Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Right-Libertarianism is BULLSHIT

Posted 1 year ago on April 9, 2013, 12:20 p.m. EST by struggleforfreedom80 (6584)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

First I want to say that libertarians aren’t wrong about everything; when it comes to foreign policy for example, they have some reasonable suggestions. However, when it comes to the economy and property rights etc, then these people are way off. When it comes to these very important issues, libertarians are in reality advocating tyranny.

These so-called "libertarians" (a term used in a completely different way thruout history by the way) advocate something that in reality would lead to a more corporate-run society. They want to privatize more institutions, cut welfare services and give HUGE tax cuts to the wealthy and the big corporations. That of course means that the corporate elite and the top 1% will become even more wealthy and powerful in society. As for the rest of the population: the workers, the students, the seniors and so on, the 99%, they’ll be left with much less resources: poorer health care, no social security, less rights at the workplace and so on. Put it simply, what libertarians advocate is TAX CUTS for the 1%, WELFARE CUTS for the 99%.

Handing over huge amounts of cash and resources to the wealthy also weakens democracy substantially, because these people have undemocratic power in society. They are non-elected elites with huge power over our lives.

So right-wing libertarians think it’s ok to have a system in which your influence in society is based to a large extent on your access to recourses and money. They advocate a society where the economy overwhelmingly is run by the 1%, and where the economic institutions – our workplaces – are run like tyrannies, with the CEOs and the owners at the top, giving orders to the rest of the people involved, and dictating how the institution is being run.

In other words, right-wing libertarians have all the wrong ideas and solutions when it comes to the economy, because they don’t want to do anything about what is the root cause of many of the problems we see in society today, namely the concentration of wealth, recourses and power in the hands of the wealthy and the private owners. These ultra right-wing libertarian policies are in reality a call for the continuation of the corporate dominance we have seen increasingly develop these last decades. A society which has these features is immoral, undemocratic, and unsustainable. It’s intolerable!

What we should work for is not right-libertarianism, but left-libertarianism: a sustainable society where democracy is the core and controlled from below; a society with more direct participation, with the economic institutions and the communities being run democratically by the participants; a society where people participate in the decision-making and are in control of their own work, life and destiny.

Links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu8J_UKKa-c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls7QZm7omh8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ugGqJcro2w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLXLSHDJTgQ


"Right-Libertarianism is BULLSHIT part II"

264 Comments

264 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

V.I.P. !!! Very Important Post !! Period !

Right Wing Libertopianism = Total Bullshit !!

An excellent teaching post. Takk Andy :-) & ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY .

multum in parvo ...

[-] 4 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Libertarian Socialism it's not your father's Anarchy.

Seems important here that he distinguishes

  • Statist Socialism
  • Non-statist Socialism
  • Libertarian Socialism
  • Anarcho Syndicalism

Most of us have only ever heard of Socialism, Communism, and heard bad things said about those. But if there was Non_statist Governments then that is different ... local populist governments which cooperate federally. No political parties at all under the French View and that means a more classless society.

I think Austerity strengthens the Anarcho Syndicalism Message.

And I don't see why Texas anti-federalism advocates would not join a Social Liberalism Party to form a new Federal Government with less Statist Power.

[-] 3 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

References on your Video show Catastrophe in the US. We have to know this is True to be Really Present to this Knowledge. Then, somehow we have to Transmit the Teachings to 10% of the Population. It looks like it could be True. This Video Presents the Data in a Visual Form that can be Understood by 90% of the Voters. The References seem to demand dissemination before the Internet is Closed Down.

  1. The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Have Only 5 Percent Of The Nation’s Personal Debt:

Using 2007 figures, sociologist William Domhoff points out that the top 1 percent have 5 percent of the nation’s personal debt while the bottom 90 percent have 73 percent of total debt:

  1. The Top 1 Percent Are Taking In More Of The Nation’s Income Than At Any Other Time Since The 1920s: Not only are the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans taking home a tremendous portion of the national income, but their share of this income is greater than at any other time since the Great Depression, as the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities illustrates in this chart using 2007 data:

As Professor Elizabeth Warren has explained, “there is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody…Part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.” More and more often, that is not occurring, giving the protesters ample reason to take to the streets.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/334156/top-five-wealthiest-one-percent/

It didn't really come across, but 10% have 90% of the earnings... I will add to this..

Late Add: Looks like Figure 1 under #4 shows 65% of Income goes to 1% of the US (Highest 1%).

[-] 3 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

If I'd have read the article better earlier toniite... I would have noticed Ellen Brown's first suggestion explained the H.R. 129 I pulled up earlier on GPO.GOV.

(1) Restore the Glass-Steagall Act separating depository banking from investment banking. Support Marcy Kaptur’s H.R. 129.

Thanks to you and Information Clearing House... Ellen Brown is so Great. So Hot Right now .. on all of this.

[-] 3 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

S. 685 Senate Bill to "TBTF Banks" Introduced.

By Mr. SANDERS :

S. 685. A bill to address the concept of ``Too Big To Fail'' with respect to certain financial entities; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

So the Bill in the Senate is S. 685 ...Could not find House Bill

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

I'll investigate your replies & also request any links from you on the matter. I'll also append for you this link : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34577.htm as it sits so very well on this thread & also consider : "Wealth Inequality In America" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM .

verb. sat. sap. ...

[-] 3 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Here is Text S. 685 TBTF Introduced by Sanders in the Senate ...

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s685/text (This one)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s685
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r113:1:./temp/~r113kaGz3X::

‘Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act’.

I pass your link to Wealth Inequality In America on in an email yesterday.... Looks like great stuff to know and pass on. Banks create money for free and get a percentage like the Mafia. Maybe an origination fee of 1% for Banks as a Cap Maximum on Loans ... coupled with a requirement that they actually lend to small businesses and help the Economy ... Would be a Smarter Way To GO.

House has new bill H.R. 497, AMERICA Works Act
Introduced by Mr. BARLETTA and Mr. SCHNEIDER of Illinois on 5 February 2013, but bill number H.R. 497..... Includes Federal Jobs Training Program
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr497/text
To allow that certain Federal job training and career education programs give priority to programs that lead to recognized postsecondary credentials.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

Consider : "Obama’s Budget", by Joseph Kishore :

"The corporate and financial elite that runs the United States has long complained of the “unreasonable” sums of money spent on preserving the health and well-being of the elderly. In the minds of the Wall Street speculators and corporate executives that control both political parties, broad sections of the population simply live too long." Thanx for your comprehensive reply and thank G*d for Bernie Sanders :

As an aside, I'll draw your attention to this comment on this thread : http://occupywallst.org/forum/right-libertarianism-is-bullshit/#comment-957911 which like much of this thread has been heavily stinkled by reactionary scum-suckers and which as a result, you may have missed. Solidarity.

pax, amor et lux ...

[-] 2 points by 99time (90) 1 year ago

Also see this http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm

A very good detailed history of the various terms, with some emphasis on libertarianism.

[-] 4 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

Re. 'The Political Spectrum', many thanx for your interesting link which almost an academic treatise. lol. Further to your link, I also append :

Re. 'Rightwing Libertarianism', please also see :

fiat lux et fiat justitia ruat caelum ...

[-] -2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Thanks, shadz.

Glad you liked the post – and that video :)

[-] 6 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

The 'Libertopian Lunacy' needs to be exposed for the pseudo-intellectual B-S that it is, based as it is on Randian Psychopathy and abject disdain for society at large. Also fyi :

fiat lux ...

[-] 3 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

The "great beast" is awakening.

~Odin~

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

I'm still talking to Americans who believe the 'trickle-down" BS, Shadz.

Seems like an uphill slog, but I'm up for that.

[-] 7 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

There ain't no 'Trickle Down' any more 'B' - if indeed there ever was 'cause it is clearly more of a case of 'Hoover UP Crapitalism' these days !! Also fyi :

caveat ...

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (22338) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

There used to be trickle down - but that was unintentional - they have found and plugged the leaks.

[-] 4 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

That's funny. Sad - but funny and also very true and the situation is ultimately unsustainable. To compliment your comment and this excellent forum-post and thread, I append :

Also do note the heavy stinkling that's broken out on this thread, lolol - a sure sign that it hurts ''Them'' !!

fiat lux ...

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I think I've read that one, but thanks anyway :)

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

You most likely have read it but hopefully others will also avail and also fyi :

ne quid nimis ...

[+] -6 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Noam Chomsky is a "pseudo-intellectual" and a hypocrite.

[-] 7 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Noam rules!!

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Is Noam Chomsky jewish?

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Why? You got a problem with Jewish people?.

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I have a problem with Noam Chomsky.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Why did you ask if he is Jewish?

