[EvilDan]

The Tea Party has always appeared to me to be kind of the libertarian wing of the republican party. Also, keep in mind that most, if not all, of the racist, and other out-of-place, signs at Tea Party events were not only unwelcome, they were found to be held by registered Democrats.

I originally had a small reply, which grew and grew. I've repurposed it. So, thank you guys for making me VERY productive in my writing today.

Things are starting to happen fast. I hope I can keep up. Otherwise, I'll lose my window. Again.

[Blumpkin]

The Tea Party has always appeared to me to be kind of the libertarian wing of the republican party. Also, keep in mind that most, if not all, of the racist, and other out-of-place, signs at Tea Party events were not only unwelcome, they were found to be held by registered Democrats.

I originally had a small reply, which grew and grew. I've repurposed it. So, thank you guys for making me VERY productive in my writing today.

Things are starting to happen fast. I hope I can keep up. Otherwise, I'll lose my window. Again.

Yeah, definitely "kind of", because I don't think they share the same libertarian views on foreign and military spending.

And I did not know that thing about the Tea Party Democrats, so thanks for sharing something new to me!

[sageoftruth]

Hey, Blumkin? Sorry about this, but what you said about looking out for the individual rather than society went completely over my head. In my line of thinking, society is made up of individuals. Could you clarify?

[Blumpkin]

Hey, Blumkin? Sorry about this, but what you said about looking out for the individual rather than society went completely over my head. In my line of thinking, society is made up of individuals. Could you clarify?

Here's are a couple references for what I'm talking about. The first will give you a basic idea of the terms I'm using/concepts I'm referring to, and the second will give you a better idea of how they apply to political discussions/debates, as well as the reasons for my viewpoints.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual ... oup_rights
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer? ... ual_rights

[sageoftruth]

Just letting you know, I recently downloaded Atlus Shrugged. According to the links you sent, it sounds like a good understanding of Objectivism will help me understand your perspective. Would that be correct?

[sageoftruth]

Just heard back from my father. I guess I wasn't specific enough about what I was asking him, but he made some interesting points nonetheless. First of all, he's definitely pro-capitalist, but also acknowledges that it's weakness is when monopolies form, and that the government is very good at preventing monopolies from forming. That is a very small role for the government, but the main subject we've been discussing was Dan's question, "What justifies passing a law that takes away one's personal freedoms." Then again, do any of you know what the government does to prevent monopolies? I assume it involves forbidding companies to do whatever helps them gain a monopoly on a certain product or service, and I imagine that that would count as restricting a personal freedom. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Blumpkin]

Just letting you know, I recently downloaded Atlus Shrugged. According to the links you sent, it sounds like a good understanding of Objectivism will help me understand your perspective. Would that be correct?

I'm not too good with those philosophical labels honestly. I just believe in certain principles, and go by those. The links I sent you should help you understand one of them, and maybe help you shake off the myths and propaganda the media imposes on you.

[Blumpkin]

Just heard back from my father. I guess I wasn't specific enough about what I was asking him, but he made some interesting points nonetheless. First of all, he's definitely pro-capitalist, but also acknowledges that it's weakness is when monopolies form, and that the government is very good at preventing monopolies from forming. That is a very small role for the government, but the main subject we've been discussing was Dan's question, "What justifies passing a law that takes away one's personal freedoms." Then again, do any of you know what the government does to prevent monopolies? I assume it involves forbidding companies to do whatever helps them gain a monopoly on a certain product or service, and I imagine that that would count as restricting a personal freedom. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Funny thing about monopolies: people have them completely backwards. Generally speaking, monopolies form WITH government, not without it. Look up the difference between coercive monopolies and natural monopolies. (Hopefully I have those terms correct.) If your local grocery store provided you with the widest selection of groceries at the best price, service and location to the extent that none of the other grocery stores could compete with them and subsequently had to shut down, would you object and ask the government to do something about it? It's just another instance of the government causing a problem and then convincing the people it's the solution.

I do think it's a personal freedom to run your business how you choose, such as charging what you want for your products or services. Antitrust laws infringe on this, and what's more they're completely unnecessary since there's really no "problem" (monopolies) to "solve".

Yes, antitrust laws are just one thing the government does, and it's not a major function, but it is unnecessary, and it does cause headaches for some businesses, and add to business costs, none of which actually benefit the consumer.

