How else to explain someone who defends those who would hurt him.
I defend against the greater encroachment of our liberty by the government which would harm us both directly (less liberty is a harm) and indirectly (negative economic effects).
If you really were worried, your fight would be with the encroachment by corps where we have little to no control and not with the gov't who is elected by us.
Just more winger blather.
I also speak out against mindless bashing, whether its of corporations or any other group. Want to attack corporations? There is plenty of legitimate reasons to complain, most prominent of which is their working with the government to restrain competition or to get special government benefits. But oddly enough those who seem to hate corporations the most, also seem to support restraint of trade and/or government dispensing cash or giving targeted tax breaks.
Wrong again. I don't support giving corps. tax breaks. I am vehemently against it in fact. And the worst abusers of that crap are the red states.....your kin.
I opposed subsidies and special targeted tax breaks for corporations,
That's doesn't hurt corps. Those are freebies......the icing on the cake. No corp. would die from your concerns.
If the benefits don't help the corporations than why have them? If they do help corporations reducing them would hurt corporations. "Hurting" doesn't equal killing. Although in some cases corporations would actually die (or at least be drastically restructured) if they couldn't get any subsidies, targeted tax breaks, or restraint of trade (not only monopolies, and trade restrictions, but licensing requirements, and even things like environmental and financial reporting requirements can be structured to make things hard on potential new competitors).
It does benefit them.....but taking it away doesn't restrain their growing power.
Its not that I want to hurt corporations, let alone kill them, I just don't want them to feed off my tax dollars, or to have the government burden their competitors in order to strengthen the entrenched incumbents.
Where do you see that happening?
You want to allow monopolies
How do you get "you want to allow monopolies" from "I oppose restraint on trade, like government granted monopolies". That's a logical leap to say the least.
From your comments earlier that led to me making them response......no restraint on trade. When there were no restraints on trade, monopolies developed. For some bizarre reason, you are unable to make the connection.
If a company charges $10 for a cup of coffee and someone is willing to pay the price, most people will say its extortion but its not illegal
I have some doubt that most people would call it extortion. If they would, they would be wrong.
Oh come on, Tim. Now you're just playing.........$10 for a cup of coffee......not a latte but a cup......is highway robbery in most people's books. I don't have time to play games.......if you want to get silly, do it with the mental midgets on this thread.
High prices are not extortion. Its only extortion if your forced to pay the high prices (or fork over the money without buying anything). If your not attacked, or threatened (not even with subtle threats so that it would be hard to charge extortion or prove it in court), your not being extorted.
Look up the word in Websters.
Twitter is overcharging the city of SF for the privilege of maintaining a facility in SF.
I don't think Twitter is charging anything to SF. SF is charging Twitter, and Twitter is saying reduce the charge or we won't stay.
Twitter doesn't want to pay taxes.....so what else is new. In your world, that's a good thing. Instead, its very destructive and either you are not smart enough to figure it out, or you know exactly what you are doing. I tend to think its the latter.
Even if Twitter actually was charging SF (and that would be unusual, and I've seen no evidence indicating it is the case), it still wouldn't be extortion. "Buy our product or we kill you" is extortion, "pay more for our product or we won't sell it to you" is not.
Taxes are a necessary part of the free market system because gov't is a necessary part of the free market system.
For humans air is necessary in order to live, and we need to live to participate in the market economy, but generally air is not bought and sold, and is not part of the market.
Its the same with government except government isn't necessary for a market to exist, its beneficial even highly beneficial up to a point (too much of it is harmful), but not necessary. Anarchy is generally considered a bad idea, and I agree with that assessment, but in a situation of anarchy you still have people trading goods and services for money or for other goods and services.
Tim, this is taking too much time. Let's cut to the chase. You and I.....we're at war. I refuse to let you or your ilk destroy this country. End of story. |
