- Joined
- Oct 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,542
Either you know what the fuck a "Classical Liberal" is or you don't. Or you could actually read and/or do some research and learn something before you make an asinine comment.
Liberal vs Conservative, democrat vs republican
- Thread starter GellyBird
- Start date
Either you know what the fuck a "Classical Liberal" is or you don't. Or you could actually read and/or do some research and learn something before you make an asinine comment.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2003
- Messages
- 233
Missing from your list of things to consider is personal freedom. If I want to go do business with Sam Walton, it should be nobody's business but his and mine.
What kind of busy body power freaks think they have some authority to tell me how much I can pay Sam Walton for a widget?
Liberals and socialists are ultimately extreme authoritarians. They will use the guns of the state to prevent me from making voluntary arrangements with Sam Walton. They will tell me who I can deal with, how much I can pay, what quality I must accept, etc etc etc.
Liberals and socialists hate individual freedom. You can't have grand social engineering if people are actually free to associate as they please and do as they please.
Liberty is messy because some people make bad choices. Liberals and socialists can't stop people from being ignorant, but they can use the guns of the state to criminalize choice.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2003
- Messages
- 36
I personally recommend any proponents of Marxism check out The Logic of Historicism by Karl Popper and Part Two of Theory and History by Ludwig von Mises
For an excellent criticism of socialism/central planning be sure to read Hayek's essay on The Use of Knowledge in Society and Mises' Socialism. Taken together I think these illustrate quite well the imposibility of rational economic calculation in a socialist society. I'm sure you are all aware of the problem of economic incentives under socialism, so I won't go into and depth on that (Go here for an entertaining take on this from Bloomberg's Caroline Baum)
I believe the following quote from Professor R.J. Rummel (University of Hawaii) shows that the State has been, and is, far more dangerous to the human race than any private criminal or indeed terrorist group.
"Nearly 170 million people probably have been murdered by governments in the 20th Century, 1900-1987; over four-times those killed in combat in all international and domestic wars during the same years." (Also, see the attached image, taken from Rummel's book Death by Government) That works out at 5,300 people per diem (or more than one and a half times the number of people killed on 9/11) for those 87 years and even that, I think, is on the conservative side. Bare these figures in mind when advocating an expansion of government power.
For an excellent criticism of socialism/central planning be sure to read Hayek's essay on The Use of Knowledge in Society and Mises' Socialism. Taken together I think these illustrate quite well the imposibility of rational economic calculation in a socialist society. I'm sure you are all aware of the problem of economic incentives under socialism, so I won't go into and depth on that (Go here for an entertaining take on this from Bloomberg's Caroline Baum)
I believe the following quote from Professor R.J. Rummel (University of Hawaii) shows that the State has been, and is, far more dangerous to the human race than any private criminal or indeed terrorist group.
"Nearly 170 million people probably have been murdered by governments in the 20th Century, 1900-1987; over four-times those killed in combat in all international and domestic wars during the same years." (Also, see the attached image, taken from Rummel's book Death by Government) That works out at 5,300 people per diem (or more than one and a half times the number of people killed on 9/11) for those 87 years and even that, I think, is on the conservative side. Bare these figures in mind when advocating an expansion of government power.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2003
- Messages
- 36
I personally recommend any proponents of Marxism check out The Logic of Historicism by Karl Popper and Part Two of Theory and History by Ludwig von Mises
For an excellent criticism of socialism/central planning be sure to read Hayek's essay on The Use of Knowledge in Society and Mises' Socialism. Taken together I think these illustrate quite well the impossibility of rational economic calculation in a socialist society. I'm sure you are all aware of the problem of economic incentives under socialism, so I won't go into and depth on that (Go here for an entertaining take on this from Bloomberg's Caroline Baum)
I believe the following quote from Professor R.J. Rummel (University of Hawaii) shows that the State has been, and is, far more dangerous to the human race than any private criminal or indeed terrorist group.
"Nearly 170 million people probably have been murdered by governments in the 20th Century, 1900-1987; over four-times those killed in combat in all international and domestic wars during the same years." (Also, see the attached image, taken from Rummel's book Death by Government) That works out at 5,300 (or more than one and a half times the number of people killed on 9/11) people per diem for those 87 years. Bare these figures in mind when advocating any expansion of government power.
