Fighting back, for real by SignyM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

bump

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 7:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yeah, well, two can play at this game, only I don't hide behind a sockpuppet. Didja notice that nobody responds to your posts, even your credible ones? That's because you have no credibility. Well, you shit in your bed, now you can sleep in it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 7:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Enraged citizens gather in every city, week after week—to demand the government finally regulate the behavior of corporations and the superrich, and force them to start paying taxes.

You don't get it, do you, Siggy?

If you have govt, the super rich will buy it. This ain't gonna change cause of the illusion of "democracy."

The super rich ARE the govt. Always and forever.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 9:17 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Yeah, but I think we're seeing the "Sea Change" social tide I been talkin about for YEARS, that we would need to change that structure, start to flow.

And I am much gratified by that.

Plinking the powers that be with but one grain of sand is nothing - together, we're a sandblaster though.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 9:23 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Enraged citizens gather in every city, week after week—to demand the government finally regulate the behavior of corporations and the superrich, and force them to start paying taxes.
You don't get it, do you, Siggy?

If you have govt, the super rich will buy it. This ain't gonna change cause of the illusion of "democracy."

The super rich ARE the govt. Always and forever.

Thank You!

Uh-oh... CTS, we're going to have to fight about something, or someone will accuse me of being your sockpuppet

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 9:26 AM

No, there was too much disagreement over homeopathy for anyone to think that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 9:33 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Then take over the government, ya maroons! It happened before and it's happening NOW. Stop bending over for the screwing, mkay??

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 9:35 AM

You mean the Middle East stuff?

I'm actually concerned those are really military coups propped up by imperialist foreign powers. But I'd like to think a rebellion here could potentially take on the same format, the trick is going to be what to do about the military.

Military in those countries are standing by because the military leaders want to take power... Can't let that happen here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 10:07 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Plinking the powers that be with but one grain of sand is nothing - together, we're a sandblaster though.

-F

The ' powers that be ' are those who'd control all our lives, and use the force of Gov't to do so. The folks like Obama who wants to micromanage our lives, force us to buy healthcare and tell us what we can eat, where to smoke. They want to force us to buy 'carbon credits', tell us what to drive, and where we should get our news.

People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.

This fits the Leftists agenda to a T, and you're the useful idiot who is trying to tell anyone who'll listen that those who are speaking up for freedom, for individual responsibility and LESS government are the one's who are to be feared and hated ?

Pathetic.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 11:25 AM

9_9

Partisanism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 12:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Uh-oh... CTS, we're going to have to fight about something, or someone will accuse me of being your sockpuppet

LOL.

I don't think there is a danger of that. For one, if you say "Godwin" one more time, I'm going to sock your puppet where it counts.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 12:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Then take over the government, ya maroons!

You want ME to take over the govt? Really? Would you like the govt after *I* have taken it over?

How about I let YOU take over the govt, then you'll have exactly the kind of govt you want.

And I'll keep bitching about govt being evil.

Seriously though, I truly believe we all deserve EXACTLY the kind of govt we want. You don't want mine, and I don't want yours, so we should both have our own separate govts. Sig's govt in Siggyland. CTS govt in CTSland.

Sound fair?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 12:18 PM

HARDWARE

This isn't about right and left. This is about paying taxes. I can point out a string of examples where individuals haven't paid taxes and when the government agents showed up at their homes, they resisted. They were forced out. In some cases their homes were burnt down and they were killed.

Now, if you corporation is big enough, they'll just leave you alone. Does that sound right to you?

What those protesters should have done was staged a sit in in front of the government offices. DO YOUR JOB! Or maybe we'll find somebody who will.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 2:27 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The ' powers that be ' are those who'd control all our lives, and use the force of Gov't to do so. The folks like Obama who wants to micromanage our lives, force us to buy healthcare and tell us what we can eat, where to smoke. They want to force us to buy 'carbon credits', tell us what to drive, and where we should get our news.

