To All The Capitali$ts Here - TRY TO ARGUE THIS DOWN!!! [Archive]

Fires of History

19th July 2002, 09:02

'Corporate Socialism'
by Ralph Nader

The relentless expansion of corporate control over our political economy has proven nearly immune to daily reporting by the mainstream media. Corporate crime, fraud and abuse have become like the weather; everyone is talking about the storm but no one seems able to do anything about it. This is largely because expected accountability mechanisms -- including boards of directors, outside accounting and law firms, bankers and brokers, state and federal regulatory agencies and legislatures -- are inert or complicit.

When, year after year, the established corporate watchdogs receive their profits or compensation directly or indirectly from the companies they are supposed to be watching, independent judgment fails, corruption increases and conflicts of interest grow among major CEOs and their cliques. Over time, these institutions, unwilling to reform themselves, strive to transfer the costs of their misdeeds and recklessness onto the larger citizenry. In so doing, big business is in the process of destroying the very capitalism that has provided it with a formidable ideological cover.

Consider the following assumptions of a capitalistic system:

1) Owners are supposed to control what they own. For a century, big business has split ownership (shareholders) from control, which is in the hands of the officers of the corporation and its rubber-stamp board of directors. Investors have been disenfranchised and told to sell their shares if they don't like the way management is running their business. Nowadays, with crooked accounting, inflated profits and self-dealing, it has proven difficult for even large investors to know the truth about their officious managers.

2) Under capitalism, businesses are supposed to sink or swim, which is still very true for small business. But larger industries and companies often have become "too big to fail" and demand that Uncle Sam serve as their all-purpose protector, providing a variety of public guarantees and emergency bailouts. Yes, some wildly looted companies that are expendable, such as Enron, cannot avail themselves of governmental salvation and do go bankrupt or are bought. By and large, however, in industry after industry where two or three companies dominate or presage a domino effect, Washington becomes their backstop.

3) Capitalism is supposed to exhibit a consensual freedom of contract -- a distinct advance over a feudal society. Yet the great majority of contracts for credit, insurance, software, housing, health, employment, products, repairs and other services are standard-form, printed contracts, presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Going across the proverbial street to a competitor gets you the same contract. Every decade, these "contracts of adhesion," as the lawyers call them, become more intrusive and more insistent on taking away the buyers' constitutional rights to access to courts in favor of binding arbitration or stipulate outright surrender of basic rights and remedies. The courts are of little help in invalidating these impositions by what are essentially private corporate legislatures regulating millions of Americans.

4) Capitalism requires a framework of law and order: The rules of the economic game are to be conceived and enforced on the merits against mayhem, fraud, deception and predatory practices. Easily the most powerful influence over most government departments and agencies are the industries that receive the privileges and immunities, regulatory passes, exemptions, deductions and varied escapes from responsibility that regularly fill the business pages. Only those caught in positions of extreme dereliction ever have reason to expect more than a slap on the wrist for violating legal mandates.

5) Capitalist enterprises are expected to compete on an even playing field. Corporate lobbyists, starting with their abundant cash for political campaigns, have developed a "corporate state" where government lavishes subsidies, inflated contracts, guarantees and research and development and natural resources giveaways on big business -- while denying comparable benefits to individuals and family businesses. We have a government of big business, by big business and for big business, even if more of these businesses are nominally moving their state charters to Bermuda-like tax escapes.

"Corporate socialism" -- the privatization of profit and the socialization of risks and misconduct -- is displacing capitalist canons. This condition prevents an adaptable capitalism, served by equal justice under law, from delivering higher standards of living and enlarging its absorptive capacity for broader community and environmental values. Civic and political movements must call for a decent separation of corporation and state.

In 1938, in the midst of the Great Depression, Congress created the Temporary National Economic Committee to hold hearings around the country, recommend ways to deal with the concentration of economic power and promote a more just economy. World War II stopped this corporate reform momentum. We should not have to wait for a further deterioration from today's gross inequalities of wealth and income to launch a similar commission on the rampant corporatization of our country. At stake is whether civic values of our democratic society will prevail over invasive commercial values.

From Common Dreams Newscenter (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0718-02.htm)
__________________________________________

Hey you capies, yes you, all of you.

I want to see ANY of you argue with Nader here.

Can you?

This is just the natural result of capitali$m....

Stormin Norman

19th July 2002, 11:03

Maybe if you had taken the time to formulate your own argument I would take the time to argue with you.

Conghaileach

19th July 2002, 13:59

Not a particulary good response.

Genwes

19th July 2002, 16:05

you're right corporations should not be subsidized, we need to get rid of all these vestiges of socialist thought.

Fires of History

19th July 2002, 21:08

Stormin Norman,

Whether I made up the argument or Nader, who cares? If I argue Communism aren't I just speaking for Marx, etc.? And whatever ideas you argue aren't yours either idiot.

Your the fool who can't touch the argument. Yeah, not a particularly good- but predictable- response.

(Edited by Fires of History at 9:09 pm on July 19, 2002)

Guest

19th July 2002, 21:28

Ahhhh populist Nader, so boring ...

Most corporations in America are honest and have high ideals. As is the case most people in America. Corporate scandals are a minority and are by all means not the norm. This whole matter has been blown out of proportion by democrats and the liberal media to talk down the market and try to gain political points in the upcoming elections.

Fires of History

20th July 2002, 00:34

Guest,

I agree with you that many companies are just trying to make their way as best they can. However, I don't think that all are, as there are many companies that bend over backwards to polish their third world practices.

I think these scandals, that none of the companies wanted public in the first place, remind us that there are in fact questionable practices on the highest corporate levels. And any political points gained by these scandals are due, at least to many of my more moderate friends, because it raises the question of what scandals aren't scandals yet- in short, how do we know that these practices aren't more of a norm than we know?

The question people are asking is, "Are these scandals the exception or the rule?"

Either way, these examples show what amazing- and criminal- lengths those in business leadership will go to secure profit.

And, as the article points out, these same people that trumpet their capitalistic practices as the best possible choice of economics aren't even really playing by capitalism's own rules. They only want to play by their own rules until they fail- all this while they systematically exploit the third world, exhaust the environment, and ultimately make a joke of the very capitalism that allowed them to do any of this in the first place.

