Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On which side, the corporations runs everything side or the government runs everything side?
That's your only thoughts, like Magritte, like dv1033, and so many others... Your world and your mind can only conceive of using force to control others - you believe there is only enslavement ,and that your version is somehow superior the "other" version you imagine other people believe in.
Like I told Magritte, there's a universe beyond that tiny speck your thoughts revolve around. The one where "the only thing that exists is force or evil".
Force IS evil.
That's why government, though necessary, must be, like all fire, very carefully restricted to its most restricted of roles - defending the individual's supremacy above all other interests. A government that can only defend the individual, cannot create a coalition of interests, and choose that coalition's interests to advance. There is no coalition of one. There is no choosing between the interests of one over another one - there are only the rights and freedoms of the individual.
Your entire world view is one of choosing whom to control for whose benefit. It seems to be the only thing you can even imagine.
Why do we need to "imagine" that. It's exactly what happens today. (Again, non-partisan comment, both sides allow/encourage it.)
Yes, but if selling votes to the highest bidder is the problem, wouldn't punishing those selling the votes be a better solution than bankrupting the bidders?
Analogy - if you want to stop all the men in town from purchasing the wares of the town prostitute, do you take away all the money from the men, or do you lock up the town prostitute? Which is the more effective solution?
Analogy - which is the preferable way to eliminate rapists from your culture: putting women in burkhas, or giving rapists the death penalty?
Analogy - 30% of America is obese. Should we outlaw food?
That's what every one of these "end cronyism by bankrupting all the cronies" suggestions reads like. Instead of punishing the politician who quite illegally and unconstitutionally sells their voting power to the highest bidder, you all seek to bankrupt the bidders. Never is there a mention of, gee, I don't know....going after scumbag politicians who indeed sell your vote for their own gain?
If wealth inequality gives these uber rich more politcal favor than you, it is because the people you consent to represent you are criminal scumbags. Uber wealthy people cannot make laws in this nation, only elected legislators can. Uber rich people cannot decide outcomes in courts of law, only judges and juries can. Uber rich people cannot enforce duly enacted laws inthis country, only executive branches of government can. If uber rich people are indeed influencing these things, it is because your elected officials are selling that influence. They are the town prostitute, and the uber rich are simply their clients.
And one need not be a billionaire to purchase political favors. A couple $grand can do that, and whole swaths of America have a couple $grand. Your elected officials are for sale, period. The solution to that problem is not destroying money so no sales can occur, but by making the sale itself a serious crime. We're so busy fighting each other over who has more stuff, we keep taking our eye off the ball, which is your elected representation selling this nation's soul right down the river.
That's your only thoughts, like Magritte, like dv1033, and so many others... Your world and your mind can only conceive of using force to control others - you believe there is only enslavement ,and that your version is somehow superior the "other" version you imagine other people believe in.
Like I told Magritte, there's a universe beyond that tiny speck your thoughts revolve around. The one where "the only thing that exists is force or evil".
Force IS evil.
That's why government, though necessary, must be, like all fire, very carefully restricted to its most restricted of roles - defending the individual's supremacy above all other interests. A government that can only defend the individual, cannot create a coalition of interests, and choose that coalition's interests to advance. There is no coalition of one. There is no choosing between the interests of one over another one - there are only the rights and freedoms of the individual.
Your entire world view is one of choosing whom to control for whose benefit. It seems to be the only thing you can even imagine.
It's time to free your mind.
This thread was, from the beginning, based upon absolute extreme. Just look at the title and premise.
If, as many on here have argued, an absolute "no regulations" system results in slavery, my assertion is that an absolute in "complete regulations" system would result in slavery.
I think going with absolute extremes as the only choices is quite silly, but I played along by showing the other side of the same coin.
I did my best to acknowledge that both sides are problematic.
They will never do anything but attack you, for any dissent threatens the power they wish to wield over others.
When you believe that power over other is virtue, I am reminded of something an author once said about those who believe they must control you:
Quote:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
-- C.S. Lewis
Liberals are the most oppressive, because they believe they are doing it "for your own good", or at least, that they are justified and in fact, obligated to impose their will to make you better.
The robber barons were merely selfish, looking for their own ends. They had no compulsion except for their own interests. Liberals, on the other hand, seek unending means of controlling you and forcing you to serve them, for they endlessly find new reasons to "better" the imperfect world - which becomes ever more imperfect as they force their imperfect will upon it.
That's what every one of these "end cronyism by bankrupting all the cronies" suggestions reads like. Instead of punishing the politician who quite illegally and unconstitutionally sells their voting power to the highest bidder, you all seek to bankrupt the bidders. Never is there a mention of, gee, I don't know....going after scumbag politicians who indeed sell your vote for their own gain?
You and I both know the problem with this argument.
Liberals don't wish to stop politicians from selling their votes to manipulate others - they just want the manipulations to be done in THEIR favor, not someone else's.
They defend the notion that politicians must take from some to give to others. They just believe their own personal superiority makes them deserve said powers and to wield them with without restraint.
They will never do anything but attack you, for any dissent threatens the power they wish to wield over others.
When you believe that power over other is virtue, I am reminded of something an author once said about those who believe they must control you:
Liberals are the most oppressive, because they believe they are doing it "for your own good", or at least, that they are justified and in fact, obligated to impose their will to make you better.
The robber barons were merely selfish, looking for their own ends. They had no compulsion except for their own interests. Liberals, on the other hand, seek unending means of controlling you and forcing you to serve them, for they endlessly find new reasons to "better" the imperfect world - which becomes ever more imperfect as they force their imperfect will upon it.
That CS Lewis quote always pops in my head whenever one of these "do you trust government more than corporations" discussions happens.
A corporation cannot demand your cooperation, must compete with others for your dollar, cannot compel your behavior, and must keep you happy or perish. A government can & does demand your cooperation, has no competition whatsoever, can & does compel your behavior, and not only cannot perish, but can rob/destroy/kill you if it suits their fancy at any given time. And still, people trust the latter more than the former, in violation of any semblance of reason.
This thread was, from the beginning, based upon absolute extreme. Just look at the title and premise.
If, as many on here have argued, an absolute "no regulations" system results in slavery, my assertion is that an absolute in "complete regulations" system would result in slavery.
I think going with absolute extremes as the only choices is quite silly, but I played along by showing the other side of the same coin.
What did I say about only imagining slavery? That your argument is about who you're a slave to, not ever comprehending slavery should not exist?
It is not about who imposes the control over others. It's about the fact that imposing said controls is always wrong.
A free market has no corporations. They are a government market intervention.
They simply won't be called "corporations".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
