For preview only. Get it at

Trading Democracy for Corporate Rule

2009 ,    » 82 Comments
Ratings: 7.94/10 from 34 users.

Trading Democracy for Corporate RuleYou, Me, and the SPP: Trading Democracy for Corporate Rule is a feature length documentary which exposes the latest manifestation of a corporatist agenda that is undermining the democratic authority of the citizens of North America.

Two processes, the Security Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and the Trade Investment Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) are rapidly eroding and eliminating standards, civil liberties, regulatory systems and institutions put in place over generations through the democratic process. Proponents of the SPP and TILMA say that they are needed to keep trade flowing, opponents say these agreements not only undermine the democratic authority of citizens they threaten the sovereignty of the three nations through the integration of military, security structures and regulatory regimes.

Even though the SPP (Security Prosperity Partnership) is officially finished, this film provides an excellent background to this agenda and helps to expose how quickly and easily the corporate elite and their political cronies will abandon democratic principles to consolidate their own power, control and authority at the expense of citizens rights.

More great documentaries

82 Comments / User Reviews

  1. dmxi

    please, spread the word!this documentary is a must & should reach everyone
    concerned !

  2. ruthslater

    yea he says what we need to do but I dont see it happening . and this m*ron thinks Obama is going to change things for the better ?? are ya kidding me does he not read what the liar has done to us so far ? he sounds like he needs to do more research on what Obama is .

  3. Cyber Penguin

    Wait, am i mistaken this means?

    If theres little Regulations Corporations take over.

    And too much Regulation we get a crazy police state that takes away our freedoms so it can protect us?

    O.o im drinking wine while im drawing so i might have got it wrong. does anyone wanto explain?

  4. wald0

    Well, it depends on what kind of regulation we are talking about. If we deregulate capitalism and let corporations pursue their one and only goal, profit- they will of course abandon anything that reduces those profits. That means lowering safety standards, fuel efficiency standards, environmental protections, wages, and benefits for employees, etc. and many times it means shipping the jobs out of Western countries into poverty stricken third world countries and exploiting the people, mineral wealth, etc. there. If we over regulate capitalism, which generally happens in several different ways- 1. The corporate special interest groups and lobbyists push for regulations that force the little guys out of business and as a result secure their future domination of the industry. 2. We have good intentions but we over regulate to the point we gum of the flow of goods and services, complicate the process of starting new businesses, or impede the flow of necessary credit.

    The truth is we have to have a balanced approach. We have to regulate to the degree that we do not let institutions get "to big to fail", we curb this vicious cycle of bubble and bust, we make sure human and civil rights are respected above profit, and that we protect labor rights and collective bargaining- and of course we stop all the illegal scams and ethically questionable investment practices running rampant in the system currently.

    Now it seemed you may have confused regulating capitalism with regulating individual behavior or activity. As far as I know very few people support more regulation of our private lives, leisure activities, or personal relationships. That is what i consider a police state, not just moderate regulation of commerce and industry which actually secures the peoples liberties and future prosperity if done with common sense. In fact even though over regulation would kill our economy- I don't think I would call it a police state still, just a really st*pid mistake.

  5. Melissa

    to Cyber Penguin.

    I don't believe he means too much regulation gets us a police state, more that regulation created by for-profit corporate lobbyist gets us a police state, to protect the the elites. Regulation has to come from the peoples decisions. From the citizens rights as a group, to exist and live.
    OAN, I have seen this coming for a long time now, I hoped we would all vote Harper out, not enough of us did.

  6. slpsa

    I did not vote for Harper. He is a Corporate lapdog and nothing more. I see through him as pretty much 60 per cent of us did not vote for him. Nice democracy and system we have when you get a majority with 40 per cent. He will pursue decimating collective bargaining and decimate Unions, he already pushed through this illegal omnibus crime bill that punishes pot smokers more than pedophiles. Rights and freedoms already took a beating with the Terrorism Laws that mirror the Patriot Act. He is taking environmental protections and throwing them out the door for the resource extraction mafia as fast as he can as well. The Canada my Grandfather fought and died for no longer exists. We are now Little America. I do not like it, and that is not a slight to Americans, that is a slur towards the Corporate interests that have raped America, and now us.

  7. Cyber Penguin

    Ah, thanks for clearing that up, i had way to much wine today ha ha. :D
    It all sounds reasonable.

  8. princeton

    and yet another philosophically unsound piece which wants us to believe that social injustice arises out of greed in the same manner that plane crashes happen because of gravity.

    no grasshopper.. planes are built to work despite gravity in the same way that social organizations form to be functional despite greed which are both accepted as omnipresent forces in nature.. just look around.

    You see, gravity is also present for planes that don't crash. and greed will also be present in all human societies indefinetly, even utopia will have greed and probably depend on it.

    in other words.. asying things like "a corporatist agenda that is undermining the democratic authority of the citizens of North America." is an incorrect statement which is in many ways backwards.

    democratic (mob rule) governments undermine the people's free will to associate voluntarily by regulating (manipulating) markets and restricting the flow of goods, ideas and the people themselves.

    worst of all they do this in a way that benefits them and their small club of friends.. anyone with two bits of common sense shudders at the idea that free people interacting and exchanging products/ideas the way they see fit is the problem in this world... and worse that we should solve it by giving a buncha bureaucrats the right to shove guns in our ribs and make us do business their way...

    c'mon people.. we don't have time to keep failing at simple philosophical arguments like this at this stage in our evolution... we are all equal... why do you think a bureaucrat in office will know how to regulate our lives or will even remain impartial without letting the power corrupt them.. power corrupts, so stop handing it out to bureaucrats who haven't earned it... a business that provides a service you want or need earns that power granted through your purchase... what has the bureaucrat done? its an absurd notion.. government regulation that is.

    please wake up, i'm beggin you... do more reaserch before denouncing free human interaction and the bedrock to all our technological developments.... in exchange for a gang of armed thugs who're supposed to play daddy to the rest of us.

  9. princeton

    Its also a philosophically unsound principle to denounce the pursuit of profit as some kind of evil.. corporations seek profit because people seek profit... profit is just a measurement of the transaction.. like on ebay if you buy something.. and both people have a positive experience, then that is a profitable exchange for both parties involved... this is the foundation upon which you build an ever growing and improving economy... what else do you propose instead of profit? a loss based economy, zero sum gain, which is impossible cos of transaction and opportunity costs... how do you like that debt we have?... thats what a loss based economy gets you, not a profit based economy.. its simply a macrocosm of our own personal lives... if you get a job.. ure bringin a profit to urself and someone else so much so that theyre willing to pay you.. if u borow money or beg for handouts.. u are a net loss to someone and probably yourself in the future because of the interest accruing.. this is simple mental gymnastics.. y is is so hard to grasp for so many... msm got you people fighting each other thinking the problem with the world is profit and free trade when we have the highest incarceration rate, tax rates and cant even smoke a joint without getting kidnapped... 8-(=(

  10. Chris Makin

    Uh oh, we got a card-carrying neoliberal here.

  11. tariqxl

    Only you and a Ferengi would say profit so many times in a statement lol good point though

  12. tariqxl

    To think... This world could be perfect. All it would take is for every last person to decide.

  13. Dean Edgington

    Princeton, everything you have said is fine in theory, I haven’t got a particular preference how society arranges its affaires but what I don't like is the ever widening gap between rich and poor; it hurts people, creates dissatisfaction and resentment and is plain unfair. No I don't think everyone should be paid the same etc it's just plain old fairness has been sidelined because, as per your mantra, "greed is good".

    Why is “the man” so unpopular? My reading is he wants more and more of the pie and is well positioned to get it because he is a sort of (unelected) money/power bureaucrat who has an increasing share of the purse and puppet strings. You say we are all equal. Again, only in theory. The game is structurally rigged and marginalises people as a function of need. All you have done is spouted the same old libertarian mythology wrapped in the misappropriated colours of freedom. It’s a bogus set of ideals. I appeal to you (“c’mon Princeton”) wake up, think through your assumptions again and re-examine the facts.

    You appeal to people to accept the truths you’re espousing; a pretty arrogant stance to say the least. It’s like you are saying we are all stupid but not you, you can deliver us from our own folly. Get a grip. It seems to me that you favour the rich and powerful MOB over the majority voice. I guess you’ve chosen your gang of mobsters over democracy. That is you right.

    Btw, I too hate bureaucracy but like greed, we are stuck with a certain amount of it. Of course, I’m not trying to sell regulation as a virtue like you are with greed.

