More on the Koch brothers this election

[Amused]

Somewhat ironic, the only reason corporations are able to influence politics is because of "progressive" policies at the federal level. If the federal government did its designed job (as outlined in the constitution) and didn't pick winners and loser, corporate interests would be irrelevant.

Bingo! My point exactly.

What Craig seems to be ignorant of, is that the entire purpose of the 1st Amendment separation of church and state is to prevent BOTH the interference/control of state in religious matters AND the interference/control of the church in state matters. And for the most part, it's worked brilliantly.

The problem with Craig and other authoritarian socialists like him is that they do not believe in freedom. They fear it due to a fundamental and elitist distrust of their fellow man.

 

[Zebo]

Good point. If government were allowed to regulate religion, how long would it take before government and religion co-opted each other and became intertwined?

We already have General Patrueus accepting Muslim world-view and perspective, namely don't insult Islam or else, and telling our people to STFU.

 

[Double Trouble]

We already have General Patrueus accepting Muslim world-view and perspective, namely don't insult Islam or else, and telling our people to STFU.

Yeah, it's sad to see our government, our generals, our politicians advocating silencing unpopular speech to appease nutcase muslims around the world.

 

[kranky]

The saddest thing to me is that money tends to win elections. The only reason that works is due to the ignorance and laziness of the voting public. They vote for the name they recognize without regard to merit, keeping incumbents in office for as long as they wish to stay there. In my county and state we've had numerous examples of people entering politics - and winning! - because they were lucky enough to share a last name that was the same as another politician with huge name recognition.

Last night there were back-to-back commercials on TV. The first one said Smith was a bad man and shouldn't be elected, paid for by the committee to elect Jones. The next commercial said Jones was a bad man and shouldn't be elected, paid for by the committee to elect Smith. Did I learn anything about what Smith and Jones are FOR? No.

If the public would make the effort to learn about the candidates, and vote accordingly, a lousy candidate could outspend a qualified one 10,000 to 1 and it wouldn't work. This is why you find so many wealthy people running for office - because the average Joe who might be a great candidate can't win due to the apathetic public.

 

[Double Trouble]

The saddest thing to me is that money tends to win elections. The only reason that works is due to the ignorance and laziness of the voting public. They vote for the name they recognize without regard to merit, keeping incumbents in office for as long as they wish to stay there. In my county and state we've had numerous examples of people entering politics - and winning! - because they were lucky enough to share a last name that was the same as another politician with huge name recognition.

Last night there were back-to-back commercials on TV. The first one said Smith was a bad man and shouldn't be elected, paid for by the committee to elect Jones. The next commercial said Jones was a bad man and shouldn't be elected, paid for by the committee to elect Smith. Did I learn anything about what Smith and Jones are FOR? No.

If the public would make the effort to learn about the candidates, and vote accordingly, a lousy candidate could outspend a qualified one 10,000 to 1 and it wouldn't work. This is why you find so many wealthy people running for office - because the average Joe who might be a great candidate can't win due to the apathetic public.

This is very true, but at the same time you can't expect everyone to have all the time in the world to research all the candidates for every level of elections. It's too bad the media has become so polarized and partisan that there really isn't a good place to get objective views to help voters figure out what each candidate stands for, and (more importantly), what they've done when in office without all the BS "he voted to raise taxes 17 times!" like you see in attack ads.

 

[Jhhnn]

One has total choice within the economy, though. And hell, even the choice to build a cabin in Montana and leave it if they want. (Just don't send mailbombs)

Government is corrupted by business because business is corrupted by government. Period. And the more business has been corrupted by government, the more government has been corrupted by business.

Total choice within the economy? WTF kind of empty platitude is that?

Move to a cabin in Montana... still have to eat, which means you either grow or kill everything yourself, which involves participation in the economy- rent or property taxes, firearms & ammunition, tools, seed etc. Nobody escapes the economy entirely, not even street people.

Govt interference in markets is as old as the human race, and entirely necessary. Even in primitive societies, markets exist under the protection of whatever govt they have, to insure fair dealings. As markets have become larger and more complex, the need for interference does too. Otherwise, we'd be reduced to a state lower than Somalia, where local clan structure, their govt, regulates the marketplace...

All the libertarian hogwash in the world won't change the fact that sometimes the stronger party sees their best advantage in cheating the other guys, because the others don't have the strength to do anything about it, or just killing the other guys and just taking their shit rather than engaging in commerce at all...

 

[BoberFett]

All the libertarian hogwash in the world won't change the fact that sometimes the stronger party sees their best advantage in cheating the other guys, because the others don't have the strength to do anything about it, or just killing the other guys and just taking their shit rather than engaging in commerce at all...

Do you sheep every stop bleating about anarchy?

 

[Jhhnn]

Do you sheep every stop bleating about anarchy?

Do you have an argument? Probably not...

 

[LegendKiller]

What people don't seem to realize is that the ability of government to regulate business is the CAUSE of business having an overwhelming control of government.

We have separation of church and state, and for the most part, that has worked out great. What we need is separation of buniess and state, at least on the federal level.

Just as we see with the fundies argument about a "one sided wall" being bullshit when it comes to the separation of church and state, we can see it does NOT work when it comes to business. Allow government to regulate business and business will eventually control government. The SAME as the church would were we to allow regulation of religion.

So you're saying that if we didn't have any regulations we wouldn't have any contributions from business to politicians and we wouldn't have any pollution?

You do realize that it is utterly impossible to separate business from government at every level, no matter what, merely because some level of law has to exist to hold business accountable for its actions.

Furthermore, you do realize that while regulations aren't perfect, they are far better than having none?

For fucks sake, even Adam Smith recognized the need for regulation.

 

[bfdd]

I don't think that's true of American libertarians. I think libertarians in this country are too aligned with the Right and often end up defending corporations as if an attack on them is an attack on markets. I often have discussions with libertarians who will vehemently attack all forms of government but are quick to stand up to defend wage labor in a market dominated by monopolies or oligopolies, refusing to see any inefficiencies or externalities that exist in any market outside of government intervention.

Just look at Ayn Rand Center's website. You've got one article on the top of the page comparing GM to Apple praising the efforts of Apple as a producer (you know, the company that ends up buying its products from a company in China that takes advantage of currency manipulation and lack of human rights to produce widgets from labor who is killing itself because their death is more valuable than their life) and a video further down the page whose topic is using global Capitalism to cure world oppression and poverty. There is major cognitive dissonance, in my opinion, when you claim that Capitalism will solve all the world's problems and simultaneously defend a large MNC that exploits labor that has no freedom or civil rights.

Oh, there's an audio piece on the front page entitled "America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business." It is anti-government groups like this that give me pause with regards to the modern American libertarian. They don't want freedom, they just want to choose a different king.

Pretty true.

 

[bfdd]

Do you sheep every stop bleating about anarchy?

seriously, they do realize that agencies like the FBI didn't always exist in the USA right? That there actually used to be FIRMS that did that kind of thing that were hired by the government. Pinkerton National Detective Agency anyone?

 

[LegendKiller]

seriously, they do realize that agencies like the FBI didn't always exist in the USA right? That there actually used to be FIRMS that did that kind of thing that were hired by the government. Pinkerton National Detective Agency anyone?

Yeah, now the modern day equiv is Blackwater/Xe. Why don't we just outsource everything to them. After all, what could possibly go wrong with that?

 

[BoberFett]

Do you have an argument? Probably not...

So the only alternative to living in a state where every action of every minute of every day is regulated is Somalia?

You're as bad as a fundie Christian. What's it like seeing in black and white?

 

[manimal]

So the only alternative to living in a state where every action of every minute of every day is regulated is Somalia?

You're as bad as a fundie Christian. What's it like seeing in black and white?

says the guy who is voting for Michelle Bachman who sees the world as such a complex place with so many grey areas..

I say that tongue and cheek since I think in that post you were making a point...which was I think the case in the somalia comment.

I have made a similar argument against radical libertarianism which recently seems to be the only kind. I think abolishing the endowment for the arts and the department of education and the fda and lettings corporations run rough shod over us like in the McKinley days counts as radical....

Is Sharon Angle a moderate anything? She advocated second amendment remedies to losing elections and recently reaffirmed these comments.. How about that loon in florida running for governor? Or the bearded wonder from Alaska?

There are some moderate republicans who have leaned libertarian in some of their views but the ideologues pushing the republican party to the far right are far from moderate..

When the moderate lion of the senate is replaced by a tea party pod person just to win a primary then there are troubles a brewing...

In college I was libertarian and very conservative... In a coffee house trying to pick up chicks being the ideologist and sticking to your libertatirian guns is much easier than it is trying to run a country that way...

Rand Paul has been in hiding since his interview on Rachel Maddow....