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

Why not call it what it is neo-liberalist capitalism

 

why are you even on a computer??

corporate scumbag!!

 

wants and needs

 

No matter what we wish to call it, it exists only because we have allowed our Federal government to assume the power to enforce it, with or without our consent.

 

Indie

Well the problem with the US’s political system seem due to wealth having too much power and influence on society and governance.

They have achieved this through the promotion of neo-liberal ideas (everywhere neoliberal ideas have been followed has seen wealth’s power and influence grow).

So wouldn’t the remedy be to reduce its influence rather than increase it?

So could you please tell us why you wish to increase that influence?

 

I'll go ahead and guess at Indie's answer. "I never said I wanted to increase the influence of wealth."

 

You say wealth has too much power and influence on society and government, and I don't think I've disagreed with that, but giving government greater power in no way diminishes those with wealth from influencing it.
The remedy is to reduce the power of the Federal government to the point that wealth can gain no benefit from it.
Just where do you see me wish to increase the influence of anyone other than the individuals who make up the non-political population?

 

Have you seen where I have made such a statement? Currently we have a one stop shopping source to exert influence on the governance of the entire Nation, the Federal government who can mandate compliance to the laws and regulations it passes to ALL 50 States, and since 1913 with the passage of the Federal Reserve act, the 16th and 17th amendments, has the power to use force in exercising supremacy over the States and the people within each State with no regard to their consent.

Yes, it is a problem with the political system we have come to accept, which is no longer the political system we once had, before Socialism and Democracy exercised from a Central source began to be exercised.

 

Indie

This is misdirection.

I’ve said I think it would be a good idea to restore balance. In a well functioning democracy the power and influence of wealth is balanced by the votes of the many.

The problem of wealth’s power and influence is not just at the Federal level but at all levels of American society and governance. If anything division helps rather than hinders wealth (as I’ve explained before at length) because they can us one state against another (in simplistic terms - ‘that state has lower taxes than this state, reduce your taxes now or we move’).

Also the methods used to spread the neoliberal message will remain national while opposition to it will be divided weak and local.

OK at one time or another you’ve promoted these ideas -

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.

All of which are more advantageous to wealth rather than to the majority.


Again the impression you try to give that you are trying to help the common citizen is a misdirection.

 

Indie

LOL – A con man does not come out and clearly state that he is going to try and con you before he tries to con you.

You push a neoliberal message as I’ve stated above.

But you know that favour the few over the many so if you are to try and popularise neoliberal ideas that has to be hidden.

That is why neoliberal’s shout slogans and talk a lot about ‘big government’, the individual and freedom but never seem able to defend their ideas against the criticism that those ideas only favour wealth rather than the majority - because they can’t.

 

Indie

A common theme with many neoliberals is that the major problems are ‘Socialism and Democracy’.

Interestingly the two potential threats to wealth gaining greater power and influence are the rise of non-neoliberal ideas and the possibility that a majority of people through a democratic process might demand that those ideas be put in place.

*

It has already been established that many on the right (like Rat and Indie) see anything slightly to the left of their neoliberal ideology as ‘socialist’. Anything that varies from their free market, Social Darwinist based ideas is ‘socialism’. And that anybody advocating that we should have societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that try and promote everyone’s potential and give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants of having a healthy and fulfilled life is a ‘socialist’.

Basically to wealth anything that isn’t neo-liberalism they want to claim is socialist because many ideas that are not neo-liberalist are opposed to it, including more sensible forms of capitalism and that is a potential threat to them.

They are banking on the years of indoctrination against anything deemed ‘socialist’ to carry on working (and I’m afraid to say it still seems to work amongst many Americans).

*

As I’ve said I think wealth has too much power and influence and it would be a good idea to restore balance and that in a well functioning democracy the power and influence of wealth is (supposedly) balanced by the votes of the many.

That is a potential threat to wealth that the ‘people’ might use democracy to limit their power.

