What are people's thoughts on tonight's debate and on the candidates in general?
I feel a lot of the topics they have and will debate over are null and void in actually affecting the presidency. A majority of political talk is just for the sake of voters, not to say they are lying, they are both simply apealling to the voter's desires. too few people want to hear about what they can do to fix their problems, they would much prefer to hear what others can do to fix their problems.
Both present a clear and present danger to the constitution and the liberties of the American people.
Quote from: CajunJynx on October 22, 2012, 10:47:50 PM
Both present a clear and present danger to the constitution and the liberties of the American people.
That's a ignorant statement
Quote from: Milo109 on October 22, 2012, 10:50:22 PM
Quote from: CajunJynx on October 22, 2012, 10:47:50 PM
Both present a clear and present danger to the constitution and the liberties of the American people.
That's a ignorant statement
Want proof? I have the NDAA, as well as other supporting documents for both candidates saved to my phone.
Both candidates are funded by Goldman Sachs as well as most of the same interest groups and corporations.
Same poison, different flavors.
Quote from: Milo109 on October 22, 2012, 10:50:22 PM
Quote from: CajunJynx on October 22, 2012, 10:47:50 PM
Both present a clear and present danger to the constitution and the liberties of the American people.
That's a ignorant statement
Actually i see some truth in it, but the constitution was writen in a totally different time without a fraction of the technology we have today.
However, the fundamentals do need to be protected. The problem is agreeing on what the fundementals are.
Or you can check voting records. Or fact check statements they have made in an official capacity.
Quote from: Kaleo42 on October 22, 2012, 11:06:24 PM
Quote from: Milo109 on October 22, 2012, 10:50:22 PM
Quote from: CajunJynx on October 22, 2012, 10:47:50 PM
Both present a clear and present danger to the constitution and the liberties of the American people.
That's a ignorant statement
Actually i see some truth in it, but the constitution was writen in a totally different time without a fraction of the technology we have today.
However, the fundamentals do need to be protected. The problem is agreeing on what the fundementals are.
That's exactly the point. What dangers do these presidents pose exactly? The checks and balances in the government make the impotent
Or take an economics class and then go over both candidates economic plans.... Or spend enough time in the military to get a good idea of what the us really is doing overseas and how the media lies and manipulates the facts, especially when it pertains to you specifically....
Quote from: Milo109 on October 22, 2012, 11:08:10 PM
Quote from: Kaleo42 on October 22, 2012, 11:06:24 PM
Quote from: Milo109 on October 22, 2012, 10:50:22 PM
Quote from: CajunJynx on October 22, 2012, 10:47:50 PM
Both present a clear and present danger to the constitution and the liberties of the American people.
That's a ignorant statement
Actually i see some truth in it, but the constitution was writen in a totally different time without a fraction of the technology we have today.
However, the fundamentals do need to be protected. The problem is agreeing on what the fundementals are.
That's exactly the point. What dangers do these presidents pose exactly? The checks and balances in the government make the impotent
Have you been paying any attention to what has been getting through congress? What riders are being passed on bills? The executive orders our current president has signed?
The ideas Romney is proposing?
I am not going to sit here and spoon feed an adult on what should be their own civic duty to be informed, especially since I can't post pictures/documents/transcripts on here through my phone.
My very personal opinion is that we need to go scorched earth with 99% of the people currently in power. Launch investigations into every individual for corruption. Break up the Fed (why the hell are we letting a private bank run the federal economy anyway?), do away with the dept of education (which has obviously failed us), restructure the welfare system, cut spending on stupid .poo. (free cell phones for the poor), decrease our dependence on oil (nuclear power is thousands of times more efficient and costs significantly less).
This is why I don't talk .politics. with anyone. Cuz everyone gets so butt hurt over anything that is said that opposes their believes.
It wouldn't be so bad if everyone would stay civilized and not flip ๎. Everyone has their own opinions and ideals ;). And this pertains to everyone, not just this thread.
Can any one tell me how many times the electoral collage has voted differently then the popular vote on past presidential elections?
I was less than enthralled by these debates, all of them. I think I may have just grown bitter towards it all. Living in Ohio, the king of swing states, I'm subjected to a barrage of tv and mail ads, political robo-calls, and billboards and bumper stickers everywhere I look. So tired of it, I just want it to stop - pains me to think of what the money used on all this advertising spent on torturing my state could have been used for.
On a mod note however, please let me just say that I know .politics. is a touchy subject, and while I hope people can control their opinions and passions on the matter, there have been a couple comments that worry me as to where this thread might go.
Please keep the language under control and respect each others differences and opinions. Thank you.
Last night I had a little twitter debate with certain BJ on the topic ;)
My conclusion was that democracy is an epic fail, and the alternative is nomocracy. The Law of this forum is a product of my other hobby, which is creating a law which would be applicable to running communities such as this one, USA and Eve Online.
Democracy is an illegitimate form of government. Anarchy is the only way for people to be free, and the natural law to take over.
Additionally, the constitution doesn't "give" us any rights. We have the natural law. The founding fathers didn't want to add the bill of rights because they felt the natural law already gave us those rights.
You have the right to your person:
1st amendment - prior restraint
4th amendment - illegal searches and seizure.
Amendment 5 Rights in criminal cases
Amendment 6 Right to a fair trial
Amendment 7 Rights in civil cases
Amendment 8 Bail, fines, punishment
Amendment 9 Rights retained by the People
You have the right to your property:
2nd amendment - right to bare arms
3rd amendment - no quarter
4th amendment - illegal searches and seizure
Amendment 7 Rights in civil cases
The Candidates skirted the debate topics quite a bit. I understand that a large part of a debate is to address the public and sway opinion but I would like to see them stick to the issues more and their agendas less.
Quote from: Dudecore on October 23, 2012, 09:41:25 AM
Democracy is an illegitimate form of government. Anarchy is the only way for people to be free, and the natural law to take over.
Additionally, the constitution doesn't "give" us any rights. We have the natural law. The founding fathers didn't want to add the bill of rights because they felt the natural law already gave us those rights.
This is the truest and smartest thing ive seen on this thread (srs.) Either anarchy, or a modified form of communism is the only way we can work as a society.
Quote from: Langku on October 23, 2012, 10:06:09 AM
The Candidates skirted the debate topics quite a bit. I understand that a large part of a debate is to address the public and sway opinion but I would like to see them stick to the issues more and their agendas less.
If you are a candidate and try this in democracy, the other guy wins.
Quote from: Piotr on October 23, 2012, 10:15:53 AM
Quote from: Langku on October 23, 2012, 10:06:09 AM
The Candidates skirted the debate topics quite a bit. I understand that a large part of a debate is to address the public and sway opinion but I would like to see them stick to the issues more and their agendas less.
If you are a candidate and try this in democracy, the other guy wins.
Agreed. I wish we had a smartocracy where the masses were swayed by the legitimacy of the candidates' arguments.
Quote from: Langku on October 23, 2012, 10:21:04 AM
Quote from: Piotr on October 23, 2012, 10:15:53 AM
Quote from: Langku on October 23, 2012, 10:06:09 AM
The Candidates skirted the debate topics quite a bit. I understand that a large part of a debate is to address the public and sway opinion but I would like to see them stick to the issues more and their agendas less.
If you are a candidate and try this in democracy, the other guy wins.
Agreed. I wish we had a smartocracy where the masses were swayed by the legitimacy of the candidates' arguments.
No government, no candidates. No man should claim dominion over man. A candidates that have an ability to raise money and healthy believe in god would win over an astrophysicist that doesn't.
We don't need leaders, they make us distrust one another and our goals as humans. We have natural law to obey, no reason to give our freedom to someone else or the masses.
Unfortunately anarchy doesn't solve prisoner's dilemma. You need some kind of law.
Quote from: Piotr on October 23, 2012, 11:32:30 AM
Unfortunately anarchy doesn't solve prisoner's dilemma. You need some kind of law.
We have a law. We can still house people dangerous do society, and free people who are in prison for victimless crimes like drugs.
The power would be in communities of people helping other people advance. Localized communities of people engaging in free market economics.
We'd still have a need for prisons, and would have to voluntarily donate to prison programs.
The facts are, the government seizes our money and spends it on everything. From buying jet fighters and bombs, to fund an illegal war on drugs, to austerity programs and helping the homeless. It's not right to take my money and donate it to things I don't agree with.
Quote from: Testset on October 23, 2012, 12:42:55 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on October 23, 2012, 12:14:01 PM
Quote from: Piotr on October 23, 2012, 11:32:30 AM
Unfortunately anarchy doesn't solve prisoner's dilemma. You need some kind of law.
We have a law. We can still house people dangerous do society, and free people who are in prison for victimless crimes like drugs.
The power would be in communities of people helping other people advance. Localized communities of people engaging in free market economics.
We'd still have a need for prisons, and would have to voluntarily donate to prison programs.
The facts are, the government seizes our money and spends it on everything. From buying jet fighters and bombs, to fund an illegal war on drugs, to austerity programs and helping the homeless. It's not right to take my money and donate it to things I don't agree with.
"Have to voluntarily donate..." Sounds compulsory to me. That would completely defy the point of anarchy, wouldn't it?
As would having any law, really. Even natural law is defined as "binding," and true freedom means no boundaries.
By nature, people will look out for their own self-interest. Without any official code backed by enforcement of some kind, why should they do otherwise? Have you ever seen the looting that preceeds a natural disaster (or whenever there's an excuse to do so)? This stuff actually occurs. Doesn't just have to be criminals; a good percentage of the average person will steal a flatscreen if there's no legal repercussions...
I think that's people's problem with anarchy is that they think its lawless. If we obey natural law, then stealing someone's flat screen would be breaking the law. It is the perception of the majority of this country that laws are the only reasons people don't do bad things.
The reason people don't do the wrong thing is because they're not that type of person. They wouldn't want it to be done to them. If you think laws give you freedom, or the government does, you're horribly mistake.
When a natural disaster occurs and people loot is because they're disobeying precedent laws, common laws and natural laws. In each instance they're disobeying laws. Natural law wouldn't have people robbing and stealing because we're able to enforce natural law. We can still even have a legal system based upon upholding natural law.
If you (edit: the hypothetical "you", not anyone specific) have a completely cynical view about the human race and our capacity to care about one another, then it's easy to see laws as the only thing governing man. But if you recognize our capabilities of helping one another without a lopsided legal system, broken Welfare state, a police force that serves the interests of corporations and a government that picks winners and losers and murders people around the world.
If people actually believed in natural law then we would give money to the less well off. People who can work and don't, people who are unemployable, people who have been given a bum rap. We have to take care of them, or else they'll ruin our communities and our freedom.
Throwing them in jail isn't going to do anything, we pay for that anyway in the end. If we view people as cynically and have an "us against them" mentality, the ends are going to be met.
Quote from: Testset on October 23, 2012, 01:20:28 PM
By definition, "anarchy" is synonymous with "lawlessness." Look it up in the dictionary if you don't believe me.
It's not that I hold a dim view of people as a whole. The looters and thieves are a minority of the population, to be sure. But that minority will screw it up for everyone else.
Well we can call it whatever we want. I also hate dysecting posts like this, but it's one of the limitations of the Internet. Just because a minority of the people will screw it up, doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Are a few idiot people going to use this as an opurtunity to rape, pillage and steal? Perhaps. But is that any better/worse then the system we have now that throws people in prision for victimless crimes, financially ruins people's lives or murders people in other countries (on our dime)? Seems to me as though we have a myriad of problems now that we're unwilling to address, because the alternative might be more difficult to envision.
Quote from: Testset on October 23, 2012, 01:20:28 PM
While I believe in the free market and less government involvement in public affairs, we need them to play some form of referee role. Their decision to repeal a number of regulations allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to run wild. Not because they are "evil corporations," but because they will do what is best for the company. That's their job. The government is supposed to police them.
This is categorically incorrect. The government backed their poor investments. A corporation interested in making money would never make poor investments like that. The government (and rightly so) wanted low income people to be able to afford housing. So Fannie Mae and the other investors came along and said "we will give then loans, but when they default we want the money we loaned them back". Left to their own devices they'd never done that, there would be no money in it. Government involvement made those things happen.
Quote from: Testset on October 23, 2012, 01:20:28 PM
And self-interest does not have to be a negative thing: given the choice between the life of your family and the lives of your neighbors, who will you pick? Between feeding your child and repairing the road, which will it be?
Those are choices you're able to make without someone else confiscating your money to do so. How is legislating behavior going to change this?
Quote from: Testset on October 23, 2012, 01:20:28 PM
This is why we have taxes: to ensure that the common good is still attended to. The "general welfare" stated in the Preamble (not our flawed welfare system). You may not like some of the places it is spent, but they are trying to meet the goals of the masses to the best of their ability. Not every one shares your desires, or mine. Pretend your tax money went into education, if that's what you believe in, and I'll say mine was used to maintain the freeway. Effectively, with the fluid nature of money, that's what happened.
That is effectively saying that because "some good" is being done, then "some bad" has to come with it. Why should anyone take my money and spend it on bombs? I don't believe in it. I believe in helping the poor. I'm not free to spend my money, it's taken from me (under penalty of law) and used to do really bad things I don't believe in. I want to choose how my money should be spent. Just because people will spend their money on stupid things doesn't change the fact that they should be able to do so.
You can't legislate behavior, and you can't plan economics. We're slaves to a system that we have no say in, our money is taken at gunpoint and spent wherever someone else sees fit. Democracy is not a system the helps everyone like voting with your dollar does.
We're conditioned to be cynical of any processes we could actually utilized. an unfounded cynic is an obnoxious apathetic. We're kept isolated into demographics and marketed to be isolated. we're pitched a two party system that dont offer a new products but are just different brands.
First of all, the fact that we can even debate this topic shows how lucky we compared to the majority of countries out there. That shows how much freedom we really have.
Second, anarchy is the worst idea ever. It relies on humans being fundamentally good. If we went back to anarchy we would basically descend back into the middle ages where various chiefs and self imposed kings ruled the land. Whoever controlled the weapons would controll the people, brutality would run rampant.
