Conquer Club

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote: I'm not sure how one can argue the merits of government while at the same time lamenting the control of government by corporations. It's rather inconsistent.

Really? The government is the only thing keeping corporations from utterly stomping on us even more than they do.

So you don't think corporations control the government? Excellent... you can never use that argument again.

They have far, far too much influence... almost complete by now. We still do have valid elections, however. Still, the Supreme court is so packed against us now it is a tenuous thing.

However, the absolute worst thing we could do is to take more power from the government to control corporations.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote: I'm not sure how one can argue the merits of government while at the same time lamenting the control of government by corporations. It's rather inconsistent.

Really? The government is the only thing keeping corporations from utterly stomping on us even more than they do.

So you don't think corporations control the government? Excellent... you can never use that argument again.

They have far, far too much influence... almost complete by now. We still do have valid elections, however. Still, the Supreme court is so packed against us now it is a tenuous thing.

However, the absolute worst thing we could do is to take more power from the government to control corporations.

Doesn't make sense to me.

If corporations have far, far too much influence over the government, wouldn't taking more power from the government necessarily reduce corporations' influences on the United States?

thegreekdog wrote:Doesn't make sense to me.

If corporations have far, far too much influence over the government, wouldn't taking more power from the government necessarily reduce corporations' influences on the United States?

Your argument really doesn't make sense.

Right now, corporations and governments are the most powerful entities. Corporations are gaining more power. Take away the government and they will have virtually ALL the power.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Doesn't make sense to me.

If corporations have far, far too much influence over the government, wouldn't taking more power from the government necessarily reduce corporations' influences on the United States?

Your argument really doesn't make sense.

Right now, corporations and governments are the most powerful entities. Corporations are gaining more power. Take away the government and they will have virtually ALL the power.

I'm just trying to figure out your argument. My argument for less government includes removing corporations from influencing government. I support extremely strong campaign finance reform, for example. I support simplification of the tax code, for example.

You support notions that the government should regulate heavily in areas affecting the environment. And that's fine except that you currently understand that business controls those regulators and thus the regulations are ineffective. So your solution is more regulation, which amounts to more business control (not less).

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:The fact that it hasn't done much in an almost-free market just means that the market isn't free enough yet! Once we get rid of all the agencies that try to stop misinformation and blatant lies we will achieve perfection.

Right, exactly.

As opposed to the utterly honest advertisements of for profit companies.

Right, exactly.
I'm not sure how one can argue the merits of government while at the same time lamenting the control of government by corporations. It's rather inconsistent.

It's not necessarily inconsistent. It may simply be that she has more faith in the government to act in the public's interest than she does in corporations to do so. Frankly, as much as I distrust government in general, I would tend to agree with that viewpoint as I would consider corporations (as a group) to only coincidentally act in the public's interest.

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:The fact that it hasn't done much in an almost-free market just means that the market isn't free enough yet! Once we get rid of all the agencies that try to stop misinformation and blatant lies we will achieve perfection.

Right, exactly.

As opposed to the utterly honest advertisements of for profit companies.

Right, exactly.
I'm not sure how one can argue the merits of government while at the same time lamenting the control of government by corporations. It's rather inconsistent.

It's not necessarily inconsistent. It may simply be that she has more faith in the government to act in the public's interest than she does in corporations to do so. Frankly, as much as I distrust government in general, I would tend to agree with that viewpoint as I would consider corporations (as a group) to only coincidentally act in the public's interest.

This is correct. Politicians have some direct vested interest in at least pretending to please the populace. Corporations have only profit as their motive, and history shows us the profit motive doesn't serve individuals very often. Not even necessarily to produce better products, except when those products are truly new or innovating so highly they are like new.

(that's why we have refridgerators that don't last now).

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote: I'm not sure how one can argue the merits of government while at the same time lamenting the control of government by corporations. It's rather inconsistent.

Really? The government is the only thing keeping corporations from utterly stomping on us even more than they do.

So you don't think corporations control the government? Excellent... you can never use that argument again.

They have far, far too much influence... almost complete by now. We still do have valid elections, however. Still, the Supreme court is so packed against us now it is a tenuous thing.

However, the absolute worst thing we could do is to take more power from the government to control corporations.

Doesn't make sense to me.

If corporations have far, far too much influence over the government, wouldn't taking more power from the government necessarily reduce corporations' influences on the United States?

Why would it? It would just mean the corporations don't have to bother with influencing the government.

^ This.

The proper way to fix things is to rid the influence of outside parties on a politician's voting habits, by fully publically financing campaigns. If you could trust your government, you'd have less reason to hate it.

Snorri1234 wrote:Why would it? It would just mean the corporations don't have to bother with influencing the government.

