Government is...

[rockfist]

Whenever someone uses the phrase "Fair Share" its a thinly veiled reference to wealth redistribution and its reprehensible.

Actually, I was using it to describe the amount that citizens are actually entitled to from the State. Not to describe the big fat chunk of cash that minorities inevitably demand from it, before claiming tyranny when they are not given special treatment.

Ok...every time I see that phrase it raises my hackles.

[Metsfanmax]

Whenever someone uses the phrase "Fair Share" its a thinly veiled reference to wealth redistribution and its reprehensible. But, you can't use the phrase wealth redistribution at least not regularly so you have to say "fair share" because it sounds like something a reasonable person would support, until you really study what it means.

I do not understand what is "reprehensible" about wealth redistribution. It's a quite simple application of the golden rule.

The golden rule is do onto others as you would have done onto you. When you use the state to demand people's wealth you are stealing. When people give of their wealth freely it is entirely different. Come by my house and I will give you dinner and have a debate with you...come by my house and DEMAND I give you something and their will be no debate taking place, of that I can assure you.

The government is composed only of its constituents. The government demands nothing from you; by consenting to its legitimacy, you agree that you owe other people some of your wealth.

At any rate, it is the golden rule, because if you were poor you would want people to help you out.

[john9blue]

Whenever someone uses the phrase "Fair Share" its a thinly veiled reference to wealth redistribution and its reprehensible. But, you can't use the phrase wealth redistribution at least not regularly so you have to say "fair share" because it sounds like something a reasonable person would support, until you really study what it means.

I do not understand what is "reprehensible" about wealth redistribution. It's a quite simple application of the golden rule.

The golden rule is do onto others as you would have done onto you. When you use the state to demand people's wealth you are stealing. When people give of their wealth freely it is entirely different. Come by my house and I will give you dinner and have a debate with you...come by my house and DEMAND I give you something and their will be no debate taking place, of that I can assure you.

The government is composed only of its constituents. The government demands nothing from you; by consenting to its legitimacy, you agree that you owe other people some of your wealth.

At any rate, it is the golden rule, because if you were poor you would want people to help you out.

lmao, that's not how the golden rule works. it has to be something that is good for both parties, and if they exchanged places then they both would be okay with it. in your case, only the poor person benefits.

[Metsfanmax]

Whenever someone uses the phrase "Fair Share" its a thinly veiled reference to wealth redistribution and its reprehensible. But, you can't use the phrase wealth redistribution at least not regularly so you have to say "fair share" because it sounds like something a reasonable person would support, until you really study what it means.

I do not understand what is "reprehensible" about wealth redistribution. It's a quite simple application of the golden rule.

The golden rule is do onto others as you would have done onto you. When you use the state to demand people's wealth you are stealing. When people give of their wealth freely it is entirely different. Come by my house and I will give you dinner and have a debate with you...come by my house and DEMAND I give you something and their will be no debate taking place, of that I can assure you.

The government is composed only of its constituents. The government demands nothing from you; by consenting to its legitimacy, you agree that you owe other people some of your wealth.

At any rate, it is the golden rule, because if you were poor you would want people to help you out.

lmao, that's not how the golden rule works. it has to be something that is good for both parties, and if they exchanged places then they both would be okay with it. in your case, only the poor person benefits.

This is explained very clearly in Rawls' "A Theory of Justice." The idea isn't what you're making it out to be; rather, the idea is that if you were the poor one, you would want other people to help you out. Now, in actuality you may not be, but that's just luck in the lottery of birth.

[jimboston]

OK... now reread what I actually wrote.

No where is my post do I...
-> Honk
-> Flap my arms
-> Throw insults
-> Shriek

If you actually bothered to read what I wrote, you will note that I agreed with you... and then I thought better of it.

Please show me one insult in my post that you quoted.

I didn't think so.

This is a classic passive-aggressive strategy.

You attempt to troll and insult somebody with sarcasm and insincerity, then when called on it play the "who me?!" card and attempt to feign innocence.

You hope that I will be too insecure to point this out and that I will give you a free pass on such behaviour in the future, but unfortunately for you I am too smart to be sucked into those kind of kindergarten tricks.

Another reference to Kindergarten... where's your head?

Seriously though... you're a loser.

[PLAYER57832]

...nothing more than a corporation that can force you at gunpoint to purchase their services.

discuss

Utterly untrue and without foundation.

The government only provides those services we require it to provide. We ARE the government.. or used to be. The government was always controlled by a varying elite, but that elite is now a bunch of mindless corporate heads without check.

You are attacking the chicken, but its head was already cut off.

[PLAYER57832]

Whenever someone uses the phrase "Fair Share" its a thinly veiled reference to wealth redistribution and its reprehensible.

Actually, I was using it to describe the amount that citizens are actually entitled to from the State. Not to describe the big fat chunk of cash that minorities inevitably demand from it, before claiming tyranny when they are not given special treatment.

The state gets its money from the population, so claiming it is about some remote entity is just false.

ALL of these attacks on government are designed with one purpose.. to give more power to corporations. The way to "attack" government is to work IN government and with government. Corporations don't want average people paying attention to what the government can do for us all becuase they know if we band together, we are a force that requires change and they don't really and truly want change.

So, they beat up the song about how government is taking .. never mind that the "taking" is to protect OUR resources, ensure that corporations and the wealthy actually help support society instead of just profiting from our sales.

But, becuase there are now very few routes to income our even purchase of basic goods outside of the heavy corporate infrastructure, people are too afraid to really challenge the powers and make real change.

[BigBallinStalin]

...nothing more than a corporation that can force you at gunpoint to purchase their services.

discuss

Utterly untrue and without foundation.

The government only provides those services we require it to provide. We ARE the government.. or used to be. The government was always controlled by a fair elite, but that elite is now a bunch of mindless corporate heads without check.

When was the government controlled by a "fair" elite?

[Army of GOD]

So PLAYER, who responded to the OP on the first page over a year ago, bumped this thread to respond to the OP with the same exact rhetoric and then responded to a user who was banned a long-ass time ago.





Subtle, subtle troll.

[BigBallinStalin]

So PLAYER, who responded to the OP on the first page over a year ago, bumped this thread to respond to the OP with the same exact rhetoric and then responded to a user who was banned a long-ass time ago.





Subtle, subtle troll.

or just dumb.

[Army of GOD]

So PLAYER, who responded to the OP on the first page over a year ago, bumped this thread to respond to the OP with the same exact rhetoric and then responded to a user who was banned a long-ass time ago.





Subtle, subtle troll.

or just dumb.

Maybe, but I guess I have too much faith.

[PLAYER57832]

...nothing more than a corporation that can force you at gunpoint to purchase their services.

discuss

Utterly untrue and without foundation.

The government only provides those services we require it to provide. We ARE the government.. or used to be. The government was always controlled by a fair elite, but that elite is now a bunch of mindless corporate heads without check.

When was the government controlled by a "fair" elite?

LOL.. not "fair" as in the kindergarten view of "equal". I Fair as in a "fair amount" or a fair deal of goods.

however, becuase it can be misunderstood, I will rephrase.

[PLAYER57832]

So PLAYER, who responded to the OP on the first page over a year ago, bumped this thread to respond to the OP with the same exact rhetoric and then responded to a user who was banned a long-ass time ago.





Subtle, subtle troll.

or just dumb.

Maybe, but I guess I have too much faith.

John specifically asked for responses to that question, said he never got any, in another thread. That was why I responded/bumped it.

[BigBallinStalin]

...nothing more than a corporation that can force you at gunpoint to purchase their services.

discuss

Utterly untrue and without foundation.

The government only provides those services we require it to provide. We ARE the government.. or used to be. The government was always controlled by a fair elite, but that elite is now a bunch of mindless corporate heads without check.

Who's "we"?

If the "we" was as homogenous as you imply, then it would be a very straightforward business of legislating laws and starting bureacracies to provide the goods which "we" demand.

Did "we" require a massive defense industry in order to uphold dictatorships and launch wars against countries like Iraq 2003?

[PLAYER57832]

...nothing more than a corporation that can force you at gunpoint to purchase their services.

discuss

Utterly untrue and without foundation.

The government only provides those services we require it to provide. We ARE the government.. or used to be. The government was always controlled by a fair elite, but that elite is now a bunch of mindless corporate heads without check.

Who's "we"?

If the "we" was as homogenous as you imply, then it would be a very straightforward business of legislating laws and starting bureacracies to provide the goods which "we" demand.

Did "we" require a massive defense industry in order to uphold dictatorships and launch wars against countries like Iraq 2003?

Who said anything about homogenuous? Rules almost never please everyone.

[john9blue]

Utterly untrue and without foundation.

The government only provides those services we require it to provide. We ARE the government.. or used to be. The government was always controlled by a varying elite, but that elite is now a bunch of mindless corporate heads without check.

You are attacking the chicken, but its head was already cut off.

in theory. but how is this any different from a corporation? in theory both provide the services the people want them to provide, and are controlled by a (corporate) elite.

[BigBallinStalin]

...nothing more than a corporation that can force you at gunpoint to purchase their services.

discuss

Utterly untrue and without foundation.

The government only provides those services we require it to provide. We ARE the government.. or used to be. The government was always controlled by a fair elite, but that elite is now a bunch of mindless corporate heads without check.

Who's "we"?

If the "we" was as homogenous as you imply, then it would be a very straightforward business of legislating laws and starting bureacracies to provide the goods which "we" demand.

Did "we" require a massive defense industry in order to uphold dictatorships and launch wars against countries like Iraq 2003?

Who said anything about homogenuous? Rules almost never please everyone.

It's a homogenous outlook because you just assume that "we" and "political actors and state servants" are both the government. There are huge differences because the government is a distinct ruling class complete with its bureaucracies. "Some" of us are the government, but definitely not "we."

[BigBallinStalin]

...nothing more than a corporation that can force you at gunpoint to purchase their services.

discuss

Utterly untrue and without foundation.

The government only provides those services we require it to provide. We ARE the government.. or used to be. The government was always controlled by a fair elite, but that elite is now a bunch of mindless corporate heads without check.

When was the government controlled by a "fair" elite?

LOL.. not "fair" as in the kindergarten view of "equal". I Fair as in a "fair amount" or a fair deal of goods.

however, becuase it can be misunderstood, I will rephrase.

When was the elite, i.e. political actors, not a bunch of mindless corporate heads without check?

And is that even an accurate account for today?

[PLAYER57832]

Utterly untrue and without foundation.

The government only provides those services we require it to provide. We ARE the government.. or used to be. The government was always controlled by a varying elite, but that elite is now a bunch of mindless corporate heads without check.

You are attacking the chicken, but its head was already cut off.

in theory. but how is this any different from a corporation? in theory both provide the services the people want them to provide, and are controlled by a (corporate) elite.

Government by the people. Also, a government ruled by people has to respond to many multiple demands. A government controlled by corporation has only one purpose.. to increase corporate profits.

[PLAYER57832]

...nothing more than a corporation that can force you at gunpoint to purchase their services.

discuss

Utterly untrue and without foundation.

The government only provides those services we require it to provide. We ARE the government.. or used to be. The government was always controlled by a fair elite, but that elite is now a bunch of mindless corporate heads without check.

When was the government controlled by a "fair" elite?

LOL.. not "fair" as in the kindergarten view of "equal". I Fair as in a "fair amount" or a fair deal of goods.

however, becuase it can be misunderstood, I will rephrase.

When was the elite, i.e. political actors, not a bunch of mindless corporate heads without check?

When corporations did not have the powers of citizens.

In the past, they certainly worked for their self-interest, and to a point, that of their "class", but there have been periods, when people actually were able to make change for the people's general benefit. (rise of unions, worker rights, weekends, mass education, etc.).

And..the thing about self-interest is that it tends to promote dynasty creation, aka monarchies, by other names. Corporate power is different. Corporations are intentionally structured to remove the heads from the most of nasty on the ground consequences of their decisions. In many cases, the heads themselves will profess to care, (perhaps really do care) about their people, etc. However they have been "raised up" in a system that puts forward the greatest goal as creating more jobs and wealth for the company. All other considerations are secondary. AND, since even understanding many of those other far-reaching consequences requires a good deal of research and education, it effectively means the corporations just don't consider how much damage they could or are doing.

Was the had of BP evil or simply ignorant? Was he willfully ignorant or was he so vested in a system that promoted blindness to impacts, that outright dismissed them as irrelevant that he was incapable of even really and truly considering the potential damage his operations might cause.

And is that even an accurate account for today?

Our country is now nearly controlled by international corporations more powerful than any mere government.

[john9blue]

Utterly untrue and without foundation.

The government only provides those services we require it to provide. We ARE the government.. or used to be. The government was always controlled by a varying elite, but that elite is now a bunch of mindless corporate heads without check.

You are attacking the chicken, but its head was already cut off.

in theory. but how is this any different from a corporation? in theory both provide the services the people want them to provide, and are controlled by a (corporate) elite.

