PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul vs Michael Moore: Capitalism is NOT the problem. Corporatism IS!



illriginalized
03-25-2013, 04:44 PM
jLocc7o5W6o

trailwarrior
03-25-2013, 05:00 PM
The fox need not be a problem as long as you take appropriate measures to prevent it from getting into the hen house!


Without the necessary regulations preventing business influence in government, capitalism's end game is a fascist state...


First American Fascists...
http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/american-fascism-the-robber-barons-return


Why Republican Party was started...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo53.html
"The financial powers behind the Republican Party in 1860 were the Northern railroad barons, Northern manufacturers who wanted protectionist tariffs to protect them from competition, and Northern bankers and investors like Jay Cooke who wanted to use their political connections to make a killing financing a transcontinental railroad (among other schemes, such as central banking). They decided at the Chicago Republican National Convention of 1860 that Abraham Lincoln was the perfect political front man for their corrupt, mercantilist agenda...From the time he entered politics in 1832, Abraham Lincoln aspired to such a position. That is why he became a Whig, the party of the moneyed elite. Lincoln was one of the most money- and power-hungry politicians in American history. (Indeed, this would seem to be a prerequisite for anyone who is capable of being elected president). As soon as he entered the Illinois legislature he led his local delegation in a successful Whig Party effort to appropriate some $12 million in taxpayer subsidies for railroad and canal-building corporations."


Thomas Jefferson:
3rd U.S. President 1801-1809
"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

James Madison:
4th U.S President 1809-1817
"There is an evil, which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by...corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."

Andrew Jackson:
7th U.S. President 1829-1837
"Unless you become more watchful in your States and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges you will in the end find that the most important powers of Government have been given or bartered away, and the control of your dearest interests have been passed into the hands of these corporations."

stealth_swimmer
03-25-2013, 05:19 PM
The fox need not be a problem as long as you take appropriate measures to prevent it from getting into the hen house!


Without the necessary regulations preventing business influence in government, capitalism's end game is a fascist state...



Hate to break it to you, but any government that isn't restrained has the end game of a fascist state. Before it was business, it was the Church. Though the two competed for power in various aspects of people's lives, there was also some collusion, often to the detriment of people's freedom.

We need governments to be more competitive (open borders would help) so that they have to attract citizens in order to maintain their revenues. That's one thing i think would help a lot. Besides that, people should also stand up for their freedom and lives. Hard to do, but working within the system with civil disobedience can accomplish things. Other times you gotta employ other strategies (like using technology to subvert them - like using 3D printers to make guns and sell them or something, just sayin...but the same could be true for the unlicensed sale and distribution of any number of things, such as beer)


edit - oh, and corporations were created by the state. That's where they get their privileges from. In a free market/society, we might have businesses that are similar to today's corporations in some aspects, but limited liability probably wouldn't be around for very long or at least wouldn't be as common as it is today (since the only reason some arrangement like that would exist would be if a creditor and borrower agreed to it - and it simply wouldn't make sense in most cases, possibly even in all of them). Limited liability basically cuts off the amount that someone can lose by separating their assets from the company's...so if the "company" has $1 million, that's the most it can lose, even if it causes more than $1 million in damages to someone or some group. Meanwhile, the owner of the company gets off scott-free with their personal wealth intact and can start all over again. They're sheltered from risk and thus don't bear the full cost of the consequences of their actions.

BenZowman
03-25-2013, 05:20 PM
Strong capitalism vs. statism mentality, as though there aren't free market economic systems other than capitalism.

stealth_swimmer
03-25-2013, 05:37 PM
Strong capitalism vs. statism mentality, as though there aren't free market economic systems other than capitalism.


Yeah, this. And capitalism isn't necessarily free market. Just means private ownership of the means of production. Kinda how socialism originally meant worker-owned means of production. It's clear that there can be voluntary, free market versions of both, but we typically don't see them since politicians crave power.

illriginalized
03-25-2013, 06:41 PM
Yeah, this. And capitalism isn't necessarily free market. Just means private ownership of the means of production. Kinda how socialism originally meant worker-owned means of production. It's clear that there can be voluntary, free market versions of both, but that we typically don't see them since politicians crave power.

I agree 100%