How does that work?

I think you guys are looking at this the wrong way (and by "wrong way" I mean not my way).

I think we all agree that corporations have a strong influence over government. Some of may believe that's okay, some of us may think corporations should have a bigger influence, some of us may think that corporations should have a smaller influence (or no influence).

What would happen if corporations had no influence over government (or the same influence as anyone else)? Would the United States be materially worse than it is now? Some of you are suggesting that limiting government means that corporations could do things they can't do with a big government; well, you're not suggesting it so much as assuming that this is what will happen. In other words, you're assuming that if government was smaller/limited, corporations would have more control than they do now. I do not think this is a valid assumption.

GreecePwns wrote:^ This.

The proper way to fix things is to rid the influence of outside parties on a politician's voting habits, by fully publically financing campaigns. If you could trust your government, you'd have less reason to hate it.

I don't think that would work, with so much information being spread over the internet. It was just possible to require that stations give each candidate equal time (up until the whole "PACs are arguing positions, not for candidates bit". Now, there is no way to truly limit the advertising and campaigning out there.. and those with the money will have more.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:^ This.

The proper way to fix things is to rid the influence of outside parties on a politician's voting habits, by fully publically financing campaigns. If you could trust your government, you'd have less reason to hate it.

I don't think that would work, with so much information being spread over the internet. It was just possible to require that stations give each candidate equal time (up until the whole "PACs are arguing positions, not for candidates bit". Now, there is no way to truly limit the advertising and campaigning out there.. and those with the money will have more.

And what do PACs do to a politician's voting habits if they can't give money to the politician?

thegreekdog wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Why would it? It would just mean the corporations don't have to bother with influencing the government.

How does that work?

I think you guys are looking at this the wrong way (and by "wrong way" I mean not my way).

I think we all agree that corporations have a strong influence over government. Some of may believe that's okay, some of us may think corporations should have a bigger influence, some of us may think that corporations should have a smaller influence (or no influence).

What would happen if corporations had no influence over government (or the same influence as anyone else)? Would the United States be materially worse than it is now? Some of you are suggesting that limiting government means that corporations could do things they can't do with a big government; well, you're not suggesting it so much as assuming that this is what will happen. In other words, you're assuming that if government was smaller/limited, corporations would have more control than they do now. I do not think this is a valid assumption.

Exactly.

To make the case clearer, the government exercises monopolies in the provision of certain goods (law, enforcement, defense, in particular). Certain corporations exert influence over the government by positioning themselves in these businesses (e.g. military-industrial complex). In order to provide jobs within certain States, the Senators and Congress are obliged to support whichever bills that would flow money from the government (the people) into these certain corporations' coffers, in turn providing the jobs, and high-fives all around between those particular businesspeople and the politicians.

Instead of supporting a strong government that retains its monopoly in providing certain goods, why not break up the monopoly and end the corporate influence of a few select corporations?

GreecePwns wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:^ This.

The proper way to fix things is to rid the influence of outside parties on a politician's voting habits, by fully publically financing campaigns. If you could trust your government, you'd have less reason to hate it.

I don't think that would work, with so much information being spread over the internet. It was just possible to require that stations give each candidate equal time (up until the whole "PACs are arguing positions, not for candidates bit". Now, there is no way to truly limit the advertising and campaigning out there.. and those with the money will have more.

And what do PACs do to a politician's voting habits if they can't give money to the politician?

You miss the point. That milk is already spilled. The powers that be have already invested money heavily and continue to do so. Any legislation to hold in campaign financing at this point is just irrelevant.

What is keeping this from being obvious, yet, is simply that a higher percentage of the voting publis is still not getting their information from the internet, although they often talk to people who do and so do get it second hand that way. So, campaign reform might have been very effective if done a few years ago. It might work for a very short time today, but... basically that short time will be passed by the time any such legislation can be implemented.

BigBallinStalin wrote: Instead of supporting a strong government that retains its monopoly in providing certain goods, why not break up the monopoly and end the corporate influence of a few select corporations?

The question is essentially irrelevant. That IS what is happening. I only get angry when people try to claim that the Tea Party or any of these "reduce government" operations are doing more than speeding that process up.

We might.. might have a chance to take our country back, but gauging by the various discussions I hear here and elsewhere.. it is not going to happen.

Here is a potential example of inefficiency:

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... is-poverty

Two things with this:

(1) Is it "right" that people with these kinds of amenities are not paying taxes (generally)?
(2) If people with these kinds of amenities are receiving government aid, is that efficient?

so why do you all think that small government = unrestrained corporations? you think that all the government does is keep corporations down? you think that's the only reason why libertarians dislike large government? lol.

thegreekdog wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Why would it? It would just mean the corporations don't have to bother with influencing the government.

