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.
"Big business' on the other hand only exists to make money. There is no other function that these businesses are even capable of as far as I know."
What you failed to consider are the lengths that "Big Business will go to make that money. "Big Business" has on numerous occasions resorted to intimidation, violence and subversion both in the U.S. and abroad to protect its "making money." You have also neglected the real fact that "Big Business" in its pursuit of "making money" knowingly ignores, and cover-ups, it willful practices that have endangered and actually killed thousands of people in the pursuit of just "making money." And finally, while government can and is all too often complicit in these corporate crimes and abuses, government remains the only institution that citizens can turn to right or prevent these injustices. So given the choice between corporations and government the answer clearly, and historically lies with the one institution that the people can bring to bear, government.
Blind obedience to the authority of a fictional entity (gov) has been the worst social construct ever.
Society doesn't have to "work". It just has to be free.
That's a pretty convenient position to take when you are born in the most powerful country and society/civilization "work".
What does "free" even mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one."
There actually is an idea out there to have a supercomputer "run" society, but I definitely don't support that. At the heart of government, the purpose is to control people by force. If you're government, your job is easiest when your subjects act like robots and do as they're told.
As Jefferson said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground." They may not be intentionally trying to take away people's freedom and choice, but it's natural for the government to do what it can to gain more control over time, because that's their job. People have consciousness and free will, and overruling their decisions in life is very dehumanizing.
If there's a big house with 10 adults living in it, would they need to choose one or two of themselves to be "in charge" of the others? I don't mean being a leader, or being looked to to make decisions, because that isn't government. I mean that they have permission to take your money to spend on things the house needs, whether you agree or not, and they have permission to lock you in the basement if you don't comply with their orders. They're also the final decider of what "the rules" are, and if you disobey any of their arbitrary rules they will come to your room with a gun, threaten to take your stuff, demand money, try to lock you in the basement, and kill you if you try to fight back.
Or, can they "self-govern" and come up with house rules without anyone having power over the rest? There will be conflicts within the house, but can they be resolved without locking people in the basement, threatening violence against them for not following orders, or taking their money by force? I say yes, and people do it all the time.
Your views a pretty clear when you believe that governments are setup up to force things on people, as the heart of the issue.
There are varying degrees of government in the present day world. People complain but not too many actually have the balls to renounce their citizenship and move to their ideal government or lack there of. A lot of your ilk come off as complaining about high class problems and don't have the experience of living in a non developed country.
You assume that there is a possibility for perfection. Perfection can never exist. There will always be flaws, mistakes, corruption, etc.
Also, the diminishing of government is wanted by BOTH, conservatives and liberals. The difference what they want to cut out. That is the only difference. And what does each party want to cut out of government? I'll give you only 2 examples, though there are countless examples. Liberals want to cut out defense, thereby leaving our country weak before all other countries. Conservatives want to cut out anything which oversees private enterprise to control corruption (which private enterprise is so incredibly good at). Conservatives wish to leave the road wide open for corporations to engage in corruption, and don't care what the end result is.
Lastly, a gigantic country (such as this one) led by a tiny government, has never existed. The only examples we have of places with tiny governments are those nightmare countries such as Somalia. I'm certain no conservative is buying tickets to head out to Somalia.
Conservatives (the most vocal of the two parties on wanting "small government"), would never wish to live in a place with a small government. What they call "small government" is the cutting out of government those things which their ideology does not like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just-passing
Not to be off topic...or maybe to get back on topic,
If a company has a quality product where it makes money and people want to buy it, it is in the company's best interest to be clean.
Anyways, people have consciences, so workers don't really want to do anything that bad, so companies tend to stay clean.
It's only when the companies really don't have much of a product, they have low turnover in senior management, there is a ton of financial inertia that will basically end people's lives if the company goes under, that things tend to go wrong.
Ironically, those are ALL of the features of government.
So basically, government is a gigantic institution with a nebulous, undefined product, virtually zero turnover in all of its extended bureaucracy...and people stand to lose their lives and livelihood if it fails.
Also, it has the power of life and death over millions of people and a permanent income in the form of taxes.
The ONLY reason a government stays efficient (much less clean) is if there is an enemy government neighboring it, and it can't connive with the government--in other words, the enemy government is worse off and likely to invade (i.e. Soviet Russia).
Otherwise, it possesses ALL of the hallmarks of corruption and dirty dealings, and no one can hold it back or watch over it.
Government IS a big business...only, you can't shut it down, and it will murder its own citizens before it closes up shop--either systematically (Stalin, Hitler), or in war (Syria, etc.).