I realise that many of you do not advocate socialism outright, but rather a mixed economy or what one might term interventionism. I think that there are a number of strong arguments against this position and may add a couple more cents on this topic later.
Oh and can a moderator please delete the first post?
For an excellent criticism of socialism/central planning be sure to read Hayek's essay on The Use of Knowledge in Society and Mises' Socialism. Taken together I think these illustrate quite well the impossibility of rational economic calculation in a socialist society. I'm sure you are all aware of the problem of economic incentives under socialism, so I won't go into and depth on that (Go here for an entertaining take on this from Bloomberg's Caroline Baum)
I believe the following quote from Professor R.J. Rummel (University of Hawaii) shows that the State has been, and is, far more dangerous to the human race than any private criminal or indeed terrorist group.
"Nearly 170 million people probably have been murdered by governments in the 20th Century, 1900-1987; over four-times those killed in combat in all international and domestic wars during the same years." (Also, see the attached image, taken from Rummel's book Death by Government) That works out at 5,300 (or more than one and a half times the number of people killed on 9/11) people per diem for those 87 years. Bare these figures in mind when advocating any expansion of government power.
I realise that many of you do not advocate socialism outright, but rather a mixed economy or what one might term interventionism. I think that there are a number of strong arguments against this position and may add a couple more cents on this topic later.
Oh and can a moderator please delete the first post?
Attachments
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2003
- Messages
- 36
*Sigh* My apologies, the title of the Popper book is "The Poverty of Historicism", and yes I do know how to spell impossibility correctly 
Socialists hate greed. They don't tell you who you can deal with or what quality you must accept. Canada is a good example of a Socialist country. They still have businesses where you can pick where to go. There still is competition. They just have more rules to prevent human greed.
I've found that the only people that are for a capitalist society are greedy, rich fucks.
Second, I detest wal-mart. One family that basicallys own the entire retail market in this country that enslave 1.2 million people.
This is what socialist societies prevent. Most of all, I hate rich, greedy fucks. If there was a revolution, I'd enjoy every minute of it. Especially the looks on their faces.
Last edited:
Many people in this country do not want a fully socialist or fully capitalist government. There is a happy medium. This is what liberals, including myself, want.
You end up getting terrible countries if you are at either extreme.
ex. Russia and the United States(i dont want to hear anything from rich people on this one, live a day in the life of a poor person and then come back and say something).
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,542
I know A LOT of people from the former Soviet countries, and frankly they all have better attitudes than most Americans. They are also all capitalist and many are in business/finance occupations. I consider them to be "more American" than most Americans. I think they have lived through the horrors, and can fully appreciate what a capitalist society can do for people.
What I really dont understand is anyone who hates capitalism, but claims to be for the working people (or whatever). IMO the Invisible Hand is the most loving one.
Capitalism is the best system for poor working people. Socialism is only good for lazy people.
It's also funny when liberals refewr to anyone else as holding "slaves." Liberals are the modern Plantation Owners. Liberals have enslaved the minds of entire races and classes of people.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,542
Another thing is the way "liberals" judge policies to determine what is best. I am having trouble putting together the words to articulate this point (Maybe Dobbs or someone else could say it better). You (liberals) just throw out all these statistics as if the ends justify the means. The fact is your statistics are relative and irrelevent. You completely dismiss personal freedom and any concept of right and wrong. You look only at selective end results.
For example, lets say we have a village of 100 people. For illustration purposes suppose there is one man worth $50 million. The 99 other people are all worth $0 ( which doesnt necesarily mean they are poor or starving;they just do not have positive net worth with assests over debts). The average net worth is $500,000 per person in the village. The socialist would cry that there is a 99% poverty rate. They dont take into account why this is or if it even means anything at all,but they jump to the conclusion that something is wrong and must be "fixed." How does the Socialist "fix" this problem? He robs (or kills) the man with $50 million, and tells him he doesnt need that much and he must share it with the others. In their perfect world they would rob this man of all but $500,000 and spread it among the village so everyone has the same. The average net worth would still be the same, but there would be no poverty. In his eyes, this would justify robbing or killing. The socialist will just look at a meaningless end statistic, with no regards to ethics or morals. Moral point number 1: A Man has the right to ALL of his production and earnings. It is his business how much money or goods he posseses. There is NO SUCH THING as too much money, or being too greedy. It is not your business or the government's how much money anyone has. And No one owes another man anything. Anyone who attempts to interfere (especially with force) with a man's moral right to his life and his property is WRONG. end of story.
Oh and what happens when you take that man's money and distribute it evenly to everyone else? The economy and the world goes straight down the shitter. Why? obviously out of 100 people, there was only 1 productive person, only one person worth a shit for the economy. He supported the entire economy. Those 99 others didn't deserve a damn thing. When given $500,000 they probably just pissed it away. When you punish the producers and render them impotent, you destroy society.
Arre you a Producer or a Looter?
"I've found that the only people that are for a capitalist society are greedy, rich fucks. "
Also that's not true. Many billionaires support Socialism because they can use it to wield influence. It has more to do with power and control than money.
Plus many poor people support capitalism. Because poor people dont want to always be poor. At least they didn't used to. There used to be a time when people actually wanted to make something of their lives.
For example, lets say we have a village of 100 people. For illustration purposes suppose there is one man worth $50 million. The 99 other people are all worth $0 ( which doesnt necesarily mean they are poor or starving;they just do not have positive net worth with assests over debts). The average net worth is $500,000 per person in the village. The socialist would cry that there is a 99% poverty rate. They dont take into account why this is or if it even means anything at all,but they jump to the conclusion that something is wrong and must be "fixed." How does the Socialist "fix" this problem? He robs (or kills) the man with $50 million, and tells him he doesnt need that much and he must share it with the others. In their perfect world they would rob this man of all but $500,000 and spread it among the village so everyone has the same. The average net worth would still be the same, but there would be no poverty. In his eyes, this would justify robbing or killing. The socialist will just look at a meaningless end statistic, with no regards to ethics or morals. Moral point number 1: A Man has the right to ALL of his production and earnings. It is his business how much money or goods he posseses. There is NO SUCH THING as too much money, or being too greedy. It is not your business or the government's how much money anyone has. And No one owes another man anything. Anyone who attempts to interfere (especially with force) with a man's moral right to his life and his property is WRONG. end of story.
Oh and what happens when you take that man's money and distribute it evenly to everyone else? The economy and the world goes straight down the shitter. Why? obviously out of 100 people, there was only 1 productive person, only one person worth a shit for the economy. He supported the entire economy. Those 99 others didn't deserve a damn thing. When given $500,000 they probably just pissed it away. When you punish the producers and render them impotent, you destroy society.
Arre you a Producer or a Looter?
"I've found that the only people that are for a capitalist society are greedy, rich fucks. "
Also that's not true. Many billionaires support Socialism because they can use it to wield influence. It has more to do with power and control than money.
Plus many poor people support capitalism. Because poor people dont want to always be poor. At least they didn't used to. There used to be a time when people actually wanted to make something of their lives.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2003
- Messages
- 668
"Liberals and socialists hate individual freedom. You can't have grand social engineering if people are actually free to associate as they please and do as they please. "
bobbdobbs - c'mon man, i can tell by your many other posts that you are an intelligent and discriminating guy, self qualifiying and unresearched statements like this just reveal a knee-jerk response and i know that's not your style. to say that all socialist theories involve destroying the freedom of the individual not only demonstrates a total lack of understanding about socialist theories in general, but also a general disgreement with the fellows that founded our country and their intellectual models.
"Many people in this country do not want a fully socialist or fully capitalist government. There is a happy medium. This is what liberals, including myself, want. "
- amen brother, anybody that thinks they can put a solid defenition on what a true conservative and a true liberal think about what is pure capitalism and pure socialism, and can prove how the two aproachs are diametrically apposed, in a reasonable, academic, and well informed fashion, as well as an explanation of how our super-successful economy is somehow not a mixture of the two, please go ahead and do so. otherwise drop the issue, because we're all novices when it comes to discussing this and at best only have a conceptually functional grasp of economics, which is hardly enough for anybody to make an informed statement on what is best for the most powerful country in the world to operate by. and if you think you know for sure just because, then you're not just an asshole, you're an arrogant asshole. we all know what we think is best, what actually is best is a whole other matter, don't forget it.
bigbutnottoobig - i don't mean to always be critical of you man. you seem quite intelligent and you can express your thoughts very well, but don't blind yourself with your own rhetoric. using a limited, statistacally convenient example to express a point about a political view is not only useless, but ridiculous. i'm referring to your village example. c'mon man, that shit might get you a passing nod from a 101 level professor just looking for any depth of thought, but that shallow level of contemplation and self-supporting burden of proof isn't shit in a idealogically (sic) complicated debate. i'm still in high school, and if i dropped somtething like that in my argumentative writing class sophomore year, i would have gotten slammed so hard it wouldn't have even been funny. there's a reason you don't see things like that in formal acadmeic papers, and according to your description of your education you have seen at least a few of these, peer reviewed, and i think you know why. raise the level of the debate man, don't lower it with stuff like that, you can do better. pet scenarios about villages with no factors other than those that support your end statement are just out of line. you're a lwas student, you know no arguement where somebody creates their own statisitcs to support a logical conclusion based on distribution can be supported logically: i know you took the LSAT's and understand the nature of logic games, and i know deep down that your example is just a ploy to support your views in a compact and superficially convincing fashion. not bad at all, but not good enough either.
sorry if my tone seems angry, but i see the same kind of aruments being churned out here. everybody just combs each others posts, looking for a reason why the opposition is wrong. fuck all, maybe i'm guilty of the same thing, but i strive to escape my intellectual prejudices. honestly, after carefully reading all the posts, i see that the conservatives are most prone to misquoting and putting words in the mouth of the liberal supporters. it seems the conservatives are more likely to flat our attack liberal thought and make what are whoely unture, or at best, estimated staements about liberal thought, where as liberals generally offer more burden of proof.
when liberals on this thread have made a valid or somewhat damgaing point against the conservatives, they have merely ignored it and made further accustations (liberals hate freedom, liberals hate liberty, liberals hate successful people, liberals want to fund the lazy poor people at the exclusive expense of the successful,, liberal hate society at large, liberals hate just about everythiing, blah blah blah lie lie lie). the liberal posters, on the other hand, have decried their oppositon, while offering not only statistics, but well reasoned and objective support for the intrinsic value of their political slant. meanwhile, the main burden of proof for the conservatives seems to be that liberal thought is stupid and somehow damaging to society.
i've said it before and i'll say it again. if you actually think that your political philosophy is the best for governing all of man, then fuck you because you're a moron and vote accordingly. presuming that kind of understanding is so ridiculous i shouldn't even have to mention it. one thing about liberal rhetoric though; liberal ideas presume to help all people succeed, and look at a long term cost benfit ratio, which, since so many people here are appearently scholras of economics, is alomst always more successful for ANY long run scenario, i.e. governments, like our own. conservatives base at least half of the rhetoric on indicting liberals (not an exact figure, argue all you want, but think about it before you do), and they base their beliefs, at least in good part, on the assumption that liberalism is foolish and can't work. founding your knowledge on the certain ignorance of other ideas is an intellectual mistake of the greatest magnitude, and if nothing else, i feel that it devalues the opinions of most conservatives i know, based on this criteria alone.
hopefully you all don't presume the value of liberal politics to be in any way associated with the lack of run-on sentences . . . otherwise i may be fukt
bobbdobbs - c'mon man, i can tell by your many other posts that you are an intelligent and discriminating guy, self qualifiying and unresearched statements like this just reveal a knee-jerk response and i know that's not your style. to say that all socialist theories involve destroying the freedom of the individual not only demonstrates a total lack of understanding about socialist theories in general, but also a general disgreement with the fellows that founded our country and their intellectual models.
"Many people in this country do not want a fully socialist or fully capitalist government. There is a happy medium. This is what liberals, including myself, want. "
- amen brother, anybody that thinks they can put a solid defenition on what a true conservative and a true liberal think about what is pure capitalism and pure socialism, and can prove how the two aproachs are diametrically apposed, in a reasonable, academic, and well informed fashion, as well as an explanation of how our super-successful economy is somehow not a mixture of the two, please go ahead and do so. otherwise drop the issue, because we're all novices when it comes to discussing this and at best only have a conceptually functional grasp of economics, which is hardly enough for anybody to make an informed statement on what is best for the most powerful country in the world to operate by. and if you think you know for sure just because, then you're not just an asshole, you're an arrogant asshole. we all know what we think is best, what actually is best is a whole other matter, don't forget it.
bigbutnottoobig - i don't mean to always be critical of you man. you seem quite intelligent and you can express your thoughts very well, but don't blind yourself with your own rhetoric. using a limited, statistacally convenient example to express a point about a political view is not only useless, but ridiculous. i'm referring to your village example. c'mon man, that shit might get you a passing nod from a 101 level professor just looking for any depth of thought, but that shallow level of contemplation and self-supporting burden of proof isn't shit in a idealogically (sic) complicated debate. i'm still in high school, and if i dropped somtething like that in my argumentative writing class sophomore year, i would have gotten slammed so hard it wouldn't have even been funny. there's a reason you don't see things like that in formal acadmeic papers, and according to your description of your education you have seen at least a few of these, peer reviewed, and i think you know why. raise the level of the debate man, don't lower it with stuff like that, you can do better. pet scenarios about villages with no factors other than those that support your end statement are just out of line. you're a lwas student, you know no arguement where somebody creates their own statisitcs to support a logical conclusion based on distribution can be supported logically: i know you took the LSAT's and understand the nature of logic games, and i know deep down that your example is just a ploy to support your views in a compact and superficially convincing fashion. not bad at all, but not good enough either.
sorry if my tone seems angry, but i see the same kind of aruments being churned out here. everybody just combs each others posts, looking for a reason why the opposition is wrong. fuck all, maybe i'm guilty of the same thing, but i strive to escape my intellectual prejudices. honestly, after carefully reading all the posts, i see that the conservatives are most prone to misquoting and putting words in the mouth of the liberal supporters. it seems the conservatives are more likely to flat our attack liberal thought and make what are whoely unture, or at best, estimated staements about liberal thought, where as liberals generally offer more burden of proof.
when liberals on this thread have made a valid or somewhat damgaing point against the conservatives, they have merely ignored it and made further accustations (liberals hate freedom, liberals hate liberty, liberals hate successful people, liberals want to fund the lazy poor people at the exclusive expense of the successful,, liberal hate society at large, liberals hate just about everythiing, blah blah blah lie lie lie). the liberal posters, on the other hand, have decried their oppositon, while offering not only statistics, but well reasoned and objective support for the intrinsic value of their political slant. meanwhile, the main burden of proof for the conservatives seems to be that liberal thought is stupid and somehow damaging to society.
i've said it before and i'll say it again. if you actually think that your political philosophy is the best for governing all of man, then fuck you because you're a moron and vote accordingly. presuming that kind of understanding is so ridiculous i shouldn't even have to mention it. one thing about liberal rhetoric though; liberal ideas presume to help all people succeed, and look at a long term cost benfit ratio, which, since so many people here are appearently scholras of economics, is alomst always more successful for ANY long run scenario, i.e. governments, like our own. conservatives base at least half of the rhetoric on indicting liberals (not an exact figure, argue all you want, but think about it before you do), and they base their beliefs, at least in good part, on the assumption that liberalism is foolish and can't work. founding your knowledge on the certain ignorance of other ideas is an intellectual mistake of the greatest magnitude, and if nothing else, i feel that it devalues the opinions of most conservatives i know, based on this criteria alone.
hopefully you all don't presume the value of liberal politics to be in any way associated with the lack of run-on sentences . . . otherwise i may be fukt
You need to go take a government class or something. You're getting communism mixed up with socialism.
While you're at it, take a debate class. Everything you said above has no factual basis.
I can strike every comment above down with facts, but I'm not going to waste my time. You seem to know everything anyway.
Once again, getting communism mixed up with socialism. Also has nothing based on facts, only the blind opinion of an American who has been spoon fed capitalist views.
LOOK! For a simple breakdown:
Communism = complete control of classes by government, everyone is equal no matter what you do. There is no rich, no poor. Basically everyone is a slave to the government. There is no free enterprise whatsoever.
Socialism = Governmental regulation of businesses. This does not mean total control, it just means they stop businesses from getting out of hand. For example, Canada doesn't allow corrupt pharmecutical companies to charge outrageous prices on medicine. This is just one example of why we need a socialist government in this country.
Lassiez-Faire Capitalism(our country's form) = Government's complete "hands off" role in business. They cannot step in if a business gets out of hand.
And another thing, do not post if you're not going to start backing things up with facts, please.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2003
- Messages
- 36
The American Heritage Dictionary defines Socialism as:
"1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. 2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved."
Merriam-Webster:
"1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done"
"1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. 2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved."
Merriam-Webster:
"1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done"
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2003
- Messages
- 36
I'd like to make the point that the United States can by no means be said to practice an economic policy of Laissez-Faire, if you actually do the math you'll find that government spending ammounts to approximately 48% of private national income.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2003
- Messages
- 36
If minimum-wage laws are a good idea why not set the minimum wage at $100 or even $1000 per hour?
Quoting Murrary Rothbard:
"All demand curves are falling, and the demand for hiring labor is no exception. Hence, laws that prohibit employment at any wage that is relevant to the market (a minimum wage of 10 cents an hour would have little or no impact) must result in outlawing employment and hence causing unemployment."
Furthermore, if the wage of a worker is set above the productive value of the worker's labour why would he continue to be employed (let alone hired)? This is why minimum-wage laws have the greatest effect on marginal workers (the very people these laws are designed to "protect")
The only way to raise REAL wages is to increase the marginal productivity of labour (which is determined by the supply of capital goods).
Quoting Murrary Rothbard:
"All demand curves are falling, and the demand for hiring labor is no exception. Hence, laws that prohibit employment at any wage that is relevant to the market (a minimum wage of 10 cents an hour would have little or no impact) must result in outlawing employment and hence causing unemployment."
Furthermore, if the wage of a worker is set above the productive value of the worker's labour why would he continue to be employed (let alone hired)? This is why minimum-wage laws have the greatest effect on marginal workers (the very people these laws are designed to "protect")
The only way to raise REAL wages is to increase the marginal productivity of labour (which is determined by the supply of capital goods).
Stop looking at things in black and white. Step into the grey area. There is a way that basic capatilist principles can exist in a society w/ some socialist aspects.
Why do you think that Bill Clinton (i think) wanted to break up the Microsoft monopoly? Its because when you have a few people, who control too much wealth, and power, corruption is inevitable.
All we are saying is that somebody needs to regulate and stop these corporations. Just look at the last couple years. You have the Enron scandal which cost California $42 Billion dollars. Which also had capaign connections w/ Bush and the White House.
Heres a list of about 20 or so companies that ripped-off people, just like you and me, of 100's of billions of dollars. Including Halliburton, which has multi-billion dollar, no-bid contracts w/ Iraq and they are overcharging us about $60 Million dollars.
http://www.forbes.com/2002/07/25/accountingtracker.html
Not to mention the Mutual Fund Scandal that was just un-covered. If you dont see something seriously wrong with the present system, your on fuckin crack.
Why do you think that Bill Clinton (i think) wanted to break up the Microsoft monopoly? Its because when you have a few people, who control too much wealth, and power, corruption is inevitable.
All we are saying is that somebody needs to regulate and stop these corporations. Just look at the last couple years. You have the Enron scandal which cost California $42 Billion dollars. Which also had capaign connections w/ Bush and the White House.
Heres a list of about 20 or so companies that ripped-off people, just like you and me, of 100's of billions of dollars. Including Halliburton, which has multi-billion dollar, no-bid contracts w/ Iraq and they are overcharging us about $60 Million dollars.
http://www.forbes.com/2002/07/25/accountingtracker.html
Not to mention the Mutual Fund Scandal that was just un-covered. If you dont see something seriously wrong with the present system, your on fuckin crack.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,542
I have a degree in Government&Politics from a competitive program (selective major).
