NationStates

TitanShen wrote:

Shilya wrote:
As a result
- the poor get even more poor, resulting in weaker spending, as well as potential civil unrest
- the elderly and poor are denied healthcare
- the US loses international hard power
- the US loses long-term competitiveness, due to its population being less educated
- farmers, to stay afloat, will only plant the most profitable crops, leading to monocultures

Son do you even know what the department of education does?

First, I'm not your son.
Second, he said cutting education as well as the department for it.

Merizoc wrote:

TitanShen wrote:
Limiting the amount of money the state has limits their power. Which is a good thing.

But giving corporations more power is like, the best thing ever.

What's your beef with corporations? Do you trust them less than government? Products produced by the free market have done an infinitely better service to citizens than any government has. Government is simply there to regulate it, to an extent, not be all buddy-buddy with big corporations and enforce tighter regulations that create monopolies, as mentioned before.

Scomagia wrote:Tell you what, I'll start respecting the police when all of the "good" ones stop being silent about the abusive and corrupt ones. I don't respect people who refuse to speak out.

They need to be held accountable, yes.

Shilya wrote:

TitanShen wrote:
Son do you even know what the department of education does?

First, I'm not your son.
Second, he said cutting education as well as the department for it.

On a FEDERAL level.

TitanShen wrote:

Shilya wrote:
First, I'm not your son.
Second, he said cutting education as well as the department for it.

On a FEDERAL level.

Which still funds a whole lot of things, among others chipping in for student loans.

But in summary, it doesn't change the point: The poor are off even worse now. Since they're going to try to stay afloat by any means, that means the police will now have even more work on their hands, and even more opposition, as people in desperate situations regard their actions, even if criminal, as justified.

Shilya wrote:

TitanShen wrote:
On a FEDERAL level.

Which still funds a whole lot of things, among others chipping in for student loans.

But in summary, it doesn't change the point: The poor are off even worse now. Since they're going to try to stay afloat by any means, that means the police will now have even more work on their hands, and even more opposition, as people in desperate situations regard their actions, even if criminal, as justified.

The poor are getting poorer through corporatism, not capitalism. We've never had capitalism. And we don't need to fund the police more. That just creates things like.. Ferguson. What we should allow, are store and homeowners to defend their property with force if needed.

TitanShen wrote:

Shilya wrote:
As a result
- the poor get even more poor, resulting in weaker spending, as well as potential civil unrest
- the elderly and poor are denied healthcare
- the US loses international hard power
- the US loses long-term competitiveness, due to its population being less educated
- farmers, to stay afloat, will only plant the most profitable crops, leading to monocultures





The overall impact on society: The rich get richer, and have even more advantages than before.

Do you even know what the department of education does?

Maintains an atrocious standard of education even with present funding levels?

TitanShen wrote:

Shilya wrote:
Which still funds a whole lot of things, among others chipping in for student loans.

But in summary, it doesn't change the point: The poor are off even worse now. Since they're going to try to stay afloat by any means, that means the police will now have even more work on their hands, and even more opposition, as people in desperate situations regard their actions, even if criminal, as justified.

The poor are getting poorer through corporatism, not capitalism. We've never had capitalism. And we don't need to fund the police more. That just creates things like.. Ferguson. What we should allow, are store and homeowners to defend their property with force if needed.

Corporatism is subset of capitalism.

TitanShen wrote:

Shilya wrote:
Which still funds a whole lot of things, among others chipping in for student loans.

But in summary, it doesn't change the point: The poor are off even worse now. Since they're going to try to stay afloat by any means, that means the police will now have even more work on their hands, and even more opposition, as people in desperate situations regard their actions, even if criminal, as justified.

The poor are getting poorer through corporatism, not capitalism. We've never had capitalism. And we don't need to fund the police more. That just creates things like.. Ferguson. What we should allow, are store and homeowners to defend their property with force if needed.

Without oversight.
Because oversight isn't what Ferguson protesters have been demanding.

TitanShen wrote:

Shilya wrote:
Which still funds a whole lot of things, among others chipping in for student loans.

But in summary, it doesn't change the point: The poor are off even worse now. Since they're going to try to stay afloat by any means, that means the police will now have even more work on their hands, and even more opposition, as people in desperate situations regard their actions, even if criminal, as justified.

The poor are getting poorer through corporatism, not capitalism. We've never had capitalism. And we don't need to fund the police more. That just creates things like.. Ferguson. What we should allow, are store and homeowners to defend their property with force if needed.

"It's only capitalism if I like it"? That's not how it works.

