Clinton was a fiscal conservative
Reagan had the biggest non-wartime tax increases
AKA Your point?
Adolf Hitler
- Thread starter alireza1354
- Start date
- Status
Clinton was a fiscal conservative
Reagan had the biggest non-wartime tax increases
AKA Your point?
Not to distract any of you from this debate, but I'd suggest listening to the following:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechthegreatdictator.html
The movie "The Great Dictator" was turned in the US and came out in 1940 - Europe at war, USA still out - in it Chaplin plays a Jewish barber who resembles Adenoyd Hynkel (aka Adolf Hitler), dictator of Tomania (ie. Germany) so much that at the end he goes up to the podium to speak in his stead.
The movie is wonderfully comic as well.
There is a scene with Hynkel and Napoloni (ie. Mussolini) which must be one of the best send-up in the history of satire.
And the final speech is incredible, there Chaplin quits being funny and becomes very serious. If you listen to it, remember that was 1940! Before the huge mass killings of WWII, before the Holocaust was actually in place -- "only" the mass discrimination of the Jewish people was being enforced -- but Chaplin says something that goes a lot further than that particular moment.
It's easy to realize that while the current situation is different from 1940, overall we are still in a similar quagmire.
And maybe Chaplin is not so wrong....
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechthegreatdictator.html
The movie "The Great Dictator" was turned in the US and came out in 1940 - Europe at war, USA still out - in it Chaplin plays a Jewish barber who resembles Adenoyd Hynkel (aka Adolf Hitler), dictator of Tomania (ie. Germany) so much that at the end he goes up to the podium to speak in his stead.
The movie is wonderfully comic as well.
There is a scene with Hynkel and Napoloni (ie. Mussolini) which must be one of the best send-up in the history of satire.
And the final speech is incredible, there Chaplin quits being funny and becomes very serious. If you listen to it, remember that was 1940! Before the huge mass killings of WWII, before the Holocaust was actually in place -- "only" the mass discrimination of the Jewish people was being enforced -- but Chaplin says something that goes a lot further than that particular moment.
It's easy to realize that while the current situation is different from 1940, overall we are still in a similar quagmire.
And maybe Chaplin is not so wrong....
A still very busy thread.
DRJ, I find a lot of irony in that I refer to the Islami-fascists as animals, then you call me a fascist. That made me laugh fairly hard.
You then proceed to imply that I said Muslims are animals, which simply isn't true. I said Islami-fascists are animals and barbarians. I know that the written word is more difficult than discussion, but what I said is what I said.
It would be quite easy to seal the borders of America. I have no idea why you think it wouldn't be. The Mexican border is 2200 miles long. Three layers of 30' high fence set 100' apart, non-lethal mines between each fence row, and outside of the fence facing Mexico are sonic weapons set off by motion detectors. To prevent tunneling a water chamber 10 foot wide and 200+ foot deep is built near the third fence. Regular guard patrols with non-lethal weapons would patrol the border defense zone, and place those attempting to enter the US on ships to be repatriated to the Mexican shoreline at the Southernmost point of Mexico.
Some would argue this would be prohibitively expensive. Stationing our soldiers all over the world is prohibitively expensive. The money saved by contributing to the economies of South Korea, Japan, Germany, England, Phillipines, etc could pay for this dozens of times over.
After I had secured the Southern border, I'd do the same thing to the Northern Border. Build huge offshore platforms for transfer of materials in and out of the US as well as to provide security against a cargo container bomb, and other than no actual foreign businessmen being on US soil, it would be business as usual.
I'd also make it illegal for American companies to utilize foreign nationals to provide services to American citizens. I just switched internet providers because I asked the provider I signed up with if they had foreign call centers. They said no. I hired them, had a problem with installation, and called customer support. Someone with a very thick foreign accent named "David" answered the phone. After about 10 minutes, I got him to admit that he was in the Phillipines and that he had no actual network knowledge, but was reading off of cue cards. (Qwest internet, for those of you who are interested). Comcast has call centers in each of the states they do business in.
Fortress America is the only security in a world with renegade nukes. DRJ talks about our nukes being used on us. I was in the Air Force, and was a missile crew member. I can promise you that nobody will get an American nuke, and if they do they will have no way to make it detonate. It will be a loose Russian nuke or a Pakistani/N Korean/future Iranian nuke that comes to visit.
