A New Hope: Stomping Out Corporatism by AURaptor

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sorry if it came off that way. There are people who unthinkingly blame everything on the government. And they deserve the stereotype. Just like rapo blames everything on the dems. You're not one of them.

Couple of things to add: On reflection, I know what you mean about government regulation. I run a laboratory approval program, and I have long maintained that a program which doesn't distinguish between good labs and bad labs is worse than no program at all since it skews the market.

BUT, also on reflection, it occurs to me that this has little bearing on the current situation. Not only did investment banks, commercial and insurance companies scam their ultimate customers (institutional investors like pension funds and "average people" investors) they also scammed EACH OTHER. That's why the LIBOR (London Interbank Overnight Rate) was so high: the banks didn't trust EACH OTHER! So those investors who were in the thick of things... who knew what was going on because THEY were the ones doing it... didn't know, really, what OTHER BANKS were doing! What the average joe or jane didn't know, or which regulations they had faith in... has no bearing on how so much money got sucked into a black hole.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2009 1:35 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

On further reflection Sarge, I think your argument breaks down historically. We've been here before; except that in 1929 there was NO FDIC/ FSLICA, no SEC, no FDA, etc.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2009 1:57 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

That Dodd had his arm twisted is a load of crap. He pretended not to know, but played cya once CNN nailed him. And props to them! Please, don't buy Dodd's partisan b.s. and accept that line that he HAD to vote for it. Don't play that dumb

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2009 2:12 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Sig and Rue:

I think what Sarge is trying to say is that most people tend to think that because these are large corporations, and BECAUSE we have things like the SEC and FDIC, we ASSUME that there must be oversight and regulation. We ASSUME that we're not falling for the same old snake-oil sales pitch and the same old Ponzi schemes, because we've been somewhat conditioned to believe that the government is looking out for us, keeping an eye on companies like AIG and Bear Stearns.

And I think that Sarge is also saying that if those companies AREN'T being watched over, that's something that should probably be announced and talked about a bit more than it has.

Honestly, does anyone really remember hearing about Credit Default Swaps being made unregulated, or anything about how risky they were?

At least, that's what I got from Sarge's posts. I don't think he's railing against regulation - just saying that if we're going to DEREGULATE some area of the market, it might be a good idea for someone (the gubmint, maybe?) to let us know in no uncertain terms that these new areas are going to be a gamble, a crap-shoot, a wild-west-style gold rush, and that we should absolutely, as buyers, beware. Instead, what happens is that we hear a little mumble about deregulation, which gives the appearance of tacit government approval of these kinds of scams, and we figure, "Eh, if the gubmint says it's okay, it must be okay."

Instead of being a headline, the risks associated with deregulation tend to get tacked on in very small type, like the disclaimers on Big Pharma commercials: "In testing, a very small percentage of investors lost every penny they ever had or will ever earn. Your results may vary. Results portrayed in this commercial are not typical. As with all investments, there is substantial risk of losing your ass."

Sarge, is that about the gist of it? If so, I get it; if not, I apologize for muddying your point.

One thing that helps me with stuff like this is to remember a simple adage: "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

Mike

\m/

I'm something of a ne'er-do-well
even though that's something I could never do well...

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2009 2:17 PM

Signym,

That's quite a lot of reflection.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you're considering to be "my argument". The main point I was trying to make in this thread is that once you've established the precedent of regulation, removing it can put you in a more dangerous place than if you never had it at all, especially if it's done carelessly.

You and rue jumped all over that - not because of the conclusion (I think you agree with me that the deregulation was bad), but because of the premise that a regulatory environment gets people accustomed to exercising less of their own judgment and caution. It clearly does that. When you think about it, it's the whole point. We pass regulations and oversight legislation so we don't have to worry as much about things going south.

We certainly want some of that kind of government oversight. At a minimum we need basic norms concerning contractual obligations and transparency. Beyond that, I see a role for at least flagging operations that operate on dangerously low capital reserves and those that run ponzi like schemes. But at some point, investors have to be trusted to make their own decisions about how much risk that want to assume. They also need to understand clearly that they are responsible for the outcome of that judgment.

As far as the historical precedent, the Federal Reserve system was established in 1913 to maintain more stable banking and prevent widespread bank failures.... *ahem*

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2009 2:26 PM

Yes Kwicko, like you said.

