What role should the government play in society?

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
What role should the government play in society?

With all the talk of Socialism vs Capitalism, I want to know what role should the government play in society and why?

 

 

For me, I am a Capitalist. All the government should do is:

 

1] Keep the peace, provide services such as police/fire/ambulance and health care, but also open those up to competition. For example a public hospital and a private hospital. If the private hospital wants your cash, then it would have to provide adequate service. If you so choose a private hospital, then you can get insurance through a private company, and opt out of taxes for the health care. That way if [or should I say when] the government lets the health care go to shit, there is alternatives. Competition is key for Capitalism.

 

2] Limit the laws it can pass, so that lobbying will either be illegal or pointless. If the government is limited as to what laws it can pass, then lobbying is pointless. There will be no more lobbyists to petition for the government to basically outlaw their competition.

 

 

I mean do we need laws of course, but do we need so many?  Do we really need the government to decide what is good or not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3605
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  I hope mrjonno posts his

  I hope mrjonno posts his opinions on this thread.  If I remember correctly his views upon the role of government are positively orwellian.

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  I

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  I hope mrjonno posts his opinions on this thread.  If I remember correctly his views upon the role of government are positively orwellian.

 

Is he the one who keeps denying that there is any difference at all between government and all of society? Or was it someone else who keeps claiming that the idea that government and society are two different things is wrong and uniquely American?

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  I

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  I hope mrjonno posts his opinions on this thread.  If I remember correctly his views upon the role of government are positively orwellian.

 

 

I'm just glad Matt's not here.

 

 

 


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
But Matt was so much fun in

But Matt was so much fun in a 'let's make the crazy person crazier' way.

 

As per your original question.  I am a strict capitalistic meritocratic randian monstrosity in favor of treating corporations like they are gladiators in the pits, at least today, maybe.  

The government is just another institution used to gain an advantage over others*.

*I define 'others' VERY widely, or rather, I define 'not-others**' first, and its definition varies as my mood, and others are everyone and everything that is not a not-other.

**Its your own fault for bringing up Orwell***.

***So While I was writing this, I thought 'Hey, wouldn't it be awesome to write the whole post in Newspeak?' But then I was like; 'But I don't know Newspeak enough to translate.' Then I was like "I'll search for an online translater' And I found one, And I was then like 'Awesome!' And then it turned out it just translated the stuff into modern politically correct lingo, and not 1984's newspeak at all, so I was all like 'Awwwwwwww.'

 

That is all.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Democratic Socialist all the

Democratic Socialist all the way. (Fuck any refernce to the Brown Shirts.)


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Government is a fundamental

Government is a fundamental party of society and its role is whatever those members of such a society want it to be.

Membership is optional but the only way to not be a member is to leave such a society (ie emmigrate into another society)

Obviously its role is a pretty big topic but general we tend to have elections every 4-5 years to determine that


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
All laws should expire

All laws should expire every ten years. And I do mean every single one, including the big ones like murder and robbing banks.

 

Done that way, the really important laws (like the ones which I mentioned above) could be renewed on a simple voice vote. But only if they keep them simple enough that nobody really want to talk them up. Then too, if something does need to be discussed at some length, they can do that but they do so at the risk of taking time away from other matters that may need attention as well.

 

Also, administrative law needs to be severely curtailed. Those should expire every two years. Basically, no government agency should have the power to pass permanent rulings but rather should be required to decide how many rules they can manage while still doing the main job for which they were created.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I wonder how long it would

 I wonder how long it would take to simply read every law on the books and vote with a simple yea/nay.

Decades, at least.  Probably a lot longer.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Im for capitalism (mainly)

Im for capitalism (mainly) but I do believe the government has the responsibility to provide food, shelter, water, etc. all basic needs to all those that cannot afford it, in here I would also included education. I don't like the idea of giving them money but rather a food stamp system and public taps etc. It is the governments responsibility that everyone can start off on a roughly level playing field. Maybe in America you are half way there but in poorer countries that is far from the case. 

 

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
The goal should be to insure

The goal should be to insure that all interactions between humans(intra-species) and between humans other species are part of a relationship that is either mutualistic or commensal in nature. Also, ensure that the competition for limited natural resources is equatable.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Well, in my mind, 'the

Well, in my mind, 'the government' represents the strength of a collective enterprise at a national level as well as symbolizes the goals and values of the public through it's legislation. It's a precipitate of the social zeitgeist.

What 'should' it do? Well, I don't know; what premise are you hiding?

Quote:
I mean do we need laws of course, but do we need so many?  Do we really need the government to decide what is good or not?

No, I imagine we don't need as many superficial laws as are currently employed. Now, on the other hand, if we want to protect those in diadvantageous positions and prevent those in advantageous positions from essentially seizing control of the collective, legislative controls are demonstrably an excellent tool to use (which makes their abuse so abhorrent).

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
I suppose you could plug me

I suppose you could plug me in with the socialists...

 

I view the governments purpose to be that of a "safety net" to those of a society, and to provide the societies infrastructure.

 

Health care

Emergency services

Armed forces

National Development

Welfare

etc

 

If it can meet the "safety net" standard without infringeing on my rights/ ability to do things, then im a happy.

For instance, if i wish to... drive without a seat belt, i should be able to. No law should say that i MUST wear one, while driving, and the government must still provide me with healthcare after an accident without one (assuming i live).

 

(... this is Doomy, and i did indeed write this message...  )

 

 

What Would Kharn Do?


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Doomy, this is somewhat

Doomy, this is somewhat unrelated to this thread, but...

 

...Just wear the Goddamn seatbelt. It's not you I care about; it's the person your ricocheting corpse slams into.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:What

Kevin R Brown wrote:

What 'should' it do? Well, I don't know; what premise are you hiding?

 

None

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

No, I imagine we don't need as many superficial laws as are currently employed. Now, on the other hand, if we want to protect those in diadvantageous positions and prevent those in advantageous positions from essentially seizing control of the collective, legislative controls are demonstrably an excellent tool to use (which makes their abuse so abhorrent).

 

 

But said people in the advantage position can use the government as leverage. Reference Haliburton.

 

Did Haliburton BID for those contracts?

Does Haliburton have competition?

 

The answer is "no" and they are using the government as leverage to take screw over those who have "disadvantages"

 

 

 

 

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:But said people in the

Quote:

But said people in the advantage position can use the government as leverage. Reference Haliburton.

