You're a troll, otherwise I don't think you'd post a comic making fun of your political stance.

I like driving on bridges that don't collapse and eating food with not but so much rat feces in it.

Clean water is pretty rad too.

>>2385008


I lol'd so damn hard now...

>>2385008
>rad

I favor sending people like you to death camps so sure, why not

>>2385008
sanitation + bridge building DOES NOT EQUAL GOVERNMENT please thanks

implying that somehow the government does these things instead of hiring other people

i like these cartoons because the scandifaggots look exactly like the kind of mawkish, bad-tache wearing mewlings that they really are

If my choice is between big government or mega-corporations then I'll go for big government.

Big government at least has to pretend to care.

>>2385098
None of them are african or arab.

>>2385008

>itt insecure pussy who would rather live under an authoritarian police state than a night watchman state with freedom > big govt.

because people are stupid and the government knows what is best for them, and needs to make sure they are safe. if i made my own choices, i could get hurt, but when the government holds my hand, i feel safe.

>>2385162

Not sure if Hobbesian faggot or troll

>>2385075

The point is that society functions on resources and power. If government doesn't accumulate and secure these then corporations will. We have witnessed the grand rise in power of corporations since the industrial revolution. Thus strong government is needed to combat the corruption and capitalistic greed of market forces.

Before the progressive era in the early 1900s, working conditions, health standards and such were severely lacking. The corporations wanted to spend as little as possible. Thus they created externalities. Government stepped in and required that corporations became more responsible for these externalities to protect the people.

Simple as that. I'm not really going to argue with anyone about this, it's simple historical fact.

>>2385162
>implying this isn't true for 90% of the population

Also, Government not enforcing strict safety regulations leads to shit like this happening:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QJABLh7EIg

>>2385120

Mega corporations exist because motivated, hard working individuals put in the courage and effort to make them what they are. The only reason you don't like that is because you haven't put in the effort and made the necessary sacrifices to do something similar.

>>2385187

>enforcing strict safety regulations

Yes, let's ban all guns and make the streets safe for criminals, while ordinary civilians are unarmed! Good idea.

Everyone should be given equal CHANCE to become successful.
Which isnt the case in murika#1

>>2384939
>>>/pol/
You looked

>>2385221

Those aren't safety regulations you moron and has nothing to do with what I posted. Nice strawman though 2/10 at best,

>>2385204
>implying it's all about the blood, sweat and tears of the founders rather than a fuckton of lying, cheating, stealing, backstabbing and overall shitting on less privileged people.

>>2385075
The government pays for it, so it can be said the government vicariously carries out these activities
>2012
>Implying the private sector would care about citizens
>Implying the government doesn't have a vested interest in keeping is healthy, and alive so that we could pay taxes
ISHIGITTYDIGGITY

>>2385204

Mega-corporations exist because we use industrial technologies. This means the people that own capital, i.e. factories will necessarily gain more profit. They hire people and dictate prices and wages. This gives them the power. Yes they have worked for it in a sense but that doesn't give people the right to completely exploit and hurt people.

A typical argument I would hear is that they earned their millionaire wages and they earned it all and deserve extremely low taxes. I ask this: How about all their workers that were educated by government funds, how about the roads and infrastructure they need to run their business that were funded by government, how about the security and stability they need to function that is provided by the government? The fact is, that consideration trumps any argument about billionaire CEOs having truly earned and worked for their money.

>>2385204

Yea mean the lazy scumbags who breezed through life on daddy's connections making 400x than the same position would have made 20 years ago.

>motivated, hard working individuals put in the courage and effort to make them what they are

The only people who put in the blood, sweat and tears that make the corporations as powerful as they are and as profitable as they are are the wage slaves that work their asses off for minimum wage, while the fatcats at the top give themselves bonus after bonus.

>>2385223

>Which isnt the case in murika#1

Yes, it is, many simply choose not to take advantage of that.

The libertarian/neo-conservative economic views have already been destroyed in this thread.

Let this thread die.

>>2385289

>itt the same lazy individuals that beg uncle sammy for undeserved handouts making up excuses for their failures

Stay beta /r9k/. Never change your pussy ways.

>>2385070

Hipsters are a nuisance and should be shot on sight.

>>2385328
>Libertarian
>Gold Standard
Hahaha my sides
Because shiny metal that we place arbitrarily value would be better than FIAT currency. You know the gold standard is awesome because only the most successful countries still use it.

