I am against gov't spending, including military. Defence is one thing, having a standing army to attack everybody is something else.
By the way, SS spending makes your economy go kaboom eventually, pretty far away from being 'ok'.
As to natural resources, etc., there shouldn't be any public property, all property should be owned privately and only then it can be mined. So if gov't owns some property that can be used for business, it should auction it off and use the proceeds to offset the taxes, that's how the people get some profit from selling this 'public property' at first, and secondly they get the benefit of the private company actually extracting the mineral, energy source, whatever, and putting it on the market for everybody to bid on.
You truly believe that it is about money, as in paper, don't you? The wealth is not paper, it's not money, money is just a store of value, means of exchange and a unit of account (that's why gold is actually a good way to store value and paper is not), the real wealth is production.
Those minerals do us no good sitting underground unexplored, but we can actually use them if somebody extracts them, and paying for the extraction is just an added value, but we want somebody to extract it and let us use it.
Yes, let's just euthanize the do-nothing elderly, disabled, and parasitic welfare recipients. They're no more useful than bacteria. That will free up lots of resources that could be better spent on you.
- my resources are definitely better spent on me, that's not even a question. The question is what does society gain by creating a class of people that do not produce anything?
Again, carefully examine the situation: you have a group of people that produce nothing. Do you think that they should be able to require that society somehow takes care of them and they, themselves will not be doing anything that society could get back from them in return?
Do you understand what trade is? Do you think trade is about 1 person producing and 1 person buying with paper money without producing, because he got this money from somebody else? What is the reason for the producer in this situation to exchange his production for money that is given to him by somebody who didn't produce anything?
Now, you are obviously creating a straw argument, not something that was under discussion, from the elderly and the disabled, probably to children.
Obviously the response is clear (not to you, but to me it is). The elderly people have produced over their lives, they have savings (or they should have savings), savings is what they produced and saved in order to retire at some point.
As to the disabled... the truly disabled, those who cannot work at all, they should be taken care of by charity of-course, not by any government, not by force and threat of violence.
The children are responsibility of their parents, and parents should have insurance for cases where they cannot take care of their children, this is just a prudent thing to do. If parents don't care about their children enough to ensure the well being of their own children, why should anybody else? Of-course again, there are charities for children, no question about it. Plenty of people donate plenty of money for such causes.
All of your examples have nothing to do at all with what is discussed, so your straw argument is burning.
I'd add this. In life, there's more to productivity than the paycheck at the end of the week, and more to value than the number of hours one spends working a job.
- of-course it's not about the 'paycheck', the paycheck is only a reflection of what was actually created. The wealth was generated by work, money is only an expression of that work.
This is an obscenity. People are not, under any circumstances, bacteria colonies. Not even metaphorically.
- I disagree. I think people could be worse than bacteria colonies, because unlike bacteria people are actually capable of doing something that differentiates them from bacteria by doing something that is not simply their programmed DNA function.
If there is a set of people, whose activity is indistinguishable in its outcome from activity that is observed in a bacteria colony, then there is no difference.
People can do a number of things without engaging in any productive activity if they are given resources for this by somebody else. If somebody provides a group of people with all the food they could eat, with all the clothing they need, with shelter and various other basic necessities, and if the behaviour of this group results in an outcome, that is indistinguishable from outcome of a bacteria colony that is given unlimited resources to eat and live in, then again, there is no difference.
For a person to be a person and not bacteria, he or she has to do something beyond eating, drinking, watching sports or whatever they watch, bathing themselves and procreating.
If that's their activity, then there is absolutely NO qualitative difference between this group of people and a full Petri dish. For people to be different, they have to imagine things that they are not programmed to do simply for survival as directed by nature, but they have to go beyond it, they have to think of ways to change their circumstance and they have to act upon it and do it.
Without productivity, people are not at all different from any other animal that lives only in the moment, not thinking of anything.
To me actually, the people who live that way are worse than bacteria. Bacteria doesn't have a choice.
So, if you don't give the poor the tools to succeed
- they have all the tools necessary, the have the productive economy around it (well, the less gov't exists around you, the more productive the economy is, it's unfortunate that USA is so unproductive today because of all this government).
The tools are right here, right in front of them. Prices are still very low, and when gov't is not involved and there is more free market, the prices only go lower and lower, as is the case with the electronics market, the computer market, the Internet, etc. The food industry, starting with the agriculture is unfortunately subsidised, so the prices are much higher than they should be, but still they are low enough, even the poorest don't actually starve.
