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.
Wrong. While corruption exist in both, the government has a monopoly on violence that certainly isn't found in the private sector
I don't follow you. Violence is a by product of being human which has nothing to do with public or private. If you are claiming if the private sector ran more of the world it would be less violent than I don't agree at all. Private armies and militaries aren't anything new...
Wrong. While corruption exist in both, the government has a monopoly on violence that certainly isn't found in the private sector
I still don't understand how someone who is so keenly aware of the government being a sham enterprise can't grasp the fact there is no separation between the public and private sector. It's one entity.
The "private sector" must first comply with the billions and billions of regulations/ordinances set forth by the government...at all levels. Then it must conduct itself using the means of production the government allows it to have. Finally, it must operate on a daily basis within the confines of strict rules set forth by the government (wages, temp to store meat at, x minutes for breaks for minors, etc).
That is how we get our current oligarchy. A few conglomerates and their lobbyist henchmen write the laws, direct enforcement, and divide up the resources the government has stolen from us at gunpoint.
Then the "private sector" business fall in line and...well...do business. But the private sector is merely an arm of the government's totalitarian stranglehold. Apple doesn't do business to first serve customers. Apple's first order of business is no influence their "partners" (your reps) to write laws, enforce laws, and give them resources (our resources) to form a monopoly.
Then Apple strategically operates to maximize profit by manipulating "regulation" to ensure future market share.
Yes, in the process the consumer gets goods.
But the idea that Apple or any other large company (or a small one who understands how to work the system on a micro level) would HATE to not have the government in their business lives. The government is a monopoly. A patsy. And a *****.
The alternative is a true free market where government can't create monopolies/unfair advantages for certain folks.
I was getting involved in local politics and was considering for public office. But I am now convinced that everyone in govt at any level is a crook, liar and cheat. And I don't consider myself any of those nor do I care to associate with such people so I will snipe from the sidelines.
I've worked for two city governments. One was simply a good-ole-boys feather-nesting playground (and I learned to smile, nod and keep on movin'). The second was the most toxic environment you could imagine. Finally got so burned out that I moved on to do something else (small business owner). Couldn't handle the crap anymore.
I was getting involved in local politics and was considering for public office. But I am now convinced that everyone in govt at any level is a crook, liar and cheat. And I don't consider myself any of those nor do I care to associate with such people so I will snipe from the sidelines.
Location: When you take flak it means you are on target
7,646 posts, read 9,950,661 times
Reputation: 16466
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Those people are everywhere, open your eyes.
Yes they are. Actually my town has a pretty good local council, I've no complaints, though I think they do some dumb stuff with OUR money without sufficient forethought. At the State level in AZ we have some problems. We still aren't Commiefornia which has to be one of the most corrupt places now west of New York.
The old adage applies: Then that has, gets. Them that has most, gets more. Them that has the least gives the most and gets nothing.
The raw truth is simple; What some people, typically the ones that cannot afford to play, consider completely corrupt, is what the players consider the system.
This is the system being challenged, sort of, by The Donald that can use his own ill gotten money to challenge the Republican establishment that own their game for control. The other challenge is by Senator Sanders who is trying to avoid the big bribes by financing a campaign with millions of small donors. He is facing in the primary the ultimate player that has become really wealthy from the bribe dominant system.
Our government was originally set up to protect the privilege of land owning plutocrats and has continued to exist to protect the privilege of money owning plutocrats. It has never been designed to provide for the masses that create the wealth that the plutocrats concentrate into their own coffers. The really sad part of current and most previous times is we really do have the best government money can buy.
I don't follow you. Violence is a by product of being human which has nothing to do with public or private. If you are claiming if the private sector ran more of the world it would be less violent than I don't agree at all. Private armies and militaries aren't anything new...
The state/public sector is the only group allowed to use force to make people do what they want. They are funded by taxation, not consensual trade, and they're the only people in society with permission to do that. There are criminals who do it, but they don't have permission to do it and are condemned for it in society. That's how the government has a monopoly on the initiation of force.
Since the public sector is also made up of human beings, I think people should apply the same rules to them as anyone else instead of making moral exceptions. (And yes, that means no public sector, which was discussed in a recent thread)
The state/public sector is the only group allowed to use force to make people do what they want. They are funded by taxation, not consensual trade, and they're the only people in society with permission to do that. There are criminals who do it, but they don't have permission to do it and are condemned for it in society. That's how the government has a monopoly on the initiation of force.
Since the public sector is also made up of human beings, I think people should apply the same rules to them as anyone else instead of making moral exceptions. (And yes, that means no public sector, which was discussed in a recent thread).
Dude you need to learn a little about history before the time of nations.
And yet, you keep voting in the same crapola you voted for the last time. So, who's a fault here? The government, or the people who voted these a**hats in?
And they're doing it again, and the same sheep are following after the guy with the same wrong, stupid simple answers.
Stop voting for the sound bites.
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.