I tried to give you a better understanding of what "personal freedoms" might include. They're just things you do which don't infringe on things others do basically. Try doing a search on the subject if you're still not sure what we're talking about here. Here's a personal freedom which the government spends TONS of money and time trying to restrict: the right to put in your body what you choose. One way they do this is through the drug laws. Hope that example helps.

[sageoftruth]

Just heard back from my father. I guess I wasn't specific enough about what I was asking him, but he made some interesting points nonetheless. First of all, he's definitely pro-capitalist, but also acknowledges that it's weakness is when monopolies form, and that the government is very good at preventing monopolies from forming. That is a very small role for the government, but the main subject we've been discussing was Dan's question, "What justifies passing a law that takes away one's personal freedoms." Then again, do any of you know what the government does to prevent monopolies? I assume it involves forbidding companies to do whatever helps them gain a monopoly on a certain product or service, and I imagine that that would count as restricting a personal freedom. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Funny thing about monopolies: people have them completely backwards. Generally speaking, monopolies form WITH government, not without it. Look up the difference between coercive monopolies and natural monopolies. (Hopefully I have those terms correct.) If your local grocery store provided you with the widest selection of groceries at the best price, service and location to the extent that none of the other grocery stores could compete with them and subsequently had to shut down, would you object and ask the government to do something about it? It's just another instance of the government causing a problem and then convincing the people it's the solution.

I do think it's a personal freedom to run your business how you choose, such as charging what you want for your products or services. Antitrust laws infringe on this, and what's more they're completely unnecessary since there's really no "problem" (monopolies) to "solve".

Yes, antitrust laws are just one thing the government does, and it's not a major function, but it is unnecessary, and it does cause headaches for some businesses, and add to business costs, none of which actually benefit the consumer.

I tried to give you a better understanding of what "personal freedoms" might include. They're just things you do which don't infringe on things others do basically. Try doing a search on the subject if you're still not sure what we're talking about here. Here's a personal freedom which the government spends TONS of money and time trying to restrict: the right to put in your body what you choose. One way they do this is through the drug laws. Hope that example helps.

I've been running the idea by a bunch of people I know. So far, a common response I've heard was that "personal freedoms" are kind of hard to define, mainly because it's not always easy to determine when your decisions will affect others. A friend brought up the drunk driving law. It's restrictive to outlaw driving while under the influence. Would that freedom not count, since your drunk driving could potentially affect another person?

[Blumpkin]

I've been running the idea by a bunch of people I know. So far, a common response I've heard was that "personal freedoms" are kind of hard to define, mainly because it's not always easy to determine when your decisions will affect others. A friend brought up the drunk driving law. It's restrictive to outlaw driving while under the influence. Would that freedom not count, since your drunk driving could potentially affect another person?

There might be some other side to that argument, which I haven't heard but would certainly be interested in if it helped to cut down on the number of car accidents, but I don't have a problem with the vast majority of traffic laws simply because the vast majority of them are designed to prevent people from crashing their cars into each other. Crashing your car into someone else's causes damage to their personal property. Private property rights and protection are a pillar of capitalism and a free society. It's no different than me dumping my trash on your lawn, which is why there are laws against that as well.

If you understand the idea of freedom, it's rather easy to distinguish what counts as a personal freedom. Sure, there are some ambiguous ones or gray areas, but most of them are pretty obvious. Also, people opposed to personal freedoms, or rather a particular personal freedom, HAVE to make a case for how they affect or rather "infringe" on others' lives, because if they don't, then they just sound like busy bodies trying to control people. You hear this in the media ALL the time. Bill O'Reilly for instance talks about personal responsibility and freedom, yet he doesn't want you smoking pot for a number of bizarre, very irrational reasons, none of which of course are consistent with the supposed principles of liberty he purports to defend.

I found a little quote from Ron Paul on what "freedom" really means in this sense. Granted, it's not straight from the source itself, so the quote MAY not be exact, but it does appear to be the same from my recollection of the actual text:

"...to believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome. It is to trust in the spontaneous order that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation. It permits people to work out their problems for themselves, build lives for themselves, take risks and accept responsibility for the results, and make their own decisions. It is the seed of America."

Hope that helps.

