My point being govt. has a higher body count, than corps could ever hope to reach. Lets keep things in perspective.
reasons that capitalism is better than socialism...
- Thread starter Blackking
- Start date
Mr. Somebody
Friend Of A Friend
Well yea, the government has the resources to kill more people whereas the latter, does not. How would anti government forces react if they could snap their fingers and destroy whoever they pleased. Hard to do with old dusty weapons.
Last edited:
In terms of health care, workers rights, yes it isSocialism's track record is stellar right?
Again in order to believe this, you have believe that corporations are not created and propped up by govt... something that empirically isnt true.
Technically all forms of legalized American businesses (small businesses, franchises, cooperatives, corporations) are allowed because the government allows those kinds of businesses
You mention lobbying having to stop, but only one side of the coin has the power to stop ityet you want to look iN the other direction, and wonder why nothings changing...
The ball is and has always been in gov's court, but they have figured out that if they can direct "the peoples" ire towards corps, and play innocent, they can keep the cash flowing.
Privatized finance has been in the constitution from the beginning because they thought that it was the best way have representatives for all special interests (merchants, farmers). The problem is that the people who designed the constitution would have never thought that the income gap would be as big as it is now. I don't look the other way of any corrupt institution. Problem with libertarians is that they only wanna blame government for every situation and never point the blame anything on unregulated capitalism. The reason why the government doesn't ban privatized campaign financing is because its in the constitution and libertarian fundamentalists would say "oh thats tyranny its unconstitutional your taking away the voice of the people. Your going to federal tax money to fund candidates that they don't support.
Keep in mind only one half of this team has sworn an oath to serve youHow you are looking at the guy that hasnt promised you shyt is beyond me
Don't know what guy u talking about?
Big business and govt. have long had a symbiotic relationship and have used their "shared" power to exploit markets and people. From the East Indian Tea company to Hearst/Pulitzer to the United Fruit company right up to present day with Haliburton and Blackwater. I'm not sure how you can separate the two and place sole blame on one.
Sure... what about famine?
i stopped at "has been in the constitution". My point stands only one side of the coin can fix the problem, and its also the side directly in the service of the public. Stop doing gymnastics to relieve public servants of their responsibility and duty...
and remind me what business owners have sworn to you, or promised you?
here we go again
You are redefining "power" from the looks of it. But lets see....
What "power" do these corps have in the absent of govt. and how do they wield it?
Sure... what about famine?
i stopped at "has been in the constitution". My point stands only one side of the coin can fix the problem, and its also the side directly in the service of the public. Stop doing gymnastics to relieve public servants of their responsibility and duty...
and remind me what business owners have sworn to you, or promised you?
here we go again
You are redefining "power" from the looks of it. But lets see....
What "power" do these corps have in the absent of govt. and how do they wield it?
Their power is the reason they were able to influence the government. Cheney went from Halliburton to the government, not the other way around, and the East India company was already taking over regions of S. Asia and establishing its own administration before the British government stepped in and seized/took over their enterprise, and they only did that because they were influenced by the Company to do so.
Sure... what about famine?
What about those scandinavian countries. And as broken down as certain things are in Cuba, when you compare famine levels there to most other third world capitalist countries its not doing to bad. As a matter of fact this country has socialist programs as do many market economies in western Europe. Instead of looking at things through capitalism vs. socialism people gotta start looking at things from the perspective of market based economies vs. planned economies. Market based economies always outperform planned economies but that doesn't mean that socialist policies don't have a place in a market based economy. Germany is a country with universal healthcare, and strong union and worker's rights yet they have one of the best capitalist economies in the world.
i stopped at "has been in the constitution". My point stands only one side of the coin can fix the problem, and its also the side directly in the service of the public. Stop doing gymnastics to relieve public servants of their responsibility and duty...
Who the hell is doing that. I don't identify myself with a particular ideology although I would say that yea I'm generally a progressive as long as the progressive values are effective and improve society. The difference between a libertarian and a progressive though is that while progressives have no issues making both government and big business accountable, libertarians can't for the life of them can make big business culpable for absolutely anything. I don't give any sell out policiticians any slack for any corruption, I'm just stating the truth. Their has been several attempts for campaign finance reform but we all know that getting a bill passed in congress is nearly impossible to pass as it is now especially a bill which would reform something that has been embedded in the constittution for such a long time.
and remind me what business owners have sworn to you, or promised you?
Because theres no oath sworn to me by business owners I can't make them culpable selling stocks and bonds from shytty mortgages and then betting against those same mortgages to fail? I can't be concerned that they regulate the amount of pollutants that they put in the air, or that they make sure that their more transparent about the products that they sell me.
here we go again
You are redefining "power" from the looks of it. But lets see....
What "power" do these corps have in the absent of govt. and how do they wield it?
Are you fukking serious? The power to dump toxins in the air, land, and sea unchecked. The power to merge and create monopolies giving away the absence of a free market. The power to make businesses out of militias that would split the country into factions and turn a country into somalia.
Poisoning people is against the law, is your dumping toxins argument that govt. will turn a blind eye to the pollution? If so, even this concede govt. interaction.
Monopolies are not inherently bad or good. This point is meaningless.
Somalia's govt. was deliberately destroyed not by anarchists, but by the u.s. military. The chaos that ensued and continues, is the direct result of govt. intervention. Ours to be exact.
Take off your govt. loving glasses
So you would define corporate power as influence?
Sure... what about famine?
i stopped at "has been in the constitution". My point stands only one side of the coin can fix the problem, and its also the side directly in the service of the public. Stop doing gymnastics to relieve public servants of their responsibility and duty...
and remind me what business owners have sworn to you, or promised you?
here we go again
You are redefining "power" from the looks of it. But lets see....
What "power" do these corps have in the absent of govt. and how do they wield it?
"defining power"? explain... surely you're not suggesting that corporations are powerless absent the govt.?
So you would define corporate power as influence?
Not sure what you mean by this. I define power as power, some kinds or capacities of which are illegitimate, and some which aren't. Some State power is illegitimate, and some is legitimate. Same for corps.
I am... but i could surely be wrong. Got any examples of them exercising this power independent of the state?
What does the term corporate power mean? what is this power they are wielding? Influence over the actual power(of which govt. necessarily has a monopoly) is all I can see... maybe you can shed some light onto the "corps are too powerful in and of themselves" idea.
Seems pretty clear that monopolies are bad especially for capitalism.
