was terrible for you.

When people stop caring about their children and grandchildren for a penny this is how humanity dies.

>>136973240
not sure if being ironic or not, but that's basically how it works yes

>>136972451
Don't pretends that answer wasn't valid for those questions. The government is the regulator, idiot.
>>136972472
You are, AGAIN, resorting to fallacies. How many times must i say that i am AGAINST any partnership between a government and companies? Have i not made myself clear enough?
> You have literally stated that you think government involvement (regulation or enforcement otherwise) can fix government-enabled problems, and not a free market approach as evidenced by the title of your goddamn thread
What i have stated is that current existing regulations must be enforced, and that violations of the law by companies must be punished. I have NOT stated that there must be more regulations.
I will again repeat: If you government does not enforce the law when it comes to big companies, that's not my problem. It's the fault of the American people for electing pro-corporate politicians who don't give a fuck about their own people and who just want to get rich.

>>136973775
It wasn't valid. We are talking about government size and you refuse to speak about how enforcement would affect government size by mindlessly restating your original point.. You are a fucking retard.

>>136973775
>The government is the regulator, idiot.
and how is this regulation supposed to occur?

you've been evading his questions and honestly it's not surprising why, he called you out good

>What i have stated is that current existing regulations must be enforced, and that violations of the law by companies must be punished. I have NOT stated that there must be more regulations.
And I didn't say you wanted more regulation, but more government involvement. What your suggesting is still basically government involvement you dipshit. Government needs to CUT DOWN not keep as is

>If you government does not enforce the law when it comes to big companies, that's not my problem.
>he says this, while having made the thread dedicated to the topic

>It's the fault of the American people for electing pro-corporate politicians who don't give a fuck about their own people and who just want to get rich.
yes it's the politicians fault, that's what Libertarians have been fucking saying for years

no idea why your panties are in such a knot

>>136964294
Company founded by Jewish slave traders poisons the goyim. I never would have seen that coming.

>>136964294
Monsanto is a jewish family

>>136974090
>We are talking about government size
No, we aren't. I was never talking about government size.
>>136974321
>And how is this regulation supposed to occur?
Are you fucking retarded? If a company violates the law, it must pay a fine. IT'S THAT FUCKING SIMPLE.
>And I didn't say you wanted more regulation
Except you were
>but more government involvement. What your suggesting is still basically government involvement you dipshit.
Law enforcement ≠ government involvement in the economy!
>Government needs to CUT DOWN not keep as is
Yes, goy, let Monsanto get away with poisoning the people!
>yes it's the politicians fault, that's what Libertarians have been fucking saying for years
Despite this, libertarians would do absolutely nothing to punish companies who broke the law.

File: 1406784218204.jpg (28KB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 854x480px

>>136975648
>tile of the thread is MUH FREE MARKET
>I was never talking about government size

>Are you fucking retarded? If a company violates the law, it must pay a fine. IT'S THAT FUCKING SIMPLE.
AND HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING TO ENFORCE THAT FINE PAYMENT AND HOW IS THAT GOING TO AFFECT GOVERNMENT SIZE YOU FUCKING RETARD STOP AVOIDING THE QUESTION

We don't need more government. We need less Jews.

>>136975648
>Are you fucking retarded? If a company violates the law, it must pay a fine. IT'S THAT FUCKING SIMPLE.
and what does this accomplish? what does this solve? absolute fucking nothing. The company is still supported by the state, and all of its shitty behaviors are still there

No wonder Brazil is a shithole, you think "just a fine" and a slap on the wrist will take down corrupt corporations. Laughable!

>Except you were
>NOU!

not an argument. I've been a consistent Libertarian here advocating less corrupt government and more free markets, retard.

>Law enforcement ≠ government involvement in the economy!
holy shit am I reading what I think I'm reading? The Law, a branch of the government, is apparently NOT government. Christ's sake, what do they teach you there

Of course the fucking law and its enforcement influences the economy, don't you have any understanding whatsoever of copyright, patents, lawsuits, and other judicial shenanigans that make or break businesses?

