he's still an asshole capitalist. call me when eugene debs is raised from the dead and runs for president again. i would actually vote for someone then instead of having to write my own name on the ballot another time.

Report  
victim (September 25, 2007)

Eugene Debs was The Man, for real. And in the case of Paul its worse than just being an "asshole capitalist" -- hes an asshole Libertarian. And Debs better than anyone would recognize that movement for what it is -- a volatile, reactionary, trumped up "ideology" that is nothing more than a polemic against socialism and Marxism.

Ron Paul can get fucked. To anyone considering him: racists and fascists have no trouble recognizing Paul as one of their own..why do you?

he's really a Libertarian, i love the fact that he's practically the opposite of all the neo-cons he's running against

there's a lot to like about Ron Paul if you value personal freedoms highly....plus whether you agree with the guy or not, he's a rare politician who actually has a consistent voting record, has real beliefs, and doesn't really cater to big business

if Guilliani wins the Republican primary then god help us all

Report  
returnofdebs (September 25, 2007)

i have some magic beans for sale.

Report  
jacknife737 (September 25, 2007)

you win

Report  
baseball (September 25, 2007)

why? because of some dumb one liner that doesn't mean anything

maybe he should try rebutting his positions instead of acting like he's smarter than anyone who doesn't agree with him

Report  
jacknife737 (September 25, 2007)

no, they "won" because part 1, i lol'd, part 2 they pointed out the absurdity of the other person's position. If you want rebuttals, there are plenty of other replies in this thread which have pointed out the many, many faults of Ron Paul

Report  
victim (September 25, 2007)

Have you even heard of Eugene Debs?

Report  
baseball (September 25, 2007)

yeah, socialist party, ran for president

Report  
returnofdebs (September 25, 2007)

http://www.eugenevdebs.com/

there is so much more to it.

i hope people aren't making decisions based on 5 minute interviews on comedy central.
ron paul is an asshole x 10.
why was he the ONLY vote against a bill trying to stop U.S. funding of brutal Sudanese dictators?
and everyone hates big government, but if you think his "free market" ideas don't cater to big business even more than what we have now, well, you are naive.
oh, and he also wants to give STATES more power so they can individually regress to homophobic and racist laws instead of the federal government giving them to us.
"inquiring minds should read a book"

Report  
returnofdebs (September 25, 2007)

the idea of state's rights is a joke. when bush ran the first time he gave a speech in either mississippi or alabama and made a couple smart ass remarks about the respect for state's rights and most of the people in the crowd started whooping and cheering. the inside joke was slavery was a state's right. kiss a minimum wage standard goodbye as well.

Report  
HumbertHumbert (September 25, 2007)

It's not bad, it has just been abused. Think about physician assisted suicide in Oregon. The attorney general's up in arms about it, but citizens of the state voted for it, so they got it. And before the increase, many states had minimum wages well over $2 higher than the federal requirements. States rights are crucial, because states provide the initial momentum for federal policies that in turn regulate the unacceptable policies of the shitty states.

Report  
baseball (September 25, 2007)

i like how you sign your post "inquiring minds should read a book"

well perhaps before judging Ron Paul, you might want to take a look at the Constitution

that's a pretty important 'book' too

Report  
returnofdebs (September 25, 2007)

you mean the same constitution that on it's own has no bill of rights?

get off it. the constitution is almost as relevant and easy to understand as the bible. the constitution can be interpreted a million different ways and is. The constitution is defined by whatever majority can decipher it at that point in time.

Report  
returnofdebs (September 25, 2007)

*its

Report  
baseball (September 25, 2007)

The constitution is defined by whatever majority can decipher it at that point in time.

yeah, and the majority has completely ignored it in recent history

that's a good thing?

Report  
returnofdebs (September 25, 2007)

not in every case. i can now go get an assualt weapon again and not have to worry about 'the man' screening me for it first.

thank god for the NRA.

Report  
victim (September 25, 2007)

All of that is more or less true..but whats more important is that it is a bourgeosie document through and through and, even as "Democratic Constitutions" go it S-U-C-K-S

Sorry to say it, but thats the truth.

Report  
fallingupwards84 (September 25, 2007)

"i hope people aren't making decisions based on 5 minute interviews on comedy central.
ron paul is an asshole x 10"

no, i'm making decisions based on the countless TV debates and articles
and even if you disagree with him, how could you possibly label Ron Paul as an asshole, much less an asshole x10.
you dont know what you're talking about

Report  
victim (September 25, 2007)

How could you label Ron Paul an asshole?

Umm..because he is one? Forget the hidden bigotry that is built into our system, RP is an out-and-out hate monger in every sense of the word.

He is also one of the biggest tools going. Somehow, magically, he thinks that freemarket capitalism -- which is entirely State created and supported -- should or could supplant the state. His definition of "freemarket" is the freedom of some people -- the wealthy, corps, etc -- to usurp the freedoms of everybody else.

Come to think of it, you're right -- asshole is letting him off easy..pig fucker?

I think maybe you don't know what you're talking about. That goes double if you've read and bought into anything by Ayn Rand.

Report  
baseball (September 25, 2007)

and everyone hates big government

really? who exactly might you be talking about?

Guilliani, this guy wants the government to know everything about you
Clinton, haha right
Biden? Obama? Kucinich? their policies all reflect a bigger government

Ron Paul is the only candidate that hates big government, every single other one benefits quite a bit from big government

oh, and he also wants to give STATES more power so they can individually regress to homophobic and racist laws instead of the federal government giving them to us

yeah, because that's exactly what will happen

do you realize what you're arguing against? do you really want the federal government to have as much power as you advocate? wow, you must really trust our government

Report  
Banal242 (September 25, 2007)

Has it come to us having to choose between big corrupt government and big corrupt business?

Report  
baseball (September 25, 2007)

which do you consider more dangerous?

Report  
returnofdebs (September 25, 2007)

well since they are the same...

Report  
baseball (September 25, 2007)

that's a little simplistic don't you think?

however, i will be leaving work in about 5 minutes so you don't have to bother responding if you don't wish

Report  
returnofdebs (September 25, 2007)

it is a bit simplistic, but that's how i see it. ron paul may have some great ideas and actually come out and say them, but the fact that he an elected official of a party of capital i have no choice but to cover him with the same blanket. i would also be interested to see where his donations come from. if he means what he says he will defer any money from a corporate source.

Report  
HumbertHumbert (September 25, 2007)

Threat of monetary control vs threat of physical control (imprisonment, curfews, etc)

There's a difference, surely, but neither choice is desirable. Plus, they often go hand in hand with state monopolies with the authority concentrated in the executive.

Report  
victim (September 25, 2007)

Errrrr..a bit simplistic? What kind of pablum is "an elected official of a party of capital"? Things aren't nearly that black and white. What is Chavez, Ortega or Ahmadinejad? What was Allende, Goncalves, etc?

And, this sentence is entirely backwards:

if he means what he says he will defer any money from a corporate source.

RP represents the desire for unfettered corporate access and power

Report  
returnofdebs (September 25, 2007)

that's why i said that. his supporters are sure this isn't the case, but of course it is. it always is. it should read 'if he is real his actions will follow his words', sorry.

Report  
Banal242 (September 25, 2007)

I'm not sure. They both freak me out, obviously. But I think big government will actually affect my life less because of all the convoluted bureaucracy we have in place. For example, big government may be able to "tax me to death," but that takes a long while and it usually gets repealed at some point, then put back in place, and the cycle continues.

Big business, however, like big media can report whatever news they want, however they want, and cable providers can charge whatever they want because they have a monopoly in many places. Then there's oil and I'm sure a bunch of other types of business that can continually drain me because they provide services that I (for better or worse) Look at Enron and WorldCom. Those crimes scare me quite a bit.

Anyway, I'm no economy expert but this seems to make sense to me.

