Anarchists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-02-2011, 10:18 AM
RE: Anarchists
Actually what I still don't get is why people still advocate a Laissez-faire market ? (in my mind , the "free" market has fallen prey to corruption to the point where intervention by the government is badly needed)
What is the best solution in your mind - the intervention to regulate corporations and deny them privileged status , or , to allow the market to self-regulate with no state intervention ?
Any thoughts on this ?

Atheism is a religion like OFF is a TV channel !!!

Proud of my genetic relatives Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2011, 11:31 AM
RE: Anarchists
The only proper self regulation would be if there was a panel of conflicting viewpoints. Since the government is in charge of minting US currency it should not be cut out of dealings with currency at large. Free market sold the US to other countries long ago (stock market).

This is a case of accepting the loss of certain personal freedoms in exchange for safety. J. L. Mackie in his book "Problems from Locke" discusses a philosophical need for society in the fact that being safe requires a loss of personal freedoms. (if I'm wrong on which book I'm sorry I am looking for the book I read with this excerpt). There is a point where one can become too free, which means they are no longer safe.

There is no question that people with power have the ability to corrupt the modern age. I see no reason to believe that the average person will not be swayed by good sounding ideas and choose to make fatal errors. There are some decisions you can't take back. At best, a war would break out.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2011, 12:56 PM
RE: Anarchists
Still , wasn't it Franklin that said :
"Those that give up a little freedom for a little security deserve neither and will end up losing both"

I agree with you , some sacrifices need to be made , but I realize I am no where near politically or economically mature enough in my thinking to formulate a well informed opinion.
I'm still not sure what to think is best.

Atheism is a religion like OFF is a TV channel !!!

Proud of my genetic relatives Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2011, 08:21 PM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2011 08:34 PM by BnW.)
RE: Anarchists
LP

First, good research. I did not recall that specific case. However, I'm not convinced it really challenges the point. What the court was saying there was that a corporation as a legal person is afforded the same legal protections as any other person and cannot be discriminated against. I'm not sure that is what the framers of the 14th Amendment intended but they certainly could have prevented it if they wanted to. And, from a common sense perspective, I think it makes sense that corporations have the same basic legal protections as anyone else. That does not mean, however, they should have the same rights as citizens, which is where the Court got to.

I do agree with you that the build up of corporate power was coming prior to the 1980s, but the 80s is where we really saw a step-change. Prior to then I think the Government was more of a protector to corporate rights whereas now they are a partner in corporate affairs. There is a difference.

Also, don't ever apologize for challenging me. First (and trust me that others will verify this for me), I'm the last person you need to apologize to for a challenge. Second, it's a discussion and we are discussing. I hope you stick around and keep posting because I really enjoy reading what you have to say.
Sorry, I posted before I saw this last page.

First, yes, it was Franklin who is credited with the "trading" comment. As for the free market, I'd love for us to go to a free market economy but we are very, very far from that right now. The biggest issue that I see right now is that modern corporate structures have completely and totally separated risk from reward. Executives like Tony Hayward, formerly CEO of BP, take on huge rewards for success and his shareholders and 50 million British citizens who's pensions rest on the continued survival of BP take on all the risk. When you have that type of dichotomy - where you have almost down side to your actions - you are going to get some very strange results.

Prior to the Gulf spill this summer, BP already had an absolutely horrific record on safety and safeguarding the environment. I don't believe this is because they were run by evil people, but because they were run by people who were completely divorced from the consequences of their actions. It never came back to hurt them no matter how badly things went - unless the shareholders took a bite. Then it cost them but only then. And, even when Hayward was finally forced to be the sacrificial lamb and resign, he still walked away with more money then 99.99% of the planet's population. They sure taught him a lesson.

Gaglamesh - you've asked several times about the Tea Party and the attraction. One of the nuances you may not get from Europe is that these people are not entirely who and what they are portrayed as on TV. Unfortunately, the movement has been hijacked by some real idiots (for example: Congresswoman Michelle Bachman is an absolute case study in ignorance). And, while some of their positions are really messed up, the movement, as a whole, is neither crazy nor wrong. Their main contention is that we've lost all common sense and fiscal restraint. They are not wrong about that at all. The European democracies have dug themselves a financial hole they won't all easily climb out of. Greece and Ireland are the first but England, France and Germany are all at risk to collapse under their own weight.

The big weakness of the Tea Party movement is that they understand why they are angry but not exactly sure whom they should be angry at. This has resulted in some interesting positions. For example, they are now angry at the attempts to regulate the financial industry because they think the problem was too much government interference and not enough free market. That sure sounds nice, but these banks were not operating on anything close to the free market. The average American should be on Wall Street holding either a torch or a pitchfork and looking for banker blood, and yet you've got a fair number of Americans blaming not only the government but Obama - who was not even in office when the bailout policies were enacted and not even running when the seeds of our financial destruction were sewn.

