The Value of Freedom

Its the lobbying system that aids their control, they buy politicians to fight for their greedy share of the market.

xris;146087 wrote:

Lobbying is not a social programme its a means of legally corrupting politicians.

---------- Post added 03-30-2010 at 06:14 AM ----------

Nero you make sweeping statements as if everything is black and white, you assume too much. Because I feel the profit motive should be removed from the health service, does not mean that certain persons cant be profitable or make a damned good living out of health provision. I complain because it has become profit motivated by greed rather than service. Its a cartel of massive proportions that should be either controlled or destroyed. Its them, the greedy barstewards, that are making the most verbal defense of their monopolies and stifling reasoned debate.

Its the lobbying system that aids their control, they buy politicians to fight for their greedy share of the market.

In The Netherands our representatives work two terms, some more, some less. This means the system has to come up with worthwhile jobs for the representatives and senators who choose to work. Their payments go on till retirement anyway.

Lets say 75 look for a new job. In The Netherlands we still appoint a lot of position by the Queen. Very democratic indeed. Mayor's, Commissionaries of our Provinces and the Governeur of Limburg.

Then we have covered our country with half-government organisations. Social housing, former Electricity compagnies, nationalized banks, Office of Justice for the prosecution, Lega help against prosecution..

Ministers and Prime-Ministers are asked to take part in commercial organisations as a commissionair; heck, even our Prince Royal did not do his job well as commissioner of Our National Bank. Will he be asked to look for employ somewhere else?

It's not easy to design a good system but this is a farce. Not even in name we are democratic and now we're stuck with a olie-domm-archy who think in self interest. A glance at the State of My Coutry makes me deeply said. God save the Queen, since she is powerless as well.

I would love to stop Dutch Monarchs with Queen Beatrix. 100 Years Queen of the Netherlands has been nice, but we want to the 21st century and this state is blocking the way.:detective:

I'm not too sharp on politics so please bear with me.
Beyond the criminal aspect ,which political lawyers are very good at avoiding, this appears to me as the area where Capitalism begins to erode
Democracy.
It appears as though Democracy defends itself by developing socialist tendencies. I think maybe this is what is happening now, but I have not heard it said.
Does this seem likely?

What "socialist tendencies" do you mean, and is it true that "socialist tendencies" are needed to defend capitalism? It seem to me that capitalism is doing just fine, and yes, after the recent recession. "Socialist tendencies" have an unbroken history of killing the goose that laid the gold egg.

Some people regard freedom as the ultimate political value, while others regard equality as being more valuable or equally as valuable as freedom. Why is it that some people value freedom with little to no constraints (anarchists, libertarians, etc) even when there are obvious negative externalities? Is it because of their will to power?

What "socialist tendencies" do you mean, and is it true that "socialist tendencies" are needed to defend capitalism? It seem to me that capitalism is doing just fine, and yes, after the recent recession. "Socialist tendencies" have an unbroken history of killing the goose that laid the gold egg.

Yes, capitalism seems doing fine, but is it wholly compatible to democracy.
Do the laws of competition really work at the level of business we are seeing today. Will democracy defend itself by ever increasing regulations, and faux competitive govt. programs.

"Wholly"? That depends on a lot of things. But one thing is clear. Socialism is not compatible with democracy even partly.

"Wholly"? That depends on a lot of things. But one thing is clear. Socialism is not compatible with democracy even partly.

Is that supposed to be a rational argument or is it intended to inflame?

I think U R confused with communism, feudalism, theocratic governments and anarchistic chaos. Socialists work well within a democratic system. Not as a mayority or in two party democracies.

Pluriformaty !

It is not an argument at all. It is an assertion. Whether it inflames is up to the person who reads it.

---------- Post added 03-31-2010 at 10:05 AM ----------



Socialists may. Socialism does not.

No inflamation here. Only thinking

I thought rational reasoning was what K-A and I were doing

Its an open forum, statements will be read. If you want a tete a tete, there is a way.

What has that to do with it? He just said we were being rational. What reason have you to suppose we were not?

May be because the statement for most, would be irrational..

May be because the statement for most, would be irrational..