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.

 

Refuting The Lies Of Looters

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


So, theoreticaly, after there is no more government or taxes exactly what will we do? Do you not agree that there would br much more violence than there is at present time?

MessOnTheFED!




posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


So, theoreticaly, after there is no more government or taxes exactly what will we do? Do you not agree that there would br much more violence than there is at present time?

MessOnTheFED!


Considering that the majority of violence in our society is related to drug prohibition, there would be considerably less violence.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


First of all...this is pretty sleazy of you to do...create a new thread with my reply as the topic when you don't even reply to me in your own THREAD

At least give me a U2U next time so I can be the first to respond to your attack on me. Luckily someone notified me of this thread...or I would have never clicked on it because your title is so vague and doesn't make much sense.


Second of all...you didn't even understand my point. I am talking about how things are...you are talking about how you think things should be. If you are against taxes and think all government employees are criminals...than in the CURRENT STATE OF THINGS...you should not participate in everything I listed. IF you decide to do so...then you are a hypocrite by participating in the system that you are calling criminal.


Third...well...I guess I'll go through your list to see how silly your arguments are.


-public roads
Roads would be better maintained and far safer if they were privately owned. Economist Walter Block explains just how many people die on our highways due to government running our roads here.


So how are these roads going to be originally built? Who is going to get all the land in order to build the highway system? A private company doesn't have the power to do it. And now if I want to build a house...do I have to pay a private company to be able to connect my drive way to THEIR road? No thanks...the current system has worked just fine. Are you denying that the US highway system isn't one of our greatest national assets??? And no one stopped private companies from doing this before the government decided to do it...so why didn't private companies do it???


-public libraries
We don't need them. We have the internet. However, private libraries that are funded by private trust funds or charity could take their place. We also see large libraries in private colleges and schools.


We don't need them??? Yes...we have the internet...now. But that is a very recent development and this is a ridiculous argument. Can you go and read every book on the internet? I can't...for the most part I still have to either go BUY the book or go borrow it from a library. Yes..making books free to the public IS a good idea...it benefits all of society.


-public schools
They are consistently worse than private schools. They are the reason our inner-cities have 50% dropout rates. Public schools should be eliminated entirely. The demand for schooling can be met by the private sector easily. Charity can make up for those families that are too poor to pay full price tuition.


Would you rather have inner-cities have a 100% uneducation rate? That would make for a nice society for us to all live in. And what about the rural country that it wouldn't be profitable for a private company to create a school in??? Too bad kids...you are just going to be dumb. You could try to educate yourself at the public library...but the genius anarchist took that away too.

Here is the thing...and it applies to all of these...these things didn't pop up over night...there were reasons these things were picked up by the government...and it was because the need wasn't being met by the private sector. And guess what...PEOPLE, not the government, demanded most of these things. Crazy idea huh...people wanted the government to address something and they did...such an evil government.


-police department
Private security firms can do a far better job at providing security services than public police, who don't give a flying crap about you as a customer. They are revenue generators for the State. If they acted like the Fire Dept. where they only came out when called it might be a different story, but they don't.


Which laws are these private companies going to enforce??? Anyones they like? The ones that the highest payer tells them to enforce??? The more I read your responses...the more I think you are an elitist and not an anarchist. You want the rich to rule the poor...the rich to make all the decisions. Maybe we can go back to having nobles and peasants...we all know that period of time was just GREAT.


-fire department
There is no reason we couldn't have private fire services that people could subscribe to. If there were no public fire departments, private fire departments would crop up all over the place that people could either subscribe to for a recurring fee or they could pay for services rendered if they need it. We have private ambulance companies now, we could have private fire as well.


A subscription for fire services??? Hmmm...I wonder what is going to happen to those people who don't sign up for thier services...maybe their houses will "randomly" start on fire. Oh...if only they had signed up for the fire services...I bet their neighbors will now.

