Why are people so paranoid of the government but not the corporations? (dollars, party)

[Kracer]

In what communist country does the OP reside?

Govt conscripts our money and wastes it in a long tradition of misuse and then wants more. The govt sends us to war willing to sacrifice lives for dubious reasons.

Some corporations like big pharma provide life saving drugs and are a good investment for a 401k.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Randomstudent

Well if you had bothered to read my link you would see that the East India company was responsible for 2 famines worse then the Holodomor within 10 years of each other. That's right, 2 separate famines each worse then Stalin's terror famine in the Ukraine.

But hey there is no problem with government and corporations joining together.

Well let me put it a different way, as separate entities which do you think is worse?

[Randomstudent]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

Well let me put it a different way, as separate entities which do you think is worse?

If they are kept separate I think both can be a force for good especially if they both prevent the other from gaining too much influence.

[shorebaby]

Originally Posted by Rlarson21

at least the government is ELECTED by the people and it's main duty is the represent the people (though that doesn't always happen) and their main purpose is to help fix societal problems and help guide society. (and it doesn't always do this) but at least its the SETUP PURPOSE of the govenrment.

corporations answer TO THEMSELVES and the people DO NOT ELECT them and their sole purpose is SIMPLY to make money.. their PURPOSE has NOTHING TO DO with bettering society... sure they create jobs, but that's a BYPRODUCT of the whole making money thing.. it's not their purpose.

also, corporations already practically RUN a good portion of the government (you know that evil thing to be paranoid of)

why are people paranoid of the government but NOT CORPORATIONS?

makes no sense.

This can't be a serious question........

[Frank DeForrest]

Originally Posted by Randomstudent

If they are kept separate I think both can be a force for good especially if they both prevent the other from gaining too much influence.

Once you understand government must rely on violence as a means to achieve its ends, it becomes very clear that it cannot be a "force for good".

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Randomstudent

If they are kept separate I think both can be a force for good especially if they both prevent the other from gaining too much influence.

Wow way to dodge my question.

Taken seprate which is WORSE.

[Randomstudent]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

Once you understand government must rely on violence as a means to achieve its ends, it becomes very clear that it cannot be a "force for good".

Without government thuggery and violence is what happens I will take a country with a government over one without in almost all scenarios.

[Randomstudent]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

Wow way to dodge my question.

Taken seprate which is WORSE.

That is like asking is a chair or sofa worse. I don't think either is worse. They are entirely different.

[rimmerama]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

Once you understand government must rely on violence as a means to achieve its ends, it becomes very clear that it cannot be a "force for good".

So using force to apprehend and incarcerate a violent rapist is a bad thing?

[pollyrobin]

Originally Posted by CDusr

I am very aware of govt subsidies, however doesn't mean I am in favor of them. Aren't you a libertarian? If so your view surprises me.

I am a proud member of the Libertarian Party. And I am not the only
one there that wants a single payer system. It is not the party platform, to
support big government, I agree.

But, what we have today is a combination of Corporate Medicine and
Socialized Medicine intermixed, at the disadvantage of the most
productive members of society. I don't use Corporate Medicine in the
same sentence as the word Libertarian.
There is not an ounce of private enterprise in it.

I too, want the government as small as possible

But, the constitution gives our legislation branch the right to raise and support Armies, and the power to tax for the general welfare of its citizens.
I can't think of anything that describes the general welfare of a country more than its citizens' general health.
Without it, we can not have happiness, or pursuit of, or be productive members of our society.
That hasn't changed since the beginning of this nation.

If I was allowed to vote on it in the '60's, I would not have voted
for Medicare for a select group, over age 65.
Either all, or None.
At this point in time, I'm voting All, because it makes the most
economical sense. And yes, it would be constitutional.

I'm willing to pay a Medicare Payroll Tax for a single payer national
health care system. Does it make me less libertarian?
Do you really think a libertarian gives a ****