And, just because there are corporations that don't go under, does this mean their business practices are the best choice our society has? I simply don't think that just being able to stay in business is sufficient justification for their existence.

Capitalist Imperial

20th July 2002, 00:50

Wow, ralph nader cut and paste article.

Thoughtful

Ralph is one of the single biggest idiot burnouts I've ever known.

You know he is a burnout, right?

Well, give me some time and I will sort out his article and provide a rebuttal

Fires of History

20th July 2002, 01:03

So far, two people have made the 'great' point that I posted a Nader article. Wow, that's so deep.

Even I expected better counter arguments than this. Personal critiques of me or Nader show one thing: you can't touch the argument.

vox

20th July 2002, 01:13

"Even I expected better counter arguments than this."

Why?

Hee! Sorry. But FoH, you know that these right-wingers don't make arguments.

Maybe one of them would like to speak for their foul Republican leaders, however, and answer exactly why are the Republicans howling for and independent prosecutor to investigate Dick Cheney? After all, the suspicions linked to him so far make Whitewater look like tame. All I want is the same investigation into these suspicions, and into those surrounding George W. Bush, that the Republicans were so enamoured of during the Clinton years.

After all, it wasn't about politics, it was about the LAW, right? Or was the Republican Party lying directly to its constituents?

Or are those questions we're not allowed to ask?

vox

Fires of History

20th July 2002, 01:45

Vox,

Lol, yeah...Why? lol

I love how the Republicans saw no barriers of privacy with Clinton, but stress the right to privacy when it comes to the White House's energy dealings.

But then again I must just be a sick, crazy loon as I think criminal fraud and corporate deception is a little more important to the American people than whether or not she did in fact go down on Clinton. Crazy me.

(Edited by Fires of History at 1:46 am on July 20, 2002)

kidicarus20

20th July 2002, 03:15

"Ralph is one of the single biggest idiot burnouts I've ever known. "

Logical fallacy: ad hominem (abusive)

"You know he is a burnout, right? "

Logical fallacy: ad hominem (circumstantial)

Capitalist Imperial has proven his ignorance more now than ever. Those are very valid points about corporate corruption allowing to continue because of "corporate socialism." Those are all valid points about what capitalists claim what capitalism is supposed to be.

And i wouldn't talk about copy and paste, all of your idea's are not formed from history, knowledge or logig. They are formed from right-wing websites that tell you what to think. Everybody has seen them before. Republican logic is quite easy to understand, it's based on quick solutions, distorted history, and outright lies just to get the system in place they want. David Brock's Blinded by the right hits the nail on the head concerning republican logic.

As for nader, Capitalists consider him right on situations like this, but wrong on his solutions.
I consider his solutions right, as Nader has gone as far as to call for a cashless society, only he would do that.
He's a great man and he's a genius, he's consider an eccentric Princetonian, he went to harvard, he's smart.

Stormin Norman

20th July 2002, 07:56

You see that is the difference between you and me. You claim that all of my logic comes from right wing web sites. I say that I spend all of my time here, so how would I have any time left to visit right wing websites. You are the ones who find security on a web site that replicates your own opinions. I am the one who seeks out people with differing opinions. The logic I use is my own.

I do not subscribe to political parties, because they are simply a way of keeping people from thinking outside the box. Partisan politics is a way to distract the voters from the real issues. It is a smoke screen designed to make sure that people are too afraid to challenge the status quo. "Oh no, the republicans might win back the senate. I had better vote for the democrat to insure that I can still have an abortion. I must keep my social security. I need guarantees that the government will continue to support my crack habit by feeding me more welfare and entitlements." You see it is the single-issue voter who is a dip shit. It is the guy who voted for Nader simply because they love trees and hate corporations who lacks the ability to think any deeper.
Let us forget about the fact that Nader is an advocate for weathering away the Bill of Rights. Nader is a communist. It is clear by the issues, which he champions. Do you think you have a right to choose whether you buckle your seat belt? I do. By not buckling up, I am only risking my own life. Therefore, the government has no business legislating on the matter. Nader disagrees. The mandate of the government indicates that its purpose is to protect the right of the people and prevent its citizens harm caused by other people. It is not the government's job to strip me of my rights and become my mommy. Furthermore, he is a big proponent of CAFE standards. When was the last time that Nader designed an engine? I doubt that he is knowledgeable enough to understand exactly how they work. Yes he supports the nanny state. This is what the modern day liberals asks. That is why he didn't even get 3% of the vote. Most Americans find communism abhorrent. They do not wish for the heavy hand of government to assume control of industry. Regardless of their politics, the typical voter is smart enough to have learned from history, and realize communism stifles freethinking.
Nader is a genius because he went to Harvard? Bush went to Yale and O'Rielly went to Harvard. What is your point? The education offered at such institutions can be bought. They have implemented a heavy curving scale to hide the fact that a Harvard education is no longer worth the paper it is printed on. There are a lot of people who hold degrees, but that is not what makes them smart. Nader is a man who attacks intellectual property. The person who believes that men should not have a right to their intellectual property is devoid of such property. They are the epitome of mediocrity and seek to reduce everyone to a level equal to their own.

The reason I didn't give you a direct rebuttal to someone else's arguments is because I work full time and go to school. My time is important. When making an argument I take the time to present my own work. Yes, I have posted articles written by others. However, I never used them to make an argument for me. I have never posted articles and said, "Here, refute this. By the way I agree wholeheartedly with everything that this person said." That would be lazy, something that I am not. If someone wants to debate with me they must put forth an effort before they expect me to do the same. I could have gone to Rush Limbaugh's website and cut and pasted enough material to refute every last one of Nader's points, but that is not debate. That is regurgitation. You are the one who slacked off when putting forth an argument. Don't try to pass the buck onto me because you lack the necessary analysis, synthesis, and evaluation skills needed to hold an honest debate with a third grader.

marxistdisciple

20th July 2002, 13:04

"Do you think you have a right to choose whether you buckle your seat belt? I do. By not buckling up, I am only risking my own life. Therefore, the government has no business legislating on the matter. Nader disagrees."

