I meant that the constitution limits the government, not the people. That is not to say that it doesn't spell out a few rules it should enforce. And besides, "limits" is not saying that it cannot punish at all. I specify that in the bill of rights because it favors my context well...

When I say "If it is not prohibited, it is allowed," I mean that in a very broad sense. Making laws for one...unless otherwise noted...

>> ^heropsycho:

That is not true. You are effectively saying that so long as a law doesn't contradict an identified right, then it is constitutional. That's absolutely not the case.
The Constitution does two things as far as defining what government can and cannot do. First off, it lists what kinds of laws the federal government can pass, which are then enforced and interpretted by the other branches. Article I Section 8 lists those powers:
Taxing
Borrow money
Regulation of foreign and interstate commerce
Paths to citizenship
Coin money
Punish counterfeiting
Post offices and roads
Copyrights and patents
etc.
However, regulation of foreign and interstate commerce can be stretched, and the last of the Powers of Congress contains the necessary and proper clause, aka the elastic clause:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Then there's the Bill of Rights that says what the gov't can't do. For a law to be constitutional, it must:
1. Show where the law is allowed in Article I, Section 8 or other Amendments.
2. Not contradict something in the Bill of Rights.
The crux of most problems that go to the Supreme Court is the language of Article I, Section 8 is vague, particularly interstate commerce clause and the elastic clause, and some laws, even if they fall under those listed powers, may violate the Bill of Rights or other amendments. Also, the Bill of Rights is vague as well. For example, when debating abortion laws, who have rights - the unborn fetus, the mother, or both? Where does it say the gov't can regulate this? Does the elastic clause or regulation of foreign or interstate commerce cover this?
It's not so simple, and the ruling for a specific issue has consequences for other rulings. Regulation of interstate commerce was the legal justification for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevented public segregation by race, but that also has the consequence of saying the federal gov't could regulate pretty much any business because goods, services, and/or customers cross state lines in just about any business. But if that's not how it's constitutional, then the federal gov't couldn't end racial segregation in public businesses.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
It is a document that limits the government's ability to impose force upon people (Or impose its will--however you want to look at it...)
You cannot take our free press; you cannot take our guns; you cannot allow us to be enslaved; you cannot torture or search without warrant. You cannot arrest or seize without due process. Etc.

If it is not prohibited, then it is allowed. Think of it like, oh, the Law, but in reverse. You cannot speed on the roads. You cannot rape or burn houses. You cannot commit fraud. However, you can swindle people if you are good and lawful about it. You can defend yourself against aggression.
In other words--Universal Health Care is just fine because it is not prohibited.

For the record, I'm not a strict constructionist. However, I do recognize the danger of looser interpretations, even though I'm politically moderate person. I don't have a good answer for example about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because that law was sorely needed, but it sure does open Pandora's box about what the gov't can and can't regulate. Regulation of interstate commerce allowed for things like environmental regulation, the formation of the EPA, etc. But it sure can cause the gov't to regulate things it shouldn't, too.

The formation of an Air Force though is an easier argument constitutionally, and it's a useful thing to review because it illustrates the thought process of the Supreme Court. When something isn't outright said in Article I, Section 8, those powers in combination with interpretting other sections such as the Preamble ("provide for the common defense..."), or sometimes other documents the forefathers wrote such as the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, etc., provide ideas about their intent. It's clearly implied that since they could form an Army and Navy for defense, once flight was possible, it's implied we need an Air Force.

As to the things below you're saying should be put to a vote, they are, but not directly by the people. That's how the Amendment process works. Should it be a direct vote by the people? In my opinion, that would be a horrible idea. The people simply for the most part do not understand the ramifications of amending the Constitution.

