News

**Ka$h Killa** lop guest User ID: 110725 10-24-2012 04:30 AM

Something for the Libertarians on here to think about. The anarchy of personal choice is absolute freedom, however the anarchy of business is the primary killer of freedom.

**Twatwaffle** lop guest User ID: 129068 10-24-2012 04:39 AM

MarxistLibertarian Wrote:

Something for the Libertarians on here to think about. The anarchy of personal choice is absolute freedom, however the anarchy of business is the primary killer of freedom.

The anarchy of business would mean no limited liability, i.e. unlimited liability and it would also mean no government assistance.

I would love to see multi-nationals operate where there is unlimited liability for their actions and no government protection.

It would not be the primary killer of freedom, just the primary killer of businesses that behave badly.

Something for the MarxistLibertarians on here to think about.

**bbkingdom**

Twatwaffle Wrote:

MarxistLibertarian Wrote:
Something for the Libertarians on here to think about. The anarchy of personal choice is absolute freedom, however the anarchy of business is the primary killer of freedom.

The anarchy of business would mean no limited liability, i.e. unlimited liability and it would also mean no government assistance.

I would love to see multi-nationals operate where there is unlimited liability for their actions and no government protection.

It would not be the primary killer of freedom, just the primary killer of businesses that behave badly.

Something for the MarxistLibertarians on here to think about.

You really think it is government that makes corporations act in dishonest and destructible ways?
You think banks need government to fool people. Does any corporation need government to fool people, make them addicts, brainwash them?
You think these corporations will fail cos there would be a 'better' corporation?

I would love you to define that better corporation.

**Ka$h Killa** lop guest User ID: 110725 10-24-2012 04:43 AM

Twatwaffle Wrote:

MarxistLibertarian Wrote:
Something for the Libertarians on here to think about. The anarchy of personal choice is absolute freedom, however the anarchy of business is the primary killer of freedom.

The anarchy of business would mean no limited liability, i.e. unlimited liability and it would also mean no government assistance.

I would love to see multi-nationals operate where there is unlimited liability for their actions and no government protection.

It would not be the primary killer of freedom, just the primary killer of businesses that behave badly.

Something for the MarxistLibertarians on here to think about.

Unlimited liability for business won't change the unemployment problems and the ABSURD concept that people have to 'support themselves.' The only thing that will end that is ending currency and private enterprise and instituting a unified governmental economic system. Then unemployment will no longer be an issue because nobody will have to work to 'support themselves.' They'll only have to work occasionally to support the community.

**Twatwaffle** lop guest User ID: 129068 10-24-2012 04:48 AM

bbkingdom Wrote:

You really think it is government that makes corporations act in dishonest and destructible ways?

No, I think that corporations act dishonestly because they are afforded limited liability under law and when that is not enough, said corporations and their monopolies are protected by government.

Consider Monsanto. If they could be sued for unlimited sums by anyone for allegations relating to GMOs, how long would the company last, or at least change its ways so that it may survive?

No, they survive because they are immune from judgment under the law. The very laws they have lobbied and paid for, which government has graciously provided for a campaign contribution.

**Twatwaffle** lop guest User ID: 129068 10-24-2012 04:50 AM

MarxistLibertarian Wrote:

Unlimited liability for business won't change the unemployment problems and the ABSURD concept that people have to 'support themselves.'

Imagine being able to sue a corporation for any employment related practice. How long will the corporations that mistreat its employees survive?

**Ka$h Killa** lop guest User ID: 110725 10-24-2012 04:52 AM

Twatwaffle Wrote:

bbkingdom Wrote:
You really think it is government that makes corporations act in dishonest and destructible ways?

No, I think that corporations act dishonestly because they are afforded limited liability under law and when that is not enough, said corporations and their monopolies are protected by government.

Consider Monsanto. If they could be sued for unlimited sums by anyone for allegations relating to GMOs, how long would the company last, or at least change its ways so that it may survive?

No, they survive because they are immune from judgment under the law. The very laws they have lobbied and paid for, which government has graciously provided for a campaign contribution.

You still didn't answer my question about the inherent evil of the existence of the free market.

And to your questions there, suing is a laughable concept. The government didn't have to make any laws to side with Monsanto. The judge will most likely side with Monsanto because judges are part of the power structure and so are businesses. They protect each other. And if that didn't work, Monsanto could pay the judge a few hundred thousand to rule in their favor

**Ka$h Killa** lop guest User ID: 110725 10-24-2012 04:52 AM

I see you replied to my question but i basically negated your point in my previous post about judges. And how is destroying businesses in a free market system going to strengthen the free market?

**bbkingdom**

Twatwaffle Wrote:

bbkingdom Wrote:
You really think it is government that makes corporations act in dishonest and destructible ways?

No, I think that corporations act dishonestly because they are afforded limited liability under law and when that is not enough, said corporations and their monopolies are protected by government.

Consider Monsanto. If they could be sued for unlimited sums by anyone for allegations relating to GMOs, how long would the company last, or at least change its ways so that it may survive?

No, they survive because they are immune from judgment under the law. The very laws they have lobbied and paid for, which government has graciously provided for a campaign contribution.

Ok, read you wrong. Yeah once there was a time in America that huge sums of money was paid out to people when corporations made and error or were dishonest.
I think they stopped it cos it created too long instruction books with what not to do and what to do, that needed to be shipped with any product sold.
A lady sued a microwave manufacturer cos she dried their dog in the microwave and the manufacturer was liable cos his instructions did not mention that it was a danger to dry your pet in a microwave. She got rich.
People noticed this and made it a living to try to get money like this.

