Govt is corrupt, so why do liberals want bigger govt !?!?

[Libertas Liber]

So do as the Constitution demands, no more no less? Leave the rest to the states or people (as it prescribes)? If this is what you mean, then I'm for that.

not quite, though essentially I agree.

to put it more plainly.

government is corrupt because people are corrupt.

the "right" prefer smaller government because they think government corruption is the worst of two evils and see individual corruption as the price of doing business.
the "left" prefer bigger government because they think individual corruption is the worst of two evils and see government corruption as the price of doing business.

Hmm, so where do you stand then? What should be done? Just curious.

EDIT: I see that the question is vague, so you don't need to give a specific answer. Just, how do you think the power of govt. should be decentralized?

[Mosasauria]

The definition of a free society to you is one where corporations hold all the power, the government does nothing but exist, or may not exist at all to you, and the people have no say. Whether you outright claim that this is exactly what you support, it is the result of what you support, whether you deny it or not. Hardly a free society at all. More like, as Nationstates classifies it, a Corporate Police State.

OMG! You're psychic!

On a more serious note, NO, I do not want the government powerless, but I do want it less involved in my life. If the government didn't have so much power, these large corporations would have failed a long time ago, the way the free market naturally kills them, recycles them, and makes things more efficient. I certainly hope you understand supply and demand, because I have a feeling my next post is going to be rather long...

Oh, hey, I want it less involved in my life too! I don't want social conservatives controlling what I can and can't do with myself or my lover either!

But a free market wouldn't recycle it. A free market would result in a corporation that controls all, toppling all opposition, and stealing all innovation.
Let's say that in a few years, America slowly develops into a free market society. Some business would, yes, immediately collapse due to lack of support from the government(GE comes to mind...). But a few large corporations would still remain. And these large corporations suddenly found themselves without regulation.
Before you know it, these large corporations are launching corporate espionage attacks into the competition to see what the competition is capable of. Once they know that, sabotage or other attacks may be launched. Hell(What I'm going to say mostly applies only to anarcho-capitalism, but I feel it needs to be said), what would stop these corporations from assassinating the heads of other corporations, or even hiring mercenaries and conducting violent and deadly attacks against the other corporations? Even if violence is never resorted to, they'll try to smear and tarnish the competition in other ways(What I'm about to say applies much more to a free market society). Whether it be through public awareness campaigns into the competition's products or operations, or smear campaigns against other corporations, or perhaps the bribing of a scientist to produce studies with, say, results like "Product X of Corporation Y May Cause Cancer". They'll change the public perception of another corporation to drive it into the ground, all the while perhaps trying to sway public perception favorably towards them using similar tactics.
Now, say the competition has been eliminated for a certain corporation. This corporation now controls the entire market for a certain product or something. It will now try to increase the dependency of the public upon its product, and try to stifle all new competition. Any start-up corporations or ventures would likely be spied on. Any sort of "innovation" by the new ventures will be ransacked and copied, likely to, say, be sold at a lower price. Once the new venture is driven into the ground, expect prices to raise back to normal or even higher, a la Walmart.
Of course, people can't afford much at higher prices. But this corporation is the sole provider of Product X. You can't go long without Product X, or perhaps Product X is important to you in another way. You can try going against the corporation, but the corporation would likely launch smear campaigns against your cause, say, claiming you are just a competitor using false facts to back your business with smear tactics. This corporation is powerful, its smear tactics are effective, and even though the prices are high, public opinion turns against you.
Now if the prices are raised too high, people won't be able to afford Product X. So what will the corporation do? I'm going to bring up two solutions for the corporation, on De Beers style, the other, Apple style:
For the De Beers solution, the corporation will start withholding Product X, perhaps start producing less of it, claiming that the materials are expensive and/or rare, or that it is difficult and tedious to make, and thus expensive. Having less of the product will artificially increase the demand, although this is less effective than...
The Apple solution. Marketing. Start creating an entire area of pop culture around Product X, like Apple has done with the iPods and etc., despite their cost. I don't think I have to explain this one.
Of course, what would be even more effective than either? Using them both!(And of course, these aren't the only two tactics a corporation would use, these are just two that are most familiar to me)
I wanted to touch on how this corporation might branch into other areas of the market, but I feel that would be splitting into a tangent.
So now, the corporation doesn't have competition, has a high-priced and high-demanded product, and is large and powerful. But what can it do to gain even more power?
It would try contacting other corporations. Trying to form a group that could enforce what policies it wanted, stifle all competition, and control even those who aren't involved in the market. A government of sorts. An oligarchy.
Now, you're back at square one. A government that can piss on the rights of the people and keep giving money back to the corporations while stifling all competition. Except now, unlike the current US, the people would have no say. Only the corporations and their shareholders, whose only motive is profit.
This is why I consider a government to be superior to a corporation. While yes, the scenario I just brought up, and indeed our current problem, stems from a government, the government is not the cause. It is the corporation. The corrupting force upon the government to secure its hold upon the market even further. And yet, you say we should trust the corporation more than the government, because the government is the corrupter, and despite the corporation's motive being profit, it will do better for us than the government. I do not think that will be the case.

Now, of course, you must still be wondering why I support a government, even though it is the last stage of oppression and corruption. That is because oligarchy is merely one type of government. There is one type, called a democracy, that, if the people remain vigilant, can remain free from corruption(Of course, there could be no government at all, but in anarcho-capitalism, that wouldn't result well). Our current situation stems from the people not remaining vigilant.
You claim you may not want the government to be big, as you claim, but it does a lot for you. It paves the roads and maintains them. It, in other countries, provides healthcare for you. It passes regulations that keep the water and air clean for you. It defends(Or at least, does its best to) you from immediate threats to your life, liberty, and property. It passes regulations and does its best to restrict businesses that would exploit people. You claim you don't want a big government, but I'm damn sure you want a government that does something to provide for its population in some way. Yes, corruption can creep in, but this happens when the people aren't vigilant, and elect politicians who are bought by corporations. Corporations are the corrupting force onto a democracy, and thus, I don't see why they should be trusted with more freedom.

If you're looking for a TL;DR, there is none. I cannot really sum this up(It's late), and I'd advise you to read this post. Even if you disagree with everything I said, please, try to consider my words. This is all my opinion, formed using my logic and my thoughts. Feel free to disagree, and if you do, I hope you provide a rebuttal.

