What's up with the Libertarians?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

And when you place the responsibility of a countries social health upon corporations, we know we're in trouble.

I place the responsibility of the health of an individual on the individual. It's simply that a healthy worker is more productive than a non-healthy worker, and it makes sense for a business owner not to ruin the health of its employee.

Quote

That's a fantastic idea, let's place the burdeon of healthy employees onto corporations.

Let's not place the "burden" on anybody but the individual. If it makes business sense for a company to offer health benefits, then let the company do it.

Quote

I think we've done that and I think we all see the result..... fascism didn't work then and it won't now.

I know. So let's stop the expenses that employers have to come up with, and let them go with expenses they want to come up with.

Quote

A very unkind perspective to say that all that training gone to waste

No, the employee has gotten some benefit. But not me.

Quote

Is he going to come back and make me some money?

I don't hire people to drain me. I hire them to make me money and make my life easier. Work ain't no charity, unless you are a bureaucrat.

Quote

having corporations worry more about the bottom line than the government ensuring social and physical health of a nation ISN'T working.

Actually, the government has worked really hard over the past 40 years towards social health. The War on Poverty has gone as well as the War on Drugs. People realize the War on Drugs is useless if they think right. Why should the War on Poverty get any different treatment when it has been an abysmal failure?

Let's try something new.

Quote

having employers decide who gets benefits is very exclusive.

Yeah - like hiring. I don't hire anybody and everybody that comes through the door. OF course I'm selective (you can call it "exclusive" though)

Quote

Why not have the government dole them out, hence no leverage from employers?

Therein lies your goal. The government DOES dole this out. More power to the proletariat? No power to the employers. By letting big brother do it all, there is no power for the people and none for the employers. It's what I call "equal misery."

My system guarantees power to both the workers and the employers. What you would call a "mass strike" I would call a "market correction."

Quote

you're on that side of the fence that has money

Tell that to my bank account.

Quote

I think it's fabulous that the laws are written to benefit the rich, just great. Only flaw is that @ 8.5T debt, it's once again hard to argue that it is a working system. Funny thing is that the destruction of the US$ won't hurt the poor

They aren't. By the way, it's the laws that led to the 8.5 trillion debt. I don't get a defense contract, nor do I have any handouts. The system ISN'T working because of too much government intervention.

True or false: the government, not corporations, caused this huge national debt. The answer is "true." Saying corporations are responsible for the national debt is like saying that the guy who was walking on the sidewalk was responsible for getting hit by a car. SUre, if the guy hadn't been on the sidewalk he would still be alive, but what about the guy who drove his car on the sidewalk?

Corporations are responsible for corporate debt. Governments are responsible for government debt. The government may decide to bail out a fucked up corp. That's the government's fault.

Ironically, when the government bails out a bankrupt corporation like Enron, people mention how criminal it is that the leadership of the corporation fucked up so bad. YEt, when the government bails out millions of individuals who fucked up royally, compassion for those people (it wasn't their fault, even if it was) rules the day. What's the difference except for "feeling?"

Quote

I want the people who have the resource to pay for them.

I want people to pay for their own shit. What you have done is described how Ken Lay got paid. Other people had money to pay him. He reeled them in. The people with resources lost those resources.

Fair? It's actually an application of that rule. In the Ten Years After song, "Change the World" Alvin Lee sang, "Tax the rich. Feed the poor. Till there are no rich no more." Note he didn't say "Till there are no poor no more." No, destroy the rich!

It's what I call the societal goal of equal misery for all. Someone's miserable. Let's make everyone else miserable to equal it out. Not make equal happiness. Nobody can achive that goal, but equal misery is certainly attainable.

More later - I gotta get to court.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[pirana 0]

Quote

They really lean right if cornered though, but I agree that they wiggle a lot and then get angry when cornered.

And we bite too. Big bites from huge teeth, . . . like this:

___ ___
@\ /@

/\


\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
<- Huge Teeth
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

EDIT: OK, that did not work so well, unless of course I were to describe my artistic intent as surrealistic. Yeah that's the ticket, I'm a surrealist. And it's time to go fill the bathtub with paint and walk the giraffe.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

"We need to have motorcycle helmet laws." Why? "Because of the drain in health care costs." That's not a problem of motorcycle helmets, that's a problem with socialism. If someone wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, its his business. He can pay for it, thus keeping him out of my business.

the problem, actually, is that this drain of unhelmeted riders is mythical - average cost of care is in fact a nudge higher for those wearing a helmet. And insurance rates are similar to the rest of the vehicle population.

My opinion - if the Libertarians want to call themselves a party and put forth cadidates under its banner, then they can release a more complete platform. Individuals elected (all 2 of them) can deviate as they wish, just as we have pro choicers in the GOP.

I agree with all of that, but they won't be taken seriously, hence 2 in office, until they become more realistic to the mainstream.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Do you realize that you quote everything said TWICE? Once as a whole and then you break it down to respond to individual points. It makes what are saying quite difficult to read.

I call it comprehensive and if a person follows the thread I think it becomes more clear.... now, back to that silly little topic.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

T therefore places the onus on the employer to maintain healthy employees.

That's a fantastic idea, let's place the burdeon of healthy employees onto corporations. I think we've done that and I think we all see the result..... fascism didn't work then and it won't now.

Quote
It would be unfortunate for an employer to spend weeks training an employee who becomes ineffective due to working conditions.

A very unkind perspective to say that all that training gone to waste..... oh, BTW, how is that poor slob? Is he going to come back and make me some money?

Quote
It affects the bottom line.

Fascism, fascism, fascism..... having corporations worry more about the bottom line than the government ensuring social and physical health of a nation ISN'T working.

Not to get into arguing one way or the other, this is just a side note:

What you are complaining about here is corporate greed, not fascism.

Fascism is a political philosophy, movement or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. (from Websters)

Try to use the correct word. You can't just say "Fascism" for everything you disagree with.

One could make the argument that libertarianism allows corporate greed, but libertarian philosophy is far from "fascism."

Quote

What you are complaining about here is corporate greed, not fascism.

The protocol of greedy corporations rears its ugly head by way of getting elected officials to enact laws that vastly better their position, hence the corps are vicariously writing these laws. I think the Vegas ordinance against feeding the homeless was driven by the casinos in large part.

Quote

Fascism is a political philosophy, movement or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Yes, that is the textbook version of classic Mussolini Fascism. In fact, technically you are supposed to use an upper case, "F" when referring to WWII Fascism, but when referring to current-day fascism you don't use upper case.

Can we logically say that Canadian Socialism is just like Chinese Socialism, or European Socialism? Contemporary fascism involves much more of the severe economic regimentation than it used to. Look up, "Corporatism" and it will become more clear as to that point.

Interesting that WWII Fascism stemmed from Socialism and Communism in the early 1900's, but now it rejects these ideologies. One are where fascism is really ugly, IMO is that hates organized labor. You can look at a lot of the concepts of modern-day fascism and parallel it with the Republican Party.

Quote

Try to use the correct word. You can't just say "Fascism" for everything you disagree with.

I'm not, fascism is a far more dynamic ideology than you have represented. I'm guessing all you know about it is what you just cut-n-paste off Websters. If you have time to kill, do a more comprehensive research on it and you will understand.

Quote

One could make the argument that libertarianism allows corporate greed, but libertarian philosophy is far from "fascism."

In a very rough way, Libertarians have some fascist leanings. To understand all these philosophies/ideologies, I've yet to see a country that is all socialist, all capitalist, all communist or all fascist. Things come in shades and degrees. So the party that has the most fascist leanings in the US is the Republican Party. The Party with the most Socialist leanings would be the Democratic Party and Libertarians are a hybrid of each of these.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Thanks Speedracer. I actually typed that into a post and then just hit the Back button because I did not want to deal with having to explain it. And you did it much more succinctly.

Exactly, the :

US = all good, no bad

Fascism = bad

Hence: The US is not Fascist

Hey, I can wave a flag too.....

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Thanks Speedracer. I actually typed that into a post and then just hit the Back button because I did not want to deal with having to explain it. And you did it much more succinctly.

Exactly, the :

US = all good, no bad


Fascism = bad

Hence: The US is not Fascist

Hey, I can wave a flag too.....

I am going to say this once and I will be very clear: you have no idea what you are talking about.

I am hardly a flag waver.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

Thanks Speedracer. I actually typed that into a post and then just hit the Back button because I did not want to deal with having to explain it. And you did it much more succinctly.

Exactly, the :

US = all good, no bad

Fascism = bad

Hence: The US is not Fascist

Hey, I can wave a flag too.....

or you could say

US = Bad

Fascism = Bad

Therefore US = Fascist.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I don't hire people to drain me. I hire them to make me money and make my life easier. Work ain't no charity, unless you are a bureaucrat.

You obviously don't play football for OU then.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

or you could say

US = Bad

Fascism = Bad

Therefore US = Fascist.

Dammit. You are way better at this than me today.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote
Try to use the correct word. You can't just say "Fascism" for everything you disagree with.

I'm not, fascism is a far more dynamic ideology than you have represented. I'm guessing all you know about it is what you just cut-n-paste off Websters. If you have time to kill, do a more comprehensive research on it and you will understand.

It seems to me that this an unrealistic stretch of the word "fascist" if you can make it into something that is very near the opposite of the actual definiton.