3) Our government is horrible right now, but it's not the beginning of a totalitarian or communist state. Our government is too restricted to do anything of the kind, and neither candidate has anything to do with that. Nor will our individual rights be infringed upon.
4) The media is not at fault. Everyone blames things on the misinformed media. That's not true. It's the idiocy of the people who only watch or read biased sources who are at fault. Our media is the most reliable source of information in the world.
Quote from: Milo109 on October 23, 2012, 01:51:11 PM
First of all, the fact that we can even debate this topic shows how lucky we compared to the majority of countries out there. That shows how much freedom we really have.
I disagree again. Just because they haven't infringed upon our natural rights entirely (our rights to our person) doesn't mean that we should somehow be thankful. Illegal governments that infringe upon the rights of the people are at fault. They don't give us rights (we're born with them), they can only take them away with violence and breaking of natural laws.
Quote from: Milo109 on October 23, 2012, 01:51:11 PM
Second, anarchy is the worst idea ever. It relies on humans being fundamentally good. If we went back to anarchy we would basically descend back into the middle ages where various chiefs and self imposed kings ruled the land. Whoever controlled the weapons would controll the people, brutality would run rampant.
Then you're subscribing to the notion that:
A) laws are the reasons people don't do this now.
B) that natural law doesn't exist.
C) there would be something to gain from these types of activities. That a free people need to be ruled with violence.
Quote from: Milo109 on October 23, 2012, 01:51:11 PM
3) Our government is horrible right now, but it's not the beginning of a totalitarian or communist state. Our government is too restricted to do anything of the kind, and neither candidate has anything to do with that. Nor will our individual rights be infringed upon.
4) The media is not at fault. Everyone blames things on the misinformed media. That's not true. It's the idiocy of the people who only watch or read biased sources who are at fault. Our media is the most reliable source of information in the world.
The media helps control the flow of information and has a bias. It's either here nor there. It just symptomatic of a cynical people
We should be thankful that our rights our upheld. This is the first time in thousands of years civilization has advanced enough to let this happen. We are extremely privileged to live in a state where this happens.
Also if you think anarchy will lead to anything but that is ridiculous. Look at history, name a single occurrence where natural law "worked". There will always be people more powerful than others, and that will always lead to exploitation.
The issue with anarchy is that historically it creates a power vacuum which leads to dictatorship. The real cause of this is stupid people, and most of society being unable to govern themselves.
At least this conversation has progressed into sensible debate with a lack of trolling. Gonna say my 2 bits and get back to work ;).
@Dudecore: your ideas are aligned with my own and your references against everything to victimless crimes, government control, the housing collapse, etc are very much aligned with my own. I do not agree with an anarchist state and you very well know it is a pipe dream to suggest it will ever happen. Not being mean....that is just the truth. Your anarchist point touts natural law and that is well and good in regard to criminalism but what about corporations and business in general in an anarchist government? It would be completely laissez faire with no one to regulate them.....cuz natural law sure wont stop corporate greed. Corporate greed is a lot like the group think effect or the mob mentality that has been proven when a large group of people get together they will collectively make decisions they would never make on their own......sounds like an executive board room with an agenda to make more money. My point is those corporations will be the rape and pillagers not the citizens. I can sum up the nations problems with two words "campaign financing" and I can suggest a solution that will solve a lot of those problems with three words "campaign finance reform". For example, if I am a politician and a corporations gives me $$X million dollars towards my campaign....you better believe that corporation wants something in return. Furthermore, I think the Supreme Court has too much power as well and they gave themselves the power to strike down legislation that has been passed through the legislative and executive branches.....now how is that checks and balances if one side of the triad has the say all do all???? Ultimately if we got rid of campaign financing and just funded those campaigns from government dollars that would get rid of a lot of corruption. It would promote honest politicians and encourage them to run on the issues and not the agenda of their donors. Their donors also would not be picking the Supreme Court Justices and that could get cleaned up as well. I am not saying it is a silver bullet but I think it would help a great deal. Either way my idea for "campaign finance reform" is as much of a pipe dream as your anarchist dream ;)
Quote from: Milo109 on October 23, 2012, 01:51:11 PM
First of all, the fact that we can even debate this topic shows how lucky we compared to the majority of countries out there. That shows how much freedom we really have.
Second, anarchy is the worst idea ever. It relies on humans being fundamentally good. If we went back to anarchy we would basically descend back into the middle ages where various chiefs and self imposed kings ruled the land. Whoever controlled the weapons would controll the people, brutality would run rampant.
3) Our government is horrible right now, but it's not the beginning of a totalitarian or communist state. Our government is too restricted to do anything of the kind, and neither candidate has anything to do with that. Nor will our individual rights be infringed upon.
4) The media is not at fault. Everyone blames things on the misinformed media. That's not true. It's the idiocy of the people who only watch or read biased sources who are at fault. Our media is the most reliable source of information in the world.
