Subject:
|
Re: Is Nader Really a Threat to Democracy?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 28 Feb 2004 00:07:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
362 times
|
| |
|
|
"Don Heyse" <dheyse@hotmail.spam.go.away.com> wrote in message
news:HtrMwH.7KL@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Neb Okla wrote:
> > > Hey, that reminds me of something I occasionally think about. Since
> > > all politicians are corrupt, but they're all we have to work with, what
> > > works best?
> >
> > I think pork-barrel spending leads to corruption, but all hail the • community
> > so noble that they refuse to accept it. The lobbiests are at the root • of
> > the pork. The lobbiests represent corporations - and corporations • represent
> > their workers (if my employer gets tax incentives to be where it is, • then I
> > get a job where I am - and you won't see me complaining).
>
> I think I disagree with this argument. Corporations represent their
> shareholders, not their employees. Would you complain if some other
Many of my fellow employees are shareholders. They benefit when the company
benefits. The company is doing well, so we all got bonuses this year. I
benefited there. And also when the company is doing well, they don't lay
people off - so that's a benefit.
> place goes beyond tax incentives and actually pays the company to
> relocate elsewhere, without you?
I've not heard of that happening. Usually tax incentives are all it takes.
> The problem with pure capitalism
> in a global context is that there's *always* going to be somebody
> somewhere willing to undercut you.
In practice, there is a minimum cost a product of a ceartain quality can be
delivered for. Megablocks undercuts Lego in price, but it's not the same
quality. And the "Brick" knock-offs from Asia are even cheaper than
Megablocks - but quality is even worse.
All capitalism does is drive companies like Megablocks to improve their
product - and I think this is something we've seen over the past few years -
even if I won't touch them with a 10ft pole.
> > You're assuming that a party can only marginally represent one's • interests.
> > I can think of at least one fringe party that would represent my • interests
> > much more than the two Republicrat parties we have now.
>
> Yeah sure, if I form my own party of one person it'll represent ALL
> my interests. Is that the sort of fringe party you're talking about?
> Right now we have 2 real parties. Other countries seem to have
> multiple real parties. I was just wondering which works better.
Actually I was referring to the Libertarian party. It's quite an
interesting anomoly. Just today a friend was telling me that he "agreed
with the Libertarians on some things" - then he said "The perfect party for
me would be..." and then he proceeded to list about 15 different issues
where most of the Libertarians I talk to online agree with him. The only
thing he disagreed with the Libertarian Party (LP) on is "free trade" - but
he seemed to think that free trade only benefits corporations. I think I
went a long way today to convincing him otherwise. He eventually agreed
that his definition of "free trade" might be a little out of whack, because
he seemed to agree that my version was "good for the poor".
There are a lot of parties out there - but the interesting thing to me has
been learning about the diversity within the LP. I disagree with some
libertarians on some issues, but the disagreements aren't as big as the ones
I have with the Republicrats.
> Also, do you think the 2 party system is fairly stable? Or are we
> heading for a breakup?
I'm flattered that you asked. I guess you don't think I'm a complete kook.
I could only hope for a breakup. As Europe illustrates, there are many
possible political viewpoints. I think most Americans really try to
shoe-horn themselves into a D or R party view of the world. Sometimes it
fits like a glove, but not for most people I know.
I just wish people would think a little more out of the box - not just along
a scale from Conservative to Liberal (which is all you ever hear about on
the news) and add the Authoritarian to Libertarian axes into the mix.
The people who need to pay closest attention to where they are on the
Authoritarian/Libertarian axes of the scale are the people who call
themselves "Moderates".
I actually liked Dean. Too bad he's out. Too radical for the majority of
Americans though.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Is Nader Really a Threat to Democracy?
|
| (...) I think I disagree with this argument. Corporations represent their shareholders, not their employees. Would you complain if some other place goes beyond tax incentives and actually pays the company to relocate elsewhere, without you? The (...) (21 years ago, 27-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
