Socialism play /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system in which the means of production are commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or a political philosophy advocating such a system. [1] As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs.[2]
Keep in mind however economic growth doesn't happen overnight and it's better then something like child prostitution, human trafficking or who knows what else.
"...either they'll get nasty then it's an open war against people which they won't..."
This is one area in which I completely disagree with you...since they've already done this very thing, in other areas of the world. There is ample precedent to suppose that this is, in fact, exactly what they'll do.
Ok, so do the masses in American or elsewhere know that their big govts are being used by corps in a bad way? I guess not, & that's precisely my point.
When there's big govt, they just hide behind & play their cards without the masses noticing it & if they don't notice it then they don't do anything about it meaning there's NO "open war against people"
@lomocan Americans are becoming increasingly aware of the dominant role that the corporations have come to play in their governments, largely because the corporations are either becoming increasingly lax about concealing their involvement, or the just don't care anymore, since they've got it 'all sewn up' (which is possible.) I agree with you that big government allows them to hide, but they no longer seem to care about that, hence my lack of faith in smaller govt. providing a 'cure.'
They don't care because they've a big govt which almost has plenary powers in their pockets which means they can do whatever they want using govt power & it's all "legal"; & you're suggesting we let things as it is or give govt more power? Seriously?
And you seem to think that a "small govt" has less power to prosecute crime so let me tell you once again, it's NOT the case; their "scope" it limited but that doesn't mean they won't be powerful in their given domains.
@lomocan So, by reducing the 'size' of the government, you're talking about, what, precisely? Decreasing the size of the bureaucracy? Decreasing the number of regulations enforcing laws that business has to abide by? I've pretty much gotten that you don't want to curtail government's enforcement power, but I see the military / industrial complex as a major tool of the multinationals in maintaining this system as it is, and you haven't reassured me about THEM at all, yet...
"by reducing the 'size' of the government, you're talking about, what, precisely?"
That govt will only do military, police & courts; whatever little bureaucracy is required will be there.
Small govt in itself entails that only "defensive wars" are fought (ie when a COUNTRY attacks us); free markets will mean no more Fed which means people will directly be paying higher taxes when at war (as there's no Fed to monetize debt) & people will be more cautious with wars.
The attempt to separate the government from the market is completely trivial and nonsense.
The right is always obssesed with this fallacious notion because they have no truly examined the social relations of capitalism and don't understand the capitalism continues to reinvent itself in a way that will only lead to its ultimate death.
The only connection between the free market and the government is the people that end up with all the money in a free market (it will always be a select few) are the ones that run the government. They lobby for how they want things to be and pay off the politicians. Government involvement or not, in a free market all of the money ends up going to a few while the rest of the population suffers. In a free market, profit always comes before people. That is not how an evolved human society should be
Oh Jesus, not another free market retard. If the government didn't regulate you'd be drinking snake oil and living on clay.
Capitalism is impossible. The only reason we're not all in a depression again (see also: 1929) is because the government stepped in to slow the fall. Darwinian economics can never, ever, ever work. Unless perpetual mass genocide is an anticipated feature of it.
nothing percieved about it. capitalism and the free market is entirely responsible for the current financial meltdown. fact. greedy fuckin bankers without proper regulation gambling with your money and everyone elses. whay aren't you angry with them. the irony that you appear to be blind to is that the chinese of all people that we are all financially beholden to. unregulated capitalism is every bit as dangerous as communism and it would leave an awful lot of US citizens in the gutter.
"capitalism and the free market is entirely responsible for the current financial meltdown"
It was caused by GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION, who gave FED the ability "create" money - GOV, who ensured bank deposits with taxpayers' money thru FDIC & thus making banks irresponsible - GOV, who forced banks to lend to unsound debtors thru Community Reinvestment Act -GOV, who bails out unsound businesses thru taxpayers' money - GOV. EVERY recession ever caused is a product of gov intervention
@lomocan A ludicrous statement from what I can only imagine is the mind of a child.
You are trying to argue that bombs don't cause death and mutilation, but aeroplanes do.
The government didn't give the Fed the ability to make money. The Fed crowbarred it from the people. The government has very limited power when it comes to controlling the banks. Another of its cherished features is the invention of regulations to hold back competitors.
"The government didn't give the Fed the ability to make money."
Govt ie Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 in concert with bankers, it gave them both what they wanted, it allowed govt to offer socialist services to people to keep getting them re-elected & bankers got profits
"Another of its cherished features is the invention of regulations to hold back competitors"
Regulations are a product of govt & businesses to sponge off of the people.
Allowing government/politicians to "regulate" businesses is like asking for corporatism, since businesses just buy out politicians & that's what's been happening, we DON'T have capitalism, we've corporatism & corporatism can only arise when gov is BIG & has authority to "regulate" business; "unregulated" does NOT mean anything goes, it means, under free market capitalism, gov CAN'T regulate markets, their job will be restricted to protecting individuals' rights from being violated
Free market withouth regulations always!!! leads to corporate totalitarian fashism. That is the basic math. There is not democracy but mediocracy, where rulling corporate elite is creating rulles for them self. Learn more about history, and you see, that regulations was created to prevent "corporatocracy". USA have lose that fight when they was trying to chatch up the soviets in space race (about 1960 - 1970).
"Free market withouth regulations always!!! leads to corporate totalitarian fashism"
Corporatism is the exact OPPOSITE of free market capitalism since under free market capitalism, gov is very SMALL & its job is restricted to provideing redress to individuals who's right have been violated while gov MUST be BIG for corporatism to exist
Its ludicrous to think those "honest, angelic politicians" can "regulate" business for people, no, that's EXACTLY what leads to corporatism
@lomocan Do you know how government got so big? Monetary survival of the fittest. Or, as we have come to call it, capitalism. Capitalism creates corporatism. Government grows around it largely by necessity.
Free Market withouth regulations always!!! leads to corporate totalitarian fashism, where is not democracy but mediocracy owned by corporations ! That is fact. Then they are making rules as goverment for them self.
True democracy ( or direct democracy ) is in communism, where economy and power is completly decentralized to smallest possible units called "communes", and they decides alone for them self, about everything in theyr communes.
Government regulated capitalism all depends on what kind of government we have. We are no longer in a democracy or republic. We are in a plutocratic oligarchy; as such, all regulation will benefit the corporations. Regulation can either help everyone or help the few at the top, currently our government does what helps the elite.
"Regulation can either help everyone or help the few at the top, currently our government does what helps the elite"
Market "regulation" ALWAYS helps the people at the top, NEVER the ordinary masses since it's the politicians & bureaucrats that "enforce" regulations & they can ALWAYS be bought & the big guys create regulations that suit them, killing small businesses & impoverishing the masses; the best way to avoid corporatism is NOT to let the politicians & bureaucrats "regulate"
@lomocan Wrong and stupid. Snake oil sales will go through the roof, hand healers will oust doctors and heavy electricity will replace regular electricity in everybody's home... except the poor.
I'll spell it out AGAIN for you, corporatism CAN'T exist without big govt hence it can't exist under free-market-capitalism under its small govt.
Simple question-Is govt MORE LIKELY to work for people when it doesn't've power to "regulate" (& hence big businesses can't control the system thru govt) or is it MORE LIKELY to work for people when it does NOT have power to "regulate" (so there's no incentive for businesses to buy out govt since it has no power)?
@lomocan We need government to protect stupid people (like yourself) from being exploited and made to do things like; rent air and buy vistas. Government makes sure you visit a qualified doctor of medicine instead of a witch or a priest.
I agree that without these powers it wouldn't be as corruptible, but without these powers there wouldn't be any point at all. You might as well kill your neighbors.
"We need government to protect stupid people (like yourself) from being exploited and made to do things like"
Are you 10 or something? Why do you need a nanny to tell you what you should do, which doctor you should go to, etc etc? When govt is given power to "protect people" in this way, whoever pays money to the govt gets to screw people. You're totally deluded if you think politicians & bureaucrats are bothered about "protecting people", they're busy lining their pockets.
"Capitalism is lining their pockets. Why are you so fucking stupid?"
No, let me repeat, businesses buy out govt/politicians & bureaucrats BECAUSE they've power to "regulate" business so big business buy'em out so they can create "regulations" to kill their competitors & kill the free market & that leads to corporatism.
So it stands to reason that, if govt did NOT have the power to "regulate" business, theyll MORE LIKELY (NOT necessarily) to work for the people.
@lomocan Government is awarded these powers by capitalist interests. If this wasn't true, it wouldn't be happening. Is it happening? There you go then. Just as socialism tends to cronyism, capitalism tends to corporatism. Ironically, we need a bit of each.
"Government is awarded these powers by capitalist interests"
No, PEOPLE like yourself awarded these powers to govt AND THEREBY to "capitalist interests" in your vain HOPE that honest, angelic govts will use those power wisely.
"Just as socialism tends to cronyism, capitalism tends to corporatism"
EVERY system "tends to" move to corporatism BUT capitalism CAN'T turn into corporatism WITHOUT people confering power to the govt & thereby confering power to corporatists.
@lomocan That looks good on paper, I'll grant you. However, you're forgetting that companies can 'band together' informally to do 'price fixing,' thus ensuring they all get a cut of the inflated PIE. They also keep wages low to bolster the bottom line - unregulated, they tend more to exploit their workers, discard those that 'burn out' and then just hire fresh cannon-fodder. This is why regulations were put in place by government, and why labor unions were created.
Dave puts it out there rather neatly, unembellished and plain. Limit regulation, sure, just make sure that the basics are covered. Increased regulation is what CREATED corporations, and pushed them to buy-out government, in order to influence regulation. The problem is, I think, that once that particular genie is out of the bottle, there's no putting it BACK again...the corporations have figured out that their rigged gaming of the system is THE key to their survival.
No cartal can be formed in free market WITHOUT govt-backing since if there're no regulations then the moment cartel starts overpricing, new "greedier" businesses will pop up to cash in & further, NOT ALL businesses are equally efficient so under a free market, if the most efficient business will driven to capture most or all of the market-share/profit by driving out other competitors but the moment it starts overcharging old & new competitors will pop right back up.
@lomocan With or without government companies consume each other. They grow and competition perishes. The only power government has is to slow it down or stop it all together. Competitors seldom reappear.
My questions to you:
How do you prevent companies consuming each other?
How do you prevent investors inflating a company's assets?
And finally, in your dream world, how does the patent system would work?
"With or without government companies consume each other. They grow and competition perishes."
Competition NEVER perishes, people're always looking to maximize their profits. NOT ALL companies would want to amalgamate since all of them would've different efficiency-levels & as I've said, they'd rather TRY & capture more market-share/profit by producing better goods/services at cheaper rates than forming a monopoly, IN THE ABSENCE GOVT-FORCED MONOPOLIES.
@lomocan Yeah, that's why in real life here on the planet earth, where you and I both live, it keeps happening over and over again. It's the government, they FORCE companies to buy each other, then FORCE them to breakup (BT, Microsoft et al.)
You are not an idiot at all. You know everything. The entirety of human history that has been rewritten just to make you look bad.
"It's the government, they FORCE companies to buy each other, then FORCE them to breakup (BT, Microsoft et al.)"
It mayn't so explicit all the time but if a smaller company with better/cheaper product/service is selling itself to a big company then it's because they know that big co. has govt in its pockets & if they don't sell then they'll lose out on whatever deal they're getting anyway; further, govt helps big co. block competition thru regulations, bureaucracy & high entry-cost
@lomocan Seldom is that the case. They sell because they're fetishists too. They see vast amounts cash and possibility. They sell and either keep their job, or repeat the cycle. You can buy businesses all over the place. Government has nothing to do with it.
