What's the republic/conservative ideal world like?
For the progressive its something like, no work, you get to live free and do what you want (within the law), robots do all the work, everything is literally free or cost nothing because their liberal society moved away from monetary system. Education is free. Pursuit of happiness is free. Everyone must be nice to each other.
Other urls found in this thread:
m.youtube.com
twitter.com
That's unrealistic and utopian. The point of conservativism is maintaining a traditional peaceful way of life. Church on a Sunday, nuclear family unit, innocent childhood, working stern but loving father, caring housewife mother. Life is sustainable and happy that way.
I see a stack of what looks like newspapers, but how does the hacker get his mail? Wouldn't giving away his address kinda defeat the purpose?
how does he get food?
>only one exit
Instant claustrophobia.
Its what the liberals/progressives are aiming for. The progress of technology can do it if the laws are there.
Delivered from amazon and dropped in some mailbox on top, which slides downward to his bunker.
>No shower, only shitter
Instant disgust
Inb4: is one of those hospital-like bathrooms were the water goes straight to the floor.
Here's another example of liberal utopia, sex between robots and humans.
Its kinda like how it already is, except niggers don't get welfare and you get to laugh at them literally starving on the street cause they're too lazy or stupid to work
Eventually other shitty ethnicities die the same way until country full of winners
Travel first class to other countries every weekend and fuck hookers from said countries for .00000001ยข cause exchange rate
How does one access the internet with out using a internet service provider?
I need some sauce on this, Pronto.
Current year where Trump wins is a Democrat utopia?
I don't think you understand what utopia/ideal means.
Still the question isn't about liberals/progressives/democrats, but rather about the ideals/utopia of conservatives/republicans. What is their end goal.
Where's the Bed? Fridge? Shower? Closet/Clothes?
Don't tell me that's all above ground
Hold up, I see a bathroom but no shower or bath....
Just like the current world except without any shitskins in it
Im An-cap and this is almost exactly what I think is the ideal world.
Except for communism to make everything free, everyone that invests in robot technology will be able to live freely off the labour of robots.
If my investments pay off and Im able to get extra money from owning my own robots, Ill buy property from poor people so they can buy their own food/investment in robots.
Then I'll make that property into natural reserves cause I want the eco system to thrive again.
Bunker is obligatory, less bad effects on the climate cause you can have dense forest above.
Communism is just a less effective way of creating a utopia.
Drybath
Foldable bed turns into sofa.
Indoctrination and the pursuit of happiness are already free tho OP. The reason X course isn't free now is because it costs Y money and needs Z materials to run which are not free and that would take resources away from Q, R, S... courses which in your Utopia more people are interested in. Some courses like Logic or Math only require limited resources and with the Internet being widely available can be learned by anyone with that has the basic functional skills to survive in the modern world; the basics of being a doctor, surgeon, and a chemist can also be learned for free online BUT technical skills that require working with materials cannot be learned with no resources or are limited for safety (try getting Sulfuric Acid or explosive chemicals in the First World or a corpse to work with without getting arrested on suspicion of ill intent).
With everything free and robots doing all the work there is no reason the creators of your Utopia wouldn't make you worship them as gods and perform blood sacrifice instead of getting an education as there really wouldn't be a reason for you to exist.
Penis goes in Vagina.
Sex comes only after marriage.
No birth control, God doesn't make mistakes.
Men work.
Women make a home, and may work as midwives and school teachers if their husband allows.
The country rejected this bullshit
In fact it's been mandated
not even close
liberals/progressives basically want Sodom and Gomorrah everywhere, and all white people killed.
Everyone is gay and on heroin, and society essentially stops while the elites rape children and do whatever they want.
Most liberals are women, they don't support the idea of losing a monopoly on vaginas.
I think the ideal society was pretty much summed up by , but with a few other things.
Namely, minimal government interference in one's life, merely acting to keep the peace and protect the sovereignty of the country. Ie no welfare, but rather local voluntary organizations/support networks. The privatization/charity status of the organizations woild, theoretically, better be able to aid those who deserve the aid while giving a middle finger to leeches who don't want to better themselves.
That also comes into play regarding Healthcare, where ideally the insurance and Healthcare industry were detached from eachother so that they weren't so co-dependent and feeding off eachother (the biggest issue in America).
Removing the burden of funding unsustainable government aid would cut the costs, in America at least, insanely.