    Anyway, plutocracy rules, there’s very little anyone can do about it. I’m afraid Mr Princeton, you have had and will continue to have your way.

  14. David Foster

    "msm got you people fighting each other..."

    I wonder how many people actually realize that all of the talking heads (market analysts, ex-government officials, and so-forth) are really just giving sales pitches for their own products?

  15. Maca Hari Hill

    princeton .... their are critical institutions that should not be run on a profit making basis health . ppls problem is that corporations are increasingly taking over the inrfastructure of our counties and are taking NONE of the responsibilty that comes with it ... in any case , the privatization of healthcare in england has led to a serious decline in standards due to cost cutting and shortcut measures taken by said corporations .... that isnt too hard to grasp ir it ? money over people makes people angry and profit over peoples health is just plain psycopathic IMO .... anway the free market is fallacy .... its only free if you are born with the money to enter into it .... end of :D

  16. Maca Hari Hill

    princeton ive got serious problems with your ideology . its not human nature to be greedy , human nature by its very essence is co-operative , hence the "traingle of learning" that seperates us from the apes , we only evolved this far because of co-operative behavior and to say greed is predominant is just idiotic , that may be the case in the upper classes but down in the real wolrd we dont have time for grandioso statements regurgitated from econimist weekly, and the macrocosm you speak of .... thats been done by better men than you along time ago its called "the prisoners dillema" which is a branch of game theory that proved that free maket economy will generate "perpetual winners" and "perpetual losers" and will continue to do so untill there is no middle ground unless you RESET the system .... yes i mean revolution ..... do you even know what a payoff matrix is ? ... have you ever worked one .... i think not or youre naive , convoluted excuse for profiteering off of the backs of other would never have left your mouth :D so.... you see injustice realy does arise from greed and its been mathematically proven by the very people youre a sycophant to :D :D :D aint that grand

  17. Maca Hari Hill

    even apes understand co-operative bahvior .. an ape will intentionally take more food than it needs if it has the chance ... but said excess food is more often than not , distributed amongst the troop .... BANG goes the psyco economists idoelogy :)

  18. Maca Hari Hill

    im loving that statement on your site m8 .." i dare anyone to prove me wrong " ...i did ... and i dint even break a sweat boying you m8 and i even used economists theories to do it ... i dare you to prove me wrong

  19. Maca Hari Hill

    wald0 .... i like you , youre a realist :D

  20. Michael Elvin

    "its not human nature to be greedy , human nature by its very essence is co-operative ..."

    IMHO you're both right. Ever since we've been mammals, we cooperate with whomever we think of as "us". And try to prevail over whomever we think of as "them". Both traits are inherent in our character.

    The big capitalists are just the winners in life. But every time we exterminate the ants in our kitchen, we become the fascist exploiters ourselves. We want all the food there to be OURS.

  21. Maca Hari Hill

    and those who put out the peoples eyes reproached them of their blindness .... "the big capitalists are just winners in life" ..... there is no "just" about it , our sytem has been so long without a "reset" (i refer you to the prisoners dilemma) OR any meaningful regulation that has the public interest , that we now have entire "ruling" and "political" classes that are in the positions they are simply because of circumstance. this is NOT a free market , its the trap that regulation was supposed to prevent , so you see .. we cant both be right , regulation is meant to kerb human nature and the "us" and "them" problem with it , it has failed , badly IMHO

  22. David Foster

    "Ever since we've been mammals, we cooperate with whomever we think of as "us"."

    That is, until the other us does something to screw us, then we feel that we have to return the favor.

    "The big capitalists are just the winners in life."

    Are they really? Or do they just feel that you've got to grab whatever you can, whenever the opportunity presents itself?

    My parents were, as they put it: "fairly well-off". I, on the other hand, have often said of them: "enough was never enough". They were also (to this day) the most miserable people I ever knew!

  23. wald0

    Ahhh, my old nemesis returns. Nice to talk with you again Princeton, though we still disagree completely. First off no one is denouncing the pursuit of profit as evil, though I am sure you would love to frame it in such terms- helps set up that straw-man that is so easy to tear down doesn't it. What we are denouncing, which is really an understatement- what we demand is that human rights, protection of the environment, and a respect for democracy and out future economic prosperity are prioritized above immediate profits. You keep spouting that old and extremely tired free market hypothesis that if we all have freedom to buy as we choose our purchasing power will completely control the activities of the corporations- that is simply not true. Let me ask you this, if that is true then why is it that the vast majority of people are displeased with corporate activity yet these same corporations are currently making record profits? What happened to our desires being expressed through our purchases and there by controlling the activities and policies of corporations- I mean surely you admit that this is not happening right now, right? Yet the corporations are making record profits, that’s right RECORD PROFITS Princeton.
    Take yourself as an example. I am sure at some point in the last few days you have purchased a few necessities like toilet paper, tooth paste, food, etc. Now be honest, do you really know the full impact of those products, where they were manufactured, how that effected those in that region, what other activities the companies that made them might be involved in? Did you truly and thoroughly research the quality of those products versus the price and compare this information with all the other thousands of available brands for sell? I highly doubt it, more than likely just like all the rest of us you simply went and bought what you needed, what you liked for what you probably define as personal reasons (though more than likely you like it because you have been manipulated into doing so by commercials and the media), and what you could afford. Even if you were one of the very few that are thorough enough to do all this research and comparing- private corporations are under no obligation to disclose anything about their internal policies, involvement with other corporations or political entities, their profits or how they invest them, etc. Now that we have the citizens united ruling, which allows corporations to contribute any amount they wish to political candidates anonymously, you don’t even know if your purchase may go toward supporting a candidate you despise. So how would you know who or what you were supporting when you purchase their products? The truth is you don’t and neither do the rest of us, even the ones that think they do. By this time if you can’t see what deregulation has caused you are willfully blind Princeton. In fact, if it wasn’t for your pro-anarchy rants I would have to assume you were a government stooge whose job is to go out on the internet and push these kinds of ideas. But, your pro-anarchy stance kind of precludes that possibility I think.
    In fact that stance, pro-anarchy, is the saving grace of your philosophy because it makes it impossible to ever become a reality. Capitalism cannot exist without some kind of central authority to enforce trade laws, contracts, set currency value, designate a universal currency, etc. It cannot exist without very complicated infrastructure which has to be consistent from one end of the country to the other. Believing capitalism is possible when there is no government or rule of law means you don’t even understand what you are advocating to be the cure for all social ills.
    You live in this country, you drive on its roads, you consume food that it has made sure to be safe to eat, you benefitted from a FREE primary education and a clear path to higher education was made possible for you, you enjoy the right of private ownership, you enjoy the right of free speech even when it speaks directly against the powers that be, you enjoy the protection of our military and the police should you ever need it, the list goes on and on. Millions of people on this globe would kill to enjoy such privileges that we consider our right simply because we happened to be born here instead of there. Yet you paint yourself up as some oppressed victim? I’m not buying it man.

  24. David Foster

    "In fact, if it wasn’t for your pro-anarchy rants I would have to assume you were a government stooge..."

    Why would you assume that the government would not hype anarchy? After all; greater disruption breeds stricter regulation.


    Never mind... You answered it a bit further down.

  25. wald0

    Actually in our country, the U.S. the term liberal means something totally different than in Europe. In Europe a liberal traditionally supported Laissez-faire economics, meaning no intrusion by government whatsoever in economic matters- complete and total deregulation. Here it means someone that supports the role of government to a certain point, especially in economic matters. That said Princeton actually, believe it or not, supports complete anarchy- no government or rule of law whatsoever. I know this from past debates we have had and his own admissions. So really you can't call him a conservative or a liberal, he is a whole new animal all together- a capitalism supporting anarchist. I also know from past debates that he does have a real concern for people, he is a very compassionate person, very well educated, etc. In fact if we ever met in person i think we would get along great, spark one up and debate away. In other words I may diagree with him but don't get the impression he is a bad guy- he isn't.