Interestingly enough, speaking of Bill O'Reilly, I was channel surfing and came across his show. Every now and then I'll watch a little of it to see if anything's interesting on, and one viewer wrote in that the country wasn't built on the trust of government, but rather the DISTRUST of it. Too true. Maybe that'll help give a little insight into why the government can maybe solve 1% of the societal problems we face.

[Stained Class]

Wasn't sure where else to put this.

https://www.allout.org/en/actions/russia-attacks

What the fucking fuck Russia???

[X-Thor]

Wasn't sure where else to put this.

https://www.allout.org/en/actions/russia-attacks

What the fucking fuck Russia???

Dafuq?

[EvilDan]

If people were intellectually honest, and they were afraid of Bush, they should be absolutely fucking paralyzed with fear by our current potus.

[Blumpkin]

If people were intellectually honest, and they were afraid of Bush, they should be absolutely fucking paralyzed with fear by our current potus.

Is that in response to the link posted above?

[Blumpkin]

Wasn't sure where else to put this.

https://www.allout.org/en/actions/russia-attacks

What the fucking fuck Russia???

Oddly enough, this relates to my comment about the importance of individual rights. People should be looked at as people, not members of a class or collective. They are individuals with the same individual rights. Governments should not decide rights based on what sort of class or collective people belong to.

[Stained Class]

Wasn't sure where else to put this.

https://www.allout.org/en/actions/russia-attacks

What the fucking fuck Russia???

Oddly enough, this relates to my comment about the importance of individual rights. People should be looked at as people, not members of a class or collective. They are individuals with the same individual rights. Governments should not decide rights based on what sort of class or collective people belong to.

Yeah. The government might defend it by saying they aren't taking away rights and they aren't trying to encourage violence but really, they are.

[sageoftruth]

This is the first I've ever heard about Russia having a problem with gay people. I wonder if this is a repeat of the pogroms from long ago. Homosexuals seem to be growing in popularity as a scapegoat.

[sageoftruth]

If people were intellectually honest, and they were afraid of Bush, they should be absolutely fucking paralyzed with fear by our current potus.

No can do I'm afraid. I was a doomsayer of president Bush back in college and have been deeply ashamed of it ever since. Now it's just a memory of my childhood I wish I could forget.
Furthermore, people have been trying to peg Obama for an evil tyrant long before he actually did stuff to make one feel suspicious, leaving a very bad taste for conspiracy theories in my mouth. I've been trying to read up on evidence that he could have evil plans for our country, but at this point I can't even consider it without feeling like a complete idiot. Looks like I'll have to sit out on this little revolution.

[Stained Class]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cmWlLcVQFc

What does everyone think of the Bilderberg group?

[sageoftruth]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cmWlLcVQFc

What does everyone think of the Bilderberg group?

They're just a cover to keep us distracted while the lizard people take over.

[Stained Class]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cmWlLcVQFc

What does everyone think of the Bilderberg group?

They're just a cover to keep us distracted while the lizard people take over.

Dammit. I don't like lizard people! They're all scaly and lizardy!

[sageoftruth]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cmWlLcVQFc

What does everyone think of the Bilderberg group?

They're just a cover to keep us distracted while the lizard people take over.

Dammit. I don't like lizard people! They're all scaly and lizardy!

That's why they disguise themselves like human beings, pretending to be rulers and politicians, while slowly orchestrating our downfall.

Seriously, check it out. It's crazy stuff. Someone tried to point out that George Bush had a hidden lizard's tongue during a recording of one of his speeches. Who on Earth comes up with this stuff?

[Stained Class]

Trying to find an actual description of the lizard theory but can't find anything. Only articles explaining how these conspiracies only give the facts less merit haha. Mind throwing me a link?

[sageoftruth]

I did some searching. It's apparently called the "Reptilian Conspiracy". Look that up and you should get better results.

Here are some links to stuff I found.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message702357/pg1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKU5Un1qULU

[Stained Class]

I did some searching. It's apparently called the "Reptilian Conspiracy". Look that up and you should get better results.

Here are some links to stuff I found.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message702357/pg1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKU5Un1qULU

Wow. I have no words.

[KDibildeaux]

If people were intellectually honest, and they were afraid of Bush, they should be absolutely fucking paralyzed with fear by our current potus.