**Twatwaffle** lop guest User ID: 129068 10-24-2012 05:01 AM

MarxistLibertarian Wrote:

Twatwaffle Wrote:
bbkingdom Wrote:
You really think it is government that makes corporations act in dishonest and destructible ways?

No, I think that corporations act dishonestly because they are afforded limited liability under law and when that is not enough, said corporations and their monopolies are protected by government.

Consider Monsanto. If they could be sued for unlimited sums by anyone for allegations relating to GMOs, how long would the company last, or at least change its ways so that it may survive?

No, they survive because they are immune from judgment under the law. The very laws they have lobbied and paid for, which government has graciously provided for a campaign contribution.

You still didn't answer my question about the inherent evil of the existence of the free market.

And to your questions there, suing is a laughable concept. The government didn't have to make any laws to side with Monsanto. The judge will most likely side with Monsanto because judges are part of the power structure and so are businesses. They protect each other. And if that didn't work, Monsanto could pay the judge a few hundred thousand to rule in their favor

I'm sorry, but that's just not correct. Most government law-making is to protect corporate interests.

As for "inherent evil" of the "market", when Man becomes free of evil, his market will become free of evil as well.

Re: judges, how does bribery become normal and ethical all of a sudden in your hypothetical? Fine, since we're in hypothetical-land, let's write a law that judicial bribery carries with it the penalty of imprisoning the judge's family, but not the judge him/herself.

That should be fun to watch. chuckle

**Dan671** · (This post was last modified: 10-24-2012 05:05 AM by Dan671.)

Twatwaffle Wrote:

MarxistLibertarian Wrote:
Something for the Libertarians on here to think about. The anarchy of personal choice is absolute freedom, however the anarchy of business is the primary killer of freedom.

The anarchy of business would mean no limited liability, i.e. unlimited liability and it would also mean no government assistance.

I would love to see multi-nationals operate where there is unlimited liability for their actions and no government protection.

It would not be the primary killer of freedom, just the primary killer of businesses that behave badly.

Something for the MarxistLibertarians on here to think about.

Great articulation twatwaffle! He is supposed to be the graduate?

**bbkingdom**

Twatwaffle Wrote:

MarxistLibertarian Wrote:
Twatwaffle Wrote:
No, I think that corporations act dishonestly because they are afforded limited liability under law and when that is not enough, said corporations and their monopolies are protected by government.

Consider Monsanto. If they could be sued for unlimited sums by anyone for allegations relating to GMOs, how long would the company last, or at least change its ways so that it may survive?

No, they survive because they are immune from judgment under the law. The very laws they have lobbied and paid for, which government has graciously provided for a campaign contribution.

You still didn't answer my question about the inherent evil of the existence of the free market.

And to your questions there, suing is a laughable concept. The government didn't have to make any laws to side with Monsanto. The judge will most likely side with Monsanto because judges are part of the power structure and so are businesses. They protect each other. And if that didn't work, Monsanto could pay the judge a few hundred thousand to rule in their favor

I'm sorry, but that's just not correct. Most government law-making is to protect corporate interests.

As for "inherent evil" of the "market", when Man becomes free of evil, his market will become free of evil as well.

Re: judges, how does bribery become normal and ethical all of a sudden in your hypothetical? Fine, since we're in hypothetical-land, let's write a law that judicial bribery carries with it the penalty of imprisoning the judge's family, but not the judge him/herself.

That should be fun to watch.

If that is the case, government mainly making laws to protect corporations. Then government is just an extended battle ground for fights between interests for different corporations. So without government nothing would change, they would still try to get to their goal anyway possible, even if they have to destroy half the world to do it, or pressure consumers into buying.

Government is actually what makes it bearable for those of us who do not own the billions and millions.

**Ka$h Killa** lop guest User ID: 110725 10-24-2012 05:09 AM

Dan671 Wrote:

Twatwaffle Wrote:
MarxistLibertarian Wrote:
Something for the Libertarians on here to think about. The anarchy of personal choice is absolute freedom, however the anarchy of business is the primary killer of freedom.

The anarchy of business would mean no limited liability, i.e. unlimited liability and it would also mean no government assistance.

I would love to see multi-nationals operate where there is unlimited liability for their actions and no government protection.

It would not be the primary killer of freedom, just the primary killer of businesses that behave badly.

Something for the MarxistLibertarians on here to think about.

Great articulation twatwaffle! He is supposed to be the graduate?

I am supposed to be the graduate of what?

**Twatwaffle** lop guest User ID: 129068 10-24-2012 05:12 AM

bbkingdom Wrote:

If that is the case, government mainly making laws to protect corporations. Then government is just an extended battle ground for fights between interests for different corporations.

Now you're getting it.

bbkingdom Wrote:

So without government nothing would change, they would still try to get to their goal anyway possible, even if they have to destroy half the world to do it, or pressure consumers into buying.

Maybe I spoke too soon..... chuckle

bbkingdom Wrote:

Government is actually what makes it bearable for those of us who do not own the billions and millions.

Don't worry about it. Government doesn't "own the billions and millions" either. They only have what they coerce from others. If they need a little money, they can either shake down some corporations or call up their friendos at the Federal Reserve.

**Dan671**

MarxistLibertarian Wrote:

Dan671 Wrote:
Twatwaffle Wrote:
The anarchy of business would mean no limited liability, i.e. unlimited liability and it would also mean no government assistance.

I would love to see multi-nationals operate where there is unlimited liability for their actions and no government protection.

It would not be the primary killer of freedom, just the primary killer of businesses that behave badly.

Something for the MarxistLibertarians on here to think about.

Great articulation twatwaffle! He is supposed to be the graduate?

I am supposed to be the graduate of what?

Did someone else post that yellow guy with a graduaion cap?