[sweetpea]

This site could definately use some more "moderate" Republicans, those who don't blindly follow the neo-con line.

Healthy debate is fun.

But where do you find them and invite them?
---

I've got a newsflash for you.

I am pretty moderate. For example, I believe the death penalty should be abolished.

The problem is anyone that doesn't equate GWB to Hitler, think that the country is falling apart, still harks on the election of 2000 is labeled a neocon and a blind follower, yadda yadda yadda.

Stop with the ridiculous facist/Hitler analogies and stop with the strawman arguments and you will get more debate OR keep it up and continue to get replies in kind and tit for tat.

The other problem is that many on this board simply do not want to hear another opinion. I guess being progressive to them equates to being closed minded.

[Jane of Arc]

---
I am pretty moderate. For example, I believe the death penalty should be abolished.
The record breaking American debt is not conservative.

The biggest government to date is not conservative.

The most intrusive government on the Constitutional rights of citizens is not conservative.

Blurring the line between church and state is not conservative.

The perpetual state of war that's financially breaking the back of America is not conservative.

All the true conservatives I know have jumped the Bush ship. They see he is a terrible president ... possibly the worst ever. There is a reason now that over 60% of Americans do not trust Bush and do not approve of the job he's doing.

So, when FDR longs for true conservative debate and not knee-jerk, right wing, party slogans, it's understandable.

When you stop defending this 'dismal failure of a president' you will be a 'believable' conservative.

[sweetpea]

The record breaking American debt is not conservative.

The biggest government to date is not conservative.

The most intrusive government on the Constitutional rights of citizens is not conservative.

Blurring the line between church and state is not conservative.

The perpetual state of war that's financially breaking the back of America is not conservative.

All the true conservatives I know have jumped the Bush ship. They see he is a terrible president ... possibly the worst ever. There is a reason now that over 60% of Americans do not trust Bush and do not approve of the job he's doing.

So, when FDR longs for true conservative debate and not knee-jerk, right wing, party slogans, it's understandable.

When you stop defending this 'dismal failure of a president' you will be a 'believable' conservative.
----

This is precielsy the type of response I am talking about. Stop with the overplayed 'you are only defending GWB' blah, blah, blah....It's old ad doesn't add to the debate. More importantly its wrong and only reiterates my point about strawmen.

For the record FDR was referring to moderate Rep. and you feel the need to chime in that FDR is longing for "true conservative debate". It wasn't a long post...it seems you could at least get that right.

[Jane of Arc]

----

This is precielsy the type of response I am talking about. Stop with the overplayed 'you are only defending GWB' blah, blah, blah....It's old ad doesn't add to the debate. More importantly its wrong and only reiterates my point about strawmen.
And this is exactly the type of response I expected from you. You never, never, NEVER talk about how your party is helping tax-paying, hard-working American citizens. All you ever do is attack and play word games right out of the Newt Gingrich handbook.

Sadly, you can't respond with the following:

(1) Republicans have balanced the budget.
(2) Republicans have decreased the size of government.
(3) Republicans have protected Constitutional rights.
(4) Republicans have worked hard to maintain separation between church and state.
(5) Republicans would never partake in the impossible equation of perpetual war while cutting taxes for the rich.
(6) Republicans are enjoying high approval ratings from Americans due to their steadfast leadership that benefits every American!


There's only 38% of Americans that think like you do, sweetpea. The rest of us are damn pissed. Get use to it.

[JamesP]

Well done, Jane.

Please persist in your valiant attempts at a substantive interchange with the right (really wrong) wing.

Keep hope alive! Some semblance of reality may eventually break through.

Conservatism - practiced purely & well - has some validity.
Bona-fide conservatives now understand that GWB is not one of them.
This is indisputable.

Bush, and his violent, reckless, shotgun-totin' sidekick, are a disgrace to both sides of the political spectrum.

[BenDover]

The last exchange between Jane and Sweetpea is exactly what turns me off here. I would like to think, perhaps naively, that this forum could be used as a means to close the gap between right and left that is tearing this nation apart. I do not like the condescending attitude of some on here who, if challenged, simply degrade your opinion as being totally baseless and without any merit whatsoever. There has to be a middle ground somewhere.

If the purpose of this forum, on the other hand, is simply to rant and rave and pick fights with others who happen to disagree with your opinion, then I have no interest in participating to any significant degree.

[sweetpea]

Jane,

Take a breath.

This thread is about what you would change about POL. FDR stated she/he would like to see more moderate Rep.s for debating purposes....I responded that I happen to be one, but since I am not willing to accept asinine facist/Hitler analogies to GWB and self loathing toward my country and that many on this forum simply do not want to hear others' opinions that FDR doesn't get her/his chance.

Then...you chime in with an all too predictable response that is entirely off subject. you dsimiss my points because on this thread I won't agree with your assessmnets that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with topic at hand.

You want to debate items 1-6? Fine. But, have a little courtesy and don't hijack this thread to bow your chest.

I'll be gald to discuss/debate your opinions as long as you cut the closed minded condesending attitude.

BTW...I agree that current Congress has acted horribly irresponsible with tax dollars and will probably result in some turnover. The problem is; as FDR put it...and I added .....folks like yourself cannot get off their high horse long enough to discuss it and Republicans opinions are not heard.

Please. Point out the Newt Gingrich handbook word games that I used.
I'll be waiting.

[Jane of Arc]

BenDover,

I understand how you feel. And I apologize for my part of the pissing contest.

If you read back in my posts to the beginning when I joined, you'll see I took the same exact "high ground." And I still believe in that high ground, but it's been modified. I made some real progress for example with snowdog, who's an 'independent conservative' who takes the time to share who he is and why he feels and thinks the way he does.

But, I have been in this room long enough now to know that some individuals have no intention what-so-ever of understanding a liberal progressive perspective. And this is a progressive room. Their mind-set is just like the pitbulls who relentlessly attacked President Clinton and just like the swift boat piranha that tore the flesh off of John Kerry. They only attack. They only attack.

I don't know about you BenDover, but I am scared of what's happening in America. I'm not concerned anymore, but scared. Our president has extended executive power to a dangerous level, our government is illegally spying on it's citizens, people are put in jail with no lawyer, our election system is corrupt and broken, we are the police of the world, the majority of the world fears and loathes us, and the economy of the United States is headed off a financial cliff with a crippling record deficit.

There comes a time as America is dragged further and further to the extreme right by very strong, very determined, very organized fascist Neoconservatives (yes I said the f word, because it's true) that a line has to be drawn. There has to be a point where people on the left say no more ... I cannot bend anymore. My democracy and my conscience demand I stand up to everyone and anyone who can support this corrupt administration.

So, BenDover I hope you understand me as well, and I hope you decide not to leave. Your voice is needed, as is your common sense and intelligent threads.

I apologize to you and sweetpea for going off topic. Please continue ...

Peace. :sunny:

[BenDover]

Jane,

I understand how you feel and how frustrating it can be but inflammatory epithets like "fascist" are one of those Pavlovian (or is it "Gingrichian"? lol) words that are designed to elicit a specific repsonse from our friends on the right, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised when we get what we ask for.

Just for laughs, let's take a look at the word "fascist" and see why offense might be taken....

From Webster's dictionary:

fascism

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Ok, "exalts nation and often race above the individual". The Bush administration certainly is exalting the USA by their "my way or the highway" approach to foreign policy and recent assaults on the 4th amendment would make one question how devoted to the presidential oath Mr. Bush truly is, but I think it is a stretch to say that we have reached the point where the state is everything and the individual exists only as a means to advance the welfare of the state. This would mean a conversion to an absolute totalitarian state and is not a realistic assessment of the core beliefs of the mainstream authoritarian conservative movement in my opinion.

"Stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader". In spite of the fact the GWB has made the statement that "this would be a whole lot easier if it was a dictatorship....as long as I was the dictator" in undeniable, this comment was a soundbite and was a tongue-in-cheek remark and cannot be considered a realistic vision that he has for this nation. There is no movement from the right that I have seen to create a centralized autocratic government either so this would seem to be an inappropriate representation of their mainstream beliefs as well.

"severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition". I agree that Bush has handled the economy poorly and has wasted billions on the Iraqi war, but I think it is more than a long shot to say that we have been subjected to severe regimentation ("severe" as it applies to economic issues would mean things like slave labor for instance). Until there are attempts to close down this board and arrest those who post here, I won't believe that there is any overt forcible suppression of opposition going on either (now....covert? maybe).

So, it is easy to see where both neocons and traditional conservatives alike might bristle a little when words like "fascist" are thrown their way....much like we might react to "pinko" or "commie".

That said....I agree with you that a number of posts by conservatives here (and on other boards) are insulting and inflammatory as well and I deplore that just as vigorously....probably more so since I am, after all, a liberal. However, when it gets to the point where people aren't listening to each other's viewpoints in a rational, mutually-respectful and analytical manner and only wait to issue the next salvo of cheap shots and insults, it all becomes so pointless to me.

[scoff0165]

Jane,

I understand how you feel and how frustrating it can be but inflammatory epithets like "fascist" are one of those Pavlovian (or is it "Gingrichian"? lol) words that are designed to elicit a specific repsonse from our friends on the right, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised when we get what we ask for.

Just for laughs, let's take a look at the word "fascist" and see why offense might be taken....

From Webster's dictionary:

fascism

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Ok, "exalts nation and often race above the individual". The Bush administration certainly is exalting the USA by their "my way or the highway" approach to foreign policy and recent assaults on the 4th amendment would make one question how devoted to the presidential oath Mr. Bush truly is, but I think it is a stretch to say that we have reached the point where the state is everything and the individual exists only as a means to advance the welfare of the state. This would mean a conversion to an absolute totalitarian state and is not a realistic assessment of the core beliefs of the mainstream authoritarian conservative movement in my opinion.

"Stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader". In spite of the fact the GWB has made the statement that "this would be a whole lot easier if it was a dictatorship....as long as I was the dictator" in undeniable, this comment was a soundbite and was a tongue-in-cheek remark and cannot be considered a realistic vision that he has for this nation. There is no movement from the right that I have seen to create a centralized autocratic government either so this would seem to be an inappropriate representation of their mainstream beliefs as well.

"severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition". I agree that Bush has handled the economy poorly and has wasted billions on the Iraqi war, but I think it is more than a long shot to say that we have been subjected to severe regimentation ("severe" as it applies to economic issues would mean things like slave labor for instance). Until there are attempts to close down this board and arrest those who post here, I won't believe that there is any overt forcible suppression of opposition going on either (now....covert? maybe).

