Men’s Health

Popular authors of umbilical cord problem articles

Patanol

Some will claim I’m a seditious commie for making a statement like this, but this is why I think it’s a Good Thing (indeed, a very good thing) for the government to regulate it - reign it in and prevent it from abusing the free market system.

It’s also why I think the way modern corporations work is a Bad Thing. They shouldn’t have the autonomy of an individual without identical responsibility throughout their board of directors.

There are actually two definitions of capitalism in common usage. When those on the right use the word, they generally do so in a positive light. Those on the left use the word most often in a disparaging fashion. The problem comes in that both sides have

An even more lewd distortion of “capitalism”, which you didn’t mention directly, is how they interpret “persuit of property” and the Constitution as a whole as encouraging this plutocratic behavior - ie, the “neocons”. They take the Constitution and abuse it as justification for all the over-reaching bearucratic chains which hold most people down, while using their connections for power… I was going to write something more about the Constitutional dichotomy of definitions within the Conservative school of thought on my blog, but I can’t seem to find the (substantial) draft I had written up…

Oh, and the RJCs aren’t a threat to liberty - they -are- librety, in a sense. I think the neocon/RWCs are an equal threat to the sedicious leftists; in fact, they’re often in cahoots, as they want the same thing: more power. Behind the scenes, their mechanisms are also much the same. The “public eye” differs a bit, in that the neocons opt for more “facsist” forms of control and manipulation, while the leftists opt for communist means. Ultimately the same thing in the end.

Best piece you’ve written so far… I’m linkin’.

That’s the biggest load of crap I’ve heard in awhile. While that might be true for some markets under some conditions, there are plenty of situations where capitalism leads to more overall “owners”. Take, for instance, a market that has (a) high profit margins and (b) non-prohibitive start-up costs. It’s only a matter of time before entrepreneurs attempt to get a piece of (a). The end result will be less consolidation instead of more. The problem with government interference is that it often leads to higher (b), which prohibits new blood from entering the market, in turn creating big-company dominated markets.

Good job, excellent piece.