- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,715
- Reaction score
- 751
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Otto von Bismarck.
If a machiavellian Iron Chancellor is your hero, then you have very low standards.
Otto von Bismarck.
Nobody is perfect, but he's more good than bad. Can't say the same of any notable businessman I've heard of. Bismarck is worthy of my respect in the way a snake like Henry Ford is not.
Maybe Bill Gates, but he also happens to be a monopolist, or at least he was.
I think businessman and entreupeneur (spelling?) are not always the same thing. Someone can create something new, or innovate, or invent, or build, all things related to producing a product. The average businessman is just a salesman, making a commission off the creativity of others. Not saying it is bad, just that selling isn't really something special.
In a state of anarchy, that's not a problem. No politicians.
Nelson Mandela too.
Wow! Two people! Keep going...
I could name plenty more, but I doubt you would agree with me. Since your expectations are extremely high (from my perspective) I was looking for some that would pass your muster. There probably are few.
However, from my perspective we have:
Clinton
Obama
Reagan
JFK
FDR
Teddy Roosevelt
Lincoln
Eisenhower
Governments can set a standard of weights and measures, and this was the Qing Dynasty's greatest achievement. But it is not required in order to create society.
A taxation system does not allow for the construction of basic infrastructure. It allows for the rule of law to be enforced. Taxation, in largely other forms, simply takes away the earnings of one set of citizens in order to distribute largesse to another set of citizens. Taxation NEVER builds, it only takes away.
I never claimed it was. But, when it comes to commerce, it helps.
So tell me why private enterprise would be better at providing something like flood control? How would a private company get the money (perhaps hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars) to acquire all of the necessary land to build a system of channels, dams, and reservoirs in order to keep a city or region from flooding? Where would they get the money from to maintain the system, and how would they make a profit?
So tell me why private enterprise would be better at providing something like flood control? How would a private company get the money (perhaps hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars) to acquire all of the necessary land to build a system of channels, dams, and reservoirs in order to keep a city or region from flooding? Where would they get the money from to maintain the system, and how would they make a profit?
When the transcontinental railroad was built, the govt gave away alternate sections of land to the builders. Imagine if we did that today, give some private road builder half the land adjaceant to it.Only a company that could buy up a lot of the surrounding land and so make money by keeping up those dams and resovoirs. Otherwise, people would live in other areas.
When the transcontinental railroad was built, the govt gave away alternate sections of land to the builders. Imagine if we did that today, give some private road builder half the land adjaceant to it.
Or imagine if the states allowed companies to toll their roads as they like. What the government did to the Dulles Greenway is a shame.
This could be an issue if someone is charging way too much for a road and its the only effective route between two places. We both don't trust the government, I trust private corporations even less than I trust the government.
This could be an issue if someone is charging way too much for a road and its the only effective route between two places. We both don't trust the government, I trust private corporations even less than I trust the government.
Politics/government breeds people with more invasive power/control and better skills at spin.And I always wonder WHY, considering the track record of both. Governments, throughout history, have made things more complicated for the common man and woman and they simply make life more difficult. Private corporations have consistently offered us newer, better, cheaper products that make our lives easier, and we continue to hate them more than government.
And I always wonder WHY, considering the track record of both. Governments, throughout history, have made things more complicated for the common man and woman and they simply make life more difficult. Private corporations have consistently offered us newer, better, cheaper products that make our lives easier, and we continue to hate them more than government.
I would argue that you are giving a simplistic, nerfed down, innacurate view of things that grossly glosses over things both sides have done.
I'm sorry I can't write a book on the subject so that it's detailed enough for you. But I am a public history major. Can you please give an in-depth analysis of why you favor government over business?
I favor government in some things, businesses in others. Can you not resort to straw men, and maybe take a logic class along with those history courses?
Perhaps you completely forgot. You said, in general, you favor government over business. Why?
Because we have more control over the government. I can vote for my elected representatives, i can write them letters, I can usually arrange a meeting with my congressman without too much fuss. They need me, directly, to stay in power, and the two parties are always looking to beat the others, so it leads to a degree of investigation and transparency. Not enough, but a start. Furthermore, since their purpose is to serve the people, certain fields work better at utilities.
On the other hand, business I have a lot less control over. I can't usually directly interact with anyone in power. The only way to get their attention at all is a massive boycott, which is almost impossible to put together (Trust me, I've tried.) If it's a company like PG&E, you can't even boycott them. Their main goal is to make money, and MANY businesses have shown they have no issues intentionally harming people with dangerous products or practices to make money. There isn't nearly as much investigation or transparency in business practices... the thing that most keeps businesses from harming the public is regulations, which the government puts on.
You don't need Walmart to exist, and if you really hate Walmart, you can stop shopping there and attempt to influence your friends to stay away. Walmart will probably still exist, because the majoity of people don't mind their existance.