It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

corp deregulation is naive...

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
Trusting a corporation is foolish.
Trusting a government agency to regulate corporations is just as foolish.


Who else than a government can regulate the corporate world? Please share you solution.


The people that buy things.


That simply won't work by itself. Most people are not educated. Many are desperate. That still will not answer many hidden externalities that the company is creating (many environmental impacts for example). Etc.

As the Op said, those who believe regulation is not necessary are totally naive. It would be a disaster for all.




posted on May, 13 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: JUhrman


It's not unrealistic. If all countries but one agree, then it becomes easy to use economical or political pressure against said country.


When all else fails--coercion is the answer.

You actually sound a lot like the US government.


It's not coercion when the majority decides it. It's called democracy.

You are part of the problem thinking individual freedom is more important than common well-being.

All societies are based on the concept of the social contract. All. If you don't like it you can still live like an hermit. Until then, you too are part of this system and you too must bend to the laws that have been decided by the majority. If you don't like it, leave it.


Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner. There is a reason the US is a REPUBLIC and not a democracy. Democracy at its core is mob rule. The mob is not always right and certainly not rational.

So if the majority says they want to hold you in slavery are you saying that is ok?


I was of course talking about representative democracies, like a republic, and not direct democracy which exists almost nowhere besides referendums.

The US are a representative democracy
edit on 13-5-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman


It's not coercion when the majority decides it. It's called democracy.


I am very confused, let's take a look at what you said:


If all countries but one agree, then it becomes easy to use economical or political pressure against said country.


Translation--if a country is not behaving the way we want them to--bully them into submission.

Yeah, sorry, but you can't whimsically change the definition of words to suit your stupidity. Using "economic and/or political pressure" to browbeat a country into doing what you want them to do is coercion.

And you are also correct, democracy is the favorite political tool of grown-up, playground bullies.

"Me, Tim, Kyle, and Nick here, took a vote and we unanimously agree that you need to hand over your lunch money--or face our political pressure (political pressure is nazi-speak for continuously punching someone in the face until they comply).


You are part of the problem thinking individual freedom is more important than common well-being.


Ensuring the right's of the individual means you are ensuring "common well-being."

I'm sorry, but you're political views are the very reason why the USA has gone to hell.


All societies are based on the concept of the social contract. All.


Interesting, I don't remember actually signing a contract, buuuut, I'm guessing you're going to swoop-in here and perform some authoritarian rhetorical ritual describing how I am a party to the social contract whether I choose to be or not.



If you don't like it you can still live like an hermit.


Not in the US, the cops here like to kill hermits, vagrants, and the homeless for sport.



Until then, you too are part of this system and you too must bend to the laws that have been decided by the majority. If you don't like it, leave it.


No, I actually don't have to bend to those laws, you just so happen to have more people with guns on your side.

But, no, I am not leaving. I am an anarchist and will do everything I can do to help the state--and all governments of the world--die.

You really seem hellbent on forcing people to behave the way you want them to. We have trained psychiatrists that can help you work through your emotional issues.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


That simply won't work by itself. Most people are not educated. Many are desperate. That still will not answer many hidden externalities that the company is creating (many environmental impacts for example). Etc.


Seriously, this is just pathetic, it always comes down to the "people are stupid and don't know what's best for them, so we need government to guide them" argument with you people.

How much of a fascist do you have to be, to be so self-righteously condescending towards other human beings??

On one hand, people are too stupid to cope with a free market--on the other hand, those same stupid people are perfectly qualified to vote for other stupid people to make policy decisions regarding issues that are crucial to a functioning society.

I mean, wat??

I'm sorry, but you are not qualified to make decisions for me. We really need to bring back trial-by-combat so I can just challenge you to a gun dual at noon.

It would solve all of our problems.


As the Op said, those who believe regulation is not necessary are totally naive. It would be a disaster for all.


It would be a disaster for those who derive sexual pleasure from the control of other people.
edit on 13-5-2015 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated


So if the majority says they want to hold you in slavery are you saying that is ok?


What people like JUhrman and Quetzalcoatl14 don't outright say is that they both would be perfectly OK with human slavery, so long as they were the leash holders.

All the while they would be telling us we're too stupid to be freemen, that we agreed to slavery by contract, and that they have our best interests at heart and we should trust them.

They wouldn't call it slavery of course, they would sugarcoat it with double-speak and call it something stupid like "social welfare."



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: Edumakated


So if the majority says they want to hold you in slavery are you saying that is ok?


What people like JUhrman and Quetzalcoatl14 don't outright say is that they both would be perfectly OK with human slavery, so long as they were the leash holders.

All the while they would be telling us we're too stupid to be freemen, that we agreed to slavery by contract, and that they have our best interests at heart and we should trust them.

They wouldn't call it slavery of course, they would sugarcoat it with double-speak and call it something stupid like "social welfare."


Exactly. Progressives love to hide their true intentions with soft words. Common Good. Inequality. Redistribution. You have to read between the lines. This is why pretty much every tyranny in history is rooted in progressivism.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   
How much of an idiot do you have to be, ignoring literally 300 years of industrial history, to realize that at no time in history has it worked to just "trust the companies." SOME voluntarily do things. MOST do not. That is demonstrable across history.

They usually do not actually account for the true social, environmental, and economic cost of their business. This is ALL regulations are supposed to do. They simply make companies have to account for it. This is demonstrable via economic and environmental studies, legions of them. But I'm sure you don't know about any of that.

You need to stop listening to Fox News, bought off pundits, and self-serving corporate leaders. They are lying on this topic.

And once you know that all of the economic and environmental studies are there, showing too many companies simply don't pay the true costs, then you are either a shill for them or irresponsible if you don't think they should have to take responsibility and act within reasonable bounds.
edit on 13-5-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
A good first step in reducing the growing rate of corruption with corporate controls is to simply bring back the regulations that have been tossed into the waste bin over the decades.

The very reason why corporations have been able to gain such corruption and control over these past several decades is because the short leash they were originally tethered to has been removed, one piece at a time.


I want to add that the funding for people to verify and enforce those regulations is a requirement as well. There are lots of regulations on the books that corporations simply ignore because of 'austerity' budgets caused by endless tax cuts for the wealthy.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join