| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
| |||||||
 Ellis Dee Archangel    Registered: 06/29/01 Posts: 13,104 Loc: Fire in the sky Last seen: 5 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
A newsmax article I'de like to share.
180 Degrees of Separation Diane Alden Sept. 5, 2002 Sept. 11, 2001, had a triple impact. It focused American minds on how vulnerable to attack we were, it showed us how pathetic our intelligence operations were, and it gave us a respite from our national spiritual, cultural and political division. But 9-11 did not cure that division. We are still a nation as divided as that now-famous map ? the one that shows red small-town and rural America that voted for Bush and blue Al Gore urban-suburban city-states. The philosophical divisions between red and blue country are not the kind that can be healed or compromised away. That is because one side does not understand that the basic principles upon which this nation was founded are not up for discussion or compromise. Over a period of years, the U.S. Constitution has been shunted aside. What replaced it is the dogma of the politically correct collectivist and corporate state. Because of this failure to understand how profound our divisions really are, in the long run the war on terror and the patriotism that temporarily unite us may not be enough to keep us together. In all probability the majority of people in the U.S. will remain ignorant and apolitical. Meanwhile, the U.S. will continue to drift into the American version of Euro-socialism and corporate statism. If another leftist on the order of Bill Clinton is elected president, that will increase the division and set the course for the foreseeable future. That is not hyperbole. If another Clinton type takes office, the direction of the country will be too entrenched and tenured for reform to occur. Conservatives and libertarians understand that government seldom reforms itself. Because of that, they also know the greatest civilizations always end the same way. Once the dependent client state is created, it does not disappear on its own. Eventually that civilization or nation is destroyed, invaded, loses its cultural and political fire, or dies of its own bureaucratic weight. A Euro-socialist corporate state for America will leave conservatives and libertarians with nowhere to go. As it is, most libertarians and principled conservatives already know that is the case. They also know that their chance of voting agents of change into office, on a large enough scale to stop the leftward drift, are nil. As a matter of fact, significant implementation of the agenda of libertarians and conservatives in the United States is a lost cause. National dialogue, agenda and debate on policy will continue to be controlled by the left. Republicans will go along with it or they will not be elected. The body politic has changed and will continue to change. It is true especially with uncontrolled immigration, in which the ethnic minorities invariably vote left, which means they vote for Democrats. Voting records show this is the case. The only minorities that are exceptions are Cuban refugees and some Asian communities. In a recent commentary, Martin Kettle of the U.K.'s leftist Guardian newspaper reviews a book which sets out the reasons why the libertarian and conservative agenda may be over with in the United States. Kettle relates: "In their striking new book, "The Emerging Democratic Majority," the left-of-center writers John B Judis and Ruy Teixeira have used census data, voting studies and exit polls to argue that a combination of deep-rooted modern American demographic, economic and cultural trends is beginning to stack the odds ever more heavily against the Republicans." Kettle of course incorrectly assumes that the Republican Party still stands for conservative or libertarian or constitutional values. He assumes they have been able to slow the leftward juggernaut that has propelled the United States for 75 years. To paraphrase conservative William F. Buckley, it was the job of conservatives to stand astride history and yell stop. Well, conservatives have been doing that for decades to absolutely no permanent effect. The direction of America is still leftward HO! What is frightening is how close Judis and Teixeira have called it. They state: "The new majority ... is based on professionals, women and minorities, all of whom, especially the Latino minority, are growing as a proportion of the electorate, and all of whom are keen to vote. These Democratic voters are concentrated in postindustrial urban "ideopolises" in the Northeast, the upper Midwest, the West Coast and in significant parts of the South, including Florida and Virginia." Kettle tells us, "Judis and Teixeira go out of their way not to be deterministic, but their argument is undeniably intriguing. As long as Democrats remain fiscally moderate, socially liberal, reformist and egalitarian, the authors say, the party will enjoy the edge over Republicans for years to come." What that means is that the direction of the American system and its institutions are going to be in the hands of demographic groups that are the product of the