People who use the word "fascist" in that sense are using it as a political buzzword. It's designed to cause a visceral response rather than be a logical argument or accurate definition.


Here is a quote from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass

"There's glory for you!"
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,' " Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is, " said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty. "which is to be master—that's all."

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I place the responsibility of the health of an individual on the individual. It's simply that a healthy worker is more productive than a non-healthy worker, and it makes sense for a business owner not to ruin the health of its employee.

OK, what if all people are not employed and they get sick..... (skip this one - it rejects this absolute personal responsibility arg)

How about that AIDS baby? Fuck em, natural selection? But if it's Magic Johnson, well, he has the means so let's save him. How about millions of people born at a great disadvantage? Oh well, you have yours so fuck everyone else. This is why the US is where it's at, but the beauty is that these things correct themselves or get corrected by others. Shame is that it won't be corrected from inside.

This is why the Libertarian Party is a joke, they have no solution for the tough issues, just shrug and pretend they don't exist.

Quote

Let's not place the "burden" on anybody but the individual. If it makes business sense for a company to offer health benefits, then let the company do it.

EXACTLY! Let's let the businesses dole out the healthcare. We've seen how ethical they are and I think we can privatize the US Treasury and feel safe that these businesses won't extort all the money. BEAUTIFUL.

Quote

I know. So let's stop the expenses that employers have to come up with, and let them go with expenses they want to come up with.

We finally agree on something . I say let's take the responsibility of doling out healthcare AWAY from employers and put it in the hands of the government, who has an inherent duty to take of its people.

Quote

No, the employee has gotten some benefit. But not me.

Right, the employer feels beaten up, so if we centralize healthcare to the US gov then the employers are free of that loss.

Quote

I don't hire people to drain me. I hire them to make me money and make my life easier. Work ain't no charity, unless you are a bureaucrat.

Have you noticed you keep emphasizing that it's all about the employer - the employee is secondary? When you have this philosophy you are writing the design for a country that cares not about its people and that is clear in this country.

Quote

Actually, the government has worked really hard over the past 40 years towards social health. The War on Poverty has gone as well as the War on Drugs. People realize the War on Drugs is useless if they think right. Why should the War on Poverty get any different treatment when it has been an abysmal failure?

We've never even touched on socialized medicine. In fact, the SCOTUS decision that came down a year ago 9-0 defended those poor HMO's by saying:

1) Doctor ordered care can be denied by an HMO without reprisal.

2) You can't sue HMO's in state courts, just federal.

So where is this social turning? I fail to see healthcare going anywhere but extinct for the poor. Furthermore, 1/2 of all bankruptcies in 2004 (1.5 million) were due to medical bills, so the reaction of the government was to make BK harder as of Oct 17, 2005. I again fail to see your argument that we are social experiment.

Quote

Yeah - like hiring. I don't hire anybody and everybody that comes through the door. OF course I'm selective (you can call it "exclusive" though)

This is not all about you. I stated in that passage that healthcare becomes exclusive when employers are the ones deciding who gets it, not the government.

Quote

Therein lies your goal. The government DOES dole this out. More power to the proletariat? No power to the employers. By letting big brother do it all, there is no power for the people and none for the employers. It's what I call "equal misery."

Well then your system has left 1:5 Americans without healthcare. Nice system. I like a system where every person has healthcare.

Quote

My system guarantees power to both the workers and the employers. What you would call a "mass strike" I would call a "market correction."

You can play with semantics all day long, but when a family of 4 has no medical care due to them making 20k/year, they don't really want to hear it. I know they appreciate your love tho

Quote

Tell that to my bank account.

I think you do well.

Quote

They aren't. By the way, it's the laws that led to the 8.5 trillion debt. I don't get a defense contract, nor do I have any handouts. The system ISN'T working because of too much government intervention.

Really? It worked under Clinton where he raised taxes on the rich. He also spent more on social programs and education. Tuition has increased 80% since Bush has taken office. Furthermore, the debt went horizontal and he left with a 330B annual surplus. So it's not that gov intervention is bad, it's that bad gov intervention is bad.

Quote

True or false: the government, not corporations, caused this huge national debt. The answer is "true." Saying corporations are responsible for the national debt is like saying that the guy who was walking on the sidewalk was responsible for getting hit by a car. SUre, if the guy hadn't been on the sidewalk he would still be alive, but what about the guy who drove his car on the sidewalk?

Right, but when you have 100's of millions being given to politicians by corporations, it becomes hard to tell the difference. Do I need to remind you of Representative Cunningham?

Quote

Corporations are responsible for corporate debt. Governments are responsible for government debt. The government may decide to bail out a fucked up corp. That's the government's fault.

