P&N Radical Poll

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Ewat
Would you consider the green party to be socialists?

Green Party is a modern Socialist party with heavy on Anarcho collectivist leanings focusing on it's anti-corporate stance . IE: Free market for burgers and cars; worker owned public services and common use property. But yeah, Socialist mainly.

Link
There are those who fear the Green Party wants nothing less than socialism or communism. It is true that the Green Party advocates for government involvement, which places higher value on the individual than on corporations. However, where their politics tend toward socialism, Green Party members are still supporters of the political framework of the US, particularly as it relates to the rights and freedoms defined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Since when has government involvement ever favored the individual over corporations?

Any time they prosecute businesses for abuses of the environment or the workers or safety or discrimination; the Clayton Act, the Adamson Act, the Railway Labor Act, the Davis-Bacon Act, the Norris-LaGuardia Act, the Wagner Act, the Byrnes Act, the Walsh-Healy Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, etc ad nauseum. Mind you, not every provision in those acts was pro-worker, but at least some were. I could probably find another 20-50 federal level provisions and decisions in short order, and I haven't even approached state level regulations yet (of which there are nearly as many in every state).

Too bad that for every law which benefits workers, there are ten laws which benefit a fat cat. Every piece of pork legislation which builds a road past some big wigs previously worthless land, every piece of corporate welfare, every extension of copyright, every ridiculous patent granted.

Don't be fooled by the scraps that the rich are throwing off the table for the citizenry to gobble up. They do that knowing full well that it's simply appeasing the little people. Big business and big government are in it together, making sure that one takes care of the other.

That's not an answer. Yes, government is as corrupt as big business. But it's also the only force (other than direct physical violence) that the people have to combat big business. What is the workable counter to economic disparity that you suggest be implemented in place of government?

Let's try it this way: show me a country that has removed the governments coercive power where some body (business, aristocracy, oligarchy) has not become expoitive. Maybe if I studied a living example of how it is actually pragmatic I could get on board.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Too bad that for every law which benefits workers, there are ten laws which benefit a fat cat. Every piece of pork legislation which builds a road past some big wigs previously worthless land, every piece of corporate welfare, every extension of copyright, every ridiculous patent granted.

Don't be fooled by the scraps that the rich are throwing off the table for the citizenry to gobble up. They do that knowing full well that it's simply appeasing the little people. Big business and big government are in it together, making sure that one takes care of the other.

That's not an answer. Yes, government is as corrupt as big business. But it's also the only force (other than direct physical violence) that the people have to combat big business. What is the workable counter to economic disparity that you suggest be implemented in place of government?

Let's try it this way: show me a country that has removed the governments coercive power where some body (business, aristocracy, oligarchy) has not become expoitive. Maybe if I studied a living example of how it is actually pragmatic I could get on board.

So the system is a solution to itself? The government sets up the banking system, and then is supposed to protect us from it? They give corporations monopoly status and then protect us from them? Sounds to me like a mob protection racket. They create the problem and then "offer" us the solution.

Edit: I should also add, I disagree that anybody has any duty to addressing "economic disparity", and if you think there is the libertarian philosophy is not for you.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Too bad that for every law which benefits workers, there are ten laws which benefit a fat cat. Every piece of pork legislation which builds a road past some big wigs previously worthless land, every piece of corporate welfare, every extension of copyright, every ridiculous patent granted.

Don't be fooled by the scraps that the rich are throwing off the table for the citizenry to gobble up. They do that knowing full well that it's simply appeasing the little people. Big business and big government are in it together, making sure that one takes care of the other.

That's not an answer. Yes, government is as corrupt as big business. But it's also the only force (other than direct physical violence) that the people have to combat big business. What is the workable counter to economic disparity that you suggest be implemented in place of government?

Let's try it this way: show me a country that has removed the governments coercive power where some body (business, aristocracy, oligarchy) has not become expoitive. Maybe if I studied a living example of how it is actually pragmatic I could get on board.

So the system is a solution to itself? The government sets up the banking system, and then is supposed to protect us from it? They give corporations monopoly status and then protect us from them? Sounds to me like a mob protection racket. They create the problem and then "offer" us the solution.

Edit: I should also add, I disagree that anybody has any duty to addressing "economic disparity", and if you think there is the libertarian philosophy is not for you.

The abuses of wealth and aristocracy predate our government. I would bet that wealth has actually been the source of abuse long before governments ever were. In other words, it is money which creates the problem while government fights both for and against it. Well, actually it's peoples greed and drive for power which creates the problem, money is merely the neutral tool.

Because of the society in which we live, those with a significantly greater amount of wealth live by different rules and under different conditions than those without wealth. So long as that is true, those with wealth can create laws, escape punishments, dictate terms, and so on. The government is supposed to mitigate these advantages to empower the common man without wealth to fight for his rights against this economic disparity. Although the government is not always successful, it is the only recourse I am aware of other than violence.

If you have some other ideas about this I'd be happy to hear them, but it is central to my point. There MUST be some resource for those without economic clout to ensure their rights are protected. If government is not that resource, then what is?

I also am still waiting for an example of an unempowered government where the wealthy (ie business owners) don't abuse the common man.

 

[Vic]

There is a difference between being pro-business and pro-corporate. The Libertarian party is pro-small business, the means by which most people have jobs, feed their families, and pay their taxes -- not pro-megacorp, which is the means by which government controls business. I would not expect a school teacher with little real world experience to understand this though.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I also am still waiting for an example of an unempowered government where the wealthy (ie business owners) don't abuse the common man.

How can he possibly provide an example of an unempowered government when one has never existed once in the history of humanity?

The problem with socialists is that they are naive. They are little different than the neocons who beg for government to steal their freedoms in the name of defending them. You want to coddled like a slave, and given healthcare like cattle.


edit:
"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom ? go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!"
- Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776.

 

[BoberFett]

I don't have time right this moment but I will return later with examples of how the wealth which you feel is used to abuse the citizenry was built because of government, not in spite of it.