• 150 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#51 Edited by bybeach (4725 posts) -

@ninjakiller said:

@RsistncE said:

@Animasta said:

@RsistncE said:

@Turambar said:

@McGhee said:

Social Security is all ready screwed. The money they claim is being put away for your retirement is being spent.

And where do they get off thinking they have the right to take my money and save it on my behalf? I would imagine Ron Paul believes that people should be able to do what they want with their money.

Because you live in the country and your income is bound by the tax code that governs it. Where do you get off thinking that they don't have the right to take a portion of your money and spend it? You might not like it but they have every right to it as long as you live here.

At this rate we can also say the government has the right to do whatever it pleases simply because they hold the largest stick. Governments can go fuck themselves; I made my money, no one else has any right to it whatsoever.

yeah I hate old and disabled people too! WOO

"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Forcing an individual to live for the sake of another is so morally objectionable that I nearly vomit just thinking about.

Please tell me you're a Christian. I need a laugh.

I bet you he is more honest than that.. in intent at any rate. But I very clearly understand you. I've seen it so many times before with ppl. blatantly wanting and calling it both ways. For a good number of reasons and situations, laws and so on.

I should say I like Ron Paul. More than his son actually. I would not vote for him. But lately I'm disturbed, not because of my latent conservative or even not so suppressed Libertarian views, but actually my worry that Obama's just plain falling into line with the republocrat status quo. His big contribution was health care, and we for example still got Gitmo. I understand some things..but I am not feeling the contrast.

I tell you I like Ron Paul?

#52 Posted by TruthTellah (8534 posts) -

@MariachiMacabre said:

@CookieMonster said:

What the fuck kind of name is Mitt?

Especially with a reputation like his, you'd think he would have changed it by now.

To be fair, his first name is actually Willard. His parents and friends called him by his more informal middle name "Mitt" and he's always stuck by that instead.

#53 Posted by Rudyftw (554 posts) -

Ron Paul isn't stupid. He want's to slowly shift America into a place where Americans don't need to rely in SS and Welfare. Theres no way he's just going to take it all away. Also, just in case Ron Paul is batshit crazy afterall, we have congress to stop him. Im still voting for the guy. FUCK Obama Osama.

#54 Posted by buzz_killington (3532 posts) -

He thinks that social security is totally fucked, because the value of the dollar is spiraling down while the amount received by seniors stays the same. He wants to fix the inflation, and then cut military spending to help stabilize social security. I really hope Ron Paul was more electable. Unless Romney gets hit by a sex scandal or something, I'm afraid Paul is not getting the nod.

#55 Posted by mandude (2669 posts) -

Nice try, OBAMA.

#56 Edited by RsistncE (4496 posts) -

@Ihmishylje said:

@RsistncE said:

"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Forcing an individual to live for the sake of another is so morally objectionable that I nearly vomit just thinking about.

Yeah, it's pretty morally objectionable to help those in need.

No where did I say it was objectionable to help other people. I said it was objectionable to FORCE people to help other people. Reading comprehension is your friend.

@Turambar said:

@RsistncE said:

@Turambar said:

@McGhee said:

Social Security is all ready screwed. The money they claim is being put away for your retirement is being spent.

And where do they get off thinking they have the right to take my money and save it on my behalf? I would imagine Ron Paul believes that people should be able to do what they want with their money.

Because you live in the country and your income is bound by the tax code that governs it. Where do you get off thinking that they don't have the right to take a portion of your money and spend it? You might not like it but they have every right to it as long as you live here.

At this rate we can also say the government has the right to do whatever it pleases simply because they hold the largest stick. Governments can go fuck themselves; I made my money, no one else has any right to it whatsoever.

Say hi to the IRS or whatever counterpart Canada has when they come haul you in for tax evasion then. Also, I have absolutely no issue with saying that the Government can indeed give itself the right to do anything it wants to because it has a monopoly on violence. Should or should not is a non factor in this question as can or cannot is the only thing that matters here.

...

You're honestly telling me that violence is the deciding factor when it comes to the issuance of rights? I thought for a while that I belonged to a civilized race of intelligent beings...but then I met people like you.

Well that settles that, I guess we should all just wield force against one another and whoever comes out on top is the one who's right.

@ninjakiller said:

@RsistncE said:

@Animasta said:

@RsistncE said:

@Turambar said:

@McGhee said:

Social Security is all ready screwed. The money they claim is being put away for your retirement is being spent.

And where do they get off thinking they have the right to take my money and save it on my behalf? I would imagine Ron Paul believes that people should be able to do what they want with their money.

Because you live in the country and your income is bound by the tax code that governs it. Where do you get off thinking that they don't have the right to take a portion of your money and spend it? You might not like it but they have every right to it as long as you live here.

At this rate we can also say the government has the right to do whatever it pleases simply because they hold the largest stick. Governments can go fuck themselves; I made my money, no one else has any right to it whatsoever.

yeah I hate old and disabled people too! WOO

"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Forcing an individual to live for the sake of another is so morally objectionable that I nearly vomit just thinking about.

Please tell me you're a Christian. I need a laugh.

Christianity? Really? You'd honestly think that I'd condemn one group for violating my rights as a human but then not condemn the other?

@bybeach: The only "way" I want it is this:

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You cannot have all of these basic rights when governments decide that they need to be doing anything more than actually protecting those three basic rights.

#57 Posted by allworkandlowpay (874 posts) -

"Social Security is a ponzi scheme! You should be allowed to get your money out so you have more disposable income!"