That simply isn't true. If you are the driver of a car and you don't buckle your own seatbelt, fine. Everyone else in the car should have to by law (like they do here.) If someone sitting behind you doesnt buckle their seatbelt (regardless of if you do) you will be crushed to death in an accident. Sound fun? Thats such a minor issue though, why'd you bring it up?

The reason you are so angered by this posting is that it makes perfect rational sense, and is entirely factual. Would you please like to pick apart his arguments? The rest is irelevant. I am not surprised that typically you tried to sidesep the actual arguement, and begin whinging about the nature of the post. It's irelevant. Argue the issue. I don't know what CAFE standards are, I am assuming they are to do with efficency of engines? We have much more efficentc ars in europe and some of the best made in the world.

Communism is not necessarilly centralised you keep going on about that.

"reason I didn't give you a direct rebuttal to someone else's arguments is because I work full time and go to school. My time is important. When making an argument I take the time to present my own work."

Yet you have written lines and lines about how you deplore people posting other's arguments. What gives?

"That would be lazy, something that I am not. If someone wants to debate with me they must put forth an effort before they expect me to do the same. I could have gone to Rush Limbaugh's website and cut and pasted enough material to refute every last one of Nader's points, but that is not debate. That is regurgitation. You are the one who slacked off when putting forth an argument. Don't try to pass the buck onto me because you lack the necessary analysis, synthesis, and evaluation skills needed to hold an honest debate with a third grader."

So argue then!
Refute the points! At the moment you just look silly.

Stormin Norman

20th July 2002, 13:50

To be honest, I never read the actual article, I don't like the man and I gathered that he would be droning on and on about how the market system is failing. I was simply too amazed that FOH would use someone else's entire article without doing any real leg work, and then expect us 'cappies' to take the time to refute it. Do you not agree that people should refrain from using someone else's whole article to make their argument for them? Is this not a cheap and easy way to debate? In my view, it lacks character.
Tell me if I am right about what Nader had to say in his article. Here are some points that I think he would address given the current state of the economy.

Capitalism is failing. Capitalism has corrupted the institution of government. The divide between rich and poor continues to grow. The rich men who control the such industries have total immunity and the law does not apply to them. A two party system is ruining our democracy. The two parties that prevail are in bed with the evil corporations. The American consumer is hurt by monopolies and oligopolies. Collusion in the market place hurts the consumer. Global warming is ruining the planet. If the government doesn't step in and impose more restrictions to the market place we will become a two class system. If the government doesn't impose CAFE standards then the COx gases will further contribute to the climate change that is destroying the planet. Corporate polluters are bad. We should have oversight commitees to regulate corporate boards and see to it that their desicion making is sound. If he had won the election he would have issued a directive that placed the private market under the direct control of a federal bureau and changed his name to Stalin.

Tell me if I am getting warm, because I have heard all of his complaints before. Sorry, but I will avoid hearing that man out. I listened to him during the elections and do not wish to give him another iota of my time. Time is money and I don't have the amount of time to burn listening to someone who has proven himself to be a non-issue.

Sidenote:
I do think it was disgusting how he was barred from the debates. The way he was treated proves the lack of credibility on both sides of the aisle. Come on, if they were afraid of Nader then their convictions must have been pretty weak. Jesse Ventura and Nader agreed on many of the issues brought about by such undemocratic manuevering by the two parties during the campaign.

Question:
Do you happen to know what Nader's stance on campaign finance reform was?

Since I refuse to give Nader my time and you demand that I refute his argument, why don't you paraphrase his position for me then I will come up with a rebuttal.

Stormin Norman

20th July 2002, 14:01

Marxistdisciple,

Are you saying that you support seat belt laws? Don't you understand that they are a tool to generate revenue, another tax on the citizen? Do you honestly believe the government cares about your safety?
Child safety is an entirely different issue. The child lacks the cognizance to be able to make a reasonable decision. If I am the driver of the car or a passenger in the front seat I can refuse to drive or ride in the vehicle if the person behind me doesn't buckle the seat belt.
Yet another difference between liberals and myself is the fact that I trust the American people to police themselves and watch out for their own safety. Liberals have the notion that they are the intellectual elite and must make other people's simple decisions for them. Should I smoke? Should I eat a cheeseburger? Will fries kill me?

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 2:03 am on July 21, 2002)

kidicarus20

20th July 2002, 19:56

First of all Ralph Nader doesn't argue against your right to be a moron and not wear a seatbelt. What he does argue for is for strapping your children up, they dont know the difference. What he does argue for is for the car companies to use SAFETY TECHNOLOGY in their cars. Capitalists would just as soon cut corners and save money than implement safety belts and air bags, "who cares if people die" the capitalists say. Well people have a right to have safe cars, people dont have the resources to produce their own cars, so they expect some standards, the car companies were NOT doing it on their own, so therefore people have a right to force them to do it, they truly are harming other peoples lives by withholding safety standards.

Nader saved thousands of lives.

George Bu$h is a moron who got into school with money. On top of that he didn't even use his time wisely at yale, which is unfair to the thousands of other people who would love to go there and actually deserve to go there.
The difference is ralph nader was poor, where bill oreilly and bu$h both came from weathy families, o'reilly's dad made quite a bit of money, like $30,000, the equivalent of say 100,000 dollars today.

Rush Limbaugh sites lol. Go ahead and post from Rush Limbaugh.com lol, it would be rebutted in two seconds.

Nader received a little over 3 percent of the votes with close to 3,000,000 votes. The Capitalist harry browne received less than one percent. he came in like fifth or sixth.
The problem is not nader, the problem is the corporate media and the debate comission that only wabts a two party system. Many people would have voted for nader but it's a winner take all system and they didn't want to lose rights such as abortion as you said, a lot of people dont even know who he is.
You need a system where each party gets to debate. Personally I like frances system, each party runs, then the two parties with the most votes do a run off for the finish line.
Whatever we use we need more coverage of different parties and their beliefs. Debate time should also consist of more invoking questions than rather or not we should have a "lock box" for social security. Also each candidate should have equal time on television and each should have something like a radio program that allows them to set out their agenda.