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I was just curious. His name is Hebrew.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I disagree

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

In what way? Is Noam not a Hebrew word?

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I disagree with your contention that you are 'just curious'.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

That's your problem.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

No problem at all.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Not in the sense of Zionism of Hawkishiness. He came from a Jewish family and learned Hebrew and obviously other languages. His brain is shaped by his learning languages and history. That sets him apart. He seems to dress modestly. He says he is useless in a Garden ... but he worked in academia ... he taught languages and probably philosophy. You have to call him an intellectual in a good kind of way. You can't put him down for being an intellectual, because he always proves he understands history and government.

Are you an American or Christian?

If so perhaps you have a blind spot. Don't you believe in equality? And Sovereignty? Let he who is without "Sin" cast the first stone.

The US Constitution is based on Philosophy, History, Greek Culture, Roman Laws, and English Law. Probably the Magna Carta. And there is a lot of evidence that the Constitution follows a Native American Confederacy very closely.

Where does it say in the Constitution that we should bomb foreign countries over 1000 miles away. It doesn't. Because Equality & Sovereignty are concepts that when accepted for yourself, you have to extend the same rights to other countries.

We can generalize about politicians and Academians. But that is not justice when applied to a single man.

So, we have to judege for ourselves based on actions of men and politicians. Obviously the GOP & Dems don't give a crap about Jobs, the US Economy, Fraud in banking, Case Law in Anti-Trust & Banking, and purpose of the FTC when created by the Clayton Act, Theodore Roosevelt's Work against the Bank Trust, .... and on and on.

We face corruption, not a problem with one ideology or philosophy or GOP or Democrats. Money is what motives people.

1) So Laws have to be strengthen with enforcement in banking and in Lobbying and gifts provided to Congress.
2) And we have to get bankers out of the Government.
3) We must have barrios to keep politicians & Judges from starting relationships with Industry.

[-] -3 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I believe in individual sovereignty and self ownership.

Money should taken out of government.

I am neither Christian nor American, I'm just me.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Ok, good points.

[-] -3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Now you got me curios. Why do you ask?

[-] -3 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Noam is the Hebrew word for beautiful.

[-] -2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

But what's that got to do with anything?

[-] -3 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I was just curious.

[-] -2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

So in the middle of a political debate, you all of a sudden want to talk about the meaning of names?

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

This debate is about Noam Chomsky, master linguist. What else is there to talk about?

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The debate is NOT about Chomsky. It is about the bullshit of Right wing libertarianism.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I was responding to a post about Noam.

[-] 5 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You were responding to a comment about Noam, on a Post about the bullshit of right wing libertarianism.

So rather than engage in a personal attack on Noam, I ask the discussion get back on topic of the Post.

Capice?

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (22254) 1 year ago

I urge everyone to read Karl Marx's "Das Kapital" Part III "The Production of Absolute Surplus-Value"

Including Chapter VII "The Labour Process and the Process of Producing Surplus-Value

And Chapter VIII "Constant Capital and Variable Capital"

And Chapter IX "The Rate of Surplus-Value" esp. Section 1 "the Degree of Exploitation of Labour Power"

No one explained capitalism as well as Marx, the socialist.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Marx' analysis of capitalism was very good. I believe most of "Das Kapital" is available online.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Yeah, there you have it :)

[-] 4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You might be interested in this, as it's taken a rather fast dive among our current crop of partisan libe(R)tarians, yelling about anyone else being partisan..

http://occupywallst.org/forum/chomsky-on-libertarians/

Everyone here is partisan, or we wouldn't be here.

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Good post!

[-] 4 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The separation of corporation and state should be our first goal. If that can be accomplished, the people will have enough power to decide which form of government they want.

[-] -2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Money out of politics is an important short term goal. The long term goal however, should be dismantling states and tyrannical corporations.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The tyranny is a result of the link between government and corporation. Break this link and the state may not need to be dismantled.

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Capitalist institutions are themselves tyrannical. Private ownership of the means of production should be dismantled and replaced by community and workplace democracy.

The end goal should be to create a decentralized, federated society, with democracy controlled from below. When entering a society like that, the state is no longer necessary.

All hierarchical structures should eventually be dismantled.

[-] -1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Get a group of like minded individuals together, pool your money and buy or start a business using those principles. If successful the idea will spread, if not it will die. But don't keep talking about it, do it!

[-] 5 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Let’s leave personal affairs out of this, shall we?

We know it works. There are many examples of anarchist/anarchist-like societies working just fine: http://occupywallst.org/forum/workplace-democracy-and-workers-self-management/

Today successful cooperatives are growing in number all over the place: http://occupywallst.org/forum/cooperatives-info-articles-documentaries-etc/

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Personal effort is key to advancing any cause. Hot air doesn't cause it to move, taking the first step does.

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Best post of the day!

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

According to some in IR theory, individuals=states. It's like reverse collectivism.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

In other words, you want communism?

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Depends on what you mean by that.

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

The right answer would have been: "No, communism is just as bad as capitalism and doesnt respect people's rights to self-determination".

Are you Pro-communist?

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Depends on what you mean by that.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Some communities experiementing with communism and others with pure capitalism is a scenario that most in this country wouldnt tolerate.

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Would you be in favor of a communist system?

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Again, it depends on what you mean by that. What do you mean by "communism"?

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Communism as K. Marx described it, not the bastardized versions that followed.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Ok. Well, if you’re asking me if I want there to eventually be established a classless, stateless society, based on the principle of from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, then the answer is: yes, as much as possible.

[-] -3 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Good luck with that.

Statelessness can't work, statefullness is much more likely. Individual sovereignty is much fairer than anarchy.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Libertarian Socialism is about individual freedom - it's about human liberation:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/part-ii-workers-self-management-workplace-democrac/

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Buddhism is about liberation. Libertarian Socialism is about the distribution of wealth.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

[-] 0 points by HCabret (85) 17 hours ago "a redistribution of wealth should certainly be included" This is from your link. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


yes, and..?

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Why does it matter how much money people have compared to others?

Why should it be necesary to pull a robin hood on society?

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Read the link.

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

"a redistribution of wealth should certainly be included"

This is from your link.

[-] -3 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

government should have a 0% role in the economy. smart people should follow suit.

[-] -2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Honestly, I dont have time to figure out every aspect of my community, I have no problem electing people to keep an eye on certain things.

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Apathy shouldnt be an excuse for settling.

[-] -2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Honestly man its not apathy, its a matter of there is only so many hours in a week, 168 to be exact.

If we were living in a decentralized series of communities as I wish it was, I would be all for it, because it would be much easier.

But I dont have the time to go up to Wall St and K street and sit in on meeting and whatnot. The time just isnt there. And Im more active in that stuff than most.

[-] -2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"government should have a 0% role in the economy."

and the tyrannical corporations..?

[+] -4 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

All intelligent people should distance themselves from such frivolities.

[-] -3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

You didn't answer. What about the tyrannical corporations?

[+] -4 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

If there smart they'll avoid the economy.

[-] -3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

What?

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

A good corporation is a non existent corporation. Money is part of the problem.

[-] -3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Do you think corporations should be dismantled? Should they have "0% role in the economy" as well?

How should the means of production and the institutions in society be controlled, in your opinion?

[+] -4 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Everyone in ideal society would have 0% role in the economy. In the real all intelligent people would have 0% role in the economy.

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

This is getting a little ridiculous. What kind of society are you really advocating? Do you oppose the existence of production etc?

[+] -4 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

A post-materialist one. One where people don't care so much about how much wealth they have or do not have.

[-] -2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

And how's production organized? Who controls the means of production? Should capitalism exist?

[-] -3 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Economics should be on par with subjects like underwater basket weaving and ROTC.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

But how should production be organized; who controls it? People should be able to work and produce, right? So how’s it organized? Who controls the workplaces?

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

[-] -1 points by HCabret (85) 2 hours ago Why does it matter how much money people have compared to others? Why should it be necesary to pull a robin hood on society? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


The post I linked to kind of answered this.

Because people should have the right to control their own lives and work. The ones who should be in control of the society’s resources should be the people, not a small minority who then would have more power and control than the others.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

No body should have power over anyone but themselves.

Individual sovereignty is a must for any future system.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

In a libertarian socialist society, individuals will be in control of their own lives. Didn't you read the post I linked to?

The system that will best provide individual rights is a classless society.

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

We already live in a class less society. All individuals are people and should be treated as such.

Only I should have say in MY life and I should not have a say in anyone elses life.

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

“We already live in a class less society.”

That one you’re going to have to elaborate on.

“All individuals are people and should be treated as such.”

Sure. What’s your point?

“Only I should have say in MY life and I should not have a say in anyone elses life.”

What you do in your personal life is your business. However, if your actions affect other people’s life, then they should have a say in what you do. You don’t live in an isolated bubble, you live in a society with other people.