Report  
trevor_the_exploder (September 25, 2007)

oh, and he also wants to give STATES more power so they can individually regress to homophobic and racist laws instead of the federal government giving them to us

"yeah, because that's exactly what will happen"

actually, that is what will happen. also - if the "state" decides that creationism is more important than science in the schools curriculum, well...who needs science anyway?

Report  
HumbertHumbert (September 25, 2007)

I don't think states are crying for the reinstitution of Jim Crow laws... Homophobic, sure, racist? I'm not so sure. Racism still exists, but I don't think states would advocate for it. Plus, there aren't going to be referendums on the 13-15th amendments if states gain power. I think racism is a huge issue, but it's not explicitly advocated by states, nor would it be in this decentralized confederacy.

Report  
victim (September 25, 2007)

Not explicitly advocated by the States? That is, in a word, ludicrous. What else are drug laws and crime legislation such as three strikes laws? What else is the law that disenfranchises felons??

The voter fraud in the last two presidential elections is nothing BUT the story of minorities being aggressively discriminated against by the states although under the umbrella of the two national parties.

Report  
HumbertHumbert (September 25, 2007)

Unfortunately I don't agree that incarcerating millions of white people in order to incarcerate a disproportionate number of black people in relation to the black population is a racist policy. It surely has racial implications, but it directly targets the impoverished and undereducated. Yes, plenty more minorities are impoverished and undereducated, but California's not out to get blacks and mexicans and arabs off the streets BECAUSE they have a different skin color, it's about economic disparity. Maybe social systems would be put in place if the poor were all white, but the punishment aspect isn't based on minority status.

With that said, I completely disagree with the previously mentioned unfair policies.

Report  
victim (September 25, 2007)

Impovershment and undereducation are intimately tied to race in this country. They aren't the same thing, obviously, but you can easily make the case that millions of blacks have been and/or are being imprisoned simply to prevent them from voting.

There is no parallel to that for whites nor has there ever been, not even for the Slavic immigrants of the 1800s.

Report  
kev11n (September 25, 2007)

i never pledged support or trust to any of those people. in fact, i probably agree with many of your opinions. ron paul, however, is a racist, anti-choice, capitalist fraud. i believe in individual freedoms, not transfering them to different powers.

Report  
jacknife737 (September 25, 2007)

"do you really want the federal government to have as much power as you advocate? wow, you must really trust our government"

I do! I do!, I know this position won't be very popular on a "punx" website, but I strongly believe that there is a role for "big government" (as you put it) in today's society. Now that doesn't mean that i support the Patriot Act, ect, far from it, but i do realize that government (rather then the private sector) is in a better position to provide services to its citizens.


Report  
victim (September 25, 2007)

Yes, absolutely..for the most part. Brilliantly stated. Although, I think it is sort of shallow to talk about "brutal sudanese dictators" without putting that into a larger context.

When you stop to consider all of the variance in state law from one to the next -- and its incredibly dramatic both in scope and practical effects (whats legal in one state could literally entail 20 years in prison in another), it becomes a real stretch to fit a "Union" into that conceptual framework.

Si se puede

Disclaimer *this comment isn't really directed at you personally, but rather Ron Paul supporters in general*

I never really understood this guy’s appeal. Sure he's somewhat more likeable then many of the other Gop nominees, but there are many, many reasons to dislike him. I don't really want to get into some huge rant here, but first off his position on Iraq isn't really all that different from many of the dem nominees, furthermore his position regarding taxes will basically fuck over welfare, and just about any chance the US has at socialized healthcare reform. Plus his whole laissez fair attitude to everything is kind of scary, as his "isolationist" attitude towards foreign policy (he wants to get rid of the United Nations!?!?!?!?!?!)

While things may have changed, it looks like Ron Paul may be a little racist. At least that's what it looked like 15 years ago.

(While I'm sure you've read this before, I'll still provide the link)

http://web.archive.org/web/20070512114222/http://www.chr on.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html

Report  
capitalist_pig (September 25, 2007)

From what I've read, an employee or intern of Paul's wrote that for Paul's newsletter. The person in question was fired soon after.

Report  
victim (September 25, 2007)

That is untrue. Paul wrote it and it accurately reflects the sentiments of both Paul and his core supporters.

Report  
Banal242 (September 25, 2007)

Yeah, I heard that as well, but they were called the Ron Paul Survival Report.
They had his name on them!

what do you find appealing, exactly? beyond his stance on iraq, there is nothing about ron paul that is appealing. he thinks that a "free market" will take care of everything. he thinks we should sell public land to private companies. that corporations will do a better job taking care of parks, hospitals, even endangered species. i really wish ron paul would go away and his supports would support kucinich.

Report  
fallingupwards84 (September 25, 2007)

"what do you find appealing, exactly?"

his advocation of freedom and individual liberty... his stance against corporate welfare... his stance against the war on drugs... his isolationism... his extreme condemnation of the Patriot Act, violation of habeaus corpus, wire-tapping, etc... and his down-to-earth genuine personality that none of the other candidates have

Report  
returnofdebs (September 25, 2007)

and yet he is proud of a state that executes the mentally handicap?

hurray for personal freedom!

Report  
barrydonegan (September 26, 2007)

?

you're talking about a libertarian here. libertarians do not believe in states infringing on any rights, especially not executing mentally handicapped people.

Ron Paul is the MOST antifascist candidate out there right now. he would do the most to reduce the power and scope of government, especially its ability to kill citizens.

Report  
trevor_the_exploder (September 26, 2007)

he is antifascist and pro-corporation? please tell me how that works exactly.

Report  
barrydonegan (September 27, 2007)

ron paul is anti corporation also.

he would remove all of the favoritism to corporation which is currently being handed down by the government.

Laisez faire capitalism isn't punx

Seriously, it's fucking dumb

Report  
Jesus_H_Christ (September 25, 2007)

Wow. What an argument.

Report  
returnofdebs (September 25, 2007)

i'm convinced.

Report  
Jesus_H_Christ (September 25, 2007)

I hope you're joking.

Report  
returnofdebs (September 25, 2007)

if that were the case someone would be typing for me while i try to remove the straight jacket.

Report  
Jesus_H_Christ (September 25, 2007)

All I'm sayin' is that there are plenty of better reasons to oppose capitalism then "it isn't punx".

Chomsky/Zinn '08

Report  
returnofdebs (September 25, 2007)

at least chomsky has the bin laden vote. not so sure about zinn though. he could at least get ben affleck and matt damon.

Report  
spalmer (September 25, 2007)

Hey, fuck you, this site clearly isn't interested in rational debate, so I thought I would throw that in. And I thought that people were generally aware that saying things "aren't punx" is a tounge-in-cheek irony.

So in short: eat my balls.

Also:
Laisezz faire capitalism would result in even more rigid hierarchies and wouldn't provide a sustainable society.

Report  
Jesus_H_Christ (September 25, 2007)

Thanks for enlightening me Great Genius. I'm ashamed that I didn't see through your subtle brilliance.

Report  
spalmer (September 25, 2007)

I never said or even implied that, what's your deal? Jesus.

Report  
barrydonegan (September 26, 2007)

that has never happened.

look back at history. no free market system has ever collapsed short of a war or invasion of some kind(a non economic reason).



Report  
philly13 (September 25, 2007)

Laisez faire captialism does suck but if Paul gets his way he would actually be striking back against Big Business by taking us out of the WTO and getting rid of the FED. The Federal Reserve is Big Business' rich daddy and they always go to it when they're in trouble and the FED always ends up bailing them out while the rest of us suffer.

Report  
NotPatriotic (September 25, 2007)

Truth

Report  
barrydonegan (September 26, 2007)

yeah, whats punk about independence, freedom, and doing your own thing.

its FAR more punk to have the government run your life cradle to the grave, eh?

He's the best Republican nominee we've got. I disagree with many of his positions, but a true conservative is better than a neo-con

Report  
NotPatriotic (September 25, 2007)

What the fuck? I want the worst republican nominee.

