Conservative Manifesto Blinders

Why Big Business wants you to think that government is the enemy

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Conservative
• Manifesto
• Social
• Organization
• Human
• Rights
• freedom
• liberty

[j0hnwi11iams]

The government is a public institution. It is controlled ostensibly by the people through elections and other means. You're using terms here that a too broad and imprecise in terms of what private enterprise does well and what government does well.

[bloodrunsclear]

Isn't The Government a kind of corporation in itself, taking more then it's share to perform a service we need, but along the way royally messing everything up?

Too powerful, so they must be...relegated. And by relegated you mean shrunk. Destruction is the end result of that because companies don't like to be shrunk and people will not work simply for the joy of working without compensation. By relegating companies you will cause them to fire more and more people, and eventually to quit.

[j0hnwi11iams]

I consider what Walmart does to be a sort of insurance scam. I consider social programs to be government sponsored insurance. Corporations get a more or less free ride in this country because there are so many loopholes in the tax code. I never said that corporations should be destroyed, that is just a misrepresentation of my views. My position is that corporations are too powerful. They have all the rights of a person, but are immortal and devoid of consciousness.

[bloodrunsclear]

Would this be an issue if we didn't live in a nanny state which hands out money at the drop of a hat and drives up inflation?

It seems you're complaining about the wrong ideology at work. Maybe corporations would clean up their act if they weren't taxed into bankruptcy, their businesses run for them by pointy headed intellectuals that never had to manage so much as a focus group, and weren't constantly called the epitome of evil.

Nah. Corporations can do no right and should be destroyed.

[j0hnwi11iams]

It is important to understand the total cost as opposed to the price. A product may have a very low price because it defers a lot of the cost on to the public through externalities. Walmart, for example, intentionally underpays it's employees so they will qualify for government assistance.

[j0hnwi11iams]

Those things you mention are not "everything". The internet I believe is becoming a vital public infrastructure that needs to be protected from profit motivated corruption. Healthcare and insurance in general is proving to be a disaster in private hands. Education is a public investment in our children, one where everyone, especially the wealthy, benefit.

[bloodrunsclear]

Is that all? That would explain why there's a constant push for nationalized everything: internet, healthcare, education etc...

If all they wanted was 'total cost' reflected in the price of objects (so you want sandwiches costing 200+ due to shipping and farming costs?) then I'd only be mildly annoyed. It when the government seeks to control every aspect of my life I get furious.

[j0hnwi11iams]

Liberals do not think they know how to run a business better. Those are your mischaracterizations, not what liberals think or desire. What liberals want is for the total cost of a product to be reflected in its price, not hidden by passing it off as an externality to society at large.

[bloodrunsclear]

Spoken like a true Liberal. It is necessary to labor under the delusion that the current system is flawed. Only then can unnecessary, untried or unsuccessful programs be put into place and give the institution more power. Regulations is a fancy way of saying 'You don't know how to run your business as well as I do, and if you disagree then I'm taking away that business and running it myself'.

Now say with a straight face you aren't a socialist.

[j0hnwi11iams]

Our health care system is nowhere near as good as other countries when you look at statistics like infant mortality and life expectancy. I am not in favor of nationalizing everything related to health care, but I think insurance companies are clearly broken and pharmaceuticals have too many toadies in government. Clearly we need to either impose some regulations limiting their power or we need to replace them.

[bloodrunsclear]

Could it be the system is working and the reason you think everyone is in denial is because YOU'RE the crazy one? A madman believes everyone but himself mad.

Also, would nationalizing the system really help? Anything the government takes full control of invariably goes into recession and then experiences short supply as companies stop manufacture (since they're paid to do nothing) and people start dying from the common cold, all because someone like you wasn't happy about his monthly bill.

[j0hnwi11iams]

Why don't we take a good look at what is not working in this country, such as HEALTH CARE? No one on the right is willing to admit that anything is broken. They are all in denial.

[bloodrunsclear]

Funnily enough I agree in the current administration since Obama seems determined to either follow in Bush's footsteps or put into effect new programs that don't work.

What I meant was hostile take over of our nation by other nations that are envious of our power. A new world order devoted to ending progress and leaping into untried or tried and failed ideas is sure to fail and drag the country down with it.

[j0hnwi11iams]

It would be BETTER management.

[bloodrunsclear]

Well, I'm glad that you're not in charge. Our country would be under new management in a matter of days.

[j0hnwi11iams]

The protests were against the Iraq Invasion and subsequent occupation. Bush and especially Cheney are truly despicable characters. They both belong behind bars for war crimes.

I don't know how you get off calling this administration liberal. It is no where liberal enough if you ask me. It should immediately legalize drugs, gambling, prostitution. Criminalize bank fraud schemes involving derivatives. Restore civil rights and abide by our treaties, especially the geneva convention.

[bloodrunsclear]

Excuse me but the only people I heard crying for ignoring or attacking the government were patently liberal hipsters who wanted us as students to 'stick it to the man'. That was during the Bush administration.

Now that the government is largely liberal, it's amazing how we now must be good little citizens, and turn our ire away from the government towards the other progressive punching bags of religion and business.

Coincidence?

[j0hnwi11iams]

How about the spot energy market that was run from within Enron headquarters? That was a service monopoly that was easy for the brokers to manipulate. How about exclusive contracts like AT&T and the iPhone?

Also, it is not necessary for there to be an absolute monopoly for companies to be able to exert market power, all that is necessary is a small enough supply and a big enough demand.

[j0hnwi11iams]

Granted, government needs safeguards to prevent it from becoming corrupt and the constitution institutionalizes those safeguards. Maybe there are not enough - we certainly need more transparency. Any organization that is allowed to operate in secret has the potential to undermine public welfare. Corporations are far more secretive than government and usually only reveal potentially negative information about their products when forced to by government regulation.

[j0hnwi11iams]

There are several advantages to government, the most significant is the level of public participation in the creation of policy and law. Corporations make any sort of contract they want. This is exactly he problem with private health insurance, that the contract is misleading and that they refuse to serve some individuals or honor the intent of insurance.

[j0hnwi11iams]

If you look at government as a means of enforcing social contracts then coercion is necessary only if you decide to back out of your obligations. Laws are a form of social contract and if you break them there are consequences. If you do not like the social contract you can either campaign to have laws changed or leave the country. Private corporations typically only create contracts between a limited number of parties, usually two, and let the government enforce them.

[LowcountryJoe2]

This makes no sense to me. It's as though you've never taken a course in Economics and yet are trying to discuss the topic.  Too much to write here but you're saying, paraphrasing, "don't be dependent on the marketplace providing your goods because shisters may pull the rug out from underneath and the transition to independence too difficult; choose independence from the get go and don't get used to receiving value." Hmm, don't be dependent on the marketplace but do be dependent on gov't?

[LowcountryJoe2]

Give some examples of a natural non-governmental sanctioned monoploies.

[LowcountryJoe2]

You have just provided the very reason why I am a minarchist: as long as an organization remains in the private domain, persuasion/cooperation has to be used. However, once an organization becomes an arm of government (after it is no longer vying for government) coercion replaces persuasion and cooperation replaced with compulsory.

I'm guessing that you fear corporate 'power' but embrace governmnetal power; taking your feelings out of it for the moment, doesn't that strike you odd when read?

[j0hnwi11iams]

Government has the monopoly on the use of VIOLENT force, not all force. How funny it is that Reagan started the ball rolling down this path by saying that corporations were being needlessly regulated. Perhaps all the high rollers want is market instability because that is how they make their killings. Someone who is unemployed because of the economy has had his job stolen from him.