DRJ, I take no offense at anything you say. I respect your right to say it. I'm a Libertarian. The US would have a lot less people in prisons if drugs were legal like they should be. Adults should have the right to snuff themselves if they so with, with drugs or otherwise.
I hope you don't take any offense at what I'm about to say. You seem to think all humans are created equal. Your enemies don't believe that, they'll gleefully cut off your head just like they did Nick Berg. Europe is going to fall inside 50 years because Islamic radicalism inside your borders is a time bomb. At least our illegal immigrants are for the most part hard working Roman Catholics who don't have even the slightest religious agenda in coming to the US.
On the other hand, we let the Saudis run a Wahhabi school in Virginia teaching hatred of Westerners and that the only real human life is Islamic life. So we have the fuse burning here too.
Every human should be treated with the maximum kindness. Sometimes that means you build a wall so that any interaction with the other parties stop. The reason for this can be that contact with the other parties only results in negative results. A fence is a better alternative to that. This can be homicide bombers as in the case of the Israelis, or Tuberculosis in the case of Mexican immigrants in the US, which they have kindly re-introduced to our nation.
I support the Israelis one hundred percent in their wall. They should never have given a square foot of land back that they won in the wars that the Arabs started with them. They should build a fence around their entire country. The ship FULL of Iranian arms that was just seized by Israeli security forces is proof of this. Hamas is full of barbarians and animals, and I don't care who that offends. AchIpeedmypants, the leader of Iran, is also a holocaust denying animal. In some cases, a bullet in the forehead is a gift to humanity.
Bring home the troops, kick out the foreigners, secure the nukes, declare that we will retaliate ten fold to any nuclear attack, and close the door. The internet would still be a window to the world, a luxury that we didn't really have 20 years ago.
DRJ, I find a lot of irony in that I refer to the Islami-fascists as animals, then you call me a fascist. That made me laugh fairly hard.
You then proceed to imply that I said Muslims are animals, which simply isn't true. I said Islami-fascists are animals and barbarians. I know that the written word is more difficult than discussion, but what I said is what I said.
It would be quite easy to seal the borders of America. I have no idea why you think it wouldn't be. The Mexican border is 2200 miles long. Three layers of 30' high fence set 100' apart, non-lethal mines between each fence row, and outside of the fence facing Mexico are sonic weapons set off by motion detectors. To prevent tunneling a water chamber 10 foot wide and 200+ foot deep is built near the third fence. Regular guard patrols with non-lethal weapons would patrol the border defense zone, and place those attempting to enter the US on ships to be repatriated to the Mexican shoreline at the Southernmost point of Mexico.
Some would argue this would be prohibitively expensive. Stationing our soldiers all over the world is prohibitively expensive. The money saved by contributing to the economies of South Korea, Japan, Germany, England, Phillipines, etc could pay for this dozens of times over.
After I had secured the Southern border, I'd do the same thing to the Northern Border. Build huge offshore platforms for transfer of materials in and out of the US as well as to provide security against a cargo container bomb, and other than no actual foreign businessmen being on US soil, it would be business as usual.
I'd also make it illegal for American companies to utilize foreign nationals to provide services to American citizens. I just switched internet providers because I asked the provider I signed up with if they had foreign call centers. They said no. I hired them, had a problem with installation, and called customer support. Someone with a very thick foreign accent named "David" answered the phone. After about 10 minutes, I got him to admit that he was in the Phillipines and that he had no actual network knowledge, but was reading off of cue cards. (Qwest internet, for those of you who are interested). Comcast has call centers in each of the states they do business in.
Fortress America is the only security in a world with renegade nukes. DRJ talks about our nukes being used on us. I was in the Air Force, and was a missile crew member. I can promise you that nobody will get an American nuke, and if they do they will have no way to make it detonate. It will be a loose Russian nuke or a Pakistani/N Korean/future Iranian nuke that comes to visit.
DRJ, I take no offense at anything you say. I respect your right to say it. I'm a Libertarian. The US would have a lot less people in prisons if drugs were legal like they should be. Adults should have the right to snuff themselves if they so with, with drugs or otherwise.
I hope you don't take any offense at what I'm about to say. You seem to think all humans are created equal. Your enemies don't believe that, they'll gleefully cut off your head just like they did Nick Berg. Europe is going to fall inside 50 years because Islamic radicalism inside your borders is a time bomb. At least our illegal immigrants are for the most part hard working Roman Catholics who don't have even the slightest religious agenda in coming to the US.
On the other hand, we let the Saudis run a Wahhabi school in Virginia teaching hatred of Westerners and that the only real human life is Islamic life. So we have the fuse burning here too.
Every human should be treated with the maximum kindness. Sometimes that means you build a wall so that any interaction with the other parties stop. The reason for this can be that contact with the other parties only results in negative results. A fence is a better alternative to that. This can be homicide bombers as in the case of the Israelis, or Tuberculosis in the case of Mexican immigrants in the US, which they have kindly re-introduced to our nation.
I support the Israelis one hundred percent in their wall. They should never have given a square foot of land back that they won in the wars that the Arabs started with them. They should build a fence around their entire country. The ship FULL of Iranian arms that was just seized by Israeli security forces is proof of this. Hamas is full of barbarians and animals, and I don't care who that offends. AchIpeedmypants, the leader of Iran, is also a holocaust denying animal. In some cases, a bullet in the forehead is a gift to humanity.
Bring home the troops, kick out the foreigners, secure the nukes, declare that we will retaliate ten fold to any nuclear attack, and close the door. The internet would still be a window to the world, a luxury that we didn't really have 20 years ago.
Humakty
Happy Goblin
Yeah, every westerner can agree islamic extremists are frightening, as islam is still a very strong religion (I mean, in the hearts of people practicing it), so they've got boatloads of 'crusaders', who are ready to do anything to have their cause victorious. The fact islam can pose itself as a victim of western powers surely helps the recruitment. (the 'you'll be a hero' trick)
But I wonder if 'locking the door' will make sure no one breaks in one way or another,(no defense is perfect). And is isolasionism compatible with being the leading civilisation ? If the USA step back, who'll replace them ?
Maybe the trick is being as brutal as the extremists are. You can't win against someone making no compromise while making some yourself.( if they kill civilians, you'll have to do it too, if they torture....etc, you just can't give your ennemy so easy advantages over yourself, so I'm not scandalised about tortured prisoners, as fanatics do it, plus they decapitate them on TV shows !)
Sick sad world.
But I wonder if 'locking the door' will make sure no one breaks in one way or another,(no defense is perfect). And is isolasionism compatible with being the leading civilisation ? If the USA step back, who'll replace them ?
Maybe the trick is being as brutal as the extremists are. You can't win against someone making no compromise while making some yourself.( if they kill civilians, you'll have to do it too, if they torture....etc, you just can't give your ennemy so easy advantages over yourself, so I'm not scandalised about tortured prisoners, as fanatics do it, plus they decapitate them on TV shows !)
Sick sad world.
cr0ws
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2008
- Messages
- 571
If US "locked it's doors" it would be like locking your doors in a grass and straw hut (you know the kind Giligan lived in on that stranded isle).But I wonder if 'locking the door' will make sure no one breaks in one way or another,(no defense is perfect). And is isolasionism compatible with being the leading civilisation ? If the USA step back, who'll replace them ?
Sick sad world.
DRJ
Hedonist
"We will make US so corrupt it'll stink!" - Mr. X at the bilderburg conference.
Do you think the CIA is in on it?
The CIA paid the initial Bilderberger-Conferences, actually (the first place it was helt was the Bilderberg-hotel in the netherlands, the crownprince of the NL as the chairman...)-
And regarding your last statement, Crusis: I think you are such a right-winger, I merely can't abide what I read. I don't think we can get to a common point, and what my opinion on the topic is I already said.
I feel sorry for mankind, somehow- not only there are religious lunatics in the near east but also people like you in "the west"- and both of them think they just react on the other and thus get radicalized. Thats the vicious circle of backward ideologies, altogether, seen many times in history.
I wish we could put the "mangy" muslims you refer to, together with the "borderline ga-ga" southpaws into a cage and let them do what ever they think has to be done: either they understand and get humanized towards each other or they mangle each others to death...
os79
Deity
One of my fellow student friend (hardcore libertarian [no taxes, anarchist, etc]) said that Democrats and Republicans are like the legs of people. They are walking ever leftward or so he claim. I disagree about "leftward" claim but I had to agree about two parties being in lockstep together.
It sometimes irritates me how Democrats are strong enough to stand up to corporate America and demand accountability from the business world.