- The message brought to you by every business in America that can afford to buy politicians airtime.

#58 Posted by SpencerTucksen (423 posts) -
@McGhee said:

Social Security is all ready screwed. The money they claim is being put away for your retirement is being spent.

And where do they get off thinking they have the right to take my money and save it on my behalf? I would imagine Ron Paul believes that people should be able to do what they want with their money.

That's like his whole campaign. "Everyone does their own fucking thing and that's that." is essentially what he runs off of.
#59 Posted by Vodun (2370 posts) -

@RsistncE said:

@Ihmishylje said:

@RsistncE said:

"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Forcing an individual to live for the sake of another is so morally objectionable that I nearly vomit just thinking about.

Yeah, it's pretty morally objectionable to help those in need.

No where did I say it was objectionable to help other people. I said it was objectionable to FORCE people to help other people. Reading comprehension is your friend.

So you mean sorta like how they FORCED white people to let blacks into their schools? FORCED the states to get rid of Jim Crow? How likely do you feel it is, that there would be a black president in the US right now if the government hadn't FORCED people into a certain way of doing things back then?

#60 Posted by Animasta (14648 posts) -

@Vodun said:

@RsistncE said:

@Ihmishylje said:

@RsistncE said:

"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Forcing an individual to live for the sake of another is so morally objectionable that I nearly vomit just thinking about.

Yeah, it's pretty morally objectionable to help those in need.

No where did I say it was objectionable to help other people. I said it was objectionable to FORCE people to help other people. Reading comprehension is your friend.

So you mean sorta like how they FORCED white people to let blacks into their schools? FORCED the states to get rid of Jim Crow? How likely do you feel it is, that there would be a black president in the US right now if the government hadn't FORCED people into a certain way of doing things back then?

well he obviously doesn't like Obama so maybe that's not a very good question to ask lol

#61 Posted by allworkandlowpay (874 posts) -

@Vodun said:

@RsistncE said:

@Ihmishylje said:

@RsistncE said:

"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Forcing an individual to live for the sake of another is so morally objectionable that I nearly vomit just thinking about.

Yeah, it's pretty morally objectionable to help those in need.

No where did I say it was objectionable to help other people. I said it was objectionable to FORCE people to help other people. Reading comprehension is your friend.

So you mean sorta like how they FORCED white people to let blacks into their schools? FORCED the states to get rid of Jim Crow? How likely do you feel it is, that there would be a black president in the US right now if the government hadn't FORCED people into a certain way of doing things back then?

Most Ron Paul supporters would say yes, it is objectionable to force people and states to do things that infringe on their freedoms, even if it's the freedom to discriminate.

#62 Edited by Ihmishylje (405 posts) -

@RsistncE said:

@Ihmishylje said:

@RsistncE said:

"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Forcing an individual to live for the sake of another is so morally objectionable that I nearly vomit just thinking about.

Yeah, it's pretty morally objectionable to help those in need.

No where did I say it was objectionable to help other people. I said it was objectionable to FORCE people to help other people. Reading comprehension is your friend.

Every single law ever has been about "forcing" people into something. It's because not all people can be trusted to be "good" without incentive. Of course, if you'd rather have a country where there were no laws and everyone could do whatever the fuck they wanted, then be my guest. Let me know how it turns out. It's a beautiful idea, but unlikely to succeed any time in the near future.

Now, if you don't think helping those in need is a worthy cause, then that's another discussion entirely.

@RsistncE said:

@bybeach: The only "way" I want it is this:

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You cannot have all of these basic rights when governments decide that they need to be doing anything more than actually protecting those three basic rights.

How exactly do you define liberty and happiness? Countries that grant their citizens rights and priviledges can never be "truly free" as they have to enforce those policies by stopping people from violating them. Happiness is a subjective state of mind, and there is no way you can guarantee people freedom to achieve it, and at the same time protect people from unnecessary pain and harm. So, really, the only quantifiable ideal of the three is the right to life, and you're taking that away from those who cannot aid themselves when you give the people the option of not giving a shit.

#63 Posted by allworkandlowpay (874 posts) -

We need a one pony per person economy.

#64 Edited by RsistncE (4496 posts) -

@Vodun said:

@RsistncE said:

@Ihmishylje said:

@RsistncE said:

"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Forcing an individual to live for the sake of another is so morally objectionable that I nearly vomit just thinking about.

Yeah, it's pretty morally objectionable to help those in need.

No where did I say it was objectionable to help other people. I said it was objectionable to FORCE people to help other people. Reading comprehension is your friend.

So you mean sorta like how they FORCED white people to let blacks into their schools? FORCED the states to get rid of Jim Crow? How likely do you feel it is, that there would be a black president in the US right now if the government hadn't FORCED people into a certain way of doing things back then?

It's the peoples job to voice their displeasure with others ideology. All people have to do is boycott businesses that don't agree with their views or opinions. That and the fact that racism is an inherently damaging and unsustainable practice in a capitalist economy. The government has no right to tell people what they can and can't do with their businesses, as long as they do not seek to do direct harm to another human being.

@Animasta: I don't "hate" Obama but ok.

@Ihmishylje: No one should be forced to do "good". Self interest and greed is what made mankind a successful species. At the end of the day the only job the government should undertake is to protect the three basic rights that I outlined earlier: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This means that people can't do "whatever the fuck they want" since that would mean they could seek to do direct harm to other individuals and in the process violate those three basic rights. The government only needs protect those rights, and it should do nothing more.

