Quote (thesnipa @ Apr 19 2018 09:58am)
either you are moving the goalposts, or i misunderstood " the people with the power and the wealth are already the most unscrupulous people " to be literal, when you actually meant corporations. a fine line i suppose.
but you're also comparing how corporations act in the developing world to how, hypothetically, they would act in the industrialized world if the government disappeared. thats apples and oranges. also apparent by your point, u say they want to deliver for share holders. ok fair enough, but things like the stock market and currency generally require a strict system of controls to work, usually done by a government. Your assumption that they would pillage the places and people that they are trying to help with stock prices seems to contradict yourself. without the government to hold up society economically corporations needs to fill the gap. By raping the population they destroy their customer base, employees, and themselves. it just doesnt make sense. you can claim corporations, if they ran the government, would still fuck people over all the time. newsflash, so does the government, all the time. so what you're really saying is "the new corporation govt would do bad things, like the old govt". to a libertarian. i mean, dont you have paint to watch dry?
i didnt say that's what makes him biased, im basing it off of years of posts on the subject. my overall point was that American philanthropy is actually quite good, which was a secondary point to counter the idea that financial elite are immoral. either way we can't really know unless we do it what corporations would do, but stability is unarguably better for business than chaos.
The shareholders are other wealthy elites and the upper middle class, the poor would simply be wage slaves who no one gave a shit about.
But if as you say it would be more of the same why advocate such a system?
At least in a state we get to vote for who gets the next turn violating us.