Implying "hackers" even read physical newspapers
Why would a utopian "creator" want blood sacrifices? Why would they want to unmake the utopia?
So government doesn't decides who gets to marry or not, but rather the parties involved themselves (men+men,women+dog, men+robot, etc)
What of people who are sick and mentally ill from depression? Give middle fingers or would privatized charity take care of those?
Do you believe the healthcare cost would come down with no government regulations? What about healthcare safety?
So burning it all down I suppose?
>For the progressive its something like, no work, you get to live free and do what you want (within the law), robots do all the work, everything is literally free or cost nothing because their liberal society moved away from monetary system. Education is free. Pursuit of happiness is free. Everyone must be nice to each other.
You are describing a world completely in r-selection, where conflict-adverse beings live under the specter of free resources. The antithesis to this is a world completely in K-selection, where society recognizes the truth that all resources are limited and individuals must work to earn what they need and want.
Conservative ideal is a day's pay for a day's work, to support a wife and children who you should raise to also have your traditional values.
Ideally theres a decent amount of social mobility; those who work harder than most can reasonably expect increased responsibility (anc the increased compensation and respect that comes with it), and some sort of social safety net, although ideally people would be too ashamed to remain on it for extended amounts of time.
>no bed
>no shower
>no place to chain your loli
Nothxjeff
>allowing a woman to teach your children
Shiggy fuckin diggy
True conservatives know there is no such thing as an ideal world or utopia. Only that life is made up of trade offs. The idea is to make the best decisions with the most beneficial trade offs possible.
What if the best decision is to let the robots work, while you raise your kids, with free education and free healthcare. Robots will be doctors, lawyers, drivers, cleaners, builders, cooks, etc.
Or would that be a nightmare scenario for conservatives.
I personally am all for the fully automated age. I think that's when the star-trek-like socialism can really take hold and be successful. BUT we need full free market capitalism in order to thrust us into that age.
>So government doesn't decides who gets to marry or not, but rather the parties involved themselves (men+men,women+dog, men+robot, etc)
Sure, who gives a shit. Let marry of fuck whatever they please, they just won't be protected from the scorn of their community for being oddballs.
>What of people who are sick and mentally ill from depression? Give middle fingers or would privatized charity take care of those?
Many rich folk already donate millions to private charities, foundations, and the like. In a theoretical society, one might be diagnosed with schizo by a reputation psychologist or physician or whatever, take that documentation to a privately funded charity (or perhaps their legal guardian(s) might), and get some help. That is if the person that is supposed to be caring for that individual isn't doing so in the first place.
>Do you believe the healthcare cost would come down with no government regulations? What about healthcare safety?
In a theoretical minimalist government based society, a number of court cases and huge settlements/payouts would discourage malpractice and intended/purposeful harm caused by a doctor not doing what was paid for in the contractual agreement.
Patient comes to ER with knife in foot. Patient signs before or after agreement to treat complications relating to knife in foot. Heavy documentation of issues caused by knife in foot. Patient responsible for costs of treating knife in foot. If patient can not pay for costs of treatment and does not have insurance, patient seeks out loans and establishes a payment plan to lay loaner for covering debt to hospital for incident.
Do you believe corporations have the best interest of people? Or the government has the worse interest of people?
What if the patient is shot and has no insurance/has bad credit because too poor. Middle finger?
Also when is it right to give middle finger and who decides that its right? The government? The corporations?
You know your god Karl Marx advocated for killing all the lumpenproletariat. Even he knew utopia was impossible.
There existed a whole lot of charitys before government got involved and made the voluntary ones obcelete.
What right does a patient have to force a doctor into saving your life?
Do we put people in jail for not risking life to rescue someone drowning?
Its a consensual agreement, its not about giving the middle finger to anyone.
The only one that can decite that its right is the two people involved, not anybody else.
Gay marrige, minimum wage. Why is it moral to force people to do things they dont want to do?
No, both have the best interests for themselves.
>What if the patient is shot and has no insurance/has bad credit because too poor. Middle finger?
Example scenario-patient brought in by parents/friends/relatives and given emergency treatment for stability, patient becomes conscious and makes decision with their kin on what to do.if unable to pay, further treatment denied refusing to pay equals refusal of care. Anyone could get a loan, it's just that the loaner would have strict contractual requirements for loanee, perhaps including tracking bracelet to make sure loanee doesn't run from debt. Agreement to pay back X amount in Y time with Z interest, yadayadayada.
>Also when is it right to give middle finger and who decides that its right? The government? The corporations?
Seeing as it would be a privately owned charity/business/etc, the owners/proprietors themselves would have the freedom to choose. It would be a contract based society to keep things civil, and signing a contract is binding. Contracts, ideally, would be agreed to when signee fully understands contractual agreement, which would be achieved with contractual translations/requirements perhaps in layman's terms.
Almost forgot, on the topic of Healthcare costs themselves, an unburdened free market thst isn't interwoven with insurance as it is in America would lead to competition and front facing freedom of prices for surgeries and the like, allowing patients to shop around for treatment in the case of a non-imminant issue or complication.
>What right does a patient have to force a doctor into saving your life?
Patient has no right. He's at the mercy of the doctor.
>Do we put people in jail for not risking life to rescue someone drowning?
If the doctor had taken the oath to protect and save life, but chooses to discard his line of work when his own life is in no danger, the doctor's license should be revoked at the very least. Conservatives value honesty and integrity right? If a doctor who swore an oath to protect does not protect when he could, then he's a dishonest person. Would you prefer to be treated by a doctor who's known to be a liar/cheater/dishonest or an honest doctor?
I don't think there's any consensual agreement between the doctor/patient scenario. Its a power/powerless scenario. Those in power can absolutely abuse the power, can they not? This is the reason the powers of the government should be restricted right?
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, both have the best interest to further their goals, profit and protection of the rights of people/country.
No shower/bath in the hacker's hideout.. seems legit.
sauce?
I'll put it under the same category as my nigger-hating quotes from Abraham Lincoln, Fidel Castro, Mahatma Gandhi, etc.
Everyone pulls their own weight, a free market so you can pretty much do whatever you want if you have funds.
All families would be productive and at least semi close, everyone would know their heritage and we would spend time to connect with our culture even if this hypothetical is in a scifi era, only completely fucked disabled people cant work, transgenders are non existent and gay people a few and far between and are absolutely aware of the fact they have a mental disorder most likely caused by sexual abuse as a young adult.
Hay, 1 man can dream
>The progress of technology can do it if the laws are there.
Too bad the laws progressives want have been stifling growth massively.
Government needs to get the fuck out of the way and private citizens will take care of it.
>The privatization/charity status of the organizations woild, theoretically, better be able to aid those who deserve the aid while giving a middle finger to leeches who don't want to better themselves.
Private charities already do this every day.
>Do you believe the healthcare cost would come down with no government regulations? What about healthcare safety?
Medical care prices are so fucking high because of government regulations user
>If the doctor had taken the oath to protect and save life, but chooses to discard his line of work when his own life is in no danger
If a doctor is forced to work, then his life is in danger, because as soon as he stops working, the state has the right to imprison him, If the doctor defends himself, the state has the right to kill him.
>the doctor's license should be revoked at the very least.
So what If I agree that a person without a licence performs surgery on me? I make It clear in the contract I understand he is not a doctor and he has no licence.
Will you bring in the state and stop a consensual agreement? Where is the morality in that?
>Those in power can absolutely abuse the power, can they not?
Either you both agree that he will help you in-case you will get shot, If he doesnt, thats fraud and that's Illegal.
Or you don't make an agreement beforehand and you will suffer the consequences for living in a free society.
No. It would be more accurate to say that businesses and governments alike are primarily concerened with increasing their own wealth and amount of power respectively. I'm talking about how it is, not how it should be. Modern politicians are unconcerened with their constituents values unless those constituents have enough money to fund a rival's campaign, someone who coyuld take their power away. I used to be a leftist, like I assume you are, I drank the community-organizing kool aid. When I started talking to politicians face to face I realized what they were about.
>Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, both have the best interest to further their goals, profit and protection of the rights of people/country.
No
The bong had it right
They care about themselves the key difference is private enterprise has to serve to be successful and government can will and does thieve murder subjugate and enslave to further it's goals
So anyone can claim to be a doctor and work on people's body without any regulations.
Doesn't that make for an unsafe environment to work in? How does that work exactly?
People would be fooled left/right by doctors with no credentials and die from all types of disease while they get rich. With no government enforcing the medical environment, the medical system would collapse it would seem.
So now people are left to fend for themselves, if you're sick and poor you die. If you're sick and you have money, you have to put your trust in someone without any credentials. Things like trust/reliability/honesty are all thrown out the window because de-regulations.
This is conservative utopia?
Politicians are untrustworthy, but republican politicians are trustworthy/honest/for the people?
What is the government's goal? Earlier someone said the government's role should be limited to protection of the country and the constituents, is this not the case?
People are getting bit offtracked, let me rephrase the question.
What are the conservative endgoals? De-regulation/minimizing government is merely a stepping stone right? What's the ultimate goal for a republican/conservatives?
>Government's role is limited to national border defense and nothing else.
>Everyone should be allowed to do what they want, if others don't like it, they have to defend it themselves with guns
>Able to marry anyone/anything without anyone trying to shit on you
>0% tax, or rather 0% tax for the rich because an unburdened rich person/corporations will create jobs
>So anyone can claim to be a doctor and work on people's body without any regulations.
No, get some reading comprehension.
"I make It clear in the contract I understand he is not a doctor and he has no licence."
People cant fool people left and right, thats fraud and thats Illegal even in An-Cap.
What is the difference between a person with or without a doctor licence?
A piece of paper.
Thats it, and If I dont care, neither should you, and its none of your or anyone else's buissness if its unsafe. Its all up to me and the "doctor".
The conservative Utopia is not forcing anyone to doing anything they dont want.
We dont want slavery.
We want charity to be voluntary.
If nobody wants to help the poor and sick, you know, that sucks, honestly It does.
Would you help a dying man on your doorstep? No, you want everyone else to help that starving man.
Would I help a dying man on my doorstep?
Yes, I would, I wouldnt to force you or anyone else to help him.
My district was conservative from 2011-2015, I've dealt with members of parliment from liberal and conservative parties. There's very little discernible difference between liberal and conservative politicians in terms of what they want and how they try to get it. Main difference is that conservatives are usually somewhat-better funded, but liberals aren't hurting for business connections either.
You keep trying to divide liberal and conservative politicians, thats the problem. There isn't much to divide.
I'll freely admit that most Republicans, conservatives, whatever you want to call them, are greedy cocksuckers who fuck their constituents over every day. Thats why I want to limit their influence. If you don't think liberals are just as bad you're being selectively blind. My issue with the political left is that they believe that if we just elect the "right" people, and give these people enough power, we can fix our society. They won't, they'll fix society for themselves, same as everyone else.
>fraud and illegal
So more government regulations?
Thats the endgame for neoconservatives.
American Civic Nationalism:
/ACN/
American Ethnic Nationalism:
>Borders closed and invitation only
>Gibs cut off unless your actions show you deserve them
>Deportations are regular, especially for illegal invaders
>Muslims will have to put Americanism BEFORE Islam or else get deported/Jim Webbed:
m.youtube.com
>Guns are your legal defense and fair courts/CCW permits solve the domestic problem
>Culture and Assimilation to American values is not simply asked for, IT IS FORCED upon thee as a requirement for living in this great nation. If there's a disagreement, deport/deny entrance/shoot
Ethnic Nationalist Extremists your time is over on Sup Forums. From an ex-Ethnic Nationalist: You cannot argue against this and eventually you will not.
No, An-cap do not want government, thats final.
If someone commited fraud, Its up to myself to get justice.
The rules now is that I have the right to use defend myself because someone used force against me.
(Fraud is a force)
The same thing applies, I will not force anyone else to help me get justice. Therefor I dont need a government.
>no shower
accurate
If someone said they were a doctor and took your money to "heal you", but then you died, is that good? That's good with you?
/ACN/
American Civic Nationalism:
>Borders closed and invitation only
>Gibs cut off unless your actions show you deserve them
>Deportations are regular, especially for illegal invaders
>Muslims will have to put Americanism BEFORE Islam or else get deported/Jim Webbed:
m.youtube.com
>Guns are your legal defense and fair courts/CCW permits solve the domestic problem
>Culture and Assimilation to American values is not simply asked for, IT IS FORCED upon thee as a requirement for living in this great nation. If there's a disagreement, deport/deny entrance/shoot in that order.
American Civic Nationalism > American Ethnice Nationalism >>> Embracing Multiculturalism >>>>>>>>>> Open Borders
*cleaned up version
>No washing facilities
>Forced
So a good strong government is what we need right? To protect our interest, our rights, our culture, our safety and our prosperity, right?
We'd need to fund our government with good tax money for the best program with that.
Being in line with natural law, honoring God in society and respecting human dignity. Liberalism and Leftism tends to just be based on feelings without taking into account objective reality
>hackers hideout
>in obvious position, at end of ladder, not tucked away behind any obfuscating feature
>entrance is lit
>no means of secondary egress
>hooked up to outside lines of power, water and other utilities, not latched from the system
>Living room set up
>He's literally watch the jew media news
What a shit image.
I dont know what it is, but I know how it works out.
>Kansas
You do whatever work you can find to support yourself and your family as best as you can. Work is easier to find without regulation to stifle it. The economy grows as a tree grows, without pruning or artificial aids.
Minimal or no safety nets. There's no need for them. No one interferes in your right to raise your family as you see fit. Efficient law enforcement keeps society orderly and peaceful and people can interact with and deal with whomever they please. Most organization takes place at the community level and the federal government's role is mostly limited to defense of the borders and enforcement of contracts. Communities of similar people with similar physical traits and like minds naturally arise without need for coercion. Common sense prevails.
If I did not agree with the "doctor" to involve a non partison 3rd-party to investigate incase there is malpractice, yes, that is good.
But since there is a 3rd-party involved, the doctor will have to make sure he does his job.
There is always a risk I die under his watch.
But as soon as its clear the doctor went out of his way to kill me, the 3rd-party has the right to use force against the "doctor"
>Everyone must be nice to each other.
Now you fucked up
Sorry, no.
The entire purpose of sex is to create more humans to replace you--it feels good precisely BECAUSE you're supposed to be generating replacements for yourselves and nature wants and needs you to keep doing that. Removing children from the picture entirely was one of the worst things the modern age inflicted on humankind--second only to free and easy on-demand access to pornography.
Even out-of-wedlock births are better than sex without issue. In a sane world, birth control would be either severely restricted or outlawed entirely.
Don't want to have children? Simple--don't have sex, moron. Keep your legs together or your dick in your pants.
What if the 3rd party and doctor are working together? A lone doctor working alone would be caught instantly, but if a collaborator were involved, he'd get away 100% of the time.
Nope
Just all their programs about gibs need to be cut and corporations need to get BTFO a bit.
The government should only force freedom and fair competition like a referee, not a player that can break the rules.
>fair competition
You want capitalism to be regulated? How does that work again.
Nah, would rather fuck girlfriend and murder any resuting offspring. That feels much better
>Communities of similar people with similar physical traits and like minds naturally arise without need for coercion
Didn't government arise naturally from communities of like minded people?
Strong government throughout history had been the "common sense" and it has thus far prevailed. How would a weaker government be aligned with "common sense"?
Conservatives wouldn't mind that if that were the current reality and the technology were efficient enough to fulfill those duties. It's not, and won't ever be during our life times.
Shitlibs seem to think way too far ahead in the future where everything is uncertain can't be acted upon yet whereas Conservatives are more concerned about the imediate observable reality which can already be acted & planned upon with near certainty because they're making decisions based off of the physical reality & our limitations to manipulate that reality to our advantage.
Shitlibs are just fucking dreamers who rely on dumbass Utopian theories without realizing that they don't have the Utopia yet, nor does it seem possible in the current era.
>deregulation
What happens when the rivers and labd getd poisoned?
By keeping corporations under a certain size, removing the federal reserve and denying them the ability to influence politics.
No taxing the public in return for gibs, all tax money should go towards giving the American people a fair playing field by which they can rise up. If youre parents didnt provide for you, youre fucked and better try harder.
>Church on a Sunday, nuclear family unit, innocent childhood, working stern but loving father, caring housewife mother.
Fuck Church. Rest is fine.
I prefer the robots, but it's terrifying to give that much power to the corporations where we just become a burden to them. Would only be plausible in a perfect world.
I'll have a 3rd party for the 3rd party. And a 3rd party for that 3rd party. And on and on until the whole world is involved.
And In the end It only takes 50.1% to get a majority in a democracy to kill me and much much more to get a big great conspiracy to kill me.
Im gonna leave my bets on the conspiracy any day.
But conservatives believe in hard work = reward right? Dreams don't suddenly become reality, you have to work for it too right?
You as a patient are at the mercy of the doctor though. You could move to another city to go see a different doctor. Or maybe you'd prefer those unlicensed doctor?
Essentially if you get caught trying to bribe politicians, your business should be shut down. Other than that, your taxes will be low and your regulations minimal as long as you arent harming others (like with pollution or something)
>For the progressive its something like, no work, you get to live free and do what you want (within the law), robots do all the work, everything is literally free or cost nothing because their liberal society moved away from monetary system. Education is free. Pursuit of happiness is free. Everyone must be nice to each other.
That's all nice and good, but it has been proven time and time again that those in power are not incorruptible. The only choice you have is to create the final AI which cannot be controlled, cannot be reprogrammed and holds all power while abiding to those rules which have been set at its creation.
No I am at the mercy of the 3rd party AND doctor.
Id prefer the freedom over tyranny. I dont believe you can solve any problems with violence.
Im not gonna sit here and cite you all the studies that shows that free societies make for better services and products than what tyrrany does.
Im simply telling you what is moral and what is unmoral.
Free societies are liberal and progressive.
The societies that suffer most are conservatives/tyrannical (see mid east/africa)
A break from this is China, where its tyrannical but is moderate. They're transitioning towards a more liberal society though.
>What's the republic/conservative ideal world like?
Totalitarian corporate aristocracy enforced by jesus freaks and racists.
Really makes you think.
Luck and skill also deserve reward, not just hard work
Hard work is the safety net that all can use to rise up if they lack luck/skill
How is going in and telling me what I and another person consensually can or cant do free?
I do not see that as liberal.
I do not see doctor licence as liberal.
I do not see taxi licence as liberal.
I do not see any type of licence as liberal because it creates a monopoly in the marketplace.
You bring in things like "It will be unsafe" "It will not follow protocol" "It will be unsanitary"
Perhaps it will but it still doesnt give you the right to get involved, that is tyrrany.
I much prefer classic cabs to exploitive uber corporations
Its me giving money to a person and that person driving me.
Where is the exploitation?
The ideal for republicans/conservatives is 1950's America. Pic related.
Sup Forums is not strictly republican and conservative and probably pre-war Nazi germany is their utopia.
>No shower
Problem is that you do need a powerful government to regulate corporations like oil companies, that have massive polluting potential. So such a government needs to be strictly monitored to ensure its doing its job and not wasting money.
Allowing people to be what they want to be is liberal thought isn't it? Conservatives hate people calling themselves gay/lesbians and want them to die just like Bible told them to do right? Sodomy is afterall, punishible by death in Bible.
Telling people that they can't work because of their color is not consensual is it?
License is a form of trust, the ability to pass certain degree of professionalism. If a licensed taxi driver fucks up, he gets fired and he can't work therefore its in the interest of the taxi driver to be at his best behavior. An unlicensed taxi driver can and will do what they want as they have no fear of repercussions. Same goes with unlicensed doctors. Would you trust your life with an unlicensed doctor or a licensed one?
>monopolies
Liberals hate monopolies and want them to break down. They want strong consumer protection against powerful companies. Cable companies for example in the red states have complete monopolies and competition can't even set foot in the states without lawsuits.
Why does government need to be involved in making of licences?
In Sweden, there is a licence called "safe water" for plummers.
Its not government mandated.
That licence Is not required to work as a plummer.
That licence Is not required to get an insurance as a plummer.
But still more than 99% of plummers has that licence because the customers want them to have it. Nothing of it exists in the legal system, its all voluntary.
Government mandated licences automatically creates monopolies, it can choose what people can or cant do.
And stop mixing me in with Authoritarian right. The politicial compass is more than left-right. Im #31
>no shower.
A big stick is always needed to keep two smaller ones in check. This is America's policy in war and in geopolitics. Its simple and effective. Its also used in domestic scene where courts rule between two lesser people, the ruling then is carried by the police/government workers.
Also in many cases, licenses are not mandated by government, but rather a collective of workers to ensure fair practices among themselves and fair competition. Its a public/private organization in those case.
Government/court is called in when disputes become larger than the organizations can handle, hence the big gun is there to quell the two smaller ones.
>Earlier someone said the government's role should be limited to protection of the country and the constituents, is this not the case?
Thats its proper role in a free society.
But government works to advance it's own power and wealth which unlike private enterprise can only do so through theft murder subjugation and slavery
The company taking all the profit from the driver
Transparency is a must and thanks to the internet we can achieve that
No secret meetings/deals