  26. Maca Hari Hill

    regulation and the free market go hand in hand ... you CANNOT have one without the other , regulation was meant to stop people from exploiting the sytsem for their own gain at the detriment of others . it doesnt here , itfacilitates market domination and monopoly , i dont know about the US but regulation has failed us very badly here because of corrupt insider practices and allowed unwarranted greed to go unchecked and become adestructive force in our society ... those are facts IMO

  27. Maca Hari Hill

    if regulation fails the only thing left is the reset button i.e revolution .... thats a sad fact but a true one

  28. Dean Edgington

    i had a feeling princeton may have anarchist leanings. Fair enough, I too think institutions should be watched very carefully and held to account; something that the current elites don't like at all. It seems though, princeton is actual a full-blown libertarian since he makes an exception when it comes to regulation of corporations; an anarchist mistrusts all institutions and for good reason in my book. He seems to say that business should be exempt from scrutiny by the state (he opposes big government) or society (he has no faith in democracy and the judgement of anyone but the elites). His ambitions reek of old-school high toryism ;-)

    I've been on his web site, he seems to be a compassionate human being no doubt and yep he's a clever bloke but a young dreamer, an idealist with too many glib, over-simplistic solutions i.e. solve poverty in 6 months. For his personal gain he's backing the winning team but for solutions to poverty, his team have yet to prove they really give a damn. Over simplified a little I grant you but it's roughly how I see the situation.

    On the liberal point, in europe it doesn't quite mean "something totally different" to the US definition afaik. A European liberal is still quite anti-conservative. For example, Liberals in the UK (social and/or political) tend to align quite naturally with the left. That was until the last election when we entered the twilight zone ;-) Of course left, centre and right all advocate a mixed economy; the difference is the ratio.

  29. Michael Elvin

    I've been following with great interest this whole debate between Princeton and "everybody-not-princeton", about the pursuit of reasonable profit-- and the point at which it becomes antisocial greed. And I think this is the problem confronted (and solved) by the ancient Hebrews, when they wrote the early books of the Bible.

    Admitting that it was human nature for a successful person to enslave an unfortunate one, binding him through debt to serve the lucky one and call him Master, they recommended a periodic reset known as Jubilee.

    For 49 years we were to work beside one another, accruing debts or profits according to our fortune in life. Then in the fiftieth year all debts were to be forgiven and all slaves freed. So we could be free to begin another round.

    Hard to improve on that approach. Pity it's been lost.

  30. David Foster

    "And I think this is the problem confronted (and solved) by the ancient Hebrews... Pity it's been lost."

    When you see the atheists coming, remember to: "Duck and Cover".

  31. wald0

    That isn't true in the case of this athiest at least. I may not see the bible as a devine text or believe in god but it is a great work of literature with a lot of wisdom in it. Just like modern literature it reflects the cultures and ideaologies at play when it was written. Therefore if the issue at hand is one that people during these times also dealt with and had the technical as well as cognitive abilities to understand, then why not look here for potential answers.
    That said I don't think this type of solution is feesible in modern times. What would stop people from intentionally waiting until year 49 and then making debts they knew they would never have to pay? How could we possibly convince banks to lend money if they knew that next month or six months from now its time to "reset" and wipe out all debts? Mortgages , which run an average of between fifteen and thirty years, would be impossible to secure because who ever granted them would inevitably lose out in the end. In fact when we got close to the year all was to be reset and loans forgiven all credit would dry up. Our modern economy cannot operate without the free flow of credit, businesses wouldn't be able to meet payroll most of the time. In my opinion this policy would be a disaster. But that has nothing to do with it being expressed in the bible or evented by the ancient Hebrews.

  32. Thomas Keddy

    This is making my physically sick and extremely uncomfortable. I am no longer proud of my country.


    We are missing the main point here and are all distracted in never ending discussions about minor parts of a greater evil.

    I believe that communism socialism and democracy are all unsustainable on the long term and wise leadership(dictatorship) is the only true option.

    Profit margins should have ethical boundries and most commodities should be produced to fulfill the need of the worlds population against cost and free of exploitation, marketing, competitiveness and speculation.

    All knowledge useful to humanity should be unified and put into a global think/research tank that can execute,develop and unite technologies for the benefit of humanity and make them available for everybody.

    If you are born there should be a meaningful existence waiting for you and not endless justification of the madness humanity undergoes while trying to survive in a corporate jungle where the rules of engagement are not in your favor.

    We are continually living the consequences of divide & conquer and are divided into invisible casts with our growth potential and possibilities limited by the endless list of qualifications one needs in order to gain sufficient knowledge to see the bigger picture.

    One would have to study fifty years and have another fifty years of hands on experience in order to be able to have enough authority to knock out the scientific establishment.

    Patents and technologies are now scattered in the hand of the corrupt elite that wishes to maintain its position and fight progress.

    People die everyday because wealthy people are afraid of getting poor and live in the jungle that they created.

    For the last 20-30 years privatization of essential goods have created power structures that are beyond government or its people.
    No revolution, Political change or annexation will change that.

    Ownership is permanent and irrevocable under current law.

    The people own the earth and that`s the only sustainable division of wealth there can be.

    All commodities should be returned to their people and colonial exploitation contracts nullified.

    How to achieve all of this is still a mystery.
    Because everybody who can actually help towards a solution is wasting their time with mini crusades which all end without any change.

    I just don`t understand that nobody sees this.
    Government is nothing but a distraction and a Buraq wall for all people to express their anger to.

    No matter who rules, everybody owns what they own.
    And that`s the only problem.

    Debt is not the problem.
    There is no money to earn or lands to conquer.
    No people to kill fair and square...

  34. David Foster

    I am in complete agreement with you. Nevertheless, I was sure he would have been beheaded by now just for saying the "B" word.


    Which normal thinking human being would ever ever ever ever sell off their natural resources for exploitation by a foreign company ?

    Its always a loss. It just does not make any sense.
    Why do we have to uphold deals that are negotiated at gunpoint ??

    Nobody asked me or you.
    Yet we don`t own anything we actually need to survive.
    Yet nobody questions this simple fact.

    And if you try to stand up against foreign exploitation you have a unified western army there to force you back in your doghouse and keep paying your rent.

  36. Dean Edgington

    lol. pls tell me you're being satirical.

  37. David Foster

    [quote] "Yet we don`t own anything we actually need to survive. Yet nobody questions this simple fact." [/quote]

    Speak for yourself... I've been questioning it since I was a teenager; and I've got two broken ribs, a scar above my right eye, and a significantly depreciated lifestyle to show for it! And as an added bonus, I get to be called a whiner and a deadbeat by my "community" for not falling in line!

    [quote] "And if you try to stand up against foreign exploitation you have a unified western army there to force you back in your doghouse and keep paying your rent." [/quote]

    ...that too!

    Guess it doesn't help that I'm a westerner, does it?

  38. wald0

    I had written out a post addressing every point you made directly but, it was a mile long so I deleted it. I dominate the conversation enough as is and I am sure others get tired of it. The one thing you said though that I simply cannot let pass by is that we need a global dictatorship. When in the history of mankind has there ever been an all wise, benevolent dictator? In fact every dictatorship known to man has proven to be destructive to human flourishing, closed minded, and unsustainable. Can you name one that worked out well for its people for very long in modern times? Why in the world would you think a dictatorship is what is needed? How could you possibly expect one person to know what is best for everyone when you admit that it would take one hundred years of study to even see the big picture and understand it? I submit it would take longer than that really, but that is beside the point. It is beyond human nature to be able to handle this kind of power and remain uncorrupted. For many of us, including myself, it is beyond our nature to be subject to a government which we have no say whatsoever in. That is why we here in the U.S. are so upset right now, because our so called democracy is no longer representative of our values or ideologies. A global dictatorship is the last thing we need and would be a disaster in my opinion.

  39. princeton

    ebay doesnt have a central authority enforcing any "laws"... its reputation based,regulates itself.. and works quite well, which is the whole point of a free market and consumer protection agencies that work by informing the consumer and whistle blowing.. not by imprisoning and fining . this is simply a model of what can achieved in the rest of society or at least to a much greater degree than the coercive chaos we have now.

    so you're saying drug laws are not oppressive or the massive debt on the future generations (ours included) is not oppressive?

    you're saying causing massive chaos worldwide on our dollar and making the world a more dangerous place for us without our participation or decision is not oppression... in any way?


    u simply misrepresent my arguments and tear up the straw-man u built.. i simply pointed out two philosophically unsound principles which u didn't take the effort to even refute but simply tried to attack your simplistic caricature of the rest of my rationale.

    good job "owning me" lol

  40. princeton

    if we as a species care about the poor, the weak and providing social services such as environmental protection, security and a legal/arbitration system.. these services can and will most definitely be provided in a free and self regulated market.. this is fact.

    to say that we need a small group of politicians to force us all to "care" about our own environment and nature and those who need our help is an admittance on your part that you wouldnt care to spend the money or time to help make sure these things were take care of without some form of coercion.

    well, for my part.. no matter whether we had a government and regulators or laws or welfare or not.. . i would still dedicate my life to helping improve the human condition and trying my best to make sure all humans had an optimal experience on this planet.. I don't need regulations to know and strive for this... neither do most of the people I know in my personal life... but I know of many so called regulators in power now.. who could care less and are busy lining their pockets while our earth burns under their so called "watch'...

    solutions to social problems cannot come from the top down... they have to come from the bottom up... if the people care about ur concerns... we can make it happen without being forced or bribed to.

