CEO Robert Stevens Was Compensated $25 Million in 2011

#26
#26
an executive getting paid $25mil from using public funds acquired by lobbying the right people to give them contracts. In any other business it might be considered illegal
 
#28
#28
n_huffhines said:
Thank you. Couldn't understand all the people acting like this is a non-issue. Maybe it's indicative of a voting base that doesn't mind being $15T in debt.
Click to expand...

Not saying it isn't an issue, but you should have posted a picture of government instead of the CEO. That's where the problem exists.
 
#31
#31
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Not saying it isn't an issue, but you should have posted a picture of government instead of the CEO. That's where the problem exists.
Click to expand...


Both are to blame. One (corrupt politician, insanely wealthy executive who contributes to corrupt politician) would not exist without the other.
 
#33
#33
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Perhaps... but one should be held to a higher standard than the other when it comes to spending taxpayer $$$$.
Click to expand...

It's this sort of corporate communism that gets those a-holes elected to begin with. Better hos bring daddy more money (and get elected 94% of the time).
 
#35
#35
n_huffhines said:
I agree with that. The "public servant" should be held to the higher standard.
Click to expand...

That would be nice, but whoever had a hand in hooking him up will be enjoying a nice, cushy position within the party.

FTR I don't believe that a truly free market can exist (on a theoretical level), but the quid pro quo nature of the way things work in Washington will guaran-damn-tee that you will never, ever see a substantial shift in that direction.
 
#36
#36
milohimself said:
the quid pro quo nature of the way things work in Washington will guaran-damn-tee that you will never, ever see a substantial shift in that direction.
Click to expand...


This.

The only people who can change the quid pro quo nature of the relationship between big government and big business are the very people put into place by big business.

No incentive to change things.
 
#37
#37
milohimself said:
That would be nice, but whoever had a hand in hooking him up will be enjoying a nice, cushy position within the party.

FTR I don't believe that a truly free market can exist (on a theoretical level), but the quid pro quo nature of the way things work in Washington will guaran-damn-tee that you will never, ever see a substantial shift in that direction.
Click to expand...

This is what I don't understand. People are afraid of a libertarian society because they are scared of what big corporations would be free to do in a free society....

....how come big corporations don't support a libertarian society? Like you said, there's no "squid pro row" in a laissez faire world.
 
#38
#38
I'm not afraid of it, I just don't think it's realistically possible to achieve, just like Marxism or any other ideology has really ever been truly achieved.
 
#39
#39
milohimself said:
I'm not afraid of it, I just don't think it's realistically possible to achieve, just like Marxism or any other ideology has really ever been truly achieved.
Click to expand...

Yeah. The one major difference, and the one that makes me hold out hope, is that Marxism requires a ton of cooperation. Libertarianism is the ideology that requires no cooperation. A libertarian can live out his dream if everybody just leaves him alone. The complete opposite is true of Marxism.
 
#40
#40
Wouldn't that be anarchy (or a dude living in a shack in the mountains somewhere)?

I posted this before, but Penn Jillette posed a wonderfully worded question on Bill Maher where he asked "If there's an issue in any given situation, can it be fixed with more freedom or less freedom?" If the answer is always more freedom, then the only logical result is anarchy. So unless that's what you subscribe to, there is room for some gray area. :twocents:
 
#41
#41
milohimself said:
Wouldn't that be anarchy (or a dude living in a shack in the mountains somewhere)?

I posted this before, but Penn Jillette posed a wonderfully worded question on Bill Maher where he asked "If there's an issue in any given situation, can it be fixed with more freedom or less freedom?" If the answer is always more freedom, then the only logical result is anarchy. So unless that's what you subscribe to, there is room for some gray area. :twocents:
Click to expand...

Libertarianism is a compromise for us anarchists :). I'd happily take either one.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top