Removal of all Socialism in the US!

[Oblarg]

Corporations are after the same thing everybody else is: money. So why villainize them as opposed to everybody else's?

Not villainizing anyone. But corporations are capable of more harm on their own than greedy individuals simply because they are well organized groups of people working in concert towards their goals. L'union fait la force and all... and often that union is used to shift responsibility from the individual.

 

It goes without saying that they are also capable of more good, too.

 

By your logic, then, governments can do far more harm than can corporations, and it just boils down to whose interests you prefer: those of business or those of government. I, for one, prefer business.

 

Why would you rather trust a business, whose main interest is to make money, than a government, whose main interest is to serve the people it governs?

[Gfted1]

Lol, good one. A governments main interest is staying in power.

[213374U]

By your logic, then, governments can do far more harm than can corporations, and it just boils down to whose interests you prefer: those of business or those of government. I, for one, prefer business.

Hmm, no. That's not my "logic", at all. It's just you twisting my argument to assemble an either-or fallacy.

[Guard Dog]

than a government, whose main interest is to serve the people it governs?

 

Oh my God that is so wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!

[Killian Kalthorne]

A government that doesn't serve the will of the people, to serve the needs of which it governs is a government that needs to be removed from power.

[I want teh kotor 3]

than a government, whose main interest is to serve the people it governs?

 

Oh my God that is so wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!

 

This.

[Guard Dog]

Government can strangle the legal shenanigans they get up to, and can also apply direct force to get what it wants. It doesn't make the slightest damn difference if I tell Barclays I think they are wankers and i stop using them. Only collective action can.

 

Where then do you turn when government is the cause of the shenanigans? Or the agent the business uses to cause trouble? Take a look at the whole Kelo v New London debacle here in the US. Pfizer wanted to build a biochem research facility on some beach land that had houses on it. Regular working people homes. Some of those houses had been owned byt the families in them for generations. Pfizer wnated them, the homeowners would not sell. So Pfizer goes to the town and the town seizes the homes, evicts the people and gives the land to Pfizer. Hows that for the government looking out for the people? This was perfectly legal due to a gross misapplication of the Eminent Domain provision that allows governments to seize land for public use. Howerver this was not used for the public, it was given to a major, profit seeking comapany (oooh the evil). Who is to blame here? The damned government was because had it not been empowered to seize private property Pfizer could not have compelled even one of those people to move no matter how much it wanted them to.

 

This whole notion that profit is evil and governments are benevolent is so unbelivably naieve and ignorant that it is just staggering. Is it because you fear monoplies? You all do realize there are dozens of laws in the US and Europe preventing that already right? In the US alone we have the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, FTC act, Hart-Scott-Rodino, Robinson Act, Sarbanes-Oxley Act all of which regulate anticompetitve business without going in and seizing companies as the current US government is wont to do.

 

If a company violates law there is redress in criminal court. If they breach a contract or harm you in some way there is redress in civil court. If the government decides to screw you, you are just screwed. Your only defense, and you had better believe it is your ONLY defense if to have the law limit the power of government right from the get go so that it cannot screw you without violating the law. Empowering the govenment is like living with a lion and hoping he eats you last.

 

*Edit* Please excuse my spelling and grammar, I'm typing this on a Blackberry

Edited March 9, 2010 by Guard Dog

[Killian Kalthorne]

Blackberries are evil.

[Oblarg]

than a government, whose main interest is to serve the people it governs?

 

Oh my God that is so wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!

 

This.

 

In theory, government exists because a society with a government is more stable than a society with out one, thus it serves the people. The purpose of government is to increase quality of life for the collective.

 

Of course, it is rarely done correctly, but usually horrid dictatorships lead to revolutions because the government is not doing its job. On the other hand, business has no purpose other than to serve itself.

[Rostere]

Oh, there were societies with absolutely no socialism. However, these were assimilated by the more socialist societies. If you want, I'm sure you can go out into the wild and live your life like some kind of monkey, like even before the concept of tribal socialism was invented. You know, the mere existence of a government is oppression of the many towards the few, since there are people who believe there should be no government and would rather not pay a dime to support it. If you look at societal evolution through history, you will see "non-authoritarian collectivist" ideas prevailing over "authoritarian individualist" ideas, with "authoritarian collectivist" and "non-authoritarian individualist" governments appearing very rarely and always ending up being worse alternatives to their counterparts.

 

To give examples of these;

 

Non-authoritarian collectivist government - Social democracy

Authoritarian collectivist government - Communism

Non-authoritarian individualist government - No government at all

Authoritarian individualist government - Kingdom/Theocracy/Fascism

 

Authoritarian governments are defined as those where the leader(s) have absolute power over the individual member of the society.

Collectivist governments are definied as those where you are forced to share wealth with other members of society and large class differences are not possible. Absolutely individualist governments are defined as those where a member of society can potentially profit from other members of society arbitrarily much.

[Walsingham]

I'm confused. What kind of government is Chuck Norris?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

*Edit* Please excuse my spelling and grammar, I'm typing this on a Blackberry

 

Impressive, those are actually rather good when you take that into account.

