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.
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by mnemeth1
My double think?
This is some amazing pretzel logic you have laid out here.
At least you admit that corporations have been given too much control over government, which is a huge step in the right direction.
Where you fail to connect the dots is in realizing that when corporations control government, they control how government regulates them.
It is corporate control of government regulation that has created this disastrous mess.
Glass Stegal was necessary because history clearly demonstrated that when left to make their own rules the investment industry will turn our banking and investment markets into gambling houses that heavily favor the house.
Without an independent governing body evenly enforcing a fair set of rules, competition goes out the window, and the people who manage to gain control carve up the spoils. The system stagnates, and the economy dies. Thus here we are.
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by mnemeth1
Hmm, so you are saying when the U.S. government controlled our nations currency, we had a better system than when privately held corporations controlled our currency?
I would say that you are advocating the opposite of what would be a free market system. You are calling for more government control, not less.
The U.S. government still regulated interstate and international commerce in those days, had tariffs and laws to protect public safety. Our economy has never been a free market.
Just like communism, there is no such thing as a free market.
Both are economic systems which claim that without government, economies would function far better under natural social mechanisms. The two ideals are in fact one and the same, just presented from different perspectives.
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by mnemeth1
It is corporations which have gained too much power.
How many times do I have to repeat my position?
Sorry, but corporations do not need government as their power base. The power of corporations derives from their wealth, and they are quite capable of raising their own private armies. Look up the West Indies Trading Companies. Why raise their own armies when they can bribe the governments that they control to do their dirty deeds for them for far less money.
As to your next reply.
Once again, there is no such thing as a free market.
When you make these claims about how things would be in a free market, you are doing nothing but spinning fantasies.
If you want a functioning economy, you have to get rid of government.
would they come to my house and put a gun to my head?
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by mnemeth1
would they come to my house and put a gun to my head?
Yep, well, they would send employees/mercenaries to your door to put a gun to your head. No government interference means the government isn't going to do anything to protect you from the corporation.
Like I said, look up the Indie Trading Companies. They hired their own private armies. They were the original corporations.
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by mnemeth1
The corporations with more money and more men will have more firepower. Even if they choose not to simply take you out in your home or place of business, they can ambush you. This how things are done in a world without government.
Just as in a lawsuit, the corporations with their big law firms have considerable advantage over any individual. Rarely is justice gotten in civil courts. I know you will claim the opposite, but if you do some research you will find that you have once again been sold on mythology.
I am not sure what you mean by laws to prevent fraud?
Do you mean standards, like accounting standards?
Lets say you are practicing medicine. Shouldn't you have some specific requirements to claim you have the legal right to practice medicine?
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by mnemeth1
Yes, I do consider them theft.
When corporations lobby for this, they do play a role in the theft. You are trying to deny reality here.
Corporations do in fact engage in theft, regularly, without any government involvement. They always have.
What would make you make such a fantastical claim that corporations do not engage in theft without government involvement?
Corporations always have engaged in illegal activities, and probably always will. When government does its job, they minimize the amount of corporate crime just like they should minimize the amount of personal crime.
It all takes a reasonable set of checks and balances.
No corporation is going to run around looting people at gun point. None. It will never happen in a country where half the people own guns. Its a totally ridiculous argument that doesn't even merit a response on my part.
By 1669, the VOC was the richest private company the world had ever seen, with over 150 merchant ships, 40 warships, 50,000 employees, a private army of 10,000 soldiers, and a dividend payment of 40% on the original investment.
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by mnemeth1
No corporation is going to run around looting people at gun point. None. It will never happen in a country where half the people own guns. Its a totally ridiculous argument that doesn't even merit a response on my part.
Yes it does happen, all the time, and not all societies have gun rights. This goes to the heart of the thread. When corporations are completely able to usurp peoples rights in other nations, some level of protectionism should be put into place. This is the reason the U.S. constitution authorized our federal government the power to conduct treaties.
Seriously, you are clinging to a fantasy on this matter.
You rip off people with enough power to defend themselves as in the cases you mention, of course you are going to get slammed. Joe nobodies have been getting their 401k plans robbed over the last 15 years, and the government has yet to do anything about it. These rip offs have nothing to do with government regulation or aid.
All you have to do with Sarbanes is hire an independent auditor. The auditing requirement has always existed, it is the independency requirement that has changed. The cost is in relation to the size of the business. Once again, you have been sold a bill of goods.
I don't normally use Wiki as a reference, but this should do at this time. You can find other sources if you don't believe me.
en.wikipedia.org...
By 1669, the VOC was the richest private company the world had ever seen, with over 150 merchant ships, 40 warships, 50,000 employees, a private army of 10,000 soldiers, and a dividend payment of 40% on the original investment.