Of-course your argument looks at the CURRENT situation, which is already very problematic BECAUSE of massive amounts of government, and you are saying: in this situation the poor have no tools, so it's the free market fault!
Well, it's either complete lack of logic or a lie on your part. I suppose you don't care about the fact that the Federal reserve makes it its priority to prop up PRICES for things that should fall in price.
All the various assets that are bought with the fake money, all the fake insurance guarantees by the government, designed to prop up the failing business models that help to hold prices up for things that should fall in price, yet I am sure you are blaming the 'free market' for something that is purely government doing.
Should the poor pull themselves by the bootstraps? Well, the bootstraps would be very useful in this situation, in case of the free market there would have been actual savings in the system, so regardless of your current situation, should you come to a bank with a business proposal, you'd get a loan.
But not today, you won't get a business loan today. All loans go to the government, the loans are made with fake money of-course, and the price on money is fake (interest rate), so there are no savings and no business could get a loan with REAL interest rates, that are probably in triple digits today, not even in double digits.
Should the poor pull themselves up by the bootstraps?
How about allowing the businesses that EXIST operate without government interference? There are still people who can invest but they end up moving their investments and productivity somewhere else. Some of those poor people could be working for these investors, but in the political climate that sets up all sorts of rules while destroying the currency itself, only an idiot would try and invest and build an actual viable productive business.
As to equality - how about having equality where it REALLY COUNTS? Equality before LAW?
How about making sure that the government cannot discriminate against some and put obligations upon them, while giving out subsidies to others, by telling them they are entitled to something from those, who have obligations. This is codified in the law, so definitely there is no equality.
As to social unrest, well obviously it's coming, but of-course the people who will suffer are not those who truly deserve to suffer, it is never those who suffer who are actually the cause of the problem.
Those who will suffer will be those who didn't actually turn the country around, from being a wealth generating republic into this democratic quasi-socialist, but really a very much fascist regime, which merges the interests of the political elite with the chosen companies to run monopoly businesses in everything.
Government bail outs, stimulus packages and nationalisation are a good example of what so wrong with the system today, none of it should have ever happened. The people themselves should have never allowed it, but they did and they did NOT take down the government that became this obviously corrupt, they didn't mobilise and take it down.
Eventually these people, they won't have a choice but to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, th
A corporation is a fictitious entity and behind every fictitious entity there is a person (one or more), so corporations have the same rights as their owners because corporations are an expression of their owners.
There is a real problem there, but it's not what everybody is trying to make out it is. The real problem is the limiting of liability to the people that stand behind this fictitious entity.
The real problem is that government is involved in determining what a corporation is. It should not be government that determines what a corporation is, that's the beginning of the problem in the first place, that government defines that a corporation, as a fictitious entity, can be used to shield the people behind it from liability for damage that the corporation can cause.
If the people behind the corporation didn't have government limiting their liability against harm, there wouldn't be this problem of moral hazard - where the corporation allows the people to be shielded away from responsibility for their actions.
Of-course without such shielding there would have been a different problem - how is the blame assigned exactly? But again, if the government wasn't getting its hands into this, it would have been just decided by civil courts in case of property damage and in criminal courts in case of injury or death to people.
As to the right to free speech, again, this is not about the corporation's right to speech, it's about the right to speech of the people in the corporation, and as a fictitious entity it is just a front to people.
So yes, corporation should have all the rights of its owners, it represents them legally. BUT it shouldn't simultaneously be a manner, in which personal responsibility is delegated to a fictitious entity.
composed in great part by con-artists, frauds, sociopaths, psychopaths, and other such ilk that use deceit, manipulation, power and opression just as much if not more than any system of governmen
- the more reasons NOT to give government ANY power over individuals in the market, over money, because those who are the con artists in the free market will immediately be looking (and finding) ways to get into the government and that is what happened and the damage is obvious.
In the free market there are con artists, there is fraud, everything that exists with or without any market in all situations under all circumstances and with all societies, because one lucrative way to get ahead is by committing fraud. It's the EASIEST way to get ahead, especially if you are good at it.
Now take that kind of a person and give him power. Well that's what government is all about - giving power over many to a few, and the few who are in power are there not because they like free market, not because they want to produce something that people value, but because it is the shortest distance between two points: not having and having things you want.
The shortest path between being poor and rich is through violence, and government power gives the protection to those, who are willing to use the violence.
In the free market the con-artists exist, the fraud exists, etc., but it is not a systematic problem, it is an unavoidable problem of humanity, regardless of the system.
