|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Ladies and gentlemen, we have effectively legalized bribery. As defined by Black Law’s Dictionary, bribery is “the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.” The issue I wish to touch on today, however, is not a legal one.
No, absolutely not! Far from it, in fact! The law operates under a contingency of gray zones, and no matter how careful one may tip toe around them, we often find ourselves lost within their treachery. The law, in all its glory and compassion, cannot save us today.
“Well, what do we need saving from?” you ask? A valid question!
You see, there is only one thing worse than wandering within a gray zone: it is to take shelter within the boundaries of the shadows.
That’s right, folks! Our foot’s in the mud and the darkness is inching closer. With no means of escape there is only one thing to do—expel the darkness. And the only way to do that, my friends, is to open our eyes.
Our dear country was founded on the principles of liberty. The scars of oppression run deep to this day, visible not only to ourselves but to the world. And in our fury we fight! Over two centuries have passed and yet we fight! But like any battle that rages without end, we have begun to lose sight of the basic underlying principle of why we fought and why we struggled for liberty in the first place.
It was oppression, my friends. Through oppression we found liberty. Yet, through liberty, we inadvertently reinvited oppression in the form of not government, but money!
Money is not speech. If speech is free to all then how can money possibly be speech? It may cost money to print paper and ink, or to buy cameras and broadcast footage throughout the world, but it does not cost a SINGLE cent to utter words from our mouths. Ideas are free. Opinions are free. Beliefs cost nothing but infallible devotion! When we yield to the notion that money is speech, we succumb to the unfathomable inequality that plagues our beloved nation.
My fellow Americans, we are the silent majority, but not by choice. No matter how loud we may whisper, our voices will never be heard over the deafening roars of their megaphones.
There are only two courses of action that can be taken:
1) we must lessen the value of money. Money, by itself, is worthless. What empowers it is what it can buy.
2) we must make every voice equal.
Let it be known, on this day, that the one thing money can never buy is our trust! Let it be known, on this day, that politicians can no longer trade policies for cash! Let it be known, on this day, that we deserve a voice just as loud!
It is often said that action speaks louder than words.
But does it speak louder than money?
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. – United States Declaration of Independence
+ Show Spoiler [TL;dr] +Uncapped contributions to campaigns are the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.
 
|
FORGREATJUSTICE!
In order to lessen the value of money, the Federal Reserve must print money faster than ever!
This will lead to great inflation, and the true accomplishment of goal #1!
|
On August 25 2012 12:13 Souma wrote:Ladies and gentlemen, we have effectively legalized bribery. As defined by Black Law’s Dictionary, bribery is “the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.” The issue I wish to touch on today, however, is not a legal one. No, absolutely not! Far from it, in fact! The law operates under a contingency of gray zones, and no matter how careful one may tip toe around them, we often find ourselves lost within their treachery. The law, in all its glory and compassion, cannot save us today. “Well, what do we need saving from?” you ask? A valid question! You see, there is only one thing worse than wandering within a gray zone: it is to take shelter within the boundaries of the shadows. That’s right, folks! Our foot’s in the mud and the darkness is inching closer. With no means of escape there is only one thing to do—expel the darkness. And the only way to do that, my friends, is to open our eyes. Our dear country was founded on the principles of liberty. The scars of oppression run deep to this day, visible not only to ourselves but to the world. And in our fury we fight! Over two centuries have passed and yet we fight! But like any battle that rages without end, we have begun to lose sight of the basic underlying principle of why we fought and why we struggled for liberty in the first place. It was oppression, my friends. Through oppression we found liberty. Yet, through liberty, we inadvertently reinvited oppression in the form of not government, but money! Money is not speech. If speech is free to all then how can money possibly be speech? It may cost money to print paper and ink, or to buy cameras and broadcast footage throughout the world, but it does not cost a SINGLE cent to utter words from our mouths. Ideas are free. Opinions are free. Beliefs cost nothing but infallible devotion! When we yield to the notion that money is speech, we succumb to the unfathomable inequality that plagues our beloved nation. My fellow Americans, we are the silent majority, but not by choice. No matter how loud we may whisper, our voices will never be heard over the deafening roars of their megaphones. There are only two courses of action that can be taken: 1) we must lessen the value of money. Money, by itself, is worthless. What empowers it is what it can buy. 2) we must make every voice equal. Let it be known, on this day, that the one thing money can never buy is our trust! Let it be known, on this day, that politicians can no longer trade policies for cash! Let it be known, on this day, that we deserve a voice just as loud! It is often said that action speaks louder than words. But does it speak louder than money? In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. – United States Declaration of Independence + Show Spoiler [TL;dr] +Uncapped contributions to campaigns are the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.
