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

[Trotskylvania]

[You want to hear the really funny (but sad and unfortunate ) thing about the nonsense from the Left.

It is that they always lament that a single corporation could take over a free society in the absence of government by:

when in fact that is what corrupt and self-serving governments have DONE !!!!

the illogic is that these deluding leftists advocate creating the very thing they most fear to protect them from something that doesnt exist and couldnt exist in a free society!!!!

and you folks wonder why I use phrases like drone, brainwashed, deluded, illogical, et al ...

When was that ever implied? It is far more likely, that absent a state, corporations would parcel up the territories in quasi feudal manner, or form cartels to build a new state.

Even the corrupt and self-serving governments have to pay minimal attention to common good.

It's been explained to you many times in this thread that any leftist worth his salt is hostile to the state. How many more times will it have to be done before it sinks in. Because the "brainwashed, deluded, illogical" leftist "drones" you are arguing against don't exist.

[AuSable River]

Explain how they can gain control of scarce resources in a free society ??

By buying natural resources and monopolies.

absurd, if a single corporation or cartel tried to gain control of scarce resources -- then that would naturally raise the value of the resources that the offending firm didnt have.

Moreover, if the same firm tried to raise prices for its resources -- it would immediate invite consumers to find substitution resources, it would invite competition from other firms to find untapped resources, and it would irrepairably destroy the personal and professional reputations of the offending management team.

lastly, but not least, state governments would still hold all of the poltical power to nix any oppressive monopoly in a hearbeat.

try again, and be more specific on how this process takes place.

you cant just say "poof, company A gains all of a particular resource" by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure that dog aint barking.

these big government types just make stuff up as they go or believe something untrue without having analyzed it in any substantive detail besides:

jeez, i guess thats what would happen because thats what everyone has told me

moreover, the big kicker in all this is that there is an oppressive monopoly that controls all the resources and unlike a boogeyman corporate monopoly -- this one controls all of the guns and gavels too ??!!!


its called the federal government.

and you wonder why I am so short with these people.

[NMaa949]

Moreover, if the same firm tried to raise prices for its resources -- it would immediate invite consumers to find substitution resources, it would invite competition from other firms to find untapped resources, and it would irrepairably destroy the personal and professional reputations of the offending management team.

pure concept

[Trotskylvania]

It's called a Military INDUSTRIAL complex for a reason.

the military industrial complex is a government enterprises dude.

in a free society, government spending would be significantly reduced due to a balanced budget amendment, limits on govt spending as % of GDP, the elimination of the FED and fiat currency, a declaration of war required to send US forces into harms way in the absence of an immediate threat, supermajority to raise taxes to fund anything including military, et al

Indeed, a free society with limited govt. LIMITS the power of the military/industrial complex.

INdeed, transferring societal wealth from government uses to the free market and consumer uses minimizes this problem

try again. your dog aint barking

Government spending has no correlation with how free or unfree a people are.

Furthermore, the society you are describing is in no way free. For one, it still has a state. Furthermore, the existence of unaccountable private tyrannies and other forms of coercive social power still exist outside of the official state apparatus.

[Geilinor]

By buying natural resources and monopolies.

absurd, if a single corporation or cartel tried to gain control of scarce resources -- then that would naturally raise the value of the resources that the offending firm didnt have.

Moreover, if the same firm tried to raise prices for its resources -- it would immediate invite consumers to find substitution resources, it would invite competition from other firms to find untapped resources, and it would irrepairably destroy the personal and professional reputations of the offending management team.

lastly, but not least, state governments would still hold all of the poltical power to nix any oppressive monopoly in a hearbeat.

try again, and be more specific on how this process takes place.

you cant just say "poof, company A gains all of a particular resource" by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure that dog aint barking.

these big government types just make stuff up as they go or believe something untrue without having analyzed it in any substantive detail besides:

jeez, i guess thats what would happen because thats what everyone has told me

moreover, the big kicker in all this is that there is an oppressive monopoly that controls all the resources and unlike a boogeyman corporate monopoly -- this one controls all of the guns and gavels too ??!!!


its called the federal government.

and you wonder why I am so short with these people.

