|
But how will we ever change that dynamic? They have always been, and will always be powerful. There will always be rich people and big businesses.
This was long and rambling, and I think I'm a poor speaker for libertarianism, so please don't judge libertarians by my words. Disclaimer for the billion words; I know it's the mark of a poor writer to write too much ;)
"first, before you go off" It was never my intention, sorry it seemed that way
'saying i want to ""keep everybody down to the same low level", please look carefully at my post ... you'll see i made no reference whatsoever to any idea about a "same level" ... limiting massive wealth does NOT imply that all would have the exact same economic status ...' No, but it does imply an upper limit, because your point is there are too many people with too much more money than others. "the super-wealthy exert a disproportionate and inappropriate influence on our government" is what you said was a concern. Who sets this upper limit, and, how sure can we ever be that upper limit isn't too low? Frequently, such as with social security, upper limits on income are FAR too low, and it hurts real people in a real way. Limits are a theory, but what social security has become is a FACT.
what regulation of commerce, if any, do you support? Well, I'm not sure how much to go into that. I don't think it has much to so with our current problems. In our nation the laws have been broken. It wasn't that they used existing law to create a fascism. They broke many laws. And it was government officials that did it, right alongside the wealthy, in some cases the same people. It's arguable that they could have done the same thing, and would have done the same thing, in any system. Because this sort of thing has happened before, in human history. Greed isn't new. Greedy and dishonest government isn't new. Robber barons aren't new.
or do you believe a truly "free market" will solve all our problems?? I believe our problems have nothing to do with a free market in the first place, so I have no answer to that.
If we have rampant cronyism, is that representational government?
If large business and corporate interests influence our laws, before concerns for the welfare of us, is that the fault of business, or government? I say the government, and this is why; I've read that some businesses actually WANTED the government to enact certain environmental laws, because without the law as a level playing field, they could not compete with the ones that didn't care. The one's that broke the law, got around the law, and in so many cases now, changed the law, in their favor, to relax environmental regulations, or OSHA regulations, and on and on. And the losing businesses lost out, because they couldn't compete, and then look at what types of businesses we've lost; the ethical ones. Bad government influenced by bad businesses, and that furthered bad government, and in fact, it FUNDED bad government. Good businesses not listened to, shut out, and run over.
I just can't argue with you that large corporate interests and the superwealthy elite are ruining us, but where we disagree is how.
i see government, at least government as it should be, as citizens coming together to serve the common good ... i believe in governments ... and i believe in the need for government, as the people's representatives, to place restrictions on those who obtain so much power that they are able to do harm to the interests of the country while pursuing their own selfish goals ...
I believe in government too, but I believe it should be much more focused on individual needs, and contract law.
I also, and this might make you laugh, believe communities naturally turn socialistic. I think, when people function and live well together, they want to provide more and more for the common good.
To me, that's where I see the tax system as being the problem. I think social programs and governmental agencies seeing to our common needs are a good thing, a natural thing, it's what we're used to, and what we want. None of us wants to try to build a road, well, hardly any. But, it's the funding, and the selfishness over it, and in the end, mismanagement and waste of the money. Even though every poll indicates we, by the very vast majority, BELIEVE in taxes and believe everyone should pay a fair share.
I think, I really think, that people want to pay, and if they could do so without penalty, without even ID necessary, they would pay to support social programs. I think what it is, is that, we don't trust each other, we don't trust ourselves to support anything. So, we believe if we make laws to force people to pay, in taxes, that everyone will. But, they don't. The super-wealthy are so good with money, it's my honest opinion we must spend more money getting their taxes than we even get in taxes. Even the most ethical of them still have to shield their money, have to hire tax lawyers, and in the end, we're just never going to beat the money people at their own "money game". It's what they do, what they're best at...certainly don't waste hours on introspection like we do...and we'll never beat them at it. Why try? Those that want to give, they WILL give. In fact, some people even give extra, to help make up, there are always generous people.
Why don't we harness that? In fact, why don't we trust that? We're, for the very most part, a law abiding people, who work hard and want to live ethical lives. It's not the tax law that makes us want to build common good for the community. But, when we treat people like criminals, with tax codes, while REAL criminals are the ones wasting money and many practically living like royalty, where's the real problem? If government waste and mismanagement of tax dollars are causing problems, how can we fix that by changing the economic system??
