Heard an Interesting POV...

[Padawanbater2]

Basically the argument was "if we shrink government, something will inevitably take it's place to 'fill the void' so to speak, and in the United States, it would be powerful corporations with massive profits (power)".

Just wondering opinions/thoughts on this?

 

[beardo]

These corperations you speak of derive their power from that same big govt-
A small govt could help equal the playing feild between small buisness and huge corps

 

[Padawanbater2]

These corperations you speak of derive their power from that same big govt-
A small govt could help equal the playing feild between small buisness and huge corps

I would think the giant corporations derive their power directly from profits. So a corporation like Walmart for instance would have an enormous amount of power/influence over the population with less government regulation. The argument being at least with government, the representatives are voted into office by their constituents and serve terms with limits as opposed to CEO's strictly concerned with profits with no term limits. I think the problem is that essentially the same thing has happened already, it's just an illusion to most of the American public. Corporations do run our government by way of 'political contributions' and lobbying.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

It wouldn't necessarily be corporations, but syndicates. Right now collusion and dumping are kept to a relative minimum, compared to what could be. It would be like what happened in Steinbeck's, "The Pearl," novella. Every pearl buyer gave an extreme low ball for the gigantic pearl. There will only be one ruling class with 100% of the econony's money. It doesn't matter if even no money is exchanged and a pure left anarchy. There will be a means of wealth measurement. Capitalist, socialist, communist. Doesn't matter. We'll always have the elite. Jesus got it half right. The poor will always be with us. It doesn't matter if the basics are provided for nearly all. Do you want all poor who serve one master in pure socialism or communism. Or do you want to be the lesser master of some too?

 

[beardo]

I agree with most of your post but would point out
If you try to compete with walmart you will need to follow 1000 rules or else wallmart will have the govt shut you down- they regulate and subsidise untill your small buisness cant compete.
What if you wanted to start frying chicken and selling it? Why should you not be able to compete?

 

[Canna Sylvan]

I was talking about anarchy conditions like the OP asked. It's not that the corporations would be government, but would influence society more. Like you said, it would be very hard to compete with Walmart. But how can Walmart get government to shut you down if there's no government. It's very easy to shut you down. How do you get supplies if everyone else buys it first? No conspiracies or regulations galore needed. We're a social species. You can't lock yourself out forever from society.

 

[Padawanbater2]

It wouldn't necessarily be corporations, but syndicates. Right now collusion and dumping are kept to a relative minimum, compared to what could be. It would be like what happened in Steinbeck's, "The Pearl," novella. Every pearl buyer gave an extreme low ball for the gigantic pearl. There will only be one ruling class with 100% of the econony's money. It doesn't matter if even no money is exchanged and a pure left anarchy. There will be a means of wealth measurement. Capitalist, socialist, communist. Doesn't matter. We'll always have the elite. Jesus got it half right. The poor will always be with us. It doesn't matter if the basics are provided for nearly all. Do you want all poor who serve one master in pure socialism or communism. Or do you want to be the lesser master of some too?

Is there a more efficient system of trade? Economics? Are social classes inevitable in such a society? Could the system of economics be based on need/right instead of supply/demand? If there is enough to go around and more for everyone, is it wrong to supply even those that can't or don't care to or are incapable of because of any underlying circumstances with shelter/food/basic living materials?

I agree with most of your post but would point out
If you try to compete with walmart you will need to follow 1000 rules or else wallmart will have the govt shut you down- they regulate and subsidise untill your small buisness cant compete.
What if you wanted to start frying chicken and selling it? Why should you not be able to compete without jumping through hoops?

Exactly, the government is essentially run by corporations via indirect 'campaign contributions', this is bullshit, it's unamerican and contrary to the American public's interest.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Padawan,

Even if we share, only one person can be in possession of a particular at any one time. Human nature wants more. You always compare youself to others. It could be you want to be with another woman. We could share her, but what if all want her? How much you have her compared to others becomes like a game. It will be like that for food, dress and all other entertainment. Humans love games. There will always be games and a score. There will always be the one with the most points. People will figure out a new game unless someone makes new ones for you.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Padawan,

Even if we share, only one person can be in possession of a particular at any one time. Human nature wants more. You always compare youself to others. It could be you want to be with another woman. We could share her, but what if all want her? How much you have her compared to others becomes like a game. It will be like that for food, dress and all other entertainment. Humans love games. There will always be games and a score. There will always be the one with the most points. People will figure out a new game unless someone makes new ones for you.

I disagree with this premise. I've taught myself to look past the 'games' people play. It's about surivial, comfort, technology, society, intelligence, a whole host of different variables when it comes to people (as a species) survival. Like I said before, if I have twice as much as I need to survive, and a fellow human being doesn't have enough to survive, I don't mind giving the extra I have to him to survive. I feel this is a natural human right, none of us should be comfortable with hoarding that which we don't need to excel in social or economic status. That's what's bullshit. I'll gladly give my neighbor the shirt off my back so long as I have my undershirt to keep warm. Call it hippy shit, call it whatever, this is what I feel is morally, the right thing to do.

Humanity as a whole's priorities are fucked up right now. We'll gladly pay to kill people but bitch to no ends about helping or feeding people. Amazes me everyday..

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Padawan,

Problem is, all humans don't have morality. Those that do, conflict with society as a whole. The only way to deal with this, sadly, is have opposing sides constantly battling and hoping some compromise between the conservatives, liberals and the fringe wack jobs like us results in something tolerable. You play the game no matter which choices you make. The elite already have moves figured out which beat you.

 

[Coals]

I don't know how to regulate human morality. I wish it were that easy.

I do however think that things in general would be a lot better if we owned our own money. I think the government must have complete control of the money system on behalf of the people.
The government must be able to create it's own money and give it to the people at cost.

There is no logical reason to allow a group of private individuals to have a monopoly on currency creation.

 

[deprave]

Well the corporations are already in power. The government enables the private sector to be stronger and create these super corporations with its regulations and eliminating the free market.

There really is two powers that go against humanity in my view as a left libertarian and that is the private sector AND the goverment. The republicans argue more for the private sector while the Democrats argue for government. So they want you to think these are the only two options. No there is a third option...The People...Humanity. The issues of Private Sector and Government must be tackled separately....To group it into one problem is foolish. I am in favor of shrinking both of them a peg or two. I say we start with government which is the most overbearing and the most powerful.

Shrinking government will not create some sort of doomsday scenario where the corporate reins supreme, hell, we are living in that scenario now..but it would free up the markets...We do have anti-trust, fraud, and other laws that keep corporations from doing too much harm.

 

[NoDrama]

Shrink the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, the state government would probably grow to take up the slack, not big corporations.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Shrink the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, the state government would probably grow to take up the slack, not big corporations.

How would you realistically implement this though? What would the Federal governments role be?

 

[deprave]

The statist answer to that is that the federal governments role is to protect our country from outside threats and something else which escapes me at the moment.

Why are we so quick to jump to solutions before examining the problem? We must examine the problem first. You can't look for a cure without first examining the disease. The only way to logically answer such a query is to examine each issue piece by piece instead of simply saying to "Shrink The Government". We all know in our heart of hearts that governments are inherently evil so lets examine why they are evil. This is what you must ask yourself.

To say simply "Shrink the government" I believe is over simplifying things so lets discuss that.

Again, There is two forces which work against humanity in this world, those are Private Sector and Government. The root of these evils are......Money

To advocate one over the other is fool hearted.

 

[Coals]

I think we should also try Capitalism. We haven't been a Capitalistic country for about 100 years.

 

[NoDrama]

How would you realistically implement this though? What would the Federal governments role be?

Defend nation, uphold citizens rights, enforce contracts. pretty easy.

 

[NLXSK1]

How would you realistically implement this though? What would the Federal governments role be?

Oh gee... Maybe we could find that info in the constitution...

The powers of the federal government were specifically limited by that document. The commerce clause has been the tool that the feds used to get their fingers into everything.

 

[Coals]

Defend nation, uphold citizens rights, enforce contracts. pretty easy.

and create money for the country? Seriously I think this is the biggest single issue. He who controls the money, controls the world. We have to admit that buying our money, with interest, thus perpetuating debt for eternity IS FUCKING INSANE.

 

[Terms]

Anyone read the Book "the grapes of Wrath"?
or at least seen the movie?

This is basically what Small goverment looks like