incremental growth of collectivism. The New American will demand more transfer payments, not fewer. The New American will not mind when there is increased regulation of our lives, as well as multiculturalism at the expense of the American culture and self- interest. They will demand and receive more "stuff" of all kinds from government (prescription drugs, for instance). In addition, there will be the expansion of identity politics, micromanagement of the economy, more taxes and more benefits and more money thrown at worthless expensive failed programs. Almost nothing short of an act of God, or the individual states insisting on their rights under the Ninth and 10th amendments, can stop the growth of the collectivist central state. Additionally, the twisted kind of leftist intolerance already in place in society will force libertarian and conservative voices underground. Hate- speech legislation will be the tool that will make that possible. Hate- speech legislation is another indication that, for conservatives, the First Amendment will cease to exist. It has already happened in Canada and it is happening in California and Massachusetts. When the great silence falls, any opinion that does not fit with the agenda and goals of the left will be called hate. The take-over of American universities by the left shows how smothering conservative opinion works. As the left took control of universities, conservative opinion and worldview became almost nonexistent among the professorate. How could students learn that there is more than one way to look at the world if they only heard one voice? Once the left was in charge, few if any conservative professors or scholars were hired. Today there is an almost total absence of conservative or libertarian speakers and scholars on college campuses. When there are, riots and demonstrations and intimidation against them often take place. Free speech is only allowed if you are on the left. Ask any conservative who has been invited by conservative university student organizations to speak on campus. Ann Coulter and David Horowitz as well as Jeanne Kirkpatrick and many others can tell you about the kind of hatred spewed by students when a conservative opinion is voiced. This is the way the left works. This is what will happen nationwide when the left or Democrats never lose an election. This control of the agenda and speech has already forced Republicans to vote for and approve of numerous collectivist programs. Society has always worried about the loony fringe right, but though they may be intolerant, they don't have any power. However, the intolerant left does have power, and lots of it ? and they don't hesitate to wield it against conservatives. The Clinton era is a case in point. Universities are a case in point. Congress is a case in point. Bipartisanship has come to mean you do it the Democrat way or no way. When Republicans protest, immediately the demonization and vilification and lies begin. Meanwhile, our elected representatives have managed to create an ever-expanding un-elected federal bureaucracy. This entity does most of the implementation of leftist policies. From the State Department to the Interior Department, the left is in control. This means that the U.S. Constitution is a dead duck. The Constitution means whatever the representatives of the leftist/socialist majority and their appointed federal court flunkies say it means. Federal bureaucrats make sure the policies of the left remain in place no matter who is in office. What should be frightening even to dyed-in-the-wool Democrats is that if another leftist like Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Joe Lieberman or John Edwards is elected president, our national self-interest and sovereignty will be at the mercy of international bureaucrats and one-world-fits-all American political advisers like Strobe Talbot or Jeffrey Sachs. It is the Democratic left that itches to hand American constitutional sovereignty and liberty over to international bodies. It is the left who cannot act in America's self-interest without the approval of an international body of some sort. It is the left that paralyzes us as we pursue any form of American self-interest. The sad fact is that Republicans are only capable of calling a halt to the insanity when a major catastrophe like Sept. 11, 2001, occurs. Before Sept. 11, Bush and the Republicans were impotent. Daschle and company set the agenda and the direction, even in foreign policy. Sadly, the leftward drift of the U.S. never stops for long. Division of the House "A house divided against itself cannot stand." That was true before the American Civil War and it is true now. Nevertheless, if the issue of slavery had not been the ostensible reason to force the South to submit to Northern demands for Union, there would have been absolutely no legal or political justification for Lincoln to hold the South in the Union. In our own day, the divide in America is not about states' rights versus federal government. It is about what we are as a nation and what we want to be. The differences between us amount to a chasm. The most disheartening thing is that most conservatives and libertarians