Protest Against Taxes!!!!!

[Carthage]

Agreed. One could also call it Corporatism, I find it very close to what Carthage is advocating,

No, corpratism is not what I am advocating. Corporations will have no political power. The government has a full monopoly on that. Corporations merely have economic power, and only economic power.

 

[Carthage]

THis is actually reffered to as "Facism" not "Capitalism".

Fascism is when there is an enormous GOVERNMENT that interferes in the private lives of citizens for the "greater good" or the dictator's good, is unelected, rules by force rather then consent, is usually based on some sort of national supremacy, and allows for no political freedoms. That is a political system - I am advocating an economic system, and it isn't corporatism, it's capitalism.

If anyone wants to really get a full view of what I'm getting at, read "CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL" by Ayn Rand.

 

[Carthage]

Oh and corporations are in it for the common good of the people, they are only in it to make money. Nothing is stopping them from just not caring about the people.

...okay. But that's not the point. The point is that society will be much better off if the Corporations and buisnesses have the economic power while the Government has the political power, instead of one crossing over the other. Weather or not the corporation cares about the common people is irrelevant; as long as they provide for us and we pay their services and products, everything's fine. They don't need to care about us, just our money.
If they're smart, they'll donate to the Government so that the Government has enough military power to protect them from rule by a mob.

 

[Carthage]

I do think the government needs to reduce the number of times it puts its hands in the cookie jar, but you cannot remove the government completely.

I never said we should. Just get rid of the taxes.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Originally Posted by Peter Parka
Yup! carthage the die hard Republican is actually an anarchist!

The term is minarchist.

Is that something like antichrist?

 

[Carthage]

Is that something like antichrist?

No, it's Greek for minimal government.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

No, it's Greek for minimal government.

Ok thanks. Was the christ thing-a-me-jigs was throwing me off.

 

[Meirionnydd]

No, corpratism is not what I am advocating. Corporations will have no political power. The government has a full monopoly on that. Corporations merely have economic power, and only economic power.

Corporations have political leverage today, and thats before you get rid of taxes and give corporations ALL the economic power. WHICH ISN'T A GOOD THING.

Why do you think what will happen when corporations control the economy of a nation, do you think they will even listen to the government? They wouldn't even care about breaking the law, because they could always pay the fine.

Absolute power, corrupts absolutely

If anyone wants to really get a full view of what I'm getting at, read "CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL" by Ayn Rand.

Maybe you should read ' The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power ' by Joel Bakan

...okay. But that's not the point. The point is that society will be much better off if the Corporations and buisnesses have the economic power while the Government has the political power, instead of one crossing over the other.

I am taken aback by the ignorance of this statement. Life would not be better off with the system you are advocating. Lets just say for an example, A bill was being proposed in parliament that would increase the minimum wage for workers. This bill would be unfavourable to the corporations as it would lower profits. So these corporations might 'donate' some money to a political party or MP to make sure that their interests are looked after and this bill doesn't get passed. Well... The bill doesn't pass, corporations keep expoliting workers, the government get some money. Everybody is happy... expect the public that is.

Weather or not the corporation cares about the common people is irrelevant; as long as they provide for us and we pay their services and products, everything's fine. They don't need to care about us, just our money.

Well, its quite relevant actually.. See, I would want a Police Officer to actually CARE about my safety because he is working for the public good, not by how much money I put in his pocket.

If they're smart, they'll donate to the Government so that the Government has enough military power to protect them from rule by a mob.

I lol'd

Oh... and how would the poor and disadvantaged live in your kind of world?... 'I can't pay for Healthcare, Police Services, Fire Services and Education for my children because they are all owned by private corporations and charge fees which are too expensive for me to afford'... So is it like, 'Your too poor, go and get fucked' or something like that?

 

[Carthage]

Why do you think what will happen when corporations control the economy of a nation, do you think they will even listen to the government? They wouldn't even care about breaking the law, because they could always pay the fine.

Absolute power, corrupts absolutely

They will be tried and judged the same way all other criminals are. And because everyone will be earning so much money, we'd have eliminate the bail.

I am taken aback by the ignorance of this statement. Life would not be better off with the system you are advocating. Lets just say for an example, A bill was being proposed in parliament that would increase the minimum wage for workers. This bill would be unfavourable to the corporations as it would lower profits. So these corporations might 'donate' some money to a political party or MP to make sure that their interests are looked after and this bill doesn't get passed. Well... The bill doesn't pass, corporations keep expoliting workers, the government get some money. Everybody is happy... expect the public that is.

The point is, when the Government can't pass any laws affecting corporation's use of profit, then they would have no need to buy off a MP because that law wouldn't even be able to be brought up! So the corps don't get any swing, because the laws aren't affecting them.

Well, its quite relevant actually.. See, I would want a Police Officer to actually CARE about my safety because he is working for the public good, not by how much money I put in his pocket.

