We do have one candidate for President who is saying all the right things about lobbyists, corporate greed, a fixed system and the growing gap between the rich and the poor.

He's the one who doesn't have enough money to make a credible run at the Presidency after Iowa. Go figure.

I don't know the more I think about how our society is going to more it looks like we live in a minimum security prison. The government is already fear mongering the people to justify the war on terror, which like all wars, is pointless. Lets remind ourselves how well the war on drugs has been going and any other thing we declare wars on.

Furthermore, the people's concern means very little these days, look at the disaster that was Katrina, our government really screwed up that one. Not to mention does writing your congressman actually do anything? Or writing the senators office? Nope, it doesn't do anything because you are not contributing to their campaigning. All government in our country is self interest. It is not by the people for the people, but its by the corporation to make the rich stay rich.

.
I forget who said: "Support democracy. Buy a politician today."
Probably somebody who practiced what they preached...

A victory for liberty, certainly.

That's what they look like to me also. Power mongers interested only in power. Kinda how you see Microsoft.

Because government collusion makes it possible, and government regulation makes it necessary.

How do you figure? Ron Paul has raised a huge amount of money.

Corporations already have too much liberty and not enough responsibility, and the liberty you speak of doesn't apply to citizens.
If governments were to collude, they would make it impossible. It's corporate manipulation of government that keeps them from colluding. Government regulations are what keeps you from drinking the same water as people in China, where business faces little to no regulation. That lack of regulation, combined with the current administration's poor regulation enforcement is why we've seen a rash of recalls as Chinese businesses cut costs a little too far, making it impossible for America to ignore their abuses any longer.

Ron Paul wasn't the one I had in mind, but he does seem to definitely be going against the business as usual mentality.

I won't identify who I meant, cause I ain't voting for any of em. Still hoping a meaningful 3rd party will jump in somewhere. I think either major party will give us more of what we've been getting and I won't vote for that.

Collusion between government and business is what causes the problem. And it's only useful for business to do so if government has been given the power to crush competition.

China, where the government owns all business and regulates everything? What, they're not safe with all that government control? Go figure.

Ron Paul is a third party candidate, this time running as a Republican because our two-party system excludes all third parties.

Not anymore, I just watched a ginormous national geographic documentary on main land china. Shanghai is a large economic power and people own private properties and businesses there. China is not like the traditional communist you think of, its more like federalism with a socialist founding. It is hard to explain but there are levels of control and power the government has over certain regions of the country. Mainly, the poorest parts of China are purely socialist because of the huge economic difference that some rice farmer makes versus a plastic surgeon in Shanghai. I guess its their welfare system so to speak. I don't fully understand their government, but its no longer like some evil communist government like everyone thinks it is.

Their ecomony is growing very rapidly. The documentary said that Shanhai alone was increasing their private cars owners by over a thousand a day at one point. It followed a woman who got plastic surgery because she wanted to improve how she looked. They are catching up to us quick, and they are becoming more of a federal government where the provinces themself have most of the power to do what they feel is good locally to their province, thus also creating some economic competition and dependencies on other provinces.

I don't quite grasp all of it yet because I have not got a chance to read up on it fully.

LOL!! You make it sound like the government has some control! In case you haven't noticed, for the last seven years the government has been controlled by people who believe that business should run everything. That's why we had the Katrina mess, the no bid contracts to Haliburton and Blackwater, and why Big Oil still gets tax breaks despite multi billion dollar per week profits!

Below are a few examples of the EPA's failure to control business pollution. Google Justice Department, SEC, FTC, and you find similar problems with either businesses getting away with crimes or altering the rules so that they can't be charged. The Justice case I've quoted is interesting because you have business shielding itself as a quasi government agency! It's shocking because of the trillions of dollars it's costing, and will continue to cost Americans.

http://www.wildcalifornia.org/pages/page-203
http://ehscenter.bna.com/pic2/ehs.ns...B?OpenDocument
http://www.worldwildlife.org/news/displayPR.cfm?prID=51
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=6556413

SEC: http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/85145...9?f=singlepage

FTC: http://www.bluemaumau.org/comment/18...Disclose_Risks

Justice: http://media.www.campustimes.org/med...-2289595.shtml


China is more Capitalistic than the US is. Sure, the people have very little political freedom, but that's a totally different animal from the economic situation. In business, the Chinese government does not control, it merely supports. The result is thousands of little Haliburtons running around causing all kinds of environmental catastrophes.

