The Conservative Voice

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Stop thinking mathematical equality and start thinking social equality. It is impossible by definition to have everyone exactly the same. Some people have brown hair, others have blond. Some people have rich parents, others have poor. We aren't talking about equality meaning person A being identical to person B, we are talking about equality meaning that no matter who you are, how much you earn, or what your hair colour is, you are treated the same by the government and by society in general.

Yes, yes, humanity comes in all different flavors and colors. I get that.
People with power and affluence are going to live in a different world than someone who doesn't have either one of those. There are billions of movies and various media of all sorts about this, but beyond that you haven't given me any reason that my government treats me or yours you any differently than anyone else on legal terms right now.
The only solution your idea offers is for government to completely ignore me, to allow the powerful to take the freedom and choice of the powerless.

I fail to see how. Baseless assertions don't make for good argument; present your case properly.

A baseless assertion is an assertion without due reason to be made. I have plenty of current and past examples to show both individuals and entire business working and working hard to make sure their bottom line is as fat as it can be, even over human life.
Many of the 'government overreach' rules and regulations are a direct result of a problem that needed to be solved.
Case and point: the history of unions, the 8-hour workday, and minimum wage in the United States.

You can trust companies to do one thing, and that is to listen to their consumers. Why? Because in a world with no government restrictions on business, the consumers have all the power. They set the prices; they tell the company what to pay their employees; they are in control.

I have absolutely no reason why listening to their customers is a higher priority than earning the greatest profit they can this quarter. Perhaps if one was only the result of the other, but there are ways around that, depending on the size of the company's bank account and influence.

There would be no point or benefit in "buying" politicians when the politicians have no control over the economy in the first place. If you want to end corruption; remove the corruptible from any proper position of power. It's that simple.

You misunderstand.
This partly depends on what the government does control, because if I remember your views correctly, you believe government should only have control on things like police, firemen, the justice system, and perhaps a few things I'm forgetting.
Having influence over all of those things is important and highly, highly beneficial in addition to having no stops in being able to pollute or sell dangerous mercury-ridden products.
Imagine that plus them being able to have the courts turn a blind eye to their dangerous products with a side helping of pollution (think Erin Brokovich, which is a real thing that happened), and being able to treat their own lower employees however they want without a justice system at their backs.

When things have happened like that, (as with the case of Erin Brokovich), even when word and overwhelming popularity got word out, it was still an uphill battle against the offending company because of what they've been able to do with just a good PR firm and lawyers.

Removing the corruptable is pointless because by the time you've done that, then there's not even a necessity to corrupt anyone. They can just do it.

I think I and others who don't ascribe to your ideals can see just much power people and companies like that can have if the government just decided to stop regulating them. The government dictators would just be given the moniker of "CEO" instead of "Senator."

Yet another assertion.

... based on companies like Humana who decided to let a man die rather than pay for a man's new pancreas, effectively sentencing him to death.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXkpxV7mnqY

Honestly, I would have spent more time providing examples with more thorough searches, but it's nearly 5am and I'm exhausted. Not saying though that there isn't a grand wealth of examples of everything I've asserted.

---

By the by, eliminating minimum wage will certainly help with unemployment.
It'll put those people into unyielding poverty with less than enough money to live on, but you can tell people that you have a job, I guess.

It's only slightly better than solving unemployment by unpaid internships except that they can get free coffee from the breakroom. Not really worth it.