have given up hope that the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights will ever be resurrected. Thus, even responsible conservatives and libertarians recognize that it may be time for a national divorce. They include Walter Williams, Joseph Sobran and Lew Rockwell, to name only a few. Many of them don't care diddly if the Democrats/progressives go so far left they fall off the earth, they just don't want to fall off with them. Conservatives and libertarians don't wish them ill; they just don't want to be part of the leftist social or political culture. They want the right to choose. Conservatives and libertarians want something different from what the collectivist left wants. They can't obtain it through voting, but they would prefer to obtain it peacefully and legally. In a column last year titled "What the Founders Feared," economist Walter Williams related the intentions of the Founders in regard to a national divorce, which we call secession: "Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, 'If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.' Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, 'If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the Union ... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.' " In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." What a concept. It is almost unknown in the United States today. The states are no longer able to be in charge of their land, they cannot decide their own educational policy, they do not have their rights as guaranteed under the Constitution in the Ninth and 10 amendments. In fact, the states have become the agents of the federal government. Originally the federal government was supposed to be the agent of the states. Constitutional conservatives and libertarians care about putting in place the ideals in the Bill of Rights and the ORIGINAL Constitution as written ? a Constitution which any person can read and understand. That no longer seems possible by voting it in through our representatives or expecting our courts to interpret it as it is. Another legal way must be found to re-establish the rule of law through constitutional means even if that means a national divorce. Funny thing is that it is Canadians who may be developing those legal means for autonomy outside the collectivist state. Canadian provinces, other than Quebec, are yearning to breathe free of the control of the urban city-states of Ottawa and Toronto, the centers of power for the Canadian collectivist state. What we in red flyover country have in common with our conservative Canadian brethren may be summed up in the words of Benjamin Franklin: "Where liberty is ? there is my country." (Next time: The American Free State and 10th Amendment movements. Who are Stephen Harper and Corey Morgan and what is the Calgary Declaration? How will Canada's 1999 Clarity Act be the legal means by which provincial Canada will loosen the socialist strangle hold of Ottawa and Toronto? Former PM Elliot Trudeau began Canadian dissolution with the National Energy Policy Act. By signing onto the Kyoto Protocol, current Canadian PM Chretien just hammered one of the last nails in the Canadian coffin ? just ask Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon and the Northwest Territories.) Check out my Web site at www.aldenchronicles.com. To get in touch with me, please contact me at alden@newsmax.com -------------------- "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
| |||||||
|
Phluck Carpal Tunnel  Registered: 04/10/99 Posts: 11,394 Loc: Canada Last seen: 5 months, 22 days |
| ||||||
|
"multiculturalism at the expense of the American culture"
Wasn't america supposed to be made up of all kinds of different cultures that come together? "Society has always worried about the loony fringe right, but though they may be intolerant, they don't have any power. However, the intolerant left does have power, and lots of it – and they don't hesitate to wield it against conservatives." This is a silly statement if there ever was one. I can just as easily see the exact same thing in a left leaning article, just flipped around. Nobody outside the US would consider the american Democratic party to be more than just a little left of center. You do have people with silly extreme views in both parties. The author of this article seems to fail to recognize the fact that many left leaning people would consider the homophobia and religious fervor in the Republican party to fit squarely in the "loony fringe" catagory. I'd definately say that it even pops up here, I don't think that the attack on multiculturalism is anything more than thinly veiled racist xenophobia. American culture being destroyed? Every culture evolves and changes. That's just the way the world works. Some day the symbols of american culture will be nothing more than artifacts in a museum, and it really won't make a difference. Change happens, communication is exploding, the gap between cultures is getting smaller. As a result, your culture is getting "tainted" with outsiders. There aren't any good reasons to be opposed to this. You want to preserve your culture? Well, how about we set up some reservations... 