When I profess my self economic liberal, I'm not being simplistic and demand taxing corporations, etc. It won't work. What I'm more demanding is that government be less libertarian in relation to large and powerful business. In other words, be a mean boss to big and powerful businesses and leave us normal people alone to live our lives as the best we can with what resources we have available to. If large and powerful businesses are left alone, they will explot their employees. It is simply profit-smart thing to do. That is not ethical as last hundred years and more of industrialization of the West showed. That is what Marx tried to say. He never had been anti-capitalist as in calling it religious-evil. He only claimed that it was evil as in being very unethical in its behavior toward people in lower classes with lesser power compared to rich businesses.
This is my position. I demand my government to leave people alone int heir social choices but intervene strongly to make large and powerful (I'm excluding small and humble businesses here!) to be accountable toward its stakeholders, namely its customers and employees. For too long the large and powerful businesses had been ignoring this large responsibility that comes with power as the uncle of Spider-man once told him, "With great power comes the great responsibility."
This is what I and other economic political left are trying to say. We demand that we make necessities of life accessible to everyone (health, food, shelter, and basic clothing). It is unethical to just have homeless be helpless and go die without some basic support. This should obviously mean that if these people in need want more stuff than necessities, they should go work for that. But the basic necessities should be available to everyone, whatever their purchasing power is because it is more ethical to do so.
Now this may require some taxing and managing of economy by the government, but this is not the problem. The problem is that the large and powerful businesses had been resisting the government and corrupting it in order to protect their profits. That is why so far our government had been a failure in furthering the cause for necessities for everyone.
There is a room, a big one, for arguments about how to apply the above stated goal. However, there should not be argument about having everyone having access to basic necessities of life unless this arguer is a hardhearted selfish bastard. Simple like that!
It sometimes irritates me how Democrats are strong enough to stand up to corporate America and demand accountability from the business world.
When I profess my self economic liberal, I'm not being simplistic and demand taxing corporations, etc. It won't work. What I'm more demanding is that government be less libertarian in relation to large and powerful business. In other words, be a mean boss to big and powerful businesses and leave us normal people alone to live our lives as the best we can with what resources we have available to. If large and powerful businesses are left alone, they will explot their employees. It is simply profit-smart thing to do. That is not ethical as last hundred years and more of industrialization of the West showed. That is what Marx tried to say. He never had been anti-capitalist as in calling it religious-evil. He only claimed that it was evil as in being very unethical in its behavior toward people in lower classes with lesser power compared to rich businesses.
This is my position. I demand my government to leave people alone int heir social choices but intervene strongly to make large and powerful (I'm excluding small and humble businesses here!) to be accountable toward its stakeholders, namely its customers and employees. For too long the large and powerful businesses had been ignoring this large responsibility that comes with power as the uncle of Spider-man once told him, "With great power comes the great responsibility."
This is what I and other economic political left are trying to say. We demand that we make necessities of life accessible to everyone (health, food, shelter, and basic clothing). It is unethical to just have homeless be helpless and go die without some basic support. This should obviously mean that if these people in need want more stuff than necessities, they should go work for that. But the basic necessities should be available to everyone, whatever their purchasing power is because it is more ethical to do so.
Now this may require some taxing and managing of economy by the government, but this is not the problem. The problem is that the large and powerful businesses had been resisting the government and corrupting it in order to protect their profits. That is why so far our government had been a failure in furthering the cause for necessities for everyone.
There is a room, a big one, for arguments about how to apply the above stated goal. However, there should not be argument about having everyone having access to basic necessities of life unless this arguer is a hardhearted selfish bastard. Simple like that!
DRJ
Hedonist
Not islam, itsself! Its a religion thats friendly towards strangers and sophisticated, visit a country like indonesia or turkey, the people are friendly and openly minded - more than you think. They like to consume western goods.
Isolasionism(?) would show the US they paid for most of the good they imported and consumed with no real backup-values, as for now the dollar is backed up only on their power to trade oil in greenbacks.
China has enough dollar reserves now, but what does the US still produce? It's a saying here that US just rips off the world and once the world stops that they will see how little they produce themselves. It's not possible to supply the people with goods only by having a lot of services. Industrial production had been outsourced as the wages were lower elsewhere, they even tried to outsource those services Crusis mentioned, like callcenters. GM is dead, nearly, and thats a status symbol of industrialized America.
You think you shouldn't make compromises towards extremists? - Right, US didn't do that regarding torture
Spoiler :
If you make compromises - unlike those who don't move - you're most likely to win, as the one adepting to a gridlocked situation has the advantage of being proactive, he can set the timetable and make offers to the subordinates of the enemy.
I think old-age poverty is not something a society can just wipe off, saying he could've accomplished something, he didn't - bad luck, cya next night shift. I mean, c'mon, they are old, it's just sad. How comes we don't accept something like that in france, england or germany? It's called solidarity, I know that must sound strangly for someone from across the ocean but believe me, it works!
I approve os79,
Humakty
Happy Goblin
@DRJ :
I didn't say every muslim poses itself as a victim, but that they CAN do it. And that surely helps recruitment.
And if you think you can impose a system favorable mainly for western powers, by being kind and nice, I think you're making some kind of mistake.
Have you heard about the Charia, by the way ? tolerance ? Oh, a thief, let us cut his hand, that'll learn him how to behave ! And it is a known fact, women love to be all dressed in burkas, it's just soooo stilish.
But if I follow your thinking, I just have to let them slap me, they'll grow tired of it ? Brutality is the only answer to brutality. That or being a victim, you'll have to choose some day.
I didn't say every muslim poses itself as a victim, but that they CAN do it. And that surely helps recruitment.
And if you think you can impose a system favorable mainly for western powers, by being kind and nice, I think you're making some kind of mistake.
Have you heard about the Charia, by the way ? tolerance ? Oh, a thief, let us cut his hand, that'll learn him how to behave ! And it is a known fact, women love to be all dressed in burkas, it's just soooo stilish.
But if I follow your thinking, I just have to let them slap me, they'll grow tired of it ? Brutality is the only answer to brutality. That or being a victim, you'll have to choose some day.
Afforess
The White Wizard
I disagree with you here. Strongly disagree.
There are many inherent flaws and logical fallacies in this way of thinking, I will outline the more common ones:
- You assume that Businesses will take advantage of there workers, which may be true, but then act like workers are a slave to there employer. Can the worker not quit, and seek more favorable employment? Then this point is moot.
- You assume the government should be the one to regulate businesses. This is borderline madness. The government is the worst run institution in all of history, the American government included. You want the same madmen who gave us 11+ Trillion dollars in debt to govern companies, when they can't even balance a budget? Madness.
- You portray consumers as victims to evil, powerful, multinational-predator corporations. Yet, we live in a capitalist society. If you dislike a corporation, refuse to do business with them. Vote with your dollar.
- You believe that the poor have somehow been caused to be poor, by someone, when often, it is of there own doing. Humanity will never be free of the homeless and poor. But it isn't the government's place to fix it. If you have pity for them, there are 1000's of charities whose aim is to serve the poor, donate your dollar to them.
- You want the government to leave people alone, yet demand they meddle in business practices. Corporations have person-hood, do they have no rights? Would you seek to destroy those rights? What right do you have to do so? Who gave you such power?
- You demand that the rich be taxed much more harshly than the middle or lower classes. Why? What have they done that demands punishment? Success? You are disincentivizing the very people who create most of the jobs in the world. Where would we be without our Sam Walton's, or Andrew Carnegie's?
Large corporations are already accountable to it's shareholders. If the government had not bailed out all the financial institutions, where would all those "Rich, evil executives" been? On the streets.
This quote sums it up, fairly well:
Atlas Shrugged said:
Luck doesn't exist, therefore it is impossible to have "bad luck."
It may be sad, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pay for them.
Humakty
Happy Goblin
I think it is naïve to dissociate governments from the national firms of one country : of course they strike secret deals, of course they gamble with the life of millions, of course they all come from the same school and are all friends or relatives of one another.
It' horrible, but what are the alternatives ?
BTW, I live in France, and I've talked to an old man who wasn't able to make a living, nor was he able to get a job. Misery not only exist in USA, but everywhere in the western world. (and of course much more so everywhere else !)
It' horrible, but what are the alternatives ?
BTW, I live in France, and I've talked to an old man who wasn't able to make a living, nor was he able to get a job. Misery not only exist in USA, but everywhere in the western world. (and of course much more so everywhere else !)
2ndimpression
Bloody peasant
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2009
- Messages
- 59
I disagree with some of these, but I suppose thats what politics boils down too.
A worker can quit and seek better employment, but only if better employment is available. Businesses are usually governed by their share holders, they want to be competitive and make the most of money they can, that is business. If they can squeeze more profit out, they will. If they don't there will be other businesses willing to do so and they will be the ones that are more succesful. You can end up with a downwad spiral of conditions and pay for the workers, as businesses compete against each other. Before regulation, business practices were abhorent, all becuase they could get away with it.
Governments are pretty bad at running businesses, but that doesn't mean they should not put laws in place to regulate business practices. Businesses can become far more powerful than individual goverments, they can monopolies and dominate markets, as well as release harmful, even deadly products onto the market and get away with it. Without any kind of regulation companies will push and push and in the end this can be very detrimental for everyone. There are many examples in recent history of companies having immoral pratices, that without regulation, the company would have got away with.
Consumers are a guilty party, but if you don't know about the company and its practices how can you judge. It is simply not possible to know about every little thing, it's only when it major issue is highlighted by a 'free press' that you have at least some knowledge to base your buying power on.
Kind of agree, there will always be those worse of and better off. I believe in a meritocracy, those who are willing to work hard and able to should do better than those that are not. I agree that the government shouldn't be trying to eradicate the poor, but what the should do is try and make sure people have the opportunity to better themselves if they want to and are willing to work for it.
I think that those who have the ability to pay more tax, should, but this should always be fair. There are many ways to have a fair and open tax system but unfortunatle as tax systems become more complicated there are more loopholes which are often exploited by those with the most money. I used to be against inheritance tax, after all, why should what I have earned during my lifetime go to the government, but as I have aged I understand that it does play a vital role in the equality of society. It prevents the rich from monopolising wealth and you would end up with a few families/ coorporations owning the majority of the land, again this is shown in throughout history.
Interesting discussions though and as we are now a world wide economy, this raises far more issues as there are countries with no or little regulation competing with countries with tight regulation.
Apologies for the spelling
A worker can quit and seek better employment, but only if better employment is available. Businesses are usually governed by their share holders, they want to be competitive and make the most of money they can, that is business. If they can squeeze more profit out, they will. If they don't there will be other businesses willing to do so and they will be the ones that are more succesful. You can end up with a downwad spiral of conditions and pay for the workers, as businesses compete against each other. Before regulation, business practices were abhorent, all becuase they could get away with it.
Governments are pretty bad at running businesses, but that doesn't mean they should not put laws in place to regulate business practices. Businesses can become far more powerful than individual goverments, they can monopolies and dominate markets, as well as release harmful, even deadly products onto the market and get away with it. Without any kind of regulation companies will push and push and in the end this can be very detrimental for everyone. There are many examples in recent history of companies having immoral pratices, that without regulation, the company would have got away with.
Consumers are a guilty party, but if you don't know about the company and its practices how can you judge. It is simply not possible to know about every little thing, it's only when it major issue is highlighted by a 'free press' that you have at least some knowledge to base your buying power on.
Kind of agree, there will always be those worse of and better off. I believe in a meritocracy, those who are willing to work hard and able to should do better than those that are not. I agree that the government shouldn't be trying to eradicate the poor, but what the should do is try and make sure people have the opportunity to better themselves if they want to and are willing to work for it.
I think that those who have the ability to pay more tax, should, but this should always be fair. There are many ways to have a fair and open tax system but unfortunatle as tax systems become more complicated there are more loopholes which are often exploited by those with the most money. I used to be against inheritance tax, after all, why should what I have earned during my lifetime go to the government, but as I have aged I understand that it does play a vital role in the equality of society. It prevents the rich from monopolising wealth and you would end up with a few families/ coorporations owning the majority of the land, again this is shown in throughout history.
Interesting discussions though and as we are now a world wide economy, this raises far more issues as there are countries with no or little regulation competing with countries with tight regulation.
Apologies for the spelling
os79
Deity
If other businesses are better in treatment, yes. But if the businesses are engaged in common practice of exploitation, then no. Let's look at workers at restaurants like McDonalds. People with no opportunity to higher education are stuck with fast food restaurants and other similar place of employments. While I don't believe in conspiracies, I do know there is a common practice of low wages in these places, and thus high turnovers. Would that make their food more expensive if we demand through government regulation to make their employees higher? Yes, but it would result in better quality for workers, not just their bosses.