Again...all this has been hashed out before...and the final and best solution came to where we are today. It works...you can't deny that...you just don't want to pay for it.

So not only do you sound like an elitist...you sound like a cheap, selfish, greedy elitist.


-national parks or monuments
Are a massive waste of resources. National parks are used to secure resources for massive multi-national corporations. The government leases out land to private mega corporations who loot the land over a set contract period. There should be no national monuments to government. If someone wants to erect a private monument that's their business, but I should not be forced to pay for public idolatry.


I can almost agree with you on this on the monument part...but I think there is a need for national parks...or else BP will be driling in the grand canyon.


-social security
Is tens of trillions in the hole and is run like a gigantic Ponzi scheme. If a private investment house tried to operate a scheme like socialist security, they would be arrested for fraud. See Bernie Madoff. I am more than capable of investing for my own retirement. I don't need a government gun in my face forcing me to put money into a Ponzi scheme.


Again..this was demanded by the people a LONG time ago. If you want to change it...be my guest...go get elected and change it. I have no problem with that.


-medicare
Is also tens of trillions in the hole. This criminal Ponzi is the sole cause of the massive price inflation in medical care. Without medicare/medicaid, healthcare prices would be affordable to everyone.


I have yet to meet an average (not stinking rich) older person who either can't wait to get on medicare or is thankful they have medicare. Your opinion may change on this as you get older.


-"You should not have a drivers license, passport, or social security card."
I'm not sure this has to do with anything. They are violations of my personal freedoms. I hate them. I don't want them. You can keep them. Unfortunately I am forced to have them at gun point if I want to travel or get a job.


You hat them...you don't want them...I can keep them....but yet you have them. You are capable of riding a bike or walking...call a cab..take a train...ride a bus...you don't NEED a drivers license...you CHOOSE to. And that is why I think you are a hypocrite...you cry about all this...but you use the services that REQUIRE TAX MONEY TO PAY FOR THEM. And then you turn around and call the employee that just did their job and gave you that license a criminal. Well guess what buddy...YOU are part of the problem you are complaining about.


-"YOU SHOULD NOT BE ON THE INTERNET. "
Why not? I pay for it out of my own pocket. Most networks are privately owned.


Because the internet was developed by the GOVERNMENT and PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES...payed for by...wait for it...TAX DOLLARS.

So get off the internet if you are against all things paid for by tax dollars...or continue to be a hypocrite by participating in a system and using the services that provided to you by "criminals".


-"You should not own a firearm. "
Why not? I paid for that out of my own pocket as well. All the gun manufacturers are privately owned.


Current system is you need a license...which takes tax dollars to support. So you shouldn't own a gun within the current system if you are so against the government criminal employees.


-"You should not own a business. "
Why not? If I work hard, I should be able to start a business that provides a profit for myself and a benefit to the society.


Same as above...within the current system...if you are true to your ideals and morals...you should not own a business.

Are you all talk? Or do you back up your talk with actions?


-"You should not use electricity or any oil products."
Why not? I can buy those things in the private market with my own money. If government wasn't involved in the markets, the prices would be far cheaper than they are now.


But the government is involved...and you are supposedly against that...but that doesn't stop you from using the services still...right?

And yeah...why should the government be involved...we know oil companies are responsible and would never do anything that would harm the environment...oh wait....


-"You should not eat food grown by American farmers. "
Why not? I can buy food in the private market with my own money as well. If government wasn't involved in the markets, the prices would be cheaper for most agricultural goods as well.


Don't most farmers get subsidies from the government? Shouldn't you not buy food from those "criminals"??? You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite would you?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by MessOnTheFED!
 





Its TAXES not THEFT. There is a huge difference there. One is supporting your community and country and the other is theft plain and simple


Forced TAXES "ARE" THEFT there is no difference!!!

