Punk rockers/anarchists and Libertarians, what is the difference?

[Machismo]

My problem fixes corporations being able to push regulations that only benefit themselves. Without that influence unnecessarily restrictive can then be addressed. What’s your proposal? Wishing on a monkey’s paw?

I pointed to a very specific regulation that JD pushed, care to chime in?

[Mayhem]

Marketing is using the government to regulate away the competition?

Interesting.

None of your examples showed regulating away the competition. I seriously question if you read your own links or the regulations you've brought up. So I'll ask again, what do you think marketing is about? We have established since you didn't disagree, that branding and labeling are not part of marketing, so what is part of marketing?

[Machismo]

Marketing includes things like it being a Tennessee whiskey. You know that right?

And the regulation that put it into place... was pushed by JD.

Care to comment on that?

- - - Updated - - -

None of your examples showed regulating away the competition. I seriously question if you read your own links or the regulations you've brought up. So I'll ask again, what do you think marketing is about? We have established since you didn't disagree, that branding and labeling are not part of marketing, so what is part of marketing?

Yes, it literally limits competition, as per the articles.

I was pointing to the regulations themselves, you called it marketing.

[Machismo]

Already did. Try to keep up.

- - - Updated - - -



Already did, try to keep up.

So, do you support or oppose the regulations pushed by JD?

[Ivanstone]

I never said they have zero competition, I said it's specifically to limit competition.

This isn't consumer protection, this is corporatism.

Competition is not limited in the slightest. Unless you feel that a non-Whiskey producer should be allowed to market their product as Whiskey. Which wouldn’t shock any of us.

Again the product inside the bottle should match the label outside the bottle.

[Machismo]

Competition is not limited in the slightest. Unless you feel that a non-Whiskey producer should be allowed to market their product as Whiskey. Which wouldn’t shock any of us.

Again the product inside the bottle should match the label outside the bottle.

Tell that to their competitors.

That's like saying the regulations on abortion doctors and abortion clinics isn't stifling them, either. Forcing women to watch an ultrasound, and wait before getting an abortion is just a good way to make sure they are informed... right? Requiring that an abortion clinic be the same as a trauma surgery center is just a way to make sure those women are safe... right?

[Machismo]

Competition is not limited in the slightest. Unless you feel that a non-Whiskey producer should be allowed to market their product as Whiskey. Which wouldn’t shock any of us.

Again the product inside the bottle should match the label outside the bottle.

It wasn't "non-whiskey" until the regulation came to exist. The legislation itself made the distinction.

- - - Updated - - -

Not necessarily. Regulating what does and doesn’t constitute a product is actually also consumer protection. Otherwise I can claim I’m selling whiskey when it’s just colored vodka. If, once we eliminate corporate influence on politics, the regulations are found to be harmful to competition and/or the consumer such regulations should be gotten rid of. Again, I already said this shit. Try to keep up. Maybe answer some questions yourself. Like why you want corporations to control the country.

And in this case, it's corporatism.

Considering I'm literally opposing a corporation controlling the government, your entire question is utter shit.

[Machismo]

Care to point to a competitor who thinks the definition of Tennessee whiskey harms them?

- - - Updated - - -



Prove it. Point to a court case brought by a competitor challenging the regulation.

That was already provided in the articles.

The regulation is only 8 fucking years old.

Considering I'm literally opposing a corporation controlling the government, your entire question is utter shit.

[Machismo]

I don’t see it anywhere. And you literally support giving corporations control of the nation’s infrastructure. As well as a lot of other regulations that would give them WAY more power than they currently have.

Not. My. Problem. I linked the articles.

I'm literally opposing a corporation controlling government... right now.

Or, hadn't you noticed?

[Mayhem]

Yes, it literally limits competition, as per the articles.

Except it literally doesn't. Nowhere in any articles is competition barred from participating in the market. How is it limiting competition?

Is having to put nutrition information on packages also limiting competition?

I was pointing to the regulations themselves, you called it marketing.

Yeah, it's about marketing, because it is about marketing. You have a problem with marketing, not with these regulations. I see you are unable to answer the question "what is marketing about".

[Machismo]

Except it literally doesn't. Nowhere in any articles is competition barred from participating in the market. How is it limiting competition?