Not manage businesses, no. Regulate. A completely different picture. Before reagan come on-screen in '80's, the businesses were under fairly well-maintained regulations. Not what the liberals would want but a lot better than what we have today. Today, we look at the ruined economies and wonder why it happened. Reagan and his buddies is an important reason why. Businesses unregulated WILL always make profits as its absolute goal, no matter what costs. I took Business Ethics class last semester and even the professor realizes that even if the students passed the course, they will in high probablity ignore the principles taught there when they go into business world because of profit-mania. There is nothing with profits, but it goes over the line when it messes with people's right to live their life without undue burden.
*raise eyebrow* What dollar?
Again, I said that the poor are there whether or not they were the cause of it. That is not the point. The point is that we should reduce undue burdens of the poverty because it will affect the higher classes in longer run with lesser purchasing power and thus less profits. I'm not advocating that the government or even the charities for that matter should give them money to buy luxuries. I'm advocating the undue burdens of poverty being reduced for the good of the greater society. I grew up in the poor neighborhood through no fault of my family. It just happened that "legal" Mexican immigrants are faced with harsh discriminations as they tried to adapt to American society and its businesses. I do understand what I'm talking about. you will need to analyze what I'm trying ot imply here because like you, I dislike personal attacks. However, often the fiscal conservatives are blind to the reality of underpowered classes struggling against the system and the privileged classes frame the struggle as lazy bums protesting their state of being when it is more the system being in the wrong.
That personhood was brought forward, not by the people but by the businessses because they needed the place to safely invest their money just in case the businesses failed. That personhood doesn't equate humanity. that should be an obvious answer to this argument about regulating the rights of "personhood" of corporations.
Did I? No, I said that wealth should be distributed more wisely in the society. And not all rich comes to their wealth by honest work. There had been a history of wealth that runs in the family, not meritocracy. I'm demanding greater responsbility from the wealthy classes toward the lower classes. Since they tend not to do so without the intervention, then so be it. There will be intervention. And about incentives... I imagine that the rich people already have their techniques in places to make more money even with taxes in places. To them, the taxes put on them are pittance. These pittances are more than enough to help our government deal what the problems if it were smarter.
You said it. These executives who gambled our economy should had been tossed out of their office at best. They don't deserve starvation at street-level but at least they should had lost their privileges and honor that came with management of large and rich corporations because they weree the part of the system that led this country down to ruin.
The quote you gave by Ayn Rand is obviously written by right-wing conservative. I know of her. She is who inspired Terry Goodkind, sadly. I agree with his libertarian view but disagree with his belief that free market will solve our problems because I simply don't trust businesses to be fair and respectful to their co-workers, what they call employees these days.
All in all, let's just agree to disagree. To discuss further will require more than just a forum thread to be a complete debate, imo.
Blackflag421
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2009
- Messages
- 198
Ah, corporate personhood. One of the great travesties of our legal system, along with the more bogus applications of the interstate commerce clause that our supreme court bought into.
How is a corporation a person? As someone I can't remember the name of once said, "a corporation has no body to imprison nor soul to damn." Corporations have limited legal liability for the people who run them, and are legally accountable only to their shareholders and to make a profit. They are an artificial construct that doesn't even have sentience, so how the can they be considered a person?
Well, you could write a book on the saga of how corporations (starting with railroads) lobbied to be "people" to avoid coporation-specific taxes (depriving a person of their rights, after we freed teh slaves), but I don't want to max out the character count of several posts so I'll give the short version. After we passed an amendment to the constitution to free the slaves, corporations saw that as their key to avoid some taxes. They spent the next 20 odd years bringing lawsuits up under this amendment, and being repeatedly struck down (the vast majority of all suits were brought by corporations, not former slaves - they were still unequal). Eventually they got their way with the supreme court (another book worth of writing in that alone), and viola they're "people!"
Others have mentioned (and Afforess disputed) that corporations/companies will abuse their employees because they have nowhere else to go, next door's company sucks just as much. This is true in most cases. His rebuttal is that the government isn't fit to manage corporations/tell them what to do, which is also true in most cases.
Where does this leave us, the (majority) poor? Well they came up with this great thing called a union, which accomplished great things at a high cost, as corporations were very much not in favor of workers having rights or decent pay. The media (also giant corporations) have demonized them by using the auto workers' union as posterchild for UNIONS ARE BAD AND SCREW EVERYONE RAWR!!!!
