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.

 

The American People Are Angry!

page: 18
87
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Well, I'm looking forward to knowing more about your old hard line stance because letting the market decide is still where I'm at. Big or small, if a business harms someone that business should become "someone and associates". Skip this silly fines business, no one ever knows if these little hand slaps to corps like Smith Glaxo are ever paid, or to whom they're paid, or how they're spent. The true victims get pennies, if that.



I completely agree with that. I just used to think there shouldn't be corporations at all. Corporate malfeasance, however, should lead to charter revocation, for all corporations regardless of their size. Pfizer and GlaxoSmith are both guilty of fraud. Fraud is a crime, and if corporations are going to be defined by Congress as a "person" than that "person" needs to pay for the crime. Since corporations cannot be put in prison, then killing them is the only answer.


Just finished reading that thread and it starts out gang busters
I saved some of your pertinent quotes to a word document and I may attempt to use some of them to reinvigorate that thread. Good job. Unfortunately you ended up debating the same old same old theory that "we've just gotta have 'em (big corporations) or we'll all starve to death.", which is reminiscent of those who say "We've just gotta have big government or we'll all turn into thieves and killers."

That's why I keep referring back to the logic of Ben Franklin's colonial scrip which makes transactions transparent and fair. That said, there were powerful corporations in America as far back as the 1600s and researching my own French Canadian fur trapper/Indian guide ancestors, the penalties for trapping anywhere in North America sans being an employee of the French King's Corporation were absolutely brutal. Of course that didn't stop them, at least until the revolution when everything south of the border changed hands and so many British fled to the north to escape the American soldiers, which changed everything up there, as well. Some things for the better, some for the worse.

But I digress. The AG connection is probably where the (synthetic) rubber meets the modern paved highway in terms of killing off corporate killers like Monsanto and BP, but what do we do without truly mindful AGs, because they're in real short supply these days. And corporation commissions are as useless as .... well, you know the rest.


edit on 5-7-2012 by frazzle because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Most everyone on the planet is angry.

...loss of freedoms
...loss of wealth
...loss of privacy
...loss of employment
...loss of loved ones due to war, famine, etc.
...loss of security
...loss of LIBERTY

The list actually would be much longer, but I'm sure everyone gets the drift..... And life goes on and the rich get richer while we think everything is peachy keen......



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by eNaR
reply to post by jude11
 


Most everyone on the planet is angry.

...loss of freedoms
...loss of wealth
...loss of privacy
...loss of employment
...loss of loved ones due to war, famine, etc.
...loss of security
...loss of LIBERTY

The list actually would be much longer, but I'm sure everyone gets the drift..... And life goes on and the rich get richer while we think everything is peachy keen......


Are there really all that many people who still think its peachy keen?

Maybe you could help us figure out what to do about it?



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by frazzle
 


Thanks for bumping it, my friend. At the time I wrote it I had a pretty hard line stance towards corporations, and I remain hardline as an anti-corporatist, but since that time I've had personal experiences and through more research have come to understand that corporations can and do do good. I used to think we simply needed to end the corporate system all together, but the corporation can be a valuable asset to economy.

This got me to thinking about the idea of parallel markets. The nature of the corporation, it being a chartered entity created by the state, means it is, from its inception regulated, and should be. The sole proprietor or unincorporated or non-chartered partnerships should not be regulated, unless they are engaged in some practice that compels licensing and regulation. If the nature of the business requires licensing and regulation, that business may as well incorporate and enjoy the benefits that come with it, but outside those activities that compel government to regulate, the government should stay out.

This is what I mean by parallel markets. The regulated corporate market and the free market. Why should Coca-Cola and Pepsi enjoy the duopoly they do? The smaller soda or beverage companies struggle to compete for many reasons, but regulation is one of them and a big reason. An incorporated beverage company should not have to deal with the FDA, only the corporations that deal with food and drugs.


