Fascism Checklist

Haha, you're the willing victim. It's called stockholm syndrome.

Don't you see how welfare creates a moral hazard?

 

And we come back full circle. What are these 'benefits'? Who decided they are 'beneficial' to me? There are many benefits I think I get from society from the product of the endeavors of private businesses and therefore I have no problem paying for them. Additionally, they provide far more disclosure as to what the going rate for the service/product is, how much I use, and therefore how much I owe, as opposed to the cloak and daggers operations of government sponsored public or private institutions.

You don't discourage frivolous spending, and more importantly, encourage frugal spending with free, unearned, and therefore undeserved handouts.

Also, I get about the same amount of taxes taken out of my paycheck as I would receive in benefits per month. How does this shit make sense to you?

 

benefits? it is called a civic society a world where we the people take care of those who may need help at times. With everything in life there are those which take advantage of system. But blaming the system for the corrupt is not a logical arguement.

Talk about the notion of humanity look at those who are in power with our money Wall Street. those who you continually look to as the savors they are going to step in and help those in need? So why have then not helped before? where were the titans of industry when crisis hits? Hard times hit and would the morally responcible companies continue to keep people working, to try at all costs to eliminate poverty and hunger. In capitalism - the economic state we live in the business opperunate under the law of selfisnish. Look at the huge dollars that were spent on the few at the top of the corpurations not helping those in need. please explain how selfish corpurations who look out only for the interest of the stockholder are your solution to poverty? Is there not a better solution than ingoring poverty?

What type of disclosure do you get from companies? last time I heard the only disclosure you get from companies is what they want you to hear. Tell me why one of the largest peanut companies did not disclose they knew about tainted products.

Why does everything have to be evaluated on the level of it is benifical to me? to be moral it means helping those who are in need and acting with others in mind. Selfishness is never a component of morality

How are you not creating a moral hazard when you leave the private sector in charge?

 

You live in a dream world where you get a good nights sleep believing you really help people you've never even met, when in fact, you only do them harm by supporting this shit. If enough of those in the system are corrupt, and if the system ultimately ends up supporting other corrupt figures outside of it, in effect, it is corrupt.

This has occurred with the aid and participation of your precious 'system'. Remember the Federal Reserve? And those bailouts? You think the people that succeed at playing the stock market and politicians are any different? They are the same quality of people. They've made a killing out of convincing the average man he can play the game too, with limited knowledge, resources, insight, and experience. Big govt promotes corruption which enables 'the titans of industry' to run shit under the guise of being 'regulated'.

Wrong, you are referring to the law of greed, not selfishness. Must I really school you again on the difference between the two, and why it is necessary to distinguish them. Or at least pose a logical argument as to why and how this applies to ALL forms of selfishness. What do you mean by huge dollars? The bailouts? Who gave them those?

About as much disclosure as you get from government organization in general...
Remember Obama promising transparency? Why do you think that is important unless your accepting that previously, the government wasn't transparent? And you think you're getting that transparency now? You only heard and saw what they want you to if you subscribed to their venues of communication (mainstream media). The only reason Obama is playing the transparency card is because they didn't realize the impact that the web in conjunction with improving technology would have on their precious media. Now they are simply playing catch-up and doing a craptacular job at it.

I don't think they should be in charge. I think they should be regulated, truly regulated, not the joke of regulation we have now. I'm talking about govt vs industry. I think by pitting the two against each other is the only way shit can improve for the common man. At the very least its better than letting them work together.

 

Just so we're clear, a moral hazard is created when you provide a safety net encouraging bad behavior.

For example, the Federal Reserve will always bail out the banks, that's their job, and that creates a moral hazard and the banks act like jackasses.

Private charities and non-profit organizations are much more frugal and resourceful than government welfare. There is no entitlement. This will encourage people to work harder and be smarter, no Spreewells this year!

 

The question wasn't what is a morale hazard; the question was "How are you not creating a moral hazard when you leave the private sector in charge?"

The corporations mass amounts of money is their safety net, and they have been responsible for every bit as much fraud and injustice as the government.

Sounds like a public option vs. a private one, and a flip flop of your position. You constantly preach how government regulations cause all our problems.

The huge dollars I mentioned are the ones the top 10 executives of every major company take home in income and bonuses.

These private corporations are who will take over any industry the government backs out of. If the company doesn't even look out for the people at the bottom of it's own company, i have no doubt how charitable they will be to the rest of us.

 

Ok friends..

lets take a step back from the debate..and lets look at the OP..

in this post..he was merely drawing facist similarities to current policy in our federal government..

and is it wrong..for us..the voting public..to see our representatives do nothing while bills we dont passed are passed?

no..it sure isnt

we the informed majority should be the ones who are enacting policy and making people aware of the challenges we as a country, a planet, and as a race faces?

I doubt anyone would want to live in a fascist country..unless your the won controlling everyone..

of course, not everyone will agree with our opinions, its something we should expect, and not everyone will realize the truth, or interpret messages the same as others might..

but good luck argueing about issues that have no relevance, unless you aware of the big picture

 

I haven't read the thread so I might be off here, but isn't the only reason these corporations are able to do this in the first place because of the existing government regulations that give preference to large, wealthy, outsourced corporations over privately owned companies?

Like UnbyJP mentioned, regulation isn't automatically bad as long as it's used to maintain a balance of power between the consumer and corporation... what we have now gives preference to the latter.

 

But didn't you know that it's the fault of Republican right-wing politicians and the Liberal Democrats are here to save us from those evil conservatives...

 

there's just one big difference hydro, if i don't buy what the government is selling i go to jail, if i don't buy what a corperation is selling nothing happens.

you just admitted yourself that both sides are corrupt, so wouldn't you rather not have to listen to these corrupt elected officials?
or would you rather the corrupt people not control your life?

edit: i fixxed it, srry unby! haha

 

I think you meant to direct this to the guy you quoted, not me. Or I could be mistaken.

Wrong, that's not what I mean when I say Govt vs Industry, nor what I mean by regulation. When I say regulation I mean... regulation, not economic competition for the dollars of a consumer base. Nor is regulation the current manifestation of it, where in effect it only serves to regulate small businesses in order to stifle competition and keep the big ones in power.

 

To the OP. Who is the fascist dictator of America? The power of our government is much more spread out with checks and balances then a fascist government.

It would be more difficult to misunderstand you if you were less vague.

Specifically, which regulations do you want changed to what?

 

That's a bit of a steep request... certainly though you agree that corporations are just as out of control as they have always been. Is this because of not enough regulation, too much regulation, or the wrong type of regulation?

I would venture to say it's not the first.

 

ROFL. Our most significant regulatory agency, the legal system is not something I can explain to you in a mere forum, nor am I willing to. Not only would it be necessary to learn the relevant laws, you'd then have to know the relevant court cases, and the precedence they've established. If you really cared, do some research on Lexis Nexis. It's not my responsibility to inform you. I'm willing to try to prove a point up to a certain extent, but that extent doesn't go beyond what you just asked me to do.

 

I didn't ask for a lecture or explanation of our legal system. I asked which law you disagree with.

Unless you don't have a clue which regulations you don't like, and just like to throw out blanket statements. VVV

How is it inappropriate to ask which laws he is blaming/objecting to.

What i am sure of is that corporations don't need the government be "out of control as they've always been."

I don't see why when companies produce evil the assumption is, "the government made them do it."

 

but what happens when one party controls every branch of our "checked and balanced" system....even america can fall to fascism, it's only your blind trust in the government that would allow them to actually take over our system.

 

you put it perfectly, they complain that the corperate greed needs to be controled, so they support the political greed instead, there's only one difference, a corperation cannot control your life.

 

There is no one law I can point to, there are hundreds of them, with hundreds of relevant court cases that have set precedence. Stating a law would be insufficient, because it really only comes down to what the superior courts have established as policy by ruling on cases and therefore creating precedence. Stating a few laws would not suffice in giving you an adequate representation of what I mean, and frankly I see your request not as a genuine request for information and knowledge, but as you questioning my credibility. Again, let me repeat myself, it is not my responsibility, nor do I have much interest in doing research for you.

And worse, what happens when that party implements fascist policies in the best interest of corrupt business ventures, while pretending, and subsequently pitching it to the public as if in their best interest? Corruption in corporation is bad, corruption in big corporation is worse, corruption in govt is even worse, corruption in big govt is increasingly worse, but worst of all... is corrupt big govt working together with corrupt big corporations.

 

It's not inappropriate just difficult because not everybody is a law expert. Nonetheless, we both have an opinion on the matter and neither of us are law experts.

Do you deny that economic regulation has been part of government policy ever since the industrial revolution? Probably not. After one-hundred years nothing has changed. Conclusion: regulations are ineffective. (or we just haven't been passing the correct ones)