Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
Some comments in the ongoing debate regarding the candidacy of Elizabeth Warren got me to thinking about our political system and people’s reactions to it. Warren is criticized by the Right for obvious reasons, given her strong stances on managing the economy and controlling the excesses of the Corporate Culture. In a sense she offends their sense of political purity, but then that is but a given because she is a Democrat. We have seen though on the Right that such conservative stalwarts as Richard Lugar have gone down to primary defeat because he failed the Tea Parties test of what a “true” conservative should be. Richard Lugar failed the “purity” test even though his conservative history is impeccable. In my conception political purity conforms to “party line” thinking, punishing those that fail to adhere in all respects to the standards of a given faction’s concept of standards their candidates must adhere to in order to retain enthusiastic support. I use “faction”, rather than “party”, because our two party political system actually represents an amalgam of various factions imperfectly coalescing under the rubric of a “Political Party”.
From a Left, or even Centrist perspective, there has been both amusement and trepidation about how the “Tea Party” faction has exerted control over the Republican Party. Then too, there is the same reaction to the power exerted by Fundamentalist Christians, a group that at some points overlaps with the “Tea Party”. A human trait is to see the foibles of groups we define as “other”, while being oblivious to the idiosyncrasies of the groups we are aligned with. Liberals, Progressives, Radicals and even Leftist Centrists like to believe that they are immune from the turmoil that they see in their Right Wing opposites, yet the “Left” and even the “Center” also routinely define people in terms of litmus tests of political purity. This was highlighted by certain comments on the Warren thread where people who were seemingly in tune with her domestic policy views, disliked her positions on the Middle East and appeared to hold them against her. This has definitely been true with many progressives and/or civil libertarians in viewing this current Administration. My purpose here is not one of castigation for anyone’s perspective; rather I’m interested in exploring the phenomenon of the belief that political figures need to meet all of our expectations in their positions, or be unworthy of our support. My own perspective is that tests of political purity are self defeating because it is impossible for any particular political figure to be in perfect agreement with all that any of us individually believe and politics becomes oppression without the ability to negotiate. The process of real negotiation requires compromise. What follows is why I believe that is true. Before my discussion though, I think a definition of perspectives would be helpful. There are some of us, including myself to a certain degree, who believe that we are living under a corporate oligarchy and as such the common pretense that our national fate is in the hands of the majority’s vote, is but pleasant mythology. I wrote about this in my guest blog Published 1, March 17, 2012: http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/17/a-real-history-of-the-last-sixty-two-years/ .One logical conclusion that can be drawn from believing that democracy is an illusion, is that voting is a wasted effort, since whatever person we choose will either be a corporate stooge, or unelectable. I can respect those who draw that conclusion since the evidence of its truth is quite convincing. My own conclusion is not quite there yet, even though I do believe that we are under the rule of a coalition of the Military Industrial Complex and of the Corporate Elite. The redeeming feature to me is that I don’t believe in the homogeneity of the “ruling classes”. I think that they are made up of various factions and roiled by clashing egos. In my estimation voting for politicians thus has value because the vote affects the competition among our oligarchs. There is a qualitative difference for instance between Buffett/Gates and the Koch Brothers, in the sense that the former believe in more humane social policies and the latter have a draconian social view.
If one believes that Democracy is completely illusory, then why bother voting, since voting is a futile exercise? The logical conclusion of such a belief is to disdain all of American politics and politicians as being tools of the Oligarchy. From that perspective it isn’t a question of particular policy, since almost every player in normative politics is not to be trusted. So the question becomes how do the people change things when the political process is believed to be non-existent? Obviously, if it is ones view that America politics is a total sham, then a massive uprising of the people would be needed to make change. How does that uprising occur? Will its’ nature be peaceful, or violent? While I know there are “militias” out in the hills of places like Idaho, are they capable of banding together to overthrow our current government, I think not. Violent revolutions always seem to breed unforeseen and unpleasant excesses, which make their original aims moot. So the question becomes how do we effect a peaceful revolution? The answer is simple, but the process itself is immensely complex. A peaceful revolution can come about when you are able to convince an overwhelming majority of the people that the current system needs change and that they need to refuse to cooperate with it. Think of the Montgomery Bus Boycott. When the media is in the hands of corporations though, the issue is one of how does the message of change come across to reach the populace? It’s a question I’ve pondered for years.
Back in the 60’s there was the idea of “dropping out” of a corrupt system. Its problem was that it was espoused by many and practiced by few. The truth was that for those “dropping out” the system didn’t miss their participation, nor would it now. A current conservative stratagem is to make voting harder, thereby limiting turnout of voters negative to their cause. We solve nothing by not voting. We could vote, but cast our votes for nascent opposition parties. This is not a bad premise in my estimation, even though in our loaded political system, minority party effectiveness is more limited than under parliamentary government. Let us think though about a minority party legislator’s ability to be effective once elected, since I assume that the process of gaining political power through organizing a minority party opposition would be slow and could be violently opposed. Think of the police reactions to Occupy Wall Street. However, OWS does show that the elite can feel threatened by a mass movement.
When we discuss the election of someone whose political views are outside of what the “mainstream allows”, we need to take into account how much positive influence they can have on the political process, if they are unwilling to compromise their “political purity”. Let us take the real instance of Senator Bernie Sanders, a socialist, as he does his job in the Senate. I believe that Bernie is the most ethical and perceptive Senator we have had in the Senate in a long time. He is also an effective Senator in terms of being able to not only put forth a progressive point of view, but to actually influence Senate activity. In order to be effective in the Senate, Bernie has had to compromise on certain issues and thus would certainly be seen from the orthodox socialist perspective to have sold out. In contrast let us take another man whose career I’ve admired, Dennis Kucinich. Dennis has been an aggressive/effective spokesman on a national level for unpopular, yet valid causes. Within the house though he has not been able to effectuate change simply because Dennis does not do compromise well
In today’s world a political change process is mainly effectuated in four ways:
1. Violent revolution, which is highly problematic at best.
2. Massive non cooperation with the system, ala Gandhi and King, which can be very successful based
upon the right circumstances.
3. Organizing and creating an opposition political movement, a possibly fruitful, yet hard process to carry
out with success..
4. Working within the system, imperfect as it may be, to effect slow change.
All of the above can be work to effect change in a given context, but one factor is a given no matter which method is chosen. To build a mass movement in a diverse population the need to compromise is paramount. This need to compromise is called “coalition building”. The Right has been effective at this for years when you think of the coalition between religious fundamentalists, lukewarm objectivists and outright corporatists. What would Jesus, Ayn Rand and even Adam Smith think of the ways their teachings have been presumably melded? In the past the Left also coalesced around certain issues, bringing together groups that were hardly homogeneous. However, from the 60’s onward building of coalitions on the Left has broken down. “Centrists” and “Liberals” became anathema to “progressives” and “radicals”. After all that he had accomplished Martin Luther King became an “Uncle Tom” in the minds of “Black Power” advocates for his refusal to entertain the concept of violence as a tool.
The Left coalition also began to break down in the 60’s over the issue of Viet Nam. Working class union members generally supported the war that was drafting and killing their children. The leadership of the AFL-CIO, who had striven to disassociate themselves from Marxism during the McCarthy era, had become part of the country’s establishment. As George Meany, the AFL-CIO President, began to play golf with Eisenhower and major industrialists, the Union movement swung away from its Left Wing roots. The fact that the labor movement was overwhelmingly “white working class” in an era where Blacks were demanding equal status also took its toll on the coalition between Big Labor and the Democratic Party. The AFL-CIO and Teamsters supported Richard Nixon in 1968..
The labor movement’s departure from coalition with the Democratic Party was to have devastating consequences for its strength. Their workers, doing well financially aspired to a scaled down version of the American Dream. The threat that competition with Blacks for jobs and with the Left’s critique of muscular foreign policy, helped drive white workers into the Republican Party. The fact that their leadership had become cozy with Management and Republicans led the way. The power of the labor movement waned until today it is a shadow of what it once was. The Left coalition forged under FDR and informed experientially by the “Great Depression”, began to fight amongst themselves. The battles increasingly became issues of “purity of political belief”. When a person’s political value is weighed on only specific issues that are politically “black and white”, coalition becomes almost impossible. Without the ability to coalesce “Movements” face severe limitations in their ability to grow.
I believe that in the desire for reforming our governance to work for the interests of all the people, all viable methods must be used. Of the four methods I list above I believe that only the latter three are really viable. A violent revolution in this country will only hasten the totality of oppression, since violent revolutions never seem to work out the way people have planned and that the people once having risen find themselves ruled harshly by those they so hopefully followed. Refute this premise if you will, but please don’t cite the American Revolution. While it certainly had violence it was a rebellion of colonies against an overseas colonial state. By revolution I mean the rebellion of a people in a certain geographical area against their own government.
Methodologically, none of the three methods can work without bringing together people of differing standards via a coalition that accepts deviation from a “party line”. This seems obvious to me since rarely do those who wish change agree on all issues. Are there “deal breakers” that cannot brook compromise? That depends upon the individual, the perceived threat and the current circumstance. I have my own deal breakers, certainly, but I invoke them in context of my reading of the perceived threat.
What do you the reader think of the argument I’ve made? If you disagree please let me know, since I understand that on any given subject I can be wrong and I am really willing to learn. If you agree with me then what are your “deal breakers”? Perhaps if you show me yours, I’ll show you mine.
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
@hskiprob: It is easier to sell fascism and give the Citizens the illusion that they have private property rights.
Ah, I see, the vast population of the world is just gullible suckers. Not only that, but the ones that think they are happy, safe, productive, and living a good life are just delusional.
You are the one that is delusional, your idiocies are so easy to puncture it is laughable.
, they just take/steal most of the profits through taxation and regulation.
Now you will redefine the word “most.” That’s the Aynish language for you!
The top tax rate right now is about 1/3 of profits, with plenty of ways to avoid it, including one fine way to avoid it completely and keep all of it.
“Ah, I see, the vast population of the world is just gullible suckers. Not only that, but the ones that think they are happy, safe, productive, and living a good life are just delusional.”
You apparently are falling to consider the effects on a huge percentage of the world population whom are suffering from the current worldwide financial meltdown which is caused by systemic fascism. Think Tony what you write. The ruling class in the Soviet Union was living a happy, safe, productive, and a good life. Not so much though for the rest of their citizens.
Under your logic, the current unemployed of the world should not be considered. It’s there own fault they don’t have a governemnt job or are a govenrment contractor since Obama and his fascist cronies in Congress are giving out free money by the $trillions.
And to answer your first question. Yes Tony you are gullible as are most people whom are as brain washed as you and sadly that is the majority.
I don’t mind that you argue against anarcho capitalism but your insistance on arguing in support of the authority of fascist oligrachies being legitimate is a bit disturbing.
skip,
Your inability to comprehend that fascism and socialism (let alone Communism) are completely incompatible systems is staggering. Fascism – at the least corporatist form of fascism you are talking about even though such a distinction is lost on you – is dependent upon both the idea of private property and the property motive to operate. And you have property rights, skip. They just aren’t absolute like almost all Libertarians seem to think. That preoccupation with money and material goods your Objectivist and Austrian base certainly distorts the reality of the matter.