>Yes, goy, let Monsanto get away with poisoning the people!
except that I want to kill Monsanto by cutting off the root? Government needs to fuck off, I want to see Monsanto rot from having other people raid their patents and finally make cleaner alternatives without their government sugar daddies protecting them

>Despite this, libertarians would do absolutely nothing to punish companies who broke the law.
>cutting off subsidies, bailouts, and preferential treatment
>not massively punishing if not outright killing corrupt corporations

o i am laffin

>>136976189
110% this

File: 1502459195106.jpg (70KB, 736x856px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 736x856px

>>136966743
>im a wagecuck and proud of it.
>i take relief in the security of being under my masters boot

The definition of a slave.
And a moral prostitue at that

K

>>136976060
>Believing in false dichotomies
>Being against unregulated capitalism must mean that you are pro big government
I'll bite the bait
>AND HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING TO ENFORCE THAT FINE PAYMENT AND HOW IS THAT GOING TO AFFECT GOVERNMENT SIZE YOU FUCKING RETARD STOP AVOIDING THE QUESTION
Here you go, you lazy idiot.
https://www.epa.gov/lead/enforcing-lead-laws-and-regulations
https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/enforcement-basic-information
>>136976541
>and what does this accomplish? what does this solve?
Fines means a loss of money for the company, and a decrease of personal wealth of the people in charge of the company
>The company is still supported by the state
I have already stated that i am against this.
>not an argument
Le not an argument XD!!!1
> The Law, a branch of the government, is apparently NOT government. Of course the fucking law and its enforcement influences the economy
Enforcing simple regulations made to protect people and the enviroment is not going to hurt the economy, stop being delusional
>don't you have any understanding whatsoever of copyright, patents, lawsuits, and other judicial shenanigans that make or break businesses?
Those have nothing to do with the discussion, which is about regulations.
>except that I want to kill Monsanto by cutting off the root? Government needs to fuck off, I want to see Monsanto rot from having other people raid their patents and finally make cleaner alternatives without their government sugar daddies protecting them
>cutting off subsidies, bailouts, and preferential treatment
I'm starting to think that you are deliberately trying to make me angry. You argue as if i supported the help that the American goverment gives to Monsanto and other big companies, but i have made explicit that i am AGAINST that.
My point is that the American government is irresponsible and corrupt for giving privileges to these companies instead of punishing them.

>>136978877
It is true that many of these companies would go bankrupt without the assistance that the American politicians give to them, but many would still exist.
And without a responsible government to enforce regulations, these companies would get away with things such as using dangerous chemicals in their products, or employing children in sweatshops and paying them extremely low wages.

>>136966743
This.
>tfw work for a large oil company

>>136978877
>Fines means a loss of money for the company, and a decrease of personal wealth of the people in charge of the company
...which the company can make right back because you're just charging them a fine, not crippling their entire corrupt business model

>Enforcing simple regulations made to protect people and the enviroment is not going to hurt the economy, stop being delusional
yes but it does miss the point and provides a false of security.

>"we did it! we enforced regulations!"
>[some time later]
>wtf why is this corrupt shitty company still alive it's like I didn't actually do anything

>Those have nothing to do with the discussion, which is about regulations.
government involvement is government involvement, you can't pick and choose just because "it's not part of the discussion". Regulations still have consequences, or rather, very little consequences since they miss the fucking point of how to fix bad big businesses: by breaking down bad big government

>My point is that the American government is irresponsible and corrupt for giving privileges to these companies instead of punishing them.
And the entire point of Libertarianism is that more government, however you interpret that as just "enforcing" regulations for punishment, WON'T DO ANY FUCKING GOOD. You get temporarily relief to virtue signal voters at best, but the same problem still inevitably happens behind the scenes when lobbying and other bullshit builds up again from government involvement

You are short-sighted and delusional if you cannot see the root of problems, hoping the state needs to *do more* when that's what it has been doing for decades in the past and none of it helps in the long-term.

