true capitalism and free market economies lead to corporate tyrrany - discuss

Originally posted by dadudemon
We both know efficiency in government needs to be improved and corruption reduced. In fact, I think we agree on everything there. You just mistook my posts for meaning that we could eliminate all of the problems.

if there is a disagreement, I think it is in this:

To me, it appears that you are saying, lets just give the old political-economic system of governance the old spit shine, make it run most efficiently, then we can tackle health and other more pressing issues.

imho, massive reform to the way the system works in the first place is what is necessary.

Even if it is efficient, lobbyists, politicians, the "usual suspects" who, in all other cases, pork up bills, are in bed with corporate interests, are more interested in electability than anything else, and frankly are corrupt and at best amoral, are still the ones who are drafting and implementing these bills.

I'm all for more efficiency and a well oiled machine, I'd just expect that machine not to look like the oppressive monster that is the financially ruled democratic government of America. The system itself, imho, is what stifles change, not the fact that the system is just 1/3 inefficient.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In fact the hardest workers in the world are some of the worst paid.

Yes, they spend so much time working so hard to cover up a giant ponzi scheme, call it a hedge fund, and screw society out of generations of life savings, then socialize their losses via bailouts. People like that are why I'm still 100% in favor of capital punishment.

I thought I'd post this from an unknown author-

I AM AN AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE SHITHEEL

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US department of energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US department of agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the food and drug administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issed by the federal reserve bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the department of labor and the occupational safety and health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to ny house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it’s valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the internet which was developed by the defense advanced research projects administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can’t do anything right.

Originally posted by inimalist
if there is a disagreement, I think it is in this:

To me, it appears that you are saying, lets just give the old political-economic system of governance the old spit shine, make it run most efficiently, then we can tackle health and other more pressing issues.

Sort of.

Originally posted by inimalist
imho, massive reform to the way the system works in the first place is what is necessary.

This is closer to what I'm saying. However, it isn't the total dissolution and reorganization, though. Some projects should be completely thrown out (DEA), yes, but some should simply be turned upside down and re-purposed. (The FAA is a recent example of that. They are doing almost exactly that, with the FAA. TSA is much further along than the FAA with a project management overhaul, but they still have quite a bit of ways to go themselves. However, the changes they've done, the dissolution of lines of business within the orgs, and the restructuring, has improved them greatly.)

Originally posted by inimalist
Even if it is efficient, lobbyists, politicians, the "usual suspects" who, in all other cases, pork up bills, are in bed with corporate interests, are more interested in electability than anything else, and frankly are corrupt and at best amoral, are still the ones who are drafting and implementing these bills.

Not to mention they will slowly erode away at any reform and improvements.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm all for more efficiency and a well oiled machine, I'd just expect that machine not to look like the oppressive monster that is the financially ruled democratic government of America. The system itself, imho, is what stifles change, not the fact that the system is just 1/3 inefficient.

Part of restructuring for efficiency is redefining responsibilities. It's not just changing processes, it's also changing line of business policy.

Corporations by definition can't exist without the support of a government. Thus, a government is the true source of tyranny because they are the force that oppress people, not the corporation.

Taxation is evil by its very concept. The burden of proof is on those defending taxation as justified.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
Corporations by definition can't exist without the support of a government.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That is not even close to the definition of a corporation.

The government has to support the rights and properties of a corporation. If this were not true, corporations would not have a police or military force to protect their monopoly.

This is the definition of corporation:

"A business organization owned by a group of stockholders, each of whom enjoys limited liability (that is, each can be held responsible for losses only up to the limit of his or her investment). A corporation has the ability to raise capital by selling stock to the public."

So no, it is not government aided "by definition".

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I'd recommend works by Engels and Marks for everyone to read - it is little off putting because Marx just made up words for things as he went along, but the idea is actually really good - and it is damn shame it cannot work. (or rather at this present stage in our history/evolution, it cannot)

I also suggest "The Ego and it's Own" by Max Stirner. My favorite philosopher.

Originally posted by King Kandy
This is the definition of corporation:

"A business organization owned by a group of stockholders, each of whom enjoys limited liability (that is, each can be held responsible for losses only up to the limit of his or her investment). A corporation has the ability to raise capital by selling stock to the public."

So no, it is not government aided "by definition".

He's right, governments grant corporations their charters and are legally allowed to revoke them. As long as the cash keeps flowing, even public support will not get them to revoke charters. That's why every popular drive to revoke a charter to a multinational corporation has failed no matter how much popular support there was.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
He's right, governments grant corporations their charters and are legally allowed to revoke them. As long as the cash keeps flowing, even public support will not get them to revoke charters. That's why every popular drive to revoke a charter to a multinational corporation has failed no matter how much popular support there was.

He's right that corporations as in that definition can't exist without a government, but there could be groups resembling corporations as we now it, which would act the same without government.

Yeah, "armed thugs" would do.

The problem is when a corporation defines itself as a "multinational" or "transnational". The local or state government that originally granted the charter can revoke it but the company could simply claim residence in another country and continue its operations unaffected.

I was wondering if anyone heard of the story that through illegal institutionalized fraud, 85% of all small business government contracts are granted to huge multinational corporations, many of them being foreign companies?

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
Maybe not in the fantasy based medias eyes, but in reality it is true.

The government has to support the rights and properties of a corporation. If this were not true, corporations would not have a police or military force to protect their monopoly.

You are aware that most large corporations do have their own "police" force, don't you?

They call them security guards. I dare you to try to break into the Chrysler tower without getting shot or tasered. 😉

That was just a random building. You can think of any building from a large corporation and you'll see the security.

On top of that, if a local police force did not exist, they would certainly invest into that police force. Even in a stateless environment, corporations could still exist, no problem. In fact, me thinks that in a stateless environment, corporations would assume the positions of the state, and maybe even form agreements amongst themselves that form the framework of regulation. They would, of course, set themselves up for maximum benefit for each other. I would assume that in some environments and personalities, there might even be some wars.

ownership - trade rights is the way to go.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
do you agree or disagree. give reasons why. {also, this can help people give their arguments against socialism/communism which are the major alternatives}. oh, heres a video by noam chomsky on the subject which i personally tend to agree with.

YouTube video

So should I e-mail Noam my response or do you have something to say?

The collusion of government and corporations is what leads to bad things. Not capitalism. To be blunt and simplistic for now until you at least formulate a reasoning for presenting this thread other than via Noam Chomsky.

Unregulated/Free Market Capitalism inevitably leads to Monopolies and Cartels/destruction of the market economy which inevitably lead collusion between corporations and government which inevitably leads to/is fascism.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Unregulated/Free Market Capitalism inevitably leads to Monopolies and Cartels/destruction of the market economy which inevitably lead collusion between corporations and government which inevitably leads to/is fascism.

Why go through all those steps to reach oppression when you can just start with socialism and skip over the rest.