The Last Thing We Need is a Great Leader
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Friday, September 19, 2025 16:46
VIEWED: 6995
PAGE 5 of 9
While I agree with my liberetarian brethren that our government often falls down on these issues, often works on the wrong side of these issues, against the people, that isn't a failing of having a government of the people, its a failing of us to utilize it to its potential.
I truly do get that our system has problems, is unfair, is working for the wrong people. My solution is that we should be working to involve everybody in the process...we should be trying to emphasize the importance of our duty as voters, to be informed and to care. There should be a national movement that fosters this idea...
we can't have a representative democracy if the people being elected are only representing a percentage point of our population...
but seriously, if it were used wisely, with great involvment, what is a government but a union on a large scale?
Unions make up their rules about how long a worker can work, what kind of hazards a worker can be exposed to, etc. etc...
The government just happens to have the potential to be the biggest most effective union, or on the flip side, the most corrupt and destructive force on our lives as a whole if we don't babysit it.
So i'm not sure why libertarians are so against the idea of a government that has some bite.
We should be trying to get people to use the tool, to get involved, just like union organizers do...not disuading them from its potential value ---
because seriously, while I think you guys have done a good job of pointing out the problems of our current society, and while I won't accuse you of not answering our questions about how a less regulated society would work, I have never found any of those answers to be sufficient.
Take for example, pollution issues. You say, "a company that pisses us off and pollutes the environment will have to answer to the people, will not make money, will fold.
What if the company just wants to make a quick buck? How long do you think it will take before they are out of business, how many lakes can a company pollute irrevocably(no regulating bodies right?) for the benefit of a quick buck before their choice comes back to haunt their bottom line? How many people will suffer in the mean-time.
What about a company that is polluting the air in california, but its floating over nevada? It's not our problem...and you guys over there have no jurisdiction over us, so...you know...fuck off...
etc. etc.
and you will come back maybe, with "certain things need to be regulated, but only certain things," which honestly, is not so different in the end,than what liberals believe either...
and if we're in that kind of agreement, then I think when we talk about shrinking government's duties and functions, that speaking of that as a generality is not very helpful.
It puts us at philosophical odds, when I'm not sure how at odds we actually are. I'm sure that I could find some common ground with you on some government duties and agencies that aren't neccesary. I'm sure we'd dissagree on some also.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
They're never fully accountable and the legal perks they enjoy permit them to amass power and wealth far beyond what would occur in a real free market.
But they can. In a real free market people aren't going to make optimal decisions, they're not going to do what's in their best interest.
However the ones who are in it longest will be the ones with most experience, who will learn to make the most optimal decision most of the time.
A true free market will be slanted to those that can make the best decisions, who will end up being the monopolies.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
So i'm not sure why libertarians are so against the idea of a government that has some bite.
I'm not really. In fact, concerning the kinds of things government ought to be doing, it needs more bite. But we have it running around gnawing on everything in sight. We've got no "bite" left when we need it.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
A true free market will be slanted to those that can make the best decisions, who will end up being the monopolies.
But the corporate legal structure is what really gives a 'monopoly' its punch. I'm not saying there could never be a privately owned monopoly, but the monopoly problem seems a direct outcome of corporatism.
We're sort of talking in circles here, because you hear 'smaller government and free markets' and think of the Reagan/Thatcher thing. To me, a free market is just an extension of freedom. People ought to be free to trade with each other any way they see fit. That doesn't mean they should be able to negotiate with third world nations to enslave their populations, bringing the spoils home to their stockholders. It doesn't mean they should be free to dominate and control our media and democratic process, passing ever more laws to ensure their dominant status.
Those are the sorts of things that are broken about the system. And these are the kinds of things we could fix with intelligent government policy. But laws that make a felony out of selling "bathtub cheese", or restrict medical resources to an elite cartel... where's the justice in that?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Can't disagree with that
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
That doesn't mean they should be able to negotiate with third world nations to enslave their populations, bringing the spoils home to their stockholders.
Because they're so much better off selling dirt for $1.00 a year than earning $0.25 per/hour making Nikes. Why do you call them slaves when their earning more than 90% of the people in their community. If I was one of Barack Obama's brothers siting in a hut in Africa and someone came along and offered me a job, I'd take it and be damned glad to have it. Typical liberal mentality that every one no matter how uneducated or unproductive should make US middle class wages. That type of thinking is what the Dems have used to keep a large portion of their constituency dumb and impoverished for 50 years.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Why do you call them slaves when their earning more than 90% of the people in their community.
There's probably some of that going on as well. But you're kidding yourself if you think that overall worldwide corporate influence is benign. Way too many situations where multinationals move into a country and buy off local leadership to ensure a dominant position. Then, with the combined power of their own wealth, and the implied backing of US military force, pretty much 'have their way' with the locals. Just ask any of these locals who have tried to stand up to the corps, or the puppet leadership they prop up, how benign the situation is.
Of course, the really nasty bit is when they do try to fight back and the corporations call in their favors and the US military intervenes. You can bury your head in the sand and pretend this isn't going on. And then you can pretend to be surprised when anger boils over into terrorist attacks.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"How come every time I bother with an in-depth reply, you suddenly find other things to do ..."
Is this directed at me ?
"Unions are an effective bulwark against corporate abuses without a Government lending it's support ..." until the jobs go outside of the union's reach, even to another country like China. And then what ?
"I've posted a historical list of that behavior no less than seven times on this board ..." but then failed to post the many instances where government intervened on behalf of its citizens.
"Consumer unions ain't a bad idea either in retrospect to a companies ill behavior or shoddy/dangerous products ..." but consumer unions don't address the commons, or infrastructure, or the common social decisions that need to be made.
"I counter with how the hell are they going to pay them when they are no longer making any money due to massive boycotts of their products ..." You mean like what happened with WalMart ? Or how people 'boycotted' gasoline when the prices went up ? Oh wait, neither of that happened. You put a lot of faith in something that historically has never worked.
"... my answer is the same as it ever was, repeatedly, in spite of your false assertions to the contrary." Which, if I recall correctly, is if you get rid of schools and change society completely and put everybody on the same page (yours, I presume) you'll fix all of humanity and it'll never be a problem. I'm not going to hold my breath.
"Severing the chains of government will not, can not, sever the bonds between us as people ..." like in Somalia ? Afghanistan ? How's that working for them ?
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Heh... same old, same old. Your silly dance has an awkward charm to it after a piece. Let's see, what were we talking about? Oh yeah, your claim that those of us advocating smaller government are in favor of corporate domination. It doesn't make sense and you know it, which is why, in typical fashion, you run crying to the "IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!" corner. Really rue, who's dodging here? Wanna tell us how the corps and their armies of lawyers will manage without government support? I didn't think so.
SergeantX
And still no answer. In fact you have NEVER described any solutions, ever. Not to pollution, to conservation of resources, to powerful (ie rich) businesses, to bad products and imports, not even to powerlessness of children. Which btw I mentioned last after a whole host of other issues. And those issues which you, again, failed to acknowledge.
Nice strawman and dodge.
I hope you don't mind if I interpret your lack of answers as a lack of solutions. Or maybe even acceptance of such evils, because ...
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Why do you call them slaves when their earning more than 90% of the people in their community.
There's probably some of that going on as well. But you're kidding yourself if you think that overall worldwide corporate influence is benign. Way too many situations where multinationals move into a country and buy off local leadership to ensure a dominant position. Then, with the combined power of their own wealth, and the implied backing of US military force, pretty much 'have their way' with the locals. Just ask any of these locals who have tried to stand up to the corps, or the puppet leadership they prop up, how benign the situation is.
Of course, the really nasty bit is when they do try to fight back and the corporations call in their favors and the US military intervenes. You can bury your head in the sand and pretend this isn't going on. And then you can pretend to be surprised when anger boils over into terrorist attacks.
SergeantX
Even if what you say is true, what other alternative do corporations have. They have no choice but to deal with the Government in power. I suppose they could take their business to another country were the Government won't screw their own people for a buck. But if they did that, the people in third world countries would never benefit from foreign investment, and the only country in the world corporations could invest in without being accuse of enslaving the population would be Canada.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME