He hates to bother you

Originally posted by adam warlock

[b]Why is justice a one-eyed blind woman? Wal-Mart, the most powerful corporation on earth, bans trade unions. McDonald's, too. Why do these corporations violate, with criminal impunity, international law? Is it because in this contemporary world of ours, work is valued as lower than trash and workers' rights are valued even less?

Who are ...[text shortened]... out missile-wielding arch-murderers.


http://www.counterpunch.org/galeano08132009.html[/b]

Why is it that you only focus on Wal Mart and the US and Israel and McDonald's (super size me!!) yet you don't take into consideration all that has come before them or other equally powerful corporations/governments?

The fact of the matter is, the richer you get the richer you become. Also, the more power you accumulate the more power you will attain. History is full us such examples and is why I oppose statism which seems to be the movement at hand in the US.

So with this in mind, is it only a matter of human nature and not so much the individual countries or corporations at play. In short, it is simply more of the same. As for myself, I have railed against Big Brother and mini me, who are the big corporations. What boggles my mind, however, is that the left wailed against "W" for going to Iraq and Afghanistan but now that "W" is gone they have all drawn strangely silent. Now there is next to no news coverage when a group of soldiers die over there every day. Now there is no urgency to leave Iraq as there was previously.

In short, if you desire to see the powerful judged then I guess you will either have to take their power away, or what till the Almighty takes a swing at it. So the million dollar quesition is, are the labor unions powerful enough to take on these corporations? I guess we will have to wait and see.

Originally posted by adam warlock
I can manage it, but you could learn the original meaning of the word too.

It would be about as useful to me as the word, "logarithm"

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
It would be about as useful to me as the word, "logarithm"

Of course it would. I mean you're posting in an international forum where almost everybody else uses the word Libertarian with a different meaning.

I can see why it would be useless for you to learn the proper meaning of the word.

Originally posted by whodey
What boggles my mind, however, is that the left wailed against "W" for going to Iraq and Afghanistan but now that "W" is gone they have all drawn strangely silent. Now there is next to no news coverage when a group of soldiers die over there every day. Now there is no urgency to leave Iraq as there was previously.

I read things about people wanting us to leave Afghanistan all the time.

About Iraq there already is a plan in progress to withdraw so there's no reason to protest - unless they stay even longer. When someone implements a plan to leave then people stop demanding it to happen immediately.

I don't know about you, but I do regularly see news items coming up about soldiers dying too. I don't know what news outlets you're using though.

Originally posted by whodey
The fact of the matter is, the richer you get the richer you become. Also, the more power you accumulate the more power you will attain. History is full us such examples and is why I oppose statism which seems to be the movement at hand in the US.

So with this in mind, is it only a matter of human nature and not so much the individual countries or corpor unions powerful enough to take on these corporations? I guess we will have to wait and see.

"So with this in mind, is it only a matter of human nature and not so much the individual countries or corporations at play."
I disagree with this. The dog eat dog vision of the world has to be shoved down people's throats. Historical examples abound.

" What boggles my mind, however, is that the left wailed against "W" for going to Iraq and Afghanistan but now that "W" is gone they have all drawn strangely silent."
By left I take it that you mean the left that is voiced in the mainstream media in the USA. But that basically is the democrats. And they are not left. They may be to the left of the republicans but of course they aren't what is usually meant by left (excluding the profoundly strange USA mainstream nomenclature). Gore Vidal had something very interesting to say in this interview: http://www.progressive.org/mag_intv0806 and I quote:

Q: Talk about the role of the opposition party, the Democrats.

Vidal: It isn’t an opposition party. I have been saying for the last thousand years that the United States has only one party—the property party. It’s the party of big corporations, the party of money. It has two right wings; one is Democrat and the other is Republican.

Every time I hear someone referring to Obama as being a leftist I just have to shake my head in disbelief.

If you look in the real left there is plenty of substantiated criticism for Obama and his policies. Quite recently I created a thread with criticism from Ralph Nader Thread 117933. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Also from the site I originally linked:
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff08122009.html
http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=536
http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=539

"In short, if you desire to see the powerful judged then I guess you will either have to take their power away, or what till the Almighty takes a swing at it. So the million dollar quesition is, are the labor unions powerful enough to take on these corporations? I guess we will have to wait and see."
See "The take" By Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis and see what can happen when communities rally and stand up for what they believe in: YouTube

"Why is it that you only focus on Wal Mart and the US and Israel and McDonald's (super size me!!)"
Because I don't is the shirt answer. My focus is whenever the big guys are trying to milk even more out of the little guys.

Originally posted by adam warlock
[b]"So with this in mind, is it only a matter of human nature and not so much the individual countries or corporations at play."
I disagree with this. The dog eat dog vision of the world has to be shoved down people's throats. Historical examples abound.

So tell me, when has there been historical evidence of people not seizing power, and then grabbing for even more power whether they be in government or the corporate world or what we have today which is a combination thereof?

Originally posted by adam warlock
Vidal: It isn’t an opposition party. I have been saying for the last thousand years that the United States has only one party—the property party. It’s the party of big corporations, the party of money. It has two right wings; one is Democrat and the other is Republican.
[/i]
Every time I hear someone referring to Obama as being a leftist I just have to shake my head in disbelief.

What I am referring to is the movement of statism which is collectivism. Neither the government nor corporations like competition. It is too unsettling. Instead, they prefer monopolies and soon our health care system will be one as well. And your right, both parties are moving in the same direction, it is just one is ahead of the other.

Originally posted by adam warlock
[See "The take" By Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis and see what can happen when communities rally and stand up for what they believe in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcostesK0Ik

BUt you fail to realize the power of the average Joe in mass. Nothing is comparable to that because in order to rule, you need servants/slaves.

Originally posted by whodey
So tell me, when has there been historical evidence of people not seizing power, and then grabbing for even more power whether they be in government or the corporate world or what we have today which is a combination thereof?

YouTube and follow the rest of the videos
Then you also have this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

And there is also the case of the Pirahã. An amazonian indian tribe that are like aliens in a lot of aspects. One of them is that don't have any form of social hierarchy and still they exist.

Originally posted by whodey
BUt you fail to realize the power of the average Joe in mass. Nothing is comparable to that because in order to rule, you need servants/slaves.

Your mistake is that you think that the notion of rule is an essential one.

Originally posted by adam warlock
Your mistake is that you think that the notion of rule is an essential one.

Your arguement then is that rule over the history of man is nothing more than an artificial construct rather than human nature of man wanting to rule over other men. My only response is that that is some artificial structure!!

Originally posted by adam warlock
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naFl66sPbTk and follow the rest of the videos
Then you also have this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

And there is also the case of the Pirahã. An amazonian indian tribe that are like aliens in a lot of aspects. One of them is that don't have any form of social hierarchy and still they exist.

I can also show you examples in the Bible of how the nation of Israel existed in similar fashion without so much as a king to rule over them, however, this is the exception rather than the rule and will only last for so long and on a small scale.

Originally posted by whodey
Your arguement then is that rule over the history of man is nothing more than an artificial construct rather than human nature of man wanting to rule over other men. My only response is that that is some artificial structure!!

I've already posted some links to societies that exist/existed with no rulers. Now it's up to you to judge the merits of those same societies.

"I can also show you examples in the Bible of how the nation of Israel existed in similar fashion without so much as a king to rule over them, however, this is the exception rather than the rule and will only last for so long and on a small scale."
The examples I cited are stronger than having no ruler. Those societies had pretty horizontal democracies. Once again is up to you to judge the merits of those societies. I think they are perfectly possible and certainly are to be aimed for.

Originally posted by adam warlock

[b]Why is justice a one-eyed blind woman? Wal-Mart, the most powerful corporation on earth, bans trade unions. McDonald's, too. Why do these corporations violate, with criminal impunity, international law? Is it because in this contemporary world of ours, work is valued as lower than trash and workers' rights are valued even less?

Who are ...[text shortened]... out missile-wielding arch-murderers.


http://www.counterpunch.org/galeano08132009.html[/b]

are they really breaking an international law?

Originally posted by zeeblebot
are they really breaking an international law?

Yes.