[-] -3 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

"That one you’re going to have to elaborate on.'

The concept of 'class' is made-up(fictional), therefore society is ClassLess.

"Sure. What’s your point?"

I want equal protection of the law. I want ALL people to be free. What is not to get about that?

"What you do in your personal life is your business. However, if your actions affect other people’s life, then they should have a say in what you do. You don’t live in an isolated bubble, you live in a society with other people."

My actions only effect ME. Any other unintended consequences that may come about do NOT give others the right to determine my place of residence, my employment status, ect. Just because other people exist in the same world as me, doesnt give them the right to live my life for me.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

“The concept of 'class' is made-up(fictional),”

No, it’s very real. The owners and the wealthy have enormous power over our lives. Private wealth is very highly concentrated.

“I want equal protection of the law.”

And who decides which laws that apply?

“I want ALL people to be free.”

Me too. And that’ll happen when we have established an egalitarian, classless society.

“My actions only effect ME. Any other unintended consequences that may come about do NOT give others the right to determine my place of residence, my employment status, ect. Just because other people exist in the same world as me, doesnt give them the right to live my life for me.”

Again, if what you do only affects you, then that's your business. But if your actions affect other people, then they should have a say as well. It’s not about other people living your life, it’s about you having to realize that you live in a society with other people.

[-] -3 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

"No, it’s very real. The owners and the wealthy have enormous power over our lives. Private wealth is very highly concentrated."

That is opinion held by some socialist/communist IR theorists. It is not fact and is not absolute. To many, class is very much a fantasy.

"And who decides which laws that apply?"

Equal protection is not my original idea. It is found in the 14th amendment to the US constitution most notably, but has also been the ideal of many a free nation since the 14th amendment was ratified.

"Me too. And that’ll happen when we have established an egalitarian, classless society."

Such a society already exists, people just need to open thier eyes so that they can see it.

"Again, if what you do only affects you, then that's your business. But if your actions affect other people, then they should have a say as well. It’s not about other people living your life, it’s about you having to realize that you live in a society with other people."

I cannot control whether my actions affect others or not. I can control MY actions and MY actions only.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

There are rich people and there are poor people; classes exist.

Whether you can or can’t control if your actions affect others, is irrelevant. People should have a say in the things that affect them. The economic institutions should be run democratically by the participants.

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

People should have the only say in their own lives.

Class is a fantasy and grouping people based on how much stuff they have is idiotic and unnecessary.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

What resources you have access to is kind of an important factor, don’t you think? Having access to necessities is kind of important..

Allowing a few to have access to a lot of resources, while others are left with almost nothing is unacceptable. Our resources should be shared and controlled democratically.

People should be able to control their own lives; that means that actions you make that only affect you, is your business, while the things that affect an entire group of people, is the group’s business.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by itsmyblood (10) 1 year ago

wow how fucking delusional are you?

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

As much is necessary to make sure I'm not like you.

Do have an actual empirical response or are you just gonna call me names?

[-] 3 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

I agree that we must build a more participatory system of government where democracy flourishes, and where we can hence construct a sustainable world, and I realized this for quite some time now that capitalism cannot take us where we want to go....where we must go.

Good post SFF. Unlike you who has had numerous posts about this subject, i have covered our rev from a different angle, that being 'outreach' mostly., but I will get up to speed on this soon with your help, of course

Even so though, I have known for a while that a system that thrives on turmoil and human misery, AND unlimited growth, hence needing infinite resources on a finite planet causing an enormous amount of environmental degradation hence immeasurable harm to life itslef was not worth reforming.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/can-capitalism-ever-be-reformed-enough-to-take-us-/

~Odin~

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Capitalism must eventually be abolished. Libertarian Socialism is the obvious replacement.

[-] 3 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

I will definitely bone up on Libertarian Socialism sff, as i have had the realization for quite some time that capitalism will be unable to handle the crisis we find ourselves in

~Odin~

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Hi, Odin.

In addition to wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism ) please check out these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu8J_UKKa-c

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-anarchism-is-the-way-to-go/

These will give you a pretty good understanding of the core values of LS.

[-] 3 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Hey ssf.....Yes the student will definitely study these links. Thanks.

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Good. Hope you'll like'em!

[-] 1 points by 99time (90) 1 year ago

I don't think we need any systems based on ideologies. Please read this thesis which compares the various systems.

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm

Let's do what works where it works.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I don’t have time to read that now. Could you sum up the article, and present your case?

Well, an ideology is a kind of holistic mindset of political and philosophical theories on how society should be organized. I think society should be based on libertarian socialist principles. Is there something about LS that you disagree with?

[-] 1 points by 99time (90) 1 year ago

I know its a very long article and starts out rather confusing. There's no rush. Read it when you get a chance. You'll be glad you did. I spent years looking for a good political spectrum article and finally found one.

Libertarianism represents an ideological maximization of individual freedom. While I am mostly in support of social or moral freedom, I have to look case-by-case and balance the individual with the community.

Socialism represents an ideological view that the "community" should own the means of production, distribution, and capital. While I support much more socialism, I am not for some pure system. Where can a regulated market preserve competition? Where can it not? Use whichever system works in the relevant area.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

But is there something about Libertarian Socialism that you disagree with? If so, what?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22254) 1 year ago

I urge all libertarians to ask your leaders, you know, ask the Paul's for instance, Lew Rockwell, the Cato Institute, etc. Ask them this: "Can we even out ALL Americans, in terms of wealth, before implementing a free-market economic system (no regulations - that is what Austrian economics calls for) because, you know, that might be the only fair way to start up a system like that, right? Having everyone with equal wealth in the beginning, right? It would be the only MORAL way to institute such an economic system, right?

What do you think the answer would be? They'd say a resounding NO, of course, though I'd love to see them really answer that question. They'd laugh in your face and say that it would be wrong, like stealing. Why would they say that? Because they know damn well that a free market economic system benefits those that have the earliest capital, because they can build on it and build on it. They can purchase the street you live on before you can even save up to buy your sidewalk.

Capitalism always benefits those who have the capital first. These libertarians know this. They use the sexy social issues to draw in the people who free market capitalism would harm the most. Beware of libertarianism and especially the economic system, the Austrian system, that comes with it.

[-] 7 points by Ache4Change (3316) 1 year ago

'Libertarianism' as understood in the US is very far removed from how it is understood elsewhere in the world and there are very dark reasons why it is pushed so hard by The Corporations and their wholly owned MSM underlings. Hiding behind the word 'liberty', Libertarianism is couched in terms of 'personal freedom' but is only really interested in promoting selfish corporatism and to compliment your excellent comment and for insights into those 'leaders' who promote 'Pseudo-Libertarianism', please also see -

http://www.nationofchange.org/koch-brothers-pour-more-cash-think-tanks-alec-1359821278 and

http://www.nationofchange.org/how-one-multi-millionaire-turning-north-carolina-tea-party-utopia-1365518432

Never Give Up Exposing The Deeper Truths! Keep Occupying The Issues! Solidarity.

[-] -1 points by beautifulworld (22254) 1 year ago

Explaining this to people is critical. How can one be "free" if in economic shackles?

[+] -6 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

anyone and everyone who relies on the economy in any way shape or form is in "economic shackles". The only way to be free to live above economics and money and Stuff.

[-] -2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

If you want to throw all your stuff away (including the device you now have in front of you) and go live in a cave somewhere, be my guest. That doesn’t change that the people who do want to be part of a modern, technological society, should have the right to control their own lives and work.

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I should have the right to control my own life and work, no one else should have say in my life or work.

You don't have live at walden pond to be free. The via media is best road you can take.

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

The economy is all-encompassing. It affects us all. If you're serious about what you say, then you'd have to isolate yourself from society.

People should have the right to control their own lives and work. They should be free from tyranny and dominance - including from tyrannical corporations.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Government should only have a say in my life, if I have say in government. I have neither as of yet.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

In your ideal society, how's production organized? Who controls the means of production? Should capitalism exist?

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Capitalism should NOT exist.

These economics questions would irrelevant in my ideal world. Does it really matter how Stuff is made, if the acquisition and trade of stuff would be drastically de emphasized in my ideal CLR.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

But how should production be organized; who controls it? People should be able to work and produce, right? So how’s it organized? Who controls the workplaces?

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Why does it matter who controls the production of stuff? I dont care who makes volkswagens because I dont have any desire to ever have one.

Since employment is and should always be completely voluntary I think that the individual workers should have power over thier employment status.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

“Why does it matter who controls the production of stuff?”

Because it’s a very essential part of our society.

“I dont care who makes volkswagens because I dont have any desire to ever have one.”

What about the production of devices like the one in front of you right now..?

