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

[El Pescado Frio]

May I ask why you think that the US is the only Capitalist nation in world? And why many other Capitalist economies have failed, but don't fit into your equation for Capitalism not failing?

Like what capitalist economies?

Well, it's hard to give names like Saudi Arabia or anarchy-bordering countries in Africa or countries that existed before Capitalism was a term, mainly because the term of Capitalism itself is unstable and now applied more freely than ever. My examples probably wouldn't pass as capitalist to you, so I won't bother.

[Wirbel]

This argument has gone nowhere.

Should we just "[/thread]"?

[Armedland]

51 pages of comedic gold.
Thank you, NSG.

[Wirbel]

[/argument]

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Where did this myth that liberals are somehow part of the left come from?

A liberal is nothing more than a right-winger who is simply smart enough to realize that he has to throw the rabble at least a few bones every now and then if he wants to have any hope at all of maintaining the corrupt status quo upon which his privileged position depends. Leftists want to overturn that status quo altogether.

[Wirbel]

51 pages of comedic gold.
Thank you, NSG.

NSG: THE MOVIE

[El Pescado Frio]

This argument has gone nowhere.

Should we just "[/thread]"?

Arguments like this aren't SUPPOSED to go anywhere. It's a platform for people to present half-baked talking points from whichever side they feel they represent, those being people who don't trust the enormous vampiric government that forces tax money out of your pocket versus those who don't trust the faceless corporate giants that have lost sight of adhering to your needs in the name of profit.

[Blakk Metal]

Wirbel, WHY WON'T YOU RESPOND TO MY AWESOME POST!?!

[Wirbel]

Wirbel, WHY WON'T YOU RESPOND TO MY AWESOME POST!?!

There is no question.

"Most of the world."

is a statement.

[Wirbel]

Arguments like this aren't SUPPOSED to go anywhere. It's a platform for people to present half-baked talking points from whichever side they feel they represent, those being people who don't trust the enormous vampiric government that forces tax money out of your pocket versus those who don't trust the faceless corporate giants that have lost sight of adhering to your needs in the name of profit.

The most sense in all of this thread is quoted above.

[Blakk Metal]

Wirbel, WHY WON'T YOU RESPOND TO MY AWESOME POST!?!

There is no question.

"Most of the world."

is a statement.

No, the huge one before.

[El Pescado Frio]

Arguments like this aren't SUPPOSED to go anywhere. It's a platform for people to present half-baked talking points from whichever side they feel they represent, those being people who don't trust the enormous vampiric government that forces tax money out of your pocket versus those who don't trust the faceless corporate giants that have lost sight of adhering to your needs in the name of profit.

The most sense in all of this thread is quoted above.

Now THERE'S SOME VERIFICATION
Back to my earlier point.
YOU ALL DISGUST ME

[Blakk Metal]

The most sense in all of this thread is quoted above.

Now THERE'S SOME VERIFICATION
Back to my earlier point.
YOU ALL DISGUST ME

YOU DISGUST US ALL

[Wirbel]

Now THERE'S SOME VERIFICATION
Back to my earlier point.
YOU ALL DISGUST ME

YOU DISGUST US ALL

I am leaning towards agreeing with El Pescado Frio, because life isn't meant to be good. So, he doesn't disgust me.

[El Pescado Frio]

Now THERE'S SOME VERIFICATION
Back to my earlier point.
YOU ALL DISGUST ME

YOU DISGUST US ALL

WELLLLLLLLLL THEN

[El Pescado Frio]

YOU DISGUST US ALL

I am leaning towards agreeing with El Pescado Frio, because life isn't meant to be good. So, he doesn't disgust me.

Don't think you're getting out of DISGUSTING ME.

[Blakk Metal]

YOU DISGUST US ALL

WELLLLLLLLLL THEN

UR DISGUSTING

[Mosasauria]

YOU DISGUST US ALL

I am leaning towards agreeing with El Pescado Frio, because life isn't meant to be good. So, he doesn't disgust me.

I assume that's only your view.
What is it meant to be then?

[Blakk Metal]

source ??!!!

what is the source for 2+2 = 4 ???

indeed, are you aware that thousands, if not millions of free market firms fail yearly ?

And many people died outside of the USSR during Stalin's reign.

again for the 20th time, explain the process whereby a firm can crush competition without satisfying consumer preferences.

until you answer this challenge --- dont bother with these inane strawman diversions.

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.

come down tex

I dont see a question in the preceding post.

if you have one that you want me to answer --- then take an aspirin and present it.

Paraphrased: "If corporations corrupt the state, why do you trust them?"

dont Don't waste your time. -- he's I'm a troll

If you go back and read his my posts, you will see that I exposed him embarrassed myself several times.

Corrected.

please expand on this fantasy --- I enjoy a good laugh.

hence, you have to explain the process by which this occurs. provide a hypothetical case study so I can debunk it in short order as I have numerous times in this thread.

- De Beers
- Microsoft
- AT&T
- Comcast

More Taxes + Less Spending = More Poverty
Less Taxes + Less Spending = Capitalist Utopia- Well, all the money gets concentrated into a small elite.
Less Taxes + More Spending = Bankrupt Government
More Taxes + More Spending = Communist Utopia- Well, unless some corrupt guy like Stalin ruins it and it gets concentrated into a small elite.

Mixed Economy= It eventually goes in one of the directions (right or left)

It's official. You don't know shit about communism.

for example, in the 1990's sweden collapsed under the weight of its unsustainable welfare state with 500% interest rates.

What alternate universe do you live in? The one where Cliff Burton is a pornstar?

communism is a joke anyway

nobody is going to forego personal gain for some freeloader.

it defies human nature

Then the internet as we know it and underground music shouldn't exist.

RESPOND WIRBEL!

[Miss Defied]

Wirbel, WHY WON'T YOU RESPOND TO MY AWESOME POST!?!

Because it broke the thread. Now run along and fix your tags.


Edit: ah, it's done.

[Miss Defied]

51 pages of comedic gold.
Thank you, NSG.

It gets rather dull when the OP isn't around though.

[The new pacified subjects of Emishiate]

I'm not saying I love bureaucracy or anything. In fact, I hate it with a passion, anybody who's heard me deal with FAFSA can attest to this.

But the things I want the government to do, are things Private Industry simply can't do to a satisfactory level, due to their need for profit. For example, much as I hate FAFSA, I'd take it over simply having to beg to get into the school any day of the week. That Private College won't pay for my tuition, the Government will.

Similarly for healthcare, the Government will make sure I have the ability to get in, it might be awful at doing so, it might even be frustrating in the extreme, but compared to a Private Insurance company, who will deny you until you can pay, it's leaps and bounds better.

I'd still rather buy my food at Walmart than stand in a "Government Food Store Line", because I'd rather eat sooner than later. But that doesn't mean Walmart(or entities like it) can handle everything, or even should. Because some things simply do not benefit from the profit motive.

AGREE 100%

[Socialdemokraterne]

I have already addressed this scandanvain fallacy in this thread.

AHEM. No, you haven't addressed Scandinavia and Fennoscandia (Finland isn't Scandinavian). Not adequately enough to believe you've won, you haven't. We're not to the point where you get to call my argument fallacious yet.

go back and read it.

I made a very thorough reply to the "points" you believe you've made. And now I continue to do so. You're drowning in counter arguments, you'd better start addressing them.

for example, in the 1990's sweden collapsed under the weight of its unsustainable welfare state with 500% interest rates.

...this establishes that Sweden's government is corrupt, or that it has a low standard of living (which are the arguments you've made)? No, it doesn't substantiate either point. What do you think you're proving? Well, I'll tell you what you're proving but you won't like it.

That banking crisis that you keep bawking about? It was caused by the pop of a housing bubble which was promoted by Governor of the Central Bank of Sweden Bengdt Dennis' abolition of a slough of financial regulations. That's right: the foolhardy deregulation of credit markets led by Bengdt Dennis led to the bubble, and after it popped Bengdt Dennis was the man who made the final call to set his target rates at 500% (a target which was soon retracted).

So...yeah. Deregulation led to a banking crisis spurred by unregulated credit, baseless property valuations, and irresponsible loans generated by the private sector. Impossible according to you, reality according to history. You just committed suicide by citing that 500%. You probably ought to have looked into it more deeply before bringing it up.

since then a center right government has reduced govt spending as a % of GDP, lowered taxes and significantly downsized welfare largesse.

Public benefits such as universal healthcare and universal tertiary education still exist in Sweden, as do countless other programs. In fact, the percentage of the Swedish GDP spent on healthcare has been relatively stable since the 1980s, hovering around 9% (recently it was close to hitting 10%), with real terms health spending on the rise at a rate of 3.9% between 2000 and 2009 and 2.0% in 2010. Hate to break your heart, but I have sources to back me on this.

http://www.oecd.org/sweden/BriefingNoteSWEDEN2012.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/sw.html

You lose. Again.

[RB Rebecca Black]

A good number of people on both sides want big government. Not only liberals can be blamed for it. Conservatives are on the worse end because of their support of imperialist policies, if you ask me.

[Blakk Metal]

A good number of people on both sides want big government. Not only liberals can be blamed for it. Conservatives are on the worse end because of their support of imperialist policies, if you ask me.

Anyone who has Rebecca Black in their name is not to be trusted.