Liberals, not Conservatives represent "The Establishment"

We know they don't have morals; that's why the push to deregulate everything by conservatives is so terrifying. With no morality to guide corporations and no consequences (regulations/laws) for immoral actions, our society is extremely vulnerable.

 

Doesn't pan out that way as often as you claim. For one, we do desire regulation, but we don't need the state to provide it. Take a look at UL, a private regulatory group.

Additionally, with information being so easily obtained, companies have to maintain a certain image, think back to the hit Nestle took when we found out about their dealings in Africa, same with De Beers. Both companies took a huge amount of backlash for their amoral behavior.

Certainly some consumer protection is warranted and while business may have no moral compass, they do have a great desire to be seen in a positive view by consumers. The profit motive can lead to moral behavior so long as it's demanded by consumers.

 

The premise of the OP, that the liberals are more the Establishment than the conservatives, was quite a good one. That's why I was surprised when Silicon Magician threw his whole argument away by showing his lack of knowledge of European history. Europe has had many socialist and radical movements for centuries (long before the Iron Curtain was put into place) and they have been powerful political forces. One of the two main political parties in the UK in the 20th century was the Labour Party which had a solidly socialist agenda and which formed the government several times, for instance.

Social Democracy was formed as a movement quite independently of the East European Communists and there is only a tenuous ideological tie between the two. As for the hordes of communist swine, politics are just as mixed in the former Iron Curtain countries, with some adhering to socialist/communistic viewpoints and others now free to pursue right-wing and/or nationalist agendas. If Silicon Magician can get things that wrong from something that happened so recently (historically speaking), it really calls into question the credibility of his own personal world view.

 

I think you have to "follow the money" to know where a candidate's focus lay. Agreed that the liberals own the establishment, which is why we have so much dis-information. But the focus of the direction of America comes from money. Obama's money comes from many unknown sources, but we can clearly see his direction. The GOP candidates all have agendas, but who gives them their money is who will direct them. This is the reason I lean mostly toward Romney. His money comes mostly from him. His alligence is to America and he won't have half the political favors to repay if elected. The others will carry "unknown baggage". How they will react if elected can't be readily determined. I don't want to see a One World Government, which is where we are currently headed.

 

Because corporations aren't capable of influencing the findings of private regulatory groups, right? They're already buying an entire presidential election right now; surely that's not an indicator of the lengths to which they're willing to go.

With no regulation/laws protecting the public, none of this "amoral behavior" will be brought to light. Perception is reality; reality is not necessary what people perceive, especially when these corporations have billions of dollars that can be used to mask their real actions in the marketplace and behind the curtain.

 

UL is highly respected and does excellent work, and has never even once been accused of bribery. They're the shining example of what private regulation could look like.

Seriously, look into them, they do good work and I'm serious when I say they're a model for how regulatory industries could work, and frankly I'm just fine with subsidizing this, since it'd be infinitely cheaper than the state doing it themselves.

Blame SCOTUS. Businesses are just doing the logical thing and protecting their interests, they'd be foolish not to poor money into the election. In either case, you assignment of blame is misplaced.

The internet shines light in every dark corner, the world is shrinking and hiding atrocities is becoming increasingly difficult. I'm not some nut who thinks there should be no regulation, I just think that it doesn't have to be a burden on the tax payers, at least not to the degree it is today.

 

So who is funding UL?

By the way, I do blame SCOTUS. SCOTUS is right-leaning. Hence blaming the conservatives for their SCOTUS appointments. My blamei s accurate.

The internet can be (and is being) controlled. It's not the free, equal medium you seem to think it is.

 

You have to pay to have your products certified by them, they're also a non-profit organization and their financial matters are public record. Your skepticism is warranted, but not well placed in this situation.

Good, that's who's at fault for the "who has the most money" election system.

Nonsense.... though Lamar Smith and the rest of the anti-free speech crowd are trying via SOPA, PIPA, PCIP etc.