So you would ask a police officer to put his life on the line, for no payment, to save you? That's horrible. No one should ever have to sacrifice themselves for another without some payment.

I lol'd

Oh... and how would the poor and disadvantaged live in your kind of world?... 'I can't pay for Healthcare, Police Services, Fire Services and Education for my children because they are all owned by private corporations and charge fees which are too expensive for me to afford'... So is it like, 'Your too poor, go and get fucked' or something like that?

The only disadvantaged and poor would be would be those that didn't try - and are you telling me that we should give our hard earned money to people who aren't even going to try and succeed? Those who are temporarily disadvantaged will be helped by those who do have the money - charity. Those who are physically/mentally disadvantaged will be helped by charity, until our freed scientific institutions can come up with cures.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

So you would ask a police officer to put his life on the line, for no payment, to save you? That's horrible. No one should ever have to sacrifice themselves for another without some payment.

Moot point. That would be his job as it stands. His career choice for which he/she is getting paid.

 

[Carthage]

Moot point. That would be his job as it stands. His career choice for which he/she is getting paid.

Exactly, he's geting paid. We would never ask him to do it without payment.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Exactly, he's geting paid. We would never ask him to do it without payment.

So what's your point with having policemen working for corporations instead? Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[Carthage]

So what's your point with having policemen working for corporations instead? Or am I misunderstanding you?

The policemen won't be working for corps, they'll be working for the gov't, but they'll still be working for pay.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

The policemen won't be working for corps, they'll be working for the gov't, but they'll still be working for pay.

Well it's what it is right now so no sense changing it.

 

[Carthage]

Well it's what it is right now so no sense changing it.

When did I say I would?

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

When did I say I would?

Blond moment. I must be mixing you up with another member who said private corporation should be in charge of such things. My bad.

 

[Meirionnydd]

They will be tried and judged the same way all other criminals are. And because everyone will be earning so much money, we'd have eliminate the bail.

Everyone earning so much money?.... Or just corporate CEO's and exectives?

The point is, when the Government can't pass any laws affecting corporation's use of profit, then they would have no need to buy off a MP because that law wouldn't even be able to be brought up! So the corps don't get any swing, because the laws aren't affecting them.

lol, thats actually worse then isn't it? I thought the government was there to help the people. Again, your giving corporations tremendious power here, if laws regarding their use of profit can't even be brought up. That means that corporations could pay their workers $1.50 an hour and get away with it, since increasing wages would affect their profit margin.

So you would ask a police officer to put his life on the line, for no payment, to save you? That's horrible. No one should ever have to sacrifice themselves for another without some payment.

I think you have misunderstood my statement.

I am slightly confused now... before you were saying that corporations should run everything. Now your saying that the police force should be run by the governement. Just asking, how is that force going to be funded?

The only disadvantaged and poor would be would be those that didn't try - and are you telling me that we should give our hard earned money to people who aren't even going to try and succeed? Those who are temporarily disadvantaged will be helped by those who do have the money - charity. Those who are physically/mentally disadvantaged will be helped by charity, until our freed scientific institutions can come up with cures.

I don't know about you, but since I come from a 'low-socioeconomic' area. I tend to have more sympathy for the poor and disadvantaged than you. Regardless, There needs to be a GOVERNEMENT welfare system in place to ensure these people aren't starving to death or living under a bridge. Charities can only do so much, are you saying that they would have the ability to provide welfare for everyone that needed it?

And you are advocating corpratism by the way. When you give corporations all this power they will either directly or in indirectly weild great infulence over any civil administration, which will certainly affect the policies of the governing power.

 

[Carthage]

Everyone earning so much money?.... Or just corporate CEO's and exectives?

Everyone, regardless of weather or not they even earn money. Objective Law.

lol, thats actually worse then isn't it? I thought the government was there to help the people. Again, your giving corporations tremendious power here, if laws regarding their use of profit can't even be brought up. That means that corporations could pay their workers $1.50 an hour and get away with it, since increasing wages would affect their profit margin.

No, the government is there to enforce laws and certain rules of social conduct. And the corporations would be in full power to pay a worker 1.50 an hour, if his work is worth that much. If it isn't, then the worker will just leave the job and get one that pays him what he deserves.

I think you have misunderstood my statement.

I am slightly confused now... before you were saying that corporations should run everything. Now your saying that the police force should be run by the governement. Just asking, how is that force going to be funded?

No, the corporations/buisnesses should have exclusive economic power. The government is to have a monopoly on the use of Force.

I don't know about you, but since I come from a 'low-socioeconomic' area. I tend to have more sympathy for the poor and disadvantaged than you. Regardless, There needs to be a GOVERNEMENT welfare system in place to ensure these people aren't starving to death or living under a bridge. Charities can only do so much, are you saying that they would have the ability to provide welfare for everyone that needed it?