    Also, greed is an essential component to all evolving systems.. it just means producing/experiencing/enjoying more while spending less energy/time .
    don;t take it personal.. but thats the driving force to innovation and progress, the need to get more for less.. at leasst in this physical realm.

    nothing to do with spirituality and human relations..
    but market regulation can happen one of two ways..

    a system can regulate itself by pitting various competing interests against each other.. or you can grant all the power to regulate in the hands of a few "regulators"..

  41. princeton

    A free market is just a better description for the human condition, than democracy or any other "political" system.. A free market simply recognizes individual choice and fully allows each person to do what he would do or try to do no matter which political system he was in.. that is to mostly produce goods and exchange/share them with others of their chosing when they so chose..

    all other systems are simply unscientific because they try to stifle this natural recycling process as well as ascribe untrue properties to humans.. such as the capacity to organize and manage the various details of the lives and relationships of large groups of other human beings and attempting to predict their wants and needs.. this is wrong, not only because humans do not and cannot ever gain this capacity.. but also because it is not the path of wisdom and enlightenment...

    all attempts to regulate... don't violate the true nature of the market.. but simply distort it ... and give it mixed signals.. by manipulating the flow of wealth away from its intuitive use in the community of individual wants and needs to the hands of a powerful elite who then divert it to their definition of "the common good".. which always means the good of those with the most guns.. not actually the common people.

    how is this not true?

  42. wald0

    Alright- first off don’t be so defensive man- I never said I “owned you” did I? Don’t get your feelings hurt so easily just because someone presents a contrary argument. In fact I defended you when others tried to attack you personally, maybe that was a mistake though- Oh, well live and learn- I won’t make that mistake again.
    That said- I most certainly did address your points but if you couldn’t figure it out I will talk in crayon for you. No one ever said “the pursuit of profit is evil”, it wasn’t in the documentary and no one on this forum said it either. For one I don’t look at things as good or evil, that is simplistic logic that is frankly below my level of intelligence to cling to. What the documentary did say, in so many words, was that the pursuit of profit at the expense of the environment, human flourishing, and/or democracy, was both unethical and destructive. And the vast majority of people feel the same way, for good reason.
    Now for your point that all social ills do not arise from greed, which is indeed a natural predisposition for mankind. Again this is not what the documentary said nor did anyone on this forum say it, it’s a straw man and you know it, but I will address it anyway. Of course ALL social ills do not arise from greed, but we are not discussing ALL social ills are we Princeton? We are discussing the fact that corporations have taken control of our democratically elected representatives and have far too much influence in our governments. And yes this is a symptom of greed. These same corporations and big business in general are quite capable of making decent profits without ignoring the cost to our environment, disregarding human suffering, cutting wages and benefits, etc. If they can’t they should find another line of work, they are pitiful businessmen with no creativity or imagination. I can explain it to them if they need someone to, it’s really quite simple. We can create millions of green jobs if we simply invest in the future of renewable energy, rebuild and redesign our infrastructure accordingly. This doesn’t hurt anyone or the environment, in fact it helps both and would turn a nice profit if done with any common sense whatsoever- and that’s just one idea of thousands which they know more about than I really. What does require them to ignore these things is making RECORD profits, which is currently what is happening if you care to research it. So if the government has their poor hands tied up so badly how is it they are reporting record profits Princeton? How is it they have more capital in the bank right now than almost any other time in history yet they refuse to hire or invest in American jobs? Come one man, don’t give me this sh1t about how the poor businesses are suffering under so much regulation- it’s just more canned responses from a tired libertarian ideology that does not hold up to actual scrutiny.
    What you think our government goes into other countries and causes mayhem around the world for the fun of it? That is ridiculous and you know it. They go into these countries at the bidding of corporations and big business, the very people you want us to turn it all over to. This continual war we seem to be in is the product of the military industrial complex- privatized businesses in other words- who influence our government and make billions when we go to war. The reason marijuana stays illegal is because of the huge business built up around incarceration and rehabilitation, again private businesses run these facilities and institutions and realize these profits- not the federal government. Marijuana became illegal in part at the bidding of the tobacco industry, they did not want the competition because marijuana was a great cash crop and could be used to make all kinds of things. Seat belt laws are the result of insurance companies having too much influence in our government; insurance mandates are also a result of this. Just look at what the Citizens United ruling has done to the state of an already broken and corrupt political system. I mean do you really deny that private businesses profit from all this stuff? That they in fact lobby our government and threaten politicians who do not fall in line until they get these very laws you detest on the books? Because if you deny that you lose all credibility in my book- you would have to either be unbelievably st*pid, which I don’t think you are, or willfully blind to miss it.
    But hey, you and I have had this argument before right- so why not address some of the many others on this forum that clearly see your ideology as flawed as well? There doesn’t seem to be a shortage of them. Really you are a victim Princeton, you just can’t seem to see who it is that is victimizing you. You have the Stock Holm syndrome; you have fallen in love with your captors.

  43. wald0

    And before you start harping about how i didnt address your e-bay analogy- I mean really? See, it is saying things like this that shows me beyond a shadow of a doubt you have no clue. E-bay would cease to exist without someone designating a currency we all understand and are familiar with, setting the value of that currency, providing roads and the infrastructure for you to ship and reasonably expect to recieve the items you buy, maintaining and co-ordinating the internet, etc. Saying e-bay exists out side of our normal economy is just plain b.s., it exists within the frame work of our existing economy. What if all governments fell tommorrow along with their currencies, do you really think e-bay would continue to function? For that matter do you really think the internet would continue to function? What would we pay each other with, good will? Who would even show up to work at e-bay, UPS or FED-X, any ISP if they were not going to get a pay check? Get real man, you usually have better arguments than this- you are off your game. You used to make me at least think about things, you have failed to even raise an eye brow this time. Your making me look bad, I bragged about how smart you were below and now this? I'm chalkin it up to your anger getting the best of you and will no longer indulge myself on such low hanging fruit. Its someone elses turn.

  44. wald0

    Cheap shot Princeton and you know it. No one has to force me into helping people- you are such an angry little man aren't you? Poor Princeton got challenged so he insults and doesn't even have the ba11s to do it openly; no he tries to hide behind his so called argument and the safety of anonymity. I help people all the time. I work as a drug counselor on a volunteer basis, I give money and time to charities, I work with the Santa’s workshop program, etc., etc. And so do many others, no one has to force average people into helping others nor do they. But only someone desperately trying to make your argument work would try to be so gullible and naïve, so full of it as to try and sell the idea that corporations out of the pure goodness of their hearts will help those less fortunate, look after the environment, etc. when it cost them profits to do so. If that is the case why aren’t they doing it now? They are making record profits so what is stopping them? You and I both know that we can site one proven case after the other when corporations in the name of more profit willfully harmed our environment, harmed or even killed people, mismanaged our failing resources, etc. And your logic for this is what, that if the government didn’t try and make them do the right thing they would? Yeah boy, that makes tons of sense Princeton. What happened to you man? Did you run out of compelling arguments finally?

  45. Dean Edgington

    seriously? ebay as a model of society? regulates itself? I have to get in touch with the ebay "central authority" quite often to settle disputes and ebay imposes sanctions but doesn't imprison - yet ;-)

    Note: I've edited out the sarcasm after becoming a bit of a fan of Princeton's over the last 24 hours (well, 24 minutes). Peace.

  46. Dean Edgington

    I'm with you wald0, benevolent dictator bah!

  47. Dean Edgington

    Compelling argument, I got a lot of time for these ideas. As a former labour voter, I've travelled far lol. Seriously, I don't mind how we fix it just as long as we fix it. I can't contribute any further than that, I'll hand over to those that have the inclination. I will say this princeton, I think that greed is the wrong word, I think you use it to be a little provocative; no bad thing especially, it grabs the attention a set of ideas needs but there is a better word. Any sugguestions gang?

  48. Dean Edgington

    Ok, the ebay thing was a little week like when Michael Moore visits a couple of co-ops and says hey look, we can ditch capitalism and all work together holding hands, ahhhhhh.

    I've liked for some time the idea of a truly free market. Not the bogus free market politicians of all flavours try to sell us.

