- If you have a small govt, then a large corporation will walk all over it.
That is a valid potential issue. However, your example is irrelevant. Acworth, GA is not a “government” in the sense used. It is part of a state (Georgia) which is part of the US. The “government” is the entire chain, and there’s no way Walmart could have stood against the US Army, or even the Georgia National Guard.
The fact that the courts have allowed “justice” to become degraded to the point that all that matters is how deep litigant’s pockets are is itself, IMO, a symptom of the regulatory government’s preference for big corporations.
- Without regulations on business, without the EPA, you get the likes of GE dumping toxic chemicals into the Hudson River. The reason we have the EPA is because large corps used public water ways as their private dumping grounds up into the 1960’s.
Actually, IIRC, problems with air pollution had as much to do with setting up the EPA as water dumping. Set up by Richard Nixon, I’ll note. But the large corporations really aren’t that worried about level playing field regulations that make sense. Some cheat, and need to be punished. Ideally, the non-cheaters should be in favor of seeing cheaters punished, unless the “regulatory” bureaucracy is so blanket anti-corporate/anti-business that they feel impelled to band together to defend themselves. The EPA has a problem in this regard from what I hear…
(I should also point out that the entire system of regulation is only necessary because the rights of original owners have been abrogated. “You’re perfectly free to dump whatever you want into the air as long as it never blows over my property.” etc. A point often discussed among libertarians.)
- To be Totally against Socialism you must never use a public library or the US postal system or public schools or police or the fire department or insurance of any kind. These are all US socialist institutions.
No they are NOT “US socialist institutions”. They are generally not part of the “free”-market competitive “capitalist” system, but publicly owned resources have always been part of the national (post-Westphalian) systems in which modern capitalism evolved.
Socialists have often pointed to such institutions as examples of “socialism”, but just because they’d probably be similar in a socialist society doesn’t make them “socialist institutions”.
I would define “socialism” as an ideology founded on the ideal that people’s status is (or should be) entirely based on their ability to manipulate “society”. AFAIK most classic socialists define it as “society” “owning” the “means of production”. All three of the terms I put in “scare quotes” have serious semantic/epistemological issues…
Institutions that are publicly/“commonly” owned and/or managed don’t fall under that definition unless they are specifically “means of production”. Just because they contribute to productive enterprise doesn’t mean they don’t make more sense as common, not-for-profit resources, such as highways, libraries, etc.
BTW, why did you include insurance? Granted it’s heavily (and incompetently) regulated, but it’s hardly a “socialist institution”, most insurance is provided by for-profit public-stock corporations.
- Now, more than ever, the likes of Cloobeck and his ilk (Billionaires) have too much influence in politics simply because they are rich beyond measure. Some are good hearted and mean well, others are no [sic] so good natured.
Seems to me that’s pretty much what I said in the beginning. I agree something needs to be done about money buying politics, but my original point was the need to distinguish between those who are donating in (what they consider) the public interest, and those who expect to personally (or corporately) profit from the changes they’re pushing. (Relative to the rest of society.)
And, of course, the more general need to distinguish between those who have become wealthy through enterprise that is societally profitable (of which they get a share), and those who dealt in rent-seeking or other parasitical behavior. Classing them all together just encourages the villains to hide among the innocent.