I agree that the reasons to vote democratic are absurd, abortion isn't goign to help the nation, technically capitalists allow abortion, so naral would have no problem with capitalism. People should be against the economic system known as capitalism instead of allowing it to continue and thus shoudl vote nader. Bush of course was/is pro-capitalist.

The article is about what capitalist say capitalism is supposed to be, and the contradictions within our system.

(Edited by kidicarus20 at 8:00 pm on July 20, 2002)

Fires of History

20th July 2002, 20:32

Stormin Norman,

First of all, please go here (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=11&topic=1837) to see that when I first responded to this article, I mentioned how there was nothing to possibly add to it. And what you don't seem to understand is that THE ARTICLE WAS SUPPOSED TO START A DEBATE, NOT BE THE SUM AND END OF IT! IT WAS TO START THE CONVERSATION! DID YOU THINK I WASN'T GOING TO KEEP ARGUING WITH MY OWN IDEAS!? DID YOU THINK I WAS GOING TO KEEP POSTING ARTICLES TO EVERYTHING YOU SAID!? IT WAS A STARTER, BUT YOU CAN'T EVEN START!!! If you had made counterpoints, you can rest assured I would have continued the debate with my own ideas, not articles. Simple minds...

By posting it here, I was simply trying to give you capies here a fair and open chance to refute the article's argument, which is why I moved it in here. And instead of taking the chance to look intelligent and argue to the death, as is allowed in Soc V Cap, you ***** and whine about me posting it here and giving you that chance in the first place!!! YOU'RE ALL FUCKING CHILDREN!!! WE NEED A CHE LIVES PLAYPEN WHERE YOU CAN ***** ABOUT STUPID SHIT LIKE THIS!!!

Apparently, by not adding to the argument myself- that didn't need any addition anyway!- and posting it at all, proves all of Nader's points wrong. You fucking idiot capies that can't keep on the topic, you're just *****ing about little details. ARGUE THE ARTICLE! STAY ON TOPIC! STOP PERSONAL ATTACKS ON ME AND NADER! But you can't. This is exactly why I never come in here, it's pointless. I thought maybe there would be an intelligent rebuttal to Nader's points, and I must admit I was curious what a capie would say in rebuttal, but I guess even Nader can now defeat the right! (Now that is saying something about the sad state of affairs!!!).

I read the article several times, and I FOUND NOTHING TO ADD- NOTHING. Can you understand that children?

Hey shithead, please! Go ahead and cut and paste whatever you want, Limbaugh would be especially easy to rip to shreds! QUIT YOUR *****ING ABOUT POSTING THE ARTICLE! You're being such a fucking whiner!

"I never read the actual article."

Well that takes the fucking cake. You ***** and whine about who wrote the article, who posted the article, and then you don't even read the article! Fuck you kid.

NO CAPIES HAVE TOUCHED THE ARGUMENT YET!

JUST PERSONAL ATTACKS ON ME!

AND ON NADER!

NOT THE POINTS!

I think everyone can clearly see my longtime point about Soc V Cap now!

(Edited by Fires of History at 8:36 pm on July 20, 2002)

kidicarus20

20th July 2002, 21:14

LOL. fires of history.

I agree. Capitalists seem to want to argue about nader's issues or his social life rather than the points he made. I too would like to see what capitalists think about his points. Capitalits tell us capitalism is "fair" because of the reason nader points out, like how capitalism doesn't create monopolies because of "competition" or whatever, or how capitalism wouldn't allow the poors money to be given to hte rich (corporate welfare), etc... And nader makes all those points, asking where the capitalist out-rage is.
How come Libertarians focus on attacking public libraries instead of attacking corporate solcialism? Yah these capitalists definitely are talking about all of nader's other views rather than this discussion.

Shouldn't be too surprised those this is an old conservative tactic. Always taking away from the issue at hand.

Mazdak

21st July 2002, 03:38

SN, you make Bush sound intelligent because he went to Yale, so how come he doesn't want his grades released to the public. It is obvious he probably bought his way through college and if he got through legitimately, then that is just showing how bad a school yale is (which it isnt).

Stormin Norman

21st July 2002, 07:50

Since there exists a popular demand for a good rebuttal of the assumptions presented by Ralph Nader (Yuck!), I will give you guys the rational argument, which you so desperately need. It is clear that is why you are so offended by my aversion to arguing against a position, which was laid out by someone who didn't even do his own homework, but presented the work of someone else to make their case. I read the article and my rebuttal will follow this post.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 11:01 pm on July 21, 2002)

Stormin Norman

21st July 2002, 09:38

Guest

21st July 2002, 16:51

Great answer SN. It seems now all is quiet on the socialist/communist front...

Severwright

21st July 2002, 20:03

The socialist/communist front will never be quiet

vox

21st July 2002, 23:02

To begin a critique of such a brilliant sophist of today's age was no easy task. Let us first consider the amount of work that I obviously put into this and contrast it with the guy who cut and pasted the article to begin with. Obviously I am the one who did the hard work.

If writing this piece, completely absent of fact but heavy on rhetoric, took more than ten minutes someone should be ashamed!

Let us first consider the entire opening paragraph in the article. Nader states:

'The relentless expansion of corporate control over our political economy has proven nearly immune to daily reporting by the mainstream media. Corporate crime, fraud and abuse have become like the weather; everyone is talking about the storm but no one seems able to do anything about it. This is largely because expected accountability mechanisms -- including boards of directors, outside accounting and law firms, bankers and brokers, state and federal regulatory agencies and legislatures -- are inert or complicit.'

I would have to take issue with pretty much everything said in the opening statement. Considering the current situation, where scandals like Enron and Worldcom vex the economic system and have succeeded in causing the Dow to drop significantly for two straight weeks; it is clear to anyone who reads a newspaper that such issues have been brought to the forefront of the world's media. In the past couple of weeks, Congress has acted (stupidly, in my opinion) to take aggressive action against such fraud and deception. Furthermore the current director of the SEC is an upstanding citizen who has promised to vigorously investigate and weed malfeasant elements from the market. There goes Nader's claim that nobody is doing anything. He then says that the government and the guilty parties are complicit. This may have been true under the last administration, which created the environment for such practices. It is interesting to compare the contrast the current administration's actions regarding the economy to that of the Clinton administration. Little action is better than no action at all. Besides I hardly doubt that evidence exists to prove such complicity. The reasons are probably due to incompetence rather than complete corruption. Finally, the first and most grandiose statement made in this paragraph where he states that their is sweeping corporate control over the government is an erroneous statement at best. I contend that it is the political machinery that assumes too much control over the political system.