No can do I'm afraid. I was a doomsayer of president Bush back in college and have been deeply ashamed of it ever since. Now it's just a memory of my childhood I wish I could forget.
Furthermore, people have been trying to peg Obama for an evil tyrant long before he actually did stuff to make one feel suspicious, leaving a very bad taste for conspiracy theories in my mouth. I've been trying to read up on evidence that he could have evil plans for our country, but at this point I can't even consider it without feeling like a complete idiot. Looks like I'll have to sit out on this little revolution.

Awesome post, Ben! I'm pretty put off by fear mongering, in general

[EvilDan]

If people were intellectually honest, and they were afraid of Bush, they should be absolutely fucking paralyzed with fear by our current potus.

No can do I'm afraid. I was a doomsayer of president Bush back in college and have been deeply ashamed of it ever since. Now it's just a memory of my childhood I wish I could forget.
Furthermore, people have been trying to peg Obama for an evil tyrant long before he actually did stuff to make one feel suspicious, leaving a very bad taste for conspiracy theories in my mouth. I've been trying to read up on evidence that he could have evil plans for our country, but at this point I can't even consider it without feeling like a complete idiot. Looks like I'll have to sit out on this little revolution.

I'm not interested in conspiracy theories. I look at information, actions and patterns.

By all means, ignore what's going on, don't look into anything, and remain ignorant. Your feelings and taste are far more important than facts. What's the worst that could happen?

[X-Thor]

I'm just going to leave this right here...


http://assholeoftheday.us/

[sageoftruth]

If people were intellectually honest, and they were afraid of Bush, they should be absolutely fucking paralyzed with fear by our current potus.

No can do I'm afraid. I was a doomsayer of president Bush back in college and have been deeply ashamed of it ever since. Now it's just a memory of my childhood I wish I could forget.
Furthermore, people have been trying to peg Obama for an evil tyrant long before he actually did stuff to make one feel suspicious, leaving a very bad taste for conspiracy theories in my mouth. I've been trying to read up on evidence that he could have evil plans for our country, but at this point I can't even consider it without feeling like a complete idiot. Looks like I'll have to sit out on this little revolution.

I'm not interested in conspiracy theories. I look at information, actions and patterns.

By all means, ignore what's going on, don't look into anything, and remain ignorant. Your feelings and taste are far more important than facts. What's the worst that could happen?

Sorry, but we're humans, not robots. My disgust with my former self is something I have never gotten over. I once thought I was able to keep feelings at bay, but then I had an outburst, just like yours that revealed that I wasn't so above it all after all.
Indeed, I don't possess any of these facts you speak of, and I've never been much of a history buff. I don't even know what facts are anymore. I can't for the life of me find a source online about Obama's takeover that doesn't sound like it's coming from a lunatic. I mean seriously? Repealing the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" rule so he'll have an army of loyal gay soldiers at his command when the time comes to take over?

Still, I've been thinking about it, and now it seems impossible to let it go. Give me some of these facts and I'll run them by some people I know. I'll get back to you if any of them have something handy to say in response. I just can't trust my own judgement on this one.

[Blumpkin]

No can do I'm afraid. I was a doomsayer of president Bush back in college and have been deeply ashamed of it ever since. Now it's just a memory of my childhood I wish I could forget.
Furthermore, people have been trying to peg Obama for an evil tyrant long before he actually did stuff to make one feel suspicious, leaving a very bad taste for conspiracy theories in my mouth. I've been trying to read up on evidence that he could have evil plans for our country, but at this point I can't even consider it without feeling like a complete idiot. Looks like I'll have to sit out on this little revolution.

Doomsayer of what exactly in terms of Bush? I can talk endlessly about all the things the former and the past president have done, and they have definitely either started or perpetuated some very destructive policies. I don't know if Obama is a "tyrant" per se, but he definitely is moving our government closer to a totalitarian state. Look at this latest NSA spying scandal. This crap has been going on for years, and only now is it "making news". Do you really think either Bush or Obama DIDN'T know about this? This health care thing is not going to turn out well either. However, what IS a real "doom" that everyone needs to worry about is another bubble bursting, this time a bond bubble, and a currency crisis. The U.S. is most certainly still in a recession; the claims of a "recovery" are just propaganda and the government fudging facts and numbers. No conspiracy theories in any of that, but plenty of observable/foreseeable "doom".

