Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

The Church and the ECONOMY ought to be separated - there should be a wall of separation between the state and the economy - thereby nullifying Obama Hellcare and similar transgressions.

.

Article I Section 8 gives government the power to coin money and to lay and collect taxes so I don't know how to separate the state from its economy exactly.

We faced exactly the same situation with religion. Laws that everyone must follow necessarily apply to religious people, and will have an impact on some religious practice. But the first amendment prohibits the state from making laws that specifically target or promote religions. Likewise, taxes and other economic regulation will have an impact on the economy, but they should never target, or promote, specific economic interests.

And right now, no such separation exists. Lobbyists push for legislation promoting specific economic agendas as a matter of course. The practice represents the bulk of Congressional power. This is why private money is so deeply embedded in Washington, and it won't end until the government's power to manipulate our economic decisions is revoked.

When government's power to manipulate our economic decisions, whatever that means, is revoked, what fills the power vacuum, corporations?

How could such an event transpire except through a democratic adjustment at the polls?

Private money rules government because of the power of corporations which will not vanish by reducing the level of democratic control supplied by government.

 

[dblack]

Article I Section 8 gives government the power to coin money and to lay and collect taxes so I don't know how to separate the state from its economy exactly.

We faced exactly the same situation with religion. Laws that everyone must follow necessarily apply to religious people, and will have an impact on some religious practice. But the first amendment prohibits the state from making laws that specifically target or promote religions. Likewise, taxes and other economic regulation will have an impact on the economy, but they should never target, or promote, specific economic interests.

And right now, no such separation exists. Lobbyists push for legislation promoting specific economic agendas as a matter of course. The practice represents the bulk of Congressional power. This is why private money is so deeply embedded in Washington, and it won't end until the government's power to manipulate our economic decisions is revoked.

When government's power to manipulate our economic decisions, whatever that means, is revoked, what fills the power vacuum, corporations?

Individuals, deciding for themselves how to earn and spend their own money. Corporations can't dictate to us without government doing their dirty work for them.

 

[georgephillip]

We faced exactly the same situation with religion. Laws that everyone must follow necessarily apply to religious people, and will have an impact on some religious practice. But the first amendment prohibits the state from making laws that specifically target or promote religions. Likewise, taxes and other economic regulation will have an impact on the economy, but they should never target, or promote, specific economic interests.

And right now, no such separation exists. Lobbyists push for legislation promoting specific economic agendas as a matter of course. The practice represents the bulk of Congressional power. This is why private money is so deeply embedded in Washington, and it won't end until the government's power to manipulate our economic decisions is revoked.

When government's power to manipulate our economic decisions, whatever that means, is revoked, what fills the power vacuum, corporations?

Individuals, deciding for themselves how to earn and spend their own money. Corporations can't dictate to us without government doing their dirty work for them.

Corporations can't exist without government.
Individuals can but they find organizing into collectives enhances their ability to resist dictators.
I know you are not calling for an elimination of government, but I'm not clear on how you advance the power of the individual to resist corporate rule by weakening the authority of the collectives individuals freely form to resist legal monopolies?

 

[Crystalclear]

Governments ruin a free market and create monster monopolies.

 

[dblack]

When government's power to manipulate our economic decisions, whatever that means, is revoked, what fills the power vacuum, corporations?

Individuals, deciding for themselves how to earn and spend their own money. Corporations can't dictate to us without government doing their dirty work for them.

Corporations can't exist without government.
Individuals can but they find organizing into collectives enhances their ability to resist dictators.
I know you are not calling for an elimination of government, but I'm not clear on how you advance the power of the individual to resist corporate rule by weakening the authority of the collectives individuals freely form to resist legal monopolies?

I'm not advocating for weakening the power of individuals, collectively or otherwise, to resist businesses. I'd advocating for restoring it. I'm arguing for government that protects our fundamental freedom to decide for ourselves how to spend our money. That's it in nutshell.

This is where so many have it backwards. Economic freedom doesn't indulge the power of wealth, it contains it.

 

[bripat9643]

Article I Section 8 gives government the power to coin money and to lay and collect taxes so I don't know how to separate the state from its economy exactly.

We faced exactly the same situation with religion. Laws that everyone must follow necessarily apply to religious people, and will have an impact on some religious practice. But the first amendment prohibits the state from making laws that specifically target or promote religions. Likewise, taxes and other economic regulation will have an impact on the economy, but they should never target, or promote, specific economic interests.

And right now, no such separation exists. Lobbyists push for legislation promoting specific economic agendas as a matter of course. The practice represents the bulk of Congressional power. This is why private money is so deeply embedded in Washington, and it won't end until the government's power to manipulate our economic decisions is revoked.

When government's power to manipulate our economic decisions, whatever that means, is revoked, what fills the power vacuum, corporations?

How could such an event transpire except through a democratic adjustment at the polls?

Private money rules government because of the power of corporations which will not vanish by reducing the level of democratic control supplied by government.

What "power" do corporations have other than to supply you with goods you want?

 

[Crystalclear]

Individuals, deciding for themselves how to earn and spend their own money. Corporations can't dictate to us without government doing their dirty work for them.

Corporations can't exist without government.
Individuals can but they find organizing into collectives enhances their ability to resist dictators.
I know you are not calling for an elimination of government, but I'm not clear on how you advance the power of the individual to resist corporate rule by weakening the authority of the collectives individuals freely form to resist legal monopolies?

I'm not advocating for weakening the power of individuals, collectively or otherwise, to resist businesses. I'd advocating for restoring it. I'm arguing for government that protects our fundamental freedom to decide for ourselves how to spend our money. That's it in nutshell.

This is where so many have it backwards. Economic freedom doesn't indulge the power of wealth, it contains it.

No, economic freedom spreads the power of wealth. With less government regulations, there is more competition, which leads to te end of monopolies.

 

[georgephillip]

Governments ruin a free market and create monster monopolies.

All governments create monster monopolies or only those governments under the corrupting influence of large private fortunes?

 

[georgephillip]

Individuals, deciding for themselves how to earn and spend their own money. Corporations can't dictate to us without government doing their dirty work for them.

Corporations can't exist without government.
Individuals can but they find organizing into collectives enhances their ability to resist dictators.
I know you are not calling for an elimination of government, but I'm not clear on how you advance the power of the individual to resist corporate rule by weakening the authority of the collectives individuals freely form to resist legal monopolies?

I'm not advocating for weakening the power of individuals, collectively or otherwise, to resist businesses. I'd advocating for restoring it. I'm arguing for government that protects our fundamental freedom to decide for ourselves how to spend our money. That's it in nutshell.

This is where so many have it backwards. Economic freedom doesn't indulge the power of wealth, it contains it.

Any government that protects your economic freedom (whatever that is) would have to be free of the influence of its richest citizens. Since the richest 1% of Americans currently own government, how do we protect our freedom to decide for ourselves how to spend our money?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Corporations can't exist without government.
Individuals can but they find organizing into collectives enhances their ability to resist dictators.
I know you are not calling for an elimination of government, but I'm not clear on how you advance the power of the individual to resist corporate rule by weakening the authority of the collectives individuals freely form to resist legal monopolies?

I'm not advocating for weakening the power of individuals, collectively or otherwise, to resist businesses. I'd advocating for restoring it. I'm arguing for government that protects our fundamental freedom to decide for ourselves how to spend our money. That's it in nutshell.

This is where so many have it backwards. Economic freedom doesn't indulge the power of wealth, it contains it.

Any government that protects your economic freedom (whatever that is) would have to be free of the influence of its richest citizens. Since the richest 1% of Americans currently own government, how do we protect our freedom to decide for ourselves how to spend our money?

Since the richest 1% of Americans currently own government

Sounds like an excellent reason to shrink government, a lot.

 

[bripat9643]

Governments ruin a free market and create monster monopolies.

All governments create monster monopolies or only those governments under the corrupting influence of large private fortunes?

What governments are not "under the corrupting influence of large private fortunes" other than socialist economic basket cases like Somalia or Liberia?

 

[bripat9643]

Corporations can't exist without government.
Individuals can but they find organizing into collectives enhances their ability to resist dictators.
I know you are not calling for an elimination of government, but I'm not clear on how you advance the power of the individual to resist corporate rule by weakening the authority of the collectives individuals freely form to resist legal monopolies?

I'm not advocating for weakening the power of individuals, collectively or otherwise, to resist businesses. I'd advocating for restoring it. I'm arguing for government that protects our fundamental freedom to decide for ourselves how to spend our money. That's it in nutshell.

This is where so many have it backwards. Economic freedom doesn't indulge the power of wealth, it contains it.

Any government that protects your economic freedom (whatever that is) would have to be free of the influence of its richest citizens. Since the richest 1% of Americans currently own government, how do we protect our freedom to decide for ourselves how to spend our money?

Can you post a link to the title that shows these people purchased the government?

 

[dblack]

Corporations can't exist without government.
Individuals can but they find organizing into collectives enhances their ability to resist dictators.
I know you are not calling for an elimination of government, but I'm not clear on how you advance the power of the individual to resist corporate rule by weakening the authority of the collectives individuals freely form to resist legal monopolies?

I'm not advocating for weakening the power of individuals, collectively or otherwise, to resist businesses. I'd advocating for restoring it. I'm arguing for government that protects our fundamental freedom to decide for ourselves how to spend our money. That's it in nutshell.

This is where so many have it backwards. Economic freedom doesn't indulge the power of wealth, it contains it.

Any government that protects your economic freedom (whatever that is) would have to be free of the influence of its richest citizens.

Actually, let's be really clear on what 'economic freedom' means. There's not much point in conversation if the terms aren't clear.

What I mean by economic freedom is the right to conduct voluntary trade with others free from interference. As long as such transactions are agreed to voluntarily, and conducted honestly, the details of the exchange are no one else's business. That means I can work for whomever will agree to pay me, for whatever terms we can mutually agree to. I don't have to ask the state for permission and neither does my employer. It means I can purchase goods and services from others without approval from outside interests. It means I can pay someone else to work for me regardless of whether a third party thinks they're 'qualified'. It means I can go to any doctor who will see me, regardless of whether other doctors, or my neighbors, or the government, thinks that doctor is a "quack". It means I decide how to invest my money and save for the future regardless of whether the lobbyists of the insurance industry, or my neighbors, or the government, thinks I'm "doing it right". It means I can buy and consume whatever food and drugs I want regardless of whether the lobbyists of the food and drug industry, my neighbors, or the government, approves of my decision.

It means pressure groups don't get to use legislation to manipulate markets in their favor, regardless of the excuse.

 

[crisismangement]

When government's power to manipulate our economic decisions, whatever that means, is revoked, what fills the power vacuum, corporations?

Individuals, deciding for themselves how to earn and spend their own money. Corporations can't dictate to us without government doing their dirty work for them.

Corporations can't exist without government.

No economic entity can exist without government.

Individuals can but they find organizing into collectives enhances their ability to resist dictators.

Collectives REQUIRE DICTATORS to function for any long period of time.

I know you are not calling for an elimination of government, but I'm not clear on how you advance the power of the individual to resist corporate rule by weakening the authority of the collectives individuals freely form to resist legal monopolies?

Government's primary purpose is to provide security to its citizens, and part of that security is PROTECTING PRIVATE PROPERTY; property of individuals, collectives (corporate share holders), or any other legal entity. Effectively, proper security protects private property from the GOVERNMENT ITSELF OR OTHER ENTITIES.

 

[crisismangement]

Governments ruin a free market and create monster monopolies.

All governments create monster monopolies or only those governments under the corrupting influence of large private fortunes?

Gosh, now you want to reduce the power of government, dictatorial government is an absolute requirement for your other dream, SOCIALISM. Regulation is very acceptable, dictatorship as required by SOCIALISM is not. Therefore, SOCIALISM IS NEVER ACCEPTABLE.

 

[crisismangement]

Any government that protects your economic freedom (whatever that is) would have to be free of the influence of its richest citizens. Since the richest 1% of Americans currently own government, how do we protect our freedom to decide for ourselves how to spend our money?

That is unmitigated horse crap. It is common left wing propaganda used to scare people into believing that the 1% are omnipotent. They are not, and they are not appreciably more wealthy than the average upper middle class. The tiny 1/100 of that 1% are very wealthy, but cannot run the government. There is obviously some influence on individuals using their money for campaigns, but it stops there.

 

[Crystalclear]

Governments ruin a free market and create monster monopolies.

All governments create monster monopolies or only those governments under the corrupting influence of large private fortunes?

Almost all governments, look at the Soviet Union, for example, with a small, but very rich elite. So not only the US and other capitalist countries have governments that help the very wealthy, but communist countries can be just as bad.

 

[crisismangement]

Governments ruin a free market and create monster monopolies.

All governments create monster monopolies or only those governments under the corrupting influence of large private fortunes?

Almost all governments, look at the Soviet Union, for example, with a small, but very rich elite. So not only the US and other capitalist countries have governments that help the very wealthy, but communist countries can be just as bad.

The Soviet Union and all Marxist governments are worse than the US and generate wealth only for the politicians.

 

[georgephillip]

We faced exactly the same situation with religion. Laws that everyone must follow necessarily apply to religious people, and will have an impact on some religious practice. But the first amendment prohibits the state from making laws that specifically target or promote religions. Likewise, taxes and other economic regulation will have an impact on the economy, but they should never target, or promote, specific economic interests.

And right now, no such separation exists. Lobbyists push for legislation promoting specific economic agendas as a matter of course. The practice represents the bulk of Congressional power. This is why private money is so deeply embedded in Washington, and it won't end until the government's power to manipulate our economic decisions is revoked.

When government's power to manipulate our economic decisions, whatever that means, is revoked, what fills the power vacuum, corporations?

How could such an event transpire except through a democratic adjustment at the polls?

Private money rules government because of the power of corporations which will not vanish by reducing the level of democratic control supplied by government.

What "power" do corporations have other than to supply you with goods you want?

Corporations have the power to pre-select the candidates you vote for.
They use this same power to drive down wages, foreclose opportunity, and raise prices. They transfer wealth from consumers, workers, and entrepreneurs to rich execs and shareholders.

 

[georgephillip]

Governments ruin a free market and create monster monopolies.

All governments create monster monopolies or only those governments under the corrupting influence of large private fortunes?

Almost all governments, look at the Soviet Union, for example, with a small, but very rich elite. So not only the US and other capitalist countries have governments that help the very wealthy, but communist countries can be just as bad.

Every government ever conceived as served its richest citizens at the expense of its majority. Only the US has to potential to change that peacefully at the ballot box.
But not by "choosing" either Democrat OR Republican.