>> ^NetRunner:

@heropsycho ahh, but you do need to be careful with the whole "enumerated powers" malarkey. After all, there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 about Congress being able to create an Air Force -- just an Army and a Navy. The Air Force is unconstitutional.
Also too, it doesn't say the government is allowed to build roads, just "Post roads" for the post office's use! Don't even get us started on things like power lines or telephone cable.
According to the likes of Ron Paul, the Constitution isn't open to even a little bit of reinterpretation, but instead that it's a straightjacket that should constrain the Federal government from doing anything that isn't explicitly listed in Section 8.
Hell, he's even implied that since the Constitution uses the verb "coin" to describe Congress's authority to create money, that paper currency (backed by gold or otherwise) is also unconstitutional.
IMO, I'd be fine with that interpretation, as long as people stopped pretending that the constitution was some holy scripture filled with infinite wisdom passed down to us by messiahs. We should be rewriting and re-ratifying the Constitution to fit with our modern ideals of how things should function.
For example, there should be something in the constitution about the nexus of money and politics, but there isn't.
There should be something more about the legal definition of "people" -- do fetuses or corporations count?
There should be something in there about the Air Force, and the Marines too, for good measure.
Do we have a right to privacy, or don't we?
Right now we mostly let the Supreme Court decide these things by letting them "interpret" a 200 year-old document based on their supposed ability to divine the mental state of the long-dead authors of the sections they feel are relevant.
Why shouldn't those questions be put to a vote?

That is not true. You are effectively saying that so long as a law doesn't contradict an identified right, then it is constitutional. That's absolutely not the case.

The Constitution does two things as far as defining what government can and cannot do. First off, it lists what kinds of laws the federal government can pass, which are then enforced and interpretted by the other branches. Article I Section 8 lists those powers:

Taxing
Borrow money
Regulation of foreign and interstate commerce
Paths to citizenship
Coin money
Punish counterfeiting
Post offices and roads
Copyrights and patents
etc.

However, regulation of foreign and interstate commerce can be stretched, and the last of the Powers of Congress contains the necessary and proper clause, aka the elastic clause:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Then there's the Bill of Rights that says what the gov't can't do. For a law to be constitutional, it must:

1. Show where the law is allowed in Article I, Section 8 or other Amendments.
2. Not contradict something in the Bill of Rights.

The crux of most problems that go to the Supreme Court is the language of Article I, Section 8 is vague, particularly interstate commerce clause and the elastic clause, and some laws, even if they fall under those listed powers, may violate the Bill of Rights or other amendments. Also, the Bill of Rights is vague as well. For example, when debating abortion laws, who have rights - the unborn fetus, the mother, or both? Where does it say the gov't can regulate this? Does the elastic clause or regulation of foreign or interstate commerce cover this?

It's not so simple, and the ruling for a specific issue has consequences for other rulings. Regulation of interstate commerce was the legal justification for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevented public segregation by race, but that also has the consequence of saying the federal gov't could regulate pretty much any business because goods, services, and/or customers cross state lines in just about any business. But if that's not how it's constitutional, then the federal gov't couldn't end racial segregation in public businesses.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

It is a document that limits the government's ability to impose force upon people (Or impose its will--however you want to look at it...)
You cannot take our free press; you cannot take our guns; you cannot allow us to be enslaved; you cannot torture or search without warrant. You cannot arrest or seize without due process. Etc.

If it is not prohibited, then it is allowed. Think of it like, oh, the Law, but in reverse. You cannot speed on the roads. You cannot rape or burn houses. You cannot commit fraud. However, you can swindle people if you are good and lawful about it. You can defend yourself against aggression.
In other words--Universal Health Care is just fine because it is not prohibited.

I wrote to my Senator (Orrin Hatch-R., Utah, responsible for the Protect IP Act) about SOPA and its problems and gave them a rather "cool" scathing review about its faults and errors and the public demonstrations that have taken place like GoDaddy and the fact that three major companies had pulled out from the SOPA bill (although their political alliance group is still signed into SOPA--so they can still look good in the public eye and still, really, support the bill) and got the "printing press" release as follows (which has nothing to do with what I wrote, really--I know this bill is coming, but really, an auto-send out letter for pissed constituents?):

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act.