I'll hazard a guess as to why libs trust gov: I think it might be because they don't think "government" is made up of people. They think it is a force, or a "power" rather than a human contraption.
Kindof like a god. Or a big river. And if only they can get in control of the river, then good things will happen. And if good things aren't happening, it's because the river isn't big enough.
But they don't understand--good things will only ever happen if you remove all the features of government that are a breeding ground for corruption: permanent income, no turnover, internal lives on the line of it fails, absolute authority over its citizens, nebulous product, no real profit, etc.
government remains the only institution that citizens can turn to right or prevent these injustices. So given the choice between corporations and government the answer clearly, and historically lies with the one institution that the people can bring to bear, government.
Hold on one moment.
Most of what you're saying was not just government being complicit in the actions of business, but actually in many cases the actor of the business. Those governments sold out the people harmed either for treasure or power, without those governments, then those people would not have been sold out, and the effects would have been different, how different? I don't know.
That's like expecting your neighborhood hit-man to protect you from the mob. It's not going to happen. Oh they might smooth things over for minor issues, but if the rubber hits the road, you're on your own.
For example someone mentioned Leopold II of Belgium, who formed a corporation, to effect his will in the Congo (and pay him handsome profits). Leopold II was the supreme government officer of Belgium, the corporation formed was "his" corporation following his orders and edicts. And this is the kind of guy you'd expect to turn or prevent these injustices?
Unfortunately there is little truer a word spoken than below (which bears repeating)
"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one."
That is what I see as so insane (not to be too offensive )...people have been trying this for thousands of years, using the same fundamental idea - that we need just the right arrangement or amount of violent domination to make society what it should be. Introducing violence into non-violent situations is exactly what PREVENTS a peaceful and harmonious society, and that's the only thing people want the government for in the first place. Use force to make people do as I want them to do.
People have been trying to do a lot of things for thousands of years. Until very recently, you could say the same thing for flight, space travel, the lightbulb, curing diseases, fixing broken bones, etc.
What makes you think that violence will disappear without government? If the choice is violence to protect the elites from the exploited masses, or violence to protect an otherwise harmonious egalitarian society from those who want the 'freedom' to dominate and exploit others, I choose the latter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
If you notice, society has become more "civilized" throughout history, as power becomes more decentralized. When more people have a say over their own life, and less control over others, it leads to more peaceful coexistence.
More civilized as power is decentralized??? You mean like after the fall of Rome? During the dark ages? Under feudalism?
Centralization is directly responsible for the Enlightenment and Western Europe's fluorishing over the past 500 years... I don't know how you can claim that decentralization makes people more civilized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
Your examples here are of business using government power for their benefit, and vice versa. It's like blaming the sport of boxing if one boxer takes a gun and shoots the other. The government is the gun that business can grab to get an unfair advantage over others.
My examples here were about proving to another poster that big business is just as responsible for the 'atrocities' he mentioned as governments are-- possibly even MORE responsible. Leopold II might have been the king of Belgium, but his actions in the Congo Free State were private and purely capitalistic.
And just because THIS government has been corrupted by the corporations that Reagan helped to bolster, it doesn't mean that every single form of government is nothing but a tool by which the rich oppress the poor. Even this government really isn't that bad.
Unfortunately there is little truer a word spoken than below (which bears repeating)
"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one."
^Libertarian logic is always so absolute. It appeals to people who want simple answers that make them feel good, but it never clicks with the more complex reality.
How about:
"If most men are good, but some men are evil or ambivalent, then you should probably discover what is making the latter evil or ambivalent and try to fix the problem."
I've met quite a few people in my life-- a lot of them were good, some were ambivalent... but every now and then you could come across some real *******s. And I can tell you for certain that it wasn't the government that made them that way.
The reason those people end up with the power is because our culture encourages people to give it to them. It's why Trump is so popular right now-- he's an ******* who wants to bully everyone, and Americans love it. They respect attitude, aggression and sensationalism more than they respect intelligence, morality and reason. They respect wealth and power more than compassion and decency.
This isn't because of the government, it's because of the anti-intellectual capitalist culture that caters to the worst human impulses simply because it is under no obligation to do differently, and because doing so nets the biggest profit.
The government's failure is that it has simply stood by and allowed it to happen-- all of the technological tools that could have been used to build a stronger, smarter, more enlightened society have been used to turn everyone into a nation of spoiled, stupid children who only want to be free to be as stupid, spoiled and entitled as they can get, and who would get upset if you suggested they do with less than all that they have been trained to want.
'Big business' on the other hand only exists to make money. There is no other function that these businesses are even capable of as far as I know. I'm assuming you don't mean state-owned businesses or non-profits here. Big business is always looking for ways to profit-- including worker exploitation, downsizing, corner-cutting, etc. No matter how often they fall back on 'the government forced my hand by raising taxes' or 'the economy is bad because of this or that president', THEY are always directly responsible for their actions and their actions are always in the interests of their shareholders/bottom line. If they were capable of taking an active interest in their employees' welfare instead of merely trying to attract the best talent, then they would find a way to keep people working. But they will only offer what they can get away with offering... and if they could get away with offering a lot less, they would.
.
Just like consumers. I need a new pc, will find a model I like, and purchase it at whichever store offers the best price. Staying at a 3 star hotel under same m.o. I like all 3 in a region of Priceline equally-and bid a 1 star price until a 3 star accepts it. We forget business is a group of people, so naturally they act like people do. Why pay LESS is no one's m.o.
^Libertarian logic is always so absolute. It appeals to people who want simple answers that make them feel good, but it never clicks with the more complex reality.
How about:
"If most men are good, but some men are evil or ambivalent, then you should probably discover what is making the latter evil or ambivalent and try to fix the problem."
I've met quite a few people in my life-- a lot of them were good, some were ambivalent... but every now and then you could come across some real *******s. And I can tell you for certain that it wasn't the government that made them that way.
Well you can't state that the effect of government didn't cause their behavior, they never experienced existing in a place with no government, so you cannot for certain know the possibility the two are not connected. Government also plays a large role in education, defining socially acceptable rules of conduct, etc. etc. etc. the number of variables is to great to make any accurate predictions how that person would have been had there been no government. Finally if they had lived in an area with no government you may not have had the opportunity to know them before they were removed from the gene pool.
More pertinently what you're saying doesn't contradict what I said, what you are stating doesn't need any government either. Indeed most things don't need a government, they just need people to take ownership of themselves and look out for their best interests (and who wouldn't want to do that?).
Quote:
Originally Posted by STWR
The reason those people end up with the power is because our culture encourages people to give it to them. It's why Trump is so popular right now-- he's an ******* who wants to bully everyone, and Americans love it. They respect attitude, aggression and sensationalism more than they respect intelligence, morality and reason. They respect wealth and power more than compassion and decency.
Trump is a symptom of the government. The issue is that for at least 8 years and maybe more a large underclass has developed of disenfranchised people who now feel they have a voice. How were these people disenfranchised? Because they felt they were not being heard, true or not, that's the feeling. He happens to represent that voice, and is a direct product of the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by STWR
This isn't because of the government, it's because of the anti-intellectual capitalist culture that caters to the worst human impulses simply because it is under no obligation to do differently, and because doing so nets the biggest profit.
It is because of government, Trump is currently "trumping" everyone in the GOP because he's saying the right things to the most people. The people are the one's who you need to look at, Trump is just a mouthpiece and is saying things that resonate with them (regardless of whether they're correct or not). Why do those people feel that way, do they not deserve to have their concerns addressed, should we force them to follow your, my, or some other person's concept of what society looks like?
The anti-intellectual capitalist culture that brought you operating systems, and online retail, and online banking, and NetFlix, the anti-intellectual capitalist culture that brought you Social Media.
Or perhaps it's not anti-intellectual, but just not the right kind of intellectual.
Furthermore, don't blame the companies for providing goods, services and profits for what you consider the worst human impulses, blame the people buying those goods, services and receiving those profits. You want to buy an iPhone, or a game console or a car, but you don't want to pay the price it would cost to make it here, so what is a company going to do? Either not provide it, or use cheaper labor. Your demand is what's driving the companies to offshore, with your price limits. You want these things, you may think you need these things, but you don't want to pay for these things at the prices you would be asked for if they weren't made in Taiwan, China, South Korea or India.
Profits are good for the company, and good for the employees, and good for the economy, you can take some of those profits in taxes, but then some will not be reinvested, or distributed to shareholders who will then themselves reinvest it, or distribute in by obtaining goods and services. Take the whole global income the US taxes on (in a group of two the other being Eritrea), why isn't it being repatriated, because of taxes, if it were then companies could use it to invest in the US, build facilities, even if they just fritter it away on booze, blow and hookers, the money is entering the US economy, because bartenders are paid, drug dealers are paid and need to buy white market goods, and hookers get paid and again need white market goods. Someone is getting paid, and with that pay they're paying others, and buying goods or services, and those people are buying goods and services and paying for them. However it's sitting off shore used to invest or fritter away in other countries, not the US. How is that the fault of companies? Don't you try to minimize your tax burden? Why should they not?
