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

[Liriena]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country

dude, china (communist china) is the biggest polluter on the planet.

bar none.

before that, the soviet union was a prolific polluter -- see chernobil

also, eastern europe was notorious for pollution.

your wiki source notwithstanding.

China is not communist. Communism rejects governments and states.

Read some books, please? Fox News' anti-intellectualism has killed too many brain cells already.

[Vareiln]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country

dude, china (communist china) is the biggest polluter on the planet.

bar none.

before that, the soviet union was a prolific polluter -- see chernobil

also, eastern europe was notorious for pollution.

your wiki source notwithstanding.

Nothing communist about it. At all.
But that's an argument for another thread. And both were/are oppressive, corrupt nations.

[AuSable River]

Well...good thing I support a MIXED MARKET ECONOMY! It means I support there being both corporations and government taking care of the economy.

Repsol? Oh, you never heard? YPF, formerly Argentina's mighty state-owned oil company. It was sold by the anti-statist government of Carlos Saul Menem in 1998. Fourteen years later, the current government (which I don't support) discovered that Repsol, the Spanish company that bought YPF, had been breaking their promises to develop key areas of the country and, to top it off, they had greatly reduced production and stopped scouting for new oil reserves to sell less oil for higher prices, forcing the country to import billions of dollars in oil when it could have been cheaply extracted, refined and consumed in Argentina. One company almost ruined an entire country's economy just to make a few more bucks.

All because of scarcity, wether make believe or actual. The biggest and easiest way to make a buck.

I say, if someone supports a corporcratic, free market, they are most likely neurally bankrupt.

dude, I have been posting myriad arguments supported by fact, logic and empirical evidence and you pop on here with some opinionated nonsense that

"if someone supports corporcratic (sic) blah blah blah ......"

and mavoren posts some gibberish editorial from the NY times and something about sweden's trade balance in 1982 ??!!!



i gotta get back to work -- good night to all the liberals who love the poor and desperately want to save them --- only with other people's money.

and good night to all the liberals who want to protect us from oppressive corrupt private sector monopolies by creating and empowering the mother of all monopolies -- the federal government.

good night liberals, it has been fun.

[Mavorpen]

That's a direct democracy. Not at all a representative democracy.
But, I get it. You're just another misanthrope.

Please don't put him in my boat.

[Acroticus]

That's a generalization and you know it. Many governments throughout history and worlwide have proven to be efficient and perfectly humane and clean.

Besides, as I said before, I believe in a mixed economy. I don't think everyone is evil. I don't believe all corporations are corrupt. What I do believe is that states have a duty to their citizens, they have human rights to protect and fulfill...and human rights include not only rights which are protected by state laissez faire, but also rights that require a state that provides vital and basic services that all human beings are entitled to due to the very condition of being human.

Corporations don't have a social duty by themselves. The state does. The state is not there for the profit.

And corruption is not a terminal condition. It always comes down to single individuals that can easily be replaced by more efficient and honest ones.

And an economy doesn't necessarily need only big exports to prosper. A strong local demand can foster a great deal of economic prosperity as well...one that is not so dependant on the comings and goings of the international markets. A slightly more stable one.

you will find that government that is the most 'clean' is that government that has the most constitutional restictions.

for example, government that is intentionally limited, decentralized, balanced, and made transparent (ie constitutional federal republicanism or any variation of liberal democracy) is the most effective.

Why?

because it is INTENTIONALLY made less powerful and efficient.

hence government is chained by the people and the constitution -- however, our founding fathers (and subsequent experiments that copied the 1787 compact) have been imperfect because government has no check on economic coercion.

you will see that when private property --- indeed, individual rights and responsibilities --- are protected by an economic bill or rights or some similar protections from government economic coercion (always in the name of some bogus social goal like equality)......

society will flourish.

Just because our founding fathers did not put anything about coercion in the constitution doesn't mean that government will be corrupt no matter what. The founding fathers gave us the problem to add to the constitution. Don't fight for smaller government, fight to get special interest out of government. Government has no check against economic coercion, that's a lie: elections. Let's change the system, because we can. I don't know about you, but no one has bought my vote yet.

And you also assume that no one goes into government to help people. You're wrong. I know many people who work in the government. Many are trying to help people.

And individuals rights are protected, same with responsibilities. There is still a work requirement to receive most welfare programs, if that's what you're talking about. If working is personal responsibility, what is? And how would you protect a personal responsibility? Are you saying that the government helping people is robbing them of their responsibility?

Social equality is only a bogus issue if you are a wealthy white man.