How does the government defend those?

Protection of life is a pretty simple principle I think, something which we (believe) we already do.

Protection of liberty simply means the government stays out of the personal and private affairs of individuals.

Also I said the PURSUIT of happiness, not happiness. No one has the right to be happy, but they do have the right to pursue it. By guaranteeing life and liberty, the pursuit of happiness is also guaranteed since it's only real pre-requisite is liberty since a man to seek to do whatever he pleases with his life as long as he does not violate the three simple rights of others.

#65 Posted by Vodun (2370 posts) -

@RsistncE said:

It's the peoples job to voice their displeasure with others ideology. All people have to do is boycott businesses that don't agree with their views or opinions. That and the fact that racism is an inherently damaging and unsustainable practice in a capitalist economy. The government has no right to tell people what they can and can't do with their businesses, as long as they do seek to do direct harm to another human being.

If a government hadn't forced people to change their ways there would still have been black slaves, let alone free ones that were opressed.

As for businesses, in the 19th century candy makers used lead paints to colour their candies. People had no idea what was killing them, and it didn't stop until there were governmentally enforced laws.

I truly hope you get your wish and all government is removed from the US. It will be a fascinating experiment for the rest of us to watch.

#66 Posted by Simplexity (1382 posts) -

I thought Ron Paul was a joke or is this a different guy? I am not american and don't care about American politics in the slightest so pardon my ignorance.

#67 Posted by allworkandlowpay (874 posts) -

@Vodun said:

@RsistncE said:

It's the peoples job to voice their displeasure with others ideology. All people have to do is boycott businesses that don't agree with their views or opinions. That and the fact that racism is an inherently damaging and unsustainable practice in a capitalist economy. The government has no right to tell people what they can and can't do with their businesses, as long as they do seek to do direct harm to another human being.

If a government hadn't forced people to change their ways there would still have been black slaves, let alone free ones that were opressed.

If it wasn't for government you wouldn't have had slaves in America the first place.

#68 Posted by Vodun (2370 posts) -

@allworkandlowpay said:

@Vodun said:

@RsistncE said:

It's the peoples job to voice their displeasure with others ideology. All people have to do is boycott businesses that don't agree with their views or opinions. That and the fact that racism is an inherently damaging and unsustainable practice in a capitalist economy. The government has no right to tell people what they can and can't do with their businesses, as long as they do seek to do direct harm to another human being.

If a government hadn't forced people to change their ways there would still have been black slaves, let alone free ones that were opressed.

If it wasn't for government you wouldn't have had slaves in America the first place.

Yes, because all those plantations were state run. No private business owners had any interest in owning slaves.

#69 Posted by Ihmishylje (405 posts) -

@Vodun said:

@RsistncE said:

It's the peoples job to voice their displeasure with others ideology. All people have to do is boycott businesses that don't agree with their views or opinions. That and the fact that racism is an inherently damaging and unsustainable practice in a capitalist economy. The government has no right to tell people what they can and can't do with their businesses, as long as they do seek to do direct harm to another human being.

If a government hadn't forced people to change their ways there would still have been black slaves, let alone free ones that were opressed.

As for businesses, in the 19th century candy makers used lead paints to colour their candies. People had no idea what was killing them, and it didn't stop until there were governmentally enforced laws.

I truly hope you get your wish and all government is removed from the US. It will be a fascinating experiment for the rest of us to watch.

I think this is a key point here. It's all well and good to say that people should boycott companies whose methods and ethics they don't agree with, but unfortunately that's impossible, as companies don't disclose everything they do, and even if they did, no one person could go through that wealth of information in order to decide for themselves. Most people don't have the luxury of time and energy to put in the fairly unrealistic effort of boycotting all companies that produce goods and services they require but also dabble in some shady or downright unethical policies.

#70 Edited by RsistncE (4496 posts) -

@Vodun said:

@RsistncE said:

It's the peoples job to voice their displeasure with others ideology. All people have to do is boycott businesses that don't agree with their views or opinions. That and the fact that racism is an inherently damaging and unsustainable practice in a capitalist economy. The government has no right to tell people what they can and can't do with their businesses, as long as they do seek to do direct harm to another human being.

If a government hadn't forced people to change their ways there would still have been black slaves, let alone free ones that were opressed.

As for businesses, in the 19th century candy makers used lead paints to colour their candies. People had no idea what was killing them, and it didn't stop until there were governmentally enforced laws.

I truly hope you get your wish and all government is removed from the US. It will be a fascinating experiment for the rest of us to watch.

Just reading your comments makes it clearly that you don't understand even basic consumer behaviour or market economics.

Slavery would have collapse on it's own in the US. It was already viewed unfavourably worldwide, do you honestly think that consumers worldwide would have continued to buy slave produced products? Additionally, slave labour would have driven down wages and the demand for labour. This is inherently unsustainable as it would have created a massive producer surplus and a massive consumer deficit. The people would have gone broke and producers would have had to either seriously drop prices and make far less money, or side with rationality and continue to make profits while having to start actually paying people for their labour. These are just one of two reasons that slavery wouldn't have lasted. Besides, last I checked it was civil war that solved the slavery problem (even though no one really gave a shit about the black people in the north either) not the government.

Smart consumers find out things, stay informed and know how to lead their lives. It's not my problem that people are stupid. Besides, isn't that the entire point of life; the idiots get weeded out and the successful ones move on?