-------------------- "I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson http://phluck.is-after.us
| |||||||
|
Ellis Dee Archangel Registered: 06/29/01 Posts: 13,104 Loc: Fire in the sky Last seen: 5 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
Well Phluck, I could care less abot the demographic makeup of california except that all the minorities always vote democRAT. They always do. I'm good friends with a chinese grad student. He's a chinese communist too. He's a great guy and I think he'de walk over hot coals to help me if I needed it. But he is a good example of minority immigrants being left leaning. Call is xenophobia if you like but allowing unlimited democrat immigration concerns me. It's like saying we don't produce enough democrats domestically so we need to import them. It's hogwash.
I believe it's generally true. A rather depressing assessment I'de say, but accurate. With current policies and trends continuing we're doomed to a liberal state and there's scarcely anywhere left to flee to. When I was in college the left ran things. All the profs were socialists. I remember tearing down posters for the feminists club commerating the Roe V Wade decision in the student center and in halls and the dirty looks given me by others. There was a free 'gay' magazine given away in the student center. I'de take the whole stack since they were free (it wasen't theft they were free) and deposit them in the trash. The culture invariably changes, as you say. But why must freedom and liberty degrade as it occurs? I don't like it. I do want to protect my 'culture of freedom'. I would love to det up a reservation if I could. As it is now I'm seriously considering leaving the country to join the peace corps. Maybe I will. I think it might be better to live in Africa where people work for a living and don't expect the gov to hand them everything out of a sense of entitlement. -------------------- "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, Edited by Ellis Dee (09/04/02 09:51 PM)
| |||||||
|
hongomon old hand Registered: 04/14/02 Posts: 910 Loc: comin' at ya Last seen: 19 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
The government (the state) has NOT been gaining more and more power over the corporate sector. It is very much the reverse. These giant corporations in energy, steel, food, etc. etc. are still very much private entities.
In fact, they're nations unto themselves. Why do you think they won't hesitate to close up a factory an Allentown and put 10,000 Americans out of work, if they can move into Mexico and produce their product for less? Because they give a shit about one thing: profit. That's the main reason Bush wouldn't agree to the Kyoto protocol--U.S. industries would've been packed up and gone by the weekend. Of course, that idiot must have had that spelled out to him by the industries. Another example of how the business sector has its grip on the government and not the other way around: multi-billion dollar farm subsidies and other examples of corporate welfare. We still subsidize tobacco, for Christsake. Sure, some of us are up in arms about the U.S. government and the bullshit it's pulling right now, and I'm not saying we shouldn't be. But let's keep in mind that that government has basically become a tool for these corporations (the right, NOT the left) to maintain their access to the resources and labor of the world. C'est la capitalisme. Edited by hongomon (09/05/02 02:03 AM)
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son  Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
A most excellent article. I've been saying essentially the same things since roughly the time of the Watergate affair, and others before me since about 1940.