Riiiiiiight, let's dichotomize where handy. How is it that these corporations get so far out of hand? The gov isn't watching. When they get caught the gov seems to break their ass to help out, as in Clinton pardoning Symington and now Ken Lay being exonerated in his so-called death, which I feel really suspicious about. The government and corporations become one in a fascist environment and use this separation as an exonerating device. In the 60’s, 70’s and back, there never would have been a merger between Boeing and Douglas, as they wanted the competition. Now that they’ve worked together, it benefits all to consolidate. You want to draw a line between them, have fun, but I think we know there is a very weak line.

Quote

Ironically, when the government bails out a bankrupt corporation like Enron, people mention how criminal it is that the leadership of the corporation fucked up so bad. YEt, when the government bails out millions of individuals who fucked up royally, compassion for those people (it wasn't their fault, even if it was) rules the day. What's the difference except for "feeling?"

How is it that the gov bailed out Enron? Did they pay all the pensions? Or just take care of the corporation? How about 9/11, the gov gave huge cash gifts to the airlines, but no requirement for them to maintain employee levels. I think your point is weak that the gov bails out both people and corps equally, the gov breaks its ass helping corps.

Quote

I want people to pay for their own shit. What you have done is described how Ken Lay got paid. Other people had money to pay him. He reeled them in. The people with resources lost those resources.

I was saying that I want the people who have resources to pay for medical care and other social programs.

Quote

Fair? It's actually an application of that rule. In the Ten Years After song, "Change the World" Alvin Lee sang, "Tax the rich. Feed the poor. Till there are no rich no more." Note he didn't say "Till there are no poor no more." No, destroy the rich!

It’s a cooperative effort, not to destroy the rich. Funny how you claim not to be rich, yet you sure defend the concept of being rich with every fiber of your body… not really adding there, counselor.

Quote

It's what I call the societal goal of equal misery for all. Someone's miserable. Let's make everyone else miserable to equal it out. Not make equal happiness. Nobody can achive that goal, but equal misery is certainly attainable.

Certain people can’t be happy unless they have assistance with healthcare and education. I’m not for letting people sit on their ass all day, I’m more about assistance leading to success.

Quote

More later - I gotta get to court.

OK, but remember, tell the judge, “I didn’t learn that in law school” if ya get stuck.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Thanks Speedracer. I actually typed that into a post and then just hit the Back button because I did not want to deal with having to explain it. And you did it much more succinctly.

Exactly, the :

US = all good, no bad


Fascism = bad

Hence: The US is not Fascist

Hey, I can wave a flag too.....

I am going to say this once and I will be very clear: you have no idea what you are talking about.

I am hardly a flag waver.

OK, grandstand for everyone, I am clear.

Whether you are or are not a flag waver, I don't care. As for modern-day fascism definitions/attributes, I am right.

[Lucky... 0]

I hope you're not looking for an argument

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

OK, grandstand for everyone, I am clear.

Whether you are or are not a flag waver, I don't care. As for modern-day fascism definitions/attributes, I am right.

Yep, you are right about everything. You are the smartest guy around here and we all know that. happy now?

Here is the funny thing: I AGREE with you on healthcare...to a certain extent at least. I also AGREED with you on that bullshit law in Vegas.

It is your attitude I don't like. But it certainly brings me constant amusement during my day. Thanks.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote
Try to use the correct word. You can't just say "Fascism" for everything you disagree with.

I'm not, fascism is a far more dynamic ideology than you have represented. I'm guessing all you know about it is what you just cut-n-paste off Websters. If you have time to kill, do a more comprehensive research on it and you will understand.

It seems to me that this an unrealistic stretch of the word "fascist" if you can make it into something that is very near the opposite of the actual definiton.

People who use the word "fascist" in that sense are using it as a political buzzword. It's designed to cause a visceral response rather than be a logical argument or accurate definition.


Here is a quote from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass

"There's glory for you!"
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,' " Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is, " said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty. "which is to be master—that's all."

I'm here to educate. So I will help you understand what Fascism, neo-Fascsim and corporatism are and how they work together.

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

Corporatism or neo-corporatism is often used popularly as a pejorative term in reference to perceived tendencies in politics for legislators and administrations to be influenced or dominated by the interests of business enterprises, employers' organizations, and industry trade groups. The influence of other types of corporations, such as labor unions, is perceived to be relatively minor. In this view, government decisions are seen as being influenced strongly by which sorts of policies will lead to greater profits for favored companies.

Corporatism is also used to describe a condition of corporate-dominated globalization. Points enumerated by users of the term in this sense include the prevalence of very large, multinational corporations that freely move operations around the world in response to corporate, rather than public, needs; the push by the corporate world to introduce legislation and treaties which would restrict the abilities of individual nations to restrict corporate activity; and similar measures to allow corporations to sue nations over "restrictive" policies, such as a nation's environmental regulations that would restrict corporate activities.

Critics of capitalism often argue that any form of capitalism would eventually devolve into corporatism, due to the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. A permutation of this term is corporate globalism. John Ralston Saul argues that most Western societies are best described as corporatist states, run by a small elite of professional and interest groups, that exclude political participation from the citizenry.

Many critics of free market theories, such as George Orwell, have argued that corporatism (in the sense of an economic system dominated by massive corporations) is the natural result of free market capitalism.

Other critics say that they are pro-capitalist, but anti-corporatist. They support capitalism but only when corporate power is separated from state power.


___________________________________________________

Now, this is how corporatism and fascism are tied:



In the United States, corporations representing many different sectors are involved in attempts to influence legislation through lobbying. This is also true of many non-business groups, unions, membership organizations, and non-profits. While these groups have no official membership in any legislative body, they can often wield considerable power over law-makers. In recent times, the profusion of lobby groups and the increase in campaign contributions has led to widespread controversy and the McCain-Feingold Act.

SEE, HERE THEY DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN ITALIAN FASCISM AND NEO-FASCSIM....... there is a difference.

On Italian Corporatism

Constitution of Fiume
Rerum Novarum: encyclical of pope Leo XIII on capital and labor
Quadragesimo Anno: encyclical of pope Pius XI on reconstruction of the social order
There is an essay on "The Doctrine of Fascism" credited to Benito Mussolini that appeared in the 1932 edition of the Enciclopedia Italiana, and excerpts can be read at Doctrine of Fascism. There are also links there to the complete text.
On Neo-Corporatism

Katzenstein, Peter: Small States in World Markets, Ithaca, 1985.
Olson, Mancur: Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, (Harvard Economic Studies), Cambridge, 1965.
Schmitter, P. C. and Lehmbruch, G. (eds.), Trends toward Corporatist Intermediation, London, 1979.
Rodrigues, Lucia Lima: "Corporatism, liberalism and the accounting profession in Portugal since 1755," Journal of Accounting Historians, June 2003. [15]
[edit]
External links

[SpeedRacer 1]

I understand that you, Lucky, are not the first person to change the definition of "fascist" to mean something else. I realize you didn't invent the alternative definition, I'm just saying that that particular trend, though popular is some political circles, was incorrect and manipulative to change the definition of "fascist."

Quote

In the United States, corporations representing many different sectors are involved in attempts to influence legislation through lobbying. This is also true of many non-business groups, unions, membership organizations, and non-profits. While these groups have no official membership in any legislative body, they can often wield considerable power over law-makers. In recent times, the profusion of lobby groups and the increase in campaign contributions has led to widespread controversy and the McCain-Feingold Act.

You actually have a very good point here. I agree with you that corporations are in the wrong when they use their $$$ to use government muscle to push their agendas.

I think there are plenty of libertarians out there that would agree also.

If we're going to be consistent, we should say that the government should not hinder business, but government muscle should also not be used unduly on the business' behalf. Stop sending in American troops to foreign countries to protect the interests of oil companies would be a good start.

Another way corporations use government muscle: To eliminate competition from small start-ups, a large company might buy legislation that would require expensive liscensing for anyone starting a business in a their particular industry.

reasoning: eliminates competition from the little guys who might not be able to afford the liscensing.

There are plenty of other examples of this kind of crap as well. So you definitely have a good point here.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Lucky... 0]

Here's a cool site illustarting how Bush's admin has fascist leanings:

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

Another one:

http://www.remember.org/hist.root.what.html

Fascists particularly loathed the social theories of the French Revolution and its slogan: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity."

*** Liberty from oppressive government intervention in the daily lives of its citizens, from illicit searches and seizures, from enforced religious values, from intimidation and arrest for dissenters; and liberty to cast a vote in a system in which the majority ruled but the minority retained certain inalienable rights.

*** Equality in the sense of civic equality, egalitarianism, the notion that while people differ, they all should stand equal in the eyes of the law.

*** Fraternity in the sense of the brotherhood of mankind. That all women and men, the old and the young, the infirm and the healthy, the rich and the poor, share a spark of humanity that must be cherished on a level above that of the law, and that binds us all together in a manner that continuously re-affirms and celebrates life.


>>> I see a lot of these fascist concepts in practice today. Search and seizures, forcibly imparting religious values, arrest for dissent. They even remark about the health of all citizens.

Another intersting set of points:

Fascism and Nazism as ideologies involve, to varying degrees, some of the following hallmarks:

*** Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission.

*** Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit.

*** Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others (fascism and Nazism both employed street violence and state violence at different moments in their development).

*** Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to an electorate.

*** Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.

*** Reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional attacks against both liberalism and communism.

*** Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic mission_often metaphysical and romanticized in character.

*** Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy_seeing the enemy as an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that justifies eradicating them.

