|
Post by Bob Ill on Oct 1, 2011 14:13:08 GMT -5
....So, is this your pet societal "problem"? ".... the plundering by the criminal class on Wall Street and accelerated destruction of the ecosystem that sustains the human species,..."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2011 18:47:41 GMT -5
nope. i was refering more to SOB,s post with that I wreckon. I thought he might be interested in the article. I already replied to your initial thread..... I think. I dont know how to use the quote reply on here, and break it all down real purdy like you. I wish I did, but i just dont seem to really care enough to take the time. sorry.
|
|
|
Post by sonofabelch on Oct 1, 2011 23:45:39 GMT -5
nope. i was refering more to SOB,s post with that I wreckon. I thought he might be interested in the article. I already replied to your initial thread..... I think. I dont know how to use the quote reply on here, and break it all down real purdy like you. I wish I did, but i just dont seem to really care enough to take the time. sorry. Hey MUC, I read the article, but not sure if you agree with what's in there or not. When you get some time, kind of let me know sort of where you stand and we'll go from there if you'd like. Personally, I didn't agree with much of the positions of that writer. He seemed like he was, at times, babbling nothing but frothy socialist propaganda designed to drum up the masses against "evil" government and corporations. While I think the abuse of a state system is something dreadful for societies, I'm actually in favor of a minimalist skeletal form of some kind of government that, for the most part, stays out of corporate matters. Governments have little business sticking their noses in corporate matters. Nor do they have any business in the personal live of individuals. What we have these days is a travesty. Even with that said, I'd be willing to drop even a remote skeletal form of government if I could only find hard answers to things like how abuses could be eliminated or curtailed within a completely free market/ anarchy-style society. Personally, I think that abuses would have fertile ground to grow in such a society. Government, as we've seen over and over again always seem to not only make things worse, but even contribute heavily toward many forms of these abuses. Also, the writer seems hell bent on tearing down the corporate structure in the US and replacing it with even more government control akin to extreme forms of socialistic rule- something I'm vehemently against. What these writers are good at is whipping people into frenzies, busing them down to protest sites, and then unleashing them upon the scene. What they are terrible at is answering basic questions like "just what do we replace the current systems with?". Normally, their answers are laced with stupid little trivial answers that almost always end up resulting in giving more power to governments, thinking that government will make things right. Historically, the opposite is true. Governments will simply take over the corporate side of society and center the profits around themselves, giving little back to those that need it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2011 13:11:34 GMT -5
OK. look guys we have gotten off the topic but i need to respond. I believe that the large corporations are the government..Ever since de regulation allowed the moneyed class to have free reign they have co opted a system that although corrupt, afforded the working class (most of the people) a reasonably good standard of living..Now that monopolies controll most of our news broadcasts it is only practical that they ensure the continuation of the status quo..The polarization between rich and poor is approaching the levels of the Gilded age of robber barons..The lie of "trickle down economics" has revealed itself in that the great majority of Americans have it worse than they did a few decades ago. Corporations have gotten out of controll because they have used their power and influence to elect officials who do their bidding..The supreme court has ruled that a corporation is to be regarded as a "person"..If profit is the defining motive of a corporation why should they concentrate on mundane matters such as clean air, safety in the workplace, proper health care, highway repairs, public schools, etc,...My feelings: Today Oct 2nd 2011, I agree with 90% of this article... Cobh out Football in !
|
|
|
Post by sonofabelch on Oct 2, 2011 14:22:44 GMT -5
In regards to the marriage between government and corporate interests, I also think they've gotten too close. The one thing I could see a use for government would be as a neutral party between corporate matters, but as you say, the relationship is nearly indistinguishable these days.