Society flourishing is a bullshit idealogical statement. What does society flourishing mean? When was society flourishing?

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

Actually he's right.

Also, I would like to add. Why do you liberals think that Governments will be any less worse than a corporation? Governments, across the globe have committed crimes that are insurmountable to those crimes committed by corporations.

That's a generalization and you know it. Many governments throughout history and worlwide have proven to be efficient and perfectly humane and clean.

Besides, as I said before, I believe in a mixed economy. I don't think everyone is evil. I don't believe all corporations are corrupt. What I do believe is that states have a duty to their citizens, they have human rights to protect and fulfill...and human rights include not only rights which are protected by state laissez faire, but also rights that require a state that provides vital and basic services that all human beings are entitled to due to the very condition of being human.

Corporations don't have a social duty by themselves. The state does. The state is not there for the profit.

And corruption is not a terminal condition. It always comes down to single individuals that can easily be replaced by more efficient and honest ones.

And an economy doesn't necessarily need only big exports to prosper. A strong local demand can foster a great deal of economic prosperity as well...one that is not so dependant on the comings and goings of the international markets. A slightly more stable one.

Governments have proven to be even more efficient at killing people than the latter.

Corporations, though, have always been the most efficient force for producing and distributing wealth throughout the world,not Governments. I'm sure as you're on a computer the great majority of the products you use and consume are provided to you by a myriad of corporations and not Government.

The Government has a right to defend the people. It is your personal responsibility to assure that you'll have things such as food, clothing and housing. Not the states. Look at it from a different perspective: What need does a grown adult have to depend on another grown adult? The right to be defended of course is necessary, but anything else you think of can easily be provided by the private sector.

If not then the service must be funded by taxes must be uniform. For example schools must be funded by say a tax on school supplies or a commission to get into school and so on and so forth. This is so that if the service can't fund itself it can be scraped. It also protects people from paying for services that have no direct benefit to them.

The state isn't there for profit, you're right. The state also isn't spending its money.The state isn't some supernatural entity, it's ran by humans and humans are flawed and prone to corruption.You give them too much power and they will without a doubt abuse it.

[Yuktova]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country

dude, china (communist china) is the biggest polluter on the planet.

bar none.

before that, the soviet union was a prolific polluter -- see chernobil

also, eastern europe was notorious for pollution.

your wiki source notwithstanding.

Communist China! China has been pretty much a free market over the last some odd years. No labor laws, etc. The communist trades his commie badge for a business card every day.

Also, Chernobyl was direct pollution? What, did the Soviets make it explode on purpose? No, it melt down due to the workers not knowing how to handle the situation. Thankfully, the whole world learned a lesson that day (and continues to do so with nuclear power). Come back later and do some fucking research on that disaster, as I did when I was younger. And don't talk out your fucking ass.

And please, learn how to spell. My fucking Shiva, it was atrocious reading that.

[Liriena]

All because of scarcity, wether make believe or actual. The biggest and easiest way to make a buck.

I say, if someone supports a corporcratic, free market, they are most likely neurally bankrupt.

dude, I have been posting myriad arguments supported by fact, logic and empirical evidence and you pop on here with some opinionated nonsense that

"if someone supports corporcratic (sic) blah blah blah ......"

and mavoren posts some gibberish editorial from the NY times and something about sweden's trade balance in 1982 ??!!!



i gotta get back to work -- good night to all the liberals who love the poor and desperately want to save them --- only with other people's money.

and good night to all the liberals who want to protect us from oppressive corrupt private sector monopolies by creating and empowering the mother of all monopolies -- the federal government.

good night liberals, it has been fun.

It's Mavorpen, and I find it hilarious how you dismissed her perfectly valid sources over and over and you keep coming up with subjective and opinionated bullshit with every breath you take.

Fuck you.

[Acroticus]

That's a generalization and you know it. Many governments throughout history and worlwide have proven to be efficient and perfectly humane and clean.

Besides, as I said before, I believe in a mixed economy. I don't think everyone is evil. I don't believe all corporations are corrupt. What I do believe is that states have a duty to their citizens, they have human rights to protect and fulfill...and human rights include not only rights which are protected by state laissez faire, but also rights that require a state that provides vital and basic services that all human beings are entitled to due to the very condition of being human.

Corporations don't have a social duty by themselves. The state does. The state is not there for the profit.

And corruption is not a terminal condition. It always comes down to single individuals that can easily be replaced by more efficient and honest ones.

And an economy doesn't necessarily need only big exports to prosper. A strong local demand can foster a great deal of economic prosperity as well...one that is not so dependant on the comings and goings of the international markets. A slightly more stable one.

