theVOID Wrote:Quick poll, how many people here have ever said they wanted no government? My guess is zero.
The forum has never been visited by an anarchist? 0.o
Tiberius Wrote: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.
Even in mass production is every item produced different... perfect clones remain different in location.
Quote: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.
The rich people will always be treated differently by a society than the poorer members of that society... the heros, the beloved, and the famed always differently from those who are not valued so much as they. It's only fair to respect what another has... if one considers all equal: they have done a disservice to the value of all. Suddenly are the great of as much worth as the talentless... the much appreciated given the same rights and duties as the common servant... the famous forgotten within a system that does not reward fame.
I am rather strongly against considering equality where there is none: we are not born equal, and we do not develop equally, and our lives' worth is not equal.
Tiberius Wrote: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.
They are not in control, for in an unrestricted business model: There is no reason other than idealism that companies would not ally together insomuch as all agreeing to raise prices to a certain level. Customers won't buy water at the demanded price? Then customers will not drink. Government has a vested interest in human meat to keep its machine running... companies have only an interest in squeezing money earned by others into its own coffers.
You say that consumers set the prices and have control over an unrestricted business system, but Adrian: that is crap. Those who are strong would have no competition to prey upon the weak individual consumers... and where normally they would have to deal with a stronger entity (government) when doing things that the stronger entity does not like: they would be free to perform in all capacities.
Quote: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.
Politicians do have some control over the economy as it is, this little alaskan woman is fully aware. And even if it did not have an impact upon the economy: companies are still controlled by people with ideals and desires... there will always be a point to buying politicians when it will further one's goals.
How do you propose you remove the corruptible from a position of power when almost all of us are corruptible... or did you even hear about the likes of the Stanford Prison Experiment? Can you even tell the difference between the extremely rare individuals that cannot be corrupted and those that can?
Infact... how is non-corruptibility even a good thing? Seems to me that the ones that are 'corruptible' are also the ones that are less idealistic and more competent for the job of obtaining more power for the nation/company... effectively the best people for the job: why would you want anything else unless you were an idealist?
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
