Opium has been around for a while. I think they could find drug addicts to sell to, with or without America soldiers in the area. People will do what they need to do to survive.
[quote=ādjtexas, post:70, topic:8199, full:trueā]
No time for either party who are appendages of corporate america
[/quote]Is there a government somewhere that actually takes care of its people? One that is designed around serving the interests of business? Iād like to know what you would support, and I donāt mean your broad strokes of ārising upā, I mean an actual example of a working government, or at least a complete philosophy, one that is longer than a couple paragraphs.
I wouldnāt respond to his question like āare we doneā¦ā Heās just trying to egg people on with his trolling.
No because capitalism sets up an antagonistic society between workers and bosses where small concesseions are made to keep the masss in check however real change is subverted when you have the 1% owning the means of production distribution and exchange, to dictate socio economic policies for their interests.
When the last half a dozen posts exchanged were on a particular topic and then suddenly shifts to a new topic, it quite legitimate to ask has the previous conversation ended
Who are you responding to here? Iām pretty sure people here know that bosses try to squeeze everything they can out of workers. Could you try to expand on your theme? Add something? Rather than just repeating these tropes as if the rest of us arenāt familiar with them.
You donāt even dispute that they are appendages of big business. A so what thatās the way it is, is what I am reading from you
Solutionā¦ Very simpleā¦
Limited Capitalismā¦ Excess profits are taxed for redistribution among the population for social equity.
This was practiced under the Clinton administration and was spectacularly successful.
The last 2 years of the Clinton presidency the Nation enjoyed a surplus, which Clinton had earmarked for reducing the National Debt and apply the interest savings toward social equity.
Bush immediately installed tax cuts for the rich and returned that excess revenue to the wealthy few.
And of course that was the first thing Trump did but that was to lessen his own tax liability, in direct violation of the Emoluments clauses.
Why would I dispute it? You are having some sort of argument with something other than what is being said here. There is a big difference between being aware of how oppression is normalized in politics versus going along with. I never dismissed it as something thatis just okay. There is no āso whatā in anything I have said on this subject in any post Iāve ever made here or anywhere else.
Then where is this going? What direction are you driving to?
Itās going nowhere because you canāt follow a conversation. You make broad and oversimplified statements about corporations but offer no thoughts on how to deal with them, other than some vague ideas about possibly violent protesting. When others float ideas, you put them down. So I asked you very directly to describe a government that you think is good.