As to central bankers? You keep ignoring the part where I’m critical of the private enterprise components of the Fed. None of which mitigates that as a structural matter, in a complex global economy, the functions a central bank (preferably under strict public control) is necessary.
As to your “analysis” of the boom bust cycles, that is so far divorced from economic and political reality I’m not even going to address it. It’s a waste of time.
Gene, You are unwilling to consider the negative ramifications on society of the various communists enactments, ie. income tax, central bank, public education. You believe somehow, dispite continuous failure that govenment will regulate their own actions as well as the controls over the marketplace.
You want to blame coporatism for the failure of govenment when it is the other way around. You fail to udnerstand that in reality, government is a power brokerage cartel.
You can keep spitting out what you think government is suuposted be that doesn’t make it a reality.
I disgree with you on almost everything. You’re inability to provide the negative ramifications throughout your posts indicate that you are just ignoring them so that you don’t have to logically deal with them.
Good luck with that strategy. You have to evaluate the good and the bad if you are to gain reality. Just blaming the failures of a central bank on the lack of government oversite, and not consider either how poorly government regulation actually ends up working or how insedious a central bank is, is not going to give you a realistic analysis of it’s true need and usefulness in a modern society.
@hskiprob: I did not claim to be a highly enlightened thinker, I claimed to be an original thinker. If my conclusions have been reached before, and published before, then all the better, it means my casual efforts are on the same track as what the professionals see fit to publish.
You only compliment me by claiming that is true.
Tony, libertarians have been debating these same issues using the same arguments for decades. You’re obviously a smart guy Tony but you do need to do some more reading. There is so much knowledge out there.
Skippy,
“Gene, communism did go over like gangbusters. The Soviet Union, Cuba, China, Argentina and a host of others including the U.S. and most of Europe have embraced large portions of communism.”
Really. If Communism was such a success, then why out of the 196 countries (if you count Taiwan) in the world today are Cuba, Laos, Vietnam and North Korea the only Communist dogs left standing? Don’t say China either unless you just want me to laugh. China now practices a form of state capitalism even though they are still controlled by the Communist Party politically and technically speaking. That’s 39.2 times more non-Communist countries than Communist countries. Seems that on the numbers alone, Communism didn’t go over like gangbusters at all but was instead a dismal failure. One of those pesky facts you seem to think I don’t have. Also, that you don’t understand my arguments is irrelevant to their objective logical and factual validity. I am not addressing you even when I am addressing you. You’re a true believer. There is no convincing you. Never has been.
“Let’s go over some of the platforms again. #2 is a high progressive or graduated income tax. #5 is a Central Bank and #10 is public education.”
You insist on begging the question that taxation is theft over and over again despite the fact that it 1) isn’t theft and 2) is an essential component of any government no matter its form. You also insist on trying to demonize the idea of a central bank instead of taking specific criticisms of what is wrong with our central bank. Central banks are a necessary thing in a complex global economy. Whether you see the factual truth of this matter is irrelevant to it being true. As for public education? You Libertarians sure love to (mis)quote Jefferson in support of your tripe, so here’s a Jefferson quotes that are both informative and detrimental to your anti-public education stance (not to mention that public education is the very essence of promoting the general welfare of society):
August 13, 1786 Letter to George Wythe: “I think by far the most important bill in our whole code is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be devised, for the preservation of freedom and happiness…Preach, my dear Sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish & improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against these evils [tyranny, oppression, etc.] and that the tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.”
December 20, 1787 Letter to James Madison: “Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to ; convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty.”
April 24, 1816 letter to Dupont de Nemours: “Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day . . . . I believe it [human condition] susceptible of much improvement, and most of all, in matters of government and religion; and that the diffusion of knowledge among the people is to be the instrument by which it is effected.”
January 14, 1818, letter to Joseph C. Cabell: “Now let us see what the present primary schools cost us, on the supposition that all the children of 10. 11. & 12. years old are, as they ought to be, at school: and, if they are not, so much the work is the system; for they will be untaught, and their ignorance & vices will, in future life cost us much dearer in their consequences, than it would have done, in their correction, by a good education. . . . A system of general instruction, which shall reach every description of our citizens from the richest to the poorest, as it was the earliest, so will it be the latest, of all the public concerns in which I shall permit myself to take an interest.”
Some of us actually understood what Jefferson wrote and from their original sources instead of relying on some distorted Libertarian translation of his ideals. Yeah. Public education is for Communists! Despite it being a very real concern of the Founders well before the creation of either socialism or Communism. Just think of what you could have accomplished if you hadn’t wasted your education, skipster.
Also, since you place such a high value on references even when they are not required, here is a pamphlet from 1928 outlining the ASP’s platform. Other than the nationalization plank, they sound a lot like the planks of just about any other platform past or present of any pro-democratic party at one time or another. I’ll let the reader make up their own minds about it just like I usually let them decide for themselves about the easily verifiable facts on which my arguments are built. Just because you require hand holding doesn’t mean everyone does. Also, a car and an atomic bomb both use screws but they are not the same thing. You are making the logical fallacy of composition again. As an aside, if you think I’m factually wrong in an assertion – then prove it – but opinion that I don’t know what I’m talking about isn’t the same as proving it. I assume that most people are both more intelligent and better informed than you. I say this in part based on the very large number of times you have been proven wrong as a matter of historical (or legal or psychological or sociological) fact. Speaking of which . . .
“He appears to be using socialogical terms that aren’t commonly understood.”
That doesn’t mean they are being incorrectly used or that others don’t understand the technical terms. That you don’t understand is immaterial. Understanding is not your strong suit even once things are explained to you (usually more than once). You repeatedly read facts and/or logic counter to your assertions and then the white noise of your dogma quickly drowns it out before you are forced to minimally but actually think for yourself let alone think critically.
