October 21, 2011 at 8:34 pm #159984Jon QuackenbushParticipant
“Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism,” ML King said, “but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all of God’s children.”October 21, 2011 at 8:46 pm #159983
So you’d shoot Bernard Madoff? Then call the SEC?October 21, 2011 at 9:13 pm #159982
How do you define socialism? If a government passes any rule that keeps big businesses from running amok, is that what you consider socialism? Have you ever thought that idealizing the market the way you do is just another form of extremism? It’s not perfect, you know. I’m not saying government is, either, of course.October 22, 2011 at 12:28 am #159981
Socialism is government determiniation and distribution (ownership) of profit. Profit, property (rights), and freedom must co-exist and belong to the individual. Lose one and you lose them all. Therefore, in the context of our times it is absurd to be concerned about business running amok while being oblivious to the outrageous overreach of government. Christ scolded blindness such as this by comparing it to gagging on a gnat while swallowing a camel!
The market may not be ideal but it is a far better regulator of business than any government. What a tremendous testimony for academia that “reasonable” people now utterly depend upon government but “extremists” lean away from government for solutions they can best provide for themselves. I have no doubt The Founders anticipated the possibility of this eventuality but they prayed it would never happen.
…unable to discern the intentions of The Founders? …how about Alexis deTocqueville? Here’s a nice Euro-socialist who warned us of the dangers of passing rules to keep big business from “running amok”. Big business has been used as a straw man by which socialists steal into our government, our schools, our media, and our homes. One example is the evil one: Big Oil. They make an 8-10% annual profit – pretty reasonable. Government rakes in 45% on every gallon of gasoline for doing absolutely nothing but exposing our national security and destroying our domestic economy. This unreported disparity is just one of the endless examples of government/media deceptions that persuade us, in the name of compassion to shackle our free enterprise system and turn to government for handouts. But these handouts of redstributive government beneficence create dependence and dependence is the very antithesis of compassion…
I hope the voting automatons and droids wake up soon or we will never be able to regain our liberty (as it were).October 22, 2011 at 1:59 am #159980
So, if I am all for a free market for the most part, but want the government to prevent multi-national companies from dumping toxic waste into our drinking water or something, am I still an evil socialist? Should we let businesses walk all over us in the hopes they might decide to give us a few jobs? Is it only abuse of power if the government does it? If lobbyists are bribing politicians and getting away with it, can we really say that businesses have it bad in the US? If businesses have so much power that they essentially are running the government, shouldn’t you fear big business as much as congress?October 22, 2011 at 2:27 am #159979landplannerParticipant
I so appreciate your contributions to this scintillating philosophical about the crucial direction or mis-direction and accompanying trajectory our country is currently on. You viewpoint, while a bit edgy, are useful here. A couple of unsolicited suggestions might help you in your next reply:
- Drop the use of the Ayn Rand manifesto cliff notes
- Prepare for the next Tea Party rally in your neck of whatever woods you have your survivalist bunker in by stringing a few more tea bags from helmet and put some new survey lath ( you know what that looks like, right ?) on your placard sign. You know the one that says ” I want government out of my life and off my back, but leave My Social Security and Medicare alone”
See you at the next rally. I will try and make it there to, I will be with the OWS’ers and the other 99% at the truth squad table. Come over for a T-shirt and/or bumper sticker not funded by Soros or the Koch Brothers.October 22, 2011 at 3:03 pm #159978
Well said William!
s.October 22, 2011 at 3:05 pm #159977
maybe… but most certainly and evil evironmentalist! 🙂
s.October 22, 2011 at 6:32 pm #159976
I like the Constitution and can’t suffer fools. Best wishes for your career and I hope to see your work one day.October 22, 2011 at 6:33 pm #159975
I like the Constitution and can’t suffer fools. Best wishes for your career and I hope to see your work one day.October 22, 2011 at 6:37 pm #159974
The context of that sentiment is through an equal opportunity to earn. Government redistribution is neither fair nor frugal.October 22, 2011 at 7:32 pm #159973Leslie B WagleParticipant
Meanwhile, something that might explain (partly) why the various sides in discussions live in such different universes that they think the opposing thought realms are “mentally ill” or “uneducated.” (I’ve run into this a lot on the web or in interviews, sometimes veiled and sometimes blatant):
http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.htmlOctober 22, 2011 at 7:44 pm #159972
There is another way to regulate business Roland. Make the penalties for damaging the environment, people, and other people’s property so severe that business can’t afford to cause harm. However, government’s attempts to legislate common sense will just raise the cost of doing business for everyone and make American businesses less competitive in the world economy. That also translates to fewer jobs for the masses.
As for me I would like to eliminate the concept of campaign finance. After so many signitures your campaign is finaced by the government. And the canditdates get x dollars to run the campaign and no more. No Personal, Private, Lobbyist or Corporate contributions allowed. I think it is far better that the taxpayer funds these campaigns as it is the price of running a fair democracy.
s.October 22, 2011 at 9:05 pm #159971
Wouldn’t the businesses still whine about whatever penalties you have in mind? Wouldn’t there be a new set of politicians who thought there shouldn’t be any penalties? Who would enforce all this without government? Individuals don’t have a good track record against multi-national corporations.
I think almost everyone here would agree that no personal, private, lobbyist or corporate contributions should be allowed. In fact, I think that’s one of the things the OWS movement is asking for:
Even evil environmentalists like me agree:October 22, 2011 at 11:44 pm #159970
the evil environmentalist … tongue in cheek of course :-). I certainly didn’t advocate no government. Whine yes but there will always be whiners. That is just a human nature trait. There will always be politicans that don’t agree with the status quo. That is the nature of politicians. I don’t necessarily see that you need large government buracracies to enforce the penalties. How about putting the laws on the books in such a way that there is one entity within the government that you can file the charges with. And the loser pays all attourney’s fees and court costs of all parties concerned. That cuts down on the frivolus lawsuits so only legitimate claims are litigated. The problem as I see it is when the government is the violator. In our state there is the The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. leaking Radioactive ooze into the environment. These plants were run by the government in the name of national security. So it is not just companies that are violators. The government itself is probably the number one violator if the truth be told. And what happens when a new product is manufactured only to find out years later just how dangerous the product really was. For example asbestos. At one point you could find the product everywhere. Or how about lead paint? It is one thing to go after a company that is knowingly violating environmental law. It is quite another to go after a company that was manufacturing a product in good faith and years later after science and technology improves it turns out that the product is detrimental. A line has to be drawn somewhere or there will be no companies. Half the products that you use on a daily basis would never reach market if you enforce environmental law to the max. Including computers, cell phones and any other electronic gadget. There are some pretty toxic materials that go into producing those gadgets.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.