 

Did Haliburton BID for those contracts?

Does Haliburton have competition?

 

The answer is "no" and they are using the government as leverage to take screw over those who have "disadvantages"

...And how is this a socialist problem?

Haliburton is a private corporation that has, essentially (much in the same way as weapons manufacturers like Lockheed Martin), infiltrated the U.S. government due to their enormous amount of clout. Why did Dick Cheney give preferential treatment to Haliburton? Because it made him a ton of capital.

Legislation (that was actually enforced) against this type of infiltration and de facto control over government activity would arguably help to prevent it from happening, reigning-in situations of runaway success and practices designed to create markets that are hostile to any form of competition.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:...And

Kevin R Brown wrote:

...And how is this a socialist problem?

Haliburton is a private corporation that has, essentially (much in the same way as weapons manufacturers like Lockheed Martin), infiltrated the U.S. government due to their enormous amount of clout. Why did Dick Cheney give preferential treatment to Haliburton? Because it made him a ton of capital.

Legislation (that was actually enforced) against this type of infiltration and de facto control over government activity would arguably help to prevent it from happening, reigning-in situations of runaway success and practices designed to create markets that are hostile to any form of competition.

 

It's a socialist problem due to:

 

The U.S government literally outlawed Haliburton's competition in Iraq. Ergo Haliburton could do whatever the fuck it wanted and thanks to Uncle Sam, could get away with it.

 

It was pretty much illegal to get rid of Haliburton.

 

In a Capatialist market, Haliburton would have had competition and the government wouldn't be able to protect them since the contracts would be up for bid and ergo contitional that Haliburton fits the job. Once Haliburton fails to fulfill that oligation or does something unethical, a new company would step in and Haliburton's head would be on a post as an example.

 

 

 

Why do government programs fail? No competition. The government basically outlaws it. There is no point in doing anything else.

 

Ever hear the slogan.

 

"Government services. We don't care, because we don't have to."

 

And they don't, because you HAVE to go to them.

 

Why do cell phones have so many features? Competition. If you HAD to buy from Verizion, then Verizion has no incentive to improve. But if you throw in Sprint, then people have choices and if Verizion or Sprint want your money, they would need to offer more features and improve.

 

 

 


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
wait wait... wooooh...

wait wait... wooooh... Pineapple, your saying that the whole Haliburton (and co.) debacle was a socialist problem?

 

Its was Capitalism at its BEST. A company rose up to the point where it litterally used the government as a fucking resource to secure its hold on the market, totally fucking capitalism, they won the game. (not that im against capitalism by any means)

What Would Kharn Do?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:wait

The Doomed Soul wrote:

wait wait... wooooh... Pineapple, your saying that the whole Haliburton (and co.) debacle was a socialist problem?

 

Its was Capitalism at its BEST. A company rose up to the point where it litterally used the government as a fucking resource to secure its hold on the market, totally fucking capitalism, they won the game. (not that im against capitalism by any means)

 

It involved the government and government policies.

 

For example the contracts where no bid. That goes against Capitalism. Capitalism entails competition.

 

 

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The U.S government

Quote:
The U.S government literally outlawed Haliburton's competition in Iraq. Ergo Haliburton could do whatever the fuck it wanted and thanks to Uncle Sam, could get away with it.

The U.S. government under the direction of Dick Cheney, the former CEO of Haliburton.

It was in the best interests of Cheney (in terms of capital) to encompass the defeat of his company's competition. Again, it's not as if this was 3rd party intervention by the government; Haliburton had, for all intents and purposes, infiltrated the government. When we look at things from that frame, we see that it wasn't the government acting at all - it was Haliburton pulling the strings, with the government acting only as a proxy.

Quote:
In a Capatialist market, Haliburton would have had competition and the government wouldn't be able to protect them since the contracts would be up for bid and ergo contitional that Haliburton fits the job. Once Haliburton fails to fulfill that oligation or does something unethical, a new company would step in and Haliburton's head would be on a post as an example.

The U.S. has a capitalist market. Despite that, this scenario you describe did not occur.

...I don't get why you would think this is somehow a good argument in favor of capitalism?

 

Competition is terrific... right up until there is a clear victor, and to them go the proverbial spoils. Haliburton found and exploited a way to out-compete it's rivals. Saying that the government 'protected' them, again, is a stretch at best and a lie at worst. Haliburton took control of the government, using them as an asset to improve their competitiveness to the point where they essentially became the industry equivalent of a super predator.

Quote:

Why do government programs fail? No competition. The government basically outlaws it. There is no point in doing anything else.

 

Ever hear the slogan.

 

"Government services. We don't care, because we don't have to."

 

...Ever hear the slogan, "The only good Jew is a dead Jew?"

Slogans aren't a terribly good foundation for a rational argument.

 

Government programs don't always 'fail' automatically. There are good programs (NASA and our constitution come to mind) and there are bad programs; an artifact of humans being imperfect but still desiring achievement.

What about Open Source projects? They don't always fail, yet they don't fiscally compete with other entities. The GIMP, the various Linux operating systems, Open Office, etc are all excellent programs that were created without any motivation created by competition for capital.

 

Quote:

And they don't, because you HAVE to go to them.

So if anyone has a more or less exclusive line of products, they won't care enough about them to ever improve on them? Have you ever, like, built anything, Alison, out of curiosity?

 

Quote:
Why do cell phones have so many features? Competition. If you HAD to buy from Verizion, then Verizion has no incentive to improve. But if you throw in Sprint, then people have choices and if Verizion or Sprint want your money, they would need to offer more features and improve.

Verizon's engineers likely have plenty of motivation on their own to continue improving their products and adding new features. There is certainly an element of progress that is assisted by competition, but even at that, it only exists so long as the competitors remain relatively close to each other.

I mean, let's take a look at home video gaming consoles. The video game crash of 1983 was caused explicitly by an over abundance of competitors and competition practices, and the influx of competing companies did not assist in making a greater number of high quality games - rather, it flooded retailers with a glut of mediocre or worse titles and alienated gamers. The Nintendo Famicon was created by a playing card company in Japan well after the crash, and not because they wanted to out-compete other playing card compnies: the owner simply wanted to take his company in a new direction. The 8-bit era and onward (where Sega, then Sony, then Microsoft entered the fray as competing bodies) was certainly, again, driven in part by competition, but that's not to say that we'd all somehow still be playing an 8-bit NES if not for Nintendo having other entities to combat (Look at handheld consoles. Nintendo dominsated that market for so long that they may as well have had it all to themselves. Yet the GameBoy still continued to see upgrades and new features added as the technology improved).