Trying to wrap this up before I go off on yet another rant, noone protects the rights of the people like the people. Handing it off to someone else (please Washington, make the bad corporations play nice!) doesn't get it done. Communal action does, but sadly it takes terrible things to make most people willing to stand up and do it, while you can still be fired for TALKING about a union in most states (Utah is one, my shift supervisor was once fired for that). Unless the economy tanks to 25%+ unemployment we're unlikely to see real change, anywhere.
How is a corporation a person? As someone I can't remember the name of once said, "a corporation has no body to imprison nor soul to damn." Corporations have limited legal liability for the people who run them, and are legally accountable only to their shareholders and to make a profit. They are an artificial construct that doesn't even have sentience, so how the
can they be considered a person?Well, you could write a book on the saga of how corporations (starting with railroads) lobbied to be "people" to avoid coporation-specific taxes (depriving a person of their rights, after we freed teh slaves), but I don't want to max out the character count of several posts so I'll give the short version. After we passed an amendment to the constitution to free the slaves, corporations saw that as their key to avoid some taxes. They spent the next 20 odd years bringing lawsuits up under this amendment, and being repeatedly struck down (the vast majority of all suits were brought by corporations, not former slaves - they were still unequal). Eventually they got their way with the supreme court (another book worth of writing in that alone), and viola they're "people!"
Others have mentioned (and Afforess disputed) that corporations/companies will abuse their employees because they have nowhere else to go, next door's company sucks just as much. This is true in most cases. His rebuttal is that the government isn't fit to manage corporations/tell them what to do, which is also true in most cases.
Where does this leave us, the (majority) poor? Well they came up with this great thing called a union, which accomplished great things at a high cost, as corporations were very much not in favor of workers having rights or decent pay. The media (also giant corporations) have demonized them by using the auto workers' union as posterchild for UNIONS ARE BAD AND SCREW EVERYONE RAWR!!!!
Trying to wrap this up before I go off on yet another rant, noone protects the rights of the people like the people. Handing it off to someone else (please Washington, make the bad corporations play nice!) doesn't get it done. Communal action does, but sadly it takes terrible things to make most people willing to stand up and do it, while you can still be fired for TALKING about a union in most states (Utah is one, my shift supervisor was once fired for that). Unless the economy tanks to 25%+ unemployment we're unlikely to see real change, anywhere.
Supercheese
Zeppelin Commander
Ah, corporate personhood. One of the great travesties of our legal system, along with the more bogus applications of the interstate commerce clause that our supreme court bought into.
How is a corporation a person? As someone I can't remember the name of once said, "a corporation has no body to imprison nor soul to damn." Corporations have limited legal liability for the people who run them, and are legally accountable only to their shareholders and to make a profit. They are an artificial construct that doesn't even have sentience, so how the
I believe the Civ4 "Corporation" quote says it well:
Humakty
Happy Goblin
Technically, corporations aren't totally inhuman, they're the property of some rich persons who hold the majority (and are important), and a legion of other guys, holding some few actions each (who are not so important). But every single one of them share the same rights (almost). Those are the bulk of the supposed being.
Add to this some sort of motor element, in the form of a directing staff, who acknowledge (or not), their responsibilities.
Usually one element blame the other one for the malfunctions.
Conclusion : Corporations are artificial 'beings', usually hypocondriac & regularly hit by total amnesia. Much like humans.
@Supercheese : thanks for the grammar corrections.
Add to this some sort of motor element, in the form of a directing staff, who acknowledge (or not), their responsibilities.
Usually one element blame the other one for the malfunctions.
Conclusion : Corporations are artificial 'beings', usually hypocondriac & regularly hit by total amnesia. Much like humans.
@Supercheese : thanks for the grammar corrections.
Blackflag421
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2009
- Messages
- 198
Yes Humakty, but if they're owned and people cannot be owned... how are they a person then?
Afforess
The White Wizard
Corporations can not be owned. That would be to defy it's very definition. Instead, they are controlled by having a "stake" in the shares, or stock of the company. Even having a 51% share doesn't mean you "own" it, but only control it, for the time being.
Remember though, any rights you strip away from a corporation, you strip also from Non-Profits, Unions, and similar organizations. You walk on sand here.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