While I think anarchy is a brilliant theory, it has been proven to not work in implementation.
We really are on the verge of a totalitarian state, unless you want to ignore the secret police agency our current president has tried to start four times, the newest NDAA, the patriot act, etc. I really think you don't understand exactly what they are doing. Hit me with a pm with your email if you want to see some rather disturbing things.
Quote from: Milo109 on October 23, 2012, 02:08:17 PM
We should be thankful that our rights our upheld. This is the first time in thousands of years civilization has advanced enough to let this happen. We are extremely privileged to live in a state where this happens.
Also if you think anarchy will lead to anything but that is ridiculous. Look at history, name a single occurrence where natural law "worked". There will always be people more powerful than others, and that will always lead to exploitation.
False. There have been categorically similar civilizations through history, they are created, advance, then crumble.
Anarchy has worked before, but only on a very small scale, tribal communities etc. once it's much bigger than hamlet size someone manipulates the system to seize power.
The government ripped power from us, and have been using it since its inception. Campaign finance reform, term limits and ending corporate subsidies are fixes people come up with to repair a dying system. Government is not even consistent with human experience.
Corporate greed can be stopped with a free market. If you don't like the way someone runs their business, don't buy from them. Something costs too much? Don't buy it. Something is cheap and easy, then you purchase that. If you're a vegetarian like me, I don't wanna go to McDonald's and buy garbage with no nutrition.
A corporation wouldn't pay workers 3ยข an hour if the products they sold cost too much, they wouldn't make money. They couldn't exploit labor in china if the Chinese were able to organize and protest for workers rights. In each and every instance I brought up, the government was involved. In each and every instance they're looking out for the "rights" of a select group of individuals. It's never people being able to be free.
In every instance of "anarchy" leading to bad results, it's never because the people are "too free" or because natural law was subscribed to. It's dogmatic imperialists.
You are missing the point, how can you choose not to buy from someone when that product has an inelastic demand and inelastic supply.....and one company owns it? You cant use the existing inefficient government as an excuse towards anarchism. A true free market would turn the world we live in into a world ran by corporations. You would not have the choice to just not buy medications you need, or food, or water for that matter. A free market could easily allow corporations to assume control over our basic physiological necessities and bring it to the point there is one source to get your goods from and that is it. Lets go back a hundred years when there was virtually no regulation on business. Now lets just take a coal mining company for example. What these companies did was create a community around a mine for the workers to live. The company owned all the property, houses, stores, roads, buildings, and so on. The workers got paid in company printed currency....meaning that money was only good in the stores in that community. Many workers went into debt just to feed their families because the 80+ hours a week they were working was not enough to provide enough "funny money" to buy the goods that the monopoly was marking up. That is exactly what would happen on a large scale if we had a true freemarket with no control whatsoever.
What does Imperialistic things have to do with anarchism? People can't handle freedom.
You say just don't buy from them if you don't like the way they do business but take Wal Mart for example. I bet 75% of Americans would say they don't like the way they do business but yet there is a Wal Mart, on average, 15 miles from everyone's home in America and I bet about 90% of Americans shop there.
Quote from: cltrn81 on October 23, 2012, 02:37:29 PM
You are missing the point, how can you choose not to buy from someone when that product has an inelastic demand and inelastic supply.....and one company owns it? You cant use the existing inefficient government as an excuse towards anarchism. A true free market would turn the world we live in into a world ran by corporations. You would not have the choice to just not buy medications you need, or food, or water for that matter. A free market could easily allow corporations to assume control over our basic physiological necessities and bring it to the point there is one source to get your goods from and that is it. Lets go back a hundred years when there was virtually no regulation on business. Now lets just take a coal mining company for example. What these companies did was create a community around a mine for the workers to live. The company owned all the property, houses, stores, roads, buildings, and so on. The workers got paid in company printed currency....meaning that money was only good in the stores in that community. Many workers went into debt just to feed their families because the 80+ hours a week they were working was not enough to provide enough "funny money" to buy the goods that the monopoly was marking up. That is exactly what would happen on a large scale if we had a true freemarket with no control whatsoever.
No company can own everything, because someone else will come along and do it cheaper. What incentive is there for 1 corporation to be able to own everything?
We've grown past the era of scrips and whatever coal mining shenanigans were going on. Workers and people being able to standup for themselves, and being able to freely travel to new jobs. We have the Internet now, we can communicate and are having this conversations miles away. If you don't wanna work 80 hours a week then move to a different company.
Competition makes these things possible. An informed free people make these things possible. Things the way they are now are because of a government state designed to pick winners and losers in business. Pick winners and losers in life.