I should be able to put my money where I want as long as it does not aid the initiation of force. Who is the government to restrict important rights like that?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
For every reason that outright bribery is illegal.
|
On August 25 2012 12:48 Souma wrote:
For every reason that outright bribery is illegal.
It is not necessarily bribery to contribute a few hundred thousand or a few million to a politician, or whatever going over any arbitrary cap you choose to put (1,000$, 2,500$, etc.). Cronyism is a problem, but this is not how you solve it. Unless you have hard evidence of bribery one should not be punished for choosing to support the candidate that most closely resembles their views.
|
On August 25 2012 12:41 Xayvier wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 12:13 Souma wrote:Ladies and gentlemen, we have effectively legalized bribery. As defined by Black Law’s Dictionary, bribery is “the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.” The issue I wish to touch on today, however, is not a legal one. No, absolutely not! Far from it, in fact! The law operates under a contingency of gray zones, and no matter how careful one may tip toe around them, we often find ourselves lost within their treachery. The law, in all its glory and compassion, cannot save us today. “Well, what do we need saving from?” you ask? A valid question! You see, there is only one thing worse than wandering within a gray zone: it is to take shelter within the boundaries of the shadows. That’s right, folks! Our foot’s in the mud and the darkness is inching closer. With no means of escape there is only one thing to do—expel the darkness. And the only way to do that, my friends, is to open our eyes. Our dear country was founded on the principles of liberty. The scars of oppression run deep to this day, visible not only to ourselves but to the world. And in our fury we fight! Over two centuries have passed and yet we fight! But like any battle that rages without end, we have begun to lose sight of the basic underlying principle of why we fought and why we struggled for liberty in the first place. It was oppression, my friends. Through oppression we found liberty. Yet, through liberty, we inadvertently reinvited oppression in the form of not government, but money! Money is not speech. If speech is free to all then how can money possibly be speech? It may cost money to print paper and ink, or to buy cameras and broadcast footage throughout the world, but it does not cost a SINGLE cent to utter words from our mouths. Ideas are free. Opinions are free. Beliefs cost nothing but infallible devotion! When we yield to the notion that money is speech, we succumb to the unfathomable inequality that plagues our beloved nation. My fellow Americans, we are the silent majority, but not by choice. No matter how loud we may whisper, our voices will never be heard over the deafening roars of their megaphones. There are only two courses of action that can be taken: 1) we must lessen the value of money. Money, by itself, is worthless. What empowers it is what it can buy. 2) we must make every voice equal. Let it be known, on this day, that the one thing money can never buy is our trust! Let it be known, on this day, that politicians can no longer trade policies for cash! Let it be known, on this day, that we deserve a voice just as loud! It is often said that action speaks louder than words. But does it speak louder than money? In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. – United States Declaration of Independence + Show Spoiler [TL;dr] +Uncapped contributions to campaigns are the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. I should be able to put my money where I want as long as it does not aid the initiation of force. Who is the government to restrict important rights like that?
Do you have an actual reason for that assertion? And isn't all government action a form of force?
On August 25 2012 13:00 Xayvier wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 12:48 Souma wrote:
For every reason that outright bribery is illegal. It is not necessarily bribery to contribute a few hundred thousand or a few million to a politician, or whatever going over any arbitrary cap you choose to put (1,000$, 2,500$, etc.). Cronyism is a problem, but this is not how you solve it.
How would you fight corporations/rich people buying out politicians to suppress the value of each voter and thus democracy itself?
|
On August 25 2012 12:48 Souma wrote:
For every reason that outright bribery is illegal.
Minus one, since he technically mentioned one reason ;P
Interesting read, I read it in sort of an oldschool announcer voice haha.
|
On August 25 2012 13:01 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 12:41 Xayvier wrote:
I should be able to put my money where I want as long as it does not aid the initiation of force. Who is the government to restrict important rights like that? Do you have an actual reason for that assertion?