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:For example the

Quote:
For example the contracts where no bid. That goes against Capitalism. Capitalism entails competition.

Elaborate, please?

 

Haliburton's strategy (and a rather good one) was to deny their competitors the ability to bid. How does that not count as being a competitive maneuver against your opposition?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:It

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

It involved the government and government policies.

 

For example the contracts where no bid. That goes against Capitalism. Capitalism entails competition.

Capitalism entails competition huh?

 

 

A company gains (for all intents and purposes) direct control of a certain market, its powerful enough to have bought out / used governments to do it.

That is capitalism, thats the very endgame. Is it capitalistic for a government to step in and give formerly "nobody's" the power to direct oppose Hailburton as competition? ... no... that lil lady, is more socialist then anything else

 

Lets run this through an example

 

(H)aliburton

(S)omecompany

(i)diotcompany

 

H-S-i all fight the corporate game, the capitalist way

Haliburton is in the lead enough to spread its influence

Haliburtons influences allows it to then directs obstruct (S) & (i)'s business

Haliburton eventually wins out, destroys its competition.

(This is Capitalism, no holds barred, survival of the fittest, in the business world)

 

Now... say 5 years down the road company (N)oob pops up, and tries to gain its share of the market...

It can try, but its most likely gonna fail due to Haliburtons grip...

But say the government intervenes and places company (N) with extra funding, lax taxes, or even leeway laws. It can now compete more evenly with Haliburton. This is no longer capitalism...

 

So what was it, you supported again Pineapple? o_O?

What Would Kharn Do?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:It was

Kevin R Brown wrote:

It was in the best interests of Cheney (in terms of capital) to encompass the defeat of his company's competition. Again, it's not as if this was 3rd party intervention by the government; Haliburton had, for all intents and purposes, infiltrated the government. When we look at things from that frame, we see that it wasn't the government acting at all - it was Haliburton pulling the strings, with the government acting only as a proxy.

 

 

That is precisely the point Kevin. Under socialism the government has lots of power that it can abuse. If the government was limited, then Haliburton wouldn't have been able to get infiltrate the government, since it would have been useless if the government didn't have that much power.

 

Kevin R Brwon wrote:

The U.S. has a capitalist market. Despite that, this scenario you describe did not occur.

...I don't get why you would think this is somehow a good argument in favor of capitalism?

 

 

What other companies bid for those contracts? Did the government even tell other companies about those contracts, or did they just hand them to Haliburton?

 

That isn't a capialist market.

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Competition is terrific... right up until there is a clear victor, and to them go the proverbial spoils. Haliburton found and exploited a way to out-compete it's rivals. Saying that the government 'protected' them, again, is a stretch at best and a lie at worst. Haliburton took control of the government, using them as an asset to improve their competitiveness to the point where they essentially became the industry equivalent of a super predator.

 

 

What Haliburton did was illegal. If they had tried to pull that in a Captalist market, they would be in prison.

 

In Socialist since it's the government that makes the laws, they have power, and are vunerable to thugs like Haliburton illegally squashing competition.

 

It's called selective enforcement. The government enforces the laws that it chooses. Since as you mention Haliburton took control of the government, Haliburton could break all the laws it wanted since it has the government in it's pocket.

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

...Ever hear the slogan, "The only good Jew is a dead Jew?"

Slogans aren't a terribly good foundation for a rational argument.

 

Government programs don't always 'fail' automatically. There are good programs (NASA and our constitution come to mind) and there are bad programs; an artifact of humans being imperfect but still desiring achievement.

What about Open Source projects? They don't always fail, yet they don't fiscally compete with other entities. The GIMP, the various Linux operating systems, Open Office, etc are all excellent programs that were created without any motivation created by competition for capital.

 

 

 

 

Speaking of NASA Columbia? Challenger?

 

Do you know how long it takes for the government to learn from it's mistakes?

 

 

Quote:

So if anyone has a more or less exclusive line of products, they won't care enough about them to ever improve on them? Have you ever, like, built anything, Alison, out of curiosity?

 

 

With compeition it we would get it faster and better.

 

 

Quote:

I mean, let's take a look at home video gaming consoles. The video game crash of 1983 was caused explicitly by an over abundance of competitors and competition practices, and the influx of competing companies did not assist in making a greater number of high quality games - rather, it flooded retailers with a glut of mediocre or worse titles and alienated gamers. The Nintendo Famicon was created by a playing card company in Japan well after the crash, and not because they wanted to out-compete other playing card compnies: the owner simply wanted to take his company in a new direction. The 8-bit era and onward (where Sega, then Sony, then Microsoft entered the fray as competing bodies) was certainly, again, driven in part by competition, but that's not to say that we'd all somehow still be playing an 8-bit NES if not for Nintendo having other entities to combat (Look at handheld consoles. Nintendo dominsated that market for so long that they may as well have had it all to themselves. Yet the GameBoy still continued to see upgrades and new features added as the technology improved).

 

The Famicon would have made the company more money. Hence they didn't create and design it because they were bored


they did it to make money. To increase profits.

 

 

I'm not saying that competition is the only way to get developments, I'm, saying with compeition, we are more likely to get them faster and better than no competition.

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Elaborate, please?

 

Haliburton's strategy (and a rather good one) was to deny their competitors the ability to bid. How does that not count as being a competitive maneuver against your opposition?

 

Well first off, as you've pointed out they used the government to deny their competitors.

 

Second of all, no bid contracts are illegal.

 

 

 

In other words, they used the government to do it. Which is unlikely to happen in a Captalist market, since all the contracts would have been up for bid and other companies ready to swoop in if Haliburton fucked up.

 

 

I just don't get it. As you say the government can get bought off by a company that has enough money, yet you want to give the government MORE power? You might as well have made Haliburton congress.

 

 

 

 

 


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
 You keep saying stuff is

 You keep saying stuff is illegal.

Who says it is illegal?  And how do they enforce that statement?

Frankly, a Capitalist society does not necessitate Competition, because once you've won, you've won until you stagnate or do something stupid.  A full Capitalist society would not have anti-trust laws, to the winner would go the spoils, and those spoils are obtained through any means necessary.