No, you've got that bass akwards, Rappy. The corporations that are ALREADY doing that. But I guess you're OK with what being told to do, as long as it's by business.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 3:04 PM

KANEMAN

You wuss paddies couldn't fight back to save your lives....what a joke. You cunts can't even take me saying boo.....LOL. Carry on fags. I'll bet against myself to see which "fighter back for real" calls Haken for censorship...HAHAHAHA
HILARIOUS HILARIOUS

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 4:06 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Seriously though, I truly believe we all deserve EXACTLY the kind of govt we want. You don't want mine, and I don't want yours, so we should both have our own separate govts. Sig's govt in Siggyland. CTS govt in CTSland. Sound fair?

Sounds stupid and impractical.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 4:17 PM

Because of large scale manufacturing, am I right? I've heard you make this argument dozens of times.

Putting that aside for now, saying that's a problem we could eventually solve.

Greek city states. Rome. Native American tribal villages, heck, tribal villages everywhere. What do they have in common? Widely differing styles of government, and long term stability, right up until they start to try to control other people and turn imperialist.

Frankly, letting communities decide for themselves how to govern is the only fair way for everyone to get what they want in terms of government. Otherwise it's someone forcing their viewpoint down someone else's throat all the time.

The question is how to get there from here, what with corporate, military, and government concerns, and how to keep those concerns at bay once we get there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 4:41 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

] No, you've got that bass akwards, Rappy. The corporations that are ALREADY doing that. But I guess you're OK with what being told to do, as long as it's by business.

The " corporations " don't have the power of the Imperial Federal Gov't to force us to do anything. Business can't tell me to do anything. That is where YOU have it bass akwards.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 4:56 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Rappy, do you even LISTEN to yourself ?

You're bitching at an ANARCHIST and accusing them of wanting to run other peoples lives ?
Seriously, WTF ?
It's like you just crib neofeudalist talking points and throw them at folk without even wondering whether they apply, cause that would require actual thought...
Ponder this for a second - if I could write a bot to do what you do, why does your existence even matter ?

At which point the REASON my disrespect for you and your ilk becomes obvious - because without unthinking maroons like you and yours, who just follow orders from on high, tyranny isn't even possible, cause one loudmouth does not an empire make - so the real blame lies as only as close as a mirror.
Waste of words, I know, since you seem to keep your mental existence in a little plastic bubble where the awful truth of reality can never reach it, but necessary to make the essential point here.

To buy into the lies of either "side" is to take their orders, the divide and conquer of a partisanship which doesn't even apply to me since I plan to wreck the hell out of both sides and happen to be very damn up front about it...
But beyond that - seriously, you think *I* "take orders" from ANY-DAMN-BODY ?
What the hell are you smoking ?

It is that very fact which causes me to wind up not only at odds with the two prevaling parties, but also the two primary sub-parties the neofeudalists (aka republicans) try to hide behind every time they get caught out at their sleaze, the "libertarians" and the so-called "tea party", which are if anything even more interested in meddling than the former two because of idiots that lap up the lies they WANT to believe, no matter how obvious those lies are - do you really think they fooled anyone with an ounce of sense when they put that radical rightwingnutjob Bob Barr in charge over the opposition of the majority of their party members ?
Or when the money trail revealed to "tea party" to be pure neofeudalist astroturf ?

Or maybe it didn't occur to you that I considered the Clinton-Globalistas to be the same kind of slime, happen to be well aware Obama is a mere extension of the old school Tammany Hall/Chicago machine sleaze pit, and think the democrats in general are a bunch of fucking pansies without a single pair of testicles between em ?

Shit, you cut to the quick of it, I don't even get on with other Anarchists cause I take orders from NO ONE, and therefore anyone who wants to be the one giving the orders sees me as a loose cannon, cause of the strong chance that any request or directive will be ignored, at best, or savagely attacked at worst - since I see taking away by force, things people WANT (whether those things help or harm them isn't MY decision!) to be every bit as bad as foisting upon them by force, things they DON'T want - this is a point on which most Anarchists are as fuckin stupid as you are.

