The government is not the problem. The businesses are not the problem. The problem is the Ruling Class. Some of the Ruling Class members are a part of the government and corporations. Many examples of this exist, but it is generally referred to as the Revolving Door. The government is a part of the corporations and the corporations are a part of the government. Just because they don't openly say this on their websites does not mean it isn't true.

For instance: HSBC bank is allowed to launder money for drug cartels, but lower citizens are not. This is both the government not prosecuting the crime and the bank committing the crime. They are working together as one unit.

Other examples;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/pharmaceutical-firms-paid-to-attend-meetings-of-panel-that-advises-fda-e-mails-show/2013/10/06/a02a2548-2b80-11e3-b139-029811dbb57f_story.html

And don't forget about the Fed. It is both private and government. They claim they are "independent within the government, yet sort of private as well...who knows what the fuck the Fed is.

The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." - Fed

[deleted]

I'm guessing you're trying to say the problem is government; that government should be limited and that will solve the problem.

Ok. We had a small government. What happened? The bankers took control again in 1913. Slowly everyone gets paid off and the power is returned to the Ruling Class. The "government" and the "corporations" retain their appearance to the public so that everyone still thinks they are separate entities, when in reality, much of both of those entities are directly connected. Side bonus: people can pick a side and bitch about it, which is a complete waste of everyone's time.

The government sucks!

The corporations suck!

The media sucks!

The real problem is the bankers, the oil giants, and the media giants working together (and a few I am not mentioning, but you get the point). The government is simply their entirely owned enforcement mechanism. They pick and choose what laws get passed in general, with very little input from the citizens. If the citizens are not "for" something, like abortion (because they need to depopulate), they will guide the citizens to be for such a thing.

IMO people are free to do whatever the hell they want with their money without government interference.

Corporations should not be people. We need to make corporations unpersons.

Why is laundering not a crime, it's part of a larger conspiracy.

[deleted]

Laundering implies the perpetrator is hiding the money trail to avoid the publics eyes because what they're doing with the money next would be illegal and caught before it could go through or comes from an illegal deal and needs to be legitimized to be put back into circulation.

Becuase the middle step can be a wide variety of different crimes the intent is important, but laundering the legal term only implies this maliciousness by the perpetrator because it's used that way by those who talk about it.

IMO

I'm glad your opnion is just you on this website not on a bench in a courtroom

people are free to do whatever the hell they want with their money without government interference.

loltwut.jpg

In reply to your newer comment, the one that is a parent to my response here:

I just believe that you shouldn't be obliged to announce where your money has come from.

That's why it's often written on the note or coin where it comes from, because those who made it are taking a sort of responsibility for it and how it is used, partcularly in criminal activity.

It's a total lack of privacy.

So use a cryptocurrency instead, when HSBC does it they were criminals to do so because their financial institution was granted its status under the laws of the land.

Yes.... but the monopoly on legal force lies with the government's side. If you remove that and limit the size and power of central government it won't be able to collude with corporations.

I'm not the one who said they didn't believe laundering is a crime after quoting text about how HSBC was doing business with drug cartels.

I'm just the one insinuating you're defending HSBC. You are correct that the government has a monopoly on force.

Think again on the title of your submission: People protest companies because companies usually rely of local security forces. When companies like Haliburton are protected by the likes of Blackwater (Xe and whatever) under the umbrella of American intervention in Iraq it's more than suspiscious however in western democracies is what you meant with your original submission.

People know that if they protest the government the police can be expected to take notice. If they protest corporations the companies they dislike may have to ask for help.

Hue

Why do people protest corporations when government collusion is the root of the problem?

Because the reason government collusion is the problem is because the corporations have enough money to get in government positions in the first place and/or buy off government officials to do what they want.

[deleted]

What I mentioned to sharked seems appropriate here as well.

Government allowed Corporations to come into existence because the wealthy in business before Corporations existed came together and approached the Government with Money and Gifts and Whores until they got what they wanted: legal immunity for the individual.

Exactly. It works like a revolving door: serve on corporation's board of directors -> then get govt job overseeing the corporation you served on -> get another corporate position, etc.

They're kind of both the same two headed beast of societal manipulation.

[deleted]

It seems that a lot of government power already has been limited by the corporations that infiltrated it and got the government to do its bidding as opposed to helping the people. And yes. It certainly seems that the constitution has indeed failed.

Either way you cut it, it seems difficult. If you give the government more power, then they may use that power to impose more restrictions on the people. If you limit government, then the huge multinational corporations have an even easier time being the ravaging pieces of shit that they are.

It seems the problem isn't really the government or even the corporations. It's greed and general irresponsibility.

Limit the government? How do you suggest we make law makers legislate against their own interests? Lobby them?

If you're having trouble understanding this, you probably are either.... A: Not from America or B: Believe In Capitalism

The real conspiracy is why people think business is a natural humanistic function that will ultimately save us all.

Is an organic farmer bad because he sells his food to willing buyers?

That's not in the least bit close to what he said.

Strawman elsewhere please!

The real conspiracy is why people think business is a natural humanistic function that will ultimately save us all.

Is a farmer trading his crops not a business?

Is a farmer trading his crops not a business?

That wasn't what was wrong about what you said.

It was the 'bad' part that you made up

[deleted]

The straw man argument - I maybe guilty of this - But I am curious - Where are you from? Business - I mean the transfer of goods for services & the subsequent taxing of that exchange. I think the term "Save Us All" is self explanatory - As to what we are being saved from - "The horrible independence of a self-sustaining life"

[deleted]

You're a bot. I'm looking at your history - you respond to everybody all the time - Good programming, your master must be proud. In the highly unlikely event that you are a real person (my apologies) looking to understand this issue completely, immigrate to America and find out first hand. -This is starting to look more & more like a circle jerk-

I wish I knew.

Capitalism is the root of the problem.

[deleted]

So, you want to try to play the blame game on a matter of collusion where as both parties are equally motivated by profit but when someone points out that perhaps profit motive is the very reason for this behavior, you come back with a butt hurt retort?

[deleted]

Getting an unfair advantage is the main objective of capitalism. Having an edge over your competition is encouraged and rewarded in our current economic system. How you gain that edge makes no difference whether you create a superior product/service that is protected by copyright laws and patent trolling or if you pay off a law maker to gain a edge through legislation.

Corporations are driven by profit. Law makers are driven by campaign financing. Neither party is doing anything that would be considered cheating or illegal by our current economic system. The majority of Americans are simply the losers of capitalism.

So my original assertion still stands. Capitalism is the root of the problem.

[deleted]

Capitalism is just the institution of private property and voluntary exchange which occurs through the market.

By definition, what you say is accurate. Property ownership is the objective. However there are no moral guidelines to how it can be obtained. So that is regulated by the state. Otherwise many would simply kill their bosses tomorrow and the former employees would take over production. (I took out voluntary exchange as that has nothing to do with capitalism. Nothing about capitalism is voluntary unless economic coercion is voluntary in your book)

I produce a product that is better then yours and serves other people's needs more.

That is rarely the case. You produce a profitable product. That's it. There is no reason to make a "better" product. Planned obsolesce, price collusion and monopolies are ubiquitous in every industry. Contrary to what capitalists believe, profit motive hinders innovation.

I'm a Free-Market guy so I don't believe in any copyright laws, patents or trademarks.

Do you feel the same way about anti-child labor laws? Workers condition laws? 40hr work week? Minimum wage? Glass-Steagal act, FDIC. Basically anything from the New Deal. I would think these are all anti-capitalist laws as well.

How do you profit? By fulfilling the needs and wants of others. In a transaction, both parties profit(or benefit).

I don't think both parties benefit in any capitalist transaction. Consumers have to pay more than a product is worth. Employees must be paid less than what they produce. If both parties do profit, then one or both of them are acquiring that profit from a 3rd exploited party.

I don't see the difference between crony-capitalism and capitalism. Both need the state to survive. Austerity, imperialism, collusion and wage slavery are all inherently built into capitalism. The state must use force to protect private property regardless of how it is obtained and must continue to be accumulated. When this cycle of constant growth comes to the inevitable halt (there has been a financial crisis nearly every 20-30 years throughout US history), the state is the one that has to come in and save the whole system.

You can hate the state all you want. I too am not a statist. But I am not under the impression that weakening the state will somehow promote prosperity among all. (it will make a select few filthy rich and powerful though).

Another point about free markets and collusion. Just to play devils advocate. What is more free market than the ability to go and lobby my legislators to govern in my favor? If you don't like it, why don't you acquire more capital and lobby them for yourself?

[deleted]

You're not the first An-Cap I've bumped heads with and I've done plenty of research into it. I don't for a second believe that capitalism can exist without a state protecting it from the exploited. Every time capitalism was about to collapse they state moved into to save it in every instance. Who will protect the capitalists without a state?

The good or bad news is that economic systems inevitably change. I'll bet there were serfs who believed that serfdom would work great as long as there weren't any lords to oppress them. We won't agree on this, but I think history will look back at capitalism and be abhorred as to how divisive and exploitative it was.

I would fall somewhere in the spectrum of a Marxist.

Nobody needs any information on the common sense arguments of anarcho-capitalism and 'free markets'. It isn't even a model that you can apply. It's just a theory that some things will tend to happen if we do something that no society has managed to do yet.

Other people pointed you out as circle-jerking because you are. Going down the path of: "if we free money to do what it wants, it will no longer corrupt the system" is obviously nonsense. One statement doesn't follow from the other, and if anything it seems entirely clear that business tries to win over government no matter what the intention of government is. Furthermore, you can at least vote for politicians. And you'd have to admit, if every American wasn't the drooling moron they are, the government would be significantly different. In the past, when people were educated differently, the government was generally not trusted. So to me it seems that there are two problems here, business and stupid people.

So you can remove government from the equation, but what's the difference if government only does what businesses want? You are foolish to think businesses are only armed with computers and pens when the US army has been doing their dirty work for it's entire existence. You might want to read more about history than the theories you seem to be a fan of.

In colonial Boston, John Rowe created the BSETC which was the Boston Society for Encouraging Trade and Commerce. He used this, and other groups, to influence public opinion with the intent of affecting legislation. He lead the call for non-importation of goods. Because fuck the government?? Uhh - not really. He had the largest stock of no-longer-importable goods. This same guy created the original Tea Party. None of his actions were actually undertaken with the intent of 'maximizing liberty' or 'restricting government', his actions were undertaken in order to protect his bottom line. Like any business would.

So you can remove government from the equation, but all you'd have is businesses doing whatever it is that they want.

Perhaps in your rebuttal to this you can cite actual historic incidents of anarcho-capitalism achieving the strategy you think would be a good response. Because telling me that in your fantasy world that it wouldn't be ok for a business to do that to you means pretty much nothing.

The world operates in a neofeudal model, where business and government collude and they are both connected with revolving door of paid positions and lobbyists. Free flow of capital and labor is imperative for capitalism and they are both stifled by government and corporations, that is just one example of why we dont have true capitalism

The corporations bought our government long ago is why. Do people really not see this? What the fuck.

[deleted]

I had a reply to type out that was thorough but then I realized you answered your own question in your post. They need the state. The CIA FBI and our military to do what they need to do in order to complete their ultimate agenda. The New World Order. Novus Ordo Seclorum written in plain view on our money. You have to dig deep in order to see the big picture. Back to the Knights Templar and whatnot. Crusades.

[deleted]

Its a continuation of ideas, the age of modern statism and corporatism is a neofuedal model going back centuries

I am talking about a plan to enslave all of humanity. It has been in the works for centuries. Maybe even thousands of years if you go back and research into mystery babylon. The corporations use the state to control parts of the world for offshore jobs that cost less but rake in huge bucks in the States. CIA drug smuggling is just the tip of the iceberg. The drug war has continued because of who pays who to keep it going. Money talks. Greed flourishes. Our Congress doesn't even read the bills anymore because they don't care or don't have the time. Remember that 1.1 trillion spending bill that got passed? Someone on the floor made the comment about no one reading it because they don't have time. The machine is like a giant octopus with thousands of tentacles dipping into almost all aspects of our lives. They can pay whatever to whoever to keep their mouths shut and do their job or you can get JFK'ed.