I could find you 100 right now whose owners don't know what regulations even effect them. But I don't need to, you could do it yourself. Plus, you already know it's true. You're just so religiously invested you won't admit it.
"The only power government has is to slow it down or stop it all together"
So how's the govt doing the job of "slowing down corporatism"? Oh wait, corporatism exists everywhere already because why would govt care about "slowing it down" when it can benefit from it at the cost of the people!
@lomocan Yeah, let's pretend there is absolutely no regulatory control anywhere. Let's pretend, as in my country there is no Competition Commission. Sorry, I didn't mean pretend. I meant, let's acknowledge none of it exists. I know it has a website, staff, offices and shit, but it's not REAL, it's a hologram made by socialists scientists. It runs on secret free energy generated by air in top secret underground overunity power plants. Other people don't know about it because of the chip implants.
Talking about govt "breaking up companies" for the "benefit of people"; first anti-trust laws were proposed by Standard Oil's attorney when it massively capturing the market-share in 1870s & 80s Why would he propose laws which will most likely be used against co. he was working for? Not to mention, Standard Oil was "broken up" in 1914. FDR cartelized many industries thru "regulating" them. I marvel at people like you who fall for such corporatist-hoaxes created to fool people.
@lomocan Hey I'm not saying it doesn't happen. Incidentally, by your own definition of history, the government of 1870 must have been socialist. Is that the case? I really don't know.
@lomocan "...the moment cartel starts overpricing, new "greedier" businesses will pop up to cash in..." "...the moment it starts overcharging old & new competitors will pop right back up..."
Provided, of course, that they (the newbies) don't get their SKULLS bashed in...
It never ceases to amaze me how charmingly naive some people can be - always assuming the competition will 'play fair'...when time after time, history has born out quite the opposite...
"Provided, of course, that they (the newbies) don't get their SKULLS bashed in"
Under free market capitalism, it's govt's job to protect the liberties of everyone so it'd've to step in & if on occasions it didn't then that only illustrates why govt shouldn't be given more power
"It never ceases to amaze me how charmingly naive some people can be - always assuming the competition will 'play fair'...when time after time, history has born out quite the opposite"
Contrary to your belief, it's FIRST THING that crosses the minds of free marketers, the realization that everyone WON'T play fair & that people're driven by their self-interests. But we're not as deluded as "regulationists" to think that govt (politicians & bureaucrats) will work for people.
I've already stated quite clearly that violation of individual rights thru violence, theft, fraud, etc will still be punished by the govt but there'd be separation of business & state. Even under free markets, govt will still be inefficient but that's just nature of govt & hence conceding more power to it would only be foolish but govt will work for people (at least more times than not) when it can't just sponge of business thru corporatism so no "regulations".
@lomocan Okay, now I KNOW you're living in a fantasy world.
Yes, that reads really well on PAPER - but I'm here to tellya, it just ain't gonna HAPPEN, dudesicle. The corporations are IN the catbird seat and they've settled in for a nice long STAY. They've taken the comfy chair, and they have a case of beer and BIG bowl of popcorn...and they're not gonna go quietly. Much as I like the Libertarian idealism, much as I admire the constitution, I put the odds against this around 10000 to 1...
So you would rather trust the "honest, principled, angelic" politicians & bureaucrats to do their job when they're given MORE power than when they've less power, would you? The only reason you're saying it wouldn't work because you fear govt wouldn't do its job of punishing violence, theft, fraud & such violations & YET you propose that giving more power to them would help? I tend to disagree, if they're not doing their job with less power then they won't with more power either
@lomocan How do you work that out? If one man can lift 200kg, two men ought to lift 400kg. It's not a direct comparison I know, but what you said was pulled out of your arse. I'm kinda limited...
I don't particularly trust business OR government, at this point, since one basically owns the other, and the other is the one's PUPPET. Period. The situation has become so befouled and tainted that it's lost the confidence of most of the voters (who aren't so stupid that they can't see what's happening - considering how ill-concealed it's become) - and this situation is, as I see it at this point, virtually irreversible: Got any spare time machines?
Time machines would be useless, its nature of govts to be corrupt, always have been & always will be (the exact degree might differ SLIGHTLY); you give people power & be rest assured that most of them will misuse it to their own benefit so more power more corruption, less power slightly less corruption that's why Founders created SMALL, LIMITED govt, it wasn't by accident but by intent.
@lomocan But then, if the power of ENFORCEMENT of the LAW is retained by the government, they still can't be trusted to be fair and impartial, in their meting out justice, can they? The size and limitation you'd impose on them would affect the bureaucrats and agencies, but not the military and police, would it?
"But then, if the power of ENFORCEMENT of the LAW is retained by the government, they still can't be trusted to be fair and impartial, in their meting out justice, can they? The size and limitation you'd impose on them would affect the bureaucrats and agencies, but not the military and police, would it?
I sense a glaring FLAW here, somewhere..."
THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT, a small govt will STILL be corrupt but NOT AS MUCH as big govt with massive power.
@lomocan WAIT a minute, wait a minute...you're equating DEGREE OF CORRUPTION with SIZE OF GOVERNMENT? Isn't that the same as saying that "A bigger polluted lake is more polluted than a smaller polluted lake?" My Spider-sense is TINGLING, here...
"WAIT a minute, wait a minute...you're equating DEGREE OF CORRUPTION with SIZE OF GOVERNMENT? Isn't that the same as saying that "A bigger polluted lake is more polluted than a smaller polluted lake?" My Spider-sense is TINGLING, here"
I don't know what you're saying............ it's too obvious that more power means more corruption & less freedom for people
" We should vote on policies and spending instead of people. Voting for personalities is really quite stupid"
Agreed, in fact, I say individuals should run alone & party-system needs to be done away with; yes, that'll help but still power will mostly attract the power-hungry; the belief that there's some way to find angels to run the govt is unrealistic; almost all life-forms are driven by perceived self-interest so those in power will almost always use it to benefit themselves.
I've never claimed & none of the free marketers would seriously claim that free market society will be perfect or anything, it'll still be flawed but NOT as much as a "regulated" society with blatent corporatism as is on show in most parts of the world.
Like we don't have choice between dying or not dying, we only have choice of may be prolonging our lives; we don't have choice between perfect & imperfect govt, it'll always be imperfect so choose one which is less so
@lomocan Well, to my way of thinking, you haven't really done much to ensure that this system will be much better, given what I know about the interactions of business and government. On the one hand, you have big govt. (owned by big business) running roughshod over competition and 'the little guy', and on the other, you have a smaller, less effective government, with less regulatory authority, giving big business freer rein and letting Big Business do the trampling - we've been there already...
"you have a smaller, less effective government, with less regulatory authority, giving big business freer rein and letting Big Business do the trampling - we've been there already"
Where's "free rein" you're talking about, as I've said already, govt will still be required to punish violations, violence, fraud, theft, etc so there's no "free rein" of "doing whatever they please", they're still liable to be punished, only thing is that businesses can't control people thru govt
@lomocan Yes, yes, 'required' to punish violations, violence, fraud, theft, etc., except that unregulated big business will have even LESS incentive to 'play by the rules' with less regulation. Yes, they'll be less able to control people through government, just like the good old days when they hired their own scabs and strikebreakers, and then their own THUGS to beat down the UNIONS when they lead strikes.
You're making me repeat the same thing over & over.
So there's more incentive to "play by the rules" when you can just buy out the govt?????
Further, if someone beats down somebody, they'll be liable for punishment. Business "regulations" have nothing to do with someone beating someone else so how does that have anything to do with anything I'm saying!
@lomocan I keep making you repeat the same thing over again, because my study of history has pretty much discredited your assertions that things will 'be better with less regulation"...which kind of makes YOU 'beside the point.' You seem convinced that profiteers and capitalists have done far less ill when they've been unregulated. Can you actually give me a concrete example of when this has actually been proven to be the case, in actuality, in the past?
"You seem convinced that profiteers and capitalists have done far less ill when they've been unregulated. Can you actually give me a concrete example of when this has actually been proven to be the case, in actuality, in the past?"
Look, at China, India & ESPECIALLY Hongkong, they were shit when their people were being "saved" by "evil capitalists" but prosperity only came about when they actually considerably freed up their markets with much less regulation.
@lomocan I think you need to examine the Wikileaks article regarding the "Economy of Hong Kong." In there you'll find a very interesting section sub-titled: "Positive non-interventionism." "...The government has intervened to create economic institutions such as the Hong Kong Stock Market and has been involved in public works projects and social welfare spending. All land in Hong Kong is owned by the government and leased to private users...." (continued)...
Well, everything you've said only point failure of GOVERNMENT, not of the free markets; govt don't have the power to "regulate" under a free market so none of this happen in the first place.
Your examples exactly show how giving more power to the govt only leads to govts leeching the people, they just fill their pockets & don't do what they're supposed & then resort to blame-game which is why "regulation" is such a drain on the economy & the people any country.
@lomocan "... everything you've said only point failure of GOVERNMENT, not of the free markets..."
Excuse me again...that's not really correct.
The example of Hong Kong was touted by YOU as an 'especial' example of a 'freed up' market...when, in fact, the government controls far more than does that of the USA...
The example of China shows just how far the PRC is willing to go to enforce regulation -and they've been fairly successful with it. Hardly a bastion of free enterprise...(cont'd)...
When did I say China & Hongkong are freer than USA? That's very difficult to say because "regulatedness" of markets can't be objectively quantified (even though some agencies foolishly try to), I've merely said that to whatever extent they were freed up (& they were freed considerably than how they were before when people were practically destitute under a "closed market"), it allowed prosperity to take hold which the previously "closed market" didn't permit.
@lomocan Ah, I didn't say that you had depicted them as being 'freer than the USA', though, Iomocan. I said you depicted them as examples of the success of freer markets - two of which aren't really 'freer' at all (Hong Kong's govt. owning and leasing all the land, and the PRC basically using draconian enforcement) and one is rather TOO free, and unsuccessfully so (India...which boasts a growing middle class but still maintains a widening gulf between that class and its poor.) (cont'd)...
@lomocan Not so with the PRC....there you have only a thinly veiled illusion of greater freedom. The PRC is an autocratic capitalism model...the antithesis of a free marketplace.
Please look into economic reforms of China & India, they were much WORSE before than they were now & whatever freeing up has occurred has only benefitted the masses by way jobs, goods/services & living standards; it's like saying before they were being looted a lot more by their govts, now they loot them a little less so wouldn't you call it an improvement? And imagine how things would be if the govt looting is lessened further.
@lomocan LOL...an increase in wealth among a segment of the population doesn't mean they're looted LESS, Iomocan - it means there's more people to LOOT FROM. That diffuses the looting over a broader swath of the populace. Remember what I showed you about the truckers in India having to pay appx. US$5 billion per year in bribes? There's your increased market in action, there...sans adequate regulation, of course. Not a good example. Neither was the PRC. Hong Kong was your best shot.
No, you're miscalculating the whole situation. You look at both China & India's economic reforms & you'll find that their prosperity is directly related to that since that time.
As for Indian truckers having to pay bribes, who are they paying the bribes to???? BUREAUCRATS & POLITICIANS so there you go.
@lomocan LOL...yes...they're paying the bribes because of the lack of law enforcement. This is always the case when laws are not adequately enforced...including the laws that govern the behavior of government officials. That doesn't mean that regulation of the free market doesn't work, Iomocan...it means that there's been a total failure in law enforcement 'in toto.'
"they're paying the bribes because of the lack of law enforcement"
They're paying bribes TO the law-enforcement because that's what people generally do, they use power to benefit themselves.
"That doesn't mean that regulation of the free market doesn't work"
Free market & "regulation" can't co-exist, in fact, it's "regulation" that destroyes the freedom of the markets when some people buy out politicians & bureaucrats & use them to their own advantage.