  49. Dean Edgington

    Well, from what I'm reading now, it seems to me I was a little hasty in trying to gauge your position. You mention the welfare of the common man and take a swipe at elitism. Quite right.

  50. docoman

    "if we as a species care about the poor, the weak and providing social services such as environmental protection, security and a legal/arbitration system.. these services can and will most definitely be provided in a free and self regulated market.. this is fact."

    I assume by this thinking you've never had to try to get a legitimate claim through any insurance company? I've fought and won 2 legal battles against multiple insurance companies. If they weren't FORCED to, they wouldn't have parted with 1 cent. They lied, broke the law, used any trick or maneuver they could, to NOT do what is morally and legally correct, every one of them. (ironically, the legally and morally correct thing at the beginning would have cost them a short term loss for a long term gain. BUT, it would've cost them in their immediate profits... so guess what their great 'business' decision was?)
    In my personal experience, your ideas of a free and self regulated market doing the 'right' thing by the poor, the weak and the environment is not fact, it's BS.

  51. David Foster

    "They lied, broke the law, used any trick or maneuver they could, to NOT do what is morally and legally correct.."

    Yep! That's the Money Game!

    "ironically, the legally and morally correct thing at the beginning would have cost them [less]."

    They win by percentages, as most people just quietly bend over and take it.

  52. wald0

    Yes Princeton does insult the elite; he simply refuses to admit who they really are. The elite are the big business owners and corporations; it is they who guide the actions of our government- not the other way around. You remove the government and they no longer have to hide behind these lies and false ideologies, they no longer have to work through any entity to scr3w us over- they can just do it right out in the open and you will have no recourse other than saying-"Well, I won’t buy your product then." Now do you really think a corporation like Coke cares if you don't buy their product, they don't care even if you convince say a hundred or so others not to buy it as well- they have access to the global market and wouldn’t even notice a loss. They know from past experience that enough people will buy their product no matter who they hurt or what environmental crimes they are responsible for that they can net huge profits. Through cost/benefit analysis they have discovered it is financially beneficial sometimes to simply do the wrong thing, and so they do it. The tobacco industry is another fine example of Princeton’s false ideology in action. They knowingly and purposely pushed a product they knew very well killed people and was addictive and even lied to congress about their knowledge of this fact, all in the name of profit- yeah boy, they really have our best interest at heart don't they? How about Ford being caught doing cost/benefit analysis on whether or not to recall and fix a problem they knew was killing people and in the end deciding the loss of life did not justify a recall, that it was more cost effective to let people burn to death because of an exploding gas tank when hit from the rear end. Even though Ford already owned a patent on a much safer gas tank configuration, because the assembly line machinery had already been tooled a certain way and they would have had to execute a huge recall, they made the decision not to fix it. Would you like to know what Ford says your human life is worth in dollars and cents? - $200,725 American dollars. Is this the type of reasoning you feel should run society?
    Don’t get me wrong I have no love for the way our government currently operates; I see the corruption like everyone else. But turning things over to the very source of that corruption makes no sense whatsoever. Many things that we need as a society will never be profitable to manufacture or implement, should that stop us from doing what is right? That is the real question you need to ask yourself. Because if you think there exists any other motivation than profit for big business you are dead wrong.

  53. rg57

    The Bible, a great work of literature? Have you actually read it end to end? And which version are you referring to? And by great do you refer to significance or quality? And what is the worth of wisdom presented in the same context as really bad ideas?


    Hey Wald0 much respect for your opinion, i got a little carried away and seem to forget that most of you don`t know the background behind my call for "Dictatorship"

    I`m pleeing not for a single dictator to step up and rule the world, yes that would be awful.
    Its more towards a commission of intellectuals that can rule a country literaly doing whats best for everybody without having to get everybody`s consent and waste time.

    A people that does not have sufficient overview to fully understand the implications of new laws, policies and legislation should be deemed unqualified to participate in the voting process.

    Equality is whats destroying politics because the majority of the voting power is with people who don`t know what its all about and this leaves space for charismatic actors/puppets to enter the stage of politics manipulating people purely on emotion and not politics and unjustly acquiring power.

    There is no transparency so the only way to end this insanity is to take this entire structure away.

    We cannot rule by referendum.
    We could only empower a group of people to rule the country for set periods of time free of interference and free of daily shows in the theatrical stage called congress.

    Leadership should come with consequences going further then impeachment or a fallen government when something goes wrong.

    Government should be the position of ultimate prestige done by people passionate about the wellbeing of the people and not fulfilling a list of promises done to corporate campaign sponsors who back either side and always win.

    Ethical codes have to be setup. Human cost and implications of corporate behaviour should be taken into account.
    In the current system as long as its outside the border people don`t care.
    They don`t care that to have cheap sugar in Europe the people in the producing countries actually pay the double with 1/10th of our income.

    I`m only trying to emphasize that our current "democracy" is a farce since the real power is not in government anymore.
    And no matter who is in charge we cannot change the fundamental aspect of ownership. Who owns what and who has the right to sell off essential services and goods to others for exploitation only to be sold back to their own people.

    Our corporate conglomerates are the real dictators and the government is just the front door for complaining while it can only influence business indirectly.

    Look at mexico.
    It has no own water supply and is dependent of US waste water.
    It is rich in oil yet has no refineries
    They export crude to the USA and re-import refined petrol products.
    Isn`t this just a smart way of making sure all the profit is being made outside of the country so they can be re-divided amongst corrupt officials,agents and brokers.

    In every commodity the commissions are very steep and its common practice to compensate government figures in exchange for setting up commodity deals on the side of the buyer agent.

    1 USD per Metric ton of Cement,Sugar,grain is very normal. Up to 4$ per barrel for oil. Up to 8$ per MT for Bitumen.

    Which is divided amongst buyer and seller agents 50/50 % and are provided to the people on ATM cards on which their monthly commissions will be deposited, totally under the radar and 100% deniable.
    This is common practice in almost all commodity markets.

    Commodities have to be produced for the needs of the people and not to seek profit. You have to deserve profit. Not just charge more because people are desperate.

    As long as this industry remains and commissions are paid to government officials the system remains corrupt and one would prefer to sell of government property against a kickback under the table versus saving these valuable goods for use exploitation by its own population.

    I`m not anti western, I`m born and raised in the west.
    I have however traveled a lot and went beyond the tourist resorts and actually lived on 4 continents for periods of up to 2 years as an expat and have witnessed the consequences of western corporate greed.
    The problem is not corruption in the west, its the white collar expats that close deal over the backs of the locals by just paying off one corrupt position in government with a total disregard for human life. The world is ruined and ruled by psychopaths.

    I was raised in Holland moved around europe to Italy,Germany and Bulgaria , spent a year or two in China and a few months in Dubai/Abu Dhabi. At the moment i live in mexico where the corruption and injustice is so much that the people don`t even fight anymore, they`ve become docile and accepted their faiths as subordinates to the elite.

    I`ve seen the world hands on . And it has enlightened me...

    Would businesses become unsustainable if you limit their profit margins to 400-500% for example ?


    Speaking in general ;)
    We are a minority of people that actually know how the world works and will fall outside any statistic or common notion.


    The other problem with democracy and politics is that on some things you will simply never get consensus even though they are issues to address. In the current setup we would discuss endlessly until a consensus has been found and then execute a weaker/compromised version of what needs to be done...
    In some cases, people will just have to suck it up... Its like listening to your parents...


    Doesn`t a totally free market bring a whole lot of useless products and weak competitors on the market who just waste, time,resources and manpower producing something that's inevitable to fail.

    We are dealing with a world with limited natural resources.
    Should money alone be enough to ruin the possibilities for others ?

    If i produce 1 million plastic barbie dolls that didn`t make anybody happy.
    A net loss of resources that could`ve been used for something else.

    In the field of technology and entertainment there will always be a free market because otherwise investments would not be protected.
    But why do we need 1200 different computer mice and 600 keyboard models, 800 tupperware versions and 9 brands of matchsticks.
    a hundred type of earphones etc.etc.etc.

    Can`t there be a commission that says...
    Well unless your product substantially improves on previous versions we will not put it in production forcing developers to come up with something good ?

    Isn`t the open market causing the world to lose as a collective? In net convertable resources and production capacity?
    Every failed production or invention goes straight to the garbage...
    This can`t be right ?


    People get paid steep commissions to prevent payout of insurance. The madness...............................

