State of the Union? Topic

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/10/2019 7:35:00 PM (view original):
But it does matter. My point is that I don't want the bulk of the power in the hands of the government. See Thomas Jefferson quote.

If a company is state run and corrupt, it proves my point.
But I said that corruption can come from anywhere. That company is still corrupt. The fac that it is state run is irrelevant.
2/10/2019 8:01 PM
But it's not irrelevant. Corruption can come from anywhere. You are correct. There are for sure more corrupt companies than countries simply because there are more companies. This is all about risk management. A corrupt government does significantly more damage than a corrupt company as they have significantly more power. This is indisputable. We can manage that risk by limiting their power.
2/10/2019 8:05 PM
Posted by tangplay on 2/10/2019 7:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/10/2019 6:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 2/10/2019 6:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by strikeout26 on 2/10/2019 5:24:00 PM (view original):
I'm not sure pointing me towards a communist country is much of a way to help your argument.
Is China really communist?

For a while I have been under the impression that they are communist in name only. But they have gigantic companies there.
I also don't believe they are Communist. I'd need to think what term I would actually use.

The Chinese companies you are (probably) referring to are state-owned.
That's irrelevant to the point.

It's still a tyrannical company, is it not?
No. The decision-maker in a statutory corporation (state-owned) is the government. The Chinese politburo is, therefore, the source of tyrrany and a company (or media, educational institutions, etc.) is simply the instrument used by the government to project it.

An actual tyrannical company would be its own source, without reference (or direction) from a central authority.
2/10/2019 8:12 PM
Thank you, Miami! I am running out of energy and words.
2/10/2019 8:19 PM
Posted by strikeout26 on 2/10/2019 8:05:00 PM (view original):
But it's not irrelevant. Corruption can come from anywhere. You are correct. There are for sure more corrupt companies than countries simply because there are more companies. This is all about risk management. A corrupt government does significantly more damage than a corrupt company as they have significantly more power. This is indisputable. We can manage that risk by limiting their power.
He does not understand that corrupt companies like Tyco go out of business and competitors grab their business. Corrupt governments kill people. Then again he went to college to "have fun". It shows.
2/10/2019 9:10 PM
Posted by strikeout26 on 2/10/2019 8:05:00 PM (view original):
But it's not irrelevant. Corruption can come from anywhere. You are correct. There are for sure more corrupt companies than countries simply because there are more companies. This is all about risk management. A corrupt government does significantly more damage than a corrupt company as they have significantly more power. This is indisputable. We can manage that risk by limiting their power.
Right but if you limit power of govn't the power goes to the companies.

Governments have done more damage than companies because governments have had more power.
2/10/2019 9:40 PM
Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/10/2019 8:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 2/10/2019 7:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/10/2019 6:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 2/10/2019 6:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by strikeout26 on 2/10/2019 5:24:00 PM (view original):
I'm not sure pointing me towards a communist country is much of a way to help your argument.
Is China really communist?

For a while I have been under the impression that they are communist in name only. But they have gigantic companies there.
I also don't believe they are Communist. I'd need to think what term I would actually use.

The Chinese companies you are (probably) referring to are state-owned.
That's irrelevant to the point.

It's still a tyrannical company, is it not?
No. The decision-maker in a statutory corporation (state-owned) is the government. The Chinese politburo is, therefore, the source of tyrrany and a company (or media, educational institutions, etc.) is simply the instrument used by the government to project it.

An actual tyrannical company would be its own source, without reference (or direction) from a central authority.
This still doesn't disprove my actual point, which was that companies can be tyrannical.
2/10/2019 9:42 PM
Posted by cccp1014 on 2/10/2019 9:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by strikeout26 on 2/10/2019 8:05:00 PM (view original):
But it's not irrelevant. Corruption can come from anywhere. You are correct. There are for sure more corrupt companies than countries simply because there are more companies. This is all about risk management. A corrupt government does significantly more damage than a corrupt company as they have significantly more power. This is indisputable. We can manage that risk by limiting their power.
He does not understand that corrupt companies like Tyco go out of business and competitors grab their business. Corrupt governments kill people. Then again he went to college to "have fun". It shows.
hahahahahahahahaahahah

corrupt companies go out of business

ahahahahahahaha

Also, I went to college mostly to learn more about my chosen profession. But thanks for cherrypicking the smaller portion of my statement :)

2/10/2019 9:43 PM
Firstly, with all due respect CCCP, the uncalled for insult adds nothing to the conversation and does nothing to enlighten people on truths. It creates an environment where they will disagree with simply because they don't like you without considering the rational of your post.