*** The self image of being a superior form of social organization beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy.

*** Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example, ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of society.

*** Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

OK, grandstand for everyone, I am clear.

Whether you are or are not a flag waver, I don't care. As for modern-day fascism definitions/attributes, I am right.

Yep, you are right about everything. You are the smartest guy around here and we all know that. happy now?

Here is the funny thing: I AGREE with you on healthcare...to a certain extent at least. I also AGREED with you on that bullshit law in Vegas.

It is your attitude I don't like. But it certainly brings me constant amusement during my day. Thanks.

Hey bro, this aint about you or about me, it's about the issues. Why not debate the substantive elements of the issues. Don't take it or make it personal - it's simply not.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I understand that you, Lucky, are not the first person to change the definition of "fascist" to mean something else. I realize you didn't invent the alternative definition, I'm just saying that that particular trend, though popular is some political circles, was incorrect and manipulative to change the definition of "fascist."

Quote

In the United States, corporations representing many different sectors are involved in attempts to influence legislation through lobbying. This is also true of many non-business groups, unions, membership organizations, and non-profits. While these groups have no official membership in any legislative body, they can often wield considerable power over law-makers. In recent times, the profusion of lobby groups and the increase in campaign contributions has led to widespread controversy and the McCain-Feingold Act.

You actually have a very good point here. I agree with you that corporations are in the wrong when they use their $$$ to use government muscle to push their agendas.

I think there are plenty of libertarians out there that would agree also.

If we're going to be consistent, we should say that the government should not hinder business, but government muscle should also not be used unduly on the business' behalf. Stop sending in American troops to foreign countries to protect the interests of oil companies would be a good start.

Another way corporations use government muscle: To eliminate competition from small start-ups, a large company might buy legislation that would require expensive liscensing for anyone starting a business in a their particular industry.

reasoning: eliminates competition from the little guys who might not be able to afford the liscensing.

There are plenty of other examples of this kind of crap as well. So you definitely have a good point here.

So you're saying that WWII Communism is the same as today? Of course not, hence the prefix, "neo." Neo means new, so that is how neo-fascism applies here as per dictionary/encyclopedic definitions when applying them to the US.

Quote

You actually have a very good point here. I agree with you that corporations are in the wrong when they use their $$$ to use government muscle to push their agendas.

Yes, this is Corporatism, an element of fascsim, I posted a defintion.

Quote

I think there are plenty of libertarians out there that would agree also.

I wonder what the official Libertarian stance on the bedtime relationship between corps and gov is? Anyone with an official Libertarian repsonse? Since the Libertarians are fiscal righties, but hate big government, I do wonder.

Quote

If we're going to be consistent, we should say that the government should not hinder business, but government muscle should also not be used unduly on the business' behalf.

The government's first duty in that area is to govern businesses tho, so that's the other side of teh coin, even if they have to hamper that business.

Quote

Another way corporations use government muscle: To eliminate competition from small start-ups, a large company might buy legislation that would require expensive liscensing for anyone starting a business in a their particular industry.

That would be an example of neo-fascim. Mom and pop gas stations have expericend that. It's as if corporations have more power than the gov.

Quote

reasoning: eliminates competition from the little guys who might not be able to afford the liscensing.

There are plenty of other examples of this kind of crap as well. So you definitely have a good point here.

As foreign as the defintion, "fascism" is to the US, it is a part of neo-US culture and will be here for a while. Are we 100% fascist? Of course not, I don;t know the percentage or care to guess, but it is one of the many ideological elements of the US. When did it start? Probably in the early 80's when Regan shifted much power to corps. Would it have occured if Carter remained president? I dunno.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

I wonder what the official Libertarian stance on the bedtime relationship between corps and gov is? Anyone with an official Libertarian repsonse? Since the Libertarians are fiscal righties, but hate big government, I do wonder.

I don't know who we'd call to give The Official Libertarian response, but I've stated my opinion of it already.

The libertarians tend to favor free markets, but if they're going to be honest, they should not favor the use of oppressive government muscle even when it BENEFITS businesses. If they want the government off of the back of the businessman, they also shouldn't allow the businessman to climb up on the back of the government.

----
re. the misuse of the word "fascism":
No, I still don't accept that definition of "neo-fascism". It is too far out there. Someone was pissed off about corporations buying off the government to further their own ends, & the person became so angry about it that he decided to slap a really loaded, emotionally-charged label on it. Corporate manipulation of the government IS bad but it is NOT the same as fascism. I won't accept that definition, no matter how fashionable it is to say it in some circles.

(on the other hand, a "Neo-Nazi" is actually a type of Nazi)

Another example of political manipulation of language: There was this really militant vegetarian who wrote this book called The Sexual Politics of Meat. It was a moronic rambling diatribe about how eating meat is all part of an evil white male chauvanistic conspiracy. The author was just slapping all kinds of political associations on eating meat just to try to convince anyone of her point. Same kind of thing.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

How about millions of people born at a great disadvantage? Oh well, you have yours so fuck everyone else. This is why the US is where it's at, but the beauty is that these things correct themselves or get corrected by others. Shame is that it won't be corrected from inside.

Tell that to the Lance Armstrong Foundation. Tell that to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Tell that to Warren Buffet. Tell that to the United Way. Tell that to the Salvation Army.

Gee - these things don't exist in America - private philanthropic institutions that manage to do research, give scholarships, open homeless shelters and do any of a number of charitable things I guess are figments.

By the way, if the government did its job right we wouldn't have these problems. We wouldn't need these organizations. In my libertarian thinking, these places do a better job than the government and do the job cheaper. More than one person desires to see these places, and they should be allowed to work on these things.

Quote

Let's let the businesses dole out the healthcare. We've seen how ethical they are and I think we can privatize the US Treasury and feel safe that these businesses won't extort all the money. BEAUTIFUL.

Or, we can leave a Republican Congress and the Bush Administration to do it. We know how ethical they are. Actually, we all trust politicians and bureaucrats to always work in the best interests of the nation as a whole. We don't have Congressmen like Cunningham in San Diego lining his pockets.

We don't get people like Alcee Hastings serving in the House - you know, a federal judge impeached for bribery and corruption for accepting a $150k bribe.

If I have to chooe between corporations looking after themselves and government looking after itself, I'll choose businesses any fucking day.

Quote

if we centralize healthcare to the US gov then the employers are free of that loss.

No they aren't. Instead of the employee taking it directly, the government takes it from me. Same loss. Now, if I want to offer healthcare to my employees, I can. In fact, I have.

Picture a VA hospital. Now, the VA does great things for our injured soldiers in need of acute care. It's a tough thing, though, for those soldiers in need of long-term care and maintenance. That's government-run health care.

Something you may not know about me - I worked in the health care field for a couple of years before law school. And over the past few years, I have concluded that health care is, indeed, an exception to every economic principle. It gets no better, cheaper, worse, more expensive, etc., depending on supply and demand.

Health Care has three characteristics people look for:
1) It should be cheap;
2) it should be available to all on demand; and
3) it should be high quality.

Now, you can have cheap healthcare that is available to all on demand. Quality will therefore suffer.

You can have readily available healthcare that is high quality. This will be expensive.

Or, you can have high quality healthcare that is cheap. This will be rationed.

Here in America, you've got all three options. You've got great healthcare for free ("free" to the patient, but not the taxpayer) that means a long-ass wait in the ER at a county hospital. You've also got cheap and openly available care at a number of free clinics that can't handle anything worse than strep throat. You've also got high quality care available on demand for the right price.

I heard a quote once, "If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait till it's free." I personally think the best way to spend my money is for me to decide how it is spent and on what. I'll get myself the best care for the best price in the shortest time I can afford. This is the first of fours ways to spend money, and the most efficient.

If I'm responsble for paying for Joe Blow's health care, I won't care as much about the quality, just the price. This is the second way to spend money - your money on others. This is why you get underwear in your stocking for Christmas - you'd never buy it yourself, but someone else decides what you get. Not as efficient as the first, or efficable, either.

Of course, If I am to spend someone else's money on myself (the third way), I wouldn't be driving a Mercury Sable. I'd get a nicer and more expensive car. it tuns out that people who get shit for free often bitch that it isn't nice enough - this is the conflict between this way to spend money and the second way to spend money. It's not efficient because it's more that I would need.

The fourth way to spend money is to spend other's money on others. In this way, you don't care what the recipient needs or how much it costs. Welcome to government spending! Welcome to 8.5 trillion in debt and a world of shit to show for it.

Justify that, if you will.

Quote

I fail to see healthcare going anywhere but extinct for the poor.

Go to a county hospital.

Quote

1/2 of all bankruptcies in 2004 (1.5 million) were due to medical bills

So 1.5 million people got free medical care. And health care faces a funding crisis. Coincidence?

Quote

Have you noticed you keep emphasizing that it's all about the employer - the employee is secondary?

Yeah. Because I'm an employer who takes it in the ass with a sandpaper condom.

Have you noticed you keep emphasizing the employee? Or the person to whom stuffshould be given? Well, the stuff has gotta come from someone. Perhaps I've got some things because I worked for it. I decided not to run the risks of fathering children when I was 18 because I reckoned there was other stuff I wanted to do.

