It seems to violate the fundamental right of any American to act according to his or her conscience.

And in response the employer can act according to his conscience and fire your ass for refusing to do your job. Why does your right to act according to your conscience trump the employer’s right to run the business as they please? You’re all turning into a bunch of Liberal “workers’ rights” zealots.

The free market works out those issues on its own without government sticking its nose into it and forcing providers to violate their religious tenets to stay in business.

Huh? The Bush-imposed “conscience rule” was the only one that forced anyone to do anything! Rolling back the rule is a pro-freedom and pro-business move by Obama.

You don’t have a right to your job. If your employer requires you to dispense contraceptive pills and you refuse, you should be fired. Having the government step in and say “no, you can’t fire employees for not doing their job” is the immoral intervention. Obama merely reversed this anti-business rule.

P.S. I didn’t vote for Obama. I don’t think abortion should be legal (though it should only be illegal on a state/local level). I will always defend the rights of property holders to run their business how they like, including their hiring and firing. A pharmacist who won’t dispense contraceptive pills is no different than a waiter who won’t serve veal. Do the job, or find a new one that doesn’t make you uncomfortable.

In fact, one has to wonder how committed the Bush administration was to this rule in the first place. It didn’t bother to propose the conscience rule as law when Republicans controlled Congress, nor did it create the rule until the final weeks of their tenure in the White House. Obama’s rollback just puts the medical industry back to the same status it held in September of last year. It looks more like a poison pill for the Obama administration, giving them a political hotfoot and the pro-life movement an easy rallying point early in Obama’s first term.

Exactly. That’s how pro-life many pro-lifers are. “Unborn children” is simply another wedge issue. If it hadn’t for them, it would have been something about boys kissing. Whatever works politically.

Which is why using govt to correct the so called “flaws” of capitalism, always fails.

MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2009 at 11:24 AM

Fine, then you go eat in the restaurants that are not inspected by the county…take your kids there (if you were old enough to have some), let them eat the food off the floor.
Government interference is obtrusive, and pure libertarianism is pure idiocy.
Anything in excess, basically, doesn’t work.

By definition, 90% of the market is not a monopoly.

MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Yet you state this:

Standard Oil never had a monopoly, nor did it ever come close to having a monopoly.

Hence the problem, you think that a legal monopoly is only 100%…better hit the books again.
There is no use debating someone who does not understand the definition of the terms we are talking about.

I never said that predatory pricing didn’t exist. I said that it never works.

You stated it cannot work (not never), then it cannot exist…get it?
This is what you posted

Predatory pricing, that is, selling at a loss to drive your competitors out of business cannot work in the real world,

I can only respond to what you post…not what you wanted to post, or thought you posted.
Now, go back and hit the books and read up on the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.
And for God’s sake, learn the definition of a monopoly…(please no semantical games about “English” law and monopoly).
Natural monopoly’s exist all the time, patented items for example, or baseball…

Which is why using govt to correct the so called “flaws” of capitalism, always fails.

MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2009 at 11:24 AM

Often but not always. Without an FDIC and capital requirements for banks, this current mess we are in would start to look a lot like the great depression.

Sure, there could be a private equivalent of the FDIC that might be better but there wasn’t in the 1930′s and the government stepped in.

there are always, at least, unintended consequences.

dedalus on March 3, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Which is why using govt to correct the so called “flaws” of capitalism, always fails.

Other than gay rights, what is it that seperates you from your average liberal?

Created with “good” intentions, then abused with bad policy.
The “robber barons” were not heroes.

right2bright on March 3, 2009 at 10:55 AM

I agree that the government frequently creates bigger problems than they are trying to solve and that there are always, at least, unintended consequences.

I never said that predatory pricing didn’t exist. I said that it never works. Big difference.
Nor did I say that monopolies never existed. I stated that they could only exist with the help of the govt. A point that you at one point, agreed with.

Populists think that they are conservative, but they have much more in common with communists than they do with true conservatives.

They both want to use the power of govt to coerce everyone else into living by their personal moral standards. They also think that they can use govt to make the world perfect.

dedalus on March 3, 2009 at 10:31 AM

My debated is that he said there was no such thing as a monopoly or that predatory pricing never existed, that they were unicorns. Which historically, legally, has been shown to have existed.
I think the govt. oversteps in enforcing the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and the Robertson Patman Act…the the fact and truth is, they were enacted to stop these abuses…but like many federal laws, they end up being abused.
Created with “good” intentions, then abused with bad policy.
The “robber barons” were not heroes.

A perfect example of why such laws are unneeded and never serve the public good.

While it’s possible you can find a few “economists” who think monopolies form, it’s also possible to find a few “economists” who think Porkulus is a good idea.

I have hit the history books, and the econ books. And yes they were the real ones, not the left wing pablum that you’ve ingested.

I’m sorry you take so much pride in displaying your ignorance, I’ve shown you the truth, but you don’t want to have anything to do with it. Your loss. And our countries loss.

MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2009 at 8:26 AM

So you are saying that Standard Oil never had control of 90% of the oil?
That they never practiced predatory pricing…
I quoted from my books (which were conservative legal websites), now let’s see the quotes from your history books.
Google…Standard Oil, anti-trust.
Ayn Rand isn’t right on everything, and certainly not on this.
You may think using thugs to intimidate your competitors as being “fair trade”…I don’t.

First off, there are a lot of people who have lots of money. Next, there are lots of people with lesser amounts of money who can be convinced to invest in a money making operation. Thirdly, don’t build a huge refinery, build a smaller one.

MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2009 at 8:39 AM

Right2Bright made several specific points regarding Standard Oil that you left unaddressed.

With regard to small refineries, aside from cartel or vertical monopoly factors there are economy of scale considerations that could prevent investors from betting on a refinery that didn’t operate at the same marginal cost as a larger refinery.

Even economists who think monopolies are beneficial recognize that they tend to form.

President Obortion