Quote:
Originally Posted by PWill  How is that not tyranny? The government is forcing you to give them money by threatening you. Based on every dictionary I have ever seen, that is called "theft" |
Answers.com's definition depends on what property is, does it not? I defined it as what society grands, for various reasons, like accounting for responsibility(like knowing where it is, state of it), rewarding things, or something in accordance of a persons' rights.(said it
earlier(riw)) Tax means that society does not grant that anymore. Government is supposed to represent society, and takes the tax. But very well, if you have your definition of property as something that is intrinsic to some thing, it is theft. In that case, not all theft by govt negates the set of rights of the person.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dies Irae Corporations have been affecting government for a long time. Since the gathering of huge amounts of money was a huge advantage to large technological projects ...
I think it's more down to how the government interacts with corporations and how they are treated in comparison to general businesses rather than simply it being the slippery slope of capitalism. |
I agree, a relationship of govt with free market and corporations is not necessarily bad. I think it is slippery if the relations are not clear though. I think transparently should be demanded, there should be a clear organization that knows all of govts interactions with capitalism, and is open to scruteny.
That still leaves the problem of inability to compete with some corporations, though. (But i am not sure how bad that is, perhaps it is not bad.)
About Sweden, I thought they had capitalism there? I mean, Europe's left governments still employ capitalism, but with many controls like laws on work conditions. And of course, they heavily employ tax for social programs.
I think that is the way to go for quite a time in the future, moderated capitalism.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MRiGnS the goal of marxism is to dispose the government in the end and give the power to the people. |
I thought that socialism is a form where the whole society forms government, which in that case is supposed to be the power of the people. What is your definition of democratic government then? The current steaming heap of crap?
@bns: An egalitarian society? Sounds scary, would not want that.. What do you mean? I think people should have the right to gain more wealth, rewarded by contributing, up to a point. Just that they do not hog resources.
Personally i am against socialism an-sich, next to what i earlier said what it misses. i guess too much power gets concentrated in the logistics that is currently in corporations and free market. Perhaps next to the separation church - state and govt&police - justice system, there should be a separation govt - mayor logistics.(i should be more clear what i mean, but the words dont come to me, hopefully later.)
Also, can we next time kill PWill's roundabouts in less posts.