Her point about the complete dominance of universities by Leftists is, of course, bang on. This is why I try very hard not to think of the posts here by the younger members as indicating stupidity -- it is not really their fault. It's all they've ever known, all they've ever been taught. It's not really an indication of stupidity at all, it's an indication of the thoroughness of the brainwashing they've undergone. University graduates are as thorughly indoctrinated as any Komsomol youth in the ex-USSR ever was. Too many other good points in that essay to note them all. I will certainly be cruising her website for a while. Thanks for posting this. pinky -------------------- 
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Phluck writes:
Nobody outside the US would consider the american Democratic party to be more than just a little left of center. Sadly, this is true. And that fact is more depressing than just about anything else you've ever posted here. American culture being destroyed? Every culture evolves and changes. That's just the way the world works. I think in this context the author is referring to the POLITICAL culture of the USA. She is bemoaning the erosion of that quintessentially AMERICAN way of dealing with life: individualism, independence, reverence of the work ethic... the "can do" attitude that distinguished America from the rest of the world for so long. Some day the symbols of american culture will be nothing more than artifacts in a museum, and it really won't make a difference. I fear that day is not far off. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
hongomon writes:
The government (the state) has NOT been gaining more and more power over the corporate sector. Not so. There are literally orders of magnitude more laws and regulations regarding what industry may or may not do than all the criminal law statutes combined, and that trend is accelerating. Why do you think they won't hesitate to close up a factory an Allentown and put 10,000 Americans out of work, if they can move into Mexico and produce their product for less? Ummm.... perhaps because in Mexico they have to deal with only 5,000 inane and contradictory laws rather than 500,000? That's the main reason Bush wouldn't agree to the Kyoto protocol--U.S. industries would've been packed up and gone by the weekend. Not so. The MAIN reason America (and Japan and Australia and others) wouldn't agree to the Kyoto protocols is that they are not achievable. There is not a single industrialized country in the world that will be able to meet, or even approach, the terms of that protocol. Another example of how the business sector has its grip on the government and not the other way around: multi-billion dollar farm subsidies and other examples of corporate welfare. Who is responsible for corporate welfare? Who started it in the first place? Why, the politicians, of course. They started handing out those goodies in order to buy votes. If they now take away those goodies, they get no campaign contributions, and no votes. If it really is the corporations calling the shots, as you claim, why is it the corporations lose the battles? Look at how many regulations the auto industry, for example, has had shoved down its throat under vociferous protest. C'est la capitalisme. Sigh. Not even close. You still haven't the foggiest idea of what capitalism is, do you? Let me guess... you are a university graduate. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
 Swami Eggshell Walker  Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
Good Guy? More like just another self-righteous individual promoting American ideals even as you tramp on them.
I remember tearing down posters for the feminists club commerating the Roe V Wade decision in the student center and in halls and the dirty looks given me by others. This is not the act of a "Good Guy", but a self-appointed moralist stomping on other's Freedom of Speech. There was a free 'gay' magazine given away in the student center. I'de take the whole stack since they were free (it wasen't theft they were free) and deposit them in the trash. Rationalize all you want. It is theft pure and simple as they were intended to be one magazine for one person. Would you like it if a moderator just threw out all your right-winged posts because he didn't agree with you? You seem to mix up the ideas of agreement and respect. If you don't respect someone else's right to express (whether or not you agree with the content), why should your ideas be respected? Freedom of Speech must apply to all. If you are a true American as you claim, you should know this. --------------------  The proof is in the pudding. Edited by Swami (09/05/02 04:34 AM)
| |||||||
|
Phluck Carpal Tunnel Registered: 04/10/99 Posts: 11,394 Loc: Canada Last seen: 5 months, 22 days |
| ||||||
|
I don't think that being left leaning invariably means a decrease in freedom and liberty. For instance, I would consider the vast majority of scandinavian countries to have far more individual freedom in sex, speech, and drugs, but their governments are certainly more socialist.
The gay magazine is just an example of freedom. People should be free to choose their sexuality, and free to speak about it. Same with the feminist posters. If you truly believe in democracy, then you should be able to accept the victory of politicians with opposing viewpoints. If the public wants a more socialist government, then that's what they should get. Again, leftism does not mean a decrease in liberty. It can, sure, but many would consider the republican opposition of same sex marriages, teaching of evolution, sex education, and abortion as attacks on personal liberties. -------------------- "I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson http://phluck.is-after.us
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Pink, what happened to you and the guys in the other thread where we were discussing the effect of sanctions? You cried out for "proof" and I provided three qoutes from UNICEF and the UN director of the Oil for food programme.
Then you stopped posting. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
hongomon old hand Registered: 04/14/02 Posts: 910 Loc: comin' at ya Last seen: 19 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
Pinky, I feel as though you have thrown me down a flight of stairs! How did you figure out that I'm a university graduate???
