Political discussion thread

okay

thellama73 wrote: HackettFan wrote: I agree that individualism needs safeguarding, but government/collectivism/statism is not the only threat to liberty. Corporations are at least as threatening to our liberties (if not more in the current climate), and the State is a check and balance against corporate control of our lives. This is the critical oversight of libertarianism and what distinguishes it from liberalism. On balance, with all our corporate Lords, we are much closer to sinking into feudalism than socialism. Obama is actually too conservative for me, but I vote for him because currently reside in a very conservative state. No. Corporations cannot force you to buy their products. Governments can force you to buy theirs. Corporations cannot take money from you that is not voluntarily given. Governments can. Corporations cannot legally start wars or kill people. Governments can. Corporations cannot regulate our behavior. Governments can.Corporations cannot imprison people. Governments can.I have said this a million times, but it never seems to sink in: If you don't like the way a corporation is behaving DON'T GIVE THEM YOUR MONEY. It is very simple.

You're on especially thin ice when it comes to the role of corporations in starting wars. They also not only have plenty of guns of their own (e.g. Blackwater), the corporations now have drones, and are frequently independently contracted to operate them. Besides that, corporations take money from people that is not voluntarily given all the time. They do this with monopolies, trusts, corporate teams of lawyers, underhanded stuff. Shoot, in Texas, oil companies actually have their very own legal power of eminent domain! They've been using it too to prepare for the transcontinental pipeline even though that hasn't even been approved. But they don't really care about a given individual's right to negotiate fairly with them. Emergency health treatment is not voluntary. There are no menu of prices given up front before treatment, and there's no genuine capacity in many cases to shop around anyway. Making us buy health care from private companies annoys me as much as it does conservatives, but it was a conservative idea (personal responsibility). Liberals wanted a single payer system. Corporations regulate my behavior in all sorts of ways, generally in a more detailed and fine tuned fashion than the government ever considers. Why, for instance, can we not adjust the temperature of the water coming out of Walmart's bathroom sinks? I should point out that there is a large faction of the conservative wing that is more than happy to regulate behavior. How they get along with Libertarians I'll never guess, except that I suppose that the two factions are just not all that internally consistent.

HackettFan wrote: You're on especially thin ice when it comes to the role of corporations in starting wars. They also not only have plenty of guns of their own (e.g. Blackwater), the corporations now have drones, and are frequently independently contracted to operate them. The government contracts with private companies to prosecute wars. Companies cannot start wars on their own, at least not legally. This is a government problem, not a corporate one.  Besides that, corporations take money from people that is not voluntarily given all the time. They do this with monopolies, trusts, corporate teams of lawyers, underhanded stuff. What monopolies? The only monopoly in America is the government. Shoot, in Texas, oil companies actually have their very own legal power of eminent domain! Can you cite your source here? If this is true, it's a power granted by the government, and I agree the government should not grant that power. They've been using it too to prepare for the transcontinental pipeline even though that hasn't even been approved. But they don't really care about a given individual's right to negotiate fairly with them. Emergency health treatment is not voluntary. There are no menu of prices given up front before treatment, and there's no genuine capacity in many cases to shop around anyway. You don't have to go to an emergency room, you can try to heal yourself. There are also a large number of competing hospitals you can choose from, so you are not forced to patronize any particular company. Making us buy health care from private companies annoys me as much as it does conservatives, but it was a conservative idea (personal responsibility). Liberals wanted a single payer system. Corporations regulate my behavior in all sorts of ways, generally in a more detailed and fine tuned fashion than the government ever considers. Why, for instance, can we not adjust the temperature of the water coming out of Walmart's bathroom sinks? You don't have to use Wal-Mart's sinks if you don't want to. I never have. Why shouldn't a private company have as much control over their sinks as you have over yours? I should point out that there is a large faction of the conservative wing that is more than happy to regulate behavior. True.  How they get along with Libertarians I'll never guess, They don't. except that I suppose that the two factions are just not all that internally consistent.

thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: At this point, corporate america has almost unlimited economic power to regulate people's lives.  You keep asserting that, but there is absolutely no evidence for it. There is no company in the U.S. that I am forced to patronize or work for.