Quote from: cltrn81 on October 23, 2012, 02:45:27 PM
You say just don't buy from them if you don't like the way they do business but take Wal Mart for example. I bet 75% of Americans would say they don't like the way they do business but yet there is a Wal Mart, on average, 15 miles from everyone's home in America and I bet about 90% of Americans shop there.
People have to be able to make the decisions not to shop at walmart. Walmart sells cheap goods, that is why they force everyone out of business. They create jobs for people and don't give them any say in it. They can't organize, can't collective bargain get no benefits or long term retirement plan.
Walmart is a job you take on the way to another job. It's not a career. We need jobs like that. If you wanna buy Oreos for $3 a pack, or go up the street and buy Oreos for $4 (but the workers all get health benefits) then that is something people should do. It's informing the people, and then they're free to do what they want. We have that now.
If Walmart cornered the market on big box stores, and started raising prices, no one is obligated to shop there anymore. There would be no law requiring that you do.
Our nation is already turning into subsets of oligarchies and a true free market would only enable them further. What is the incentive for a corporation to own everything you ask......money, power, take your pick. They would not make it obvious they are trying to own/control everything. They would slowly do it so no one notices. Big companies would buy small ones, keep the small brand so no one knows any different. Eventually one or a small group of companies would control major markets and they will set the price. The argument that workers could band together under this system is a fallacy. Who would organize these workers to band together? I suppose the companies will sit idly by and do nothing to stop them. You don't think an unregulated corporation could crush unions that much easier without regulation? They will just fire any employee who attempted to bring the workers together.....and who would stop them under an anarchist state?
Quote from: cltrn81 on October 23, 2012, 03:04:27 PM
Our nation is already turning into subsets of oligarchies and a true free market would only enable them further. What is the incentive for a corporation to own everything you ask......money, power, take your pick. They would not make it obvious they are trying to own/control everything. They would slowly do it so no one notices. Big companies would buy small ones, keep the small brand so no one knows any different. Eventually one or a small group of companies would control major markets and they will set the price. The argument that workers could band together under this system is a fallacy. Who would organize these workers to band together? I suppose the companies will sit idly by and do nothing to stop them. You don't think an unregulated corporation could crush unions that much easier without regulation? They will just fire any employee who attempted to bring the workers together.....and who would stop them under an anarchist state?
That is in regards to non-essential, entry jobs like walmart. How would a big corporation stop a engineers union from forming? Mechanics and teachers unions. Things that require skilled labor? If my job said "were going to pay mechanics $3 an hour" I can turn around and say "well we're not working for that", and the industry would suffer because of it.
Even outsourced jobs are coming back (tech support) based on demands. Corporations are interested in money, marginalizing your consumer base does nothing to help that. The way government is set up now money = power. You can buy and sell elections, get favorable treatment, bypass natural law to get the things that keep you in power (money). It's already an unbalanced system that favors the rich.
In a free market goods and services favor the consumer. Is it perfect? No, nothing can be. Does it benefit the most amount of people? I submit that it does.
Could I be wrong? Absolutely.
I could be wrong as well my friend :) but I whole heartedly disagree with the assumption that business could be kept in check without regulation. The only reason unions exist is because of government involvement forcing business to play ball. Otherwise, like I said, the business can just fire the leaders and those followers who are too afraid will stay working for the greedy business cuz they have no alternative and/or they are to afraid of change to try. I will admit that it does propose a challenge for business in regards to skilled workers; however, if 95% of the engineering companies were owned by one big conglomerate than where would that engineer who wants to fight the system go? He can't just go somewhere else if this big entity had cornered the job market to that extreme. Granted that is a worse case scenario but my overall point is that a true free market would enable this behavior from business. I believe there is a happy median to most things in life and this is no different. I think regulation has a place to keep business in check.
Lets switch gears a bit and look at the tragedy of commons scenario. Do you not honestly believe business would decimate our resources, lakes/streams, forests, wildlife, etc if they were truly unregulated? It would be a mad dash to see who controls what and the business with the most money would win. They would suck the lifeforce from every piece of land and just leave it polluted and barren.
All the unions of this world can't help you if the corporations go bust and move to countries with more economic freedom. The only real power you have as an employee is when greedy corporations compete for your skills on a free market. This is actually pretty much proven both theoretically and practically. People flee from socialism.
If they were to ravage the landscape, that would be all accounts infringe on our rights to person. An informed people acting in accordance to natural law would not desire these outcomes.
It happens now in Africa, illegal governments stole the resources from the people and sell them to industrialized countries. Where it's the opposite in places like Kuwait, where they share the oil sales with the people who live there. There are cases where it works, and cases where it doesn't. I've noticed the more government that's involved, the less power the people have.
If you don't wanna buy my wholesale "anarchy" thing, can we at least agree that you should be able to choose where your tax money goes? You've gotta fill out big forms every single year, why not add another list of checkboxes so individuals have a say in where their money goes? A 3 trillion dollar war on terror isn't doing anything.