Politicians using corporate welfare to buy votes. HEH? How many votes does an industry or a corporation have? Or are they that interested in the dozen or so execs who might be so tickled? Or--does corporate welfare's tickle actually extend all the way down among the laborers? That don't make no sense! Politicians can be, and often are, bought. Agree or disagree? Well, when nearly 70 percent of a 10-billion-per-year farm subsidy goes to the wealthiest ten percent of the farms, do we see wily politicians buying votes, or do we see a government doing the bidding of the big businesses? You are so dogmatically devoted to libertarianism that you often have no choice but to say some nonsensical things in its defense. You say, "Capitalists know better than to shit in their nest," which is total bullshit and you must know that. Then you say, "Well, that's why there are laws to see that they don't," which is partial bullshit. You mean the toothless laws now in effect? You mean the ones Reagan and Bush repealed? Or you mean the inane and contradictory ones that justify the wealthy industry magnates shutting down a factory--and often a whole town in the process--and going into Mexico, or Indonesia? And that brings me back to the farm subsidy. On top of the greater ease with which these corporations can shit into their nest (there is, after all, only ONE nest) in developing countries (measures to avoid doing so cut into PROFIT), there is also a population who can't compete with subsidized U.S. products, which are FORCED into their market by "free" trade agreements such as NAFTA. Their own attempts at industry crumble under the competition. Well, God bless the big American businesses for bringing their factories to us so we can put chemical-laced subsidized foreign foods on the table. Another of your absurdities I remember reading here, in response to the suggestion of modern enslavement: "No one is packing these people into trains and forcing them to work in the factories." (sound of hongomon's head shaking back and forth) You have two choices Pinky: keep a firm hold on your libertarianism, or get a grip on reality. Do you know how many labor union activists have been murdered in the world in the past thirty years? Hundreds? Thousands? In whose interest is it to prevent these factory workers from organizing, from self-empowering? Do I sound a bit angry? Cynical even? Damn that college education! Capitalism serves a very few. It is the ideology of the bourgeosie--the wealthy elite, and if you don't poke at the thin veneer of "opportunity" and "liberty", you won't have to deal with the stench that lies beneath. And no, I didn't learn that in college. I went to a painfully conservative university. hongomon, self-admitted babe in the woods of socio-economics, scared, wants to go home now. "The laws of Congress and the laws of physics have grown increasingly divergent, and the laws of physics are not likely to yield." --Bill McKibben
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
hongomon writes:
How many votes does an industry or a corporation have? As many as it has employees, plus as many more from the general populace as its campaign contributions allow the candidate to buy. Do you think the tens of thousands of Chrysler Corporation employees voted AGAINST the politicians who bailed out Chrysler? Politicians can be, and often are, bought. Agree or disagree? Most can, yes. Well, when nearly 70 percent of a 10-billion-per-year farm subsidy goes to the wealthiest ten percent of the farms... And the other 30-plus per cent goes to the rest of the farmers. There's a lot of farmers in the US. Do YOU know any farmers who will vote for a candidate who wants to eliminate farm subsidies? You mean the ones Reagan and Bush repealed? Or you mean the inane and contradictory ones that justify the wealthy industry magnates shutting down a factory... The only laws regulating business behavior in a capitalist society are the laws based on the legal principle usually described as "do no harm". The inane and contradictory laws I referred to of course have nothing to do with capitalism. ...there is also a population who can't compete with subsidized U.S. products, which are FORCED into their market by "free" trade agreements such as NAFTA... I agree with you that subsidies are unfair. You still can't make the connection, can you? Government subsidies aren't part of capitalism. Do you know how many labor union activists have been murdered in the world in the past thirty years? Hundreds? Thousands? In which capitalist countries did these murders occur? Do I sound a bit angry? Cynical even? Damn that college education! That college education apparently never taught you what capitalism is. I hope you didn't spend too much money on it. Capitalism serves a very few. It is the ideology of the bourgeosie--the wealthy elite, and if you don't poke at the thin veneer of "opportunity" and "liberty", you won't have to deal with the stench that lies beneath. And no, I didn't learn that in college. Spoken like a true Marxist. If you didn't learn these attitudes in university, where did you learn them? I went to a painfully conservative university. One of the three left in North America, I presume. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
hongomon old hand Registered: 04/14/02 Posts: 910 Loc: comin' at ya Last seen: 19 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
There are probably a lot of small farmers--or former farmers--who feel that the subsidies, as they are, do them more harm than good by providing too much leverage to the larger agri-businesses. These farmers might desire to see them eliminated. Maybe there are many more who, despite a similar grievance, depend on what portion does reach them to keep afloat and therefore wouldn't want them eliminated. But that sure don't make them happy about it. My point in using them as an example wasn't to suggest that they should be eliminated, but to show corporate manipulation of government.