[The UK in Exile]

not quite, though essentially I agree.

to put it more plainly.

government is corrupt because people are corrupt.

the "right" prefer smaller government because they think government corruption is the worst of two evils and see individual corruption as the price of doing business.
the "left" prefer bigger government because they think individual corruption is the worst of two evils and see government corruption as the price of doing business.

Hmm, so where do you stand then? What should be done? Just curious.

I'm a looney lefty big statist.

[Mosasauria]

Sauce?

sauce is served:

enjoy:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Stefa ... cess-story

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/03/sweden.html

So a conservatively-biased Christian "Science" website, a blog, and a youtube video on said blog is a source now?

[Libertas Liber]

It's obvious by now that the he is either AFK or offline. The missing green banner with the word "Online" suggests the latter, but I understand you just had to get out your insult.

I think it's more of the fact that the OP has refused to respond to ASB's posts in full. Instead, the OP simply states his posts are full of fallacies, and cherry picks which parts to respond to.

Ah, I see. Thank you for informing me, Mav. Apologies, ASB, though I still feel that irritation shouldn't get the best off us, so generally I dislike insulting comments (as in this case, he's not online to respond). If they get the better of you, then a good idea is just not to respond as they're most likely not worth it.

[Frisbeeteria]

OMG! You're psychic!

On a more serious note, NO, I do not want the government powerless, but I do want it less involved in my life. If the government didn't have so much power, these large corporations would have failed a long time ago, the way the free market naturally kills them, recycles them, and makes things more efficient. I certainly hope you understand supply and demand, because I have a feeling my next post is going to be rather long...

Oh, hey, I want it less involved in my life too! I don't want social conservatives controlling what I can and can't do with myself or my lover either!

But a free market wouldn't recycle it. A free market would result in a corporation that controls all, toppling all opposition, and stealing all innovation.
Let's say that in a few years, America slowly develops into a free market society. Some business would, yes, immediately collapse due to lack of support from the government(GE comes to mind...). But a few large corporations would still remain. And these large corporations suddenly found themselves without regulation.
Before you know it, these large corporations are launching corporate espionage attacks into the competition to see what the competition is capable of. Once they know that, sabotage or other attacks may be launched. Hell(What I'm going to say mostly applies only to anarcho-capitalism, but I feel it needs to be said), what would stop these corporations from assassinating the heads of other corporations, or even hiring mercenaries and conducting violent and deadly attacks against the other corporations? Even if violence is never resorted to, they'll try to smear and tarnish the competition in other ways(What I'm about to say applies much more to a free market society). Whether it be through public awareness campaigns into the competition's products or operations, or smear campaigns against other corporations, or perhaps the bribing of a scientist to produce studies with, say, results like "Product X of Corporation Y May Cause Cancer". They'll change the public perception of another corporation to drive it into the ground, all the while perhaps trying to sway public perception favorably towards them using similar tactics.
Now, say the competition has been eliminated for a certain corporation. This corporation now controls the entire market for a certain product or something. It will now try to increase the dependency of the public upon its product, and try to stifle all new competition. Any start-up corporations or ventures would likely be spied on. Any sort of "innovation" by the new ventures will be ransacked and copied, likely to, say, be sold at a lower price. Once the new venture is driven into the ground, expect prices to raise back to normal or even higher, a la Walmart.
Of course, people can't afford much at higher prices. But this corporation is the sole provider of Product X. You can't go long without Product X, or perhaps Product X is important to you in another way. You can try going against the corporation, but the corporation would likely launch smear campaigns against your cause, say, claiming you are just a competitor using false facts to back your business with smear tactics. This corporation is powerful, its smear tactics are effective, and even though the prices are high, public opinion turns against you.
Now if the prices are raised too high, people won't be able to afford Product X. So what will the corporation do? I'm going to bring up two solutions for the corporation, on De Beers style, the other, Apple style:
For the De Beers solution, the corporation will start withholding Product X, perhaps start producing less of it, claiming that the materials are expensive and/or rare, or that it is difficult and tedious to make, and thus expensive. Having less of the product will artificially increase the demand, although this is less effective than...
The Apple solution. Marketing. Start creating an entire area of pop culture around Product X, like Apple has done with the iPods and etc., despite their cost. I don't think I have to explain this one.
Of course, what would be even more effective than either? Using them both!(And of course, these aren't the only two tactics a corporation would use, these are just two that are most familiar to me)
I wanted to touch on how this corporation might branch into other areas of the market, but I feel that would be splitting into a tangent.
So now, the corporation doesn't have competition, has a high-priced and high-demanded product, and is large and powerful. But what can it do to gain even more power?
It would try contacting other corporations. Trying to form a group that could enforce what policies it wanted, stifle all competition, and control even those who aren't involved in the market. A government of sorts. An oligarchy.
Now, you're back at square one. A government that can piss on the rights of the people and keep giving money back to the corporations while stifling all competition. Except now, unlike the current US, the people would have no say. Only the corporations and their shareholders, whose only motive is profit.
This is why I consider a government to be superior to a corporation. While yes, the scenario I just brought up, and indeed our current problem, stems from a government, the government is not the cause. It is the corporation. The corrupting force upon the government to secure its hold upon the market even further. And yet, you say we should trust the corporation more than the government, because the government is the corrupter, and despite the corporation's motive being profit, it will do better for us than the government. I do not think that will be the case.

Now, of course, you must still be wondering why I support a government, even though it is the last stage of oppression and corruption. That is because oligarchy is merely one type of government. There is one type, called a democracy, that, if the people remain vigilant, can remain free from corruption(Of course, there could be no government at all, but in anarcho-capitalism, that wouldn't result well). Our current situation stems from the people not remaining vigilant.
You claim you may not want the government to be big, as you claim, but it does a lot for you. It paves the roads and maintains them. It, in other countries, provides healthcare for you. It passes regulations that keep the water and air clean for you. It defends(Or at least, does its best to) you from immediate threats to your life, liberty, and property. It passes regulations and does its best to restrict businesses that would exploit people. You claim you don't want a big government, but I'm damn sure you want a government that does something to provide for its population in some way. Yes, corruption can creep in, but this happens when the people aren't vigilant, and elect politicians who are bought by corporations. Corporations are the corrupting force onto a democracy, and thus, I don't see why they should be trusted with more freedom.

If you're looking for a TL;DR, there is none. I cannot really sum this up(It's late), and I'd advise you to read this post. Even if you disagree with everything I said, please, try to consider my words. This is all my opinion, formed using my logic and my thoughts. Feel free to disagree, and if you do, I hope you provide a rebuttal.

Didn't DeBeers do both?

[AuSable River]

The current US gross federal debt is approximately 16 trillion USD. Where is the remaining 84 trillion dollars to reach an even hundred?

I assume he is including states' debts and unfunded Social Security benefits. I don't know what the number is or if he is correct but if you include the entire nation's debt, then it's over 16 trillion. I don't feel using it is fair as it's each states business to handle their debt (unfunded programs is another matter), but hey 16 trillion by itself is quite a large sum.

The 16 trillion is the debt RIGHT NOW. that is what the US government owes as of this moment.

the $100+ unfunded debt is obligations under primarily medicare and social security that will come due within our lifetime.

enjoy:

http://usdebtclock.org/2015-current-rates.html (100+ trillion debt)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... debt_n.htm (62 trillion)

http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-Uni ... 010612.pdf (national debt is over $50 trillion !!!)

http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/Walker ... /id/436006 (50 trillion)

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st338.pdf (84 trillion)

[Libertas Liber]

Hmm, so where do you stand then? What should be done? Just curious.

I'm a looney lefty big statist.

Well, we're political opposites, but I find those who can joke about themselves to be enjoyable

[Frisbeeteria]

Oh, hey, I want it less involved in my life too! I don't want social conservatives controlling what I can and can't do with myself or my lover either!

But a free market wouldn't recycle it. A free market would result in a corporation that controls all, toppling all opposition, and stealing all innovation.
Let's say that in a few years, America slowly develops into a free market society. Some business would, yes, immediately collapse due to lack of support from the government(GE comes to mind...). But a few large corporations would still remain. And these large corporations suddenly found themselves without regulation.
Before you know it, these large corporations are launching corporate espionage attacks into the competition to see what the competition is capable of. Once they know that, sabotage or other attacks may be launched. Hell(What I'm going to say mostly applies only to anarcho-capitalism, but I feel it needs to be said), what would stop these corporations from assassinating the heads of other corporations, or even hiring mercenaries and conducting violent and deadly attacks against the other corporations? Even if violence is never resorted to, they'll try to smear and tarnish the competition in other ways(What I'm about to say applies much more to a free market society). Whether it be through public awareness campaigns into the competition's products or operations, or smear campaigns against other corporations, or perhaps the bribing of a scientist to produce studies with, say, results like "Product X of Corporation Y May Cause Cancer". They'll change the public perception of another corporation to drive it into the ground, all the while perhaps trying to sway public perception favorably towards them using similar tactics.
Now, say the competition has been eliminated for a certain corporation. This corporation now controls the entire market for a certain product or something. It will now try to increase the dependency of the public upon its product, and try to stifle all new competition. Any start-up corporations or ventures would likely be spied on. Any sort of "innovation" by the new ventures will be ransacked and copied, likely to, say, be sold at a lower price. Once the new venture is driven into the ground, expect prices to raise back to normal or even higher, a la Walmart.
Of course, people can't afford much at higher prices. But this corporation is the sole provider of Product X. You can't go long without Product X, or perhaps Product X is important to you in another way. You can try going against the corporation, but the corporation would likely launch smear campaigns against your cause, say, claiming you are just a competitor using false facts to back your business with smear tactics. This corporation is powerful, its smear tactics are effective, and even though the prices are high, public opinion turns against you.
Now if the prices are raised too high, people won't be able to afford Product X. So what will the corporation do? I'm going to bring up two solutions for the corporation, on De Beers style, the other, Apple style:
For the De Beers solution, the corporation will start withholding Product X, perhaps start producing less of it, claiming that the materials are expensive and/or rare, or that it is difficult and tedious to make, and thus expensive. Having less of the product will artificially increase the demand, although this is less effective than...
The Apple solution. Marketing. Start creating an entire area of pop culture around Product X, like Apple has done with the iPods and etc., despite their cost. I don't think I have to explain this one.
Of course, what would be even more effective than either? Using them both!(And of course, these aren't the only two tactics a corporation would use, these are just two that are most familiar to me)
I wanted to touch on how this corporation might branch into other areas of the market, but I feel that would be splitting into a tangent.
So now, the corporation doesn't have competition, has a high-priced and high-demanded product, and is large and powerful. But what can it do to gain even more power?
It would try contacting other corporations. Trying to form a group that could enforce what policies it wanted, stifle all competition, and control even those who aren't involved in the market. A government of sorts. An oligarchy.
Now, you're back at square one. A government that can piss on the rights of the people and keep giving money back to the corporations while stifling all competition. Except now, unlike the current US, the people would have no say. Only the corporations and their shareholders, whose only motive is profit.
This is why I consider a government to be superior to a corporation. While yes, the scenario I just brought up, and indeed our current problem, stems from a government, the government is not the cause. It is the corporation. The corrupting force upon the government to secure its hold upon the market even further. And yet, you say we should trust the corporation more than the government, because the government is the corrupter, and despite the corporation's motive being profit, it will do better for us than the government. I do not think that will be the case.

Now, of course, you must still be wondering why I support a government, even though it is the last stage of oppression and corruption. That is because oligarchy is merely one type of government. There is one type, called a democracy, that, if the people remain vigilant, can remain free from corruption(Of course, there could be no government at all, but in anarcho-capitalism, that wouldn't result well). Our current situation stems from the people not remaining vigilant.
You claim you may not want the government to be big, as you claim, but it does a lot for you. It paves the roads and maintains them. It, in other countries, provides healthcare for you. It passes regulations that keep the water and air clean for you. It defends(Or at least, does its best to) you from immediate threats to your life, liberty, and property. It passes regulations and does its best to restrict businesses that would exploit people. You claim you don't want a big government, but I'm damn sure you want a government that does something to provide for its population in some way. Yes, corruption can creep in, but this happens when the people aren't vigilant, and elect politicians who are bought by corporations. Corporations are the corrupting force onto a democracy, and thus, I don't see why they should be trusted with more freedom.