Halliburton gaining control over the government was Capitalism at its finest.  They found themselves with an advantage, and ruthlessly exploited it to benefit themselves as much as possible, screwing everyone else over in the process, and leaving the mess they made for someone else to clean up.  There is no higher form of Capitalism than that.  It was not socialism that gave Halliburton exclusivity.  Yes, if the government had been weaker, Halliburton might not have had as much of an advantage, but regardless, the Government was the one offering the job, so no matter how weak they were, Halliburton still would have profited.

In its purest form, Capitalism would necessitate humanity becoming a plague of locusts, ravenously devouring everything around us as we leave behind dead worlds and shattered lives, seeing any who stood before us weeping in the anguish of defeat.*

Also, from Wikipedia;

Wikipedia article; Space Shuttle wrote:

Total launches 125
Successes 124
Failures 1 (launch explosion, Challenger)
Other 1 (re-entry failure, Columbia)

Don't cherry pick two examples to make it sound like they are just a bunch of incompetent morons sitting around on their hands going "Duuhuuhh We're good where we are thanks" because there aren't any soviets around for them to make funny faces from the moon at.

Quote:
Do you know how long it takes for the government to learn from it's mistakes?

I'm sorry, but what exactly about 'the government' makes everyone working for it retarded?  Why are corporations or private businesses somehow immune to this?  When you get right down to it, the only difference between a Corporation and a Nation is scale, and that difference is shrinking rapidly.

*This paragraph is essentially just here to try to turn The Doomed Soul into a Capitalist.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
I think that we should

I think that we should distingish between capitalism and corporatism. Anti-free market corporatist policies aren't capitalist in my view. When a politically well connected company and the government team up to use laws to drive the competition out of business, that is not free market capitalism. The government destroying competition is the exact opposite of a free market. The Bush administration was actually against the free market and instead favored corporatist attacks on capitalism. The only thing worse for the free market than left-wing socialism is stealth right-wing socialism. At least those on the left are open about wanting to limit competition. And they want to limit it for our good. The right seems to want to limit competition out of a sense of greed. And they want to lie to you about how much they love capitalism while they do it. At least Bush admited that he abandoned all of his free-market ideals. But he admitted that days before he left office and it was to late to do anything about it.

Oh well: fools to the left of me; jackals to the right.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote:I'm sorry,

Sinphanius wrote:

I'm sorry, but what exactly about 'the government' makes everyone working for it retarded?  Why are corporations or private businesses somehow immune to this?  When you get right down to it, the only difference between a Corporation and a Nation is scale, and that difference is shrinking rapidly.

*This paragraph is essentially just here to try to turn The Doomed Soul into a Capitalist.

 

 

It's easier to get rid of a corupt corporation full of morons, than it is to get rid of a government full of morons.

 

The Presidency lasts 4 years and it is extremely difficult to get a new one. It is far easier to switch corporations.

 

I'm not saying that corporations don't have morons or retards, but those don't tend to last as long as the government morons and retards.

 

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:I think

Jormungander wrote:

I think that we should distingish between capitalism and corporatism. Anti-free market corporatist policies aren't capitalist in my view. When a politically well connected company and the government team up to use laws to drive the competition out of business, that is not free market capitalism. The government destroying competition is the exact opposite of a free market. The Bush administration was actually against the free market and instead favored corporatist attacks on capitalism. The only thing worse for the free market than left-wing socialism is stealth right-wing socialism. At least those on the left are open about wanting to limit competition. And they want to limit it for our good. The right seems to want to limit competition out of a sense of greed. And they want to lie to you about how much they love capitalism while they do it. At least Bush admited that he abandoned all of his free-market ideals. But he admitted that days before he left office and it was to late to do anything about it.

 

Well put

 

Jormungander wrote:

Oh well: fools to the left of me; jackals to the right.

 

It's jokers, not jackels.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Speaking of NASA

Quote:
Speaking of NASA Columbia? Challenger?

What about them? Two accidents in a long history of incredibly risky business is one Hell of an achievement. Ejecting manned vehicles from the Earth's gravity well isn't exactly an easy task (or so I'm told).

Quote:
It's easier to get rid of a corupt corporation full of morons, than it is to get rid of a government full of morons.

If it's so easy to get rid of corrupt corporate entities, why hasn't Halliburton been dealt with? Or Lockheed Martin? Or Exxon Mobil? Or Union Carbide? What about the privately owned banks?

The U.S. just exchanged governments; how long has it been since they exchanged their major corporations? Most of these entities are old timers; Union Carbide was founded in 1917.

 

I don't understand your argument. Because corporations can seize control of the government in order to beat the snot out of their competitors (a la laissez faire capitalism)... the government is at fault?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I think that we should

Quote:
I think that we should distingish between capitalism and corporatism. Anti-free market corporatist policies aren't capitalist in my view. When a politically well connected company and the government team up to use laws to drive the competition out of business, that is not free market capitalism. The government destroying competition is the exact opposite of a free market.

Ah. Yes. 'Corporatism'.

*Rolls eyes*

 

Explain (since Alison will not): How is using your clout to manipulate the government not acting competitively? I mean, the idea of competing with someone is to defeat them, right? And the idea of free market competition is that you're more or less free to beat your competition however you please (thus 'laissez faire' capitalism)?

So? How is Halliburton not simply acting in it's best, capitalistic interests (that is, interest in acquiring more capital) by manipulating the government? Again, you're attempting to pretend that the government and Halliburton were collaborating when that's not the case; the government was Halliburton.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:I don't

Kevin R Brown wrote:

I don't understand your argument. Because corporations can seize control of the government in order to beat the snot out of their competitors (a la laissez faire capitalism)... the government is at fault?

 

 

As pointed out by Jormungander, I wouldn't call that Capatilism.

 

At any rate it shows the government has far too much power. And yet socialists want to give it MORE power.

 

Read my OP

 

I wrote:

2] Limit the laws it can pass, so that lobbying will either be illegal or pointless. If the government is limited as to what laws it can pass, then lobbying is pointless. There will be no more lobbyists to petition for the government to basically outlaw their competition.

 

 

Also ironically the corporations you mentioned are *ahem* well connected within the government.

 

 

 

 

 

 


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:It's

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

It's easier to get rid of a corupt corporation full of morons, than it is to get rid of a government full of morons.

The Presidency lasts 4 years and it is extremely difficult to get a new one. It is far easier to switch corporations.