Government by the people. Also, a government ruled by people has to respond to many multiple demands. A government controlled by corporation has only one purpose.. to increase corporate profits.

corporations are held accountable to people, namely, their shareholders and customers. they have to respond to the demands of these people, but their primary goal is to stay in business, even if it comes at the expense of others.

government is held accountable to people, namely, their lobbyists and voters. they have to respond to the demands of these people, but their primary goal is to retain power, even if it comes at the expense of others.

government just happens to be the only corporation that can legally use force against others. this is why other corporations seek to gain influence with the government. to say that the problem lies with the lesser corporations trying to use the larger corporation (government) to stay in business and make profits, is to miss the problem entirely.

[BigBallinStalin]

LOL.. not "fair" as in the kindergarten view of "equal". I Fair as in a "fair amount" or a fair deal of goods.

however, becuase it can be misunderstood, I will rephrase.

When was the elite, i.e. political actors, not a bunch of mindless corporate heads without check?

When corporations did not have the powers of citizens.

In the past, they certainly worked for their self-interest, and to a point, that of their "class", but there have been periods, when people actually were able to make change for the people's general benefit. (rise of unions, worker rights, weekends, mass education, etc.).

And..the thing about self-interest is that it tends to promote dynasty creation, aka monarchies, by other names. Corporate power is different. Corporations are intentionally structured to remove the heads from the most of nasty on the ground consequences of their decisions. In many cases, the heads themselves will profess to care, (perhaps really do care) about their people, etc. However they have been "raised up" in a system that puts forward the greatest goal as creating more jobs and wealth for the company. All other considerations are secondary. AND, since even understanding many of those other far-reaching consequences requires a good deal of research and education, it effectively means the corporations just don't consider how much damage they could or are doing.

Was the had of BP evil or simply ignorant? Was he willfully ignorant or was he so vested in a system that promoted blindness to impacts, that outright dismissed them as irrelevant that he was incapable of even really and truly considering the potential damage his operations might cause.

"in the past" ...

When exactly?

"Corporations," whichever ones they may be, always had the money to form interest groups to influence politicians--and so did labor unions, charitable organizations, etc.

And is that even an accurate account for today?

Our country is now nearly controlled by international corporations more powerful than any mere government.

Which corporations? And how so?

How do you factor in the US government's military--as well as others'?

[PLAYER57832]

Utterly untrue and without foundation.

The government only provides those services we require it to provide. We ARE the government.. or used to be. The government was always controlled by a varying elite, but that elite is now a bunch of mindless corporate heads without check.

You are attacking the chicken, but its head was already cut off.

in theory. but how is this any different from a corporation? in theory both provide the services the people want them to provide, and are controlled by a (corporate) elite.

Government by the people. Also, a government ruled by people has to respond to many multiple demands. A government controlled by corporation has only one purpose.. to increase corporate profits.

corporations are held accountable to people, namely, their shareholders and customers. they have to respond to the demands of these people, but their primary goal is to stay in business, even if it comes at the expense of others.

Like I already said.. profit and nothing else.

Not really worker safety, except where it cuts into profit. Not environmental concerns, unless forced by rules or in the most extreme cases only, by customers. The customers are of only minimal concern there (at least as things stand now) because #1 its too hard to find all these things out about companies #2 Companies are very good about painting things "their way". I mean, just look at all the "green" products out on the shelves of Walmart now... do you truly believe they are seriously better? Margainally, at best..and not enough to outweigh the other negative impacts of Walmart. But, that's "meeting consumer demand".

government is held accountable to people, namely, their lobbyists and voters. they have to respond to the demands of these people, but their primary goal is to retain power, even if it comes at the expense of others.

Yes, but , in a Democracy (or its variations), meeting their desire to stay in power means they have to actually meet the needs of enough voters to get voted in. The voters needs are necessarily far more diverse than those of corporations, particularly the bigger corporations. AND, they definitely consider far more than just company profits or stock gains.

government just happens to be the only corporation that can legally use force against others. this is why other corporations seek to gain influence with the government. to say that the problem lies with the lesser corporations trying to use the larger corporation (government) to stay in business and make profits, is to miss the problem entirely.

Nope, considering government as "just another corporation" is yet another of the lies that gets perpetuated today as "just how things are". Right now, there is very little distinction because the corporations literally own the government, put those in power in power. There is no real outside competition. Before long, even governments will be superfulous. Already, countries wind up "negotiating" with corporations much as they used to have to negotiate with foreign powers. Or, more to the point.. corporations just trade each other's issues.