>>2385353

if you put them in camps you can make them do work, though

you're right, your solution is more humane

>anyone in their right mind would support big government

I get it ;P

>>2385181
If a certain corporation is in charge of something and does not allow proper sanitation/whatever, the people have the ability to not buy from that corporation and thus force it to accommodate the peoples interests. This is what is known as the "free market".

ITT: Liberals pretending they know shit about economics

>>2385181
>The point is that society functions on resources and power. If government doesn't accumulate and secure these then corporations will.
And this is bad how? Do you know why corporations were invented? To do certain things more efficiently than the government.

>We have witnessed the grand rise in power of corporations since the industrial revolution. Thus strong government is needed to combat the corruption and capitalistic greed of market forces.

You do know that the government and corporations were in bed together for much of the gilded age right? (and pretty much today)

Pro-business governments kept monopolies alive by bailing them out and pulling strings for them, which hurt the harmony of the free market and making consumers powerless.

>>2385509
Bitch doesn't know about oligopolies.

>>2385542
>implying anyone on 4chan knows shit about economics
>implying economists even know shit about economics

>>2385588
Oligopolies do not magically appear in free markets.

>>2385204
>he still subscribes to the "if he's rich he's lived an honest hard working life!" ideology

Protip: there's no such thing as the american dream. The majority of the super wealthy today inherited their money

Big government sucks.
Corporations Suck.
Free health care sucks.
Paid for health care sucks.

It's all about happy mediums.

In England they have NHS for healthcare, which is great.... on paper. They also have billions being spent on people who claim free health care but put nothing back into the system.

Free healthcare is not a solution, but it is a nice idea which needs more work.

Big government is not a solution, but it is a nice idea which needs more work.

Corporations are not a solution.... You get my point.

I hate all this bullshit about being on one side of an argument and being against the other. The ideal is to take what works from each idea and get the best of both worlds.

>>2385650
>The majority of the super wealthy today inherited their money

So their parents or grandparents worked hard right? Why does that make you so mad? Are you upset that you come from a long line of lazy retards?

>>2385689
I'm not mad, I'm just saying it's flawed reasoning to assume that just because someone is rich its because they worked hard.

>>2385669

I was reading about the English system of government for a class. Some of the stuff was really weird and fucked up to me. I knew the basic structure but holy shit you people are like aliens compared to us. Higher civil servants? Whoa.

because AMMMMMMMMMEEEEERRRICCAAAAAAAA!

Also Jesus, God, motherfucking commies, damn terrorists.

>>2385689
>actually believes those ridiculous amounts of wealth come from hard work and not from stealing

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

>>2385712
But someone in their family did work hard.

Whats wrong with that?

You live in a country which is only prosperous because of the hard work of others in the past and so on. Does that mean that you should not be allowed to benefit from it just because you didn't single handedly create the entire economy over night?

The poor deserve to die. The strongest survive, and the weak are weeded out, to die alone with their inferior genetics. There's no sense in enabling them to live on in this world, wasting resources and potentially further spreading their inferior genetics to pollute the population with.

It's just like how us normalfags prevail in every aspect of life, socially and financially, while the betas remain foreveralone until they finally do us normalfags a favor and kill themselves. Us normalfags are the rich, and you betas are the poor. Earn your right to live, betas. Don't have it in you? Then you deserve to die slowly, alone, because you are weak and your inferior genes are defective and must be eliminated.

>>2385761
Stealing is hard work. That's why so many people end up in prison.

>American
>Live on stolen land
>Preaches about not stealing

>>2385790
No, it just means that YOU PERSONALLY DID NOT DO SHIT TO EARN THAT WEALTH

It's a response to the typical rich person argument that says "I worked harder than you because I am richer than you therefore you deserve to live a shitty life!"

Funny thing is, the American welfare state is so much bigger than people tend to think. While we don't have so many traditional European style social programs, we give out tax expenditures, refunds, and other nontraditional aid like candy. Hell, a lot of those nontraditional programs came out under Republican leadership, too.

The difference is that in the U.S., we expect people to succeed by working and doing the right thing; even when we help them, it's their job to be frugal and use the money for the right things. Our poor just don't get the message.

My grandfather was on welfare for most of his life, including when my dad was a kid. He saved a lot of his money, making his family live well within their means, and then over time invested it in land plots. He retired comfortably and left his family land that became ripe for suburban development.

The poor in America get rewarded for being smart and knowing that a lot of the help they get is behind the scenes. My grandpa realized this and was able to do well for himself without much of an education or luck.