Whenever some group or individual takes someone's money, property, or substance against ones will by coercion fear and force that is theft period. I am sure you agree no one has the right to come to your house and take your stuff against your will. No individual has that right. So if no individual has the right how is it as a group they can delegate a right they do not have to government? THEY CAN'T! They take it by force.

Wether you call the group government or a gang of thugs it makes no difference no one has that right individually or collectively it is theft any way you look at it. Taking by force is theft period!

The fact the so many people don't understand this is so illustrative of the dumbing down of America it is sad and pathetic.

[edit on 3-6-2010 by hawkiye]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 07:01 AM
link   
LOL - I love government employees, or as we call them in the UK "civil servants".

They have it in their heads that they are extremely important, that the World would stop spinning without them - well I've got news for you - it wouldn't!

Most government employees are long term employees, often joining from school and staying in the same club until they retire.

They are hugely inefficient, bureaucratic, ineffective, wasteful, unproductive guzzlers of funds that could be much more effectively used elsewhere by other people.

Most people in this kind of employment have never been employed by a company that needs to make money to survive, they EXPECT piles of cash from the productive from a bottomless pit that continues to feed them even when they produce nothing.

You end up with crazy situations where rather than lose part of their overtime budget for next year because they didn't spend it all this year, they go and buy a fridge freezer for every floor of the building "in case anyone does any shopping at lunchtime" just to make sure they spent the money (I kid you not, this is a true example).

You have people who attend meetings galore to justify their existence, and end up with idiotic jobs like "diversity co-ordinators", and "respect directors" and other useless mumbo jumbo.

But try and get one of these public servants to DO THEIR JOB and you'll be waiting until Hell freezes over to get a reply.

They are generally and in a nut shell a complete and total waste of space who aren't employable in any other capacity, except perhaps stacking shelves.

And I'm not sure they could do that properly.

*Note, this doesn't include doctors, nurses, and other real employees, I'm talking more about the paper pushers, middle managment, and other assorted wasters.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   
It's amusing to read some these responses to the OP.

It's pretty obvious the point of the OP went wooshing right past a lot of you who replied to it.

There is something in between the way things are now,and privatization,the gov here in the U.S. used to know it's place...

It is our fault for letting extremists convince us the extremists are not themselves.

The only thing the devil ever did was convince people he did not exist.

Capitalism is fine,but it cannot be allowed to run out of control.

A big problem in this country is "Trickle Down Economics",you cannot expect to give anyone a lump sum of anything and share it fairly.Unfortunately morals trickle down the same way,and most people who have more than they could possibly need have a real lack of compassion for their fellow man,and seem to think that it is fine and dandy to live like kings,while others starve.

I guess in a nutshell,it's about responsibility.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 
Here is a silly one for you.

How about if only the people who financed the Interstate Highway System at it's inception would be allowed to drive on it now.

That would narrow it down to those people who were paying into the Social Security 'Trust Fund' prior to the early 1950's.

Back when, you know, they 'borrowed' from it.

Thanks Ike!



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   



MessOnTheFED!


No, you are not forced to pay.

Right now I pay for roads whether I use them or not.

I might drive a little, but I pay the same as a person who drives a lot.






[edit on 2-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

Only if you ignore the fuel tax. If you drive more, you buy more gas. Buy more gas, pay more tax. So it really is like a user fee.
And even if you don't drive, the doctor you use does - to get to the office you get to.
As a pilot, I've seen what happens when you privatize air traffic control functions.Lockheed took over the Flight Service Station functions and it is a collossal mess. To get the weather in London, Kentucky, you may end up talking to a met guy in Alaska. After you have been on hold for an hour. And who handles the functions of, and regulates uniformity among Air Route Radar Traffic Conrol Centers?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
No one says that all government services should be done away with, but the growing of government is not needed. The redundacies in government are crazy and costing the tax payers way too much, except for the military, almost every government agency has three people doing the job of one. Usually the only ones making fun of people complaining about government and paying taxes are the ones that do not pay them in the first place. It is always easier when you are using other people's money.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eagleheart56
No one says that all government services should be done away with


I certainly do.