I suppose that I really can't blame Signym and rue for their assumptions. I am frequently making the case against regulation in general - in part for the moral hazard aspect we've been discussing. But in this case I merely meant to point out that that "feature" or regulation makes it particularly dangerous when the level of oversight goes up on down for political reasons.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2009 5:19 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
As far as the historical precedent, the Federal Reserve system was established in 1913 to maintain more stable banking and prevent widespread bank failures.

But lack of "the Fed" did not prevent the Panic of 1873. Also, I didn't say that "the Fed" didn't exist, just that the FDIC and the SEC weren't around. (Founded 1933 and 1934 respectively)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873

KWICKO- the difference between me and sarge is that he tends to think that "the answer" is deregulation, and that the reason why it didn't work (in this instance) is that it was done badly. But, that if done (somehow) properly it would be OK. But I think he's ignoring historical precedents - areas and activities where regulation did NOT exist (for example, environmental, food, and safety regulations) and all it produced was a bunch of poisoned, swindled, maimed people. Buyer beware doesn't work... just like bargaining for a job doesn't work... if you're an individual versus a big entity.

Perhaps I'm overstating Sarge's argument, but what I get of it seems kinda naive.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2009 5:22 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
don't buy Dodd's partisan b.s.

Dodd's "partisan" BS? Which party does he belong to? The Democratic Party??? So, how is it "partisan" to point the finger at Geithner? Doesn't Geithner ALSO belong to the Democratic party?

You DO know the meaning of the word "partisan", right?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2009 6:37 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
don't buy Dodd's partisan b.s.
Dodd's "partisan" BS? Which party does he belong to? The Democratic Party??? So, how is it "partisan" to point the finger at Geithner? Doesn't Geithner ALSO belong to the Democratic party?

You DO know the meaning of the word "partisan", right?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

Dodd knew. Just stop it already.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2009 6:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But lack of "the Fed" did not prevent the Panic of 1873.

Hmmm... so I guess maybe it's a wash. Bad stuff happens with or without. The only net effect is instruments of power for people who want power.

Quote:
the difference between me and sarge is that he tends to think that "the answer" is deregulation, and that the reason why it didn't work (in this instance) is that it was done badly. But, that if done (somehow) properly it would be OK.

I dunno. I'm not sure it's possible to do it right anymore. We seem to be past the point where the trend can be reversed - at least not without some kind of complete meltdown, which I don't look forward to, even if it would give a clean slate.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2009 6:56 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Dodd knew.

So what? Who the frak cares what he "knew"? What did he DO?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2009 7:56 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The only net effect is instruments of power for people who want power.

So the question is... how do we take power back from the PTB? More importantly, how do we KEEP it from accumulating back into only a few hands?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2009 8:06 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But lack of "the Fed" did not prevent the Panic of 1873.

Hmmm... so I guess maybe it's a wash. Bad stuff happens with or without. The only net effect is instruments of power for people who want power.

Quote:
the difference between me and sarge is that he tends to think that "the answer" is deregulation, and that the reason why it didn't work (in this instance) is that it was done badly. But, that if done (somehow) properly it would be OK.

I dunno. I'm not sure it's possible to do it right anymore. We seem to be past the point where the trend can be reversed - at least not without some kind of complete meltdown, which I don't look forward to, even if it would give a clean slate.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

The avalanche has already started it is to late for the pebbles to vote.

Kosh - Babylon 5

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 29, 2009 8:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
The only net effect is instruments of power for people who want power.
So the question is... how do we take power back from the PTB? More importantly, how do we KEEP it from accumulating back into only a few hands?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

Well, I'm reminded of a cartoon I saw once, by the great genius, B. Kliban. It showed a king, on a balcony, speaking to his people. The caption read "I'm the king, and you must do as I command, or else I can't be king anymore."

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 8:42 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, ONE thing is that we have a democracy, and presumably free speech. I suggest we start USING IT. Write, and get others to write, to your so-called representatives and to the WH. Let them know what you think. Hold their feet to the fire.... there's gonna be another election coming up sooner than you think!

If your current representative galls you (like one of mine does me) start NOW to unseat them

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 9:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, ONE thing is that we have a democracy, and presumably free speech. I suggest we start USING IT. Write, and get others to write, to your so-called representatives and to the WH. Let them know what you think.

Well, I think they shouldn't bow to the whim of the majority. Where does that put me?

Democracy is of little solace in these circumstances because the offices and institutions in question are generally created and supported democratically. People may grow agitated at a particular leader or policy, but the concentration of power will likely not be removed - just transfered to different hands. The only way I see democracy changing things is if people can agree to live and let live, can agree that government shouldn't be used in these ways, and in that case government power becomes moot. Which was the point of the cartoon I mentioned. They only rule us because we let them.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 10:02 AM

BYTEMITE

It's even worse when people just vote in the same Senators and Representatives time after time out of laziness.