The bribery, special interest influence, and lobbying involved renders the government useless in terms of enforcement. That renders them worthless in terms of need.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Ill on Oct 3, 2011 9:38:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Bob Ill on Oct 3, 2011 9:44:48 GMT -5
Even with that said, I'd be willing to drop even a remote skeletal form of government if I could only find hard answers to things like how abuses could be eliminated or curtailed within a completely free market/ anarchy-style society. Personally, I think that abuses would have fertile ground to grow in such a society. Government, as we've seen over and over again always seem to not only make things worse, but even contribute heavily toward many forms of these abuses.. This is the key point. There is no Utopia. Therefore, if "abuses" are reduced to a realistic minimum (local, occasional crime) in a free-market anarchy (given that governments "seem to make things worse"), then anarchy is the best that flawed humans can hope for.
|
|
|
Post by sonofabelch on Oct 3, 2011 16:08:58 GMT -5
I'm certainly willing to try other forms of societal models that offer improvements over what we currently suffer though. Don't get me wrong, my life isn't bad and I'm not being harassed in any way right now, but I'm only one subject of billions. I'd say the majority of people in the world are highly oppressed today, and most of it is due to some form of government control to whatever degree.
There will never be a utopian existence on any large scale, but if a free-market anarchy works better than what's out there now, then I don't see a reason why not to try it.
This isn't to say I'm in favor of an armed revolt against the current US government- I'm not. But if communities vote in ways which would decrease government control in steps, it would be completely legal and in line with the wishes of the locals. The idea is to take the movement ever so carefully to a national scale.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Ill on Oct 4, 2011 9:53:48 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong, my life isn't bad and I'm not being harassed in any way right now,... Unless you moved recently, you live in a country in which the president ordered the assassination of two US citizens on the president's word, alone. Me, neither.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2011 15:02:36 GMT -5
OH Hell Ya Bob Hill. What a fucking set of balls on the president . Never heard of the 5th amendment ?
That man ordered the murder of american's. with out trial, with out shit. what the fuck is up with that.
maybe i'm next ?
|
|
|
Post by sonofabelch on Oct 4, 2011 17:36:35 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong, my life isn't bad and I'm not being harassed in any way right now,... Unless you moved recently, you live in a country in which the president ordered the assassination of two US citizens on the president's word, alone. Me, neither. True, but I was making a personal reference point. The crimes of the President are another matter. Honestly, the number is a lot higher than two.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Ill on Oct 5, 2011 8:58:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sonofabelch on Oct 10, 2011 8:47:54 GMT -5
I agree with the quote. Problems arise throughout history where an armed minority takes control of the majority. Or, such as in the case in a true democracy, the majority actually hands over their power to a minority on a volunteer basis.
So which is worse- having individual power and responsibility ripped from one's hands through force or coercion or giving it away on your own volition to a representative form of government?
|
|
|
Post by Bob Ill on Oct 10, 2011 11:50:15 GMT -5
I agree with the quote. Problems arise throughout history where an armed minority takes control of the majority. Or, such as in the case in a true democracy, the majority actually hands over their power to a minority on a volunteer basis. So which is worse- having individual power and responsibility ripped from one's hands through force or coercion or giving it away on your own volition to a representative form of government? .....I don't know, but, in the spirit of the thread, if there was truly a free market and absolute private property rights, it wouldn't matter because the whole problem is that the state forcefully either prohibits or mandates things that should be optional. All I can do is try to educate. I am amazed at how happy GODZ fans seem to be! ;D
|
|
|
Post by sonofabelch on Oct 12, 2011 17:40:04 GMT -5
Yes, I noticed lol. Maybe we're too grumpy for our own good.
Still, I see real possibilities for change over the next few years, especially in regards to third-party candidates in local and federal elections. I can sense a spirit of independence when you actually get to hear people on the street.
People are starting to vocalize their displeasure with what they voted for in 2010. They are starting to question just who is behind the curtain more and more. They are starting to realize that they can't defend the indefensible and make it stick.
That's good news. The bad news is that there's still enough out there with blinders on, following the rally signs, satisfied with what they have.
Ok, what's another peeve. I'm out of thoughts for one day.
|
|