Either way, most problems existing with corporations have to do with regulatory bodies giving them the ability to cover tracks, lie, etc. Governments are the ones that declare war. They're the ones that tax. They're the ones that really do most of the rotten shit in this world. And they get paid for it!

#71 Posted by Hailinel (23889 posts) -

@Prodstep said:

I thought Ron Paul was a joke or is this a different guy? I am not american and don't care about American politics in the slightest so pardon my ignorance.

Ron Paul is a congressman that, while a member of the Republican Party, leans more heavily toward Libertarian. His ideas tend to attract a lot of the younger vote; particularly college students. However, he's not particularly popular among Republican rank-and-file. He might wind up with a good chunk of second-place finishes in the state primaries and caucuses like he did in New Hampshire, but I don't see him winning the party nomination by any means.

#72 Posted by Ihmishylje (405 posts) -

@Prodstep said:

I thought Ron Paul was a joke or is this a different guy? I am not american and don't care about American politics in the slightest so pardon my ignorance.

Why are you in this thread if you don't care about American politics in the slightest? Also, I think it's ignorant, if not downright dangerous, to not be interested in the politics of the most powerful country in the world.

#73 Posted by Ihmishylje (405 posts) -

@RsistncE said:

@Vodun said:

@RsistncE said:

It's the peoples job to voice their displeasure with others ideology. All people have to do is boycott businesses that don't agree with their views or opinions. That and the fact that racism is an inherently damaging and unsustainable practice in a capitalist economy. The government has no right to tell people what they can and can't do with their businesses, as long as they do seek to do direct harm to another human being.

If a government hadn't forced people to change their ways there would still have been black slaves, let alone free ones that were opressed.

As for businesses, in the 19th century candy makers used lead paints to colour their candies. People had no idea what was killing them, and it didn't stop until there were governmentally enforced laws.

I truly hope you get your wish and all government is removed from the US. It will be a fascinating experiment for the rest of us to watch.

Smart consumers find out things, stay informed and know how to lead their lives. It's not my problem that people are stupid. Besides, isn't that the entire point of life; the idiots get weeded out and the successful ones move on?

Either way, most problems existing with corporations have to do with regulatory bodies giving them the ability to cover tracks, lie, etc. Governments are the ones that declare war. They're the ones that tax. They're the ones that really do most of the rotten shit in this world. And they get paid for it!

The sheer ignorance in this post is astounding. I wouldn't even know where to begin.

#74 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) -

@Ihmishylje said:

@RsistncE said:

@Vodun said:

@RsistncE said:

It's the peoples job to voice their displeasure with others ideology. All people have to do is boycott businesses that don't agree with their views or opinions. That and the fact that racism is an inherently damaging and unsustainable practice in a capitalist economy. The government has no right to tell people what they can and can't do with their businesses, as long as they do seek to do direct harm to another human being.

If a government hadn't forced people to change their ways there would still have been black slaves, let alone free ones that were opressed.

As for businesses, in the 19th century candy makers used lead paints to colour their candies. People had no idea what was killing them, and it didn't stop until there were governmentally enforced laws.

I truly hope you get your wish and all government is removed from the US. It will be a fascinating experiment for the rest of us to watch.

Smart consumers find out things, stay informed and know how to lead their lives. It's not my problem that people are stupid. Besides, isn't that the entire point of life; the idiots get weeded out and the successful ones move on?

Either way, most problems existing with corporations have to do with regulatory bodies giving them the ability to cover tracks, lie, etc. Governments are the ones that declare war. They're the ones that tax. They're the ones that really do most of the rotten shit in this world. And they get paid for it!

The sheer ignorance in this post is astounding. I wouldn't even know where to begin.

Stay mad. It's not my job to be concerned with stupidity nor was I born to bear the burden that those stupid people create.

#75 Posted by allworkandlowpay (874 posts) -

@Vodun said:

@allworkandlowpay said:

@Vodun said:

@RsistncE said:

It's the peoples job to voice their displeasure with others ideology. All people have to do is boycott businesses that don't agree with their views or opinions. That and the fact that racism is an inherently damaging and unsustainable practice in a capitalist economy. The government has no right to tell people what they can and can't do with their businesses, as long as they do seek to do direct harm to another human being.

If a government hadn't forced people to change their ways there would still have been black slaves, let alone free ones that were opressed.

If it wasn't for government you wouldn't have had slaves in America the first place.

Yes, because all those plantations were state run. No private business owners had any interest in owning slaves.

Private business owners were allowed to run their operations with slave labor, starting with British law (government) and continuing with the newly adopted United States Federal law (government.)

#76 Posted by Vodun (2370 posts) -

@RsistncE said:

Smart consumers find out things, stay informed and know how to lead their lives. It's not my problem that people are stupid. Besides, isn't that the entire point of life; the idiots get weeded out and the successful ones move on?

Either way, most problems existing with corporations have to do with regulatory bodies giving them the ability to cover tracks, lie, etc. Governments are the ones that declare war. They're the ones that tax. They're the ones that really do most of the rotten shit in this world. And they get paid for it!

And who could force the companies to NOT cover their tracks? A smart consumer? Weeding out the idiots is all good and well until you're the "idiot". No one is capable of having a complete knowledge of everything, it's why we humans form groups and work together.

Also, I'd suggest you stay away from the darwinism arguments. You're liable to invoke Godwin. Camps for the idiots and so on...dammit, there I went.

#77 Posted by allworkandlowpay (874 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

@Prodstep said:

I thought Ron Paul was a joke or is this a different guy? I am not american and don't care about American politics in the slightest so pardon my ignorance.

