Lifestyle > Train of Thought
So anybody else find it shocking that Obama basically took over GM?
I TO DA GEEZY:
I didn't say capitalism doesn't exist as an idea, I said it doesn't exist in reality due to the way our systems function. You may call it a thief. But theives are marginal, while this is the core of the system.
Secondly, the question that was posed to you was indeed a question of principle. And I don't see how one can both support government intervention and be against it at the same time.
As for government being that which makes big business dangerous, I don't think there's evidence for that. As I said earlier- and also bothered to refer you to the relevant scholarship- the law was transformed to make the businesses more powerful and more indifferent to public concerns.By law, maximizing profit was to be the chief concern for big business, while ,to a large extent, it was prohibited from considering human consequences. I also gave a reference to a study dealing with business exerting pressure on government. Now in such conditions, where else do you go to mitigate the harm of publicly unaccountable entities, other than to the government, which is at least accountable to some extent.
TraceOneInfinite:
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on April 04, 2009, 11:42:48 AM ---I didn't say capitalism doesn't exist as an idea, I said it doesn't exist in reality due to the way our systems function. You may call it a thief. But theives are marginal, while this is the core of the system.
--- End quote ---
Then it's a BIG thief. But it's still a thief no matter the size of it. Which is the whole premise of libertarian politics, which is to make the thief as small as possible. Whereas, you democratic socialist politics seek to turn the thief into a "good thief" like Barack Obama. I think Barack Obama is a good guy. He's a "good thief". But still a thief.
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on April 04, 2009, 11:42:48 AM ---
Secondly, the question that was posed to you was indeed a question of principle. And I don't see how one can both support government intervention and be against it at the same time.
--- End quote ---
LOL.. I don't either, so I guess it's a good thing I don't support government intervention ;)... for the thousandth time. All I said was that I can understand why businesses would want to get the government on their side, how you understood that statement to mean that I supported corporatism (government intervention in business) I will never know.
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on April 04, 2009, 11:42:48 AM ---
As I said earlier- and also bothered to refer you to the relevant scholarship-
--- End quote ---
Thanks, let me also offer you some links and books for you to read as well.. www.harrybrowne.org
Why Government Doesn't Work- by Harry Browne
How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World- by Harry Browne
How You Can Profit From The Coming Devaluation- by Harry Browne
...Now I've provided you with relevant scholarship, when you read that I will read some of yours
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on April 04, 2009, 11:42:48 AM ---
maximizing profit was to be the chief concern for big business,
--- End quote ---
Only in your Noam Chomsky utopia that will never exist, is the chief concern of big business not to make money... over here in the real world everything seeks to profit by it's very nature. Just as you try to improve your life a business seeks to improve it's business.
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on April 04, 2009, 11:42:48 AM ---
also gave a reference to a study dealing with business exerting pressure on government. Now in such conditions, where else do you go to mitigate the harm of publicly unaccountable entities, other than to the government, which is at least accountable to some extent.
--- End quote ---
Any business is automatically accountable to it's customers and employees. Who could quit or not purchase their products if they chose to. So you don't need government to force business to be accountable. And even if you did try to do that it would look something like what Obama has done with GM (BEST CASE SCENARIO) and worst case scenario it would be Bush and Halliburton; either way it won't work.
I TO DA GEEZY:
I kinda feel like we're talking in circles now.
I didn't mention the literature to impress you, I did it in order to document the judicial activism that took place, which decreased the accountability of big business to the public.I also wanted to document the intention of big business to dominate government.
You also said we shouldn't blame big business for wanting government intervention, while claiming to be against government intervention.
Finally, big business is accountable to its shareholders, not to its employees-whose salaries often need to be kept at a minimum for reasons of profit(Remember what happent to Ford early in the 20th century-Dodge vs. Ford- when he wanted to give his employees greater salaries- the shareholders sued him and won on grounds that business should not engage in altruistic deeds unless it is for more profit). It is also not accountable to it's consumers unless we're talking about business-to-business. Human consumers, as opposed to other corporations, can be, and are, routinely deceived through what you regard as legitimate methods like propaganda.
TraceOneInfinite:
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on April 04, 2009, 12:36:04 PM ---I kinda feel like we're talking in circles now.
--- End quote ---
And who's fault is that?
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on April 04, 2009, 12:36:04 PM ---
You also said we shouldn't blame big business for wanting government intervention, while claiming to be against government intervention.
--- End quote ---
Okay. Why is this sooooooo hard for you to understand. Big business has an obvious incentive to want government on their side... THEY WILL MAKE MORE MONEY. That is fucking obvious dude. In fact, in general, we as human beings want people to be on our side. So what is so confusing to you?
Shitt... I want government on my side. Even you want government on your side. Because if I had government on my side then I could tell them to go away and they would do it. And if you had government on your side you could tell them to make Noam Chomsky King of the World and they would do it. Which by the way, if Noam Chomsky was made king, I could see it now... you saying... "Well, he was really good, and then when he got power he kind of changed".
So can we drop that argument now? This doesn't mean that I am for government to say that in general people want government to be on their side.
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on April 04, 2009, 12:36:04 PM ---
Finally, big business is accountable to its shareholders, not to its employees-whose salaries often need to be kept at a minimum for reasons of profit(Remember what happent to Ford early in the 20th century-Dodge vs. Ford- when he wanted to give his employees greater salaries- the shareholders sued him and won on grounds that business should not engage in altruistic deeds unless it is for more profit). It is also not accountable to it's consumers unless we're talking about business-to-business. Human consumers, as opposed to other corporations, can be, and are, routinely deceived through what you regard as legitimate methods like propaganda.
--- End quote ---
So now business isn't accountable to it's consumers? Then if that's the case why doesn't Wall-Mart charge 1 million dollars for each one of it's products?
I TO DA GEEZY:
So you don't wanna talk about institutionalized deception of the public, cause that doesn't go very well with accountability to consumers. Let's discuss Wal Mart instead. This is a moving target debate.
And when you're against government intervention, you don't come up with alibis to justify it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version