"i am not opposed at all to the accumulation of wealth; i am not opposed at all to commerce ... but both business and individuals should not be so powerful that they are able to co-opt a government formed at the behest of its citizens ..." I don't completely agree or disagree. You said "both business and individuals should not be so powerful that they are able to co-opt a government formed at the behest of its citizens", but...individuals should be so powerful as to co-opt the government, because government "by the people, of the people, for the people" means they do. Businesses? Yeah, they shouldn't have a vote.
I think we both perceive problems in representation, but we're looking at different ways of attacking it. I see our nation as being fascist, and it seems you lean towards socialism to fix it, which I don't understand, because that basically gives more power to the same people. We need business OUT of government. We need government out of business too then, it would seem.
I understand common good, common needs. But, I don't want any of my needs to be "profitable", meaning the more needs I have, the more profit there is to be made. Drug companies pushing medications...need conditions for them. Sounds nuts, but we all know how many medications have been pushed on us when they weren't safe enough. Many of us took meds without knowing all the risks, and if we're taking a risk that's worth the benefit, it hardly helps us to be unaware of the fact. Government regs could save us from that danger. But...they didn't. Regs were worked around. For profit.
Yeah. I don't want any of my "needs" to become profitable. I want business OUT of government, because I don't want taking care of ME to become a necessary ingredient to THEIR continued profit. Those are the kinds of concerns I have, with what you discuss.
It's like with the war. These horrible monsters started a war, just for profit, I think we can all agree now. Iraq is all about oil and the war machine. Money. They had to further a WAR for money, because we have a government of professional war mongers. We want government to manage affairs, but not people, because when people manage other people unnecessarily, like with war (Iraq war, drug war, take your pick), it hurts them. It's the unnecessary management aspect that worries me, because my understanding of human history and government makes me believe it's always a weakness, and when it's allowed, it's direction "they" take. Monopolies like Walmart, making bank by doing unethical business in other countries, and then they conduct unethical business here too. I don't WANT their tax dollars, I don't want to shop there to give them money for taxes, because I don't want to give them money PERIOD. But, if they're contibuting a lot of tax dollars, don't they get preferantial treatment, and don't we pander to them for that very reason, so they can "support us"? It's an ugly circle. A nation run by a bunch of Walmarts, and then there's eminent domain...for taxes. On and on. Our lives equaling profit FOR government, while they spend more and more of our money NOT on the common good, because what is the common good if it's only measured in tax dollars? Profit. That is where I see a problem. Taxes. But not the concept of contritution. The concept that we need a government OF the people to force us to pay it. I say the people would be more ethical in supporting than the rulers are ethical at not taking too much.
If we paid voluntary taxes, no one would be shorted. No one would "give too much", which is a native intelligence for all families and individuals we ought to tap in on, use THAT strength, use THAT idea of knowing taxes aren't anything to be afraid of. We pay. WE the people are not unethical by large measure, and, we shouldn't treat ourselves that way. Or ALLOW our GOVERNMNET to treat us that way. It's not their place; WE the people rule. WE the people would take care of this payment business; all we need to know are the needs. The REAL needs, not half a million little programs with pork and secret military ops and who knows what all our money is spent on which. We just don't have any idea, and in the end, those creeps still live and act like royaly.
Why do they do that? It reminds of of, what, Great Expectations, where the main character was being supported in fine style by a pauper? Just because, out of the goodness of his heart, the pauper wanted that boy to have that lifestyle? Yes, it would be good if we, the paupers, had a choice in the matter, but, I don't think we do. I think it's a big problem, that our system facilitates lies and greed and doesn't listen to those paying the most, just those paying in the biggest chunks. We are the largest tax base, but the big businesses make the biggest splashes in taxes, to the public eye. We pay income tax, we pay at the store, we pay in purchases large and small, property tax, taxes imbedded at all levels...who pays? WE do.
We need to be able to elect ethical people, and, we need a government that sees no need to control people for profit. When mismanagement of our shared resources by the government costs lives, like in Katrina, it's easy to see how terribly important it is to keep public servants, real public servants and not shills, in public office, and fight cronyism with every strength we have. I worry that, in focusing on individual wealth and business, we forget that it was a select group of those types of individuals that have done the stealing and wasting. And, is it ever any other way, when a government goes badly? I have to say, wealth and businesses aren't anything new. We aren't going to get rid of them, and likely, no government will fairly "manage" them when corruption and greed, OUR TAX dollars, provide them with incentive and rewards. I just don't see your ideas of limits and control helping us control THEM. It would seem to further the entire crony empire.
|