Bitcoin Forum

The government forms some regulations over the past century or so and by coincidence or some act of misfortune, the corporations--the same ones to be impeded by these regulations--use them to their advantage and fuck everybody else over.

Some kids get mad and they are protesting Wall Street for playing by the rules?

...and getting bailed out by the same government that's supposed to be keeping them in their place?

Yeah, it makes perfect sense. It's not like the government is supposed to be a force that's accountable towards its constituents or anything.

Let's all play victim with the government included and beg our corporate masters to set us free.

So you're in favor of regulations if they do the right thing, then?

They won't ever do the right thing. If you have a monopoly on force, it's just a magnet for manipulation. Regulations will only be social engineering to create bigger companies and bigger bureaucracy. A regulation today is just an exemption and a monopoly for somebody else.

Look at our drug wars. The asinine violence and murder only continues because the cartel lobbies the politicians to keep the status quo in place.

The rules are created only for those who desire power. The people will only be given the upper-hand when order is not determined by a purportedly wise few but directly by the populace itself; not through direct mob-rule democracy but by where all whims are addressed in terms of accountable and sustainable value.  

Who has more time, money and incentive to lobby politicians, the fascist corporations or Joe Q. Everyman?

Sounds about right to me. Nice was of putting it, too.

You have to be kidding me.  Government isn't accountable to anything but an act of God (a legal term).  And their will still be a government long after everyone have departed the earth.

Wall street never played fair man. The banks were hiding the mortgage debt as write-off and selling them as loans. Insider trading scandals, phone hacking. . Obese car industry whom fail to get with the times. Selling SUVs and trucks when no one can afford gas. America sold Wall street awhile ago if you didn't hear the news, and never hit 20,000 since.

I'm really having trouble picturing this. Like other species will wear uniforms and boss each other around?

The banks wouldn't have the incentive to do that if the government wasn't their to bail them out. Insider trading is only enabled by government regulation. It's not a crime unto itself. If people want SUVs and trucks, that's what they will buy. If the government didn't subsidize oil and bail-out failing car companies, we might have more diverse customer interest.

I like that, "one man's regulation is another man's monopoly".

It ought to give pause to all of those politicians out there who think they're doing society a favor, when in fact the laws they write, do nothing more than accrue power to the (s)elect few.

Current law does have some justice when it comes to force, it can protect people with less force, but it can not protect people with less intelligence, so in that sense human are still very savvy, slaughter each other by using intelligence

Not to mention the govt then sends out it's henchmen Kops to beat the shit out of said protesters.

According to you in a few previous threads that would be "Joe Q. Everyman".
I distinctly remember that "Big Bad Security Inc" would be outmatched in every way by "Nice Peoples Security Inc" if we ever got to a libertarian society.

That makes no sense. Lobbying politicians isn't something that can happen in a libertarian society because there would be no state. How can anyone be better in a nonexistent activity? Derp.

So in an libertarian society people do have a chance to stand against large, well funded organizations, but in the current society it's impossible? Correct?

It's not impossible, just a lot harder. When power is concentrated in the hands of a select few people, it's a lot easier to bribe them all.

But the rich will have their own armies in a libertarian society, possibly funded by foreign powers. 

And? What's your point?

Good luck lobbying people with guns.

What's that supposed to mean? Can you please put forth a complete thought?

You say in a libertarian state that people can stand better against large rich corporations than they do now.  But the corporations will be armed and able to enforce their will as they will also own their own courts.  So, in a libertarian society, people will NOT be able stand against large, well funded organizations.

 
Right, the keyword is "better". I'm not saying victory is guaranteed. If people refuse to stand up and fight against oppression they will obviously lose. However, nobody can sanely argue against the obvious fact that it's easier to bribe a handful of politicians than it is to oppress millions of people at gunpoint. Why is this even being debated?

Rich companies that have their own courts and militias will be even less responsive than a democratically elected authority.  Even in the most corrupt of democracies, most people get access to justice.  Governments that fail to perform get kicked out.  You are proposing replacing that with a system where the powerful have their own militias, have the ability to get backing from foreign states and have no reason whatsoever to be responsive to lobbying.  Even a simple trade union strike would be impossible.

The fact remains that it's easier to bribe a handful of politicians than it is to oppress millions of people at gunpoint. It's easier to pay to subvert the current courts and armies than it is to build your own.

And it's also much easier to vote out a handful of politicians if people just get mad enough from being oppressed. You've heard the saying "You get the leaders you deserve", right?

Yes, it's so easy to vote for the party that gives us the Patriot Act and then vote for the other party.... that extends it... Cool system.

Vote them out or nor, politicians can be bribed to pass laws, and the entirety of the state will enforce it with money you pay to support those forces. Militias will have to raise their own money and enforce their own laws. Cheaper and easier to only maintain what's needed.