You didn’t answer my question. People should be able to work and produce, right? So who controls the workplaces? Is there private ownership on the means of production?

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Private ownership is extremely important, but think anybody could possibly own anything except themselves individually or collectively.

Who made the device I am using is irrelevant to my use of this device.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Should there be private ownership of the means of production?

[-] 4 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Not having an economic aristocracy that went on for generations was viewed as a threat to democracy by our founding fathers

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/estate_tax_and_founding_fathers

Neoliberalism was sold to us as something that was beautiful and that everyone would benefit from it imearsurably, but in fact just the opposite is mostly true

From the beginning it was strongly inferred that it was just something that we had adapt to as it was inevitable

That is, until Occupy Wall Street

~Odin~

[-] -1 points by beautifulworld (22254) 1 year ago

Well said, Odin. In fact, this kind of economy, where all the wealth is concentrated at the top harkens feudalism.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Many libertarians that I’ve talked to think lf capitalism will make the corporations less powerful. In other words, they’ve reached the conclusion that by making corporations more powerful (thru tax cuts etc), they will become less powerful…

It really is mind-boggling how this ideology is able to create such irrationality.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

If you programmed me with the same dogmatic ideological underpinnings they use, I would also fall victim to such irrationalities. Libs are sort of robotic and close minded, you know, like robots following their prime directive to the letter, unable to handle anything that interferes with their blind obedience to said prime directive.

Whereas, on the other hand, an open minded human is able to comprehend changes in the world and environment that no longer meshes with their previous convictions and held beliefs.

In lay words, you and I can adopt new directives with the changing wind. We can start peeing in a new direction and avoid the flowback.

We tried Trickle Down economics, we got wet, we changed our minds. Libs seem unable to execute this simple exercise in reasoning.

Yo, Libs, stop peeing on yourselves. The wind has changed.

[-] -1 points by beautifulworld (22254) 1 year ago

No offense to them, but most libertarians have very little understanding of economics. If the rich man won't agree to evening himself out with you in terms of wealth before implementing the "free market" system, then run like hell.

[-] 4 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

The Origins of 'The Austrian School Economists'.

In 1876 the Hapsburg Emperor Franz Joseph hired Carl Menger (1840-1921), who would become known as the founder of 'The Austrian School', as tutor to his son, Crown Prince Rudolph. Menger took Prince Rudolph around Europe for three years, acquainting him with the quandary facing the undead feudal Hapsburg family and their Austro-Hungarian Empire.

  • Republic or Empire ?

The United States had recently survived the rebellion of the slave-owners, rebels armed and instigated by the British. The American republic had survived despite the pincers, Rudolf's Uncle Maximilian being put on an imperial throne over Mexico, and British troops occupying Canada. Abraham Lincoln's America had counter-attacked, by spreading nationalism, protectionist economics, and the drive for modern industry and technological progress, to Germany, Russia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, and many other nations.

Carl Menger explained to the Prince how the old feudal oligarchy of bankers and autocrats might maintain their death grip on humanity, against America's energy.

The old form of empire was breaking down. The Inquisition, the New Dark Ages religious police state imposed by the Hapsburgs on Europe, could not stand against the American ideal of separated Church and State. Austrian forces, occupying Italian principalities with mass imprisonment and executions, and Austrian sponsorship of the feudalism-mad Pope Pius IX, could not prevail against Emilio Cavour's genius. An ally of Lincoln's economist Henry Carey, Cavour unified Italy just as Lincoln became the U.S. President.

A new imperialism was required, based on global financial looting and new forms of colonial regimes outside Europe. Carl Menger explained the New Liberal economics, worked out in concert with the British Empire.

Menger warned the Prince that the enemy doctrine of national sovereignty had spread from the arch-nationalist Lincoln to German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who copied Lincoln's tariffs and railroad-building strategy.

  • The Liberal Darkness ?

Menger's new dogma, that the State must not be allowed to interfere with financial freedom — the right of imperial financiers to deploy their Money Power — took its place beside other "liberal" anti-republican instruments forged in the Hapsburgs' crypts: pessimism in literature, soulless psychology, deliberate ugliness in art, crazed atonality to overpower Mozart's and Beethoven's beauty. Carl Menger's brother, the socialist attorney Anton Menger, crystallized this assault on the old imperial reasoning and progress into what became known as The Frankfurt School.

Germans reacted to Carl Menger's polemics against Lincoln and Bismarck by referring derisively to "The Austrian School" — meaning those who argue for the presumed logic of imperial Free Trade economics while declining to discuss any actual history whatsoever. This is the origin of the term, 'Austrian School Economics', which has identified Menger's disciples such as Hayek and von Mises and here is the 'Money Power' against which the USA has struggled throughout its history.

In Menger's day, the extended royal family of Austria, Britain, and Belgium coordinated with international bankers for nightmare colonial experiments, such as the Congo. Belgian King Leopold II had married Marie Henriette, archduchess of Austria. Emperor Franz Joseph's brother Maximillian had married Leopold II's sister Carlotta. Meanwhile, Leopold II's father, Leopold I, had arranged the marriage of his niece, British Queen Victoria, to his nephew Albert.

When Menger's student, Austrian Crown Prince Rudolph, married Leopold II's daughter Stephanie in 1881, she was the heir to the Congo, a giant province of central Africa which her father had made his own private property. The Belgian Congo was the scene of such brutality and mass extermination of looted natives, that it has stood since then as the very emblem of the disgrace of latter-day imperialism.

To the present day, The Austrian School and its agents condemn as tyranny Lincoln's insistence that the Union be preserved. The Von Mises Insitute's paid writer Thomas DiLorenzo, in his hilariously misnamed book 'The Real Lincoln', defends secession and claims that slavery would have ended peacefully if only the United States had been successfully destroyed !

In the last chapter of Friedrich von Hayek's book, 'The Road to Serfdom', Hayek demands that national governments be prevented from interfering with international trade: a global police force must be set up, to usher in the final world empire of Free Trade !

This is the heritage and rationale of The Austrian School, which teaches that the American People nor any other people have the right to defend their lives and their families against 'The Money Power' !!!

~

I reply here with this comment (based upon a previous reply) because like you almost say - most Libertarians in the U$A have little fkn clue about economics or history and also because your very important comment [ http://occupywallst.org/forum/right-libertarianism-is-bullshit/#comment-957911 ] - has been stinkled (with other comments on this thread) into near oblivion by reactionary fukwits who wouldn't know their (..x..) arse from their I_ elbow & I append herewith, a highly relevant (imo) article :

e tenebris, lux ...

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22254) 1 year ago

I repeat. The economics of libertarianism is a danger to the masses. Beware.

I agree with libertarians on many social issues, but not on economic ones, not at all!

I urge everyone to read Karl Marx's "Das Kapital" Part III "The Production of Absolute Surplus-Value," Chapter VII "The Labour Process and the Process of Producing Surplus-Value," Chapter VIII "Constant Capital and Variable Capital," and Chapter IX "The Rate of Surplus-Value" esp. Section 1 "the Degree of Exploitation of Labour Power"

Thanks, Shadz, for this fantastic post.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (22254) 1 year ago

"Das Kapital" will always be relevant as long as we have a capitalist economic system. Marx's explanation of capitalism is one of the best, and though the book seems daunting, it really isn't.

It's a myth that "Das Kapital" is about socialism. It is about "Capital" and anyone who wants to truly understand the economic system they live under should read it.

Thank you for the very interesting interview. The issues they talk about in 2007 almost predict OWS. Very interesting.

"Everything must be questioned." - Karl Marx

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

"Society can’t function well without a minimal sense of national solidarity and cohesion, and that sense of shared purpose also rests on a fair tax system. If Americans believe that government is unfair — that ours is a government of the 1 percent, for the 1 percent, and by the 1 percent — then faith in our democracy will surely perish." the last words from :

I appreciate and concur with your clear and true comment re. 'Das Kapital' & re. "Everything must be questioned." - ne'r a truer was said.

fiat lux ...

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22254) 1 year ago

Unfortunately, as a percent of income, it is the lower end that pays the most if you add in all the taxes that they pay for things that they buy, transportation, fuel, etc. Sadly, corporations often pay very little tax and then their wealthy shareholders hide the money overseas.

As Stiglitz says, "We could have a tax system that encourages good things like hard work and thrift and discourages bad things, like rent-seeking, gambling, financial speculation and pollution. Such a tax system could raise far more money than the current one — we wouldn’t have to go through all the wrangling we’ve been going through with sequestration, fiscal cliffs and threats to end Medicare and Social Security as we know it. We would be in sound fiscal position, for at least the next quarter-century."

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

"Marx's 'Das Kapital' Lives On in Capitalist Age" (Audio) :

"Das Kapital" will always be relevant as long as we have a capitalist economic system. Marx's explanation of capitalism is one of the best, and though the book seems daunting, it really isn't" ~{~

"It's a myth that "Das Kapital" is about socialism. It is about "Capital" and anyone who wants to truly understand the economic system they live under should read it." ~{:-)Thnx 4 th xcllnt xcrpt 2 btw bw &

amor, lux et iudicium ...

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Thanks reminded me about the privatization issue with libertarians.

Also seems pretty simplistic in my view for libertairians to focus on cuts without explaining a larger context about what will happen with large cuts and explaining about US COrruption in Business, banking, corporporate taxes, corporate regulations, corporate cronyism, and OWS Issues.

In the End, sure we have Fraud, Waste, & Abuse in normal government operations, but we don't want to throw out social safety for a simplistic idea of getting government out of our lives. And the bigger issue is the fixing of all of federal government with "There Guys" in all the key positions and all the corruption and systemic Risk that has resulted from the collusion and close relationship. There is a network in control of the Federal Government, the Media, the Supreme Court, in oversight of banks and all finance on Wall Street, and they have perverted the laws, rules, and taxes as well.

Libertairians really don't seem to say anything more that Politicians that we keep waiting for to do something.

In the end if Libertarians aren't starting Investigations, announcing findings of Fraud & Crime, exposing networks, ... then .. we don't need Libertarians.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

right libertarian is = to fascism.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

No, corporate tyranny is not the same as fascist tyranny. They're both awful, but they're not the same.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

If libertarian socialism = left-libertarianism then can right-libertarianism be called libertarian capitalism?

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Call it whatever you want, the important thing is that we try to convince as many people as possible to abandon this horrific ideology.

[-] 0 points by skiaspen50 (11) 1 year ago

Yes I agree somewhat but what are your thoughts on this:: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nbZl0msX78

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

In that interview Freeland and Taibbi are basically describing reality. I disagree with a couple of sentences here and there, like Freeland on Capitalism fex. Private ownership of the means of production should be abolished, and replaced by workplace democracy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls7QZm7omh8

[-] -1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Without a working model of your proposed form of government, why would the American people abandon their current form, and embrace one that is unproven?

Chomsky should put his money where his mouth is and start a model community with a small group of like minded individuals and prove his system works. Instead he risks nothing and lives the comfortable life as one of the 1%.

[+] -4 points by PerfectCast3 (-36) 1 year ago

Anyone who believes Chomsky is out for anyone other than Chomsky is a sheep. The guy is a one percenter who hires tax attorneys to shield his income from the Feds.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Chomsky is a great soldier for the 99% and of course he takes care of himself and his family.

But he always speaks honest truth to power in support of the 99% despite ignorant, partisan, fools who personally attack him with unfounded childish slurs.

[-] -2 points by PerfectCast3 (-36) 1 year ago

you are proposing 2 diametrically opposed positions. Taking care of your family by shielding money from taxation is NOT SOCIALISM. Thats GREED.

You are wrong and now start your childish downvoting of my essential truth.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I disagree.

[-] -1 points by PerfectCast3 (-36) 1 year ago

How is hiring tax attorneys any different than buying Congressional votes?

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Hiring tax attorneys is legal.

[-] -1 points by PerfectCast3 (-36) 1 year ago

So is lobbying. See how this works. So is flying Congressmen to your ranch for discussion of a farm bill.

They are one and the same. If you cant see Chomsky is playing you for a weak minded fool, you deserve severe, excrutiating cancer.

[-] 6 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Chomsky doesn't even know me. Lobbying MAY be legal but the 99% know it should not be. So that is the difference.

You should stop personally attacking Chomsky just because you disagree with his politics. Why don't you comment on his anti libertarian positions.? That would be on topic and not childish, meaningless personal attacks.

Money out of politics! repeal CU. Support Movetoamend.org

[-] -1 points by beautifulworld (22254) 1 year ago

Outstanding post. Explaining this to the American people is one of the most important things we can do.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Thanks:)

Yes, this is important. Many have bought into this crap; we should try to convert them.

[-] -2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Lets test the theory out:

I'm making a smoothie and putting some vanilla vodka in it. Anyone else want one?

[-] -3 points by kandy4 (-81) 1 year ago

Libertarians certainly scare OWS communists here who think higher taxes, more government control, and less freedom are the way to go. YEP...look how well it worked out for Cuba, Russia, China and Venezuela.

Fucking morons here, continually begging for a dictator

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Lowering taxes for the wealthy does not mean freedom, it means tyranny. I explained that in the post. Is there anything about what I wrote that you disagree with?

“YEP...look how well it worked out for Cuba, Russia, China”

Those countries used Leninist models. That of course was a big mistake, because it led to oppression and state tyranny. Leninism is awful.

“Fucking morons here, continually begging for a dictator”

I haven’t seen anyone who are involved with or who support the Occupy Movement advocate any form of tyranny and oppression. I believe most of the people involved are either social democrats or on the libertarian left/libertarian left-leaning etc.

I personally advocate libertarian socialism

[+] -4 points by kandy4 (-81) 1 year ago

Libertarian socialism?? It's made up. Doesn't exist. Those are two diametrically opposed ideas.

Okay, then I'm a pro-life abortionist.

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

We have had dictators, and less and less freedom for quite a while now. Haven't you noticed?

~Odin~

[+] -4 points by kandy4 (-81) 1 year ago

Dear Leader in office now is the first dictator for America. And liberals love it.

[-] 3 points by WSmith (1377) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

And you have a tube to your ass!!! Nobody needs this shit!!!!!

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

The first? I don't think so. What about the "dear leader" who instituted the NDAA, continued secretly negotiating the TPP, passed the Patriot Act into law, and lied to get us into the Iraq war?

~Odin~

[+] -5 points by kandy4 (-81) 1 year ago

127 rounds of golf and rising. 22 White house parties. Four vacations a year.. Obama...laziest fucking slacker to ever hold the office. Enjoy your ignorant dictator who is driving America into an economic collapse.

[-] 3 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Unfortunately he is both our dictator. The forces that may cause our "economic collapse" were instituted several Presidents ago, and they have been supported by every D and R President since,

As long as people continue to try to make this a repub vs dem battle, nothing will change, and in fact it will get worse

That's a guarantee

~Odin~

[-] -3 points by eviltrillionaire (-146) 1 year ago

Can't have too much individual liberty. That would be a bad thing!

OWS is the mental ward of the internet.

[-] 3 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

is that why you're here?

[-] -3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Actually I'm a big fan of individual freedom. Right-libertarianism advocates tyranny, not freedom.

[-] -3 points by eviltrillionaire (-146) 1 year ago

No you're not. You're a big fan of taking other people's property because of your failures.

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"No you're not."

Yes I am. Libertarian Socialism strongly favors individual freedom.

"You're a big fan of taking other people's property because of your failures"

No, that would be Goldman Sachs and Citibank etcetc. Remember the 08 multibilliondollar bailout..?

I want a real democracy in which people control their own lives. Taking property from private tyrannies and people with undemocratic power, I have absolutely no problem with.

[+] -5 points by eviltrillionaire (-146) 1 year ago

Dude, you're for taking money from anyone that makes more than you, and that's just about everyone. Just STFU already, you jealous tyrannical jerk.

[-] 5 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

And Goldman Sachs takes billions of dollars from people who make less then them thru huge taxpayer bailouts. Perhaps you should direct your hatred towards them instead..?

Again, I want democracy. I want a society in which people control their own lives. Taking property from private tyrannies and people with undemocratic power, I have absolutely no problem with. The sooner the better.

[-] 5 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

And..? You didn't counter anything of what I just said.

[+] -5 points by eviltrillionaire (-146) 1 year ago

I don't have to. You contradict yourself, moron.

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Where's the contradiction?

[+] -5 points by eviltrillionaire (-146) 1 year ago

You don't like redistribution, but want to redistribute according to your beliefs.

Stop wasting time here and go SEE your congressional rep.

And seriously, Noam Chomsky??? Gimme a f'n break, strugglefortyranny.

Your asshattery is duly noted here day after day.

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"You don't like redistribution, but want to redistribute according to your beliefs"

What are you talking about?

Noam Chomsky is one of the smartest and knowledgeable guys around.

When you're done with the ranting, please feel free to provide counter arguments.

[+] -4 points by eviltrillionaire (-146) 1 year ago

You know exactly what I'm talking about, since it describes you to a " T ".

Chomsky is an idiot propagandist and a shithead. And that's a kind description.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

No I don't. Please explain what you mean. Do you have any argumnets against what I wrote in the post?

What specifically do you disagree with Chomsky on?

