Colbert polling higher than Ron Paul

godpt3 wrote:

my biggest objection is his plan to eliminate the IRS, taxes, etc., without explaining how he's going to pay for vital national needs. That's just stupid, short-sighted and irresponsible.

Yes and another problem I have with Libertarianism in general is the deregulation aspect, that it ignores the plain fact that private institutions, like corporations can be just as tyrannical as governments. At least our government in the U.S. is, at least in principle, is constrained by the constitution and the voters. It seems to me that corporations in the absence of government regulation could have the potential to be unbounded authoritarian structures. Corporations can be more oppressive to our citizens. Citizens will be constrained to participate in an economy that is essentially shaped by corporate interests that are consolidating their power in fewer and fewer hands. Without regulation to limit private power, we end up with effective slavery: sweat-shops, company towns, no collective bargaining, etc.

I like Ron Paul's war stance, though

baraka wrote:

Yes and another problem I have with Libertarianism in general is the deregulation aspect, that it ignores the plain fact that private institutions, like corporations can be just as tyrannical as governments. At least our government in the U.S. is, at least in principle, is constrained by the constitution and the voters. It seems to me that corporations in the absence of government regulation could have the potential to be unbounded authoritarian structures. Corporations can be more oppressive to our citizens. Citizens will be constrained to participate in an economy that is essentially shaped by corporate interests that are consolidating their power in fewer and fewer hands. Without regulation to limit private power, we end up with effective slavery: sweat-shops, company towns, no collective bargaining, etc.

I like Ron Paul's war stance, though

People are naturally against forces of authoritarian control and in the US corporations are generally kept in check and are unable, through public pressure and opinion, to exert their control.

The problem with American corporatism come mostly from their operations abroad, where they are able to exert control over populations with the help of governments and armies. The coalition of governments AND corporations acting together is where you find authoritarian control. Ron Paul wants to separate government from corporate power and money. Let the markets take care of the negligant corporations, in a free market only the strongest survive and making mistakes are costly.

baraka wrote:

Without regulation to limit private power, we end up with effective slavery: sweat-shops, company towns, no collective bargaining, etc.

I like Ron Paul's war stance, though

Ron Paul supports Unionization! Paraphrasing him "all volutary associations, whether economic or social should be protected by the law."

In all seriousness, one of the best things to happen in politics in recent years was Stephen Colbert's hilariously savage assault on not only the Bush Administration, but also the political media... the whole political establishment really... I'm referring to his stand-up act/manifesto at the White House Press Corp Dinner last year.

The likely candidates for both the Democratic and Republican parties are vile... I would happily vote for Stephen Colbert over one of them, and I wish he was running a more serious campaign, although I do appreciate it for the joke it is.

Mestophar wrote:

People are naturally against forces of authoritarian control and in the US corporations are generally kept in check and are unable, through public pressure and opinion, to exert their control.

The problem with American corporatism come mostly from their operations abroad, where they are able to exert control over populations with the help of governments and armies. The coalition of governments AND corporations acting together is where you find authoritarian control. Ron Paul wants to separate government from corporate power and money. Let the markets take care of the negligant corporations, in a free market only the strongest survive and making mistakes are costly.

It seems to me that an unchecked 'free' market tends to becomes dominated by a few corporations, that results in oligopolistic competition and higher profits for the companies in question. This occurs because only established corporations can afford the large capital investments needed to compete, thus reducing the number of competitors who can enter or survive in a given the market. In other words, an unchecked capitalist market evolves toward oligopolistic concentration, imo.

baraka wrote:

It seems to me that an unchecked 'free' market tends to becomes dominated by a few corporations, that results in oligopolistic competition and higher profits for the companies in question. This occurs because only established corporations can afford the large capital investments needed to compete, thus reducing the number of competitors who can enter or survive in a given the market. In other words, an unchecked capitalist market evolves toward oligopolistic concentration, imo.

Higher profits should not be seen as a bad thing, they are healthy in a competative market place. Where high profits are not desirable are in situations where the government props up business by making laws to suit their needs and one of the biggest customers to large corporation oligarchs is the federal government. This relationship is detrimental to the free market, it makes the market fuzzy and less secure.

I have no doubt that there is something about the gov't that 'offends' everyone and anti-government sentiments obviously resonate with most all of us. But here is my concern with the libertarian views. I'm reminded of 19th century US. Did we not have laissez-faire capitalism and were there not many horrible problems? Filth in our meat, racism, company towns, union-busting goons, monopolies, corruption scandals, a punishing business cycle, sweat shops, child labor, etc. The solution to most of those problems was government: food and drug regulation, anti-trust laws, labor laws, etc. The free market did not 'work out' out these problems then, so I'm having a hard time seeing how it would work them out now.

This is what I mean when I say deregulation, ie protection from abuses of the market. I do not want to see these protections desolved, things like the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, the Product Safety Commission, truth in labeling laws, investigations into mail fraud, laws against race and sex discrimination. These are just a few that come to mind.

baraka wrote:

I have no doubt that there is something about the gov't that 'offends' everyone and anti-government sentiments obviously resonate with most all of us. But here is my concern with the libertarian views. I'm reminded of 19th century US. Did we not have laissez-faire capitalism and were there not many horrible problems? Filth in our meat, racism, company towns, union-busting goons, monopolies, corruption scandals, a punishing business cycle, sweat shops, child labor, etc. The solution to most of those problems was government: food and drug regulation, anti-trust laws, labor laws, etc. The free market did not 'work out' out these problems then, so I'm having a hard time seeing how it would work them out now.