All government "services" could be better dealt with by private industry.

All of them.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I'm actually working for hardcore libertarians/anarcho-capitalists and know all their arguments, but somehow their rationale just doesn't add up for me.

For example:

-- Privatized schools: what about people who can't afford to pay the fees? Will their kids grow up illiterate and completely uneducated?

-- I find that many anarcho-capitalists are way too naive when it comes to human psychology. If there's no government, what would keep those "private police forces," who would no doubt be highly trained and heavily armed, from ganging up and lording it over the ordinary citizens? Who would keep them from taking over and creating their own government, and doing pretty much whatever they want? Then we'd literally have a government threatening us at gunpoint.

-- About those "private police forces": if you're too poor to afford their fees, does that mean you could be injured, maimed, killed, etc., without anyone doing anything to punish the evildoers?

-- I truly believe that corporations are evil. As soon as you have shareholders to satisfy, that becomes your only goal... and many corps will cut every imaginable corner to get there. Look at BP, failing to implement the necessary safety measures on the rig -- and now that it's cleanup time, they do a damn lousy job, trying to sweep the extent of the spill under the carpet rather than trying to clean it up.

Granted, our government is bascially in BP's and Big Oil's pocket, but I'd say we just need a different government system -- one that works better, rather than no government.

E.g., where I come from, election campaigns only last a month or two, and are being paid for by taxpayer money accumulated over 4 years. (And not the vast sums they spend here either.) Politicians are not allowed to accept any kind of campaign contributions, neither from private citizens nor corporations -- so they can stay free of ties to industry and obligations.

There are not just two major parties but many, fighting for their place in the sun. Even if one party has a great majority during the elections, there are still enough opponents to keep that party on its toes and to make sure it doesn't get out of control.

Here in the US, it's really just one party with two faces, but most people don't seem to get that. I always have to chuckle about the partisan banter that's going on here on ATS. Bring in some REAL diversity and things would get a lot better. Have five, six parties all represented in Congress and things would get better. Prohibit lobbying and campaign contributions, and fire any politician who's found out to have ties to the industry, and things would get better.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Civilization requires central authority for better or worse. Unfortunately, we as humans are deeply flawed. Even the brightest and strongest of us is prone to emotional/mental problems as well as stupidity. Greed, corruption, injustice and murder are the price of civilization. Our systems of governance whether libertarian or socialist are going to be flawed because we are flawed.

Personal Experience: My wife developed a serious health condition some years back. We had no insurance nor means for the massive medical effort required to save her life. She is alive now because the state helped us out. I doubt private agencies which are governed by a profit motive would have went out of their way to help us. Governments are not always bad.

Unless we are lucky enough to die a quick death why we are relatively young there will come a time in our lives when we will get old and weak and we will rely on others to help keep us alive.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
A government is needed, but its way overgrown and overstepped its boundaries a long time ago. They need to be reigned in and we the people need to take control once again. I know most intelligent Americans really dont think we do not need any government what so ever, but the current one is broken and has been since I can remember.

Ron Paul was our chance and you sheeple let that fall through the cracks like most things that really matter. As long as you play the game "they" want you to play (IE: pick one of our 2 candidate we have chosen for you) this will only get worse. You cant keep choosing D or R because its what you have always chosen and so did your parents before you. You cant think that this Republican or Dem is different when they run with the same crowd and has for their entire political career. You have to chose somebody that is TRULY different and the way they want to run things, totally different as the way its been run isnt working and we have known this for a long long time.

So you need to break the spell the media and TPTB has over you, dont be fooled when they try to derail a real American candidate that really believes in America and making us great again. See through the lies they spread and think for yourself.



[edit on 3-6-2010 by Wiz4769]

[edit on 3-6-2010 by Wiz4769]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   

"I'm actually working for hardcore libertarians/anarcho-capitalists and know all their arguments, but somehow their rationale just doesn't add up for me.