 

In Toronto there is a mayor who wishes to apply the sociological developing changes to physical and bio-diversifying changes in the response of consumer habits (amongst them driving). We also change in the joke and laughter of day-to-day praxis of the various human nature of ethnics and 'materialistic' climate changes. But horror for horror will human nature be different for region to region OR time to time. That's his problem.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/10/27/rob-ford-911-call.html?cmp=rss:2thumbsup:

 

I perpetually promote the following ideas:

1. Low taxes
2. Minimal regulations
3. No Federal government provided welfare
4. Free market/laissez faire based economics
5. State funded (There are 50 of them) locally controlled schools
6. Doctor/Patient health care paid for by the recipient/charitable organizations

While I won't deny that wealth is advantageous, why do you feel that those who have greater wealth should be held responsible for those who have less, with or without their assent, but instead as the result of a democratic process?

 

Indie

I’m a great believer in education especially the kind that teaches people to question ideas to see if they’re rational and reasonable.

But it is much easier to bamboozle the uneducated and ignorant as Thomas Jefferson put it “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be”.

But as critics of the US educational system have pointed out many of its problems stem from too much localism. As Susan Jacoby points out “children in the poorest areas of the country would have the worst school facilities and teachers with the worst training”. Bringing about a situation were the children of the already advantaged are yet more advantaged by receiving better education.

So yet again a proposal of Indies would seem to much more advantageous to wealth than the majority.

 

Indie

Part One –

The greatest effect on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. This can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure, and long before they have the independence to take certain actions themselves.

And seeing that no one can choose to whom they are born is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged

To this you have answered yes and asked to back that up with a rational argument as to why your only reply has been along the lines that ‘life is unfair’ and ‘shit happens’.

*

 

Indie

Part Two

It depends on what you’d want your society to be like.

I’d want a society that was a fairer and better place to live in, a place that gave a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life and a place were people are more likely to realise their potential.

As far as I can tell you want a less fairer society run along laissez faire/Social Darwinist principles where those that have fallen on hard times, through no fault of their own, are left to die of want. A place where the advantaged are given greater advantage at the expense of the disadvantaged and where many people's potential would be suppressed or extinguished.

 

Balbus:

I don't think I've ever seen anyone so adamantly display their hatred for others simply because they possess wealth. There's little chance of us ever achieving any form of agreement, as you tend to want government to be the responsible agency for accomplishing any goals that we might hold in common, while in my opinion it is the members of a society, regardless of class, who have to make their society work in a way that is acceptable to all, or at least the vast majority if it is to remain peaceful.

 

Indie

LOL – once more you cannot reply in any rational way so you evade.

And I love the way you try to imply that my legitimate opposition to neo-liberalism is motivated by personal hatred of rich people, nice try, but it is a bit of an obvious misdirection.

It doesn’t bother me if you agree with me or not - what I am trying to do is see if you have any rational basis for your ideas because they don’t seem to have any and you seem unable to defend them from criticism, so I naturally wonder why you hold on to them.

What goals in common - I’d want a society that would be a fairer and better place to live in, a place that gave a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life and a place were people are more likely to realise their potential.

And you seem to want the opposite.

The problem is that if a society is dominated by wealth it will try and run that society in the interests of wealth, not the majority.

I think it would be a good idea to restore some balance into the system.

 

All I can say is thank God for the wealthy, and that's a lot coming from an atheist.

A large number of us are working hard to achieve some balance into the system, and while you continually try to imply that you have criticized in a way that I need to defend, I have yet to see anything you've said that really deserves any attention defending. Our individual views of what government should be responsible for in a society are diametrically opposed, irreconcilably.

 

Indie

I think we already know you support wealth from the many ideas you promote that would give wealth more power and influence.

What I’m saying is that those ideas don’t seem to have any rational basis and you seem unable to defend them from criticism.

That statement seems to be contradicted by the ideas you promote that would further unbalance the system in wealth’s favour.

LOL – you can hold any view as true as long as you refuse to acknowledge any criticism of it.

The earth is flat, black people are inferior human beings to white people, Lord of the Rings is real history, etc etc…

It is the creationist gambit – explain geology to a creationist as a criticism of their ideas and they can just reply – ‘I have yet to see anything you've said that really deserves any attention defending’

Ignoring criticisms does not make them go away.

As I’ve said I’m not looking for agreement. I’m just wondering why you promote ideas that don’t seem to have any rational basis and which even you cannot defend from criticism.