Is having to put nutrition information on packages also limiting competition?



Yeah, it's about marketing, because it is about marketing. You have a problem with marketing, not with these regulations. I see you are unable to answer the question "what is marketing about".

Did I say anything about them being barred?

You really shouldn't argue against things I didn't say.

It's weird that you think corporations using the government to enact legislation to further their own ends is marketing.

[Ivanstone]

Tell that to their competitors.

That's like saying the regulations on abortion doctors and abortion clinics isn't stifling them, either. Forcing women to watch an ultrasound, and wait before getting an abortion is just a good way to make sure they are informed... right? Requiring that an abortion clinic be the same as a trauma surgery center is just a way to make sure those women are safe... right?

Your analogy is stupid and entirely incorrect.

Abortion is not a commodity for a start. Tennessee Whiskey is a commodity made with a specific process that is unpatented and can be used by anyone. If I felt like it I could start producing Tennessee Whiskey today if I felt like it. There’s nothing in that law preventing me from doing so. Alternatively I could start producing a different kind of whiskey or both kinds of Whiskeys.

However one thing I wouldn’t do is make fucking Gin and call it Whiskey.

[Mayhem]

Tell that to their competitors.

That's like saying the regulations on abortion doctors and abortion clinics isn't stifling them, either. Forcing women to watch an ultrasound, and wait before getting an abortion is just a good way to make sure they are informed... right? Requiring that an abortion clinic be the same as a trauma surgery center is just a way to make sure those women are safe... right?

It is quite telling that your go-to analogies always treat people as products. It's also a bit disturbing.

[Machismo]

@Machismo just looked it up, there are a TON of regulations going back to NAFTA at least(on different levels) that define Tennessee Whiskey. Hell, even Canadia has one.

Yes, lots of regulations, do you think this is the only one I oppose?

This one is being pushed by a company, because it's the process that they use.

S, there goes your theory about me wanting corporations to control the government.

- - - Updated - - -

It is quite telling that your go-to analogies always treat people as products. It's also a bit disturbing.

You literally just said legislation is marketing.

- - - Updated - - -

Your analogy is stupid and entirely incorrect.

Abortion is not a commodity for a start. Tennessee Whiskey is a commodity made with a specific process that is unpatented and can be used by anyone. If I felt like it I could start producing Tennessee Whiskey today if I felt like it. There’s nothing in that law preventing me from doing so. Alternatively I could start producing a different kind of whiskey or both kinds of Whiskeys.

However one thing I wouldn’t do is make fucking Gin and call it Whiskey.

It's a service, and those are regulations on that service. They pretend it's all about protecting the patient, is it?

They could literally be making a bourbon, and not be able to call it a whiskey, all because of the fucking barrel.

SO, how about those abortion restrictions I pointed out, aren't you in favor of consumer protections?

[Machismo]

Yes. You did. Barred means restricted competition.

Where did I say barred?

[Machismo]

Just because you oppose these regulations doesn’t mean you oppose their control. Your entire ideal society is predicated on corporations being in control.

I'm literally opposing their control.

[Mayhem]

Did I say anything about them being barred?

No, you said "make away" which means what in your world?

You really shouldn't argue against things I didn't say.

You really shouldn't use words that you apparently don't understand.

It's weird that you think corporations using the government to enact legislation to further their own ends is marketing.

It's not weird, because I don't. See, if the regulation allowed only JD to use the brand Tennesse Whiskey that would be different, but it doesn't.

Not going to answer the question I see, too hard hm? Well, I am going to find something easier next time, I promise.

[Machismo]

No, you said "make away" which means what in your world?



You really shouldn't use words that you apparently don't understand.



It's not weird, because I don't. See, if the regulation allowed only JD to use the brand Tennesse Whiskey that would be different, but it doesn't.

Not going to answer the question I see, too hard hm? Well, I am going to find something easier next time, I promise.

Where did I say "make away?"

[Mayhem]

You literally just said legislation is marketing.

I said it is about marketing. I don't know why I have to explain this to you but here we are.

The word about means:
preposition
1.
on the subject of; concerning.

[Machismo]

How? By demanding they be given ownership over our infrastructure?

By. Opposing. This. Regulation.