Because capitalism in combination with the NAP (non-aggression principle, which is basically what I'm advocating in that quote) leads to the most prosperity and freedom in a society.
On August 25 2012 13:01 Roe wrote:
And isn't all government action a form of force?
Indeed it is, but one does not aid the initiation of force by giving politicans running for whatever political position money to spend on getting elected. One who is funding a campaign is simply trying to influence who initiates it. They don't need help to initiate force. All government action being force, by the way, is actually the biggest reason as to why I am a believer in the philosophy of Anarcho-Capitalism .
On August 25 2012 13:01 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 13:00 Xayvier wrote:On August 25 2012 12:48 Souma wrote:
For every reason that outright bribery is illegal. It is not necessarily bribery to contribute a few hundred thousand or a few million to a politician, or whatever going over any arbitrary cap you choose to put (1,000$, 2,500$, etc.). Cronyism is a problem, but this is not how you solve it. How would you fight corporations/rich people buying out politicians to suppress the value of each voter and thus democracy itself?
Democracy is not a fair institution in the first place, and neither is government. I am simply arguing in favor of the right to spend your money where you'd like, as long as it follows the NAP. Crony capitalism isn't solved well by putting a cap on campaign contributions. It's solved better through having a free market stateless society, in which a corporation no longer exists (it is a concept, by definition, created by the state), and no business can push their agenda by instating protectionist regulation to prevent competition from entering the market.
|
|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On August 25 2012 13:00 Xayvier wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 12:48 Souma wrote:
For every reason that outright bribery is illegal. It is not necessarily bribery to contribute a few hundred thousand or a few million to a politician, or whatever going over any arbitrary cap you choose to put (1,000$, 2,500$, etc.). Cronyism is a problem, but this is not how you solve it. Unless you have hard evidence of bribery one should not be punished for choosing to support the candidate that most closely resembles their views.
I do not believe people should be punished for donating to campaigns. I believe there should be an "arbitrary" cap placed on donations as to not allow one entity to have a stronger voice than any other entity. You are a fool if you think a lot of these big-money donors are donating to support a candidate that "most closely resembles their views." Politicians pander to certain interests to get the monetary support of big-money donors, which at times leverages politicians into a wall and forces them to support a cause that harms more people than it helps just for money.
In any case, the biggest problem, as I've pointed out, is that it is not okay to suppress the majority's voice, or to allow one entity to have the voice of millions. I've heard of protecting the minority from the majority before but I've never heard of disenfranchising the majority to do it. I thought we were long over the periods of aristocracy.
The only way to ensure cronyism does not happen is to eliminate the reason why it happens in the first place, which is huge amounts of campaign donations. Imagine if people were not able to buy elections anymore. Then politicians would have no choice but to do what they should be doing: trying to win EVERYONE'S votes, instead of trying to win a corporation's or a union's or whathaveyou's money.
It's time we open our eyes to the situation at hand and stop blindly following principles that have no place in our society. For those not familiar with what's going on: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79421.html
|
On August 25 2012 13:42 Xayvier wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 13:01 Roe wrote:On August 25 2012 12:41 Xayvier wrote:
I should be able to put my money where I want as long as it does not aid the initiation of force. Who is the government to restrict important rights like that? Do you have an actual reason for that assertion? Because capitalism in combination with the NAP (non-aggression principle, which is basically what I'm advocating in that quote) leads to the most prosperity and freedom in a society. Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 13:01 Roe wrote:
And isn't all government action a form of force? Indeed it is, but one does not aid the initiation of force by giving politicans running for whatever political position money to spend on getting elected. One who is funding a campaign is simply trying to influence who initiates it. They don't need help to initiate force. All government action being force, by the way, is actually the biggest reason as to why I am a believer in the philosophy of Anarcho-Capitalism . Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 13:01 Roe wrote:On August 25 2012 13:00 Xayvier wrote:On August 25 2012 12:48 Souma wrote:
For every reason that outright bribery is illegal. It is not necessarily bribery to contribute a few hundred thousand or a few million to a politician, or whatever going over any arbitrary cap you choose to put (1,000$, 2,500$, etc.). Cronyism is a problem, but this is not how you solve it. How would you fight corporations/rich people buying out politicians to suppress the value of each voter and thus democracy itself? Democracy is not a fair institution in the first place, and neither is government. I am simply arguing in favor of the right to spend your money where you'd like, as long as it follows the NAP. Crony capitalism isn't solved well by putting a cap on campaign contributions. It's solved better through having a free market stateless society, in which a corporation no longer exists (it is a concept, by definition, created by the state), and no business can push their agenda by instating protectionist regulation to prevent competition from entering the market.