Carry on attempting to distribute your Kool-Aid though.
Too bad for you this is the grown up drinks section.
.” Really. If Communism was such a success, then why out of the 196 countries (if you count Taiwan) in the world today are Cuba, Laos, Vietnam and North Korea the only Communist dogs left standing?
Gene, you should know this answer. It is easier to sell fascism and give the Citizens the illusion that they have private property rights. They still use the same communist enactments, but instead of outright owning the businesses, they just take/steal most of the profits through taxation and regulation.
You should understand this stuff Gene. For instance, the central bankers don’t give two shits about the American majority or they would not have done the many things they have since they gained power in 1913.
The central bankers are the prominant perpetrators of the boom and bust real estate cycle, we are now experiencing.
@hskiprob: I regurgitate nothing; my thoughts are 100% my own. I realize that concept is alien to you, having never had a thought of your own I am sure original thought is as mysterious to you as calculus.
If you are trying to search for arguments against me, you will have to invent your own. I suspect you are not capable of that.
Tony, your thoughts are an accumilation of prior obtained knowledge perhaps with a bit of creativity included. I have heared all you argument before so you are not the highly enlightened thinker you think you are.
You lied about reading the book didn’t you?
@hskiprob: When will you ever come to the realization that the vast majority of people completely reject your infantile philosophy that selfishness is good, that brutality in the name of selfishness is good?
When will you ever come to the realization that you are wasting your time pining after a fantasy system that will never, ever, come to pass, because if it existed for an instant it would be violently overthrown?
Most importantly, when will you ever come to the realization that all rights are meaningless absent any obligation on the part of society to defend them or punish the deprivation of them?
Your right to property is meaningless if you have to defend it all by yourself, it vanishes the moment a superior force presents itself. Rights are just empty rhetoric without society to back them up. What does it mean to have a “right?” It means that society has collectively decided nobody in the society can deprive you of it, or punish you for exercising it.
That in turn means your fellow citizens have an obligation to punish those that deprive you of your “right” or try to punish you for exercising it.
If all justice is by ad hoc gangs of volunteers, then your “right” becomes meaningless. If nobody has any obligation to act when you are deprived of life, liberty, or property, what is the difference between a “right” and just something you think?
What makes a right a right is the obligation of others to protect it. Such mutual obligations are also what makes a society. A society is not just a collection of people, a society is a collection of people with mutual obligations, and the only way you have any “rights” is if the society is obligated to preserve them, and if you are symmetrically obligated to preserve the rights of others.
In the USA, we meet those societal obligations through taxes on our excess income, which is used to pay others to do whatever we have collectively decided to do, as a society.
From your first statement Tony it is clear that you have not read Rands book. You have not read it and don’t lie to us because you’re regurgitating someone elses sociopathic, spin aren’t you. Whose your pethetic source.
Pretty good ah, I’ve have learned much from you guys. Criticize and Deny, Criticize and Deny.
“Tony, When are you going to come to the realization that our two party system, Democrats and Republicans are a two headed snake.”
Skippy,
You don’t read well do you? Way before you ever arrived here on this blog, Tony, Gene and I have all made this point about the Republicans and Democrats. If you examine the writings above in this thread and my own in the piece I wrote, that belief in the fact of both parties being depressingly similar was made. Being much older than you, I can say I came to that conclusion probably before you were weaned. A person who is unable to hear or see anything that could inform their beliefs is immune to reason.
@Bron: Yes, the unions lost in Wisconsin. It hasn’t been looking good for unions for quite some time, Bron, teachers or otherwise.
I believe that is because government and lawsuits have, responsibly, usurped many of the key benefits unions once delivered. Such as workplace safety and some benefits like unemployment insurance, limitations on hours, requirements for overtime pay, grievance policies, etc.
So in a sense the government competed with a private enterprise (unions) by providing union-like benefits to ALL employees. They took away the big features of the unions’ product. The union was once the only way to get a fair shake in the workplace, now there exist legal alternatives, so the unions are not as critical.
The reason people do not join is because they make a cost-benefit analysis and decide it isn’t worth paying the “tax” of the union dues when they get the benefit essentially for free from the government.
Thus in my view, I really do not care much if unions survive. They need to adapt or die. What they are “selling” is not worth what they are charging, so they need to find another product, lower the price, or both.
I really do believe in markets, Bron. The difference in me is that in my view not everything has a price, and in your view absolutely everything has a price, you Aynish have no principles that ever put anything above money.
tony c:
your lie is bigger than mine. just keep telling yourself what you just wrote.
the unions spent a good deal of time and money to pull this out and they lost. not looking good for other state unions. I said it probably doesnt have ramifications for the Obama Romney match-up in November but it is not a good omen for the democratic party seeing as how they get a good deal of money from the Unions.
Now if we could only control the money coming from lobbyists, one down and one to go.
@Bron: The unions spent millions to take him down,
On the contrary, by ALL reports the pro-Walker forces outspent the pro-Barrett forces by at least seven to one.
Also, the National Democratic party refused to pour money into the Wisconsin recall, because they also thought it was a lost cause. The White House did not campaign in Wisconsin for the same reason; Obama (and I am no longer any fan of Obama) does not help if he does not think it will create a win, he doesn’t want to be seen as a loser (and instead is seen by some of us former Democrats as an unprincipled jerk).
And you are mistaken if you think I give a shit about Obama’s chances against Romney.
Stewart is not minimizing the win, the win minimizes itself, within half a percentage point it was precisely the same outcome as the last time Walker and Barrett got in the ring.
