+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Ramble City (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=44)
+--- Thread: My state's governor has lost it (/showthread.php?tid=6867)
Pages:
1
2
My state's governor has lost it - alien space marine - 25th July 2015
The man with the guns makes the rules, so does the man who can buy the best guns and the most soldiers.
The American founding fathers had warned at Length about the dangers posed to liberty and the free state posed the use of foreign mercenaries, especially when they have no stake in civil society or any ties to the country.
There is no alternative except to have a national army as your primary means of defence, that requires the levying of taxes to fund, Some libertarian anarchists believe some how you will have enough volunteers willing to donate money to pay the tab, even if that were hypothetically true, you'd still have no deterrent to dissuade hired guns from going rogue and turning against you. You also cannot expect there to always be enough suckers around willing to train, prepare and spend their own money and potentially risk their own lives fighting as militiamen,purely on a voluntary basis.
The Bush regime had no business hiring mercenaries like Blackwater,but they did rectify that error by bringing them to justice for their crimes, somthing that wouldn't happen in a impotent minarchy.
As for the roads, you do realize you won't have free commerce if companies can buy up roads and deny access to competitors or charging the equalivant of trade tariffs for their use. you'll be paying far more in tolls then you otherwise would in taxes, that would kill the trucking industry, you would also be allowing societies freedom of travel to be impeded and restricted by commodifying it.
Your system would be even more rigged in favour of predatory Monopolists then it already is.
My state's governor has lost it - A Black Falcon - 27th July 2015
nickdaddyg Wrote:How does it hand a monopoly to multiple competing private security services?The original American toll roads pretty much worked like that. Eventually the government took over such things because they're much more efficient at such things. For an example of how having the state and federal governments improve control of roads is a good thing, dd you ever drive on the Jersey Turnpike in the past, for example? There used to be so many tollbooths, because every town could set one up and many did. It still has tollbooths, but not as many as before because I think the laws changed a bit.
Why do you automatically call people warlords or billionaires? Of all the security companies I've seen: the ones that patrol apartment complexes, the ones that are at concerts & events .... I doubt those are warlords and billionaires.
It behooves those security companies to employ quality people, lest the companies go out of business after no one likes their services.
Were you referring to Blackwater and gangs? Now Blackwater may be worth millions or billions but that's because the your precious government is paying them that much.
The billionaires that do exist could pay for roads. They'd own them, and they could charge us for us. That way if you don't drive, you don't have to pay. I drive, so I'd want my contract with the road owners to state that they owe me a safe road to drive on. The road owners would want to maintain their roads because they'd then be responsible for the safety of the roads
The problem with hating government is that the alternative is rich people and corporations ruling the world, and they would be far, FAR worse than our government, by miles. (And no, the government did not "create corporations", and regardless of how they started, without government today they would take over.)
My state's governor has lost it - A Black Falcon - 29th July 2015
Paul LePage strikes again! The same guy who said that a former State House Democratic leader 'liked to give it to the people without the Vaseline' (yes, he actually said something pretty much like that, and this was BEFORE LePage was re-elected) now just insulted the whole first district (aka southern Maine), presumably because district 1 voted for Michaud in 2014, not LePage:
http://mainebeacon.com/gov-lepage-writes-off-half-the-state-of-maine/
Quote: Louise,
I bet you would like to see me resign.
You live in the south who exploit those who are not so fortunate, or understand the level of corruption that southern Mainers ignore and welcome!
Regards,
Governor Paul R. LePage
P.S. Not going to happen!
At this point I really hope he gets impeached. He has done things bad enough to deserve it.
My state's governor has lost it - alien space marine - 29th July 2015
A Black Falcon Wrote:Paul LePage strikes again! The same guy who said that a former State House Democratic leader 'liked to give it to the people without the Vaseline' (yes, he actually said something pretty much like that, and this was BEFORE LePage was re-elected) now just insulted the whole first district (aka southern Maine), presumably because district 1 voted for Michaud in 2014, not LePage:
http://mainebeacon.com/gov-lepage-writes-off-half-the-state-of-maine/
At this point I really hope he gets impeached. He has done things bad enough to deserve it.
You can't recall him , like in California? And then elect some washed up movie star...
LePage is Acadian right ?
Well At least that buffoon had the decency to be born on your side of the border and not mine. :>
My state's governor has lost it - A Black Falcon - 29th July 2015
alien space marine Wrote:You can't recall him , like in California? And then elect some washed up movie star...Unfortunately no, Maine doesn't allow recall elections. It would be nice if we had them, for things like this...
LePage is Acadian right ?
And yeah, he's Franco-American, and grew up speaking French as his first language.