@lomocan The example of India show just how UNsuccessful deregulation can be - the result being a country so rife with corruption that it's well below the halfway mark down the scale of corruption.
These are examples YOU cited as exemplary of the 'success' of free market enterprise. Two have nothing to do with free enterprise at all, really (Hong Kong and the PRC) and the other is an abysmal failure (India).
My examples show, essentially, that your arguments are still relatively weak.
I've never said they're "free markets", I've said they're FREER than what they once were & that has caused them to grow & become more prosperous than when they were being "saved" from free markets, it allowed businesses to flourish & create jobs & goods/services & raise people's living standards.
And as for the corruption you've cited, it comes directly from governments not doing what they're supposed to, that's the failure of govts & regulation, not of the markets.
You seem to think that I'm speaking "for" businessmen when I'm merely trying to point out that NEITHER businessmen NOR politicians care about the people, they're all busy filling their pockets & when you give politicians & bureaucrats the power to "regulate" then they mostly use it to benefit themselves, not to mention, some businesses then buy out politicians & bureaucrats to grant favors to them at the cost of ordinary people which is what we call corporatism.
@lomocan Now here, I agree with you, to a point. However, I wouldn't call the lobbying and bribe-ola 'corporatism', per se, since this isn't dependent upon the existence of corporations for it to work. I would instead call it 'poorly regulated capitalism' which is not a symbiote with democracy, but rather a parasite upon that system.
It's NOT "poorly regulated capitalims", it is what happens when you give power to politicians & bureaucrats, they use it to benefit themselves.
Those in favor of regulation think that just having "regulation" would change anything but it doesn't because angels never were & never will be running the govts.
@lomocan Mmm....words like 'never' make me nervous.
There're always good and bad characters in governments, Iomocan. Regulations and restrictions FORCE honesty with the rule of law - that's what they're there for, not to extort more money from business, but to prevent business from unrestricted pillaging.
That's the BIGGEST misconception people have about "free markets", they're made to believe by corporatist-bought media that free markets = lawlessness when that is NOT the case at all. In fact, free markets means punishing fraud, stealing, violence & violation of people's freedoms to their life , liberty & property. Free markets mean protecting people govt-coercion AND private-coercion.
@lomocan Are you then denying that business owners used to exploit their workers...paying inadequate wages, forcing them to work with no days off, no breaks, utilizing child labor, and providing no safety precautions or benefits for their workers? I'm afraid you can't simply rewrite history, Iomocan...
Well, none of the above include businesses FORCING anyone to do something against their wishes, they were free to bargain or take another job with better terms; you're missing the point that AT THE TIME, rest of the world was even worse position & it was because most of the West was relatively free that Western living standards were raised, NOT due to "regulation"
@lomocan I actually haven't missed that point - I just don't give it as much credence as you have done. I see improvements in some sectors of those societies, some declines in other sectors, and a static maintenence of a 'poor class,' which appears to be endemic to capitalism. At the time, the rest of CIVILIZATION was in a worse position: the advent of an increasing consumer class DOES elevate living standards for many, but tends to degrad the overall viability of the environment.
"a static maintenence of a 'poor class,' which appears to be endemic to capitalism"
It's not endemic to capitalism, it's endemic to life itself, no system will ever be able to make all people equal because that's not how the world is, some are productive than others, some are more intelligent than & so on, so if one supports a system based on hardwork & merit then there's going to be SOME disparity; it's an incorrigible problem unless we were absolute clones of one another.
@lomocan Hm. I'll agree with you to the extent that a system based on hard work and merit rewards some more than others, but in Soviet Russia, EVERYBODY got their bread, or nearly everybody. That isn't the case these days, in the newly-'capitalist' Russia. I also do not agree with you that a static poor class is endemic to life itself. I don't see it as an incorrible problem without us being a clone race. I see the provision for the poor as being a beneficial side-effect of government.
When "everybody" is gauranteed to get something for nothing then most just don't need to do anything which undermines productivity, less goods/services are produced & eventually the system becomes unsustainable. No system can survive for long where people are guaranteed stuff without EARNING them thru merit, it's like assuring the whole class that every student will be passed, most just won't bother studying then.
@lomocan "When "everybody" is gauranteed to get something for nothing then most just don't need to do anything which undermines productivity, less goods/services are produced & eventually the system becomes unsustainable. No system can survive for long where people are guaranteed stuff without EARNING them thru merit..."
Further, govt has no wealth of itself; all it ever has comes from the private sector & hard-working people who produce goods/services so when govt makes any "special provision" for anyone then they're effectively STEALING from one person's money/property to give it to another, that's violation of property rights. As for poverty, that should be taken care of thru charity; afterall, when govt is limited, taxes will be much lower & charitable people will give away more.
@lomocan Property 'rights' are largely limited in a truly communist system. Your assertion that 'poverty will be taken care of through charity' is facile and makes a number of unsupportable assumptions which run contrary to basic human nature. Human beings (and most carbon-based life forms) are hard-wired for greed, not charity. Assuming "charity will provide" is virtually identical to the theistic position of "God will provide." This is an unsupportable assumption which has no basis in fact.
"Human beings (and most carbon-based life forms) are hard-wired for greed, not charity. Assuming"
Thanks for recognizing this & this is exactly the reason why communism always has & always will fail because people are driven by their own perceived self-interests & that's why the only fair system is one where people're able to keep what they earn, not communism
I didn't mean to say that charity will take care of EVERYONE, just more than in any other system.
"Cite for me any instance of when this has proven even remotely effective, please"
Can you cite me an example of a govt which was completely angelic or even remotely so? Can you cite me an example where big govt hasn't led to hidden plutocracy controlling the masses thru the use of govt's power?
There's no justification for more power to the govt unless you willfully want to submit to the corps & the hidden plutocracy
If you're referring to pollution then that'll be dealth under breach of property right and/or causing harm to others, whichever case is applicable, & perpetrators will be brough to justice & as I've said, they're more likely to be brought to justice in a LIMITED govt because it's easier for people to keep an eye on. Under "regulated" systems, the corporations just buy out the govt to make favorable "regulation" & then keep polluting
@lomocan And are you therefore proposing that the free market business hire their own police forces to do the enforcement? the "punishing fraud, stealing, violence & violation of people's freedoms to their life , liberty & property?" Wouldn't that be basically creating their own private militias?
I'm proposing what I've always proposed that govt should be LIMITED to military, police & courts & that's that. If a violation occurs then it's their job to arbitrate & its likely that they wouldn't even do a good job at that due to corrupt nature of powre & govts but letting them to do anything more like "regulating" only makes things worse, not better.
"But even limited government can be bought, can't it....?"
Sure, it can be but since it has limited powers, it can't affect the people in as big way as a big govt can. Not to mention, if it's limited then it's easier to keep an eye on for us; if they're doing lots of stuff then it's becomes for ordinary people to bring them to justice, just look how much corporatism & corruptionism there's going on right now, it's difficult to even make a list, it'd be LOOOOOOOONG list
@lomocan Granted, but then it (government) will have reduced power of enforcement, as well. And the biggest problem I see with the proposed reduction in government is the fact that it isn't going to make the corporations, which already exist, simply just 'go away' - is it? They're multi-national, now, and they have more liquidity than most governments, as well as the ability to, shall we say, 'resist dissolution.' This is why I think reduced government is no longer a viable solution.
It's NOT "reduced power of enforcement", it's "reduced SCOPE of enforcement"; their power to punish fraud, theft, violence & other violation of rights will still exist in full strength, it's just that they can't play any "regulation" games anymore which lead most to corporatism. Size of corporations is irrelevant as reduced scope would people will be able to keep a close eye on the govt to make sure that if corporations aren't being allowed to defraud, steal or violate rights
@lomocan So you propose that reductions in military, police, etc., are merely proposed reductions in the 'legal matters' in which they are allowed to enforce the law? The military and law enforcement cadres may remain at their current sizes, and only be deployed within a reduced sphere of influence. Correct?
Your statement "size of corporations is irrelevant" doesn't do much to convince me - what's to prevent a corporation from hiring it's own mercenaries and trashing the army of a country?
Well, police will be largely be the same but there'll no "patriot act" & such things which violate people's rights & allows for them to take into custody, imprison, torture & even kill a citizen without a fair trial.
Having a strong defense will obviously be a priority in any case but no more going to wars on taxpayers' money, & oil & weapons industries making profits off it as it'll be a lot more obvious to people that global militarism is just financially destructive.
"what's to prevent a corporation from hiring it's own mercenaries and trashing the army of a country?"
What stops them from doing that NOW? Well, corporations can't take on armies of countries like that & hope to sell their products, it's just financially unsustaible, not to mention ignominious. But right now govt having huge power, they can simply buy them out & make their own rules in the name "regulation" which favor them but not their smaller competitors.
@lomocan Ah, I see you DID answer. Um...excuse me - corporations DO take on armies of countries these days, and have in the past - in order to exploit their resources for profit. They undermine the governments of other nations, typically with money or with the help of the government and military of their own countries (which they often own, anyway.) It's only ignominious if the word gets OUT - don't forget, they're usually smart enough to spin the recounting of the events to their own favor.
One point has to be noted that CORPORATISM has what made a lot of the corporations so big & there wouldn't be so many big guys in a free market; they've obviously gotten big by buying out govts & making their own rules & driving out their competitors out of business, this is only possible under a "regulated" system. Why do you think many of the big corps around the world get bailed out? It's clearly CORPORATISM & so such corps would die when they make losses in a free market
@lomocan Unless, of course, they (the corporations) liquidate their competition. Yes, I'm aware of how so many corporations get 'bailed out.' I think my point is that they're no longer just 'too big to fail.' They're now also 'too big to kill.' This is where I see the proposal of reduced government failing - to me, all it will do is allow the corporations to become 'mobile governments' - huge, ravening 'creatures' prowling the earth like ravaging super-carnivores...
You're missing the point, they've gotten big by buying out big govts & making their own rules & controlling the people thru the govt.
If govt is small, as I've said, it'll be easier for people to keep an eye on for wrong-doings it may undertake for corps. but when you argue for big govt, you're basically arguing for the status quo ie govt will keep controlling the masses thru the power of big govts; that's hardly desirable.
@lomocan You are missing MY point, which is that the corporations are no longer dependent upon governments for their survival. They have essentially become international, and in my opinion, reducing the size of ANY government is only going to accord them further advantage.
Are you kidding me? Their survival is COMPLETELY dependent upon them being able to buy out big govts & driving out the competitors by hook or crook; if the govt has no power to "regulate" then their big corps "legal tool" is gone & as I've said, & use of illegal tools will be more easily noticed by people as I've said before & people'll be quick boycott their goods/services & force the govt to bring such corps to justice.
@lomocan No, their survival now obviates the necessity of 'buying out' lesser third world governments, when they can simply move into an area with superior tech and firepower and simply take over by sheer force of arms - or have you not heard of the term "Coup d'état?" These illegal tools are used all the time, and are usually ignored...and you know full-well WHY...it's because it's the FIRST world that's doing it. These governements are ALREADY owned. How will you make THAT 'go away?'
"their survival now obviates the necessity of 'buying out' lesser third world governments, when they can simply move into an area with superior tech and firepower and simply take over by sheer force of arms - or have you not heard of the term "Coup d'état?""
Oh yeah, they're already doing something like that by using big govts' power & it's all "legal" & people even support it because there's just too much on the table for them to comprehend because govt is so big
@lomocan "...Oh yeah, they're already doing something like that by using big govts' power & it's all "legal" & people even support it because there's just too much on the table for them to comprehend because govt is so big..."
This does nothing to support the idea that the corporations will simply 'evaporate' once the size of government is reduced.
