EPTSome people tryed to denounce this kind of thing (the most known are Chico Mendes and Dorothy Stang), they where all murdered.
But now it looks like things are getting better, people have been more aware of th situation.
Somalia - Success of Anarchy - Page 27
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Marais
Brazil26 Posts
Some people tryed to denounce this kind of thing (the most known are Chico Mendes and Dorothy Stang), they where all murdered. But now it looks like things are getting better, people have been more aware of th situation. | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
There's a horrific article in last month's edition of National Geographic, about the underground world of child brides. Girls as young as 6 being married to fully grown men against their will. Girls as young as 9 being dropped off at the hospital, dying of internal injuries sustained when their adult husbands forcibly consummated the marriage. A man who stabbed his 15 year old wife to death for disobeying him, who later walked away unpunished when it was decided he didn't do anything wrong. That's reality for a lot of women in poorer parts of the world. These stories all came from rural parts of India, in villages so far from the cities that the government simply doesn't touch them. They *do* live in your happy anarchy world, and they treat their women like shit. There was another article a few months earlier about the lives of women in other parts of the world. Two sisters in Iran, aged 16 and 24, who had *never been allowed outside the house in their entire lives*. They've spent their entire lives locked inside. Or again, girls as young as 9 who *set themselves on fire* in suicide attempts to get away from their abusive husbands. Humanity does not have a good track record when it comes to women's rights. Personally, I'm thrilled to live in a first world country where I've never had to experience that. I didn't give blanket consent to every man in the village on the day of my first period. I wasn't married off at 13 one of my dad's friends and taken away from my family forever. The plight of women in a lot of the undeveloped world, (including Somalia), is horrible beyond belief. Most of us can't even imagine the lives lots of these women lead. Or perhaps race relations? Do you think schools in the American south would have willingly desegregated had the government not sent the goddamn army in? You remember those pictures you see of little black children being escorted to class by men with machine guns, while thousands of people jeer and throw things? That wasn't so long ago. We used to lynch minorities for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hell, slavery wasn't too long ago. What happens in an anarchist society if some undesirables try to move into the neighborhood? Do we let the free market decide how to treat people who are different? Humanity has a shitty record in that area too. I understand you don't like the system or how it's treated you. But honestly is there anything better out there? | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On July 15 2011 01:57 Jibba wrote: Jesus christ, just leave the country if you think its condition is that bad. All the internet libertarians are so willing to argue yet they don't trust their own theories enough to see them in action. You have mobility. You're living in a country where the vast majority of people enjoy social democracy and the many government-provided benefits it entails, and you think you can redirect things and find your "homeland" by arguing on the internet? If the US isn't accommodating your interests, pick up and leave. That's a key principle within laissez faire-ism. You don't understand a damn thing I have said. | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On July 15 2011 02:40 Haemonculus wrote: Let's forget economic issues then. I'll freely admit that I don't know enough about economics to really debate how our federal masters abuse our wallets. So let's just look at social issues. There's a horrific article in last month's edition of National Geographic, about the underground world of child brides. Girls as young as 6 being married to fully grown men against their will. Girls as young as 9 being dropped off at the hospital, dying of internal injuries sustained when their adult husbands forcibly consummated the marriage. A man who stabbed his 15 year old wife to death for disobeying him, who later walked away unpunished when it was decided he didn't do anything wrong. That's reality for a lot of women in poorer parts of the world. These stories all came from rural parts of India, in villages so far from the cities that the government simply doesn't touch them. They *do* live in your happy anarchy world, and they treat their women like shit. There was another article a few months earlier about the lives of women in other parts of the world. Two sisters in Iran, aged 16 and 24, who had *never been allowed outside the house in their entire lives*. They've spent their entire lives locked inside. Or again, girls as young as 9 who *set themselves on fire* in suicide attempts to get away from their abusive husbands. Humanity does not have a good track record when it comes to women's rights. Personally, I'm thrilled to live in a first world country where I've never had to experience that. I didn't give blanket consent to every man in the village on the day of my first period. I wasn't married off at 13 one of my dad's friends and taken away from my family forever. The plight of women in a lot of the undeveloped world, (including Somalia), is horrible beyond belief. Most of us can't even imagine the lives lots of these women lead. Or perhaps race relations? Do you think schools in the American south would have willingly desegregated had the government not sent the goddamn army in? You remember those pictures you see of little black children being