[Orogun01]

I'm confused. What kind of government is Chuck Norris?

A Chuck Nocracy.

[Arkan]

I'm confused. What kind of government is Chuck Norris?

A Chuck Nocracy.

Not to be confused with a Chuck Rockracy.

[Humodour]

Government can strangle the legal shenanigans they get up to, and can also apply direct force to get what it wants. It doesn't make the slightest damn difference if I tell Barclays I think they are wankers and i stop using them. Only collective action can.

 

Where then do you turn when government is the cause of the shenanigans? Or the agent the business uses to cause trouble?

 

You have three choices, and you'd choose depending on the situation and nature of said shenanigans:

 

a) http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/ or similar in your country

b) Use your vote.

c) Court - government is typically a devolved entity, with most arms being independent or balanced by others... in Australia, you have councils, state governments, the federal government, the House of Reps, the Senate, an independent judiciary - with multiple levels of appeal in case of corruption or 'shenanigans', an independent reserve bank (RBA), an independent consumer watchdog (ACCC), an independent financial watchdog (ASIC), an independent government watchdog (option a above), etc. In Australia the states still hold a lot of power over various enterprises, so they also often have their own independent entities to deal with things like corruption, etc. E.g.: http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/

Edited March 10, 2010 by Krezack

[Walsingham]

Going back to being serious for a second

 

- Saying that the government seized those homes is saying the cart pushes the horse! The government was certainly one of the bad guys but the instigation was corporate. I said quite clearly that this was one way they could take stuff off you.

- Defending against a rogue government is not simple, but teh defence is achievable as your own framers pointed out by subdivision of the entity.

- I also think that having the spirit of the law in legislation is an excellent defence because it allows normal people to say 'hang on, this law was to stop buffalo on buffalo crime. How come I'm about to lose my first born?'

[Guard Dog]

- Saying that the government seized those homes is saying the cart pushes the horse! The government was certainly one of the bad guys but the instigation was corporate. I said quite clearly that this was one way they could take stuff off you.

 

Wals that doesn't even make sense! If I robbed you and gave the money to Krezack, who is most culpable in the crime? Krezack got the benefit but I did the deed. How much less culpable is Krezack if he was in no way capable of robbing you? It's not logical.

 

Companies cannot hurt you, or kill you, or take anything from you that you do not offer them. I have heard all of the innane rambling here how they can but I can't think of a single incident in the US at least that did not recieve a judicial remedy. I read somewhere the the US Government either wins of achieves favorable settlements in over 94% of non criminal litigation. Pretty long odds if you find yourself on the recieving end of thie ill intent.

 

I'd like you guys to consider one thing, especially those of you who thing your government is some kind of benevolent champion, have you ever had to fight them over anything? If not you simply do not comprehend how little you can do to stop them.

[Mamoulian War]

If Krezack would hire you or asked you to do the dirty work for him, he would be same or more guilty than you, same with the corporations who hire/pay government to do the dirty work for them

[213374U]

I suppose that depends on the legal code, but generally speaking public officials are held to a higher legal standard by virtue of being holders of public powers.

 

And if you are talking about moral culpability, no. The public official is supposed to be a trusted public servant -- he is betraying that trust. The evil corporate man is a trusted servant of... himself?

[I want teh kotor 3]

Corporations are after the same thing everybody else is: money. So why villainize them as opposed to everybody else's?

Not villainizing anyone. But corporations are capable of more harm on their own than greedy individuals simply because they are well organized groups of people working in concert towards their goals. L'union fait la force and all... and often that union is used to shift responsibility from the individual.

 

It goes without saying that they are also capable of more good, too.

 

By your logic, then, governments can do far more harm than can corporations, and it just boils down to whose interests you prefer: those of business or those of government. I, for one, prefer business.

 

Why would you rather trust a business, whose main interest is to make money, than a government, whose main interest is to serve the people it governs?

 

When businesses make money, they help me. Government doesn't, for the most part.

 

And by "for the most part" I mean everything other than roads, cops, and the military.

[Hurlshort]

When businesses make money, they help me. Government doesn't, for the most part.

 

And by "for the most part" I mean everything other than roads, cops, and the military.

 

Those are fairly gigantic things. Roads alone require a huge amount of work and maintenance.

[I want teh kotor 3]

When businesses make money, they help me. Government doesn't, for the most part.

 

And by "for the most part" I mean everything other than roads, cops, and the military.

 

Those are fairly gigantic things. Roads alone require a huge amount of work and maintenance.

 

Very true. That's why I readily admit that some government and taxes are necessary, just not to the god-awful extent we have them now.

[213374U]

When businesses make money, they help me.

 

*notes sig*

 

Edited March 10, 2010 by 213374U

[I want teh kotor 3]

When businesses make money, they help me.

 

*notes sig*

 

 

[Oblarg]

When businesses make money, they help me. Government doesn't, for the most part.

 

And by "for the most part" I mean everything other than roads, cops, and the military.

 

That is the most idiotic thing I have read in ages.

 

How, exactly, do business help you by making money?