For example:

-- Privatized schools: what about people who can't afford to pay the fees? Will their kids grow up illiterate and completely uneducated?"


No, to assume so is ridiculous. That is equivalent to assuming people are unable to feed and shelter themselves without government. Government has provided us a garbage educational system. To continue to allow the criminal government to manage the education of this nation is a sin.



"-- I find that many anarcho-capitalists are way too naive when it comes to human psychology. If there's no government, what would keep those "private police forces," who would no doubt be highly trained and heavily armed, from ganging up and lording it over the ordinary citizens? Who would keep them from taking over and creating their own government, and doing pretty much whatever they want? Then we'd literally have a government threatening us at gunpoint."


I find that many socialists are way to naive when it comes to human psychology. They believe that politicians can actually do good with other peoples money and that they will act altruistically.

Private police forces are what we have now in Vegas casinos and Disney World. They work with other security services and police departments regularly without incident. We also have division within police departments at the county and city level. They all get along fine. To assume they would attack each other is ridiculous. They would operate under natural laws of property rights we are all familiar with.




"-- About those "private police forces": if you're too poor to afford their fees, does that mean you could be injured, maimed, killed, etc., without anyone doing anything to punish the evildoers?"


For starters, poor people would have guns. The need for police declines a lot when people can arm themselves and there is no prohibition. But if someone is attacked and needs services but is too poor, just like in hospitals, charity will be there to help. This isn't a problem at all. Your argument again assumes that people are simply too dumb and poor to take care of themselves, which is ridiculous.




"-- I truly believe that corporations are evil. As soon as you have shareholders to satisfy, that becomes your only goal... and many corps will cut every imaginable corner to get there. Look at BP, failing to implement the necessary safety measures on the rig -- and now that it's cleanup time, they do a damn lousy job, trying to sweep the extent of the spill under the carpet rather than trying to clean it up."


Corporations are not evil.

Government is evil.

Corporations that use government as a tool are evil, which makes government evil. Without government, it is impossible for a corporation to do evil. Society would put it out of business quickly by not transacting with it.



"Granted, our government is bascially in BP's and Big Oil's pocket, but I'd say we just need a different government system -- one that works better, rather than no government.

E.g., where I come from, election campaigns only last a month or two, and are being paid for by taxpayer money accumulated over 4 years. (And not the vast sums they spend here either.) Politicians are not allowed to accept any kind of campaign contributions, neither from private citizens nor corporations -- so they can stay free of ties to industry and obligations."


Campaign contributions will always corrupt politicians.

It is impossible to constrain government looters.

It is immoral to use force against the innocent, which is required to have any government.




[edit on 3-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

"I'm actually working for hardcore libertarians/anarcho-capitalists and know all their arguments, but somehow their rationale just doesn't add up for me.

For example:

-- Privatized schools: what about people who can't afford to pay the fees? Will their kids grow up illiterate and completely uneducated?"


No, to assume so is ridiculous. That is equivalent to assuming people are unable to feed and shelter themselves without government. Government has provided us a garbage educational system. To continue to allow the criminal government to manage the education of this nation is a sin.


But how would the poor get their schooling? Or do you assume that in your ideal libertarian society, there would be no poor? Remember, there was always poverty, even in the times before big government -- in the 18th and 19th century, there was child labor, sweatshops, and workers' conditions were often abysmal. Beggars -- i.e., the homeless -- were basically left to die in the streets. Why do you think we would NOT go back to those conditions?



"-- I find that many anarcho-capitalists are way too naive when it comes to human psychology. If there's no government, what would keep those "private police forces," who would no doubt be highly trained and heavily armed, from ganging up and lording it over the ordinary citizens? Who would keep them from taking over and creating their own government, and doing pretty much whatever they want? Then we'd literally have a government threatening us at gunpoint."