The government isn't responsible for our well being if they don't want to be. We already let them take our money, so what is stopping them from just becoming "evil" tomorrow? Not elections, those are already rigged. Is it that they fear an uprising? No, they already have trillions of dollars in weapons.
They can take our freedom because they already took it. They misappropriate resources and keep us in debt. Does the government do good things, I think so. Can we as people achieve the things they do that are so great? I think we must, and we can.
Yes we can.
I can agree that you should be able to have some say. I would sound disagreeable if I said that check the box part should also be accompanied with an additional dollar amount you have to include on top of your mandatory taxes. If a person cared that much about a particular program they would pay the extra. But I have been to Kuwait and that country is more or less a Theocracy/Monarchy state that uses slave labor. They can afford to share the socialized oil profits not only because the country floats on oil but the fact that they abuse other country's people in regard to their workforce. A Kuwaiti citizen does not have to work if they do not want to, pretty much any social need from education to healthcare is paid for by the country, they get a stipend much like the Alaskan citizens do....only much larger, and the men are required to serve a set amount of time in the military. So how does a country operate if the citizens do not have to work? Pretty much one step above slave labor is the answer. Kuwaiti businesses hire third country nationals, much like American countries operating overseas but that is another argument, and pay those people pennies on the dollar. I hope you are not saying that is what you want the US to become. I don't mean to sound obstinate here....I just wanted to point out my first hand experience and what I saw in Kuwait.
People donate now to charity. But if they're already taking my money, and I using it for the public good, id be fine with that. I'm already doing my share, and now I have to do more? I wanna allocate my tax dollars, I already have a say in where my charity goes. I don't even have a problem paying taxes, I believe humans are morally obligated to do so, but you can't do it at gunpoint. I wanna say in where my money is being spent, instead of some overarching government spending money on weapons contracts they have with private corporations.
Kuwait is the first example I could think of a group of people sharing resources, which was the point I was trying to make, perhaps not the best.
We need more businesses that are employee run, more people to be involved with human wellbeing.
Instead when we pay taxes you get people who say "I'm doing my part" and without enough money left over to donate to charity. We're working 40+ hour work weeks without enough time to pursue our goals, see our families or volunteer.
Governments are run by corporations, we let the government confiscate our money and do whatever they want with it. Get rid of government and then corporations will be accountable to the people.
Quote from: Dudecore on October 23, 2012, 04:13:49 PM
People donate now to charity. But if they're already taking my money, and I using it for the public good, id be fine with that. I'm already doing my share, and now I have to do more? I wanna allocate my tax dollars, I already have a say in where my charity goes. I don't even have a problem paying taxes, I believe humans are morally obligated to do so, but you can't do it at gunpoint. I wanna say in where my money is being spent, instead of some overarching government spending money on weapons contracts they have with private corporations.
Kuwait is the first example I could think of a group of people sharing resources, which was the point I was trying to make, perhaps not the best.
We need more businesses that are employee run, more people to be involved with human wellbeing.
Instead when we pay taxes you get people who say "I'm doing my part" and without enough money left over to donate to charity. We're working 40+ hour work weeks without enough time to pursue our goals, see our families or volunteer.
Governments are run by corporations, we let the government confiscate our money and do whatever they want with it. Get rid of government and then corporations will be accountable to the people.
You had me til the last paragraph :). I think your last sentence sounds good but I think the actual outcome would be the complete inverse and that is where we disagree.
@Testset: Lobbying is protected by the first amendment but when does it become bribery? I am not saying all lobbying is bribery but I do believe it is used as a bribery tool and encouraged because of government regulations put forth by lobbyists. If that makes sense ๐ There are lobbying institutions set up under the guise of a charitable institution and when the statement was made that most of the charity is paid by corporations they are correct because a lot of that "charity" goes to these lobbying institutions and the corporations can then right it off on their taxes. Illegal? No because lobbying made it legal. Ethical? Hell no <insert emoji gavel>
Interesting read.
I do not think our founding fathers intended freedom speech to be passed on to businesses in the manner it has. I would argue that freedom of speech was intended for persons and the press to be able to say what they want for or against whatever cause without the fear of being persecuted for that speech. I can't see the point that it was created for business to be able spend as much money as they want to manipulate laws/regulations. This is really a perversion of the freedom of speech that tries to make claim that money is speech as it tries to make the claim that we as Americans would have less liberties if we could not "hear" the speech that money creates. If you look at the Supreme Court Citizens United case, that is pretty much the claim.....money is speech and taking away the right of businesses to spend as much as they want on campaigns would limit our freedom speech since we could not "hear" that speech the money created. That argument kinda blended into campaign finance but the topic of lobbying is very similar. Honestly I believe the freedoms of speech argument is only made to inflame people and make them think the government is taking away their rights when the real motive is to make sure business can spend as much as they want on .politics..
Vote for Santa Claus!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Dudecore on October 23, 2012, 01:44:15 PM
Quote from: Testset on October 23, 2012, 01:20:28 PM
By definition, "anarchy" is synonymous with "lawlessness." Look it up in the dictionary if you don't believe me.
It's not that I hold a dim view of people as a whole. The looters and thieves are a minority of the population, to be sure. But that minority will screw it up for everyone else.
Well we can call it whatever we want. I also hate dysecting posts like this, but it's one of the limitations of the Internet. Just because a minority of the people will screw it up, doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Are a few idiot people going to use this as an opurtunity to rape, pillage and steal? Perhaps. But is that any better/worse then the system we have now that throws people in prision for victimless crimes, financially ruins people's lives or murders people in other countries (on our dime)? Seems to me as though we have a myriad of problems now that we're unwilling to address, because the alternative might be more difficult to envision.
Quote from: Testset on October 23, 2012, 01:20:28 PM
While I believe in the free market and less government involvement in public affairs, we need them to play some form of referee role. Their decision to repeal a number of regulations allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to run wild. Not because they are "evil corporations," but because they will do what is best for the company. That's their job. The government is supposed to police them.
This is categorically incorrect. The government backed their poor investments. A corporation interested in making money would never make poor investments like that. The government (and rightly so) wanted low income people to be able to afford housing. So Fannie Mae and the other investors came along and said "we will give then loans, but when they default we want the money we loaned them back". Left to their own devices they'd never done that, there would be no money in it. Government involvement made those things happen.
Quote from: Testset on October 23, 2012, 01:20:28 PM
And self-interest does not have to be a negative thing: given the choice between the life of your family and the lives of your neighbors, who will you pick? Between feeding your child and repairing the road, which will it be?
Those are choices you're able to make without someone else confiscating your money to do so. How is legislating behavior going to change this?
Quote from: Testset on October 23, 2012, 01:20:28 PM
This is why we have taxes: to ensure that the common good is still attended to. The "general welfare" stated in the Preamble (not our flawed welfare system). You may not like some of the places it is spent, but they are trying to meet the goals of the masses to the best of their ability. Not every one shares your desires, or mine. Pretend your tax money went into education, if that's what you believe in, and I'll say mine was used to maintain the freeway. Effectively, with the fluid nature of money, that's what happened.
That is effectively saying that because "some good" is being done, then "some bad" has to come with it. Why should anyone take my money and spend it on bombs? I don't believe in it. I believe in helping the poor. I'm not free to spend my money, it's taken from me (under penalty of law) and used to do really bad things I don't believe in. I want to choose how my money should be spent. Just because people will spend their money on stupid things doesn't change the fact that they should be able to do so.
You can't legislate behavior, and you can't plan economics. We're slaves to a system that we have no say in, our money is taken at gunpoint and spent wherever someone else sees fit. Democracy is not a system the helps everyone like voting with your dollar does.
We're conditioned to be cynical of any processes we could actually utilized. an unfounded cynic is an obnoxious apathetic. We're kept isolated into demographics and marketed to be isolated. we're pitched a two party system that dont offer a new products but are just different brands.
You can choose how your money is spent by voting for the person that most closely represents your ideals.
You have to remember there are more than just two candidates running for president.
Look up, study, do what ever but be informed about who you are choosing to represent you in government.
Socialism and communism don't work. There are two glaring examples in the 20th century that prove my fact.
Socialist NAZI German and Communist Russia.
I have traveled the world as a US sailor. This is still the greatest country on earth. People from all regions of the globe still flock to the land of opportunity.
Most people need to stop whining and use their freedom to vote and make a change in their own lives.
And yes EVERY vote does count.
Oh my wall of quote bubble.
Quote from: Xanzurth on October 23, 2012, 11:44:04 PM
Socialism and communism don't work. There are two glaring examples in the 20th century that prove my fact.
Socialist NAZI German and Communist Russia.
We have even better examples: Western and Eastern Germany, North and South Korea. Same country, same people, difference is the implementation stage of socialism.
Obama or off!
I still don't know who I am voting for but I am curious how everyone else is going to vote.
Obama
I'm pro union and don't make over $250k
I'm voting for Ross Perot.
Quote from: Rass on October 24, 2012, 09:03:32 PM
Obama
I'm pro union and don't make over $250k
Awesome reasons there, guy
Quote from: Gummuh on October 24, 2012, 09:31:35 PM
Quote from: Rass on October 24, 2012, 09:03:32 PM
Obama
I'm pro union and don't make over $250k
Awesome reasons there, guy
I guess I should be cool like you and just respond with snarky comments.
Santa Claus should debate with Obama. That would be really cool to see.
Best debate I saw was epic rap battles of history Obama and Romney. Was better then those two actually not talking about what the question was.