And don't give me that "for their own good" bullshit neither - you ask me it's the very root of tyranny, it is, just as the fools who "just follow orders" are the vector, cause without those two things you cannot create or enable it and thus it has no power.

So before flaming me for the asinine assumption that I even CARE how other people run their lives, maybe you should see to your own notion that you DO, and fully support the use of force in making them do so in a manner palatable to YOU, cause there's a world of difference between convincing someone to act on their own, and stuffing the guns of government down their throat and making threats and demands, which is exactly what you have ever supported, despite your own evasions and lies.

All that said, you wouldn't want me "in charge", never-ever, if you disbelieve just ask the township that wound up voting me onto the city council about the fiasco that followed, and you know why ?

Cause the cruelest, meanest, most horrible thing you can ever do to someone, is to find out just what they want, discover their very hearts desire...
AND GIVE IT TO THEM, GIVE IT TO EM GOOD AND HARD!

And as they dragged you screaming to the camps, once you were no longer useful, and too fuckin stupid and gullible to leave for an opponent to exploit, all the while protesting how loyal you were (but only when it looks like your "side" is winning cause like all bullies you're essentially a coward) - and screaming that you never wanted this...

You'd be wrong, cause that's EXACTLY what you wanted - you just never thought you might suffer the consquences of your own malice, thought that the inevitable blowback would land on someone else, or that you could defer it onto future generations, never have to own the problems you created, or take responsibility for them.

And I would be ever so happy to firmly, FIRMLY disabuse you and yours of that notion, in much the fashion Robespierre once disabused his own kingmakers and enablers thereof.

Oh hell no, you wouldn't want me in charge, because I WOULD give you what you WANT.
And that is the most horrible crime of them all.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 4:56 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Frankly, letting communities decide for themselves how to govern is the only fair way for everyone to get what they want in terms of government. Otherwise it's someone forcing their viewpoint down someone else's throat all the time.

We all use the same 24-hour clock. We mostly use the same 12-month calendar. We mostly use a 7-day week. And I don't mean in the US, or the Western hemisphere, I mean worldwide.

We all depend on money to buy us what we can't make ourselves. VERY few of us are independent at the tribal or village level, except for some uncontacted tribes in the Amazon and Indonesia. Worldwide, the most common article of clothing is the T-shirt. In the Western Hemisphere, we are told what to eat and what to wear, how to behave and what is "fun", not only by dint of relentless advertising but also by the very limited choices available to us. Early gatherer-hunters ate roughly 200 types of plants and animals, most of us eat about dozen and about 60% of our food comes from corn in one way or another. If I were to ask any 20 men to stand up and empty their (almost always denim) pockets, I could predict with 90% accuracy what they would contain: identification, money, a picture of their GF or SO, and a cellphone of some sort. Most of work for someone else.

We are ALREADY homogenized, fortified, mass-produced and standardized, but it's not the government that has done this to us. Your constant focus on the gubmint had blinded you to what's going on in plain sight.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 4:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sounds stupid and impractical.

The alternative is I force you to live in CTSland. Gagging yet?

Or is your idea of a good government forcing me to live in Siggyland?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 5:01 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

We xposted, please see previous.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 5:58 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
No, there was too much disagreement over homeopathy for anyone to think that.

Rofl. You forget how short term people's memories are...

Oh, and that she just staged that so people wouldn't think that I was her sockpuppet.

See, she learned a lot from Shadowfly

CTS

It's a perfectly valid and useful meme, it applies directly when someone has made an unrealistic extreme comparison. And, as the man said himself, he did NOT mean *literally* "Nazis" he meant any extreme comparison that was the result of an escalating debate, which is to say "ergo, you lose." also, it is derivative of a Monty python scene, faulty towers IIRC, where I think its John Cleese loses an argument by yelling at a German customer "you started it... You invaded Poland!" - which is the real origin of said law, making it similar to the origin of SPAM, which actually referred to message boards, not email, and the filling in with meaningless posts, information pollution, which comes from another monty python skit.