So, it is easy to see where both neocons and traditional conservatives alike might bristle a little when words like "fascist" are thrown their way....much like we might react to "pinko" or "commie".

That said....I agree with you that a number of posts by conservatives here (and on other boards) are insulting and inflammatory as well and I deplore that just as vigorously....probably more so since I am, after all, a liberal. However, when it gets to the point where people aren't listening to each other's viewpoints in a rational, mutually-respectful and analytical manner and only wait to issue the next salvo of cheap shots and insults, it all becomes so pointless to me.

If you never have, you should read Lawrence Britt's "Fascism Anyone?" linked below.

In the article, common characteristics of fascist regimes from the past are identified. Originally published in Free Inquiry Magazine, the article notes all the characteristics as found in the dictinary definition as well as others.

Fascism Anyone? (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2)

It comes too close for comfort, for me, in describing the road this country has taken over the past 25 years or so. I feel strongly that we're drifting ever closer to that reality. From demonizing dissenters to entwining church and state to rampant cronyism, the current administration is especially guilty of exhibiting the characteristics described in the article. Judge for yourself. Read the article, then tell us that accusations of fascism that have been made against this administration are overstated.

[haus]

Ben,

I'm all for clear definitions, and appreciate the direction you're going with this. But consider this alternative definition:


A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#endnote_AHD))


This is a definition that was in wide use as early as 1935, when Sinclair Lewis published "It Can't Happen Here."

Using the word "dictatorship," is, I will stipulate, a little extreme in describing the Bush regieme. I would argue that there are aspects of the current government that are indeed dictatorial. There are other aspects that are not.

For a topical example: readers in 1935 were horrified at the notion of a President Buzz Windrip steaming open their private letters. Now we, as a people, shrug off wiretapping and turn the TV to "American Idol."

As for the rest of the definition, one can go to http://news.yahoo.com any day of the week to see a "government of the extreme right" further merging state and business leadership, as well as examples of belligerent nationalism.

An in-depth discussion of the several definitions of fascism in use is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

[Jane of Arc]

My Dear Liberal Friend BenDover, :)

I love this! I love the fact that you gave such a thoughtful response. I also love that you focused on the word fascism. I can tell you're a good, fair-minded American citizen who loves his/her country and wants to be fair to all.

With that said, I am stating here today, Valentine's Day February 14th, 2006, that we do not have honest elections in America. I'm sure you'd agree that if we don't have honest elections in America ... we do not have a democratically elected government. This would mean that we have fascism ... more precisely ... we have corporate fascism.

So, I am throwing down a glove and challenging you to a debate. An important debate. A debate that defines our very existence as a democracy.

I want you to provide me with evidence that our elections are honest.

I will provide you with evidence that our elections are NOT honest.

Do we have a deal?

If so, let the debate begin ... and everyone here please join in. I don't think there's a more important issue before us as a nation.

Thanks,
Jane

PS- Your Honor Speaker of the Haus ... you can change this thread again to 'An Agrument about Fascism', if you are so inclined, Your Great Holiness. :)

[BenDover]

If you never have, you should read Lawrence Britt's "Fascism Anyone?" linked below.

In the article, common characteristics of fascist regimes from the past are identified. Originally published in Free Inquiry Magazine, the article notes all the characteristics as found in the dictinary definition as well as others.

Fascism Anyone? (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2)

It comes too close for comfort, for me, in describing the road this country has taken over the past 25 years or so. I feel strongly that we're drifting ever closer to that reality. From demonizing dissenters to entwining church and state to rampant cronyism, the current administration is especially guilty of exhibiting the characteristics described in the article. Judge for yourself. Read the article, then tell us that accusations of fascism that have been made against this administration are overstated.


Ok, this is exactly the response I wanted. I appreciate Haus' response as well. This is good because here is where we begin to really zero in on things instead of just issuing barbs at each other. Obviously, there are different interpretations of the word "fascism" depending on your source. I think the reference to which Scoff0165 alludes is excellent. Some of us, however, simply conjure up an image of Hitler, Nazi Germany, goose-stepping troops and death camps at the very mention of the word "fascism". My point in drawing attention to this is that words like this are designed to incite a response, and obviously they do. When that happens, people become emotional and lash out instead of staying to the argument in question. On the other hand, if such a statement is qualified, then it is legitimized by residual evidence rather than just being a random accusation.

So let's see if what is going on in America today is indeed of a "fascist" nature. As described by Mr. Britt in the article, I would say that a fair number of the bullet points that define a fascist regime are already satisfied:

Expressions of nationalism? Yes.
Disdain for human rights? Yes (Bush opposed McCain's anti-torture legislation).
Identification of enemies as a uniting cause? Oh yeah.
Avid militarism? Yes.
Rampant sexism? Well, as defined by Mr. Britt, I would say yes but I'm not sure that, aside from the anti-abortion reference, that women as a group are regarded as second-class citizens....at least not "rampantly". Homophobia??....oh hell yes.
A controlled mass media? Faux News aside....no. Not even close.
Obsession with national security? uh...yeah just a bit.
Religion and ruling elite tied together? Not completely "tied together" in an official sense but certainly the religious right and their priorities are closely aligned with those of the Bush administration so I would have to say yes.
Power of corporations protected? Quite obviously yes.
Power of labor suppressed or eliminated? Although the power of labor unions has been diminished in recent years, I would have to say "no" to this question.
Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts? Disdain? Yes. Suppression (other than elimination of public funds for the arts as outlined by Bush's recent budget submission)? No.
Obsession with crime and punishment? I don't know that this is a trait that is singular to the Bush administration but I would say that our society as a whole is certainly fixated on this so "Yes".
Rampant cronyism and corruption? Yes.
Fraudulent elections? Subjectively I would say yes. Supreme court says otherwise so officially the answer is "No".

So, is the present administration a "fascist" administration? Using Mr. Britt's qualifications as a benchmark and, except for a few requirements that, thank God, as still being supported by our precious constitution, one would have to say if not absolutely "Yes", then certainly things are leaning heavily in that direction. I want to add that this leaning is not all Mr. Bush's doing by any means. As Scoff0165 points out, there has been a serious shift toward the extreme right in this country as a whole over the last few decades so GWB can hardly be singled out as the sole cause of this phenomenon.

Now....for anyone who wants to argue with my assessment of Mr. Britt's qualifications as they apply to the present administration....the stage is all yours. If no one disagrees, it would be fascinating to explore the reasons WHY this has happened.

[BenDover]

My Dear Liberal Friend BenDover, :)

I love this! I love the fact that you gave such a thoughtful response. I also love that you focused on the word fascism. I can tell you're a good, fair-minded American citizen who loves his/her country and wants to be fair to all.

With that said, I am stating here today, Valentine's Day February 14th, 2006, that we do not have honest elections in America. I'm sure you'd agree that if we don't have honest elections in America ... we do not have a democratically elected government. This would mean that we have fascism ... more precisely ... we have corporate fascism.

So, I am throwing down a glove and challenging you to a debate. An important debate. A debate that defines our very existence as a democracy.

I want you to provide me with evidence that our elections are honest.

I will provide you with evidence that our elections are NOT honest.

Do we have a deal?

If so, let the debate begin ... and everyone here please join in. I don't think there's a more important issue before us as a nation.

Thanks,
Jane

PS- Your Honor Speaker of the Haus ... you can change this thread again to 'An Agrument about Fascism', if you are so inclined, Your Great Holiness. :)


Ok, I'll bite, Jane. I agree with you....there is not a more important issue than free and fair elections. Otherwise, our republican form of government becomes null and void. In my last post (and previous posts as well), I stated that, subjectively, I believe that our elections have indeed been fraudulent. However, I also state that the ultimate judicial authority in the USA has decided that, at least as far as the election of 2000 is concerned, the election results are legitimate.

I refer to this website for a chronology of events that took place in regard to the controversy over the vote in Florida:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884144.html

A key paragraph is this one:

Tuesday, Dec. 12—The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Bush v. Gore 7–2 to reverse the Florida Supreme Court, which had ordered manual recounts in certain counties. The Court contends that the recount was not treating all ballots equally, and was thus a violation of the Constitution's equal protection and due process guarantees. The Supreme Court of Florida would be required to set up new voting standards and carry them out in a recount. The justices, however, split 5–4 along partisan lines about implementing a remedy. Five justices maintain that this process and the recount must adhere to the official deadline for certifying electoral college votes: midnight, Dec. 12; other justices question the importance of this date. Since the Court makes its ruling just hours before the deadline, it in effect ensures that it is too late for a recount. The decision generates enormous controversy. Those objecting to the ruling assert that the Supreme Court, and not the electorate, has effectively determined the outcome of the presidential election. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes in a scathing dissent, “the Court’s conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court’s own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States.”

The election results were therefore upheld on constitutional grounds since, 1) The recount would not provide equal protection and due process and, 2) The stipulated deadline of December 12 for certifying electoral college votes was at hand and that a recount could not be completed before the deadline so therefore the election is over and Bush wins....despite losing the popular vote.

So....officially....the election was legitimate because the Supreme Court says it was.

Your turn....

;)

[Jane of Arc]

Thanks BenDover,


I want to preface what I am about to say with 'the democratic system is broken'. The fact that we don't have honest elections in America is not a Republican or a Democratic issue because they are both complicit. And even if a right-wing Supreme Court selected a right-wing candidate by not allowing votes to be counted and ignoring the fact that the other candidate had the popular vote ... making it 'legal' ... there is still a deeper, systemic problem in America. It's called "corporatism", "privitization" of what belongs to the people in a democracy and yes "fascism". Let's talk about voting in America in the simplest terms.

We have a simulated democracy:
I voted in Tennessee on an electronic machine. I asked for a receipt of my vote. I was told no. I asked if the workers could read the computer and tell me what registered as my vote. No. I already knew my invisible, computerized vote would be electronically sent through a hackable phone line to a main computer in Nashville, where the state votes would be collected and sent electonically through a phone line modem again. I knew that 80% of the votes by Americans would be regionally compiled, in machines utilizing secret software, producing no paper trail, and the overseer's of the vote would be corporately paid company 'experts'. I knew that with the ballot-less computer voting, there would be no way to recount, no way to prove any discrepancy, inaccuracy or fraud. So, why did I vote? It's like the Matrix ... I pretended it mattered, but it didn't. We have a simulated democracy.

