"Taxing a product is not "forcibly taking away" anything. By your reasoning, the government is forcibly taking away our food, clothes, and pretty much any item we buy."
No. Not the food/clothing itself, but the productivity that would be able to buy more food, clothing, or whatever you want to do with your earnings.
"And really, who's fault is it that someone is not productive unless there is a drug in their bloodstream?"
Ask those with Parkinson's who use L-dopa. (And whether or not you believe smoking alleviates some disorder/disease is irrelevant - the point is that people are choosing to fulfill a personal need or want, and they should be free to do so)
"I think smokers are generally less productive, seeing they have to take breaks to go outside multiple times a day."
And how is that relevant to the discussion? Or are you saying that the less productive should be forced by law to be more productive, in order to support your personal beliefs? If people at your work are lazy and take breaks, complain to your boss. Don't force the government to make a universal change just because you won't go to your boss to fix your own problems.
To me, that simply shows a lack of principles. You're basically saying government-mandated rights violations are bad, unless it is convenient to ignore them.
"I suppose if we differ fundamentally on these two issues, there's really no point in discussing their effect on something further down the chain, as there is no basis for agreement."
Very insightful, and I agree completely.
"Personally, I believe the more powerful a corporation becomes, the more like a government they become. They pay for our politicians, they stomp out private business, and they limit the choices we have as consumers."
Again, you're using examples of government rights violations as the basis for an argument against privatization. Ideally the government would not be able to manipulate the economy, and therefore companies would have no interest in funding politicians.
"In some ways I can understand the libertarian view (assuming that's what you subscribe to)"
Libertarians (as they are commonly understood in the US) are a random bunch of people who happen to agree on certain goals, but whose fundamental goals are so different that the entire group is a big contradiction. Take for example their nomination for president - a person who introduced us to the Defense of Marriage Act, and who has a long history of support for the war on drugs.
"I'm definitely for individual rights, but I don't view the actions of corporations in the same light."
Corporations are funded by individuals with similar interests. That funding is what is being manipulated by a government that tells corporations what they can and cannot do with their property, or who they can and cannot trade with. Corporations are no different from individuals. Without those individuals and their investments, corporations wouldn't exist.
"Honestly, I'd probably vote for more libertarians if they weren't so often socially conservative, which is pretty much my #1 area of political concern."
I can't see myself ever voting Libertarian unless they actually have a chance of winning AND the potential alternatives are much worse.
"Corporations aren't people and do not have individual rights."
Can provide some rationale for this claim or should we just accept it? When a lot of people get together to invest their productivity into something, do they suddenly lose all rights to that productivity?
"I don't want to force people to do anything."
It is force when you tell people who are voluntarily investing in a company that they can no longer do with their own property as they please, or that they can no longer voluntarily trade with certain other parties. The government does not suddenly get access to a bunch of people's property just because those people share the same interests. It is a violation of their property rights.
"This is a big misconception about trans-fats. transfats != junkfood."
Replace my usage of "junk food" with "trans-fats". My reply is the same.
"No, most people are not educated about the subject, and getting the word out is very difficult when you're working against the vast finances of the processed food lobby."
Again, you're using the problems of government manipulation of the economy (lobbyists) in an example against privatization. The government should not be able to manipulate the economy - ideally such lobbyists would not exist.
"If you're against medicaid, wow... but I suppose that's wholly another topic."
It's the same topic: government manipulation of the economy.
Please don't be confused, I am not a Libertarian. I cannot support a party that nominates for president the person who introduced the Defense of Marriage Act and who has a long history in support of the drug war. Libertarians are made up of a mix of random people with widely-varying principles who happen to agree on a couple things. They have some of the same goals, but their ultimate goals are so different that it makes the whole lot of them a big contradiction.
"It's indeed your right to eat poison, but you have to admit that most people would rather not."
And it is their right not to.