Ron Paul is a congressman that, while a member of the Republican Party, leans more heavily toward Libertarian. His ideas tend to attract a lot of the younger vote; particularly college students. However, he's not particularly popular among Republican rank-and-file. He might wind up with a good chunk of second-place finishes in the state primaries and caucuses like he did in New Hampshire, but I don't see him winning the party nomination by any means.

No, much of his stances are heavily rooted in traditional Republican ideology. You'd find that when you compare Paul's ideas of the role of government with a traditional Libertarian candidate, they aren't really the same at all.

#78 Posted by Ihmishylje (405 posts) -

@allworkandlowpay said:

Private business owners were allowed to run their operations with slave labor, starting with British law (government) and continuing with the newly adopted United States Federal law (government.)

And if there was no government, who'd ban slavery and enforce that ban? Human history is filled with laws we now frown upon, it's called progress.

#79 Posted by Vodun (2370 posts) -

@allworkandlowpay said:

Private business owners were allowed to run their operations with slave labor, starting with British law (government) and continuing with the newly adopted United States Federal law (government.)

True, but they also rectified this later. Or are you saying slavery wouldn't have been around without governmental sanctions?

#80 Posted by allworkandlowpay (874 posts) -

@Ihmishylje said:

@allworkandlowpay said:

Private business owners were allowed to run their operations with slave labor, starting with British law (government) and continuing with the newly adopted United States Federal law (government.)

And if there was no government, who'd ban slavery and enforce that ban? Human history is filled with laws we now frown upon, it's called progress.

Many civilizations existed without bans on slave ownership and whom also didn't own slaves. The point is though, government is not the shining knight of paragon that swoops in and saves us godless and immoral savages from ourselves. More often is the case, government often finds its way to instead legalize immoral and inhuman behavior, whether through fear or good intention.

#81 Posted by Vodun (2370 posts) -

@allworkandlowpay said:

@Ihmishylje said:

@allworkandlowpay said:

Private business owners were allowed to run their operations with slave labor, starting with British law (government) and continuing with the newly adopted United States Federal law (government.)

And if there was no government, who'd ban slavery and enforce that ban? Human history is filled with laws we now frown upon, it's called progress.

Many civilizations existed without bans on slave ownership and whom also didn't own slaves. The point is though, government is not the shining knight of paragon that swoops in and saves us godless and immoral savages from ourselves. More often is the case, government often finds its way to instead legalize immoral and inhuman behavior, whether through fear or good intention.

Name one. I'm not being a dick here I truly wish to know.

#82 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) -

@Vodun said:

@RsistncE said:

Smart consumers find out things, stay informed and know how to lead their lives. It's not my problem that people are stupid. Besides, isn't that the entire point of life; the idiots get weeded out and the successful ones move on?

Either way, most problems existing with corporations have to do with regulatory bodies giving them the ability to cover tracks, lie, etc. Governments are the ones that declare war. They're the ones that tax. They're the ones that really do most of the rotten shit in this world. And they get paid for it!

And who could force the companies to NOT cover their tracks? A smart consumer? Weeding out the idiots is all good and well until you're the "idiot". No one is capable of having a complete knowledge of everything, it's why we humans form groups and work together.

Also, I'd suggest you stay away from the darwinism arguments. You're liable to invoke Godwin. Camps for the idiots and so on...dammit, there I went.

Bullshit. Government regulations don't stop businesses from doing things that are "wrong". What does? Private media leaks things about other business in their own self interest. Consumers talk and they spread information. The government plays almost no part at all in consumer awareness. Ultimately the company risks severely damaging it's reputation and sales if it does stupid shit because people find out on their own. I find it funny that you honestly think that governments are like superheroes watching over us all.

The only person here trying to invoke Godwin's Law here is you. "Darwinism" has NOTHING to do with genocide. And you call it "Darwinism" as if it's a belief system. It's not, it's just nature. It's kinda how things work. Science and stuff, you know?

#83 Posted by Ihmishylje (405 posts) -

@allworkandlowpay said:

Many civilizations existed without bans on slave ownership and whom also didn't own slaves. The point is though, government is not the shining knight of paragon that swoops in and saves us godless and immoral savages from ourselves. More often is the case, government often finds its way to instead legalize immoral and inhuman behavior, whether through fear or good intention.

Firstly, it's hard to define what slave labour is, anyway, aside from the most egregious examples. Secondly, many nations have, however, used slave labour, and in cases when people do decide to resort to it, it's rather hard to simply ask them to please stop it because it isn't very nice.

And, no, government is not infallible by any means. It's a system put in place by the people to ensure that people are provided with an arbritary set of rights and priviledges. The problems governments face these days, is that the power is slipping away from the people to the corporations (and in many ways already has) and thus governments aim to please corporations, rather than people.

I would love it if all people always and everywhere could get along with each other but that's not the reality we live in these days Communities have grown larger and the sense of community and biological need to serve those around you, so that they would help you in your time of need, no longer functions on a national level. It's why we have founded bodies to formulate and enforce rules.

#84 Edited by Ihmishylje (405 posts) -

@RsistncE said:

Bullshit. Government regulations don't stop businesses from doing things that are "wrong". What does? Private media leaks things about other business in their own self interest. Consumers talk and they spread information. The government plays almost no part at all in consumer awareness. Ultimately the company risks severely damaging it's reputation and sales if it does stupid shit because people find out on their own. I find it funny that you honestly think that governments are like superheroes watching over us all.