As for funding the police more, I suggest diverting funding from neat new toys towards training instead. But you can't show off training like you can show off MRAPs.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

TitanShen wrote:
The poor are getting poorer through corporatism, not capitalism. We've never had capitalism. And we don't need to fund the police more. That just creates things like.. Ferguson. What we should allow, are store and homeowners to defend their property with force if needed.

Without oversight.
Because oversight isn't what Ferguson protesters have been demanding.

I've found that not watching the watchmen is often just as bad as not watching the watchmen's watchmen.

Immoren wrote:

TitanShen wrote:
The poor are getting poorer through corporatism, not capitalism. We've never had capitalism. And we don't need to fund the police more. That just creates things like.. Ferguson. What we should allow, are store and homeowners to defend their property with force if needed.

Corporatism is subset of capitalism.

Corporatism is more akin to socialism than anything.

The problem I see with believing the police are above reproach and should always be obeyed no matter what is that this leads to a very draconian and unsafe situation. I should state, by unsafe, I mean for most of the population. For the ruling class (and you are a fool if you think the ruling class in America is the politicians) and the enforcers(the police), it is a safe and desirable situation whereas they enjoy lording it over all others.

This situation is very much starting to look like shogunate era Japan, IMHO. You have the ruling class Shogunates (The 1%) and the Samurai (Police) who have life and death authority with near no penalty for dealing out death (to the civilian population), even with the lack of questioning as to why.

You see, Shogun era Japan is often romanticized, and Samurai seen as noble defenders of order. The actuality is that they were appointed thugs that kept the population obedient not through skill of arms and bravery, but through acts of terror and constant oppression. To be frank, they could kill any civilian with impunity, and not need any justification.

This is the trend police in America are following, IMHO. They need only a flimsy justification, and some in the legal system seem apologetic they even need to justify their use of lethal force, that their actions, by law, need such a flimsy defense at all. (Look at the Trayvon Martin case. The judge, after the acquittal, actually apologized to Zimmerman that he had to endure the indignity of a trial,(Thus showing conflict of interest) and gave him back his pistol IN COURT) They are not completely there yet, but on their way. Good cops are fired or reassigned to desk jobs, and the thugs get put in the field and promoted to positions of greater authority. Hell, precincts seem to reward cops for bad behavior.

Example...Cop arrests another off duty cop for speeding at speeds over 120 mph, and endangering those in traffic. Her reward? Harassment, and reassignment to a desk job. Has a 500,000 lawsuit in court. Will have to wait and see if she wins the suit.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2556660/Trooper-pulled-120mph-police-officer-sues-500-000-colleagues-harassed-lost-job.html
From the article, Watts, the arresting officer..."Ms Desir said Watts, who had been assigned to road patrol in Broward County, has relocated and is no longer driving a cruiser, but she still works for the Highway Patrol."
So the action to take for a good cop that slipped in the system? Desk job.

So no, I think the authority afforded cops needs to be reigned in, or we will live in an orderly, controlled hell like those that lived in Imperial Japan. Most of us will, at least.

Shilya wrote:

TitanShen wrote:
The poor are getting poorer through corporatism, not capitalism. We've never had capitalism. And we don't need to fund the police more. That just creates things like.. Ferguson. What we should allow, are store and homeowners to defend their property with force if needed.

"It's only capitalism if I like it"? That's not how it works.

As for funding the police more, I suggest diverting funding from neat new toys towards training instead. But you can't show off training like you can show off MRAPs.

No. Corporatism is taxing people, then giving corporations money, with tax payer dollars. Corporatism is creating regulations only corporations can afford to follow. That is not capitalism.

Sheltopolis wrote:

Immoren wrote:
Corporatism is subset of capitalism.

Corporatism is more akin to socialism than anything.

I'm sorry, I think you literally gave me cancer.

TitanShen wrote:

Shilya wrote:
"It's only capitalism if I like it"? That's not how it works.

As for funding the police more, I suggest diverting funding from neat new toys towards training instead. But you can't show off training like you can show off MRAPs.

No. Corporatism is taxing people, then giving corporations money, with tax payer dollars. Corporatism is creating regulations only corporations can afford to follow. That is not capitalism.

Corporate spending/taxing is a net benefit for the state, i.e. more taxes collected than spent on corporations.
Also, no, not only corporations can follow those regulations, and usually those regulations exist for a reason. On top of that, I very much doubt you want pure capitalism. Unless you just don't care what the country looks like 10 years from now.

Blasted Craigs wrote:The problem I see with believing the police are above reproach and should always be obeyed no matter what is that this leads to a very draconian and unsafe situation. I should state, by unsafe, I mean for most of the population. For the ruling class (and you are a fool if you think the ruling class in America is the politicians) and the enforcers(the police), it is a safe and desirable situation whereas they enjoy lording it over all others.