The Doctor wrote: thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: At this point, corporate america has almost unlimited economic power to regulate people's lives.  You keep asserting that, but there is absolutely no evidence for it. There is no company in the U.S. that I am forced to patronize or work for. It isn't about being forced to patronize or work for a particular company.  It is being forced to behave in certain ways, be a certain type of person if you want to patronize or work for a company.  Or agree to horrendous working conditions as they had to back in the old days, which libertarians so desperately seem to want to get back to, in order to survive.  And while no, you don't have to work for a certain company, you do have to work somewhere.  Unless you have the ability and the MEANS to start your own business.

If you find the terms of working for any company unsatisfactory, you don't have to work for any of them. There are thousands of pan-handlers and street performers who make more money than I do. You can learn how to juggle in a matter of days (sometimes hours) at virtually no cost. Do that if you find working for a company oppressive.

Your complaint seems to be more about convenience than freedom. It's inconvenient for you to live without adhering to certain social norms, without behaving the way companies want you to behave. Just because you can't have everything you want costlessly, doesn't mean you are being oppressed. Everything has tradeoffs.

thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: At this point, corporate america has almost unlimited economic power to regulate people's lives.  You keep asserting that, but there is absolutely no evidence for it. There is no company in the U.S. that I am forced to patronize or work for. It isn't about being forced to patronize or work for a particular company.  It is being forced to behave in certain ways, be a certain type of person if you want to patronize or work for a company.  Or agree to horrendous working conditions as they had to back in the old days, which libertarians so desperately seem to want to get back to, in order to survive.  And while no, you don't have to work for a certain company, you do have to work somewhere.  Unless you have the ability and the MEANS to start your own business.    If you find the terms of working for any company unsatisfactory, you don't have to work for any of them. There are thousands of pan-handlers and street performers who make more money than I do. You can learn how to juggle in a matter of days (sometimes hours) at virtually no cost. Do that if you find working for a company oppressive. Your complaint seems to be more about convenience than freedom. It's inconvenient for you to live without adhering to certain social norms, without behaving the way companies want you to behave. Just because you can't have everything you want costlessly, doesn't mean you are being oppressed. Everything has tradeoffs.

You're right.  I find it "inconvenient" to live under a bridge, to go without eating three meals a day, and would find it very inconvenient to be forced to beg for money.  Yes, everything has tradeoffs.  For example, I must give 40 hours of my time a week in order to provide myself with a home, food and health care.  Fine.  That's a tradeoff I'm willing to make.  To be forced to do more.  To be forced to live my life a certain way by those in power is unacceptable and to say that what I'm talking about is merely "convenience" I find to be a ridiculous argument.  Food, shelter, health care are not mere "conveniences".

The Doctor wrote: thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: At this point, corporate america has almost unlimited economic power to regulate people's lives.  You keep asserting that, but there is absolutely no evidence for it. There is no company in the U.S. that I am forced to patronize or work for. It isn't about being forced to patronize or work for a particular company.  It is being forced to behave in certain ways, be a certain type of person if you want to patronize or work for a company.  Or agree to horrendous working conditions as they had to back in the old days, which libertarians so desperately seem to want to get back to, in order to survive.  And while no, you don't have to work for a certain company, you do have to work somewhere.  Unless you have the ability and the MEANS to start your own business.    If you find the terms of working for any company unsatisfactory, you don't have to work for any of them. There are thousands of pan-handlers and street performers who make more money than I do. You can learn how to juggle in a matter of days (sometimes hours) at virtually no cost. Do that if you find working for a company oppressive. Your complaint seems to be more about convenience than freedom. It's inconvenient for you to live without adhering to certain social norms, without behaving the way companies want you to behave. Just because you can't have everything you want costlessly, doesn't mean you are being oppressed. Everything has tradeoffs. You're right.  I find it "inconvenient" to live under a bridge, to go without eating three meals a day, and would find it very inconvenient to be forced to beg for money.  Yes, everything has tradeoffs.  For example, I must give 40 hours of my time a week in order to provide myself with a home, food and health care.  Fine.  That's a tradeoff I'm willing to make.  To be forced to do more.  To be forced to live my life a certain way by those in power is unacceptable and to say that what I'm talking about is merely "convenience" I find to be a ridiculous argument.  Food, shelter, health care are not mere "conveniences".

I can't keep up with the point by point on my iPhone at the pace everyone else is, and will make effort to once I get online with a laptop. The llama73 keeps saying ' you don't have to do this' 'you don't have to do that'. But he ignores the nonsensicalness of some of the (non-)options (e.g. healing thyself, or seeking alternative hospitals that simply don't exist in some regions) and the duress that accompanies the options. I think by his standards historic feudal Europe would have to be said to have been a place of liberty. The best I can do for citation on oil companies' power of eminent domain in Texas is that it was a topic of discussion on NPR some time ago. I will work on that.

King of Loss wrote: The Doctor wrote: thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: At this point, corporate america has almost unlimited economic power to regulate people's lives.  You keep asserting that, but there is absolutely no evidence for it. There is no company in the U.S. that I am forced to patronize or work for. It isn't about being forced to patronize or work for a particular company.  It is being forced to behave in certain ways, be a certain type of person if you want to patronize or work for a company.  Or agree to horrendous working conditions as they had to back in the old days, which libertarians so desperately seem to want to get back to, in order to survive.  And while no, you don't have to work for a certain company, you do have to work somewhere.  Unless you have the ability and the MEANS to start your own business.    If you find the terms of working for any company unsatisfactory, you don't have to work for any of them. There are thousands of pan-handlers and street performers who make more money than I do. You can learn how to juggle in a matter of days (sometimes hours) at virtually no cost. Do that if you find working for a company oppressive. Your complaint seems to be more about convenience than freedom. It's inconvenient for you to live without adhering to certain social norms, without behaving the way companies want you to behave. Just because you can't have everything you want costlessly, doesn't mean you are being oppressed. Everything has tradeoffs. You're right.  I find it "inconvenient" to live under a bridge, to go without eating three meals a day, and would find it very inconvenient to be forced to beg for money.  Yes, everything has tradeoffs.  For example, I must give 40 hours of my time a week in order to provide myself with a home, food and health care.  Fine.  That's a tradeoff I'm willing to make.  To be forced to do more.  To be forced to live my life a certain way by those in power is unacceptable and to say that what I'm talking about is merely "convenience" I find to be a ridiculous argument.  Food, shelter, health care are not mere "conveniences". Why should we provide everyone with food, shelter and healthcare? Does that mean activists will eventually come out to give everyone a college education too? Where is the line drawn on "free" things, there's no such thing as a free item, that money has to come from somewhere.

timothy leary wrote: King of Loss wrote: The Doctor wrote: thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: At this point, corporate america has almost unlimited economic power to regulate people's lives.  You keep asserting that, but there is absolutely no evidence for it. There is no company in the U.S. that I am forced to patronize or work for. It isn't about being forced to patronize or work for a particular company.  It is being forced to behave in certain ways, be a certain type of person if you want to patronize or work for a company.  Or agree to horrendous working conditions as they had to back in the old days, which libertarians so desperately seem to want to get back to, in order to survive.  And while no, you don't have to work for a certain company, you do have to work somewhere.  Unless you have the ability and the MEANS to start your own business.    If you find the terms of working for any company unsatisfactory, you don't have to work for any of them. There are thousands of pan-handlers and street performers who make more money than I do. You can learn how to juggle in a matter of days (sometimes hours) at virtually no cost. Do that if you find working for a company oppressive. Your complaint seems to be more about convenience than freedom. It's inconvenient for you to live without adhering to certain social norms, without behaving the way companies want you to behave. Just because you can't have everything you want costlessly, doesn't mean you are being oppressed. Everything has tradeoffs. You're right.  I find it "inconvenient" to live under a bridge, to go without eating three meals a day, and would find it very inconvenient to be forced to beg for money.  Yes, everything has tradeoffs.  For example, I must give 40 hours of my time a week in order to provide myself with a home, food and health care.  Fine.  That's a tradeoff I'm willing to make.  To be forced to do more.  To be forced to live my life a certain way by those in power is unacceptable and to say that what I'm talking about is merely "convenience" I find to be a ridiculous argument.  Food, shelter, health care are not mere "conveniences". Why should we provide everyone with food, shelter and healthcare? Does that mean activists will eventually come out to give everyone a college education too? Where is the line drawn on "free" things, there's no such thing as a free item, that money has to come from somewhere. Unless of course you are in prison where you will be entitled to, food, shelter and healthcare and yes a college education