The only person here trying to invoke Godwin's Law here is you. "Darwinism" has NOTHING to do with genocide. And you call it "Darwinism" as if it's a belief system. It's not, it's just nature. It's kinda how things work. Science and stuff, you know?

The example of consumer activism you gave is only the tip of the iceberg, unfortunately. There's a lot going on that people wouldn't agree with, if they knew, but people can only know so much and only act accordingly to a degree. Governments are not superheroes, they are fallible organisations founded to watch over us.

Social darwinism has everything to do with genocide, social darwinism is the application of biological darwinism to social ideals. On an evolutionary level we cannot opt out of darwinism, but on a social level, we can choose to help the disadvantaged, let them rot, or wipe them out.

#85 Edited by TheWholeDamnShow (232 posts) -

Ron Paul is radical. And that's exactly what this country needs. Fuck you Obama. Fuck you for lying about NAFTA. Fuck you for escalating wars of aggression towards Pakistan, Yemen, and Libya while at the same time being a Nobel Peace Prize recipient. Fuck you for the torture and sport killing of many foreign P.O.W's and American soldiers. Fuck you for illegally spying domestically on your on the very people you swore to serve. Fuck you for allowing corporate elites to commit massive crimes against humanity and overwhelming fraud and get off scott free, while the little people suffer from minor offences. Fuck you for putting restrictions on our freedom of speech by making it possible to arrest peaceful protesters and make it a FELONY offense to share copyrighted information EVEN WHEN NO MONEY IS INVOLVED. Fuck you for eroding our internet rights by continuously seizing domain names through DHS and continuously trying to find ways to limit it and shut it down. Fuck you for passing fascist policies such as Obamacare which was meant to increase competition and affordable coverage for Americans, yet, the private insurance monopolies remain and citizens are mandated to buy from them under penalty of jail, while 1000s of the most connected corporations are exempt from the law////

Fuck you dude. If there is a hell. I hope you burn in it.

#86 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) -

@Ihmishylje said:

@RsistncE said:

Bullshit. Government regulations don't stop businesses from doing things that are "wrong". What does? Private media leaks things about other business in their own self interest. Consumers talk and they spread information. The government plays almost no part at all in consumer awareness. Ultimately the company risks severely damaging it's reputation and sales if it does stupid shit because people find out on their own. I find it funny that you honestly think that governments are like superheroes watching over us all.

The only person here trying to invoke Godwin's Law here is you. "Darwinism" has NOTHING to do with genocide. And you call it "Darwinism" as if it's a belief system. It's not, it's just nature. It's kinda how things work. Science and stuff, you know?

The example of consumer activism you gave is only the tip of the iceberg, unfortunately. There's a lot going on that people wouldn't agree with, if they knew, but people can only know so much and only act accordingly to a degree. Governments are not superheroes, they are fallible oraganisations founded to watch over us.

Social darwinism has everything to do with genocide, social darwinism is the application of biological darwinism to social ideals. On a evolutionary level we cannot opt out of darwinism, but on a social level, we can choose to help the disadvantaged, let them rot, or wipe them out.

And unfortunately the reality is that governments have never been the ones to reveal anything about companies so why do they even exist? If anything governments only help to seal and hide corruption even more. At the end of the day it's everyone but the government who digs and reveals information about corporations, which was really my main point: that governments are useless when it comes to corporate responsibility anyways.

Uh...genocide is active. It requires human action. Social darwinism is passive; it relies on a LACK of human involvement. These are two vastly different concepts. I'm not saying we shouldn't help people, after all I give to several charities, do a tonne of volunteer work in my community etc. However, that doesn't mean that we should FORCE people to help others. That is a violation of their freedoms and rights as individuals.

#87 Posted by allworkandlowpay (874 posts) -

@Vodun said:

@allworkandlowpay said:

@Ihmishylje said:

@allworkandlowpay said:

Private business owners were allowed to run their operations with slave labor, starting with British law (government) and continuing with the newly adopted United States Federal law (government.)

And if there was no government, who'd ban slavery and enforce that ban? Human history is filled with laws we now frown upon, it's called progress.

Many civilizations existed without bans on slave ownership and whom also didn't own slaves. The point is though, government is not the shining knight of paragon that swoops in and saves us godless and immoral savages from ourselves. More often is the case, government often finds its way to instead legalize immoral and inhuman behavior, whether through fear or good intention.

Name one. I'm not being a dick here I truly wish to know.

Off the top of my head I can't name many, I know prior to the Dutch Imperial expansion, the Netherlands did not deal in slave trades. Ancient Vedic India also not have slaves until much later in it's history.

It's probably interesting to note, that despite slavery being illegal by almost every government on Earth, as of 2010 more slaves currently exist than have been ever been recorded before (according to the U.N, somewhere near 25 million people.) Apparently the laws don't really change much.

#88 Posted by allworkandlowpay (874 posts) -

@RsistncE said:

@Ihmishylje said:

@RsistncE said:

Bullshit. Government regulations don't stop businesses from doing things that are "wrong". What does? Private media leaks things about other business in their own self interest. Consumers talk and they spread information. The government plays almost no part at all in consumer awareness. Ultimately the company risks severely damaging it's reputation and sales if it does stupid shit because people find out on their own. I find it funny that you honestly think that governments are like superheroes watching over us all.

The only person here trying to invoke Godwin's Law here is you. "Darwinism" has NOTHING to do with genocide. And you call it "Darwinism" as if it's a belief system. It's not, it's just nature. It's kinda how things work. Science and stuff, you know?