It doesn't lead to freedom at all. It gives a select few individuals tyrannical say over policy and thus over the rest of the people. Sure, the people at the top gain undreamable freedom, but the say and choice of everyone else is destroyed.
How is funding a government not going to aid the use/initiation of force if government action is force? Do you not see the immense fallacy in this? Anarcho capitalism wouldn't solve this, only exacerbate the problem into corporate tyranny.
I don't think the corporation is a government creation, what is your reasoning for thinking this? It seems to me that a corporation is comprised of an oligarchy (board of directors, executives, etc) who have dictatorial power over what happens in the company, along with a following hierarchy of managers and workers. This isn't the most freedom for most people. This is immense freedom for a few people. Sure, they'll try to react to market demands to ensure their profits are maximized, but that has nothing to do with what people actually want, unless the people can control the means of production. Also how would you go about abolishing the corporation, and what would ensure that this type of power structure does not exist?
|
On August 25 2012 13:45 Souma wrote:
I do not believe people should be punished for donating to campaigns. I believe there should be an "arbitrary" cap placed on donations as to not allow one entity to have a stronger voice than any other entity. You are a fool if you think a lot of these big-money donors are donating to support a candidate that "most closely resembles their views." Politicians pander to certain interests to get the monetary support of big-money donors, which at times leverages politicians into a wall and forces them to support a cause that harms more people than it helps just for money.
Do I not have a stronger voice than another entity if I have contributed, for example, a 1,000$, and someone else only contributes 5$? Isn't the only way to solve this, with your logic, to take away money from politics completely? And I never said I thought that about big money donors, rather I said unless you have hard evidence of bribery, you shouldn't punish someone for contributing say a few million to a candidate. Yes, I didn't say the few million and I added the choosing to support shit when paraphrasing, but that's what I meant to say. I apologize for not getting my point across properly.
On August 25 2012 13:45 Souma wrote:
In any case, the biggest problem, as I've pointed out, is that it is not okay to suppress the majority's voice, or to allow one entity to have the voice of millions. I've heard of protecting the minority from the majority before but I've never heard of disenfranchising the majority to do it. I thought we were long over the periods of aristocracy.
It is not okay to suppress the minority of voters' voice either. That is the fundamental problem with democracy. Only the majority of voters get what they want.
On August 25 2012 13:45 Souma wrote:The only way to ensure cronyism does not happen is to eliminate the reason why it happens in the first place, which is huge amounts of campaign donations. Imagine if people were not able to buy elections anymore. Then politicians would have no choice but to do what they should be doing: trying to win EVERYONE'S votes, instead of trying to win a corporation's or a union's or whathaveyou's money. It's time we open our eyes to the situation at hand and stop blindly following outdated principles that have no place in our society. For those not familiar with what's going on: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79421.html
Politicans already try to win the majority's votes, they simply go for the corporations' money since it will help them win the votes.
|
On August 25 2012 14:14 Roe wrote:
It doesn't lead to freedom at all. It gives a select few individuals tyrannical say over policy and thus over the rest of the people. Sure, the people at the top gain undreamable freedom, but the say and choice of everyone else is destroyed.
I don't think the corporation is a government creation, what is your reasoning for thinking this? It seems to me that a corporation is comprised of an oligarchy (board of directors, executives, etc) who have dictatorial power over what happens in the company, along with a following hierarchy of managers and workers. This isn't the most freedom for most people. This is immense freedom for a few people. Sure, they'll try to react to market demands to ensure their profits are maximized, but that has nothing to do with what people actually want, unless the people can control the means of production. Also how would you go about abolishing the corporation, and what would ensure that this type of power structure does not exist?
