Maken

I haven't heard about Rockefeller lobbying the government for aid or help. In fact, he was pretty much hated by them with his Standard Oil. As for J.P. Morgan, the government actually lobbied HIM for aid because of how successful his banking practices were. He once refused to loan the government money because they didn't have enough credit.

Here is something interesting about Rockefeller. http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgtd3qdx_80hfsq9b73

Thanks for all the responses. Sorry if this was already on the forum but we discussed this in class today and was curious what people had to say. Doesn't it come down to the morals of the husband? If he values the life of his wife over individual rights shouldn't he technically steal it and face the consequences?

Basically... There's a woman who is diagnosed with a rare form of cancer and is near death. A man in town has recently discovered a radium based cure. He purchased the radium for $400 and is charging $4000 to sell it. The dying woman's husband tries all possible legal means, but can only obtain $2000, which he offers to the druggist. The man refuses and says it must be $4000 up front or no deal. Basically, should he steal the drug?

And to add, Lincoln lifted the need for a writ of habeas corupus in the Civil War and citizens in the NORTHERN cities were arrested for criticizing Lincoln and his methods of regulation in the war. There was a ban on slanderous press and that is a direct violation of freedom of speech. Wartime does not call for an abandonment of rights.

I see what you are saying...

Appreciate the response. It makes sense, just a bummer because I always liked his writings on the issue. And yea, I think this OP is a bit more interesting and though provoking

On a side note, your son is very smart for his age.....

So the issue with Guantanamo Bay must first be defined before one can look into my question. Currently thousands of inmates at Guantanamo Bay have been in prison without trial, where they are tortured and treated as less than human. The current administration seeks to close the prison and move the inmates to US soil (Guantanamo is currently on Cuban/American soil) and try the criminals. This is where i get my dilemma. If the prisoners are transferred to America, they would be tried, which is always good since innocent people might be set free, but at the same time, we reach a catch 22. The process for which they will be tried will be payed for by tax payers. This presents an interesting scenario. Either the prisoners are left to rot in Guantanamo without a trial (rights violation) or they are shipped to America where they will be tried on the dollar of the tax payer, who had to pay that dollar by force, not by free will (rights violation). In a system where there WILL be a rights violation regardless of the actions taken, how does one go about making a decision? Does one take a Utilitarianism approach and presume that since the MAJORITY of the prisoners are guilty that they should be left as is, or does one say that the right to a trial by jury trumps private property rights?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/#

Um, I thought Hong Kong was strictly regulated??? How does that equate to economic freedom?

More of a Longstreet fan myself....

Quote for emphasis.

But clearly because it came from the mouth of a liberal, it must be true?

Oh my..... wouldn't that make them Communists? lol

A lot of people are saying that he should double down on the idea that he needs to go balls to the wall and get this health care bill passed before Brown takes his seat, though most people would admit this would be political suicide for everyone involved.

I cannot express how jubilant I am over this. Cannot wait to see the look on all the liberal faces tomorrow. Keep hopes high that this kills "It".

Let us hope this puts an end dot TaxTheProducersCare.

How awful :|

*** Mod's note: Merged with an earlier topic. sN *** "An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity."-MLK /palmface

Guess I know whats next on my reading list

Oh my gosh you are amazing. That is a point I was trying to grapple with. I knew, historically speaking, that the government granted land to these railroad companies and thus help form their monopolies. Thanks for the information

This is a good point indeed, I wasn't really aiming to show him the issues with the idea of the monopoly, I was just trying to find a way to explain to him that monopolies are not an issue in a free market society.

This might be a little bit off topic for this, but I am going to go ahead and ask it here. Currently in US History we are learning about the construction of the first transcontinental railroad and the creation of what was deemed the first "monopoly" under these railroad companies. Basically long range trips were subject to transportation and short range trips were not, therefore there was a travel monopoly. Now, my teacher is actually a capitalist, but he claims that this is the issue with the free market, aka that is lets monopolies form unchecked, and therefore requires regulation. After reading Capitalism TUI and other various Rand excerpts on monopolies, I am not really sure how to explain that he is wrong to people in layman terms.

So the real issue at hand is it would not be for the qua man of the factory owner (aka it would not be in his self interest to hire people at this price)?