A government should govern completly and thoroughly. Sure it is run by humans and humans make mistakes, but that is different from them being 100% wall street biased. Corporatism does serve a purpose provided it sticks to business and lobbying restricted to reasonable limits.

If the government is weak it capitulates to those that are stronger. Those that have the most money. This IS the problem. How to go about solving it will likely be difficult and bloody. Once you give someone an inch they ask for a yard and then for a mile.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





Corporatism does serve a purpose provided it sticks to business and lobbying restricted to reasonable limits.


The purpose corporatism serves is that it demands every individual become a statutorily defined entity just like they. This statutory definition of sovereign individuals then allows government (or at least this is what the ambitious bureaucrats think) to "govern completely and thoroughly".



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





Corporatism does serve a purpose provided it sticks to business and lobbying restricted to reasonable limits.


The purpose corporatism serves is that it demands every individual become a statutorily defined entity just like they. This statutory definition of sovereign individuals then allows government (or at least this is what the ambitious bureaucrats think) to "govern completely and thoroughly".


Correct but I never said I approve of government being registered as a corporation and treating people like a human resource. I disapprove of that "completly and thoroughly". As a last resort people can join the free man on the land movement OR better yet focus on deincorporating the government and nationalising the FED!

The first choice is anarchy and the second choice involves mild socialism.
edit on 5/7/12 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


This is precisely what corporatism is, and you most assuredly approved of it. That was why I made the post you're replying to.

You cannot have it both ways. Corporatism is good except for when it is bad. Corporatism is bad.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


Knee Jerk Reaction

1. an immediate unthinking emotional reaction produced by an event or statement to which the reacting person is highly sensitive


sorry.. but by definition it is not "just" that.

its a hundred years of fake fiat currency stealing true wealth from the people.

its a hundred years of CAFR stealing away public wealth..

your great great grandpa knew they were thieves and liars..

nothing new about that.

seems to be the only thing that has changed is the people having access to information & being able to share said info.. then realizing the truth of the matter.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


This is precisely what corporatism is, and you most assuredly approved of it. That was why I made the post you're replying to.

You cannot have it both ways. Corporatism is good except for when it is bad. Corporatism is bad.


No you are the one that keeps changing views back and forth. I don't hate corporations but at the same time the ptb have no business incorporating the government. The government, the people and corporations are all sovereign. Each plays its role.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





No you are the one that keeps changing views back and forth. I don't hate corporations but at the same time the ptb have no business incorporating the government. The government, the people and corporations are all sovereign. Each plays its role.


Transfer much? You want to come off as some heroic figure for the People while at the same time insisting that government should have complete and thorough authority over these people. Don't change your position much? Watch you come in and argue this point.

Your problem is you don't understand what you're talking about. You don't really think it through and instead allow your envy and hatred of the rich to unbalance you. So, you want to pretend that the "worker" has rights, but that the rich do not, and this pretense is precisely what leads to the very things you complain about.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





No you are the one that keeps changing views back and forth. I don't hate corporations but at the same time the ptb have no business incorporating the government. The government, the people and corporations are all sovereign. Each plays its role.


Transfer much? You want to come off as some heroic figure for the People while at the same time insisting that government should have complete and thorough authority over these people. Don't change your position much? Watch you come in and argue this point.

Your problem is you don't understand what you're talking about. You don't really think it through and instead allow your envy and hatred of the rich to unbalance you. So, you want to pretend that the "worker" has rights, but that the rich do not, and this pretense is precisely what leads to the very things you complain about.


Of course everyone should have some rights. The problem is that the rich and corporations have a disporportionate level of effective rights over the downtrodden. This has been reality for a long time.

It seems you care more about the rights of the privileged than the lack of rights of everyone else. Heck you cannot even decide what a corporation is or if it should exist at all. I have kept steady with my views the entire time.