Without a government, what would stop corporations from forming a corporation-ruled nation? Power is the largest source of corruption.

[AuSable River]

[You want to hear the really funny (but sad and unfortunate ) thing about the nonsense from the Left.

It is that they always lament that a single corporation could take over a free society in the absence of government by:

when in fact that is what corrupt and self-serving governments have DONE !!!!

the illogic is that these deluding leftists advocate creating the very thing they most fear to protect them from something that doesnt exist and couldnt exist in a free society!!!!

and you folks wonder why I use phrases like drone, brainwashed, deluded, illogical, et al ...

When was that ever implied? It is far more likely, that absent a state, corporations would parcel up the territories in quasi feudal manner, or form cartels to build a new state.

Even the corrupt and self-serving governments have to pay minimal attention to common good.

It's been explained to you many times in this thread that any leftist worth his salt is hostile to the state. How many more times will it have to be done before it sinks in. Because the "brainwashed, deluded, illogical" leftist "drones" you are arguing against don't exist.

slow down tex.....

who said I was arguing an anarchist position.

I am not an anarchist and my arguments are not a defense of anarchism

so do not preface any rebut with the absence of government.

Second, your argument that a government that controls the gavel and gun is far less prone to corruption and less dangerous than a single corporation without a single tank, courtroom, or ballot box is absurd.

Moreover, corporations have to operate within a free, voluntary and competitive environment in which they must satisfy consumer preferences by peaceful exchange.

In contrast, government has no competition and it uses coercion to fund its operations.

In sum, your dog aint barking, in fact he is coughing up grass.

Try again, and please for the 5th time provide a relatively detailed and intelligent theoretical case study on how a boogeyman corporation seizes power in the absence of political, military, or judicial power .


i will be waiting......

[Kingdoms of Cal]

An odd thing europe vs USA.

In europe the smallest form of government (none) is a leftwing thing. In the USA it's a right wing thing. Kinda odd.

Anarchy in Europe (and possibly other parts of the world is very lefty as it's about communes, etc), I suppose it is the difference between liberal (European) and libertarian(US), here's some news for some of you the pair meet at the opposite end of the spectrum. You can't put a cigarette paper between the two want when it comes to their view of what a government should do (not be there).

But then again most US types don't realise that the only functional anarchy was killed off by the right wing. The right is the enemy of anarchy, always has been always will be.

EDITED: Sorry my lysdexia strikes.

Interesting post, are you european ?

Aye

And indeed, both left and right anarchist are faith-based utopians who dont have a clue.

That I question

AMusingly, I have been banned by right anarchist websites for arguing that within an anarchist society (if one ever existed for more than a fortnight) that a territorial monopoly of armed force would emerge.

Look at the one functional one, lasted some time.

this is based on the specialization of labor, economies of scale, and collabration of defense industry firms to form a cartel to reduce the costs associated with armed competition.

Hence, anarchic society has no intentional mechanisms to prevent the centralization, balance, or limit military power -- moreover, within anarchic society, there is no transparency.

There is one, it's called the people that see it. The people simply withdraw labour.

also, ancaps admit that monopolies are possible in any industry within ancap society --- and yet they have the ignorance to state that these are not coercive or that the free market can remove them through voluntary and peaceful exchange.

Who says it an any cap rather than a mutualist system?

Muturalistic system can out preform any capitialistic system. Why do you think every capilist system does it's best to kill them off? The socilists do the same.

this nonsense is easily debunked by looking at the real world geopolitik which is really anarchic. Yet, every nation represents a territorial monopoly of armed force and every nation's military is unresponsive to free market pressures.

anacorp, not anamutual

hence, anarchist society is utterly unable to prevent monopolies of armed force (proof -- look at the world today) and when these monopoly materialize the free market is powerless against them (proof -- look at the world today).

end of story

Mutuals were onces as powerfull as corps...but right or left wing govs hate them. Look at what happened to standard life....the gov wanted it dead as mutuals by there nature are anachistic.

NOTE: Lysdexic and done with no spell checker.

I could go into more detail regarding the preponderence of violence in anarchic society, but since we all pretty much agree that anarchism is a joke -- i will spare you.

The functional anachy's crime rate dropped

sorry abuot your dylezia/

I'm not bothered about lysdexia.
pic (bsc (hons))

PS never feel sorry form me, I hate people that think I have something wrong with me..I figure perhaps I have something right.

[The House of Petain]

Yeah it is black and white

both parties would be powerless to corrupt, waste, and destroy --- if government power at the federal level was significantly reduced.

Yes and millions more people would die each year in the US and abroad if the federal spending level was drastically reduced, don't forget that. Without the money they would be as unable to build as they are unable to destroy. Let's not forget; the government brought us the internet, digital technology, the cure for many diseases, and much more all as a result of government spending.

No shit, Sherlock. I don't recall every saying otherwise or that we shouldn't have a central government. But your argument that decentralization equals slavery was wrong.

[AuSable River]

absurd, if a single corporation or cartel tried to gain control of scarce resources -- then that would naturally raise the value of the resources that the offending firm didnt have.

Moreover, if the same firm tried to raise prices for its resources -- it would immediate invite consumers to find substitution resources, it would invite competition from other firms to find untapped resources, and it would irrepairably destroy the personal and professional reputations of the offending management team.

lastly, but not least, state governments would still hold all of the poltical power to nix any oppressive monopoly in a hearbeat.

try again, and be more specific on how this process takes place.

you cant just say "poof, company A gains all of a particular resource" by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure that dog aint barking.

these big government types just make stuff up as they go or believe something untrue without having analyzed it in any substantive detail besides:



moreover, the big kicker in all this is that there is an oppressive monopoly that controls all the resources and unlike a boogeyman corporate monopoly -- this one controls all of the guns and gavels too ??!!!


its called the federal government.

and you wonder why I am so short with these people.

Without a government, what would stop corporations from forming a corporation-ruled nation? Power is the largest source of corruption.

slow down tex,

I am not a faith-based, wackadoodle ancap -- I believe that government has a role as a night watchman

hence, you take the most destructive elements of power --- military and political power --- and decentralize, balance, limit and make transparent within a constitutional federal republic.

then, in the extreme and unlikely chance that a single cartel gained too much power without lowering prices and/or increasing quality or service or product --- then a state government could intervene and break up the cartel

remember, governments have all the military, political and legislative power -- thats what counts.

but this last resort would rarely happen (if ever) since market forces can very easily undermine any kind of economic monopoly that didnt include military or political coercion.

c heck my previous posts.

indeed, provide a single episode of a coercive monopoly in american history that was not really facilitated by government.

for example, virtually every monopoly (and that means 50-90% market share) saw prices decline and/or quality improve to consumers. they were hardly oppressive -- in fact the opposite consumers and society loved them, thats how they gained monopoly status --- by satisfying consumer preferences so effectively.

Hence, they were broken up by government and corrupt inefficient firms in the same industry who couldnt compete, so these corrupt firms lobbied government to do by political coercion what they couldnt do by sound business practices.

Later folks, my shift is over -- i gotta go home.

[Trotskylvania]

slow down tex.....

who said I was arguing an anarchist position.

I am not an anarchist and my arguments are not a defense of anarchism

So you don't believe in a free society. You're just bargaining a different kind of despotism.

so do not preface any rebut with the absence of government.

Then don't pretend you believe in a free society.

Second, your argument that a government that controls the gavel and gun is far less prone to corruption and less dangerous than a single corporation without a single tank, courtroom, or ballot box is absurd.

No, I made it quite clear in my first post in this thread that calling it corruption was a misnomer, because it implied that the status quo was somehow a perversion of how things were or ought to have been. Rather, what you call corruption is an integral part of the system. Private capital and the state don't exist without each other, and the laws and rulings they pass serve the mutual interests of the bourgeoisie as a class.

Moreover, corporations have to operate within a free, voluntary and competitive environment in which they must satisfy consumer preferences by peaceful exchange.

Except that's bullshit, because markets trend to oligopoly, and the real costs of market exchange are hidden. Furthermore, calling it voluntary is a real joke. It's like Henry Ford telling people they could have the Model T in any color as long as it was black.

Absent other considerations, in the unfettered market, those who do not own capital have one choice: accept whatever offer they get for their labor power, or they can starve. That's not a voluntary choice: it's just as coercive as putting a gun to someone's head. Given that all the choices will always be equally shitty because the master will not be giving any ground to his servents unless forced, I'd say that's just another form of violent class dictatorship.

In contrast, government has no competition and it uses coercion to fund its operations.

Whatever made you think I thought anything differently about the government. The government's only present merit is a thin veneer of democratic accountability.

In sum, your dog aint barking, in fact he is coughing up grass.

What the hell does this even mean?

Try again, and please for the 5th time provide a relatively detailed and intelligent theoretical case study on how a boogeyman corporation seizes power in the absence of political, military, or judicial power .

The mistake you make is assuming that they would have to seize power. Absent state power, they become the biggest game in town, and will accrete the functions of the state to themselves to protect their property and their sectional interests.

[AuSable River]

Interesting post, are you european ?

Aye

And indeed, both left and right anarchist are faith-based utopians who dont have a clue.

That I question

AMusingly, I have been banned by right anarchist websites for arguing that within an anarchist society (if one ever existed for more than a fortnight) that a territorial monopoly of armed force would emerge.

Look at the one functional one, lasted some time.

this is based on the specialization of labor, economies of scale, and collabration of defense industry firms to form a cartel to reduce the costs associated with armed competition.

Hence, anarchic society has no intentional mechanisms to prevent the centralization, balance, or limit military power -- moreover, within anarchic society, there is no transparency.

There is one, it's called the people that see it. The people simply withdraw labour.

also, ancaps admit that monopolies are possible in any industry within ancap society --- and yet they have the ignorance to state that these are not coercive or that the free market can remove them through voluntary and peaceful exchange.

Who says it an any cap rather than a mutualist system?

Muturalistic system can out preform any capitialistic system. Why do you think every capilist system does it's best to kill them off? The socilists do the same.

this nonsense is easily debunked by looking at the real world geopolitik which is really anarchic. Yet, every nation represents a territorial monopoly of armed force and every nation's military is unresponsive to free market pressures.

anacorp, not anamutual

hence, anarchist society is utterly unable to prevent monopolies of armed force (proof -- look at the world today) and when these monopoly materialize the free market is powerless against them (proof -- look at the world today).

end of story

Mutuals were onces as powerfull as corps...but right or left wing govs hate them. Look at what happened to standard life....the gov wanted it dead as mutuals by there nature are anachistic.

NOTE: Lysdexic and done with no spell checker.

I could go into more detail regarding the preponderence of violence in anarchic society, but since we all pretty much agree that anarchism is a joke -- i will spare you.

The functional anachy's crime rate dropped

sorry abuot your dylezia/

I'm not bothered about lysdexia.
pic (bsc (hons))

PS never feel sorry form me, I hate people that think I have something wrong with me..I figure perhaps I have something right.

give me a source to learn more about this mutualarilistic society

i will check it out later.

[Inky Noodles]

I don't really think they want to directly have big government.

