AutoJC

Building codes set minimum standards for safety in buildings. The limits in building codes are to ensure that a building stands up when it is finished. In a capitalist society, absent of government enforcement of building codes, the high standards would still be adopted by insurance agencies, mortgage financial companies, and other interests to ensure the safety and life cycles of buildings can be met or exceeded. Many organizations which are private interests such as ASTM, UL, and NFPA have standards that are adopted into building codes. Absent of the actual codes, these standards would continue to exist and it would be well nigh impossible to construct, sell, or even perceive of a project that would not comply with such standards. Absent of any building codes, there still is the even more ominous problem of liability exposure for a failure to design or construct a sound, functional building. For example, many of my industrial building designs have to comply with Factory Mutual, a private insurance standards organization whose codes are far stricter than the local building codes.

The capitalist environment comprises of private properties. No property owner has the right to impose upon another property owner in any way. That would, in effect, eliminate pollution since one causing pollution to another would be illegal. If you, as a property owner upstream, cause pollution to my property downstream, you have harmed me and I can at least take you to due process. In a capitalist scenario, there is a clean environment due to the respect for individual and property rights. Capitalists are, in that respect, supreme protectors of the environment. The leftist's view of the environment is totally altruistic-oriented and assumes that all property is shared for the sake of others, which it is not in a capitalist-based society. In a socialist scenario, government has to regulate pollution because there is no redress regarding the harming of other's property since no property rights exist. Privatize the Hoover dam.

It doesn't matter which congressman supports the draft or not. If we were to write them vigorously opposing the draft, and our numbers stood firm in our unified opposition to this, our representatives would have to listen to us and vote according to our wants. For the simple reason that they are YOUR representatives. What matters here is that our representatives are supposed to represent us. This means that they are supposed to vote on an issue according to the consensus of responses they receive. That's what they are elected to do. That's what we pay them for.

They have before. Since WW2, I think. The draft disappeared sometime in the 70's, I thought.

Fuck the Draft. Draft is Slavery! You can bet your bottom dollar I'm in touch with my congressman and senator about this one. Capitalism and Objectivism positions regarding the Draft are quite clear. I agree with their positions.

A-Rod would have made a mistake by being willing to sign for less than his value. Perhaps there is an unusual justice in Bud Selig nixing this deal. This one time he was right. Sports provide entertainment for the fans. They provide an element of fun for amateurs like myself who participate in them. Each one of us is meant to enjoy life, and having good clean fun through sports is one way to do so.

When I was a kid we were very poor. We were so poor that we lived in a neighborhood bypassed by the the Good Humor truck. I have felt deprived ever since. p.s. I wonder how many people here even know what the Good Humor truck was? I suspect that most were not born until after the demise of Good Humor. See http://www.icecreamusa.com/goodhumor/know.asp Good Humor. Now there's a capitalist trend right there! In my neighborhood, Good Humor had competitors. We bypassed Good Humor for the better Mr. Softee, who had more variety. And Howard Johnson had ice cream trucks in our neighborhood as well. I think these ice cream vendors all read the writing on the wall that it was far more profitable to sell their products in the big box supermarkets.

The discussion of FDR as a "fascist" distorts the very fact that he was, for once and always, in staunch defense of the American way of life. He stated, "We must ensure that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us," in the context of declaring war not only on Japan back in 1941, but on ALL the axis powers. I do not condone in any way the socialist "stopgap" measures he used to quell the Depression, such as Social Security, the Federal Reserve, or the Public Works programs. To me, FDR was the father of the mixed economy.

Quote frankly, I find NOTHING wrong with a star athlete placing a high price on him/herself for his/her talent. As in any capitalist endeavor, it is up to the purchaser to either accept such price or reject it. I'm focusing specifically on professional baseball here, since it is exempt from antitrust laws. I would argue that professional baseball is the only endeavor that is truly still capitalist! I scoff at the media for their commentaries expressing disdain at the high price of such sports and athlete's salaries. After all, the owners of such teams had the choice of rejecting such prices. They instead elected to contract such players at such prices because they thought such players could increase the profits of the owners and their teams. Yankees did right by signing Alex Rodriguez. That's why the Yankees rule!

The question arises, then regarding professional sports. There is much discussion in the media about the "outrageous" salaries paid to star athletes, especially in baseball. Would capitalists consider these "outrageous?"

An Excellent Commentary on Reagan's New Right May Be Found Here. Nonetheless, Reagan did serve his country, and he does deserve some salutation for that. Reagan did lend moral support to those who favored capitalism in Russia (like Yeltsin) and Lech Walesa in Poland as Communism fell. He did cut taxes and the economy improved in the mid-80's (well, in some locales it did)

"Ourselves" is a compound word which has the root "self." Self is "individual." There is your reference to Individual Rights.

You are totally mistaken about the letter and intent of my posts. But this is YOUR message board. And I have to respect your wishes, whatever they may be. Not only will I depart, but I'll withdraw my offer of support of any kind to this board. Sice your wish is to dispose of me, I'll cater to this wish. My opinion is this board is a total perversion of its stated purpose in practice. Goodbye, and good luck.

Furthermore, this is the definition of Constitution from Merriam Webster: Main Entry: con·sti·tu·tion Pronunciation: "kän(t)-st&-'tü-sh&n, -'tyü- Function: noun 1 : an established law or custom : ORDINANCE 2 a : the physical makeup of the individual comprising inherited qualities modified by environment b : the structure, composition, physical makeup, or nature of something 3 : the act of establishing, making, or setting up 4 : the mode in which a state or society is organized; especially : the manner in which sovereign power is distributed 5 a : the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it b : a written instrument embodying the rules of a political or social organization Boldface emphasis mine. Constitution = Basic law If a = b and b = c then a = c.

Tomer and d18: So it is that your Basic law can be amended, or other laws passed wihich may or may not relate directly to Basic law. So it is with our Constitution. Many laws have been passed here in America which, interestingly, appear to meet the criteria of the exceptions you cite in your Basic law. These require only the approval of Congress and the signature of the President to become Law. Whether they stand up to the criteria set forth in the Constitution is subject to review by the courts only if a challenge is posed. The amendment process is far more difficult. Despite your arguments, I see no fundamental difference between the intent of your Basic Law and our Constitution.