Attempting to paint me as a fanatic only hurts your credibility because you want to argue semantics when both of us(or at least me) cannot be fully knowledgeable of everything. If I knew everything chances are I would be part of the conspiracy.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
well USA has been always a masonic country and it is vivid when you look at Washington's tomb and other signs. Kennedy were killed because he was the president of USA not the president of .... USA is enslaved by those who want their new world order.
edit on 5-7-2012 by maes9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





Of course everyone should have some rights.


Some rights? How about all the rights they're born with? Everyone!




The problem is that the rich and corporations have a disporportionate level of effective rights over the downtrodden.


Effective rights? You live in a theoretical world where the rule of law and the universal rights of all people are nothing more than legal rights as opposed to the unalienable rights they are. This "effective" rights nonsense is just more Marxism, but your Marxist ideology means nothing to those who fight for the unalienable and universal rights of all. "Effective rights" is just another phrase for "we'll decide what are rights and what are not rights and you'll just have to accept our view".

There is only one gold standard by which to determine what is and what is not a right. Outside of lawful defense, what causes no harm is done by right. What causes no harm is quite clearly not "effective".




It seems you care more about the rights of the privileged than the lack of rights of everyone else.


When it comes to unalienable rights there is no "lack" of rights. You seem to want to sell people on the idea of a "lack" to justify your plunder of property that isn't yours.




Heck you cannot even decide what a corporation is or if it should exist at all.


This is a strawman, and you're simply taking my own honesty and clarification that I once viewed every corporation as being a necessary part of corporatism and as I continued to grow and learn I realized that corporations in and of themselves are not necessarily corporatism. This is not an inability on my part to decide. I have decided, and have spoken clearly to what I decided right here in this thread. I have made it clear that the free market can operate as a parallel to corporations. Under the free market the unincorporated business is outside of any regulatory schemes and only the corporation is.

You clearly ignored that and created your strawman because you are afraid of the free market and don't want it to ever have a chance, so you, on the one hand scream about the "trillionaires" and how wrong that is, but then declare that corporatism is good. Sigh.




I have kept steady with my views the entire time.


Sure you have. Steady in your zig zag arguments.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



A government should govern completly and thoroughly. Sure it is run by humans and humans make mistakes, but that is different from them being 100% wall street biased. Corporatism does serve a purpose provided it sticks to business and lobbying restricted to reasonable limits.


What should happen to these humans in government when they make "mistakes"? How many "mistakes" do they have to make before you wake up to the fact that they aren't mistakes.

What percentage of government bias is acceptable in legislation that favors wall street banks?

How much lobbying by corporations (or NGOs) is reasonable?



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 





How many "mistakes" do they have to make before you wake up to the fact that they aren't mistakes.


A strategy of competent incompetency has long been the method of a steady and incremental aggregation of power for the ambitious bureaucrats.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





Of course everyone should have some rights.


Some rights? How about all the rights they're born with? Everyone!

Effective rights? You live in a theoretical world where the rule of law and the universal rights of all people are nothing more than legal rights as opposed to the unalienable rights they are. This "effective" rights nonsense is just more Marxism, but your Marxist ideology means nothing to those who fight for the unalienable and universal rights of all. "Effective rights" is just another phrase for "we'll decide what are rights and what are not rights and you'll just have to accept our view".


I find it troublesome(have your cake and eat it too) that conservatives on one hand demand universal rights that trump the constitution and yet have the gal to demand the constitution be honored as well. A constitution perverted by corporate law and changed with the act of 1871.



There is only one gold standard by which to determine what is and what is not a right. Outside of lawful defense, what causes no harm is done by right. What causes no harm is quite clearly not "effective".


So that means the constitution is toilet paper? Why do conservatives attack liberals, progressives and revolutionaries for being unconstitutional mavericks on one hand and then attack them for wanting statuatory law on the other hand?

"Yep have your cake and eat it too" mentality. The center and left ADMIT the constitution leaves a lot to be desired and should be edited because after 250 years of its existance some parts of it are quite irrellevant.



When it comes to unalienable rights there is no "lack" of rights. You seem to want to sell people on the idea of a "lack" to justify your plunder of property that isn't yours.


