Im not saying you support those things, I am saying you support the infrastructure that supports those things.
The private sector cannot force you to buy something or force you to do anything.
On technicality? Sure, you're right. But those choices probably aren't going to be very evenly weighted, if history has anything to say about it. I can work for a dollar an hour for eighteen hours a day, or I can have "standards" and go hungry because I don't have a job -- however horribly paid -- to feed myself. I mean, they're not forcing
me, right? Is this a victory for the private sector without government regulation telling them what they can and can't do?
When the private sector 'fails', its failures are minor in comparison to the entire system melt-downs that the government can achieve.
So...the lack of regulation on Wall Street and amongst bankers was...what, exactly? I'd say that catalyzed a pretty dim period for us.
Take currency for example. If my currency was inferior because I watered down the gold, or whatever was physically backing my currency became much less valuable, then I would fail but get replaced by a much more competitive currency that was more valuable.
As it was already demonstrated in this thread, if everyone can make their own currency on a whim, you effectively have a meltdown of economy because of exchange rates, certain places declining your money in favor of its own, and so forth. All of this doesn't even mention what it does for the country on a global scale as well as the socioeconomic disparities it would create within. I am having a little trouble seeing how allowing your currency (currencies?) to fail at any time is a desirable alternative. Needing 8 different currencies just to go to different companies for X or Y service is not efficient. The Euro has already been brought up here.
So your asking me to prove politicians/dictators/bureaucrats are greedy? I would say that the government has been getting gradually more and more controlling over the past century. Probably the most recent example would be the patriot act.
You, on one hand, argue that these are "just people". These would be the same "just people" that are running businesses in the private sector, and yet you are painting the government as different simply because it can enforce things. Okay, fine -- let's demolish the government all together and let the private sector run everything. The same people in the government are suddenly in the private sector
...and you're arguing they're not going to do things that are harmful to the public at large in favor of multiplying their own power/money with nobody over them to enforce? The logic is not adding up to me.
There are certainly countries who have "more controlling" governments, and yet they remain democratic and free. Scandinavian countries and much of Western Europe comes to mind, and I'm quite positive their citizens don't feel particularly brainwashed, controlled, or oppressed. I find it pretty unconvincing on one hand to call our government inept and terrible at governing and passing laws and on the other hand, accuse them of hatching a complicated plan to take over its own citizens. It doesn't add up. Like I said, our country is awfully inept at being controlling if it's taken them damn near 300 years to pass the Patriot Act. It took Hitler (hello, Godwin!) a fraction of that time to take over Germany for his own actual
nefarious purposes and
execute tangible evidence of it.
So basically the government oppresses minorities -> the government stops oppressing minorities = victory for government? Government committed the original sin.
Nooot quite. I'll address this more later, but by your argument, we should shred the Constitution because it failed outright to protect women, minorities, the GLBT community, animals, and children. It was a failure from the beginning from the strawman you're setting up. I would hardly call it a "victory", but I fail to see how greatly different and progressive the "private sector" would've been when they were getting dirt-cheap labor out on the plantation for the low, low cost of oppressing another's basic individual rights that the government set up in the first place.
Want to know why GM was saved? Heres why. Oh and heres another reason. Boy I wonder if that top recipient in the senate rooted for GM at all later in his career.
I don't understand why you're pointing out business donations to the government -- and then turning around and blaming the "corruption" you see on the government. If you're correlating the bailout with the fact that a business got involved with the government and made donations with their money to get something that benefited them, then you're essentially saying that the government is a shill for the private sector, and I would argue that it's a stronger case against letting the private sector anywhere near the government rather than vice versa.
Regardless, you're not addressing my point. You're making the claim that the government just wants more and more power, when they safely bought the company and sold it back when they were done. That's not a spin or an ideological sleight of hand, that's what happened.
Again, an awfully strange move for a government that wants it all. Here's an interesting recap on nationalization in America
-- take from it what you will, but it does address several instances of government takeover whose industries were subsequently returned to the private sector later. You'll even notice the government ruling against itself
That forced nationalization did not last long, since the Supreme Court ruled the action an unconstitutional abuse of presidential power.
Officials know they can't just take complete control without risking anger from the population, so they might not even want to. But being able to shut down your lemonade stand because you didn't fill out the correct permits is close enough.
You're making broad, conspiratorial claims with no presented evidence and then you're jumping all over the place ideologically. First the government is hungry for power, now you're saying they might not even want to take control?
You'll have to excuse me if I'm finding it difficult to follow you here, but your leaps in logic are growing difficult to follow along behind.
Heres a video you should watch about the private sector and greed vs. when the public sector gets greedy.
Greed With John Stossel part 2 of 6
There is a lot that is wrong with this video. They create false dichotomies and strawmen abound. Comparing Bill Gates and Jean-Claude Duvalier? Really?
Not addressing the fact that your taxes actually do
purchase services that you use? He also builds an image that there are no successful cheaters, that people can't be mislead by corporate charlatans while simultaneously assuring us "people wise up" -- to which all I can really say is investment bubbles.
Going on to say that Rockefeller and Vanderbilt taking advantage of the poor was somehow virtuous
? I don't know how else to say this, but this video is utter garbage with little substance.
I'm not saying this is bunk because I'm not open to learning and possibly changing my mind in the face of good evidence -- I'm open to learning from facts
that come from unbiased research
. This video is shoddy from front to back and it's addressing an argument that nobody is making. Being okay with a degree of government intervention does not necessitate that you hate businesses and don't want to see anyone succeed. I don't hate the private sector any more than I want the government to take everything over and turn us into a nanny state. That's a false choice.
But this is all an uphill battle agaisnt government. Its government that first started giving special tax breaks to encourage marriage, but excluded gay people. Its federal fugitive slave laws that made slavery economical in the US while helping to create a concept of racism. I am trying to say that the government should change by simply not being involved in so many things.
The government did not invent racism. The government did not invent slavery. It did not invent discrimination against gays. We elect people to the government who act as our mouthpiece.
The government didn't force
those measures on us, we voted on them
. Whether or not minorities were given full citizenship and human rights was not an act of a single-minded government monster forcing inequality on us while we all toiled in woe over how unfair it was. We let it happen.
Yes, it was a shortcoming in legislature and a very disappointing and horrifying period for our society as a whole, but if you'd like to test how the state of the nation would've been without the government there, ask yourself if slavery would've dried up and gone away without the government there at all. I'd contend it wouldn't have and may have even continued on longer. What prerogative does business have to spend more money on its laborers if their current method is serving them just fine?
If you'd like to argue that our democracy is an elaborate show of smoke and mirrors and the citizens actually have nothing to do with anything that happens, then that's a line of conspiratorial thinking I can't even begin to address here and frankly don't really want to. :\