I kind of like to vote against the incumbent, just on principle. Never does any good though, I tend to be in the minority around here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 10:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

First things first Sarge.

We can talk about reform after we've kicked butt.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 11:30 AM

Hmmm.... and "first things" is?

You brought up wresting power away from the PTB. What I'm getting at is that in most of the ways that matter, the "powers-that-be" means us - or at least the majority of voters who support business as usual. Democracy what got us into this mess. I'm not seeing how it gets us out.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 30, 2009 11:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Getting people to get involved and to give a damn is the first step.

BTW- Sarge... I'm tempted to say... oh, what the hell, between you and WUlf and Geezer I'm so annoyed I WILL say it: Scratch most libertarians and you'll find a fascist.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, ONE thing is that we have a democracy, and presumably free speech.

Actually , we have neither...

Article 4 , Section 4 , United States Constitution :

"...The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html

One has to know and understand the Constitution in the hope of having and maintaining free speech...

Millions of people are working on this very matter presently...Unfortunately , SignyM isn't yet one of them...

'Course , those who understand the Republic and the intentions of its Founders support the rights of others to remain ignorant...

We don't like it , mind , and all we can hope to do is inform folk of their erroneous ideas and encourage their involvement...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Getting people to get involved and to give a damn is the first step.

...Scratch most libertarians and you'll find a fascist.

Walk into any pasture and tip over a 'liberal', and you'll find a Bolshevik...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:50 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Sig and Rue:

I think what Sarge is trying to say is that most people tend to think that because these are large corporations, and BECAUSE we have things like the SEC and FDIC, we ASSUME that there must be oversight and regulation. We ASSUME that we're not falling for the same old snake-oil sales pitch and the same old Ponzi schemes, because we've been somewhat conditioned to believe that the government is looking out for us, keeping an eye on companies like AIG and Bear Stearns."

But WE did not create the problem and so our assumptions are irrelevant. The people who created the mess - the financial sector - assumed no such thing. They KNEW different. It would be very hard to draw a cause and effect sequence through lack of regulation and assumed government insurance on the part of the financial sector.

It's a shorter explanation, and it fits the facts better - to say that the drive to maximize profit drives excess and risk, while regulations limit that excess and risk.

Also, regulation = presumed insurance is not even part of the equation.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:57 AM

And yet the other end of that argument, is flake the paint off a Libertarian and you'll find an Anarchist.

It always amuses me that both "sides" hate us.

But Sarge nails the salient point, they do this shit cause we let em.

Simplest way to break that ?
DO. NOT. COMPLY.

I'll let you mentally chew on what that exactly means.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:01 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Oh Frak you, Siggy.

For your reference:

"Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology that aims to create a single-party state with a government led by a dictator who seeks national unity and development by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or race. Fascist movements promote violence between nations, political factions, and races as part of a social Darwinist and militarist stance that views violence between these groups as a natural and positive part of evolution. In the view of these groups being in perpetual conflict, fascists believe only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and have an aggressive warrior mentality by conquering, dominating, and eventually eliminating people deemed weak and degenerate."

Sounds more like liberals and conservatives to me. (edit for Rue..)

You can apply the ABOVE definition for FASCISM to both Liberals and Conservatives. As an EXAMPLE:

Libs: a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology that aims to create a single-party state with a government led by a dictator who seeks national unity and development by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or a race.

Cons: promote violence between nations, political factions, and races as part of a social Darwinist and militarist stance that views violence between these groups as a natural and positive part of evolution. In the view of these groups being in perpetual conflict, (conservatives) believe only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and have an aggressive warrior mentality by conquering, dominating, and eventually eliminating people deemed weak and degenerate.

NOT my bag, sweetheart.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:04 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

My general observation: libertarians come in two flavors - the really far right and the really far left. Most, but not all, of the libertarians here seem to be of the 'far right' variety. That's the kind that says what most people want is irrelevant, they're just sheeple anyway. They're the ones who say we're going to do things MY way. And THEN the sheeple will be free. MY way.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:09 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"But Sarge nails the salient point, they do this shit cause we let em.
Simplest way to break that ?
DO. NOT. COMPLY."

That only works as a mass movement. And what if the masses don't care ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And yet the other end of that argument, is flake the paint off a Libertarian and you'll find an Anarchist.

It always amuses me that both "sides" hate us.

But Sarge nails the salient point, they do this shit cause we let em.