1. We no longer have transparent elections in America. In transparent elections, all the processes of handling and counting ballots are completely open to public view. Nothing is hidden, nothing is secret, except of course, each individuals voting choice.

2. Electronic processes that record and count the votes are not open to public scutiny.

3. Courts have ruled that election software is a trade secret, so even a losing candidate with a computer consultant cannot view it.

4. With electronic voting, the most important and vulnerable election processes - storing and tallying the votes - are performed in secret, without public oversight. These processes were not developed by government officials charged with ensuring election integrity, but by anonymous software engineers, hired by vendors and not publicly accountable for the results of their work.

Summary: Our vote has been 'privitized.' Our vote is controlled by the corporations who own the voting machines. We have corporately backed candidates who can usually only get elected with enormous funding from corporations. Our media is no longer free but corporately owned and controlled. These news corporations set the ungodly prices for "election ads" on our 'shared commons' which they should not be allowed to control. (NBC is owned by General Electric who has military contracts. Do you think they may have an interest in the outcome of an election?) We The People have lost control of our vote. It is no longer open to public scutiny! It is controlled in secret by corporations. Our government is controlled by corporations. This, BenDover, is NOT what democracy looks like!

I think you will find in the Fascist Manifesto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_Manifesto that people voted, women were given the vote and there was universal sufferage. But corporations ran the show. 'The parliament became by law an exclusively Fascist-picked body in 1929; being replaced by the "Chamber of Corporations" a decade later.'


There's a lot of good American citizens working hard on a grassroot level:
http://www.votersunite.org/

http://www.votescam.com/articles.php

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

http://www.crisispapers.org/essays-p/dean.htm

http://www.votetrustusa.org/

I personally feel that the bills in Congress are 'well-intended', but they still involve electronic machines and the corporate manufacturers. I think the only thing that makes sense is to return to paper ballots like Canada. We should deposit our ballot into 'see through' boxes, the tally should be periodically written on the walls, every process should be videotaped and available to every citizen and every news organization.

[scoff0165]

So, is the present administration a "fascist" administration? Using Mr. Britt's qualifications as a benchmark and, except for a few requirements that, thank God, as still being supported by our precious constitution, one would have to say if not absolutely "Yes", then certainly things are leaning heavily in that direction. I want to add that this leaning is not all Mr. Bush's doing by any means. As Scoff0165 points out, there has been a serious shift toward the extreme right in this country as a whole over the last few decades so GWB can hardly be singled out as the sole cause of this phenomenon.

Now....for anyone who wants to argue with my assessment of Mr. Britt's qualifications as they apply to the present administration....the stage is all yours. If no one disagrees, it would be fascinating to explore the reasons WHY this has happened.

Bush is nothing but a symptom of the slow creep toward fascist control. The real power is the neocon cabal (many of whom got their start in politics in the Nixon and Reagan administrations.) They are the source of most of the aggressive, imperialistic policies the Bush administration has instituted.

I don't think there is any one reason that can explain all the changes that have taken place in our society, but, personally, I believe that our schools are the first place to look for a solution to the problem.

A marked decline can be seen in the quality of education American children receive. Produce a new generation of Americans with the intellectual tools to address the problems we face, and I think we'd see some rapid improvement and some (much welcomed) movement away from the brink of disaster the current condition of the country represents.

[BenDover]

Jane,

That's great information and I wasn't aware of all that you mentioned, so thanks. Still, all I see that you've pointed out is that the system has set itself up to be subject to abuse by the establishment. I don't disagree with that. I'd feel better (or worse depending on your viewpoint) if you could cite a specific example of an election that was stolen from the electorate. Has an election at any level in the USA....national, state or local....ever been proven to be fraudulent?

[BenDover]

A marked decline can be seen in the quality of education American children receive. Produce a new generation of Americans with the intellectual tools to address the problems we face, and I think we'd see some rapid improvement and some (much welcomed) movement away from the brink of disaster the current condition of the country represents.

More and more people in the south where I live are sending their kids to private (translation: segregated) schools and many of them are relgious in theme. Virtually every one of these private religious schools is bent WAY to the right and the kids are indoctrinated with right-wing dogma from the get-go, so this contributes to the issue. The education process has to begin at home in my opinion and there are way too many people who are more than willing to just accept the status quo and their children tend to follow their lead. Complacency and apathy are a huge part. I know a lot of people who never even bother to read the newspaper or watch news on TV...or exercise their right to vote for that matter. As you stated in an earlier post, the average American is much more interested in making sure they don't miss this week's episode of American Idol than whether or not their basic civil liberties are being violated. What does it have to take to wake these people up?

[kyudowind]

Jane,
... I'd feel better (or worse depending on your viewpoint) if you could cite a specific example of an election that was stolen from the electorate. Has an election at any level in the USA....national, state or local....ever been proven to be fraudulent?

Dear BenDover,

Even though I'm still recovering from the deep psychic wounds inflicted on me by the Alito confirmation, I just couldn't resist saying something.

Fradulent elections. Try Googling:

Florida 2000 "spoiled ballots"
Florida 2000 "felon list"
voter disenfranchisement case law history
"Corpus Juris Secundum" voter intent

Just wanted to pass out Googles but I just had to quote:

"While some statutory provisions specifying the nature of the mark to be used by the voter in indicating his choice on the ballot are considered mandatory, it is a general rule, even under mandatory provisions, that an imperfect mark made in a good faith attempt to follow the statute will not prevent the ballot from being counted."

I'd love (and intend to) go into meticulous detail about this and (dare we say fascism?) a lot more things, but my wounds are terrible. Watching a nation die is murder.

[Jane of Arc]

Excellent post kyudowind ... I can completely feel your pain. And it helps to know there are other Americans out there that are alert and sadfully aware of what's happening to our country. I think it's because we love America soooo much and the ideals put forth by the founders of this nation, that it hurts us so deeply.

I have close friends who's grandparents are still alive and remember the rise of nationalism and militarism and fascism in Nazi Germany. They want their children and grandchildren to leave this country.

[Jane of Arc]

Jane,

That's great information and I wasn't aware of all that you mentioned, so thanks. Still, all I see that you've pointed out is that the system has set itself up to be subject to abuse by the establishment. I don't disagree with that. I'd feel better (or worse depending on your viewpoint) if you could cite a specific example of an election that was stolen from the electorate. Has an election at any level in the USA....national, state or local....ever been proven to be fraudulent?
Ben,

This thread was started to discuss American Fascism. You were upset that I, and others, in this forum were using the word. And I submit to you, that I made a valid case to justify it's use. I don't use the word fascism lightly or to offend, but rather to alert my fellow citizens to the rising corporatism and Military - Industrial (corporate) - Congressional Complex Eisenhower so urgently warned us against.



Did you see the movie 'The Matrix'? Being plugged into the system and living an illusion was a lot easier to tolerate than the harsh realities of Zion. The machines had to adjust the Matrix several times before they got the right balance of "truth and happiness and pain."
BenDover: Complacency and apathy are a huge part. I know a lot of people who never even bother to read the newspaper or watch news on TV...or exercise their right to vote for that matter. As you stated in an earlier post, the average American is much more interested in making sure they don't miss this week's episode of American Idol than whether or not their basic civil liberties are being violated. What does it have to take to wake these people up?
I would ask you ... what newspapers do you read? Corporate newspapers? What "news" do you watch on TV? Corporate news medias? And when you "exercise your right to vote" are you aware that after you cast your vote it becomes the property of the corporation that won't let you see it, record it or monitor it? Are you more interested in the illusion Corporate America provides or if your basic civil liberties are being violated?



Again, I am truly not trying to offend in any way, BenDover. I'm trying to get through to you that we have a new, spiffy, Americanized version of corporate fascism. It's Corporatism. And it's so well done. The conditioning is brilliant. It doesn't look like the musty, old, obvious German version of fascism. It's not strident and harsh like the Chinese version. It's a capitalistic, high tech, 'happy' version via corporate TV.

I've explained to you how our vote is corporatized/ privitized and I don't think it registered with you how horribly corrupt that is. But alas, the Constitution does NOT protect our basic right to vote. (If you want the election debate, let's go to haus's thread on elections.)

PS - Choose the red pill.

[FDRfollower]

Ah! Here you all are! Even SweePea. I was wondering where you dissapeared!

*sccckt* Mz SweetPea, your presence is requested in the other thread, where we were in a discussion. We should continue. If you disagree, say so. If you agree, say so. If you're afraid to answer, admit it. But PLEASE, don't leave the thread hanging. Thank you *scckt*

Nice discussion guys! I'll post later, I definitely some things to say about this issue, and from a different standpoint, but I have to run for now.

[FDRfollower]

Actually, to reinforce my question earlier about having some 'more normal' conservatives, here's one of them discussing what we're discussing here in this thread.

click here (http://antiwar.com/roberts/),

and just so Sweetpea doesn't think I'm pulling her leg, here's a short biography of the author

click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts)

I'll be right back.

[haus]

nice post FDR.

that reminds me of the time i found myself vigorously agreeing with a dude on the radio criticizing bush, and it turned out to be bob dole.

peculiar sensation, isn't it?

[sweetpea]

Ah! Here you all are! Even SweePea. I was wondering where you dissapeared!

*sccckt* Mz SweetPea, your presence is requested in the other thread, where we were in a discussion. We should continue. If you disagree, say so. If you agree, say so. If you're afraid to answer, admit it. But PLEASE, don't leave the thread hanging. Thank you *scckt*

Nice discussion guys! I'll post later, I definitely some things to say about this issue, and from a different standpoint, but I have to run for now.

Which thread? Titles of threads keep changing and I've been traveling a lot lately.

[BenDover]

Ben,

This thread was started to discuss American Fascism. You were upset that I, and others, in this forum were using the word. And I submit to you, that I made a valid case to justify it's use. I don't use the word fascism lightly or to offend, but rather to alert my fellow citizens to the rising corporatism and Military - Industrial (corporate) - Congressional Complex Eisenhower so urgently warned us against.

Jane,

You are getting frustrated with me over something that you asked me to do in the first place! If you recall your original challenge to me, it was to provide evidence that our election process is legitimate. You never asked me if I believed it....you simply asked me to debate the issue. I accepted the challenge and, again, played devil's advocate. I provided evidence that a conservative might have presented. Maybe I was too convincing in this role but it wouldn't have been much of an exchange if I had simply agreed with you, would it? If you re-read my posts, you'll see that I am not in disagreement about the existence of the extreme right-hand turn this nation has made in the last few years so I'm not sure what you are so upset about. It should be quite obvious to anyone who examines the issue that there is indeed an iron-triangle going on here.