>>2385801
>Us normalfags are the rich, and you betas are the poor

ohohohoho

so fahnny joke

u fahny

>>2385801
>The strongest survive, and the weak are weeded out, to die alone with their inferior genetics.

Lrn2evolution

"Inferior" genetics don't get weeded out, they simply recess and then surface again when they are needed.

Evolution is adaptation, nothing gets completely removed.

Inferior people will always be around and they have a purpose.

a lot of people get rich because of pure luck. I don't mean lottery, but just being at the right place at the right time, taking certain risks

>>2385812
>Implying Americans stole land from anyone

We committed genocide the original inhabitants through warfare and disease, there was no one left to steal land from.

>>2385812
>Implying a people with no concept of land ownership can have land stolen from them.
>Implying their tribes weren't constantly shifting boundaries as they lost and took settlements.

>>2385818
But someone in their family worked harder than you. Tough shit.

Next time someone says "I'm richer than you because I work hard than you", just replace the words in your head with "I'm richer than you because my family worked harder than yours".

No need to be mad.

>>2385849
Hard work always looks like luck to idiots.

Those people took risks at the right time because they chose to and new it was the right time.

>>2385874
If your dad worked hard and became a millionaire then good for you. But don't go around telling poor people that they're not successful because they're "lazy" or because their parents weren't successful because they're not responsible for that.

http://mises.org/daily/2259

I've worked my ass off to get through Uni with a degree in Software Engineering and I've got a well paying job. I had a starting salary that was higher than the average low skilled workers salary after they worked for 10 years.

I'm saving money, and when I have kids, no fucking way is some little faggot bitch gonna come up to my kid and claim that he got money for nothing.

My kids will inherit my money which I worked fucking hard for.

God damn hippies, always want something for nothing and always try to undermine other peoples success.

You don't really need to work harder to be more successful. You need to work moderately and take advantage of people who work hard.
Most successful CEOs today show psychopathic tendencies.

>>2385909
All it takes is one non-lazy person in a family tree to make a family wealthy.

If you have an entire family tree of lazy scum, and you are just a fetid branch of that rotting tree, then that's tough luck.

You have no right to bash other peoples hard work.

does a person born with a disease get angry at those who don't have diseases? No, because they aren't fucking stupid.

Government does a good job in public utilities and inspection/regulation. Water utilities, for instance.

>muhhhh we could just privatize our water utilities
Sure, but government already does a good job at it, and its motive is the health and welfare of the people, not the health and welfare of a corporation's bottom line. If we privatize utilities like water, we could end up like South American countries that are at the mercy of international angencies that can screw the poor and sell water in the open market.

>>2385929

>my kids will inherit my money I worked hard for
>implying they won't be the same lazy hippies you're talking about

>>2385961
Simple economics shows that governments should run any services that are natural monopolies (ie, it's cheaper overall to have one company than to have 2 or more competing).

>>2385937
This. Work smarter, not harder. And do some brown-nosing to the right people.

I've been working for a rich man for a few weeks now. We've had a few conversations and I've heard several conversations he has recorded with people he has to work with, it's part of my job.

I've come to the conclusion that rich people are fucking insane. I know how we're supposed to fear big brother but I would trust a powerful government before I would trust a powerful individual.

>>2385992
Wow that is complete bullshit

Competition drives innovation and lowered prices. One company or government body having a monopoly on a service/product has no reason to innovate.

>>2386046
Then please explain how the government has managed to keep water relatively cheap and clean.

>>2386046
Someone hasn't taken a basic college econ class. We're talking about infrastructure services, here. For instance, it's much cheaper for everyone to have 1 sewer system for everyone instead of two whole competing sewer systems.

>>2386005
What gives you the idea that heads of government are any different. The government has all the guns and look how they are using them. Also companies cannot hurt anyone as it is not profitable.

>>2386046

Hey faggot who hasn't taken economics, your ignorance is showing. Learn about natural monopolies you dumb cunt. Do you want 10 different companies building redundant electrical lines to ONLY their customers houses? Do you have any idea how STUPID that would be and how inefficient it would be?

>>2385961
>Sure, but government already does a good job at it,
At a greater cost than would private entities. Furthermore, unless a government's water services are provided by a private entity with an enforced monopoly, the distribution of cost will be unfair. Even with such a state of affairs, we could not guarantee fairness.