There is an incredible explanation made by a certain ancap, actually, explaining this. (credits to http://www.reddit.com/user/adbmon23 )
+ Show Spoiler +business vs. corporation: Corporation, by definition (def. 1), is a legal class created by the STATE, which gets to abdicate responsibility away from the individuals that created the corporation. A clear distinction needs to be made between a Corporation and a Business. A business is a product of market forces, while a corporation is a product of legal fiction. Corporations would not exist in the absence of a state, but businesses would, and the mechanism to prevent monopoly would be Consumer Choice. The reality is that, wherever and whenever you centralize coercive power, people will bid on it. The state has a monopoly power to regulate and control market forces like competition, bankruptcy, etc. which enables them to grant special legal privileges and protections to whomever they please. Naturally, Corporations start lobbying for this power, and buying political connections becomes a top priority over providing valuable products and services to your customers. government creates corporations by granting certain businesses special privileges and preventing other businesses from competing in a free market. the state also creates elaborate regulations that only large "corporations" can meet thereby pushing out small business and destroying market competition. in a free market, with no barrier to entry, there are no corporations, just businesses. big or small. everyone competes on the same playing field. no special privileges. failed businesses hate a truly free market. with no barrier to entry for their competition. they have to use the state in order to enact barriers for small or home businesses that push them out of the market. the best thing you can do to prevent unfair monopolies is to allow market competition, absent the state. NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGE FOR ANY "CORPORATION"
On August 25 2012 14:14 Roe wrote:
How is funding a government not going to aid the use/initiation of force if government action is force? Do you not see the immense fallacy in this? Anarcho capitalism wouldn't solve this, only exacerbate the problem into corporate tyranny.
I am not funding a government in this situation however. I am funding a candidate who is trying to get into the government, for whatever reason. If I voluntary gave money to the government specifically (which isn't necessary since they already take my money, albeit forcefully, in the form of taxation) , that would be funding and thus aiding the initiation of force. There is a bit of a distinction there.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On August 25 2012 14:25 Xayvier wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 13:45 Souma wrote:
I do not believe people should be punished for donating to campaigns. I believe there should be an "arbitrary" cap placed on donations as to not allow one entity to have a stronger voice than any other entity. You are a fool if you think a lot of these big-money donors are donating to support a candidate that "most closely resembles their views." Politicians pander to certain interests to get the monetary support of big-money donors, which at times leverages politicians into a wall and forces them to support a cause that harms more people than it helps just for money.
Do I not have a stronger voice than another entity if I have contributed, for example, a 1,000$, and someone else only contributes 5$? Isn't the only way to solve this, with your logic, to take away money from politics completely? And I never said I thought that about big money donors, rather I said unless you have hard evidence of bribery, you shouldn't punish someone for contributing say a few million to a candidate. Yes, I didn't say the few million and I added the choosing to support shit when paraphrasing, but that's what I meant to say. I apologize for not getting my point across properly.
My ideal system would be publicly-funded campaigns, but seeing as how that's a far reach I rather have someone donate $1K to my $5 than $10 million to my $5.
Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 13:45 Souma wrote:
In any case, the biggest problem, as I've pointed out, is that it is not okay to suppress the majority's voice, or to allow one entity to have the voice of millions. I've heard of protecting the minority from the majority before but I've never heard of disenfranchising the majority to do it. I thought we were long over the periods of aristocracy. It is not okay to suppress the minority of voters' voice either. That is the fundamental problem with democracy. Only the majority of voters get what they want.
So your suggestion is to suppress the majority's voice instead of allowing all voices to be equal? That makes SO MUCH SENSE.
Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 13:45 Souma wrote:The only way to ensure cronyism does not happen is to eliminate the reason why it happens in the first place, which is huge amounts of campaign donations. Imagine if people were not able to buy elections anymore. Then politicians would have no choice but to do what they should be doing: trying to win EVERYONE'S votes, instead of trying to win a corporation's or a union's or whathaveyou's money. It's time we open our eyes to the situation at hand and stop blindly following outdated principles that have no place in our society. For those not familiar with what's going on: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79421.html Politicans already try to win the majority's votes, they simply go for the corporations' money since it will help them win the votes.