If you're looking for a TL;DR, there is none. I cannot really sum this up(It's late), and I'd advise you to read this post. Even if you disagree with everything I said, please, try to consider my words. This is all my opinion, formed using my logic and my thoughts. Feel free to disagree, and if you do, I hope you provide a rebuttal.

Didn't DeBeers do both?

...
Technically, yes. I guess they did, what with the whole, "Diamonds are a girl's best friend!" thing.
Oh god, the page is broken.

[Forster Keys]

THE FORUM IS BROKEN!

QUICKLY LIBERTARIAN'S! USE THIS CHANCE TO SMASH THE STATE AND BRING ON THE GOLDEN AGE!

[The UK in Exile]

TREAD ON THIS, FORMAT!

Well, we're political opposites, but I find those who can joke about themselves to be enjoyable

[AuSable River]

sauce is served:

enjoy:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Stefa ... cess-story

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/03/sweden.html

So a conservatively-biased Christian "Science" website, a blog, and a youtube video on said blog is a source now?

The data is within the websites I cited.

the bottom line is that if you disagree provide your own data. obviously the main stream media is not going to report the fact that sweden has had to unravel its onerous welfare state since its economic collapse in the 1990s

essentially, I stated the fact that sweden has reduced government spending as a percentage of GDP and lowered taxes 6 years in a row (although I dont have data on the last year)

I provided sources that contain data from non-partisan sources.

and you still engage in posts devoid of counter facts, logic or empirical evidence.

[Ifreann]

obviously the main stream media is not going to report the fact that sweden has had to unravel its onerous welfare state since its economic collapse in the 1990s

Obviously? Maybe if you're drinking some kind of "Jews control the media" Kool-Aid.


And seriously, do people not know how to keep from breaking threads like this?

[Mavorpen]

So a conservatively-biased Christian "Science" website, a blog, and a youtube video on said blog is a source now?

The data is within the websites I cited.

the bottom line is that if you disagree provide your own data. obviously the main stream media is not going to report the fact that sweden has had to unravel its onerous welfare state since its economic collapse in the 1990s

essentially, I stated the fact that sweden has reduced government spending as a percentage of GDP and lowered taxes 6 years in a row (although I dont have data on the last year)

I provided sources that contain data from non-partisan sources.

and you still engage in posts devoid of counter facts, logic or empirical evidence.

sauce is served:

enjoy:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Stefa ... cess-story

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/03/sweden.html

The bullshit, it flows well from those sources.

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogs ... ty-in.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8375950

[Mosasauria]

So a conservatively-biased Christian "Science" website, a blog, and a youtube video on said blog is a source now?

The data is within the websites I cited.

the bottom line is that if you disagree provide your own data. obviously the main stream media is not going to report the fact that sweden has had to unravel its onerous welfare state since its economic collapse in the 1990s

essentially, I stated the fact that sweden has reduced government spending as a percentage of GDP and lowered taxes 6 years in a row (although I dont have data on the last year)

I provided sources that contain data from non-partisan sources.

and you still engage in posts devoid of counter facts, logic or empirical evidence.

Because Sweden hasn't had to unravel it's own welfare state. You're claiming it has, and thus, I expect you to provide the evidence.

[Blakk Metal]

Let's hope our posts will wash away the thread breaking.

[Silent Majority]

Let's hope our posts will wash away the thread breaking.

Don't worry, I'm sure the free market will fix it.

[Adventus Secundus]

Or, perhaps troll singular is more appropriate

[AuSable River]

OMG! You're psychic!

On a more serious note, NO, I do not want the government powerless, but I do want it less involved in my life. If the government didn't have so much power, these large corporations would have failed a long time ago, the way the free market naturally kills them, recycles them, and makes things more efficient. I certainly hope you understand supply and demand, because I have a feeling my next post is going to be rather long...

Oh, hey, I want it less involved in my life too! I don't want social conservatives controlling what I can and can't do with myself or my lover either!

But a free market wouldn't recycle it. A free market would result in a corporation that controls all, toppling all opposition, and stealing all innovation.
Let's say that in a few years, America slowly develops into a free market society. Some business would, yes, immediately collapse due to lack of support from the government(GE comes to mind...). But a few large corporations would still remain. And these large corporations suddenly found themselves without regulation.
Before you know it, these large corporations are launching corporate espionage attacks into the competition to see what the competition is capable of. Once they know that, sabotage or other attacks may be launched. Hell(What I'm going to say mostly applies only to anarcho-capitalism, but I feel it needs to be said), what would stop these corporations from assassinating the heads of other corporations, or even hiring mercenaries and conducting violent and deadly attacks against the other corporations? Even if violence is never resorted to, they'll try to smear and tarnish the competition in other ways(What I'm about to say applies much more to a free market society). Whether it be through public awareness campaigns into the competition's products or operations, or smear campaigns against other corporations, or perhaps the bribing of a scientist to produce studies with, say, results like "Product X of Corporation Y May Cause Cancer". They'll change the public perception of another corporation to drive it into the ground, all the while perhaps trying to sway public perception favorably towards them using similar tactics.
Now, say the competition has been eliminated for a certain corporation. This corporation now controls the entire market for a certain product or something. It will now try to increase the dependency of the public upon its product, and try to stifle all new competition. Any start-up corporations or ventures would likely be spied on. Any sort of "innovation" by the new ventures will be ransacked and copied, likely to, say, be sold at a lower price. Once the new venture is driven into the ground, expect prices to raise back to normal or even higher, a la Walmart.
Of course, people can't afford much at higher prices. But this corporation is the sole provider of Product X. You can't go long without Product X, or perhaps Product X is important to you in another way. You can try going against the corporation, but the corporation would likely launch smear campaigns against your cause, say, claiming you are just a competitor using false facts to back your business with smear tactics. This corporation is powerful, its smear tactics are effective, and even though the prices are high, public opinion turns against you.
Now if the prices are raised too high, people won't be able to afford Product X. So what will the corporation do? I'm going to bring up two solutions for the corporation, on De Beers style, the other, Apple style:
For the De Beers solution, the corporation will start withholding Product X, perhaps start producing less of it, claiming that the materials are expensive and/or rare, or that it is difficult and tedious to make, and thus expensive. Having less of the product will artificially increase the demand, although this is less effective than...
The Apple solution. Marketing. Start creating an entire area of pop culture around Product X, like Apple has done with the iPods and etc., despite their cost. I don't think I have to explain this one.
Of course, what would be even more effective than either? Using them both!(And of course, these aren't the only two tactics a corporation would use, these are just two that are most familiar to me)
I wanted to touch on how this corporation might branch into other areas of the market, but I feel that would be splitting into a tangent.
So now, the corporation doesn't have competition, has a high-priced and high-demanded product, and is large and powerful. But what can it do to gain even more power?
It would try contacting other corporations. Trying to form a group that could enforce what policies it wanted, stifle all competition, and control even those who aren't involved in the market. A government of sorts. An oligarchy.
Now, you're back at square one. A government that can piss on the rights of the people and keep giving money back to the corporations while stifling all competition. Except now, unlike the current US, the people would have no say. Only the corporations and their shareholders, whose only motive is profit.
This is why I consider a government to be superior to a corporation. While yes, the scenario I just brought up, and indeed our current problem, stems from a government, the government is not the cause. It is the corporation. The corrupting force upon the government to secure its hold upon the market even further. And yet, you say we should trust the corporation more than the government, because the government is the corrupter, and despite the corporation's motive being profit, it will do better for us than the government. I do not think that will be the case.

