by Gouda » Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:05 am
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>It is completely and utterly obvious that the moment Halliburton is cut off from government funding, it dies. Therefore, this whole concept of corporate 'wealthpower' (as AnnaLivia likes to say) is off-track and erroneous.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> OK, good, we agree that Halliburton needs to die. But I have a much simpler virtually impossible way to do it than you do. Let’s take a different look at what you say by giving government (and us) the lead role: the moment a responsible government (of, by, for the people) emasculates the US Defence, Energy, State and Homeland Security departments, and responsible regulatory bodies take apart all giant and/or multinational corporations, then Halliburton dies. The moment a responsible government organizes and orients around peaceful principles, Halliburton dies. Even simpler, and almost what you are saying: the government should cut off funding to Halliburton - we should demand this of the government and raise hell if our demands are not met. Problem is, this is not about to happen, because Halliburton owns the politicians, or are in fact acting as politicians. But getting rid of the government alogether is even more unlikely to happen, because, again, the corporate powers find fake government quite useful, and, well, they hold the most power. So both options are pretty unrealistic, but it is more likely that we can eradicate the defence department before we eradicate the <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>entire </em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->government. I am just looking at practicalities of scale here. <br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Government is both dumb and powerful. George W. epitomizes this-- he is both dumb and powerful.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> George W Bush holds no <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>de facto</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> power. George W Bush (and any showpiece US president) is animated by the private sector and is not allowed to move beyond parameters set out by the not-so-dumb agents (Rove is pretty smart and effective as Bush's brain, no?) of interlocking elite cliques of Wall Street and the Intelligence Community; Rockefeller may be part of one of those – you may know of him. Let's not equate Bush with government. My point was simply to expose your contradiction. I actually think a bureaucracy can be effective. Not all bureaucrats are lazy stupid or inept. However, if a bureaucracy is lazy, inept, corrupt etc. (such as parts of the UN) you do not have much to fear from them. I find <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>competant</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> mechanisms a more formidable foe. Those behind Bush, for example. Delegitimize capital and corporations and global markets, and you bleed its government representatives, like Bush, dry. <br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The "fuels" you are listing are ALL government sustenance…<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> Tell me how, for example, Iran-Contra (simple example) was about sustaining the US government, and not about making conditions in Central America more favorable for the expansion of a northern-dominated free market zone. How does the heroin market emanating from Afghanistan (no government) sustain the US Government for the sake of sustaining the US government? Who is benefitting from this and controlling it? Non-state, transglobal private operators primarily. What about the insatiable demand for deep black projects such as zero-point energy (benefits the owners) or MC research and development? Moreover, private entrepreneurs and shadow operatives do not always need government to raise funds from drugs, arms, sex - nor do the proceeds always go towards funding legitimate government programs. See Somalia & post-war Balkans: two examples as close to anarcho-capitalism as you can get. I believe it was Dyncorp with the most efficient, lucrative sex trafficking operation in the Balkans mid-to-late 90’s - like, when there was no government. (Hey, Iraq is another example!) Yes, governments are there, so they can be of use; but they are not essential, nor are they the end benefactor. Where there is a will there is a way, as they say. Get rid of government, and they will build and use something else. <br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>'Good' people take up the positions of power only to do good. They then dutifully leave this position of power to politely make room for a successor. Bad people get into these positions and immediately go about consolidating their power and attempting to retain power permanently. It is therefore foolhardy to create these positions of power in the first place. The obvious effect of eliminating these power positions is that it dramatically limits the ability of evil people to perpetrate evil. They're limited to their OWN resources, not that of an entire nation.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> Not that simple, but well put enough for the purpose of the following mental exercise: Re-read this passage with “corporation,” “corporate board,” “CEO,” or Ken Lay in mind. Wow, works thay way too. Why yes, I agree with you that big corporations perpetrate evil, want to consolidate their economic power, retain it forever, and have unlimited access, not only to national resources, but also to World Resources (See India: Coca Cola. See the Americas: Monsanto. See Liberia: Firestone.) Governments can enable Monsanto or they can limit Monsanto - bottom line: Monsanto needs needs to be slapped down so that government can concentrate on legitimate, repsonsible functions. Dismantle capitalism, corporate structures and economic fiefdoms that these “bad” people rely on, and they would never be able to consolidate their power. Recognize the logic? This logic, however, speaks to the reality of plutocracies, corporations and markets, where de facto power is. <br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"democracy" is a great big scam.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> Hey, I agree! Doesn’t have to be that way though. Not if we work together, make some sacrifices, and work hard enough on it. I guess that would go against your anti-social, right wing libertarian ethic, though. <br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>There is also a dramatically greater motivation for bad people to seek power. 'Good' people view civic duty as a 'sacrifice' not an opportunity for power and riches. Only the best of the 'good' will volunteer for such. <br><br>For bad people, it's the end of the rainbow. The extreme and desperate motives of the bad people in their quest for power consistently runs circles around the more pedestrian motivation levels of 'good' people.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> Firstly, I do not agree with the “bad” people “good” people crap. Have they found the “good” and “bad” genes, have they? Not sure if you can relate, but those average pedestrians you give such short shrift to often contribute to society not as a "sacrifice" but as a necessity, a duty, and they do it with F***ing gusto! Ever talk to any regular, humble, non-profit driven "good" people? I guess the millions of pedestrians in Mexico, Bolivia, and Venezuala are a fluke of good people - and they are kicking the daylights out of your powerful profit-driven capitalist friends. Who is running circles around who? <br><br>In the USA, I do believe there is dramatically greater motivation for people to seek profit over civic participation. We've been sickened by this ethos for generations. So if we de-legitimise and eliminate the profit motive (capitalism, no?) and the corporate engines atomizing society, then more people may be inclined to participate in community, civic, and political life. Or vice-versa. Either way, I like it. But if we are to live with profit and everyday evil, are you one to resist, stand-up, and participate?<br><br>***<br><br>And about your NFL example, I guess I find it difficult to envision. Could I then rely on you to explain how the NFL system can be applied to the world most of us live in? <p></p><i></i>