The example of consumer activism you gave is only the tip of the iceberg, unfortunately. There's a lot going on that people wouldn't agree with, if they knew, but people can only know so much and only act accordingly to a degree. Governments are not superheroes, they are fallible oraganisations founded to watch over us.

Social darwinism has everything to do with genocide, social darwinism is the application of biological darwinism to social ideals. On a evolutionary level we cannot opt out of darwinism, but on a social level, we can choose to help the disadvantaged, let them rot, or wipe them out.

And unfortunately the reality is that governments have never been the ones to reveal anything about companies so why do they even exist? If anything governments only help to seal and hide corruption even more. At the end of the day it's everyone but the government who digs and reveals information about corporations, which was really my main point: that governments are useless when it comes to corporate responsibility anyways.

Governments, formed by a ruling class of business owners, seems to ignore any issues with the ruling class or businesses? Surprise!.

#89 Edited by Ihmishylje (405 posts) -

@RsistncE: Common people do not have the ability, possibility, or will, to regulate corporations like governments do, I don't know where you get the notion that is isn't so. And I'm not saying media isn't useful to a society, it's vital.

As for social darwinism, look at it this way: a species is hunted into exinction by another species. If it happens between, say, fish, we call it evolution. If it happens between humans and fish, how is this different? The difference is that we have a social responsibility to not exterminate a species, a social agreement, if you will. Social darwinism is the belief that such responsibilities and agreements hold no weight and if they are weak enough to perish from persecution, they shall do so. Genocide is just that, the difference being that races of people aren't hunted for their tasty flesh, but because they "look wrong".

But I feel like I've said what I have to say. I'm sure none of this is sinking through, but then, this is the internet.

#90 Posted by Ihmishylje (405 posts) -

@allworkandlowpay said:

Governments, formed by a ruling class of business owners, seems to ignore any issues with the ruling class or businesses? Surprise!.

Just because a current government is rotten, doesn't mean governments by definition are rotten.

#91 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) -

@Ihmishylje said:

@RsistncE: Common people do not have the ability, possibility, or will, to regulate corporations like governments do, I don't know where you get the notion that is isn't so. And I'm not saying media isn't useful to a society, it's vital.

As for social darwinism, look at it this way: a species is hunted into exinction by another species. If it happens between, say, fish, we call it evolution. If it happens between humans and fish, how is this different? The difference is that we have a social responsibility to not exterminate a species, a social agreement, if you will. Social darwinism is the belief that such responsibilities and agreements hold no weight and if they are weak enough to perish from persecution, they shall do so. Genocide is just that, the difference being that races of people aren't hunter for their tasty flesh, but because they "look wrong".

But I feel like I've said what I have to say. I'm sure none of this is sinking through, but then, this is the internet.

And I'm going to have to say that nothing I've said so far is sinking in either. The reality is that governments do a nearly non-existent job when it comes to regulating companies. What does that tell us? That you can't forcibly regulate anything and expect it to work. The only regulation that should exist is the natural regulation that comes about via a free market economy. The government can write as many laws and regulations as it wants, but the only effective way at getting a company to adapt (or die) is through consumer demand. End of story.

The problem with our social darwinism discussion is that we're both using entirely different constructs and definitions of what social darawinism actually entails. Regardless, I thought I was pretty clear with my statement on the three rights:

"The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Under no circumstances should any of these be violated for an individuals. The protection of these rights is really the one and only job the government was made to do and should do now also.

#92 Posted by Vodun (2370 posts) -

@allworkandlowpay said:

Off the top of my head I can't name many, I know prior to the Dutch Imperial expansion, the Netherlands did not deal in slave trades. Ancient Vedic India also not have slaves until much later in it's history.

It's probably interesting to note, that despite slavery being illegal by almost every government on Earth, as of 2010 more slaves currently exist than have been ever been recorded before (according to the U.N, somewhere near 25 million people.) Apparently the laws don't really change much.

Well, there are also more people than ever before. It's the ratio that's interesting. But the laws also have to be enforced. If you look at where slavery still exists it's in places where the government has no interest or no power to enforce the laws.

But what is the alternative? How would you stop slavery if not through governmental enforcement? How do you change a nation wide acceptance of something if not through law enforcement?

#93 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) -

@Vodun said:

@allworkandlowpay said:

Off the top of my head I can't name many, I know prior to the Dutch Imperial expansion, the Netherlands did not deal in slave trades. Ancient Vedic India also not have slaves until much later in it's history.

It's probably interesting to note, that despite slavery being illegal by almost every government on Earth, as of 2010 more slaves currently exist than have been ever been recorded before (according to the U.N, somewhere near 25 million people.) Apparently the laws don't really change much.

Well, there are also more people than ever before. It's the ratio that's interesting. But the laws also have to be enforced. If you look at where slavery still exists it's in places where the government has no interest or no power to enforce the laws.

But what is the alternative? How would you stop slavery if not through governmental enforcement? How do you change a nation wide acceptance of something if not through law enforcement?

There's a pretty striking correlation between the lack of a free market capitalist economy and slavery. Where one exists the other typically does not.

#94 Posted by Ihmishylje (405 posts) -

@RsistncE said:

And I'm going to have to say that nothing I've said so far is sinking in either. The reality is that governments do a nearly non-existent job when it comes to regulating companies. What does that tell us? That you can't forcibly regulate anything and expect it to work. The only regulation that should exist is the natural regulation that comes about via a free market economy. The government can write as many laws and regulations as it wants, but the only effective way at getting a company to adapt (or die) is through consumer demand. End of story.

The problem with our social darwinism discussion is that we're both using entirely different constructs and definitions of what social darawinism actually entails. Regardless, I thought I was pretty clear with my statement on the three rights:

"The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Under no circumstances should any of these be violated for an individuals. The protection of these rights is really the one and only job the government was made to do and should do now also.

Like I've said, just because a current government is ineffective, doesn't mean governments by definition are a bad idea. Sure, I'll agree with you on that most if not all governments in the world are pretty lousy at what they're supposed to do, but they're still, in principle, the most capable body in place to do that.

If you give governments no power over corporations, then sure, the free market is the only option. But leaving it "to the people" is a horribly unbalanced and unethical thing to do in a society of the scale they are these days. I believe in saving people from their ignorance. I'd say there's certainly a lot of things in the world you don't know about that you wouldn't agree with and you'd probably like to do something about, yet are incapable of doing so in your role as "just some guy", but a government ( an organisation that exists there to enforce the will of the people) could. However, you probably don't care. I certainly don't know most things companies are going about, nor can I ever store that information in my tiny head. Governments should regulate corporations not only because people can't, but because people won't.

As for your "right, liberty and happiness", I've already deconstructed them.

#95 Posted by Ihmishylje (405 posts) -

@RsistncE said:

There's a pretty striking correlation between the lack of a free market capitalist economy and slavery. Where one exists the other typically does not.

There is no such thing as a "free market capitalist economy". Every country in the world is a mixed market economy.

#96 Posted by allworkandlowpay (874 posts) -

@Ihmishylje said:

@allworkandlowpay said:

Governments, formed by a ruling class of business owners, seems to ignore any issues with the ruling class or businesses? Surprise!.

Just because a current government is rotten, doesn't mean governments by definition are rotten.

Never said all governments are rotten. I just don't act surprised that the US, a federal representative democracy built by elites and business magnates and for the focus of businesses, fails to act on pressing public matters and instant act in the interest of corporate powers.

#97 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -
@Ihmishylje said:

@allworkandlowpay said:

Governments, formed by a ruling class of business owners, seems to ignore any issues with the ruling class or businesses? Surprise!.

Just because a current government is rotten, doesn't mean governments by definition are rotten.

Yet they happen to be so historically, empirically and most of the time.
#98 Posted by CookieMonster (2416 posts) -

@TruthTellah said:

@MariachiMacabre said:

@CookieMonster said:

What the fuck kind of name is Mitt?

Especially with a reputation like his, you'd think he would have changed it by now.

To be fair, his first name is actually Willard. His parents and friends called him by his more informal middle name "Mitt" and he's always stuck by that instead.

Willard is almost just as stupid.

#99 Posted by TruthTellah (8534 posts) -

@CookieMonster said:

@TruthTellah said:

@MariachiMacabre said:

@CookieMonster said:

What the fuck kind of name is Mitt?

Especially with a reputation like his, you'd think he would have changed it by now.

To be fair, his first name is actually Willard. His parents and friends called him by his more informal middle name "Mitt" and he's always stuck by that instead.

Willard is almost just as stupid.

Then blame his parents. A lot of people have odd names. The current US President's name is Barack Hussein Obama. That's not much weirder than Willard Mitt Romney. People of different cultures and languages have all sorts of differences when it comes to what is "acceptable" or "stupid" in a name. We simply have to see that someone's name is their name and address them as such with the human dignity they deserve. :)

#100 Edited by TruthTellah (8534 posts) -

As an addendum to this argument that is especially common online yet difficult to work out without being discussed in person:

In my experience, people make governments good, and people make governments bad. Unfortunately, they tend to do both at the same time. The human experience with government is a balancing act between providing the necessary protections and order of government and resisting against an overreaching system of our own creation. Similar to how individuals deal with their own faults, we attempt to mitigate bad inclinations while accentuating strengths. No government or human union will ever be perfect, and that's why the greatest thing we can aspire to be is "a more perfect union". A functional government is a process, not an end result.

If you ever find that you are truly satisfied with government, there's a good chance it has already encroached on your civil liberties, and if you ever find that you are unsatisfied with a government that appears to do nothing that it was designed to do, there's a good chance it has already become ineffectual and insufficient for the needs of the populace. Usually, there's a mixture of both feelings. Sometimes government excels in some of its duties while failing in others, or it excels at activities it was never called to do while hindering private activity. People should always have a healthy level of skepticism when it comes to government, as it should always be in transition, and that transition can be for good or ill, the difference rarely being very cut and dry until some time later.

Until humanity significantly changes, government in some form will be necessary, and as long as it is necessary, we might as well try to make it a government that does things well. We don't have to ask it to do everything for us, and we don't have to ask it to do nothing. But what it -is- called to do, it should do those things well. Unfortunately, there's always issues with that, and that's why we must keep ourselves involved and pushing government to change. A stagnant government with little public influence is one that is slowly sliding toward tyranny, as it is either expanding to be the tyrant or becoming weak enough that tyrants manipulate it. Make sure the government is changing while it breaths between periods of expansion and contraction. It's a messy balancing act, but it's the balancing act we must maintain to provide what is needed while protecting ourselves from our own creation.

This argument between government and non-government is healthy, as long as we're both engaged in the process. I hope that people's passion for their arguments reflects their public actions on behalf of those arguments.