This is what I mean when I say deregulation, ie protection from abuses of the market. I do not want to see these protections desolved, things like the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, the Product Safety Commission, truth in labeling laws, investigations into mail fraud, laws against race and sex discrimination. These are just a few that come to mind.

You always sum up my thoughts perfectly when it comes to this topic. I totally agree

baraka wrote:

I'm reminded of 19th century US. Did we not have laissez-faire capitalism and were there not many horrible problems? Filth in our meat, racism, company towns, union-busting goons, monopolies, corruption scandals, a punishing business cycle, sweat shops, child labor, etc. The solution to most of those problems was government: food and drug regulation, anti-trust laws, labor laws, etc. The free market did not 'work out' out these problems then, so I'm having a hard time seeing how it would work them out now.

This is what I mean when I say deregulation, ie protection from abuses of the market. I do not want to see these protections desolved, things like the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, the Product Safety Commission, truth in labeling laws, investigations into mail fraud, laws against race and sex discrimination. These are just a few that come to mind.

The market place has always been heavily influenced by the government. It would be foolish to believe that it was business alone that allowed slavery, allowed union-busting, allows shit in meat etc. The government not only allows/ed this stuff to happen but set up a "reasonable" framework for it to exist. You can own slaves, but only so many and only in the form of chattel, you can hire goons to bust the unions but only after the strike is declared "illegal", you can have shit in the meat but you have to put a warning on the package to cook it thoroughly. Etc.

The solution to these problems is absolutely not the government. Rosa Parks is a perfect example of an individual standing up and forcing a change, if it were left up to the government they would only make changes in favor of corporations and big business because currently that is exactly who they are. Laws are designed to protect large business.

A truely free market would correct these problems quicker and more efficiently. If there was knowledge out there that there was cow shit in hamburger(which there is right now, in every pack), and government was not there to lay down guidelines about how much shit is "acceptable", then people would not buy hamburger anymore or would still buy it but with the information that it contains crap. The idea of researching what you eat has competely left the mindframe of an average person...why? Because we are like children and expect the government to steer us through life...

As for the FDA, CDC etc, those parts of the government seem reasonable but in essense what they do is take responsibility away from the individual. Personally, I don't need a bureaucrasy to tell me what I should or shouldn't buy with my money.

baraka wrote:

It seems to me that an unchecked 'free' market tends to becomes dominated by a few corporations, that results in oligopolistic competition and higher profits for the companies in question. This occurs because only established corporations can afford the large capital investments needed to compete, thus reducing the number of competitors who can enter or survive in a given the market. In other words, an unchecked capitalist market evolves toward oligopolistic concentration, imo.

That is ONLY a true statement IF the "unregulated" market is actualy a market that exists with rules, regulations, and tax benefits for (and lobbied into existence by) the corporations.

In short, the corporate form has grown to dominate business, ONLY because congressional legislation FAVORS corporate business ... and no wonder ... corporations FLOOD them with political contributions! grrr.

If corporations were NOT given an advantage, or better yet, if they were regulated to place them at specific DISadvanatge, we may be just hunkydoory ...

IN FACT, THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE FEDERAL "INCOME TAX" WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A SAFEGUARD AGAINST CORPORATE DOMINATION.

Don't believe me?

READ THIS: Legislative Intent Of 16th Ammendment - Letter From Taft To Congress

He says, in relevant part:

President Taft To Congress Regarding The Implementation of an \ wrote:

Another merit of this tax is the federal supervision, which must be exercised in order to make the law effective over the annual accounts and business transactions of all corporations. While the faculty of assuming a corporate form has been of the utmost utility in the business world, it is also true that substantially all of the abuses and all of the evils which have aroused the public to the necessity of reform were made possible by the use of this very faculty. If now, by a perfectly legitimate and effective system of taxation, we are incidentally able to possess the Government and the stockholders and the public of the knowledge of the real business transactions and the gains and profits of every corporation in the country, we have made a long step toward that supervisory control of corporations which may prevent a further abuse of power.

Essentialy what Taft is arguing here is that (and this is all the more apparent if you read the ENTIRE letter) the tax he is proposing -- a tax ONLY on the after-tax net incomes of CORPORATE business -- would act as a sort of check-and-balance to keep corporate power at bay. In other words, all forms of business being "equal", by putting a tax ONLY on the corporate form, you impose financial oversight on this form of business and cause it to fall in check to some extent, via its necessity to comply with regulation and oversight. There is also some stunting of corporate growth versus that of the unincorporated sole proprietorship or partnership as the common man is NOT taxed and there for operating at a specific financial advantage. Meanwhile Mean Mr. Corporation is both at a financial AND regulatory disadvantage. BRILLIANT. Just a shame it never went off like it was supposed to. :( grr

I think that if people start reading this letter, they will see just how swindled they really have become.

Also, it will make you realize why Ron Paul (and coincidentaly, his support of Taft himself) are all the more relevant.

THANK YOU.
GOODNIGHT.