escorted to class by men with machine guns, while thousands of people jeer and throw things? That wasn't so long ago. We used to lynch minorities for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hell, slavery wasn't too long ago. What happens in an anarchist society if some undesirables try to move into the neighborhood? Do we let the free market decide how to treat people who are different? Humanity has a shitty record in that area too. I understand you don't like the system or how it's treated you. But honestly is there anything better out there? It was the government itself that enforced slavery, hell it was the original founders of this government that were damn slave owners. It was the government itself that setup rules to treat women as inferior citizens. Everything you're talking about was enforced by the government on both sides, the so called good they did was just a change in attitude and action after years and years of doing the direct opposite. You can't cherry pick the good and ignore the bad. So yeah it's good those things happened, but hardly gives any credit to the institution itself. It actually just shows how dangerous power can be - and how they don't actually do good, they just do whatever whims they have at the time for whatever reasons. Is there anything better? Of course we can find something better, of course it is possible. There is nothing in the world that can't be improved on in some way. The big problem is we are stuck in a rut where education is run by people who have no incentive for change in a good way. Like I said before, all of our problems, our insecurities, our acts of violence and ill will towards each each - governments feeds off of these it needs people to act this way to justify it's existence. So explain to me how they will ever have the incentive to move humanity beyond this, why they would ever look for better methods of education that would do so - it would only destroy them. | ||
|
bRuTaL!!
Finland588 Posts
Somali minister of women and family matters Maryan Qasim was suprised when she heard that Somalia is only the 5th worst place for women in the world. She described her country as hell on earth. Basically on almost any indicator/ranking of welfare Somalia is one of the worst countries. Anarchy doesnt work, not necessarily because itself is flawed but because man is. The power void created by the lack of government will be filled by individuals or companies. | ||
|
Sumsi
Germany593 Posts
On July 15 2011 01:57 Jibba wrote: Jesus christ, just leave the country if you think its condition is that bad. All the internet libertarians are so willing to argue yet they don't trust their own theories enough to see them in action. You have mobility. You're living in a country where the vast majority of people enjoy social democracy and the many government-provided benefits it entails, and you think you can redirect things and find your "homeland" by arguing on the internet? If the US isn't accommodating your interests, pick up and leave. That's a key principle within laissez faire-ism. I understand that Anarchy is not supposed to be an option for most people. On the other hand the social-democratic Welfare/Warfare State is on the edge of bankruptcy. So maybe a bit of Libertarianism wouldn't be such a bad idea - in the US and in Europe. You can't do that by just running away. Some guys here should really read the news before praising how well government works these days. | ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
On July 15 2011 03:12 Treemonkeys wrote: It was the government itself that enforced slavery, hell it was the original founders of this government that were damn slave owners. It was the government itself that setup rules to treat women as inferior citizens. Everything you're talking about was enforced by the government on both sides, the so called good they did was just a change in attitude and action after years and years of doing the direct opposite. You can't cherry pick the good and ignore the bad. So yeah it's good those things happened, but hardly gives any credit to the institution itself. It actually just shows how dangerous power can be - and how they don't actually do good, they just do whatever whims they have at the time for whatever reasons. Is there anything better? Of course we can find something better, of course it is possible. There is nothing in the world that can't be improved on in some way. The big problem is we are stuck in a rut where education is run by people who have no incentive for change in a good way. Like I said before, all of our problems, our insecurities, our acts of violence and ill will towards each each - governments feeds off of these it needs people to act this way to justify it's existence. So explain to me how they will ever have the incentive to move humanity beyond this, why they would ever look for better methods of education that would do so - it would only destroy them. You've been criticizing the notion of government and how they continuously oppress the people to justify its existence. At the same time, you concede that anarchy is not the best solution either. The only alternative you have to having a government is that we might be able to find something better in the future. It's all fine and dandy to criticize some of the elements of existing institutions, I even agree with some of your criticisms, but unless you can articulate a clear alternative to the current status quo, the criticisms mean nothing since decisions in the real world involve comparisons between opposing choices. EDIT: Also, what does it mean for our education to be taught in a 'good' way? Does that mean education people on the harms of government? | ||
|
Chalker
14 Posts
