Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Until we outlaw lobbying and corporate special interest groups then this will continue forever. But ultimately the people regulate the gov't, or at least they should. The average person should be more involved in local/state governments. We control who gets elected or not.
Even if lobbying and corporate special interest groups were outlawed, who is going to interpret and enforce those laws and what is to say they couldn't be paid off?
Why should the average person be involved in politics at all? The vast majority of people trying to raise a family don't have enough time. Even if you do, an enormous amount of time, and money must be invested in order to make any significant change. If you are old, retired and keen on getting into other people's business, then it is much more appealing.
Let me get this logic straight. You are saying that the government regulates the people who regulate the government..... which begs the question, if the people can regulate the government, why can't they regulate themselves?
Am I even talking about social security or taxes?
No, but my point is you should be. The big players at the top aren't the ones getting shafted nearly as hard when it comes to SS and taxes in general. Regulate them until the cows come home, when someone only making $50K a year has to fork over 30% of their income in taxes, there can't possibly be any 'social justice.'
Millions of Europeans came in the early 1900s as well, but that doesn't mean that the market they participated in was fair/equal or free. Sure they were attracted by it, but then by your assertion, its ok for a company to force someone to work 18 hour days because they are 'willing' to do it. In the late 1800s you can also look at companies like Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel and see what shady market practices they engaged in. Maybe thats the kind of free market you are looking for.
The U.S. had freer markets than Europe all through the 1900s as well. How does a company force someone to work 18 hours a day? I have never heard of a company really forcing anyone to do anything.
Even if Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel were shady, who is shadier: Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel or Congress? Who is potentially more able to abuse their power? I think the answer is clear.
The reason why your logic fails entirely is because if something is big enough to take out the 'big players' then they become the new big player, so on and so forth.
Facebook
Twitter