Something i just realized, by "voting Ron Paul" do you mean in the Gop primaries? Cause i can guarantee you there's not a chance in hell he's going to get the gop nomination, so this whole discussion has been kind of pointless. Although i suppose you could still vote for him as like a "write in candidate" or whatever.

Report  
barrydonegan (September 26, 2007)

ron paul is by far the biggest republican. he wins every debate poll, and his support is so great comments about him hijacked a John Edwards topic on punknews simply because it relates to the presidential election ;)

Report  
jacknife737 (September 26, 2007)

i know everyone is entitled to their opinions, (and i admit he's doing OK in the polls,), but he's got nothing close to the poll numbers/support that Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney are getting. Paul is not going to be able to win over the traditional republican "base"

Report  
barrydonegan (September 27, 2007)

he is when you look at straw polls, post debate polls, and any poll besides a gallup poll.

gallup polls only allow your vote to count if you voted for bush last time.

Don't vote for a republican. There are third parties that need every vote they can get. Vote for the green party. And if you pick some white guy from Texas over Hillary or Obama you just don't get it.

Report  
Albert_Belle (September 25, 2007)

Hahaha!

Report  
barrydonegan (September 26, 2007)

its funny how in your attempt to not be racist, you were just extremely racist.

that "white guy from texas" voted against the war and patriot act.

not obama and clinton.

obama didn't technically vote for the war because he wasn't in office, but when Bush wanted to wiretap his citizens, obama rolled over and lubed up his butt like a nice boy.

i won't vote for him on the basis that he wants to privatize EVERYTHING. can't get with that.
-nic

dont tase me, bro!

Report  
doomcloud (September 25, 2007)

taZe

Report  
Windfall (September 25, 2007)

No, its tase. Like in taser.

Damn! You beat me to it.

haha, when I saw the headline, I thought it meant that the band Thursday was going to interview Edwards

gideon yago looks like he would be satan's cabana boy

the problem with him is that he wants to privatize everything. that's a huge no-no.
-nic

Report  
barrydonegan (September 26, 2007)

you can't possibly have an example of a fully privatized system, sans corporate benefit laws, in history, which has failed.

i challenge anyone who says privatizing everything is a "no no" to show some examples of a government that has been run that way and failed.

if you use America post-1840 as an example, then please read what free market economies are. free market economies are NOT pro corporation, limited liability corporations are ILLEGAL in a free market system.

we are not in one, we are in corporatism right now.

Report  
victim (September 26, 2007)

But on the flipside you can't possibly show us an example of a fully privatized system either, because its utopian bullshit that is counter-historical. Such a system never existed and it never will (talking about private property). It literally can't because private property must be defended from everyone else.

However, a system where each individal is fully free as an individual is totally viable, and has been proven many times over. The ideal isn't Ron Paul claptrap, its the Mohawks.

Report  
listofdemands (September 26, 2007)
you can't have a 100% privatized system because it would lead to companies over-running the rest of us (you're included in that). insurance companies and oil companies already rape us, do we need everything on the main strip owned by wal-mart, too? we'd be heading back to aristocrats and serfs of old europe. if we privatize, ceos will be deciding what we are charged for roads, bridges, schools, etc. and we won't be able to say anything about it. our market is regulated by the government right now. if we take away those regulations and allow public organizations to fall into the hands of private parties and corporations, then we will be run by the rich and powerful and essentially be blasted back to the 1500s. this will no longer be a nation of the people, it will be a nation of the few. and that, my friends, is a fascist state.
-nic

p.s. here's some examples

show rest of commentyou can't have a 100% privatized system because it would lead to companies over-running the rest of us (you're included in that). insurance companies and oil companies already rape us, do we need everything on the main strip owned by wal-mart, too? we'd be heading back to aristocrats and serfs of old europe. if we privatize, ceos will be deciding what we are charged for roads, bridges, schools, etc. and we won't be able to say anything about it. our market is regulated by the government right now. if we take away those regulations and allow public organizations to fall into the hands of private parties and corporations, then we will be run by the rich and powerful and essentially be blasted back to the 1500s. this will no longer be a nation of the people, it will be a nation of the few. and that, my friends, is a fascist state.
-nic

p.s. here's some examples for you to read and let me know what you think about them...

http://www.jubileesouth.org/news/EEEyAkVyFpHnOIExik.sh tml

http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/water/

http://www.world -psi.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=16813&TEMPLATE=/Cont entManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

that should get you started.
Report  
barrydonegan (September 27, 2007)

there is a lot more to defense of the free market and private property than you have seen in these systems.

proper common law defense of private property would include such things as being able to sue a company for damages when they lower the quality of the air outside your home by belching fumes out of a factory.

this example is a far better fix for pollution than investing in "carbon credits" to line al gore's buddys wallets with dough.

Report  
victim (September 27, 2007)

Your own examples undermines everything you are claiming.

Big company with smokestacks belching next to your own. Your recourse is to sue. But of course, even if the judicial system is totally fair they're still a big company and you're not.

And big companies have rights too, so they can hold up court proceedings for years at the cost of millions of dollars. Since you don't have millions of dollars -- and can't afford to wait that long while inhaling toxic fumes -- you're screwed.

But lets say you win -- a monetary judgement. Holy shit, that did nothing. Now you can move but the factories still go rolling on and someone other schmuck gets to move there and breathe all that shit. Maybe the company pays an additional fine.

You are so full of bullshit you can't even keep it all straight. No wonder you support Ron Paul.

Report  
barrydonegan (September 27, 2007)
"Big company with smokestacks belching next to your own. Your recourse is to sue. But of course, even if the judicial system is totally fair they're still a big company and you're not."

-you obviously don't understand the legal system. if court precedent were to sue big companies who pollute the air, the ENTIRE COMMUNITY WOULD CONTACT A LAWYER AND FILE A HUGE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT. the lawyer, desiring money, would contact everyone in the neighborhood and get them on board, offering them a share of the settlement in exchange for appearing in court.

"And big companies have rights too, so they can hold up court proceedings for years at the cost of millions of dollars. Since you don't have millions of dollars -- and can't afford to wait that long while inhaling toxic fumes -- you're screwed."

-a lawyer would have no problem waiting for the millions

show rest of comment"Big company with smokestacks belching next to your own. Your recourse is to sue. But of course, even if the judicial system is totally fair they're still a big company and you're not."

-you obviously don't understand the legal system. if court precedent were to sue big companies who pollute the air, the ENTIRE COMMUNITY WOULD CONTACT A LAWYER AND FILE A HUGE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT. the lawyer, desiring money, would contact everyone in the neighborhood and get them on board, offering them a share of the settlement in exchange for appearing in court.

"And big companies have rights too, so they can hold up court proceedings for years at the cost of millions of dollars. Since you don't have millions of dollars -- and can't afford to wait that long while inhaling toxic fumes -- you're screwed."

-a lawyer would have no problem waiting for the millions of dollars of settlement, yes it would take a couple of years to get the landmark case finished, but the settlement would be for millions, and from then on out companies would have to factor these type of lawsuits into their bottom line.

"But lets say you win -- a monetary judgement. Holy shit, that did nothing. Now you can move but the factories still go rolling on and someone other schmuck gets to move there and breathe all that shit. Maybe the company pays an additional fine."

-incorrect, having a millions of dollars cost to polluting the air would set a precedent making it non-profitable to pollute the air. companies would then have to find another method.


Report  
listofdemands (September 27, 2007)
hang on just a damn minute. we were talking about privatization and you obviously have no grasp on the concept. privatization says that public property and public interests (toll roads, social security, national forests, etc.) can be sold to corporations for them to make a profit on. for example, toll roads are being built in texas and there is a debate on whether they should be owned by the state or big business. well, if we give it to big business they decide when and how much tolls will be for that road. and guess what? there's not a motherfucking thing you can do about it when they decide that their annual profits need to increase. why would we trust ceo's with companies like enron and exxon who steal from their employees' retirement funds and stocks? why the fuck would anyone with a clear, working head on their shoulders hand their rights over to someone who doesn't give a

show rest of commenthang on just a damn minute. we were talking about privatization and you obviously have no grasp on the concept. privatization says that public property and public interests (toll roads, social security, national forests, etc.) can be sold to corporations for them to make a profit on. for example, toll roads are being built in texas and there is a debate on whether they should be owned by the state or big business. well, if we give it to big business they decide when and how much tolls will be for that road. and guess what? there's not a motherfucking thing you can do about it when they decide that their annual profits need to increase. why would we trust ceo's with companies like enron and exxon who steal from their employees' retirement funds and stocks? why the fuck would anyone with a clear, working head on their shoulders hand their rights over to someone who doesn't give a shit about what happens to them and their like. why would we sell our collective public property and public interests to private sectors so that they, instead of the collective community, could reap the benefits of our property while we're still wondering what the fuck hit us? you can't make that sounds right. so, to summarize, this argument is not about private property (like your house or your car) it's about public interest being overrun by the same corporate goons that we're all under the boot of to begin with. and that, my friends, is the fall of a democracy.

-nic
Report  
barrydonegan (September 28, 2007)
slow down a second. any person who supports a true free market also supports the dismantling of corporatism. free markets do not allow for corporations in the modern sense as they are not willing contracts between individuals. prior to the 14th ammendment corporations had to be proven a benefit to the public good or lose their license.

before universal privitazation would be possible, many laws would have to change first. right now there are more laws on the books benefiting the interests of certain corporations, and these laws would have to be repealed first. government intervention into the actions of business causes PAC and LOBBYISTS to get in and affect the laws, which initially probably had a good intention behind them. once the LOBBYISTS get ahold of it, it becomes a subsidy to benefit specific corporate interests.

it is through regulation that

show rest of commentslow down a second. any person who supports a true free market also supports the dismantling of corporatism. free markets do not allow for corporations in the modern sense as they are not willing contracts between individuals. prior to the 14th ammendment corporations had to be proven a benefit to the public good or lose their license.

before universal privitazation would be possible, many laws would have to change first. right now there are more laws on the books benefiting the interests of certain corporations, and these laws would have to be repealed first. government intervention into the actions of business causes PAC and LOBBYISTS to get in and affect the laws, which initially probably had a good intention behind them. once the LOBBYISTS get ahold of it, it becomes a subsidy to benefit specific corporate interests.

it is through regulation that these corporations get benefits, not via an absense of regulation. think about it? do you really think our politicians pass laws to restrict the power of companies? absolutely not! that is their employer!

the way you change that is by getting corrupt politicians out of these laws, and backtracking a hundred years or so worth of pro corporate regulations.

there is absolutely no fan of free market competition who believes that corporatism is a good solution. free market respects contracts between individuals, this is true of libertarianism also, libertarianism provides that the government enforce only contracts between individuals.

non liable corporations are not a contract between individuals.

and FYI, american is not, and has never been a democracy.

it is a representative republic, and socialism as a means of establishing democracy doesn't make any sense at all.

socialism is only possible in an authoritarian regime.
Report  
listofdemands (September 28, 2007)
dude, are you out of your mind?! deregulation means the government legally can't make sure companies are obeying laws. the right politicians made regulations for companies, the candidates you support want to take that apart. if you honestly think that companies make their own regulations, then i have nothing left to say to you. i don't know where you are getting this shit, but you have no idea what you are talking about. you have to read between the lines. and please, for the love of god, if you're going to respond, try to keep on point and actually respond to the things i have posted for you to look at.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation

-nic

http: //m-w.com/dictionary/democracy


show rest of commentdude, are you out of your mind?! deregulation means the government legally can't make sure companies are obeying laws. the right politicians made regulations for companies, the candidates you support want to take that apart. if you honestly think that companies make their own regulations, then i have nothing left to say to you. i don't know where you are getting this shit, but you have no idea what you are talking about. you have to read between the lines. and please, for the love of god, if you're going to respond, try to keep on point and actually respond to the things i have posted for you to look at.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation

-nic

http: //m-w.com/dictionary/democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repu blic

find the differences for me. i seem to have lost my ability to tell things apart.
Report  
listofdemands (September 28, 2007)

on top of the fact that you have, once again, evaded my entire post and even succeeded in getting me off track. we are talking about privatization. not deregulation, privatization. say it with me pri-vi-ti-za-tion. now please get back on point.
-nic

Report  
barrydonegan (September 28, 2007)
when corporate interest lobbies politicians, the polticians act in favor of the corporations. that means that government "regulation" is done to BENEFIT the MONOPOLIES of corporation.

please address this. this is my whole point, and you haven't addressed it.

i'll give you an example, lets say a voter initiative happens to try and regulate the fat content in foods. a politician trying to make a name for himself starts a law such as this. then, a PAC group financially backed by the Fast food industry steps in and lobbies to all their constituents in congress, who stick things onto the bill that actually say that companies who follow a new guideline, something very "slap on the wrist" which doesn't actually make the fast food safe or healthy, such as requiring smaller portions, or having a low fat menu option, and in exchange for compliance they get fede

show rest of commentwhen corporate interest lobbies politicians, the polticians act in favor of the corporations. that means that government "regulation" is done to BENEFIT the MONOPOLIES of corporation.

please address this. this is my whole point, and you haven't addressed it.

i'll give you an example, lets say a voter initiative happens to try and regulate the fat content in foods. a politician trying to make a name for himself starts a law such as this. then, a PAC group financially backed by the Fast food industry steps in and lobbies to all their constituents in congress, who stick things onto the bill that actually say that companies who follow a new guideline, something very "slap on the wrist" which doesn't actually make the fast food safe or healthy, such as requiring smaller portions, or having a low fat menu option, and in exchange for compliance they get federal funding or a tax break.

this, effectively, while being called, let's say, the "HEALTHY FAST FOOD INITIATIVE" is effectively actually a "CORPORATE FAST FOOD MONOPOLY INITIATIVE" when you see what the outcome becomes. basically, the attempt to regulate the corporation wound up funding it.

this is how pork barrel regulation goes, it divies up federal spending to corporations.

the government IS CORRUPT, when it REGULATES IT BENEFITS CORPORATIONS!

and, privatization is the removal of corrupt government regulations which benefit corporatism. thats not stealing your topic. i don't know where you're getting your vocabulary rules, such that deregulation and privitazation are unrelated topics, because in the minds of the free market thinker deregulation is the method of privatizing, the reason that you deregulate is because of government corruption which feeds corporatism.

the acting thesis here that a free market thinker would keep the US system the same but hand over the rule to corporations betrays a lack of research on the topic.

effectively, socialism in america will do exactly what your afraid of, because who do you think is lobbying for socialized medicine? INSURANCE COMPANIES AND HMOS! because who do you think will be providing this monopolized service once the law passes?

do you think your senator himself will come do your heart transplant?

no, a current medical care corporation will get the contract and be the new US public healthcare provider. this will raise the price even more, because the payment is guaranteed via taxes. this will create a lower quality of care.