  59. wald0

    Well yes, I have read it from end to end and it was the King James Version. I hold a rather useless two year degree in theology, as odd as that may sound coming from an atheist. So I have read most of the apocryphical texts as well as the Torah (basically the Old Testament), among many other works of religious literature such as the Quran, portions of the Rig-Veda, etc. I have since returned to college and gained a degree in chemistry which is my current profession. I also have a two year degree in western civics which is fairly useless in a practical sense, but I guess that is beside the point. I don’t list my qualifications as some reason to see me as an authority mind you, I am just trying to establish the case that I love to learn- about anything. My theology degree comes from a local religious school that is barely even accredited, so I don’t really see myself as a legitimate theologian, which is actually a four year degree if I am not mistaken.
    Your third question, “…by great do you refer to significance or quality?” is really very hard to answer. I suppose both but, I have to qualify that statement in order for it not to be misleading. The quality of the literature is superb in many cases; among academics of all flavors this is not disputed. This opinion happens to be held by all of the four horsemen in fact, if you know whom I am talking about (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennet). But I am sure you are really freaking about me saying the significance of the text is also great, so let me explain that as well. What I mean is the historical significance of the text is tremendous, in both Eastern and Western cultures. One cannot hope to understand the current state of the world without understanding the influence this text has had. I don’t mean to suggest that it was significant in the sense that it unveiled some great truth or redeemed mankind though. I don’t believe that for one second.
    Now for your forth question, “…what is the worth of wisdom presented in the same context as really bad ideas?” Well I would say wisdom carries its own worth independent of the context in which we find it. The bible, certain portions of it anyway, promotes concepts of fairness, compassion, honesty, humility, loyalty, consistency, etc. Now in other portions it promotes willful ignor@nce, violence, slavery, revenge, even rape some would say. So one has to really be careful when reading such texts but, I don’t think we should just ignore them.
    That said I would genuinely love to continue this conversation if you like but, I think we are slightly off topic here, my apologies to the moderators if that is the case. This seemed to come up in the natural flow of a genuine discussion of the topic at hand so I ran with it.

  60. wald0

    Whew, man, that was a mouthful, and well worth saying. I could not have summed up the problem any better, much respect for your opinion as well. That said, while I agree that democracy has become a farce and is ineffective at the moment and that the world and global economy has become far too complicated for the average person to gain the necessary vantage point to really understand the implications of policy, the idea of some small group of ruling elites just doesn't sit well with me. Now that certainly is no reason to discount the idea, just because it doesn't instinctually feel right. I realize that growing up where I have has indoctrinated me to a certain degree to automatically reject such ideas without even considering the actual merits. So if you don't mind, in the spirit of honest intellectual debate, which I prize, let's list the pros and cons of such an idea and see where we come out. I will take the liberty of assuming the con side of the argument and you take the pros, since you do espouse the idea as correct already. So here is my list of cons on the idea of a small group of qualified intellectuals running a country with no input whatsoever from the people.

    1. The people may feel disenfranchised by such a system and therefore not be as willing to commit to a social compact which states that we will all take care of one another. Equality across the board when it comes to the right to participate in our governmental decisions gives us the sense that we are all in the same boat there by reducing division and creating a sort of unspoken social compact.
    2. This idea totally abandons the concept of a republic, which means individual human rights may fall to the priority of serving the majority. What is best for the most people sometimes violates the human rights of the minority, which is why we formed not only a democracy but a constitutional republic.
    3. The smaller we make the ruling structure the easier it is for outside influences to corrupt that structure. It’s quite easy to manipulate small groups of people, it is rather difficult however to manipulate larger groups with a more diverse ideology.
    4. If there is no input from the people regarding government how do we decide who should comprise this group of absolute rulers? If we allow them to appoint the next group they will simply make sure to appoint those with similar ideologies as theirs, and as a result we may find it impossible to shift gears, so to speak, when it is necessary. The world after all is very dynamic and we have to change along with it. Our supreme court is a prime example of this problem.
    5. This may seem inconsequential at first but bear with me here please. Doing this would totally destroy the American identity and go directly against what we have asked people to fight and die to protect for two hundred years. It would result in mass up rising and armed revolt. I just don’t think you would ever be able to get most Americans to submit to such a system, you would have to kill the vast majority of our population to get this in place.
    I’ll stop there and give you a chance to reply if you wish. I don’t want to dominate the conversation and I feel as if I have on this forum already. I promise I will listen to your points as well and give them serious consideration. Thanks for the chance to actually debate with someone that seems genuine, informed, and intelligent in a sane, productive manner. Oh, and please everyone feel free to jump in where you fit in, as they say. I am sure others have both pros and cons to add to the discussion.


    Hey Wald0 its indeed refreshing having an open discussion about a very complicated challenge that nobody is trying to solve.

    I certainly feel your arguments and they are valid from the constitutional point of view and the consensus on liberty we all grew up with.

    But at least we agree that politics are all a farce.
    There will be absolutely no political will to make any change because the change basically means that the 1% will have to join the 99%.

    This is a subject that's so big and diverse we could open a whole blog about this sole discussion.

    It encompasses so many core mechanisms that its basically wiping the slate clean and openly thinking of an ideal peaceful working world where incentives to do wrong are taken away, people can still feed their ambition and corruption and market manipulation are limited to a minimum in the meanwhile eradicating poverty and systematic hunger and ensuring it stays that way.

    Its more then a mouthful but lets start by making the following statements to formulate a solution.

    1. The current economic system is doomed
    2. We live on a planet with finite resources and an exponentially growing population
    3. The division of wealth is a timebomb waiting to burst from either side. Either mass uprising(people) or mass extermination(elite or people) are inevitable in the next 20 years.
    4. Democracy does not work and is a farce since for the last 40 years its systematically lost control over core industries and assets and therefor has very limited control.(thank you thatcher)
    5. Government needs a different role either a role in which there can be no corruption because no such decisions are made or in which they have more power in order to regulate the market better.

    The current constitution protects you but also the people that we are fighting. There is an equal right to ownership which makes sure you can own a little something if you work hard for it but at the same time ensures the rich keep their palaces,corporations and power structure for generations to come.

    In a normal democratic system in which the people have the power we think we have, we should be able to collectively dis-own property and corporations for the well being of the people.

    If the majority says so, such a law could be implemented but unfortunately that`s not the case otherwise there would be no rich people would there ? And yes you will bump heads with the constitution but for radical change you have to make changes from the fundamentals.

    If you take away ownership as a concept and give people usage rights there is still an incentive to work at the best of your capability but it will be impossible to systematically save up resources and credits and make them unavailable for others to earn.

    Everybody would have a job, countries would need to share resources in fair trades and share technologies.

    To be able to make such a radical change i agree many people and countries will die fighting to maintain their "rights" and possessions unless there is a transfer period in which all people take responsibility for the future.
    But the route we are taking now we are all doomed and heading for apocalypse.

    As we all know the problem with the current economic system is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and it gets exponentially more difficult to change your wealth the poorer you are and more easier to get richer the more money you have.

    Debt could be paid off if there is money to earn. So we either cancel debt or catapult the accumulated wealth of the elite into the economy.

    Lets say we change the roles and government becomes a manager of corporations , assets, production and commodities and therefore automatically becomes the largest employer and in return most provide basic necessities and services to its people.
    All profits should go to the treasury and partly to its employees in a bonus structure.

    By producing for the people and not wasting resources on non innovative or cheap consumer products we should be able to raise the standard of life for everybody.
    Nobody needs fakes or low quality.
    Also in the field of distribution and transportation we can make huge cuts if it would all be one company.
    Sales marketing will become unnecessary and focus more on informing consumers better and mapping their needs.
    We don`t need advertisement because its pure manipulation.
    If a product is proven to be the best, that's the end of the discussion until proven otherwise.

    Failed products are a systematic loss for everybody except the person who sells the resources. They will just raise the price to compensate for demand but what`s the journey for a failed product from china to wallmart to the garbage dump or africa.
    All the transportation costs , the labour cost, the resource cost and the polution all for nothing... Only for the sake of an open market.

    The pure waste. We can build things to last longer but there will be no incentive if corporations exist for the sole reason of generating profit vs providing a good service/product so this is a systematic fail on a planet with finite resources.

    This does not mean in my world there is no money , no wage or no profit but we will have to set limitations to the amount of profit one is able to charge (similar to fair trade).

    This will ensure that there is a stable ratio between resources used and cost.

    For example


    Should not be subject to speculation or market manipulation.
    They are so basic that you are stealing from everybody if you earn money on it.

    Everybody needs to eat,drink and sleep and I`m not talking about free oysters for everybody but lets say that nutritional basics like wheat products and diaries and even consumption meat should be provided to the worlds population free of charge (no kobe steaks)

    For example the bakers will be able to charge accordingly for their extra work and they will be compensated in additional usage rights which are basically the new currency.

    By allocating production profits to the government instead of the private sector these profits could be utilized to make systematic improvements to the lives of billions.

    In that concept a developer would have to present new inventions/innovations at a scientific commission with representatives from consumers to plea for the actual use of a product and take it into production.

    All resources and factories would be government managed and therefore we are able to reach higher resource efficiency and limit waste.

    Countries can specialize and trade/outsource with other countries but in an even ratio to improve efficiency.

    If a product gets taken into production , the inventor will make a commission on each piece produced or sold and will have a better life then others by getting exclusive rights proportionate to the importance of your innovation.

    Just like you currently have wage levels there will be levels proportionate to your achievements.

    This will focus the worlds minds to make life better not devise smart ways to get more and do less or fool poor people out of their money.

    The working class will be in retail, agriculture , production and providing services and will be able to make a decent living.

    Wages will be transferred into a portion that pays for all basic necessities and a portion which you can spend on whatever you want.
    If there is demand for something non existent a system can be devised where people can demand a solution by requesting a specific product and once enough demand has been accumulated it will get the necessary resources for R&D and be taken into production.

    All science should be joined and different fields should work together more intensively. How many inventions are currently being blocked by patents and technologies that are divided amongst competitors and endless non disclosure agreements that prevent cooperative projects for the benefit of humanity.

    Same goes for healthcare.
    Heads should be joined, Competitiveness in medicine is nonsense.
    IF it works it works, if you can improve it, improve it don`t wait until the market is saturated or exhausted.
    If it doesn`t work , it shouldn`t even exist.
    There only needs to be 1 paracetamol and 1 ibuprofen and any reason for it to be different is total nonsense.

    I understand that research is costly and corporations have to protect their investments but that's only because of the way they are currently structured.
    On the long run who can judge when a company earned enough on a certain service, product or invention ?

    In order to realise anything of this magnitude the rich will have to cooperate and this is only realistically possible by reasoning and not threatening.

    The problem now is the accumulation of wealth and the creation of money with no backing.

    What if everybody is forced to spend everything over a lifetime and can only transfer 10% of his possessions to an heir ?
    One would certainly be motivated to spend more and we give everybody a chance to wipe the slate clean.
    If you didn`t spend it and die it goes to government and charity.

    It would be a good start to make all those trillions available to earn again and then we can systematically convert money into credits at a later stage when the playing field is more even.

    Everybody would still have the same job, but more jobs could be created if everybody needs to be employed. Unemployed people will keep the streets clean, replant forests and help others.
    Better job, more credits, same thing.

    Big difference is at the bottom where the people will be provided for in return for doing something beneficial for the community. Something i think we can do for free if we limit the current waste and unnecessary exploitation. By taking that profit out of the elites pocket and back to society we can already provide more for less. We should be able to provide for everybody with the same amount or less resources due to increased efficiency.

    Artists and musicians should have the facilities to focus on their arts and not lose creative potential trying to make a living.

    The private sector will not be destroyed but should be limited to non essential, luxury and entertainment services for which everybody can utilize their earned "free spendable credits"
    If something becomes a core foundation of society it should and cannot be in private hands.
    Good suggestions should be funded and explored no matter where they come from and anybody who does well gets rewarded accordingly.

    If less things are open to discussions the government could be able to function in its current system but the incentive to corrupt should be taken away and the people in government should be absolute authorities in their field.

    Now anybody with charisma and enough patience could become a minister or president. A major fail since not all horses are born to race.
    We are talking about controlling a country not a matter that should be scrutinized by popularity contests and propaganda.
    If we can only vote on qualified authorities in their respective function democracy might survive. But this is the dictatorship i`m implying. If a person is the absolute authority he should be able to function without being questioned by people who have no knowledge on the subject. Scrutiny by fellow scientists is a beneficial process and should be encouraged.

    But either the voter or the candidate should have a certain level of knowledge before meddling with business that concerns everybody.

    I also believe in transferring the power of court to the people in the form of voluntary digital referendum.
    There can be no justice if the judges are biased especially if we are on a campaign to redistribute wealth.
    Judges always rule in favor of the richer plaintive. This is a fact.

    What if everybody can vote on justice.
    That everybody forms part of the jury ?
    Then politicians can be dragged to court and punished.
    That would even out the current imbalance in power and make politicians more fearful of the people they represent.

    Now the worst thing that can happen to a politician is not being able to continue their career after failure. Well if you did something that made the lives of millions of people worse they should strap you to the chair.

    Which politicians would suddenly step down if such a system would be implemented knowing they`ll get punished for what they`ve done.
    How many of them will think it 5 times over before stealing from the people ?
    How many people will still volunteer to be in government.

    I think only the ones that mean well.
    And if after a thorough education someone becomes electable that should be his/her right. But we can`t have idiots, looking good and shouting things like "kick out all the immigrants" and actually get votes.
    Especially in the USA this is nonsense since you are living on stolen land and everybody is an immigrant (except the natives).

    Private fundraisers for political parties should be forbidden because its unfair competition.
    If there would be a true open political system in which everybody gets his/her fair airtime and place in the main debates it would be a step towards a true democracy.

    But as long as candidates need to knock on the doors of corporations for funding. The system is corrupt.

    I`m not against democracy.
    I`m against democracy in its current form.
    I prefer a dictatorship of people who know what they are doing vs a bunch of popular figures trying to keep their job that have no actual power over business or knowledge in the field thats necessary. Shouldn`t a president have at least 3 degrees in sociology, politics and economics?

    I don`t think a drunk or illiterate at the busstop should have any part in the voting process because this is democracy`s weakness.
    The voting power of the weak minded that are easy to manipulate and count just as heavy as the vote of an intellectual.
    We need to either dillute or remove their voting rights.
    It would not be unreasonable to supply voting rights according to education or the fact that your an employer or employee.
    Now this is done in the form of citizenship but that's not a fair way to split up voters and non voters.

    This would be a fair ratio :

    Level 1 : Uneducated
    Level 2 : Unemployed
    Level 3 : Working class
    Level 4 : Management
    Level 5 : Scientists and intellectuals

    So the vote of a scientist would even out 5 votes from an uneducated person.
    This is not equality but it makes a lot of sense to me.
    More knowledge more say so.
    Wealth should not be of importance. Purely the state of mind, education and ability to comprehend.
    One could devise tests to "level up".

    We are a world in denial of its state of affairs and are kept docile by shielding us from the real state of affairs and the fact that for the last 15 years the standard of living has decreased worldwide in the 1st world. The fact that the power is in the hands of the people makes change so hard to implement and basically renders us all powerless because we are forced to vote on a package deal instead of individual policies.

    If politicians can be held accountable by the people you could evaluate their functioning on a regular basis and hold elections when improvement is necessary.

    Disabling a government for 6 months per 4-5 years is very counterproductive. Can`t we elect new people when change is needed or they do a bad job? Can`t ministers just be fired from one day to the next for ******* up and can a replacement be found without calling out new elections?
    Should your capacity to make judgement have anything to do with your popularity or looks ?
    Can`t we source people in government like we headhunt for corporations ?
    Its food for thought and very wide, and i think we`re in for a long discussion, but its enjoyable and refreshing to be able to talk so radical and share thought.

    Looking forward to your reply.

    I hope this addresses your 5 points broadly but i totally understand your point of view and they are all valid arguments.

    I think we first need to establish where we want to be and then find out how to get there step by step.
    Can`t convince any people if the concept is not stable yet.
    Its possible to get the rich to give up their inheritable riches, spend all their money and annex corporations into government.

    Nobody gets fired. Just all stocks would be bought up by government and profits utilized for the benefit of the people.
    And private investors should spend their earned profits.
    Like this in 1 generation you can lay the foundations for a systematic change and reboot.

  62. Mike Jones

    Just commenting how I am so happy I no longer desire to visit this left of left of left anarchist web site. neither should you if your brain still works.

  63. StevenLJones

    People don't have the time, don't take the time, and don't care so they get the dictatorship they deserve. Democracy demands participation.

    Think about this. Organized crime which doesn't follow any laws, pays no taxes and can offer you a deal you can't refuse has the competitive advantage. Anything illegal that you want drugs gambling prostitution weapons, toxic waste disposal the list is probably endless. They don't stuff there trillions in a mattress. It gets invested. Who don't they own? What don't they own?