I grew up with the poor and disadvantaged, and I have little sympathy, true. There need be no government welfare in place - that is forcing those who produce to pay for those who don't. Would you like me to come up to you, stick a gun to your head, and force you to put money in the Salvation Army bucket? If you support taxes for welfare programs, it's the same thing. Charities will have the ability to provide for all those suffering, because when there is no ore social welfare, so many people that THOUGHT they couldn't work will discover they can, and charities will have an enormous surplus of money.

And you are advocating corpratism by the way. When you give corporations all this power they will either directly or in indirectly weild great infulence over any civil administration, which will certainly affect the policies of the governing power.

No, it won't. The corporations will have no need, and no want. They have all the money they could use, and their buisnesses are free. And I sincerely doubt that government officials in a laissez faire system would fall to that kind of pressure from buisnesses. When they could be earning millions for profit, why would they run for office unless they really wished to be responsible politicians? And Those corporations and politicians who try and violate the division between economics and politics will be punished severely for putting they integrity of our noble system at risk.

 

[Meirionnydd]

Everyone, regardless of weather or not they even earn money. Objective Law.
[/size]

So no bail?.. for any crime?... seems abit.... well, weird

No, the government is there to enforce laws and certain rules of social conduct. And the corporations would be in full power to pay a worker 1.50 an hour, if his work is worth that much. If it isn't, then the worker will just leave the job and get one that pays him what he deserves.

Uhm no, the government is there to represent the people and ensure their best interests are looked after. If issues such as the minimun wage can't even be brought up, then it isn't even a free society. Have you ever thought how much damage 'your system' would do to democratic system?

Corporations need to be regulated and controlled. You give them this much power they will certainly abuse it. Give corporations the power to set wages to whatever the hell they like, and soon all workers will be earning $1.50 an hour and the only people to profit from this gross expolitaion of workers will bt the higher-up's in the company. Is that the kind of system you want, where there people are expolited for their labor by greedy corporations whose only objective is profit, no matter what the cost to the public. There will be no need for sweatshops in Asia or South America, they could simply set up shop at home.

No, the corporations/buisnesses should have exclusive economic power. The government is to have a monopoly on the use of Force.

How can you maintain a monopoly on the use of force when another entity has controls the economy? Can't really enforce anything if you don't have any money.

I grew up with the poor and disadvantaged, and I have little sympathy, true. There need be no government welfare in place - that is forcing those who produce to pay for those who don't. Would you like me to come up to you, stick a gun to your head, and force you to put money in the Salvation Army bucket? If you support taxes for welfare programs, it's the same thing.

I think there needs to be one. People need to be looked after if they are unable to do it themselves. It is kinda difficult for these 'poor and lazy people' as you would call it to get a job if they are struggling to find shelter and feed themselves. The poor and disadvantaged need all the support possible in order to get employment and eventually contribute back to society.

I disagree with your comparision too. But I think your system would benefit from these kinds of people. People who are poor and disadvantaged are expolited more easily .

Charities will have the ability to provide for all those suffering, because when there is no ore social welfare, so many people that THOUGHT they couldn't work will discover they can, and charities will have an enormous surplus of money.

Alright, I'll give you an example here. 1 in 4 US veterans are currently homeless (source: Study: Vets a quarter of the homeless - Military - MSNBC.com) using your logic, these people are lazy and deserve NO government support, they would have to rely on charities which don't always have the funds to do so. (at least government welfare programs will always be able to support its citizens). When talking about people, you cannot stereotype an entire group as 'lazy etc.' as there are always expections. If people have the eventual ability to lead happy and comfortable lives whilst currently in poverty, they should get all the help they need. Does it make you feel superior to others more disadvantaged than you when you pass them in the street?

No, it won't. The corporations will have no need, and no want. They have all the money they could use, and their buisnesses are free. And I sincerely doubt that government officials in a laissez faire system would fall to that kind of pressure from buisnesses. When they could be earning millions for profit, why would they run for office unless they really wished to be responsible politicians? And Those corporations and politicians who try and violate the division between economics and politics will be punished severely for putting they integrity of our noble system at risk.

You think that corporations will be happy with just having all the economic power? They would have the ability to control an entire country if they so wished and with that they could crush all dissent towards them and futher impose their will on the populace. Which might increase profits, who knows?

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Originally Posted by Meirionnydd I think you have misunderstood my statement.

I am slightly confused now... before you were saying that corporations should run everything. Now your saying that the police force should be run by the governement. Just asking, how is that force going to be funded?

Ohhhh. So I wasn't going crazy. It WAS Carthage who said that then.

No, the corporations/buisnesses should have exclusive economic power. The government is to have a monopoly on the use of Force.

Ahhh, but you still haven't answered the million dollar question Carthage...."how is that force going to be funded?"
opcorn2: