Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

Not really, the only way to reduce the power of buisness is to give those power to someone else.
I mean if you privatise telecom, the corporation can censor you, or use your personal information. If you keep it public, the government can censor you or use your personal information.
In both case, what OWS want is to have the power to pass laws against those and the power to have those enforced.

[Criptfeind]

Let me retry this, since I maybe was not clear.

The Tea Party just wants the government to have less power (so that there's less to lobby FOR), and OWS wants businesses to have less power (to have less TO lobby).

These are CONFLICTING GOALS

Just because they have the word lobby in them does not make them the same.

Really think hard on the ramifications of both, and I mean think. How are they alike in any way?

[SalmonGod]

They both want to eliminate the relationship between business and government and the extreme concentrations of power caused by that relationship.  The major difference is that they each focus their blame on opposing sides of that relationship.

[ECrownofFire]

And AGAIN, this.

[Aqizzar]

You can stop doing that now, the point has been made.

[Criptfeind]

They both want to eliminate the relationship between business and government and the extreme concentrations of power caused by that relationship.  The major difference is that they each focus their blame on opposing sides of that relationship.

They are both stupid then if they think the concentrations of power are made by that.

"Hey! Instead of trying to balance these powers lets separate them completely so there is no easy way for power to move. Cause it sure is harder for power to move upward then it is for it to move downward."

Edit: Also Crown of Fire? That cartoon is basically disagreeing with you.

[Bauglir]

Both are means for dealing with the same perceived problem of a corrupt government. One tries to mitigate the impact of corruption, the other tries to reduce the possibility for corruption in the first place. I happen to agree with the latter as a better approach, but I understand why people would support the former - even if that's not what politicians elected as a result of Tea Party support seem to have been doing. There's a certain sense to the position that the qualities that make for successful politicians also make for easily corrupted politicians, no matter the system they find themselves in, and so the most effective way to minimize the harm they do is to minimize the power they have.

Like I said, I don't actually think that's optimal, but it's an insight that I think is important to bear in mind when determining what is optimal. It's correct, as far as it goes. It just stops short of examining other power structures and how they can influence politics, as far as I'm concerned.

EDIT: Criptfeind, I'm pretty sure the comic is saying they're opposing the same thing and that people who say they're opposed are paying attention only to the superficial and are missing the point. I guess it's up for interpretation.

[ECrownofFire]

They both want to eliminate the relationship between business and government and the extreme concentrations of power caused by that relationship.  The major difference is that they each focus their blame on opposing sides of that relationship.

They are both stupid then if they think the concentrations of power are made by that.

"Hey! Instead of trying to balance these powers lets separate them completely so there is no easy way for power to move. Cause it sure is harder for power to move upward then it is for it to move downward."

Edit: Also Crown of Fire? That cartoon is basically disagreeing with you.

I'm saying that they're not the same thing, they're just working towards the same goal, with different means of reaching it.

[SalmonGod]

They both want to eliminate the relationship between business and government and the extreme concentrations of power caused by that relationship.  The major difference is that they each focus their blame on opposing sides of that relationship.

They are both stupid then if they think the concentrations of power are made by that.

"Hey! Instead of trying to balance these powers lets separate them completely so there is no easy way for power to move. Cause it sure is harder for power to move upward then it is for it to move downward."

Edit: Also Crown of Fire? That cartoon is basically disagreeing with you.

...

I don't understand.  The whole point is that they can't be balanced because they have ceased to be separate things.  Business and government have become one monolithic megastructure that stomps freely all over anyone who isn't riding on top of it.  There's no balancing that.  They have to be separated first.

If you disagree with this, then please explain your position.

[Nadaka]

There is SOME common ground between the Tea Party and OWS.

OWS sees corruption in government and business and wants to destroy the corruption.

The tea party wants to destroy the government for a variety of reasons, among them that they see corruption in government and business.

[Criptfeind]

Okay.

First off. I disagree they are the same thing. We are not in a Fascist or Communist state. But, now I understand what you mean. The idea is that they have merged into some giant power structure correct? Which, at the highest level they sorta are. But business is much more fragmented at the smallest level. But yes. There is a conflict of interest in way to many places.

Second. I do not believe that separation is viable. I mean... The reason business is trying to gain power in the government is so the government will not stop them from doing what they want correct? So, if there was a complete separation then, as far as business goes it would have everything it wanted and more importantly could do what it wants. Which as we can clearly see would be a bad thing. Now. Government on the other hand wants to get into business for two reasons. On a individual level the people with power in governments can make a ton of money (reason one) by stopping the Government from regulating (reason two) businesses. Thus the conflict of interest.

But. What that comes down too is that separating them would be the same outcome as fully merging them into that fearsome monolithic entity.

[SalmonGod]

That depends on how you balance them after separation.  You can balance them against each other, or you can make them completely separate things. 

If you take a socialist approach where there is heavy regulation over business, then they can theoretically mitigate each other's negative influences.  Governments and markets both have internal mechanisms that are supposed to prevent corruption from going too far.  Government has separate functions arranged into a system of checks and balances.  Markets have the invisible hand/consumer choice.  The two existing in parallel are, as I understand it, ideally supposed to balance against each other in much the same way.  The problem is, it creates tons of opportunity for conflicts of interest, as you pointed out currently exists.

If you take a libertarian approach and make them completely separate, with government having very specific functions and no power outside of those, then there is nothing to stop large businesses from snowballing into fearsome monolithic entities.  As you said, it can amount to the same thing.

But still... how would you alternately describe the root of our problems or an approach to resolving them?

[Criptfeind]

That is basically it.

And I am saying the Tea Party wants the libertarian approach and OWS... Well. I don't know what they want. I really hope they want the socialist approach.

Thus they are in direct conflict.

[SalmonGod]

Also, this

Which, at the highest level they sorta are.

Is kind of the whole point of the "1%" slogan.  Wealth inequality is so extreme at this point, that it's very much the "highest level" vs everyone else.

That is basically it.

And I am saying the Tea Party wants the libertarian approach and OWS... Well. I don't know what they want. I really hope they want the socialist approach.

Thus they are in direct conflict.

And all we were saying is that they basically want the same things, but have different ideas of how to get there... except for both the libertarian and socialist approaches involve breaking up the unified power structure of government and wealth.  There is enough common ground there for cooperation if both sides could be mature about it.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The Tea Party and Occupy can sort out their disagreements about how to run the government once the 1% have been depowered. Luckily, the democratic process already provides for this idea sorting, despite currently being hijacked by corporations.