You act like the government is any worse than big business. It isn't.

Considering that the government is owned lock, stock, and barrel by big business, is that surprising?

(07-13-2014 02:45 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Considering that the government is owned lock, stock, and barrel by big business, is that surprising?

I would say no, not surprising. My personal opinion is that we need to severely restrict campaign spending so these companies can't buy candidates to the extent they do now. Well, it would be a start, anyway. But that's another topic.

IMO candidates should be publicly funded, with no campaign contributions allowed by anybody, or any corporate entity. That way anybody could run for office, and not just the rich, or people backed by their wealthy connections.

They should also be given free air time, with no candidate having more air time than any other candidate, and no preference given to any party. That would allow every candidate an equal voice in the election process, and not just those with enough money backing them.

Outlaw lobbying, since it only allows the government to be purchased by enough money. Special interest groups can spend their money on advertising, instead of giving it to congressmen.

(07-13-2014 01:49 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  You act like the government is any worse than big business. It isn't.

I'd submit that it is. The evidence is really overwhelming just because of it's size and scope. Just the fact it is the largest polluter is almost enough evidence on it own. We tend to forget just how large an organization government is.

(07-13-2014 05:03 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 03:49 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  IMO candidates should be publicly funded, with no campaign contributions allowed by anybody, or any corporate entity. That way anybody could run for office, and not just the rich, or people backed by their wealthy connections.

They should also be given free air time, with no candidate having more air time than any other candidate, and no preference given to any party. That would allow every candidate an equal voice in the election process, and not just those with enough money backing them.

Outlaw lobbying, since it only allows the government to be purchased by enough money. Special interest groups can spend their money on advertising, instead of giving it to congressmen.

But wouldn't you have to lobby to outlaw lobbying?

Not really. If you were President you could declare martial law and just shoot all lobbyists. Then all you'd have to do is threaten to do the same to members of Congress unless they outlawed the process. A little strong arm work can go a long way towards easing your path at times.

(07-14-2014 12:31 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 05:03 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 03:49 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  IMO candidates should be publicly funded, with no campaign contributions allowed by anybody, or any corporate entity. That way anybody could run for office, and not just the rich, or people backed by their wealthy connections.

They should also be given free air time, with no candidate having more air time than any other candidate, and no preference given to any party. That would allow every candidate an equal voice in the election process, and not just those with enough money backing them.

Outlaw lobbying, since it only allows the government to be purchased by enough money. Special interest groups can spend their money on advertising, instead of giving it to congressmen.

But wouldn't you have to lobby to outlaw lobbying?

Not really. If you were President you could declare martial law and just shoot all lobbyists. Then all you'd have to do is threaten to do the same to members of Congress unless they outlawed the process. A little strong arm work can go a long way towards easing your path at times.

I agree with your original premise, but your solution may be a little too extreme.

(07-14-2014 12:31 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 05:03 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 03:49 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  IMO candidates should be publicly funded, with no campaign contributions allowed by anybody, or any corporate entity. That way anybody could run for office, and not just the rich, or people backed by their wealthy connections.
They should also be given free air time, with no candidate having more air time than any other candidate, and no preference given to any party. That would allow every candidate an equal voice in the election process, and not just those with enough money backing them.
Outlaw lobbying, since it only allows the government to be purchased by enough money. Special interest groups can spend their money on advertising, instead of giving it to congressmen.

But wouldn't you have to lobby to outlaw lobbying?

Not really. If you were President you could declare martial law and just shoot all lobbyists. Then all you'd have to do is threaten to do the same to members of Congress unless they outlawed the process. A little strong arm work can go a long way towards easing your path at times.

Or just start a fire in the capitol building. Worked for Hitler.

(07-13-2014 08:35 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 01:49 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  You act like the government is any worse than big business. It isn't.

I'd submit that it is. The evidence is really overwhelming just because of it's size and scope. Just the fact it is the largest polluter is almost enough evidence on it own. We tend to forget just how large an organization government is.

I should clarify - the government affects more people because it's bigger, so in that since it could be worse than one company. If a business were the same size and all over each state, every state, then it would be just as bad, but maybe in different ways.

(07-14-2014 04:49 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I should clarify - the government affects more people because it's bigger, so in that since it could be worse than one company. If a business were the same size and all over each state, every state, then it would be just as bad, but maybe in different ways.

I get to vote on businesses every day with my dollars. With a few exceptions mainly for industries that have used government to eliminate competition ... such as telecommunications.

It takes me four YEARS to be able to vote ONCE on my county government.
It takes me four YEARS to be able to vote ONCE on my state government.
It takes me six YEARS to be able to vote ONCE on my federal government.

Businesses do not force me at gunpoint to participate in things I do not agree with.

(07-14-2014 04:57 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 04:49 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I should clarify - the government affects more people because it's bigger, so in that since it could be worse than one company. If a business were the same size and all over each state, every state, then it would be just as bad, but maybe in different ways.

I get to vote on businesses every day with my dollars. With a few exceptions mainly for industries that have used government to eliminate competition ... such as telecommunications.

It takes me four YEARS to be able to vote ONCE on my county government.
It takes me four YEARS to be able to vote ONCE on my state government.
It takes me six YEARS to be able to vote ONCE on my federal government.

Businesses do not force me at gunpoint to participate in things I do not agree with.

And government doesn't dump filth or who knows what else into the water you're drinking and not tell you. And if you find out, you still have to spend the time and money in an attempt to sue them to make them stop. Good luck getting restitution.

(07-13-2014 02:49 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 02:45 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Considering that the government is owned lock, stock, and barrel by big business, is that surprising?

I would say no, not surprising. My personal opinion is that we need to severely restrict campaign spending so these companies can't buy candidates to the extent they do now. Well, it would be a start, anyway. But that's another topic.

dammit boy.....now we're gaining on it.

unfortunately, it won't happen....and the supposed pundits will continue to gather moss....

(07-13-2014 08:35 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 01:49 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  You act like the government is any worse than big business. It isn't.

I'd submit that it is. The evidence is really overwhelming just because of it's size and scope. Just the fact it is the largest polluter is almost enough evidence on it own. We tend to forget just how large an organization government is.

some of us don't....we're just sick of trying to combat....

it's as worthless a cause relative to watching that new 'nude dating' show.....it's just pointed in a pointless direction now....

disclaimer: I cannot help myself with the wit characterizations....it's just too easy...it's that 'new' Americana thingy......

(07-14-2014 05:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  And government doesn't dump filth or who knows what else into the water you're drinking and not tell you. And if you find out, you still have to spend the time and money in an attempt to sue them to make them stop. Good luck getting restitution.

The US government is the largest consumer of energy. They have by far the largest carbon footprint. And that is before we get into collusion between government and corporations for lax environmental law. Yeaaaaaa build yourself a massive coal slurry dam that the Army COE would declare unsound as a levy in New Orleans. Yeaaaaaaa go ahead and dump your nuclear waste into large drums and bury them underground with nearly no maintenance provisions over the hazardous lifespan of the materials. Yeaaaaaaaaa go ahead and spew billions of rounds of lead ammunition into the ground in the military and countless agencies and lower governments.

And when a corporation does screw up with the lax regulation ... once again government collusion is there to make sure nobody goes to jail and fines are token and meaningless gestures.

Let's pick a recent large scale disaster the lefties love to pin on corporations alone: BP. BP screws up massively ... and pays a token gesture fine and gives pennies on the dollar to those they effected. In a world that had true respect and defense of property rights ... BP's actions could be found criminally negligent in court. If that is found to be true, the limited liability of a corporation no longer applies. Those with legitimate claims can now come after BP for full compensation. And ALL things are on the table then. All BP property. All BP assets. And even the personal assets of those found to be negligent. The most iron fisted response to a polluter is a healthy respect for property rights.*


* (There are the issues of disparate network effects, such as being down wind of a coal fired power plant. We all need electricity, so I think we can all agree to a minimal amount of network effect pollution which is monitored and regulated stringently in exchange for the network benefit of electricity)