Frem...

Well said. Are you sure you're not a sandbender?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 6:05 PM

What is with you and accusing me of all this "gubmint" focus? I have never, EVER, once mispelled "government", and what's more, I hate corporations AS much.

In fact, you CONSTANTLY do this to both me and CTS. I just don't understand what gives and how someone could so wildly misconstrue us. What, just because we don't think regulations is enough to keep corporations in check, suddenly we're PRO-CORPORATION? It's nuts. This isn't an either or thing. It's a both are really bad thing.

BTW, the world does NOT use the same calendar. Not in the middle east, not necessarily even in the far east. The european world does, but hell, I see the european world as a big stinkin part of the problem, it's where most of the imperialism is coming from nowadays, so I'm not about to praise it's attempts at standardization of every little thing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 7:00 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I think that if people don't like something they should definitely protest, excercise their right to public assembly, not just the constitutional right, but the human right.

CTS, for what its worth your lands comment made me smile, it looked to me like your way of coming to a concensus to agree to disagree. I thinks CTS and her "Sigyland and CTSland" is in agreement with Byte and her tribes and villages model. Those things do sound nice and all, I just find it hard to believe that we would ever get to that place unless we have some sort of catastrophic event and society has to put itself back together and the population is considerably decreased, but it sounds good in theory. Only thing is, what if I need something that my village can't produce, medicine, hospital care, etc. how would I get that in your tribal village situation? Other than that it sounds peachy, but I don't think its realistic under current conditions.

Frem, I agree with you, I don't really want you in charge, you know a lot about yourself and your strengths and weaknesses and are vocal so I know a lot about them too. Thanks for the headsup. :)

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 7:08 PM

The trick will be simplifying all of that so much that it's easy to get what you need just in your village. :) Simplified manufacturing coupled with sufficient user friendly technology and agriculture, and also a better understanding of human health and preventative care.

And we've got to try to do it so it's all sustainable. It probably sounds utopian, but I have some thoughts on how you could pull it off, with only a step up or in any direction from technology we're already developing.

Most everyone else would disagree with me though. /wry

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 7:22 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"If you have govt, the super rich will buy it."

Then how do you explain Tunisia? Egypt? Sweden? France? Even, yes, England?

There is more at work than the inevitability you see. Yes, it requires many people working together in concert (a concept foreign to you). But it does happen.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 7:32 PM

The super rich OWN England. They have a queen and a royal family, as well as lords and land owners, and a major part of parliament that they AREN'T elected to, they're inherited positions. As I've said before I have good reason to be concerned these popular uprisings in Africa and the Middle East are in fact military coups funded by foreign interests.

I don't know much about France or Sweden, but I suspect they have their own super rich. It's a persistent problem, I suspect there are people who have so much more wealth than anyone else they can force other people to work for them under law or gun point EVERYWHERE.

Also, I wasn't the one who said that, but you responded to me like I did, which I don't think was coincidence.

I'm snippy this weekend. The thread title changing has me on edge, and there's other stuff going on too. I don't mean to sound as hostile as I probably am, but I have a lot of brewing frustration.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2011 5:43 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Byte. DT.... you really have to think about this "ownership" thing a bit more. I agree, there are people who own and people who are owned. But there's no bright line between one and the other. Some people own little, others own a lot, but there isn't a small group who owns and controls "everything". Looking for the "real" owners is like peeling an onion... all you'll get is a bunch of layers. It's fun, in a conspiracy-theory kind of way, but not very useful.

I don't excuse the whipmasters, either. They may have been serfs or slaves given an extra little power, but they are part and parcel of the problem. So people in the military don't get a free moral pass from me, sorry, even if it was the only way to get a college education!

I guess where I divide people into groups based on (1) whether they belong in the group that owns 50% of the wealth and (2) whether they support that system or not.

The super-rich don't own England unless the English want them to. If the English don't want them to, they won't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2011 6:15 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BYTE, CTS, DT: The problem is, you DON'T hate corporations "as much", you hate government more. You spend ALL of your time whining about laws and taxes and theoretical tyrannies, when in fact we are ALREADY tyrannized, homogenized, standardized, fortified, blended, packaged and extracted ... BY THE CORPORATIONS.

The choices we're presented are fucking few and far between. We get 40 kinds of toilet paper and 200 television shows, but we can't control our destiny or get real news.

I don't like our corrupt government. But why destroy government? Why not go after the corrupters? USE the government. BECAUSE, UNLIKE CORPORATIONS, GOVERNMENT CAN BE CHANGED.

The MAIN GOAL of corporations is to MAKE YOU POOR. The MAIN PROCESS of capitalism is to accumulate wealth into fewer and fewer and fewer hands. That is its essential nature, from which it cannot be separated. Democratic government, OTOH, is whatever WE make of it. It is as variable in nature as people. And IMHO there is ONE role that government CAN AND SHOULD take on: to dismantle this kleptocracy and make sure that this system of theft never takes hold again.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2011 7:00 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

In fact, it occurred to me: You hate government SO REFLEXIVELY that you're downright UNHAPPY when government does something right, or is forced to do something right, because it bites into your anti-government "government can do no right" paradigm. So when peeps in Britain force their government to at least treat everyone equally, tax-wise, your mouths actually turn down.

So instead of focusing on the peeps who actually ship jobs overseas, or spill oil all over the Gulf and frac your local water supply, you spend all your time and energy worrying about something ... just plain weird.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2011 7:05 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

So, let me get this right..

A mom and pop shop does well enough in their business, that they eventually expand. They expand and diversify. Finally they go corporate..

and then become evil?

Am I getting this correct?

So the little bookstore down the street is going to become Umbrella if we don't stop them?

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2011 7:50 AM

FREMDFIRMA

For mine own, I see no real difference between a corporation and a government - they're both offering a product, both have malicious intent which is covered with advertising and lies, and both can "theoretically" be changed in direction and policy - one by voting reps, other by voting board members - but in truth simply ignore the will of the masses and are rarely if ever held accountable for this.

Primary difference is that in most cases you can choose NOT to patronize or pay a business, not so with a government - cause failure to pay up will result in thugs with guns in your face, in short order.

And of course, the collusion between the two renders any real difference meaningless - look at my boycott of GM and their shitty cars, the government took my money and gave it to them anyway, rendering my boycott futile, and I didn't even get the shitty car!

Same with banks, and for that matter, airlines - which is why refusing to fly will have less impact than it should, cause the gov will just bail them out to keep the "security state" going which all their special friends feed on financially.

Ergo, to me there's no real difference other than a corporation is less likely to force you to buy their product at gunpoint - although health "insurance" is tenatively playin footsie with the concept by having government mandate it by force in the same fashion as auto "insurance", which we all know is useless extortion once you scrub the bullshit off.

The best policy is to grind them up against EACH OTHER, but this has become less and less possible as the collusion becomes ever tighter and more blatant, and thus the only real weak point is as always the supply line - cut off the money.

Of course, how *DO* you do that when to even try will result in thugs with guns in your face in the case of government, or a bailout by the government, in case of corporations ?

Why, you find a way to make them BLEED, financially, and I'll hold my tongue on this for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that I think folks should innovate and come up with their own venues of doing so, the death of a million cuts, instead of one big one which will draw attention and violence - individually, sure, we can be ignored, but so too can a single pirahna...

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2011 8:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
For mine own, I see no real difference between a corporation and a government ...
Primary difference is that in most cases you can choose NOT to patronize or pay a business, not so with a government

Thank you.

One is money and lies. The other is money and lies and guns. Number #1 uses its money to buy the legitimacy of #2, until they are indistiguishable.

Which is worse? Yanno?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2011 8:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
... it looked to me like your way of coming to a concensus to agree to disagree.