Simplest way to break that ?
DO. NOT. COMPLY.

Non-compliance is my forte'...

If one finds their self hated from more than one side , something is being done right...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

That only works as a mass movement. And what if the masses don't care ?

The 'majority' doesn't care , because of their massive ignorance...

But millions DO care , and are working the problem...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:13 AM

*laughs*

And then there's me...

Depending on your viewpoint that's either Miltant-Moderate...

Or This.

Your mileage may vary, offer void where prohibited, some restrictions and conditions may apply.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:16 AM

Rue :

See new thread--

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=37580

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:19 AM

Quote:
That only works as a mass movement. And what if the masses don't care ?

Then you see to your own, and let them get what they so fervently desired without understanding the consequences thereof.

While, of course, continuing to bitch, just in case some blinding realisation of the obvious occurs to them.

At this point "the masses" are getting what they foolishly wished for, despite good advice, and gettin it good and hard without even the benefit of a reacharound.

Me, well, other than catching a bit of fallout specifically AIMED at me by folks pursuing a moral/religous agenda with Government power, imma do ok - even if the whole damn thing crumbles, but that doesn't mean I don't have sympathy or will not render aid to those who did *NOT* have a voice, and were crushed under the wheels of the machine anyway.

Those who used that voice to urge the machine to go faster, crush harder, thinking they we're gonna be sitting in the luxury seats instead of the first to go under the treads - AS I REPEATEDLY WARNED THEM THEY WOULD BE...

Do you really think at this point I have an iota of sympathy left for em ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:24 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"The 'majority' doesn't care , because of their massive ignorance..."

Ah yes, they are the sheeple. Their expressed interests are just plain wrong and so they don't count. They need be re-educated.

"But millions DO care , and are working the problem..."

Written like a true Trotskyist. (I say that b/c they are a vanishingly small 'vanguard' ready to be at the forefront of the mass uprising, when it happens. Any day now.)

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:30 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Wulfie

Quote:
Libs: a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology ...
Cons: promote violence between nations, political factions, and races as part of a social Darwinist and militarist stance ...

I'd be really curious just how far up your colon you reached for these 'definitions'.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:34 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Not that far Rue,

Just a trip to Wiki-land.

However, I'm sure it gives you a shiver to think that I'd be "reaching up my colon". Makes you think about me reaching up other things in YOU.

But, again, Im not interested, Rue.

Sorry sweetie.

(Edit) Now unless you have anything of value to add....why don't you stop trolling?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:42 AM

I'd say they're not all that far off.

That whole "For your own good" crap from the Left...
While you get "Kill them over there so they don't come here" from the Right...

You do get that crap from the extreme ends of the spectrum, let's not deny it.

To me, well - they all have one thing in common, and so do other terrorists.

They want me to do what THEY want me to do, instead of freeing me to do what *I* wanna do, so long as it harms no one else.

By that standard, none of them are innocent.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BTW- Sarge... I'm tempted to say... oh, what the hell, between you and WUlf and Geezer I'm so annoyed I WILL say it: Scratch most libertarians and you'll find a fascist.

Where did that come from? Just when I think we've found a shred of common ground you say something completely ridiculous. You either have severe misconceptions about libertarianism, or you don't know the definition of fascism. So, how are you defining "fascist" anyway?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:30 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

What Wulfie said
"Libs: a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology that aims to create a single-party state with a government led by a dictator who seeks national unity and development by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or a race."

What he claimed about his post:
"Just a trip to Wiki-land."

What WIKI really says
"Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.[1]
Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity."

What Wulfie said
"Cons: promote violence between nations, political factions, and races as part of a social Darwinist and militarist stance that views violence between these groups as a natural and positive part of evolution. In the view of these groups being in perpetual conflict, (conservatives) believe only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and have an aggressive warrior mentality by conquering, dominating, and eventually eliminating people deemed weak and degenerate."

What he claimed about his post:
"Just a trip to Wiki-land."

What WIKI really says
"Conservatism is a political and social term from the Latin verb conservare meaning to save or preserve. [1] As the name suggests it usually indicates support for the status quo or the status quo ante, though the meaning has changed in different countries and time periods. Cultural conservatism is a philosophy that supports preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:41 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

ERRR, I was making a point:

I quoted "Fascism" and applied it to both Liberalism, and Conservatism.....

to show how BOTH were REALLY fascist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:44 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Well then.

I'll define 'day' as the period of time when the sun is normally visible outdoors (absent weather cover or eclipses), and apply that definition to 'night' in order to show that they are the same.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:09 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

If you say so

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 11:31 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
ERRR, I was making a point:

I quoted "Fascism" and applied it to both Liberalism, and Conservatism.....

to show how BOTH were REALLY fascist.

That swastika embellished poodle won't hunt.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 11:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
But Sarge nails the salient point, they do this shit cause we let em.

Quote:
Where did that come from? Just when I think we've found a shred of common ground you say something completely ridiculous. You either have severe misconceptions about libertarianism, or you don't know the definition of fascism. So, how are you defining "fascist" anyway?

I've already told you: Government in service to business. Mandated capitalist control.

It was the hand-wringing about democracy I was referring to. Because the WRONG decisions will be made! Because the average person will only look out for their own comfort and economic viability! Because they will give up on the idea of free enterprise and turns to the government for assistance!

Unlike capitalists, I suppose, who only look out for their own economic viability and turn to.... oh, well, nevermind.

Oy.

In my view, history says anytime capitalism goes into the crapper (which is does with regularity) peeps tend to split into two camps: fascism and socialism. What I think it happening is that two camps are fighting for control of the government and its resources. Granted, Libertarians would rather there be no government to fight over, but at times, as in Germany, it comes down simply to a choice of EITHER/OR. (People forget, or never knew, that in Germany fascists and socialists were mortal enemies, and that trade unionists and socialists were the FIRST to go under Hitler.) IMHO it's not a case of six of one/ half dozen of another. I think there are real differences between the two directions. As distasteful as the choices are, if it came down to that choice, which do you choose?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 1:25 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

What do you think, Sarge?

Valid question or blowing smoke?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 2:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
You either have severe misconceptions about libertarianism, or you don't know the definition of fascism. So, how are you defining "fascist" anyway?
I've already told you: Government in service to business. Mandated capitalist control.

Heh.... ok, so it's not either/or, it's both.

I've never heard that definition of fascism, but we use words to mean things, and as long as we're clear what you mean, I'll roll with it, for the sake of the current discussion at least. So, how are you applying your definition to libertarianism?

"Government in service of business". That's diametrically opposed to libertarian ideals. According to the core ideology, the government's primary purpose should be to protect individual rights - and that's about it. We're the first ones to speak out about government getting in bed with business, and adamant about keeping government and the economy separate. You might not like these priorities, but they sure aren't government in service of business.

Now, I'm not exactly sure what "mandated capitalist control" means. The only way it could possibly apply to libertarianism is in the legal support of private property, which is, admittedly, fundamental to the basic philosophy. I guess in some odd way you could consider this 'mandating capitalist control', but I gather you're hinting at something more. You seem to want to push the image of corporate domination of society as a libertarian value, which it's not.

Quote:
It was the hand-wringing about democracy I was referring to. Because the WRONG decisions will be made! Because the average person will only look out for their own comfort and economic viability! Because they will give up on the idea of free enterprise and turns to the government for assistance!...

Even using your definition, democracy isn't incompatible with fascism, though I'd make the case that libertarianism is. In fact, our nation is currently democratically acting in service to business, using tax money to pay extortion to businesses that are "too big to fail". And more than a few fans of democracy are advocating the "individual mandate" for health insurance, which sounds a lot more like "mandated capitalist control" than anything I hear from libertarians.

Quote:
In my view, history says anytime capitalism goes into the crapper (which is does with regularity) peeps tend to split into two camps: fascism and socialism. ... I think there are real differences between the two directions. As distasteful as the choices are, if it came down to that choice, which do you choose?

It would depend entirely on the details of the choice I suppose. Since your definitions aren't necessarily clear to me I couldn't really say. But, fortunately, reality always offers more than two shitty choices - even if our voters have forgotten that - and I'd be speaking up for other alternatives, rather than teaming up with a faction I believed to be overwhelmingly wrong.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 2:31 PM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:04 PM

Yanno, that Fascism or Socialism choice sounds a lot like what the Shadows and Vorlons put to Sheridan in Babylon 5...

I'm rather fond of his response, which more or less amounted to "BOTH of you piss off!".

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:12 PM

KWICKO

How is it that I haven't seen Babylon 5?

In truth, I *did* watch lots of the first season, but that damned wooden-headed actor they used for the captain just completely put me off.

I understand they replaced him for S2, so maybe I'll have to track it down...

Mike

just lying smiling in the dark
shooting stars around your heart
dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple everytime
now you're crying in your sleep
i wish you'd never learnt to weep
don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple everytime

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:49 PM