Brasas: I will never deny the many ways in which politicians and large corporate interests ally. The way to effectively end that is to stop trusting representatives blindly and remove their power to limit our freedoms. That will prevent most corruption and collusion that is too frequent nowadays, while also preempting fascism, which is even worse.
In your long post, you define (implicitly) power in the following ways:
- dictate what does and what does not become law
- control what legislation is considered in congress
- make people disappear and seize their property
- control over men with guns
What is missing, is any detailed argumentation showing that wealth holders have more of the above than politicians.
Re-read my message please. That "argumentation" was pretty much all my post contained. And as I said clearly, "control over men with guns" DOESN'T define power in the states. That is your idea not mine, and I wrote a paragraph explaining exactly why in modern America that is irrelevant. The other 3 points were made, but it doesnt really matter, as this "summary list" you've made isn't exactly relevant unless we are debating what power IS. I'm explaining the SOURCE of power in the states - "what power is" is a separate subject which I wasn't trying to explore.
Brasas: From the bottom:
- it's not corporations - Koch, Soros, Thiel, Musk, Zuckerberg or Gates - but rather Bush and Obama that are and have been sending your army all over the place.
- it's not corporations that make people disappear via drone strikes or via indefinite imprisonment without judicial overview.
First point incorrect. So you think Bush and Obama are making those calls to send troops all on their own, in a vacuum? Do you know who has profitted off those wars? And had their lackeys in Congress support the actions? Are you aware of something called "authorization of force"? Those were NATIONAL decisions, not the act of a single leader. The power brokers in this country were consulted and their opinions taken into accout, have no doubt.
Brasas: And even without making people disappear there is a lot that can be done to harass and damage people, via for example IRS audits, or politically motivated investigations including SWAT raids.
Yes but it's not done, not used against anyone with *real* power anyways. More stuff that is true on paper, but not in practice. See my post again for what happens if politicians try to go after wealthy people like that.
Brasas: But you don't even know what I'm referring to do you?
Hah, ok one suggestion, off-topic (well for me it is): don't take this tone in conversations like this. When discussing serious issues with someone on a message board, who you know nothing about beyond the message they posted, attack their ideas, not them personally. This simply makes you look like a fool who isn't worth having discussions with, and you damage your own creditability on any of the more serious, non-personal-attack points you are trying to make... I'll put it aside for now...
Brasas: You clearly lack perspective, because lobbying and tax evasion are incomparably small fry if compared to any of the above.
Hah, oh wait, you did it again. See the above. And i never compared lobbying and tax evasion to anything. Straw man now, too? Heh..
Brasas: Perhaps you are privileged enough that you do not believe your freedoms will be removed in the above ways of course.
And again?? Ok this is starting to just amuse me now. See what i was saying about how this effects your ability to get a serious point across? IDEAS, not persons, remember that from this conversation if nothing else - you don't know me (and I'm starting to be thankful of that...), so avoid this type of attack. I'm not sure if its more laughable or pathetic, after the third time now....
Brasas: But let's move on:
Yes, please do that... hah, and tell me its not more of the same....
Brasas: - it's not corporations that have the power to do Eminent Domain, they need to buy such from politicians
Ok, back on topic, thankfully. But - more stuff that only matters on paper. When the hell has Eminent Domain NOT been used to further a business interest? Last time was probably WWII. Try to use it to move Bill Gates off his property. Let's see how well that goes.
Brasas: - it's not corporations that decide what congress sees, they need to buy politicians' myopia, or attention - as the case may be
Yes it is. You're not paying attention. That's what you get when you control members of Congress by bankrolling them.
Brasas: - it's not corporations that vote on laws, they need to buy politicians' votes
That statement is meaningless - buying politicians' votes GIVES you votes on laws. Come on now, that's some rather simple logic to follow, please don't make me repeat unnecessarily.
Brasas: Do you likewise say that we are the ones with the power over what games get on GOG, because we are the ones that want the games and ultimately buy them? We influence, but GOG decides. With enough money our influence might be decisive, but it's still ultimately GOG's power, and choice, and responsibility, to acept or deny any such offer.
This makes even less sense. By this analogy we GOGers are the voting public of the US, not the financial power brokers. Fund GOG's budget next year to the tune of several million dollars and then your point is valid - and I'm sure then you'll gain the kind of access with GOG that our wealthy have over our political process. That ends up being a great analogy, when you turn it around so it actually makes sense, hah....
Brasas: Fundamentaly, you have the source and the conduit (in your definitions) reversed in terms of importance. Both parties are equally agents in terms of intention, otherwise neither would be able to achieve their common end. But only one of the parties has the capability to execute. Remove that power and all the money in the world will not be able to buy what is not there and therefore can't be sold.
Hah, ok that was precisely my point in responding to your post, was that you have source and conduit backwards. Eh what the hell, I'll make the same point one more time for you: look at how the mafia works - money can and will always be able to buy "execution" (no pun intended). Unless we begin to live in a utopian paradise, there's always someone trying to get ahead and gain for themselves. You simply pay one of those guys to go break your enemies legs. Government is NOT needed to execute power based on financial strength. Financial strength will always find other ways to assert itself - just like the mafia does. If tomorrow the government folded and America became anachistic, the wealthy would still come out on top, likely even MORE on top, as they can afford the most bodyguards and hit squads. Government is just a convenient tool, NOT a requirement, as I demonstrated in my original post and again just now. You have these backwards.
Brasas: PS: Ireland is on Apple's side. It's the EU that is trying to impose a particular interpretation in regards to taxation on both Apple and Ireland.
Interesting, but doesn't change or invalidate my point regarding this.