My original post was to point out how inflammatory a word like "fascism" can be and can easily encourage others to fire back with epithets of their own, which I believe is counterproductive. That was my original statement and I stand by it.

I would ask you ... what newspapers do you read? Corporate newspapers? What "news" do you watch on TV? Corporate news medias? And when you "exercise your right to vote" are you aware that after you cast your vote it becomes the property of the corporation that won't let you see it, record it or monitor it? Are you more interested in the illusion Corporate America provides or if your basic civil liberties are being violated?

Again, I'm not sure why you are taking issue with me here. I was commenting on Scoff0165's post about education being a big factor as to WHY this shift to the right has taken place and really had nothing to do with the election issue whatsoever.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

[scoff0165]

More and more people in the south where I live are sending their kids to private (translation: segregated) schools and many of them are relgious in theme. Virtually every one of these private religious schools is bent WAY to the right and the kids are indoctrinated with right-wing dogma from the get-go, so this contributes to the issue. The education process has to begin at home in my opinion and there are way too many people who are more than willing to just accept the status quo and their children tend to follow their lead. Complacency and apathy are a huge part. I know a lot of people who never even bother to read the newspaper or watch news on TV...or exercise their right to vote for that matter. As you stated in an earlier post, the average American is much more interested in making sure they don't miss this week's episode of American Idol than whether or not their basic civil liberties are being violated. What does it have to take to wake these people up?

I live in south GA, so I know wherefore thou speakest. Education is a real sore spot with me. I have a 17 year-old son going to public school. The school he attends is pitifully inadequate to develop his abilities.

IMO, the entire education system should be placed under the direction of the federal government. The idea that kids in different states receive different qualities of education is abhorrent to me. Standards should be set that apply to all schools, whether public or private, nationwide.

Another idea I think would help would be to periodically test kids to determine what their skill levels are. Have them fill out questionnaires to see what they are interested in. Check them for technical abilities, language skills, etc. to figure out what the kids might be good at, and design individual curricula to suit their abilities and interests.

Nothing is more important to the future of this country than for our kids to be as well educated and prepared for their adult lives as we can possibly have them. The "dumbing-down" of America that took place in the 80's under Reagan is a far bigger threat to our way of life than any terrorist ever could be.

To tie this back to the subject of this thread, it is only because Americans have been lax in their responsibility to ready their kids to take part in the governance of this country that the conditions have been set which allowed this drift toward fascism. We'd better take steps to remedy this situation, and soon, or it may be generations before we can reclaim of our government from fascist control.

[Jane of Arc]

Hi Ben,

I'm not frustrated with you at all BenDover. All is fair in love and POL. :sunny:

As far as the word fascism is concerned, I think enough people on POL in many, many posts have proven why it's not only a valid word to use, but the only word to aptly describe what's going on in many areas of our American Empire.

To my knowledge, no one here has personalized a debate and called another POL member a fascist. That I agree would be counterproductive.

[Jane of Arc]

The "dumbing-down" of America that took place in the 80's under Reagan is a far bigger threat to our way of life than any terrorist ever could be.

To tie this back to the subject of this thread, it is only because Americans have been lax in their responsibility to ready their kids to take part in the governance of this country that the conditions have been set which allowed this drift toward fascism. We'd better take steps to remedy this situation, and soon, or it may be generations before we can reclaim of our government from fascist control.Very, very astute Scoff! I actually got 'gooseflesh' when I read your last sentence because it rang so chillingly true.

[FDRfollower]

How do you like my picture? Your subject made me think of this.http://www.geocities.com/laverdiereaf/GOYA3.JPG

[sweetpea]

How do you like my picture?

http://cagle.msnbc.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/arial.asp

[FDRfollower]

The cartoon was humorless, like you, and reflects a simplistic and unrealistic view of the world, like you. Goya's cartoon is a good description of the state of mind of most Bush supporters. I had fun updating his cartoon.

[FDRfollower]

In honor of the Vice President, I present

Ozymandius
by: Percy Bysshe Shelley

I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert... Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal these words appear:
My name is Ozymandius, King of Kings,
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

[FDRfollower]

Well, I think I have a little time to post on this finally. Too bad I'm very tired, so it might not sound too coherent. Please forgive me.

It's a good subject to bring up. Too bad SourPea had to bring it up in order to defend Her/His hero worship of Cheney/Bush.

My thoughts on the subject go way beyond simple dictionary definitions. When I'm calling the administration "Fascist", I'm not just using it as an epiphat or swear word. I'm thinking more along the definitions that were used to hang the leaders of the Nazi dictatorship. Here are two websites that include transcripts of the Nuremburg trials.

Click this (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/nuremberg.htm)

or Click this (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm), which I heartily recomend you STUDY fully, because if you argue with people you meet, and they object to your use of the word Fascist, simply because of it's negative conotations, I've found it easier to explain, after going through the details of the trial. The parallels are rather shocking. I guess I have to run again. Lets contiue.

[kyudowind]

Dear FDRfollower:

Thanks for the links. I started doing intensive research on parallels between the rise of the neo-conservatives and the development of fascism in Europe in the wake of the Roberts and Alito confirmations. Like yourself, I am finding disturbing parallels that I intend to share with the group.

I have a great deal of material to sift through (some from the Avalon Project site) and was wondering if you could cite the link addresses (e.g. "http:// ...") of the pages on these sites that you found most relevant.

I would also like any tips that you may have for navigating the Avalon Project resources.

Thanks

[FDRfollower]

Hmmm. Let's see.

forced labor (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/12-11-45.htm#forcedlabor)
first count (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count1.htm)
aggressive war (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judnazi.htm#plan)
prisoner treatment (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judwarcr.htm#prisoners)
Slave Labor (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judwarcr.htm#slave)

These are some good topics to start with. It's a big mutha, isn't it? If you find any books that include the transcription, notify us.

[FDRfollower]

Wow!! Look what I just found! I was reading through some of Pres. Franklin Roosevelts speeches and this really hit me. It's even more explicit then Pres. Eisenhowers farewell address, when he warned of the Military/Industrial Complex. Here's the important parts.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Eleventh State of the Union Address

...There are people who burrow through our Nation like unseeing moles, and attempt to spread the suspicion that if other Nations are encouraged to raise their standards of living, our own American standard of living must of necessity be depressed.

The fact is the very contrary. It has been shown time and again that if the standard of living of any country goes up, so does its purchasing power- and that such a rise encourages a better standard of living in neighboring countries with whom it trades. That is just plain common sense—and it is the kind of plain common sense that provided the basis for our discussions at Moscow, Cairo, and Teheran.

Returning from my journeyings, I must confess to a sense of "let-down" when I found many evidences of faulty perspective here in Washington. The faulty perspective consists in overemphasizing lesser problems and thereby underemphasizing the first and greatest problem.

The overwhelming majority of our people have met the demands of this war with magnificent courage and understanding. They have accepted inconveniences; they have accepted hardships; they have accepted tragic sacrifices. And they are ready and eager to make whatever further contributions are needed to win the war as quickly as possible- if only they are given the chance to know what is required of them.

However, while the majority goes on about its great work without complaint, a noisy minority maintains an uproar of demands for special favors for special groups. There are pests who swarm through the lobbies of the Congress and the cocktail bars of Washington, representing these special groups as opposed to the basic interests of the Nation as a whole. They have come to look upon the war primarily as a chance to make profits for themselves at the expense of their neighbors- profits in money or in terms of political or social preferment.

Such selfish agitation can be highly dangerous in wartime. It creates confusion. It damages morale. It hampers our national effort. It muddies the waters and therefore prolongs the war.

--------

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

One of the great American industrialists of our day—a man who has rendered yeoman service to his country in this crisis-recently emphasized the grave dangers of "rightist reaction" in this Nation. All clear-thinking businessmen share his concern. Indeed, if such reaction should develop—if history were to repeat itself and we were to return to the so-called "normalcy" of the 1920's—then it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of Fascism here at home.

Next to Lincoln, FDR really WAS the greatest president. Reagan looks pathetic next to him. I can't stand all the stupid fawning cult worship that goes on with Ronnie, nice as he was.

[Jane of Arc]

FDRfollower,

I read that speech often to refresh my memory ... to remember what America can be ... to remember what true leadership is ... to remember true political ethics and compassion.

We need that kind of universal, humanitarian leadership that sparks and ignites a mass movement returning us all to compassion, tolerance and decency.

My question is: now that the industrial-military-congressional (Eisenhower originally had 'congressional' in his text, but his staff changed his mind) complex has it's tentacles securely fixed around our government, our media and our financial institutions ... will a person of stature like an FDR or Lincoln be 'allowed' to emerge?

Some of the progressive leaders who could of changed the world have been assassinated. ~ John F. Kennedy ~ Robert Kennedy ~ Martin Luther King ~ Malcolm X ~ And aren't the plane crashes of Paul Wellstone and John Kennedy, Jr. convenient? And wouldn't the powerful voice of John Lennon have a lot to say against the war if he were alive today?

Will a person of stature like an FDR or Lincoln be 'allowed' to emerge? Or is leadership going to have to come from other places outside of government? Will we need a social revolution?



(Interesting note: both FDR and Abe Lincoln were Aquarians.)

[BenDover]

Great posts both by both of you, FDRfollower and Jane! Leadership the quality of which you both mentioned is non-existent today in my opinion. Who is on the horizon....in either party....who has the qualities that Lincoln, Roosevelt and Kennedy had??

Frankly....I only see one who appears to have the type of charismatic aura around him that might one day manifest itself into the type of outstanding leadership qualities about which you speak....and even he is several years away from being able to realize his potential. I speak of Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

Anyone disagree or have another candidate who qualifies as possessing these leadership traits? We need to discuss this because if this nation ever needed a leader of this type, we sure need him/her right now!

[kyudowind]

FDRFollower:

Sorry not to reply sooner. Thanks for the links. Liked this one:

The laws relating to forced labour by the inhabitants of occupied territories are found in Article 52 of The Hague Convention, which provides:-

" Requisition in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country."

