Philosophy Now Forum

Obvious Leo wrote:Scott. Although I agree with the general thrust of your post I'm willing to grant that the OP does reflect a relevant point. If we are to hold individuals, governments and corporations accountable for their behaviour then there is no valid reason why non-profit organisations should be exempt from this scrutiny as long as they enjoy a tax-free status. It is certainly the case that in my country not all non-profit organisations act in the communal interest but rather serve the interests of only a very small and self-selected group, often to the detriment of the broader common interest. The most obvious examples are the plethora of religious institutions, some of which generate enormous revenues from their various corporate interests, none of which is taxed. These are not trivial sums and in total they come to an annual public subsidy of tens of billions of dollars, which is a shitload of dough in a country of only 24 million people.

I see this too. A government can be formed intending to defeat itself as being a government; a non-profit organization can exist with the intent to destroy non-profit organizations. I'm sure at least with a government that we can create laws that limit such things being allowed. But it's probably best to at least allow them if only for the sake of having some forum to preserve there existence.

Here in Canada, once restriction that any non-profit organization is not allowed to do is to act politically. They also have to be accountable by formalizing their meetings with certain records. A government can also incorporate such entities, as is with PBS, in the states. We have CBC (a sister to BBC) which is incorporated to serve to profit the whole. They use advertising and thus the government can use such revenue as profit for the people as a whole. I'm not sure which system is better. But at least the quality of PBS serves to show the value of it as a distinctly independent form of non-profit. Although our CBC is supposed to be independent, our conservative governments always have indirect power to affect it by reducing funding to it.

bobevenson wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:BTW: If you think the US is democratic, then why (pray tell) do you want to get rid of the government? Do you just love torture and punishment? Is having a say in your own affairs and what your country does too much responsibility for you?

I guess you don't actually read anything I write. Who said I wanted to get rid of government? Torture and punishment, what the hell are you even talking about? Are you drunk, are you on drugs, are you having a nervous breakdown, I don't know!

My apologies, Mr. Evenson for whatever misunderstanding may exist on my part.

As a voter, maybe I should become more acquainted with the AEP platform. Just to get an idea of how a government without any employees or assets of any kind works, how would the following scenario be handled?

Suppose there is a factory in the middle of town and the factory is producing an inordinate amount of pollution which is causing acid rain. What should be done according to the AEP? Should some sort of regulation be put in place requiring the factory to reduce the pollution? And if so, how would the regulations be enforced?

Gary Childress wrote:As a voter, maybe I should become more acquainted with the AEP platform. Just to get an idea of how a government without any employees or assets of any kind works, how would the following scenario be handled?
Suppose there is a factory in the middle of town and the factory is producing an inordinate amount of pollution which is causing acid rain. What should be done according to the AEP? Should some sort of regulation be put in place requiring the factory to reduce the pollution? And if so, how would the regulations be enforced?

First of all, the government under the AEP has plenty of assets in the form of tax receipts. It just doesn't own anything or have any employees. For instance, the federal government rents the White House, it doesn't own it. The government does have a supervisory staff that is paid by an outside company in the same way that all elected officials are paid. Since the only proper function of government is social integration and defense, problems such as acid rain are handled by outside firms hired by consultants appointed by the government. Again, the government basically acts as an overseer of all government operations.

bobevenson wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:As a voter, maybe I should become more acquainted with the AEP platform. Just to get an idea of how a government without any employees or assets of any kind works, how would the following scenario be handled?
Suppose there is a factory in the middle of town and the factory is producing an inordinate amount of pollution which is causing acid rain. What should be done according to the AEP? Should some sort of regulation be put in place requiring the factory to reduce the pollution? And if so, how would the regulations be enforced?

First of all, the government under the AEP has plenty of assets in the form of tax receipts. It just doesn't own anything or have any employees. For instance, the federal government rents the White House, it doesn't own it. The government does have a supervisory staff that is paid by an outside company in the same way that all elected officials are paid. Since the only proper function of government is social integration and defense, problems such as acid rain are handled by outside firms hired by consultants appointed by the government. Again, the government basically acts as an overseer of all government operations.

How does government know that these agencies are not just taking the piss and sending them huge bills for doing nothing?
What prevents the government appointing their own companies, or the companies of their friends for huge kickbacks?
What happens when the privately owned Whitehouse renters decide to to the rant up by 300%.
What is to stop them?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:How does government know that these agencies are not just taking the piss and sending them huge bills for doing nothing? What prevents the government appointing their own companies, or the companies of their friends for huge kickbacks? What happens when the privately owned Whitehouse renters decide to to the rant up by 300%. What is to stop them?

Consultants appointed by the government hire companies to do the actual work. The companies are continuously scrutinized and replaced if necessary. If the owner of the White House wanted to jack up the rent 10,000 percent, the government can force its sale to another party willing to charge normal rent. Everything about AEP government is totally open to minimize malfeasance.

bobevenson wrote: If the owner of the White House wanted to jack up the rent 10,000 percent, the government can force its sale to another party willing to charge normal rent. Everything about AEP government is totally open to minimize malfeasance.

The government would force the owner of the White House to sell his or her asset? Why wouldn't the government simply open up the Real Estate ads and find another location with lower rent?

EDIT: Of course mail would need to be forwarded from the old address, sort of like when I move to a new address.

Gary Childress wrote:

bobevenson wrote: If the owner of the White House wanted to jack up the rent 10,000 percent, the government can force its sale to another party willing to charge normal rent. Everything about AEP government is totally open to minimize malfeasance.

The government would force the owner of the White House to sell his or her asset? Why wouldn't the government simply open up the Real Estate ads and find another location with lower rent?

That's another possibility, of course, but the historical significance of the White House might outweigh that consideration.

bobevenson wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:How does government know that these agencies are not just taking the piss and sending them huge bills for doing nothing? What prevents the government appointing their own companies, or the companies of their friends for huge kickbacks? What happens when the privately owned Whitehouse renters decide to to the rant up by 300%. What is to stop them?

Consultants appointed by the government hire companies to do the actual work. The companies are continuously scrutinized and replaced if necessary. If the owner of the White House wanted to jack up the rent 10,000 percent, the government can force its sale to another party willing to charge normal rent. Everything about AEP government is totally open to minimize malfeasance.

Who scrutinised the apointees? and who scrutinises the scrutineers? If the government and the renters are the same people than nothing will happen and the people will get fleeced as normal.
Everything about AEP is doomed to the most profound and fundamental corruption.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:How does government know that these agencies are not just taking the piss and sending them huge bills for doing nothing? What prevents the government appointing their own companies, or the companies of their friends for huge kickbacks? What happens when the privately owned Whitehouse renters decide to to the rant up by 300%. What is to stop them?

Consultants appointed by the government hire companies to do the actual work. The companies are continuously scrutinized and replaced if necessary. If the owner of the White House wanted to jack up the rent 10,000 percent, the government can force its sale to another party willing to charge normal rent. Everything about AEP government is totally open to minimize malfeasance.

Who scrutinised the apointees? and who scrutinises the scrutineers? If the government and the renters are the same people than nothing will happen and the people will get fleeced as normal.
Everything about AEP is doomed to the most profound and fundamental corruption.

Marketing consultants that specialize in various areas hire the companies that carry out specific objectives. Everything is completely open to the media so there is little chance of collusion. It will be very easy to see if money is being wasted or whether operations are being handled efficiently. The government, and ultimately the people at election time, make the final decision.

bobevenson wrote: Marketing consultants that specialize in various areas hire the companies that carry out specific objectives. Everything is completely open to the media so there is little chance of collusion. It will be very easy to see if money is being wasted or whether operations are being handled efficiently. The government, and ultimately the people at election time, make the final decision.

Theoretically everything is open to the media now, except for whatever is considered militarily sensitive or whatever. There is still fraud and corruption. In what way will the media be different under the AEP?

Gary Childress wrote:Theoretically everything is open to the media now, except for whatever is considered militarily sensitive or whatever. There is still fraud and corruption. In what way will the media be different under the AEP?

Today, you need to file a freedom of information request to get government information, to be decided by the government. Under the AEP, it's the government that will have to file a request not to give information, to be decided by the judiciary.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: First of all, the government under the AEP has plenty of assets in the form of tax receipts.

Not so, Bob. Your government won't have a pot to piss in because land values will plummet to zero as a result of market forces. You won't even be able to give it away, let alone sell it or raise taxes on it. Every cent of capital in the US would disappear off-shore overnight.

As I keep trying to tell you, Bob, steer clear of the economics and just stick to the guns. As long as the shitheads are going to be allowed to blow away the fuckers they don't like you can't miss, so just try and keep your message SIMPLE.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: First of all, the government under the AEP has plenty of assets in the form of tax receipts.

Not so, Bob. Your government won't have a pot to piss in because land values will plummet to zero as a result of market forces. You won't even be able to give it away, let alone sell it or raise taxes on it. Every cent of capital in the US would disappear off-shore overnight.

As I keep trying to tell you, Bob, steer clear of the economics and just stick to the guns. As long as the shitheads are going to be allowed to blow away the fuckers they don't like you can't miss, so just try and keep your message SIMPLE.

PLEASE DON"T MISQUOTE ME. Shit I ain't Boob.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: First of all, the government under the AEP has plenty of assets in the form of tax receipts.

Not so, Bob. Your government won't have a pot to piss in because land values will plummet to zero as a result of market forces. You won't even be able to give it away, let alone sell it or raise taxes on it. Every cent of capital in the US would disappear off-shore overnight.

As I keep trying to tell you, Bob, steer clear of the economics and just stick to the guns. As long as the shitheads are going to be allowed to blow away the fuckers they don't like you can't miss, so just try and keep your message SIMPLE.

You know if you keep this up, I'm going to have to go back to calling you "Oblivious Leo." Let me give you some basic economics. Since money is merely a medium of exchange of property, property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value, we are not just talking about land, but everything of value like factories and gold and all kinds of things. As long as the government can lay claim to property, it will never run out of money. I don't want to hurt you, Leo, but you're pushing your luck, little man.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Hobbes Choice wrote:First of all, the government under the AEP has plenty of assets in the form of tax receipts.

PLEASE DON"T MISQUOTE ME.

For a second there, I thought you had suddenly wised up.