[-] 2 points by gsw (2733) 1 year ago

It's all been redistributed to the top. Follow the money. If you stooped yakking and opened your eyes you would see

http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-the-wealthy-really-fear-the-truth/

Seems its been created in financing, deficits, militarism, and globalism. How did just the wealthy earn a raise?

[+] -6 points by eviltrillionaire (-146) 1 year ago

No, it was the social engineering the leftists brought us... like "fairness in housing". One used to have to put 20% down to buy a house until you idiots decided everyone "deserved" a house. How that mental illness formed, I dunno. But if you jerks would stop trying to centrally control the economy through Washington DC, I guaran-fuckin-tee you things would get better. The more social engineering you push, the more dislocations are formed in the market through your "good intentions" and the UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES of that social engineering.

As Ronald Reagan stated, "The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan."

Just stop what you're doing (the regulation, the redistribution, the social engineering, the one-happy-world bullshit, and rewarding laziness and not working) and things WILL get better. YOU are the problem.

[-] 4 points by gsw (2733) 1 year ago

Here. You seem to have a knowledge deficit. Not your fault. It's the media.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/04/23/setting-the-record-straight-the-housing-bubble-lie/

[-] -3 points by eviltrillionaire (-146) 1 year ago

Abigail Caplovitz Field is sophomoronic blogger.

She warrants no time of me reading her leftist crappola.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

What are you doing on this forum? Did you get the proper approval.?

[+] -4 points by eviltrillionaire (-146) 1 year ago

Yes, the politburo and central committee have cleared me to march in circles around you, pissant.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

LOL. You are worthless, and weak. Your efforts here are insignificant and laughable.

Keep marching around, it serves only to entertain.

[+] -4 points by eviltrillionaire (-146) 1 year ago

LOL, keep running around asking people if they have "proper approval" to participate, you little fuckin control freak.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You are a libertarian and anti occupy. As such you are derided, and ridiculed.

Make no mistake about it.

[+] -4 points by eviltrillionaire (-146) 1 year ago

And you are a fucking joke. N E X T!

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Right wing libertarianism is bullshit.

[-] -2 points by eviltrillionaire (-146) 1 year ago

Rut Roh! Looks like I didn't get "proper approval". How very inclusive of you! GFY, shortbus.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You 1st.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2733) 1 year ago

Ok. Down 6 comments is a post from George W Bush, and his contribution to humanity, fom OTP.

The blog is quite balanced: bankers and loan officials attempted to inflate prices, because they could sell securities on the loans.

Advice to put 20 percent down is good, you get a better terms.

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

Sorry dog, you fucks are not only hesitant at rewarding laziness, people can't get you bitches to reward work. if you had it your way, you'd keep all the profits and leave the hard working families destitute and begging for more.

Anyone who quotes Reagan in a positive way is a political enemy of mine and a slave driver to boot. We can't even get people who think like you to raise the minimum wage, so people can have the twenty percent down to afford their home.

[-] -3 points by eviltrillionaire (-146) 1 year ago

I could GAS if I'm a political enemy of yours, pal. You ARE slaves. YOU make yourselves slaves and you deserve nothing more.

You wouldn't have "affordability" problems if there wasn't rampant inflation which you idiot marxists introduced to us.

LEARN ECONOMICS, you POS.

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Are you suggesting the CRA caused the near melt-down in 2008? Pleeease, that's laughable.

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Here ya go Stupid

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040809-9.html

Your house turning into an investment is the result of both parties deregulation of Glass Steagall.

[-] -3 points by eviltrillionaire (-146) 1 year ago

Uh no. Bill Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

I don't like this sharing schit when Republicans participate, but turning your head when demoRATS participate.

AND FOR THE RECORD, no Republican signed Obamacare PERIOD. Got it pal? Just so we don't rewrite history when that shits the bed, you POS.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

No shit Clinton signed it, and so did tons of dems and reps in both houses, including the important ones.

And you are right, no Republican signed Obamacare. Despite the fact that they wanted to make SS privatized and still forced to pay for it, which is the exact same policy just ones for retirement and the other for health.

They are both fascist scum and Im sorry you fall for half of it.

[+] -4 points by eviltrillionaire (-146) 1 year ago

It's a GD ponzi scheme. Wake the fook up. This is just math and SS isn't gonna survive the math.

Are you hearing me ????????????????????

You better privatize it, because it's making almost ZERO in interest and it's about to go titsup.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Nah it'll be fine, keep the libertarians away from it, remove the payroll cap so that the wealthy pay into it and add a tax on cap gains, rental income, residual income, and all will be fine.

[-] -2 points by eviltrillionaire (-146) 1 year ago

Just so you greedy assholes can get yours and screw the next generation by extending the ponzi scheme. No, I think not.

Kill SS dead.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Without Social Security the elderly will die destitute, eating dogfood, as was the case before this great earned benefit was created.

Don't you care about the elderly.?

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

So you are all for forced payments into a private market, as long as your party is the one who suggested it?

You sheep are all the fuckin same.

And no shit SS aint going to be around. None of it is. And you dumb Dem and Rep blind idiots are the leading cause of it all.

[-] -2 points by eviltrillionaire (-146) 1 year ago

Don't blame me. It's upside down math. I hope SS, Medicare and Obamacare go tits up.

Fuck FDR and LBJ and Obama.

[+] -4 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

Spot on assessment of ows.

[+] -4 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

While i understand the thinking behind this post...I completely disagree. For instance:

"because they don’t want to do anything about what is the root cause of many of the problems we see in society today, namely the concentration of wealth."

Libertarians don't believe what they do because they want wealth concentrated....they believe what they do because a free system (to date) is the best way to bring prosperity to the most amount of people. Case and point....look at these graphs....the more free a society is, the more likely wealth is to be more EVENLY distributed....the more money people make....the more jobs are available....the LESS poverty exists...and on and on. Look at the graphs, you don't even have to read the paragraphs:

http://hmscoop.com/index.php/10-whole-website/politics-economy/14-economic-freedom

[-] 5 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

“Libertarians don't believe what they do because they want wealth concentrated”

I didn’t say that. I said that they don’t want to do anything about this concentrated wealth, and that their policies will lead to more corporate tyranny.

“they believe what they do because a free system (to date) is the best way to bring prosperity to the most amount of people.”

The only free society would be a classless society, but that aside. There was enormous growth under Stalin; that doesn’t mean that Stalinism is the way to go.

There has been economic growth in all kinds of systems. You find healthy economies in societies with much less capitalism than the U.S: The Scandinavian countries are all welfare states, with much more regulation of private enterprise.

We’ve also seen anarchist-like societies working very well.

Today successful cooperatives are growing in number all over the place. Mondragon, a collection of cooperatives in northern Spain, is highly successful – and the people and communities involved are enjoying very decent lives.

John, do you think people should have a say in the things that affect them? If so, what do you think about workplace democracy?

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"The Scandinavian countries are all welfare states, with much more regulation of private enterprise."

Yes, I've been talking to a few people about this on my other post. So statistically speaking....the more free countries are, the better their chances of prosperity for the people are based on the graphs i shared with you in that link. People will then bring up countries, or groups of countries (Scandinavia) which are less free than other countries yet their people have greater prosperity. What you're not factoring in are those countries economic "luck" with where they happen to be situated. Scandanavia being a great example...they're on a mountain of oil reserves. Because of their resource wealth they can afford a less free country yet still have decent prosperity for their people.

If you look at the stats though...when you're looking at all the countries as a whole...statistically speaking...incrementally the more free they become the less poverty there is, the less unemployment, the more money people make, the less pollution and on and on. One could argue that a place like scandanavia (who can afford to lax on the freedom issue because of their resource wealth) could create even more prosperity for their people by adopting freer principles.

"Today successful cooperatives are growing in number all over the place. Mondragon, a collection of cooperatives in northern Spain,"

Do you have any information on that? I'd actually enjoy digging into it if you do.

"john, do you think people should have a say in the things that affect them? If so, what do you think about workplace democracy?"

I do...to an extent. I also worry about group-think in situations like that. I think people get into groups and the strongest opinions direct the crowds. I think it can turn into dangerous territory.

[-] 5 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

What do you mean by “free”? “Free market” capitalism is not free, it’s tyrannical.

You’re not paying attention. There has been economic growth in all kinds of systems. There was tremendous economic growth under Stalin, so why aren’t you advocating stalinism?

And it’s not private ownership on the means of production that causes growth, human hands and brains do.

There's lots of info on cooperatives here:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/cooperatives-info-articles-documentaries-etc/

“ I also worry about group-think in situations like that. I think people get into groups and the strongest opinions direct the crowds. I think it can turn into dangerous territory.”

When decisions affect a group of people, then it must be this group that should get to make these decisions as well, right? That’s pretty obvious, don’t you think?

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"“Free market” capitalism is not free, it’s tyrannical."

