Morally Bizarre

[georgephillip]

In that context, I suppose you might say that it's then a choice between government that rules in favor of corporations, or "the people" (nevermind, for now, that corporations are owned by "the people"). But even that seems like a false dilemma. Why can't we have government that protects economic freedom for everyone?

Possibly because every government yet devised exists to enrich a few of its citizens at the expense of its majority? Maybe we should consider the concept of "the greatest good for the greatest number?" What does that say in regard to your claim that people own the corporation?

If it's true the poorest 47% of Americans have no wealth today, as opposed to the 2.5% of national wealth they owned in 1983, and, at the other extreme, the 400 richest Americans own 62% of US wealth today primarily due to the stock market increasing over ten times since '83, it is a false dilemma to blame corporations or government because the corporations' richest shareholders vet the candidates for government before you or I decide if we want to vote or fart.

Since the richest quintile of Americans own 93% of the stock market, I would suggest economic freedom begins by finding a way to replace hundreds of Republican AND Democrats in the House and Senate with representatives that will mandate a Wall of Separation between the government and private wealth.

BTW, (knocks on wood) I don't believe we are talking past each other has much as we have been before now; common ground exists and maybe its located first in cyberspace?

http://www.nobillionaires.com/
Five Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America -- The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the Floor Alternet

 

[georgephillip]

Neither are human rights especially if another person is forced to fund it for some sorry piece of shit, which likely includes you, because you won't do it for yourself.

If you believe all humans are born free and equal in dignity, and everyone is entitled to rights including life, liberty, and security, how would you propose we pay for them?

 

[dblack]

In that context, I suppose you might say that it's then a choice between government that rules in favor of corporations, or "the people" (nevermind, for now, that corporations are owned by "the people"). But even that seems like a false dilemma. Why can't we have government that protects economic freedom for everyone?

Possibly because every government yet devised exists to enrich a few of its citizens at the expense of its majority? Maybe we should consider the concept of "the greatest good for the greatest number?" What does that say in regard to your claim that people own the corporation?

I don't know. I'm not sure what you mean here. I mean, I agree with the observation that every government yet devised exists to enrich a few at the expense of the majority - which is why I find it hard to think of as an "alternative" to corporate power.

If it's true the poorest 47% of Americans have no wealth today, as opposed to the 2.5% of national wealth they owned in 1983, and, at the other extreme, the 400 richest Americans own 62% of US wealth today primarily due to the stock market increasing over ten times since '83, it is a false dilemma to blame corporations or government because the corporations' richest shareholders vet the candidates for government before you or I decide if we want to vote or fart.

Since the richest quintile of Americans own 93% of the stock market, I would suggest economic freedom begins by finding a way to replace hundreds of Republican AND Democrats in the House and Senate with representatives that will mandate a Wall of Separation between the government and private wealth.

Well, I certainly agree with that. It's what I'm referring to as "economic freedom". But I'm not sure you're taking into account that such a "Wall" would go in both directions. The only way to keep wealth from dominating politics is to keep government from controlling wealth.

 

[Conservative65]

Neither are human rights especially if another person is forced to fund it for some sorry piece of shit, which likely includes you, because you won't do it for yourself.

If you believe all humans are born free and equal in dignity, and everyone is entitled to rights including life, liberty, and security, how would you propose we pay for them?

Just like any other right, someone's ability to exercise stops where it takes away another person's right to life, liberty, and security. They have all the right to whatever they want up to the point that someone else if forced to pay for it. Someone's inability to pay for something doesn't mean someone's rights are to be taken to pay for it. My liberty to say no when someone asks for my help is as much of a liberty and freedom as you claim they have to it. As for paying for it, I propose, if you think someone has a right to your money, give it to them. You don't have a right to demand I do it a certain way because you want to do it that way. That violates my rights.

 

[georgephillip]

I don't know. I'm not sure what you mean here. I mean, I agree with the observation that every government yet devised exists to enrich a few at the expense of the majority - which is why I find it hard to think of as an "alternative" to corporate power.

Agreed. Corporations control governments today in ways that are similar to Royal Houses in the past. If the problem is private wealth and its influence on government, my solution is to strengthen democracy instead of weakening government.

 

[georgephillip]

Just like any other right, someone's ability to exercise stops where it takes away another person's right to life, liberty, and security. They have all the right to whatever they want up to the point that someone else if forced to pay for it

You are forced to pay for the right to assemble and bear arms for yourself and others, right?

 

[georgephillip]

The only way to keep wealth from dominating politics is to keep government from controlling wealth.

This seems to be a point of departure for me. If private wealth is a threat to democracy, I don't see any institution capable of changing that except government, do you?

 

[Conservative65]

Just like any other right, someone's ability to exercise stops where it takes away another person's right to life, liberty, and security. They have all the right to whatever they want up to the point that someone else if forced to pay for it

You are forced to pay for the right to assemble and bear arms for yourself and others, right?

Those are in the Constitution dickhead. Education and healthcare aren't. If you think I pay for someone else's right to assemble and bear arms, perhaps you can tell me how.

 

[Conservative65]

The only way to keep wealth from dominating politics is to keep government from controlling wealth.

This seems to be a point of departure for me. If private wealth is a threat to democracy, I don't see any institution capable of changing that except government, do you?

Private wealth isn't a threat to democracy except to you bleeding hearts who think the government should be able to tell I have to support some single mother with multiple kids by multiple runaway sperm donors as just one example.

 

[dblack]

I don't know. I'm not sure what you mean here. I mean, I agree with the observation that every government yet devised exists to enrich a few at the expense of the majority - which is why I find it hard to think of as an "alternative" to corporate power.

Agreed. Corporations control governments today in ways that are similar to Royal Houses in the past. If the problem is private wealth and its influence on government, my solution is to strengthen democracy instead of weakening government.

I don't think it's a question of strong or weak government, but a matter of constraining it to a proper scope. And I certainly don't see democracy solving anything - it's proven even easier to manipulate than dictatorial power.

The decision we face is how we want to distribute economic power. We can do it voluntarily, via a free market, or we can do it coercively through government. In either case, ambitious people will be vying for greater control.

 

[Conservative65]

The only way to keep wealth from dominating politics is to keep government from controlling wealth.

This seems to be a point of departure for me. If private wealth is a threat to democracy, I don't see any institution capable of changing that except government, do you?

Private wealth isn't a threat to democracy except to you bleeding hearts who think the government should be able to tell I have to support some single mother with multiple kids by multiple runaway sperm donors as just one example. You simply want to get your hands on someone else's wealth in order to give it to someone that didn't earn it then claim you did it as if it were your money.

 

[Conservative65]

I don't know. I'm not sure what you mean here. I mean, I agree with the observation that every government yet devised exists to enrich a few at the expense of the majority - which is why I find it hard to think of as an "alternative" to corporate power.

Agreed. Corporations control governments today in ways that are similar to Royal Houses in the past. If the problem is private wealth and its influence on government, my solution is to strengthen democracy instead of weakening government.

I don't think it's a question of strong or weak government, but a matter of constraining it to a proper scope. And I certainly don't see democracy solving anything - it's proven even easier to manipulate than dictatorial power.

The decision we face is how we want to distribute economic power. We can do it voluntarily, via a free market, or we can do it with coercively through government. In either case, ambitious people will be vying for greater control.

At least with the free market and voluntary giving those doing the giving are using their money as they see fit. With government, they are telling someone else how they should see fit to do it.

 

[georgephillip]

If you think I pay for someone else's right to assemble and bear arms, perhaps you can tell me how.

If you pay Federal Income Taxes you are supporting the rights of others to assemble and bear arms, and for their educations:
"The federal government allocated approximately $141 billion on education in fiscal year 2014. Calculating that figure is challenging. Federal programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education appear in two separate parts of the federal budget, and other agencies administer large programs as well. Furthermore, measuring spending on the federal student loan program is not straightforward, and the government provides significant subsidies for higher education in the form of tax benefits."
Background Analysis

 

[Conservative65]

I don't know. I'm not sure what you mean here. I mean, I agree with the observation that every government yet devised exists to enrich a few at the expense of the majority - which is why I find it hard to think of as an "alternative" to corporate power.