Central banks and their usury scam/debt enslavement are the problem from which all the others stem.

[deleted]

It's all one entity. "Government" is just the enforcement arm of the central bank with the added bonus of distracting the masses with inane left/right bullshit and giving them the illusion that their vote/voice actually matters.

You were asking in your OP about the root of the problem - central bankers and their usury scam are the root of the problem.

Edit: This is all, of course, just in my humble opinion. Feel free to disagree with me completely.

[deleted]

No one is making you take the Fed's phony money, so I'm not sure who you are trying to kid.

If you wanted to abolish the fed, how would you do it? With business? Uhm - it is business.

Last I checked, the only thing that gives the Fed power, and the only thing that can take away the Fed's power is the government. The federal reserve was not the first central bank of the united states. Really - read some history because it has the answers to the questions you are asking.

[deleted]

Wtf? You have to pay taxes in dollars. Unfortunately the government doesn't accept gold or bitcoin so the entire economy uses U.S dollars because it's the only thing you can pay taxes.

Umm, if you have lots of gold or bitcoin, it's not really a big deal to convert some to USD to pay your taxes... Your rebuttal is a complete non-sequiter

No, no one is forcing me to use them but to accomplish anything as simple as getting a job or buying a house you have to use U.S dollars. Isn't that obvious?

In the US, yes. It's not some sort of universal truth or anything. The U$D is a currency like any other. Suggesting bitcoin as some sort of alternative, analogous to gold, makes it seem like you don't know what you are talking about at all. No one is forcing you to store your wealth in USD. Yes, for transactional purposes it's De Jure, but that would seem like a minor inconvenience to anyone with plenty of gold. Come on now Ron Swanson, don't you immediately convert your paycheck to a true store of value. *laughs heartily*

The fed "is business"? What do you mean by that?

Uhhh - the creature from Jekyll Island? A bunch of congressmen didn't say "gee I wonder how we can make business suck", a bunch of businessman told congress what to do. Why am I schooling you on your historical key points? The federal reserve was orchestrated and created entirely by business. Necessary parts were obviously enacted by business controlled government stooges. So really now - why play so coy?

The Fed doesn't need to be abolished. It will self-implode by itself. When investors stop buying bonds, the Fed will be forced to inflate the currency and a route will begin. Crypto-currencies and gold are what the market will head towards. I think trust in fiat currencies will be at all time low.

Maybe you can go to /r/bitcoin or something. This isn't a response to any of the points I've made. Furthermore I don't think anyone that seriously opposed a Centralized Bank in the United States ever went with the strategy of "well that shits obviously not going to last too long". It's almost as if you don't get how it works. Judging by your mangling of bitcoin and everything else - perhaps that is the case. But until the people (remember that whole point I made??) overthrow it, the bank isn't going anywhere.

I guess you think the Federal Reserve bank sits atop the pyramid, but it's more like the base of the capstone. It was created by the elites to be used by the elites. It is itself a cabal controlled by an ever more secretive cabal, so I don't think those inside guys are playing to lose. They are certainly more capable than anyone posting on this site.

Yeah, I know about the previous Reserve banks of America. Andrew Jackson did a good job ending the second reserve bank but unfortunately the Fed was given power after the era of free-banking.

Do you understand the notions I've put forth to you? I'm answering your questions. I'm attempting to engage in genuine discussion with you on this topic, but seeing as how you don't agree with what you perceive my prejudices to be, you aren't following through on this. I've noticed you try to point out to everyone else how government is wrong. But I've offered a metaphorical mathematical-proof for you to review and you've basically ignored it.

Are you incapable of seeing it as how I pointed out? I certainly can see it from your view. However, if you are going to attempt to convince me I'm wrong you will have to respond to the notions I put forth. Not just point out a moment in history when something happened.