Agree to disagree is the secret to world peace.

I used to be very politically active in the Libertarian Party. Then one day, I realized that very few people actually WANT a libertarian type govt.

I believe in freedom. How much freedom do I believe in if I force people, by my votes and activism, to live under a type of govt they detest?

I stopped voting. Simple as that.

People are entitled to have the kind of govt they want. I have to go somewhere else to find a spot in the universe where I can have the kind of govt I want, without forcing it on anyone else who doesn't want it.

Agree to disagree. Strong fences make good neighbors.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2011 8:47 AM

When have I whined about taxes? I don't know enough about taxes to whine about them. What laws have I whined about, or have I even whined about the "rule of law"?

Quote:
You spend ALL of your time whining about laws and taxes and theoretical tyrannies, when in fact we are ALREADY tyrannized, homogenized, standardized, fortified, blended, packaged and extracted ... BY THE CORPORATIONS.

BY BOTH. But this is something I think we'll never agree on.

Quote:
So when peeps in Britain force their government to at least treat everyone equally, tax-wise, your mouths actually turn down.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Did I mention disapproval about people rebelling against the chains pinning them down? Did the government NOT have to be FORCED to act according to the will of the people? Are there not issues of corruption that exist within the regulatory process? Might there not be better methods of organization that prevent corruption from forming in the first place so that it needs to be regulated?

Paintbrushing the strawmen. You're doing it. :(

I don't like it. Leave me out of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2011 8:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
... it looked to me like your way of coming to a concensus to agree to disagree.
Agree to disagree is the secret to world peace.

I used to be very politically active in the Libertarian Party. Then one day, I realized that very few people actually WANT a libertarian type govt.

I believe in freedom. How much freedom do I believe in if I force people, by my votes and activism, to live under a type of govt they detest?

I stopped voting. Simple as that.

People are entitled to have the kind of govt they want. I have to go somewhere else to find a spot in the universe where I can have the kind of govt I want, without forcing it on anyone else who doesn't want it.

Agree to disagree. Strong fences make good neighbors.

That's the place I reached as well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2011 9:31 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Primary difference is that in most cases you can choose NOT to patronize or pay a business ..."

Have you stopped using iron? Gasoline? Eating? Drinking water? Do those things come through corporations? Do those things use things that come through corporations?

Frem - you may chose to stop patronizing a particular store. But you can't choose to stop buying from corporations unless you choose to stop living.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2011 9:44 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Finally they go corporate..

and then become evil?"

Yes.

Size matters.

Becoming a corporation and running under corporate law changes WHAT THEY ARE. Becoming a monopoly changes WHAT THEY ARE. Having a lot of resources to influence both consumers and government changes WHAT THEY ARE.

Once they become corporate, and powerful, they are no longer the mom and pop business that lives or dies by the grace of the local consumer. They become a force that runs individuals, governments, and economies.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2011 9:56 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Frem - you're a moron, and I'll not even bother. If you can't follow a simple conversation w/ out going on an utterly irrational and long winded rant, please just shut the fuck up.

Thanks.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2011 10:04 AM

That one's probably accurate. There are some corporations that aren't as big of offenders as others, but if the more offensive ones were gone, we can probably assume the other ones would take their place, at least with how the current system works. There might be some that stay honest, but if you're rewarded for abusing the game, why wouldn't you?

Now, some corporations are actually more like cooperatives, so we should keep that in mind, and it's also important to remember the SIZE part of that equation. Conglomerates and mega-corporations are usually pretty bad. A simple franchise might not be. I know some franchises in my city that are actually local and are still actually family owned "mom-and-pop" businesses.

The bigger something is, the more parts and people involved in it, the harder it is to change if it starts to go wrong. Smaller means you might be more limited in scope, but you could get around that through cooperation and deals, without crossing the line of no return and getting too big. (such as too big to fail)

There might be instances in a hypothetical future of villages with a choice in socio-economic systems, where some people have chosen to have capitalism and might even have organized corporations. But so long as people are prepared to fight against power grabs and abuse from any organizational hierarchy, those hierarchies theoretically would naturally remain smaller and more answerable if they do wrong. And which also potentially means sustainable.