Def going to disagree with you on that. How is direct democracy of the workplace free? I'm not longer free to do as i choose if 51% of the people think they know better than me. There have been some pretty severe historical consequences of people thinking they knew better than everyone else.

"There was tremendous economic growth under Stalin"

What do you consider economic growth? GDP? Noone could argue that stalin had great growth in GDP. GDP isn't really a measure of the prosperity of the people though...it's a measure of economic "heat" or activity occurring. That economic activity could be digging a trench, and then refilling that trench..and repeating this over and over and over again. Stalins productivity was horrible in most of the sectors he intervened in (especially agriculture). How about poverty, health, wealth and equality under stalin? How about 20,000 million people getting murdered under stalin? How about the eventual collapse of the socialist society? I don't view that as prosperity for the people.

Taking one measure of an economy, especially GDP (because GDP doesn't translate into prosperity for the people always), does not support a regime.

"When decisions affect a group of people, then it must be this group that should get to make these decisions as well, right? That’s pretty obvious, don’t you think?"

What if a decision affected me as an individual and not a group? I hear group think and i start to picture salem witch trials..nazi's.....slavery..and all the horrible things that occur when people get worked up into frenzies and don't make rational decisions. I would prefer to have my rights protected because i'm an individual.

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

In a society based on community and workplace democracy, people would be in control of their own lives and work. People would be able to participate in the things they were a part of and affected by.

All individuals can’t get their will all the time, of course. That’s a logical consequence of living in a society with other people.

You kind of made my point there. Exactly, there are other important factors that should determine what a good society is.

“Free” market capitalism is, as I pointed out in the post you responded to, private tyranny. Tyranny is unacceptable; it should be opposed and dismantled.

“What if a decision affected me as an individual and not a group?”

Decisions that you make that only affect you, is your own business. Now answer:

When decisions affect a group of people, then it must be this group that should get to make these decisions as well, right? That’s pretty obvious, don’t you think?

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"When decisions affect a group of people, then it must be this group that should get to make these decisions as well, right? That’s pretty obvious, don’t you think?"

I do to an extent. But is that group informed? Or is it going to be typical uninformed Americans making decisions on things they know very little about? It's like saying you want an uniformed group to make decisions about a surgery...that would never happen...because you need expertise in that area to be able to make logical decisions. That's somewhat the point of a republic....you're putting your vote behind someone you think will make the best decisions on your behalf...because lets face it...most people don't have the time to sit down and become experts on business...or foreign policy....or economics.

People are also very easily persuaded and manipulated....scare them a little bit and they'll do whatever you want...that's another thing that makes me nervous about a group deciding my future.

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

“But is that group informed? Or is it going to be typical uninformed Americans making decisions on things they know very little about?”

Hopefully the decision-makers will be informed. But there are no guarantees about the degree of ignorance in any case, whether it’s a board of directors, the President of the US, or a small commune.

The point is, the ones affected should be the ones who make the decisions.

“It's like saying you want an uniformed group to make decisions about a surgery...that would never happen...because you need expertise in that area to be able to make logical decisions.”

The fact that qualified surgeons should be the ones doing surgery, does not change the fact that people should have a say in the policies that affect their lives.

What do you think about workplace democracy? Should workers have a democratic say at the place where they work and contribute?

“people don't have the time to sit down and become experts on business...or foreign policy....or economics.”

There are many examples of workers and communities organizing very good systems with lots of participation and democratic decision making in production and the economy.

[-] -2 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

" whether it’s a board of directors, the President of the US, or a small commune"

But that is not true....we weed out a bunch of candidates for president to judge their qualifications and previous experiences because we know they will be making decisions for us...we do the same thing for every business. No business CEO gets to where he is unless he's had success and shown his experience produces results. If he does get there without previous successes and he doesn't do a good job...he's gone when the business starts to tank.

Having a bunch of uninformed people making decisions on my behalf scares me a little.

Most at occupy are fairly informed....but we need to remember that this doesn't translate to the rest of the population.

Let me ask you a question. Would you be ok to hand over your rights to decide how to handle your health to me? Would you be ok with me making those decisions for you? Probably not.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

“But that is not true”

Yes it’s true. There are no guarantees that the decision-makers will have enough info/knowledge when making the decisions.

“we weed out a bunch of candidates for president to judge their qualifications and previous experiences”

No, the corporations weed out the candidates who are less likely to carry out the policies they want: welfare cuts for the 99%, tax cuts for the 1%.

I don’t have to give you examples of uninformed and ignorant presidents (and all other sorts of politicians for that matter), do I?

“Having a bunch of uninformed people making decisions on my behalf scares me a little.”

How about a system in which the people participate in the decision-making themselves? This is what Libertarian Socialism advocates.

“but we need to remember that this doesn't translate to the rest of the population.”

The ignorance we see among parts of the population is not a law of nature.

Giving everyone access to free education would help that, don't you think? So what do you say, let’s fight ignorance and prioritize good education for all.

“Let me ask you a question. Would you be ok to hand over your rights to decide how to handle your health to me?”

What’s that got to do with anything? The answer is no. Now answer my question: What do you think about workplace democracy? Should workers have a democratic say at the place where they work and contribute?

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"I don’t have to give you examples of uninformed and ignorant presidents (and all other sorts of politicians for that matter), do I?"

And how do they get elected? They get elected by the uninformed masses that continue doing the same thing but expect a different result.

"What’s that got to do with anything?"

If you created a society where democracy always ruled...the masses would be making decisions for people. Like you wouldn't trust me with your health, I don't trust the masses to make decisions that could affect my families well being. There are so many instances in history where the masses have been so incredibly wrong. They get worked up into frenzies...group think is incredibly dangerous and so easily manipulated for nefarious purposes.

"What do you think about workplace democracy? Should workers have a democratic say at the place where they work and contribute?"

Yeah...but I don't think you have to have a direct democracy to achieve that.

Is there worsening inequality in the US? Absolutely..it's been happening for the last 40-50 years. I just believe it stems from the crony capitalism that has infested this country.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

“And how do they get elected? They get elected by the uninformed masses that continue doing the same thing but expect a different result.”

This “ignorance” is to a large extent caused by corporate propaganda. The wealthy are the ones in charge, including during campaigns.

“If you created a society where democracy always ruled...the masses would be making decisions for people.”

In a democracy every person has an equal say. Sometimes the majority agrees with you, sometimes it don’t, but again, that’s a logical consequence of living in a society with other people. Democracy should be controlled from below though, so that the decision-making is done by the ones who are directly affected by the decisions.

If a decision affects x, y and z, then x, y and z should be the ones making the decision. It’s really not that complicated.

“Like you wouldn't trust me with your health”

Making sure qualified surgeons do the surgery is not inconsistent with having a democracy.

“I don't trust the masses to make decisions that could affect my families well being.”

If these decisions affect more people than you and your family, then these other people should have a say as well.

“There are so many instances in history where the masses have been so incredibly wrong.”

That’s why we should work to create a decentralized, civilized, humane society, and where we make sure everyone has access to good and free education. So what do you say, John: Free education for all?

"Yeah...but I don't think you have to have a direct democracy to achieve [workplace democracy]”.

That one you’re going to have to elaborate on

“Is there worsening inequality in the US? Absolutely..it's been happening for the last 40-50 years. I just believe it stems from the crony capitalism that has infested this country.”

Giving huge tax cuts to the super-wealthy is not going to reduce inequality. It is the right-wing policies – tax cuts to the wealthy, privatization etc – that have been implemented more and more that are the main causes of inequality.

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Struggle....we've gone over this man:

"Giving huge tax cuts to the super-wealthy is not going to reduce inequality. It is the right-wing policies – tax cuts to the wealthy, privatization etc – that have been implemented more and more that are the main causes of inequality."

This is not true....not true at all....perhaps if you're talking about the crony capitalist republicans in this country it is true. But statistically speaking, the more free a country is, the GREATER the equality in that country is. Like I posted before...look at the graphs:

http://hmscoop.com/index.php/10-whole-website/politics-economy/14-economic-freedom

what does more free mean? less government...less taxes for everyone....more private freedom.

I get your logic...I really do....it seems like with more of that stuff it would be the other way around....but its NOT. That's a fact.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

“This is not true....not true at all”

Yes it is. Politicians have privatized more and more and shuffled enormous sums of cash into the pockets of the wealthy. It started for real in the 70s and 80s. Reagan and Thatcher are good examples of that. And since then it has continued in lots of countries. Ayn Rand-admirer Greenspan and his right-wing crew have deregulated more and more. After the crash in 08, Greenspan had to admit that he was wrong.

Private wealth and power is getting more and more concentrated as the wealthy and the huge corporations make sure politicians implement the policies they want: TAX CUTS for the 1%, WELFARE cuts for the 99%.