THEN, private care will still be legal and authorized. rich people will use it to avoid the lines of public healthcare. this will mean private care will pay doctors much more, meaning higher quality doctors will flood to the private sector where they are well paid.

this will lower the quality of public care, and basically mean for any serious treatment you will need to pay even more, because the public doctors will be of lower quality, sometimes the lines you are waiting at for care will be much longer, so long that you may not survive the wait.

the public care HMO corporation has no need to hire quality doctors, as they are paid an increasing amount each year via taxes regardless of the service they are providing. furthermore, since care will be free, people will go to the doctor for absolutely unneccesary stuff, and put in the same placement in the line as someone with a terrible fatal disease. this means that the amount of usage of care will shoot up, raising the price of care even more.

just because you're not paying for it up front, doesn't mean your not paying for it. taxation is just a forced method of payment.

im sorry to tell you, but there is no way to arrange labor to where it doesn't have a cost and you can just have everything free. building a system of government around 100% universal compliance of all people into a system of giving, can only be done via authoritarian means. this is the main reason why socialism has problems, because most people don't want in on it. and you have to have 100% cooperation or it fails. and getting 100% cooperation, ultimately, involves a lot of killing and incarceration of your own people.
Report  
barrydonegan (September 28, 2007)
FYI i live in a state which HAS a form of socialized medicine(managed care, which is an attempt at guaranteed healthcare).

TENNCARE is what its called, it essentially did exactly what i am worried "universal healthcare" will do. it basically created a monopoly on the poor by HMO companies, whose quality of care is so brutally low that its nearly deadly to use.

i know this because im an uninsured person in tennessee. i use varying amounts of care, and the super low quality public care i have used i get misdiagnosed half the time. the last two times i went in i got diagnosed with a female-only disease while being male. this is at one of these public care institutions you are so fond of.

i have found it better to just struggle to find a way to get more money together and use a more legit doctor, as repeatedly using the wrong medication

show rest of commentFYI i live in a state which HAS a form of socialized medicine(managed care, which is an attempt at guaranteed healthcare).

TENNCARE is what its called, it essentially did exactly what i am worried "universal healthcare" will do. it basically created a monopoly on the poor by HMO companies, whose quality of care is so brutally low that its nearly deadly to use.

i know this because im an uninsured person in tennessee. i use varying amounts of care, and the super low quality public care i have used i get misdiagnosed half the time. the last two times i went in i got diagnosed with a female-only disease while being male. this is at one of these public care institutions you are so fond of.

i have found it better to just struggle to find a way to get more money together and use a more legit doctor, as repeatedly using the wrong medication or whatever because of a false diagnosis is much more difficult and hard on me than struggling to come up with a bit more money.

in a free market system i could go to a nurse practitioner and get her to check me out with a bacterial test, or i could buy the test and antibiotics online and do them myself. i do know how to use a petri dish, microscope, etc. i know how to look at litmus paper,and lots of non doctors could also do that. in a free market system that would not require me to visit any healthcare professional in order to check myself for strep throat and get medicine. in fact you could probably sell a kit that some people could effectively use to self treat minor things like this.

and why couldn't a nurse open a stitching clinic, not under the supervision of the doctor? and offer minor stitching cheap? right now this is illegal, and it drives prices up.
Report  
listofdemands (September 28, 2007)
no, no, no. i started this post. you address me, then i'll address you. that's how a conversation works. we're talking about PRIVATIZATION, not CORPORATE REGULATION. they are completely different.

http://www.princeton.edu/~starr/meaning.html

seriously, read this article. after you have addressed my argument (i was first) we can talk about your's. read the previous articles i put into my previous posts and then respond. DO NOT RESPOND TO ME UNLESS YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT PRIVATIZATION. i repeat: PRIVATIZATION. i feel that regulation/deregulation is a perfectly valid argument to have, but i'm not entertaining it until you respond to my point.

"you can't possibly have an example of a fully privatized system, sans corporate benefit laws, in history, which has failed.

i ch

show rest of commentno, no, no. i started this post. you address me, then i'll address you. that's how a conversation works. we're talking about PRIVATIZATION, not CORPORATE REGULATION. they are completely different.

http://www.princeton.edu/~starr/meaning.html

seriously, read this article. after you have addressed my argument (i was first) we can talk about your's. read the previous articles i put into my previous posts and then respond. DO NOT RESPOND TO ME UNLESS YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT PRIVATIZATION. i repeat: PRIVATIZATION. i feel that regulation/deregulation is a perfectly valid argument to have, but i'm not entertaining it until you respond to my point.

"you can't possibly have an example of a fully privatized system, sans corporate benefit laws, in history, which has failed.

i challenge anyone who says privatizing everything is a "no no" to show some examples of a government that has been run that way and failed.

if you use America post-1840 as an example, then please read what free market economies are. free market economies are NOT pro corporation, limited liability corporations are ILLEGAL in a free market system.

we are not in one, we are in corporatism right now."

you started talking about it, but you have no basis for argument because there never has been a fully privatized government. read my articles that i linked where they tried privatizing things like water and the people revolted.

-nic

i second this proposal!

'Its still We The People - rrrrrright!'

ha ha ha...

kucinich wants to create a cabinet-level dept. of peace, is vegan, pro-choice, wants to end the war on drugs, for legalizing same-sex marriages, pro-environment, against the death penalty, wants to strengthen gun control (and ban handguns), wants immediate withdrawal from WTO and NAFTA, oh...and he is working toward impeachment proceedings against dick cheney.

Report  
Jesus_H_Christ (September 25, 2007)

...and to increase the authority of the State.

Report  
HumbertHumbert (September 25, 2007)

Benevolent government control of the economy > Government control of personal liberties.

Report  
barrydonegan (September 26, 2007)

benevolent and government are not compatible statements.

Report  
ilovelamp (September 26, 2007)

i believe the federal government was more or less originally designed to regulate foreign relations and protect the country from outside nations or forces. the states are meant to govern the people in respect to how they wish to be governed. im failing to see the problem here.

Report  
ExtraCheesePizza (September 25, 2007)

The only thing I don't agree on is his gun policy. I like Gravel's idea of getting a gun license the same way you have to get a driver's license though.

Report  
philly13 (September 25, 2007)

Yeah, I used to be anti-gun but when you look at dictatorships throughout the world's history they fucking love gun control. That's how they get to kill everyone and have their way.

Report  
HumbertHumbert (September 25, 2007)

Free purchase of guns is working out really well for the citizens of Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, Colombia, etc.

Samual P. Huntington: "The Clash of Civilizations." Not that I agree with his argument, but privatization of security is a fucking scary concept.

Report  
victim (September 25, 2007)

The only people for gun control are liberals for a reason -- they won't lose anything in the process since Law Enforcement is basically an extension of the wealthy and suburbia. And Uncle LEO will always have guns, tasers, batons, pepper spray, sniper rifles, K-9s, tear gas, and on and on

Literally everyone but those chumps recognizes that LE is far more dangerous than "criminals" ever could be.

Report  
HumbertHumbert (September 25, 2007)
George Orwell: "The police are the true enemy of the working man."

I think you assume that the only ones enforcing policy is government. Yes, in the United States the government has a monopoly of violence within the borders, but in countries with civil wars, these criminals you put in quotations are kidnapping children and training them to rape and murder for a fucking diamond. Nearly all rebel movements claim to be populist, but who's the winner when the Colombian government kills a few citizens trying to get to the FARC, who's the winner when the FARC kidnaps citizens for ransom money? No one.

And to continue with your point, do you really believe citizens the few kinds of firearms permitted by our right to bear arms will have any affect on the biggest military in the world? No way. There's a reason why he who controls the military controls both the p

show rest of commentGeorge Orwell: "The police are the true enemy of the working man."

I think you assume that the only ones enforcing policy is government. Yes, in the United States the government has a monopoly of violence within the borders, but in countries with civil wars, these criminals you put in quotations are kidnapping children and training them to rape and murder for a fucking diamond. Nearly all rebel movements claim to be populist, but who's the winner when the Colombian government kills a few citizens trying to get to the FARC, who's the winner when the FARC kidnaps citizens for ransom money? No one.

And to continue with your point, do you really believe citizens the few kinds of firearms permitted by our right to bear arms will have any affect on the biggest military in the world? No way. There's a reason why he who controls the military controls both the policy and the polity.
Report  
victim (September 25, 2007)
You got it reversed on both points.

If you want to talk about the movement of small arms around the world we can, but thats a different topic. I know full well that US arms manufacturers supply half of the world of the arms used by warlords and other tinpot dictators..but..

What does that tell us? Well, it tells us whose interests are being served by those warlords for one thing. Guns are available to pretty much everybody, the questions becomes whose distributing and where they end up concentrated. The why is almost always transparent (think of Afghanistan as an example)

To say that "no one" is the winner overlooks the fact that capitalists are the clear winners. You are somehow equating that with criminals, which I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion.

You know as well as I do what the yuppie definition of crimina

show rest of commentYou got it reversed on both points.

If you want to talk about the movement of small arms around the world we can, but thats a different topic. I know full well that US arms manufacturers supply half of the world of the arms used by warlords and other tinpot dictators..but..

What does that tell us? Well, it tells us whose interests are being served by those warlords for one thing. Guns are available to pretty much everybody, the questions becomes whose distributing and where they end up concentrated. The why is almost always transparent (think of Afghanistan as an example)

To say that "no one" is the winner overlooks the fact that capitalists are the clear winners. You are somehow equating that with criminals, which I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion.

You know as well as I do what the yuppie definition of criminal is. Again, if you want to talk about the international struggle that needs to be addressed separately.

In particular though, you need to explain Iraq. I'll leave out Vietnam, Kenya, Chile, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Cuba, etc. If this statement is true

And to continue with your point, do you really believe citizens the few kinds of firearms permitted by our right to bear arms will have any affect on the biggest military in the world? No way. There's a reason why he who controls the military controls both the policy and the polity.

then have we not already "won" in Iraq? Because your definition of "win" is a military conflict. I concede that no group of people can win, or even fight, a military engagement against the US. Or China. Or Russia. Or the EU. Or eve against Canada.

But can we engage in a class struggle that is far, far more effective on the one hand and much more attainable on the other? Absolutely, its been shown to be true everywhere in the world (except in the US where no one's ever tried it). It is the height of middle class conceit to claim otherwise.

Si se puede
Report  
HumbertHumbert (September 26, 2007)
I believe a great way to explain Iraq and all other places where popular, violent revolt occurred is simply that the position of the established regime in each nation was/is not seen as legitmate. Many citizens of the United States view our governmental institutions as the best in the world. The only way for this popular revolt to occur is if the military regime is no longer perceived as legitimate. In a system that continues to boast some level of representative democracy, the power of the military rests on the power the people grant to it. That is, if our executive oversteps his bounds, he will be punished by congress and the judiciary. I personally don't believe our representative body is powerless in challenging the president. So my argument rests on the premise that revolt with weapons would not be successful because our institutions are perceived as intact. But with a military

show rest of commentI believe a great way to explain Iraq and all other places where popular, violent revolt occurred is simply that the position of the established regime in each nation was/is not seen as legitmate. Many citizens of the United States view our governmental institutions as the best in the world. The only way for this popular revolt to occur is if the military regime is no longer perceived as legitimate. In a system that continues to boast some level of representative democracy, the power of the military rests on the power the people grant to it. That is, if our executive oversteps his bounds, he will be punished by congress and the judiciary. I personally don't believe our representative body is powerless in challenging the president. So my argument rests on the premise that revolt with weapons would not be successful because our institutions are perceived as intact. But with a military whose domestic force is seen as illegitimate, it has less power over the populace (although it would use more force), and therefore I believe popular revolt may have a chance of success. But our institutions are not broken, and therefore the military the revolt would be fighting would have the power of legitimacy.

So, under a broken regime, maybe it'd have a chance to succeed. But with the support of the majority in the hands of the government? There's no possible way. And if our institutions do become broken, the demand for weapons to fight for sovereignty would be much higher than handguns and hunting rifles, and therefore the weapons used for some revolution would only be supplied much further down the line than we are now.
Report  
victim (September 26, 2007)
You said we could never resist our high-tech modern military. I said "Iraq is doing just that".

That is what I was hoping to explain.

As for legitimacy..I don't know what you're talking about. Almost no one sees Bush as legitimate. If there is not massive discontent, thats news to me. Do you suppose blacks in New Orleans think of Bush as legitimate? As for your checks and balances stuff..doesn't seem to be working.

Remember when Nixon ran on ending the war, won reelection, then bombed the shit out of everything? Didn't seem to work so well then.

For you to honestly believe there isn't an Us and a Them you have to believe that we defrauded ourselves as a nation in the 2000 election, lied to ourselves so we could get into a war in the middle east, then went went against our own desire to withdraw and instead sent in mo

show rest of commentYou said we could never resist our high-tech modern military. I said "Iraq is doing just that".

That is what I was hoping to explain.

As for legitimacy..I don't know what you're talking about. Almost no one sees Bush as legitimate. If there is not massive discontent, thats news to me. Do you suppose blacks in New Orleans think of Bush as legitimate? As for your checks and balances stuff..doesn't seem to be working.

Remember when Nixon ran on ending the war, won reelection, then bombed the shit out of everything? Didn't seem to work so well then.

For you to honestly believe there isn't an Us and a Them you have to believe that we defrauded ourselves as a nation in the 2000 election, lied to ourselves so we could get into a war in the middle east, then went went against our own desire to withdraw and instead sent in more troops.

Give me a break..George Bush isn't the original unitary executive hes just the most obvious in a long line of succession in the banana republic we're running here with its revolving door of two-bit dictators.

Report  
victim (September 25, 2007)

As mayor of Cleveland DK was known to play the race card..don't assume hes as "enlightened" as some would have you believe. Hell, don't believe that "enlightenment" is what its cracked up to be in the first place.

Report  
HumbertHumbert (September 25, 2007)

Laffo three cheers for rule by the average people.

Report  
victim (September 25, 2007)

No, where Kucinich is involved "enlightened" is a code word for New Age bullshit, aimed at idiot yuppies and dumbass hipsters

Although, yes, I do support the rule of average people

Wow. Are you serious? John Edwards is where it is at, even though he won't win. How can you dumbfucks be for a republican over a democrat. Do you know why nothing changes in this country? It is because republicans have been controlling it for a while. They still pratically control it, the democrats can't pass anything in congress because there are too many republicans.

Report  
HumbertHumbert (September 25, 2007)

Let's not forget that Democrats controlled the house for forty years until 1994, and took it over again in 2006. Democratic control for 41/53 years, and look where we are. Not saying the Republicans are better, of course, but Democrats don't have the best history, either.

You know, except for exploiting millions of people in order to become the wealthiest and most powerful nation.

Report  
fallingupwards84 (September 25, 2007)

ok Party Man

Report  
victim (September 25, 2007)

you spent this entire thread shilling for Ron Paul. At least John Edwards is talking about the right things (class, economic disparity, the poor..tell me, how many other candidates even mention the poor?)

None of that is an endorsement for John Edwards, but it doesn't have to be..the object has never been the aggrandizement of any political candidate, least of all Edwards.

gravel is a very honest person. and not scared to let CFR fellas like Clinton and Obama have it when they get their nuke trigger fingers itchy.

Report  
victim (September 26, 2007)

Gravel is a reflection of how far right the "center" has drifted since the 70s. There was nothing too special about him in the 70s, nor is there now other than as a contrast to the Adolphs hes running against.

Report  
barrydonegan (September 27, 2007)

the center in America is very far left, compared to the past.

in modern american politics, left is considered socialism, right is considered free market.

our government has exploded by trillions even during the republican reign, which means the republicans have drifted left.

Report  
victim (September 27, 2007)

Very far left compared to Genghis Khan maybe

Report  
barrydonegan (September 27, 2007)

totalitarian = extreme left.

so, no.

my grandfather used to call it the lesser of two evils.

They both want big government. The only difference is if they want it at the national level or the state level, and whether they would use it to promote religion or promote socialism...

Report  
Jesus_H_Christ (September 25, 2007)

You are correct, sir.

Report  
victim (September 25, 2007)

Ummm, the government has never promoted socialism, nor will it ever.

Report  
NotPatriotic (September 25, 2007)

Socialism is way better than the bible, that is for sure.

Report  
returnofdebs (September 25, 2007)

the catholic church ex-communicates priests for proclaiming themselves socialist or communist. also, most christians that claim to be well read will use bible passages that include being allowed to have the wealth one has created as an excuse for capitalism. sadly though those who produce the most have the least. basically i'm saying god isn't real.

Report  
victim (September 25, 2007)

The Catholic Church has a complicated relationship with Marxism, not always hostile either. Think about Liberation theology. There are other similar movements as well, although I'm not too familiar with them.

I didn't do anything!!!

Bill O'reilly will be there to defend the pigs

Report  
victim (September 25, 2007)

Bill O'Reilly will be there to blow the pigs

Fixed your type

One can only hope.

As if that were a bad thing?

Report  
ilovelamp (September 26, 2007)

its a bad thing when anyone votes for somebody without knowing what they stand for and/or have been shown to stand against.

most people dont know about issues anymore. the only issues they know is "OMG Hillary wore a semi-revealing top!!!" or "Every GOP nominee has been divorced except the Morman!""

give me a fucking break.

In only two bried sentences this reveals much of whats wrong with "politics" in America. I can assure you that no significant political change can ever be wrought in this country by voting.

You can take that in two ways:

1. my vote doesn't count..oh well, I give up

2. time to get serious

Report  
returnofdebs (September 25, 2007)

i'll take option 2.

I'll sooner sodomise myself with a jackhammer than vote for some green party lunatic

Report  
barrydonegan (September 27, 2007)
WOW! this swear language rant is hardly effective communication of your point. bear in mind emotionally overreacting to the point of insult simply because you disagree with someone's idealogy, and using "ad hominem" attacks about the type of person who holds a belief hardly pass as credible support of an opinon

"Corporatism is a completely natural extension of the Constitution and entirely consistent with the Founding Fathers' intentions. The 14th amendment is only a bit player in that."

-support this with proof. You'll find that, in fact, prior to the civil war, corporations were prohibited from participating in politics, limited liabilities, and gaining enough power to become malproductive. It was ONLY after the 14th ammendment, CAUSED by the Civil War, did they gain the same rights to autonomy as an individual. it is via this common law practice that the merg

show rest of commentWOW! this swear language rant is hardly effective communication of your point. bear in mind emotionally overreacting to the point of insult simply because you disagree with someone's idealogy, and using "ad hominem" attacks about the type of person who holds a belief hardly pass as credible support of an opinon

"Corporatism is a completely natural extension of the Constitution and entirely consistent with the Founding Fathers' intentions. The 14th amendment is only a bit player in that."

-support this with proof. You'll find that, in fact, prior to the civil war, corporations were prohibited from participating in politics, limited liabilities, and gaining enough power to become malproductive. It was ONLY after the 14th ammendment, CAUSED by the Civil War, did they gain the same rights to autonomy as an individual. it is via this common law practice that the merger between corporatism and the state emerged. This is from the FAILURE of the contract between the US and the States, when the states were not allowed to secede in violation of the constitution. an excerpt from William Kalle Lasn's book on early american corporatism reflects this
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2 Fwww.thirdworldtraveler.com%2FCorporations%2FHx_Corporations_US.h tml&ei=e1r7RoX-GajIgQTPu5X8Dw&usg=AFQjCNFALBfVP4465rnzUEbQWg7zcXg fig&sig2=vmXoWIli3TQd5tS7QfBJ2g

"Why not point to the Civil War instead?"

I DID. what do you think caused the 14th ammendment to be passed?

"But more importantly, your criticisms of socialism are so paper-thin and skin-deep I have a hard time taking them seriously."

you find it MORE IMPORTANT, that my arguments are abstractly "paper thin" than the arguments themselves? I would say the lack of productivity of socialist economies, and the fact that all of them have failed to create a high quality of life is a pretty thick argument against it. INSTEAD try defending this with support, instead of making abstract poetry inspired by my arguement.

"You can't have the "prosperity" of the United States without the attendant warfare and immiseration in the areas we exploit (Global South). Prices don't magically lower themselves by some invisible mechanism, no matter how much your bullshit heroes of capitalism might claim otherwise."

i agree. this is because the United States is not a FREE MARKET SYSTEM. it is a MIXED MARKET.CORPORATIST SYSTEM. please reread the entire thesis of what i wrote. You cannot run an empire without the military industrial complex. you cannot run the welfare state without meddling in south america. however a minimalist government with low taxes and low spending and traditional protection of private property would survive just fine on the market alone.

"Socialism is a really simple idea:"

that's never worked.

"1. Value produced ought to go to those who produce it, and all value is produced by labor not capital"

this is the right to produce based on your labor. the tenet of free market economy. socialism guarantees a wage even for someone who doesn't perform, forcing those who work hard to pay for those who don't.

"2. The system of wages and commodities represents the yolk of brutal capitalist oppression upon the human race and only the overthrow of capitalism can emanicipate us."

This is not an argument, it is an appeal to emotion. saying that abstract concepts such as wage and commodity are a yoke of oppression on the human race is not an argument on either end. socialism also pays a wage, a very low one. Socialist and Communist government can only exist in a totalitarian, authoritarian state. how that is not slavery i do not know.

"You have no answer to either of these points"

because you didn't ask it yet. now that you have, i just did.

"Who built the factories that the capitalist claims to "own". Invariably it was wage-workers. "But they paid a fair wage!" you cry. And where did the capitalist get the capital needed to pay these wages. The invariable answer is he stole it or, the same thing, claimed the right to it through force of arms."

please support your claim how factory production is done via capital taken from robberies or theft, followed by enslaved wage workers doing the work. Generally, even in modern america(once again not a free market system), buildings are built by contractors, not people who are employees of the company who is investing capital. Prior to corporatism, most capital came from saving up wealth, entrepreneurship. After corporatism it comes from stock market investment. neither of these periods are typified by this capital being raised by direct criminal robbery. thats a pretty out there statement.

"Before you can enforce property law, someone has to acquire that property. And that doesn't happen in the abstract, it happens at the barrel of a gun. All property originated as taking from the community to give to individuals. That is why capitalist private property is theft."

If you want to call that abstraction a direct theft, then how does it differ from the STATE taking the property by force of gun? I would find socialisms method of collection an even more direct theft.

"Or hey, you can tell me how great textile factories in China are..maybe you'd be willing to work in one? They are the modern day "Satanic Mills" that Marx wrote of."

China is a socialist internal system that feeds itself on the productivity of the mixed markets elsewhere. Your example shows why SOCIALISM is slavery, not free market. Since there are no free markets active currently, then there are no current examples of free market corruption.

"Finally, only private enterprise can innovate? What bullshit. Modern universities are anything BUT an individualistic climate".

Modern universities have become severely overpriced, and have begun to have severely diminished returns on results. Our education system has been in decline since the increase of funding to the department of education.

" Most of your beloved freemarket developments originate from there, in what is essentially a socialized environment. Then they come in and claim "ownership". You don't have the faintest damn clue what you're talking about."

Free Market economic thinking does not have origins in the US government or educational system. Menger, and other important key figures are not American, and not educated by the American Dept of Education. Menger's key works came out about the same time as Marx's, so, NO, socialism did not bring about free market thinking. both thoughts happened at the same time.

"The truth is, the United States has caused far more immiseration than the Soviet Union ever could have. Of course you'll deny that in a million different ways, but you have to wake up each morning and figure out a way to justify the thousands of people that the US will kill today."

I agree with you here. The United States in its imperial swing, post Civil War, is not a free market economy. it is a mixed economy/corporatist system. This does not support your argument, it is non sequiter.

before you try debating someone, you need to first read what they have claimed. it will make your points much more cohesive.

instead of using long drawn out "ad hominem" type attacks, the favored attacks of a Bill O'reilly type character, you would be much better suited, credibility-wise, to contrast my claims with yours, in quotation, followed by support for your claim.

your entire post could be summarized as:

"In conlcusion, fuck you."

lemme guess your elite debating skills were honed in one of these great dept of education funded universities!

