|
On March 04 2013 11:59 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 10:39 rusedeguerre wrote:On March 04 2013 07:49 ControlMonkey wrote:On March 02 2013 11:43 rusedeguerre wrote:
^
NYPD: government.
LAPD: government.
War on drugs: government.
War on nations: government.
Tax loopholes for the rich: government.
Corporate subsidies: government....
I could go on and on, and yet the answer to every problem from these Occupy morons is always more government, and rich people are the problem.
Fucking baffles my mind. What if the answer to "bad government" is not "less government" but "good government"? What if it is a fundamental truth of this world that power corrupts? What if history and present day were littered with examples of unrestrained governments abusing their authority, as a warning to those of us still enjoying a modicum of freedom? If you give less power to the government, how does that guarantee that corporations won't simply abuse the vacuum of oversight and gain power in even more damaging ways? Its like the anarchists who think that government should be dismantled entirely. You're just inviting another power structure to take its place, except it won't be accountable to the public at all. At least when you have government, people can vote for change if things get bad enough. Also just because it has been corrupted doesn't guarantee that that will always happen no matter what changes we attempt! There are many regulations that could enforce increased transparency between government and corporations, limit the power of lobbyists, limit campaign financing so its more about the issues and less about how much cash you can garner. You're kind of just assuming that government is bad, but I'm not sure you really know anything about the alternative (how could you?), and neither do you really know about what can be done in terms of new laws, regulations, or even amendments to the constitution to make things better. For once I'm happy about what a branch of Occupy is doing. Its specific, its intelligent, and it might just be achievable.
Giving the government more power allows the corporations to abuse the governments power more. We're not inviting another power structure for the corporations to take over you are. People don't vote for change they vote for ideas. I don't know what the statistic is exactly but well more then 90% of political races are won by the guy with the most money. If thats not a marker for how corrupt the system is and how corrupt the government is I don't know what is. I have no idea where these regulations that you think exist are but they arn't working. Ask anyone and they'll tell you that government regulation is a joke and almost never does what you want it to.
People aren't assuming that government itself is bad. the people who will run said government are bad and I don't trust them, do you? This weird new branch of ows is just another chaotic attention whoring populist movement that will never amount to anything more then a paragraph in our history books in 40 years and then forgotten after our grand kids take the test on it. They don't actually think that they can just name a thousand corrupt officials and expect other corrupt officials to do anything about it do they?
|
On March 04 2013 11:59 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 10:39 rusedeguerre wrote:On March 04 2013 07:49 ControlMonkey wrote:On March 02 2013 11:43 rusedeguerre wrote:
^
NYPD: government.
LAPD: government.
War on drugs: government.
War on nations: government.
Tax loopholes for the rich: government.
Corporate subsidies: government....
I could go on and on, and yet the answer to every problem from these Occupy morons is always more government, and rich people are the problem.
Fucking baffles my mind. What if the answer to "bad government" is not "less government" but "good government"? What if it is a fundamental truth of this world that power corrupts? What if history and present day were littered with examples of unrestrained governments abusing their authority, as a warning to those of us still enjoying a modicum of freedom? If you give less power to the government, how does that guarantee that corporations won't simply abuse the vacuum of oversight and gain power in even more damaging ways? Its like the anarchists who think that government should be dismantled entirely. You're just inviting another power structure to take its place, except it won't be accountable to the public at all. At least when you have government, people can vote for change if things get bad enough. Also just because it has been corrupted doesn't guarantee that that will always happen no matter what changes we attempt! There are many regulations that could enforce increased transparency between government and corporations, limit the power of lobbyists, limit campaign financing so its more about the issues and less about how much cash you can garner. You're kind of just assuming that government is bad, but I'm not sure you really know anything about the alternative (how could you?), and neither do you really know about what can be done in terms of new laws, regulations, or even amendments to the constitution to make things better. For once I'm happy about what a branch of Occupy is doing. Its specific, its intelligent, and it might just be achievable.
There is a massive distinction here, of course, that you are ignoring.
When corporations abuse power, it usually amounts to "I'm gonna charge people more for this thing that they want than I should get away with." When governments abuse power, it usually amounts to "I'm gonna extort money from the population at large, and imprison or even murder anybody who gets in the way of my racket."
Do you really want to compare the imprisonment/death toll between corporations and governments?
|
On March 04 2013 12:08 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 11:59 radscorpion9 wrote:On March 04 2013 10:39 rusedeguerre wrote:On March 04 2013 07:49 ControlMonkey wrote:On March 02 2013 11:43 rusedeguerre wrote:
^
NYPD: government.
LAPD: government.
War on drugs: government.
War on nations: government.
Tax loopholes for the rich: government.
Corporate subsidies: government....
I could go on and on, and yet the answer to every problem from these Occupy morons is always more government, and rich people are the problem.
Fucking baffles my mind. What if the answer to "bad government" is not "less government" but "good government"? What if it is a fundamental truth of this world that power corrupts? What if history and present day were littered with examples of unrestrained governments abusing their authority, as a warning to those of us still enjoying a modicum of freedom? If you give less power to the government, how does that guarantee that corporations won't simply abuse the vacuum of oversight and gain power in even more damaging ways? Its like the anarchists who think that government should be dismantled entirely. You're just inviting another power structure to take its place, except it won't be accountable to the public at all. At least when you have government, people can vote for change if things get bad enough. Also just because it has been corrupted doesn't guarantee that that will always happen no matter what changes we attempt! There are many regulations that could enforce increased transparency between government and corporations, limit the power of lobbyists, limit campaign financing so its more about the issues and less about how much cash you can garner. You're kind of just assuming that government is bad, but I'm not sure you really know anything about the alternative (how could you?), and neither do you really know about what can be done in terms of new laws, regulations, or even amendments to the constitution to make things better. For once I'm happy about what a branch of Occupy is doing. Its specific, its intelligent, and it might just be achievable. There is a massive distinction here, of course, that you are ignoring. When corporations abuse power, it usually amounts to "I'm gonna charge people more for this thing that they want than I should get away with." When governments abuse power, it usually amounts to "I'm gonna extort money from the population at large, and imprison or even murder anybody who gets in the way of my racket." Do you really want to compare the imprisonment/death toll between corporations and governments?
Unrepayable debt that drives farmers to suicide as their only out seems like imprisonment/death to me. When corporations abuse power they take over governments and put their people in it. When governments abuse people its people in the government abusing the power given to them by the people in a way that the people don't want that power to be used. Monsanto doesn't even have shareholders to hold them accountable in anyway.
Corporations are like a dog chasing a car. They don't know what they're going to do when they control everything but they want to and can't control themselves to do anything other then strive to control everything. Dogs aren't inherently evil but they'll still bite your throat out if they've been trained to and are allowed to do so.
|
On March 04 2013 11:43 rusedeguerre wrote:
Monsanto doesn't force anyone to do anything. It is, once again, the government doing all the forcing around here. But I'm sure we can just "reform" the government by giving them more power and hoping they use it in our interests this time instead of abusing it. I wouldn't keep my hopes up though.
Um, yes they do. They scatter their seed in the wind and then show up to farms and go "Hey bro we just want to see if our seed has blow over here, can we test?" And if people say yes, they test and when they find the seed (which they know they will before asking) they force the person to pay royalties and then only allow their seed to be purchased. If they person says no they go through the courts and get a court order to allow search and then the end is the same. Monsanto is evil, and corporations like that need to be severely limited in power and relation to the government.
|
On March 04 2013 12:15 Foblos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 11:43 rusedeguerre wrote:
Monsanto doesn't force anyone to do anything. It is, once again, the government doing all the forcing around here. But I'm sure we can just "reform" the government by giving them more power and hoping they use it in our interests this time instead of abusing it. I wouldn't keep my hopes up though. Um, yes they do. They scatter their seed in the wind and then show up to farms and go "Hey bro we just want to see if our seed has blow over here, can we test?" And if people say yes, they test and when they find the seed (which they know they will before asking) they force the person to pay royalties and then only allow their seed to be purchased. If they person says no they go through the courts and get a court order to allow search and then the end is the same. Monsanto is evil, and corporations like that need to be severely limited in power and relation to the government.
So they break the law and the government helps them to rob people? You are using an example of government failure as proof that corporations are the problem? Thanks, I guess, for proving my point for me.
|
On March 04 2013 12:15 Foblos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 11:43 rusedeguerre wrote:
Monsanto doesn't force anyone to do anything. It is, once again, the government doing all the forcing around here. But I'm sure we can just "reform" the government by giving them more power and hoping they use it in our interests this time instead of abusing it. I wouldn't keep my hopes up though. Um, yes they do. They scatter their seed in the wind and then show up to farms and go "Hey bro we just want to see if our seed has blow over here, can we test?" And if people say yes, they test and when they find the seed (which they know they will before asking) they force the person to pay royalties and then only allow their seed to be purchased. If they person says no they go through the courts and get a court order to allow search and then the end is the same. Monsanto is evil, and corporations like that need to be severely limited in power and relation to the government.
They don't "scatter their seed in the wind" they spend billions and billions on crops that pollinate their hard paid for researched qualities to plants that are not controlled by them and are not held accountable to their copyrights at all.
Its like if you paid a billion dollars to create the most beautiful flower and then because of bees now your neighbor has the same flowers as you do and didn't pay a dime. if your neighbor is simply willing to pay you for the rights to grow your new super flowers you can both profit and prosper with it.
Like your endpoint is correct (corporations are going to take over the government in any way you can if you let them) but your example is so filled with weird propaganda and points that aren't in themselves a bad point in anyway. Monstanto spreading super corn to more farmers to allow them to have a higher yield for a share of the increase in profit from the higher yield isn't evil its just good capitalism. The problem comes when the farmer has neither the competency or capability to preform at the levels that they should be by assumption when they sign the contract to use the high yield monsanto seeds. This is where the government should step in and regulate what is "fair" for the farmers and corporations both.
On March 04 2013 12:25 sam!zdat wrote:
^the seeds spill over into fields owned by farmers who never asked for them and are now subject to copyright enforcement on seed that they own by all rights
But they don't own those seeds by any rights. Those seeds indeed spilled over into their land and they are now benefiting from those seeds somehow being better. The government should be stepping in and forcing the corporation to make a fair deal with the farmer on the basis of the farmers benefit from said seeds.
This isn't like a foreign concept to me. I have a relative in southern Minnesota that farms 1300 acers of monsanto corn and soybeans. He doesn't trust monsanto he really doesn't like how hes forced to deal with them but on the same hand he can't deny the huge profits hes been able to make these past few years because of the monsanto seed that he use's. Government is meant to be the grease and the hammer of the capitalist engine. Just ensure a fair playing field for all and get the fuck out of the way.
|
^the seeds spill over into fields owned by farmers who never asked for them and are now subject to copyright enforcement on seed that they own by all rights
|
On March 04 2013 12:21 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 12:15 Foblos wrote:On March 04 2013 11:43 rusedeguerre wrote:
Monsanto doesn't force anyone to do anything. It is, once again, the government doing all the forcing around here. But I'm sure we can just "reform" the government by giving them more power and hoping they use it in our interests this time instead of abusing it. I wouldn't keep my hopes up though. Um, yes they do. They scatter their seed in the wind and then show up to farms and go "Hey bro we just want to see if our seed has blow over here, can we test?" And if people say yes, they test and when they find the seed (which they know they will before asking) they force the person to pay royalties and then only allow their seed to be purchased. If they person says no they go through the courts and get a court order to allow search and then the end is the same. Monsanto is evil, and corporations like that need to be severely limited in power and relation to the government. So they break the law and the government helps them to rob people? You are using an example of government failure as proof that corporations are the problem? Thanks, I guess, for proving my point for me.
Government itself isn't the problem its the people IN the government that are the problem. They are inherently going to be human, be imperfect, and are going to become corrupt if the situation allows them to. You don't blame a dog for shitting in your yard you blame the fence your next door neighbor didn't build to stop the dog from shitting in your yard.
|
On March 04 2013 12:24 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 12:15 Foblos wrote:On March 04 2013 11:43 rusedeguerre wrote:
Monsanto doesn't force anyone to do anything. It is, once again, the government doing all the forcing around here. But I'm sure we can just "reform" the government by giving them more power and hoping they use it in our interests this time instead of abusing it. I wouldn't keep my hopes up though. Um, yes they do. They scatter their seed in the wind and then show up to farms and go "Hey bro we just want to see if our seed has blow over here, can we test?" And if people say yes, they test and when they find the seed (which they know they will before asking) they force the person to pay royalties and then only allow their seed to be purchased. If they person says no they go through the courts and get a court order to allow search and then the end is the same. Monsanto is evil, and corporations like that need to be severely limited in power and relation to the government. They don't "scatter their seed in the wind" they spend billions and billions on crops that pollinate their hard paid for researched qualities to plants that are not controlled by them and are not held accountable to their copyrights at all. Its like if you paid a billion dollars to create the most beautiful flower and then because of bees now your neighbor has the same flowers as you do and didn't pay a dime. if your neighbor is simply willing to pay you for the rights to grow your new super flowers you can both profit and prosper with it. Like your endpoint is correct (corporations are going to take over the government in any way you can if you let them) but your example is so filled with weird propaganda and points that aren't in themselves a bad point in anyway. Monstanto spreading super corn to more farmers to allow them to have a higher yield for a share of the increase in profit from the higher yield isn't evil its just good capitalism. The problem comes when the farmer has neither the competency or capability to preform at the levels that they should be by assumption when they sign the contract to use the high yield monsanto seeds. This is where the government should step in and regulate what is "fair" for the farmers and corporations both.
defending Monsanto... oh lordy i never thought I'd see the day. i really don't know how you can sleep at night my friend.
|
On March 04 2013 12:31 StayPhrosty wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 12:24 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2013 12:15 Foblos wrote:On March 04 2013 11:43 rusedeguerre wrote:
Monsanto doesn't force anyone to do anything. It is, once again, the government doing all the forcing around here. But I'm sure we can just "reform" the government by giving them more power and hoping they use it in our interests this time instead of abusing it. I wouldn't keep my hopes up though. Um, yes they do. They scatter their seed in the wind and then show up to farms and go "Hey bro we just want to see if our seed has blow over here, can we test?" And if people say yes, they test and when they find the seed (which they know they will before asking) they force the person to pay royalties and then only allow their seed to be purchased. If they person says no they go through the courts and get a court order to allow search and then the end is the same. Monsanto is evil, and corporations like that need to be severely limited in power and relation to the government. They don't "scatter their seed in the wind" they spend billions and billions on crops that pollinate their hard paid for researched qualities to plants that are not controlled by them and are not held accountable to their copyrights at all. Its like if you paid a billion dollars to create the most beautiful flower and then because of bees now your neighbor has the same flowers as you do and didn't pay a dime. if your neighbor is simply willing to pay you for the rights to grow your new super flowers you can both profit and prosper with it. Like your endpoint is correct (corporations are going to take over the government in any way you can if you let them) but your example is so filled with weird propaganda and points that aren't in themselves a bad point in anyway. Monstanto spreading super corn to more farmers to allow them to have a higher yield for a share of the increase in profit from the higher yield isn't evil its just good capitalism. The problem comes when the farmer has neither the competency or capability to preform at the levels that they should be by assumption when they sign the contract to use the high yield monsanto seeds. This is where the government should step in and regulate what is "fair" for the farmers and corporations both. defending Monsanto... oh lordy i never thought I'd see the day. i really don't know how you can sleep at night my friend.
Your from canada so you've probably haven't had the displeasure of seeing the seas of corn and soybeans in middle america that feed the world. You probably have no idea the huge advances that the agribusiness in america have been able to send out to the rest of the world to allow it to feed itself apart from america. Without dwarf wheat people in india would starve, there simply just isn't a way to feed over a billion people on that landmass. Now we live in a world where they isn't a shortage of food to go around there simple is a shortage of ability to send the food around.
|
^The downside to this, though, is that exported american grain causes population booms in places like, oh, Rwanda that don't end up so well. It's not really so helpful to give people a bunch of food if you don't also put effort into education and the creation of stable social structures in the power vacuum left by decolonization
edit: regions should not be expected to support populations that they cannot support naturally. If you can't support that many people on the landmass, you should find a way to have fewer people on the landmass. I recommend sex education and free condoms.
|
Decolonization was the shittiest foreign policy thing the western world has ever done and we're going to be paying for it for generation after generation to come. At least the crusades united the muslum world togeather.
|
On March 04 2013 12:41 Sermokala wrote:
Decolonization was the shittiest foreign policy thing the western world has ever done and we're going to be paying for it for generation after generation to come. At least the crusades united the muslum world togeather.
Well, "decolonization" is sort of a nice way to say "get rid of the troops and administrators but keep the debt peonage". Abolish all 3rd world debt! It's not legitimate debt to begin with. WE owe THEM war reparations for invading their sovereign territory without provocation.
|
On March 04 2013 12:42 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 12:41 Sermokala wrote:
Decolonization was the shittiest foreign policy thing the western world has ever done and we're going to be paying for it for generation after generation to come. At least the crusades united the muslum world togeather. Well, "decolonization" is sort of a nice way to say "get rid of the troops and administrators but keep the debt peonage". Abolish all 3rd world debt! It's not legitimate debt to begin with. WE owe THEM war reparations for invading their sovereign territory without provocation.
And yet, in many cases, the nations which weren't unjustly invaded are often still living in the 14th century. Trade, even unfair, one-sided trade, is quite often still mutually beneficial.
|
Don't talk to me about freedom and the tyranny of governments when you can justify 3rd world debt slavery to 1st world countries as some sort of mutually beneficial interaction. pure hypocrisy. the creation of a local bourgeoisie complicit with the tyranny does not justify the systematic oppression of innocent people which is the IMF.
Philip Dick was right. "The Empire Never Ended"
|
I think the Asian countries in the 19th century would like to have a world about trade being "often mutually beneficial".
3rd would debt slavery to 1st world countries is a problem. Simply forgiving the debt is a bad long term solution and expecting them to just pay it off eventually will never really get off the ground. They arn't going to develop on their own If aid organizations keep cutting the local governments off at the knees but without that aid the situation in areas will get a lot worse.
Africa is a place where things are going to have to get a lot worse before it gets better. The problem is that no one wants the situation to get any worse then it is right now and so it will never get better.
|
On March 04 2013 12:58 Sermokala wrote:
Simply forgiving the debt is a bad long term solution
Why?
We should pull a mesopotamian king and have a big jubilee. Sort everything else out after the dust settles.
|
On March 04 2013 12:59 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 12:58 Sermokala wrote:
Simply forgiving the debt is a bad long term solution Why? We should pull a mesopotamian king and have a big jubilee. Sort everything else out after the dust settles.
Perfect time for someone to pull a "revolution" and we're back to feudalism.
|
On March 04 2013 12:59 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 12:58 Sermokala wrote:
Simply forgiving the debt is a bad long term solution Why? We should pull a mesopotamian king and have a big jubilee. Sort everything else out after the dust settles.
Beacuse its going to send a message that we'll be willing to forgive debt just because one group of nations isn't as good at being nations as another and should be treated differently because of that. If we're willing to forgive their debt now then they'll think we'll be willing to forgive their debt again when they're in a slightly better off situation then they are now. we can't treat them with special rules because we think they're special.
|
In other words, "to each according to need" never has and never will work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