With what time I do have though: On July 15 2011 03:24 bRuTaL!! wrote: Anarchy doesnt work, not necessarily because itself is flawed but because man is. The power void created by the lack of government will be filled by individuals or companies. Man's flaw in this case is that we lack a widely held understanding of force, property rights and individual liberty in general. Anarchy (based on libertarian ethical theory, anything else is just more of the same varying degrees of socialism) will work just fine once people understand the relatively easy concepts it's built upon. The power vacuum you're worried about doesn't have to occur, and if people abolish governments for the right reasons it won't. | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On July 15 2011 04:55 TranceStorm wrote: You've been criticizing the notion of government and how they continuously oppress the people to justify its existence. At the same time, you concede that anarchy is not the best solution either. The only alternative you have to having a government is that we might be able to find something better in the future. It's all fine and dandy to criticize some of the elements of existing institutions, I even agree with some of your criticisms, but unless you can articulate a clear alternative to the current status quo, the criticisms mean nothing since decisions in the real world involve comparisons between opposing choices. EDIT: Also, what does it mean for our education to be taught in a 'good' way? Does that mean education people on the harms of government? I'm sorry I don't have answers, maybe in time I will - but it's not about me, and most of what I am saying is true and valid and should be taken into consideration . I think discussion helps with that. At some level I think the solution is quite obvious. The problem is simply violence and taking advantage of other people. That is the fear of anarchy, that is the sum of all the problems with government. So the solution is, get people to stop doing that to each other, at least a critical mass. How to get there is the hard part. In fear of being extremely redundant, it is made much worse when the government is responsible for educating young minds, while having every incentive NOT to work towards that. It is basically just what Chaulker described, or educating people so that they will learn it is better to not be violent and manipulative with each other. It is basically useless to call this anarchy, because very few will understand what the means. It is more a system of taking the good aspects of government (organization, cooperation) and getting rid of the bad (initiation of force to get everything done) and finding a way to make it work in a way that is superior. This cannot happen without a change in mindset on a wide scale. People have already described this in detail, and it is an ideal. Perhaps unattainable in 100 or 1000 years, but it is still an ideal. An ideal that most will never learn about, pushing it that much further from reality. Evolution should be brought into this, because it is quite valid. This so called "flaw of humanity" is nothing but a relic leftover from religious dogma. If people learn anything from evolution, it should be that we are not static beings, we can change for better and for worse. This so called flaw doesn't have to be permanent. With the right change on environment almost anything is possible in the long run...but who has the most control over our environment and where are they taking us? So short term the only solutions I can see, is to just scale down government as much as possible. It's too bad we are going in the opposite direction, and at a fast pace, so even that isn't really realistic. So extremely short term the solution I see is to be honest with each other about how limited we truly are. When you talk about real world comparisons between opposing choices - everything I am talking about has no place there in the real political realm, and we should be honest about that. It is the only first step we can take, however small it is. In the US the politicians and the media grant no place for this discussion, none at all. It is only right vs. left. It is only a question the details of what government will do, rather that the philosophical question of how much we should actually want or have. Until we are ready to have that discussion, we will get no where. Until we are honest about the fact that our overlords avoid that discussion - and it is not some vast conspiracy, it is simply the result of incentives placed on them, it will remain this way. | ||
|
xarthaz
1704 Posts
On July 15 2011 04:55 TranceStorm wrote: You've been criticizing the notion of government and how they continuously oppress the people to justify its existence. At the same time, you concede that anarchy is not the best solution either. The only alternative you have to having a government is that we might be able to find something better in the future. It's all fine and dandy to criticize some of the elements of existing institutions, I even agree with some of your criticisms, but unless you can articulate a clear alternative to the current status quo, the criticisms mean nothing since decisions in the real world involve comparisons between opposing choices. EDIT: Also, what does it mean for our education to be taught in a 'good' way? Does that mean education people on the harms of government? The alternative is simple. But it is a struggle. Its hard fighting against the oppressors, especially with the entire world of statist bullies looking to brutalise the libertarian dreams of somalis. But they wont give up, because they know what they want. It is something that once you feel, you know its right, and you know you got to keep doing it, no matter what. Its just purely keeping going, no matter what happens, and then you can do it. If you do that, all the distractions will bounce off you and anarchy can be sustained. Trotsky was right in a way - it is a struggle, a (thus far) permanent revolution against the statist powermongers. But libertarian capitalism, not communism. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On July 15 2011 08:23 xarthaz wrote: The alternative is simple. But it is a struggle. Its hard fighting against the oppressors, especially with the entire world of statist bullies looking to brutalise the libertarian dreams of somalis. But they wont give up, because they know what they want. It is something that once you feel, you know its right, and you know you got to keep doing it, no matter what. Its just purely keeping going, no matter what happens, and then you can do it. If you do that, all the distractions will bounce off you and anarchy can be sustained. Trotsky was right in a way - it is a struggle, a (thus far) permanent revolution against the statist powermongers. But libertarian capitalism, not communism. How great for you, but you created this thread based on the 'succes of anarchy in somalia', and you're yet to take back a single thing about what you've said about Somalia. Then again, if you remain as consisted as you have been with your responses, you'll just ignore this post as part of your usual routine. Which is in a region of the world that is about to be hit with the worst famine in what, 60 years? While our current forms of government have their flaws, famines are substantially less likely to occur in a liberal democratic system of government then they are in your awesome anarchistic world. If I were living in the Horn of Africa, I'd count myself extremely lucky to be living in either Kenya or Ethiopia as opposed to Somalia, where this famine will be hitting the hardest due to the complete lack of governance, and therefore the means of any regulation/distribution of food, including foreign aid, and is substantially less likely to receive aid from international donors because of the aforementioned factors. I'm fine with you discussing anarchy and all, but to do so in a thread claiming that Somalia is african paradise is firstly very poor taste and secondly just stupid. I'm certain there was a thread on anarchy a while back where you would be able to vent your opinions as much as you want, but seeing a thread on 'the succes of anarchism in somalia' constantly pop-up where people discuss the theoretical grounds of anarchy instead of actually realizing what this means for a country like somalia is driving me absolutely crazy (having worked in africa myself and all). Can a mod please close this garbage thread? | ||
|
Cassel_Castle
United States820 Posts
Nature abhors a vacuum. | ||
|
xarthaz
1704 Posts
It is because the concept of exchange does not exist within production. If it did, it would be private institution, hence the Hoppean argumentation supporting Monarchy&Anarchy over Democracy. But it also means that government by the very definitions that western culture holds dear cannot be demonstrated to be better at solving the problem of famines than private enterprise. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On July 15 2011 08:48 xarthaz wrote: Derez, there cannot exist an argument to claim government use of resources being preferrable to consumers keeping their purchasing power. It is because the concept of exchange does not exist within production. If it did, it would be private institution, hence the Hoppean argumentation supporting Monarchy&Anarchy over Democracy. But it also means that government by the very definitions that western culture holds dear cannot be demonstrated to be better at solving the problem of famines than private enterprise. Again, you're not actually responding to anything I just said. You're just sticking with vague theoretical points instead of actually adressing anything happening in Somalia. This isn't a theoretical argument, this is people dying of hunger because their government is unable to allocate resources in any effective way. This relationship has been _proven_ to hold true, after the initial theory by Sen. As I said, I'm fine with you having a discussion on the theoretical grounds of anarchism, but for gods sake, don't do it in a thread where you list somalia as the main example in the OP. In the 1990's, famine claimed over 300.000 lives in Somalia, and the one currently coming up is probably going to be worse. As a percentage of population killed, Somalia is going to be worse off then any other country in the region. System of government doesn't mean anything if 5% of your population are about to die due to starvation and people are killing eachother over the little food left. Somalia (and the rest of the Horn of Africa) is going to be needing major western aid, and the sad truth is that we can't give it to them (while we can to Kenya, or Ethiopia), simply because even if we were to ship the food, they have no means of actually getting it to where it's needed. It's the 1990's all over again, and having 5% of your population die due to famine isn't something that's compensated for by being cool and anarchist. Go continue your discussion in a theoretical anarchism thread or something, this isn't the place for it at all. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
Man's flaw in this case is that we lack a widely held understanding of force, property rights and individual liberty in general. Anarchy (based on libertarian ethical theory, anything else is just more of the same varying degrees of socialism) will work just fine once people understand the relatively easy concepts it's built upon. The power vacuum you're worried about doesn't have to occur, and if people abolish governments for the right reasons it won't. And once true communism the state will wither away and it will truly be from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. <-- sarky sarc sarc I'm sorry I don't have answers, maybe in time I will - but it's not about me, and most of what I am saying is true and valid and should be taken into consideration . I think discussion helps with that. At some level I think the solution is quite obvious. The problem is simply violence and taking advantage of other people. That is the fear of anarchy, that is the sum of all the problems with government. So the solution is, get people to stop doing that to each other, at least a critical mass. How to get there is the hard part. In fear of being extremely redundant, it is made much worse when the government is responsible for educating young minds, while having every incentive NOT to work towards that. A critical mass to do what exactly? Form some sort of communal agency to... enforce public safety and order? Why, that sounds suspiciously like a police department. It is basically just what Chaulker described, or educating people so that they will learn it is better to not be violent and manipulative with each other. It is basically useless to call this anarchy, because very few will understand what the means. It is more a system of taking the good aspects of government (organization, cooperation) and getting rid of the bad (initiation of force to get everything done) and finding a way to make it work in a way that is superior. This cannot happen without a change in mindset on a wide scale. People have already described this in detail, and it is an ideal. Perhaps unattainable in 100 or 1000 years, but it is still an ideal. An ideal that most will never learn about, pushing it that much further from reality. Changing the nature of man is a universal goal of utopian philosophies. Evolution should be brought into this, because it is quite valid. This so called "flaw of humanity" is nothing but a relic leftover from religious dogma. If people learn anything from evolution, it should be that we are not static beings, we can change for better and for worse. This so called flaw doesn't have to be permanent. With the right change on environment almost anything is possible in the long run...but who has the most control over our environment and where are they taking us? How... Spencerian, and socially Darwinist of you. The flaws of humanity exist whether religions are fantasies are not. Most of the worst examples of those flaws in action have taken place by men who professed atheism (Stalin, Mao, etc.) or a burning hatred of existing religion and its thoughts on the nature of man (Hitler). Religion or lack of it does not seem to be an issue. When you talk about real world comparisons between opposing choices - everything I am talking about has no place there in the real political realm, and we should be honest about that. It is the only first step we can take, however small it is. In the US the politicians and the media grant no place for this discussion, none at all. It is only right vs. left. It is only a question the details of what government will do, rather that the philosophical question of how much we should actually want or have. Until we are ready to have that discussion, we will get no where. Until we are honest about the fact that our overlords avoid that discussion - and it is not some vast conspiracy, it is simply the result of incentives placed on them, it will remain this way. When it suits you you at least attempt to be modest, but you are still infected by the idea that most of the people can be fooled most of the time. Not in a free society. Derez, there cannot exist an argument to claim government use of resources being preferrable to consumers keeping their purchasing power. If only you could boil down the entirety of human interaction to exchanges based on individual purchasing power. But it also means that government by the very definitions that western culture holds dear cannot be demonstrated to be better at solving the problem of famines than private enterprise. Well actually it required the shaping undeveloped wilderness in the nineteenth century, by government encouraging and protecting the ambitions of the people that created the great class of farmers that made the West the breadbasket of the world. Both the State and the private individual and enterprise were necessary. But whatever you want to believe is cool I guess. | ||
|
Padrino86
Canada12 Posts
| ||
|
Railxp
Hong Kong1313 Posts
The whole idea of a corporation is that private assets are protected if a company goes bankrupt. As a share holder you can only claim the assets of the "corporation", but the CEO can get away with million dollar bonuses and those are untouchable, even if the corporation went into debt precisely because of such a corrupt CEO. Corporations have signed a deal with the government, you protect us from the worse consequences of our actions, and we will pay you large corporate taxes. In a free market system, shareholders would be at an outrage and would never agree to give corporate elites such protection. This is only possible with government intervention. Companies will look very different in a truly stateless society. Will there be corrupt ones? yes. Will they be greedy? sure. But without government protection, they will be forced to bear the full consequences of their actions. Everyone wants a way to protect workers from loosing their underwear just because their boss made really bad decisions, but higher-ups also need to be held accountable for ruining entire ecosystems and fishing families because of an oil spill. Loosing your current job title isn't quite at the same proportion. | ||
|
Cassel_Castle
United States820 Posts
On July 15 2011 09:13 Railxp wrote: Many of you are operating under the notion that today's corporations would take over if government is gotten rid of tomorrow. What you neglect to take into account is that corporations couldn't exist in its current form without government support. The whole idea of a corporation is that private assets are protected if a company goes bankrupt. As a share holder you can only claim the assets of the "corporation", but the CEO can get away with million dollar bonuses and those are untouchable, even if the corporation went into debt precisely because of such a corrupt CEO. Corporations have signed a deal with the government, you protect us from the worse consequences of our actions, and we will pay you large corporate taxes. In a free market system, shareholders would be at an outrage and would never agree to give corporate elites such protection. This is only possible with government intervention. Companies will look very different in a truly stateless society. Will there be corrupt ones? yes. Will they be greedy? sure. But without government protection, they will be forced to bear the full consequences of their actions. Everyone wants a way to protect workers from loosing their underwear just because their boss made really bad decisions, but higher-ups also need to be held accountable for ruining entire ecosystems and fishing families because of an oil spill. Loosing your current job title isn't quite at the same proportion. Corporations existed before corporate taxation and regulation and they will exist afterwards. They'll be more unstable, I give you that, a lot of corporations would have been wiped out in 2008 if not for the government, but the notion that they wouldn't be the most powerful entities if government were to disappear is beyond silly. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28904 Posts
On July 15 2011 08:23 xarthaz wrote: The alternative is simple. But it is a struggle. Its hard fighting against the oppressors, especially with the entire world of statist bullies looking to brutalise the libertarian dreams of somalis. But they wont give up, because they know what they want. It is something that once you feel, you know its right, and you know you got to keep doing it, no matter what. Its just purely keeping going, no matter what happens, and then you can do it. If you do that, all the distractions will bounce off you and anarchy can be sustained. Trotsky was right in a way - it is a struggle, a (thus far) permanent revolution against the statist powermongers. But libertarian capitalism, not communism. it's a struggle because most people (in western countries) are content. that is the real reason why no larger scale revolutions have happened in western democracies for the past 70 years; most people are content. the reason is not that the people are powerless, or that our regimes are so brutal that people are too frightened to dissent. look at northern africa, where you've had actually oppressive regimes for decades. eventually, people were fed up and revolted - even though the response has largely been quite brutal.. it's not like stuff is perfect. and not everyone is content. I can name hundreds of things I am dissatisfied with regarding society, or aspects I'd like to see improved upon.. absolutely. there are laws I'd like to see removed or altered, and I happily break the law regularly - and I am happy that my government is not competent enough to know that I am doing this. but there has also never been a time or a place through the entire history of mankind I would rather live in, than norway at the time being. and norway today is a thoroughly "staty" society; the state plays a significant role in my life, and the life of all norwegians, from birth until I die. in fact, every country I'd possibly like to live in, actually all share this attribute - that the state plays a significant role in the lives of ordinary citizens. there are absolutely examples of this going much too far (NK), but virtually every successful country on earth (going by factors such as education level, life expectancy, health care, crime) have one major thing in common: they are heavily regulated societies. now, a powerful state that exercises its power to hurt its citizens is a truly horrific thing to behold. but a competent and compassionate state is amazing. this is what you should strive for - not the abolition of the entire institution. people always bond together in groups and people always try to look out for their own group before they look out for other groups. these are undeniable facts relating to human behavior. knowing that - can you actually think of a better system to keep people happy than one where people decide what should happen based on who has the best ideas, best ability to convey their ideas, and best track record in keeping promises? like I wrote before, american democracy does have some serious issues - and I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the posters I see both on this forum and elsewhere on the internet who advocate anarchy stem from usa or other countries where the state has been unsuccessful at providing security and stability. I don't know how to fix that - but I am absolutely confident that abolishing world governments would lead us closer to the direction of mad max than the direction of imaginationland where everyone is looking out for himself first, and that somehow resulting in improvement for most. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
The whole idea of a corporation is that private assets are protected if a company goes bankrupt. As a share holder you can only claim the assets of the "corporation", but the CEO can get away with million dollar bonuses and those are untouchable, even if the corporation went into debt precisely because of such a corrupt CEO. Corporations have signed a deal with the government, you protect us from the worse consequences of our actions, and we will pay you large corporate taxes. In a free market system, shareholders would be at an outrage and would never agree to give corporate elites such protection. This is only possible with government intervention. In a "free market system" of the kind you describe, economic activity would be horribly stunted as protecting private individuals from liability is the great strength of the concept of the limited liability corporation. Without it harnessing of the resources necessary to provide for a huge consumerist society is impossible. | ||
| ||