For some reason you think that having gov't removes this problem, I don't understand how many examples do you really need? From Enron and Madoff (and SEC new for years) to any type of smaller fraudsters, like the NIA - fraud exists, and gov't isn't stopping it, in fact it often protects giant fraud in private sector, that's the problem.
BUT gov't itself is a complete fraud, it's filled with thieves, people in it give themselves exclusion to insider trading rules, for example, yet they are the ultimate insiders. They set the law, they decide which company wins and which loses (a simple example would be FDA deciding on drug outcomes) and they use information to make money by trading before everybody else finds out what they decided, that's real fraud, and it's an everyday thing that is happening in gov't.
Gov't fraud is always much bigger in scope than any private fraud. FDA, FHA, FDIC, Fed, these are all examples of how gov't commits massive fraud on national and even international levels. The biggest thieves are IN government.
My point is that gov't shouldn't be allowed to steal from individuals, and I am talking about rights.
Gov't shouldn't be allowed to tell an employer that he must pay a certain wage to anybody - that is THEFT. That is right there - the right of free association, right of private property, they are violated.
The very idea that gov't should be able to regulate business activity and tax income is completely insane, that is exactly how you destroy the economy.
Anyway, I have things to do and little time to do them in.
Yeah, right, bullshit. The left is using the tactic of turning people into a dependent class in order to gain massive populist vote, and people on welfare are quite likely to be voting, what else do they have to spend their time on?
Of-course the welfare queens are also government workers, gov't is a massive welfare program, so whoever is actually employed by the government is a powerful voting block as well, and those employed by the gov't have plenty to lose if the gov't is cut.
Nothing is nullified, politicians gain power with populist politics.
Where is the answer to the question: what does one gain by feeding the unproductive?
Your answer to this is what?
Again: what does one get for doing work and giving it up to feed and shelter somebody who does not produce and thus can never repay?
Genocide? Is your belief that majority of people are worthless and want to live on welfare and if left alone by the do-gooders, such as yourself will simply lay down and die instead of figuring out how to participate in the market economy?
What do you mean, "I don't think you do". Of-course I do, there is home security, and the service that takes care of the car. In some cases there is on-site security for the meetings, there is some private insurance, there are all forms of security that people pay for, quite a number of people pay for it, otherwise those services wouldn't have existed.
if they don't do anything, their presence alone is powerful.......... not like you can't whip them to start doing something. Failing that, they probably still have useful organs.
- well, if you like being a king of the hill, surrounded by ASS KISSING SLAVES, then yes, that's what you'd want, isn't it?
If that's your ideal, then don't talk to me about 'moral superiority'.
Neither idea is compelling to me: being somebody's slave or owning slaves.
winner of what? What do you get for feeding and housing people who don't do anything productive?
So in your estimation, what is it that a producer gains from housing and feeding people who do not do anything?
You think he is going to get their gratitude? For how long, just until the time he again overproduces and buys himself something that those people he is feeding and housing will be jealous of and will again, go to the barricades to make sure that 'wealth is evenly distributed'?
Why would a producer need gratitude, he is already doing what he needs for himself, he clearly can take care of himself and the best gratitude is not from people who don't produce anything in return. Their gratitude is worth precisely 0.
The gratitude that market provides, that is what is important. You produce something and somebody else produces what they can, and you exchange - THAT is gratitude. That is real. That is not bullshit, it's not a waste, it shows that your efforts are actually appreciated that others are willing to take what they do and exchange it for what you do.
Getting gratitude from bums is easy, but it is also not very lasting and it's dangerous, that type of gratitude quickly becomes envy.
Feeding and sheltering billions of people for nothing, for no productive output, that's a huge waste of resources. It's much less resource consuming just to wipe out the Petri dish with some cleaning solution.
by the way, your statement doesn't address the question.
The question is:
- winner of what? What do you get for feeding and housing people who don't do anything productive?
What do you get for doing something for people that don't do anything? What? Is it just a way to buy them off, so they don't attack you? So you have to become their slave, do work for them, and they won't do anything for you except not killing you, while still hating you because you did this for them and they couldn't do it?
Then why not use a much small amount of resources and just dispose of those people only one time?
I think of and produce something that is found to be useful by the market, and what I produce is not part of my DNA programming.
To me the difference between an individual human and an individual bacteria is the ability of the human to find something to do that is useful to me, that is all.
generosity, something you can't understand, will replace government social programmes
- well actually I am against charity on principle, but unfortunately people have this desire to be charitable, thus creating a situation where gov't says that charity will be enforced by threat of violence via taxes, thus turning something that is a private situation (somebody getting charity from a specific person or a group) to a situation where people who in fact are living on charity (welfare, SS, etc.), and it become entrenched so that the people on charity start believing that they are ENTITLED to it, so the gov't must steal from some with threat of violence, and give it to individuals who think they are entitled to it.