I find that many socialists are way to naive when it comes to human psychology. They believe that politicians can actually do good with other peoples money and that they will act altruistically.

No, I believe that politicians/government need to be reined in, so that they CAN'T be corrupt and sleazy, or they'll be goners.


Private police forces are what we have now in Vegas casinos and Disney World. They work with other security services and police departments regularly without incident.


Yes, but there IS governmental law enforcement -- police, military, National Guard -- that would crack down on those private police forces if they got out of line. In your Utopia, those controls wouldn't exist. So again, what would keep those police troops from becoming tyrannical forces?


"-- About those "private police forces": if you're too poor to afford their fees, does that mean you could be injured, maimed, killed, etc., without anyone doing anything to punish the evildoers?"


For starters, poor people would have guns. The need for police declines a lot when people can arm themselves and there is no prohibition. But if someone is attacked and needs services but is too poor, just like in hospitals, charity will be there to help. This isn't a problem at all. Your argument again assumes that people are simply too dumb and poor to take care of themselves, which is ridiculous.

That again, is naive, IMO. You assume that if we didn't have to pay taxes, everyone would freely give their money to charity. I doubt that very much. Where greed is not only condoned but encouraged, people tend to be greedy, i.e., not so very prone to charity, rich people above all. I've worked as a waitress for a while and can tell you that the rich people are often the lousiest tippers.

My hardcore libertarian bosses have the same argument as you, the charity vs. coerced payment, but as far as I know, they don't give a dime to charity, because they more or less believe that all poor people are slackers and deserve what they got.


"-- I truly believe that corporations are evil. As soon as you have shareholders to satisfy, that becomes your only goal... and many corps will cut every imaginable corner to get there. Look at BP, failing to implement the necessary safety measures on the rig -- and now that it's cleanup time, they do a damn lousy job, trying to sweep the extent of the spill under the carpet rather than trying to clean it up."

Corporations are not evil.

Government is evil.

Corporations that use government as a tool are evil, which makes government evil. Without government, it is impossible for a corporation to do evil. Society would put it out of business quickly by not transacting with it.


Are you telling me a company like Monsanto or all the Big Pharmas/Big Oil, etc. would be tender little lambs if only there weren't any government to be in league with them? And that tired argument that society would put the evildoers out of business doesn't hold water either. We've seen that it often takes years and many, many deaths before the dark secrets of those corp giants come to light. How can you put someone out of business if there's no transparency and people don't know what they're doing?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
People in the past that had no big central government as in the wilds of America, automatically began voluntary associations to accomplish the needs of the community. The Sheriff or Chief who was elected by the people or by a council of elders what have you kept the peace and settled disputes.

Fires were everyone's problem so they would volunteer their resources and efforts to support the common good. Roads were built by raising a bond then retiring it with a road toll. The common defense was handled by the local militia.

Freedom is not free but it does not require forced taxation. The founders of these United States had it mostly right. They just could not write into those founding documents the will of the people to not stray from the limited government they envisioned.

Emergencies have been used time and again to increase the power and authority of the state. Eventually after enough emergencies have come and passed the state realized that they liked expansion during times of emergencies and began to manufacture those crisis situations to increase their power.

The excuses used by stateist apologists for their thuggish violence is always the same. That we now need these things that were introduced as emergency temporary measures and that they must extract a tax from the people to pay for these things. The fact is that your income tax goes straight to the federal reserve bank to service the national debt. Services are paid for by service fees and other taxes such as the gas tax, cigarette tax, alcohol tax, and so on and so forth.

Voluntary association is superior in every way to state violence and enforcement. Like an animal that has been caged for too long the American people are now no longer aware of what it was like to really be free. What we accept is a growing corporatist/socialist police state that seeks to take even our most basic rights and freedoms and convert them into privileges that may be regulated and removed from the people at the whim of the state.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Having private companies take over civil
organization positions is one scary and
deadly proposition.

While there have been a number of private
Ambulance and Medidcal Service Companies
certified does not make them a good
choice. I have had to use both county and
private service, I'll stick with county.

Besides, my brother has been a Paramedic
for close to 20 years and stories I have
heard from him about the private companies
will scare the hell out of you.

I also won't trust my life or that of my
family in a house fire to someone making
minimum wage. Having a security guard
doing actual policework is a joke.

I know some European countries actually
take the position of security employees
extremely serious. These are occupations
where the industry is taught in primary
school as a trade. The amount of time and
quality of education is impressive.

I have some training as a Military Police
Officer and have worked as a security
guard numerous times. Believe me, you
do not want your average person doing
police work.

This applies to even Correctional Officers.
Tennessee started using a private company
years ago to save money. What they saved
in upfront cost was lost in prison escape
recovery operations and inmate lawsuits.

Private companies might induce competition,
but they also breed corruption, incompetence,
and greed.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
The reason your assertion that America would be better off without a centralized government would fail miserably is the same reason Russia no longer flies the hammer & sickle; Marx failed to take the very same thing into account that you do now, being the corruption of human nature. I've read each of your posts, and with all respect they seem dangerously naive. You assume way too much about the altruistic nature of humanity and these corporations that you insist aren't "evil."

If you want a microcosm of what I speak, I suggest you Wikipedia the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and study up on a healthy dose of Standard Oil, circa 1890-1895 - there's your unregulated, altruistic corporation hard at work my friend.

This is not to say that there aren't fleeting elements of your argument that I do agree with, but overall the majority of services you look to privatize would at best, further create a more stark division between the rich and the poor and, at worst, create corporatized extortion rackets where you pay the police, fire departments, et al. "protection" money or run the risk of having an "accident." I say this only because there is historical precedent (i.e. New York in the mid-1800s, Chicago in the 1920s). This is what you seek?

The biggest bone of contention I have with this is your premise that privatizing education would be to the betterment of all... ugh. Do not misunderstand, the public education system in the U.S. needs work - it's not broken but it's well on its way. However, turning every educational institution into a private school where you either pony up whatever exorbitant tuition the school demands or educate your child yourself without access to the proper materials is idiotic.

Do you want a society like that? Where a bloodthirsty, "survival-of-the-fittest" mentality dominates every aspect of life? Because if you want the above, that's exactly what you'd get IMO. You would see class warfare on a scale not seen since the French Revolution.

I don't trust my government... I trust corporations even less; above all though, I have seen nothing in my adult life to suggest I can trust people en masse in positions of authority or service regulation any more than the first two. Considering that, I'll take what I see as the least of three evils - at least with government I can try to vote out those I despise.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Legion2112
 


I don't think I'm the one who is being nieve.

Name a specific instance of a corporation acting "evil" and I'll show you a tie to government.

Corporations have no power to do anything other than provide a product or service the market demands.

"Evil" corporations are only "evil" because government is involved with them in some way.

If a corporation is acting badly they will be driven out of business rapidly. The market does not tolerate bad business practices.

A short list of "evil" corporations that are only in business because government is keeping them in business:

-Blackwater
-BP
-Exon
-Monsanto
-General Electric
-AIG
-Goldman Sachs
-Fannie/Freddie
-General Motors
-JP Morgan
-Citi group

Without government, all of those corporations would be bankrupt and out of business right now.


[edit on 3-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



Okay, I'll be more specific this time since you obviously couldn't be bothered to pay attention the first time...

Look up the Sherman Anti-Trust Act; then, research Standard Oil of Ohio.

Do you honestly think that if suddenly the American government collapsed, and all the corporations you mentioned crumbled under the weight of their own debt, those that rose to replace them would be any more philanthropic without some semblance of independent oversight? If so, then yes, you are naive.



[edit on 3-6-2010 by Legion2112]



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join