Questions for proponents of powerful centralized government.

The state can't protect us from these corporations, nor do I expect them to. I DO expect the corporations to do whatever they deem "profitable" and at anyone's expense in the name of profit. They're "connected at the hip" because (primarily) because 'corporate big bucks' supplies the cash and they take it. Remove the cash factor and you remove the problem. I know you would just like to have corporations, corporations everywhere, running everything, anyway they choose to, but some of us believe corporations put dollars of literally everything and any BODY, and need some sort of counterbalance. Bush removed so many regulations during his 8 year reign of terror, that the cancerous corporation is now embedded in the host body. Further removing the government, the regulations would only speed up the destruction and grow the cancer even bigger, faster (not that it really matters at this point). The host is barely breathing and is near death already, but, maybe some of us can get to the lifeboats before corporate interests CRUSH whatever little life that is left at this point, and a few can get away to rebuild the future after Rome burns. It buys time and a few more minutes to prepare for the final onslaught, maybe save one or two of our kids before they get eaten. For now, government somewhat still interferes with corporations, and we need the time.

 

When it declares itself a state. And that state claims to be the only group of all people to declare laws, proterty-rights and imposes monopolistic legal-tender.

The first is enough, all others will follow.

That's already happened thousands of times, and it is the ultimate destiny of any government. Our wonderful democracies are well on their way there, we just need a few more financial crisis and wars, what will follow is first peaceful demostrations, then more violent revolts and then we'll reach our destiny.

 

No, I don't want anyone "running everything," except for each person to run his own person and property, which is impossible under a monopoly of violence. The state is allowed to use violence to "run" the lives of others, while businesses aren't. That is the important distinction, not whether cash or profit are involved. It's not cash, it's not greed, it's FORCE that's the issue. In an atmosphere of violence, the most selfless saints will act as tyrants. But in an atmosphere of peace and voluntaryism, it doesn't matter how greedy you are because you can't impose yourself on others.

That is why the Left is so misguided to focus on issues of greed, money, or financial class, rather than on the one, key, crucial issue of violence versus nonviolence.

The state and state-management of the economy grew by leaps and bounds under Bush and all his predecessors going back generations. I don't have the foggiest idea where you all get this idea that Bush shrank the government because every iota of evidence demonstrates that to be the opposite of the truth.

Again, "corporations" aren't the cancer; culturally institutionalized violence is the cancer. And the great engine of culturally institutionalized violence in our society today is not any private entity. It is the state.

But you just agreed it's connected at the hip with corporations. If so, it's only going to interfere with them to privilege certain favored corporations, while crushing their competition, and every bit of extra power you hand to the state goes straight into the hands of those particular, favored corporations. You can't have it both ways.

 

Greed is a central issue, I can agree. Corporations, are by default, interested in only ONE thing. PROFIT, and MORE PROFIT (ok..2 things). That is it Bud! What goes hand in hand with more and more profit? Greed fits very nicely I'd say. If society were to have it the right wing way, where government just "gets out of the way" of the (cough, cough...job creators), how long do you think it would take to destroy society completely??? A year? Two? How long would it be before the corporation decided that, with the newly abolished regulations and government out of the way, it would be time to mandate
that 60 hour workweeks are the new standard, and that half the wage and capped by salary, to HALF the wages and hours previously used? I'd say about one day. How long would it be before employees were mandated to perform more dangerous jobs? About one minute. MORE is the key word there, and it fits together with greed, hand in hand, and the corporate agenda.
Like it or not, we NEED government to act as some sort of buffer. We DO NOT NEED the corporation. The corporation is an entity responsible only to profit...not to morality, human decency, or any other thing. JUST MORE PROFIT. The fact that they are largely connected at the hip is only a further exasperation and example of the problem. The cancer that is the corporation remains the infecting killer.

This whole concept is wrong and suicidal to society IMO. You right wing fat cats can dress it up any way you like, but it's wrong for society as a whole. It's already killed us (along with the banks, and Wall street, which essentially are all in the same venomous family). The smoke and mirrors of the big boys advocates have simply delayed the onslaught while they clean up the few remaining viable pieces of flesh amongst themselves (and while the people still sleep). I'm sure you wealthy upper tier folks will be fine regardless...society WILL NOT.

 

Law enforcement costs money. Once again: you're confusing the Conservative objection to increasing the size of Government with allowing the size of law enforcement to increase proportionately with the size of society.

The objection to increasing the size of Government comes from its proclivity to add departments and responsibilities, not merely adding law enforcement personnel to keep up with demographics.

 

We're already there.

 

How would you have someone that has little to nothing, pay for your wife and kids after he T-Bones their car and puts them all in the hospital or worse? Or should you just foot the bill yourself?

 

Sorry for late answer.

I don't know what everyone else defines freedom as, I agree with the google definition

"The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.".

A poor person cannot act without the restraints that lack of money and/or having to work hard. The amount of freedom a rich person loses by giving up some money is less than the amount of freedom that a poor person receives from that money.

However, that's all ideological. When the size of government grows and money is dissipated along the way, that's a more complex issue. That, combined with some other stuff means we will need a limit, but, being Swedish, I've seen systems work with less effective poverty than the US.

I appreciate that others might use other definitions of the word freedom. However, my beliefs are not connected to the word, but to the meaning, and the meaning above is that meaning.

 

Apparently, you haven't read what I said. I said greed WASN'T the issue. VIOLENCE is the issue. I'll say it again, violence is the issue. Violence is the issue. The issue is whether the institution is using violent means or peaceful means to achieve its ends.

If it's using peaceful means to achieve its ends, it doesn't matter how greedy the people running it are; they can't violate anyone's rights. On the other hand, if it's using violent means to achieve its ends, it doesn't matter whether its being run by Mother Theresa. It violates someone's rights by being violent.

That is why VIOLENCE IS THE ISSUE, and greed is not. And state is is the monopolist of violence. That is why you need to look towards the state to see the root of the problem: the violence. The violence. The violence.

No one is forced at the point of a gun to work at any business or to involve himself with any private entity. However, everyone IS forced to be involved with the state. That is why the state is the problem. You are forced to be under the state. You are not forced to be under any private and voluntary organization.

You're saying two mutually contradictory things. On the one hand, you're saying the state works for corporations. On the other hand, you're saying that state works to "protect" you from those very same corporations. You must pick one or the other.

Profit and human decency aren't the root issue. Violence is the root issue. And only the state has possesses self-granted permission to use violence. It does not matter whether the state is run by greedy pigs or philosopher-saints if it engages acts of VIOLENCE.

 

I disagree with that definition of freedom, but I won't argue semantics. Trespassing against someone else's person or justly-obtained property is unjust, no matter what the outcome.

Comparing two states is like comparing apples and oranges because there are countless confounding factors. For example, Sweden hasn't been in a war for 200 years, while the United States has been involved in all kinds of wars. All national economies would be better off than are now without the burden of state welfarism and economic regimentation. And it's unjust.