Quote: Well At least that buffoon had the decency to be born on your side of the border and not mine. :>Heh... too bad for us. :p
My state's governor has lost it - Weltall - 30th July 2015
Analogy time.
There is this club, right? Everybody who is a member enjoys a certain amount of benefits for being there. They all meet in a large building that is paid for by dues. These dues are mandatory, and a requirement of membership. The fees for membership depended on a person's income. The more wealthy a member was, the more they were expected to pay. This was to ensure that the club's benefits could belong equally to all members, even those who were less wealthy. Though most of them grumble about having to pay, they realize that in the real world, things like this are only possible with the contributions of many.
One day, a certain individual who is not nickdaddy, refused to pay his dues.
"You have to pay to be a member", the chairman said to him. "It's a rule you agree to by continuing to be a member."
"You are forcing me to pay into this scheme", nickdaddy replied, "and by restricting my freedom, you are enslaving me."
"An absolutely necessary component of slavery", the chairman replied, "is that you are not allowed to leave. But, we are not forcing you to stay. You are free to sever ties and go anywhere you want."
"I shouldn't have to," nickdaddy replied. "I have been paying my dues, and I think enough is enough."
"Why would you want to stay, given that you think the operators of the club are tyrants and slavers?"
"We should remove you," he said. "You have too much power and you are restricting our free will."
"Most members understand the necessity of an operating body and don't agree with you."
"We don't need you. The richest ones pay too much as it is. Why should the poor pay less? Or get as many benefits?"
"Because, if that was the case, we would be much weaker as an organization, losing a great many talents and contributions."
"No, we wouldn't. The rich could just charge the poor for their seats, and maybe a fee to eat, or use the bathroom. And, it would be the same rate for everybody, which is fair."
"Is charging 5% of $10,000 the same as charging 5% of $10,000,000, in practical terms?"
"They're both 5%. That's called fairness."
"I'm one of the wealthy ones, and it sure would be better for me. But, %5 of my income is nothing to me. 5% of someone else's income could leave them homeless or starving."
"That's their own fault. If they worked harder, they wouldn't be poor."
"Does a person who makes $10,000,000 work a thousand times as hard as someone who makes $10,000?"
"No, but the free market has decided that their skills are worth more."
"So, it is fair for the whims of the 'free market' to decide how much a human life is worth?"
My state's governor has lost it - nickdaddyg - 1st August 2015
A Black Falcon Wrote:And no, the government did not "create corporations", and regardless of how they started, without government today they would take over.
Yes, they did. I researched this and wrote a paper on it. Going back to Roman times, the emperors would recognize certain groups and gave the group itself its own legal entity: It can sue or be sued, make contracts, etc. In the 1500-1600s, the first international business corporations included the two big ones: the Dutch East India Co and the British East India Co, and also some small ones like the Hudson Bay company.
The Dutch parliament authorized this new legal entity to exist, and in England it was the monarchy that declared the existence of such entities. In England, this was called a royal charter. The English royally chartered companies in particular were on occasion temporarily merged or legally forced to serve the military.
The big benefit of a corporation is the characteristic of limited liability. The owners, however many of them, can not be held personally responsible for the actions of the company. This is very convenient. A King could give his buddies a royal charter to form a new legal entity. These guys can build ships, trade with India, Siam, whoever... The King gets a cut via taxes. The King can declare that the company assist the military. And lastly, the King and his friends who own the corp avoid all personal lawsuits and a great deal of the shame when the royally chartered company violates the rights of others. I would say that type of power probably attracts a lot of ruffians to be employees.
I don't know why you disagree. I'm not trying to say the U.S. government created corporations. I'm just saying it is only government (they're in charge of the law) who can grant corporations to legally exist.
My state's governor has lost it - Dark Jaguar - 1st August 2015
Limited liability is probably a concept that should be abolished, if not at least tweaked. It seems to me that a company's owners should absolutely be held responsible for the actions of the company.
My state's governor has lost it - Great Rumbler - 1st August 2015
Nick, the problem you're talking about is one that is largely being enabled by Republicans and conservative Democrats, and it's not one that would be fixed by completely removing the government from the equation. You want corporate heads to be punished for criminal violations under their watch? Help vote in liberal politicians.
My state's governor has lost it - Weltall - 1st August 2015
Who is supposed to watchdog over business interests with an ineffective central government, when corporations will have nothing stopping them from outright owning police and private military forces?
Yeah, it's bad right now, that government abets corporate interests far more than it should. But, the solution to that isn't "remove the government". That's exactly what corporations want. They don't need the government to subsidize them anymore once they control the transportation network, public safety, national defense and utilities. They will be the government. And you'll get to have all the personal freedoms you can afford to purchase from them.
They're using you and people like you, and you're not even being paid for it. People who think everyone else are the sheeple.