"These governements are ALREADY owned. How will you make THAT 'go away?'"
As I've said a hundred times already, the smaller the govt's scope, the more people will be able to see things & keep an eye on it & force their govts to obey laws to the maximum extent which is what will prevent corps "getting away with murder"; right now, govt is doing so many things that it's IMPOSSIBLE for ordinary people to keep track of all that's wrong with it.
@lomocan And as I've said repeatedly, I have no faith in the notion that a smaller government will do anything to prevent the corporations from getting away with murder...if anything, I'm convinced it will make it easier than ever for them to plunder, murder and topple other governments.
I assume you have some sort of a template, laying out exactly how this logic follows...?
I've ALREADY explained it a hundred times; smaller the scope of govt, the more easier it is for people to keep an eye on them & they'll force their govt to do what they're supposed to to the maximum extent.
Again, corps are ALREADY using big govts to topple govts, to profiteer & kill market-competition so how do you suppose the govt of the current size or an even bigger one will do anything but makes things WORSE? We'll never have angels running big govts.
@lomocan Yes, I know you've explained it a hundred times. And you may be right about that...but I no longer think it's possible to rein-in the corporations, and I see that this is our major point of contention, now. You'll never have angels running government, sure... but I think if you reduce government you'll have even less chance of dissolving the corporations. To me, fewer laws regulating business = carte blanche for the multinationals...and their track record is rather dismal...
"if you reduce government you'll have even less chance of dissolving the corporations"
Please look around & I'm sure you'll see that big govts has no chance of dissolving corporations; they're big govts products & corps will continue to use them to their advantage to grow bigger.
"carte blanche for the multinationals...and their track record is rather dismal"
Did I mention, there'll STILL be laws against fraud, theft, harmful products, violence or any other violation
@lomocan I think I've been equating 'less government' and 'less regulation of free enterprise' with 'less power to enforce the rule of law.' If there are fewer regulations on business, I fail to see how this will compel the multinationals to comply with the rule of law. I perceive this not as a reversible condition at all, but as a sequence of events, of 'stages,' if you will, during the progression of which, you really can't 'turn back the clock.' (cont'd)...
Big government made it possible (and necessary) for the corporations to come into existence. In my view, reducing the size of government is not going to remove them from the global stage - it will, in fact, allow them to grow even more powerful, I think, and allow them to become a permanent fixture in the global landscape. I don't see this as a 'loop system'...I see it as an ongoing, and irreversible, gestalt.
It IS irreversible ONLY if govt is small & their "legal tools" are taken away which'd either get them to confront people & get destroyed or they'll shrink as competitors are given a better opportunity to compete against them but NO CHANCE of that ever happening if we continue with big govt.
"If there are fewer regulations on business, I fail to see how this will compel the multinationals to comply with the rule of law"
Well, for one, it wouldn't allow them to use those "regulations" to kill competition & grow even bigger by buying the big govt; secondly, fraud, theft, violence & harm to others will STILL be punishable so I don't know what you're talking about.
@lomocan Hm. "...it wouldn't allow them to use those "regulations" to kill competition & grow even bigger by buying the big govt; secondly, fraud, theft, violence & harm to others will STILL be punishable so I don't know what you're talking about..."
I'm talking about Texaco's destruction of the environment in Ecuador. I'm talking about the pollution of the Niger River Delta by Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron. I'm talking about the replacement of Allende with Pinochet in Chile.
"I'm talking about Texaco's destruction of the environment in Ecuador. I'm talking about the pollution of the Niger River Delta by Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron. I'm talking about the replacement of Allende with Pinochet in Chile."
And having a big govt will help solve these problems? Seriously?
We should worry about what we CAN control & change ie our govt & set a good example as global powerhouse & others around the world will see the benefit in curtailing govt.
@lomocan I don't see big government as being able to solve them, but I certainly don't see a smaller government as capable of addressing them, either.
Well, let's say for a moment, small govt may or mayn't solve them but big govt will only make them stronger & that doesn't help at all.
I guess you just want all of us to just sit there & wait till corporations get all the people microchipped by using scare tactics as usual & then they literally control us. Good luck with that if that's what you're looking forward to but I'll want to do something about it by doing something that works.
@lomocan Now you're putting words in my mouth. I seriously doubt the corporations, or big government, will ever succeed with something like micro-chipping everyone. They don't have to, anyway...most people's cell phones will have a GPS before long, as some do already. As for 'doing something that works', good luck to you with the smaller govt. thing - I'm still unconvinced, but you've made some fair arguments...enough to make me think more about it, anyway.
Well, may be you don't "wish" what I've said but that's essentially what you stand for in a way.
As for chips, I meant for killing people or controlling them otherwise if possible, not just for tracking them. And people don't've to agree, they'll be given some good reason as usual & some bugbear to fear & may be they'll start from infants when they're born as a new way to track health or something but it's hardly impossible when govt is so big & powerful.
Anyways, this > "enough to make me think more about it, anyway" < is all I care about. I realize that it's not possible to change people's minds very quickly (just like political climate, world peace & all that) but it takes time & as free market stands for freedom for all, I'm not interested in imposing my opinion on others but just making them think about it, to think that there's possibly another way of doing things :)
@lomocan And I appreciate your taking the time to make the 'Libertarian pitch' to me. I'm sure there is more to the 'nuts & bolts' of it than what you've outlined here, of course. You're a far better spokesperson for this than, say, Shanedk, whose path I've crossed before on this matter and who is, in my opinion, an abusive child in putting forth his arguments. Thanks again for taking the time.
Indeed, there's a lot more to it than what I've said but obviously it's impossible to discuss it all but thanks for being so receptive to a peaceful discussion; otherwise people just go crazy when somebody dares to have a different opinion. Anyways, here's something that you might find interesting > watch?v=qCVVUuvXOoc
@TheMercilessEye Well, I can cover a lot of your spoon fed opinions on capitalism. I don't mean that personally I've just heard those same things many times by the manipulative left. First the pollution concern. Coal is used as an energy source largely due to the environmentalist movement that killed nuclear power. The out sourcing occurs due to strict regulation in the us forcing companies over seas but it's not entirely due to that to be fair it's also cheaper.
@TheMercilessEye In addition to that globalization is not necessarily a bad thing unless you're an investor. The "exploited" by multinational corporations (which would probably be exploited by their government some other way anyway child prostitution drugs etc) do benefit their countries benefit economically and their currencies are worth more while ours loses value. They may get paid pennies but their pennies our worth more while our dollars are worth less.
@TheMercilessEye It would also be a fair assumption to say that the killing of our industry by the environmentalists forced us over seas. Eventually we will leave over seas businesses because it will become more expensive to do so over in other countries. Demands for goods produced in the us will be more desirable due to the reduced cost as prices rise in other countries. And their economic and infrastructure benefits will be in tact when we do less business with them.
@TheMercilessEye Globalization modernizes countries is a way to look at it. There are probably many other benefits and some pitfalls. Another benefit of capitalism and globalization is the tieing up of economies makes war less desirable. We see this with Europe and the Euro post WW2.
@DarklingX Now THOSE are some benefits that haven't been raised yet to me, and I have considered the first one you indicated, modernizing other countries, in a kind of vague and nebulous fashion. I have to wonder, still, about the outsourcing of jobs that used to be kept here in the USA, but this idea does appeal to me as a kind of 'enlightened self-interest.' I'm not entirely convinced, but these both seem sound points to consider, thank you.
@lomocan I really honestly fail to see how fewer domestic USA regulations and smaller US government will curtail the multinational's ongoing record of human rights abuses and the exploitation of third world nations.
"I really honestly fail to see how fewer domestic USA regulations and smaller US government will curtail the multinational's ongoing record of human rights abuses and the exploitation of third world nations"
And how about big govt's record of facilitating those abuses & exploitation on behalf of multinationals? How is that working out?
Again, we can't have world peace & fix everything overnight, it takes time for change to occur & we simply can't force change immediately
@lomocan The current form of the 'big government' is definitely facilitating these abuses, that's for sure. As for 'we simply can't force change immediately'...well, given that Massey and other coal companies are now pushing for using liquid COAL as a petroleum replacement, and the pollution from that process has been shown to be worse, I'd say we're running out of time to force change. It may be necessary to take drastic measures...but I don't see small govt. as capable of doing that, either.
@lomocan I'd also like to know exactly what you think of Monsanto's blatent attempt to turn the global agricultural system into a monopoly with themselves in charge...and how you see a reduction in government as facilitating an end to that effort on their part.
If you think "regulations" are what keeping you safe from the corps then think again, they're the biggest "legal tool" in the hands of big corps, they buy the govt & set "regulations" that favor them & adversely affect competitors, that way they kill competitors & earn higher profits & grow bigger & bigger.
Just to give an example,"anti-trust laws" were suggested Standard Oil's lawyer at a time when Standard Oil was quickly becoming the biggest corp in oil business in US
It really amazes me when someone says that big govts will be able to solve the very problems they created & keep perpetuating; giving govt more power is akin to making big corps even bigger & powerful, it's too obvious yet people think that from somewhere god & angels will come & somehow someday run the big govt well & fix everything but as you've recognized, humans obviously aren't angels thus govts will never be angelic either so it's best to limit them.
True free market Capitalism doesn't exist. It will never work. There will always be someone pushing up to the top and assuming control of the market.
cyanide444 1 month ago
Socialism play /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system in which the means of production are commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or a political philosophy advocating such a system. [1] As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs.[2]
ekanisooo 3 months ago
Keep in mind however economic growth doesn't happen overnight and it's better then something like child prostitution, human trafficking or who knows what else.
DarklingX 4 months ago
*THEY just don't care anymore...my mistake.
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
"...either they'll get nasty then it's an open war against people which they won't..."
This is one area in which I completely disagree with you...since they've already done this very thing, in other areas of the world. There is ample precedent to suppose that this is, in fact, exactly what they'll do.
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
Ok, so do the masses in American or elsewhere know that their big govts are being used by corps in a bad way? I guess not, & that's precisely my point.
When there's big govt, they just hide behind & play their cards without the masses noticing it & if they don't notice it then they don't do anything about it meaning there's NO "open war against people"
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan Americans are becoming increasingly aware of the dominant role that the corporations have come to play in their governments, largely because the corporations are either becoming increasingly lax about concealing their involvement, or the just don't care anymore, since they've got it 'all sewn up' (which is possible.) I agree with you that big government allows them to hide, but they no longer seem to care about that, hence my lack of faith in smaller govt. providing a 'cure.'
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
They don't care because they've a big govt which almost has plenary powers in their pockets which means they can do whatever they want using govt power & it's all "legal"; & you're suggesting we let things as it is or give govt more power? Seriously?
And you seem to think that a "small govt" has less power to prosecute crime so let me tell you once again, it's NOT the case; their "scope" it limited but that doesn't mean they won't be powerful in their given domains.
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan So, by reducing the 'size' of the government, you're talking about, what, precisely? Decreasing the size of the bureaucracy? Decreasing the number of regulations enforcing laws that business has to abide by? I've pretty much gotten that you don't want to curtail government's enforcement power, but I see the military / industrial complex as a major tool of the multinationals in maintaining this system as it is, and you haven't reassured me about THEM at all, yet...
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
"by reducing the 'size' of the government, you're talking about, what, precisely?"
That govt will only do military, police & courts; whatever little bureaucracy is required will be there.
Small govt in itself entails that only "defensive wars" are fought (ie when a COUNTRY attacks us); free markets will mean no more Fed which means people will directly be paying higher taxes when at war (as there's no Fed to monetize debt) & people will be more cautious with wars.
lomocan 7 months ago
The attempt to separate the government from the market is completely trivial and nonsense.