That is exactly what I'm saying. And they are controlling government because government has the power to control OTHER companies and people. Almost every licensing and permit scheme has been master-minded by some big company looking to eliminate competition. By raising the bar for entry, they eliminate the free market. They can only do this if we agree to give government the power to control an industry to start with.

Not true at all. If we were to eliminate government power to regulate (not control) an industry, it would quickly result in consolidated power amongst a few of the largest players. That's essentially what's happened this decade with severely relaxed or unenforced regulation. There are fewer players in most industries. Who's competing with Walmart, for example? Caldor? Ames? Bradlees?

Target, Amazon, eBay, Overstock, etc etc etc.

What's the most successful, functional government program or regulated industry you can think of?

BTW, VoIP is mostly unregulated and it's nowhere near any monopoly. How long do you think it will take to be monopolized? Will it be regulated first? Raising the bar to entry so that small guys like me can't make a go at it?

Hardly. That's like saying that Linux, with its 0.67% market share, is competing with Windows on the desktop.

Now? With this government? None. Prior to 2000, the EPA was at least trying to protect the environment. Today, it's just a rubber stamp for polluters. You rarely even hear about the SuperFund sites, many of which have yet to be addressed.

Not very long at this rate. VOIP is still in its infancy, and Verizon has successfully sued Vonage over patent infringements, making it likely that Vonage, Lingo, AT&T, etc., will have to pay royalty fees to one of their largest competitors. How it's even conceptually possible to get a patent, let alone win a lawsuit, based on digitizing sound and transmitting it over the internet, is mind boggling. People have made big business out of abusing the patent system though, so it will continue. Meanwhile, they'll blame the patent office for being vulnerable to their abuses.

So you claim that Target, Amazone, et al only have .67% market share?

So you can't name a successful government program but you want more of it?

We gave the government the power to control "inventions," and they took it too far.

Does VoIP service need regulation to keep it free?

In many parts of the country, they have a smaller market share compared to Walmart.

I did name one. The EPA was reasonably successful, until this administration eviscerated it.
LOL! Thanks for proving my point:
Not yet, but give it time. VOIP is still brand new. Most people don't even know it exists yet, or if they do know they're only vaguely aware of what it is.

"Smaller" does not make a monopoly. I shop at a lot of stores with a tiny fraction of Walmart's market share, however I buy things that Walmart sells, and pay more for them, for a variety of reasons.

Right. So we gave the EPA control of the environment a while back. Now a few corporations bought up the right politicians, and we're screwed. Since we gave them control of the environment, and we removed the ability for local people and towns to control it, they can do nothing either. This is the danger of ceding control to a centralized bureaucracy; you concentrate the power so it's easier to control.

You've got your facts backwards. The EPA didn't exist until 12/2/1970, at which point, many of today's Super Fund sites had already been severely contaminated. If corporations hadn't created those sites, it's likely that the EPA would never have existed. They did create them though, because local control of a large corporation isn't possible.

What we're seeing now is that corporations have bought off the Republican party, and to a lesser degree the Democratic party, in order to control the government. The solution is not to remove the government's authority. All that would do is make it cheaper for corporations to get their way. The solution is to take back the government and restore its authority.

I am not sure exactly what you want Carlos about successful government programs, but here are a few.

Education
Fire/Police departments
Mail
Library


The problem is that all of that is state level so it varies from state to state. I have seen some really kick ass libraries and some really crappy ones. Its up to the state for that stuff.

Also, it won't be long before the FCC has their fingers in VOIP. Now I am all for smaller government but at the same time against privatizing everything. Private companies running education, environmental departments, libraries, police and fire departments, I just do not see how that would go well. I am not saying I have the answers either. It is like I said earlier, we need to fix the system at the root of all the problems. Our economy is destine to crash sometime in the future based on our current linear system of how we borrow money privately (fake money at that) and have this federal reserve which we owe these private loaners more on interest. So basically a bunch of rich people are constantly getting richer off the population of the US.

Anyway, I don't feel like ranting too much, but I just want to know how do you think we can possibly privatize everything and make it be OK? I am serious, if you can change my mind I would accept it, but I don't think anyone can tell me about a system of privitization and have it work.

Successful federal programs?

How about Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and the US Military? NASA?

You may not like them, but they are getting the job done.

I thought Carlos meant a program that successfully controlled corporate abuses. ;)