You can believe a lie if you want, like all lies it distorts reality and therefore sets you up for a potentially painful reality check. The reality is that in sixteen months, after millions of dollars were spent by both sides, nothing in Wisconsin changed in the least.
If anything, I would say that is a positive sign on a different front: All that money spent by conservatives did not really change the percentage vote at all; people voted the same both before and after all the ads. Maybe people aren’t as gullible as the political common wisdom suggests, maybe after a lifetime of questionable product ads making hyperbolic and downright unbelievable claims, they are all just fast forwarding over the ads and the ads have a net zero effect on their vote.
“What you need to study is when private companies are nationalized by governments. You’ll find that even with “the markup” government is not very good at running businesses and generally can’t compete with private enterprise, if they’re not a monopoly.” Skiprob
“Skip, Name 3 private companies that were taken over by government in the last 60 years?” My question to you regarding your statement above.
“Throughout the world or are you going to limit me to this country? FNMA, Freddie Mac and Portions of AIG and GM.” Skiprob’s response.
“FNMA, commonly known as Fannie Mae, was founded in 1938 during the Great Depression as part of the New Deal.” Skip’s answer is wrong because this company was not nationalized.
“The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), known as Freddie Mac, is a public government sponsored enterprise. The FHLMC was created in 1970 to expand the secondary market for mortgages in the US.” Skip again has given a wrong answer since this Agency was not nationalized.
“AIG suffered from a liquidity crisis when its credit ratings were downgraded below “AA” levels in September 2008. The United States Federal Reserve Bank on September 16, 2008 created an $85 billion credit facility to enable the company to meet increased collateral obligations consequent to the credit rating downgrade, in exchange for the issuance of a stock warrant to the Federal Reserve Bank for 79.9% of the equity of AIG. The Federal Reserve Bank and the United States Treasury by May 2009 had increased the potential financial support to AIG, with the support of an investment of as much as $70 billion, a $60 billion credit line and $52.5 billion to buy mortgage-based assets owned or guaranteed by AIG, increasing the total amount available to as much as $182.5 billion.[6][7] AIG subsequently sold a number of its subsidiaries and other assets to pay down loans received, and continues to seek buyers of its assets.”
AIG was not nationalized as Skip implies. The company had become insolvent threatening the world’s financial structure and was assisted through government intervention, while allowing its management team to remain in power. The proof that they remained in control is here where Bernake admits a form of nationalization would have been preferable but the government lacked the power to do so:
“Had AIG been allowed to fail in a controlled manner through bankruptcy, bondholders and derivative counterparties (major banks) would have suffered significant losses, limiting the amount of taxpayer funds directly used. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke argued: “If a federal agency had [appropriate authority] on September 16, [2008], they could have been used to put AIG into conservatorship or receivership, unwind it slowly, protect policyholders, and impose haircuts on creditors and counterparties as appropriate. That outcome would have been far preferable to the situation we find ourselves in now.”
Further proof that AIG was not “nationalized”:
“The week following the September bailout, AIG employees and distributors participated in a California retreat which cost $444,000 and featured spa treatments, banquets, and golf outings. It was reported that the trip was a reward for top-performing life-insurance agents planned before the bailout.[ Less than 24 hours after the news of the party was first reported by the media, it was reported that the Federal Reserve had agreed to give AIG an additional loan of up to $37.8 billion. AP reported on October 17 that AIG executives spent $86,000 on a previously scheduled English hunting trip. News of the lavish spending came just days after AIG received an additional $37.8 billion loan from the Federal Reserve, on top of a previous $85 billion emergency loan granted the month before. Regarding the hunting trip, the company responded, “We regret that this event was not canceled.” An October 30, 2008 article from CNBC reported that AIG had already drawn upon $90 billion of the $123 billion allocated for loans. On November 10, 2008, just a few days before renegotiating another bailout with the US Government for $40 billion, ABC News reported that AIG spent $343,000 on a trip to a lavish resort in Phoenix, Arizona.”
AIG was not nationalized, it was bailed out. Now Skip, you and I may both agree that the government intervention was a mistake, but your characterization of the intervention as “nationalizing” is a false premise. Later on AIG paid out more than $400 million in bonuses to its top employees.
Your last example, GM, also fails the “nationalization” test. GM went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy and received government assistance, but its upper level management retained control throughout the reorganization. Let’s get back though to why I asked the question, which you answered incorrectly.
This gets to the problem with your entire thinking. Your entire political conception rests on a bunch of false premises, that you call facts ad so represents a kind of false, circular reasoning. NO companies have been nationalized in the last 60, or 160 years in the US. So your premise:
“What you need to study is when private companies are nationalized by governments. You’ll find that even with “the markup” government is not very good at running businesses and generally can’t compete with private enterprise, if they’re not a monopoly.”
This is a false and phony premise, since no “nationalization” has taken place. The basic reason the people your blindly follow use such a premise is to make their specious point that government can’t manage various things as well as business. This is an idea that is basically nonsense and is disproved easily. Medicare’s administrative costs are 2 to 3%. The average private health insurer’s administrative costs are 15 to 20% and that doesn’t count profits.
If I was to go through every statement you have made Skip, in defense of your position, I would expose that every one is a false premise thrown out by you to create the illusion you are making sense. Indeed, I believe that to you, you are making sense. This is your illusion to justify an incoherent belief, all the element of which have been demolished by both Tony and Gene. When I asked you to define for us just what you believe can replace government you referred me to a book. All that indicated was that you couldn’t define it yourself in 3 or 4 paragraphs. I could define my theory of government in that space and so could Gene and Tony. Actually, they have in all their comments on this thread, but you are so much a believer in your religion of Aynism (as Tony calls it) that you are literally incapable of seeing any other perspective. What is sad about this for both you and Bron is not that you lack intelligence, but that your adopting a flawed belief system makes you sublimely ignorant and immune to other ideas. The one thing that Tony, Gene and me aren’t, is doctrinaire political thinkers. Yet your only way of seeing us, despite our proof otherwise is as Marxists. For you that term is an all purpose “bogeyman” to keep you from actually understanding the logical demolition of your belief structure. A mind is a terrible thing to waste and yet that is what you are doing.
FNMA and Freddie Mac are both Government “guaranteed” private companies called GSEs or at least they were until they were nationalized by the government after they financially failed. I told people in 2002 that they were going to fail. To nationalize is to take the business from private ownership to govenrment ownership and administration. Whether there are any private shareholders left, I’m not sure. They were bad ideas from their inception because they gave the profits to the business owners and shareholders, with any potential liabilities passed onto the taxpayer. A guaranteed failure as a business model and I’m not wrong. They are both now under government ownership and control and that is being nationalized. Mike, it looks like you used goggle but just didn’t go far enough down and read the entire page. I was a mortgage broker for some 15 years. Stopped in 2003 because I was unwilling to lie to borrowers once I discovered that the Central and Wall Street bankers with doing the same thing as they did to the stock market in 1933 but this time to the real estate market.
I think that both shares from AIG and GM were part of the deal. That is why I said that I perfer to go to others counties were full nationalization of businesses have occured and offer better case studies.
You like a kid just trying to find one thing wrong in what I write. I’ve never said I’m perfect. You need to read Genes posts for that.
Tony C:
keep telling yourself that. Minimize the win. The unions spent millions to take him down, they occupied the capital building and they went to great lengths to get rid of Walker. They failed. Wisconsin is a liberal state, very liberal. I wont go so far as to say Romney will win in Wisconsin but this is more than what you are making it out to be. It is not a good indication of things to come for Obama.
Stewart is minimizing the loss for political reasons. The White House was shitting itself on Wednesday morning.
@Bron: As Jon Stewart pointed out, sixteen months ago, Wisconsin elected Walker over Barrett 52% to 43%. This time they elected Walker over Barrett (same two guys) 53% to 43%.
In terms of the governor’s race nothing changed, nobody woke up, a Republican majority re-elected their guy.
However, the recall was a semi-victory anyway, since the state senate went from Republican control to Democratic control, so if the Democrats can get unified they can thwart further Republican depredations by Walker. We shall see what happens.
But, no, people are not starting to wake up. One Republican victory exactly like the last Republican victory means nothing at all, except that Wisconsin Republicans were not really outraged by Walker’s tactics, no matter how outraged Wisconsin (and national) Democrats were. Or maybe, to put the blame on the other foot, that Wisconsin Democrats were not willing to get out and vote for Barrett sixteen months ago and were still not willing on Tuesday.
There is no victory or change evidenced by this vote at all, as Stewart said, the message sixteen months ago was, “That’s our guy,” and the message now is, “Alright, you want to ask again? Fine. That’s our fucking guy!!“
Tony, When are you going to come to the realization that our two party system, Democrats and Republicans are a two headed snake. You can read all about it almost everyday for the last 40 years. What party controls what house makes not difference. There’re both trying to stick as much of your money into their pockets while doing as little work as possible and they will come up with as many reasons and programs as possbile, to attempt to get you to acquiscece and give them your money, until the majoirty someday wakes up broker and the 1% controls 85% percent of the wealth of our once great nation.
Gene H:
That doesnt follow, there are people who dont live as fearful beings and are constantly trying to break the chains of that control.
Freedom always wins, it is the natural state of man. Most of us feel it as a part of our being, I have learned some do not. Those are the socialists/totalitarians among us. My wife always says the crazy makers are the ones who control a relationship.
What is happening now, as we just saw in Wisconsin, is that rational people are starting to wake up and say enough of this bullshit. The inmates have run the asylum long enough.
Bron,
You are responsible for paying your taxes. The part of the definition of liability you refer to – “b: accountability and responsibility to another enforceable by civil remedies or criminal sanctions” – is talking about civil and criminal judgments.
“You havent once threatened my beliefs.”
No, I threaten them all the time by exposing how ethically bankrupt they can be. What I haven’t once done is change your mind, which in all fairness, is a function of your mind, not my efforts.
The rest of what you say is misrepresentations and drivel. The idea that external societal controls and internal controls are mutually exclusive is ridiculous and naive. As to your rant about socialism? Thanks for once again showing you have no idea what the term means. “People who like external controls have no internal controls, since they have no internal controls they must substitute the state. They use the state as a mental crutch since their own internal regulator is damaged or non-existent. They havent fully matured as human beings, they havent fully accepted reality. Socialism is nothing but a crutch for damaged human beings who seek to make everyone live as miserable, fearful and confused beings. They do say misery loves company. I guess it is true.” If what you said were true? The extreme form of socialism – Communism – would have gone over like gangbusters.
Really, you need to ditch Ayn.
She is holding you back.
Gene, communism did go over like gangbusters. The Soviet Union, Cuba, China, Argentina and a host of others including the U.S. and most of Europe have embraced large portions of communism. Let’s go over some of the platforms again. #2 is a high progressive or graduated income tax. #5 is a Central Bank and #10 is public education. We have actually enacted at least some portion of all 10 platfoms. As mentioned, all of the 1928 and 1932 platforms of the American Socialist Party, have also been enacted into law in this country. That’s the facts bro, check it out. Scary but even more fightening, is that when you point things like this out to people, it doesn’t change their perspective on socio-economics.
Secondly, do you think having the social crutch there in the first place, provides incentive to be irresponsible, compared to if the crutch wasn’t there? For instance, many of the modern day philonthropic organizations where created in the eighteen hundreds when there was virtually no government welfare programs. The point is that even than there was a crutch available for those that were trully needed. However, just because you had a bunch of kids when you could’t afford them, didn’t necessaily guarentee that someone would come to the aid and bail you out. There was no promotion of irresponcibily or guarantees if you were irresponcible and therefore people were probabally more responcible, or at least that what logic would indicate. There were even private organizations in the 1800’s that provide unemployment compensation and workman compesation to their membership. They were mainly trade type organization that provided this type programs. Probably the basis for modern day unions, but that’s a guess.
Gene H:
“which is what I consider Bron due to his rabid reactions when his Objectivist dogma is threatened”
My Objectivist dogma? That is very funny. You havent once threatened my beliefs. You give yourself way too much credit for your powers of intellect.
Your thinking is much more dogmatic than mine and on top of that you are so mundane in what you believe. I can go into any high school class in America and here the same drivel come from the young skulls full of mush that I see you spout everyday. They just parrot what their teachers tell them who parrot what they learned in college from leftist professors like Tony C.
Your world view comes down to control. What was it Eddy Murphy said in that one movie where he played a home shopping guru? Something about people who are prepared for everything are prepared for nothing. People who like external controls have no internal controls, since they have no internal controls they must substitute the state. They use the state as a mental crutch since their own internal regulator is damaged or non-existent. They havent fully matured as human beings, they havent fully accepted reality.
Socialism is nothing but a crutch for damaged human beings who seek to make everyone live as miserable, fearful and confused beings. They do say misery loves company. I guess it is true.
@skip: I will answer the questions.
Q1: So what your telling me Gene, I don’t have a right to choose which social compacts I want. I have to agree with yours.
Correct, for all intents and purposes. The social compact is determined by a super-majority, if enough of us get together and agree, we can legally change the entire Constitution of the United States. Something like 75% of us, basically, although through the election process, it could be engineered to be a mere majority in the smallest 38 states or something.
So technically with enough like-minded people you could change the social compact, but short of that, you take what’s on the table.
Q2: If I think the government is corrupt, I have to leave if I’m unhappy, I can’t get rid of teh scondrels.
Also correct, for all intents and purposes. However technically, you could, with enough like-minded people you could vote them out of office, but short of that, you cannot do anything about it except leave for greener pastures.
Q3: Do you really think that you and I could agree on what contitutional rights could and should be protected?
Well I obviously cannot speak for Gene, but speaking for myself, perhaps on a few of them. Do you believe in freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to be free of search without just cause, the right to life, the right to a trial?
Q4: The idea, that I have to protect you from tyranny, is in fact interesting. […] That is an interesting legal concept. You’re going to have to be a little more specific as to what you believe my liabilities are, as it relates to protecting you.
Which brings us back to rights. If we declare that something is a legal right then we implicitly declare that violating it is an illegal act and that imposes upon society the obligation to capture and punish criminals that violate it.
No matter how that is done, it will entail publicly borne expense, at least the expense of time and risk of injury for something like a posse. To the extent that expense is not voluntarily given, it remains a legal obligation that must be collected, and like all obligations, by force if necessary.
Your liability, as it relates to protecting me, is your share of that obligation for enforcing the rights we have agreed upon. That extends to protecting me from tyranny as well, since rights are what do that.
However, when the group gets large it is going to contain psychopaths, sociopaths, the mentally sick and mentally disabled, the devoutly pacifist, the devoutly warlike, the devoutly racist, the devoutly Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Pagan, Environmentalist, Communist, Socialist, Aynish, etc.
Large groups will not unanimously agree upon anything, including the right to life or property. Throw a committed Communist in there, and they may refuse. Throw a psychopathic killer in there, and he might refuse, on the grounds that he does not want his insanity punished.
So how do we proceed, if we want ANY rights to be enforced, if it is impossible to achieve unanimous agreement?
There are three popular options. One is by authoritarian decree, a small minority of the people decides, and that is that. One is by popular vote, a majority decides, and that is that.
The third blends these two. A small minority will ultimately decide, but instead of being self-appointed or appointed by an authoritarian, they are chosen by popular vote.
There simply is no way to proceed with unanimous agreement. And do not think that means anarchy is the right thing to have, because anarchy violates the desires of the majority of the people. If you demand anarchy as the alternative to unanimity, then YOU are the authoritarian dictator setting the rules for others because it violates YOUR sense of fairness.
Without unanimous agreement, the majority does indeed rule, and it shall rule by force. We are not arguing that is untrue, because it IS true. We accept that as a fact of life, because we know that logically the only other alternative is anarchy, and we find anarchy abhorrent.
So the answer is YES, you DO have an obligation to protect me from tyranny, because you have an obligation to protect my rights, and the majority decided that a fair way for all people to meet that obligation without creating undue hardship for the unfortunate is by paying a percentage of your income above a certain threshold.
If you do not like it, if you want to shirk that responsibility, then you are a de facto advocate of anarchy, which is rule by force of arms alone. No system of voluntary participation in law enforcement will ever be a guarantee of any right, not the right to property, life, liberty, speech, or anything else. The definition of the word “voluntary” makes it a free choice and exposes the possibility of nobody choosing freely to prosecute a murder, a theft, an enslavement, a rape, or a brutal beating for saying something offensive. If a right has no guarantee of protection then it is simply worthless, empty rhetoric. Agreeing that all your countrymen should have a right implicitly agrees to a personal obligation to protect their right.
I hope these answers are clear and you can stop saying nobody is answering your direct questions.
No, I don’t have to agree with your social compact. I can always move to another juresdiction where there are more individual rights. Matter of fact, many have already done that, at least the smart ones. Acutally that is my plans. Dominica or Belize. The interenet is also opening up the world. People are starting to catch on to reality and not the illusions we’ve been fed by the the ruling class. The oligarchs are holding on to the seat of their pants, as bond markets drastically weaken worldwide. The free market always eventually wins, it just a matter of time. Just as the American, French and British revolutions created a period of extensive freemarket activities and limited governments, the time will come again when government is reduced to ruins. Hopefully this time, the Citizens will have learned from the experiences and know how to stop the government incroachments. It would be nice if our children did not have to go through this but that is apparently what the majority of people are willing to tolerate. People like Ron Paul and Ex-Governor Gary Johnson are gathering greater and greater followings.
Gene H:
in regards liability:
“b: accountability and responsibility to another enforceable by civil remedies or criminal sanctions”
My taxes and skip’s taxes go to people on welfare [some probably in actual need] so they are our responsibility. If I dont pay my taxes I can face harsh penalties including jail time.
So it would seem skiprob called it right.
Thanks for supplying the definition.
“So what your telling me Gene, I don’t have a right to choose which social compacts I want. I have to agree with yours.”
Straw man. I never said any such thing.
In the U.S., unlike some countries, when you reach the age of majority, you are free to opt out of our social compact any time you see fit. However, remaining stateless is unwise and you would be bound the social compact of any other nation to which you would become a citizen.
Also, I don’t care about your estimates of my intelligence or whether or not you like me, skip. You simply aren’t bright enough for that to have any impact on me whatsoever. I also don’t care what children, Objectivists and theocrats think of me either. I do indeed answer your drivel most of the time (although I did pass the ball to Tony today – we play tag team all the time) and yet you routinely ignore the answers opted to ask them again and again as if you’ll get a different answer you like better or you conflate them into something they are not using straw men. Sometimes both. I’m also going to point out – again – not all arguments require an appeal or cite to authority which I do use when appropriate such as referring to the Constitution. Most arguments can stand simply on proper definitions and logic. “Yea I want to see some of you straw men.” You’ll be waiting a long time because I don’t need them to win arguments. “That’s what it’s about dude. Watching one anothers back and helping one another and not by force. The only thing I would expect form you is for you to steal from me. That what socialist do and you are surely a socialist and communist.” Really. Eugene McCarthy called and he wants his insults back. “You advocated the 5th platform of communism, a central bank, as did Matt advocate the income tax, 2nd platform for communism.” Then you better get to explaining why every country in the world practically has a central bank and very very few of them (and none of any size) are Communist anymore. And taxes are – as I’ve explained many times – part of the social compact and part of government no matter what country you choose.
Given that I’ve specifically argued against Communism in the past, you’re seeing non-existent ducks.
As far as what Turley allows, he allows the full exercise of your (and mine) 1st Amendment rights to freedom of speech. To my knowledge, he does not deny advocacy of any view point. That you are unable to defend your view points is a failure that is based entirely upon the weakness of both your ideas and your ability to present and defend them. If that part of free speech presents a problem for you and your selective understanding and application of the Constitution, I suggest that is merely par for the course with Libertarians. You’re all for the Constitution until it says something contrary to your ideological dogma.
“Agreed, it appears there is little difference between a thief and a sociopath.”
Actually, there is quite a bit of difference.
“When you can’t understand that taxation is theft, that apparently pretty much discribes a sociopath.”
Begs the question that taxation is thievery when it is an essential component of government under the social compact no matter what the form of that government might be.
“I’m somehow responcible for someone elses liabilities. Interesting legal concept.”
Utter bullshit and not a legal concept in the slightest. You are responsible for your own taxes, not the taxes of others. The term “liability” has a very specific meaning as a term of legal art and you are misusing it (probably because you operate off of a mishmash of pseudo-philosophy, misinformation and non-scientific “economics”). Liability in the legal sense of the word means:
liability
1: the quality or state of being liable
2: something for which one is liable: as
a: a financial obligation: “debt”
Example: tax liability
Example: the bonds are liabilities
(compare asset)
b: accountability and responsibility to another enforceable by civil remedies or criminal sanctions
Example: liability for injuries caused by their product
“I must also be responcilbe when a prostitute gets herpies, of when a drug gang member is shot. ”
Reductio ad absurdum and misapplied at that. You are only responsible for these people if you gave the hooker herpes or if you shot the gang member (or by your reckless action caused him to be shot). That does not change that you are liable for your taxes that may be used by the government to provide both health care and law enforcement services relevant to the facts at hand as a matter of promoting both justice and the general welfare (specific functions of government as defined by the Constitution).
The same applies to the rest of your ridiculous examples. That government serves to protect and promote the general welfare of other citizens does not mean you are individually responsible for their protection or welfare.
“Perhaps I should become a sociopath too. It seems the better deal and is why all democracies fail.”
If it’s any consolation, skip, I don’t think you’re even a borderline sociopath (which is what I consider Bron due to his rabid reactions when his Objectivist dogma is threatened). I think you’re just really dumb and out of touch with the reality of human nature and the facts of law, history and political science. Like most Libertarians, you mean well, but you simply don’t know what the Hell you are talking about when it comes to law, its philosophical and theoretical underpinnings, psychology, sociology and how those relate to the social engineering required to maintain societies of scale. While we’re speaking of dumb, sociopaths are not “why all democracies fail” although they can contribute to the destabilization of society by the nature of the their pathology. You are making the fallacy of simple cause. The reason democracies (or any other form of normally viable government not based on faulty premises to start with) fail are complex and unique to each nation and their attendant circumstances.