/sci/ - Science & Math

nothing to discuss, you said it all.

Well then I guess we're fucked.

easy: libertarians make a large thing of the non-aggression principle, which says that you can't do something to somebody else without their consent.

polluting companies are doing this to the population of the entire world and so are violating this principle.

hence it is legitimate for a libertarian state to threaten action against such companies (imprisonment, fines etc.)

we're talking about LAWS dummy. contrary to what most communist dumbasses claim, capitalism and laws are not mutually exclusive.

>>3518945
Laws are present in both capitalist as well as communist as well as any other form of government. Even tribes in jungle have their "laws" - just not the structure of a society that we are used to. This causes most people from xy-social structure to get confused and to not recognize the laws of the given group/society/tribe etc.

>>3518892

The environment, maybe. As for capitalism, they'll just turn entreprenuerial capitalism into monopoly and crony capitalism.

Still - fuck corporations and all profiteering workplace tyrannies.

>>3518945

So its bad if an individual coerces another, but not if a society does?

For example, in a society where politicians have built up a reserve army of labour through reactionary policies, people cant get good wages.

This is definitely coercive, but you seem to have no problem with it.

everybody loves Ponzi

>>3518975
>So its bad if an individual coerces another, but not if a society does?
That's the funny thing with libertarians:
they claim the government is bad because it only wants money and is greedy.
But corporations are good, because they are greedy and want to make profit.

Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
Don't expect consistency from libertarians.

>>3518975
> For example, in a society where politicians have built up a reserve army of labour through reactionary policies, people cant get good wages.

wtf is this

>>3518986

And another thing, I'm sick of people calling things 'ponzi schemes' that clearly are not ponzi schemes, but pyramid schemes or something else.

A ponzi scheme is where you have a company that pays investors with money from new investors, not actually making any money. The founders pocket most of the cash and don't have to make any outlays.

>>3518973

Sadly it seems to be more of the latter kind of capitalism than the former these days. Entrepreneurial capitalism sounds more 50's:

"Honey, I'm going to start a clothing company. This is such an exciting time to live in!"

As opposed to modern capitalism:

"Honey I'm going to go get a job at the nearby Wal-Mart. Hope they don't sack me."

>>3518973
don't want to work for them?
go live on a farm, as it was before they existing.
you're a whiner with bloated entitlement issues.

>>3518995
that's a pyramid scheme

>>3518988

Basically, since the rise of neoliberalism (ie reagan, thatcher, pinochet and co), the policy in the West of eliminating structural unemployment (where people are *unable* to get a job) has been stopped. Unemployment has predictably risen in the long termeven when you don't consider the fact that we're in a recession.

Having lots of unemployment acts as downward pressure on wages, since if you won't agree to work for a pittance they can get a hobo to work for a sandwich and a lice-free sleeping area in the turlet.

This is a form of coercion placed upon people by society, policy, politicians, the market, businesses, depending on how you look at it.

>>3519006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

ITT: mad, mad poorfags nobody gives a fuck about

>>3518999

Entitlement? I've got what I need.

Human beings tend to get angry when they see their fellow sapients trodden into the dirt by a fucked-up system.

To think you have the moral justification for ignoring this crap, that is entitlement.

>>3518973
Why is she black
Why is she black
Why is she black
Why is she black
Why is she black
Why is she black

>>3519012
that's a ponzi scheme
lol lrn2logic

ever see Rollerball ---the original with James Cann----I really think it is going to be just like that.

>>3518999

You don't here the Amish bitching and moaning.
Protip: Amish don't pay FICA

I agree, OP. Governments should cease supporting them by passing favorable legislation and bailing them out when they screw up.

>>3519025

because they have been intentionally kept down because they are easily identifiable?

>>3518892

There is nothing wrong with the way corporations act.

Corporations are just businesses and their purpose is to make a profit.

The real fault lies with the governments who pander to them.

If governments regulated things properly and set a decent tax rate than there would be no problem.

>>3519135
There is something very wrong with the way corporations act. Acting for one and only one motive causes you to disregard all other considerations including ones about human health, common decency, resource sustainability, clear air, clean water, clean soil, and having a fair legal system.

Profit is not the only way to gauge how successful something is or isn;t which people seem to believe. Providing for your fellow man, even if it means you have one less private jet or 3D TV, is an equal or greater measure of success.

>>3519135

The purpose of corporations is to make profit. For who? For themselves. Fucking many people over in the process. Fucking up the environment in the process (applying to corporations who fuck up the environment).

I don't think it is morally right that a government should attempt to regulate the amount of evil these corporations do. How the corporations act is the problem.

It's like asking a criminal to tone down his crimes. "Yea, just kill and steal under the legal limit."

>>3519276
> Fucking many people over in the process. Fucking up the environment in the process (applying to corporations who fuck up the environment).
New to the thread here. You're referring to externalized costs. Yes, those must be internalized, by whatever mechanism best does so.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/05/davis.us.trust/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

CNN article on "Is there hope for America in an era of broken trust?"

Answer's yes. Things have been far worse in this country before. Civil war. Blood running in the streets during the 60's, to name a couple.

The author notes that so far, the debate in Washington has been a war of words. Not action. I think action is what we need.

Americans need to admit that corporations are pandering to our collective desires more than we'd like to admit. We have to admit this to ourselves if we want to affect change.

For example, who are corporations making profit for? Primarily their shareholders, some of it gets split up into bonuses. But, the rest goes to shareholders. Who are shareholders? A few rich people; but, mostly pension holders and various retirement funds *your* retirement funds want profits, profits from corporations.

Lets consider oil companies. We want them to be more responsible. Yet, the public will go into a frenzy if the cost of gas goes up by 20 cents.

Want Foxconn to treat its workers better? You better be willing to pay the difference in the cost of your electronics.

I'm not absolving the rich. But, I don't see the general public as being saints they are portrayed to be in discussions of the purity and innocence of the middle class in our system.

>>3519295

Samefag here.

Action as in massive protests, not outright violence. Killing fat cats maybe enjoyable, but definitely not humane.

>>3519295
>implying this isn't leading to another civil war

>>3519302
It's absolutely humane. When a psychopath is killing your family, you don't protest him, you fucking kill him.

There's nothing wrong with capitalism if you accept the consequences of capitalism. If you're willing to base the well-being of the majority of people on direct personal greed, then the consequences are going to be that the majority of people suffer.

>>3519301


For example, who are corporations making profit for? Primarily their shareholders, some of it gets split up into bonuses. But, the rest goes to shareholders. Who are shareholders? A few rich people; but, mostly pension holders

Bullshit. Most of the worlds' stock is owned by the 'few rich people'. That's why they're rich.

>>3519317
Fine then, continue on with the idea that you aren't morally culpable for anything wrong with our current system. You don't need to change, it's other people that need to change.

>>3519306
Calm down, son. The rich aren't stabbing your children while they sleep.

>>3519339
Incorrect. The capitalist system is in fact poisoning us all both while we are awake and asleep. Pay attention.

>>3519339

cool refutation bro. Give stats or shut the fuck up.

this bullshit about capitalism actually being controlled by the people has to stop. Its a myth.

>>3519336
It's a vicious circle. But to blame the people who suffer from it the most rather than those who benefit from it the most is meerely condoning the abuse.

>>3519352
You're justifying murder by claiming they murdered first. What's next, a good bombing?

>>3519359
>You're justifying murder by claiming they murdered first.
No, I'm justifying self-defense in the face of their incessant attacks.
>What's next, a good bombing?
Depends on where the bomb is placed.

>>3519364
>attacks.
Which do not amount to outright murder.
>Depends on where the bomb is placed.
You're becoming an extremist. This is bad. Does that need to be said?

>>3519336

>>I'm right and capitalism provides for everyone. therefore:

>>unemployedfags must be lazy and not actually want work. We can now easily justify cutting off their food supply and turning them into second class citizens.

>>everyone gets what they deserve. Clearly fraudsters and warlords should get to enjoy the massive fortunes they've amassed, after using trickery or hired goons to coerce the fuck out of the local population

>>3519352
You want stats against the idea "the rich aren't stabbing your children while they sleep."

What?

>>3519364
OP here.

I understand that self-defense is justified, but it ain't right to break laws in order to enact justice on the people who break laws. Or is it not right, but necessary?

Oh shit. I just got myself into a moral conundrum.

>>3519369
>Which do not amount to outright murder.

In some cases they do. In others, the means of self-defense may need to be lessened, but not in all cases. Do you really think that anything short of outright attempted murder does not justify lethal self-defense? How much of you body am I allowed to poison before you are allowed to fight back?

>You're becoming an extremist. This is bad. Does that need to be said?

You're already an extremist. You are advocating that I continue meek submission to slavery andf abuse. Fuck that.

>>3519383
>I understand that self-defense is justified, but it ain't right to break laws in order to enact justice on the people who break laws. Or is it not right, but necessary?

It's not about laws. The laws are set up for their benefit. It's about saving ourselves from predation.

>>3519373

>> Lazy or incapable to provide others with a worthwhile among of labour worth a wage. If you're not good enough for a job, itmay not be your fault but why does the state have to be responsible?

>> See the no aggression principle.

No matter how often corporatists call themselves conservatives, the two hail from very different moral, historical and intellectual antecedents.

The powerful nuclear power industry discovered this difference in 1983, when a tight coalition of conservative, environmental and taxpayer groups defeated the deficit-ridden Clinch River Breeder Reactor in Tennessee. More recently, in 2008, demands coming from both the left and right that Congress ban genetic discrimination by health insurers overcame the corporatist lobby.

In several polls, including ones by Businessweek and Gallup, a sizable majority of Americans say that corporations have too much control over their lives, that both major parties are failing and that America is going in the wrong direction.

Once this slowly awakening giant of American reform shucks off the corporatists who divide, distort and deny many common identities, a dynamic civic force for freedom, fairness and prosperity will define and advance its own political and electoral agendas.

-Ralph Nader

>>3519357
What I'm saying is that we encourage the system that abuses it and we abuse even weaker people than us.

We could punish our politicians that keep us at war; but, we don't. We could demand a move to the next generation of energy technology that stops the exploitation of oil producing countries. But, we don't. We could make investments in socially conscious companies. But, we don't.

We *do* demand the best cell phone our civilization can produce though.

We have the power to make these changes. But, every day we are on message boards bitching about it and not doing something about it, we aren't.

I see discussions like this as just a giant steam valve. Lots of complaining with no solutions. People come to these discussions and leave a comment so they can prove to themselves they are socially conscious. When people do move though, the rich have to follow.

>>3519404
>You're already an extremist. You are advocating that I continue meek submission to slavery andf abuse. Fuck that.
I'm not the person seriously talking about bombing.

>>3519422
Agreed, for the most part. But some of us do not encourage it, we just have to survive in it, because we don't have an alternative.

>>3519422

Revolution organized through 4chan, anybody?

>>3519445
Fucking delusional kids ITT.

>>3519442
Right because if they abuse us it's perfectly ok, but if we fight back that's extremism and totally unacceptable.

>>3519451
see
>>3519339

But I need to amend that. You're clearly a child yourself. You've got good fire, a drive to change things, but you're naive and extremist. Try not to be retarded though. Bombings won't fix anything.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/08/06/afghanistan.nato.helicopter.crash/index.html

Two dozen Navy SEALs killed in Afghanistan. You can thank the U.S. government and its corporations for getting American soldiers into that shithole in the first place.

>>3519451
THEY ARE NOT ABUSING YOU DICK FUCK.

They are doing their jobs, when they do there jobs it may have some adverse effect on your life. They are no more to blame than the guy who drives his 4-by-4 giving you cancer in 40 years time.

People like you are the reason things like the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 can happen. Quick to blame, slow to reason.

>>3519469
>you're naive

I'm not the idiot who's trying to pretend that everything is ok and that the legal and political system is an effective way of making changes.

>Bombings won't fix anything.

Bombing do fix things, actually, that's why the military uses them. Violence works, that's why you only want the government to use it.

>>3519483
>I'm not the idiot who's trying to pretend that everything is ok
I've made no such claim.
>and that the legal and political system is an effective way of making changes.
My only claim has been that violence is not justified at this point.

>Bombing do fix things, actually, that's why the military uses them. Violence works, that's why you only want the government to use it.
Holy fuck, listen to yourself. Bombing has done us a hell of a lot of good in the War on Terror, hasn't it?

You're angry, but don't be stupid.

>>3519482
Yes, they are.

>They are doing their jobs, when they do there jobs it may have some adverse effect on your life. They are no more to blame than the guy who drives his 4-by-4 giving you cancer in 40 years time.

They're good little germans, making the trains run on time.

Bullshit. Inaction can be excusable for those who have no way out of the exploitive economy, but for the rich who benefit massively from it, that's not good enough.

I think people have forgotten to protest like they did during the Vietnam War. There is so much evil running through the top tiers of the country, yet I don't hear of any mass protesting in the news.

ITT: Pseudo Intellectuals discuss the real world without actually ever participating in real world situations

>>3519490
>My only claim has been that violence is not justified at this point.

Then when is it justified? What rate of cancer is the threshold? What number of species driven extinct is the threshold? What loss of privacy and autonomy is the threshold?

Because I don't think you have one. I think you're just willing to roll over and take whatever comes so long as it doesn't disturb your "peace".

>Holy fuck, listen to yourself. Bombing has done us a hell of a lot of good in the War on Terror, hasn't it?

Strategies and tactics can be ineffective and used for unethical means. That does not invalidate the basic premise: violence is effective.

>>3519483
>Bombings do fix things, actually, that's why the military uses them
Hahahaohwow.jpg

>>3519510
ITP: Pseudo-intellectual who thinks he knows better because "I'm so fucking down to earth HURRR"

>>3519513
>Because I don't think you have one. I think you're just willing to roll over and take whatever comes so long as it doesn't disturb your "peace".
herp derp durrr
Listen manchild, your little fantasies don't disturb me. You have no fucking IDEA what I think.

But as for the threshold,
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

We have not yet reached that point, despite your youthful "rage against the machine" mentality.

>>3519517
Military sees situation in which things are running in a way they don't want.
Military would prefer if things didn't run.
Military bombs situation.
Situation is now fixed, according to military viewpoint.

Seriously, do you have any idea what the military is actually for?

>>3519522
In All Your Post: Pseudo Intellectual thinks he deserves to have his opinion treated as fact because he has good grades in "hard sciences".

>>3519526
The point, it sailed over your head just now.

All of America's wars since Vietnam should have taught you something about the "effectiveness" of bombing.

>>3519524
>We have not yet reached that point

Oh you willfully ignorant fool. We are well beyond that point. Stay asleep, the rest of us will take car of it for you.

ITT: People trying to teach the rage-against-the-machine manchildren why bombing won't fix their problems
LOL oh wow
Right after hating the US for being stupidly militaristic, they take a page from their book. Fantastic.

>>3519531
And what should it have taught me exactly?

>>3519533
> Oh you willfully ignorant fool. We are well beyond that point. Stay asleep, the rest of us will take car of it for you.

Holy shit nothing I say is going to make a dent in your manchild power fantasy

>>3519536
You fucking serous?

>>3519537
And nothing anyone else says is going to make a dent in your delusion of everything being ok.

I didn't know /sci/ had so many retarded anti-capitalist children.

Protip: There is no "big bad world"

>>3519544
I have no such delusion. You are SO fucking blind that you think everyone who doesn't share your retarded ideology of how things are and how to fix them is "asleep".

Are you going to call me "sheeple" next?

>>3519551
(cont)

Protip, son: I'm not your enemy.

>>3519551
>you think everyone who doesn't share your retarded ideology of how things are and how to fix them is "asleep".

No, actually I don't. But I *do* think that you are ignoring reality for whatever ideological reasons you have to avoid doing anything about it.

>>3519541
Seriously. What should I have learned from it all?

>>3519550

Then explain to me why the economy is going to shit and why the rich are getting richer?

>>3519563

Just because you're too much of a lazy piece of shit that doesn't have the intelligence and balls to take on risk doesn't mean others should be punished.

Get grinding, nigga.

>>3519557
>No, actually I don't.
Bullshit. This is EXACTLY what you accused me of, ONLY because I opposed your proposed.methods and characterization of the situation.
> But I *do* think that you are ignoring reality for whatever ideological reasons you have to avoid doing anything about it.
You have no idea what I think is wrong, or what should be done.

As for what you should have learned from America's recent wars - the bombing won't fucking accomplish anything. It will only make things worse.

>>3519563
Taxes on the rich are historically low. They are too low, and should go back to what they were before.

But no, we shouldn't be bombing anything.

>>3519573
>This is EXACTLY what you accused me of

What I'm accusing you of is that you keep trying to smooth over very real abuses people suffer under, trying to claim that somehow we're not at a point where it's ok to fight back. That's bullshit, and it's not your decision to make.

>As for what you should have learned from America's recent wars - the bombing won't fucking accomplish anything. It will only make things worse.

You idiot, of course it accomplishes things. The US military wanted to disrupt the infrastructure of Iraq, and after bombing the shit out of them, guess what? Their infrastructure was fucking disrupted! Surprise! Bombing worked!

>>3519529
opinions are not facts. not even your opinions. deal with it.

>>3519599
>What I'm accusing you of is that you keep trying to smooth over very real abuses people suffer under, trying to claim that somehow we're not at a point where it's ok to fight back. That's bullshit, and it's not your decision to make.
And it's YOUR decision to make? Fuck you. All I've told you is that murder and bombing are not justified at this point.

>You idiot, of course it accomplishes things. The US military wanted to disrupt the infrastructure of Iraq, and after bombing the shit out of them, guess what? Their infrastructure was fucking disrupted! Surprise! Bombing worked!
Yeah, that's done us a hell of a lot of good, hasn't it? Fuck you for suggesting that these wars have been a good idea. And fuck you for thinking that bombing the US is going to solve our problems.

Enjoy being the next Timothy McVeigh.

>>3519578

I also agree that we should not be bombing anything, but you're suggesting TAXES are the ONLY reason the economy has gone to shit and the rich have become richer?

>>3519612
It is the primary reason. What are you suggesting?

>>3519578

economics 101: Even if you tax the fuck out of the richest they'll find a way around it, and theoretically speaking it still wont solve our problems

>>3519610
>And it's YOUR decision to make? Fuck you. All I've told you is that murder and bombing are not justified at this point.

It is each person's decision to make when they will fight back. Fuck you back. If you're so insensate to the abuses of the system you might as well just join it.

>Yeah, that's done us a hell of a lot of good, hasn't it? Fuck you for suggesting that these wars have been a good idea. And fuck you for thinking that bombing the US is going to solve our problems.

Hey dipshit, I don't think those wars have been a good iea, I'm saying they were a good idea from the point of view of the people who started them.

Jesus christ, you're an idiot.

