Originally posted by uneek222
Attack the corporates. If we can stop, or at least severely limit the power corporates have in politics, thus halting these "sweet offers" to line politicians pockets, then maybe the power hungry individuals, those who take office for the sole intention of becoming rich and powerful, will seek private enterprise and leave the governing to those who are truly concerned about the "people" more than they are about their "pockets".

I think the key here is social ownership of the means of production. The factories, stores, shops, schools and firms should be owned by the workers, who can then hire/elect managers from among themselves to run the companies (supervised by an enlighened central committee, which keeps everything in check and collective profits to develop new firms).

[edit on 21-8-2006 by ArbitraryGuy]

[edit on 21-8-2006 by ArbitraryGuy]

Originally posted by ArbitraryGuy
I think the key here is social ownership of the means of production. The factories, stores, shops, schools and firms should be owned by the workers, who can then hire/elect managers from among themselves to run the companies (supervised by an enlighened central committee, which keeps everything in check and collective profits to develop new firms).

There is no production in America anymore.

How stupid do you think they are?

They have moved almost all manufacturing production offshore where they can keep control of it. They know that they can leave the country if things get too hot for them and they can maintain power over us from another location.

Whoever makes the tanks and planes wins.

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
There is no production in America anymore.

True, we are in the post-manufacturing era. However, I'm not talking exclusively talking about factory production. Above, I've attempted to include all sectors under my ideas for worker ownership. Aside from that, if the companies were socially owned, then the workers could still bring the factories back over here.

[edit on 21-8-2006 by ArbitraryGuy]

[edit on 21-8-2006 by ArbitraryGuy]

No, I think we are past the stage where anyone could collectively own the corporations like you are talking about. There is the stock market that allows us to collectively own small portions of corporations, though you have to be very wealthy to own a significant share.

I also do not think the government will ever be reformed, it will have to be overthrown and while I disagree with the government we are not at that point yet.

If our government or the people as a whole since the people are supposed to control the government owned things like power plants, hospitals, clinics, drug companies.. anything essential to the American people just imagine how much that alone would cut back corruption, though there will always be someone stealing money from it. Much like our financial system that needs to be changed, we cannot have this debt anymore, we hand money out like candy. How many billions has the Pentagon lost now?

The main reasons we're corrupt are thusly;

-We give a single man power over the country.
-We don't have term limits for senators.
-We make it where if you want to campaign you have to pay
for it yourself, which inevitably leads to corporate corruption.
-The majority of things are privatized when they should be onwed
and run by the government.
-We allow corporations to get massively huge.

[edit on 8/21/2006 by iori_komei]

Great thread, Rockpuck, thanks and I think you've got some great points. I have always been a strong believer in the Constituiion and the Bill of Rights. I think that if we could just follow it, we'd all be in good shape. However, the powers that be seem to have forgotten their oath to support and protect the Constitution. Instead, corruption has set in. I don't know if democracy is workable or not, but I do think it's the best form of govt we have, even though it's not perfect. I think the problem in America is that we've turned away from democracy. That and the natural tendency for humans to be power-grabbing and dishonest when given a little power.

I like the idea of a democratic socioCapitolist govt. The person who suggested that made some good points. I wouldn't mind giving up half my paycheck to pay for roads, universal health care for all Americans, etc. We would have a better country with more opportunity for everyone.

I don't have a problem with a democratic govt, but I do think that capitolism isn't the best system. It needs to have some controls, laissez faire capitolism just doesn't work and that's a big reason why we are where we are now.

I heard that the U.S. needs a cool $1 trillion for water infrastructure improvements. Of course the same can also be said about the roadways as a report on the NBC Nightly News can attest. The same actually isn't yet for Canada as the last sebastion of infficiency that is the west coast is currently being fixed in accordance with the Winter Oylmpics. I guess if the Japan expiriment is any indication of what shouldn't be done, than nothing is worse than over spending on public works as it is a big no, no.

Originally posted by forestlady
Great thread, Rockpuck, thanks and I think you've got some great points. I have always been a strong believer in the Constituiion and the Bill of Rights. I think that if we could just follow it, we'd all be in good shape. However, the powers that be seem to have forgotten their oath to support and protect the Constitution. Instead, corruption has set in. I don't know if democracy is workable or not, but I do think it's the best form of govt we have, even though it's not perfect. I think the problem in America is that we've turned away from democracy. That and the natural tendency for humans to be power-grabbing and dishonest when given a little power.

I like the idea of a democratic socioCapitolist govt. The person who suggested that made some good points. I wouldn't mind giving up half my paycheck to pay for roads, universal health care for all Americans, etc. We would have a better country with more opportunity for everyone.

I don't have a problem with a democratic govt, but I do think that capitolism isn't the best system. It needs to have some controls, laissez faire capitolism just doesn't work and that's a big reason why we are where we are now.

Excelent points there. I would not mind at all handing over half my paycheck to better the lives of my nation, but right now I see to much corruption, so much tax money going into other peoples pockets. Only when Corporations are cut down in size and we stop mendling in the affairs of others will we be able to have a SocioCapitalist society.

Iori: You make very good points on the causes of the corruption, esspecially that we allow capitalism to baloon out of control, corporations eventually hold more sway then the people we elect.

Originally posted by risitar
I heard that the U.S. needs a cool $1 trillion for water infrastructure improvements. Of course the same can also be said about the roadways as a report on the NBC Nightly News can attest. The same actually isn't yet for Canada as the last sebastion of infficiency that is the west coast is currently being fixed in accordance with the Winter Oylmpics. I guess if the Japan expiriment is any indication of what shouldn't be done, than nothing is worse than over spending on public works as it is a big no, no.

Along with water systems in disrepair, our Electrical grid is going on 100 years old. We do not have the resources currently to fix the problems, the New York black out and rolling brownouts in California will become more and more common place.

Originally posted by iori_komei
-We give a single man power over the country.

Do not be so deceitful.

Originally posted by iori_komei
-We don't have term limits for senators.

This is true, but to establish that fact, it took far more wording to do so. Can you please elaborate.

Originally posted by iori_komei
-We make it where if you want to campaign you have to pay
for it yourself, which inevitably leads to corporate corruption.

Men should be forced to pay another man's corrupt intentions, so you say?

Originally posted by iori_komei
-The majority of things are privatized when they should be onwed
and run by the government.

I should liken this idea of society providing for its own sustenance, not the government providing for the people anything other than protection.

Originally posted by iori_komei
-We allow corporations to get massively huge.

We have no objections to this.



I must say that I find many of your points removed of corruption. Size, time, and money do not create corruption. As it is, the sole source of corruption is man. Man is greedy. Greed is an emotion, allowing for mistakes to which men conduct themselves in unethical manners based upon the sense of a higher purpose. Government itself is not removed of corruption and does not exist for any higher purpose, but you my friend take oath of the opposite of this truth. Good intentions pave the road to hell. No government should oblige itself toward any other activity than protecting its citizens.

Nogirt, his points where valid, corporations being to large becomes a power house of wealth, all men will do anything for money. The one with the money then controls all men.

Corporations funding political campaigns adds to this by the simple fact that they expect something in return, and to get their money you must do as they want, not as the people want. If all political campaigns where given a strict budget of tax dollars to deal with that EVERY canidate use, even third parties, and must present a real-time display of their finacial situation (what they spent it on and where and why and for what purpose) that would indeed end alot of corruption.

Somethings need to be owned by governments, such as massive transpertation, power companies because of monopolies, and for the same reason I would even say Internet access which is also monopolized. In a capitalist society not everyone can be at the top level, or the whole system fails, the essentials should be covered for everyone because that in fact protect everyones natural rights to equal treatment, which is the only reason we have our government.

Term limits for Senetors because those in power for to long build a base for that power, become unmoveable and inbed with corporations. Also new leaders bring an influx of new ideas, to allow modern man to stay modern and to allow a smooth flow of progress. The more we allow corruption to take a stand in our government, the harder it will be to remove it once it is inbedded within the system, which I fear it may be to late.

Exactly what I would have said, but since you ready
said it, I don't have to.

You have voted Rockpuck for the
Way Above Top Secret award.
You have two more votes this month.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
all men will do anything for money.

Far from the truth. You may be man, you may do anything for money and thus think this to be true for all men, but I have morals, ethics and standards; I will not reduce myself to the levels of a beggar, a thief or a murderer for the sake of money.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
The one with the money then controls all men.

Far from the truth. The sustenance of man is food. He who grows the crop we feed on, is far more likely to be the controller of all men.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Corporations funding political campaigns adds to this by the simple fact that they expect something in return, and to get their money you must do as they want, not as the people want.

Why do you think this is, and why do you think this has any merit?

Originally posted by Rockpuck

If all political campaigns where given a strict budget of tax dollars to deal with that EVERY canidate use, even third parties, and must present a real-time display of their finacial situation (what they spent it on and where and why and for what purpose) that would indeed end alot of corruption.

I am sorry, but I will not be forced to feed another man's corrupt intentions. Your thesis is contradictory and lackluster of any reason as to why, why the government is free of corruption and capable of presenting an unbiased political format. The government is not an establishment removed of society but rather is an extension of society created whenever society cannot provide certain services to itself, namely protection. By the way, what happens when all men choose to campaign? Might we just keep or taxed dollars?

Beg my pardon, but why do so many of you see the government is an entity removed of all consequences of being man? For if I were foreign to this world and should happen to drop in on this conversation, I should think it that this government which you all speak of as being perfect in every sense: humble, forgiving, caring and loving. Removed of it all the faults of men: cruelty, greed, and murder.
Thankfully though, I am not foreign to this world, and as are many of the readers of this conversation. I still say you have yet to present a thesis at all which gives your reasoning towards the purity of governement, its removal from the faults and consequences of man. For I would enjoy to know when such a thing happened.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Term limits for Senetors because those in power for to long build a base for that power, become unmoveable and inbed with corporations.

But term limits create a quick-fix policy ethic which contains no long-term plan.

I think the textbook example of this being the current state of public transport in most of the UK.

Sadly I am not exactly familiar with the UK, could you please explain, along with why term limits for senators is a bad idea?

Nogirt:

Men will do anything for money? Men throughout history have shown that when given the oprotunity for wealth, power and prestiege, they act on it and sieze all they can. Sadly, not all men have the same moral standards as you, some do it seems when they start out but then loose them along the way.

The man who grows crops is the one with power? Why are farmers not highly regarded in our society then? Because someone owns those farms, someone buys all the food then someone mass sells the food at higher prices, the guy growing that food gets a small percentage in contrast with the CEO's of walmart.

Why do corporations sponsoring campaigns corrupt poloticians? How many times this year have we heard about expensive gold trips to scotland, expensive dinners, vacations and such given to politicians by companys seeking favors?

If all political opponents had the same financial limits given by the tax payer and forced to display what they spend it on, then how are you paying for corruption? You are paying for equality.

Thankfully though, I am not foreign to this world, and as are many of the readers of this conversation. I still say you have yet to present a thesis at all which gives your reasoning towards the purity of governement, its removal from the faults and consequences of man. For I would enjoy to know when such a thing happened.

I am sorry my ideas are not good enough for you, maybe not for many, though I give my self a little credit for trying to think of ideas to help the betterment of this country. The current system is breaking, political systems have life spans, and this ones running out soon, you cannot carry the same government for all eternity. Eventually something new will come along, in the world we are still an infant.

In Nothing We Trust, could you please explain what you mean by your post?