© 1999-2006 Punknews.org • Terms of Use • Privacy • FAQ • About • ISSN 1710-5366 • RSS RSS Icon

Report  
victim (September 27, 2007)
The 14th amendment and the civil war are the same thing? Thats like saying WWI and the Treaty of Versaille are the same thing. Check that. The second one is more valid.

The rest of your post just proves

a. you don't know anything

b. you're an asshole

You might consider checking out this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Cracks-Constitution-Ferdinand-Lund berg/dp/0818402792/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-2304052-6624655?ie=UTF8&s= books&qid=1190905021&sr=8-1

All of your constitutional arguments are absurd, made even more so by the fact that you don't get the joke. Its like when English peasants demanded that their rights be restored by the Magna Carta. Upside down.


show rest of commentThe 14th amendment and the civil war are the same thing? Thats like saying WWI and the Treaty of Versaille are the same thing. Check that. The second one is more valid.

The rest of your post just proves

a. you don't know anything

b. you're an asshole

You might consider checking out this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Cracks-Constitution-Ferdinand-Lund berg/dp/0818402792/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-2304052-6624655?ie=UTF8&s= books&qid=1190905021&sr=8-1

All of your constitutional arguments are absurd, made even more so by the fact that you don't get the joke. Its like when English peasants demanded that their rights be restored by the Magna Carta. Upside down.

One doesn't revolt to restore rights bestowed by a documents. Rights are gained by revolt and commemorated by documents. See the difference? You wouldn't..

Anyway, about China: I know you don't have a fuckign clue about China so you could preserve some dignity and shut the fuck up about it. China is a bit complicated to talk about on a message board.

Secondly, the Soviet Union *outproduced* the United States in WWII AND the tanks they were produced were far superior to our own. Industrial production is not an issue under Communism. Producing weebles for your amusement is another issue, and that is really what you're afraid -- all of your frivilous luxury items and "toys" might become a bit scarce if society first focused on making sure everyone had a decent standard of living. So once again, you can go get fucked.
Report  
victim (September 27, 2007)
i agree. this is because the United States is not a FREE MARKET SYSTEM. it is a MIXED MARKET.CORPORATIST SYSTEM. please reread the entire thesis of what i wrote. You cannot run an empire without the military industrial complex. you cannot run the welfare state without meddling in south america. however a minimalist government with low taxes and low spending and traditional protection of private property would survive just fine on the market alone.

Oh my God. I admit to not reading your whole post in my first response, but this..this is too rich.

The 19th and 20th centuries are calling..remember us?

Who are you anyway, Thomas Jefferson??

You want isolationism? Haha, show me where that's working out right now. I bet most of Latin America would've appreciated that too.

You added that I'm ignoring your thesis that we d

show rest of commenti agree. this is because the United States is not a FREE MARKET SYSTEM. it is a MIXED MARKET.CORPORATIST SYSTEM. please reread the entire thesis of what i wrote. You cannot run an empire without the military industrial complex. you cannot run the welfare state without meddling in south america. however a minimalist government with low taxes and low spending and traditional protection of private property would survive just fine on the market alone.

Oh my God. I admit to not reading your whole post in my first response, but this..this is too rich.

The 19th and 20th centuries are calling..remember us?

Who are you anyway, Thomas Jefferson??

You want isolationism? Haha, show me where that's working out right now. I bet most of Latin America would've appreciated that too.

You added that I'm ignoring your thesis that we don't have a freemarket in America. Yeah, I certainly am ignoring that. If you get any nuttier I'll have to wonder if Lyndon LaRouche has invaded punknews. Show me one example of your fabled freemarket in all of history? Oh, thats right, you can't..
Report  
barrydonegan (September 27, 2007)
yet another work of emotionally outrageous, unsupported, factless ranting by Mr. victim.

the only points you successfully argue are against statements i haven't made, that you believe i would make,which i wouldn't. This is a form of "ad hominem" attack. this is considered "bad logic" and "bad argument" which you should've learned in your public school.

lets slow this down and go bit by bit.

"The 14th amendment and the civil war are the same thing? Thats like saying WWI and the Treaty of Versaille are the same thing. Check that. The second one is more valid."

- this is not a point i made. i stated that one caused the other. saying that one thing causes the other is a completely different argument than referring to something as the same thing. you gotta read, not skim.

"All of your constitutional arguments are absur

show rest of commentyet another work of emotionally outrageous, unsupported, factless ranting by Mr. victim.

the only points you successfully argue are against statements i haven't made, that you believe i would make,which i wouldn't. This is a form of "ad hominem" attack. this is considered "bad logic" and "bad argument" which you should've learned in your public school.

lets slow this down and go bit by bit.

"The 14th amendment and the civil war are the same thing? Thats like saying WWI and the Treaty of Versaille are the same thing. Check that. The second one is more valid."

- this is not a point i made. i stated that one caused the other. saying that one thing causes the other is a completely different argument than referring to something as the same thing. you gotta read, not skim.

"All of your constitutional arguments are absurd"

-explain which ones, and support it. otherwise this point is meaningless emotional drivel.

"One doesn't revolt to restore rights bestowed by a documents"

-what does this have to do with what i said? permanent revolution, or the need for constant revolutions, is a socialist idea. i don't really feel like it is necessary to restore the original intent of the constitution.

"Anyway, about China: I know you don't have a fuckign clue about China so you could preserve some dignity and shut the fuck up about it"

this is coming from the guy who used a factory in China as an example of the ills of the free market. haha. make some points and support them, about what you DO believe. or talk about specific points of mine and why you don't believe them. otherwise you come across like an eleven year old whiner.

"Secondly, the Soviet Union *outproduced* the United States in WWII AND the tanks they were produced were far superior to our own. Industrial production is not an issue under Communism. Producing weebles for your amusement is another issue, and that is really what you're afraid -- all of your frivilous luxury items and "toys" might become a bit scarce if society first focused on making sure everyone had a decent standard of living. So once again, you can go get fucked."

I don't collect luxury items. i'm talking about long lines waiting on bread. military production is assisted by financing from the state, even in most free market setups. America had a government funded military, so our military production would be similar to that of USSR. This point is non sequiter.

"Oh my God. I admit to not reading your whole post in my first response"

-thanks for proving my point. Read before you debate.

"You want isolationism? Haha, show me where that's working out right now"

-switzerland, canada, and many other nations have a far more militarily uninvolved status in the world than the US, and they are much safer and do not face attacks from foreign nations. i would consider that a great success.

"You added that I'm ignoring your thesis that we don't have a freemarket in America. Yeah, I certainly am ignoring that. If you get any nuttier I'll have to wonder if Lyndon LaRouche has invaded punknews. Show me one example of your fabled freemarket in all of history? Oh, thats right, you can't.."

-this point is what is truly nutty. you are sayying that my thesis that America is NOT a free market is nutty, yet you then imply that there has never been a freemarket in all of history. you directly contradicted yourself. a free market system has not been established yet, however it is a new concept, and some of the ideas have been successfully utiliized. socialism, however, has been tried and failed many times. the TOTAL COLLAPSE of the soviet union is pretty much the end all of that argument.
Report  
victim (September 27, 2007)

OK whatever, nothing I could say would stop you from spewing your garbage.

One thing though: Canada and Switzerland are not "isolationist" by any standard.


Report  
barrydonegan (September 28, 2007)

concession accepted.

canada and switzerland do not participate in foreign adventurism, and it benefits them.

as far as what other aspects of the term "isolationist" you are referring to, i mean the usage of military forces, outside of your government, for non defensive reasons, which they do not participate in. by those standards they are non interventionist, and it benefits them handsomely.