The right is always obssesed with this fallacious notion because they have no truly examined the social relations of capitalism and don't understand the capitalism continues to reinvent itself in a way that will only lead to its ultimate death.
kingmafi6699 11 months ago
The only connection between the free market and the government is the people that end up with all the money in a free market (it will always be a select few) are the ones that run the government. They lobby for how they want things to be and pay off the politicians. Government involvement or not, in a free market all of the money ends up going to a few while the rest of the population suffers. In a free market, profit always comes before people. That is not how an evolved human society should be
XanyaV 1 year ago
Oh Jesus, not another free market retard. If the government didn't regulate you'd be drinking snake oil and living on clay.
Capitalism is impossible. The only reason we're not all in a depression again (see also: 1929) is because the government stepped in to slow the fall. Darwinian economics can never, ever, ever work. Unless perpetual mass genocide is an anticipated feature of it.
Mathematics is correct. You are not.
ourben 1 year ago
retard
spd21 1 year ago
nothing percieved about it. capitalism and the free market is entirely responsible for the current financial meltdown. fact. greedy fuckin bankers without proper regulation gambling with your money and everyone elses. whay aren't you angry with them. the irony that you appear to be blind to is that the chinese of all people that we are all financially beholden to. unregulated capitalism is every bit as dangerous as communism and it would leave an awful lot of US citizens in the gutter.
johant23 1 year ago
@johant23
"capitalism and the free market is entirely responsible for the current financial meltdown"
It was caused by GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION, who gave FED the ability "create" money - GOV, who ensured bank deposits with taxpayers' money thru FDIC & thus making banks irresponsible - GOV, who forced banks to lend to unsound debtors thru Community Reinvestment Act -GOV, who bails out unsound businesses thru taxpayers' money - GOV. EVERY recession ever caused is a product of gov intervention
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan A ludicrous statement from what I can only imagine is the mind of a child.
You are trying to argue that bombs don't cause death and mutilation, but aeroplanes do.
The government didn't give the Fed the ability to make money. The Fed crowbarred it from the people. The government has very limited power when it comes to controlling the banks. Another of its cherished features is the invention of regulations to hold back competitors.
Money controls everything. That is capitalism.
ourben 1 year ago
@ourben
"The government didn't give the Fed the ability to make money."
Govt ie Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 in concert with bankers, it gave them both what they wanted, it allowed govt to offer socialist services to people to keep getting them re-elected & bankers got profits
"Another of its cherished features is the invention of regulations to hold back competitors"
Regulations are a product of govt & businesses to sponge off of the people.
lomocan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lomocan You ignored what I said. You are a religious lunatic.
ourben 1 year ago
@johant23
Allowing government/politicians to "regulate" businesses is like asking for corporatism, since businesses just buy out politicians & that's what's been happening, we DON'T have capitalism, we've corporatism & corporatism can only arise when gov is BIG & has authority to "regulate" business; "unregulated" does NOT mean anything goes, it means, under free market capitalism, gov CAN'T regulate markets, their job will be restricted to protecting individuals' rights from being violated
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan ...until Toms Water Ltd. gets enough money to lean on a government official and become Toms Water Inc.
ourben 1 year ago
Comment removed
ANibiru 1 year ago
Comment removed
ANibiru 1 year ago
Free market withouth regulations always!!! leads to corporate totalitarian fashism. That is the basic math. There is not democracy but mediocracy, where rulling corporate elite is creating rulles for them self. Learn more about history, and you see, that regulations was created to prevent "corporatocracy". USA have lose that fight when they was trying to chatch up the soviets in space race (about 1960 - 1970).
ANibiru 1 year ago
@ANibiru
"Free market withouth regulations always!!! leads to corporate totalitarian fashism"
Corporatism is the exact OPPOSITE of free market capitalism since under free market capitalism, gov is very SMALL & its job is restricted to provideing redress to individuals who's right have been violated while gov MUST be BIG for corporatism to exist
Its ludicrous to think those "honest, angelic politicians" can "regulate" business for people, no, that's EXACTLY what leads to corporatism
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan Do you know how government got so big? Monetary survival of the fittest. Or, as we have come to call it, capitalism. Capitalism creates corporatism. Government grows around it largely by necessity.
ourben 1 year ago
Free Market withouth regulations always!!! leads to corporate totalitarian fashism, where is not democracy but mediocracy owned by corporations ! That is fact. Then they are making rules as goverment for them self.
True democracy ( or direct democracy ) is in communism, where economy and power is completly decentralized to smallest possible units called "communes", and they decides alone for them self, about everything in theyr communes.
ANibiru 1 year ago
Government regulated capitalism all depends on what kind of government we have. We are no longer in a democracy or republic. We are in a plutocratic oligarchy; as such, all regulation will benefit the corporations. Regulation can either help everyone or help the few at the top, currently our government does what helps the elite.
XanyaV 1 year ago
@XanyaV
"Regulation can either help everyone or help the few at the top, currently our government does what helps the elite"
Market "regulation" ALWAYS helps the people at the top, NEVER the ordinary masses since it's the politicians & bureaucrats that "enforce" regulations & they can ALWAYS be bought & the big guys create regulations that suit them, killing small businesses & impoverishing the masses; the best way to avoid corporatism is NOT to let the politicians & bureaucrats "regulate"
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan Wrong and stupid. Snake oil sales will go through the roof, hand healers will oust doctors and heavy electricity will replace regular electricity in everybody's home... except the poor.
ourben 1 year ago
@ourben
I'll spell it out AGAIN for you, corporatism CAN'T exist without big govt hence it can't exist under free-market-capitalism under its small govt.
Simple question-Is govt MORE LIKELY to work for people when it doesn't've power to "regulate" (& hence big businesses can't control the system thru govt) or is it MORE LIKELY to work for people when it does NOT have power to "regulate" (so there's no incentive for businesses to buy out govt since it has no power)?
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan We need government to protect stupid people (like yourself) from being exploited and made to do things like; rent air and buy vistas. Government makes sure you visit a qualified doctor of medicine instead of a witch or a priest.
I agree that without these powers it wouldn't be as corruptible, but without these powers there wouldn't be any point at all. You might as well kill your neighbors.
ourben 1 year ago
@ourben
"We need government to protect stupid people (like yourself) from being exploited and made to do things like"
Are you 10 or something? Why do you need a nanny to tell you what you should do, which doctor you should go to, etc etc? When govt is given power to "protect people" in this way, whoever pays money to the govt gets to screw people. You're totally deluded if you think politicians & bureaucrats are bothered about "protecting people", they're busy lining their pockets.
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan Capitalism is lining their pockets. Why are you so fucking stupid?
ourben 1 year ago
@ourben
"Capitalism is lining their pockets. Why are you so fucking stupid?"
No, let me repeat, businesses buy out govt/politicians & bureaucrats BECAUSE they've power to "regulate" business so big business buy'em out so they can create "regulations" to kill their competitors & kill the free market & that leads to corporatism.
So it stands to reason that, if govt did NOT have the power to "regulate" business, theyll MORE LIKELY (NOT necessarily) to work for the people.
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan Government is awarded these powers by capitalist interests. If this wasn't true, it wouldn't be happening. Is it happening? There you go then. Just as socialism tends to cronyism, capitalism tends to corporatism. Ironically, we need a bit of each.
ourben 1 year ago
@ourben
"Government is awarded these powers by capitalist interests"
No, PEOPLE like yourself awarded these powers to govt AND THEREBY to "capitalist interests" in your vain HOPE that honest, angelic govts will use those power wisely.
"Just as socialism tends to cronyism, capitalism tends to corporatism"
EVERY system "tends to" move to corporatism BUT capitalism CAN'T turn into corporatism WITHOUT people confering power to the govt & thereby confering power to corporatists.
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan Capitalism created todays corporatism. Stop denying history you idiot.
ourben 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ourben
"Capitalism created todays corporatism. Stop denying history you idiot"
You're the one denying history that corporatism flourished ONLY with govt-backing.
"Corporatism is capitalism. Corporatism is capitalism. Corporatism is capitalism. Corporatism is capitalism. You are a fucking retard"
Yup, & your intellectual depth is quite perceptibly on show for everyone to see based on your well-founded & logical arguments.
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan That looks good on paper, I'll grant you. However, you're forgetting that companies can 'band together' informally to do 'price fixing,' thus ensuring they all get a cut of the inflated PIE. They also keep wages low to bolster the bottom line - unregulated, they tend more to exploit their workers, discard those that 'burn out' and then just hire fresh cannon-fodder. This is why regulations were put in place by government, and why labor unions were created.
TheMercilessEye 1 year ago
Dave puts it out there rather neatly, unembellished and plain. Limit regulation, sure, just make sure that the basics are covered. Increased regulation is what CREATED corporations, and pushed them to buy-out government, in order to influence regulation. The problem is, I think, that once that particular genie is out of the bottle, there's no putting it BACK again...the corporations have figured out that their rigged gaming of the system is THE key to their survival.
TheMercilessEye 1 year ago
@TheMercilessEye
No cartal can be formed in free market WITHOUT govt-backing since if there're no regulations then the moment cartel starts overpricing, new "greedier" businesses will pop up to cash in & further, NOT ALL businesses are equally efficient so under a free market, if the most efficient business will driven to capture most or all of the market-share/profit by driving out other competitors but the moment it starts overcharging old & new competitors will pop right back up.
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan With or without government companies consume each other. They grow and competition perishes. The only power government has is to slow it down or stop it all together. Competitors seldom reappear.
My questions to you:
How do you prevent companies consuming each other?
How do you prevent investors inflating a company's assets?
And finally, in your dream world, how does the patent system would work?
ourben 1 year ago
@ourben
"With or without government companies consume each other. They grow and competition perishes."
Competition NEVER perishes, people're always looking to maximize their profits. NOT ALL companies would want to amalgamate since all of them would've different efficiency-levels & as I've said, they'd rather TRY & capture more market-share/profit by producing better goods/services at cheaper rates than forming a monopoly, IN THE ABSENCE GOVT-FORCED MONOPOLIES.
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan Yeah, that's why in real life here on the planet earth, where you and I both live, it keeps happening over and over again. It's the government, they FORCE companies to buy each other, then FORCE them to breakup (BT, Microsoft et al.)
You are not an idiot at all. You know everything. The entirety of human history that has been rewritten just to make you look bad.
ourben 1 year ago
@ourben
"It's the government, they FORCE companies to buy each other, then FORCE them to breakup (BT, Microsoft et al.)"
It mayn't so explicit all the time but if a smaller company with better/cheaper product/service is selling itself to a big company then it's because they know that big co. has govt in its pockets & if they don't sell then they'll lose out on whatever deal they're getting anyway; further, govt helps big co. block competition thru regulations, bureaucracy & high entry-cost
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan Seldom is that the case. They sell because they're fetishists too. They see vast amounts cash and possibility. They sell and either keep their job, or repeat the cycle. You can buy businesses all over the place. Government has nothing to do with it.
I could find you 100 right now whose owners don't know what regulations even effect them. But I don't need to, you could do it yourself. Plus, you already know it's true. You're just so religiously invested you won't admit it.
ourben 1 year ago
@ourben
"The only power government has is to slow it down or stop it all together"
So how's the govt doing the job of "slowing down corporatism"? Oh wait, corporatism exists everywhere already because why would govt care about "slowing it down" when it can benefit from it at the cost of the people!
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan Yeah, let's pretend there is absolutely no regulatory control anywhere. Let's pretend, as in my country there is no Competition Commission. Sorry, I didn't mean pretend. I meant, let's acknowledge none of it exists. I know it has a website, staff, offices and shit, but it's not REAL, it's a hologram made by socialists scientists. It runs on secret free energy generated by air in top secret underground overunity power plants. Other people don't know about it because of the chip implants.
ourben 1 year ago
@ourben
Talking about govt "breaking up companies" for the "benefit of people"; first anti-trust laws were proposed by Standard Oil's attorney when it massively capturing the market-share in 1870s & 80s Why would he propose laws which will most likely be used against co. he was working for? Not to mention, Standard Oil was "broken up" in 1914. FDR cartelized many industries thru "regulating" them. I marvel at people like you who fall for such corporatist-hoaxes created to fool people.
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan Hey I'm not saying it doesn't happen. Incidentally, by your own definition of history, the government of 1870 must have been socialist. Is that the case? I really don't know.
ourben 1 year ago
@lomocan "...the moment cartel starts overpricing, new "greedier" businesses will pop up to cash in..." "...the moment it starts overcharging old & new competitors will pop right back up..."
Provided, of course, that they (the newbies) don't get their SKULLS bashed in...
It never ceases to amaze me how charmingly naive some people can be - always assuming the competition will 'play fair'...when time after time, history has born out quite the opposite...
TheMercilessEye 1 year ago
@TheMercilessEye
"Provided, of course, that they (the newbies) don't get their SKULLS bashed in"
Under free market capitalism, it's govt's job to protect the liberties of everyone so it'd've to step in & if on occasions it didn't then that only illustrates why govt shouldn't be given more power
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan Or it would illustrate the government didn't have enough power. You are such a retard.
ourben 1 year ago
@TheMercilessEye
"It never ceases to amaze me how charmingly naive some people can be - always assuming the competition will 'play fair'...when time after time, history has born out quite the opposite"
Contrary to your belief, it's FIRST THING that crosses the minds of free marketers, the realization that everyone WON'T play fair & that people're driven by their self-interests. But we're not as deluded as "regulationists" to think that govt (politicians & bureaucrats) will work for people.
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan So you advocate---what? Regulation without enforcement?
TheMercilessEye 1 year ago
@lomocan I AM curious, because it sounds as if you're advocating regulation on the one hand, and advocating AGAINST regulation on the other hand.
OR are you simply advocating that businesses each retain their own private police force / army?
TheMercilessEye 1 year ago
@TheMercilessEye
I've already stated quite clearly that violation of individual rights thru violence, theft, fraud, etc will still be punished by the govt but there'd be separation of business & state. Even under free markets, govt will still be inefficient but that's just nature of govt & hence conceding more power to it would only be foolish but govt will work for people (at least more times than not) when it can't just sponge of business thru corporatism so no "regulations".
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan Okay, now I KNOW you're living in a fantasy world.
Yes, that reads really well on PAPER - but I'm here to tellya, it just ain't gonna HAPPEN, dudesicle. The corporations are IN the catbird seat and they've settled in for a nice long STAY. They've taken the comfy chair, and they have a case of beer and BIG bowl of popcorn...and they're not gonna go quietly. Much as I like the Libertarian idealism, much as I admire the constitution, I put the odds against this around 10000 to 1...
TheMercilessEye 1 year ago
@TheMercilessEye
So you would rather trust the "honest, principled, angelic" politicians & bureaucrats to do their job when they're given MORE power than when they've less power, would you? The only reason you're saying it wouldn't work because you fear govt wouldn't do its job of punishing violence, theft, fraud & such violations & YET you propose that giving more power to them would help? I tend to disagree, if they're not doing their job with less power then they won't with more power either
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan How do you work that out? If one man can lift 200kg, two men ought to lift 400kg. It's not a direct comparison I know, but what you said was pulled out of your arse. I'm kinda limited...
ourben 1 year ago
@lomocan Again, you misinterpret me.
I don't particularly trust business OR government, at this point, since one basically owns the other, and the other is the one's PUPPET. Period. The situation has become so befouled and tainted that it's lost the confidence of most of the voters (who aren't so stupid that they can't see what's happening - considering how ill-concealed it's become) - and this situation is, as I see it at this point, virtually irreversible: Got any spare time machines?
TheMercilessEye 1 year ago
@TheMercilessEye
"Got any spare time machines?"
Time machines would be useless, its nature of govts to be corrupt, always have been & always will be (the exact degree might differ SLIGHTLY); you give people power & be rest assured that most of them will misuse it to their own benefit so more power more corruption, less power slightly less corruption that's why Founders created SMALL, LIMITED govt, it wasn't by accident but by intent.
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan But then, if the power of ENFORCEMENT of the LAW is retained by the government, they still can't be trusted to be fair and impartial, in their meting out justice, can they? The size and limitation you'd impose on them would affect the bureaucrats and agencies, but not the military and police, would it?
I sense a glaring FLAW here, somewhere...
TheMercilessEye 1 year ago
@TheMercilessEye
"But then, if the power of ENFORCEMENT of the LAW is retained by the government, they still can't be trusted to be fair and impartial, in their meting out justice, can they? The size and limitation you'd impose on them would affect the bureaucrats and agencies, but not the military and police, would it?
I sense a glaring FLAW here, somewhere..."
THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT, a small govt will STILL be corrupt but NOT AS MUCH as big govt with massive power.
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan WAIT a minute, wait a minute...you're equating DEGREE OF CORRUPTION with SIZE OF GOVERNMENT? Isn't that the same as saying that "A bigger polluted lake is more polluted than a smaller polluted lake?" My Spider-sense is TINGLING, here...
TheMercilessEye 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheMercilessEye
"WAIT a minute, wait a minute...you're equating DEGREE OF CORRUPTION with SIZE OF GOVERNMENT? Isn't that the same as saying that "A bigger polluted lake is more polluted than a smaller polluted lake?" My Spider-sense is TINGLING, here"
I don't know what you're saying............ it's too obvious that more power means more corruption & less freedom for people
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan "THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT, a small govt will STILL be corrupt but NOT AS MUCH as big govt with massive power."
Then change the way government is selected.
ourben 1 year ago
@ourben what about dictators? one guy, gets the whole pie.
expatsinthephils 8 months ago
@expatsinthephils We should vote on policies and spending instead of people. Voting for personalities is really quite stupid.
ourben 8 months ago
@ourben
" We should vote on policies and spending instead of people. Voting for personalities is really quite stupid"
Agreed, in fact, I say individuals should run alone & party-system needs to be done away with; yes, that'll help but still power will mostly attract the power-hungry; the belief that there's some way to find angels to run the govt is unrealistic; almost all life-forms are driven by perceived self-interest so those in power will almost always use it to benefit themselves.
lomocan 8 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
I've never claimed & none of the free marketers would seriously claim that free market society will be perfect or anything, it'll still be flawed but NOT as much as a "regulated" society with blatent corporatism as is on show in most parts of the world.
Like we don't have choice between dying or not dying, we only have choice of may be prolonging our lives; we don't have choice between perfect & imperfect govt, it'll always be imperfect so choose one which is less so
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan Well, to my way of thinking, you haven't really done much to ensure that this system will be much better, given what I know about the interactions of business and government. On the one hand, you have big govt. (owned by big business) running roughshod over competition and 'the little guy', and on the other, you have a smaller, less effective government, with less regulatory authority, giving big business freer rein and letting Big Business do the trampling - we've been there already...
TheMercilessEye 1 year ago
@TheMercilessEye
"you have a smaller, less effective government, with less regulatory authority, giving big business freer rein and letting Big Business do the trampling - we've been there already"
Where's "free rein" you're talking about, as I've said already, govt will still be required to punish violations, violence, fraud, theft, etc so there's no "free rein" of "doing whatever they please", they're still liable to be punished, only thing is that businesses can't control people thru govt
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan Yes, yes, 'required' to punish violations, violence, fraud, theft, etc., except that unregulated big business will have even LESS incentive to 'play by the rules' with less regulation. Yes, they'll be less able to control people through government, just like the good old days when they hired their own scabs and strikebreakers, and then their own THUGS to beat down the UNIONS when they lead strikes.
You're fairly new to this, aren't you?
TheMercilessEye 1 year ago
@TheMercilessEye
You're making me repeat the same thing over & over.
So there's more incentive to "play by the rules" when you can just buy out the govt?????
Further, if someone beats down somebody, they'll be liable for punishment. Business "regulations" have nothing to do with someone beating someone else so how does that have anything to do with anything I'm saying!
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan I keep making you repeat the same thing over again, because my study of history has pretty much discredited your assertions that things will 'be better with less regulation"...which kind of makes YOU 'beside the point.' You seem convinced that profiteers and capitalists have done far less ill when they've been unregulated. Can you actually give me a concrete example of when this has actually been proven to be the case, in actuality, in the past?
TheMercilessEye 1 year ago
@TheMercilessEye
"You seem convinced that profiteers and capitalists have done far less ill when they've been unregulated. Can you actually give me a concrete example of when this has actually been proven to be the case, in actuality, in the past?"
Look, at China, India & ESPECIALLY Hongkong, they were shit when their people were being "saved" by "evil capitalists" but prosperity only came about when they actually considerably freed up their markets with much less regulation.
lomocan 8 months ago
@lomocan I think you need to examine the Wikileaks article regarding the "Economy of Hong Kong." In there you'll find a very interesting section sub-titled: "Positive non-interventionism." "...The government has intervened to create economic institutions such as the Hong Kong Stock Market and has been involved in public works projects and social welfare spending. All land in Hong Kong is owned by the government and leased to private users...." (continued)...
TheMercilessEye 8 months ago
@TheMercilessEye Pardon....error on my first response post....the WIKIPEDIA article regarding "Economy of Hong Kong", not Wikileaks. My error.
TheMercilessEye 8 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
Well, everything you've said only point failure of GOVERNMENT, not of the free markets; govt don't have the power to "regulate" under a free market so none of this happen in the first place.
Your examples exactly show how giving more power to the govt only leads to govts leeching the people, they just fill their pockets & don't do what they're supposed & then resort to blame-game which is why "regulation" is such a drain on the economy & the people any country.
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan "... everything you've said only point failure of GOVERNMENT, not of the free markets..."
Excuse me again...that's not really correct.
The example of Hong Kong was touted by YOU as an 'especial' example of a 'freed up' market...when, in fact, the government controls far more than does that of the USA...
The example of China shows just how far the PRC is willing to go to enforce regulation -and they've been fairly successful with it. Hardly a bastion of free enterprise...(cont'd)...
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
When did I say China & Hongkong are freer than USA? That's very difficult to say because "regulatedness" of markets can't be objectively quantified (even though some agencies foolishly try to), I've merely said that to whatever extent they were freed up (& they were freed considerably than how they were before when people were practically destitute under a "closed market"), it allowed prosperity to take hold which the previously "closed market" didn't permit.
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan Ah, I didn't say that you had depicted them as being 'freer than the USA', though, Iomocan. I said you depicted them as examples of the success of freer markets - two of which aren't really 'freer' at all (Hong Kong's govt. owning and leasing all the land, and the PRC basically using draconian enforcement) and one is rather TOO free, and unsuccessfully so (India...which boasts a growing middle class but still maintains a widening gulf between that class and its poor.) (cont'd)...
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
they're freer than they were BEFORE when they were strunggling
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan Not so with the PRC....there you have only a thinly veiled illusion of greater freedom. The PRC is an autocratic capitalism model...the antithesis of a free marketplace.
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
Please look into economic reforms of China & India, they were much WORSE before than they were now & whatever freeing up has occurred has only benefitted the masses by way jobs, goods/services & living standards; it's like saying before they were being looted a lot more by their govts, now they loot them a little less so wouldn't you call it an improvement? And imagine how things would be if the govt looting is lessened further.
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan LOL...an increase in wealth among a segment of the population doesn't mean they're looted LESS, Iomocan - it means there's more people to LOOT FROM. That diffuses the looting over a broader swath of the populace. Remember what I showed you about the truckers in India having to pay appx. US$5 billion per year in bribes? There's your increased market in action, there...sans adequate regulation, of course. Not a good example. Neither was the PRC. Hong Kong was your best shot.
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
No, you're miscalculating the whole situation. You look at both China & India's economic reforms & you'll find that their prosperity is directly related to that since that time.
As for Indian truckers having to pay bribes, who are they paying the bribes to???? BUREAUCRATS & POLITICIANS so there you go.
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan LOL...yes...they're paying the bribes because of the lack of law enforcement. This is always the case when laws are not adequately enforced...including the laws that govern the behavior of government officials. That doesn't mean that regulation of the free market doesn't work, Iomocan...it means that there's been a total failure in law enforcement 'in toto.'
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
"they're paying the bribes because of the lack of law enforcement"
They're paying bribes TO the law-enforcement because that's what people generally do, they use power to benefit themselves.
"That doesn't mean that regulation of the free market doesn't work"
Free market & "regulation" can't co-exist, in fact, it's "regulation" that destroyes the freedom of the markets when some people buy out politicians & bureaucrats & use them to their own advantage.
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan Enough. I'll tell you what can't co-exist, Iomocan, since you apparently have no working knowledge of human nature.
Capitalism and democracy can't co-exist.
Because government representation can always be BOUGHT, can always be sold-out for a PRICE. Period.
No matter what laws are on the books.
The two systems are antithetical in nature.
Ironically, what CAN work with Democracy, turns out to be communism.
Pity it's never really been tried...
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheMercilessEye
"Because government representation can always be BOUGHT, can always be sold-out for a PRICE. Period"
And that's why you want to give more power to the govt by allowing them to "regulate"??????
Govt can always be bought & THAT'S WHY it's power must be LIMITED so that we, the people, can easily keep an eye on them.
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan The example of India show just how UNsuccessful deregulation can be - the result being a country so rife with corruption that it's well below the halfway mark down the scale of corruption.
These are examples YOU cited as exemplary of the 'success' of free market enterprise. Two have nothing to do with free enterprise at all, really (Hong Kong and the PRC) and the other is an abysmal failure (India).
My examples show, essentially, that your arguments are still relatively weak.
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
I've never said they're "free markets", I've said they're FREER than what they once were & that has caused them to grow & become more prosperous than when they were being "saved" from free markets, it allowed businesses to flourish & create jobs & goods/services & raise people's living standards.
And as for the corruption you've cited, it comes directly from governments not doing what they're supposed to, that's the failure of govts & regulation, not of the markets.
lomocan 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
You seem to think that I'm speaking "for" businessmen when I'm merely trying to point out that NEITHER businessmen NOR politicians care about the people, they're all busy filling their pockets & when you give politicians & bureaucrats the power to "regulate" then they mostly use it to benefit themselves, not to mention, some businesses then buy out politicians & bureaucrats to grant favors to them at the cost of ordinary people which is what we call corporatism.
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan Now here, I agree with you, to a point. However, I wouldn't call the lobbying and bribe-ola 'corporatism', per se, since this isn't dependent upon the existence of corporations for it to work. I would instead call it 'poorly regulated capitalism' which is not a symbiote with democracy, but rather a parasite upon that system.
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
It's NOT "poorly regulated capitalims", it is what happens when you give power to politicians & bureaucrats, they use it to benefit themselves.
Those in favor of regulation think that just having "regulation" would change anything but it doesn't because angels never were & never will be running the govts.
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan Mmm....words like 'never' make me nervous.
There're always good and bad characters in governments, Iomocan. Regulations and restrictions FORCE honesty with the rule of law - that's what they're there for, not to extort more money from business, but to prevent business from unrestricted pillaging.
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
"prevent business from unrestricted pillaging"
That's the BIGGEST misconception people have about "free markets", they're made to believe by corporatist-bought media that free markets = lawlessness when that is NOT the case at all. In fact, free markets means punishing fraud, stealing, violence & violation of people's freedoms to their life , liberty & property. Free markets mean protecting people govt-coercion AND private-coercion.
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan Are you then denying that business owners used to exploit their workers...paying inadequate wages, forcing them to work with no days off, no breaks, utilizing child labor, and providing no safety precautions or benefits for their workers? I'm afraid you can't simply rewrite history, Iomocan...
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
Well, none of the above include businesses FORCING anyone to do something against their wishes, they were free to bargain or take another job with better terms; you're missing the point that AT THE TIME, rest of the world was even worse position & it was because most of the West was relatively free that Western living standards were raised, NOT due to "regulation"
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan I actually haven't missed that point - I just don't give it as much credence as you have done. I see improvements in some sectors of those societies, some declines in other sectors, and a static maintenence of a 'poor class,' which appears to be endemic to capitalism. At the time, the rest of CIVILIZATION was in a worse position: the advent of an increasing consumer class DOES elevate living standards for many, but tends to degrad the overall viability of the environment.
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
"a static maintenence of a 'poor class,' which appears to be endemic to capitalism"
It's not endemic to capitalism, it's endemic to life itself, no system will ever be able to make all people equal because that's not how the world is, some are productive than others, some are more intelligent than & so on, so if one supports a system based on hardwork & merit then there's going to be SOME disparity; it's an incorrigible problem unless we were absolute clones of one another.
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan Hm. I'll agree with you to the extent that a system based on hard work and merit rewards some more than others, but in Soviet Russia, EVERYBODY got their bread, or nearly everybody. That isn't the case these days, in the newly-'capitalist' Russia. I also do not agree with you that a static poor class is endemic to life itself. I don't see it as an incorrible problem without us being a clone race. I see the provision for the poor as being a beneficial side-effect of government.
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
When "everybody" is gauranteed to get something for nothing then most just don't need to do anything which undermines productivity, less goods/services are produced & eventually the system becomes unsustainable. No system can survive for long where people are guaranteed stuff without EARNING them thru merit, it's like assuring the whole class that every student will be passed, most just won't bother studying then.
lomocan 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lomocan "When "everybody" is gauranteed to get something for nothing then most just don't need to do anything which undermines productivity, less goods/services are produced & eventually the system becomes unsustainable. No system can survive for long where people are guaranteed stuff without EARNING them thru merit..."
I am aware of no evidence supporting this claim.
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
Further, govt has no wealth of itself; all it ever has comes from the private sector & hard-working people who produce goods/services so when govt makes any "special provision" for anyone then they're effectively STEALING from one person's money/property to give it to another, that's violation of property rights. As for poverty, that should be taken care of thru charity; afterall, when govt is limited, taxes will be much lower & charitable people will give away more.
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan Property 'rights' are largely limited in a truly communist system. Your assertion that 'poverty will be taken care of through charity' is facile and makes a number of unsupportable assumptions which run contrary to basic human nature. Human beings (and most carbon-based life forms) are hard-wired for greed, not charity. Assuming "charity will provide" is virtually identical to the theistic position of "God will provide." This is an unsupportable assumption which has no basis in fact.
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
"Human beings (and most carbon-based life forms) are hard-wired for greed, not charity. Assuming"
Thanks for recognizing this & this is exactly the reason why communism always has & always will fail because people are driven by their own perceived self-interests & that's why the only fair system is one where people're able to keep what they earn, not communism
I didn't mean to say that charity will take care of EVERYONE, just more than in any other system.
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan Cite for me any instance of when this has proven even remotely effective, please.
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheMercilessEye
"Cite for me any instance of when this has proven even remotely effective, please"
Can you cite me an example of a govt which was completely angelic or even remotely so? Can you cite me an example where big govt hasn't led to hidden plutocracy controlling the masses thru the use of govt's power?
There's no justification for more power to the govt unless you willfully want to submit to the corps & the hidden plutocracy
lomocan 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
"overall viability of the environment"
If you're referring to pollution then that'll be dealth under breach of property right and/or causing harm to others, whichever case is applicable, & perpetrators will be brough to justice & as I've said, they're more likely to be brought to justice in a LIMITED govt because it's easier for people to keep an eye on. Under "regulated" systems, the corporations just buy out the govt to make favorable "regulation" & then keep polluting
lomocan 7 months ago
Comment removed
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@lomocan And are you therefore proposing that the free market business hire their own police forces to do the enforcement? the "punishing fraud, stealing, violence & violation of people's freedoms to their life , liberty & property?" Wouldn't that be basically creating their own private militias?
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
I'm proposing what I've always proposed that govt should be LIMITED to military, police & courts & that's that. If a violation occurs then it's their job to arbitrate & its likely that they wouldn't even do a good job at that due to corrupt nature of powre & govts but letting them to do anything more like "regulating" only makes things worse, not better.
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan In that sense, I think we are actually in agreement...ironically... But even limited government can be bought, can't it....?
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
"But even limited government can be bought, can't it....?"
Sure, it can be but since it has limited powers, it can't affect the people in as big way as a big govt can. Not to mention, if it's limited then it's easier to keep an eye on for us; if they're doing lots of stuff then it's becomes for ordinary people to bring them to justice, just look how much corporatism & corruptionism there's going on right now, it's difficult to even make a list, it'd be LOOOOOOOONG list
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan Granted, but then it (government) will have reduced power of enforcement, as well. And the biggest problem I see with the proposed reduction in government is the fact that it isn't going to make the corporations, which already exist, simply just 'go away' - is it? They're multi-national, now, and they have more liquidity than most governments, as well as the ability to, shall we say, 'resist dissolution.' This is why I think reduced government is no longer a viable solution.
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
It's NOT "reduced power of enforcement", it's "reduced SCOPE of enforcement"; their power to punish fraud, theft, violence & other violation of rights will still exist in full strength, it's just that they can't play any "regulation" games anymore which lead most to corporatism. Size of corporations is irrelevant as reduced scope would people will be able to keep a close eye on the govt to make sure that if corporations aren't being allowed to defraud, steal or violate rights
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan So you propose that reductions in military, police, etc., are merely proposed reductions in the 'legal matters' in which they are allowed to enforce the law? The military and law enforcement cadres may remain at their current sizes, and only be deployed within a reduced sphere of influence. Correct?
Your statement "size of corporations is irrelevant" doesn't do much to convince me - what's to prevent a corporation from hiring it's own mercenaries and trashing the army of a country?
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
Well, police will be largely be the same but there'll no "patriot act" & such things which violate people's rights & allows for them to take into custody, imprison, torture & even kill a citizen without a fair trial.
Having a strong defense will obviously be a priority in any case but no more going to wars on taxpayers' money, & oil & weapons industries making profits off it as it'll be a lot more obvious to people that global militarism is just financially destructive.
lomocan 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
"what's to prevent a corporation from hiring it's own mercenaries and trashing the army of a country?"
What stops them from doing that NOW? Well, corporations can't take on armies of countries like that & hope to sell their products, it's just financially unsustaible, not to mention ignominious. But right now govt having huge power, they can simply buy them out & make their own rules in the name "regulation" which favor them but not their smaller competitors.
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan Ah, I see you DID answer. Um...excuse me - corporations DO take on armies of countries these days, and have in the past - in order to exploit their resources for profit. They undermine the governments of other nations, typically with money or with the help of the government and military of their own countries (which they often own, anyway.) It's only ignominious if the word gets OUT - don't forget, they're usually smart enough to spin the recounting of the events to their own favor.
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
One point has to be noted that CORPORATISM has what made a lot of the corporations so big & there wouldn't be so many big guys in a free market; they've obviously gotten big by buying out govts & making their own rules & driving out their competitors out of business, this is only possible under a "regulated" system. Why do you think many of the big corps around the world get bailed out? It's clearly CORPORATISM & so such corps would die when they make losses in a free market
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan Unless, of course, they (the corporations) liquidate their competition. Yes, I'm aware of how so many corporations get 'bailed out.' I think my point is that they're no longer just 'too big to fail.' They're now also 'too big to kill.' This is where I see the proposal of reduced government failing - to me, all it will do is allow the corporations to become 'mobile governments' - huge, ravening 'creatures' prowling the earth like ravaging super-carnivores...
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
You're missing the point, they've gotten big by buying out big govts & making their own rules & controlling the people thru the govt.
If govt is small, as I've said, it'll be easier for people to keep an eye on for wrong-doings it may undertake for corps. but when you argue for big govt, you're basically arguing for the status quo ie govt will keep controlling the masses thru the power of big govts; that's hardly desirable.
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan You are missing MY point, which is that the corporations are no longer dependent upon governments for their survival. They have essentially become international, and in my opinion, reducing the size of ANY government is only going to accord them further advantage.
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
Are you kidding me? Their survival is COMPLETELY dependent upon them being able to buy out big govts & driving out the competitors by hook or crook; if the govt has no power to "regulate" then their big corps "legal tool" is gone & as I've said, & use of illegal tools will be more easily noticed by people as I've said before & people'll be quick boycott their goods/services & force the govt to bring such corps to justice.
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan No, their survival now obviates the necessity of 'buying out' lesser third world governments, when they can simply move into an area with superior tech and firepower and simply take over by sheer force of arms - or have you not heard of the term "Coup d'état?" These illegal tools are used all the time, and are usually ignored...and you know full-well WHY...it's because it's the FIRST world that's doing it. These governements are ALREADY owned. How will you make THAT 'go away?'
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
"their survival now obviates the necessity of 'buying out' lesser third world governments, when they can simply move into an area with superior tech and firepower and simply take over by sheer force of arms - or have you not heard of the term "Coup d'état?""
Oh yeah, they're already doing something like that by using big govts' power & it's all "legal" & people even support it because there's just too much on the table for them to comprehend because govt is so big
lomocan 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lomocan "...Oh yeah, they're already doing something like that by using big govts' power & it's all "legal" & people even support it because there's just too much on the table for them to comprehend because govt is so big..."
This does nothing to support the idea that the corporations will simply 'evaporate' once the size of government is reduced.
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
"These governements are ALREADY owned. How will you make THAT 'go away?'"
As I've said a hundred times already, the smaller the govt's scope, the more people will be able to see things & keep an eye on it & force their govts to obey laws to the maximum extent which is what will prevent corps "getting away with murder"; right now, govt is doing so many things that it's IMPOSSIBLE for ordinary people to keep track of all that's wrong with it.
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan And as I've said repeatedly, I have no faith in the notion that a smaller government will do anything to prevent the corporations from getting away with murder...if anything, I'm convinced it will make it easier than ever for them to plunder, murder and topple other governments.
I assume you have some sort of a template, laying out exactly how this logic follows...?
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
I've ALREADY explained it a hundred times; smaller the scope of govt, the more easier it is for people to keep an eye on them & they'll force their govt to do what they're supposed to to the maximum extent.
Again, corps are ALREADY using big govts to topple govts, to profiteer & kill market-competition so how do you suppose the govt of the current size or an even bigger one will do anything but makes things WORSE? We'll never have angels running big govts.
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan Yes, I know you've explained it a hundred times. And you may be right about that...but I no longer think it's possible to rein-in the corporations, and I see that this is our major point of contention, now. You'll never have angels running government, sure... but I think if you reduce government you'll have even less chance of dissolving the corporations. To me, fewer laws regulating business = carte blanche for the multinationals...and their track record is rather dismal...
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
"if you reduce government you'll have even less chance of dissolving the corporations"
Please look around & I'm sure you'll see that big govts has no chance of dissolving corporations; they're big govts products & corps will continue to use them to their advantage to grow bigger.
"carte blanche for the multinationals...and their track record is rather dismal"
Did I mention, there'll STILL be laws against fraud, theft, harmful products, violence or any other violation
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan I think I've been equating 'less government' and 'less regulation of free enterprise' with 'less power to enforce the rule of law.' If there are fewer regulations on business, I fail to see how this will compel the multinationals to comply with the rule of law. I perceive this not as a reversible condition at all, but as a sequence of events, of 'stages,' if you will, during the progression of which, you really can't 'turn back the clock.' (cont'd)...
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
Big government made it possible (and necessary) for the corporations to come into existence. In my view, reducing the size of government is not going to remove them from the global stage - it will, in fact, allow them to grow even more powerful, I think, and allow them to become a permanent fixture in the global landscape. I don't see this as a 'loop system'...I see it as an ongoing, and irreversible, gestalt.
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
It IS irreversible ONLY if govt is small & their "legal tools" are taken away which'd either get them to confront people & get destroyed or they'll shrink as competitors are given a better opportunity to compete against them but NO CHANCE of that ever happening if we continue with big govt.
lomocan 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
"If there are fewer regulations on business, I fail to see how this will compel the multinationals to comply with the rule of law"
Well, for one, it wouldn't allow them to use those "regulations" to kill competition & grow even bigger by buying the big govt; secondly, fraud, theft, violence & harm to others will STILL be punishable so I don't know what you're talking about.
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan Hm. "...it wouldn't allow them to use those "regulations" to kill competition & grow even bigger by buying the big govt; secondly, fraud, theft, violence & harm to others will STILL be punishable so I don't know what you're talking about..."
I'm talking about Texaco's destruction of the environment in Ecuador. I'm talking about the pollution of the Niger River Delta by Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron. I'm talking about the replacement of Allende with Pinochet in Chile.
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
"I'm talking about Texaco's destruction of the environment in Ecuador. I'm talking about the pollution of the Niger River Delta by Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron. I'm talking about the replacement of Allende with Pinochet in Chile."
And having a big govt will help solve these problems? Seriously?
We should worry about what we CAN control & change ie our govt & set a good example as global powerhouse & others around the world will see the benefit in curtailing govt.
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan I don't see big government as being able to solve them, but I certainly don't see a smaller government as capable of addressing them, either.
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
Well, let's say for a moment, small govt may or mayn't solve them but big govt will only make them stronger & that doesn't help at all.
I guess you just want all of us to just sit there & wait till corporations get all the people microchipped by using scare tactics as usual & then they literally control us. Good luck with that if that's what you're looking forward to but I'll want to do something about it by doing something that works.
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan Now you're putting words in my mouth. I seriously doubt the corporations, or big government, will ever succeed with something like micro-chipping everyone. They don't have to, anyway...most people's cell phones will have a GPS before long, as some do already. As for 'doing something that works', good luck to you with the smaller govt. thing - I'm still unconvinced, but you've made some fair arguments...enough to make me think more about it, anyway.
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
Well, may be you don't "wish" what I've said but that's essentially what you stand for in a way.
As for chips, I meant for killing people or controlling them otherwise if possible, not just for tracking them. And people don't've to agree, they'll be given some good reason as usual & some bugbear to fear & may be they'll start from infants when they're born as a new way to track health or something but it's hardly impossible when govt is so big & powerful.
lomocan 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
Anyways, this > "enough to make me think more about it, anyway" < is all I care about. I realize that it's not possible to change people's minds very quickly (just like political climate, world peace & all that) but it takes time & as free market stands for freedom for all, I'm not interested in imposing my opinion on others but just making them think about it, to think that there's possibly another way of doing things :)
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan And I appreciate your taking the time to make the 'Libertarian pitch' to me. I'm sure there is more to the 'nuts & bolts' of it than what you've outlined here, of course. You're a far better spokesperson for this than, say, Shanedk, whose path I've crossed before on this matter and who is, in my opinion, an abusive child in putting forth his arguments. Thanks again for taking the time.
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
Indeed, there's a lot more to it than what I've said but obviously it's impossible to discuss it all but thanks for being so receptive to a peaceful discussion; otherwise people just go crazy when somebody dares to have a different opinion. Anyways, here's something that you might find interesting > watch?v=qCVVUuvXOoc
lomocan 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye Well, I can cover a lot of your spoon fed opinions on capitalism. I don't mean that personally I've just heard those same things many times by the manipulative left. First the pollution concern. Coal is used as an energy source largely due to the environmentalist movement that killed nuclear power. The out sourcing occurs due to strict regulation in the us forcing companies over seas but it's not entirely due to that to be fair it's also cheaper.
DarklingX 4 months ago
@TheMercilessEye In addition to that globalization is not necessarily a bad thing unless you're an investor. The "exploited" by multinational corporations (which would probably be exploited by their government some other way anyway child prostitution drugs etc) do benefit their countries benefit economically and their currencies are worth more while ours loses value. They may get paid pennies but their pennies our worth more while our dollars are worth less.
DarklingX 4 months ago
@TheMercilessEye It would also be a fair assumption to say that the killing of our industry by the environmentalists forced us over seas. Eventually we will leave over seas businesses because it will become more expensive to do so over in other countries. Demands for goods produced in the us will be more desirable due to the reduced cost as prices rise in other countries. And their economic and infrastructure benefits will be in tact when we do less business with them.
DarklingX 4 months ago
@TheMercilessEye Globalization modernizes countries is a way to look at it. There are probably many other benefits and some pitfalls. Another benefit of capitalism and globalization is the tieing up of economies makes war less desirable. We see this with Europe and the Euro post WW2.
DarklingX 4 months ago
@DarklingX Now THOSE are some benefits that haven't been raised yet to me, and I have considered the first one you indicated, modernizing other countries, in a kind of vague and nebulous fashion. I have to wonder, still, about the outsourcing of jobs that used to be kept here in the USA, but this idea does appeal to me as a kind of 'enlightened self-interest.' I'm not entirely convinced, but these both seem sound points to consider, thank you.
TheMercilessEye 4 months ago
@lomocan I really honestly fail to see how fewer domestic USA regulations and smaller US government will curtail the multinational's ongoing record of human rights abuses and the exploitation of third world nations.
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
"I really honestly fail to see how fewer domestic USA regulations and smaller US government will curtail the multinational's ongoing record of human rights abuses and the exploitation of third world nations"
And how about big govt's record of facilitating those abuses & exploitation on behalf of multinationals? How is that working out?
Again, we can't have world peace & fix everything overnight, it takes time for change to occur & we simply can't force change immediately
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan The current form of the 'big government' is definitely facilitating these abuses, that's for sure. As for 'we simply can't force change immediately'...well, given that Massey and other coal companies are now pushing for using liquid COAL as a petroleum replacement, and the pollution from that process has been shown to be worse, I'd say we're running out of time to force change. It may be necessary to take drastic measures...but I don't see small govt. as capable of doing that, either.
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@lomocan I'd also like to know exactly what you think of Monsanto's blatent attempt to turn the global agricultural system into a monopoly with themselves in charge...and how you see a reduction in government as facilitating an end to that effort on their part.
TheMercilessEye 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
If you think "regulations" are what keeping you safe from the corps then think again, they're the biggest "legal tool" in the hands of big corps, they buy the govt & set "regulations" that favor them & adversely affect competitors, that way they kill competitors & earn higher profits & grow bigger & bigger.
Just to give an example,"anti-trust laws" were suggested Standard Oil's lawyer at a time when Standard Oil was quickly becoming the biggest corp in oil business in US
lomocan 7 months ago
@TheMercilessEye
It really amazes me when someone says that big govts will be able to solve the very problems they created & keep perpetuating; giving govt more power is akin to making big corps even bigger & powerful, it's too obvious yet people think that from somewhere god & angels will come & somehow someday run the big govt well & fix everything but as you've recognized, humans obviously aren't angels thus govts will never be angelic either so it's best to limit them.
lomocan 7 months ago