Corporations are not people. Consciousness is by definition singular. I am not going to explain to you why this is true. But if you don't get it, I would start with basic sciences and then progress through post-graduate cognitive neuroscience. It is fact that consciousness is singular. The constitution explicitly states that it is our individual rights that have priority over government, not the other way around. That you cannot force another to do your bidding. That is the pledge of the government. I didn't sign it, but I do pay for it. A moral government's only role is to protect anyone from their person or property being violated by another person, or group of people or government. You have no moral ground to take what is not yours. You can come up with any crime anyone ever commits and it will not give you the moral right to vote and then take my right to my own life away from me. You are the aggressor.
MCT, I strongly disagree. This government is the problem, but governments that are based on laws and enforced, produces a more stable society. Government that is well thought out, fairly and judiciously executed, empowers individuals, businesses and international relations. No branch of current government is free of undue influence of money.
The only moral government is one that defends only individual rights. Non-retaliatory force against any individual is immoral, especially when it is institutionalized, and even if it is to force someone to give a little piece of bread to a beautiful little starving child, when they have loaves and loaves in their house. Cooperation is moral. Force is not.
I need more information. You wrote, "The only moral government is one that defends only individual rights." What about Shell Oil, going into towns selling gas at lower rates than other gas stations in town, driving them out of business. As soon as the competition is beaten, the price of Shell went higher than it was before their intrusion. The same thing is happening with WalMart, kill the competition then jack up prices higher than before they came to town.
Sure WalMart, for example, has clothes cheaper than the little Mom and Pop store because they have access to slave-labor produced merchandise. So, Mom and Pop go out of business. I don't know how your town looks, but my town has so many closed businesses ... maybe that is a good thing, but what about all the people who have no jobs or jobs that don't pay a living wage. If government is to protect the "individual" then how do you square the history with reality?
Ah but he thinks thinks that individual rights includes the right to starve.
Of course we have the moral right to starve. You have the moral right to do anything you want with your own body, as long as it doesn't violate the rights of another person.
Don't buy their products, if you don't want them in town. And you do not have the right to stop someone from opening a business, federally. If you wish to live in a little hippie commune and have your local or state laws reflect that, fine. Just don't force me to finance you. The world will continue to evolve and change. This will be unfortunate for some, but again, you do not have the moral right to my life and according to the constitution and the Bill of Rights, you do not have the legal right either. Our government was rightly designed to protect and enforce freedom, not guarantee happiness by creating jobs, providing healthcare and making sure Mom&Pop's Bookstore stays open, even though everybody else is buying their books elsewhere. Your position is morally bankrupt. No amount of evil justifies more evil. History has shown that we are only as happy as we are free to pursue our happiness. It has not shown one tiny little bit that government regulation causes happiness or mitigates suffering, in the long run. We are each responsible for our own and we are most successful when big brother is out of the way. Countries that are or have been somewhat successful are so despite their socialistic tendencies and because of their capitalistic ones. It is very complex and saying that Clinton had some effect on something and was therefore responsible for creating jobs and this is why capitalism doesn't work is all messed up of an argument. Free trade is moral and practical. And all we need for this to succeed is a single monopolizer of retaliatory force. One not attached to necessarily corrupt politicians, lobbyists, special interest groups (that included 'Wallstreet'), the Christian right, the military industrial complex, the Federal counterfeiting agency or anything not used for the protection of the individual against governments or other individuals.
You know, it is odd how people got caught in the credit traps. When I ran 2,000 miles with my three ten-year old children, $2,000 in my bank account and cat and her kittens, I found an old run-down house in a nice working class neighborhood and bought it for the price of the land, the house was condemned. I took out a mortgage and paid it off in two years. We killed the mice, cleaned out the trash and started sprucing it up. I put in a huge garden and we ate off that until the kids graduated high school. I saved, working at minimum wage jobs, went to school, finished my bachelor's and master's degrees and completed all but dissertation on my doctorate. I bought a small car and paid cash.
Since that day in 1977 when I paid off the mortgage, I have not paid one cent for money, ever.
So, you can talk to me about finances, but I wonder if you could have pulled off such a feat.
Yes, people fall for the credit card scam and pay for money, not realizing they are taking good money and throwing into a credit hole. The lesson for these people will be a hard one to learn ... there will be a lot of grumbling and blaming; when all is said and done, each individual has to be smarter than the banks and financial institutions.
I've watched my kids grow and develop some good financial smarts ... I take credit for that. They are on their feet now and I can relax. I wonder what families do who teach their kids to bring out the credit card?
Freedom describes a relationship between entities. There is no unlimited freedom. Anywhere. Freedom is relative. And our constitution specifically states that the government shall have no right over that of the individual. And just to make sure, they created a bill of rights to further clarify the necessary limitations of the government. Since then, it has been desecrated and distorted. Rights can only pertain to the individual. No group can have rights others, not in that group, can't have. There is no too powerful. You cannot properly or morally tell someone they have too much. It is what people do with whatever they have that matters. You hate the successful for their success. Penalizing productivity and rewarding need is a sure way to dictatorship. I thank you for the situation we are in.
Social rights penalize wealth production.
Do legal rights or human rights penalize wealth production? If so, why? how?
Like I said, he thinks we should have the right to starve.