>>136979316
>but many would still exist.
and how do you know this? is it an absolute or are you just pulling it our of your ass out of fearmongering?

>without a responsible government to enforce regulations, these companies would get away with things such as using dangerous chemicals in their products
then expose the shitty companies using dangerous chemicals and get the consumers involved to not buy their products to feed their business, spreading awareness to that company's workers to get them out of there and quit. You can't have a business with no workers and no customers and you don't need a government for this. What is the corporation going to do about it? Nothing, there's no government to cry to.

That is how you kill bad business by hitting them where it hurts, not from "regulations"

>employing children in sweatshops and paying them extremely low wages.
then expose the shitty companies employing children in sweatshops and get the consumers involved to not buy their products to feed their business, spreading awareness to their parents to get their kids out of there and quit. You can't have a business with no workers and no customers and you don't need a government for this. What is the corporation going to do about it? Nothing, there's no government to cry to.

That is how you kill bad business by hitting them where it hurts, not from "regulations"

>>136979896
>...which the company can make right back because you're just charging them a fine, not crippling their entire corrupt business model
>yes but it does miss the point and provides a false of security.
>wtf why is this corrupt shitty company still alive it's like I didn't actually do anything
I get your point, but if a company keeps getting fined for violations of regulations, that will hurt the it's public, and i don't think that the CEOs like being forced to pay fines.
>And the entire point of Libertarianism is that more government, however you interpret that as just "enforcing" regulations for punishment, WON'T DO ANY FUCKING GOOD. You get temporarily relief to virtue signal voters at best, but the same problem still inevitably happens behind the scenes when lobbying and other bullshit builds up again from government involvement. ou are short-sighted and delusional if you cannot see the root of problems, hoping the state needs to *do more* when that's what it has been doing for decades in the past and none of it helps in the long-term
This again? How many times must i repeat that i am AGAINST the privileges given to some companies by the American government?
>>136980642
>and how do you know this? is it an absolute or are you just pulling it our of your ass out of fearmongering?
Are you implying that every successful company in the US receives government assistance? I get it that a lot of them do, but it is absurd to claim that all do.
>then expose the shitty companies using dangerous chemicals and get the consumers involved to not buy their products to feed their business, spreading awareness to that company's workers to get them out of there and quit.
See >>136968749
Most people don't care about the unethical practices of big companies as long as they don't personally affect them. Remember Kony 2012? The average consumer thinks they are doing a revolutionary act by sharing a link and virtue signaling to their friends on Twitter and Facebook.

>>136982048
>I get your point, but if a company keeps getting fined for violations of regulations, that will hurt the it's public, and i don't think that the CEOs like being forced to pay fines.
a fine is a calculated expense, not a punishment. If you've ever worked for a business or done bookkeeping, sometimes taking a fine is cheaper than fixing the actual fucking problem. It gets the government off their back, and they can just continue as is, because the government is not concerned about fixing problems, just virtue signalling for voters while making things worse in the long run

>This again? How many times must i repeat that i am AGAINST the privileges given to some companies by the American government?
because your solution has only been to emphasize "muh fines" and not actually fixing the root of the problem. You say you're actually in agreement to Libertarian principles, but then you shit on free markets and continue to spout that "regulations are necessary"

You can't have it both ways

>Are you implying that every successful company in the US receives government assistance? I get it that a lot of them do, but it is absurd to claim that all do.
the big ones definitely do, and this is not something anybody can contest. "Too big to fail" is such a ghastly phrase to even utter and in many ways it is national policy. We're talking about big business btw, the small ones don't receive shit because they can't afford to lobby or buddy up with Uncle Sam

>Most people don't care about the unethical practices of big companies as long as they don't personally affect them.
but this does personally affect them, that's the whole point. This isn't about "revolutionary acts", it's about just letting employees and consumers know what's happening so they can fucking stop supporting it. Like you know, what people try to do by getting change to happen through ballot boxes instead of actually adjusting their lifestyle and spending habits

No government is still needed