Why are they entitled to it? Why is anybody made to feel that they are entitled to the society to enforce stealing from the productive members and giving to the unproductive, (which is what I am talking about - the Petri dish of human bacteria).
There's always a shortage of tradesmen in this country but for some reason my government would much rather pay the unemployed a fortune to sit at home than the 5000GBP to train them to do something useful.
- you are right, those people shouldn't be paid for sitting at home, specifically they are paid with tax payer (or borrowed or printed) money and then they buy the wealth produced by those some people that paid the taxes, so it's double thievery.
But your question is strange, do you honestly not understand why government does what it does? Gov't is a system of power, with politicians fighting for this power for personal benefit.
The best way to become powerful in government is to have the most support by the mob, and giving free things to the mob is the best way to get popular support. It's the worst thing for the economy and for the country, but it's the best thing for the politicians.
You said this in another comment:
You really hate people don't you.
. People. As in a collective of two legged, two handed animals that want to do nothing and steal whatever they can?
I like INDIVIDUALS that do something useful, something that I can trade for with them.
People, as a collection of thieves and lazy bums? I don't feel anything more towards them than I feel towards a Petri dish filled with bacteria.
Poverty is only a matter of relativity, we are all poor compared to Bill Gates, but compared to a King of 10th century, we are quite wealthy - we have everything that he didn't have, cars, indoor plumbing, TVs, phones, computers, medicine, air travel, etc.etc.
The best system to increase productivity and push prices down is free market capitalism, governments steal the individual freedoms of people and thus they steal freedoms of businesses and then they sell these freedoms to preferred corporations and lock out the competition. This prevents competition, prevents prices from falling, coupled with inflation (money printing by gov't) this raises prices.
The gov't is so worried about deflation that its policy is inflation, which causes prices to go up, so how about those 'poor' that gov't is supposedly worried about? (never mind that USA had deflation up until 1913, while competition was huge, productivity was growing, wealth was growing, distribution of wealth was growing (exports and consequentially USA became largest creditor of the time)
The reason USA capitalists are moving savings and investments out of USA is not NAFTA or WTO, it's US government, with its spending, taxes, regulations.
As to what people should do once they have medical care, food clothing and shelter - entire industries that were and are still created doing things other than basic survival.
My point is that having billions of people on welfare, doing nothing, inspiring to nothing (except eating, watching sports and procreation it seems) provides outcome that is indistinguishable from billions of bacteria.
Maybe bacteria doesn't have 'hopes and dreams', but if the actual OUTCOME of the activity between a human population and a Petri dish with billions of bacteria in it is largely the same (procreation or multiplication and eating), well then, I don't see why should anybody who actually produces something should care to support either those humans any more than he'd be compelled to support the inhabitants of that Petri dish.
They shouldn't have to 'learn to do' anything to figure out what the needs are of people in the market and try and satisfy those needs.
Again, tell me, what's the difference between say 1 billion people living completely on welfare, not producing anything and a bacteria colony with 1 billion individual bacteria in it? AFAIC the difference is that the people are bigger and require more energy to be sustained, that's it, no other difference.
If you could come up with a proposal for feeding and housing all those people who lose their income then you'd be on to a winner.
- winner of what? What do you get for feeding and housing people who don't do anything productive?
How about this: they start doing something other than what they were doing before they got laid off because their particular labour could be done more efficiently without them?
I don't see what we gain as a society at all by creating incentives for people to live lives without doing anything. What's the purpose, to have them fill all of the available space, so that eventually there is again a problem of 'haves and have nots' in perpetuity?
People shouldn't be on charity for the entire lives, do you think it is even good psychologically to have a society of people who do nothing, that are clothed, well fed, cared for and they do nothing.
What is the difference between them and a bacteria colony exactly and why should anybody who produces something care for a bacteria colony?
Slashdot Mirror
the language is called: typing too fast and not checking the result.
Lawyers, the people that market trains to in order to find ways to mitigate the damage caused by something known as 'laws'.
You can't solve the problem by looking at the symptoms, as usual in these cases, the actual root cause of the problem goes unnoticed.
I am against gov't spending, including military. Defence is one thing, having a standing army to attack everybody is something else.
By the way, SS spending makes your economy go kaboom eventually, pretty far away from being 'ok'.
As to natural resources, etc., there shouldn't be any public property, all property should be owned privately and only then it can be mined. So if gov't owns some property that can be used for business, it should auction it off and use the proceeds to offset the taxes, that's how the people get some profit from selling this 'public property' at first, and secondly they get the benefit of the private company actually extracting the mineral, energy source, whatever, and putting it on the market for everybody to bid on.
You truly believe that it is about money, as in paper, don't you? The wealth is not paper, it's not money, money is just a store of value, means of exchange and a unit of account (that's why gold is actually a good way to store value and paper is not), the real wealth is production.
Those minerals do us no good sitting underground unexplored, but we can actually use them if somebody extracts them, and paying for the extraction is just an added value, but we want somebody to extract it and let us use it.
Yes, let's just euthanize the do-nothing elderly, disabled, and parasitic welfare recipients. They're no more useful than bacteria. That will free up lots of resources that could be better spent on you.
- my resources are definitely better spent on me, that's not even a question. The question is what does society gain by creating a class of people that do not produce anything?
Again, carefully examine the situation: you have a group of people that produce nothing. Do you think that they should be able to require that society somehow takes care of them and they, themselves will not be doing anything that society could get back from them in return?
Do you understand what trade is? Do you think trade is about 1 person producing and 1 person buying with paper money without producing, because he got this money from somebody else? What is the reason for the producer in this situation to exchange his production for money that is given to him by somebody who didn't produce anything?
Now, you are obviously creating a straw argument, not something that was under discussion, from the elderly and the disabled, probably to children.
Obviously the response is clear (not to you, but to me it is). The elderly people have produced over their lives, they have savings (or they should have savings), savings is what they produced and saved in order to retire at some point.
As to the disabled... the truly disabled, those who cannot work at all, they should be taken care of by charity of-course, not by any government, not by force and threat of violence.
The children are responsibility of their parents, and parents should have insurance for cases where they cannot take care of their children, this is just a prudent thing to do. If parents don't care about their children enough to ensure the well being of their own children, why should anybody else? Of-course again, there are charities for children, no question about it. Plenty of people donate plenty of money for such causes.
All of your examples have nothing to do at all with what is discussed, so your straw argument is burning.
wrong, I am the biggest humanist of all, I want people to be individuals, actual persons and not bacteria.
I'd add this. In life, there's more to productivity than the paycheck at the end of the week, and more to value than the number of hours one spends working a job.
- of-course it's not about the 'paycheck', the paycheck is only a reflection of what was actually created. The wealth was generated by work, money is only an expression of that work.
This is an obscenity. People are not, under any circumstances, bacteria colonies. Not even metaphorically.
- I disagree. I think people could be worse than bacteria colonies, because unlike bacteria people are actually capable of doing something that differentiates them from bacteria by doing something that is not simply their programmed DNA function.
If there is a set of people, whose activity is indistinguishable in its outcome from activity that is observed in a bacteria colony, then there is no difference.
People can do a number of things without engaging in any productive activity if they are given resources for this by somebody else. If somebody provides a group of people with all the food they could eat, with all the clothing they need, with shelter and various other basic necessities, and if the behaviour of this group results in an outcome, that is indistinguishable from outcome of a bacteria colony that is given unlimited resources to eat and live in, then again, there is no difference.
For a person to be a person and not bacteria, he or she has to do something beyond eating, drinking, watching sports or whatever they watch, bathing themselves and procreating.
If that's their activity, then there is absolutely NO qualitative difference between this group of people and a full Petri dish. For people to be different, they have to imagine things that they are not programmed to do simply for survival as directed by nature, but they have to go beyond it, they have to think of ways to change their circumstance and they have to act upon it and do it.
Without productivity, people are not at all different from any other animal that lives only in the moment, not thinking of anything.
To me actually, the people who live that way are worse than bacteria. Bacteria doesn't have a choice.
So, if you don't give the poor the tools to succeed
- they have all the tools necessary, the have the productive economy around it (well, the less gov't exists around you, the more productive the economy is, it's unfortunate that USA is so unproductive today because of all this government).
The tools are right here, right in front of them. Prices are still very low, and when gov't is not involved and there is more free market, the prices only go lower and lower, as is the case with the electronics market, the computer market, the Internet, etc. The food industry, starting with the agriculture is unfortunately subsidised, so the prices are much higher than they should be, but still they are low enough, even the poorest don't actually starve.
Of-course your argument looks at the CURRENT situation, which is already very problematic BECAUSE of massive amounts of government, and you are saying: in this situation the poor have no tools, so it's the free market fault!
Well, it's either complete lack of logic or a lie on your part. I suppose you don't care about the fact that the Federal reserve makes it its priority to prop up PRICES for things that should fall in price.
All the various assets that are bought with the fake money, all the fake insurance guarantees by the government, designed to prop up the failing business models that help to hold prices up for things that should fall in price, yet I am sure you are blaming the 'free market' for something that is purely government doing.
Should the poor pull themselves by the bootstraps? Well, the bootstraps would be very useful in this situation, in case of the free market there would have been actual savings in the system, so regardless of your current situation, should you come to a bank with a business proposal, you'd get a loan.
But not today, you won't get a business loan today. All loans go to the government, the loans are made with fake money of-course, and the price on money is fake (interest rate), so there are no savings and no business could get a loan with REAL interest rates, that are probably in triple digits today, not even in double digits.
Should the poor pull themselves up by the bootstraps?
How about allowing the businesses that EXIST operate without government interference? There are still people who can invest but they end up moving their investments and productivity somewhere else. Some of those poor people could be working for these investors, but in the political climate that sets up all sorts of rules while destroying the currency itself, only an idiot would try and invest and build an actual viable productive business.
As to equality - how about having equality where it REALLY COUNTS? Equality before LAW?
How about making sure that the government cannot discriminate against some and put obligations upon them, while giving out subsidies to others, by telling them they are entitled to something from those, who have obligations. This is codified in the law, so definitely there is no equality.
As to social unrest, well obviously it's coming, but of-course the people who will suffer are not those who truly deserve to suffer, it is never those who suffer who are actually the cause of the problem.
Those who will suffer will be those who didn't actually turn the country around, from being a wealth generating republic into this democratic quasi-socialist, but really a very much fascist regime, which merges the interests of the political elite with the chosen companies to run monopoly businesses in everything.
Government bail outs, stimulus packages and nationalisation are a good example of what so wrong with the system today, none of it should have ever happened. The people themselves should have never allowed it, but they did and they did NOT take down the government that became this obviously corrupt, they didn't mobilise and take it down.
Eventually these people, they won't have a choice but to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, th
A corporation is a fictitious entity and behind every fictitious entity there is a person (one or more), so corporations have the same rights as their owners because corporations are an expression of their owners.
There is a real problem there, but it's not what everybody is trying to make out it is. The real problem is the limiting of liability to the people that stand behind this fictitious entity.
The real problem is that government is involved in determining what a corporation is. It should not be government that determines what a corporation is, that's the beginning of the problem in the first place, that government defines that a corporation, as a fictitious entity, can be used to shield the people behind it from liability for damage that the corporation can cause.
If the people behind the corporation didn't have government limiting their liability against harm, there wouldn't be this problem of moral hazard - where the corporation allows the people to be shielded away from responsibility for their actions.
Of-course without such shielding there would have been a different problem - how is the blame assigned exactly? But again, if the government wasn't getting its hands into this, it would have been just decided by civil courts in case of property damage and in criminal courts in case of injury or death to people.
As to the right to free speech, again, this is not about the corporation's right to speech, it's about the right to speech of the people in the corporation, and as a fictitious entity it is just a front to people.
So yes, corporation should have all the rights of its owners, it represents them legally. BUT it shouldn't simultaneously be a manner, in which personal responsibility is delegated to a fictitious entity.
How about not wasting billions at all? Of-course when it's not your money, you don't feel particularly outraged about it, do I catch the drift?
You owe me 5 bucks, I don't believe in any gods.
You want to provide charity? Reach for your own wallet, not for other people's purses.
composed in great part by con-artists, frauds, sociopaths, psychopaths, and other such ilk that use deceit, manipulation, power and opression just as much if not more than any system of governmen
- the more reasons NOT to give government ANY power over individuals in the market, over money, because those who are the con artists in the free market will immediately be looking (and finding) ways to get into the government and that is what happened and the damage is obvious.
In the free market there are con artists, there is fraud, everything that exists with or without any market in all situations under all circumstances and with all societies, because one lucrative way to get ahead is by committing fraud. It's the EASIEST way to get ahead, especially if you are good at it.
Now take that kind of a person and give him power. Well that's what government is all about - giving power over many to a few, and the few who are in power are there not because they like free market, not because they want to produce something that people value, but because it is the shortest distance between two points: not having and having things you want.
The shortest path between being poor and rich is through violence, and government power gives the protection to those, who are willing to use the violence.
In the free market the con-artists exist, the fraud exists, etc., but it is not a systematic problem, it is an unavoidable problem of humanity, regardless of the system.
For some reason you think that having gov't removes this problem, I don't understand how many examples do you really need? From Enron and Madoff (and SEC new for years) to any type of smaller fraudsters, like the NIA - fraud exists, and gov't isn't stopping it, in fact it often protects giant fraud in private sector, that's the problem.
BUT gov't itself is a complete fraud, it's filled with thieves, people in it give themselves exclusion to insider trading rules, for example, yet they are the ultimate insiders. They set the law, they decide which company wins and which loses (a simple example would be FDA deciding on drug outcomes) and they use information to make money by trading before everybody else finds out what they decided, that's real fraud, and it's an everyday thing that is happening in gov't.
Gov't fraud is always much bigger in scope than any private fraud. FDA, FHA, FDIC, Fed, these are all examples of how gov't commits massive fraud on national and even international levels. The biggest thieves are IN government.
My point is that gov't shouldn't be allowed to steal from individuals, and I am talking about rights.
Gov't shouldn't be allowed to tell an employer that he must pay a certain wage to anybody - that is THEFT. That is right there - the right of free association, right of private property, they are violated.
The very idea that gov't should be able to regulate business activity and tax income is completely insane, that is exactly how you destroy the economy.
Anyway, I have things to do and little time to do them in.
Yeah, right, bullshit. The left is using the tactic of turning people into a dependent class in order to gain massive populist vote, and people on welfare are quite likely to be voting, what else do they have to spend their time on?
Of-course the welfare queens are also government workers, gov't is a massive welfare program, so whoever is actually employed by the government is a powerful voting block as well, and those employed by the gov't have plenty to lose if the gov't is cut.
Nothing is nullified, politicians gain power with populist politics.
Oh? So 'winner' in British English, means a sucker or a slave?
Well, who knew.
Genocide? Where do you see genocide?
Where is the answer to the question: what does one gain by feeding the unproductive?
Your answer to this is what?
Again: what does one get for doing work and giving it up to feed and shelter somebody who does not produce and thus can never repay?
Genocide? Is your belief that majority of people are worthless and want to live on welfare and if left alone by the do-gooders, such as yourself will simply lay down and die instead of figuring out how to participate in the market economy?
What do you mean, "I don't think you do". Of-course I do, there is home security, and the service that takes care of the car. In some cases there is on-site security for the meetings, there is some private insurance, there are all forms of security that people pay for, quite a number of people pay for it, otherwise those services wouldn't have existed.
if they don't do anything, their presence alone is powerful...... .... not like you can't whip them to start doing something. Failing that, they probably still have useful organs.
- well, if you like being a king of the hill, surrounded by ASS KISSING SLAVES, then yes, that's what you'd want, isn't it?
If that's your ideal, then don't talk to me about 'moral superiority'.
Neither idea is compelling to me: being somebody's slave or owning slaves.
By the way, you are skipping on the question:
winner of what? What do you get for feeding and housing people who don't do anything productive?
So in your estimation, what is it that a producer gains from housing and feeding people who do not do anything?
You think he is going to get their gratitude? For how long, just until the time he again overproduces and buys himself something that those people he is feeding and housing will be jealous of and will again, go to the barricades to make sure that 'wealth is evenly distributed'?
Why would a producer need gratitude, he is already doing what he needs for himself, he clearly can take care of himself and the best gratitude is not from people who don't produce anything in return. Their gratitude is worth precisely 0.
The gratitude that market provides, that is what is important. You produce something and somebody else produces what they can, and you exchange - THAT is gratitude. That is real. That is not bullshit, it's not a waste, it shows that your efforts are actually appreciated that others are willing to take what they do and exchange it for what you do.
Getting gratitude from bums is easy, but it is also not very lasting and it's dangerous, that type of gratitude quickly becomes envy.
Feeding and sheltering billions of people for nothing, for no productive output, that's a huge waste of resources. It's much less resource consuming just to wipe out the Petri dish with some cleaning solution.
Of-course, that's why I do what I can to avoid getting into those types of situations. I even pay private security services for some of that.
by the way, your statement doesn't address the question.
The question is:
- winner of what? What do you get for feeding and housing people who don't do anything productive?
What do you get for doing something for people that don't do anything? What? Is it just a way to buy them off, so they don't attack you? So you have to become their slave, do work for them, and they won't do anything for you except not killing you, while still hating you because you did this for them and they couldn't do it?
Then why not use a much small amount of resources and just dispose of those people only one time?
