Did the state make you great?

[Mr Neutron]

Well the guy has a point, government can be intrusive, it does use force, it is very powerful but whenever I encounter someone who has the opinion that government is the only monolithic evil in the universe I get a bit weary. It may be true that government, all governments have been at the root of the most deaths but we can make an argument that companies are a close second. We can argue that corporations have caused great hardship and that hardship was caused with or without the consent or assistance of government.

Those that believe that only government is responsible for the woes of mankind only have it partialy right but those are the ones who are either ideologicaly unwilling or incapable of seeing the entire truth. I mentioned that tobacco companies to this day cause the death of 5 million people a year to say nothing of the cost to society, the cost to the family and the individual and the misery cigarettes cause. For the most part they cause these evils with full knowlege. People have choices but in this country they have choices with regard to government as well.

Government IS the only evil we need to be concerned about and it most certainly is only one of two evils, we have any control over, besides our own.
Evil companies? If that is true then why doesn't our precious nanny state protect us? Companies go along along with the plan or they lose their business.
If government was a manageable size, we wouldn't have these problems.

 

[bedspirit]

Government IS the only evil we need to be concerned about and it most certainly is only one of two evils, we have any control over, besides our own.
Evil companies? If that is true then why doesn't our precious nanny state protect us? Companies go along along with the plan or they lose their business.
If government was a manageable size, we wouldn't have these problems.

If that were true, then companies operating in countries with small non intrusive governments must behave like saints! Do you suppose that's true?

You have to recall that the government didn't become large and intrusive for shits and giggles and, at least in this country, many of those burdensome regulations came about because many companies showed that they wouldn't do the moral thing instead choosing to do the profitable thing. Go back and reread The Jungle from 1906 if you have any doubts about that.

Of course much of that doesn't matter anymore. Now that the largest industries are writing the law through programs like ALEC, lobbying, funding campaigns, or by getting their former execs into government positions, Most of those regulations are there as roadblocks to prevent new businesses from entering the market.

I just happen to read this today: http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/the-global-1-exposing-the-transnational-ruling-class/?utm_source=Media+Freedom+foundation+List&utm_campaign=72cfb80560-Desperate+Times+Demand+Revolutionary+Measures&utm_medium=email It shows how the global elite obtain their wealth and how governments helps them out. The samples used in this article show that it's the companies that drive the corruption and the governments that go along.

 

[ginwilly]

If that were true, then companies operating in countries with small non intrusive countries must behave like saints! Do you suppose that's true?

You have to recall that the government didn't become large and intrusive for shits and giggles and, at least in this country, many of those burdensome regulations came about because many companies showed that they wouldn't do the moral thing instead choosing to do the profitable thing. Go back and reread The Jungle from 1906 if you have any doubts about that.

Of course much of that doesn't matter anymore. Now that the largest industries are writing the law through programs like ALEC, lobbying, funding campaigns, or by getting their former execs into government positions, Most of those regulations are there as roadblocks to prevent new businesses from entering the market.

I just happen to read this today: http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/the-global-1-exposing-the-transnational-ruling-class/?utm_source=Media+Freedom+foundation+List&utm_campaign=72cfb80560-Desperate+Times+Demand+Revolutionary+Measures&utm_medium=email It shows how the global elite obtain their wealth and how governments helps them out. The samples used in this article show that it's the companies that drive the corruption and the governments that go along.

Good post bedspirit. I have theories on why this is and mine revolve around the country's government. Your first question asks why small countries don't have pristine businesses if less intrusive governments are the answer. It still falls on the government as to how businesses act. The good, honest dictators will make sure businesses are on the up and up, the bad, corrupt dictators will operate in their best interests, not the people's, allowing businesses to act in harmful ways as long as they get their cut.

Our government was designed to prevent a dictatorship but as it grows and more power becomes centralized the potential for corruption also grows. I don't think we can ever stop human beings from trying to get mines but we can limit their ability to do so at others expense. The only way, ONLY way, is to limit their power, lately our solution has been to increase that central power. It's counter-intuitive.

 

[ink the world]

You mean Wooster?
How in the fuck do you get Wooster out of worchestire?

And I lived in newport as well
and No Mass drivers take the cake for the worst

In Mass the proper way to make a left turn in traffic is
Pull out in middle of road
wait for oncoming cars to stop because your blocking both lanes
make turn

Born in Lynn, lived in Lawrence when I was younger......thankfully im in Maine now, couldnt pay me to go back.

 

[ChesusRice]

Born in Lynn, lived in Lawrence when I was younger......thankfully im in Maine now, couldnt pay me to go back.

Bizarre. I used to live in bath

 

[ChesusRice]

Born in Lynn, lived in Lawrence when I was younger......thankfully im in Maine now, couldnt pay me to go back.

Bizarre. I used to live in bath

 

[Moses Mobetta]

So with all of it's power, money and influence has the state made you great?

 

[althor]

Well, my thing about this is, anything the government has done for me, I PAID them to do it. They didnt do it for free, or out of generosity, and damned sure not out of a want to help someone. They were paid to do it.

 

[bedspirit]

Good post bedspirit. I have theories on why this is and mine revolve around the country's government. Your first question asks why small countries don't have pristine businesses if less intrusive governments are the answer. It still falls on the government as to how businesses act. The good, honest dictators will make sure businesses are on the up and up, the bad, corrupt dictators will operate in their best interests, not the people's, allowing businesses to act in harmful ways as long as they get their cut.

Our government was designed to prevent a dictatorship but as it grows and more power becomes centralized the potential for corruption also grows. I don't think we can ever stop human beings from trying to get mines but we can limit their ability to do so at others expense. The only way, ONLY way, is to limit their power, lately our solution has been to increase that central power. It's counter-intuitive.

Some people look at politics through the prism of corporate power v state power. You don't want to see a government controlling everything, but you wouldn't want to return to the days of factory towns and rampant pollution either (I think these two things are most common in those countries with few rules regulating business).

It appears to me that our government has executed a major psyop on the american people in an attempt to convince them that this is the choice we have. Dems are supposed to be big gov't and Reps are supposed to be big business. We both know that each side is big on government and big on business. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

The real question is, if you could change it, what would you change it to? How do you prevent tyranny from either big business or big government? I read something about Libertarian Socialism that sounds promising. It's a philosophy that minimizes government (libertarian style), but envisions businesses to be employee owned, sort of like what happened in Argentina after the crash of 2001 as documented in "The Take". That part might be tricky. On one hand I think employees that have a stake in the company would be happier and work harder, but a business owner may be uncomfortable giving up a percentage of control in his business. Of course when a business goes public that happens anyway... I don't know I have to think about that.

 

[ginwilly]

good topic bedspirit and probably deserves it's own thread. I'm for limiting power any man would have over another but the hows are complicated. I'll chew on it a bit and get back to you.

I would think Harley Davidson would be a successful example of employee owned companies.

 

[althor]

Some people look at politics through the prism of corporate power v state power. You don't want to see a government controlling everything, but you wouldn't want to return to the days of factory towns and rampant pollution either (I think these two things are most common in those countries with few rules regulating business).

It appears to me that our government has executed a major psyop on the american people in an attempt to convince them that this is the choice we have. Dems are supposed to be big gov't and Reps are supposed to be big business. We both know that each side is big on government and big on business. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

The real question is, if you could change it, what would you change it to? How do you prevent tyranny from either big business or big government? I read something about Libertarian Socialism that sounds promising. It's a philosophy that minimizes government (libertarian style), but envisions businesses to be employee owned, sort of like what happened in Argentina after the crash of 2001 as documented in "The Take". That part might be tricky. On one hand I think employees that have a stake in the company would be happier and work harder, but a business owner may be uncomfortable giving up a percentage of control in his business. Of course when a business goes public that happens anyway... I don't know I have to think about that.

Its tricky thats for sure. Considering the top 1% pays 30+ percent of the total taxes, government is FORCED to rely on them.
That is also the reason the government was never intended to receive taxes. The federal government was designed to rely on donations from each individual state.

 

[UncleBuck]

Its tricky thats for sure. Considering the top 1% pays 30+ percent of the total taxes, government is FORCED to rely on them.
That is also the reason the government was never intended to receive taxes. The federal government was designed to rely on donations from each individual state.

althor has never heard of the 16th amendment or just chooses to ignore it, just like righties love to do when it conflicts with their ridiculous worldview.

they say they love the constitution until the 14th or 16th or 24th gets in the way.

to GOP clowns like althor, the 2nd amendment is the only one that counts and the first amendment only applies when they want to slut shame women who use birth control pills. people who want to build a mosque where the city has permitted them to build a mosque are NOT covered by the first amendment according to GOP clowns and shills like althor.

 

[althor]

althor has never heard of the 16th amendment or just chooses to ignore it, just like righties love to do when it conflicts with their ridiculous worldview.

they say they love the constitution until the 14th or 16th or 24th gets in the way.

to GOP clowns like althor, the 2nd amendment is the only one that counts and the first amendment only applies when they want to slut shame women who use birth control pills. people who want to build a mosque where the city has permitted them to build a mosque are NOT covered by the first amendment according to GOP clowns and shills like althor.

Why do you have to call names? Does that make you feel superior? I say it all the time, for the love and peace group, you guys sure get volatile fast. Call me names if it makes you feel better. I dont mind being your support. If I can make you feel more like a man, then I volunteer. What are you trying to prove with your amendment talk? What I refered to was the vision they had when things first started, how it changed or adapted after is the way it always does when politics comes into play. The vision was a federal government that relied upon the state. Now you can get all mad and upset and cry and call names and pat yourself on the back for it, but it doesnt change anything except a small man feeling bigger. Good job, Mr.MAN.

 

[UncleBuck]

Why do you have to call names? Does that make you feel superior? I say it all the time, for the love and peace group, you guys sure get volatile fast. Call me names if it makes you feel better. I dont mind being your support. If I can make you feel more like a man, then I volunteer. What are you trying to prove with your amendment talk? What I refered to was the vision they had when things first started, how it changed or adapted after is the way it always does when politics comes into play. The vision was a federal government that relied upon the state. Now you can get all mad and upset and cry and call names and pat yourself on the back for it, but it doesnt change anything except a small man feeling bigger. Good job, Mr.MAN.

i never called you any name, i said clowns and shills LIKE you. i was talking about your peers who also espouse this "i know what the founders wanted better than you do" malarkey.

you sure are sensitive about it though, so i get the feeling i must have hit pretty close to home.

i guess we know who likes to get "all and upset and cry and call names", it was the small man trying to feel bigger. good job, althor. you big man you.

 

[althor]

Haha funny, clowns LIKE althor.... but I didnt call anyone names....

haha this is some of the funniest stuff I have seen in weeks. Thanks for the entertainment.

 

[UncleBuck]

Haha funny, clowns LIKE althor.... but I didnt call anyone names....

haha this is some of the funniest stuff I have seen in weeks. Thanks for the entertainment.

you could prove me wrong, by telling me what's wrong with my rebuttal to your nonsense, but that's not what you're doing.

c'mon bro, tell me why you know the founding fathers' intentions better than anyone else.

maybe you could also clue us in as to how they liked their blowjobs. did they like it best when you cup their balls? make lots of eye contact? was it better if it was a slave? or did they like to make slaves watch their wives suck their cocks?

these are the real questions that will tell us the true will and intention of the founding fathers that you claim to have the ultimate knowledge of.

 

[bedspirit]

Its tricky thats for sure. Considering the top 1% pays 30+ percent of the total taxes, government is FORCED to rely on them.
That is also the reason the government was never intended to receive taxes. The federal government was designed to rely on donations from each individual state.

Gotta correct you there. The federal government was funded by tariffs. The Tariff Act of 1789 was the first national source of revenue for the United States. Our founders were definitely not a bunch of free trading neoliberals.

Where did you get that bit about the Federal Government being funded by donations? Was that part of the Continental Congress or something? I've never heard of that.

Also the government is going to tax wealth regardless of who has it. It's almost as though you're arguing that the gov't is justified in representing the interest of the 1% because they pay more in taxes. The 1% represents only 1% of the vote, so I doubt very much their contributions to the revenue mean much to any politician. On the other hand, contributions to the campaign means an awful lot.

 

[UncleBuck]

Gotta correct you there. The federal government was funded by tariffs. The Tariff Act of 1789 was the first national source of revenue for the United States. Our founders were definitely not a bunch of free trading neoliberals.

Where did you get that bit about the Federal Government being funded by donations? Was that part of the Continental Congress or something? I've never heard of that.

Also the government is going to tax wealth regardless of who has it. It's almost as though you're arguing that the gov't is justified in representing the interest of the 1% because they pay more in taxes. The 1% represents only 1% of the vote, so I doubt very much their contributions to the revenue mean much to any politician. On the other hand, contributions to the campaign means an awful lot.

you're wrong and althor is correct because he gave the founding fathers better head and knows what they wanted better based upon assertion alone.

 

[boneheadbob]

Its tricky thats for sure. Considering the top 1% pays 30+ percent of the total taxes, government is FORCED to rely on them.
That is also the reason the government was never intended to receive taxes. The federal government was designed to rely on donations from each individual state.

The federal goverment ran off tariffs from imports.

 

[beenthere]

Its tricky thats for sure. Considering the top 1% pays 30+ percent of the total taxes, government is FORCED to rely on them.
That is also the reason the government was never intended to receive taxes. The federal government was designed to rely on donations from each individual state.

With all due respect to everyone that's given their two cents on althors comment, all of you are venturing away from the point he was making.

It doesn't matter if the federal government was funded by tariffs or that the constitution was amended.
His statement stands on it's own, the constitution was originally written so the federal government had the powers to collect taxes from individual states and not from it's citizens.