So the constitution is toilet paper? I ask AGAIN




This is a strawman, and you're simply taking my own honesty and clarification that I once viewed every corporation as being a necessary part of corporatism and as I continued to grow and learn I realized that corporations in and of themselves are not necessarily corporatism. This is not an inability on my part to decide. I have decided, and have spoken clearly to what I decided right here in this thread. I have made it clear that the free market can operate as a parallel to corporations. Under the free market the unincorporated business is outside of any regulatory schemes and only the corporation is.


There we go again. According to you only corporations should be regulated. I guess a proprietership or partnership is above government auspices...they must be holly as well. Damm man, I can't believe your lack of common sense.


You clearly ignored that and created your strawman because you are afraid of the free market and don't want it to ever have a chance, so you, on the one hand scream about the "trillionaires" and how wrong that is, but then declare that corporatism is good. Sigh.


You have created more strawmans than I could create in one year here on ATS or every internet site combined.

Corporatism is good ONLY when it relates to business practice. The government has no right acting like a business entity. This is what we have to change!!



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by frazzle
 




How many "mistakes" do they have to make before you wake up to the fact that they aren't mistakes.


A strategy of competent incompetency has long been the method of a steady and incremental aggregation of power for the ambitious bureaucrats.


Some of our senators, in particular, have been successfully incompetent for several decades and the public still loves 'em. That has a tendency to turn regular everyday people who pay attention into raving cynics.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



A government should govern completly and thoroughly. Sure it is run by humans and humans make mistakes, but that is different from them being 100% wall street biased. Corporatism does serve a purpose provided it sticks to business and lobbying restricted to reasonable limits.


What should happen to these humans in government when they make "mistakes"? How many "mistakes" do they have to make before you wake up to the fact that they aren't mistakes.

What percentage of government bias is acceptable in legislation that favors wall street banks?

How much lobbying by corporations (or NGOs) is reasonable?


Do you believe in the constitution, universal rights or a little of both??

I hope you don't mind me answering your questions via me asking you questions to point out the hypocrisy of the matter.

Some times self-reflection provides the best answers!



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





(have your cake and eat it too)


The only way to eat cake is to have it first. The proper expression is "eat your cake and have it too".




I find it troublesome(have your cake and eat it too) that conservatives on one hand demand universal rights that trump the constitution and yet have the gal to demand the constitution be honored as well. A constitution perverted by corporate law and changed with the act of 1871.


No rights "trump" the Constitution. You have a profound misunderstanding of that Constitution if you think that rights "trump" that Constitution. You also know me better by this point to know I won't play your silly games of labels. Labels are your obsession, not mine.

What is it with you and strawman arguments. No, the Constitution is not toilet paper which is precisely why your Marxists ideals remain unconstitutional.

As to a private business operating by right, I have all ready clarified that there are certain activities that could compel a government to regulate that activity regardless of the business status, whether it be incorporated or not. I used the example of transporting toxic materials as a compelling argument for regulation regardless of the transporters "legal" status, but of course, you ignore this to perpetuate your strawman arguments.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



Do you believe in the constitution, universal rights or a little of both??


IMO, the Constitution sets the table, the Bill of Rights is the meat and potatoes on your plate. So you don't like meat and potatoes? Fine, you can have those nummy GMOs by Monsanto all to yourself. I have a right to eat organic food and drink raw milk. ..... unless there's a law or ordinance against it. Right? Ummm, that's in the Constitution? Where?


Amendment IX (1791)
The enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The 9th Amendment is saying that the Constitution cannot be used against the peoples' right to freedom. The rights granted by the Constitution cannot be used to eliminate other rights.

Read more: wiki.answers.com...


I hope you don't mind me answering your questions via me asking you questions to point out the hypocrisy of the matter.


Can't answer the questions without ruining your argument?

You're right ...


Some times self-reflection provides the best answers!



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join