Hi M(ister) T(ransistor),
MT: That same necessity for a revolution also applies to mega-corporate power.
NS: Have any particular 235 year-old mega-corporations in mind?
The point being that businesses generally have much shorter life-cycles than do governments. Also, if Safeway pisses you off, you can just go shop at Wally World, or another competitor instead. And, if Burger King bugs too many fast fooders, with poor price or product, then the King is surely dead & and not a drop of blood need be shed.
MT: There is no 'Free Market" when the market is undoubtedly controlled by huge corporate interests who make sure competition does little to weaken their control.
NS: Corporate history sure puts the lie to that statement. I have no idea what companies you must have in mind to corroborate this statement(?). You’ve mention pharmaceuticals, and retailers, but both of these sectors have lots of competition.
MT: Corporate interests also seek their own ends, "just as we all do".
NS: I just said that. You raised the issue by suggesting that Gov was intent on preserving its citizen’s rights. As if.
MT: When was the last time our government killed it's citizens to gain/retain power?
NS: Probably within the last 24 hours. I’ve not checked the latest press releases concerning our current imperial wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan.
MT: when ANY organization is given the right to cast it's vote as an individual has a right, there is a problem.
NS: I agree, That would indeed be a problem, since I could cast my vote several times simply by joining several organizations. Happily, I’ve heard no suggestions of giving the vote to orgs. Have you?
MT: Were you foolish enough to give me $10,000 credit without any collateral? If you were you deserve to be blamed for losing your own $10,000. If you had no collateral to cover your loan in case I was unable to pay it off, yes, you could have stopped me from spending 'your' money and the interest rate added on to that sum.
NS: I’m not following your point here(?). Would you clarify it, please.
Surely, if I lend you 10k that you have no way of repaying, then it is my dumb mistake, and not yours. And, it will clearly be me who will justly forfeit one heck of a fine for my carelessness, and not you.
MT: Well... I've certainly had a few sirens in my earlier life with seductive powers that I entered in to!
NS:
That certainly beats tying yourself to the mast, or sticking wax into your ears. Like you, I suspect many who followed the siren call of easy money are not all that remorseful, nor repentant, either.
MT: you know as well as I that our country, as well as all countries, are made up of all types of people, including less complicated minds such as yours. Should those folks pay more for their 'sins of omission' than you?
NS: In a word, “yes.” At least, that’s what my “less complicated mind” tells me to answer. I’ll grant you that humanity is egregiously unequal in its aptitude, which is a state of affairs that can never be legislated away. Any attempt to do so, will inevitably infringe on everyone’s rights. E.g. some people are addictive personalities, or genetically prone to substance abuse. Laws get passed that no one can ingest certain substances ‘for their own good’: = prohibition/drug laws = hundreds of thousands being put in prison, given arrest records = destroying their lives. Black markets inevitably arise = dangerously inferior products cause sickness & death, = criminal element increases & thrive – who then have open wars with other criminals and police, = justice system’s non-productive costs soar, families & neighborhoods self-destruct, social order and welfare is undermined.
Yet, for all that, we did ‘try’ (but always fail) to save the addicts from themselves.
MT: Whoa, big fella... slow down, eh?
NS: You speak Canadian too, ‘eh.’
MT: You're saying either you have the tremendous wealth of a Corporate giant who has unlimited amounts of money or you become an impoverished African village. That scenario leaves little middle ground in your example.
NS: You’re right, it does leave very little middle ground. You see, to raise the standard of living for a large population requires a vast expenditure of wealth (i.e. capital: ‘unnecessary money’). You need an immense infrastructure of transport, utilities, finance, production & distribution of essentials, health care, and education. Earlier I mentioned the likelihood of “mom & pop” oil tankers (which alone go for c.60 mil each, and need replacement every 10 years). Even little corner stores depend upon that tanker/harbor/refinery/pipe & truck interface. Big business is essential for middle and small sized business to thrive.
MT: After having seen millions of jobs lost and trillions of retirement savings erased because of the financial crisis, Americans were outraged to learn that Wall Street firms paid out more than $18.4 billion in cash bonuses
NS: As an owner, I too am outraged by these idiotic bonuses. I’m not trying to defend every corporate action. Who can defend everything that humans do, whether in, or outside of, organizations?
MT: I'm talking BALANCE.
NS: Me too!
I just don’t believe that ‘balance’ is created by finding a fall guy, and then taking away his rights and privileges. I prefer equal treatment under the law for all citizens, and then allowing them the freedom to achieve whatever their natural gifts, and fate, will allow them. True, we won’t all be as healthy, rich, smart, lucky, youthful, or as lovable as each other. But, that is the balance that the gods have written into the big picture, and there is no way to change these natural laws. Any attempt to do so will always prove counterproductive in the end.
MT: “Note-
wealth owned by top 10%”
NS: These statistics are idiotic. First, consider how they are collected. Likely via income tax statements, or worse ‘surveys.’ How honest do you think they are reported? Second, why do you suppose Switzerland has so many wealthy compared to a much richer Germany? Answer: because the German money is in Switzerland. I’ll let you guess why they put it there. What about the US? Yep, the US too is a tax haven; no, not for you or me, but only for non-nationals.
MT: a Congress willing to be bought out, unable to say no while the seductive siren of lobbying money gets waved in front of their faces.
NS: This appears non-responsive to my last post, explaining that they don’t get thrown out because they get ‘bought out’ by doing good for their constituents. Please reread, and then respond to those points.
Could you explain your point regarding “Buffet & Kraft”?
MT: The only answer that satisfies is one where the majority can feel there is a sense of fairness, of balance. Without balance,…
NS: You don’t seem to realize that ‘balance’ is a commodity subject to a subjective perspective. We are both advocates of democracy, both liberal Democrats, in fact. I have no doubts that most leaders in large businesses, and holders of family fortunes, are also advocates of a fair and impartial democracy. We’re All for ‘balance,’ it’s just that one’s man’s ‘balance’ is not always identical to another’s.
My own notion of ‘balance’ is no less subjective than your’s. The solution is (imo) to settle for, but to strive fiercely for: “equality of legal rights under the law.” Any other ‘equalities’ (wealth, health, etc.) are impossible, and any effort to enforce them will create legal monsters.
”Equality of opportunity is an equal opportunity to prove unequal talents.” (Sir Herbert Samuel)
(I was cheap and I'm still proud of it! I mean, I would have missed out on some really wonderful times had I heeded my mother....)