Is there anyone left who doubts we live under corporate fascism??

Indie

The problem is your ideas – take this tread for example

You claim you are opposed to ‘corporate cronyism’ the problem is that as I’ve explained at length and in detail your ideas would not only perpetuate ‘corporate cronyism’ but increase its strangle hold on US society.

Which at best makes you statement that you oppose it disingenuous and at worst an outright lie.

But instead of addressing the criticism you evade – you ask me to repeat (even when it has been given a hundred time) – you claim to not know where the criticism is (even when its has just been repeated) – you claim they are invalid (without putting up any counter argument) – you say you have answered (but never seem able to produce or say where those supposed answers are) – and so on and so on and so on –

The result is always the same – you don’t seem able to address any criticism of your ideas which begs the question why?

 

Indie

The problem is your ideas – take this tread for example

You claim you are opposed to ‘corporate cronyism’ the problem is that as I’ve explained at length and in detail your ideas would not only perpetuate ‘corporate cronyism’ but increase its strangle hold on US society.

Which at best makes you statement that you oppose it disingenuous and at worst an outright lie.

But instead of addressing the criticism you evade – you ask me to repeat (even when it has been given a hundred time) – you claim to not know where the criticism is (even when its has just been repeated) – you claim they are invalid (without putting up any counter argument) – you say you have answered (but never seem able to produce or say where those supposed answers are) – and so on and so on and so on –

The result is always the same – you don’t seem able to address any criticism of your ideas which begs the question why?

 

While I may oppose corporate cronyism, I can live with it. Government cronyism, and actions which benefit corporations at the expense of taxpaying citizens is something else entirely. An individual or group of individuals who pool their resources to create a business have every right to operate it as they see fit, and every right to fail, at no cost to taxpayers by government. Nothing is too big to fail, and while failures may result in hardship for some or even many, allowing the failure to occur naturally will more often than not result in a quicker recovery taking place. Look at the housing market currently, government does not wish to allow home values to drop to a level that will attract buyers so the market has stagnated.

 

Indie

This doesn’t address the criticism of your view, you are just once making assertions that have criticism already outstanding - in that they seem to be contradicted by the ideas you promote.

As explained your ideas would increase the power and influence of wealth making it much more likely that it would have influence directly or not over all levels of the governance of society and therefore would direct things in its interests not those of the majority.

 

The population of the world in which we live is not a single society, and if you cannot accept that as fact, then your criticisms are inane and meaningless.

 

Indie

WOW – where did that come from?

What has the ‘population of the world’ got to do with the rise of neoliberal capitalism in the US and the detrimental effect it has had on that society?

Are you trying to cop an insanity plea to get out of addressing your critics, even for you, isn’t that taking evasion too far?

 

It came from your post in the other thread "Would YOU vote for RON PAUL"

"The problem is your ideas you claim you want a better world but as has been explained at length and in detail your ideas are more likely to make things worse for the majority of people while only improving the position of wealth in US society.

There's nothing at all wrong with capitalism, until government begins to try and micro manage it. And yes you've provided your opinion although in no way detailing how you could accomplish it. It would appear that your ideas would indeed have great effect on the majority of people, but not one of improvement, and would do nothing more than assure that those with wealth would assume permanent control over the people, who would become equalized in their resulting poverty.

I don't think it's necessary exhibit blatant stupidity in each and every post you direct towards me. You should take notice that I've refrained from calling you a blithering idiot at each and every opportunity. Try acting more adult like.

 

Indie

Yet you posted under a quote from this thread?

*

"The problem is your ideas you claim you want a better world but as has been explained at length and in detail your ideas are more likely to make things worse for the majority of people while only improving the position of wealth in US society”

Yes I’m clearly talking about US society.

An assertion that has already criticisms levelled at it that you have not addressed.

In what sense do you mean ‘accomplish it’, I mean I can suggest and back up ideas and criticise ideas that I think are wrong but I’m not the worlds dictator.

This is just so much empty rhetoric if you cannot actually put together a coherent and rational argument to back up this assertion?

LOL - If my criticisms of your views were stupid, childish and idiotic shouldn’t it be easily for you to address them, I think if you could you would do so with great relish - the fact that you don’t and instead use every evasion trick in the scoundrels handbook to get out of addressing them would seem to indicate you can’t - that you have no counter arguments.

So again I wonder why you are promoting ideas you cannot defend from criticism?

 

Yes, because it seemed relevant to your use of the word 'society' in the post I was responding to.
"As explained your ideas would increase the power and influence of wealth making it much more likely that it would have influence directly or not over all levels of the governance of society and therefore would direct things in its interests not those of the majority."
And in addition, the U.S. while being a Nation, is made up of 50 individually separate States which are further comprised of numerous societies.

You have yet to offer anything of substance other than you seem to feel that the purpose of government is to ensure the success of the few is shared with the many, and although it occurs naturally, not sufficient to satisfy you. Sorry, but I think you just like to whine rather than accept facts of life. You put too much into the belief that since wealth 'can' be advantageous and lead to achieving success, that you allow yourself to then base your entire premise on a false assertion that failure is the result of lacking wealth, when there has been many persons who began with nothing and little education who have achieved great success.

 

Indie

I’m sure I’m not the only one that’s noticed you still don’t seem able to address the criticisms of your ideas.

*

But can an accident of birth be said to be a success or a failure? In what way did the child born into advantage earn that position? What did the child born into disadvantage do to deserve that fate?

And I’d point out that social mobility in the US is low or has stagnated.

LOL - You mean I want to improve things and you don’t, yours is the voice of conservative self interest throughout history I can imagine a 19th century slave owner saying the same thing to those arguing against slavery.

And I’d point out again that social mobility is low or has stagnated. This during the period when the power and influence of wealth has grown, a criticism of your ideas is that they would increase that power and influence.

 

Balbus:

While the accident of birth might be seen as helpful, it need not be harmful unless you allow it to be.
Each generation of my family has risen above the previous, beginning with the first who immigrated here as indentured servants. There are no limits to what one can achieve other than the limits they apply to their selves. Too many persons today have developed the attitude that society owes them something and nothing can be farther from the truth. When government begins to operate as a charitable organization, it only promotes and increases dependency on government. If government were to start reducing the rewards provided by social programs, few if any at all would die as a result, but many would instead take action to provide for their needs, if only as a last resort, leaving government the ability to provide more adequately and affordably, for those who most need assistance.
Maybe things are worse in Great Britain than I am aware of. I found no lack of social mobility in the U.S. unless something drastic has changed since the Clintons took office. I only left because I recognized the fact that government was about to swing left much further than I found acceptable. The first Bush presidency had already swung too much to the left in just one term.

 

Indie

We have covered all this before – stop repeating views that already have outstanding criticisms that you have yet to address.

You said virtually the same thing in post 37 of the ‘Question About Operation of Small Government’ thread (page 4)

And I can give the same reply I did in post 40 of that same thread

“The thing is that many of the reasons why people have achieved things is a direct result of government action brought about through popular movements.

The indentured were protected by laws unlike the slave that replaced them but eventually slavery was ended, later a decent working week was fought for and won meaning people had a life outside of work, health and safely laws were fought for in such industries as coal mining so that people didn’t have to work in dangerous or unhealthy conditions, I could go on and on. But the point is many of the things that allow people to improve themselves and their lives come from government action of some type.

Basically the advantages to society outweighed the disadvantages to such people as coal mine owners.”

*

As pointed out to you many times now what this means is that you wish for wealth to be able to more easily exploit the disadvantaged. To remove the regulations and benefits that the majority have long fought for and that limit the ability of wealth to exploit them. What the exploiter wants is a situation where it is work or die – whatever the working conditions however low the wage a person would have to bow to the exploitation or starve.

*

OH yes and as you have already stated you believe that someone that gets into hardship through no fault of their own or from circumstance beyond their control should die of want. So I take that statement with a large pinch of salt.

*

 

Balbus:

I'm waiting to see the news reporting on all those who are starving.

 

Balbus:

I'm waiting to see the news reporting on all those who are starving.

 

Balbus:

I'm waiting to see the news reporting on all those who are starving. Maybe after they cease reporting on the obesity problem.

 

Indie

I'm waiting to see if you will ever stop evading and start addressing the criticisms of your ideas.

*

 

I think this thread/thought is not only insulting to all the victims of true fascism worldwide; but also gives excuse to avoid taking action against the continuing rise of the American corporate oligarchy.

 

Balbus:

Try thinking of what society would be like if everyone just assumed responsibility for their own lives, and each were to PRODUCTIVELY contribute their fair share.

 

Indie

The problem is that the neo-liberal ideas that you promote would give more power and influence to wealth ideas such as -

1) low or no tax
2) deregulation
3) Little or no welfare
4) Free market/laissez faire based economics
5) Social Darwinist based education, healthcare etc.


This would produce a society where wealth had much more freedom to exploit the system and the majority in their own interests.