Heck after this bail out nonsense with the too big to fail lie that many of these socialists were trying to push and the threat of another great depression then we should also restrict how big a company can get.This is so that when the company goes under it doesn't take a significant portion of the country with it. No company should receive government IE tax payer aid period.
Yet many of the corporations that are deemed "too big to fail" got to that size due to government-approved mergers and acquisitions.
Originally Posted by jasonxe
free market has it own regulations.
How so? Is this where we hear the boilerplate mantra about how the consumer wields all the power?
Originally Posted by Canell
If you are an employer and nobody wants to sweep your floor for $3 per hour, won't you raise the wage?
Yes, I believe it.
Do you also support employers requiring that employees purchase exclusively from a company store?
Originally Posted by RadicalModerate
But someone always will take the $3 in the real world and you know this. Especially if they're starving, I mean c'mon...there has to be some cognitive dissonance working here. If you were starving, you'd postpone eating for as long as it takes in order to get the guy to give you $4? That is ludacris and I don't buy it for a second.
And then to invoke the "nanny state"? How ideological can you get in one statement? Nanny state implies overbearing or excessive government assistance; assistance to a legitimately starving person is excessive?
Is this a libertarian syndrome? The absolute steadfast refusal to see the real world and preference for overly-simplified examples. And then to have the audacity to be all, "well, I'D do it!" when we all know damn well you wouldn't.
If, when defending your support for Donald Trump, and your response is,
"But but but... HILLARY!!!", then you lost the argument before you even began.