Someone once told me a long time ago, be careful when you point at someone to complain, because whenever you do, there are always three fingers pointing back at you (unless you lost a finger somewhere).
Quote:
Originally Posted by STWR
The government's failure is that it has simply stood by and allowed it to happen-- all of the technological tools that could have been used to build a stronger, smarter, more enlightened society have been used to turn everyone into a nation of spoiled, stupid children who only want to be free to be as stupid, spoiled and entitled as they can get, and who would get upset if you suggested they do with less than all that they have been trained to want.
What could the government do to prevent it, you're complaining about Trump and his supporters (and they're not an insignificant number), what would you have done to prevent it happening? Suppress them? Force them to come to the same conclusions you have? That doesn't sound like the kind of government we have, or the kind of government I'd be comfortable with.
Where were the prosecutions for the SPMC? Was that the government standing by, or being in collusion? I mean the SEC thought there was grounds, but no, why bother...? What about the Invasion of Iraq? Was that the government standing by? I mean we kind of knew that they really weren't that connected to the 9/11 attacks, but hey, lets go garner some more support for the petrodollar. Yeah, and we have a former East German, who is accusing our government of acting like the Stasi (and who but an East German would now how the Stasi really acted, except for the people watching them), yes this is the bastion of liberty and freedom, the US of A, being accused of having surveillance that equals the former communist authoritarian East Germany. Look only a fool or the really gullible believes half of what the government is saying, and needs to take the other half with a strong dose of salt. If they're not telling us what's going on, how can we make informed decisions about the right courses for our country? How can we determine who is or is not representing us? It's not this administration, or the previous administration, some if from Bill Clinton's time, some from Reagan's, it probably goes back to at least Carter maybe even to Nixon or LBJ. When there's that much disconnection between what your government is doing and what you want your government to be doing, then you really need to examine whether it's purely coincidental and through ignorance, or whether it's intentional to keep you pacified.
So I have a healthy distrust of corps, and a healthy distrust of government. Fortunately I understand the motivations of corps, so in general I can either stay out of their way, or benefit from those motivations. Governments... Not so much.
The OP wrote: I would just like to know why liberals trust "government" as a concept more than "big business" as a concept. I am giving liberals far more ground here because I could have said that liberals trust the government more than business, but instead, I said "Big Business" which should allow liberals to present a far more convincing argument to trust "government" over "big business."
*shakes head* No. Wait. What?
Forget throwing us the table scrap "big business." All that does is make your question completely meaningless. As in:
I would like to know why conservatives trust "business" as a concept more than "big government" as a concept. I am giving conservatives far more ground here because I could have said that conservatives trust business more than government, but etc., etc.
So, just why DO you conservatives trust the CEO's of Goldmann Sachs more than you do John and Sam and Julie down at the local town council? Hmmmmmmmm? You know, I can walk right into Sam's (the Mayor's) office without even having an appointment, and we'll talk my concerns over right then and there. You sure can't do that with Mr. Goldmann OR Mr. Sachs - never mind get an appointment with either one of them.
And how about that time we went to a town hall meeting and asked them to put that zoning issue on the next meeting agenda? Remember how they called a special meeting just because we voiced those concerns of ours and got some signatures on a petition? Then Remember how well that went over when we tried to go over and express our concerns about the bail-out to Goldmann and Sachs? Remember how we couldn't even get past the security guard at their executive office there on Wall Street?
So, tell me. Why do you conservatives trust representative government of by and for the people so little, and the power plays and con games of a multinational financial institution so much? Plus, I'm dying to know why you conservatives lick the feet of the criminals STILL running the too big to fail outfits, but you can't even be bothered to attend a local meeting to get a zoning variance for an honest little Mom amd Pop restaurant to stay in business two streets over from you?
Bonus question: Is there any intelligent life on the CD politics forum?
Wow, I'd say your name is pretty perfect description
Most intelligent people study history and some, still living, have witnessed the atrocities committed by "government." Tell me why someone should trust an entity that counts the Khmer Rouge and Nazism in its fold, over Walmart and Costco.
Looks like you don't even trust our founding fathers to give them the incredible credit that they deserve in forming a "more perfect union." Is this the part where you wrap yourself in the American flag and then bash our government at the same time?
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.
)...people have been trying this for thousands of years, using the same fundamental idea - that we need just the right arrangement or amount of violent domination to make society what it should be. Introducing violence into non-violent situations is exactly what PREVENTS a peaceful and harmonious society, and that's the only thing people want the government for in the first place. Use force to make people do as I want them to do.