Anyway, this is a topic of great interest to me and I can go off on the financial stuff all day, so bring it on.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2011, 07:03 AM
RE: Anarchists
I don't doubt the Tea Party had good intentions at first and people started protesting against institutions that made life miserable for them but like you said they have been hijacked. Most of their political leaders are appalling as far as I've seen.
And there no longer seems to be a clear interest in the political situation of the US , most politicians go lobby for various companies after their political career - a bill/petition that was proposed to stop this has 0 signatures so far.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/18...67293.html
That's my issue - that people tend to serve companies more than citizens that put them into office.
As for the European countries , I'm not sure what you mean , as far as I know Greece , Spain and Portugal were worse off and Romania and Hungary and Greece are the most in debt countries to the IMF. England , France and Germany are the more powerful economies in Europe so I'm not sure how they can collapse - if any country is going to fall it's going to be one of the eastern european countries first.
I'm also worried about borrowing money from China , which as far as I know the US has already done - kind of scares me if the Chinese become the first economic power on the planet - their model for business and society is frightening at best.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/...ts/mfh.txt

Atheism is a religion like OFF is a TV channel !!!

Proud of my genetic relatives Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2011, 07:07 AM
RE: Anarchists
Sorry for not appearing earlier, I was at my capital doing some lobbying. Unfortunately most of the people I saw needed no convincing of what I was presenting. I was spreading some info on how transsexuals do not have basic human rights as awarded to all. And, also trying to help two house bills that gave GLBT people basic human rights. It was upsetting that I failed to get in a situation where I might prove something.

While lobbying someone stated the Tea Party is very against extending human rights to the rest of humanity? I heard that and said go talk to the guy, who cares what his politics say. It's an awkward day when people are aware they are viewed as less than human and just accept that it will stay that way. No one died on lobby day for asking the wrong representative to listen, so they better be out there lobbying.

As I stated earlier, this country is no where near being able to survive privately. Also, the world is nowhere near being able to disestablish the country system. Those two things are hugely important in moving away from government control, what is currently viewed as the main power each government has. Any efforts that weaken the US at a considerable amount are offerings to other countries to invade us for our plentiful resources. Globally the needs game is still the main focus, so there will be issues as far as I see.

The US while radically in debt due to the current vision is still the best place for resources. If currency was ever removed the US would be one of the richer countries. As far as China and money, plenty of investors have already invested all of their money into China. The stock is a more definite issue than the government debt. Almost every country is in on America's debt so who cares who we add when we'll never pay it off? Country to country aid is rarely reciprocated. The only way to force the issue is war, so borrowing from China as a nation doesn't sound any worse to me than all the other nations the US has borrowed from.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2011, 08:58 PM
RE: Anarchists
(16-02-2011 07:07 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Any efforts that weaken the US at a considerable amount are offerings to other countries to invade us for our plentiful resources. Globally the needs game is still the main focus, so there will be issues as far as I see.
(16-02-2011 07:07 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  The US while radically in debt due to the current vision is still the best place for resources. If currency was ever removed the US would be one of the richer countries.

I'm curious, what exactly are the plentiful resources that the US has? I've always been under the impression that the US has had to import most things.

"Remember, my friend, that knowledge is stronger than memory, and we should not trust the weaker." - Dr. Van Helsing, Dracula
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2011, 10:25 PM
RE: Anarchists
The US reserves it's oil for use after marketing. Lumber and most mining have not taken full use of the country. When they gained power among the world they more focused on stripping other countries. Most things the US exports are foods, raw materials for building are generally imported from poor countries and then the finished products are exported from the US. Plenty of countries could not sustain themselves well, especially after western involvement. The resources we have aren't really mentioned because we'd rather use other people's resources, even if it adds to the tax payers' costs. All countries of today do massive exporting but in general the US does not export raw materials which are hard to reclaim.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2011, 10:17 AM (This post was last modified: 19-02-2011 10:41 AM by sosa.)
RE: Anarchists
Wow, it's sad to read so many misconceptionS about anarchism. I'm an anarchist...more specifically I adhere to social anarchism/libertarian socialism. The biggest misconception I read was that anarchism means no government. Not so, Anarchism means no state. The governing would be something like decentralized autonomous communities.

Here is some basic info:
http://www.infoshop.org/page/Basics

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

"Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." Mikhail Bakunin
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2011, 04:21 PM
RE: Anarchists
sosa

I'm a bit confused , the link you provide states that all anarchy forms are opposed to capitalism - what about Anarcho-capitalism ?

Second , what is the difference between government and state ? They both are institutions that hold a monopoly on legal force ?

Last why do you think a decentralized autonomous community can survive in our demographic and technological age ?

Last - against your better judgment , what pro-state ideas can you recommend ? I would like to see both sides of the coin.

Atheism is a religion like OFF is a TV channel !!!

Proud of my genetic relatives Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: