Hey Look! We reached a new low, America!

Yes, and the corporation lobbies and makes sure the government passes a bill (without law, you cannot sue people and without the government, no law can be enforced) that shows them right - or better, the corporation just buys out the area and says "this is my environment".

The Never-ever-government rule is also quite bent on screwing up education (no school will want to accept "idiots" to make sure they stay "competitive"), utility (before Chavez, privatized water companies went crazy on the local populace and more. The best solution is to have public control of basic, fundamental services (free, low-quality homes and food for the extremely poor, public education and healthcare, public water and electricity, public infrastructure -roads, communication-) while having private control of industry/entreprises - while passing laws that prohibit lobbying or any equivalent of it to make sure the economics stay in the market and the government stays in the government. Like, a second secular notion, but this time on the seperation of economics from the state.

By the way, we were last talking about how US/EU policies were Islamizing Turkey. How did we come here?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez_fa ... philosophy

"According to them, any government intervention such as regulation, protectionism, creating legal monopolies, competition laws, or taxes, interfere with this judgment being reflected accurately in the price and the maximization of economic utility. Their opposition of competition law and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, stating that they are corrupt and benefits the corporations instead of the consumer."

In laissez faire capitalism, you'd have to wait for the customer money to shift from the polluting corporations to clean corporations, or advertise that to make sure polluting corporations check their ways (That's what no regulations imply - In this model, you make the end customer see what the corporation is doing and get the capital flow into the green companies instead). Now I see the logic in this statement, and the effect of such a gain would probably permanent, but it will be too late when we add the "general-population-which-doesn't-give-a-shit-about-environment" in the equation. Thus, the best solution is to make sure corporations are just grand units in the market, and not some socio-political power.

I think we're talking about different thing when we speak of laissez faire capitalism. Your talk about each corporation not being able to effect policies just for money seems much more supportive of my idea than the laissez faire capitalism.

 

Yet they can get fake scientific reports saying the destruction of the environment was not the corporation's fault. You can have something like this as long as the companies have the right to "sponsor" groups.

That why I say the best is to disallow them anything but inclusion in economical matters, and distribute that same money by upping the taxes and spending them on government-backed charity-ish support programs.

 

What would sponsoring of groups do in this particular situation? How would sponsoring any group stop Xz from suing the company?

Upping taxes for charity programs? Steal from the rich to give to the needy? Stop bastardizing Robin Hood, that wasn't what he stood for.

 

I don't mean to take all the rich people's money and give them out. However, even a stauch capitalist should not be able to deny access to basic shelter and food from ANYONE. Everyone should have access to free basic shelter, free survivable amounts of food, clean drinking water, sanitation, free healthcare and equal education. If raising taxes are the way, so be it. Please compare living standards of U.S. and Canada before drawing conclusions. "Charity-like" implies a different thing than you assume it to be.