"And trans fats are pushed on those innocent people"
And those people voluntarily hand over their money in exchange for such products. If they don't know any better, then you should help spread the knowledge, and donate to worthy causes to inform the public. Eventually enough people will want to avoid trans fats that companies will have to change their food or face losing business.
"In fact, the sooner your do it, the better."
Ad hominem.
"I just want consumers to protected from money grubbing, cigar chumping republican contributors."
You're assuming that the people who would run such a system would not be the exact same type of corrupt individuals that you are fighting against. That would be a bad assumption on your part.
Please don't be confused, I am not a Libertarian. I cannot support a party that nominates for president the person who introduced the Defense of Marriage Act, or has a long history in support of the drug war. Libertarians are made up of a mix of random people with widely-varying principles who happen to agree on a couple things. They have some of the same goals, but their ultimate goals are so different that it makes the whole lot of them a big contradiction.
"The article notes the Japanese law mandating obesity checks, and then goes off to claim that this is somehow related to universal health care."
No, the summary proposes the situation where the US is under universal healthcare (as Japan is), and then asks if we could see similar legislation. It does not assert that such would be the case.
"But, instead of discussing this, you want to claim that government run "anything" is bad."
I did so in order to show why government-mandated waistlines are fundamentally bad. It was not a change in subject.
"it is easy to google and find out how badly that worked"
Can you provide some evidence yourself, or should we assume that it worked out badly?
"And you claim that you don't want police or a judicial system."
Where do I claim that? I am not an anarchist. The purpose of the government is to uphold the rights of the citizenry. This is done through the courts, police, and military. Ideally, their funding would be voluntary but their service would be universal.
"Because I certainly don't agree to inhale second-hand smoking just because I happened to be in a public area."
Question begging. You're using a publicly-mandated service (public area) in an example against privatization. Under a completely private system, there would be no "public area".
If by "public area" you're simply talking about a private property where a lot of people go, then forcing that private property not to allow smoking is a violation of that property owner's rights. It is not a government-owned property. If you don't like a property owner's practices, persuade your friends/family/neighbors not to go to that property either, and you will create a huge incentive for them to change their ways.
Besides the fact that quitting your job and moving to another country is not feasible for most people? Or the fact that such a response is not a refutation, but simply an acceptance of the status quo? The other problem with that response is that it assumes that the status quo is the only choice and therefore moving is the only way around the status quo. The other possibility is persuading the public toward a shift in opinion that results in elected officials who uphold rights rather than hold them hostage for political advantage.
"I say that food companies shouldn't manufacture products that make you sick"
And you are free to say that. I agree with you on that. If you would like to see the world eat less junk food, get the word out to people and donate to worthy causes. Don't force people to accept your position. If they don't want junk food, they will stop buying it and the food producers will need to shape up or face huge losses.
"Anyone educated on the subject understands why we shouldn't have them around."
So then it should only be a matter of time before the food producers have to remove them from their food or lose business.
"you can at least appreciate the cost of medicare and medicaid caused by this stuff"
You're using the cost reduction of a publicly-funded service as a rationale against privatization. That's not a valid point. The whole purpose of my argument is to get rid of such publicly-funded services altogether.
"There are tons of countries in the world today with universal health coverage who don't engage in that kind of stupid law making."
That is according to your definition of "stupid law making", which conveniently excludes the property and privacy rights violations that are required for universal healthcare to even exist.
"mostly accepted these days that being overweight is bad for you"
And for those who don't accept it? Or how about those who do accept it but still choose to be overweight? They should not get such a choice?
"So my health insurance company currently has responsibility to manage every part of my life which effects my health?"
No, because if they tried doing that, people would want their privacy, and would go to another company. So there are incentives to not only keep costs low but to stay out of people's way. When one single entity runs everything, there is no threat of customers leaving, so there is no incentive to keep costs low or to uphold customer privacy rights. On top of that, you no longer get the choice to not be part of the system - you must hand over your share or face the consequences.
What it comes down to is simple: the ends are nice, but they do not justify the means. Forcibly taking away a portion of someone's productivity because they want some choice as to what they do with their body is a violation of their rights as human beings.
"Id like it if most of my tax money wasn't used to fund a war in Iraq."
As would I, but you're right, we have no say in the matter. Maybe we'll eventually see candidates elected that would rather uphold our rights than hold them hostage for their political gain, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
"We don't know how much it would, but studies from cigarette taxes show that increases costs decrease consumption of even highly desirable things."
So fewer and fewer people are getting what they desire, because other anonymous people don't desire it and would like to force them into a position where they can't afford their desires! What an idiotic and indefensible notion.
"Obesity increases fuel consumption -- the obese eat more (more food transport and production fuel use) and weigh more (more transport costs in themselves)."
If they can afford the food, who's to tell them they should be allowed to eat it. What happened to "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness"?
"And yes, their health care costs us -- we should be getting some of that back."
Only if you choose to be part of the system. The difference between that and a publicly-funded system is that you have no choice.
"A small tax..."
It is not the size that matters. Forcibly taking away someone's productivity (in the form of money) is no different from theft.
"because they are costing you more in a private system"
Only if I choose to voluntarily give my money in exchange for insurance. In a public system, I have no choice but to pay for fat people's services. In a private system, I have a choice.
"The question is specious: there are dozens of countries with public health care, but they don't have such crazy restrictions"
It's only specious by your definition of "crazy", which conveniently excludes the extensive property and privacy rights violations that come with government-run healthcare (or government-run anything). You have no choice not to be part of the system. Don't want healthcare? Would rather keep your productivity and use it elsewhere? Don't want to pay for others' healthcare or have a committee determine how your money should best be used? "Too bad. Move if you don't like it" - that is the common response.
Want to remove the monopoly? Simple. Remove the government restriction on the creation of competing lines. The government thinks there shouldn't be multiple lines "doing the same thing". That's a nice opinion, but when backed by force, it results in monopoly control.
It is inevitable in a system of forced public education - where you're required not only to take courses outside your interest, but to do well in those courses - that some geniuses will have their permanent records ruined as a result, to the point where they have no hope of getting a job in the area of their interest.
Of course, by trying to work around the system, he has made it worse for himself...
"The corporation, while being a person for some convenient purposes, is actually not one. As such, no moral imperative."
The moral requirement not to violate the rights of others doesn't disappear simply because a bunch of people have gotten together to work towards one common goal.
"I'm not saying I think they should ignore individual rights. I'm saying they think that, and the culture supports it."
"because people are and always will be greedy and corrupt."
It makes no sense to say people are "corrupt". To be corrupt requires one to deceive or force others to do things against their will. People by definition aren't corrupt. You can assume that by definition but then there is no reason for anyone to take you seriously.
"Corporations get so large that they hold power to coerce government"
Let's break this down. A corporation offers an elected official money in exchange for legislation forcing competitors into a disadvantage. The elected official accepts the offer, takes the money, delivers the legislation, and backs it by force. The government then forces that competitor into that advantage, and if the competitor resists, the government can shut the competitor down or apply additional force.
Now, I ask you how to stop this from happening, and I suggest that the only solution is to prohibit the government from applying force to someone without just cause - such as to prevent rights violations, or to bring a criminal to justice, for example.
You would rather go after the companies. The problem is that there will always be new companies, and they will always find a way to entice politicians. The problem is not with the companies, but with the politicians willing to accept the bribes. That is where to place the blame. Officials who are charged with upholding rights, are freely violating them in exchange for bribes.
"Without a law, explain why DuPont wouldn't stop dumping paint in the Hudson if it saved them money."
Without a law preventing private ownership of the Hudson, the Hudson would be privately owned, and that owner has a right not to have their property destroyed by surrounding property. They could practically sue DuPont out of existence if that happened. When the government decides it owns a piece of property, and does not bother to treat it as a property owner would treat their property, then you end up with situations like this - the Cuyahoga River fire comes to mind.
"It started with the indigenous population, spread to slavery, and now we are nice enough to kill foreigners who happen to be nearby the resources we consider necessary to our lifestyle. I consider this morally reprehensible and the worst kind of greed."
And I agree. You listed rights violations, and are equating greed with violating rights, but greed by itself is not a rights violation. Only a rights violation is a rights violation. Wanting the most product from your money and work is not by itself immoral, and that is all that is represented by the word "greed".
"The corruption of a corporation, or the collusion of government and a corporation are inevitable."
You have not shown that to be true. It is only inevitable if you permit a government to pass laws violating rights.
"You can either eliminate the corporate entity or the government."
Nope. Neither choice is correct. The former violates the rights of every citizen to pursue their own interests. And eliminating the government leaves you open to rights violations.
"If you can point out a society that you would like to emulate that has done otherwise, I'd love to hear about it."
And if I choose not to emulate any past society... then what? You win the argument?
"When corporations have less rights than people, it will be less of a problem, as the corporations who don't have a positive impact for the society they operate in are dissolved."
A pure assumption backed up by no evidence or rationale. On top of that, you assume that the ends justify the means.
"Which rights are automatically taken away from you in a well regulated economy?"
My right to life - my right to do with my time, my labor, my productivity, and my products, what I please, and freely trade with who I please. Economic regulation by definition is a force-backed resolution controll
If the government is forcing these companies to wiretap, then the companies are not to blame. They should not be prosecuted for wiretapping. However, I do still disagree with this legislation, as I believe it paves the way for further rights violations.
Slashdot Mirror
"Taxing a product is not "forcibly taking away" anything. By your reasoning, the government is forcibly taking away our food, clothes, and pretty much any item we buy."
No. Not the food/clothing itself, but the productivity that would be able to buy more food, clothing, or whatever you want to do with your earnings.
"And really, who's fault is it that someone is not productive unless there is a drug in their bloodstream?"
Ask those with Parkinson's who use L-dopa. (And whether or not you believe smoking alleviates some disorder/disease is irrelevant - the point is that people are choosing to fulfill a personal need or want, and they should be free to do so)
"I think smokers are generally less productive, seeing they have to take breaks to go outside multiple times a day."
And how is that relevant to the discussion? Or are you saying that the less productive should be forced by law to be more productive, in order to support your personal beliefs? If people at your work are lazy and take breaks, complain to your boss. Don't force the government to make a universal change just because you won't go to your boss to fix your own problems.
"I'm somewhere in between the extremes"
To me, that simply shows a lack of principles. You're basically saying government-mandated rights violations are bad, unless it is convenient to ignore them.
"I suppose if we differ fundamentally on these two issues, there's really no point in discussing their effect on something further down the chain, as there is no basis for agreement."
Very insightful, and I agree completely.
"Personally, I believe the more powerful a corporation becomes, the more like a government they become. They pay for our politicians, they stomp out private business, and they limit the choices we have as consumers."
Again, you're using examples of government rights violations as the basis for an argument against privatization. Ideally the government would not be able to manipulate the economy, and therefore companies would have no interest in funding politicians.
"In some ways I can understand the libertarian view (assuming that's what you subscribe to)"
Libertarians (as they are commonly understood in the US) are a random bunch of people who happen to agree on certain goals, but whose fundamental goals are so different that the entire group is a big contradiction. Take for example their nomination for president - a person who introduced us to the Defense of Marriage Act, and who has a long history of support for the war on drugs.
"I'm definitely for individual rights, but I don't view the actions of corporations in the same light."
Corporations are funded by individuals with similar interests. That funding is what is being manipulated by a government that tells corporations what they can and cannot do with their property, or who they can and cannot trade with. Corporations are no different from individuals. Without those individuals and their investments, corporations wouldn't exist.
"Honestly, I'd probably vote for more libertarians if they weren't so often socially conservative, which is pretty much my #1 area of political concern."
I can't see myself ever voting Libertarian unless they actually have a chance of winning AND the potential alternatives are much worse.
"Corporations aren't people and do not have individual rights."
Can provide some rationale for this claim or should we just accept it? When a lot of people get together to invest their productivity into something, do they suddenly lose all rights to that productivity?
"I don't want to force people to do anything."
It is force when you tell people who are voluntarily investing in a company that they can no longer do with their own property as they please, or that they can no longer voluntarily trade with certain other parties. The government does not suddenly get access to a bunch of people's property just because those people share the same interests. It is a violation of their property rights.
"This is a big misconception about trans-fats. transfats != junkfood."
Replace my usage of "junk food" with "trans-fats". My reply is the same.
"No, most people are not educated about the subject, and getting the word out is very difficult when you're working against the vast finances of the processed food lobby."
Again, you're using the problems of government manipulation of the economy (lobbyists) in an example against privatization. The government should not be able to manipulate the economy - ideally such lobbyists would not exist.
"If you're against medicaid, wow... but I suppose that's wholly another topic."
It's the same topic: government manipulation of the economy.
Please don't be confused, I am not a Libertarian. I cannot support a party that nominates for president the person who introduced the Defense of Marriage Act and who has a long history in support of the drug war. Libertarians are made up of a mix of random people with widely-varying principles who happen to agree on a couple things. They have some of the same goals, but their ultimate goals are so different that it makes the whole lot of them a big contradiction.
"It's indeed your right to eat poison, but you have to admit that most people would rather not."
And it is their right not to.
"And trans fats are pushed on those innocent people"
And those people voluntarily hand over their money in exchange for such products. If they don't know any better, then you should help spread the knowledge, and donate to worthy causes to inform the public. Eventually enough people will want to avoid trans fats that companies will have to change their food or face losing business.
"In fact, the sooner your do it, the better."
Ad hominem.
"I just want consumers to protected from money grubbing, cigar chumping republican contributors."
You're assuming that the people who would run such a system would not be the exact same type of corrupt individuals that you are fighting against. That would be a bad assumption on your part.
Please don't be confused, I am not a Libertarian. I cannot support a party that nominates for president the person who introduced the Defense of Marriage Act, or has a long history in support of the drug war. Libertarians are made up of a mix of random people with widely-varying principles who happen to agree on a couple things. They have some of the same goals, but their ultimate goals are so different that it makes the whole lot of them a big contradiction.
"The article notes the Japanese law mandating obesity checks, and then goes off to claim that this is somehow related to universal health care."
No, the summary proposes the situation where the US is under universal healthcare (as Japan is), and then asks if we could see similar legislation. It does not assert that such would be the case. "But, instead of discussing this, you want to claim that government run "anything" is bad."
I did so in order to show why government-mandated waistlines are fundamentally bad. It was not a change in subject.
"it is easy to google and find out how badly that worked"
Can you provide some evidence yourself, or should we assume that it worked out badly?
"And you claim that you don't want police or a judicial system."
Where do I claim that? I am not an anarchist. The purpose of the government is to uphold the rights of the citizenry. This is done through the courts, police, and military. Ideally, their funding would be voluntary but their service would be universal.
"Because I certainly don't agree to inhale second-hand smoking just because I happened to be in a public area."
Question begging. You're using a publicly-mandated service (public area) in an example against privatization. Under a completely private system, there would be no "public area".
If by "public area" you're simply talking about a private property where a lot of people go, then forcing that private property not to allow smoking is a violation of that property owner's rights. It is not a government-owned property. If you don't like a property owner's practices, persuade your friends/family/neighbors not to go to that property either, and you will create a huge incentive for them to change their ways.
"But what's wrong with that response?"
Besides the fact that quitting your job and moving to another country is not feasible for most people? Or the fact that such a response is not a refutation, but simply an acceptance of the status quo? The other problem with that response is that it assumes that the status quo is the only choice and therefore moving is the only way around the status quo. The other possibility is persuading the public toward a shift in opinion that results in elected officials who uphold rights rather than hold them hostage for political advantage.
"I say that food companies shouldn't manufacture products that make you sick"
And you are free to say that. I agree with you on that. If you would like to see the world eat less junk food, get the word out to people and donate to worthy causes. Don't force people to accept your position. If they don't want junk food, they will stop buying it and the food producers will need to shape up or face huge losses.
"Anyone educated on the subject understands why we shouldn't have them around."
So then it should only be a matter of time before the food producers have to remove them from their food or lose business.
"you can at least appreciate the cost of medicare and medicaid caused by this stuff"
You're using the cost reduction of a publicly-funded service as a rationale against privatization. That's not a valid point. The whole purpose of my argument is to get rid of such publicly-funded services altogether.
"There are tons of countries in the world today with universal health coverage who don't engage in that kind of stupid law making."
That is according to your definition of "stupid law making", which conveniently excludes the property and privacy rights violations that are required for universal healthcare to even exist .
"mostly accepted these days that being overweight is bad for you"
And for those who don't accept it? Or how about those who do accept it but still choose to be overweight? They should not get such a choice?
"So my health insurance company currently has responsibility to manage every part of my life which effects my health?"
No, because if they tried doing that, people would want their privacy, and would go to another company. So there are incentives to not only keep costs low but to stay out of people's way. When one single entity runs everything, there is no threat of customers leaving, so there is no incentive to keep costs low or to uphold customer privacy rights. On top of that, you no longer get the choice to not be part of the system - you must hand over your share or face the consequences.
"Keiko, you best trim down that waistline or face termination!"
"But I'm pregnant!"
"The law's the law. You know what you need to do..."
What it comes down to is simple: the ends are nice, but they do not justify the means. Forcibly taking away a portion of someone's productivity because they want some choice as to what they do with their body is a violation of their rights as human beings.
"Id like it if most of my tax money wasn't used to fund a war in Iraq."
As would I, but you're right, we have no say in the matter. Maybe we'll eventually see candidates elected that would rather uphold our rights than hold them hostage for their political gain, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
"We don't know how much it would, but studies from cigarette taxes show that increases costs decrease consumption of even highly desirable things."
So fewer and fewer people are getting what they desire, because other anonymous people don't desire it and would like to force them into a position where they can't afford their desires! What an idiotic and indefensible notion.
"Obesity increases fuel consumption -- the obese eat more (more food transport and production fuel use) and weigh more (more transport costs in themselves)."
If they can afford the food, who's to tell them they should be allowed to eat it. What happened to "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness"?
"And yes, their health care costs us -- we should be getting some of that back."
Only if you choose to be part of the system. The difference between that and a publicly-funded system is that you have no choice.
"A small tax..."
It is not the size that matters. Forcibly taking away someone's productivity (in the form of money) is no different from theft.
How about if I want to eat foods high in trans-fats? Now I have to move to another country?!
Or are you saying I should not get to choose what I eat?
"because they are costing you more in a private system"
Only if I choose to voluntarily give my money in exchange for insurance. In a public system, I have no choice but to pay for fat people's services. In a private system, I have a choice.
"The question is specious: there are dozens of countries with public health care, but they don't have such crazy restrictions"
It's only specious by your definition of "crazy", which conveniently excludes the extensive property and privacy rights violations that come with government-run healthcare (or government-run anything). You have no choice not to be part of the system. Don't want healthcare? Would rather keep your productivity and use it elsewhere? Don't want to pay for others' healthcare or have a committee determine how your money should best be used? "Too bad. Move if you don't like it" - that is the common response.
Want to remove the monopoly? Simple. Remove the government restriction on the creation of competing lines. The government thinks there shouldn't be multiple lines "doing the same thing". That's a nice opinion, but when backed by force, it results in monopoly control.
It is inevitable in a system of forced public education - where you're required not only to take courses outside your interest, but to do well in those courses - that some geniuses will have their permanent records ruined as a result, to the point where they have no hope of getting a job in the area of their interest.
Of course, by trying to work around the system, he has made it worse for himself...
"Don't know much history, do you?"
A pithy ad hominem unsupported by any rationale as evidence -- ignored. If you'd like to actually provide some evidence or rationale, let us know.
"The corporation, while being a person for some convenient purposes, is actually not one. As such, no moral imperative."
The moral requirement not to violate the rights of others doesn't disappear simply because a bunch of people have gotten together to work towards one common goal.
"I'm not saying I think they should ignore individual rights. I'm saying they think that, and the culture supports it."
And none of these beliefs make it a reality.
"because people are and always will be greedy and corrupt."
It makes no sense to say people are "corrupt". To be corrupt requires one to deceive or force others to do things against their will. People by definition aren't corrupt. You can assume that by definition but then there is no reason for anyone to take you seriously.
"Corporations get so large that they hold power to coerce government"
Let's break this down. A corporation offers an elected official money in exchange for legislation forcing competitors into a disadvantage. The elected official accepts the offer, takes the money, delivers the legislation, and backs it by force. The government then forces that competitor into that advantage, and if the competitor resists, the government can shut the competitor down or apply additional force.
Now, I ask you how to stop this from happening, and I suggest that the only solution is to prohibit the government from applying force to someone without just cause - such as to prevent rights violations, or to bring a criminal to justice, for example.
You would rather go after the companies. The problem is that there will always be new companies, and they will always find a way to entice politicians. The problem is not with the companies, but with the politicians willing to accept the bribes. That is where to place the blame. Officials who are charged with upholding rights, are freely violating them in exchange for bribes.
"Without a law, explain why DuPont wouldn't stop dumping paint in the Hudson if it saved them money."
Without a law preventing private ownership of the Hudson, the Hudson would be privately owned, and that owner has a right not to have their property destroyed by surrounding property. They could practically sue DuPont out of existence if that happened. When the government decides it owns a piece of property, and does not bother to treat it as a property owner would treat their property, then you end up with situations like this - the Cuyahoga River fire comes to mind.
"It started with the indigenous population, spread to slavery, and now we are nice enough to kill foreigners who happen to be nearby the resources we consider necessary to our lifestyle. I consider this morally reprehensible and the worst kind of greed."
And I agree. You listed rights violations, and are equating greed with violating rights, but greed by itself is not a rights violation. Only a rights violation is a rights violation. Wanting the most product from your money and work is not by itself immoral, and that is all that is represented by the word "greed".
"The corruption of a corporation, or the collusion of government and a corporation are inevitable."
You have not shown that to be true. It is only inevitable if you permit a government to pass laws violating rights.
"You can either eliminate the corporate entity or the government."
Nope. Neither choice is correct. The former violates the rights of every citizen to pursue their own interests. And eliminating the government leaves you open to rights violations.
"If you can point out a society that you would like to emulate that has done otherwise, I'd love to hear about it."
And if I choose not to emulate any past society... then what? You win the argument?
"When corporations have less rights than people, it will be less of a problem, as the corporations who don't have a positive impact for the society they operate in are dissolved."
A pure assumption backed up by no evidence or rationale. On top of that, you assume that the ends justify the means.
"Which rights are automatically taken away from you in a well regulated economy?"
My right to life - my right to do with my time, my labor, my productivity, and my products, what I please, and freely trade with who I please. Economic regulation by definition is a force-backed resolution controll
"What exactly constitutes a corrupt company?"
A company or individual that persuades officials to pass favorable legislation backed by government force.
"Corporations have no moral imperative."
Everyone has a moral imperative to uphold individual rights.
If the government is forcing these companies to wiretap, then the companies are not to blame. They should not be prosecuted for wiretapping. However, I do still disagree with this legislation, as I believe it paves the way for further rights violations.
And I am in agreement with you. I said antithesis , not epitome.