</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by
The state created the corporations. The two are partners. Any cartel must rely on the protection the state offers in return for the corporations collecting taxes from the goods and services they sell. Do you seriously
think politicians protect you from the guys they get their campaign contributions from, and who collect taxes from your pay to hand over to the state itself? Yeah, politicians are really looking out for you, aren't they!
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Well thankfully Canada isn't nearly as bad as the US when it comes to being influenced by large sums of money from large companies. Also there are many more rules as too how much money our leaders can accept.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by
What CEOs? Without a state to create them by law, there can be no corporations. No corporations, no CEOs.
You think there's a fundamental difference between the people who wear suits and chair corporations, and the guys who go to parliament and make commandments for you to obey? What magic transformation takes place to make a guy who earns a living selling stuff turn into a saint when he gets the job of Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler and Mass Extortionist?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
No I don't think there is any difference. That's why I wouldn't trust a company to run Medical services any more then the state based on the mans word or integrety however as one person I feel I have a much strongy voice towards the state then I do as one consumer, especially if there is no government intervention. If the government steps back as far as it can and allows companies to do what they want then these companies will create a Cartel because as a Cartel they can make more money collectively. Just look at OPEC.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by
Uh, I thought that was my argument . . .If I want to cut the ability of CEOs to influence things, the most effective way is to abolish their source of power: the state.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I can't share in part of your argument?
Anywho in Canada it is different and there are not huge companies that dominate the governments decisions.
Or change their source of power...
What happen to just choosing another company? Maybe a smaller one that isn't influental enough to have an affact on the US government?
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by
Why? The people who get elected can take whatever they want by law, and give whatever they decide in return, and you either like it or lump it. The people who run corporations don't get paid if you don't want their product. They don't get paid anything at all, if you don't want what they have to offer. Why the hell would you rather have someone take as much money as HE decides, and then HE decides what you get instead of having a CHOICE whether to pay for the stuff or not?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
If that company neglect one group of people or one area of people but makes the company more money in the long run the CEO will get paid. Now those people who were neglected can go elsewhere if they are not satsified with the product , provided they don't live in a small town in the middle of the bush, but they will have a much stonger voice in an election.
Does a poor person have a choice of paying for a shotty job? Getting medical attention with less then up to date equipment compared to the next. Not everybody has a choice of where they end up for medicare. Yes the rich have a choice but the poor do not. Which is why Canada prefers and equality approach. That doesn't stop people from flying to the US to get quicker appointments but that does ensure that people who can't afford certain things will get the medical attention needed.