[sageoftruth]

Right now, there's only one thing I know, which is that I don't know any better. Maybe I cannot explain why Obama is doing what he's doing, but that doesn't mean there isn't an answer, and I clearly haven't been following it nearly enough to make a decision on it myself. In this discussion, I've been able to acquire an interest in learning more about libertarianism, but aside from that, I've just been bombarded with statement after statement of things I could neither confirm nor disprove with my current knowledge of the situation. For instance, how am I to know whether or not the claims of recovery are propaganda? I haven't even been watching the news for the last month or so. If my boss gets a chance, I'll bring him to the table, but I don't think I have any more to contribute at this point.

[Blumpkin]

Right now, there's only one thing I know, which is that I don't know any better. Maybe I cannot explain why Obama is doing what he's doing, but that doesn't mean there isn't an answer, and I clearly haven't been following it nearly enough to make a decision on it myself. In this discussion, I've been able to acquire an interest in learning more about libertarianism, but aside from that, I've just been bombarded with statement after statement of things I could neither confirm nor disprove with my current knowledge of the situation. For instance, how am I to know whether or not the claims of recovery are propaganda? I haven't even been watching the news for the last month or so. If my boss gets a chance, I'll bring him to the table, but I don't think I have any more to contribute at this point.

That's reasonable. I've been following this stuff for a while, so I have a little collection of knowledge on it, such as the jobs thing, where the government is not distinguishing between part- and full-time jobs, giving the appearance that jobs are increasing, when in fact the number of full-time jobs are on the decline. Some of the stuff is less complicated, such as the NSA stuff, where they're trying to lock up and charge the whistle blower, just like with the Wikileaks whistle blower, which is of course is ironic since the NSA is the one committing the crime. That stuff is pretty out in the open and straightforward, if you know what I mean, but I understand your position.

[sageoftruth]

Right now, there's only one thing I know, which is that I don't know any better. Maybe I cannot explain why Obama is doing what he's doing, but that doesn't mean there isn't an answer, and I clearly haven't been following it nearly enough to make a decision on it myself. In this discussion, I've been able to acquire an interest in learning more about libertarianism, but aside from that, I've just been bombarded with statement after statement of things I could neither confirm nor disprove with my current knowledge of the situation. For instance, how am I to know whether or not the claims of recovery are propaganda? I haven't even been watching the news for the last month or so. If my boss gets a chance, I'll bring him to the table, but I don't think I have any more to contribute at this point.

That's reasonable. I've been following this stuff for a while, so I have a little collection of knowledge on it, such as the jobs thing, where the government is not distinguishing between part- and full-time jobs, giving the appearance that jobs are increasing, when in fact the number of full-time jobs are on the decline. Some of the stuff is less complicated, such as the NSA stuff, where they're trying to lock up and charge the whistle blower, just like with the Wikileaks whistle blower, which is of course is ironic since the NSA is the one committing the crime. That stuff is pretty out in the open and straightforward, if you know what I mean, but I understand your position.

Thanks, Blumpkin. I'm sorry about this. I feel kind of bad, since I've been the only one lately to bounce ideas against you on this thread, but you seem to understand. I'm still planning to look into it while I'm offline. I'm actually planning to ask my parents a few questions this Sunday as well, since they follow these things more than I do, but for now, it seems like all I can to for this thread is try to funnel other people's ideas onto it. I guess I'll see you on the Justice thread. Take care.

[EvilDan]

Outburst? Is that how it was interpreted? I simply reiterated what was said.

At no time did I mention any conspiracy theories. I made a broad comment about party affiliation being more important to most people than intellectual honesty.

However, I'll bite on the rest anyway. How can you not trust your own judgement? Why is this farmed off to someone else? I like the way you think. I know you are a smart guy, you're insightful, and you know how to think critically. You know how to validate/invalidate statements based on information gathered elsewhere. You know the questions to ask. You know how to research. You know how to find the answers.

Anyone interested in learning more will find more sources of information, notice patterns, drop the disreputable sources, etc.

And the intellectually honest will probably change their minds, a lot, at first.

[X-Thor]

Right now, there's only one thing I know, which is that I don't know any better. Maybe I cannot explain why Obama is doing what he's doing, but that doesn't mean there isn't an answer, and I clearly haven't been following it nearly enough to make a decision on it myself. In this discussion, I've been able to acquire an interest in learning more about libertarianism, but aside from that, I've just been bombarded with statement after statement of things I could neither confirm nor disprove with my current knowledge of the situation. For instance, how am I to know whether or not the claims of recovery are propaganda? I haven't even been watching the news for the last month or so. If my boss gets a chance, I'll bring him to the table, but I don't think I have any more to contribute at this point.

