Limiting the "rights" of the few to ensure the rights of many.

a reply to: okrian

Horrible example. I'm talking about 98 percent or more versus two percent or less, when it comes to billionaires and politicians messing with the lives of everyone else.

I want things to be put into place that benefit the majority, and those things to be decided by the majority. Not me. If an overwhelming amount of people desire something I personal disagree with, I still respect and encourage said thing. People keep making me out to be this dictator but I think those people are missing the point entirely.

a reply to: Daedal

Huh?

If all first world nations agreed not to buy goods from places that pay only pennies an hour, those places would cease to exist. First world nations desire to consume will not go down, but third world's nations would be put in a place they'd have to provide better working conditions.

I believe in limiting the "rights" of billionaires. Quotations are used for a reason.

It should not be a right to buy patents to throw them under the table to hamper competition.

It should not be a right to work people for pennies an hour.

I'm saying we should outright ban these, and alike, "rights"

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: okrian

People keep making me out to be this dictator but I think those people are missing the point entirely.

I called you a dictator, but only to prove a point - everybody who tells you what your allowed to do, is a dictator, myself included - Make no mistake, your a good guy, and you want to change things for the better I just want to help

Check this out


Its made by a youtuber called "Man Against The State" and he also made some videos with alternatives to our current system


I havent watch it all yet, but you should check it out, he have some good ideas



You should also check out the african guy that made the "ubuntu" movement (think thats what its called)
Ubuntu - Wiki
More about Ubuntu

I just did a quick search, but if you find it interresting, you should dig a little deeper

Just wanted you to know that lots of people want things to chance, and maybe some of them have some ideas we can use

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: deadlyhope

I believe in small government, I believe in large amounts of power being given to large amounts of people, and very small amounts of power being given to very small amounts of people.

More accurately called a "limited government", the original intent of the founding fathers had the government providing for the common defense and paying for that with tariffs on international trade.

Thats it. Unbelievable, huh?

That was their original intent, but after the Articles of Confederation ended in failure they tried again with our current government which has a significantly expanded role, pretty much anything is justified under the Constitution based on the idea that anything beneficial falls under the idea of promoting the general welfare or providing for defense.

Limited government refers to the fact that no one in government has absolute power. As a collective they can, but any branch or individual has a limit to their power. The small government people of the day were the anti federalists, and well... they lost out.

a reply to: deadlyhope

A majority can be made of almost anything. You just gave one example (billionaires vs. non-billionaires).

What would I do? I wouldn't limit a person's earning potential - that's for sure! What I would do, however, is loosen some of the restrictions in setting up small businesses. I'd penalize businesses that used cheap overseas labor instead of creating jobs at home. I'd lessen the amount spent on fighting wars around the world.

If the people do not like their government, they are free to protest. The problem is that they hardly do - and when they do, there aren't enough to make an impact that would force the change they seek. In case you think that people have no control and control is just an illusion, I will direct your attention to 2010 Thailand. People wanted a change in government, protested in the streets of the capital en masse, and got the change they wanted (well, some may not have got what they bargained for). The same thing happened a few years later when protesting forced the government to call fresh elections.

The problem isn't that we have no power - it's that we don't exercise it. Another problem is that people feel entitled. Someone makes 500x more than I do - so I should get a slice of that, right? Wrong. Earn 500x more than what you make right now.

If you truly believe in limited government, you'd believe in laissez-faire.

a reply to: deadlyhope

The problem is corporations. There is nothing wrong with wanting the best for yourself and family, nothing wrong with earning money and striving for a better quality of life. The issue is when you put profit before people. The issue is when you stomp on other people's livelihoods on the way to the top. The issue is people not controlling their desire for hoarding more and more wealth. The issue is that the global society in which we live has been sold a lie by corporations that we need more than a good quality of life in order to be happy, apparently we want and need more and more and bigger and flasher..... The issue is a tiny percentage of earths population owns just over 50% of earths entire wealth, they refuse to share it and fool us into believing that if we just work harder for longer, that we too can become part of that tiny percentage. What they won't tell you is that you have to be willing to rape the earth and trample upon the souls of the poor in order to even enter the threshold of their level. All the problems in this world is due to greed. All we can do is purge our own selves of the impulses and desires that lead to the suffering of others and strive to balance our love of profit with compassion and altruism...... Or something like that.......

On a lighter note anyone see the YouTube videos of the porcupine eating pumpkin and corn? Cutest thing EVER!!!!

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: deadlyhope


The problem isn't that we have no power - it's that we don't exercise it. Another problem is that people feel entitled. Someone makes 500x more than I do - so I should get a slice of that, right? Wrong. Earn 500x more than what you make.

I am always surprised when faced with attitudes like this. People like you really need to do the research (which I have done for tertiary studies), not everyone in this world is born equal. Billions of people around the world, even in developed countries, are born into generational poverty. Unless you have lived in poverty you have no idea the challenges faced with trying to get out of that poverty. All the studies have shown that those effected by poverty, and all the other problems that come with poverty, in childhood are most often afflicted with the repercussions of that childhood as an adult even if they manage to lift themselves to a higher income tier. Yes there are those who have gone from poverty and other struggles to becoming wealthy as adults, but what opportunities did they have growing up? What were the circumstances that propelled them to the path of monetary success? Because I can guarantee that not everyone is presented with the same opportunities and luck, and for some people the obstacles they face just too get a job are more than most middle class could cope with. The problem is not a sense of entitlement, the problem is inequality. If someone is making 500 times more than you just for being lucky enough to have been given certain opportunities and privilages you weren't, despite you having to work three jobs just to pay the rent and power bill and feed your kids, then obviously the problem is not laziness or a sense of entitlement that is the issue. If you dropped out of highschool because your dad was an abusive alchaholic and you ended up on the street and prostituting yourself because you got picked up by a pimp then obviously your sense of entitlement is not the reason for your poverty. I can give you hundreds of examples of the root causes of poverty and inequality and why its not a matter of just "getting a better job" or just go out and make "500 times more". But unless you have experienced true poverty with few chances of escape, or have learned to think critically and question where your beliefs and prejudices come from, then nothing I type will make a difference. Still had to pull you up on it though....

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Hello Ats members! I have been thinking tonight and a thought process came to my head. This has probably been debated and discussed to death so any insight, proof in history, etc would be great as I do not know whether my ideology is sound.

-I believe in limiting the "rights" of the few, to ensure the rights of many. I believe in maximum wages, I believe in small government, I believe in large amounts of power being given to large amounts of people, and very small amounts of power being given to very small amounts of people. What does that look like, though? I am not sure - But here's my process, and I would like anyone to chime in, whether it's to shut me down with proper logic, refine my thought process into something more realistically applicable and better overall, or just any replies at all.

-So, first I would apply maximum wages - What would I put as a cap? Probably one-ten million dollars a year. With minimum wage jobs bringing in ~20,000 a year, there's no one that works 500 times harder, let alone more than that, nor anyone who is 500 times a better inventor, or has ideas that are 500 times better than others, etc - Which brings me to my next point.

I believe patents should be extremely limited. No general or broad patents, no ability to buy a patent only to throw it under the table because it's bad for your business ( GM and water powered cars, anyone? ) I believe that most ideas are already thought of, and implementation does not mean a person should be allowed to have a huge part of a market because their lawyers pushed the paperwork first. I realize copying anothers work exactly should not be okay, at least for a time period, but I truly believe for the most competitive markets, that patents should be very limited.

-No imports that are tagged as slave/child-labor, conflict-ridden, etc. If first world nations refused to buy from these people, better work conditions would be mandatory to trade. I'm not sure how this would be enforced and implemented, but this could cause better conditions across the globe.

Anyways these are just a few of my ideas, perhaps they are flawed, perhaps they are inconclusive, but that's what I have for now. I used to believe in capitalism - But even a chance at unlimited wealth, is guaranteed to include extreme corruption. I no longer believe that the government and corporations can be trusted with any large amount of money or power - As money can buy politicians, and politicians can favor corporations. I believe limiting these two would create a situation better for the huge majority.

Hope everyone here at ats has a great Thanksgiving!

-Deadlyhope

Some interesting points.

"Small government" is not really compatible with "maximum wages". The big problem with any form of government intervention is the snowball effect. Every time government intervenes, it distorts the market. More intervention is then required to fix problems caused by the distortion. That new intervention creates new distortion... suddenly that one little tweak has resulted in massive regulatory intervention. Just look at Obamacare and the health insurance industry - a horrendous mess of regulation, distorted pricing, and market interference that can trace its roots back to wage controls implemented last century.

Secondly, what a person does with their own company - who they pay and how much they pay - is absolutely none of your damn business. The amount people should be paid is linked purely to their value to the company. If the job they do could be done quicker and better by a machine for the equivalent of $4/hour, that person really isn't worth $15/h to the company. If the company wants to pay them $20, or wants to pay Bob the VP $10 million p/a, that should be a choice for the company and the company alone. On a similar vein, slave labour in foreign countries is the only way you'll be able to afford luxury goods (including the computer you're using to read this post) if you try to implement a high minimum wage. As it is, wages that have been artificially inflated through the use of minimum wage laws have a significant impact on the push for building factories overseas. Not the only cause, possibly not even the major cause, but certainly another nail in the coffin. Like it or not, slave labour pays for your standard of living. So, start drawing up a list of things that you are prepared not to have unless you're in that top-earning bracket.

If you disapprove, don't buy their products, don't use their services, support a competitor. Start up your own company and make your ethical approach a USP to potential customers AND potential employees.

Patents are a balancing act and more beneficial than you might realise. The first thing to understand is that patents (and, in fact, patent applications) need to be published - certainly in all the jurisdictions that I am familiar with that recognise patents. The trade you make for temporary legal protection is that you need to let the world know how it works. Anybody can look at the patents, they just can't make products using that patent (while it is still valid) unless they pay you. Or unless they develop their own version based on your idea, but with enough changes to make it non-infringing.

This is one of the reasons why people point at laugh at the "Big Oil bought the patent to stop the world knowing about it!" theories. The US has an online database of patents - if there is a patent for the water-powered car*, it should be available and you should be able to give me a link. If a company wants to hide the details of how something works then they can't patent it, they have to just... keep it a secret. They don't have any legal protection to prevent someone else developing or using that invention, except in situations where "trade secret" (or equivalent) laws may apply, ie employees misusing information.

The patent system fosters development and innovation, while ensuring that the knowledge and invention is available in the public domain. Is it perfect? No, but it's still a good answer to a difficult question. I actually find myself reading patents quite often while I'm trying to work out how to achieve a specific goal for various hobby projects.

I find it very difficult to agree with your statement that "most ideas are already thought of". There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Whatever system you choose, the end result will always remain the same: people will find a way to exert influence over others, and will seek advantage and gain. For as long as humanity exists, this cannot be changed. Humanity thrives when we have a system that utilises this principle to our collective gain. The small government/free market system is the closest that we have come to this so far.



* the patent would actually be for the specific element or elements of the engine that was novel, not the car itself.

a reply to: EvillerBob

Well the whole system is messed up enough for either of our arguments to be moot.

It's my honest opinion, that even if by regulation, multi billion dollar corporations should not exist.

Ten small stores could exist in the place of a Walmart in a community.

This would create much more competition, and everyone would be based on their own merits rather than backed by billions of dollars and just bull doze everyone else down. There's no way to compete with companies that big.

Is it because those companies are just pure geniuses contributing the most to society and it's all about supply, demand, economics... Not really.

Often it's about buying senators and congressman, it's about using your money to gain favor, allowing yourself to become bigger and bigger, it's about hiring armies of lawyers and finding loop holes to laws and taxes, etc.

You can go ahead and kiss the ass of the billionaires and their "unique ideas" but I won't.

I don't believe any huge corporation is where they are by following the rules the people have to, and I believe it creates an unfair and anti competition environment for smaller businesses and while I do believe in a free market and capitalism.... We are so far away from that now.. What would you have done?

If you need links for proof that our system is bad for the people, whether in our own country or other countries, I could provide hundreds.

If you can provide one that proves that an uncontrolled market is a good thing, a real example, I will further study your ideas and perhaps change my thinking some.

a reply to: deadlyhope

The very notion you can protect ANYONE'S rights by limiting the rights of others is ridiculous on its' face.

You protect the rights of the many by ensuring the rights of the individual.

The problem here is what you define as a right.

No one has a right to govt assistance. The govt has NO RIGHTS, only authority granted to it by the people. No one has special rights. Everyone has the same rights. If you want one person to have rights someone else doesn't have, you aren't talking about a right.

If you want to limit individual wealth, then implement measures that encourage small business growth and discourage corporate manipulation. Implement tax breaks for sole proprietorships, implement import tariffs on overseas manufactured goods. Provide tax breaks for companies that pay higher wages for employees.

Any time you allow govt to regulate things they don't want people to do instead of incentivising the things you do want, you open the door to despotism and corruption.

You've got to get people willing to stand up to oppression not bow down to it and asking the govt to do it to others.

You seem to be misguided in the reality of freedom and how it can be successfully implemented..It CAN BE...

Jaden

originally posted by: deadlyhope

If you need links for proof that our system is bad for the people, whether in our own country or other countries, I could provide hundreds.

You're missing the point.

It doesn't matter how bad it is. The world you want to create would be even worse. In a choice between "horrible" and "outright evil", I choose merely "horrible".