By putting a wrench between the politicians and the voters (or in this case, money) we end up with a system that caters first to the money and second to the voters. The voters should ALWAYS be first. Money shouldn't even be a factor. It is absolutely ridiculous that we spend several billion on elections.
There are a lot of problems with democracy, but the one thing it does value is equality in beliefs. What our current system does is it prioritizes one person's beliefs over many others'. Now, once again, even if we placed a cap on campaign contributions, not everyone will be able to match the cap, but it sure as hell is a large step towards equality and fair elections. Incentives to pander to big-money donors would drop considerably, and in effect, politicians would have nothing to rely on except themselves and their strategy.
Money should never be a thing in politics, let alone buy it.
|
On August 25 2012 14:48 Xayvier wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 14:14 Roe wrote:
It doesn't lead to freedom at all. It gives a select few individuals tyrannical say over policy and thus over the rest of the people. Sure, the people at the top gain undreamable freedom, but the say and choice of everyone else is destroyed.
I don't think the corporation is a government creation, what is your reasoning for thinking this? It seems to me that a corporation is comprised of an oligarchy (board of directors, executives, etc) who have dictatorial power over what happens in the company, along with a following hierarchy of managers and workers. This isn't the most freedom for most people. This is immense freedom for a few people. Sure, they'll try to react to market demands to ensure their profits are maximized, but that has nothing to do with what people actually want, unless the people can control the means of production. Also how would you go about abolishing the corporation, and what would ensure that this type of power structure does not exist? There is an incredible explanation made by a certain ancap, actually, explaining this. (credits to http://www.reddit.com/user/adbmon23 ) + Show Spoiler +business vs. corporation: Corporation, by definition (def. 1), is a legal class created by the STATE, which gets to abdicate responsibility away from the individuals that created the corporation. A clear distinction needs to be made between a Corporation and a Business. A business is a product of market forces, while a corporation is a product of legal fiction. Corporations would not exist in the absence of a state, but businesses would, and the mechanism to prevent monopoly would be Consumer Choice. The reality is that, wherever and whenever you centralize coercive power, people will bid on it. The state has a monopoly power to regulate and control market forces like competition, bankruptcy, etc. which enables them to grant special legal privileges and protections to whomever they please. Naturally, Corporations start lobbying for this power, and buying political connections becomes a top priority over providing valuable products and services to your customers. government creates corporations by granting certain businesses special privileges and preventing other businesses from competing in a free market. the state also creates elaborate regulations that only large "corporations" can meet thereby pushing out small business and destroying market competition. in a free market, with no barrier to entry, there are no corporations, just businesses. big or small. everyone competes on the same playing field. no special privileges. failed businesses hate a truly free market. with no barrier to entry for their competition. they have to use the state in order to enact barriers for small or home businesses that push them out of the market. the best thing you can do to prevent unfair monopolies is to allow market competition, absent the state. NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGE FOR ANY "CORPORATION" Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 14:14 Roe wrote:
How is funding a government not going to aid the use/initiation of force if government action is force? Do you not see the immense fallacy in this? Anarcho capitalism wouldn't solve this, only exacerbate the problem into corporate tyranny.
I am not funding a government in this situation however. I am funding a candidate who is trying to get into the government, for whatever reason. If I voluntary gave money to the government specifically (which isn't necessary since they already take my money, albeit forcefully, in the form of taxation) , that would be funding and thus aiding the initiation of force. There is a bit of a distinction there.
I don't see what I'm missing here. When you fund someone you want them to get into government. That person gets into government. That person is a part of the government. You've helped to fund the government use of force. (albeit more indirectly in this scenario). That doesn't even say anything about lobbying, which is the direct purchase of people who are already in government.
The guy you spoilered doesn't really have many good points. They're fairly anti-regulatory biased, and I don't think you'd have a very free or healthy system without mechanisms to ensure the protection of environment, personal health, etc. They also say that a corporation is merely a business with state endorsement, but that says nothing about the power structure within a business that restricts freedom of the populace and the workers, as well as the efficiency of production being dictated by a small group of people rather than the populace itself.
|
I'll be able to respond properly in like 12 hours (need to sleep and all ofc). Sorry for not immediately responding.
|
ah damn it, for a second there i thought thread title read "americas monkey problems"....too bad
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