Secondly, your post has a lot of truth. Enron did not kill people. It was a terrible, corrupt company but it did far less harm than a tyrannical government. Once again, it's about risk management and protecting our intrinsic freedoms. Tang, used the term "micro freedom" in an earlier post. Freedoms are freedoms. There are no micro or macro freedoms. The word :freedom" doesn't need a modifier in the same way the words "justice" and "good" don't need modifiers (i.e. social justice).

To your second point, this is one reason that I think a college education is overvalued in the marketplace. I spent all of my adult life on college campuses. The point of college is to gain knowledge. This is the only point of college. There are many less expensive options to achieve these means. But way too many kids see college as a time to "have fun" before they must transition to the real world. This is why student loan debt will lead to the next recession and most of that debt was wasted by kids who got their degree in partying and drinking beer, but never received a degree in an actual useful major.
2/10/2019 9:46 PM
As a side note, the one thing I agree with more libertarians on is the flaws of US interventionism.

Recently I saw a call for the US to join the fight against Boko Haram, which I think is completely idiotic and shows a complete lack of knowledge of history.

Strikeout, where's the topic of the day? I want to talk with CCCP about US interventionism and imperialism. Since he said he wants the US to fight Palestine and Iran.
2/10/2019 9:47 PM
Posted by tangplay on 2/10/2019 9:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/10/2019 8:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 2/10/2019 7:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/10/2019 6:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 2/10/2019 6:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by strikeout26 on 2/10/2019 5:24:00 PM (view original):
I'm not sure pointing me towards a communist country is much of a way to help your argument.
Is China really communist?

For a while I have been under the impression that they are communist in name only. But they have gigantic companies there.
I also don't believe they are Communist. I'd need to think what term I would actually use.

The Chinese companies you are (probably) referring to are state-owned.
That's irrelevant to the point.

It's still a tyrannical company, is it not?
No. The decision-maker in a statutory corporation (state-owned) is the government. The Chinese politburo is, therefore, the source of tyrrany and a company (or media, educational institutions, etc.) is simply the instrument used by the government to project it.

An actual tyrannical company would be its own source, without reference (or direction) from a central authority.
This still doesn't disprove my actual point, which was that companies can be tyrannical.
Let's start this over. Name a company that has become tyrannical that was not state run. Discerning between state run entities and private entities is very important in this conversation as we are talking about governments becoming tyrannical. We have been able to name one that ended in 1799. You and I can both name many more countries that have become tyrannical.
2/10/2019 9:50 PM
Posted by tangplay on 2/10/2019 9:47:00 PM (view original):
As a side note, the one thing I agree with more libertarians on is the flaws of US interventionism.

Recently I saw a call for the US to join the fight against Boko Haram, which I think is completely idiotic and shows a complete lack of knowledge of history.

Strikeout, where's the topic of the day? I want to talk with CCCP about US interventionism and imperialism. Since he said he wants the US to fight Palestine and Iran.
You got it tomorrow. I forgot about it this weekend. I had a ton of family in town.
2/10/2019 9:51 PM
Posted by strikeout26 on 2/10/2019 9:46:00 PM (view original):
Firstly, with all due respect CCCP, the uncalled for insult adds nothing to the conversation and does nothing to enlighten people on truths. It creates an environment where they will disagree with simply because they don't like you without considering the rational of your post.

Secondly, your post has a lot of truth. Enron did not kill people. It was a terrible, corrupt company but it did far less harm than a tyrannical government. Once again, it's about risk management and protecting our intrinsic freedoms. Tang, used the term "micro freedom" in an earlier post. Freedoms are freedoms. There are no micro or macro freedoms. The word :freedom" doesn't need a modifier in the same way the words "justice" and "good" don't need modifiers (i.e. social justice).

To your second point, this is one reason that I think a college education is overvalued in the marketplace. I spent all of my adult life on college campuses. The point of college is to gain knowledge. This is the only point of college. There are many less expensive options to achieve these means. But way too many kids see college as a time to "have fun" before they must transition to the real world. This is why student loan debt will lead to the next recession and most of that debt was wasted by kids who got their degree in partying and drinking beer, but never received a degree in an actual useful major.
I will mildly disagree. College/university has two functions. One is to learn a trade. The other is to learn how to think critically. It is the 2nd point where higher education has completely dropped the ball in the last generation or so.
2/10/2019 9:53 PM
Posted by strikeout26 on 2/10/2019 9:46:00 PM (view original):
Firstly, with all due respect CCCP, the uncalled for insult adds nothing to the conversation and does nothing to enlighten people on truths. It creates an environment where they will disagree with simply because they don't like you without considering the rational of your post.

Secondly, your post has a lot of truth. Enron did not kill people. It was a terrible, corrupt company but it did far less harm than a tyrannical government. Once again, it's about risk management and protecting our intrinsic freedoms. Tang, used the term "micro freedom" in an earlier post. Freedoms are freedoms. There are no micro or macro freedoms. The word :freedom" doesn't need a modifier in the same way the words "justice" and "good" don't need modifiers (i.e. social justice).

To your second point, this is one reason that I think a college education is overvalued in the marketplace. I spent all of my adult life on college campuses. The point of college is to gain knowledge. This is the only point of college. There are many less expensive options to achieve these means. But way too many kids see college as a time to "have fun" before they must transition to the real world. This is why student loan debt will lead to the next recession and most of that debt was wasted by kids who got their degree in partying and drinking beer, but never received a degree in an actual useful major.
Well, not saying I agree with this, but here's a snippet of an article.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-problems-with-libertarianism_us_57c093efe4b0b01630de953f

The whole purpose of civilization should be to ensure that everyone is fed, clothed, housed and NOT to create the conditions so that the few can secure a substantially greater portion of resources while others are left with virtually none. In a libertarian society, who protects the unprotected, who defends the rights of the defenseless? Even libertarians acknowledge that a free market will drive a larger wealth disparity... Wealth inequality paired with deregulation creates an opportunity for haves to rule the have-nots. This is one of the many reasons for regulation ? to ensure that the rich few do not impose their will unjustly or destructively on the poor multitudes.

Another libertarian belief is the idea that the government should not be allowed to impose its will on the citizenry. However, in a truly free market that promotes freedom of contract and de-regulation ? employers have a right to force rules that would never be permitted in our current Democratic systems. Libertarianism is a rich man’s ideal. It ostensibly gives ultimate freedoms and choice to everyone at the cost of helping the helpless...

The core principles of libertarianism ? deregulation and a free market economy... will lead to an even bigger wealth gap [that] sounds like [a] dystopian future pic where classism runs rampant and the massive lower income classes rise against their small but incredibly wealthy oppressors.

You may see the poor or underclass as weak ? the “losers” in the giant meritocratic experiment that is the libertarian ideal, but weak as they are, there are going to be a hell of a lot more of them than there are of you. So in the hopes of avoiding the fate of the monarchy during the French Revolution, maybe it’s best to retain welfare and at least a modest social safety net...

In the end, libertarianism is similar to communism. On the face they’re both noble, but impossibly ambitious theories ? one has individual freedom as its core principle and the other, equality. However, in practice, both concepts lead to outcomes that aren’t as pure.

Debate away.

To the college point, fwiw I learned a lot in college about independence, maturity, and journalism, plus I got to put it to use.

2/10/2019 9:59 PM (edited)
Posted by strikeout26 on 2/10/2019 9:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 2/10/2019 9:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/10/2019 8:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 2/10/2019 7:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/10/2019 6:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 2/10/2019 6:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by strikeout26 on 2/10/2019 5:24:00 PM (view original):
I'm not sure pointing me towards a communist country is much of a way to help your argument.
Is China really communist?

For a while I have been under the impression that they are communist in name only. But they have gigantic companies there.
I also don't believe they are Communist. I'd need to think what term I would actually use.

The Chinese companies you are (probably) referring to are state-owned.
That's irrelevant to the point.

It's still a tyrannical company, is it not?
No. The decision-maker in a statutory corporation (state-owned) is the government. The Chinese politburo is, therefore, the source of tyrrany and a company (or media, educational institutions, etc.) is simply the instrument used by the government to project it.

An actual tyrannical company would be its own source, without reference (or direction) from a central authority.
This still doesn't disprove my actual point, which was that companies can be tyrannical.
Let's start this over. Name a company that has become tyrannical that was not state run. Discerning between state run entities and private entities is very important in this conversation as we are talking about governments becoming tyrannical. We have been able to name one that ended in 1799. You and I can both name many more countries that have become tyrannical.
Well, it's going to be smaller scale because companies have less and different power than the government.

Luxxotica is one. Pick and choose a number of monopolies. Many private prisons and colleges are bad.
2/10/2019 9:58 PM
◂ Prev 1...15|16|17|18|19...28 Next ▸
State of the Union? Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.