Now, of course, you must still be wondering why I support a government, even though it is the last stage of oppression and corruption. That is because oligarchy is merely one type of government. There is one type, called a democracy, that, if the people remain vigilant, can remain free from corruption(Of course, there could be no government at all, but in anarcho-capitalism, that wouldn't result well). Our current situation stems from the people not remaining vigilant.
You claim you may not want the government to be big, as you claim, but it does a lot for you. It paves the roads and maintains them. It, in other countries, provides healthcare for you. It passes regulations that keep the water and air clean for you. It defends(Or at least, does its best to) you from immediate threats to your life, liberty, and property. It passes regulations and does its best to restrict businesses that would exploit people. You claim you don't want a big government, but I'm damn sure you want a government that does something to provide for its population in some way. Yes, corruption can creep in, but this happens when the people aren't vigilant, and elect politicians who are bought by corporations. Corporations are the corrupting force onto a democracy, and thus, I don't see why they should be trusted with more freedom.

If you're looking for a TL;DR, there is none. I cannot really sum this up(It's late), and I'd advise you to read this post. Even if you disagree with everything I said, please, try to consider my words. This is all my opinion, formed using my logic and my thoughts. Feel free to disagree, and if you do, I hope you provide a rebuttal.

amusingly, within the first paragraph you have spewed a fallacy:

But a few large corporations would still remain. And these large corporations suddenly found themselves without regulation.--mosa..

wrong, government regulation benefits the very firms that government is supposed to oversee -- essentially government bureaucrats and politicians are captured or bought with favors by the very firms they are supposed to regulate.

in contrast, within the free market regulation occurs in a number of ways that prevent bad behavior from a corporation obtaining hegemon status:

1) competition -- if a firm fails to satisfy consumer preferences, then the likelihood of viable competition emerging is heightened.

2) boycotts -- if a firm tries to gouge the consumer, then the likelihood they will see significantly reduced sales and later collapse

3) substitution goods -- if a firm overcharges for, say oil a inelastic commodity, then in short order electric cars will see increased market share and competitors will look for other energy sources to market to consumers.

4) lost reputation -- if a firm's management makes the grievous mistake to gouge consumers they will forever be branded as evil and anti-social and forever discredited within a voluntary free market framework where reputation is king

5) even limited libertarian government has all the guns, gavels, regulatory power -- hence if a firm tries to engage in damaging monopolistic policies, government or courts can easily check this threat with a simple stroke of the pen.


hence, your entire fantasy is debunked in the first paragraph.

please address this issues before proceeding.

and more importantly, why is it that the statist believes in the ridiculously illogical premise that we need to create the mother of all monopolies ---- the federal government --- to correct this fantasy of a single private sector monopoly that doesnt have a single tank, gavel, or senator ?

[Frisbeeteria]

Let's hope our posts will wash away the thread breaking.

A bit more care when nesting quotes and spoilers would help.

[Blakk Metal]

Oh, hey, I want it less involved in my life too! I don't want social conservatives controlling what I can and can't do with myself or my lover either!

But a free market wouldn't recycle it. A free market would result in a corporation that controls all, toppling all opposition, and stealing all innovation.
Let's say that in a few years, America slowly develops into a free market society. Some business would, yes, immediately collapse due to lack of support from the government(GE comes to mind...). But a few large corporations would still remain. And these large corporations suddenly found themselves without regulation.
Before you know it, these large corporations are launching corporate espionage attacks into the competition to see what the competition is capable of. Once they know that, sabotage or other attacks may be launched. Hell(What I'm going to say mostly applies only to anarcho-capitalism, but I feel it needs to be said), what would stop these corporations from assassinating the heads of other corporations, or even hiring mercenaries and conducting violent and deadly attacks against the other corporations? Even if violence is never resorted to, they'll try to smear and tarnish the competition in other ways(What I'm about to say applies much more to a free market society). Whether it be through public awareness campaigns into the competition's products or operations, or smear campaigns against other corporations, or perhaps the bribing of a scientist to produce studies with, say, results like "Product X of Corporation Y May Cause Cancer". They'll change the public perception of another corporation to drive it into the ground, all the while perhaps trying to sway public perception favorably towards them using similar tactics.
Now, say the competition has been eliminated for a certain corporation. This corporation now controls the entire market for a certain product or something. It will now try to increase the dependency of the public upon its product, and try to stifle all new competition. Any start-up corporations or ventures would likely be spied on. Any sort of "innovation" by the new ventures will be ransacked and copied, likely to, say, be sold at a lower price. Once the new venture is driven into the ground, expect prices to raise back to normal or even higher, a la Walmart.
Of course, people can't afford much at higher prices. But this corporation is the sole provider of Product X. You can't go long without Product X, or perhaps Product X is important to you in another way. You can try going against the corporation, but the corporation would likely launch smear campaigns against your cause, say, claiming you are just a competitor using false facts to back your business with smear tactics. This corporation is powerful, its smear tactics are effective, and even though the prices are high, public opinion turns against you.
Now if the prices are raised too high, people won't be able to afford Product X. So what will the corporation do? I'm going to bring up two solutions for the corporation, on De Beers style, the other, Apple style:
For the De Beers solution, the corporation will start withholding Product X, perhaps start producing less of it, claiming that the materials are expensive and/or rare, or that it is difficult and tedious to make, and thus expensive. Having less of the product will artificially increase the demand, although this is less effective than...
The Apple solution. Marketing. Start creating an entire area of pop culture around Product X, like Apple has done with the iPods and etc., despite their cost. I don't think I have to explain this one.
Of course, what would be even more effective than either? Using them both!(And of course, these aren't the only two tactics a corporation would use, these are just two that are most familiar to me)
I wanted to touch on how this corporation might branch into other areas of the market, but I feel that would be splitting into a tangent.
So now, the corporation doesn't have competition, has a high-priced and high-demanded product, and is large and powerful. But what can it do to gain even more power?
It would try contacting other corporations. Trying to form a group that could enforce what policies it wanted, stifle all competition, and control even those who aren't involved in the market. A government of sorts. An oligarchy.
Now, you're back at square one. A government that can piss on the rights of the people and keep giving money back to the corporations while stifling all competition. Except now, unlike the current US, the people would have no say. Only the corporations and their shareholders, whose only motive is profit.
This is why I consider a government to be superior to a corporation. While yes, the scenario I just brought up, and indeed our current problem, stems from a government, the government is not the cause. It is the corporation. The corrupting force upon the government to secure its hold upon the market even further. And yet, you say we should trust the corporation more than the government, because the government is the corrupter, and despite the corporation's motive being profit, it will do better for us than the government. I do not think that will be the case.

Now, of course, you must still be wondering why I support a government, even though it is the last stage of oppression and corruption. That is because oligarchy is merely one type of government. There is one type, called a democracy, that, if the people remain vigilant, can remain free from corruption(Of course, there could be no government at all, but in anarcho-capitalism, that wouldn't result well). Our current situation stems from the people not remaining vigilant.
You claim you may not want the government to be big, as you claim, but it does a lot for you. It paves the roads and maintains them. It, in other countries, provides healthcare for you. It passes regulations that keep the water and air clean for you. It defends(Or at least, does its best to) you from immediate threats to your life, liberty, and property. It passes regulations and does its best to restrict businesses that would exploit people. You claim you don't want a big government, but I'm damn sure you want a government that does something to provide for its population in some way. Yes, corruption can creep in, but this happens when the people aren't vigilant, and elect politicians who are bought by corporations. Corporations are the corrupting force onto a democracy, and thus, I don't see why they should be trusted with more freedom.

If you're looking for a TL;DR, there is none. I cannot really sum this up(It's late), and I'd advise you to read this post. Even if you disagree with everything I said, please, try to consider my words. This is all my opinion, formed using my logic and my thoughts. Feel free to disagree, and if you do, I hope you provide a rebuttal.

amusingly, within the first paragraph you have spewed a fallacy:

But a few large corporations would still remain. And these large corporations suddenly found themselves without regulation.--mosa..

wrong, government regulation benefits the very firms that government is supposed to oversee -- essentially government bureaucrats and politicians are captured or bought with favors by the very firms they are supposed to regulate.

in contrast, within the free market regulation occurs in a number of ways that prevent bad behavior from a corporation obtaining hegemon status:

1) competition -- if a firm fails to satisfy consumer preferences, then the likelihood of viable competition emerging is heightened.

2) boycotts -- if a firm tries to gouge the consumer, then the likelihood they will see significantly reduced sales and later collapse

3) substitution goods -- if a firm overcharges for, say oil a inelastic commodity, then in short order electric cars will see increased market share and competitors will look for other energy sources to market to consumers.

4) lost reputation -- if a firm's management makes the grievous mistake to gouge consumers they will forever be branded as evil and anti-social and forever discredited within a voluntary free market framework where reputation is king

5) even limited libertarian government has all the guns, gavels, regulatory power -- hence if a firm tries to engage in damaging monopolistic policies, government or courts can easily check this threat with a simple stroke of the pen.


hence, your entire fantasy is debunked in the first paragraph.

please address this issues before proceeding.

They have been.

Let's hope our posts will wash away the thread breaking.

A bit more care when nesting quotes and spoilers would help.

BOO! GOVERNMERNT REGULATION!

[AuSable River]

The data is within the websites I cited.

the bottom line is that if you disagree provide your own data. obviously the main stream media is not going to report the fact that sweden has had to unravel its onerous welfare state since its economic collapse in the 1990s

essentially, I stated the fact that sweden has reduced government spending as a percentage of GDP and lowered taxes 6 years in a row (although I dont have data on the last year)

I provided sources that contain data from non-partisan sources.

and you still engage in posts devoid of counter facts, logic or empirical evidence.

The bullshit, it flows well from those sources.

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogs ... ty-in.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8375950

Checkmate and Funny as all get out dude.

you need to read your own sources. this is more an indictment on your ignorance and dishonesty than the obama crap I called you out on earlier.

your source at the ncbi is from the early 1990s and describes how the swedish welfare state is at risk

essentially, you have inadvertantly supported my argument that sweden was in decline in the 1990s and require a drastic reduction in the welfare state to forestall its collapse.

you stand corrected, but not without a laugh.

in sum, you have no credibility dude.

[Trotskylvania]

And yet the Swedish welfare state still exists, and is one of the best in the world...

How is this a checkmate?

[AuSable River]

OMG! You're psychic!

On a more serious note, NO, I do not want the government powerless, but I do want it less involved in my life. If the government didn't have so much power, these large corporations would have failed a long time ago, the way the free market naturally kills them, recycles them, and makes things more efficient. I certainly hope you understand supply and demand, because I have a feeling my next post is going to be rather long...

Oh, hey, I want it less involved in my life too! I don't want social conservatives controlling what I can and can't do with myself or my lover either!

But a free market wouldn't recycle it. A free market would result in a corporation that controls all, toppling all opposition, and stealing all innovation.
Let's say that in a few years, America slowly develops into a free market society. Some business would, yes, immediately collapse due to lack of support from the government(GE comes to mind...). But a few large corporations would still remain. And these large corporations suddenly found themselves without regulation.
Before you know it, these large corporations are launching corporate espionage attacks into the competition to see what the competition is capable of. Once they know that, sabotage or other attacks may be launched. Hell(What I'm going to say mostly applies only to anarcho-capitalism, but I feel it needs to be said), what would stop these corporations from assassinating the heads of other corporations, or even hiring mercenaries and conducting violent and deadly attacks against the other corporations? Even if violence is never resorted to, they'll try to smear and tarnish the competition in other ways(What I'm about to say applies much more to a free market society). Whether it be through public awareness campaigns into the competition's products or operations, or smear campaigns against other corporations, or perhaps the bribing of a scientist to produce studies with, say, results like "Product X of Corporation Y May Cause Cancer". They'll change the public perception of another corporation to drive it into the ground, all the while perhaps trying to sway public perception favorably towards them using similar tactics.
Now, say the competition has been eliminated for a certain corporation. This corporation now controls the entire market for a certain product or something. It will now try to increase the dependency of the public upon its product, and try to stifle all new competition. Any start-up corporations or ventures would likely be spied on. Any sort of "innovation" by the new ventures will be ransacked and copied, likely to, say, be sold at a lower price. Once the new venture is driven into the ground, expect prices to raise back to normal or even higher, a la Walmart.
Of course, people can't afford much at higher prices. But this corporation is the sole provider of Product X. You can't go long without Product X, or perhaps Product X is important to you in another way. You can try going against the corporation, but the corporation would likely launch smear campaigns against your cause, say, claiming you are just a competitor using false facts to back your business with smear tactics. This corporation is powerful, its smear tactics are effective, and even though the prices are high, public opinion turns against you.
Now if the prices are raised too high, people won't be able to afford Product X. So what will the corporation do? I'm going to bring up two solutions for the corporation, on De Beers style, the other, Apple style:
For the De Beers solution, the corporation will start withholding Product X, perhaps start producing less of it, claiming that the materials are expensive and/or rare, or that it is difficult and tedious to make, and thus expensive. Having less of the product will artificially increase the demand, although this is less effective than...
The Apple solution. Marketing. Start creating an entire area of pop culture around Product X, like Apple has done with the iPods and etc., despite their cost. I don't think I have to explain this one.
Of course, what would be even more effective than either? Using them both!(And of course, these aren't the only two tactics a corporation would use, these are just two that are most familiar to me)
I wanted to touch on how this corporation might branch into other areas of the market, but I feel that would be splitting into a tangent.
So now, the corporation doesn't have competition, has a high-priced and high-demanded product, and is large and powerful. But what can it do to gain even more power?
It would try contacting other corporations. Trying to form a group that could enforce what policies it wanted, stifle all competition, and control even those who aren't involved in the market. A government of sorts. An oligarchy.
Now, you're back at square one. A government that can piss on the rights of the people and keep giving money back to the corporations while stifling all competition. Except now, unlike the current US, the people would have no say. Only the corporations and their shareholders, whose only motive is profit.
This is why I consider a government to be superior to a corporation. While yes, the scenario I just brought up, and indeed our current problem, stems from a government, the government is not the cause. It is the corporation. The corrupting force upon the government to secure its hold upon the market even further. And yet, you say we should trust the corporation more than the government, because the government is the corrupter, and despite the corporation's motive being profit, it will do better for us than the government. I do not think that will be the case.

Now, of course, you must still be wondering why I support a government, even though it is the last stage of oppression and corruption. That is because oligarchy is merely one type of government. There is one type, called a democracy, that, if the people remain vigilant, can remain free from corruption(Of course, there could be no government at all, but in anarcho-capitalism, that wouldn't result well). Our current situation stems from the people not remaining vigilant.
You claim you may not want the government to be big, as you claim, but it does a lot for you. It paves the roads and maintains them. It, in other countries, provides healthcare for you. It passes regulations that keep the water and air clean for you. It defends(Or at least, does its best to) you from immediate threats to your life, liberty, and property. It passes regulations and does its best to restrict businesses that would exploit people. You claim you don't want a big government, but I'm damn sure you want a government that does something to provide for its population in some way. Yes, corruption can creep in, but this happens when the people aren't vigilant, and elect politicians who are bought by corporations. Corporations are the corrupting force onto a democracy, and thus, I don't see why they should be trusted with more freedom.

If you're looking for a TL;DR, there is none. I cannot really sum this up(It's late), and I'd advise you to read this post. Even if you disagree with everything I said, please, try to consider my words. This is all my opinion, formed using my logic and my thoughts. Feel free to disagree, and if you do, I hope you provide a rebuttal.

what would stop these corporations from assassinating the heads of other corporations, or even hiring mercenaries and conducting violent and deadly attacks against the other corporations?-- Mosasauria

eh, the same thing that prevents them from doing this today........

local, state and federal law enforcement

you stand corrected.

[Mosasauria]

Oh, hey, I want it less involved in my life too! I don't want social conservatives controlling what I can and can't do with myself or my lover either!