And those are the only two options you have? No 3:rd party?

Not for the last few centuries, no. The only thing 3rd parties do in US is split the vote between two most favored candidates, allowing the third, least favored, to win.

That's because not enough people are enraged from being oppressed by the two other parties I suppose. When a 3:rd or 4:th gets 60% of the votes things will change I assume?

(Assuming you are not from the US, or don't follow US politics...)
When 3rd gets high enough, they usually just end up becoming one of the first two. The only way things change, basically, is when enough people get pissed enough for one of the parties  to change and run on that anger against the opposition. But the same people and the same party interests remain. For example, in 2010, the Tea Party was a lot of people enraged about wasteful government spending and bad economic policies. They all swore it was all economics and not social issues. People voted them in, and pretty much the only major thing they all started working on right away is banning abortion all over the country. Regarding economics, there was some failed stuff about unions (not much of an effect on our economy) and a rather stupid fight that resulted with us losing our AAA rating. Wars are still there, personal interest corp subsidies still there, all entitlement stuff is still there. So, politicians lie (no surprise), until people eventually catch on and vote for the other liars.
It's still a fun process though.

Even though I don't think voting represents a real contractual obligation, I might be interested in the following alternative, if it were available:

If it could be proven that (in the US) a politician were violating his oath of office, or that any piece of legislation resulted in directly or indirectly plundering from the person who voted in his representative, that he/she be tried in a court of law for said theft (assuming he supported said legislation).

Anyone should be able to bring suit against the alleged representative/politician (probably a class action). It wouldn't require an impeachment (that's like asking the mafia to police themselves). The executors of the law could also be brought (they're accomplices too). Be that the case, then I might entertain the idea.

Of course, the vote would have to be kept track of. A written record of who you voted for would be available in the public domain and any verbal promises could be construed as contractual in nature. The case should be tried like any other. What was the motive? Where is the evidence? Who are the co-conspirators? How was the crime accomplished? Follow the money trail.

That ought to cut down on a lot of corruption real quick.

so?  The point is you can get rid of a bribed politician.  If you enable corporations to own militias and to take military assistance from foreign governments, you are stuck with them for a long time.

You can't get rid of a bribed politician because the establishment will just place a just as bad one in eyes of the populace. There is no accountability in a monopoly on force.

So what if a corporation arms up? There will be just as many to counter them. They can't form a natural monopoly in this sector. In the end, it's who holds the money and in a libertarian society everybody is on an even ground.

The problem is the mess the politician left behind (the laws he enacted). If by getting rid of the politician, can we also get rid of the destructive forces he left in his wake?

Voting a politician out of office (for unlawful conduct) is hardly punishment for the expansive damage they do. Barely a slap on the wrist if you ask me.

In point of fact, in real criminal cases we go after all of the accomplices, conspirators and accessories to criminal behavior. Why do we make exceptions for legislators, executives and adjudicators when the laws they uphold achieve similar ends?

That's got to be the funniest thing today.  Whatever happens in a libertarian society you can be damn sure it will not result in an even ground. You can be sure that you, and I, will have an uphill battle for basically everything.

We're in the most regulated society right now and look at this shit. We're living in corporate fascism! Could it get any worse? Is it not an uphill battle as-is? The corporations pay less than 1% in tax and we pay more than 20% in social security and such. You're telling me we would be more even here than with more liberty?

You are right.  But remember that its an American problem.  Ever since Reagan announced that tax cuts for the rich are self-financing, America has been on a binge of cutting taxes for the rich in the hope that the economy would grow and finance the cuts.  Clearly it hasn't happened and now you have a weird system where Warren Buffets secretary pays more in tax than he does. 

The sad thing is, most Americans I see posting on this forum sincerely believe that the answer to the problem is more tax cuts for the rich.  And they call it "libertarianism."

The biggest secret, that probably only corporate finance types know, is that corporations generally don't get affected by taxes much. Thanks to interest on debt being 100% tax deductible, the biggest difference between a corporation in a 1% tax rate and one in a 35% tax rate is that the former will pay out stock dividends to stockholders, while the later will load up on debt to the point that, thanks to their huge interest payment deductions, they will still only have 1% in taxes left to pay, and those debt interest payments will go to corporate bond holders as coupon payments (like bond version of dividends). So, really, the choice between higher and lower taxes is a choice between stockholders or bondholders getting paid (likely same people, anyway).  Jobs have almost nothing to do with it.

There hasn't been a US President outside of the Republican or Democratic parties since the 1800's. You can vote for Mickey Mouse if you want but it won't matter.

I might vote for Mickey, he might actually do less damage. But then again, maybe not. Ignorance is not bliss.

The point is, even if you vote for Mickey, he is still not going to win unless he runs as a Democrat or Republican.

So you agree with this current state of affairs? How the government is handling this?