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

[Wirbel]

Newsflash: being poor sucks, no one wants to be poor.

The way out of that is to get work.

And Education provides better work. But again, if I refer to the Malthusian Trap, when mass use of intelligent robots everywhere to replace manual labor appears, we will be free of the trap. Masses of resources at no cost! just give someone a few of the robots and they can gather mass resources for themselves- and create more robotic workers. I mean, everyone could have an army of people with no feelings to command.

[Miss Defied]

The way out of that is to get work.

And Education provides better work. But again, if I refer to the Malthusian Trap, when mass use of intelligent robots everywhere to replace manual labor appears, we will be free of the trap. Masses of resources at no cost! just give someone a few of the robots and they can gather mass resources for themselves- and create more robotic workers. I mean, everyone could have an army of people with no feelings to command.

What makes you think there would be no cost?

[Blakk Metal]

Source?

Easy, by being exceptionally large and having large amounts of money. It's inevitable that they will crush anyone that tries to compete.

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.

OMG! You're psychic!

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

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

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

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

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

ANSWER THE FRIGGIN' QUESTION FOR ONCE!

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?"

Mavorpen, how do you have an "exceptionally large" company with "large amounts of money" without pleasing any kind of customer. You've got to get up there first... And also, if you are rich, how do you stay rich if your customers hate you and don't buy anything from you?

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.

1: coercively.

2: expensively.

3. secretly.

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

Well, it industrialized faster than pretty much any nation in history. But yes, in order to do this famine ensued. I don't see what this has to do with anything.

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 101: In a communist society, there is no government. Period. Stalin and the USSR were not communist. They were either state capitalist, fascist or socialist depending from where you look at them.

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.

[Mavorpen]

Omg... this is like the 5th time a page has been broken.

[El Pescado Frio]

What I don't understand is why everybody says that the government is separate from the people. In America, anyway.

Newsflash: being poor sucks, no one wants to be poor.

The way out of that is to get work.

Oh, and so unemployment isn't a PROBLEM, everybody who doesn't have a job just DOESN'T WANT ONE, I guess. Is that what you're saying?

[Liriena]

Omg... this is like the 5th time a page has been broken.

I blame liberals.

[Wirbel]

Omg... this is like the 5th time a page has been broken.

I blame liberals.

?

[Miss Defied]

Omg... this is like the 5th time a page has been broken.

Isnt it the quote tags? I finally fixed mine from a few pages ago.

[Liriena]

What I don't understand is why everybody says that the government is separate from the people. In America, anyway.

The way out of that is to get work.

Oh, and so unemployment isn't a PROBLEM, everybody who doesn't have a job just DOESN'T WANT ONE, I guess. Is that what you're saying?

Either that or, as someone on line with Wirbel's line of thought said, there's no jobs BECAUSE of the government's intervention in the economy...which would only make sense if...you know...reality didn't prove otherwise.

[Silent Majority]

I think someone's nesting their quotes and spoilers wrong again, the thread is all messed up.

[Wirbel]

What I don't understand is why everybody says that the government is separate from the people. In America, anyway.

The way out of that is to get work.

Oh, and so unemployment isn't a PROBLEM, everybody who doesn't have a job just DOESN'T WANT ONE, I guess. Is that what you're saying?

No. We just need to increase the amount of jobs.

[Wirbel]

What I don't understand is why everybody says that the government is separate from the people. In America, anyway.

Oh, and so unemployment isn't a PROBLEM, everybody who doesn't have a job just DOESN'T WANT ONE, I guess. Is that what you're saying?

Either that or, as someone on line with Wirbel's line of thought said, there's no jobs BECAUSE of the government's intervention in the economy...which would only make sense if...you know...reality didn't prove otherwise.

Proof? (Does not have to be a source)

[Liriena]

I blame liberals.

?

Oh...didn't I tell you? I'm actually conservative mirroring Colbert's method

Nah, I just love satirizing the good old method of "something random happens, blame your enemy".

Similar to "Blame Canada", "Blame Clarin", "Blame the loss of traditional Christian values", "Blame the liberal media"

[Mavorpen]

Either that or, as someone on line with Wirbel's line of thought said, there's no jobs BECAUSE of the government's intervention in the economy...which would only make sense if...you know...reality didn't prove otherwise.

Proof? (Does not have to be a source)

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/did-th ... eate-jobs/

[Liriena]

Either that or, as someone on line with Wirbel's line of thought said, there's no jobs BECAUSE of the government's intervention in the economy...which would only make sense if...you know...reality didn't prove otherwise.

Proof? (Does not have to be a source)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-38042869/record-corporate-profits-still-no-jobs/

[El Pescado Frio]

What I don't understand is why everybody says that the government is separate from the people. In America, anyway.

Oh, and so unemployment isn't a PROBLEM, everybody who doesn't have a job just DOESN'T WANT ONE, I guess. Is that what you're saying?

No. We just need to increase the amount of jobs.

Well, go ahead. Fine by me. But that philosophy borders fascism. Keep in mind that the only countries in history to not have an unemployment rate were Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Not that I care.

[Wirbel]

?

Oh...didn't I tell you? I'm actually conservative mirroring Colbert's method

Nah, I just love satirizing the good old method of "something random happens, blame your enemy".

Similar to "Blame Canada", "Blame Clarin", "Blame the loss of traditional Christian values", "Blame the liberal media"

Sometimes you have to blame the right person. In some cases, you even have to accept that you are the one to blame.

And why would you randomly "um... well I blame bob!" in the middle of an argument?

The coding is not due to Liberals, unless Max Barry is a Liberal. But even then, you can only blame Max Barry- or whoever wrote the BBCode in that specific post.

And no, I'm not buying it. You definitely are not a conservative.

[Wirbel]

May I ask why the US has always been the richest nation in the world if capitalism has failed?

[Wirbel]

May I ask why the US has always been the richest nation in the world if capitalism has failed?

Okay, not always... But most of the time.

[Mavorpen]

May I ask why the US has always been the richest nation in the world if capitalism has failed?

Because the government invested heavily in R&D early on.

[El Pescado Frio]

May I ask why the US has always been the richest nation in the world if capitalism has failed?

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?

[Wirbel]

May I ask why the US has always been the richest nation in the world if capitalism has failed?

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?

[Wirbel]

May I ask why the US has always been the richest nation in the world if capitalism has failed?

Because the government invested heavily in R&D early on.

What R&D early on?

[The UK in Exile]

May I ask why the US has always been the richest nation in the world if capitalism has failed?

oh, oh! pick me!

ummmm. is it because of its huge bounties of natural resources and space, situated in a temperate climate zone with unparalleled access to both the pacific and the atlantic ocean, presided over by a culturally homogeneous unifed colonial government that happened to be formed just after all the warring natives died in a plague?

it is?!

[Blakk Metal]

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?

Most of the world.