Hierarchies may have an inherent potential to do wrong because someone is always giving orders, and there are punishments if those orders aren't followed. Also there's a question of when they stop being voluntary, and an elected hierarchy can always choose to stop the elections. Power hierarchies also can create cultures of betrayal and/or favouritism that undermine productivity, efficiency, stability, and probably are psychologically damaging.

The issue is they exist, so there needs to be ways to keep them honest. Regulation is a way, but the way it's commonly enacted I think is ineffective, because it can become corrupt. A different social organization might be another way, or a free market with informed and conscientious consumers that don't tolerate abuse, cheating, or dangerous negligence. Or some mix of factors and ideas, since some of those might require idealized and unrealistic scenarios. In any case, I'm sure we can find solutions, though it might help if we didn't keep making the problems more and more complicated.

EDIT: also, cubicles, dungeonerie, the crap in the keyboard, the time sink, and the inescapable slow movement of the minute hand towards death.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2011 10:08 AM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I agree that corporations are in bed with the government, corporations basically get their way through bribery. I also agree that corporations and their influence on the government need to be limited, because the way it is now is getting out of control.

I think Byte dislikes corporations as much as she dislikes the government and she agrees that they're all in bed with each other, whispering behind closed doors etc.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2011 10:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Primary difference is that in most cases you can choose NOT to patronize or pay a business, not so with a government - cause failure to pay up will result in thugs with guns in your face, in short order.

You can choose not to patronize "a" business, but you can't choose not to patronize ALL business. And each time you patronize a business... almost ANY business... you are paying your "profit" tax.

ETA: Oh, I see that point was already addressed, better than I did...

Quote:
"Primary difference is that in most cases you can choose NOT to patronize or pay a business ..." Have you stopped using iron? Gasoline? Eating? Drinking water? Do those things come through corporations? Do those things use things that come through corporations? Frem - you may chose to stop patronizing a particular store. But you can't choose to stop buying from corporations unless you choose to stop living.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2011 11:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I have no idea what you're talking about. Did I mention disapproval about people rebelling against the chains pinning them down? Did the government NOT have to be FORCED to act according to the will of the people? Are there not issues of corruption that exist within the regulatory process? Might there not be better methods of organization that prevent corruption from forming in the first place so that it needs to be regulated?

All true. But try "forcing" a corporation to do the right thing... w/o using a government to do it!

Quote:
Paintbrushing the strawmen. You're doing it. :(
I don't like it. Leave me out of it.

I will try to be less hostile.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2011 11:57 AM

DREAMTROVE

Here's the very short of it, corporations vs govt: sure, both are hopeless, but there are some subtle differences

1. Tomorrow I can go out and start a corporation if I want. I cannot start a govt.

2. My corporation cannot shoot people, their govt. Can

3. My corporation cannot take other people's money by levying taxes, their govt. Can.

Though both are democracies, I doubt either will ever allow an outsider control unless they have paid a hefty price, passed that'll, they share many flaws, these are just some subtle differences,

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2011 12:09 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
in fact we are ALREADY tyrannized, homogenized, standardized, fortified, blended, packaged and extracted ... BY THE CORPORATIONS.

The MAIN GOAL of corporations is to MAKE YOU POOR. The MAIN PROCESS of capitalism is to accumulate wealth into fewer and fewer and fewer hands. That is its essential nature, from which it cannot be separated.

In fact, it occurred to me: You hate government SO REFLEXIVELY that you're downright UNHAPPY when government does something right, or is forced to do something right, because it bites into your anti-government "government can do no right" paradigm.

I think both are out of control, and both, yes, ae “offering a product, both have malicious intent which is covered with advertising ....- but in truth simply ignore the will of the masses and are rarely if ever held accountable for this.” Pretty much says it for me. Those who are anti-government think private enterprise, left alone, would be okay, and those who are pro-government think the same of government. There’s plenty of guilt to go around, and it’s funny to me that people choose one side or the other and see them as so different.

Wulf, you can’t see it, I realize:

Quote:
A mom and pop shop does well enough in their business, that they eventually expand. They expand and diversify. Finally they go corporate..

and then become evil?

Am I getting this correct?

So the little bookstore down the street is going to become Umbrella if we don't stop them?

Yes to the bookshop; that’s pretty much how all big corporations become same...if they survive and gain popularity, they expand and expand. It’s not about becoming evil, it’s about profit. The mom-and-pop shop has little if any power to manipulate things to increase their power; the bigger they get, the more power they get, and since profits are the goal, they utilize that power to increase profits. Sure, there are mom-and-pop stores everywhere, they come and they go and some survive a long, long time. But if they expand, the process begins, and it doesn’t end as long as the company exists. I’m surprised you can’t see that.

As to companies being able to “make” us do things, they already do, by what they make available, by how they treat their employees, by the power their money wields to affect laws, etc. I know the usual arguments will come: “work for someone else”, “buy from someone else”...but can anyone point to where public pressure has made ANY big corporation treat their employees better (aside from unions, that is) or where big corporations have been kept from doing harmful things to their customers (except government regulation, that is, WHEN it works)?

Companies will always happily sell products that harm people—-lawsuits can have an effect, but is anyone kidding themselves that, if profits are shrunk by a product being regulated, they don’t find some other way to make up those profits? Even when big lawsuits manage to win, the companies are sometimes perfectly happy to go under, take their profits and run. Large companies hardly ever change what they do because of public pressure.

Ooops, I just saw Rue and Byte made my point already. What the hell...

Quote:
I just find it hard to believe that we would ever get to that place unless we have some sort of catastrophic event and society has to put itself back together and the population is considerably decreased, but it sounds good in theory. Only thing is, what if I need something that my village can't produce, medicine, hospital care, etc. how would I get that in your tribal village situation? Other than that it sounds peachy, but I don't think its realistic under current conditions.

Current conditions OR future conditions, absent something that lowers the population drastically globally. It’s nice to think in simple terms, but the world isn’t simple and may never be again.

Quote:
"If you have govt, the super rich will buy it."

Then how do you explain Tunisia? Egypt? Sweden? France? Even, yes, England?

I’m not sure what the question means. Are you saying the super rich HAVEN’T bought those governments?? That doesn’t seem logical...every large government ever formed (and almost every current one) is controlled by the rich in one way or another.

Anyway, Sig, yours was a lovely scenario, but I don’t see it working very well...on one issue or another, yes, but in general? Ain’t gonna happen. Gotta get people’s attention (which requires it being something BIG that affects their own individual lives), then organize them, etc., etc. The Tea Party is a prime example...ideologies are self-defeating and will always be “taken over” by others.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2011 12:10 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

1. Tomorrow I can go out and start a corporation if I want. I cannot start a govt.

Sure you can! Look at the FF. Or Egypt. It just takes more than one person to do it.

2. My corporation cannot shoot people, their govt. Can

Oh, like corporations never shot anyone???? Puhleez!

3. My corporation cannot take other people's money by levying taxes, their govt. Can.

Of course they do, it's called profit.

For insight I give you an epic FAIL.

-----------------

Quote:
I think both are out of control, and both, yes, ae “offering a product, both have malicious intent which is covered with advertising ....- but in truth simply ignore the will of the masses and are rarely if ever held accountable for this.” Pretty much says it for me. Those who are anti-government think private enterprise, left alone, would be okay, and those who are pro-government think the same of government. There’s plenty of guilt to go around, and it’s funny to me that people choose one side or the other and see them as so different.

The difference is that there are mechanisms in place to correct government. There are NONE to correct business... except government.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2011 2:33 PM