[john9blue]

player, i'm not saying that the government is a corporation because i think that other corporations are currently in control of our government.

i'm saying that the concept of government matches the definition of a corporation.

A corporation is a legal entity that is created under the laws of a state designed to establish the entity as a separate legal entity having its own privileges and liabilities distinct from those of its members.[1] There are many different forms of corporations, most of which are used to conduct business.

a government is created by laws of the state (in our case, the constitution) and is a separate legal entity which has its own privileges and liabilities. a government conducts business (taxes in exchange for services) with its customers (citizens).

doesn't the fact that our government negotiates with corporations (just as two businesses negotiate a business deal) reinforce this claim?

also, i reject your assertion that corporations are better at brainwashing people than politicians are. as a matter of curiosity, do you agree with me that the primary goal of a government is to retain power?

[PLAYER57832]

player, i'm not saying that the government is a corporation because i think that other corporations are currently in control of our government.

i'm saying that the concept of government matches the definition of a corporation.

I understand. I disagree. There is a fundamental difference between the two.

A corporation is a legal entity that is created under the laws of a state designed to establish the entity as a separate legal entity having its own privileges and liabilities distinct from those of its members.[1] There are many different forms of corporations, most of which are used to conduct business.

a government is created by laws of the state (in our case, the constitution) and is a separate legal entity which has its own privileges and liabilities. a government conducts business (taxes in exchange for services) with its customers (citizens).

The fundamental difference is one of responsibility. Corporations are specifically designed to sheild the power-wielders from most negative consequences of their decisions. Where they do have responsibility is to make profits for stockholders. That was not always the case, but it now is, particularly when it comes to the big guys. I mean, just think about it.

Do you see BP heads in Jail? Even setting aside that they are not technically based in the US (even their US subsidiaries, though are essentially unpunished). YET.. now look at Enron. Who was held to greater accountability and why? Enron was punished because they had the "gall" to interfere with investor profits. BP.. they merely destroyed life as we know it on the Gulf of Mexico for generations to come (and that is NOT an exaggeration!). If Mexico even came close to doing that to us, do you seriously think it would just be let pass? We have done some pretty nasty things to Mexico, but if we caused that much damage, we would likely be at war. Frankly.. war would not be needed, whoever was reponsible here would be impeached quicker than you can bat an eye. Even if some managed to stay in office, their effective power would be moot.

Now to be clear, to some extent, I was talking esoterically. That is, we don't now and never truly have had a government fully responsive to the real people of the country.

doesn't the fact that our government negotiates with corporations (just as two businesses negotiate a business deal) reinforce this claim?

Nope. Government negitiats with citizens in one sense (the good sense). However, in this case I probably should not say "negotiations" so much as "capitulations". Sure, there was a big show of all the banking officers been held accountable at a meeting where they were all "forced" to take TARP money.. and again, more hoopla about GM, etc. Except.. how did it really fall out? Who really took the hit, who is paying for it and who took the blame. WE took the hit. WE are paying for it and Obama mostly is given the blame (at least by his opponents, but even some of his "friends" -- at least on the surface).

also, i reject your assertion that corporations are better at brainwashing people than politicians are.

LOL... who creates and pays for the political ads and why? anymore, its almost entirely large corporations... and the "debates" you see are mostly about social issues, not the real substance that will actually change things. Its no cooincidence that the "debate" over abortion and homosexual marriages are being ramped up just when the economy is poorest, when people are almost ready to extract blood from corporations, nor is it a cooincidence that the most corporation friendly supreme court was voted in amidst a lot of hoopla about race, abortion and the patriot act.. but almost nothing about corporate constraints, corporate personhood, etc.

as a matter of curiosity, do you agree with me that the primary goal of a government is to retain power?

I reject that the government has a mind or any goals at all. However, politicians certainly want to stay in power. They are not equivalent to the entire government in this context, though.. not at all. And that is a big part of the problem with much of this recent rhetoric.

When things are bad, you create an enemy. Immigrants, commies, the "elite", now its the government. All are lies. The real threat is none of those, but the ones pushing all the buttons to try and make people believe those are the enemies.

What angers me the most, though this is another topic, is how so many are using the church to do their dirty work.. and it absolutely IS very, very dirty.