I think of and produce something that is found to be useful by the market, and what I produce is not part of my DNA programming.
To me the difference between an individual human and an individual bacteria is the ability of the human to find something to do that is useful to me, that is all.
good point.
generosity, something you can't understand, will replace government social programmes
- well actually I am against charity on principle, but unfortunately people have this desire to be charitable, thus creating a situation where gov't says that charity will be enforced by threat of violence via taxes, thus turning something that is a private situation (somebody getting charity from a specific person or a group) to a situation where people who in fact are living on charity (welfare, SS, etc.), and it become entrenched so that the people on charity start believing that they are ENTITLED to it, so the gov't must steal from some with threat of violence, and give it to individuals who think they are entitled to it.
Why are they entitled to it? Why is anybody made to feel that they are entitled to the society to enforce stealing from the productive members and giving to the unproductive, (which is what I am talking about - the Petri dish of human bacteria).
There's always a shortage of tradesmen in this country but for some reason my government would much rather pay the unemployed a fortune to sit at home than the 5000GBP to train them to do something useful.
- you are right, those people shouldn't be paid for sitting at home, specifically they are paid with tax payer (or borrowed or printed) money and then they buy the wealth produced by those some people that paid the taxes, so it's double thievery.
But your question is strange, do you honestly not understand why government does what it does? Gov't is a system of power, with politicians fighting for this power for personal benefit.
The best way to become powerful in government is to have the most support by the mob, and giving free things to the mob is the best way to get popular support. It's the worst thing for the economy and for the country, but it's the best thing for the politicians.
You said this in another comment:
You really hate people don't you.
. People. As in a collective of two legged, two handed animals that want to do nothing and steal whatever they can?
I like INDIVIDUALS that do something useful, something that I can trade for with them.
People, as a collection of thieves and lazy bums? I don't feel anything more towards them than I feel towards a Petri dish filled with bacteria.
Poverty is only a matter of relativity, we are all poor compared to Bill Gates, but compared to a King of 10th century, we are quite wealthy - we have everything that he didn't have, cars, indoor plumbing, TVs, phones, computers, medicine, air travel, etc.etc.
The best system to increase productivity and push prices down is free market capitalism, governments steal the individual freedoms of people and thus they steal freedoms of businesses and then they sell these freedoms to preferred corporations and lock out the competition. This prevents competition, prevents prices from falling, coupled with inflation (money printing by gov't) this raises prices.
The gov't is so worried about deflation that its policy is inflation, which causes prices to go up, so how about those 'poor' that gov't is supposedly worried about? (never mind that USA had deflation up until 1913, while competition was huge, productivity was growing, wealth was growing, distribution of wealth was growing (exports and consequentially USA became largest creditor of the time)
The reason USA capitalists are moving savings and investments out of USA is not NAFTA or WTO, it's US government, with its spending, taxes, regulations.
As to what people should do once they have medical care, food clothing and shelter - entire industries that were and are still created doing things other than basic survival.
My point is that having billions of people on welfare, doing nothing, inspiring to nothing (except eating, watching sports and procreation it seems) provides outcome that is indistinguishable from billions of bacteria.
Maybe bacteria doesn't have 'hopes and dreams', but if the actual OUTCOME of the activity between a human population and a Petri dish with billions of bacteria in it is largely the same (procreation or multiplication and eating), well then, I don't see why should anybody who actually produces something should care to support either those humans any more than he'd be compelled to support the inhabitants of that Petri dish.
They shouldn't have to 'learn to do' anything to figure out what the needs are of people in the market and try and satisfy those needs.
Again, tell me, what's the difference between say 1 billion people living completely on welfare, not producing anything and a bacteria colony with 1 billion individual bacteria in it? AFAIC the difference is that the people are bigger and require more energy to be sustained, that's it, no other difference.
If you could come up with a proposal for feeding and housing all those people who lose their income then you'd be on to a winner.
- winner of what? What do you get for feeding and housing people who don't do anything productive?
How about this: they start doing something other than what they were doing before they got laid off because their particular labour could be done more efficiently without them?
I don't see what we gain as a society at all by creating incentives for people to live lives without doing anything. What's the purpose, to have them fill all of the available space, so that eventually there is again a problem of 'haves and have nots' in perpetuity?
People shouldn't be on charity for the entire lives, do you think it is even good psychologically to have a society of people who do nothing, that are clothed, well fed, cared for and they do nothing.
What is the difference between them and a bacteria colony exactly and why should anybody who produces something care for a bacteria colony?