You did make some good points about the use of corporate welfare by the politicians. Thanks, I'll give that some thought. But then you also said, "They started handing out those goodies in order to buy votes. If they now take away those goodies, they get no campaign contributions, and no votes." So assuming you're right about the origin of these goodies, you're still giving an example of corporate control of government. Remember that the "they" in the first sentence is generally different than the "they" in the second sentence, the latter a successor of the former. So if I go into office and decide to eliminate a previously instated subsidy, I'm faced with an extortion of sorts: do it and the corporation will cut me off from funds I depend on, or feel that I do. You write, "The only laws regulating business behavior in a capitalist society are the laws based on the legal principle usually described as "do no harm". The inane and contradictory laws I referred to of course have nothing to do with capitalism." So it's the toothless ones in place and the ones certain presidents repealed. At the kernel of our disagreement is what exactly "do no harm" means. By my interpretation of capitalism, and yes, I think Marx is spot on on a lot of things, the very system is, by that very principle, illegal. It does plenty of harm, and I just don't see any mechanism within the system designed to prevent an increasingly centralized business sector from exploiting the world's resources and lower classes. I know you think I'm delusionary, but I think you're delusionary. And you probably think my thinking you are delusionary is part of my delusion, just as I think that your thinking I'm delusionary is part of your delusion. Doesn't it drive you crazy? You ask, "In which capitalist countries did these murders occur?" I'm tempted to stop using the word "capitalism" with you because you like to insinuate that since there has never been a "pure" capitalist nation, the runaway giant multi-national corporations and all their wickedness have nothing to do with capitalism. When laborers attempt to organize in an effort to improve their lot--their working conditions, their wages, rights, etc.--and the people working to bring about that organization are systematically murdered, you don't have to see it as a clash of two ideologies if you don't want to. hongomon, having breathed his flame, receeds to his cave to chew on bones
| |||||||
| |||||||
Edit 
Reply 
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Conservatives and racism (  1 2 all ) |
 Learyfan |
5,083 | 26 | 08/16/04 08:03 PM by Mushmonkey |
|
|
Conservatives who trip ( 1 2 all ) |
 moonrawk |
5,508 | 37 | 09/10/01 11:51 AM by Innvertigo |
|
 |
foundation of libertarianism followed to it's logical conclusion = anarchy ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 Anonymous |
4,762 | 45 | 10/12/04 02:27 PM by Anonymous |
|
|
Liberals suck. So do conservatives. ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all ) |
Anonymous |
9,884 | 105 | 01/26/03 12:53 PM by GoBlue! |
|
|
Today's Conservatives Are Fascists |  usefulidiot |
1,316 | 5 | 01/14/05 04:50 AM by CJay |
|
 |
Libertarians: What do you think of Bush now? ( 1 2 all ) |
 Silversoul |
3,216 | 28 | 02/19/05 04:30 PM by offmyrocker |
|
|
Badnarik and Libertarians "Sickos"? | JesusChrist |
2,413 | 14 | 09/10/04 01:20 PM by Ancalagon |
|
|
Libertarian pioneer endorses Bush ( 1 2 all ) |
Anonymous |
5,092 | 39 | 11/02/04 03:11 PM by Phluck |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 1,311 topic views. 2 members, 6 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||