“what does more free mean? less government...less taxes for everyone....more private freedom.”

So in other words, the libe(R)tarian solution: TAX CUTS for the 1%, WELFARE cuts for the 99%.

No, freedom is people having the right to control their own lives. People should have a say in the things they’re a part of and affected by. This is done by creating a decentralized democracy based on direct participation.

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"Private wealth and power is getting more and more concentrated as the wealthy and the huge corporations make sure politicians implement the policies they want: TAX CUTS for the 1%, WELFARE cuts for the 99%. "

I agree with you that income inequality and prosperity here has gotten worse and worse over the last 40 or so years. But this isn't a free market....at all....this is crony capitalism coupled with a financial system that benefits the rich at the expense of the poor...you can't look at this country and say because if it's failures freedom doesn't work...this country has become exponentially less free over that period. Corporations have bought out government...regulations are now used to keep competition out of the market place....banks and institutions that should go bankrupt are bailed out by central planners....the monetary system is centrally planned through manipulation of interest rates which is completely against free market theory....there's an expansion of the money supply that benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor which is anti-free market.

I think that's one absolutely horrible thing that's come out of the last 40 years....a big portion of the people blame free markets....the last 40 years have been anything but free markets....exponentially moving away from them in that time period. Jon Stewart had a great interview with Allen Greenspan about a decade ago talking about how non-free market our system is....with stewart even saying "so we really don't live in a free market system."

That's why you have to look at countries statistically...because markets can be ranked based on how "free market" they are....and the stats show the more free market you get the greater the prosperity of people...I just don't understand how you can overlook this.

Show me how I'm wrong though.....provide facts or statistics showing that the more free countries become the worse their prosperity. I'm not trying to be an ass....I seriously would like to look at it...because I can't find it.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

We have state-capitalism, and both state and capitalism have positive and negative effects. It’s not that all the bad things are caused by one and all the positive things are caused by the other.

We have state regulated-capitalism, but the thing is that there has been more and more deregulation done by the politicians and their associates. Greenspan and his ultra right crew removed, not all, but many of the regulations. Corporations and the wealthy have been pushing for the policies they want: more tax cuts and deregulation (sounds familiar?), which again have given them even more power and control, including in politics.

Just because there was economic growth under Stalin, doesn’t mean we should implement Stalinism. It’s the same with capitalism. There are other important things we should focus on when we organize a society:

Making sure everyone has free health care, free education, decent social security, decent working conditions; these are all things that should be implemented in a wealthy and modern society.

And again, it’s also not private ownership of the means of production that’s causing the growth.

But why private ownership of the mop, John? If you like markets so much, then why not advocate market socialism, for example? Why isn't that better?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Self promotion??

Yes.

http://www.dailypaul.com/281115/do-free-markets-really-help-people#comment-3030348

Perhaps you should stay at the dailypaul??

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Self promotion? How is it self promotion? Do you see a single advertisement on the site? It's promotion of facts. I haven't made a dime on any of it. The only thing its taken is my time. It's no secret either...I've openly talked about that being my site with VQ on here in the past.

perhaps you should sit down and actually physically dig through information and come up with factual beliefs as well. Instead of whining about Libe(R)tarians and teabaggers all the time. do something useful.

It should come as no surprise here I'm a fan of Paul....I've argued with you about it. Doesn't mean I don't hold different beliefs however.

[+] -7 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Okay, i beleive you!!!

socialism is just as bad though, im afraid......

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

And by “socialism” you mean what, exactly?

Why would you come to that conclusion? Real socialism, libertarian socialism, is exactly what we should strive for. Libertarian Socialism is about people controlling their own lives and work; it’s about human liberation.

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Libertarianism is simply the Ayn Rand theory of selfish, greed, you're on your own.

Socialism is all about sharing, generosity, we're in this together theory.

I support the latter as I know Occupy does as well.

Great post.

I will bump it up frequently.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Thanks. Yes, a society based on solidarity, mutual support, and workplace democracy is what we should strive for. It’s called libertarian socialism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Strange bedfellows

[-] 5 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

excellent. Not so strange when it is explained. Of course I agree with the brilliant linguist Chomsky that he is NOT talking about US libertariansim.

As hesays, it is hard to discuss things when words take on opposite meanings. We need to specifiy that acceptable (incorrect!) definitions of words are NOT what we mean.

And I think because the issues are so important we should avoid the distraction of discussion of words whenever possible. Not always, taking ack words is also important, and the effort necessary.

I just believe the issues themselves are a little more important.

But yes libertarian socialist in the true sense of the terms is desirable.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

We need individual rights and collective rights. We need a libertarian society in the sense that people should be free from tyranny and dominance; they should be free to create and contribute based on their own creativity and capacities and so on. And we need a socialist society in the sense that people should be able to control their own workplace. “Libertarian Socialism” is no contradiction; socialism, real socialism, is freedom.

Yes, It is creating a free, democratic society that's the important thing, not so much what we decide to call it.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I can agree with that and I would add that our countries wealth must be used to help those who cannot help themselves, to create/maintain equal opportunity, and to protect the people from corp 1% oligarchs who prey on us.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Agreed! A huge redistribution of wealth is needed!

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Yes and I always describe it as a redistribution of wealth BACK to the middle class who created it.

That concept must be repeated ad nauseam.

The concept that the wealthy "earned" it. That the wealth they've taken was deserved, and the denial that it wasn't sucked up through rigging the tax/regulatory system, by outsourcing our jobs, busting our unions, raiding our pensions, & exploiting 3rd world workers must be challenged, and corrected.

I'm rambling, But the propaganda on this is especially offensive.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Hear, hear.

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Socialist are nothing but lemmings......

People are not treated like individuals in socialism.

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I disagree.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

explain.......

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You 1st.

Socialists are not lemmings, and they treat all people like individuals.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Socialism promotes collectivism and communalism. The greater good is put ahead of what is good for each person individually. Socialism promotes solidarity, which opposite of individual thought and expression. In socialism if you disagree with the majority, you are cast out as an "elite". Socialism puts material gain ahead of intellectual gain. Socialist worry too much about how much Stuff they have as compared to others, just like capitalists. Socialism promotes majoritarianism, which prevents dissenters from having a say.

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I know, "Greater good" Of the individual people!!!! Solidarity-good! "opposite individual thought"? Nope. Opposite of solidarity is disunity.

"Disagree means caste out" nope. That's you're mischaracterization/propaganda.

Worry about what they have"? nonsense, but who cares?

"Prevents dissenters"? Ridiculous.

So clearly you are under some obvious misconceptions. I hope my cmments have made you more comfortable.

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

What is wrong with "disunity" and since when did the word "greater" also mean the same thing as the word "all"?

Socialism is about propaganda. It seeks to convert, forcibly or otherwise. Socialism does not seek to enlighten people.

Socialism is about money, economics and materialism. None of which will make my life better than it already is.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Wrong, wrong, And Wrong.

[-] -3 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

WHY, am i wrong? You cant even respond with details and specifics, you can only accuse me.

WHY AM I WRONG?

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You are wrong because you have been misled most likely. Perhaps too much Beck, or Limbaugh, Faux news, Breitbart, not really sure but you are definitely wrong because you have been misinformed.

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I read a book about socialism. I don't seek facts from enertainment sources.

[-] 5 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Which books have taught you these lies about socialism.

Which one states the socialism is ABOUT propaganda? And which book states it is about forcibly converting people?

LOL This I gotta see.

[+] -7 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Socialism is about the "greater good" as opposed to the ACTUAL good. Any system that excludes people is bad one.

Oscar Wilde wasn't an idiot after all!

[-] -3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Libertarian socialism is about building a democracy from below, with the institutions in society being democratically controlled by the participants. Do you disagree with this?

LS includes people in the decision-making. It’s a participatory democracy.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I disagree with majoritarianism.

I prefer the term "direct government", as opposed to "direct democracy", because democracy often don't take in to account the opinions of all individuals.

See my thread "common law republic".

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

No, in a real participatory democracy, all individuals are welcome to share their thoughts and participate in the decision-making.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

But if 999 vote YES and 1 votes NO, then the 1 who voted NO is shut out.

Majoritarianism is just as bad as representative democracy. All people should have a say and stake in the outcome of the vote and should have recourse to contiue their resistance.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Decision-making must be made thru democratic process. Everyone should have the right to express themselves, however, you can’t have a society in which all individuals will get their will all the time.

Decisions affecting and involving a group must be made by the group. In a libertarian socialist society, democracy would be controlled from below, moving decision-making closer to the ones who have to live with the decisions.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Government is egalitarian if only some get their way.

In a Free society since everyone has equal and individual soveriegnty, democracy is horizontal.