    How can you have a free market that is controlled by 1% of the population. How is that free? Competition's aim is to get rid of the competition. Do you like the choice you have at the gas pump? What is the end result of competition? The 1% want to be the 0.01%. Wallmart. Revenue 421.8 billion. 2,150,000 employes. How can Wallmart grow? How does a little hardware store compete with them? There are no more little hardware stores. The 1% wants to own it all. Most of the top ten richest companies are oil companies with exception of Wallmart which is no. 1, Toyota and some other Japanese state owned company. The oil companies and their investors run the world. You're there property.


    So by funneling corporate profits back into society we could make some change.

    In the eye of the beeholder hey Steve ?
    Competition and an open market is the rich man telling his slave that one day if he works hard and stays loyal, he too can own a house and a car...while we all know that by the time the slave owns a house his owner will own a palace and the gap will only widen as it has for the past 400 years.

    Its supposed to be fair game for everybody !!!
    Why don`t we just all get rich ??
    Ah... A dilemma..
    A simple definition of rich would be to have more then the others.
    So not everybody can be rich at the same time, in order to be rich one has to fool others into giving it to you for whatever reason or "earn it".

    There are no new worlds to explore,conquer and plunder its not fair game and one would have to sacrifice a lifetime in order to build an advantageous position for your descendants.

    Many peoples ancestors got enslaved and the descendants of the people who did that still benefit from that act.
    The main source of wealth for the first industrialists was pure evil.
    Whole empires are built on murder, theft and oppression.

    Colonial rule, exploitation, slavery and mass manipulation are the funding that made the early industrialists become so rich and powerful.

    How can this go unpunished ?????????????????
    Why are these the decision makers, captains of industry and private lenders ?
    Why do they rule politics ??

    I never signed any constitution,gave up any claim or rights and i refuse to live the consequences of the whole worlds past mistakes without fighting for change and punishing those that have caused the current situation.

    Honestly how does owning a little piece of land and drilling a hole in the ground give you the right to suck a 200 sq mile oil patch dry and get rich ?? You bought the surface land to build a house.
    Nobody said nothing about oil up to 20 miles deep in the earth that comes out of your back yard.

    I don`t understand how anybody could own any natural resources or minerals ?
    You didn't make them. It took millions of years to form.
    Who owns the trees ?
    Who owns the air ?
    Who owns the sea ?

    Nobody does but we all do. We are just fooled into believing some people have more rights then others. Because in our lifetime they lived there first. And they already owned it , when i was born.

    Well when your daddy was born, he stole from my daddy so now 100 years later I`m coming to steal it back from you, but hey... the rules have changed now... Now i`m an outlaw... and you are a legit business man.

    I believe in achievement, and i love money.
    But i would not be able to live with myself if for my wealth others have to starve.
    Everybody has the right to get rich.
    Its just the method which makes the difference.
    People should be motivated to excel but in making lives better and no tricks or cheats.

    People make mistakes and its up to the people in the future to correct these injustices.

    Its against human nature to punish yourself for doing the wrong thing. Instead we usually reward ourselves for doing bad. People feel guilty but they rarely will give up their wealth out of guilt.

    The future is now, who is going to make something happen ??
    Because we are all docile, passive and distracted we collectively lose more wealth every milisecond we do not break the status quo.

    What are we all waiting for ??
    A handout from buffet ?
    A bonus from Bill gates ?
    Its time for an old fashioned lynching.

    I don`t know if you realized it yet but under current law we are all getting ROBBED BLIND EVERY SECOND WE LIVE !!!!

  65. dmxi

    so your brain just went on pause to post that comment ?

  66. StevenLJones

    REBELDOCs The truth is I feel sorry for these people who spend every moment of their day chasing money. They don't have the time to smell the flowers. I'm sure they don't trust their friends who might be maneuvering to steal their share. And they're friendships are about what they can get materially. They find their identity in what they own and who they've conquered. Because their self worth is about their billions they are driven to get more. I don't have anything against them being rich. In fact I believe if they were accountable, respected people, the environment etc and managed the economy well, nobody would bat an eyelash. But they don't do that. In fact I think many of them are in the territory of being psychopaths. Since the system is so corrupt and basically flawed I think it will crash completely. A free market might be a good idea with a bottom line that was about human rights and the environment but these guys are about control and possession and always getting more. They will strangle the free market. It doesn't matter what economic or political system is, the problem is and has always been corruption. And since the corrupt are mostly interested in power, left or right it's all the same to them, they simply change their stripes with the times.

  67. David Foster

    "I feel sorry for these people who spend every moment of their day chasing money. They don't have the time to smell the flowers."


  68. William Jones

    What is also interesting is that it is proven in business that doing what is morally correct is more profitable for the long haul. Unfortunately, the business model in the USA is all about short term gains.

  69. slpsa

    Vlatko, he is calling you a leftie.....bwahahahahaaa. Mr Jones, it seems to me, your brain function is the one that is in question. You must be a Republicrat to put such a label on a site that deals in both left, right, middle, back-end and upside down information and docs. If that escapes you, then I suggest you take a long look at your own mental status.

  70. Vlatko


    Yes I've read that. Not worth responding.

  71. mir61

    An excellent topic and well documented ....shame on our so called governments and shame on us who vote for these garbage political parties ( Conservatives and also the Liberals) ..Dumb people elect vampire governments ...

  72. John August Gronau

    If as Mussolini said, fascism is the partnership of State and Corporate power, then would not the complete substitution of the State's power by Corporate's be anarcho-fascism?

  73. KsDevil

    The world, it's land and it's people, belong to the Corporation Of The USA. Accept your fate and your masters. Continue your hedonistic consumerism and self gratification lifestyle. Let your betters run the world for you. After all, you are not qualified to run your own lives...just look who you keep giving your power to...that should be evidence enough.

  74. mir61

    very well said , KsDevil ...i agree.

  75. Nick

    Surely that is partly why people on the political left get such a hard time. Trying to implement something for the good of the whole often stifles people's personal freedom and can have adversere knock on consequences. Like trying to use price controls to control inflation. The result is businesses simply go bust. The minute people want to create taxes to nudge people towards being more environmentally friendly half the population start shouting about how it is all a conspiracy.

  76. manfruss

    Global revolution!!! It is time to tear down the structures which are slowly imprisoning us. Corporate and human greed is disgusting. Disband the government, divide the wealth and move forward with out pseudo-democracy.

  77. manfruss

    Revolt. No kindness should be shown to tyrants, liars and thieves. It only encourages them rather than showing them the error of their ways. We want to protect ourselves? Take it to the streets, march on parliament, and show them they are not above the common folks.

  78. Jamie Kuske

    I don't think they're shouting conspiracy about 'environmentally friendly' taxes..I think they're shouting conspiracy about taxes in general.

  79. a_no_n

    Easy as that eh?

  80. Gary Warburton

    At last people are beginning to catch on. I said beginning. Now is Trudeau with his nice hair going to steal it all from us? Like, if you say NO.

  81. Devon Griffiths

    He won't even be elected. His purpose is to guarantee another Tory majority. First, he rallies the Tory base against him, because of his name and paternity. Second, he splits the centrist vote which otherwise would have gone to Mulcair.

  82. Steve Henke

    When asked about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, Gabrielle Giffords was quoted as saying, “Enough”. When is enough, enough? After the Newtown tragedy, there were continuous news announcements on all networks giving us information about new gun control laws, which were promptly followed by an advertisement for tonight’s prime time murder/detective show. The commercial would show a gun and bullets and a dead body. Has anything been done since? Ask the NRA lobby.

    Do I need to go into greater detail about how our Executive and Legislative Branches of our U.S. Government are totally dominated by self-interest lobbyist groups, whether it be telling us what foods are recommended as healthy or sending our armed forces off to war. I am sure you do not want to hear another rant.

    However there is a solution. There is something we can do about it and that is to start our own lobbyist group based upon sound moral, ethical and Spiritual principles that will compete with the not so moral, ethical or Spiritual lobbyist groups. We can begin to participate in steering our country’s government in making regular and consistent moral and ethical decisions and laws that keep peace in the world and represent our nation honorably.

    How can we do this? Well that is just what the book “Word of Mouth Democracy for the 99% - A Corporate Spiritual Democracy” is all about. It is not easy reading, nor can it be comprehended in one sitting, but it does provide a method to allow the moral and spiritual people of this nation to participate in the politics of our country. We cannot afford to skip this responsibility inherent of all U.S. citizens and allow our nation to decline into self-centered, selfish, egomania.

Leave a comment / review: