American Revolution

So really, what are the chances of an uprising in modern day America?  Not only do you have police everywhere, along with National Guard/Reserves and regular military bases throughout the country, but anyone that dares to fight  is an automatic criminal/militia/fanatic/terrorist.  Of course that means you're judged by the very rules you're trying to overthrow... but what chance is there that someone could overthrow the country's entire rule system and start from scatch, or even have the support of the majority of the people who watch TV and see everything thtrough a filtered media that puts negative spin in order to dissuade the efforts of a revolution?  The problem is the majority of the population is content and complacent.  Revolutions occur when the majority is poor, pissed off, and tired of the current system.  It would require people to have no access to their books, television, movies, computers, video games, or anything else to distract them.  It would require wealth to diminish to nothing, houses to lose their value, and utilities and public programs to become completely ineffective.  I don't see any of this happening unless the US is assraped by the Middle East or communist Asia.   

>>80
"Is anyone such a greedy motherfucker they would disagree with this?"
Unfortunately, yes. And in a system which needs to encourage competition to maintain there will always be people who want to take things farther in order to succeed. Eventually these people make their way into government so that they make it regulate business less and rely on the private sector more. As a bonus the government becomes inefficient because of this and people don’t trust it anymore, instead saying that the gov should keep out of business and people’s lives all together.

>>81
Eh? Let me get this straight.

You have a meritocratic free market economy like I said. As a result people are more likely to commit crime in order to succeed. How exactly does a free market economy encourage crime more so than other economic systems?

I think maybe you mean that if people have a lot of money they can use bribery to corrupt the government, so the only rich people should be those in the government and everyone else is more equal.

Well I'm sorry I can't solve all crime, but I think giving economic freedom to the people would be a more effective method of preventing corruption. Also that the government doesn't have to rely on private companies because it is permitted to control them in order to preserve justice. In Britain's darkest hour many arms industries were heavily regulated to the point of nationalisation despite Britain's dependancy on them for survival, there was no inefficient monopoly and corrupt influence on the government. At the end of the day a democracy is rule by the people and the only reason private companies are permitted the priviledge of economic freedom is because it encourages them to be efficient and they thus serve the people more efficiently. You will find that marx's theories only apply in a totalitarianism. Put down the communist manifesto and pick up "John Stuart Mill's essays on liberty, representative government and utilitarianism."!

>>81
Actually in a democracy (rule by the people) private companies have no real power, they cannot work against the will of the people otherwise they will have the appropriate economic freedoms revoked.

With freedom comes responsibility, abuse that freedom and you will lose it. As long as those granted such priviledges by a democracy realise this, then capitalism can thrive.

>>83
Well, to be frank, our situation is that the majority of people get pissed when corporations do shit that we don't like, however, the power we have to legally crack down on them is controlled not by us, but a select few that are supposed to be our representatives, who often happen to represent the corporations' interest over the people they represent.

Down with Republic, Up with Democracy, imo.

Another issue is the extreme wealth of the CEOs, I heard that the average american worker is something like 250% more productive than 20 years ago, but this increase in produce has not affected their wages, the rewards for better work all go to the CEO, who imo happen to be white collar criminals that should  be publically forced to apologize for their crimes.

>>76
            "My point: If that business decieves the commonwealth, takes from the commonwealth dishonestly and habitually taked advantage of the commonwealth at the peril of undoing the very fabric of our society...all in the name of profit...then that business shouldn't be allowed to run as usual. Meaning they should triple-tax and penialized on the federal level."

        So, are you saying that the making of profit at the expense of the person you are making profit off of is the lie of business.  All businesses exist to make money.  that is what many people call "The corporate bottom line" when profit and making money is the very definition of bottom line.  No buisiness seriously lies about making profit.  And I still don't understand what you mean by "commonwealth" because the US isn't a commonwealth.  It is supposed to be a community where everyone works for the common good of the social community, and it implies no profit but doesn't mean that.  Some states were labeled "commonwealth", Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia chief among them but that means nothing as these are some of the most conservative states in the union. 

>>84
      The TECHNOLOGY that people work with is 250% more productive.  If Ford used a machine to stamp fenders 20 years ago it took so many people to run and had an output of so many fenders a day.  More efficent machines have made it so the machine stamps more fenders a day with fewer people constanly maning it.  Therfore per person fender ratio is up, appearing that the person is more productive.  This isn't necessaryly the case, and I thing the statistic is 250% as productive not 250% more productive, but I will give the benifit of the doubt as I am not sure.
      I also don't understand the labeling of every CEO as a white collar criminal.  In fact I am pretty sure that most CEOs aren't as they have no desire to get caught embezzling millions from the company, and trust me, the IRS has pleanty of agents and accountants at large corporations.  In fact most really big ones have an IRS office right inside their headquarters building.  And a corporation is audited every year unlike you.  If they are really all thieve they are some of the cleverist in the world.

In fact I am pretty sure that most CEOs aren't as they have no desire to get caught embezzling millions from the company, and trust me

Have you studied corporate law, or the field of criminology that deals with white-collar crime?

I have. Let's just say that I'm not at all certain I agree with you. There's so much shit going on in the business world that it's a minor miracle the system even works. You think the crapfest inside Enron was unique?

And a corporation is audited every year unlike you.

Two words: "corporate veil".

>>86
Corporate law = if you embezzle millions, companies which don't have corrupt CEOs overtake you and you go out of business

Also you still haven't explained what you mean by "shit", which isn't exactly the term someone who has studied law would use.

What have I revealed about you so far. Well let's see, you are a stupid fuck and you are also a liar. Your only hope now is to prove you have studied law and construct a rational argument against the facts.

>>87

lol what? why wouldn't someone who studied corporate law use the word: "shit"? are you really this fucking stupid? this doesn't refute jack fuck.

this argument is so fucking basic that it doesn't require a bunch of college words. a democratic government is to be trusted and a coporation, a business protected by corporate personhood can not be trusted.

end corporate personhood.

you people are under the impression that a corporation and a government are comparable. a business isn't a person. it's not accountable to society's standards and codes of ethics, it's only accountable to it's profit margin. 

"lol what? why wouldn't someone who studied corporate law use the word: "shit"? are you really this fucking stupid? this doesn't refute jack fuck."

omfg...

My point was that if you had studied law your argument could be a little more informative than "There's so much shit going on in the business world". Shit?? Shit like what? Shit????

Surely cooporate personhood is a good thing since it means coorporations are accountable for ethics? People can be just as greedy as coorporations, why are individuals intrinsically more moral than a collection of firms and the people who work and run it?

Shit?? Shit like what? Shit????

You, sir, are a first-class idiot. If you wanted to weaken my argument, all you had to do was mention the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, but you didn't. Instead you go off on a tangent about "shit". That shows what you know.

And yes, I used the word "shit". I'm so sorry for not specifying and elucidating every case I had to study, nor speaking in legalese. Next time I'll just copy down several courses worth of notes for you, okay? You'll pay me for this, right?

oorporations are accountable for ethics?

Oh, god, you're killing me here. Ethics?! They're not accountable for ethics.

No mas estados unidos mi amigos.

Viva Mexico !!!!!!

tinyurl.com/pqzpe   el fuerte de gente.

>>19
They're not giving us two canididates, people just consistently vote either democrat or republican. It's not illegal to vote for 3rd parties.

>>36
You can't generalise every wealthy/succesful person as a greedy and immoral jerk. Maybe they did get there by hard work and personal sacrifices, maybe not. It depends on who you are talking about, not their status.