 

When was the last time some one pull a "Coup de'ta" on a corporation?

in the corporate world, if you a moron, your gone, and broke. They self correct.

Governments need external help >.>

What Would Kharn Do?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

Explain (since Alison will not): How is using your clout to manipulate the government not acting competitively? I mean, the idea of competing with someone is to defeat them, right? And the idea of free market competition is that you're more or less free to beat your competition however you please (thus 'laissez faire' capitalism)?

 

 

That's called cheating.

 

I'm not saying that it's the only way to cheat, but if you don't want to get punished, then you cheat with the people who enforce/make  the laws.

 

Enron cheated, but they got caught and charged because they weren't in bed with the government

 

Haliburton is cheating, but they don't get punished because their in bed with the government.

 

 

I have no idea why this is a hard idea to grasp. The government shouldn't have that power and the executives and at Haliburton and the government officals involved should be in prison.

 

 

 

 

 


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote:...1984's

Sinphanius wrote:
...1984's newspeak...

Are you referring to Doublespeak?


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote: I'm

Sinphanius wrote:

 I'm sorry, but what exactly about 'the government' makes everyone working for it retarded?  Why are corporations or private businesses somehow immune to this?  When you get right down to it, the only difference between a Corporation and a Nation is scale, and that difference is shrinking rapidly.

*This paragraph is essentially just here to try to turn The Doomed Soul into a Capitalist.

 

.... i dont think i und... Oooooh

 

You want me to mercilessly take over rival corporations instead of countries... ok, gotcha.

What Would Kharn Do?


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:... And

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
... And yet socialists want to give it MORE power....

Actually, socialists are unhappy with our current form of capitalism and autocracy.
We could justiiably refer to our form of capitalism as Anarchistic Capitalism and our government run by a corporate autocracy.

That is not a form of capitalism and democracy that
benifts anyone but those with the most wealth.

Moerover, we exist within a form of is not a form of anarchistic capitalism and autocratic "democracy" that
could at best, righty be called a bad joke.

What we do have is a form of government that does not benifit its own citizens.

Our economy is in the shitter
we're loosing over 600 Million jobs every month.

Just wait until reality sinks in and the stock market reflects what's really going on.

In the meantime, we're in for a ride to the bottom.

well over 62 TRILLION dollars of bad debt, not to mention our growing federal debt.

Our corporations are out of control, and I'm for a government that strictly regulates them. Reaganomics has proved to be garbage.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:At any rate it shows

Quote:
At any rate it shows the government has far too much power.

How does it show that? How does it not show, instead, that the corporate entity inquestion attained far too much clout?

Again, you're still treating the government as though it was a separate entity from Halliburton. It was not. Cheney was not 'in bed with' the government; he was the government.

Quote:
And yet socialists want to give it MORE power

I'm pretty sure all that I said was that the government's job, in my view, was to serve as a protective agency for disadvantaged individuals. As you might guess, the uppermost spectrum of society taking control of the government illegally largely prevents it from doing that job.

 

Cheney did not establish a socialist system; he established a largely fascist aristocracy (to his credit, I think perhaps he did this after having a mental meltdown. He was a perfectly fine politician for a while... and then he had a nearly fatal aneurysm that I think made him psychotic). Arguing that he would not have been able to do this had the government been weaker is absurd; if the government had been stronger it perhaps could have enforced it's laws and prevented the infiltration. I imagine a much weaker system he could've warped into a much more grotesque parody of it's former self, much in the same way Chancellor Hitler did.

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Actually, socialists

Quote:

Actually, socialists are unhappy with our current form of capitalism and autocracy.
We could justiiably refer to our form of capitalism as Anarchistic Capitalism and our government run by a corporate autocracy.

That is not a form of capitalism and democracy that
benifts anyone but those with the most wealth.

Moerover, we exist within a form of is not a form of anarchistic capitalism and autocratic "democracy" that
could at best, righty be called a bad joke.

What we do have is a form of government that does not benifit its own citizens.

Our economy is in the shitter
we're loosing over 600 Million jobs every month.

Just wait until reality sinks in and the stock market reflects what's really going on.

In the meantime, we're in for a ride to the bottom.

well over 62 TRILLION dollars of bad debt, not to mention our growing federal debt.

Our corporations are out of control, and I'm for a government that strictly regulates them. Reaganomics has proved to be garbage.

...This(?)

 

treat2 sad something I actually largely agree with. How... bizarre.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:That's called

Quote:
That's called cheating.

Yes; and it's the government that establishes what is cheating and what isn't. So if we both agree it was cheating, isn't the problem that the government could not/would not stop the cheaters, rather than that, "The government has too much power"

 

EDIT: I should clarify, just so it's plainly obvious, that I'm not advocating for lending 'more power!!!!' to the government. I do advocate for large changes to how governing is done, but I do not think that simply layering on law after law after law will solve the world's problems. As an example, I would love to see speed limit laws changed so that rather than posting legal limits on roads for drivers to obey or ignore at their own discretion at the risk of possibly receiving a fine on the wrong day, manufacturers of vehicles are targeted instead and simply told that they cannot make cars that are capable of going more than 60-ish mph (obviously an actual such law would have to take into account exceptions for emergency service vehicles and perhaps a few other areas, but I imagine it would wind-up cutting back far more accidents than the roadside signs that are regularly ignored).

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Quote:At

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
At any rate it shows the government has far too much power.

How does it show that? How does it not show, instead, that the corporate entity inquestion attained far too much clout?

Again, you're still treating the government as though it was a separate entity from Halliburton. It was not. Cheney was not 'in bed with' the government; he was the government.

 

 

The government can still pass the laws outlawing the Haliburton competition. I mean come on, that's FAR too much power.

 

Yes I know that Haliburton was Cheney which was the government,

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
And yet socialists want to give it MORE power

I'm pretty sure all that I said was that the government's job, in my view, was to serve as a protective agency for disadvantaged individuals. As you might guess, the uppermost spectrum of society taking control of the government illegally largely prevents it from doing that job.

 

In order to do that, it needs power.

 

And besides have you heard of selective enforcing?

 

Let's say I have resturant competing with Hamby's. Hamby is getting more business because his resturant is superior to mine. He has better food, faster service etc...

 

Now I'm losing money and then come wining to the government that Hamby somehow has an unfair advantage, is it really fair that I get special treatment? Why should people's tax dollars go to help my shitty resturant?

 

I'm "disadvantaged" in that case.

 

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Cheney did not establish a socialist system; he established a largely fascist aristocracy (to his credit, I think perhaps he did this after having a mental meltdown. He was a perfectly fine politician for a while... and then he had a nearly fatal aneurysm that I think made him psychotic). Arguing that he would not have been able to do this had the government been weaker is absurd; if the government had been stronger it perhaps could have enforced it's laws and prevented the infiltration. I imagine a much weaker system he could've warped into a much more grotesque parody of it's former self, much in the same way Chancellor Hitler did.

 

 

Ha! Who enforces the laws? The government. Who is taking part in the coruption? The government!

 

You complained that Bush and Cheney won't be brought to justice over the torturing at Gitmo Bay. They ran the government, they set up the rules [oh we CAN'T release those reports, it would be illegal you see] . If a private company started waterboarding people, how long will it take for them to be brought to justice?

 

 

Imagine you and I are playing a card game. The only twist: I make up the rules and can change them as I please. Who's more likely to win?

 

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:In order to do that,

Quote:

In order to do that, it needs power.

 

And besides have you heard of selective enforcing?

 

Let's say I have resturant competing with Hamby's. Hamby is getting more business because his resturant is superior to mine. He has better food, faster service etc...

 

Now I'm losing money and then come wining to the government that Hamby somehow has an unfair advantage, is it really fair that I get special treatment? Why should people's tax dollars go to help my shitty resturant?

 

I'm "disadvantaged" in that case.

Yes, it would need legislative power to do that (That is, all parties would have to recognize the government as the arbitrator; else it could not arbitrate).

Well, in your hypothetical, why is it that Hamby's restaurant has better food, faster service, prettier girls ( Sticking out tongue ), etc? I would imagine it's because Hamby has had more experience than you running a restaurant and is therefore more educated in working the system, yes? I don't see asking for help from the arbitrator as 'whining'; I see it as asking for help. It's not logical to me that if you really want to run a restaurant, and if running that restaurant provides something that other people want (in the case of the hypothetical, food that has been prepared for them), you shouldn't be able to do that without worrying about what Hamby is or isn't doing. Perhaps the government could run a program where you are taught how to run your business effectively; perhaps you could be forgiven your debts while you're getting used to running the business; perhaps they could give Hamby incentives for assisting you in getting your business up and running and acting cooperatively instead of competitively; perhaps a fundamental change could be instated where debt and ownership are abolished concepts.

I'm not saying that any of that is the guaranteed solution (I'm not exactly the go to guy for business ideas), I'm saying that it doesn't jive with me that a person should necessarily be cut out of what they want to do with their life just because they cannot make capital while doing it.

Quote:
a! Who enforces the laws? The government. Who is taking part in the coruption? The government!

No. The government has been usurped, remember?

 

Quote:
You complained that Bush and Cheney won't be brought to justice over the torturing at Gitmo Bay. They ran the government, they set up the rules [oh we CAN'T release those reports, it would be illegal you see] . If a private company started waterboarding people, how long will it take for them to be brought to justice?

 

 

Imagine you and I are playing a card game. The only twist: I make up the rules and can change them as I please. Who's more likely to win?

Well, okay: We're playing this card game, and there are three people at first:

 

- Me (Opponent)

 - You (Opponent)

 - The Judge (Arbitrator)

 

The Judge lays down the rules for the game, and they're more or less fair, but you're just plain better than me so you wind-up really taking away my money. The rules as they exist do not prevent any kind of runaway leader problem, so you more or less clean me out and send me packing - and hey, them's the breaks, right?

Now another player sits in to take my place, and (having watched our game) she's proving to be a much more capable opponent. So, you decide you need a new strategy; you pay off The Judge so that he passes his position over to you and leaves the table. So, now it looks like:

 - Opposing player (Opponent)

 - You (Opponent/Arbitrator)

 

...So, is the problem that The Judge had too much authority over the game (which was needed for the game to exist in the first place)? Or is it a much different problem?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:It's easier to get rid

Quote:
It's easier to get rid of a corupt corporation full of morons, than it is to get rid of a government full of morons.
The Presidency lasts 4 years and it is extremely difficult to get a new one. It is far easier to switch corporations.

Really, I don't ever rememeber hearing of the 'The Microsoft Revolution'
Furthermore, I would like to point out that you seem to be comparing two different things. You lament, rightly so, that it is hard to get idiots out of government office, and your comparison for corporations being superior in this regard is switching corporations. These are not truly comparable, switching corporations is more closely related to emigrating from a country, because it doesn't do anything to the administration of the corporation, you are just leaving.
I would argue that corporations are, on average, harder to change the administration of because they don't necessarily have to give the public they serve any control over their administration. There are no elections for Microsoft, the position of CEO is in many businesses effectively hereditary.

I've been saying it for a long time (not here though) that the current Corporate network is beginning to look a lot like Feudalism. I can't wait to see what sort of Holy Corporate Empire we get.

@The Doomed Soul; Wrong Paragraph, that note went with this paragraph;
Me wrote:
In its purest form, Capitalism would necessitate humanity becoming a plague of locusts, ravenously devouring everything around us as we leave behind dead worlds and shattered lives, seeing any who stood before us weeping in the anguish of defeat.*


Weakenning the government won't stop what happened with Halliburton because the jobs themselves came from the government, the government deciding to give all of its contracts to Halliburton was perfectly within its rights, after all, if I decide to go to your restaraunt instead of Hambydammit's because I'm your friend, I have the right to do that, right? After all, you just said that you don't think failing corporations should receive help, and a corporation with an advantage should profit, so how is Halliburton using its greatest advantage 'cheating'?

Legislating the actions of a Corporation, whether to prevent them or not, is Socialism. Letting the corporation do whatever they want is Capitalism.

And no matter how weak you make the government, controlling it will still be an asset. If anything, controlling it will be more useful if it is weaker, because the weaker it is the more it will need to rely on private contractors.

You say that Halliburton had the government legislate their competition out of business, this is not the case. The government did not tell independent people they had to buy from Halliburton, the client was the government, and they chose to buy from Halliburton. No matter how weak the government was, they would still give the jobs to their bestest friend forever. This friend was Halliburton. The only way to accomplish the goal you want (making government lobying useless) is to completely destroy the government. So long as a government exists, it will still be an asset. Of course, destroying it will just mean that some corporation will have to take its place, so in essence you aren't even changing the problem, just renaming it.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Yes, it

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Yes, it would need legislative power to do that (That is, all parties would have to recognize the government as the arbitrator; else it could not arbitrate).

Well, in your hypothetical, why is it that Hamby's restaurant has better food, faster service, prettier girls ( Sticking out tongue ), etc? I would imagine it's because Hamby has had more experience than you running a restaurant and is therefore more educated in working the system, yes? I don't see asking for help from the arbitrator as 'whining'; I see it as asking for help. It's not logical to me that if you really want to run a restaurant, and if running that restaurant provides something that other people want (in the case of the hypothetical, food that has been prepared for them), you shouldn't be able to do that without worrying about what Hamby is or isn't doing. Perhaps the government could run a program where you are taught how to run your business effectively; perhaps you could be forgiven your debts while you're getting used to running the business; perhaps they could give Hamby incentives for assisting you in getting your business up and running and acting cooperatively instead of competitively; perhaps a fundamental change could be instated where debt and ownership are abolished concepts.

I'm not saying that any of that is the guaranteed solution (I'm not exactly the go to guy for business ideas), I'm saying that it doesn't jive with me that a person should necessarily be cut out of what they want to do with their life just because they cannot make capital while doing it.

 

 

 

 

That won't work Kevin. Now say you want to open a resturant. Now Jill. Now Thomathy etc... now there are far more resturants than needed, and now none of us are making money.

and either:

 

1] Some of us have to close down

 

or

 

2] The government has to intervene and play all nice with all of us.

 

You just brought up the video game crash, do you think they would have done that if they knew it would crash?

 

You're programs would encourage MORE people in the business and soon we another crash will happen.

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

- Me (Opponent)

 - You (Opponent)

 - The Judge (Arbitrator)

 

The Judge lays down the rules for the game, and they're more or less fair, but you're just plain better than me so you wind-up really taking away my money. The rules as they exist do not prevent any kind of runaway leader problem, so you more or less clean me out and send me packing - and hey, them's the breaks, right?

Now another player sits in to take my place, and (having watched our game) she's proving to be a much more capable opponent. So, you decide you need a new strategy; you pay off The Judge so that he passes his position over to you and leaves the table. So, now it looks like:

 - Opposing player (Opponent)

 - You (Opponent/Arbitrator)

 

 

 

Why the hell do we need a judge?

 

 

Imagine this, instead of a judge, we come up with our own rules. Now you are not going to agree to a rule I propose that gives me an unfair advantage right?

 

But what if you HAVE to? Do you know how long current legislation is? All a company has to do is higher high class lawyers, read the ins and outs of the law and boom, they have massive leverage against say you or me who can't understand the pages upon pages of the law. That way, I'm sure if the corporations wanted, they can pick an instance in which we broke the law [whether the action was moral or not is irrelevant] or didn't follow it properly, while we struggle to understand the damn law, the corporation effectively put us out of business without having to out perform us.

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

...So, is the problem that The Judge had too much authority over the game (which was needed for the game to exist in the first place)? Or is it a much different problem?

 

 

Like I said why do we need a judge? We need an enforcer. We come up with the rules, and if any of us breaks the rules, the enforcer can penalize us.

 

You said the judge lays down the rules. Why do we have to let a judge do that?

 

If I influence the judge, then I can get him to pass a rule in my favour and you would have to agree to it. But if we collectively make the rules, than you would never agree to the favourable rule.

 

If there is an enforcer rather than a judge, then we are both more likely to benifit and it's going to be fair.

 

 

 

Quote:


Really, I don't ever rememeber hearing of the 'The Microsoft Revolution'
Furthermore, I would like to point out that you seem to be comparing two different things. You lament, rightly so, that it is hard to get idiots out of government office, and your comparison for corporations being superior in this regard is switching corporations. These are not truly comparable, switching corporations is more closely related to emigrating from a country, because it doesn't do anything to the administration of the corporation, you are just leaving.
I would argue that corporations are, on average, harder to change the administration of because they don't necessarily have to give the public they serve any control over their administration. There are no elections for Microsoft, the position of CEO is in many businesses effectively hereditary.

I've been saying it for a long time (not here though) that the current Corporate network is beginning to look a lot like Feudalism. I can't wait to see what sort of Holy Corporate Empire we get.

 

 

If Bill Gates runs Microsoft into trillions of dollars of debt, do you think his company would still be standing?

 

Bush ran the U.S into tirllions of dollars of debt, yet now he just asks for MORE money, from the taxpayers. He doesn't have to change the way he spends money, he can just ask for more.

 

Bill Gates on the other hand cannot demand your money, you have to give it to his company. He can't force you to give it to him.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:That won't work Kevin.

Quote:

That won't work Kevin. Now say you want to open a resturant. Now Jill. Now Thomathy etc... now there are far more resturants than needed, and now none of us are making money.

and either:

 

1] Some of us have to close down

 

or

 

2] The government has to intervene and play all nice with all of us.

 

You just brought up the video game crash, do you think they would have done that if they knew it would crash?

 

You're programs would encourage MORE people in the business and soon we another crash will happen.

 

*Shrugs*

 

...Are you asking us a question, Alison, or are you just here to tell us how it is because you just have everything figured out already? It's really looking like the latter.

If so, well, congratulations. Here's your trophy. Go let the world know that you're ready to solve all of it's ills.

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

*Shrugs*

 

...Are you asking us a question, Alison, or are you just here to tell us how it is because you just have everything figured out already? It's really looking like the latter.

If so, well, congratulations. Here's your trophy. Go let the world know that you're ready to solve all of it's ills.

 

 

 

Wow the clearist form of projection evar.

 

 

You seem to have the kinks of the government assistance program worked out you get a cookie.

 

 

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Wow the clearist form

Quote:

Wow the clearist form of projection evar.

 

 

You seem to have the kinks of the government assistance program worked out you get a cookie.

 

I said that I didn't know for sure what programs would or would not work, if you recall (it's 'clearest', by the way).

You just poo poo'd efforts that haven't been attempted on any national scale yet, claiming that you knew for sure that they would not work. Are you clairvoyant? Omniscient?

 

You're right - not everyone could run a restaurant. But not everyone on the planet is interested in running a restaurant, regardless of how lucrative a practice it is or is not.

 

Anyway, were you going to address the 2nd half of Sin's post?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote:Weakenning

Sinphanius wrote:



Weakenning the government won't stop what happened with Halliburton because the jobs themselves came from the government, the government deciding to give all of its contracts to Halliburton was perfectly within its rights, after all, if I decide to go to your restaraunt instead of Hambydammit's because I'm your friend, I have the right to do that, right? After all, you just said that you don't think failing corporations should receive help, and a corporation with an advantage should profit, so how is Halliburton using its greatest advantage 'cheating'?

 

It's not within it's rights. Nobody bid on those contracts as per free market, but the government handed it to them.

As for you going to my resturant instead of Hamby's, the reason doesn't matter seeing as you had a CHOICE to go to mine. You did not HAVE to. You could have gone to Hamby's.

 

The government had no other choice.

 

read Jormungander's post.

 

 

 

Quote:

 



And no matter how weak you make the government, controlling it will still be an asset. If anything, controlling it will be more useful if it is weaker, because the weaker it is the more it will need to rely on private contractors.

 

And said contractors have to bid for business. If one company does not meet the government's expectations, then they can find a new one. Just like you and me.

 

Quote:


You say that Halliburton had the government legislate their competition out of business, this is not the case. The government did not tell independent people they had to buy from Halliburton, the client was the government, and they chose to buy from Halliburton.

 

They outlawed the competition with respect to Iraq. No other company could bid on the contracts, ergo Haliburton is in Iraq with no bid contracts and no competition.

 

Quote:

No matter how weak the government was, they would still give the jobs to their bestest friend forever. This friend was Halliburton. The only way to accomplish the goal you want (making government lobying useless) is to completely destroy the government. So long as a government exists, it will still be an asset. Of course, destroying it will just mean that some corporation will have to take its place, so in essence you aren't even changing the problem, just renaming it.

 

The way to do it is to make laws that all government contracts have to go up for bid.

 

Look at it this way: People rag on private companies for showing favortism. For example, say a company ditches it's stock holders and pays of their buddies in no bid contracts. How long before those involved are in prison?

 

How many government officals are in prison because of them screwing over the people and paying off their buddies?

 

I think that whatever we can charge private corporations with we can charge government officals with.

 

 

 

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
The purpose of government

The purpose of government is:
To provide food, shelter, healthcare and education freely for all people, as it is written in the declaration of basic human rights. Security also, but it is expected to drop dramatically,  when these requirements will be met.
Nobody should suffer from starvation, banal diseases, harsh weather, or illiteracy. Also, the government should then care for another human rights, like the right for clean, healthy environment and the right for living aesthetic environment. This is the social side of the coin.

Of course, the government must also have rights, to work properly. The regional administration must be just as influential as the central, state government. The government must be able to collect the excessive money and resources from individuals and corporations who get their income above a certain level. Simply, just as we have a minimal wage, there must be also a maximal wage. All above that must be collected and used for supplying the people with their basic rights.
The business and trade should be encouraged, but with two great changes in comparison to today. Firstly, the above mentioned safety net, which will secure people from getting homeless, starving or suffering if they won't succeed in the capitalistic competition. They can return to the business later that way and ethical competition is thus ensured.
Secondly, those who are the most succesful in the competition shall take the responsibility for those not succesful, as I mentioned. This is the second essential way to ensure a business ethics and correct human relationships.

Then the numbers of lawyers, policemen, soldiers, politicians, poor, sick, addicted, illiterate, homeless people, criminals, prisoners, etc, will significantly decrease, because those are basically a pathologic signs in the society.

So how it's called, socialism financed by capitalism? Capitalism supported (and protected against extremes) by socialism? The total banishment of today's brutal economic war? The only future which we can survive?

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:The total

Luminon wrote:

The total banishment of today's brutal economic war?

And get rid of the cruel efficiency of the free market? We are trying to do that now with the auto bailouts; and I think that is hurting us and misallocating resources. I think that 'brutal economic war' leads companies to strive to please their customers in whatever way they can. If you want to bring government enforced stagnation, get rid of economic struggles for company survival.

Though these struggles don't work once a company gets the government to outlaw competition. Not allowing competition to happen out of a desire for fairness or cooperation is bad. Not allowing competition out of a desire for government sponsored wealth and a desire to use legal measures to harm competitors (Haliburton) is worse.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Luminon

Jormungander wrote:

Luminon wrote:

The total banishment of today's brutal economic war?

And get rid of the cruel efficiency of the free market? We are trying to do that now with the auto bailouts; and I think that is hurting us and misallocating resources. I think that 'brutal economic war' leads companies to strive to please their customers in whatever way they can. If you want to bring government enforced stagnation, get rid of economic struggles for company survival.

Unfortunately, the free market is not efficient at all. Quite opposite. The companies produce dozens of brands of the same stuff and then try to sell it in the same markets. This creates the need to push down the price even if just for a few dollars or units of local currency. Lowering the expenses is felt mainly by the workers, who gets lower wages or gets fired and have to work on minimal crew and maximal toil. The produced stuff is cheap and it soon ends up on the junkyard, so the natural resources gets wasted. This makes the climate change worse. The climate change causes economic problems and thus a worldwide political tension between the haves and have-nots. This leads to the third world war. But yeah, the customers are certainly pleased, that's important. At least the customers who have money.

Jormungander wrote:
Though these struggles don't work once a company gets the government to outlaw competition. Not allowing competition to happen out of a desire for fairness or cooperation is bad. Not allowing competition out of a desire for government sponsored wealth and a desire to use legal measures to harm competitors (Haliburton) is worse.

The competition is fine, as long as the winners invest into a global human resources, no matter if they employ them or not. There is nothing more important on this planet than human resources and investment into them and their environment. Those who think otherwise should be locked up for a several days in a big room full of tasty and nutritive dollar bills and gold bars. Maybe some petrol, if they'd be thirsty.
The purpose of capitalism is not to compete in a pissing contest on stock market. It is there to pay for the socialism.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: What

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

What Haliburton did was illegal. If they had tried to pull that in a Captalist market, they would be in prison.

 

Pineapple -

 

The U.S. is a capitalist market, in which Haliburton operated. So I'm having a hard time following your point. Are you saying the U.S. isn't really a capitalist market, and is therefore too socialist?

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


Mr. XC
High Level DonorSpecial AgentWebsite AdminPlatinum Member
Posts: 237
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
Monopoly

This should have been brought up by now, but I noticed that it has not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson