Search the Community

https://www.elitedaily.com/money/the-worlds-10-largest-media-conglomerates Alright Washington Post has a long history of not fact checking and not keeping information relevant (instead of the fall of Raqqa) they were up in arms about a few of Trumps tweets. Further this with Ajit Pai and the passing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 this can be used to bully independent journalists who do not follow the narrative of Mainstream media. Ask your self this Trump-Russia conspiracy and the mention of but the one percent. Combine that with the "ANTI FA" movement using violence to censor free-speech in particular against conservatives. Now Jeff Bezos is worth 100 billion dollars, he owns Amazon as well as the Huffington Post. Amazon has a history of taking conservative books down at the first allegations of Libel and under their policies to enforce this turn a blind eye for Liberal authored books even at the slightest hint of this. Now look at the second video look at 4:12 (4 minutes 12 seconds) if net neutrality existed then and this was illegal when Comcast had been throttling Netflix to coerce them into a merger. Why wouldn't the media conglomerations use this to censor the independent journalists into only promoting one singular agenda. Also cross reference Amazon and it's on the Panama papers just by the name Amazon. Who benefits more from Net Neutrality being repealed and who is accusing Trump of Russian collusion. I will quote Goebble's on this one (Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty) also I will add who benefits more from the disarmament of the U.S.A. the Liberal progressive agenda. Look at the names on the list (one promoted third wave feminism Emily Watson hailed by the U.N. as Women of the Year) Hypocritical of the U.N. when they smuggled their sex slaves to the area of operations in which they went so far as defaming Kathryn Bolkovac for exposing it. Also, Hillary hired P.I.'s to investigate the background of women's lives to bring up dirt on them who brought accusations against Bill Clinton. And then while running for President she told women to come forward in-order to come forward on their sexual assault. So tell me who benefits from the repealing of net-neutrality?

http://www.epi.org/publication/the-arbitration-epidemic/ I wish for people to look and discuss this mandatory dispute resolutions being injected into labour contracts, just because those contracts have their own rules that permit all sorts of violations of labor rights and working conditions that favor the business rather than people. The court disallows class action law suits around this allowance of mandatory arbitration much like how it would be in a free market society since the private businesses decide what is a fair labour/consumer contract and there is no universal federal or national system of laws that say how a contract that two people voluntarily entered into is somehow "wrong", even if its mostly one-sided. In a freemarket society there may be different sets of private regulations that can be resolved in other private courts & arbitration (somekind of universal right to a 2nd or 3rd trial in a appellate court of ones own choosing or the human rights enforcement agency representing the citizen that was transgressed), if the mandatory arbitration was extremely biased and unfair ruling BUT those private regulations are designed to favor the business that made it, hence the rulings would tend to favor the businesses. Since the Supreme court ruling in the 80's and subsequent rulings since then having allowed it, it has given rise to a mostly private market run anti-consumer & anti-worker culture revealing the self-interest motivated nature of business and the arbitrary meaningless nature of human, worker and consumer rights.

(This is my first post ) Deregulation/non state enforced regulation is one of the many beauties of anarchism however it is a common misconception that sate enforced regulations are a necessary evil to protect vulnerable customers/small businesses. I was speaking to my dad (who runs a small but successful insurance brokers) about deregulation and he gave me quite a wonderful example of how the free market solved a potentially serious problem. Scenario: A insurance broker who is a con man and has the aim of taking the money from the clients telling them they are insured and then runs off with the money. Thus the insurance companies would not have been paid, thus the clients would have no insurance and a empty pocket. With regulations: A rule book has been put in place and is enforced by law, this rule book is of considerable length and written by lawyers who although have an in depth understanding of law understand very little in regards to how businesses in the insurance industry operate. The cost of this regulation to the government is recouped via the insurance brokers themselves. This rule book among other things limits the type of account that the clients money can be put in before transferring it to the insurance company making it harder to steal. The problem with this regulation like many others is there are loop holes or at least ways of getting round them if you put your mind to it and they are costly to enforce. The way I have worded it sounds as if this regulation is easy to follow but I can assure you it is not, it is time consuming slowing the whole process down considerably and legal advice was required when the regulation was implemented. Regulators will do random checks which are disruptive and time consuming. Without regulations: The insurance companies would cover the clients for the insurance they had payed the crooked broker free of charge. The insurance companies would try and get the money back from the crooked broker but this was quite often not possible. The insurance companies did this to stop the market crashing in local areas and causing a ripple affects. It was in their interest to keep the market that they rely on stable... The free market is quite often self maintaining in B2B as it is in the interest of the big companies t to keep the small companies that they rely on in good health. If you have any interesting examples/links of before and after regulation please share them here. If you are puzzled about the free market alternatives to a given regulation we could also discuss that here. Sorry if this was a bit wordy I hope someone found this of interest.

So I was having a debate with my friend, we were talking about prostituion regulation and drug regulation. I managed to prove him wrong with statistics and reasoning towards the deregulation of prostitution, drugs, guns, etc. But then he stumped me on pollution, the sale of uranium to make nuclear weapons, and bioweapons/virus regulation. I dislike government like the next guy, but what would keep a person/organization other than governments from making nuclear weapons, bioweapons, and polluting like crazy if there were no regulation on the sale of uranium, the pollution emission, and the lab regulations to keep labs from making bioweaponry? I get that of course government makes nuclear weapons and probably bioweapons too, but I understand that governments wouldn't want to unleash that on each other because it would detrimental to the leaders (the parasites need the host to live). What would keep an evil guy or organization from building nuclear weapons/bioweapons and unleashing them on the world?