Some of the stuff is less complicated, such as the NSA stuff, where they're trying to lock up and charge the whistle blower, just like with the Wikileaks whistle blower, which is of course is ironic since the NSA is the one committing the crime.

Not to justify it (obviously), but as far as I know, what the NSA is doing is perfectly legal (they got a court order and everything, I think). Which is really scary.

[Blumpkin]

Thanks, Blumpkin. I'm sorry about this. I feel kind of bad, since I've been the only one lately to bounce ideas against you on this thread, but you seem to understand. I'm still planning to look into it while I'm offline. I'm actually planning to ask my parents a few questions this Sunday as well, since they follow these things more than I do, but for now, it seems like all I can to for this thread is try to funnel other people's ideas onto it. I guess I'll see you on the Justice thread. Take care.

No problem. I think I gave you a source or two to look into, so you might want to consider that/those as well as your parents.

[Blumpkin]

Not to justify it (obviously), but as far as I know, what the NSA is doing is perfectly legal (they got a court order and everything, I think). Which is really scary.

Too true! We have devolved/digressed into a nation that believes in things in complete contradiction to what the Founders fought against. The more I think about it, the more true it rings that government is a reflection of the people. As much as you or I agree on the disgusting-ness of stuff like what the NSA has been doing, plenty of people agree, and it's that and the tons of other things that have occurred over the years that have gradually eroded our freedoms that people have allowed to happen that have gotten us to where we are right now. Keep in mind all this stuff occurs incrementally, not overnight, but with one little step after another, and it's the general public's complacency that allows each of these little things to take place. People may be horrified at the NSA looking up phone records and whatnot, but remember PLENTY of people agree with the "Patriot Act", believe freedom needs to be sacrificed for security, buy into the so-called "War on Terror" and did not criticize either the Bush OR the Obama administration for not even so much as reviewing exactly what the "Patriot Act" allowed before approving its continuation.

[EvilDan]

I have to admit that I am disappointed and disconcerted that most people are unwilling to challenge their own beliefs, preferring to believe in a comfortable lie rather than the truth. Whether it is apathy, fear, or a concerted arrogant belief that they can't be wrong, I just don't understand it.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Johann Wolgang von Goethe

Anyone who doesn't want to think for themselves can always join my cult.

Since people have asked for sources, I'll leave with a couple of tidbits. What I like about these is that they list their sources, so that you can read the writer's interpretation (which over numerous articles establishes their bias), find their sources, dive deeper, and make your own determination, which may conflict with the original story being reported.

Why We Don't Believe Science
Why My Businesses Are Late

[Blumpkin]

I only read part of your second link, but that's interesting to really ponder how much regulations have stunted economic growth. I don't know how reliable the figure is, but I DO know that whatever the real figure is, it definitely is significant. Over 150k pages of federal regulations is ridiculous. As I mentioned earlier, I watch John Stossel a lot, and one of his bread-and-butter topics/gripes is regulations. (Watch him try to go through the steps to legitimately open a lemonade stand for a little laugh, e.g. according to New York law, he actually has to have a government-approved fire extinguisher at the stand.) He regularly has a pile of boxes full of paper on his show to represent the number of regulations on the books. People for the most part seem very unaware of just how many regulations we have, how they're almost never repealed (only added to) and even how they come about. Just the Obamacare regulations alone are scary enough. A free country doesn't have a mountain of papers of fine print telling us what we must and mustn't do in our business practices.

[X-Thor]

Being a poli sci nerd, of course I'm reading the paper quoted in Reason (not the article about it).

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jjseater/regulationandgrowth.pdf

Here's an interesting quote:

The 1990s witnessed the largest reduction in pages of regulation in the
history of the CFR, with three consecutive years of decline. This reduction coincides with the Clinton
administration’s “reinventing government” initiative that sought reduced regulation in general and a reduction in the
number of pages in the CFR in particular. (Interestingly, the greatest percentage reduction in the CFR did not occur
during either the Reagan or Clinton administrations but rather in the first year of the Kennedy administration, 1961.)