"if u eliminate gubmint all da bad peepl go away." now im against government in general but you cant just eliminate it and expect things to work out... it will be chaos. big businesses will just rule over everything. they have the funds to do whatever the fuck they want. they will have private police to keep workers in line, everyone across the board will pay minimal wages, if you try to form a union the private police will deal with you swiftly, you try to quit they will probably harm you, you dont work fast enough you will be whipped. children will be forced to work in dangerous conditions, you will have a 15+ hour work day, no days off, 10 minute lunch breaks. gotta love the "free" market.
[quote name='"BlazeLE"'] out of the mainstream candidates yes. like i said rocky wants to do all of the good things that paul wants to do without the stuff that would fuck people over...[/quote] I guess it depends on your idea of fucking people over. Agree to disagree with you on that.
Actually, if you eliminate a monopoly on force and coercion over a given territory, the "bad people" and "bad corporations" have nothing to use against us but advertising. The government has the batons and pepper spray, not the corporations. If you eliminate government, and by government we usually mean the Federal government, all you are doing is allowing the people of different regions to self-govern. All Ron Paul wants to do is give the power to the People, by handing power back to the States where the people have "closer" representation. He doesn't want the environment to turn into 1950's Pittsburgh, he just doesn't want the Feds to be handling it, because obviously they're corrupt as fuck.
without government regulations forcing workers rights the corporations will swiftly pick up batons, pepper spray, and whips... i edited the post you quoted. ill just post it here for you. will that for sure happen? no but its definitely a possibility. i mean it happens in every country without labor laws...
[quote name='"BlazeLE"'] without government regulations forcing workers rights the corporations will swiftly pick up batons, pepper spray, and whips... i edited the post you quoted. ill just post it here for you. will that for sure happen? no but its definitely a possibility. i mean it happens in every country without labor laws...[/quote] Workers can join, or form unions to enforce workers rights.
not if there are no labor laws and the corporate thugs swiftly shut them down... who's going to risk death to start a union? not the people in the 3rd world countries that dont have labor laws. all of you paul bots seem to ignore all of the bad that could potentially happen without government in a capitalist society...
This guy looks like he's trying to capitalize on the anarcho-socialist flavor of the month that's been rolling around. See my sig
couple of problems with this right here. 1. its just called anarchy. 2. ive been a fan of anarchy long before i joined these forums... anarchy is a collective society free of rulers or money. people help each other because its the right thing to do... there is no such thing as anarcho-capitalism because in capitalism there will always be leaders in the form of bosses. if you eliminate the bosses and run the business democratically its socialism... thats all socialism is, worker control over the means of production. the workers working democratically to run the business.
[quote name='"BlazeLE"'] not if there are no labor laws and the corporate thugs swiftly shut them down... who's going to risk death to start a union? not the people in the 3rd world countries that dont have labor laws. all of you paul bots seem to ignore all of the bad that could potentially happen without government in a capitalist society...[/quote] Oh I'm well aware of what happens, just look at America between 1870ish to 1910. But what other economic system would work better?
False. I recognize that bad will always be a part of society, and therefore there will always be demand for protection and stability, therefore there will always be a supply in the long run. It just depends on who is providing it. I don't think that the Federal government is the best provider of economic, environmental, or political stability. I think those powers are best left to the States, where people are more closely represented. Where in that do you get that I want workers to be slaves, the world to be burning, and people to be eating people?
Blaze, I know it's hard to imagine, but think of it this way. You understand the unintended consequences that arise from attempting to police the world, no? Policing the economy has the same outcome, unintended consequences (boom followed by a severe bust, rich get richer, poorer get poorer). Getting rid of the income tax and allowing people 25 and under to opt out of social security so they may plan for their own future, whilst shoring up SS, Medicare, & Medicaid (with funds that as of now are spent on militarism overseas) for those that have been made dependent upon it through our reckless spending policies over the last century. Yeah, Ron totally is out to fuck over the workin' man.
Somewhat agree. Paul is still light years ahead of Anderson. I'd prefer Anderson over the current contenders but not by much I suppose. Anderson is still a statist, he just wants to expand the ones he likes. Especially when you consider his health care plan.
Wow have you ever had a job? Having a boss is a part of life. Having the ability to pick your boss, or the opportunity to be your own boss, is freedom. Not having the ability to pick your boss, i.e., being born on a certain patch of dirt so that you are forced to pay taxes or live by a certain set of arbitrary rules (government), is ultimately slavery.
market socialism where the workers control the means of production. when there are no super rich profiting off of other peoples labor who will be influencing government? the people. its literally that simple. you get rid of the super rich then the only people available to influence government are the workers... also there would be no unemployment or outsourcing. if you eliminate the rich you also eliminate the poor. eliminating the poor will eliminate the need for welfare.