Want to solve our problems of unemployment, lagging industry, and outsourcing all at once? BUY AMERICAN GOODS! Stop shopping at Wal-Mart to save a dollar. EVERYTHING at large retailers was made overseas. They hire American workers to man the stores for minimum wage while higher-ups keep the profits. Money stays in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Buy American goods, and you'll see everything turn around.

You can solve unemployment for $40 or send the country into bankruptcy for $30... "Well I can save ten bucks..."

>>3519625
>economics 101: The bullshit I just made up
No.

We didn't always have it like this. Think about it. Why were the last two decades so bad as far as wealth gap increase compared to the previous ones?

>>3519629
> If you're so insensate to the abuses of the system you might as well just join it.
So I'm with you or against you? Fuck you, this isn't the way to make real change.

>Hey dipshit, I don't think those wars have been a good iea, I'm saying they were a good idea from the point of view of the people who started them.
And you're adopting their point of view by saying we should resort to bombing. Your hypocrisy is mindblowing.

>>3519625
so let's not change anything?

>>3519630

Fuck you I'm going to outsource all my labor and buy all my products overseas.

They work harder than dumb fucking Americans and their products don't suck ass.

>>3519008
>Having lots of unemployment acts as downward pressure on wages, since if you won't agree to work for a pittance they can get a hobo to work for a sandwich and a lice-free sleeping area in the turlet.

and of course this is nonsense if this was true no one would be paid over the minimum wage.

>>3519630
Does the US have a 'Made in the US' sticker?

>>3519647
Most products have a country of origin listed on them somewhere.

Clearly the fix to corporations getting privileges from the government is even more government involvement.

>>3519634
>So I'm with you or against you? Fuck you, this isn't the way to make real change.

No, but denying abuse is assisting the abuser. If you want to defend this system, then yes, you're against me, because I want to destroy it.

>And you're adopting their point of view by saying we should resort to bombing

Arg, no, I'm pointing out that violence is effective, in contrast to your incorrect ideology.

>>3519018
To think you have the morals justification to steal other peoples money.

>>3519651
But it's worked so well in the past!

>>3519655
>Arg, no, I'm pointing out that violence is effective, in contrast to your incorrect ideology.
Aren't you
>>3519483

>>3519660
Yes.

>>3519655
> If you want to defend this system, then yes, you're against me, because I want to destroy it.
For the last time, me calling you a retard for thinking bombs will fix things does not mean I support the status quo.

>>3519634

>implying I made that up

Go read a book you retarded bitch ass nigga.

>>3519664
Note the use of the word "if".

>>3519662
> I'm pointing out that violence is effective
>Bombing do fix things, actually, that's why the military uses them. Violence works, that's why you only want the government to use it.

Then you should be fucking ashamed right now.

>>3519670
>implying you were not making implications

>>3519672
Explain?

>>3519639

If the US is to become a third-world country, its people will soon know what 'work' is. Especially the currently unemployed.

Buy American. Give American workers something to be proud about.

>>3519676
I wasn't. You really need to learn to stop reading too much into things.

That's retarded. The selfish practices of corporations and individuals alike are what fuel capitalism and the global environment. Self-interest leads to trade and markets whereby the self-interests of others are also met.

>>3519678
You made both of those statements in the greentext, right? And you're also
>>3519364
who seriously suggested using bombings would help improve the status quo?

And you want me to help you see the hypocrisy in this?

>>3519681
You too, broski. Me calling you naive doesn't mean I'm your strawman enemy who loves the status quo.

>>3519687
>>3519678
(cont)
Actually, the word I should be using is "retardation", no hypocrisy, not that I reexamine.

Bombing will not fix anything, and if the last several decades of American history don't show that I don't have anything to say to you.

>>3519679

>Buy American. Give American workers something to be proud about.

NOPE

Gonna continue to outsource all my shit tier labor to Indian code monkeys and buy all my products to overseas to sell to dumb fucking Americans like the every other corporation in America is doing.

Guys wanna know something cool? All of the shit you buy at walmart is extremely overpriced.

Such is life for the American.

>>3519687
Bombs can improve situations. For example, well placed bombs on major dams would greatly improve the chances of salmon survival. There was once an attempt to kill Hitler using a bomb. Had it worked, it most likely would have improved the situation for millions of people.

>>3519691
Then stop defending it against those who wish to defend themselves.

>>3519699
>Bombing will not fix anything, and if the last several decades of American history don't show that I don't have anything to say to you.

Always you go back to this stupid argument. The US wanted to disrupt Iraq's infrastructure and bombing made that happen. Just because your goals and my goals are not the same as the goals of the US does not mean that the tactic isn't effective.

>>3519706

You...... you sound like an American corporate fat cat.

I see what you did there.

>>3519347
>>3519347
>Incorrect. The capitalist system is in fact poisoning us all both while we are awake and asleep. Pay attention.

I'm sure socialist factories don't pollute. I'm sure the poor consumers also don't pollute, fact is they pollute far more than the companies do.

>>3519733
>I'm sure the poor consumers also don't pollute, fact is they pollute far more than the companies do.

see >>3519443

ITT: people who don't understand the profit motive, think the poor aren't greedy, think stealing money other people earned isn't greed, think anyone can get rich without people volunteering their money for a good or service they provide.

>>3519750
so you can only use force to stop them and then what? Is it possible not to pollute? It isn't

>>3519753
you said it bro

>>3519720
Point, but what exactly are you suggesting should be bombed? I doubt I will agree.

ITP: poor people are to blame for this crisis
I understand profit motive but if you think millionaires are more motivated because they pay taxes less some percents, you are delusional.

Let me ask you do you benefit from the things these corporations provide. Do you enjoy your computer, tvs, your food and other products.

>>3519776
The government is to blame for the crisis, also the poor aren't morally superior to the rich because they're poor. The poor aren't any less greedy.

ITT: Idiotic Marxist Terrorist in the making argues his fallacious arguments.

Sure is Carlos up in here.

>>3519474
>Two dozen Navy SEALs killed in Afghanistan.

>corporations
>got us into afghanistan
>not 9/11

>>3519800
I'm not saying that. You are just bashing poor people for no reason. They are not responsible for this mess.

I loled hartely when so called anarchists broke a bunch of windows demanding the government not cut their entitlements.

>>3519760
>Is it possible not to pollute? It isn't

It is, actually. The very nature of the biosphere has evolved to ensure such a thing. As the permaculturalists would put it, any output which is not used by the system is considered pollution. Right now, there is no ecological infrastructure in place to eat and recycle plastics, so plastics are polluting. However, there are ecological infrastructures in place to eat and recycle leather, cotton and wool. Those fibers are not polluting as polyester fleece is.

>>3519772
The point is not that bombs are the best tool to use. My point was that retaliation is acceptable if properly directed.

>>3519830
As cotton and wool decay they release CO2 polluting the environment. Every time you shit you pollute the environment. Every time you take a breath you pollute the environment. Every time a cow fart it pollutes the environment.

>>3519830
do it pussy kill some corporatists.

>>3519846
I guess someone just learned how to reductio ad absurdum.

>ITT: Angsty pseudo-intellectual Marxist teenagers who don't know the difference between "Capitalism" and "Corporativism" and who have probably never even read Marx, nevermind Post-Marginal Revolution economic literature.

Inb4 "Herp derp i'm not a teenager". Even if you aren't you have the mental age of one.

Hey, ragebro, I sympathize with ya.
I understand the hatred with the system, because I feel it too. That while the hyper-rich control obscene amounts of money, while people like me graduate into a system where the chance of actually finding meaningful employment is slim-to-none- leaving me with debt that I don't know I can pay and I cannot escape. And so what, I'm supposed to just flip burgers for the rest of my life and hope I never get sick or hurt so I can pay rent on an apartment?

It scares the hell out of me. And when I keep hear depressing statistics about graduate employment rates, I wonder if my whole generation is feeling this futility.

So yeah, when I see this political shitshow going on in the capital, and then we still get our credit rating slapped after everyone's like 'oh, it's okay now'- yeah I want to bomb something. Because, fuck, I dunno what else to do.

>>3519869
It's called corporatism.

lol.

Yes skidads your poor because a corporation stole everything from you, they took it right out of your pocket you didn't volunteer your money for something they provided not at all.

>>3519880
>meaningful employment is slim-to-none
Shouldn't have gotten that liberal arts degree, commiefag

>>3519881

It' can also be called Corporativism.

And since english isn't my first language and i'm used to "Corporativism", "Corporatism" just sounds... weird.

>>3519861
HAHAHA

you think your solution isn't absurd. You think you can stop pollution.

>>3519905
1/10

>>3519630
>>3519630
and then in a few years you'll be complaining about the domestic companies being evil corporatist overlords.

>>3519894
Yeah, nah, I majored in fucking biology.

>>3519919
Pornography?

>>3519919
What the fuck kind of job did you expect in to get from a soft science? You literally asked for the system to fuck you over. The system should fuck you and everyone like you over 9000 times

>>3519943
>there is unlimited work for physicists, none for biologists

>>3519943
Um, what? It's not like I took fucking Women's Studies, biology is a hard science too.

>implying it's the corporations and not the government's fault

Seriously, you guys really don't understand anything about anything besides your little sciences. This is why nobody takes you seriously.

>>3519964
>biology
>science

Keep on trolling bro, you might actually get paid for it!

>>3519971
>implying the corporations and the government are not two parts of the same thing

>>3519563
Inflation cause record profits and stocks to go up because raw materials cost more and dollars are worth less. In real terms they are doing worse. The fact is though you want them to get richer, wealth is not a zero sum game. Wealth is created by people and the people who create it share in its wealth so growth is what you want.

>>3519971
>implying it's not everyone's fault

>>3519977
They aren't.

>>3519971
>>3519977
>>3519997

Private "Firms" ( e.g, associations of private individuals) are separate from Government, and as long as all actions in and outside of them are voluntary and with out damage to anyone, everything is OK with them.

The big private "Corporations" ( e.g, association of private individuals that receive Corporate personhood and legal benefits/subsidies from the State) are part of the Government, and are one of the biggest causes of the government's expansion and shitty policies, as they are the ones that lobby for and benefit the most from them.

>>3519869

>reading Marx
>reading post-Hegelian claptrap

I seriously hope you guys don't do this.

>>3518892

> spend significantly more on entitlements than defense
> the problem is defense

I certainly hope none of you commies believe this.

Take control of your money and who you are giving it to.
Does anyone know what boycotting is anymore?

>>3520022
Ultimately its the government that allows these things and its therefore their fault. You're naive to think that government doesn't also want control over the economy. You are also naive to believe people don't want subsidies for these companies.

>>3520446

I didn't say it wasn't Government that allows them to exist, and i did not say it wasn't Governments fault. I was saying is that as they exist now they are another wing of the Government.

>>3520497
They aren't a part of government, but the government does help them. Your assertion that they help them therefore they are a part of them is unfounded. There are plenty of interest groups that lobby for special privileges, feminists, unions, minorities and they get them.

>>3520517

They aren't "part" of the Government, but they help the Government and the Government helps them back, so although they aren't the government itself they are part of the parasitic and corrupt structure. And so are all other lobby groups.

I am not trying to defend the government or throw the blame on corporations. I am blaming the government and also blaming the corporations that would rather get special privileges from the State than actually compete in the market.

This thread had about 50 posts before it degenerated into the usual clusterfuck of "Government bad!"

It's just like a corporation to pass the buck of how horrible it treats its workers and the environment when they're the ones who lobby for decreased regulation all the time.

>selfish practices
>downfall of modern Capitalism
but selfish practices are capitalism, are you saying that capitalism is the downfall of capitalism?

>>3518892
I doubt it, the downfall will most likely stem from this:

>>3520367

It's not the powerful who fuck us, it's the deluded who align themselves with the powerful, because it makes them feel better about being an idiot.

>>3520564
Regulation are the problem and what they lobby for because it allows corporations to create monopolistic advantages for themselves.

>>3520573

Though that's an awkward way to word it it's not entirely false.

>>3520057
>2011
>calling everybody who disagree with you commies
>I hope you don't this

>>3520573
It's true, capitalism creates his executors, and those are the workman, created by the wage slavery of capitalism. That is why the revolution is inevitable.

>>3520638
>implying wage slavery exists

>>3520636
>calling marxists, marxists
>problem

>>3520643
>implying it doesn't
>implying you are not too stupid to realize

>>3520622
Oh, like "Don't dump your toxic waste in the river"
I can totally see how restrictive that is, only the wealthiest of kings could agree to such a rule!
Therefore, no restrictions for anybody!

>>3520652
You would have to be severely retarded to believe it does. Don't want to work for a wage then don't do it, you can create your syndicate bullshit business in America it's not against the rules.

>>3520673
My my your ignorance of how regulations effect us is dumbfounding. Usually they are at the expense of the consumer.

>>3520689
When your options are to work for slave wage or to starve to death, you don't really have an option. I wouldn't want to be in that situation and I don't want other people to live in it either.

>>3520648
you were calling them commies before, not marxist. make up your mind.

>>3520699
And lots of lots of people live in that situation, you don't know them obviously, because you live in your basement. But they are humans too.

>>3520696
Executive #1: This new "proper disposal of toxic waste" regulation is costing us $300 a year!
Executive #2: How about we lower our executive salaries to compensate?
Executive #1: What? Fuck no, let's just stop offering dental coverage to our union-less workers.
Executive #2: That way we won't have to raise the price on our products?
Executive #1: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

See this chart, you aren't one it. Do you know why? Because you are one tiny unimportant shit among billions and your happiness means nothing. Only the species and it's power matters. And the best way to preserve our strength is by having humanity be the rough conglomeration of competing empires and interests that it is today. Strength through strife.

So go to work, make some kids, and venerate the mother fucking Emperor!

>>3520673

"Don't dump your toxic waste in the river" is a legal issue that is solved with the enforcement of property rights.

Creating regulatory agencies to prevent something that can easily be fixed with property rights is a bad idea, as those agencies will suffer regulatory capture and soon will start cartelizing and giving subsidies to the sectors it regulates.

>>3520718

>He thinks prices and wages are unilaterally decided by the entrepeneur on a whim, and doesn't how supply, demand and specially demand-for-capital works.

>>3520744

>*doesn't know how supply

>>3520699
>>3520703
and all you do is prove that these companies feed people. You can't start the story in the middle, how is it that they ended up in a situation where they are starving. Seems most people in poor countries farm and they would still rather work in factories simply because they work less and get paid more to do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2sW2wt3nLU

Dear Hipsters,
all the problems you pin on capitalism are the result of corporatism and every leftist political movement is designed to gain political support for state intervention in the economy in the same way marxism and fascism was used to suppress growing educated middle classes in dictatorships that didn't want to evolve into democracies. You're not rebels, you're tools.

Sincerely, Fuck You.

>>3520755

Didn't read the thread did you?

>>3520755
really? Is this what you believe? I feel sorry for you....

don't be a poorfag or you'll suffer. that is all.

>>3520699

Horrible working conditions and low wages are bad indeed. But the real question is: How to fix this?

The fix to bad working conditions is simple: Strong enforcement of property rights. If someone's body gets damaged by someone, the person to blame for this ( in this case, the abusive corporation) gets punished.

Wages in a market are decided by the demand for workers and the amount of savings ( Capital) in the economy. In competitive free-markets, those tend to raise over time. Attempts to raise wages above current supply demand equilibrium necessarily cause unemployment.

>>3520751
You think it's fair that someone has to make a minimum wage and live at the edge of poverty just because they were not born in priviledge? Or if he refuses to do it so he keeps at least his dignity he and his family will starve to death like thousands of people do every day? And with all those billionaires living in yachts and literally throwing food, how the fuck is that fair and why the fuck shoiuld I accept that?

>>3520780
also, protip: no one gives a shit for any suffering besides their own, if any.

>>3520791
I do you selfish prick.

>>3520744
Even if there was a river unclaimed by any country or person it should still be illegal to dump toxic waste into it because it wreaks untold damage on the environment. Waiting for the owner of said property to find the toxic waste and then sue is a pound of cure.

>>3520789

It's not fair and you don't have to accept it. But you have to know who is to blame for it if you want to change it.

>>3520787
As long as someone in the company is making more than other, there's the place to get the money to pay wages. In giant corporations, companies pay the minimum wages in seconds of sale, the rest of the day is all profit for the owners.

>>3520793
you are very anomalous. you scare me.

Assholes, nobody actually uses real capitalism. Total free market would loss it's initial competitive edge after about 2 years as cabals formed among goods producing companies and reduced infighting.

But even that would be better than actual socialism which would fall apart in 2 months and has never had nor ever will have any chance to be successfully implemented.

The point of having the state interfere with business is not for it to ensure faggot values like fairness, equality, justice. Rather it is to provide one more form of infighting. The only reason I would like to see a tighter reign on lobbying and such is to put more selective pressure on business.

Goverment should be at war with business, and should be riven with infighting itself exactly as businesses should. Selective pressure is the key to development of better survival strategies. More fighting I say. State against state, man against man, company against company, and brother against brother. The rich should crush the poor beneath their heels when they can, and the poor should drag down the rich when possible. Starving men should slaughter each other for meat. It is the way of mankind, and it is what makes us so strong.

>>3520799
I know who to blame, the corporations owners who actually decide that just to make profit and the government puppets who permit it thru inaction.
And the ones who defend them on the internet.

>>3520778
I didn't read the entire thread from top to bottom, no.
>>3520779
>i feel sorry for you
Wow, a cliche you hear in movies all the time. What the fuck does this have to do with anything?

>>3520820
Or we could just cooperate and kill the ones that want to fuck everybody else for selfishness, that way we would be stronger.

>>3520797

>Even if there was a river unclaimed by any country or person it should still be illegal to dump toxic waste into it because it wreaks untold damage on the environment.

That is another thing that can be answered through property rights. One could argue that what is unclaimed belongs to all, other could claim that the environmental damage did cause damage to human beings ( and dumping waste on a river will most certainly will), other could claim animals have property rights too, and thus punishment of said actions would be viable in a Laissez-Faire society.

And the river owner wouldn't "Wait for the river to be poisoned and then sue". The threat of suing would already be enough to prevent the pollution, and if it did happen, the corporation that did it would have to pay for the clean up + legal fees + indenization.

>>3520823

I know even more precisely who to blame. The Government that cartelizes Corporations and allows this to happen, the Corporations that lobby for policies that cartelize the market, and the idiots who think more Government and throwing more politicians at it will solve the problem.

In a real competitive market with a decent legal system, the consumer is sovereign, supply and demand perfectly work, the amount of savings and wages-relative-to-profits tend to rise, and all actions that are unvoluntary or damage other people are harshly punished and prevented.

>>3520820

This sounds fun. But what happens when all the politicians, bankers and CEO's have been torn to bits by lynch mobs?

>>3520839
Cooperating all the time is as foolish as fighting all the time. Do whatever works at the moment.

The point of maximizing the fighting, when it makes sense to fight is to increase the selective pressures on our societies, bloodlines, and species as a whole. Cooperative planning can only go so far, in the end physical traits and survival strategies must be tested and selective for or against by environmental pressures so ensure the human race remains strong. The proof is in the pudding.

Imperial thought for the day: Diversity itself is not a strength, rather seek a diversity of strengths. Allowing weakness to perpetuate itself in the name of diversity is folly.

>>3520851
But capitalism didn't turn that way, so we could think that free market is good only in theory and won't ever work in practice. Also, your argument is flawed, the bad guys are the ones who did the illegal action in the first place, the people who permit it are SECOND in responsability, not first, those are the corporations doing illegal activities.

>>3520789
>>3520789
>You think it's fair that someone has to make a minimum wage and live at the edge of poverty just because they were not born in priviledge? Or if he refuses to do it so he keeps at least his dignity he and his family will starve to death like thousands of people do every day? And with all those billionaires living in yachts and literally throwing food, how the fuck is that fair and why the fuck shoiuld I accept that?

It that person's parents fault for the conditions he lives in and he doesn't have "privilege".

Do you think a farmer who refuses to work and slave doesn't starve?

They don't have to starve but they refuse to grow their own food.

The rich have yachts because they have traded money for things people have wanted. He has in fact given up a equal number of wealth in product to gain an equal number of wealth in money. Its fair because they organized the business, they run it, and ultimately they are responsible for its production.

>>3520820
have you ever killed a man? have you ever ripped his flesh to feed yourself? have you ever fighted for your life? its easy to walk life with a boner due to that human strentgh thru' strife shit when people aren't actively trying to kill or eat you.

>>3520876
Don't be so extremist, we can just cooperate in our basic needs like food, water and shelter and do individual efforts in science or arts, if you please.

>>3520809
why does anyone make over minimum wage then?

>>3520820
>2 years as cabals formed among goods producing companies and reduced infighting.

completely unfounded assertion and the government doesn't do anything but give these people monopolies through their regulations.

>>3520883
If you really think that everyone gets what they deserve then you are delusional, the world is full of people fucking up other people, all thru history, it's really the only way that this massive gap of wealthness exist in the first place, people doing things wrong.
Also, it's not right to be condemn since born just because your father wasn't born in privilige (and I could go back even more).
You should emphatize more with your fellow humans and forbid human suffering.

>>3520902
Because companies usually have a vertical heriarchy, legitimated by wage.

>>3520879

There is no such thing as "Good in theory but bad in practice", if it failed in practice the theory was wrong.

We just has 2 centuries of Statist ideas - from Positivism to Mercantilism to Marxism - favouring the ever-increasing State, and even in the 19th century - which is called the age of Laissez-Faire - protectionism and imperialism were dominant. True Capitalism has never even been tried, what didn't turn out the way we expected was the State.

The bad guys who did it are the bad guys, true. But they didn't do it because of the inaction of the State, they did it because the State actively intervenes to let them do it. The only area in which actual inaction of the State is the problem is legal-enforcement of property rights, everywhere else the State intervenes and cartelizes everything.
Just look outside and see all the policies the State has, see everything it intervenes in. To say it doesn't act is retarded, the State isn't just "allowing bad thing to happen", it is actively acting to MAKE them possible when in it's absence they aren't.

>>3520856
Not all of them will be, only the weak or stupid ones. And the pathetic moralists among the common people, the anarchists, the socialists, the libertarians, the objectivists; they too will be torn apart and their blood used to grease the machine.

Society should be more merciless to everyone. Stand with those that share your goals, blood, ways, and Gods. Fight the rest when it advantageous to do so. If keep up long enough only the strongest will be left standing.

The problem with social darwinism was that it was applied over to short a time period and over too narrow a range. A rich man is not always smarter or stronger than those of lower class, due to the influences of inherited resources or luck. But over thousands of years selection at a societal level does occur. For example, there were almost no egalitarian "noble savage" societies in real life, and the few that did exist were crushed because they were weak.

>>3520823
What wealth exists without corporations, there is nothing there beyond what they produce. Wealth has to be created it isn't finite it isn't a pie. Wealth can expand. The reasons poor countries are poor is because they haven't done this, but there is no reason they can't.

>>3520928

Nope, people gain higher wages and real wages have always tended to rise in the last few centuries because of supply and demand, due to the amount of savings in the economy and due to the average productivity per worker.

In State-Cartelized markets the wages of the "lower" workers are much much smaller than what they would be, true, but that's not caused because entrepeneurs can simply unilaterally lower wages on a whim. They can't.

>>3520828
What the fuck does this have to do with anything?
I'm just saying that I really, really am sorry for you bro.
If you can't even comprehend the basics of having rules or having marxism and fascism I'm sorry for you. Marxism and fascism are not the reason with your downfall. dealwithit.jpg

>>3520928
Its because their skill are worth more and they can produce more or better goods.

random vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6vjrzUplWU

>>3520932
First, it's right that state intervenes in a grade, but I don't think it's that massive as you say. The state should assure that all it's citizens have food, shelter, water, physical integrity, medicine, entertaiment and fullfilling activities. No state in the world assure that, so we don't have full intervention like we should.
Second, it's a possibility that the inaction of the state is because the companies bribing people in position of power to overlook their activities, there is record of this happen and we shouldn't be surprised of a profit-focused assossiation doing this.

My, my, sure is AD HOMINEM in here.

"You're a stupid teenager", which has come up OVER 9000 times so far, is not a rebuttal. lern2logic.

>>3520851
>And the river owner wouldn't "Wait for the river to be poisoned and then sue". The threat of suing would already be enough to prevent the pollution

History paints a different story. A story of companies getting away with whatever they can and opposition not coming from property owners because they've already been bought out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste#Toxic_waste_regulations

>>3520969
It's not the total amount of wealth that i'm discussing, it's the distribution of it. If 1% of the population has 90% of the wealth, things ain't working right, even if the 10% that is left get bigger tru time.
If we raise all the 99% wages to being proportional to the other 1%, MUCH more people would see their wages raise than lowered.

>>3520998
>The state should assure that all it's citizens have food, shelter, water, physical integrity, medicine, entertaiment and fullfilling activities

and at what cost to productive people. You will have to steal from other to give to these people who refuse to take care of themselves. People don't starve in this country we are awash in food, the government actually outlaws giving food restaurants throw away to the hungry, even so fat people are obese. You don't need the state to do these things

>>3521018
Hurr durr I'm going to argue the minute details of economics with you even though deep down I just want poor people to suffer because I'm so superior

Just giving you a preview

>>3520996
Bullshit, money is the ultimate legitimator, take a look at the real world for one.

>>3520998

>First, it's right that state intervenes in a grade, but I don't think it's that massive as you say. The state should assure that all it's citizens have food, shelter, water, physical integrity, medicine, entertaiment and fullfilling activities. No state in the world assure that, so we don't have full intervention like we should.

First, take a look at these:
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Calculation_Problem

The State, in order to do anything at all, must forcefully get resources that are already in other people's hands. And due to the incentives and calculational problems it has, the use it gives to it will most likely be less efficient.

Private charities, associations and mutual-aid societies do the job of providing all of those much better than what the State does, and best of all, they would be fully voluntary. But the State even disincentivizes and prevents them.
For example, before the 50's, over 2/3rd of American workers got healthcare at low costs due to Lodge practice they got at Fraternal Societies ( associations of workers that donated to a money pool, and would get aid when they needed it). After the AMA got a monopoly, it started banning Lodge practice, and Medicaid and Medicare disincentivized Fraternal Societies even more.

>Second, it's a possibility that the inaction of the state is because the companies bribing people in position of power to overlook their activities, there is record of this happen and we shouldn't be surprised of a profit-focused assossiation doing this.

Worse, corporations lobby the State to prevent consumers and private certification companies to overlook their activities. Why you would want even more State action is beyond me.

>>3521030
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition#United_States

Are you even trying to hide your contempt of the poor?

>>3521030
You need the state to assure that those thing are being given to EVERYONE and not only to those who can pay.

>>3520981
>ur dumb, u dont understand nuthin
Now, you see, that's not an argument, you still haven't explained anything at all. I respect and understand your skepticism but I have to say I am concerned by your knee-jerk reaction just because this is an original idea. Maybe you are right, maybe I should have elaborated a bit further instead of leaving you wondering what the basis for my conclusion is, let me explain..

Marxism and fascism were ideologies intended to suppress the power of educated middle classes in industrializing dictatorships, historically the rise of an educated middle class was the major factor in political liberalization in many countries except perhaps India and African countries in South Africa's sphere of influence. I'm arguing that ideologues such as yourself are the manifestation of this phenomena in a democracy, you are less corrupt than a marxist, sure, but you are just a toned down version of it to make it more palatable to a better informed population.

Have you seen the democratic revolutions in North Africa and Syria recently? Which dictatorship managed to hold onto power? Was it the more moderate dictatorships in Tunisia and Egypt? Or the fanatical marxists in Libya?

These are just the facts so far, facts facts fact, I've ignored politics up until no so I will say "Republicans and tea party conservatives are just as bad" if you want, if it will stop you from fearing that I am an evil conservative. Would that help?

>>3521018
you're wrong 99% of people have most of the wealth. Wealth does not equal money you are forgetting about the products those people buy which are real wealth. Government intervention has always destroyed wealth. Taking money from companies to give to people will just ensure that they have money but there is nothing to buy.

>>3520887
Well I was in the army, and I have and MS in chemistry.

Iraq sucks dick by the way. I only have got 3 kills, that could be credited to me if you were being generous. And they were all group shit. One of them happened when we shot a group of guys trying to get a little mortar they had been firing into the trunk of a car. The dumb asses had been parking on the same 3 little hills in a semi-abbandoned section of Baqubah to fire it. They never even hit our guys, but they kept firing it for two weeks until we stationed rifle teams on roof nearby two days before we figured they'd come. Then seven of use shot the shit out of them. I think I killed the second one though, shot in the back as he tried to get in the passenger seat.

>>3521045
Man, if the private companies were capable of delivering all those things, they would do it. But guess what, millions of people are starving everyday, so they are not doing it, they failed, we need the state to cover that space, that 1/3 of the 50s workers that didn't had medicare.

>>3521048
so what its no one else fault but their own. It isn't any more moral to steal from productive people to give these people things. Fact is the poor do much better in our society then the marxist and statist nations out there.

>>3521054
You should recheck your data, the gap between rich and poor is bigger than you think. Government intervention is the only think that could save us from the parasite that private companies are to the economy.

>>3521065
Stop deluding yourself, poverty is a direct product from your socioeconomic system, it's not a random phenomena.

>>3521071

> it is possible for everyone to have the same amount of wealth

Democrats actually believe this.

>>3521071
We can all be poor through government intervention or we can live better off while some live very well off. Isn't it greed to say that someone has too much and to take it from them by force and give it to yourself. Its jealousy, the talentless hating the talented, the dumb hating the smart. The only solution is to make everyone equal to the weakest link.

>>3521084
Oh you again, I'm not a democrat. I'm not even american, i don't belive in your false bipartidal plutocracy lol.

>>3521064

As i said, the State prevents and disincentivizes them. And i never said that 1/3rd of workers didn't have medical care, they just didn't need to get it from fraternal societies. They could have if they needed to.

Fratenal Societies were crushed in favour of Statist Medicare and Medicaid, long-run usustainable and resource-consuming programs that raise prices on everyone not in them. Private charity is strongly disincentivized in favour of Statist welfare, that entrenches ever-expanding parasitism and fails to solve the actual structural issues that give rise to poverty. Social Security is not only long-term unsustainable given thje populational trends of developed countries, it also disincentives savings and thus capital accumulation, which makes wages of EVERYONE lower.

What you said is akin to "People can't voluntarily work together, so the State should force them to, despite the economic theories and data that prove it is less efficient".

And since you mentioned millions starving, the 3rd world countries - where TRUE poverty is at - have a long history of wars, dictatorships, inflation, protectionism and all other sorts of policies that prevent actual capital accumulation and even the formation of a market economy. No wonder they starve.

>>3521093
Again pretending that everyone gets what they deserve, there are assholes that do immoral things to get wealth you know, get some real world. Someone having a yacht and someone having to search the thrash for food is not acceptable for me, they should both have a nice meal everyday.

>>3521094

> it is possible for everyone to have the same amount of wealth

Foreigners actually believe this.

>>3521105
>Thinking the State shouldn't manage healthcare
>Ignores all of Europe

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

>>3521078
>implying poverty didn't exist before capitalism
>implying people didn't starve before capitalism
>implying capitalism doesn't feed the most, clothe the most, and house the most
>implying wealth is inherent and not created

>>3521130
Capitalism fails to solve those problems,
and if you agree they are problems then Capitalism has some improving to do.

>>3521110
>there are assholes that do immoral things to get wealth you know,

The difference is the rich person traded money for a product another person wanted, through voluntary means. In the end they're both happy. The rich can't get rich without people volunteering their own money. The poor man sifts through garbage because he is too selfish to create something people would want and only cares for himself.

>>3521105
Nope, the proof that less State is equal to more well being is none, the proof of the opposite is reality, where tons of people starve and a few others clean their asses with one hundred dollars.
You can't think that those private companies where going to play legal with assossiations that directly attacked their profit, what they do is sabotage those assossiations thru the bribed state, that is not a surprise. The illusion of the champagne glass droping wealth is that, an illusion, it won't ever work, profit is an addiction.
What i'm saying is that people can't voluntarily accept wage slavery, so they are coerced physically to do so, despite the economic data that proves that since the 19th century.
3rd world countries have been economically, culturally, politically and many many times military invaded by the 1st world countries all thru history, check the Condor Plan for example.

>>3521142
Capitalism has solved those problems better than any other system. Capitalism is the fairest system because it is voluntary. Those problems can only be solved by the people that have them in the same way I go to work to buy things I need and solve my problems.

>>3521144
The poor man is stuck doing factory labor or cleaning floors which also aids society in a much more immediate way. People can get wealthy by selling drugs and suing for stupid reasons. The ultra-wealthy can become so by having your father be the creator of Wal-Mart.

>>3521144
That doensn't work like that in todays world of massive publicity, people are told what to buy, it's not voluntarely, even if they are happy after.
The media is part of this, many media companies are owned by the same guys that sell you the product.

>>3520425

I'm trying to do this.
Except it's fucking difficult.
To find clothes made in Europe, for example.
Now what if I want to buy a computer that wasn't made by wage-slaves in Asia?
I can't.

Simple question: how can you believe that real free market will definitely work when we all know the companies with more money will either lobby politicians to regulate it (in order to manipulate it themselves of course) or just form alliances and create monopolies in order to stay on top?

I mean we're always talking about companies/corporations here, they're like a sociopath that, if it thrives in a certain environment, will do anything to make sure the environment remains the same, we should treat them as such if we want the system to work. You know why corporations act this way? Because THEY CAN. What we're seeing in these years is just what happens when we treat them as anything different than how I described them, and give them power they will INEVITABLY abuse.

Fuck, the whole idea behind our modern forms of government is that a single entity with too much power can't be trusted, why are we still acting like that's not the case? It's like the ONE indeniable fact we learned from the whole of human history!

>>3521162
It's not voluntarely when your options are starve or slavery.

>>3521173
>people are told what to buy, it's not voluntarely

Oh boy we have a massive retard. I guess if I kill someone it wasn't my fault society forced me to.

http://www.alecexposed.org/

ALEC- american legislative exchange council

this is a council of corporations and congressmen that meet and draft up new bills that benefit corps. these corporations have the ability to veto bills before they are even brought to the floor. by the time these bills are made public, any trace of their origin has been wiped clean. these are the cock suckers that moved to make prisons private & then pushed through legislation to increase prison terms for non violent drug crimes. these people should be removed from positions of power for betraying the public's trust. these are the people that started the tea party. you won't hear about them on main stream media. they are behind banking deregulation, killing unions, killing public education, killing universal healthcare, killing environmental protection, just about every evil in society. A few of their members,

AT&T
Bayer Healthcare
BlueCross BlueSheild
BP
CocaCola
Comcast
ExxonMobil
Koch Industries
Pfizer
Phillip Morris
State Farm
TimeWarner Cable
UPS
Verizon
Walmart

>>3521149
>Nope, the proof that less State is equal to more well being is none, the proof of the opposite is reality

>>3521128

>Thinks that the Healthcare in the US isn't a sector that is strongly State-controlled.
>Actually believes that European Healthcare is the magical perfect system that Liberals claim it is.
>Ignores all the waste and over-the-top spending and programs that go on European Healthcare, and ignores how enormous debts ( which healthcare is a strong contributor of) are almost causing the collapse of the European Union and the Euro. Fuck, Germany even recommended Greece it privatized Healthcare.

>>3521142

"Capitalism" didn't fail, "Corporatism" did. The whole point of our argument here is that you are blaming the issues on the wrong source. Worse, you are saying that the source of the problem is the only one that can fix it.

>>3521149

Only Mutual-Aid associations don't interfere with private firm's profits. Lodge practice is very profitable for doctors. Charities to the poor are a great thing for the market, no producer wants consumers with low buying power.

Of course they bribe the State. If so, why do you think MORE of the State is going to fix it? Who are the magical angels that will run the State uncorrupted?

And yes, 3rd world countries were invaded several times and that's bad. This was done by the State and the banks that backed it, during the age of Mercantilism and Imperialism.
And after the 1st world was done fucking them, they started getting fucked even more, corrupt dictators and Marxist pundits started creating inflationary and protectiocist policies in there - claiming they were doing what people like you want the State to do - and fucked shit up even more.

You kind of reinforced my point.

>>3521185

In a Free-Market, the options are not starve or slavery. When the State controls the market, the options are starve or slavery.

>>3521186
Probably so, society have strong coercive strenght, but it's very deep rooted, you would notice with your average intelligence.

>>3520851

>and all actions that are unvoluntary or damage other people are harshly punished and prevented.

Right now screwing over everyone else is the most profitable strategy.
Every industry disregards scientists and buy some to keep selling their harmful products.

example: Chemistry (phtalates), agriculture(pesticides), fast-food(hormones and antibiotics), drugs (mediator), oil, tobacco...

>>3521197
lol at the economic freedom axis, what a joke.

>>3521185
>you never had an option they were wither breathe or die

Of course people have to eat what do you expect, god to come down and feed you. People have been slaving on their farms forever. Is that the fault of capitalism?

>>3521162
Proof of your grandiose claim that Capitalism solved anything.

>>3521216
>Claim Capitalism is Voluntary
>Turns out it's only if you don't mind dying

What a benevolent system.

>>3521224
The West is doing better than non-market economies.

>>3521213
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

>>3521212

In some of these cases, the one doing it is doing it voluntarily and is well aware of the consequences, e.g tobbaco.