[Geilinor]

Without a government, what would stop corporations from forming a corporation-ruled nation? Power is the largest source of corruption.

slow down tex,

I am not a faith-based, wackadoodle ancap -- I believe that government has a role as a night watchman

hence, you take the most destructive elements of power --- military and political power --- and decentralize, balance, limit and make transparent within a constitutional federal republic.

then, in the extreme and unlikely chance that a single cartel gained too much power without lowering prices and/or increasing quality or service or product --- then a state government could intervene and break up the cartel

remember, governments have all the military, political and legislative power -- thats what counts.

but this last resort would rarely happen (if ever) since market forces can very easily undermine any kind of economic monopoly that didnt include military or political coercion.

c heck my previous posts.

indeed, provide a single episode of a coercive monopoly in american history that was not really facilitated by government.

for example, virtually every monopoly (and that means 50-90% market share) saw prices decline and/or quality improve to consumers. they were hardly oppressive -- in fact the opposite consumers and society loved them, thats how they gained monopoly status --- by satisfying consumer preferences so effectively.

Hence, they were broken up by government and corrupt inefficient firms in the same industry who couldnt compete, so these corrupt firms lobbied government to do by political coercion what they couldnt do by sound business practices.

Later folks, my shift is over -- i gotta go home.

Constitutional federal republic? Like the United States and Canada already are? The federal governments of those two nations don't hold all the power. And how do you decentralize military power to the states? Defense can't be divided when the need comes, and it could lead to civil war.

[NMaa949]

The capitalist as a class are as useful as any kleptocrat. They take trillions upon trillions of dollars into overshore bank accounts without any oversight whatsoever. They can take as much public money as they are able and never have to spend any of it. They are, in short, the government that need only take and never give back, and that is what they wish, and think they should be able to do. They have won the lottery thousands of times over and almost none of it sees the light of day. It's time to stop giving tons of money to people who have no accountability.

[North Franklin]

I just fail to see how people can call Governments corrupt and then turn to Corporations for a better alternative. Names like Enron, BP, and the LIBOR scandal come to mind.

[Frisivisia]

Without a government, what would stop corporations from forming a corporation-ruled nation? Power is the largest source of corruption.

slow down tex,

I am not a faith-based, wackadoodle ancap -- I believe that government has a role as a night watchman

hence, you take the most destructive elements of power --- military and political power --- and decentralize, balance, limit and make transparent within a constitutional federal republic.

then, in the extreme and unlikely chance that a single cartel gained too much power without lowering prices and/or increasing quality or service or product --- then a state government could intervene and break up the cartel

remember, governments have all the military, political and legislative power -- thats what counts.

but this last resort would rarely happen (if ever) since market forces can very easily undermine any kind of economic monopoly that didnt include military or political coercion.

c heck my previous posts.

indeed, provide a single episode of a coercive monopoly in american history that was not really facilitated by government.

for example, virtually every monopoly (and that means 50-90% market share) saw prices decline and/or quality improve to consumers. they were hardly oppressive -- in fact the opposite consumers and society loved them, thats how they gained monopoly status --- by satisfying consumer preferences so effectively.

Hence, they were broken up by government and corrupt inefficient firms in the same industry who couldnt compete, so these corrupt firms lobbied government to do by political coercion what they couldnt do by sound business practices.

Later folks, my shift is over -- i gotta go home.

Monopolies hep markets. That's a person that understands economics.

[ALMF]

Who knows?

Probably they are just following the indoctrination that they have received from leftwing educators, pop culture, and the main stream media who are all proponents of big government.

If I could deprogram leftists, I would enlighten them to the fact that government is a market for corruption.

Essentially, it is a place where special interests go to get something by coercive means that they couldn't get in a free, voluntary, and competitive society.

For example, the reckless and irresponsible financial institutions that engaged in questionable business practices prior to the 2008 crisis successfully went to Washington to get bailed out by Bush, RINO republicans and virtually every democrat in Congress (including obama).