BenDover:

I recently saw a report online that we may be beyond politics as we have know it because of the Intenet. I'm starting to feel that wishing for "leaders" is an invitation to dicatorship. From Orwell:

It was overlooked, however, that Orwell in the book says that all ideologies in the mid-twentieth century were authoritarian. Because Nineteen Eighty-Four was misinterpreted and in some cases misused, Orwell wrote in 1949:

"My recent novel is NOT intended as an attack on Socialism or on the British Labour Party (of which I am a supporter) but as a show-up of the perversions to which a centralized economy is liable and which have already been partly realized in communism and Fascism. I do not believe that the kind of society I describe necessarily will arrive, but I believe (allowing of course for the fact that the book is a satire) that something resembling it could arrive. I believe also that totalitarian ideas have taken root in the minds of intellectuals everywhere, and I have tried to draw these ideas out to their logical consequences." [CEJL vol. 4 p. 564]

Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters = CEJL

Something to think about ...

Best Regards

[tcnj_libertarian]

The record breaking American debt is not conservative.
It sure isn't, and it disheartens me as well, but I dare say that governmental spending is quite a liberal characteristic! I always scratch my head when Democrats decry the Bush Administration's spending. The spending may not be on the things that you want it to be on (i.e. social programs), but then it is not the spending that you have a problem with, is it? ;)

The biggest government to date is not conservative.
Once again, I agree, and big governments frighten me, but they really shouldn't frighten a Democrat. Again, it is not the size of the government that you have a problem with, it is the actions of the large government, am I correct?

The most intrusive government on the Constitutional rights of citizens is not conservative.
Agreed. But again, the goals of liberals require steep taxation of the people (or at least of the "rich elite," as if taxing those who have the most makes it ok to tax at all). Taxation is a violation of the basic human right to property. While no intrusion on civil liberties is excusable, neither is the pot calling the kettle black.

Blurring the line between church and state is not conservative.
I have nothing but agreement with this statement.

The perpetual state of war that's financially breaking the back of America is not conservative.
Again, I have an inkling that it is the state of war, not the financial burden, that irks you.

All the true conservatives I know have jumped the Bush ship. They see he is a terrible president ... possibly the worst ever. There is a reason now that over 60% of Americans do not trust Bush and do not approve of the job he's doing.

So, when FDR longs for true conservative debate and not knee-jerk, right wing, party slogans, it's understandable.

When you stop defending this 'dismal failure of a president' you will be a 'believable' conservative.
Hey, I'm not a Bush fan either, but I believe that the true debate should lie in the basic, underlying principles of truly liberal and truly conservative political philosophies. These complaints with the Bush administration are not complaints against conservatism necessarily, as you have shown the Bush Administration to be less-than-conservative in several areas. My point, of course, is that when one's goal is to get truly reasoned, enlightening debate between the liberals and the conservatives on this website, the actions of the current administration should, for the most part, be ignored and stowed away for the occasions of rants and ill-reasoned, unwaveringly-party-lined arguments.

For my part, I'll be offering a Libertarian (sometimes nearly anarcho-Libertarian) point of view from time to time. Thanks in advance for any welcomes to the community I might recieve :D

By the way Jane of Arc, I hope I didn't over-generalize your political views too much, hehe.

[tcnj_libertarian]

Although it has yet to be rigorously shown, I think it is obvious and self-evident to everyone here that fascism is a horrible political system.

However, lets wax philosophical as we get those thinking caps on and examine this ideal we call "democracy". What exactly about democracy is so wonderful, necessarily? While I agree that it has some advantages over fascism, some very legitimate concerns can also be raised with the idea of democracy as well, most notably, the fact that 51% of the country can, through a simple show of hands, suppress the voices, opinions, and, directly or indirectly, rights of the other 49%. So I ask you -- what is so inherently wonderful about majority rule?

Edit --> When I first posted this message, I thought this point would be a little obvious, but on second thought, I decided that perhaps I should simply write it out: All of the liberals on this board complaining about the horrors of living under the Bush regime are experiencing the exact scenario I have described above. How does it feel to be in that 49%?

[FDRfollower]

Although it has yet to be rigorously shown, I think it is obvious and self-evident to everyone here that fascism is a horrible political system.

However, lets wax philosophical as we get those thinking caps on and examine this ideal we call "democracy". What exactly about democracy is so wonderful, necessarily? While I agree that it has some advantages over fascism, some very legitimate concerns can also be raised with the idea of democracy as well, most notably, the fact that 51% of the country can, through a simple show of hands, suppress the voices, opinions, and, directly or indirectly, rights of the other 49%. So I ask you -- what is so inherently wonderful about majority rule?

Greetings tcnj_libertarian! Welcome to the discussion. I'm glad you're forthright about your stance, and I know we'll have plenty to disagree about, but here's hoping that it'll be civilized. :toast:

You question isn't too difficult. In a fascist system, you CAN'T vote. Until the administration locks me in a prison, I'm going to speak out constantly and openly. If the Democrats wanted to (and I'm trying to kick them into it), they can organize all those undecideds with some good old fashioned mass organizing which we saw a taste of during the Social Security fight. Until the Supreme Court signs a Hitler-style "Enabling Law" and outlaws Dems, Independents, Greens, etc., we're free to speak out and organize. Maybe our congressional Democrats (and Independent) are being suppressed with Parliamentary tricks, and they can't get anything through, at least they're still there, fighting (somewhat).

And democracy isn't all that great. Just read Plato's The Republic, and Socrates has some rather unpleasant thoughts on the subject.;)

[Jane of Arc]

For my part, I'll be offering a Libertarian (sometimes nearly anarcho-Libertarian) point of view from time to time. Thanks in advance for any welcomes to the community I might recieve :D

By the way Jane of Arc, I hope I didn't over-generalize your political views too much, hehe.

Welcome tcnj-libertarian!!!!! :sunny: Your libertarian voice is a voice of fresh air! I look forward to your contributions to our progressive room. You did over-generalize me. But that's fine. As an independent I am a soul wandering the earth without a political party.
The Republicans scare the bejeesus out of me. They've generally turned into a bunch of brownshirts and become the poster children for the industrial-military complex Eisenhower warned so strongly against.


The Democrats are generally a water-downed version of the corporate owned Republicans.


I believe the differences you describe as archtypically 'conservative Republican' and 'liberal Democrat' are outdated.


I believe we no longer have a two-party system, but a one-party system and that one party is the military-industrail-congressional complex.


I would further submit that we live in an oligarchy and that the remnants of our fragile attempt at democracy are being dismantled piece by piece. And it can be done without total public suspicion as long as Bill Mahr, DemocracyNow! and the internet are up and running. They will be the last to be "monitored, controlled and homogenized" into the corporate mulch for our own protection and welfare.


I believe that what Ayn Rand feared the most is happening. As in Atlas Shrugged, the US economy is slowly collapsing as a result of the disappearance of industry, innovation and true laissez-faire capitalism. And the individual's voice gets smaller and smaller everyday.

[tcnj_libertarian]

Greetings tcnj_libertarian! Welcome to the discussion. I'm glad you're forthright about your stance, and I know we'll have plenty to disagree about, but here's hoping that it'll be civilized.

You question isn't too difficult. In a fascist system, you CAN'T vote. Until the administration locks me in a prison, I'm going to speak out constantly and openly. If the Democrats wanted to (and I'm trying to kick them into it), they can organize all those undecideds with some good old fashioned mass organizing which we saw a taste of during the Social Security fight. Until the Supreme Court signs a Hitler-style "Enabling Law" and outlaws Dems, Independents, Greens, etc., we're free to speak out and organize. Maybe our congressional Democrats (and Independent) are being suppressed with Parliamentary tricks, and they can't get anything through, at least they're still there, fighting (somewhat).

And democracy isn't all that great. Just read Plato's The Republic, and Socrates has some rather unpleasant thoughts on the subject.


Hello, and thanks for the welcome!

Yes, I suppose you have shown that democracy is certainly a better system that fascism. In a democracy, the minority voice does have the ability to speak out, openly and freely, at least until that ability is taken away! Of course, it certainly does require some mass organizing for the minority to have any sort of audible voice, and lets be serious here: If those in charge are stubborn enough, they simply won't listen to dissenting voicies, even if those voices are in the majority! As an example, I submit to you the abortion debate. Bush continues his efforts to overturn Roe v Wade while, according to most polls, most Americans want at least some form of abortion to be kept legal. It should be easy enough to come up with your own examples, I'm sure.

And I am quite familiar with The Republic, hehe ;) Not to mention that we all know how Democracy fared for Socrates :rolleyes:

So, does anybody have any suggestions for a better system? Surely, such a broken system can't be the best that thousands of years of political scientists have been able to imagine! :eek:

[tcnj_libertarian]

Welcome tcnj-libertarian!!!!! :sunny: Your libertarian voice is a voice of fresh air! I look forward to your contributions to our progressive room. You did over-generalize me. But that's fine. As an independent I am a soul wandering the earth without a political party.
Hello! I apologize again for the overgeneralization in my previous post, which may have been better suited for somebody else. As an independent, have you ever considered the Libertarian party? ;D


The Republicans scare the bejeesus out of me. They've generally turned into a bunch of brownshirts and become the poster children for the industrial-military complex Eisenhower warned so strongly against.


The Democrats are generally a water-downed version of the corporate owned Republicans.
I don't disagree --horay for being an independent! Although I must say, calling the Republicans brownshirts may be a bit extreme. I'm always wary of comparing Presidents, past and present, fascists. Who knows -- your label may prove to be prescient, but for now, I'll err on the side of caution.


I believe the differences you describe as archtypically 'conservative Republican' and 'liberal Democrat' are outdated.
Perhaps. The labels are constantly in flux; I remember being a sophomore in US History I and being so surprised to hear the original meanings of the words Republican and Democrat!


I believe we no longer have a two-party system, but a one-party system and that one party is the military-industrail-congressional complex.
Interesting. If, some day, you are ever bored and feel like expanding on this, I'd love to hear about it!


I would further submit that we live in an oligarchy and that the remnants of our fragile attempt at democracy are being dismantled piece by piece. And it can be done without total public suspicion as long as Bill Mahr, DemocracyNow! and the internet are up and running. They will be the last to be "monitored, controlled and homogenized" into the corporate mulch for our own protection and welfare.
Also interesting. Could you please explain what you mean by that last sentence?


I believe that what Ayn Rand feared the most is happening. As in Atlas Shrugged, the US economy is slowly collapsing as a result of the disappearance of industry, innovation and true laissez-faire capitalism. And the individual's voice gets smaller and smaller everyday.