>and its motive is the health and welfare of the people, not the health and welfare of a corporation's bottom line.
This is very much questionable. Its motive is, more often than not, the motive of the political party, The object of having government at all is often assumed to be the safety, security, welfare, health, what-have-you, of the people, but in practice it can be observed that other things often come first as the motives of those in government - for instance, providing for certain people over others in order to win votes, in order to keep power, in order to exert their ideology. It's not for a corporation's bottom line in terms of capital, but rather for a party's bottom line in terms of voters.

>If we privatize utilities like water, we could end up like South American countries that are at the mercy of international angencies that can screw the poor and sell water in the open market.
There is no readily apparent reason to suspect this. As far as facts are concerned, there are distinct differences in situation between S. America and other nations that might be in the position to privatise utilities.

>>2386078
>>2386078

>cannot hurt anyone as it is not profitable

WOW I'D LOVE TO LIVE IN YOUR WORLD PLEASE GIVE ME DIRECTIONS

>>2386046
>no reason to innovate

Oh you mean raisins like DROUGHT or POPULATION GROWTH or TO SAVE MONEY or THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE?

Sounds like reasons to me

>>2386078
I'm just going to assume (hope) you're trying to troll

>>2386093
Do you really think that some people in a district get water and others don't because of the way they vote? That doesn't happen.

>>2386093
>distribution of cost will be unfair
I for know about you, but I pay a water bill base on how much I consume. Sounds fair to me.

>>2386056
>>2386074
>>2386081

First its not going to be profitable for a company to build more electric lines etc in areas where they already have them.

Secondly infrastructure can be privately owned and suppliers of whatever service (electricity, internet) can get a lease to use these structures.

Just for an example to strengthen my argument. Look at roads, government owns most if not all of them and there has been no innovation for however long since their inception.

I'm pro big government, but strong on individual rights that don't violate others' rights. And capitalism isn't America, which many people forget. If we reigned in corporations more, we'd have less jobs being taken offshore. That's some bullshit right there. Also, big government makes for better infrastructure and the country not looking like shit. Look at mexico, and tell me you want it to look like that.

Fuck Ron Paul, man. We need to be unified as much as possible. That fucker just spews out 'legal weed' and dumbasses com running. Just move to California, man.

>>2386101
>>2386127
Its not troll.

You have an irrational belief that companies are out to hurt people. How many people have private industries killed compared to the states of the world?

The rise of corporations (which is where everyone is getting their negative views of private industry) is a state created phenomenon. These companies are given special privileges and regulations make competition much harder to compete.

Big government? No.

However >>2385008
makes a good point. Most private businesses don't give a shit about the general sanctity/quality/health risks in their products. Especially if it saves them money in the long run.

Dismantling agencies like the FDA would be fantastic for businesses, but terrible for the vast majority of the public. Standards and Regulations ensure that the food or medicine we are digesting is actually you know, food and medicine.

You'd also have the issue of businesses distributing quality water based on how much you pay for it. I.e. poor-fags penny pinching as much as they can get to enjoy access to disease and filth ridden water, while richer families can afford to pay for premium water.

>>2386216
>How many people have private industries killed compared to the states of the world?

Silly argument; assumes states and industries don't work together. It even has a term... military industrial complex.

We need corporations for some things. We need governments for others. That's it.

>>2386216
>You have an irrational belief that companies are out to hurt people. How many people have private industries killed compared to the states of the world?

A lot actually. Plenty of people die from food poisoning and unclean water. Many foods and products are also believed to be related to people developing cancer.

It's more common in third world countries, where they don't have or pay attention to sanitation laws.

>>2386267
Did you even read the rest of my post?

The industries themselves do not do the killing, they only provide the product to the government. Its like selling a gun and blaming the seller if the buyer kills someone.

>>2386293
Why would companies want to kill their customers?

>>2386298
>Its like selling a gun and blaming the seller if the buyer kills someone

Replace gun with poison and you might look like you have some sense retard.

>>2386308
>>2386240
>Especially if it saves them money in the long run.

>>2386308
Because the kinds of things the FDA is screening for cause higher risks of slow-killing health problems, and it's much cheaper not to screen these things out.

>>2386298

Not the same thing. A government contractor knows where his guns are going and for what, and at times promotes political situations that he could take advantage of. A private gunseller doesn't know that the weapon he's selling is to be used with aggressive intent.

>>2386308
>cigarettes
>implying I don't smoke
>implying I give a fuck

The point of companies is to make a profit, and nowadays it's to make the biggest profit they can. With unsafe shit being sold, sure, many people will die, but their will always be more to replace the ones that die. Especially in third world countries, who have a shit load of kids.

As other posters have said, the FDA and other such 'big government' agencies that interfere with companies keep our asses safe. Also, imagine if you didn't pay the fire fighters to save you house.

>>2386160
The inefficiencies of it being state-run and hence without competition, mean that it is surely either tax-subsidised or preposterously expensive. We can exclude the latter, or else you would be complaining about that.So, with the former a certainty, we can mention another certainty: your taxes are not based on how much water you use. How is that fair, again?

Define big Government? Do you mean government that has a large number agencies? Because those people actually do things for the most part. There will always be a little fat. But Without government regulation well you get things like Child Labor, Lead in the Paint, massive unchecked pollution etc.

Corporations won't for the most part regulate themselves.

>>2386139
Is this what I said? I think that it is not. But if I want poor people to vote for me, I might make water "free", and then tax the rich in order to pay for it.

>>2386387
Why not rely on private consumer watchdogs instead of the FDA. Look the FDA is not protecting anyone, the market regulates itself. If there is a product that is unhygienic and/or dangerous people are not going to buy it. And the FDA has been seen to give overwhelming support to big pharma. A case of corporatism at its finest.

The government contractor is not the one doing the killing. In any case the government is creating the demand for the guns etc and thus if the government didn't buy these products they wouldn't be in the marketplace (for this purpose anyway).

>>2386483
Subsidies aren't what you think they are.

And, getting to your...argument...public utilities don't usually take much out of general revenue except for major public works projects. Plus, they don't seek to make a profit, so you pay less per use.

Also, what aren't you getting about natural monopolies? THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE. Two is too expensive, so it doesn't happen. No competition happens. So, in that case, who do you want getting your water and taking your shit, the guys who exist to provide that service as a public good, or the guys trying to make a profit?

>>2386430
What do they keep us safe from?

Look at the FDA's food pyramid. Complete nonsense and most likely the cause of a great number of health problems.

>>2386509
Say what you want about the FDA, when they rebuked epidemiology they proved their loyalty to the public.

>>2386509
>Why not rely on private consumer watchdogs instead of the FDA.

Because private businesses aren't held directly accountable by anyone and can be very easily bribed into looking the other way. The government on the other hand is held accountable by the public.

>If there is a product that is unhygienic and/or dangerous people are not going to buy it.

The only way people are going to know a product is killing them in the long run is if you have an agency of some kind that can prove it and force businesses to disclose exactly what they are putting in their products. Private watchdogs can't do that.

>>2386597
>Look at the FDA's food pyramid. Complete nonsense and most likely the cause of a great number of health problems.

I lol'ed so hard.

>>2386677
So you think private businesses are going to be bribed and risk their whole enterprise while a bureaucrat working for an body that can easily dodge consequences is not? If the FDA were found to be bribed their consequences would be much less than a private watchdog. The private watchdog would be discredited while the FDA would make up some excuse and it would be forgotten.

You need to look at it like this. If a company providing say a food product does not give inspection to a watchdog the public would be aware of this due to other products have seals of approval from investigating organizations.

I can bring up the moral issue as well of forcing businesses to comply with the FDAs rules under threat of violence.

>>2386704
Well do youself a favour and look up some nutritional information in the vein of paleo diets. Gary tubes book etc.

>>2386509
I blame Reagan. I imagine all those corporate mofos with government positions have some influence over what agencies concerned with corporations do.

>>2386804
*taubes

>>2386597
>implying I would fucking eat citrus without knowing I had to
>implying I don't think of the pyramid now and again
>implying I don't eat tortillas

>>2386783
What. A government person in charge of something who fucks up gets massive backlash. A private overseer will just move on to another thing, and the public wouldn't know shit.

>>2386783

If you honestly think that the public and the consumers are truly always knowledgeable about the ways corporations act, that private watchdogs can't be easily paid off because they would function on profit, and that bureaucrats face little consequence, then I feel sorry that you live such a delusional existence.

People buy stuff because it's cheap and convenient. So government should make it illegal for corporations to put arsenic in our food. Is it really a better solution for a bunch of people to die, then wait for people to realize that some shit is poisonous? OR WAIT WE CAN OUTLAW FUCKED UP SHIT BY POLITICAL LEGISLATION AND FORCE.

Private watchdogs can easily be bought off. Have you not realized how big some corporations have gotten to the point that they control many various markets? One corporation could easily incorporate or create a private watch dog. How does the marketplace know which private watchdog is not bought out and which ones are actually reliable? The federal government does that, they actually have policy experts, not selfish idiots with business degrees that fills the corporate positions.

>>2386783
>So you think private businesses are going to be bribed and risk their whole enterprise while a bureaucrat working for an body that can easily dodge consequences is not?

Private businesses already take all kinds of bribes and "donations" and don't have to disclose anything about it. And even if and when they are caught, some CEO makes a public apology, fires a few people, and goes back to business as usual.

Our government officials can be ousted out of power for fuck ups, and seeing as how they have to disclose more information than a private business does, they're more likely to be caught.

>If a company providing say a food product does not give inspection to a watchdog the public would be aware of this due to other products have seals of approval from investigating organizations.
And people who are to busy to pay attention to whether or not a piece of food has a pretty sticker on it are still going to buy it. Hell the makers can toss their own label on it saying it's good.
It is much more efficent and safe to simply prevent bad products from getting into stores in the first place.

>I can bring up the moral issue as well of forcing businesses to comply with the FDAs rules under threat of violence.
>Under threat of violence

I don't think you know how the FDA works. Or you are pulling nonsense out of your ass.

>>2386877
Sorry what? People sometimes go bankrupt if they lose their business. Its not a matter of just moving onto another enterprise.

>>2386899
Again private watchdogs are not going to be paid off, if it was ever found out they would be out of business and the heads discredited for life. I'm not saying its an absolute sure there might be times when a bribe is made but you cannot seriously negate this occurrence from happening within the FDA. And if the FDA was ever caught to be taking bribes the FDA won't go out of existence like a private institution would.

And yes I have noticed how corporations get to their size. I also know the reason it is how they got their. Through regulations and tax which allow for less competition to arise.

>>2385611
Man your fucking retarded of course they do.

The guy was pointing out a historical fact, about the time called the "Gilded Age". When markets were completely free and there were no established trust law or consumer protection or worker protection.

People got stomped on, massive trusts with interlocking directorates were formed which use price setting and other methods to screw consumers and workers. (which is exactly what oligopolies look like).

If you protested you were blacklisted and never allowed to work again.

There can be no free market because there is no such thing as true economic competition.

>>2386966
Ok, I give up. You're fucking stupid. I worry that people actually think the things that you think.

>>2386931
What bribes and donations. The government has to provide more information than a private business does what? Examples please.

The FDA is an arm of the government. Do you not understand how the government works? Comply with whatever rules are set and if you do not comply we will imprison you or if it comes to it murder you. The act of imprisonment is an act of violence.

>>2386308
It's not always that companies want to kill their customers.

But companies are perfectly fine is someone other than their customers are harmed.

Say a city being affected by the toxic waste the company is letting into a local river.

>>2386783
Get a load of this guy. He honestly believes that companies are more transparent than the government.

the free market values the individual and the uniqueness that they can provide in the open market

big government values the state and makes the individual a mere number

>brotip regarding op's pic- the poor receive free health care, the rich pay for it becuase they are rich and the middle class get it up the ass

>further brotip- there has to be a balance of some sort irregardless.

>>2387033
>http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/26/walmart-bribery-investigations/
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17850305
>http://www.lawyershop.com/practice-areas/criminal-law/white-collar-crimes/bribery-kickbacks

Really dude? You are retarded.
And if you really want to you can do a google search for the Governments budget and such. Stop being lazy.

>Comply with whatever rules are set and if you do not comply we will imprison you or if it comes to it murder you.

I don't know what kind of third world country you live in, but in America you get something called a trial, and the punishment if convicted is determined by a judge, which can range from a fine to imprisonment. Selling shitty products doesn't get you the death penalty.

>>2387080
The local river is presumably owned by the state so no one can sue for damages. If there is pollution on the persons property they should be paid reparations. If a free market did exist this way companies would not be able to pollute in the fashion some do.

>>2387186
Yea free markets cannot adjust for externalities by themselves.

That's what governments are for.

Any system that could adjust for externalities would already be a government at that point.

Because it's better than Big Business monopolies.

>>2387166
He said bribes to companies not companies bribing the government.

But I see the example of a pharmaceutical company bribing a doctor. I did not think of that however that is just a voluntary exchange really. No harm is done to anyone.

Hmm perhaps the government does provide more information about its actions. I will have to think on this one.

You took my last point too literally. What I mean to say is that what it boils down to his a death threat by not complying with the decisions of the government not matter how arbitrary rules may seem.

Anyway Im done gg. Sick of being called a retard and other condescending remarks.