Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty

farfromglorified

he still stands wrote:

Nope. Try again?

I'm afraid I'm out of ideas then. Perhaps you can explain where you were coming from then.

The evidence of 6 major industries gravitating towards fewer and fewer players until they have, today, reach an oligarchical structure. Without government intervention tomorrow they would all be monopolies.

What "6 major industries"? Are those the 6 major industries that you cannot demostrate "an oligarchical structure" for, despite repeated requests?

You say 'without government intervention tomorrow they would all be monopolies'. Yet the industries you listed previously are all heavily regulated by the government. None of them operate in a free market modality today, let alone tomorrow.

Chrysler? You mean Cerberus?

No, I mean Chrysler. Cerberus is the parent company of Chrysler, but it's still called Chrysler and is a US automaker.

Phoenix Motorcars won't do since they purchase all of their major components from GM and Ford and slap in an electric motor. I asked about manufacturers, not assemblers.

LOL...Phoenix does not purchase "all of their major components from GM and Ford". Regardless, your original point was that, in some wonderful time in the past, that there were hundreds of small automobile manufacturers. They weren't doing anything different than Phoenix and many other small firms do today.

The fact of the matter is that you said there are "two auto manufacturers in the US." You're wrong and have been demostrated as such.

Again, do you know the definition of sarcasm?

Do you know the definition of defense mechanism?

Being sarcastic doesn't allow you to simply avoid points and questions. Please, show me some data showing that major industries in a free market invariably tend towards monopoly.

No, I'm not going to conduct research for you. If you doubt what I say do your own research and you will find that what I have learned in books and during college is correct.

LOL...no one's asking you to "conduct research". You've made some claims -- obviously you must have facts to back you up. Or do you make claims before conducting any research?

Yes, the government is non-profit. Show me their income statement, please.

LOL...I don't believe the government even publishes a true income statement. Regardless, it's income statement would only reflect the financials of its departments as opposed to the true profit and loss of its actual scope -- the P&L of its citizenry vis a vis the state's activities.

The citizenry of the US is not employed by the government, nor are they independent contractors. They are, in total, the government. They make investments in public goods and services and receive returns from those goods and services. When the returns exceed the investments, profits have been made.

A good or service might provide me slightly less utility than what I could have otherwise had with that dollar spent. That is the case here. But if NOBODY paid the government then I would be much worse off than I am now. So in the practical sense I am getting much more utility on the dollar here than if I had spent that dollar elsewhere.

And do you not see the profit in this? Do you not see the profit when you invest in the state and receive a value greater than that of the investment?

There is a fine line between "Laissez faire politics" and anarchy.

That's like suggesting there's a fine line between free speech and anarchy or freedom of religion and anarchy. Anarchy is the lack of government, not the lack of government's reach in certain parts of individual's lives.

It is unfair to compare a government with a monopoly because 1) we the people control who is in that government

Not really. The majority of people control who is in that government. "We the people" implies a singular body when in fact "we the people" is 300,000,000 individuals all with different values, alliances, and expectations.

You are little more in control of "who is in that government" than a man facing a lynch mob is in control of who is in that mob. And even if you were somehow in control, you're still in control of a single body with a monopoly on its service.

2) our government today is a democracy, not a republic, and the congressman/senators have the duty to enforce policies that benefit the people of their district

No, they don't. Congressmen and Senators can do as they please.

3) we don't control who the decision makers are in the oligarchies/monopolies of America

You don't control who the majority of decision makers are in the government of America any more than a shareholder in a corporation decides who the decision makers are in a corporation.

4) the few decision makers in Corporations don't have to enforce decisions that benefit the people of their company, they have a duty to their shareholders to make a dollar at all costs.

Again, so what? The government doesn't have to enforce decisions that benefit the people of their country either -- they have a duty to votes at all costs.

5) Because they have no fiduciary duty to their employees, and because they are out to destory/take over the competition, there are a few people getting very rich while the rest of us think we are doing well if we make $50k per year.

LOL...corporations provide the lion's share of this country's income, so I'm not sure I understand your point about them having "no fiduciary duty to their employees". Furthermore, you claim that "a few people get rich" and everyone else makes peanuts. This is a false dichotomy. The American financial spectrum is far from black and white. There are many occupants at all levels and many opportunities for both upward and downward mobility.

farfromglorified

Kann wrote:

I'ms sorry to intrude in your discussion but isn't the government working for the society rather than the individual? I mean, you pay 30k to your government, but not just for services benefitting to you, but to uphold values for the community (or society) seeked by the community (or society). In this case you don't exchange your 30k for a service but you give in your share to maintain your society (your brick to the building or something like that).

What does it mean to "work for the society" and how is that different than working for individuals? Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals. You can't "work for society" or "uphold values for the community" without doing those same things for individuals within said society or community. In the typical case, government works for some individuals (the poor, corporations, etc) at the cost of other individuals. In the typical case, government upholds the values of some individuals (liberals, neoconservatives, etc) while sacrificing the values of other individuals.

The concepts of "society" and "community" are typically false concepts. They are far too often used when people wish to imply singular values and goals where no such singularity exists.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

What does it mean to "work for the society" and how is that different than working for individuals? Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals. You can't "work for society" or "uphold values for the community" without doing those same things for individuals within said society or community. In the typical case, government works for some individuals (the poor, corporations, etc) at the cost of other individuals. In the typical case, government upholds the values of some individuals (liberals, neoconservatives, etc) while sacrificing the values of other individuals.

The concepts of "society" and "community" are typically false concepts. They are far too often used when people wish to imply singular values and goals where no such singularity exists.

According to A = a, a collection of individuals is a collection of individuals, whereas a society is a society. All for good reason!

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

According to A = a, a collection of individuals is a collection of individuals, whereas a society is a society. All for good reason!

And according to A=A, a potato = a potatoe. Calling it something different in an attempt to imply mistruths, however, is a violation of A=A.

Upholding "the values of the community" when the community has no singular or non-contradictory set of values is meaningless. It is simply newspeak for upholding the values of some within the community or some within society.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

And according to A=A, a potato = a potatoe. Calling it something different in an attempt to imply mistruths, however, is a violation of A=A.

Upholding "the values of the community" when the community has no singular or non-contradictory set of values is meaningless. It is simply newspeak for upholding the values of some within the community or some within society.

When we have the study of sociology, it is not just a redundant version of psychology multiplied. It is an entirely different study. For specific reasons.

Very different dynamics stem from a group of individuals, than from individuals alone, that are not explained by the individual.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

When we have the study of sociology, it is not just a redundant version of psychology multiplied. It is an entirely different study. For specific reasons.

It is an entirely different perspective, certainly.

Very different dynamics stem from a group of individuals, than from individuals alone, that are not explained by the individual.

If you're suggesting that a group of individuals is different than an individual, I'll certainly agree! If you're suggesting that a group of individuals is somehow not dependent on the individuals, I wouldn't.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

It is an entirely different perspective, certainly.



If you're suggesting that a group of individuals is different than an individual, I'll certainly agree! If you're suggesting that a group of individuals is somehow not dependent on the individuals, I wouldn't.

A society certainly embraces the individual. And I embrace the individual in my view of society. Further, the society as an embracing entity, goes beyond the individual.

And yet, as with the study of sociology, the voice of the individual is not discounted. And when it is, there is something up. The view is conflicted or out of kilter, hence not accurate.

unsung

The whole economy can be summed up to finding fault, which is easily found by the droves who flock to Wal-Mart to buy junk they don't need that is made in China.

The corporations can't be held liable, they are to make money for the shareholder. Blame the idiot consumer that has no pride in his country, which in turn hurts our economy, for trying a save 12 cents on a tube of Mexican made toothpaste.

Kann

farfromglorified wrote:

What does it mean to "work for the society" and how is that different than working for individuals? Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals. You can't "work for society" or "uphold values for the community" without doing those same things for individuals within said society or community. In the typical case, government works for some individuals (the poor, corporations, etc) at the cost of other individuals. In the typical case, government upholds the values of some individuals (liberals, neoconservatives, etc) while sacrificing the values of other individuals.

The concepts of "society" and "community" are typically false concepts. They are far too often used when people wish to imply singular values and goals where no such singularity exists.

The term which is used where I live is litteraly a "body" (in the sense of group/community - I have trouble finding the appropriate words in english, it seems I lack the vocabulary). What is good for the body is not necessarily what is good for me or what I want. For instance, free mammographies for women over 50, doesn't do much for me. I'm paying for others.
But I'm paying my share, because it upholds equity terms of health - a value that my government was asked to uphold by its citizens.

angelica

Kann wrote:

The term which is used where I live is litteraly a "body" (in the sense of group/community - I have trouble finding the appropriate words in english, it seems I lack the vocabulary). What is good for the body is not necessarily what is good for me or what I want. For instance, free mammographies for women over 50, doesn't do much for me. I'm paying for others.
But I'm paying my share, because it upholds equity terms of health - a value that my government was asked to uphold by its citizens.

Very nice. And one can take into consideration the individual, and yet "the body" is not the individual, anymore than my physical body is equal to a cell within itself.