Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Vatican Calls For An End to Capitalism
Topic Started: Nov 1 2011, 07:03 AM (958 Views)
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
I alluded to that in my first line of the last post Chris. Misplaced trust.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Mike
Nov 3 2011, 01:09 AM
I alluded to that in my first line of the last post Chris. Misplaced trust.
Right, so I echoed it. Difference is you focus distrust on corporations mainly and government little when both are to blame, and, as you also mention, alll of us for letting it happen.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thumper
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
colo_crawdad
Nov 2 2011, 10:17 PM
Thumper
Nov 2 2011, 09:38 PM
One job one vote.
Does that mean that the folks on the lower end of our economic system who hold down two and three jobs in an attempt to just get by get two or three votes and those of us retired that hold no jobs get no vootes? (I still have a job while retired.. Would that give me two votes?
Let me rephrase that, "employed, one vote. Retirees get no vote. OK? In your case you aren't retired, you are still gainfully employed. One vote for you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Thumper
Nov 3 2011, 06:48 AM
colo_crawdad
Nov 2 2011, 10:17 PM
Thumper
Nov 2 2011, 09:38 PM
One job one vote.
Does that mean that the folks on the lower end of our economic system who hold down two and three jobs in an attempt to just get by get two or three votes and those of us retired that hold no jobs get no vootes? (I still have a job while retired.. Would that give me two votes?
Let me rephrase that, "employed, one vote. Retirees get no vote. OK? In your case you aren't retired, you are still gainfully employed. One vote for you.
So employers can't vote or are they gainfully employed in employing others?

In general I agree though.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thumper
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Employers are given the vote.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
Since you are re-defining voter eligibility, why not go one step further. To qualify one must have completed graduate school, be gainfully employed and a property owner.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Property owner would be good. Schooling, non-qualifying.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
My point being that who decides and at what height do you place the bar.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Money is power, corporations get power from the wealth they generate. Some misuse that power by using that wealth to enfluence the political process. It's much more subtle than outright illegal activity like taking bribes. And, it's not just an innocent process like trying to get their positions heard. Political candidates are dependent on campaign contributions to get elected. Few business interests are going to make the contributions without expecting a return on their investment.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
tomdrobin
Nov 3 2011, 12:35 PM
Money is power, corporations get power from the wealth they generate. Some misuse that power by using that wealth to enfluence the political process. It's much more subtle than outright illegal activity like taking bribes. And, it's not just an innocent process like trying to get their positions heard. Political candidates are dependent on campaign contributions to get elected. Few business interests are going to make the contributions without expecting a return on their investment.
Money is not power, money is a commodity, a good, of subjective value, traded just like anything else as an economic means to what you desire, or as a political means. It's the latter that's the problem, the use of money, more generally, wealth, to purchase political power from a corrupt government, as you eventually put it: "Some misuse that power by using that wealth to enfluence the political process...." etc which I agree with.

So now how do you stop it?

Do you regulate the generation of wealth needed to solve problems with poverty, hunger, overpopulation, pollution, global warming etc etc etc?

Or do you regulate a corrupt government's ability to take bribes for re-election in exchange for power?
Edited by Chris, Nov 3 2011, 11:17 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis