More on the Koch brothers this election

[Craig234]

Libertarians typically dont like big business anymore than they do big govt.

That's like saying communists don't like big government any more than they like big business.

They don't, really - communism has in the plan the government being 'phased out' as communism works great.

But the policies they support early on destroy private power, which creates a vacuum filled by government power.

This is the counterpart to Libertarians, who might have in their plan for big business not to become a tyrant, but they destroy government power early on and create a power vacuum.

They each have ideological blindness to the effects of destroying 'the enemy'.

Communists look at the abuses of robber barons, and see 'the people' abused by the system and think if they get rid of the corruption of the robber barons, there's utopia.

Libertarians look at their fear of 'big government', and see 'the people' they think are denied freedoms by it, and if they just get rid of 'big government, there's utopia.

If anything, the communists who are remarkably naive, are second in naivete to the Libertarians. At least 'big government' has some accountability in elections.

One other funny note is the similarity of the infighting - one camp of 'Libertarians' screaming 'the Koch brothers aren't real Libertarians!', while Stalin killed Trotsky.

Right Bamacre? Libertarian is the closest label for the Koch brothers, and they're some of the most major figures in Libertarian history.

I guess Kruschev wasn't a communist since he denounced Stalin. Or was Stalin not the communist? There's a better case for that than for the Koch brothers not being Libertarian.

Every political group has different factions other factions disagree with, that doesn't make them not part of that political group.

IMO Libertarians consist mainly of the naive and the corporate/rich, and the two are intertwined, one providing the selfish their 'army', the other providing the movement money.

One is motivated by utopianism - a counterpart to the communists - and the other by greed. The two do overlap, as well.

People know Reagan was a Roosevelt supporter until a change to a Libertarian-like speaker, they don't often understand the change is reportedly linked to his not liking paying taxes.

His policies may not have been Libertarian - he was following the liberal era - but his 'the government is the problem' rhetoric is at least among the most Libertarian of any president.

Save234

 

[Craig234]

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.

This is a very good point. There was an ideological period in the US that was extremely ideological for business, roughly in the 1880's and 1890's, in which one of the phases of dealing with labor issues was to address the terrible situation by introducing the idea of 'contracts'.

Howard Zinn explained this well, but the gist of it is that the idea of 'voluntary contracts' was used to justify the terrible treatment of workers, because 'they agreed to it'. It completely ignored the inequity between the employer who could easily toss aside workers and replace with them with others from the 'masses' when the 'negotiation' was the company one one side and one worker on the other (labor organization being illegal) - a man has to eat, the corporation had the upper hand.

The nice neat idea of 'contract' was used to make the exploitation palatable. Eventually it was seen for the sham it was and labor rights were increased.

Libertarians are masters of confliating words like 'liberty' with corporatist power to exploit, creating fantasy 'rights' they'll talk about as if they're for 'the public', but which in fast are only really useful for the corporations to exploit and the actual denying of power and rights to 'the people'.

This is why FDR eventually advocated a 'second, economic bill of rights' and the phrase is often heard of how economic rights are the practical implementation for political rights.

The guy who is a serf working alongside his children in an unsafe factory 16 hours a day 6 days a week without healthcare for barely enough to eat has little use for the 'fancy' rights in the constitution that are mostly theoretical - just as communism was easy to sell to the starving masses who were just trying to eat and had little concern for 'political rights'. Even today in China, the government has made an implicit bargain with its people who would otherwise pose a risk to the regime, to trade getting prosperity for rebellion.

Democracy is the right, theoretically, for the people to have political power and challenge the concentrated power of the wealthy with a government who represents them and has the power to reign in private abuses of the public. Theoretically, because if those interests can win elections, by using their money to pay for elections, and to pay for propaganda for the public to back their interests instead of the public interest, then democracy isn't working - but it's still better to have than the Libertarian approach that guts democracy.

Democracy was all about 'more power for the people against the few', and that battle is always ongoing for the few to find ways to get that power back.

Libertarianism with its propaganda misusing the word 'freedom' to trick people is one of those efforts, however little those who fall for it recognize that.

There are real issues with the risks of excess government power and other problems with government - but Libertarians uses them to argue for a radical agenda, not fixing them.

There is a proud history of the people using democracy to improve society - reducing elder poverty, increasing healthcare for just a couple of examples - while Libertarians oppose nearly all such efforts of the people to get to do what they want, to the point of Rand Paul opposing even the parts of the civil rights bill that put the rights of the individual citizen to equal access to public services ahead of the private right of the owner to discriminate based on race, i.e., to keep segregation legal.

It's a good example of the Libertarian use of 'freedom' - not the freedom of the black person to eat at the local restaurant, but the freedom of the owner to say 'no'.

Not the freedom of the people to create a government-involved healthcare service, but the freedom of the private companies to say "you, the public, cannot do that."

Save234

 

[Atreus21]

Even if I concede you are right (which I won't since you aren't) then what is your solution?

Isn't there an argument that regulation favors the big guys because it discourages competition?

 

[Craig234]

Isn't there an argument that regulation favors the big guys because it discourages competition?

Depens on the regulation. There are good regulations and bad regulations, good laws and bad laws, good use of the military and bad use of the military, good music and bad music...

Much of the 'regulation favors the big guys' arguing, I suspect, comes from the 'big guys' looking to disengenuously argue against regulation they don't want.

 

[Phokus]

Reading how terrible Koch industries is and how they ruin the environment and even steal oil from native americans, yeah, it doesn't surprise me that they're libertarians/republican scumbags:

Fines

In March 1999, Koch Petroleum Group, a Koch Industries subsidiary, pled guilty to charges that it had negligently allowed aviation fuel to leak into waters near the Mississippi River from its refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota, and that it had illegally dumped a million gallons of high-ammonia wastewater onto the ground and into the Mississippi River. Koch Petroleum paid the Dakota County Park System a $6 million fine and $2 million in remediation costs, and was ordered to serve three years of probation.[25]

In 1999, a federal jury found that Koch Industries had stolen oil from government and American Indian lands, had lied about its purchases more than 24,000 times, and was fined $553,504.[26]

In January 2000, Koch Industries subsidiary, Koch Pipeline, agreed to a $35 million settlement with the U.S. Justice Department and the State of Texas. This settlement, including a $30 million civil fine, was incurred for the firm's multiple oil spills in Texas and five other states going back to 1990.[27] The spills resulted in more than three million gallons of crude oil leaking into ponds, lakes, streams and coastal waters.[28]

In 2001, the company reached two settlements with the government. In April, the company reached a $20 million settlement in exchange for admitting to covering up environmental violations at its refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas.[29][30] That May, Koch Industries paid $25 million to the federal government to settle a federal lawsuit that found the company had improperly taken more oil than it had paid for from federal and Indian land.[31][32]

In June 2003, the US Commerce Department fined Koch Industries subsidiary Flint Hill Resources a $200,000 civil penalty. The fine settled charges that the company exported crude petroleum from the US to Canada without proper US government authorization. The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security said from July 1997 to March 1999, Koch Petroleum (later called Flint Hill Resources) committed 40 violations of Export Administration Regulations.[33]

In 2006, Koch Industries’ subsidiary Flint Hill Resources was fined nearly $16,000 by the EPA for 10 separate violations of the Clean Air Act at its Alaska oil refinery facilities, and required to spend another $60,000 on safety equipment needed to help prevent future violations.[34]

In 2009, Koch subsidiary Invista agreed to pay a $1.7 million civil penalty and spend up to $500 million to correct self-reported environmental violations at its facilities in seven states.[35][36] Prior to the settlement, the company had disclosed to the EPA more than 680 violations after auditing 12 facilities acquired from DuPont in 2004.[37][38]

 

[BoberFett]

I'll continue to support their companies. As long as you guys are going to call me an "evil scumbag" I might as well play the part, eh?

Maybe I'll vote for Michelle Bachmann too, just to fuck with you guys. It makes no difference to me, really.

 

[Phokus]

I'll continue to support their companies. As long as you guys are going to call me an "evil scumbag" I might as well play the part, eh?

Maybe I'll vote for Michelle Bachmann too, just to fuck with you guys. It makes no difference to me, really.

Thanks for proving my point. "Wahhh, you meanies are mean, so i'll just support people who bring harm to America just to show you up". Funny thing is, i didn't even mention or reply to you. That's how sensitive you are.

 

[BoberFett]

Thanks for proving my point. "Wahhh, you meanies are mean, so i'll just support people who bring harm to America just to show you up". Funny thing is, i didn't even mention or reply to you. That's how sensitive you are.

You said libertarians are scumbags, did you not? Craig says the same thing all the time as well.

You're certainly free to feel that way about libertarians, but I'm not about to give you the satisfaction of capitulation.

 

[Genx87]

Reading how terrible Koch industries is and how they ruin the environment and even steal oil from native americans, yeah, it doesn't surprise me that they're libertarians/republican scumbags:

Damn your precious regulations and big govt sure stopped those evil bastards!

 

[LegendKiller]

Damn your precious regulations and big govt sure stopped those evil bastards!

This is such a moronic argument. I guess we shouldn't have any laws either, why not just live in chaos. After all, if a law gets broken it's no good, right?

What a bunch of fucktards people like you are.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by BoberFett
I'll continue to support their companies. As long as you guys are going to call me an "evil scumbag" I might as well play the part, eh?

Maybe I'll vote for Michelle Bachmann too, just to fuck with you guys. It makes no difference to me, really.
[/QUOTE]

No surprise here

 

[Genx87]

This is such a moronic argument. I guess we shouldn't have any laws either, why not just live in chaos. After all, if a law gets broken it's no good, right?

What a bunch of fucktards people like you are.

Take a deep breath so your head doesnt pop from the anger within.

 

[Amused]

This is such a moronic argument. I guess we shouldn't have any laws either, why not just live in chaos. After all, if a law gets broken it's no good, right?

What a bunch of fucktards people like you are.

If there is a law against doing something, and someone breaks that law infamously, why is there always a sudden rush to pass MORE laws in vain attempts to prevent people from breaking already existing laws?

Libertarian minded folks are NEVER anarchists. They merely do not believe we need fifteen laws restricting honest people in vain attempts to stop one dishonest person from breaking an already existing law.

The war on drugs is a fine example for simple minded folks. Business regulation is another fine example, if you've ever owned a business you'd know.

 

[Double Trouble]

It's nice how people like you, the "true believers" of the Constitution, will allow the utter corruption of the Constitution by corporate interests, only as long as they are more in line with your social agenda.

It's quite pathetic to know that you really aren't an American democracy lover. You're a plutocratic oligarchy lover who really wants absolute control over everybody and the democratic process, at all costs. In other words, you're a fascist.

Bwahahaha. You got all that from reading one post? You're just about ready for the loony bin if you think I'm a fascist/corporatist/oligarchy lover/whatever else you can come up with. But hey, it's a free country, believe whatever you like.

 

[Infohawk]

You're certainly free to feel that way about libertarians, but I'm not about to give you the satisfaction of capitulation.

What are his alternatives to capitulation?

 

[Double Trouble]

Isn't there an argument that regulation favors the big guys because it discourages competition?

It most certainly can, it depends on the regulations and how they are set up. When regs are onerous, hard to follow, unclear, etc, it tilts the playing field towards the big boys because 1) they can afford to hire expertise that an upstart can't, and 2) they can afford to pay fines when they mess up, penalties that might kill an upstart.

Regs are certainly needed, but can easily cause unintended consequences and problems, so they need to be well thought out and well crafted. That's something government has traditionally not been very good at.

 

[BoberFett]

What are his alternatives to capitulation?

He can kiss my brown hole.

 

[Amused]

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.

 

[Double Trouble]

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.

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?

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

I'm sorry, but that's like comparing apples and aardvarks. Religion is completely voluntary, participation is not required. That can't be said for the economy.

 

[Amused]

I'm sorry, but that's like comparing apples and aardvarks. Religion is completely voluntary, participation is not required. That can't be said for the economy.

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.

 

[bamacre]

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.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[daishi5]

Lawsuits require proof of injury, direct causation from pollution---> specific injury of the plaintiff. It's very hard to prove with anything that isn't *acutely* toxic. For most conditions, i.e. cancers, there are literally hundreds of things which can cause/contribute. Very difficult to isolate a particular cause.

- wolf

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that the reason the courts do not work to protect us from bad behavior by businesses is because of the laws?

Unless I am missing something, that seems to be arguing that we need the legislative branch to create regulations and regulatory agencies because the legislative branch created laws that don't allow us to protect ourselves.

 

[Patranus]

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.

 

[Craig234]

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.

Sorry, that's idiocy.

It's like saying that when criminals bribe police officers to turn a bline eye, 'the reason police are corrupted by criminals is that criminals are corrupted by police.'

It's true, that the public, recognizing the issue that some will try to commit crimes, creates the police to protect them from those who do.

And it's precisely because the police are given such a powerful government role in dealing with crime - taking pretty much a monopoly on it - that criminals would love to corrupt them, and often try. But what you suggest is the equivalent of saying 'the solution to the issue of criminals bribing police is to have no police'.

The people try to create rules for business through regulatory agencies, the equivalent of police. Politicians have a role, who are also 'corruptable' because we've allowed corrupt interests to have excessive power in elections with their concentrated wealth. And sometimes this results in 'corruption' to one degree or another - in fact there's pretty systemic corruption to a point, as with the military industrial complex. But the answer isn't to not have police, or not have government regulating business.

It's to recognize the disaster that happens without it. It's a little like the pro-gun argument, 'take away guns from honest citizens, and only criminals will have guns'.

They're arguing, 'yes, there are problems cause by having guns in society, but think how bad it could be if only the criminals had guns'.

Your position is like disagreeing with 'yes, there are problems with business corrupting some of the regulatory system, but think how bad it would be if there were no system.'

You are yelling how the government is the target of corruption with no note of how that's because it's restraining those corrupt interests - and does restrain a lot.

You fix the police corruption as best you can. You fix the regulatory corruption as best you can. And for gun supporters, you fix the problems with gun owners as best you can.

But you don't just make the argument 'oh look, the bad guys try to corrupt the organization the public uses to restrain them, quick give them no organization'.