Aah, Rand is dear to my heart. I do agree, but I do not think that these things are a result of the Bush Administration, or of either the Republicans or Democrats in general, but simply from an inefficient government system. The problem is in the basic philosophies of our government, not those who happen to be at the head of our government at the moment. (Not that you said that, of course.)

[wimzkl]

In ‘Mein Kampf,” Adolph Hitler said that plausible untruths were one of the best tools for obtaining political power. Enough repetition of a slogan would instill it as truth in common man to the point that, when confronted with incontrovertible disproof, the disproof would be doubted. Thus we have inalienable fabricated politics. Our conservative leadership has convinced their followers that the leadership wants smaller government and fiscal responsibility. This is inalienable fabricated politics.

I am a conservative in that I believe liberty is our most valuable possession and that capitalism is the best economic system. My friends label me a liberal because I oppose corporate America and I believe that if historic additions to the national debt by the party in power are an indication of a party’s conservatism, then both parties are liberal and the Republicans are by far the most liberal.

A politician’s fiscal conservatism is unsustainable over time and becomes liberal because of career motivated public spending. Campaign contribution quid pro quo inevitably produces legislation specifically benefiting the rich and powerful to the detriment of the public interest.

Say “liberty’s loss can’t happen here” and then put yourself in the shoes of a Roman citizen about 30 BC and repeat it in Latin or a German in 1933 and say “Sieg Heil.” History is repetitive and there is ever danger; mostly because we tend to forget history. Politics is the main stream of history; it follows that political judgments demand historical knowledge.

There is a distinct inverse relationship between economic growth and wealth concentration. The further expansion and enrichment of a broad base of American middle class consumers is critical to our nation’s economic prosperity and political stability!

The solution would seem to lie in convincing the conservatives that their leadership has deceived them. Recent polls seem to indicate a trend in that direction

[wimzkl]

Jane of Arc: The most intrusive government on the Constitutional rights of citizens is not conservative.

tcnj_libertarian: Agreed. But again, the goals of liberals require steep taxation of the people (or at least of the "rich elite," as if taxing those who have the most makes it ok to tax at all). Taxation is a violation of the basic human right to property.

Perhaps the most important step in the restoration of our “Separation of Powers” must come in our tax system. Will and Ariel Durant observed: “Concentration of wealth is a natural result of concentration of ability, and recurs in history. The rate of concentration varies (other factors being equal) with the economic freedom permitted by morals and the law … democracy, allowing the most liberty, accelerates it. “ If they are correct, and concentration of wealth amounts to the "natural" result of "democracy" and "liberty," then there is no way to avoid that concentration, other than a graduated “equality of sacrifice” tax on the wealth generated income of society's more productive members.

Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, said: "Ultimately, we are interested in the question of relative standards of living and economic well-being. We need to examine trends in the distribution of wealth, which, more fundamentally than earnings or income, represents a measure of the ability of households to consume." From 1929 to 1976, the share of the total wealth owned by the top 1% of all households declined from 44.2% to 19.9%. Beginning with Regan's Supply-Side economics, the top 1%'s share has climbed back to almost 40%. The rate of growth of the GNP has displayed the opposite - from 1929 to 1981 growth was at the fastest rates and since then it has slowed.

Henry Ford doubled his worker’s pay and everyone benefited. The New Deal spread the wealth and everyone benefited. The greatest progress in history was made under a steeply graduated income tax. Based on the theory of “equality of sacrifice,” it is the most fair. What more could one ask of a system of taxation? If a steeply graduated tax, heavy double taxation on corporations, excess profits tax, and heavy inheritance taxes will curtail the concentration of wealth, then we need to give them serious consideration because: “Every class is unfit to govern …” (Lord Acton)

The right of private property is one of our most sacred rights. However, it does not come close in value to the right of liberty. Since the concentration of wealth threatens liberty, property must be used to ensure liberty.

[tcnj_libertarian]

Jane of Arc:

tcnj_libertarian:

Perhaps the most important step in the restoration of our “Separation of Powers” must come in our tax system. Will and Ariel Durant observed: “Concentration of wealth is a natural result of concentration of ability, and recurs in history. The rate of concentration varies (other factors being equal) with the economic freedom permitted by morals and the law … democracy, allowing the most liberty, accelerates it. “ If they are correct, and concentration of wealth amounts to the "natural" result of "democracy" and "liberty," then there is no way to avoid that concentration, other than a graduated “equality of sacrifice” tax on the wealth generated income of society's more productive members.

Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, said: "Ultimately, we are interested in the question of relative standards of living and economic well-being. We need to examine trends in the distribution of wealth, which, more fundamentally than earnings or income, represents a measure of the ability of households to consume." From 1929 to 1976, the share of the total wealth owned by the top 1% of all households declined from 44.2% to 19.9%. Beginning with Regan's Supply-Side economics, the top 1%'s share has climbed back to almost 40%. The rate of growth of the GNP has displayed the opposite - from 1929 to 1981 growth was at the fastest rates and since then it has slowed.

Henry Ford doubled his worker’s pay and everyone benefited. The New Deal spread the wealth and everyone benefited. The greatest progress in history was made under a steeply graduated income tax. Based on the theory of “equality of sacrifice,” it is the most fair. What more could one ask of a system of taxation? If a steeply graduated tax, heavy double taxation on corporations, excess profits tax, and heavy inheritance taxes will curtail the concentration of wealth, then we need to give them serious consideration because: “Every class is unfit to govern …” (Lord Acton)

The right of private property is one of our most sacred rights. However, it does not come close in value to the right of liberty. Since the concentration of wealth threatens liberty, property must be used to ensure liberty.
Hello wimzkl! Thanks for your interesting take on this topic!

While I believe that I understand your concerns, I must ask where the liberty is in taxation. You, as an individual, have absolutely no right to take my money and distribute it, high concentration of wealth or not. The government is nothing more than a collection of individuals; how then does it justify the taxation, the taking, the theft of my money and the consequent redistribution thereof? Furthermore, you say that you value capitalism, but if my earnings in a capitalist system are simply going to be taken to me and given to those who, in the same capitalist system, have earned less, what is the point?

[wimzkl]

Hi tcnj_libertarian:

Taxes are one of the two inevitables. Ever since the advent of private property in distant history, there have been taxes with good reason but not always with good benefits. You enjoy the fruits of your taxes every day on the roads you drive, in the water you drink and the sewers carrying away your waste, in the security of the police forces, when in need of emergency services, when you have a legal dispute with another and in many other ways. Taxes support the system of laws that make life civilized.

In history, taxes were much heavier than now. Slaves paid 100% of the fruits of their labor less room and board. Serfs paid 30 to 50% of their produce to the lord of the manor. It was only the advent of liberty that changed the feudal system. When the population of mankind exceeded the needs on the land, cities arose and free people innovated and invented and created wealth and that was taxed. The progress of man can be traced directly to liberty. Do you not want your grandchildren and their grand children to be free. If you do, then pay your taxes and be grateful for the benefits of liberty and capitalism and democracy.

The inequities found in any democratic and capitalist system are essential to making the system fluid and stable. The inequities found in the more mature such systems, like the aged’s hardening of the arteries, can inhibit the fluidity and destabilize the capitalism and, thus, the democracy. Poverty is the womb of discontent; discontent is the mother of democratic or revolutionary social reformation; social reformation is an unacceptable threat to great wealth. Disadvantaged people will protest peacefully. Greatly disadvantaged people will embrace violence. The rich and powerful will react with superior violence curtailing the civil rights of those below. Any threat to great wealth can be the death knell of liberty.

Say “liberty’s loss can’t happen here” and then put yourself in the shoes of a Roman citizen about 30 BC and repeat it in Latin or a German in 1933 and say “Sieg Heil.” History is repetitive and there is ever danger; mostly because we tend to forget history. Politics is the main stream of history; it follows that political judgments demand historical knowledge.

There is a distinct inverse relationship between economic growth and wealth concentration. The further expansion and enrichment of a broad base of American middle class consumers is critical to our nation’s economic prosperity and political stability

Taxation as the province of the government is political and subject to the democratic process. Fairness is subjective at best. How can anyone be sure they are paying too much? To remind the British Parliament of this, Edmund Burke in a famous speech about taxation, “to tax and to please, no more than to love and be wise, is not given to men.”

I repeat: "Henry Ford doubled his worker’s pay and everyone benefited. The New Deal spread the wealth and everyone benefited. The greatest progress in history was made under a steeply graduated income tax. Based on the theory of “equality of sacrifice,” it is the most fair. What more could one ask of a system of taxation? If a steeply graduated tax, heavy double taxation on corporations, excess profits tax, and heavy inheritance taxes will curtail the concentration of wealth, then we need to give them serious consideration because: “Every class is unfit to govern …” (Lord Acton)

The right of private property is one of our most sacred rights. However, it does not come close in value to the right of liberty. Since the concentration of wealth threatens liberty, property must be used to ensure liberty."

I have known one man in my life that said he liked paying taxes - he was in the 92% tax bracket. He said it was a measure of his success and he made an enormous amount of money.

Show me a system of taxation in history that yielded better results than the last 70 years of our Great Prosperity and I will join your side. Show me a time in history that had a flat tax that benefited the greater public good and I will join your side. But, the fact is you can't - there never have been any such times.

It is important to temper your political position with historical knowledge. Both democracy and capitalism are dependent on the greater public good being the prime goal of humanity. What is the alternative? Great private fortunes come and go, but the public good goes on forever and the better it gets, the better we all get. The philosophical basis of capitalism is Adam Smith's "unseen hand" whereby individuals working on their own behalf to enrich themselves create the greatest public good.

If you are unconvinced, show me some historical basis to your argument. Observation and logic are insufficient when you are dealing with humanity. If you still feel that a flat tax would be the only fair tax, then you should consider a flat tax on individual wealth. Those who have benefited the most from our democratic capitalist system would pay more, but i would be a “equality of sacrifice” tax. What could be more fair?

Incidentally, as the proprietor of three successful businesses and as the first manufacturer of the hand puppet golf club covers, I have paid a lot of taxes gratefully.

[tcnj_libertarian]

Hi tcnj_libertarian:

Taxes are one of the two inevitables. Ever since the advent of private property in distant history, there have been taxes with good reason but not always with good benefits. You enjoy the fruits of your taxes every day on the roads you drive, in the water you drink and the sewers carrying away your waste, in the security of the police forces, when in need of emergency services, when you have a legal dispute with another and in many other ways. Taxes support the system of laws that make life civilized.
Roads, utilities, waste management, law enforcement, emergency services, justice -- all of these could operate much more efficiently if privatized. Taken out of the government's hands, there is no need to tax the people to pay for these things. They will be paid for by the people through capitalism in a truly free market.

In history, taxes were much heavier than now....{EDITED FOR BREVITY}
I'm going to have to ask that you stop quoting from your booklet. It was a nice read the first time, but seeing it copied and pasted into every thread is tiresome. Also, your arguments are less compelling than they are eloquent.

I have known one man in my life that said he liked paying taxes - he was in the 92% tax bracket. He said it was a measure of his success and he made an enormous amount of money.
Seems like insecurity to me. I don't need the government to tell me -- through the forceful taking of my money -- how successful I am. This just doesn't make any sense.

Show me a system of taxation in history that yielded better results than the last 70 years of our Great Prosperity and I will join your side. Show me a time in history that had a flat tax that benefited the greater public good and I will join your side. But, the fact is you can't - there never have been any such times.
Luckily, I'm arguing for the complete abolition of taxes, not a reform.

It is important to temper your political position with historical knowledge. Both democracy and capitalism are dependent on the greater public good being the prime goal of humanity. What is the alternative? Great private fortunes come and go, but the public good goes on forever and the better it gets, the better we all get. The philosophical basis of capitalism is Adam Smith's "unseen hand" whereby individuals working on their own behalf to enrich themselves create the greatest public good.
Precisely the reason why the government's intervention and forceful redistribution of the people's wealth is unnecessary. I am utterly dumbfounded that you are attempting to use laissez faire capitalist philosophy to argue in favor of taxation.

If you are unconvinced, show me some historical basis to your argument. Observation and logic are insufficient when you are dealing with humanity.
Unfortunately, a truly Libertarian society has never existed. That provides you with no history to attack and me with no history to offer on my behalf. Thus, we must proceed with logic. Logic is the only appropriate of operating within the realm of humanity. It is not perfect, but it is the best tool we have. If you are truly asking that we dismiss logic, this dialogue is finished -- I am willing to discuss anything with anyone who is reasonable, but when our only tool for discerning the truth of an argument is dismissed, discussion is futile.

If you still feel that a flat tax would be the only fair tax, then you should consider a flat tax on individual wealth. Those who have benefited the most from our democratic capitalist system would pay more, but i would be a “equality of sacrifice” tax. What could be more fair?
Again, I never, ever, ever argued in favor of a flat tax. I really have no clue where you got that idea. I support no tax.

Incidentally, as the proprietor of three successful businesses and as the first manufacturer of the hand puppet golf club covers, I have paid a lot of taxes gratefully.
Completely irrelevant, but congratulations.

[wimzkl]

tcnj-libertarian

You bill yourself as a libertarian and I understand they advocate a flat tax. I apologize for the assumption that you advocate it.

The very idea that private enterprise can perform all enterprise better than public organizations has been discredited by history. To be sure, private enterprise is the best system for business purposes but not necessarily all.

Privatization has also been discredited by history. The Great Depression was triggered by the collapse of the stock market which was led down by the Public Utility stocks. Those stocks were the result of the first great privatization movement in this country. Too much depends on the people that run them because all people are fallible.

tcnj-libertarian-Quote
"Unfortunately, a truly Libertarian society has never existed. That provides you with no history to attack and me with no history to offer on my behalf. Thus, we must proceed with logic. Logic is the only appropriate of operating within the realm of humanity. It is not perfect, but it is the best tool we have. If you are truly asking that we dismiss logic, this dialog is finished -- I am willing to discuss anything with anyone who is reasonable, but when our only tool for discerning the truth of an argument is dismissed, discussion is futile."

When you are dealing with humanity and mass psychology, logic rarely is even a valid tool much less the best tool. Show me the logic in the German people embracing Hitler because a building burned down. The fact that a social system has never existed is a strong argument against its potential as a system. Marx's communist system never existed either, yet most economists agree with his analysis concerning the danger in the concentration of wealth. That doesn't make communism viable.

We have enormous faults built into many social activities. For instance, in police work, we have crooked cops. Hopefully, they eventually get weeded out, and we have elected officials to supervise and try to make the system work. Sometimes the elected officials are also crooks. Then the people have an opportunity to remove them from office. If the police department was run by a private company, what recourse would the citizens have if the owners are crooks? What recourse did California have when Enron gouged them during the energy crisis. Oh yes, Enron and their ilk are great examples of the results of deregulation.

Wimzkl-Quote
"It is important to temper your political position with historical knowledge. Both democracy and capitalism are dependent on the greater public good being the prime goal of humanity. What is the alternative? Great private fortunes come and go, but the public good goes on forever and the better it gets, the better we all get. The philosophical basis of capitalism is Adam Smith's "unseen hand" whereby individuals working on their own behalf to enrich themselves create the greatest public good."

tcnj-libertarian-Quote
"Precisely the reason why the government's intervention and forceful redistribution of the people's wealth is unnecessary. I am utterly dumbfounded that you are attempting to use laissez faire capitalist philosophy to argue in favor of taxation."

Please try to use laissez faire capitalist philosophy to argue against taxation. And when you find their is no basis for that argument, please give me your argument against death - the other inevitable. Utopian concepts do not work. You can argue forever against death, but you will die and you will pay taxes. That doesn't mean that your position doesn't have some validity, it means that it has no validity simply because it is so totally and completely unrealistic.

Quote
"Logic is the only appropriate way of operating within the realm of humanity. It is not perfect, but it is the best tool we have. If you are truly asking that we dismiss logic, this dialog is finished -- I am willing to discuss anything with anyone who is reasonable, but when our only tool for discerning the truth of an argument is dismissed, discussion is futile."

Your contention that logic is the only tool for dealing with the realm of humanity ignores that the lessons of history are probably the most valuable tool. I am all for logic and use it extensively in my book, but I always temper it with the lessons of history. Your slur about my "booklet" was not appreciated, but you finally got something right but not who it is that is reasonable. Whether it is logical or not, how can you consider an untested utopian concept as reasonable?

[tcnj_libertarian]

tcnj-libertarian
You bill yourself as a libertarian and I understand they advocate a flat tax. I apologize for the assumption that you advocate it.
No problem. My libertarian friends and I sort of distance ourselves from the "official" Libertarian party in the United States on some issues, following our philosophies through to the end in an attempt to be completely consistent.

The very idea that private enterprise can perform all enterprise better than public organizations has been discredited by history. To be sure, private enterprise is the best system for business purposes but not necessarily all.
No, pretty much every single enterprise would perform better privately than publically. Private enterprise creates an environment of competition in which standards must be set high and kept in order to stay in business and earn the people's trust. Consider the FDA. Most people shudder at the thought of privatizing such a 'vital' administration, but the system that currently exists prevents pharmacologists who create better drugs from marketing these drugs with a "seal of approval" unless they basically pay
off the FDA. This system is not only corrupt, its inefficient. How many drugs in the past few years, or even months, have had their FDA approval revoked following complications resulting from these drugs? Meanwhile, Plan-B fails to become an OTC drug despite the advice of a medical board based upon a religious agenda of the people in power. It's ridiculous. Just about any enterprise would be more efficient private than public, and the only reason I precede my statement with "just about" is to exercise reasonable caution against making sweeping statements. The urge to delete it is strong, though.

Privatization has also been discredited by history. The Great Depression was triggered by the collapse of the stock market which was led down by the Public Utility stocks. Those stocks were the result of the first great privatization movement in this country. Too much depends on the people that run them because all people are fallible.
False. First, a quick word on that last remark: the government is nothing but a collection of people. To blindly put so much trust into a group of equally fallible people under a different name is dangerous. Continuing: Although the United States had suffered several smaller "depressions" in the past, they lasted a short time and were quickly corrected. What was different about the Great Depression? Recent government interventionist policies, including the Federal Reserve raising interest rates and choking off the money supply just before before the crash. As with every single other attack at laissez-faire economics, the fault was with government interventionism, not free-market capitalism.

When you are dealing with humanity and mass psychology, logic
rarely is even a valid tool much less the best tool. Show me the logic in the German people embracing Hitler because a building burned down. The fact that a social system has never existed is a strong argument against its potential as a system.
How people have acted in the past in one society and how people may act in a totally different society are incomparable. The German embrace of Hitler may indeed by a psychological phenomenon, but I fail to see it's relevance to free-market capitalism. As for a Libertarian state never having existed, it is merely do to peoples' unwillingness to let go of the government, inefficient as it may be. I don't honestly think that a Libertarian state will ever exist, at least not in my life time, but small changes can and should be made as much as possible.

[tcnj_libertarian]

CONTINUED

If the police department was run by a private company, what recourse would the citizens have if the owners are crooks? What recourse did California have when Enron gouged them during the energy crisis. Oh yes, Enron and their ilk are great examples of the results of deregulation.
The citizens would have the same recourse against a private company as they do a public company, if not more. The beauty of privatization is that if one company is doing a shitty job, there is nothing to keep another group from making a new, better company to do the job right. Enron was a corrupt company that fell under the weight of its own corruption -- and who bailed it out, allowing it to still exist as a viable company today? The United States government. What incentives are there for companies to fight falling into bankrupcty when they know they can simply file Chapter 11?

Please try to use laissez faire capitalist philosophy to argue against taxation. And when you find their is no basis for that argument, please give me your argument against death - the other inevitable. Utopian concepts do not work. You can argue forever against death, but you will die and you will pay taxes. That doesn't mean that your position doesn't have some validity, it means that it has no validity simply because it is so totally and completely unrealistic.
Just because an old cliche says that both death and taxes are inevitable doesn't make it true. Death is certainly inevitable, at least at this point in time. Taxes? If I move into isolation, living in the desert, or in the jungle, or in some other non-civilized fashion, I can avoid taxes, thus disproving the claim that they are inevitable. A society devoid of taxes may perhaps seem quixotic, but in its fundamental form it really is not unrealistic or impossible. I mean, it's simply a society in which the citizens are not forced to offer up a portion of their earnings every week to a government. What is so unrealistic about that? What is utopian about it, at that? I don't know about you, but my idea of "utopia" is a lot
different from Thomas More's. Furthermore, I believe the argument against taxation from free-market capitalism is rather obvious. How is giving up one's earnings, the earnings gained in a free-market, capitalist system, a fundamental part of that system? That doesn't make any sense. You may argue for taxes from a social standpoint, or even from some economic standpoints, but not from a capitalist standpoint.

Your contention that logic is the only tool for dealing with the realm of humanity ignores that the lessons of history are probably the most valuable tool. I am all for logic and use it extensively in my book, but I always temper it with the lessons of history. Your slur about my "booklet" was not appreciated, but you finally got something right but not
who it is that is reasonable. Whether it is logical or not, how can you consider an untested utopian concept as reasonable?
History is to be studied and respected, but more often than not, I believe it provides us with lessons in what not to do than advice on what to do, and I believe that those same lessons caution against government interventionism and argue strongly for free-market capitalism. I call a system reasonable when it is based on reason -- that would be the definition of reasonable, after all. As for your booklet, I meant no slur against it -- I simply wished for you to stop copying and pasting hunks of text into your messages for me to read that I've already seen in three other threads. I don't think it is too much for me to ask you to write something original once in a while, as you did in this latest post, and I appreciate it. After all, I do not simply provide you with links to the Cato Institute. That is all.

[wimzkl]

tcnj libertarian.

You have a shortage of historical knowledge. For instance:

tcnj quote
[/QUOTE]"False. First, a quick word on that last remark: the government is nothing but a collection of people. To blindly put so much trust into a group of equally fallible people under a different name is dangerous. Continuing: Although the United States had suffered several smaller "depressions" in the past, they lasted a short time and were quickly corrected. What was different about the Great Depression? Recent government interventionist policies, including the Federal Reserve raising interest rates and choking off the money supply just before before the crash. As with every single other attack at laissez-faire economics, the fault was with government interventionism, not free-market capitalism.[QUOTE]

Depressions:

1837 to 1843, a sharp downturn in the American economy caused by bank failures and lack of confidence in the paper currency. (In the early 1800’s, most corporations were non-profit organizations; the for-profit corporations were usually banks.)

1873 to 1896 – The Long Depression - economic problems in Europe prompt the failure of Jay Cooke & Company, the largest bank in the U.S., bursting the post-Civil War speculative bubble. 23 years is not short.

Panic of 1907 - A run on Knickerbocker Trust Company stock October 22nd 1907 sets events in motion that led to a depression in the United States. The resulting U.S. bank panic was abetted by the unstable financial system that allowed questionable financial practices by unscrupulous businessmen. In 1907, F. A. Heinze, president of the Mercantile National Bank of New York City, caused his banks to attempt to seize control of the copper market from John D. Rockefeller. Rockefeller countered his efforts by unloading huge quantities of copper on the market, which resulted in a drop of copper prices and of copper stocks. When the Mercantile Bank depositors learned of Heinze’s financial schemes, many began liquidating their accounts. The rush spread to other banks and a panic ensued.

Great Depression - 1929 to late 1930s, stock market crash, banking collapse, and overproduction in the United States sparks a global downturn, including a second downturn 1937–1938. Mostly forgotten is that the Public Utility stocks (the Dot-Coms of the time) began to crash weeks before the general market. Their decline triggered margin calls forcing further sales of their and then other stocks.

Tell me, if the Great Depression was the result of governmental intervention (when there was comparatively little intervention) and the longest period between depressions in America prior to that was only 30 years, why have we gone over 70 years now with the highest level of governmental intervention? As an economist that has always puzzled me. I hope you can give me an answer.

You are correct that the Federal Reserve made great errors after the Great Depression had started and probably made it worse, but the basic cause of the Great Depression was over-production and over-supply combined with a corporate dominated refusal to lower prices. The vast majority of economists agree on that.

Since my book is original writing, why can't you come up with something original and based of factual history rather than the regurgitation I see. The biggest problem with privatization I see, other than it has been discredited by history, is that most of those private enterprises would have to be in the class of public utilities. They would have to be regulated but your Utopia wouldn't allow that either. Tell me exactly how great Enron worked out.

It might be best to move to a desert island and live in isolation. When you live in viable society, it would seem rather futile to try to make it work like isolation on a desert island. The lessons of history point to the many difficulties and errors of the past. To avoid those duplication requires action not inaction. If you seriously think you will ever experience a situation where governments are not involved in everyday life, then you need to move to a desert island.

I have tried to give you historical realities and you respond with Utopian dreams. There is nothing reasonable about your position.

[tcnj_libertarian]

a bunch of bullshit
Alright, the time has come for me to simply provide a link. Since what I am going to link you to is completely contrary to the opinion of "the vast majority of economists", I am confident that you will be unable of accusing me of regurgitation. Why a link? Because it is written with greater eloquence and greater knowledge than I have of the Great Depression. I do not have all of the answers readily at the tip of my tongue; not only am I nowhere near old enough to remember the Great Depression, I am not a history major and I only recently became interested in economics. So for now, the economist and historian Lawrence W. Reed will have to suffice.

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=4013

It might be best to move to a desert island and live in isolation. When you live in viable society, it would seem rather futile to try to make it work like isolation on a desert island. The lessons of history point to the many difficulties and errors of the past. To avoid those duplication requires action not inaction. If you seriously think you will ever experience a situation where governments are not involved in everyday life, then you need to move to a desert island.

I have tried to give you historical realities and you respond with Utopian dreams. There is nothing reasonable about your position.
My desert island example was merely a counterexample to your claim that taxes are inevitable. I do not believe that I will ever experience a situation in which governments are not involved in every day life, but I am allowed to dream and to think. Furthermore, I again assert that the lessons of history point to the errors of government interventionism, not free-market capitalism. Privatization is all well and good, but when the government is playing around with inflation and ****ing up the monetary supply with terrible policy, you can hardly say that privatization was given a fair chance. Stop blaming privatization for the government's faults.

I really wish you'd stop using the word "Utopian". Not only have I denied any allegiance to Thomas More, but your use of the word with its contemporary connotation implies that you agree with me, but simply feel that it will never occur. Perhaps that word you're looking for is "quixotic". Whatever.

[wimzkl]

tcnj

Your crude language points up what kind of person you must be and your frustration at having to rely on rationalizations to justify an untenable position. Ill-mannered, historically uneducated and so prejudiced that you even claim the totally unreasonable to be reasonable logic. The word Utopian can be applied to most unrealistic dreams such as yours.

I am old enough to remember the Great Depression and that was private enterprise at its worst. As the best system there is, private enterprise still has its faults such as the tendency toward the concentration of wealth, which, historically, has been the most significant cause leading to the demise of democracies and liberty. That is the real world, something you apparently know little about. You should be more worried about the potential loss of liberty than about paying taxes. A significant portion of you taxes goes toward maintaining our liberty.

What do you think of the recent survey on the condition of medical care in America? I don't want an answer, I just want you to think about it. We are rated the worst of the free capitalist countries in the world in medical care and that is our private medical industry. Strangely, the medical service rated the best in the United States is the VA - government run. So much for private industry can do it best.

I will not respond to any more of your prejudice. If you can't back it up with history, there is simply no reason to continue a dialog. You have fallen into what I term "inalienable political fabrications." The fact that you think they cannot be disputed is a very good indication that they are indeed fabricated.

[Jane of Arc]

Privatization is all well and good, but when the government is playing around with inflation and ****ing up the monetary supply with terrible policy, you can hardly say that privatization was given a fair chance. Stop blaming privatization for the government's faults.
tcnj,

If I may jump in here ...:o ... you really need to study the effects of American and European privatization on South America. Pick a country and google it. It ain't a pretty picture.

Also check out what happened in the 1980's when the government 'deregulated' the air waves in the US. Unprotected by governement, most independent new organizations were gobbled up by the big corporate sharks and now we have Pravda, USA. One big corporate voice and vey little real news. The same corporations that sell us the water-downed, 'bloodless war' news manufacture the bombs being dropped.

[tcnj_libertarian]

tcnj

Your crude language points up what kind of person you must be and your frustration at having to rely on rationalizations to justify an untenable position. Ill-mannered, historically uneducated and so prejudiced that you even claim the totally unreasonable to be reasonable logic. The word Utopian can be applied to most unrealistic dreams such as yours.
I have no idea why you have suddenly decided to attack my person. My last post harbored no hostility towards you, and yet because some frustration did manifest itself in the form of some censored symbols (oh no!), I am suddenly a "crude" person? I am ill-mannered and historically uneducated? And finally, you call me prejudiced and unreasonable? You do not know the slightest thing about me, so keep your opinions to yourself. Let's recap:
-I have used one curse word my entire time here. It was censored with asterisks. That single occurance apparently reveals me to be crude and ill-mannered. Unbelievable.
-Rationalizations? What rationalizations?
-Historically uneducated? Listen, I admitted that I am not an expert on the Great Depression. Why would you nevertheless attack me on this front, a front which I have already conceded? It should furthermore be noted that history is far from an objective study, and a truly reasonable person would be open to multiple interpretations of events.
-I still don't understand what makes my views "unrealistic". They may not be what you would consider to be the ideal state, but that does not mean that they are "unrealistic." I think socialism is a terrible system, but that doesn't mean it is "unrealistic". One can imagine a state which operates under a truly free-market economy. There is nothing inherently unrealistic about it.

I am old enough to remember the Great Depression and that was private enterprise at its worst. As the best system there is, private enterprise still has its faults such as the tendency toward the concentration of wealth, which, historically, has been the most significant cause leading to the demise of democracies and liberty. That is the real world, something you apparently know little about. You should be more worried about the potential loss of liberty than about paying taxes. A significant portion of you taxes goes toward maintaining our liberty.
Again, I do not appreciate the shots at my person, as I never made any against yours. If you want this to degenerate into a flame war, that is fine, but just remember, you threw the first (and second, and third...) punch. I am very worried about the loss of liberty, and I am consistent in my quest for liberty. I am not willing to sacrifice one liberty on behalf of others. And again, you tout democracy as some wonderful champion of liberty, when really it is quite the opposite. Does private enterprise have its faults? Surely, but government interventionism has more faults.

I will not respond to any more of your prejudice. If you can't back it up with history, there is simply no reason to continue a dialog. You have fallen into what I term "inalienable political fabrications." The fact that you think they cannot be disputed is a very good indication that they are indeed fabricated.

You are ridiculous. You want me to back up all of my arguments with history? If all of the answers were in hi