Good, bring out the Hillary question. I answer what a capitalist and a conservative would answer and you can label me a 'Clinton supporter'. Let me ask you a question. What is the point of the SEC other than to 'regulate'(control) trades? Why should the national government be involved in such a transaction? Why wasn't it involved before the mid 1930s? Like a true 'conservative', you advocate continued support of FDR, the man whose actions lengthened the Depression and gave us Social Security.
Of course you ignore Federalist 45 and what it states because you actually believe the national government has an interest in a purely capitalistic venture. The states perhaps but not the national government. Let me state clearly for the daft in the audience. The SEC should not exist. You want to roll back decades of government expansionism not laid out by the men who founded this nation? Start with government organizations and 'programs' established under the leadership of FDR
You can't fathom what a Republic would be because you would have little, if any, say at the national level. You wouldn't be able to worship Bush as you would be more involved at the state level instead of advocating alphabet voting at the national level. The Founders of which you so despise saw the detriment in what this nation of states has become.
You ask me who I would vote for? Someone that states this and actually follows up on it. I could care less who's 'in control' as long as they do what they promise and stick to the Constitution. I may be the lone voice out in the wilderness voting this way but every election I do my best to convince one friend, one coworker, and one family member of the futility of voting R vs D year in and year out. History has proven quite clearly R and D have not worked.
The federal government has an explicit constitutional interest in interstate commerce, which is what the stock market engages in. When you live in San Francisco and buy shares through an exchange in New York that provide you with part "ownership" of an enterprise in Missouri, you've just invited the feds into your business.
Markets would be a mess without laws and regulations;especially now,when there are not only more people alive, than when the NYSE started under that Buttonwood tree, but because more people,not to mention pension funds,investing in all of the markets.With the invention and the introduction of the telephone, the ticker,the lighted board,and the net, this is a far cry from the early days of stock exchanges here and abroad.
You want to go back to the supposed halcyon days of no regulations, no government departments? Those fays were rife with corruption,which damned near brought down the Bank of England and the monarchy, when the South Sea Bubble broke! Our country was almost brought to her knees, many times over, prior to the Crash of '29, And almost NO ONE was playing the market in those days.
It wasn't the Crash of '29, BTW,which first brought the Federal Government into the picture, but the horrendous depression of 1907!The Panic, which launched that depression, had Congress going nuts.And, to the best of my knowledge, FDR was neither president, nor a Congress critter in 1907.
But gee,let's just do away with ALL laws concerning stock, bond,options,futures, and commodities.Then we can have a panic, or depression, or a crash, or what have you,that will REALLY be of such proportions, you can be as miserable As you like and have a whole lot of company;instead of being miserable, with just a few companions.
Since you obviously know absolutely know absolutely whatsoever about the NYSE( forget about the other exchanges for the moment), read "THE PLUNGERS AND THE PEACOCKS", by Dana L. Thomas,for starters.