How does that work?

I think you guys are looking at this the wrong way (and by "wrong way" I mean not my way).

I think we all agree that corporations have a strong influence over government. Some of may believe that's okay, some of us may think corporations should have a bigger influence, some of us may think that corporations should have a smaller influence (or no influence).

What would happen if corporations had no influence over government (or the same influence as anyone else)? Would the United States be materially worse than it is now? Some of you are suggesting that limiting government means that corporations could do things they can't do with a big government; well, you're not suggesting it so much as assuming that this is what will happen. In other words, you're assuming that if government was smaller/limited, corporations would have more control than they do now. I do not think this is a valid assumption.

It wouldn't necessarily be the case, but I think it's a reasonable conclusion. Less government by definition means less regulation and potentially means less enforcement of the regulations it would have.

thegreekdog wrote:Here is a potential example of inefficiency:

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... is-poverty

Two things with this:

(1) Is it "right" that people with these kinds of amenities are not paying taxes (generally)?
(2) If people with these kinds of amenities are receiving government aid, is that efficient?

Air conditioning...yes, someone in poverty should still have air conditioning and I have no problem
with their still receiving government aid. As for cable TV and an XBox...no, I don't believe that
is appropriate to someone receiving government aid IF (in the case of the XBox in particular) it
was not a gift from someone else and not purchased with their money.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote: Instead of supporting a strong government that retains its monopoly in providing certain goods, why not break up the monopoly and end the corporate influence of a few select corporations?

The question is essentially irrelevant. That IS what is happening. I only get angry when people try to claim that the Tea Party or any of these "reduce government" operations are doing more than speeding that process up.

We might.. might have a chance to take our country back, but gauging by the various discussions I hear here and elsewhere.. it is not going to happen.

Um, ok... Either you support the central government and the ensuing status quo, or you decrease its powers by breaking up its monopolies and/or reducing the role it plays in society.

You can't reasonably demand that politicians align their interests to the social good and stop behaving along their incentives...

This is rather telling:



http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

thegreekdog wrote:Here is a potential example of inefficiency:

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... is-poverty

Two things with this:

(1) Is it "right" that people with these kinds of amenities are not paying taxes (generally)?
(2) If people with these kinds of amenities are receiving government aid, is that efficient?

I agree and disagree.
I consider Air conditioning a luxury, but I know people who would be in the hospital without it. I have a very hard time sleeping without it, as does my husband. If not having air conditioning means having a poor work day.. it is not quite a luxury any longer.

The cable TV bit gets overblown. A lot of apartment buildings have it with the rent. But, even for those that don't.. you can get cable here for agout $20. If you have kids, cannot do much because you don't have money..then cable TV can seem a reasonable deal. Not saying I agree, just saying its not that unreasonable. Not everyone has easy access to a library.

And.. a lot of times people are given these things or get them used for almost nothing. We have a 50 inch TV that we certainly did not buy. I got my son an xbox at a garage sale for $3.

But, when they just gloss over the "medical care" , etc... that is not accurate. The bottom poor do get Medicaid (though fewer and fewer adults now qualify), but a huge number do not have any medical care.

thegreekdog wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Why would it? It would just mean the corporations don't have to bother with influencing the government.

How does that work?

Well if the government doesn't even involve itself with making regulations as to what and what is not allowed then companies don't need to care about it.


If the government initially says that only 500 dead fish is acceptable and the companies work towards making 750 dead fish acceptable it would still be better than any amount of dead fish being acceptable, wouldn't it? "At least a few rules" is better than "no rules", right?


I understand that you think that less government means less to control for the companies, but the only reason they care about control is because there is so much government.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Instead of supporting a strong government that retains its monopoly in providing certain goods, why not break up the monopoly and end the corporate influence of a few select corporations?

What makes you think these (probably very rich) corporations wouldn't have more influence when all the rules are gone?

Snorri1234 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Instead of supporting a strong government that retains its monopoly in providing certain goods, why not break up the monopoly and end the corporate influence of a few select corporations?

What makes you think these (probably very rich) corporations wouldn't have more influence when all the rules are gone?

Ah, so a reduction in the size of government means total anarchy with no rules, no courts system, and no enforcement. What a bold assumption, sir!

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Instead of supporting a strong government that retains its monopoly in providing certain goods, why not break up the monopoly and end the corporate influence of a few select corporations?

What makes you think these (probably very rich) corporations wouldn't have more influence when all the rules are gone?

Ah, so a reduction in the size of government means total anarchy with no rules, no courts system, and no enforcement. What a bold assumption, sir!

All the rules pertaining to that specific area the corporations work in. I'm talking mostly environmental and health laws.