Not surprisingly, these same banks contributed generously to both obama and bush in their respective elections. Moreover, the these same failed bankers have figured prominently in both the bush and obama cabinets.

Using the 'logic' of the Left -- obama, bush, and democrats in congress were required to divert scarce resources from productive sectors of the economy to bailout the very negligent and reckless firms and individuals who helped cause the crisis or in the very least were clueless on how to mitigate its impact.

They don't really know why --just that the same fools and crooks who caused the crisis must be bailed out AND the politicians and elites in finance told them that a bail out was necessary ??!! How 'surprising' and convenient for these same elitist politicians and bankers.

In reality, the purpose of government isn't to promote sustainable and beneficial economic policy -- it is for self-serving politicians and their corrupt cronies in the public and private sector to 'game' the system to their benefit at the expense of productive individuals and firms in the private sector (who by definition don't need government help).

This is the preamble of ECO 101 for progressives.

In sum, if any liberal/progressive/leftist thinks that government is not corrupt and coercive -- then you cant proceed further and we need to resolve this impasse.

Please ask questions.

It's the only hedge we have agenst the two greatest eavles in the universe: faith/religion and coprations/maledistribution of resorses

[The Steel Magnolia]

I've seen a fair amount of stuff. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone arguing in favor of monopolies as a means of assisting the market.

[Kingdoms of Cal]

Aye


That I question


Look at the one functional one, lasted some time.

There is one, it's called the people that see it. The people simply withdraw labour.

Who says it an any cap rather than a mutualist system?

Muturalistic system can out preform any capitialistic system. Why do you think every capilist system does it's best to kill them off? The socilists do the same.

anacorp, not anamutual

Mutuals were onces as powerfull as corps...but right or left wing govs hate them. Look at what happened to standard life....the gov wanted it dead as mutuals by there nature are anachistic.

NOTE: Lysdexic and done with no spell checker.


The functional anachy's crime rate dropped



I'm not bothered about lysdexia.
pic (bsc (hons))

PS never feel sorry form me, I hate people that think I have something wrong with me..I figure perhaps I have something right.

give me a source to learn more about this mutualarilistic society

i will check it out later.

OK as no one has been able figure this out.

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

it's getting late so that will have to do....but the concept of anarcho mutualism basically ran the US west for a bit,

[Dainer]

Oh, and absent the legal fiction of the corporation, you know who's next in line?

Rackets.

The Mafia method is an efficient way to drive out competition when there's no market rules.

[AuSable River]

slow down tex.....

who said I was arguing an anarchist position.

I am not an anarchist and my arguments are not a defense of anarchism

So you don't believe in a free society. You're just bargaining a different kind of despotism.

so do not preface any rebut with the absence of government.

Then don't pretend you believe in a free society.

Second, your argument that a government that controls the gavel and gun is far less prone to corruption and less dangerous than a single corporation without a single tank, courtroom, or ballot box is absurd.

No, I made it quite clear in my first post in this thread that calling it corruption was a misnomer, because it implied that the status quo was somehow a perversion of how things were or ought to have been. Rather, what you call corruption is an integral part of the system. Private capital and the state don't exist without each other, and the laws and rulings they pass serve the mutual interests of the bourgeoisie as a class.

Moreover, corporations have to operate within a free, voluntary and competitive environment in which they must satisfy consumer preferences by peaceful exchange.

Except that's bullshit, because markets trend to oligopoly, and the real costs of market exchange are hidden. Furthermore, calling it voluntary is a real joke. It's like Henry Ford telling people they could have the Model T in any color as long as it was black.

Absent other considerations, in the unfettered market, those who do not own capital have one choice: accept whatever offer they get for their labor power, or they can starve. That's not a voluntary choice: it's just as coercive as putting a gun to someone's head. Given that all the choices will always be equally shitty because the master will not be giving any ground to his servents unless forced, I'd say that's just another form of violent class dictatorship.

In contrast, government has no competition and it uses coercion to fund its operations.