So I built a life and then a family. And I pay for insurance. A family of four making a combined $20k per year? So because the parents made their choices I should have to pay for it? "Oooh, but they are poor and made mistakes." I was 32 when I bought my first house. I was 31 when I had my first kid. I was 30 years old the first time I made more than $18k in a year. I'm $100k in the hole right now in debt for it. My kid is MY responsibility. Not yours. Not anyone else's except his mother, and his maternal grandmother when she is watching him, and whom we pay to watch him.

My problems are MY problems. My duty is to take the consequences. Should it be my duty to take the consequences of other people's actions? If so, why? Because it is socially responsible? Fuck that. I had none. Now I have some. Other have none, so I should give mine? Fuck that, too.

Quote

I stated in that passage that healthcare becomes exclusive when employers are the ones deciding who gets it,

Maybe a few people on this board could quit spending $500 per month on skydiving and instead spent $220 per month on health insurance. I know, so unfair that they should have to pay for something when someone else should do it for them.

When I didn't want insurance, I didn't have it. When I wanted insurance, I got it. It ate into my beer money, but I got it.

I think all throughout your posts you seem to forget one thing - people have choices: people have power: people have potential: people can and do accomplish things when they try.

So I think it comes down to our differences being primarily our view on the power of people. I think that people are better than they believe, and that when they believe in themselves they can do much more than they thought they could. You believe that most people can't, and therefore others need to pick up the slack. I find that viewpoint shameful and dangerous.

Employers v employees? I stated quite clearly that my viewpoints level the field as individuals, and not as groups. If employees want to unionize, they can go for it. If they think they are getting a raw deal, then they can go work for someone else or show their collective power n other ways.

I take on the view of the employer because I am one, and because a contrary point to yours is a good thing.

Quote

It worked under Clinton where he raised taxes on the rich. He also spent more on social programs and education.

Then we experienced a "market correction" and hundreds of billions of dollars were lost in people's retirements when the bubble economy burst. Where was Clinton to say, "Investors. Be Careful!" rolling in high public approval...

Quote

Tuition has increased 80% since Bush has taken office

My tuition more than doubled between 1991 and 1996. I didn't blame Clinton, though his performance was way worse than Bush's, I guess.

Quote

but when you have 100's of millions being given to politicians by corporations, it becomes hard to tell the difference

Isn't that like a wife blaming the other woman for a husband's affair? The other woman had no duty to the wife. The husband did. The politician should have said "no." He didn't. Therefore, he is wrong. I personally see a distinct difference between the two.

Quote

I was saying that I want the people who have resources to pay for medical care and other social programs.

And I want people to use their own resources to get things themselves. There are resources like intelligence, motivation, risk, education, etc. It's all there for the taking. But people would rather use their resources for fun, drugs, etc., and generally feeling sorry for themselves.

Quote

Certain people can’t be happy unless they have assistance with healthcare and education.

To rephrase it - certain people can't be happy unless other people do their shit for them.

I don't give a shit about "happiness." They should quit feeling sorry for themselves and do something. I guess it's why developmentally disabled people are some of the happiest and most wonderful people to be around. They find happiness in the little successes and doing the normal things. They try, because they think they can and people tell them that they can. Then they do.

Meanwhile, let's feel sorry for those who can but don't? Sorry, you ain't doing them no favors.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I wonder what the official Libertarian stance on the bedtime relationship between corps and gov is? Anyone with an official Libertarian repsonse? Since the Libertarians are fiscal righties, but hate big government, I do wonder.

I don't know who we'd call to give The Official Libertarian response, but I've stated my opinion of it already.

The libertarians tend to favor free markets, but if they're going to be honest, they should not favor the use of oppressive government muscle even when it BENEFITS businesses. If they want the government off of the back of the businessman, they also shouldn't allow the businessman to climb up on the back of the government.

So what happens when the businesses are fucking the little guy? The government does have a duty to protect certain classes, are the Libertarians against that?

[SpeedRacer 1]

This could go on & on. There are people on the left & the right of the political spectrum who are good people & have very decent goals to be achieved.

The libertarian may not be saying that the goals are bullshit, but may just be challenging the idea that just because a certain goal needs to be achieved, we should necessarily run to the GOVERNMENT to solve it. The government isn't God.

Maybe there are other solutions besides always running to the government.

If people are really interested in libertarian ideas about social/economic problems, check out this book:

Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression
by Mary J. Ruwart

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Lefty 0]

Quote

So what happens when the businesses are fucking the little guy? The government does have a duty to protect certain classes, are the Libertarians against that?

Tell me how a company can really and truly screw someone without the assistance of government to coerce an individual to do business with that company. Tell me also where you get the idea that it's the government's job to "protect" certain classes from other classes in matters that do not have to do with one party using illegal force or fraudulent activities against another.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin