Workers are told to shape up or pay up

[Osborn F Enready]

sdbest said:
So what mechanism do you propose for depriving corporations and their shareholders and managers and staffs of the free use of their property and rights so that the rights you've enumerated above will be protected?

Exactly what was intended and existed before being reversed by Reagans warped ideas of "de-regulation".

Reagan was right on his ideas of de-regulation, he just implemented it on the wrong entities. He de-regulated monopolies, instead of small business, further removing the rights of individuals, and further empowering the rights of corporations.

[sdbest]

Exactly what was intended and existed before being reversed by Reagans warped ideas of "de-regulation".

Reagan was right on his ideas of de-regulation, he just implemented it on the wrong entities. He de-regulated monopolies, instead of small business, further removing the rights of individuals, and further empowering the rights of corporations.

In a short paragraph, could you remind me what "was intended and existed" before President Reagan's deregulation. It seems you're advocating state control over corporations, and things like the re-introduction of the Fairness Doctrine on corporate media. That of course would put an end to many right wing shows.

Regards
S.

[Osborn F Enready]

sdbest said:
In a short paragraph, could you remind me what "was intended and existed" before President Reagan's deregulation.

The U.S. used to only trade with nations that were friendly to individual rights, and this was a form of individual rights protection, by assuring that nations we traded with shared similar financial liabilities and costs as us, preserving the balance of "the economic playing field". In 1972 I believe it was Nixon who opened trade with China, and that trade grew until 1980 when Ronbo came on the scene, and did exactly the opposite of what needed to be done. Instead of "levelling" the playing field by de-regulating small business to be more competitive when it could have made a difference, he de-regulated corporations which defacto made it harder and harder for small business to compete, so they were swallowed. He stopped anti-monopoly laws in their tracks, and disempowered the people in regards to how they could interact with the market and corporations in both labor and purchasing. Trade with China and other communist nations has worked to severely disempower U.S. production, because we allow corporations grown here, built here on our technology and individual creativity, to be taken and offshored while still allowing them into the market they just alienated the workforce that built them. If people were actually INFORMED, they probably wouldn't support most of these corporations, but most people aren't informed because the media doesn't do their job anymore, as they are owned by the same corporate criminals that own most of the global production corporations.

De-regulation was the right answer, it was just executed in the wrong place.

sdbest said:
It seems you're advocating state control over corporations, and things like the re-introduction of the Fairness Doctrine on corporate media. That of course would put an end to many right wing shows.

I am advocating LOCAL control over corporations, since that is where it was intended to reside. Local land is used, local waste is affected, local people are put to, or out of work, local roads bear the burden, local economies bloat or decline by the opening of corporations in local areas.
Its only logical that local areas control the rights of incorporation.

I really could care less about right-wing anything, or left-wing anything, because I am neither.

I am an economic conservative, and a social liberal, both of which champion individual liberty and choice in market access as well as workers rights.

[sdbest]

The U.S. used to only trade with nations that were friendly to individual rights, and this was a form of individual rights protection, by assuring that nations we traded with shared similar financial liabilities and costs as us, preserving the balance of "the economic playing field".

The U.S. has always made economic common cause with despotic regimes and has overthrown democratically elected leaders.

I am advocating LOCAL control over corporations, since that is where it was intended to reside. Local land is used, local waste is affected, local people are put to, or out of work, local roads bear the burden, local economies bloat or decline by the opening of corporations in local areas.
Its only logical that local areas control the rights of incorporation.

There is local control over many major corporations. Walmart, for example, never gets into a community unless the local authorities issue the permits. It's the local control, in many cases, that is letting the corporations "own" America.

Just because a decision is made at the local level doesn't mean it will fit your notion of correct one.

Regards
S.

[Osborn F Enready]

sdbest said:
The U.S. has always made economic common cause with despotic regimes and has overthrown democratically elected leaders.

Easy killer, so have most nations when it suited their own purpose. Don't forget that only 150 years ago people around the world were in much poorer condition in all respects, and much of the positive change has also come from the U.S. and its drug companies, ability to transport aid and "generous" charitable donations of healthcare goods, food and labor. Most of the good has come from private individuals, and most of the bad from the bi-partisan monopoly on power, democrats and republicans alike.

Also, when it came to slavery and other now looked upon evils, don't forget we didn't pioneer slavery, we just had some groups that participated in a common crime of the times. Jolly old England, whom your nation pays homage to, was participating and enslaving nations long before our nation came into existence, in revolt of the same concepts of tyranny, based on what???? Taxation without representation one of the main underpinnings.

sdbest said:
There is local control over many major corporations. Walmart, for example, never gets into a community unless the local authorities issue the permits. It's the local control, in many cases, that is letting the corporations "own" America.

In some cases, not many. A large portion of it is due to lack of citizen education in their ability to affect such things(public schooling), another part is media diversion of relevant issues. Both of these are driven by bi-partisan politics and corporate intrests.

sdbest said:
Just because a decision is made at the local level doesn't mean it will fit your notion of correct one.

Correct, and no problem with that at all. My problem is with federal leadership, lawmakers and diversion from the Constitution.

[sdbest]

Easy killer, so have most nations when it suited their own purpose. .

I didn't suggest otherwise. I was addressing a specific claim that you made about the United States.

For the record, Britain abolished slavery in 1833, the U.S. in 1863 and only after the worst war in its history, the Civil War.

My more general point is that Americans often make very hubristic, chauvinistic statements about their country that often do not bear close scrutiny. America is not the "best" country in the world in many areas. It is not and never has been a bastion of democracy when it comes to other peoples, and to a large extent its own people. Most European countries, today, are more democratic than the United States.

In some areas, the death penalty, for example, the United States--as it did with the abolishment of slavery--lags far behind other countries.

Regards
S.

[Osborn F Enready]

sdbest, we have about sidetracked this thread enough now, eh?

[sdbest]

sdbest, we have about sidetracked this thread enough now, eh?

You're right.

Regards
S.