Whatever made you think I thought anything differently about the government. The government's only present merit is a thin veneer of democratic accountability.

In sum, your dog aint barking, in fact he is coughing up grass.

What the hell does this even mean?

Try again, and please for the 5th time provide a relatively detailed and intelligent theoretical case study on how a boogeyman corporation seizes power in the absence of political, military, or judicial power .

The mistake you make is assuming that they would have to seize power. Absent state power, they become the biggest game in town, and will accrete the functions of the state to themselves to protect their property and their sectional interests.

Your not focused.

If you have a system of governance that intentionally decentralizes, balances, limits, and makes transparent the elements of armed force --- then yes, you have a more free society that is less suspetible to absolutism.

IN contrast, a society without government (anarchism) invites the formation of military and political cartels because no intentional or effective means exist to deter them --- hence absolutism.

as for the rest of your nonsense, I didnt have capital 10 years ago, now I own more property than I have time to effectively manage.

Also, I have friends who didnt have a pot to piss in -- so they opened up a small business and 2 out of 3 are millionaires.

indeed, millions of small businesses open up each year.

moreover, i dont know what neighborhood you come from -- but in my hometown, if your reliable, cooperative, dependable, hard-working, persistent, et al -- an employer will tend to reward that by increasing pay and benefits to keep a valuable and trusted employee around.

and in a free and competitive society -- a firm that mistreats or underpays its employees will see them disappear. while a firm that treats them in accordance with their relative contibution to the bottom line (profit ) will see profits expand due to increased level of customer service and increased productivity.

indeed, human beings are the most valuable resource in any firm.

and lastly, how in the heck is a private firm going to 'accrete the functions of the state' when government has all the military, political and legal authority (save the ability to redistribute wealth) ?????

any corporation that breaks the law or takes the law into its own hands will see the offending management or workers jailed in short order.

in contrast, it is far easier for corrupt corporations to bribe myriad politicians via lobbying and campaign contributions largely out of sight and mind of the public --- then for a single manager in a transparent court room where all the proceedings are open to scurtiny and any evidence of potential bribery or influence peddling that results in a mis -carriage of judgment is immediately visible to all the citizenry, even the most unsophisiticated.

but dude, if you want to pray on the altar of big government to protect you from the big bad corporate boogeyman -- be my guest.

I got to go - i will debunk your fallacies at a later time.


later.

[Blakk Metal]

the military industrial complex is a government enterprises dude.

You mean where the government pays private industry to develop all its weapons and vehicles? And how its actually these businesses that control the government by being those few groups that can produce these supplies, thus making the government simply an employer/consumer of a private industry?

The government doesn't make most of its own stuff or magically get it... private industry does all that. Private industry determines what military the government has...

Strawman.

By buying natural resources and monopolies.

absurd, if a single corporation or cartel tried to gain control of scarce resources -- then that would naturally raise the value of the resources that the offending firm didnt have.

So?

Moreover, if the same firm tried to raise prices for its resources -- it would immediate invite consumers to find substitution resources, it would invite competition from other firms to find untapped resources, and it would irrepairably destroy the personal and professional reputations of the offending management team.

It isn't assured that alternatives could be found.

lastly, but not least, state governments would still hold all of the poltical power to nix any oppressive monopoly in a hearbeat.

Not if the monopoly bribes the politicians.

these big government types just make stuff up as they go or believe something untrue without having analyzed it in any substantive detail besides:

jeez, i guess thats what would happen because thats what everyone has told me

Strawman. Government worshipers haven't existed since the Seventies.

moreover, the big kicker in all this is that there is an oppressive monopoly that controls all the resources and unlike a boogeyman corporate monopoly -- this one controls all of the guns and gavels too ??!!!


its called the federal government.

and you wonder why I am so short with these people.

And you wonder why anarchists and commies exist.

[NMaa949]

moreover, i dont know what neighborhood you come from -- but in my hometown, if your reliable, cooperative, dependable, hard-working, persistent, et al -- an employer will tend to reward that by increasing pay and benefits to keep a valuable and trusted employee around.

There is very little that is valuable in an employee in a modern economy. The modern economy does not require a great deal of skill.

[The Black Forrest]

moreover, i dont know what neighborhood you come from -- but in my hometown, if your reliable, cooperative, dependable, hard-working, persistent, et al -- an employer will tend to reward that by increasing pay and benefits to keep a valuable and trusted employee around.

There is very little that is valuable in an employee in a modern economy. The modern economy does not require a great deal of skill.

Example?

[Alien Space Bats]

Here was his response; mine will (eventually) be forthcoming.

national defense is one of the only responsibilities of government.

Why?

because the elements of armed force in society must be intentionally decentralized, balanced, limited, and made transparent.

Ancaps are of the deluded opinion that the free market can manage security without emerging into a territorial monopoly of oppressive armed force.

In contrast any other monopoly in any other industry can be easily overcome by substitution goods, competition, boycott, or as a last result government intervention.

however, no such mechanisms exist to deter a monopoly of armed force.



we have a constitutional federal republic that intentionally limits, balances, decentralizes and makes transparent armed force. This makes it less effective, but less likely to become a tool of despots.

WIthin a liberal democracy with a strong free market --- we dont need a centralized military to deter and defeat statist militaries.

Essentially, the reason why our military is successful is because it is generally fighting other state managed militaries -- hence both are inefficient. Indeed, when the USA is faced with a non-state insurgency or terror group, we are vulnerable.

case in point, a inhumane private military agency -- al qaida --caused over 2800 deaths and tens of billions in damage at a cost of less than a million dollars.

lastly, smedley butler was a hero but he was also a clueless idealist .

thanks to the USA and the application of force against expansionist statist regimes and insurgencies -- europe, the western hemisphere, and the asian pacific rim are more peaceful, free, prosperous, and stable than at anytime in their tumultous histories.

without American power -- the world would be a much more dangerous and inhospitable place.

ANd I debunked and retired your argument in short order --

I will do so again for your benefit.

an essential role for government --or rather a system of government -- is to promote life, liberty, and private property. Since it is corrupt and coercive, it cannot be trusted to do this --- government must intentionally be decentralized, balanced, limited, and made transparent.

Hence our constitutional federal republic.

Indeed, this system of government has been effective at promoting civil and political liberties among the states and people who practice some form of liberal democracy.

Essentially our founding fathers very nearly got it right --- except for some shortcomings both foreseen and unforeseen.

Among these was the ability of despots or those seeking power for political gain to usurp the constitution system via economic means or economic coercion.

Hence the need for an Economic Bill of Rights (balanced budget amendment, limit spending to a pre-established % of GDP, strengthen federalism, et al) to protect the citizenry from corruption and despotism by economic coercion.

so there you have it.

maybe you didnt understand my response -- however it is simple ---- indeed government cannot be trusted so we intentionally weaken it by decentalizing it.

Yet within a liberal democracy, this shortcoming is not fatal in the area of national defense because the economic, technological, civil and cultural strength and loyalties are more than enough to overcome the centrally controlled miilitariese of autocratic nations.

Moreover, I dont have a problem using government within a liberal democracy to undermine far more clear and present dangers that exist from expansionist global autocratic regimes.

so there you have it.

I advocate and 'trust' government when it is used to undermine itself -- hence create a political and miilitary framework where politicians and autocrats fight among themselves for the few political spoils we free people allow them to have.

it diverts them from negatively influencing our civil and economic life --- and it is fun to watch them trash each other in an ultimately futile attempt at gaining power.


you stand corrected, again.

Do you have a problem reading?

Here was his response; mine will (eventually) be forthcoming.

Kind of hard for you to correct me "again" why you haven't corrected me for the FIRST time.