In others,
>State's shitty legal system prevents what needs to be done from being done
>People blame the market for it

Brilliant!

>>3521213

>Make strong claim regarding economics, gives no evidence or source.
>Someone gives evidence of the opposite
>Lol what a joke your source sucks

Fuck this shit, i'm out of here.
If you like the State so much, just move to Cuba already, or North Korea if you REALLY believe what you are saying. Or just go to East-Europe and ask them what they think of Socialism, if you don't.

>>3521237
citation?
What do you mean by "better" anyway?

>>3521245
If you love corporations so much move to China, I'm sure you'll be happy working 12 hours a day making shoes, free from the burdens of regulation.

>>3521201
There are people like you and me that won't accept a bribe for humanities safety, I'm going for higher goals than a new car.
Condor Plan was enacted since 1970s to 2000's in Central and South America, the dictatorships were put in charge by CIA agents for USA profit motives, they destruct national industry and create great unemployment with the neoliberal recipes. I know because i'm from Argentina and i got that shit already, i know who did it and i don't want it again neither for me o for others.

When the state controls the market, people will actually get food, because state motivation is to make it's citizens happy, not to take their money.

>>3521230
>claims breathing is voluntary
>turns out it's only if you don't mind dying

>taking money from someone that doesn't volunteer it (theft)
>claims the moral superiority of marxism

>>3521216
It's their fault not solving it.

Lets see how the poor are doing in out evil capitalist society.

>>3521245
>implying that's how i would administrate my resources, false dichotomy detected.
Don't mind it, go away, you are not at my level.

>>3521258
There is less people that would have to give their money than those who receive it.

>>3521258
I'm not a marxist but good job thinking the world is in Black and White. If I'm starving and homeless I'm neither paying to the state nor to a company. If I'm paying to a company the sales tax goes to the state. Private enterprise is a good idea but at least with the state its main goal isn't to suck as much money as possible in any way possible.

>>3521250

>China
>Mostly a State-run economy, the Corporations that are there work under State-Concession
>Authoritarian as fuck dictatorship that censorts everything
>Strong monetary manipulation and Neo-Mercantilism
>Calls itself a Communist country

You are confirmed for having no fucking idea of what the hell you are talking about.

Also, funny thing:
>Before 70's, all farms were State-Owned. Massive famines kill over 50 million people.

>After 70's reforms, all farms were privatized in the hands of the agricultors that worked on them and they were allowed to trade what they produce in an open market.
>Famines vanish, food production skyrockets.

>Derp the State should run everything, it clearly is more efficient than voluntary trade!

>>3521263
>Heritage Foundation

>>3521276
False dichotomy again, be creative for fuck sake.

>>3521212
all of those have more benefits then flaws for consumers.

lets outlaw driving because its really dangerous

>>3521282
Man them evil capitalist lies man, them capitalist charts brah.

>>3521285

>Points that China is a State-run society and that the problems you blamed on free-markets are clearly caused by the State. Anyone with basic knowledge of current world politics knows how China's economy is State-run.

>Points another episode of history where State-ownership failed where private markets triumphed.

Where the hell is the false dychotomy here?

Fuck this, if you are idiotic enough to blame China's problems on Capitalism, you probably don't even know the basics of economics, nevermind history.

>>3521307
You didn't understand. The false dichotomy resides in your thought of only two mutually exclusive alternatives of a socioeconomic system, when in fact, there is a variety of ways of run the society that haven't been tried before and we wouldn't lose anything in try, seeing how fucked up is today's system.

>>3521274
>claims not to be a Marxist
>says we should get rid of private industry

Doesn't realize its the goal of every consumer to suck out the most from a company. Doesn't realize that private companies have to give you something in order to take your money.

Doesn't realize the state is highly inefficient at distributing goods and creating them.

I guess its the thought that counts

>>3521323
>seeing how fucked up is today's system.

>be wealthier than any time in history
>the system is totally fucked up

>>3521282

Fuck, anyone with half a brain and High School History Class knowledge knows that market economies and higher economic freedom lower poverty and work better than interventionist societies.

All you need to do is look at the average income in the US or any European country and compare it to Cuba, African-dictatorships and other heavily-interventionist societies.

FUCK, JUST COMPARE WEST AND EAST EUROPE.

You don't even need Heritage charts for that. And Heritage Foundation Charts > Making strong economical claims with no supporting evidence, you Socialist moron.

You went as far as claiming that there is no evidence that lower State = more rich, even though we have millenias of history of State failure and markets lifting people from poverty. You don't have a single fucking source.

I'm fucking out of here.

>>3521335
Being better than previous doesn't mean it's not fucked up, not at all. Learn some logic.

>>3521245
No, in all of these cases.
In all of these cases facts have been hidden.
Every time there's an oil spill, the company minimizes and tries to avoid as much responsibility as possible.
BP built an oil rig that wasn't secure enough while they make massive profits and the technology to make it more secure is available.

The agriculture lobby uses more antibiotics in the US than the people. The effects of the overuse of antibiotics on bacteria is well known.
An example of pesticides :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocrotophos#Uses_and_Usage

Right now corporations are trying their best to prevent phtalates from being forbidden because it would be so economically difficult to start using different formulas and who cares if people gets genital anomalies right?

And for pills there's a shitload of pills for fatties who have been forbidden. Thalidomide.

>>3521336
all you really have to do is understand the profit motive and you will conclude that.

>>3521336
lol at your illusions.

>>3521347
but the profit motivation has been proven false.

>>3521336
> implying somebody with half a brain would still be alive
> thinks he's a genius

>>3521340
>claim that regressing to how the world used to be (state controlled) is better

>>3521353
lol you don't know shit about history, grab a book sometime.

>>3521336
Yet Western Europe lifestyle > American lifestyle.
Guess what the difference is.

Also, Germany has the best social system, and it's one century old.
Gotta love those Weimar socialists.

>>3521276
>Mostly a State-run economy, the Corporations that are there work under State-Concession
Less and less since 1978.
>Authoritarian as fuck dictatorship that censors everything
You don't like us complaining so why is this a problem?
>Strong monetary manipulation and Neo-Mercantilism
As opposed to the USA?
>Calls itself a Communist country
Calls themselves a People's Republic
>You are confirmed for having no fucking idea of what the hell you are talking about.
Funny.
>Before 70's, all farms were State-Owned. Massive famines kill over 50 million people.
When? 50 million people? REALLY?
>After 70's reforms, all farms were privatized in the hands of the agricultors that worked on them and they were allowed to trade what they produce in an open market.
citation needed.
>Famines vanish, food production skyrockets.
Prove it correlates with policy change and not availability of water and good soil.
>Derp the State should run everything, it clearly is more efficient than voluntary trade!
The state should run things when private enterprise is clearly not running things that are in the public's best interest.

>>3521350
no it hasn't, its by far the most logical thing I have ever heard. All criticisms of it fail in reality.

>>3521362
yes it has. profit motive is bullshit. get an education ffs.

>>3521362
educate yourself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

>>3521342
You don't make massive profits from an oil spill

>Right now corporations are trying their best to prevent phtalates from being forbidden because it would be so economically difficult to start using different formulas and who cares if people gets genital anomalies right?

banning them would skyrocket prices for consumers

>The agriculture lobby uses more antibiotics in the US than the people. The effects of the overuse of antibiotics on bacteria is well known.
An example of pesticides :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocrotophos#Uses_and_Usage

pesticides increase food yields and make food cheaper for people, people also have a choice to eat organic foods that don't use pesticides.

>>3521375
Yeah people who can't afford it, stop pretending that everything that can be bought can be bought by everybody.

>>3521369
This proves nothing. Question would you work for free?

>>3521328
The state runs a program that can get a letter from New York to California for 44 cents. The state-funded department of defense created the internet. The state created the moon program. When corporations spend far more on advertising than R & D and lobbying to make a racket is efficiency still how we compare the two? I can take a bus anywhere in town for an entire day for $2, to do the same in a taxi would be scores more expensive. Yes, there are things private enterprise can do, for everything else there's government programs.

>>3520820
i hope your human species goes extinct.

>>3521323

Different forms of running the world? Sure. But you should learn basic economics before arguing over them.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

There can be no rational economic calculation in the absence of a price mechanism. Other forms of running the world do exist, but in the world of scarcity we have now they can only be found voluntarily within Laissez-Faire.

Coerced-Collective ownership such as the State will always end in failure for well known economic laws.

>>3521348
>>3521350
>>3521354

God fucking dammit.

>>3521361

Less and less since 1978, which is why China's growth has been rising and poverty falling. It's still very fucking bad though.

>You don't like us complaining so why is this a problem?
Ohgod, a straw man? I didn't expect this from you at all!
>As opposed to the USA?
The USA does the same thing and fails at it. Our crisis was caused by this. When did you think i was giving the US compliments?

>When? 50 million people? REALLY?

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_leap_forward
>Estimates of the death toll range from 16.5 to 46 million,

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao-Tse_Tung
>his rule from 1949 to 1976 is believed to have caused the deaths of 40 to 70 million people

>Prove it correlates with policy change and not availability of water and good soil.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform

It is a well documented fact that policy changes caused the massive increase in food production. There is no debate over this among historians, economists and Geographists.

Wait, why i should cite sources when you got none? And why the fuck am i still here?

Fuck this shit.

>>3521379
I'm not, if you banned pesticides all you would do is starve those people who couldn't afford organic food. Pesticides ensure people with little money eat.