This situation is very much starting to look like shogunate era Japan, IMHO. You have the ruling class Shogunates (The 1%) and the Samurai (Police) who have life and death authority with near no penalty for dealing out death (to the civilian population), even with the lack of questioning as to why.

You see, Shogun era Japan is often romanticized, and Samurai seen as noble defenders of order. The actuality is that they were appointed thugs that kept the population obedient not through skill of arms and bravery, but through acts of terror and constant oppression. To be frank, they could kill any civilian with impunity, and not need any justification.

This is the trend police in America are following, IMHO. They need only a flimsy justification, and some in the legal system seem apologetic they even need to justify their use of lethal force, that their actions, by law, need such a flimsy defense at all. (Look at the Trayvon Martin case. The judge, after the acquittal, actually apologized to Zimmerman that he had to endure the indignity of a trial,(Thus showing conflict of interest) and gave him back his pistol IN COURT) They are not completely there yet, but on their way. Good cops are fired or reassigned to desk jobs, and the thugs get put in the field and promoted to positions of greater authority. Hell, precincts seem to reward cops for bad behavior.

Example...Cop arrests another off duty cop for speeding at speeds over 120 mph, and endangering those in traffic. Her reward? Harassment, and reassignment to a desk job. Has a 500,000 lawsuit in court. Will have to wait and see if she wins the suit.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2556660/Trooper-pulled-120mph-police-officer-sues-500-000-colleagues-harassed-lost-job.html
From the article, Watts, the arresting officer..."Ms Desir said Watts, who had been assigned to road patrol in Broward County, has relocated and is no longer driving a cruiser, but she still works for the Highway Patrol."
So the action to take for a good cop that slipped in the system? Desk job.

So no, I think the authority afforded cops needs to be reigned in, or we will live in an orderly, controlled hell like those that lived in Imperial Japan. Most of us will, at least.

Cops have an unspoken rule. Never rat out another cop.

The Emerald Dawn wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:Without oversight.
Because oversight isn't what Ferguson protesters have been demanding.

I've found that not watching the watchmen is often just as bad as not watching the watchmen's watchmen.

Answer obviously ought be watchmen watching watchmen whole way down. *nods*

TitanShen wrote:

Shilya wrote:
"It's only capitalism if I like it"? That's not how it works.

As for funding the police more, I suggest diverting funding from neat new toys towards training instead. But you can't show off training like you can show off MRAPs.

No. Corporatism is taxing people, then giving corporations money, with tax payer dollars. Corporatism is creating regulations only corporations can afford to follow. That is not capitalism.

Corporatocracy and corporatism are very different things.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Sheltopolis wrote:
Corporatism is more akin to socialism than anything.

I'm sorry, I think you literally gave me cancer.

Good.

Shilya wrote:

TitanShen wrote:
No. Corporatism is taxing people, then giving corporations money, with tax payer dollars. Corporatism is creating regulations only corporations can afford to follow. That is not capitalism.

Corporate spending/taxing is a net benefit for the state, i.e. more taxes collected than spent on corporations.
Also, no, not only corporations can follow those regulations, and usually those regulations exist for a reason. On top of that, I very much doubt you want pure capitalism. Unless you just don't care what the country looks like 10 years from now.

I hope you know we've never had pure capitalism, and anyways. We can't have pure capitalism without ending the evil giant we call the Federal Reserve.

Sheltopolis wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm sorry, I think you literally gave me cancer.

Good.

Okay.

So, how in the Lord Buddha's name is corporatism even tangentially related to socialism?

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Sheltopolis wrote:
Good.

Okay.

So, how in the Lord Buddha's name is corporatism even tangentially related to socialism?

Think about it, redistributing the wealth into the hands of other individuals?

We're all missing out on the bigger picture here. We need to increase funding for police officers and remove laws that bar them from killing citizens. Humans are detrimental to mother nature, and therefore cannot be trusted to remain environmentally friendly. Police could be the solution to this issue. Death squads could work their way from the most environmentally unfriendly people, down until only the most die-hard eco-friendly people remain. Technology like we're using now should be forsaken, and anyone using anything which takes advantage of the environment after the great purge should be executed as well. It's time to return to nature friends, and when we all live in nature, police brutality won't even be a thing anymore. It's the solution to every single problem in the world right now including the police.

TitanShen wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:Okay.

So, how in the Lord Buddha's name is corporatism even tangentially related to socialism?

Think about it, redistributing the wealth into the hands of other individuals?

That is not socialism except in the most meaninglessly broad sense, and it is not done in the goals of socialism.