On May 12, 2011, Senator Patrick Leahy and I introduced the PROTECT IP Act. If enacted, S. 968 would provide law enforcement with important tools to stop foreign websites “dedicated to infringing activities.” In other words, the bill targets the most egregious offenders of online theft who profit from counterfeit products and pirated content. These goods can range from new movie and music releases to pharmaceuticals and consumer products. With this legislation, we send a strong message to those selling or distributing pirated content or counterfeit goods online that the United States will strongly protect intellectual property rights.

The bill authorizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) to file a civil action against the registrant or owner of a domain name that accesses a foreign infringing Internet site, or the foreign-registered domain name itself. However, DOJ officials must first seek approval from a federal court before taking any action. In determining whether an Internet site is “dedicated to infringing activities,” a federal judge must weigh all of the facts carefully in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – just like what happens today in shutting down an illegal bricks and mortar storefront.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a common assumption with some online users that illegal downloads and purchases online are free and harmless. This is far from true. Fake pharmaceuticals threaten people’s lives. Stolen movies, music, and other products threaten the jobs and livelihoods of many people, and drive up costs for other consumers. Every year, these online thieves are making hundreds of millions of dollars by stealing American intellectual property, and this undermines legitimate commerce.

This also has a direct impact on Utah. As you may know, Utah is considered a very popular state for film and television production activity. Nothing compares to the red rock of Southern Utah or the sweeping grandeur of the Wasatch Mountains. Utah’s workforce is also a draw to filmmakers who come for one of the most highly educated and hardworking workforces in our country. It is estimated that the motion picture and television industries are responsible for thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars in wages in Utah. There is no doubt that intellectual property theft has a direct, negative impact on Utah’s economy and its workforce. This same impact can be seen nationwide.

On July 22, 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported S. 968 by unanimous consent. While it is unclear when the bill will be considered by the full Senate, the legislation enjoys strong support with 39 bipartisan cosponsors to date. Please know that my Senate colleagues and I are committed to crafting consensus legislation and welcome suggestions on ways to improve the bill. Unfortunately there has been some misinformation circulated about what the PROTECT IP Act aims to accomplish. In an effort to be of assistance, I have enclosed “Fact vs. Fiction” information about the legislation. I hope this information will be helpful to you.

Again, thank you for writing. I welcome your continued input on issues of concern.



Complete BULLSHIT. I hate my politicians, they're fucking half-wits!

>> ^VoodooV:

Quite simply, people need to take a stand on the whole "Money is not free speech" issue
If enough people dislike a product and don't buy it..thus motivating the company to make a better one, well that works for commerce, but it doesn't work for government. equating money to speech runs DIRECTLY counter to the whole notion that everyone has an equal voice in our gov't.
I would simply argue that in the information age, there simply is no need for lobbyists and corporate donations. If you've got something to say to your elected officials, you can email them or write a letter just like everyone else. You want to learn more about a candidate? that's what we have debates and that's what we have publicly funded websites for. There is just absolutely no need for billboards and commercials and stupid lawn signs that clutter and ugly up the landscape.
Remove/ban private money from public government (no I'm not referring to taxes, that's separate and necessary and you know it...deal with it) and I guarantee you we'll have a more fair society. Remove/ban the ability for a business to influence gov't and there will be no incentive for a politician to take the job so he can get corporate lobby/donation money.
We have to make it so that the only reason to become an elected official is because you want to make the country better. We have to make so it really is one person one vote and restore democracy


Correct step, but you're not accounting for folks who hire onto some big corporation or what not after their public service term. Government regulatory bodies are notorious for this, but so are Congress or their staffers. You can't really deny them future employment, but there is obvious alignment and abuse of that taking place throughout government. Taking lobby dollars away might make it harder for them to maintain a relationship, but they will work out it by employing their family members with fat salaries or other means.


And then once they get to working for the company, they have a line into the relationships created during their terms. While it'd still be lobbying, it'd just end up being favors....a less quantifiable currency.

Quite simply, people need to take a stand on the whole "Money is not free speech" issue

If enough people dislike a product and don't buy it..thus motivating the company to make a better one, well that works for commerce, but it doesn't work for government. equating money to speech runs DIRECTLY counter to the whole notion that everyone has an equal voice in our gov't.

I would simply argue that in the information age, there simply is no need for lobbyists and corporate donations. If you've got something to say to your elected officials, you can email them or write a letter just like everyone else. You want to learn more about a candidate? that's what we have debates and that's what we have publicly funded websites for. There is just absolutely no need for billboards and commercials and stupid lawn signs that clutter and ugly up the landscape.

Remove/ban private money from public government (no I'm not referring to taxes, that's separate and necessary and you know it...deal with it) and I guarantee you we'll have a more fair society. Remove/ban the ability for a business to influence gov't and there will be no incentive for a politician to take the job so he can get corporate lobby/donation money.

We have to make it so that the only reason to become an elected official is because you want to make the country better. We have to make so it really is one person one vote and restore democracy

@NetRunner

I'm genuinely surprised you would think the left has "lost" over the decades, especially after petty tyrant FDR rewrote the US Constitution, distorting the commerce clause to mean government can do anything it wants.

Then again, Jefferson said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground," and that's EXACTLY what's happened. If Democrats create all of this big government (e.g. like Nixon creating the EPA) and Repubs do nothing to dismantle it and in fact vote to fund it, then effectively both sides are Democrats.

Don't you see? You've WON!

We are a few beats away from becoming a socialist outhouse like Europe. It's nice to declare that everything is "free" by birthright (and great for the politicians that promise it) EXCEPT when there are no more productive souls to pay for the phantasy. GREECE is the word.

>> ^NetRunner:

>>.

To me the worst part about a lot of right-wing assumptions about the left is that they assume we're their mirror image, and project their hostility, dishonesty, ruthlessness, and groupthink onto us.
The truth is, as a group we're too nice, too honest, too forgiving, and too independent, which is why the right ends up eating our lunch so often.
Oh yeah, and they deny that they've ever eaten our lunch. They insist on pretending to be some sort of oppressed underdog, even though they've been effectively running the show for as long as I've been alive.

>> ^hpqp:

Cutting the opportunity for middle and lower classes to get educated (and, you know, stay alive thanks to healthcare) is the BEST way to let our future be continually in the hands of rich people living in mansions far far away.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^ghark:
"Paul, a longtime critic of federal spending not authorized by the Constitution, calls for eliminating the federal Education, Commerce, Energy, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development Departments.
He also wants to abolish the Transportation Security Agency, end corporate subsidies, plus eliminate all foreign aid and spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
I noticed he wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 15% as well.
No public education, no healthcare, rich pay less taxes and get richer.
Sounds exciting.

It is exciting. Is there any other candidate even saying we should end corporate welfare, let alone proposing a budget doing so?
The corporate tax rate helps small business owners. Corporations pay little to no taxes now as it is. Exemptions and offshore loopholes only work for big business. And the only candidate that wants to get rid of the corrupt tax system is Paul.
No public education and no healthcare are false arguments. Our future and our health shouldn't be decided by imperial government agents living in a mansion far far away.
Everybody pays less taxes, and we all prosper.



Who's cutting opportunities? Oh, yes. You live in the bizarro world where taking from some people (denying them opportunities) is actually providing opportunities for others. At best, you can hope for a net loss (and net gain) of 0 opportunities. In reality, we have to rely on financing the future of our children just to stay ahead. So how did those "rich people living in mansions" get so rich? By finding a niche in this corrupt system or succeeding in spite of it? In the real world, the only real opportunities are ones you recognize for yourself. Helping our fellow man should be our duty, but coercion by the barrel of a gun is tyranny.

Supporting the status quo is the BEST way to let our future be continually in the hands of the few.

@Edgeman2112

You think he's off about the police being a force to keep protesters in line? The only reason they come to these protests dressed in riot gear is because they want to intimidate people from interfering with the economy. That is the police forces #1 objective during any civil demonstration: Don't let any business lose money, or have its commerce disrupted. They are programmed to keep the machine running as normal. As long as you don't disrupt the economy, you can do whatever you want.

Yeah, there are a few bad apples which take the intimidation way too far, but even the most sympathetic cop there, one who might even be part of the protests were he not an officer, is still responsible for maintaining the flow of money for business in the area. He will still arrest you if you block traffic or store fronts, or speak out loudly and openly against any business or institution which the police are indebted to, or make any statements that threaten to cause a loss of financial stability for the state or country.

This is a fact, not a generalization, and in that light all police are guilty of this.

Cutting the opportunity for middle and lower classes to get educated (and, you know, stay alive thanks to healthcare) is the BEST way to let our future be continually in the hands of rich people living in mansions far far away.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^ghark:
"Paul, a longtime critic of federal spending not authorized by the Constitution, calls for eliminating the federal Education, Commerce, Energy, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development Departments.
He also wants to abolish the Transportation Security Agency, end corporate subsidies, plus eliminate all foreign aid and spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
I noticed he wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 15% as well.
No public education, no healthcare, rich pay less taxes and get richer.
Sounds exciting.

It is exciting. Is there any other candidate even saying we should end corporate welfare, let alone proposing a budget doing so?
The corporate tax rate helps small business owners. Corporations pay little to no taxes now as it is. Exemptions and offshore loopholes only work for big business. And the only candidate that wants to get rid of the corrupt tax system is Paul.
No public education and no healthcare are false arguments. Our future and our health shouldn't be decided by imperial government agents living in a mansion far far away.
Everybody pays less taxes, and we all prosper.

>> ^ghark:

"Paul, a longtime critic of federal spending not authorized by the Constitution, calls for eliminating the federal Education, Commerce, Energy, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development Departments.
He also wants to abolish the Transportation Security Agency, end corporate subsidies, plus eliminate all foreign aid and spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
I noticed he wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 15% as well.
No public education, no healthcare, rich pay less taxes and get richer.
Sounds exciting.


It is exciting. Is there any other candidate even saying we should end corporate welfare, let alone proposing a budget doing so?

The corporate tax rate helps small business owners. Corporations pay little to no taxes now as it is. Exemptions and offshore loopholes only work for big business. And the only candidate that wants to get rid of the corrupt tax system is Paul.

No public education and no healthcare are false arguments. Our future and our health shouldn't be decided by imperial government agents living in a mansion far far away.

Everybody pays less taxes, and we all prosper.

"Paul, a longtime critic of federal spending not authorized by the Constitution, calls for eliminating the federal Education, Commerce, Energy, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development Departments.

He also wants to abolish the Transportation Security Agency, end corporate subsidies, plus eliminate all foreign aid and spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

I noticed he wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 15% as well.

No public education, no healthcare, rich pay less taxes and get richer.

Sounds exciting.

>> ^aurens:

I suspect you realize that your post is wildly speculative. I'd rather not spend too long on this, but I'll humor you and point out a few of the fallacies in your imaginative dystopia. In general, though, you seem to be confusing small government and a lack of regulation for lawless amorality. In any event, here we go:

1. "As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce."
If you think antitrust laws are an undying force of good, read this. (Also, don't confuse free-market capitalism with corporatism.)

2. "People can get fired on a whim without regulations."
Too absurd to even address.

3. "People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies)."
You're right. Government subsidies on food have been enormously successful in the United States.

4. "Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded."
Read pages three and four (or the whole thing, for that matter): http://mises.org/journals/fm/june10.pdf.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.



Of course the post is highly speculative: It says that RP gets elected. I thought this would be obvious.

1. The question would be: What would happen if Antitrust-laws exist no more at all, not: Are Anti-trust laws at the moment used fairly?


2. Either you adress it or you don't. It is not absurd. Tell me why it would be.


3. Again, the inferred question is not: Does it work now?; the question at hand is: What would happen if the farm subsidies in a first-world-country would fall away? Would farming become too unprofittable and only be used for subsistence; importing cheaper food from outside the US? Or would it become profittable again by increasing the price of food immensely, cutting heavily into the income of poorer people?


4. That text says on the first page (paraphrased): "46 million USAsians have no health insurance: Not a problem: 40 percent of those are young, 20% are wealthy." Yes, fuck the poor and the young, they don't need health insurance. Give me a serious unbiased text on this, and I'll read it. I really will. But to dismiss at least 40% of the uninsured right out of hand is highly irresponisble and assholish.

Or you could just choose a state that represents your ideas and move there--where laws could prevent wanton firing, the state could have a universal health plan, etc. Problem is, people would be rebelling against their own stupidity. They would be to lazy and complacent to vote via boycott to create honest corporations...

Besides, we already have mega corps that are bleeding us dry from the throat, and then moving on. We are already in decline.

And besides that, we all note that RP is more a movement than anything. Those lazy, arrogant, cocky bastards who go day-to-day about their lives with only a care about themselves--that's what RP is fighting against. Is he doing it wrong? Sure. But that's not the point. Someone has to fight it.

"American excellency." How horrible a lie! How decadent, how evil, pure evil! That attitude is rotting us from inside out. And most Americans believe it! But RP says NO. And that is why I like him.

*Off soapbox.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^aurens:
"He's not really promoting that people need to take more responsibility for others, he's promoting the idea that you shouldn't ever be held responsible for anyone but yourself."
This is the main fallacy of your post. Ron Paul does believe that we have a responsibility towards others. He doesn't believe, though, that it's the government's role to enforce that responsibility. Until you understand that distinction, you'll continue to misunderstand his message.
>> ^NetRunner:
Or...it just points out that implementing his policies would lead to a nightmare dystopia, and that he's not really helping push society in a more compassionate, altruistic direction ...

I think NR gets that, but I can only speak for myself:
Let's say RP gets his ideology through to the presidency and would have 76% of all seats filled with people that share the same ideology, supreme court as well, and ditto for the military (just for completeness). Abolish the national health care system and all other governmental social securities. All regulations and all subsidies get canned, plus: No more wars on foreign soil. Small government.
So let's assume that all people who were laid off in the social sector are immediately hired by the free market companies, all the laid off military personnel from foreign bases find some jobs. Plus: Everyone's net pay comes out as it would be without the taxes.
Let's assume patent laws are still in existence: Drug companies holding a patent can charge whatever price they want, other companies would have to field the costly research themselves to come up with a similar patent. --> costly and ineffective.
If there are no more patents, no company would do research for new patents to stay in business.

People can get fired on a whim without regulations. As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce. Wages will be low, as there will be enough replacement workforce. People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies), expensive public transport (no subsidies, high prices for gas) and their rents (which would most likely also be high, as their landlords need more money).
Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded. The underfunded ones only pay out for immediate threats of life. Only few charities with rich backers have enough income to provide for their employees and selectively only grant moneys as dictated yb their rich backer: Most likely to employees of his firm. What happens to people without jobs? Completely dependant on charity. Around the few charitable organisations, slums are built by the people who rely on the distributed food. Many of these people get hired for the day just for a little money and a bit of food.
Soem are kept by rich people as their personal poor they care for (see India).
People start flocking to the remaining rich states, large areas of middle-America are depopulated, as the aging communities cannot sustain themselves. Farmer is the most popular job again.
The poor revolt, the underfunded police force joins them. Private security of the rich fires into the crowds.
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.

I suspect you realize that your post is wildly speculative. I'd rather not spend too long on this, but I'll humor you and point out a few of the fallacies in your imaginative dystopia. In general, though, you seem to be confusing small government and a lack of regulation for lawless amorality. In any event, here we go:


1. "As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce."

If you think antitrust laws are an undying force of good, read this. (Also, don't confuse free-market capitalism with corporatism.)


2. "People can get fired on a whim without regulations."

Too absurd to even address.


3. "People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies)."

You're right. Government subsidies on food have been enormously successful in the United States.


4. "Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded."

Read pages three and four (or the whole thing, for that matter): http://mises.org/journals/fm/june10.pdf.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.