Governments have proven to be even more efficient at killing people than the latter.

Corporations, though, have always been the most efficient force for producing and distributing wealth throughout the world,not Governments. I'm sure as you're on a computer the great majority of the products you use and consume are provided to you by a myriad of corporations and not Government.

The Government has a right to defend the people. It is your personal responsibility to assure that you'll have things such as food, clothing and housing. Not the states. Look at it from a different perspective: What need does a grown adult have to depend on another grown adult? The right to be defended of course is necessary, but anything else you think of can easily be provided by the private sector.

If not then the service must be funded by taxes must be uniform. For example schools must be funded by say a tax on school supplies or a commission to get into school and so on and so forth. This is so that if the service can't fund itself it can be scraped. It also protects people from paying for services that have no direct benefit to them.

The state isn't there for profit, you're right. The state also isn't spending its money.The state isn't some supernatural entity, it's ran by humans and humans are flawed and prone to corruption.You give them too much power and they will without a doubt abuse it.

If a government goes to war because of corporate interest (like Vietnam) does it count as a corporation or a government killing people? Also, I would like to say that many governments killed people before corporations existed, and that if you count deaths from illnesses like pollution or storms from global warming, the corporations could well be winning in number of deaths.

[AuSable River]

Oh, and one last thing.

only a liberal could believe that the substance that trees and flowers depend on to grow and flourish and that all animals exhale is a pollutant.

good night liberals and thanks for that one last

[Vareiln]

That's a generalization and you know it. Many governments throughout history and worlwide have proven to be efficient and perfectly humane and clean.

Besides, as I said before, I believe in a mixed economy. I don't think everyone is evil. I don't believe all corporations are corrupt. What I do believe is that states have a duty to their citizens, they have human rights to protect and fulfill...and human rights include not only rights which are protected by state laissez faire, but also rights that require a state that provides vital and basic services that all human beings are entitled to due to the very condition of being human.

Corporations don't have a social duty by themselves. The state does. The state is not there for the profit.

And corruption is not a terminal condition. It always comes down to single individuals that can easily be replaced by more efficient and honest ones.

And an economy doesn't necessarily need only big exports to prosper. A strong local demand can foster a great deal of economic prosperity as well...one that is not so dependant on the comings and goings of the international markets. A slightly more stable one.

you will find that government that is the most 'clean' is that government that has the most constitutional restictions.

for example, government that is intentionally limited, decentralized, balanced, and made transparent (ie constitutional federal republicanism or any variation of liberal democracy) is the most effective.(1)

Why?

because it is INTENTIONALLY made less powerful and efficient.(2)

hence government is chained by the people and the constitution -- however, our founding fathers (and subsequent experiments that copied the 1787 compact) have been imperfect because government has no check on economic coercion.(3)

you will see that when private property --- indeed, individual rights and responsibilities --- are protected by an economic bill or rights or some similar protections from government economic coercion(4) (always in the name of some bogus social goal like equality(5.))......

society will flourish.

1. You don't say? Of course, I'm sure you and I have two very different definitions of limited.
2. Not necessarily a good thing.
3. Depending on what you meant by economic coercion, I agree with you.
4. All agreement gone.
5. If by equality, you mean, "trying the reduce the amount of suffering, starvation, lack of education, and poverty" in a nation, then I would say you're dead damned wrong.

[Acroticus]

Oh, and one last thing.

only a liberal could believe that the substance that trees and flowers depend on to grow and flourish and that all animals exhale is a pollutant.

good night liberals and thanks for that one last

You are very very confused, my friend. Why do refineries release black clouds, but our breath is not black, hmm I wonder?

[Yuktova]

All because of scarcity, wether make believe or actual. The biggest and easiest way to make a buck.

I say, if someone supports a corporcratic, free market, they are most likely neurally bankrupt.

dude, I have been posting myriad arguments supported by fact, logic and empirical evidence and you pop on here with some opinionated nonsense that

"if someone supports corporcratic (sic) blah blah blah ......"

and mavoren posts some gibberish editorial from the NY times and something about sweden's trade balance in 1982 ??!!!



i gotta get back to work -- good night to all the liberals who love the poor and desperately want to save them --- only with other people's money.

and good night to all the liberals who want to protect us from oppressive corrupt private sector monopolies by creating and empowering the mother of all monopolies -- the federal government.

good night liberals, it has been fun.

I can see you've lost, and are experience something called cognitive dissonance.
It's okay, I can see who's really opinionated, and it ain't me, or any "Liberal" here (I'm a "Technocrat" by the way).