Agreed. Corporations control governments today in ways that are similar to Royal Houses in the past. If the problem is private wealth and its influence on government, my solution is to strengthen democracy instead of weakening government.

Strengthening government weakens democracy.

 

[Conservative65]

If you think I pay for someone else's right to assemble and bear arms, perhaps you can tell me how.

If you pay Federal Income Taxes you are supporting the rights of others to assemble and bear arms, and for their educations:
"The federal government allocated approximately $141 billion on education in fiscal year 2014. Calculating that figure is challenging. Federal programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education appear in two separate parts of the federal budget, and other agencies administer large programs as well. Furthermore, measuring spending on the federal student loan program is not straightforward, and the government provides significant subsidies for higher education in the form of tax benefits."
Background Analysis

The problem is that the federal government is involved in education at all. They have no constitutional authority to do so unless you can show me where the word education appears in the delegated powers of Congress.

I don't take those government subsidies for higher education. When scholarships pays for school, you can't.

Where do you think the federal government got the money you claim THEY allocated for education. They got it from the people in the STATES where education should be regulated. The government can't give to something unless they take from someone first. That's how it works in case you didn't know.

 

[Conservative65]

I didn't say rights were forced on me.

I said you don't have a right to free health care.

And you don't.

You do if the people of the country decide that you do.

I thought the left has said that a majority vote can't take away someone's rights. They claim that on same sex marriage when the voters said no to it. Seems it's OK when it comes to someone else's money. Typical left wing hypocrites.

 

[georgephillip]

Private wealth isn't a threat to democracy except to you bleeding hearts who think the government should be able to tell I have to support some single mother with multiple kids by multiple runaway sperm donors as just one example

Shit-for-brains cons would rather pump up the profits of parasites earning $3 million an hour instead of the working poor earning $2.13 an hour in addition to tips. Maybe conservatives just don't understand the class war?
Five Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America -- The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the Floor Alternet

 

[georgephillip]

The problem is that the federal government is involved in education at all. They have no constitutional authority to do so unless you can show me where the word education appears in the delegated powers of Congress

Show me where the word "privacy" appears in the Constitution. See Article I Section 8 for the authority for congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare of all Americans. If you feel threatened, please leave.

 

[Conservative65]

Private wealth isn't a threat to democracy except to you bleeding hearts who think the government should be able to tell I have to support some single mother with multiple kids by multiple runaway sperm donors as just one example

Shit-for-brains cons would rather pump up the profits of parasites earning $3 million an hour instead of the working poor earning $2.13 an hour in addition to tips. Maybe conservatives just don't understand the class war?
Five Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America -- The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the Floor Alternet

The only shit for brains are those who because they offer skills worth no more than $2.13/hour plus tips think someone that has worked their way to more per hour or a high salary owe them something more for those low skills. When the skills someone has is only one step above what a monkey could be trained to do, getting paid a low wage is fitting.

The war is being declared by the low skilled and equivalently paid low wage worker who thinks they should be paid on existence while thinking the pay of others should be based on skill level. Again, shit for brains think they are special and should be paid in a manner differently from how they think others should be paid.

 

[Conservative65]

The problem is that the federal government is involved in education at all. They have no constitutional authority to do so unless you can show me where the word education appears in the delegated powers of Congress

Show me where the word "privacy" appears in the Constitution. See Article I Section 8 for the authority for congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare of all Americans. If you feel threatened, please leave.

I never claimed privacy did. Show me where the word food stamps, healthcare, WIC, government housing, or any other wasteful program you support has delegated authority. Until you can, the money I'VE earned is mine and those you think have more of a right to it can do without unless you're willing to give them yours. You're not because that would require you actually do what you say needs to be done for the compassion you claim you have.

The general welfare the Constitution speaks of does not nor have it ever meant social welfare where one person because they can't make it deserves another person's money. If you think so, you are the shit for brains you referred to in the other recent post.

If you like the way socialist countries do thing, go there and leave MY country to people who want it to be run like the founders would have wanted.