by restrictions on a government's growth, you mean it's ability to limit the growth of corporations, it's balanced to let each grow and receed in their own right, only interfering when one causes harm to the people.
so you are saying dont limit any one of them?
only limit them when they hurt the people, and as far as I'm seeing, and for more information on hurting, look to totalitarian regimes and toxic waste from companies that just don't give a damn
GreatGrizzlyso you are saying dont limit any one of them?
Read his post more carefully.
only interfering when one causes harm to the people.
That answer your question? His proposal in a nutshell: Don't fix something that ain't broke! Grizzly, your idea of the government is based on idealism. But idealism has no ties with reality. A ruler, an elite, or an aristocrat doesn't assume power to help people! In a capitalist system, he does it to help his friends and allies in business (Bush's tax cuts are a good example of this). In a socialist system, a leader takes that position to achieve power. In a theoretical socialist system, there is no wealth or private property, but there is still power! Power to control education, industry, the army, the police, the bureaucracy... No matter what system you have, there is always power to be gained, by hook or by crook. I prefer a society based on reality. That is why I am attracted to Machiavelli's political philosophy.
Have you even read my posts? Because what you just said is everything I have said in my past posts. :rolleyes: I know full well that humans will take power no matter what. That is why I oppose taking the power away from one side and giving it to the other. Like I said before, it is a balancing act.
You just assume that corperations are more trustworthy, THAT is idealism.
They are no more trustworthy than the government, they are simply more easily manipulated. You are supposing that we give the government the ability to limit their growth and control them, that will create an imbalance. You're being a hypocrit.
Busness should be watched over by government, government watched over by the people. The 2 sides become balanced, because they are watched. just like our government, the 3 branches make sure the others dont get too powerful. Your idea is to let them both have free reign. One will over power the other and will be the ONLY power.
I highly doubt that Microsoft (an example of one monopoly) is going to take over america, it would serve no purpose, a companies goal isn't to rule, it's to make money.
Realisticaly, there is little the people can do to challenge the government if it gets out of control, 526 million people even armed with assualt rifles would not be able to counter a full force army, navy and airforce. A totalitarian regime rules with an iron fist, if you don't pay up, you die, or suffer long prison terms.
The bigger fish political scale only works with a weak government and even weaker corporations along with a lack of enemies. The people have relatively little control over what goes on after election day, and even then they can be easily swayed by false promisises. The people are stupid, the government is powerful, the corporations are growing. Checks and balances works in government because we are dealing with 3 powers with specific roles and abilities to counter each other and a relatively small amount of people. The bigger fish political scale works with a direct democracy, which we don't and will not have.
GreatGrizzlyHave you even read my posts? Because what you just said is everything I have said in my past posts. :rolleyes: I know full well that humans will take power no matter what. That is why I oppose taking the power away from one side and giving it to the other. Like I said before, it is a balancing act. You just assume that corperations are more trustworthy, THAT is idealism.
Chemix is clearly right. Even the worst corporation imaginable wouldn't pose a particularly bad problem, since it would only affect one industry. But a bad government ruins the whole country. So no, your "balancing act" isn't balanced at all. It is far more important to keep the government in line than it is to keep a corporation in line. There is no chance of a corporation establishing a tyranny, but the odds of a government becoming a tyranny are extremely high, unless measures are taken to keep its power in check.