[Vareiln]

Oh, and one last thing.

only a liberal could believe that the substance that trees and flowers depend on to grow and flourish and that all animals exhale is a pollutant.

good night liberals and thanks for that one last

Ah, I love how you leave off with a big "fuck you" to science. It may not necessarily be a pollutant in the amount that life normally functions with, but we're taking it, pumping it up to the skies, and facing the consequences. Simply magnificent how you don't give a damn about this.

[Vareiln]

That's a direct democracy. Not at all a representative democracy.
But, I get it. You're just another misanthrope.

Please don't put him in my boat.

You're hardly a misanthrope. You still have hope in humanity.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

Governments have proven to be even more efficient at killing people than the latter.

Corporations, though, have always been the most efficient force for producing and distributing wealth throughout the world,not Governments. I'm sure as you're on a computer the great majority of the products you use and consume are provided to you by a myriad of corporations and not Government.

The Government has a right to defend the people. It is your personal responsibility to assure that you'll have things such as food, clothing and housing. Not the states. Look at it from a different perspective: What need does a grown adult have to depend on another grown adult? The right to be defended of course is necessary, but anything else you think of can easily be provided by the private sector.

If not then the service must be funded by taxes must be uniform. For example schools must be funded by say a tax on school supplies or a commission to get into school and so on and so forth. This is so that if the service can't fund itself it can be scraped. It also protects people from paying for services that have no direct benefit to them.

The state isn't there for profit, you're right. The state also isn't spending its money.The state isn't some supernatural entity, it's ran by humans and humans are flawed and prone to corruption.You give them too much power and they will without a doubt abuse it.

If a government goes to war because of corporate interest (like Vietnam) does it count as a corporation or a government killing people? Also, I would like to say that many governments killed people before corporations existed, and that if you count deaths from illnesses like pollution or storms from global warming, the corporations could well be winning in number of deaths.

How about* counting the amount of people saved by corporations and the amount of products and services each year? My hunch is that that would be more than enough to counter the negative externalities. that they create.

added about*

[Ridicularia]

Oh, and one last thing.

only a liberal could believe that the substance that trees and flowers depend on to grow and flourish and that all animals exhale is a pollutant.

what.

[Liriena]

Oh, and one last thing.

only a liberal could believe that the substance that trees and flowers depend on to grow and flourish and that all animals exhale is a pollutant.

good night liberals and thanks for that one last

Get out and never come back. You are an unpleasant troublemaker, and the only reason why your pathetic excuse of a thread has not been locked is because you still have the required brain cells to pretend that you are actually seeking an honest debate, when in fact all you came here to do was start a flaming war and offend people with different ideologies. You, sir, are almost worthy of being called a troll, if I didn't know that you are being pretty sincere in your egotistic, greed and selfishness worshipping rants.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

Oh, and one last thing.

only a liberal could believe that the substance that trees and flowers depend on to grow and flourish and that all animals exhale is a pollutant.

what.

He's talking about CO2

[Mavorpen]

How counting the amount of people saved by corporations and the amount of products and services each year? My hunch is that that would be more than enough to counter the negative externalities. that they create.

Counting the amount of people saved by governments and the amount of welfare benefits they provide each year? The negatives are significantly less than corporations.

[Greater Amerigo]

Oh, and one last thing.

only a liberal could believe that the substance that trees and flowers depend on to grow and flourish and that all animals exhale is a pollutant.

good night liberals and thanks for that one last

Go to a Biology/Physiology class. You may learn a thing or two.

This little phrase will suffice for now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison

[Tmutarakhan]

I'm sure as you're on a computer the great majority of the products you use and consume are provided to you by a myriad of corporations and not Government.

You are completely unaware that the computer was invented and developed by the government, as was the Internet?

[Mavorpen]

Oh, and one last thing.

only a liberal could believe that the substance that trees and flowers depend on to grow and flourish and that all animals exhale is a pollutant.

good night liberals and thanks for that one last

Go to a Biology/Physiology class. You may learn a thing or two.

This little phrase will suffice for now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison

Moreover.

[Acroticus]

I'm sure as you're on a computer the great majority of the products you use and consume are provided to you by a myriad of corporations and not Government.

You are completely unaware that the computer was invented and developed by the government, as was the Internet?

Yup. And digital technology from our good friends at NASA

[The House of Petain]

You know when I re-read the first few posts on this thread and then re-read the last few ones, it's depressing just how little we've "progressed" in the conversation.

61 pages and absolutely nothing has been really said *sigh*