>>3521385
I do, I compose music and study just for the sake of it. Profit motivation is bullshit and you should know it already.

I like how these skidad believe that the state is some god that can just give you everything you need without taking it from someone. Leftism is a religious cult centered around the State as the messiah.

>>3521397
Face it, you're not leaving.

>>3521394
So how do you feed yourself? how do you pay for your education?

>>3521400
Maybe Monsanto could stop paying their CEO 4 million dollars a year and try and find ways to use less horrible chemicals on the food people need.
But it's a silly idea. Actually considering people's health before they need pills!

>>3521392
You think you would ever end up on one of those nasa flight? the only way you'll end up in space is because of private companies. Also private companies spend far more in R&D than the government does.

>>3521432
are you retarded or don't you realize that only because they use pesticides are they able to feed these people. Do you think the 4 million they pay him has anything to do with that. Don't you think the millions of people they feed is more important.

>>3521434
You might want to look at your chart again, it states the opposite of your assertion.


Thanks to "business-friendly" Republicans we have no space program anymore.

>>3521453
Of course they need pesticides but the idiocy of claiming it's too expensive to try a new, less harmful one is the point.

>>3521456
no it doesn't

>Thanks to "business-friendly" Republicans we have no space program anymore

good now I'll actually be able to go to space instead of leaving it to the government monopoly to get me there.

>>3521375

That's not true.
Whenever a tanker empties its tanks at sea instead of paying to get them cleaned in a port, the company saves money.
Whenever BP overlooks security to maximise profits, it's the same selfish drive.
Fukushima disaster wouldn't have happened if the reactor's company had had followed the proper standards of security for a seismic area.

Organic food hasn't been mainstream since more than a decade, while the harmfulness of chemical compounds used by farmers has been demonstrated since way longer.
And it's only a choice for people who have enough money not to eat poison.

GM crops aren't forbidden in the USA and contaminate every fields. Americans do not have the choice not to eat GM food.

>>3521469
does your new and less harmful one even exist? Do you have any idea of what you're talking about.

>>3521477
The government never stopped people from trying to make their own space program, so what the hell are you saying?

>>3521478
You do know Havana is a part of Cuba and isn't able to upgrade their infrastructure thanks to an embargo placed upon it by the United States?
Try harder if you want to troll.

>>3521483
How many people have died from these poisonous food maybe they shouldn't eat them and just starve maybe that would be a better way to stay healthy. Also I don't see why most people can't afford organic they just don't want to buy it.

>>3521501

sounds like excuses to me

>>3521478
No idea if that picture is pro-capitalism or pro-socialism.

Cuba looks pretty bitching with its vintage cars.
Hong Kong has a phallus-shapes skyline.

Are you by any chance an engineer?

>>3521483
>Whenever BP overlooks security to maximise profits, it's the same selfish drive.

and now they've paid the price by losing a shitton of oil, so they didn't get their profits.

>>3521491
How about one without genital-deforming phalates?

Remember when DDT was used? All the birth defects? Was it unfair to outlaw it so companies were forced to find alternatives?

>>3521523
>Still gets billions in subsidies
Acceptable losses for ignoring regulations

Aren't corporations oh so good?

>>3521505
They don't want to buy it because they're too poor to afford both organic food and housing.

And not-poisonous food isn't considered a basic human right so nobody cares if the wages aren't high enough to get non-poisonous food.

>>3521524
Yes because consumers would stop buying it if it was really as harmful as you say.

>>3521528
>Acceptable losses for ignoring regulations
nope I don't think so

>implying subsidies as freemarket

>>3521537
It was that fucking bad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Effects_on_human_health
And the citizens and scientists did raise a fuss which is why it was outlawed.

>>3521537
The thing is all the industries HIDE those things.
They pay scientists to make contradictory studies etc.

Exactly what happened with tobacco.

>>3521558
BP ruined thousands of kilometers of coast, yet the company is still running.
Business as usual, am I right?

>>3521536
did you know that the sun causes cancer?

"poisoned" food is a lot better than no food, even though you can't prove it kills anyone. raising wages would just make the food more expensive and it would do nothing. Taxing the rich wouldn't work because of the same thing

>>3521581
Taxing the rich works well.
The only ones who want you to think it doesn't work are rich.

What a coincidence.

>>3521566
>>3521576
and there are always other scientists to prove them wrong.

and people just need not buy things lace with ddt.

>>3521581
>Comparing a natural phenomena to a preventable manmade health risk
Can't prove it kills? Did you read the thing about DDT?
Raising wages? Taxing the rich? Before wages went stagnant for 30 years the marginal tax rate on the top 1% was anywhere from 70% to 94%. And our country was much ahead of others than it is now. Read history before you ignore its teachings.

>>3521596
It is always at the expense of the consumer, because they always pass the cost right back to them.

>>3521603
Yeah but if there's no government to let those scientists speak, nothing happens.

There's an international scientific consensus on climate change, thanks to the IPCC, yet the American public still think it's all lies.

i'd rather governments started forcing companies to lose money etc to pollute less than people deciding to reduce their energy consumption in 100 years when they finally understand what's going on.

I'd rather BP gets a huge fine for its mischiefs than hoping the oil-dependent society decides to boycott them at some point.

I'm glad the EU forbid GM crops so that Europe doesn't get fully contaminated by corporate sterile crap.

>>3521625
One step at a time. First we get politicians ballsy enough to increase the marginal tax rate to 50% and then we close loopholes that punish the poor for the tax increase.

>>3521625
Then smaller companies should get in concurrence with them.
If there's no concurrence, you can sue the companies who provide the service, even with class actions in the US, to break their trade agreements.

>>3521628
people very well know tobacco is not safe and yet they smoke it, should it be made illegal? What about alcohol?

What bout the fact that cars aren't completely safe should the government ban cars? Should they force regulation that would make them safer but make them extremely expensive to the consumer. Should we switch to green energy before it can really compete against oil?

You can't live in a perfect utopia were no one gets hurt we all take risks every day just walking around. Did you like the Patriot Act, its supposed to protects us maybe they should take more of our rights away to. For our protection who cares about rights.

>>3521637
You can't all that will happen is you'll put them out of business and then no one will have food.

>>3521653
Tobacco is illegal in many places.
Restaurants, streets, stuff like that.

The interesting idea is that corporations need regulation because they are not honest because that is not profitable.

They need to get sued for their frauds. That's what happened to tobacco companies.
Tobacco advertisement is very tightly controlled, not to get more people addicted. Governments can't just make it illegal, because too much people enjoy it.

>Should we switch to green energy before it can really compete against oil?

Is that even a question?
YES.
Why are we still using a century old technology for our every day travels?
Why aren't we investing massively into less polluting energies instead of investing into ways to extract fossil fuel deeper, farther, in less practicable places?

"Green" energies would be cheaper if more R&D had been made. Efficiency should be way higher than it is but we only started looking into it.

I'm not American and I do not support the Patriot Act.
Americans are easily fooled into silly things like wars or ideological scares "commies!". Terrorism isn't even a real risk.

>>3521670
We had a marginal tax rate of 94% for the richest 1% in the 50's, so there.
As for agribusiness stop giving them subsidies, they make billions in profit anyway. Maybe if they're not so obscenely wealthy the focus will actually be on providing people with food as it should be. If the executives don't like the deal they can fucking quit and let someone motivated manage.
>>3521653
False equivalency but nice try. People can smoke because they are supposed to have liberty over their own bodies. Dumping pesticides that cause birth defects exposes everyone to something harmful regardless of their awareness. And yes the govt. has forced cars to be safer which is why they have seatbelts in them. Over half the price of a car is advertising anyway. We should switch to green energy because it's in our national interest to be electrically sovereign from other nations, and the Pentagon agrees with me:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/energy-conservation-moving-up-pentagons-agenda-02036/
"before" is a slippery word because the USA has been dragging its feet with alternative fuels since the 70's. Government regulations spur innovation otherwise the corporations aren't worth their own power. BTW I hate the Patriot Act.

>>3521670
That's stupid.
Big businesses will fall, small farmers with good methods (like organic), will make money.
And for what's missing, importations.

>>3521702
Dude you're a man after me own heart. e-mail me.

Completely true. Military must be abolished. Violent behaviours and the funding of it like a barbaric Roman society is the way of the past.

>>3521702
do you realize that your entire argument is one big scare tactic against free markets. People know tobacco is dangerous and they still smoke it, advertisement control doesn't prevent people from smoking it. Green energy is useless until it can compete with oil, there is plenty of R&D in it, it will eventually happen but there is no point in forcing it on everyone it will just make it less efficient if you take away the competition.

>>3521740
and food will be far more expensive as a result.

>>3521709
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

yes and all that did was stifle our economy it is only after we got out of world war II and stopped FDRs socialist policies did our economy thrive.

>government regulation spur innovation

Not at all they just create monopolies where innovations can stagnate. We can all have green tech at now at insane costs or we can wait till its actually good enough to be viable and not destroy our paychecks.

>>3522185
and then china invades and crime explodes.

>>3521709
>they make billions in profit anyway. Maybe if they're not so obscenely wealthy the focus will actually be on providing people with food as it should be

They make billion because they provide for millions. Why would making them poor make them focus on providing food "as it should be" all you're doing is taking any incentive to provide food away.

Corporations pay two taxes, one for corporate profits and a second payroll tax. Payroll tax is invisible to employees but hits all business small and large at an extra 6.2% of each paycheck this is in addition to the taxes employers withhold from paychecks for employees incomes. If you want to increase employment kill the payroll tax for the first 25k an employee earns each year.