But a free market wouldn't recycle it. A free market would result in a corporation that controls all, toppling all opposition, and stealing all innovation.
Let's say that in a few years, America slowly develops into a free market society. Some business would, yes, immediately collapse due to lack of support from the government(GE comes to mind...). But a few large corporations would still remain. And these large corporations suddenly found themselves without regulation.
Before you know it, these large corporations are launching corporate espionage attacks into the competition to see what the competition is capable of. Once they know that, sabotage or other attacks may be launched. Hell(What I'm going to say mostly applies only to anarcho-capitalism, but I feel it needs to be said), what would stop these corporations from assassinating the heads of other corporations, or even hiring mercenaries and conducting violent and deadly attacks against the other corporations? Even if violence is never resorted to, they'll try to smear and tarnish the competition in other ways(What I'm about to say applies much more to a free market society). Whether it be through public awareness campaigns into the competition's products or operations, or smear campaigns against other corporations, or perhaps the bribing of a scientist to produce studies with, say, results like "Product X of Corporation Y May Cause Cancer". They'll change the public perception of another corporation to drive it into the ground, all the while perhaps trying to sway public perception favorably towards them using similar tactics.
Now, say the competition has been eliminated for a certain corporation. This corporation now controls the entire market for a certain product or something. It will now try to increase the dependency of the public upon its product, and try to stifle all new competition. Any start-up corporations or ventures would likely be spied on. Any sort of "innovation" by the new ventures will be ransacked and copied, likely to, say, be sold at a lower price. Once the new venture is driven into the ground, expect prices to raise back to normal or even higher, a la Walmart.
Of course, people can't afford much at higher prices. But this corporation is the sole provider of Product X. You can't go long without Product X, or perhaps Product X is important to you in another way. You can try going against the corporation, but the corporation would likely launch smear campaigns against your cause, say, claiming you are just a competitor using false facts to back your business with smear tactics. This corporation is powerful, its smear tactics are effective, and even though the prices are high, public opinion turns against you.
Now if the prices are raised too high, people won't be able to afford Product X. So what will the corporation do? I'm going to bring up two solutions for the corporation, on De Beers style, the other, Apple style:
For the De Beers solution, the corporation will start withholding Product X, perhaps start producing less of it, claiming that the materials are expensive and/or rare, or that it is difficult and tedious to make, and thus expensive. Having less of the product will artificially increase the demand, although this is less effective than...
The Apple solution. Marketing. Start creating an entire area of pop culture around Product X, like Apple has done with the iPods and etc., despite their cost. I don't think I have to explain this one.
Of course, what would be even more effective than either? Using them both!(And of course, these aren't the only two tactics a corporation would use, these are just two that are most familiar to me)
I wanted to touch on how this corporation might branch into other areas of the market, but I feel that would be splitting into a tangent.
So now, the corporation doesn't have competition, has a high-priced and high-demanded product, and is large and powerful. But what can it do to gain even more power?
It would try contacting other corporations. Trying to form a group that could enforce what policies it wanted, stifle all competition, and control even those who aren't involved in the market. A government of sorts. An oligarchy.
Now, you're back at square one. A government that can piss on the rights of the people and keep giving money back to the corporations while stifling all competition. Except now, unlike the current US, the people would have no say. Only the corporations and their shareholders, whose only motive is profit.
This is why I consider a government to be superior to a corporation. While yes, the scenario I just brought up, and indeed our current problem, stems from a government, the government is not the cause. It is the corporation. The corrupting force upon the government to secure its hold upon the market even further. And yet, you say we should trust the corporation more than the government, because the government is the corrupter, and despite the corporation's motive being profit, it will do better for us than the government. I do not think that will be the case.

Now, of course, you must still be wondering why I support a government, even though it is the last stage of oppression and corruption. That is because oligarchy is merely one type of government. There is one type, called a democracy, that, if the people remain vigilant, can remain free from corruption(Of course, there could be no government at all, but in anarcho-capitalism, that wouldn't result well). Our current situation stems from the people not remaining vigilant.
You claim you may not want the government to be big, as you claim, but it does a lot for you. It paves the roads and maintains them. It, in other countries, provides healthcare for you. It passes regulations that keep the water and air clean for you. It defends(Or at least, does its best to) you from immediate threats to your life, liberty, and property. It passes regulations and does its best to restrict businesses that would exploit people. You claim you don't want a big government, but I'm damn sure you want a government that does something to provide for its population in some way. Yes, corruption can creep in, but this happens when the people aren't vigilant, and elect politicians who are bought by corporations. Corporations are the corrupting force onto a democracy, and thus, I don't see why they should be trusted with more freedom.

If you're looking for a TL;DR, there is none. I cannot really sum this up(It's late), and I'd advise you to read this post. Even if you disagree with everything I said, please, try to consider my words. This is all my opinion, formed using my logic and my thoughts. Feel free to disagree, and if you do, I hope you provide a rebuttal.

amusingly, within the first paragraph you have spewed a fallacy:

But a few large corporations would still remain. And these large corporations suddenly found themselves without regulation.--mosa..

wrong, government regulation benefits the very firms that government is supposed to oversee -- essentially government bureaucrats and politicians are captured or bought with favors by the very firms they are supposed to regulate.

in contrast, within the free market regulation occurs in a number of ways that prevent bad behavior from a corporation obtaining hegemon status:

1) competition -- if a firm fails to satisfy consumer preferences, then the likelihood of viable competition emerging is heightened.

2) boycotts -- if a firm tries to gouge the consumer, then the likelihood they will see significantly reduced sales and later collapse

3) substitution goods -- if a firm overcharges for, say oil a inelastic commodity, then in short order electric cars will see increased market share and competitors will look for other energy sources to market to consumers.

4) lost reputation -- if a firm's management makes the grievous mistake to gouge consumers they will forever be branded as evil and anti-social and forever discredited within a voluntary free market framework where reputation is king

5) even limited libertarian government has all the guns, gavels, regulatory power -- hence if a firm tries to engage in damaging monopolistic policies, government or courts can easily check this threat with a simple stroke of the pen.


hence, your entire fantasy is debunked in the first paragraph.

please address this issues before proceeding.

and more importantly, why is it that the statist believes in the ridiculously illogical premise that we need to create the mother of all monopolies ---- the federal government --- to correct this fantasy of a single private sector monopoly that doesnt have a single tank, gavel, or senator ?

Even if the government steps away, there will still be corporations that are larger than others, even if they had nothing to do with the government. What is so hard to understand about that?
1. A corporation will do everything in its power to stifle its competition.
2. A boycott would likely fail if the corporation does everything in its power to stifle it.
3. Which a corporation would likely then try to sway public opinion against, a la oil companies with global warming.
4. A corporation will do everything in its power to sway opinion towards the gouging as necessary, and not evil, like De Beers managed to.
5. That's government intervention into the market. Which means, no more free market.

While yes, it is strictly my thoughts, and my thoughts alone, it was hardly debunked by your points.
And most importantly, why is it that the free marketeer believes in the illogical premise that we need to deregulate the very thing that corrupts the federal government into a monopoly that strengthens the corporations that corrupt it? Would these corporations suddenly and magically become benevolent with humanity in their best interest?