So almost everyone on the right professes that what our country must do is get rid of almost all taxes, laws and regulations on business and let them do whatever the hell they want to do (which is obliterate our environment). So my question is simple, since business in this country has already raped much of our environment, economy, rights and freedoms, how much is too much? Will the right ever be willing to oppose corporate America on anything? (other than gay benefits and saying happy holidays). How much overdevelopment are you willing to allow them? How much of our forests and farmland have to be destroyed? How much pollution, overcrowding, traffic jams, and supporting foreign dictators is the right willing to tolerate, or will they just let business screw us until we're all put on plantations or prison camps because there's too many people and no resources left? Or is your plan to start stealing from other countries after obliterating our own under the guise of "defense"?
Corporations vs. Government... The government pollutes more than all other corporations combined. The Federal Reserve is the cause of the very recession we're in. Corporations are what creates job, thus what keeps our economy running. Wal-Mart isn't the one telling me what I can consume, what I can watch on TV, etc. So your solution is more government?
That's a new one. Blaming corporations for taking your rights and freedoms. hahaha You tell us how much more we should destroy the earth, afterall the democrats are the ones who think that the poor do not have enough money for consumerism. Democrats want to eat their cake, but not allow the processes for the making and transporting of the cake. As soon as you start living life as a cave man, maybe others will follow. Turn off your computer, you're killing baby seals.
So, as I thought, no one on the right has any intention of ever standing up to big business- the most corrupt and destructive force on the planet.
Actually, both of those on the "right" in this thread have intentions to stand up to big business, by voting for the only anti-corporate welfare/cronyism candidate. Hint: He's not Obama.
I think there is a limit, and it is one that the PEOPLE will eventually define (certain ways in each era). The LAND doesn't belong to "corporations" (corporations SEEM like people, but they are merely 'tools' we use as a people)... America ultimately belongs to the American people (and that isn't only those who are wealthy).
The problem is that a lot of republicans think there should be no public land and it should all be privatized, which would decimate our environment and quality of life, as the good land would all be given to the elites for their own pleasure, development or extraction.
Correct. There are those who just can't accept (or pretend they do not see) that people in this land (and on this Earth) MUST share the planet. I think there is essentially no (verbally/intellectually) convincing the most GREEDY type of person; they tend to learn only where they are denied their indulgence in 'greed' or destroy their very own relationships or environment; they have to literally FEEL the pain of their own ways.
Why don't you do what they did when they started their businesses... get together a bunch of like minded entrepreneurial friends and buy a big patch of land to plant a forest or run a farm? If you think they are doing it wrong, then why not do it right yourself and show them how to make money by doing it right?
lmao. Checks and balances are for the 3 branches of government within themselves to prevent any one from gaining power. that is the ONLY checks and balances system created by our forefathers. There is nothing in the constitution about controlling businesses.
The people will NOT identify it as long as unchecked, unregulated greed is the counter to common sense. Its always easier to force the "other" guy to change their ways, because your own small contribution isn't the cause. Without a big brother to watch over humanity, we are doomed. Never in history have we learned one lesson thats stuck, and I dont' expect us to any time soon.
Let me try putting it like this: Republicans do believe that the government should protect property rights, correct? Say a person does a whole bunch of environmental damage to property that they own. I believe that republicans would say that this is in a person's rights. But what if they do so much damage to their own property that it affects the property of others? Is that the limit? Should a person not be allowed to damage the property of other people?