And thus begins SN's misadventures in reading comprehension. Far from saying that no one is paying attention, Nader says that no one is doing anything about it. Yes, Congress increased some penalties, but that doesn't matter when no one is tried for the crime, of course. It's a way of looking tough without having to be tough. Of course, SN thinks that even this is too much. One wonders if SN supports fraud and deception.

As for Harvey Pitt, the head of the SEC, he's the guy who said he wanted to make the SEC "a kinder and gentler place for accountants (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0714-04.htm)." Pitt was a loud critic of the SEC, and installing him as the leader was like letting the fox guard the henhouse.

I really like SN's last line in that quote, though, where he says that the political machinery has too much control over the political system. Hmmm. Let's just let that one slide, huh?

In the second paragraph Nader claims that it is the corporations that are destroying the very nature of the capitalism. Not true. Once again, I will site the fact that it is the political apparatus that has over regulated the corporate world to the point where bribery and payoffs are common practice. If the men of business do not take these measures, bureaucrats would tie the hands of such corporations and make it impossible to conduct business.

Here's where the real fun begins. SN directly defends criminal behavior, saying that people are forced to break the law because of gov't regulation. Of course, SN does NOT give any specific examples of this situation, because he can't. Please, SN, justify the manipulation of electricity prices in California, and be specific. There's no justification for it, of course.

In response to assumption 1

Nothing is preventing the single investor from acquiring a large share in the corporation; the amount that would give him an overall voice in the how the business is operated. If the large investor does not know what is going on in the corporation, then he has neglected to watch his own investments. That makes him a fool.

Actually, quite a lot prevents people from doing just that, mostly the fact that no one can afford it. I certainly can't, and though I don't know what you do for a living, I'm willing to wager that you couldn't buy a 51% stake in, say, Microsoft even in this weak market. Am I right?

Besides, we all know what the job of a CEO is: to increase the stock price of his company. That's it. That's how the owners of the company judge performance, for it's only the bottom line that counts, and that's exactly what someone like Kenneth Lay did.

A friend of mine mentioned that during the 1980's, when liberals were concerned about the loss of jobs caused by hostile takeovers, Congress imposed restrictions against such acquisitions. The reason much of the fraud is occurring remains due to regulation preventing the natural elimination of the weaker firms. If this natural selection process were allowed to persist, then companies would not have time to fix the books and hide the fact that they had become weak. They would be too concerned about being acquired by a smarter and more efficient company. Since this natural selection is prevented in many cases, the corporation must find inventive ways to create the illusion of being necessary to the market.

Hmmm, I'd like to know what law your friend means. I don't suppose you have another source for this, right? I'm also skeptical that "liberals" are to blame, since Reagan had a Republican Senate from 1980-1986.

However, be that as it may, the rhetoric here is truly stunning. See, what SN is saying is that the gov't is somehow to blame. Apparently, "natural selection," a very inappropiate metaphor, by the way, for that refers to a whole species and not a single organism like a corporation, demands that a company be bought. In SN's fantasy world, businesses are not allowed to simply fail, apparently. As incredible as it is, SN is actually making the case that businesses have to lie and cheat and steal, because simple failure is not an option. Only being bought by another company is an option.

In Response to assumption 2

Largely, I agree with assumption 2 of Nader's. I have never been a proponent for welfare of any kind. It is always a system created to protect people's lifestyles. In the corporate bailout world, it is done to protect the friends of the men of pull in Washington. Again this speaks to the unhealthy interference of the government into the business cycle.

I suggest that SN agrees with Nader only superficially, for it can't be forgotten that Nader's criticism comes within a framwork that condemns corporate control of gov't, a position that is entirely rejected by SN and has many implications.

In response to assumption 3

To my surprise, I slightly agree with another one of Nader's points. Collusion in the market does limit consumer choice and lacks the healthy competition to create such choice. He mentions the taking away of the constitutional freedoms. This is done by companies who get tax cuts to perform some of the government's profiling, and remains another example of how government interference is detrimental to the consumer.

SN's conclusion about freedoms being taken away because of profiling is rather bizarre, for Nader makes it clear that the freedom being taken away is the freedom to address your grievances against a corporation in a court of law. This has nothing to do with the government but solely with corporations. I really don't know how that is unclear, but SN manages to miss it.

In response to assumption 4

I would take issue with the part where he claim's that the government is being run by the businesses. It is the government who holds a monopoly on power and asserts its control over the business cycle. He who has the guns makes the rules. Many corrupt politicians and head administrators in government bureaus simply want a cut of the action. So when a business pays out they have every reason not to bust them down, for they can continue to line their pockets. This is probably the reason Microsoft went under such fire. They may have refused to play ball with extortionists.

Hee! Here it is, the old, tired, worn-out libertarian argument. What a relief.

But let's take it slowly, so the right-wingers can follow along, okay?

First off, what is extortion? SN here is using it to mean the "illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage." (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

Does SN give any examples of this? Of course not. We're expected to take him at his word. He said it, so it must be true. The closest he comes is the completely unfounded statement about Microsoft. That Microsoft may have been guilty of violating the law isn't even mentioned. In SN's world, the company is always blameless, apparently, and the gov't is always wrong.

In response to assumption 5

We have a government of big bureaucracies, by big government, for big money. The current government has become increasingly more socialized and demands more involvement in the market.

Again, SN offers no proof of this, only empty rhetoric. Not even one example.

Somehow, in a country where state after state has deregulated their energy markets, the federal government has cut social spending, Amtrak has been told to sink or swim, and the rich received a huge tax cut, we're supposed to believe SN's rhetoric that we're becoming more "socialized."

When a government practices extortion on businesses, of course the line between big business and government gets blurred. The actual producers are forced to play an unhealthy game that leads to complete governmental control. It is a loosing battle for the citizen, the consumer, the entrepreneur, and the economy as a whole. The government is too blame. They have asserted so much control over the marketplace that they force otherwise honest businessmen to cheat in order to play the game at all. Then they drag out all of these instances of fraud and deception to drum up support for more government controls. Everything that we are seeing is the result of the ideology, which you support. This is what it looks like when a free-market economy becomes socialistic. What, you don't like the taste already?

Now SN is reduced to simple lying. He presents a picture of the world that has poor, beleagured businessmen valiantly struggling against an oppressive gov't, but that's not the way the real world works. Here's how the real world works:

Microsoft and Cisco pay no income tax. (http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/tncs/2000/cisco1.htm).

Bush and Cheney try to save Enron (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/052902a.html).

Citizens pay for corporate polluters (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134410286_fund24.html).

ADM gets huge amounts in corporate welfare (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa241es.html). This one's from the libetarian Cato Institute. Even they see business buying influence in the gov't.

I could go on and on, of course, but none of it will point to socialism. Indeed, the picture that SN draws has penniless CEO's and gov't extortionists, but we all know that in the real world that's not at all the case. Only a right-winger could look at a plutocracy and call is socialism, which is more than enough evidence that he doesn't know what socialism is at all and simply uses it to describe anything he doesn't like. This is what passes for intellectualism among right-wingers.

In conclusion, Nader and I agree on a number of things. We agree that the lines between business and government have been degraded. However, the differences are significant. Nader sites that government has been corrupted by business. Impossible! The government is an inherently corrupt system with a complete monopoly on power. Which is more likely, that the government needs the businesses, or the businesses needing the government? What exactly does a business have to gain by paying profits to a corrupt government? The answer should seem obvious to anyone. The corporations pay such 'fees' under the threat of imprisonment, or at the point of a gun.

Corporations, apparently, don't benefit from a stable system in which to operate. They don't benefit from a workforce that's been educated. Businesses don't benefit from having roads to reach their factories/stores/warehouses/etc. They don't benefit from having a court system in place to protect their property, which is necessary to a capitalist system. They don't benefit from laws which protect them from "dumping" by foreign businesses. Nope, in the US, corporations don't get anything in return for taxes and campaign contributions, especially not a tax code with so many loopholes for businesses that some don't pay income tax at all!

Another difference includes the solution to such problems. Probably the best thing Nader said in his article is, "Civic and political movements must call for a decent separation or corporation and state." When I read this I thought Nader had finally come to his senses. Then I read the next paragraph were he demands for further governmental interference and controls. This is at the heart of my hatred for Nader. He is obviously intelligent enough to understand the nature of the problem. Yet, he uses the obvious results of government intrusion and distorts the true natural of this problem, in order to further compound it. Like Chomsky, Nader is another modern day sophist.

SN's solution, of course, is to deny the problem. Rather than having a body that could enforce the regulations in place to protect consumers, SN says that the regulations themselves are the problem! This, of course, is why Ken Lay didn't make any money and has no pension fund. Oh, wait...that's not what happened at all.

I have demonstrated that the problems mentioned by Nader are a result of government regulations within the market, something Nader supports.

That's just it, SN, you haven't done that at all. You've stated that's the problem, but you didn't even give one example. Not even one. And you say that you've proved it? Oh dear, no. The most you said was that businesses have too much time to lie, which is hardly a reason, of even sound reasoning, for that matter, because a good part of the reason they have so much time is because they are lying! Somehow, that's the government's fault, though just how, other than some ill-defined "extortion," you don't say.

Nader claims that these problems are a result of business interfering with the market. One can only deduce that the government has more reasons for interfering with the business cycle than visa versa.

More rhetoric without reason. Business benefits through favorable legislation, direct corporate welfare, and lax enforcement of laws passed to protect the citizenry. There are three right off the top of my head. You've not shown how the gov't benefits at all.

Furthermore, it is evident that Nader's argument is self-contradictory (typical of sophists, which count on the ignorance of the audience). First, he claims that there is an unhealthy balance between business and government. Then he uses the logical results of such interference to introduce more government into the business world. How self-defeating this would be, as it would simply further complicate the problems that he refers to in his article.

Again, we're expected to believe that gov't oversight of corporations is going to create more problems. How so?

Indeed, you didn't show how gov't interference created any of these problems. Not once did you offer any empircal evidence.

Where is it?

vox

(Edited by vox at 6:03 pm on July 21, 2002)

(Edited by vox at 6:05 pm on July 21, 2002)

marxistdisciple

21st July 2002, 23:56

In short SN has basically said, Enron and Worldcom broke laws and became corrupt, because the government had too many regulations to stop them breaking laws and becoming corrupt. Is that it ?

Good answers vox, it's nice to have someone who can be bothered to read all that drivel :)

Capitalist Imperial

22nd July 2002, 00:11

Although I am sure that there in no love for ralph nader lost on stormin norman, I think you missed the point of his original arguement on his 1st post on this thread.

We wasn't really trying to rebut naders arguement, he acknowledged that he was not going to entertain 1 notion in that article due to the principle that this is a forum for original debate and ideas, so why should he have to formulate a thought-out response against a run of the mill cut-and paste job?

Come on, people, this is the information age, we could all go to our respective ideological websites in our respective areas of the political matrix and just find articles that would support 1 view, and then post them here all day.

SN is making a plea for at least some paraphrasing, if not original arguements, if he is asked to respond in length to these submissions.

Disclaimer: I am in no way discouraging submissions of sites or refrerences that would support an arguement or provide context, in fact I codone it, but said references should not be used as the entire body of a post.

vox

22nd July 2002, 00:49

"We wasn't really trying to rebut naders arguement, he acknowledged that he was not going to entertain 1 notion in that article due to the principle that this is a forum for original debate and ideas, so why should he have to formulate a thought-out response against a run of the mill cut-and paste job?"

So a paragraph by paragraph response isn't a rebuttal? Since when?

By the way, to everyone, sorry about the way the post looks. I checked it twice, and all the tags are correct. Notice that the first /quote tag doesn't work, but is instead printed out. I suspect that there's a bug in the code for Ikonboard. Oh well, I'm sure we'll all survive.

vox

Capitalist Imperial

22nd July 2002, 00:54

Quote: from vox on 12:49 am on July 22, 2002

So a paragraph by paragraph response isn't a rebuttal? Since when?

My statement refered to his 1st posted-response in this thread

marxistdisciple

22nd July 2002, 01:40

Please stop whinging about the nature of the post CI, argue it if you like. It wasn't original, but it was still a good argument, and sometimes the original language is the best, as paraphrasing can damage the integrity of the writing. Just argue or don't argue, it doesn't really matter if he wrote it or not, it's still a good argument.

kidicarus20

22nd July 2002, 01:47

""I would have to take issue with pretty much everything said in the opening statement. Considering the current situation, where scandals like Enron and Worldcom vex the economic system and have succeeded in causing the Dow to drop significantly for two straight weeks; it is clear to anyone who reads a newspaper that such issues have been brought to the forefront of the world's media. In the past couple of weeks, Congress has acted (stupidly, in my opinion) to take aggressive action against such fraud and deception. Furthermore the current director of the SEC is an upstanding citizen who has promised to vigorously investigate and weed malfeasant elements from the market. There goes Nader's claim that nobody is doing anything. ""

The media is showing Bush's rhetoric on corporate reform, pretty much just harshening punishment on corporate crooks. However real reform is not debated or shown on the news media. This is the problem with the dow and wall-street, all they hear is rhetoric and not reform.
The media for years hasn't covered corporate crime fraud and abuse, but has given us pointless stories that equal that of bill clintons penis or chandra levy. This is mostly a problem with relaxing standards on the FEC that have allowed big corporations to suck up all the news-media and turn it into right-wing nonsense... Right-wingers are happy keeping hte people ignorant and dumbed down because it only benefits them.

The head of the SEC should be impeached or removed, him being head of the SEC is just like the fox guarding the henhouse. We need a real chairmen who will fight the corporations not one that is paid off by them.

"It is interesting to compare the contrast the current administration's actions regarding the economy to that of the Clinton administration. Little action is better than no action at all. "

Why should have clinton taken "action"?

:"The reasons are probably due to incompetence rather than complete corruption. "

Huh?

"Finally, the first and most grandiose statement made in this paragraph where he states that their is sweeping corporate control over the government is an erroneous statement at best. I contend that it is the political machinery that assumes too much control over the political system. "

It is a fact that corporations pay off candidates and thus candidates must spend their time dealing with the corporations rather than the public. Bu$h was bought and paid for by oil companies and other large corrupt corporations and thus he tries to do things in their favor, pay them back. This is why a majority of the public now realize that corporations have too much influence on the bu$h administration and the republican party.

"In the second paragraph Nader claims that it is the corporations that are destroying the very nature of the capitalism. Not true. Once again, I will site the fact that it is the political apparatus that has over regulated the corporate world to the point where bribery and payoffs are common practice. If the men of business do not take these measures, bureaucrats would tie the hands of such corporations and make it impossible to conduct business. "

You = moron. Corporations and the market have been deregulated in the past 20 years. What laws make it so corporations have to buy off politicians? that makes abosolutely no sense. corporations buy off politicians so they can get more favors, usually they want to be deregulated so they can exploit the system even more.

The deregulation of S&w Bank lost the government 50 billion dollars under reagan, the deregulation under clinton hurt the small farmers tremendously, Nafta/wto lowered the standards on the environment, etc...

If businesses didn't pay off politicans they would get punished? The reason that they pay them off is to get favors or some kind of corporate wel-fare in return, has nothing to do with laws. Businesses can pretty much do whatever they want, even act as their own nation.

Point one is not an assumption.

"Nothing is preventing the single investor from acquiring a large share in the corporation; the amount that would give him an overall voice in the how the business is operated. If the large investor does not know what is going on in the corporation, then he has neglected to watch his own investments. That makes him a fool. "

Corporations have blocked investors from making decisions about the corporation, look at enron. Corporations like enron also lie to investors, what are they supposed to do in that situation? they don't sit on the board, the president runs the corporations and investors decisions are not considered.

"The reason much of the fraud is occurring remains due to regulation preventing the natural elimination of the weaker firms. If this natural selection process were allowed to persist, then companies would not have time to fix the books and hide the fact that they had become weak. They would be too concerned about being acquired by a smarter and more efficient company. Since this natural selection is prevented in many cases, the corporation must find inventive ways to create the illusion of being necessary to the market."

Your friends as dumb as you. The documents were destroyed because of corrupt corporate practices, these would take place with or without small firms. That doesn't even make any fucking sense. Enron was about corporate scandals to help the thieves in charge ake more money. any sort of laws removed would have only helped them to be more corrupt.

:In Response to assumption 2

" Largely, I agree with assumption 2 of Nader's. I have never been a proponent for welfare of any kind. It is always a system created to protect people's lifestyles. In the corporate bailout world, it is done to protect the friends of the men of pull in Washington. Again this speaks to the unhealthy interference of the government into the business cycle"

Corporate welfare is unheatlhy, as is deregulation, it tells people that the government is there to protect corporate copy rights and patents, that's more like fascism, protecting the few, or some kind of classist racism.

3: Nader's third point is that companies are all the same with these contracts. You have to submit yourself to these corporations in other words, that the government then protects the corporatoins if thereis a problem.

"4

I would take issue with the part where he claim's that the government is being run by the businesses. It is the government who holds a monopoly on power and asserts its control over the business cycle. He who has the guns makes the rules. Many corrupt politicians and head administrators in government bureaus simply want a cut of the action. So when a business pays out they have every reason not to bust them down, for they can continue to line their pockets. This is probably the reason Microsoft went under such fire. They may have refused to play ball with extortionists.

"

I agree with nader that it is these large corporations that are the ones receiving protection rather than the people. They buy off politicans for favors that hurt us.

Finally it's corporations that control our lives more than government. Corporations set our wages (usually they find who will work for the lowest wage), corporations with-hold technology just so they can make more money, capitalism forces people to work menial jobs just to make a living, capitalism is the reason why people hate their jobs, etc...

Corporations are not held the same standards as private individuals or even small businesses, that is the real problem right there. you start forcing them to obey society would only get better. that is the biggest fruad with our system these anti-democratic corporations.

"We have a government of big bureaucracies, by big government, for big money. "
We have a government of by and for companies, thus destroyign democracy, giving more power to corporations.

we have corpocracy in america, corporaitons are fascist and should be abolished.

"The current government has become increasingly more socialized and demands more involvement in the market. "

We have had nothing but deregulation for the past 20 years and htis has caused problems.

Especially wiht reaganomics, who lowered taxes on the rich (also upped them on the poor) then tried to justify a huge military budget, so he cut a lot of social programs that allowed the poor to received birth control. Damn reagan and his gilded age politics put us in two recessions, reaganomics is truly the politics of big business and reagan should be hanged for his terrorism , war crimes,a nd economic crimes. I wonder if that old dumb fuck even remembers being president lol.

"When a government practices extortion on businesses, of course the line between big business and government gets blurred"

Or, in realityk, when deregulation happens the line between big business and government gets blurred, thus the big corporations start to become the government.

"The actual producers are forced to play an unhealthy game that leads to complete governmental control. It is a loosing battle for the citizen, the consumer, the entrepreneur, and the economy as a whole. The government is too blame. "

the market is to blame as it has lost the government billions and destroyed peoples jobs and lives. Capitalism is definitely to blame.

your responses are ignorant and make no sense. The corporations want to pay the government off and get them off their backs because they are forced to? they are forced to give themselves more freedom with deregulation and destruction? Makes no sense. So enron gave more money to the republicnas because they had a gun to their head by the republicans that were going to regulate them?

The government has virtually no regulation that actually affects the practices of Enron to conduct business fairly, the problem is with lack of regulation, not regulation, that doesn't even exist.

These large companies control the resources and the property so no one else can compete, then start conductiong faulty business, that everybody has to except. this is a problem with capitalism, you must submit yourself to it to live. The community owned facilities in California of course did not fail, because that's how things such as energy should be run.

Stormin Norman

22nd July 2002, 06:15

Ahh! Good old unadulterated jealousy. God I love it. Admit it people you love me, or at least love to hate me. Either way, you will miss me when I am gone.

Stormin Norman

22nd July 2002, 11:26

Before I dissect and pick apart the standing criticism of my rebuttal, I would like to have Fires of History's remarks. After all, she is the one who issued the challenge. Don't think that I would let you get off that easily, Fires. Let us see if you can put some original thought into defending your position, after I gave you what you wished.
Since I know that I could be waiting a lifetime, let me ask you a question, Vox. You seem to be a supporter of big government taking control of the market place. Why don't you lay it out for me? How exactly would your socialized economic system address the key issue of operating an economy. That being, the allocation of scarce resources. In the free-market we use a principle known as marginal utility. Obviously, this principle along with many others, like mutual benefit for mutual exchange, would be hindered by direct government control of the marketplace. The efficiency of the economy would, of course, be stiffled. How then, would your proposed system make up for this drawback.
Finally, it can be said that no economy operates on the production possibilities curve. However, under socialistic regimes the total efficiency falls further back from the line. Simple mistakes made by govenment officials could add to the overall opportunity cost of manufacturing the wrong product at the wrong time. Who will make the production desicions, like method of production, and the types of goods and services produced? How can it be seen that the resources involved are being used efficiently and other areas of the economy are not left with shortages due to poor planning? Finally, how will your 'just' society distribute goods and services?

vox

22nd July 2002, 13:41

SN,

Nice try, bud, but I'm not playing that game. See, this isn't about me, nor the plans you attribute to me, based on nothing at all except your own preconceived notions. I understand that you desperately want to turn this in to an argument about me and divert attention away from your remarks, which did not display any degree of analytical thought but seemed to rely mostly on conservative buzzwords like "extortion."

That isn't going to happen.

I will, however, give you a piece of advice, because I'm so nice. You'd do well to stop the "regulation" line of defense, or attack, as the case may be. See, we're talking about fraud here, SN. Most people don't view the outlawing of fraud as more "big government" regulation. They view it as a good law.

vox

Fires of History

22nd July 2002, 14:50

SN,

I can't rip you a new asshole because Vox already did that. But, I'll be happy to talk more later as I spent my time online tonight showing how your claims that life has inherent meaning is only met by your silence...unless, that is, you would like to enlighten us all as to how you discovered the meaning and essense of life? I'd love to hear that tale since you sound so damn sure. Toodles til' then.

Stormin Norman

23rd July 2002, 04:17

I can see I was wron about you, Vox. I thought that I had found the challenge that I was seeking. Apparently, you are not good enough to back up the system you support. What were my questions to tough?

I was not trying to divert attention. Purely, trying to fill time.

FOH,

That is what I thought someone like you would say. You have nothing to add and are way out of your league, so you again refer me to the work of somebody else. Thanks, Vox, for doing FOH's work for her. I am sure she appreciates not having to do it herself.

peaccenicked

23rd July 2002, 05:03

The meek shall inherit the right to say it is too heavy man
fuck off and use your own words.
SN how meek can you get, do you crawl under your bed at night?

Fires of History

23rd July 2002, 08:11

And I couldn't have predicted more perfectly what you were going to whine about.

It is Vox that is out of his league here!...as in above all our heads!!! He knows more than you or I can even hope about the intricacies of the corporate economy, and I have seen over time that he tracks such details very well. It's part of why I respect him so much. Are we all suppose to be experts on every issue? Sorry this area isn't really mine, and I'm just so sorry you feel all torn up inside that I just wanted to initiate a simple discussion about the article and not some Congressional hearing on the matter. So, sure, say whatever you want about me- *yawn*- Vox still beat your ass down, down, down.

But I must admit that my enthusiasm for replying to your drool waned considerably since last night when it became very clear to me that your only here to insult and belittle people with your arrogant rhetoric based on refusing to let people be in control of their own destiny, both personally and politically.

Most of this was covered, but I'll speak up some to stroke your gentle ego that desperately needs recognition.

"If the men of business do not take these measures, bureaucrats would tie the hands of such corporations and make it impossible to conduct business."

Oh boy...are you saying that business is made impossible by all the pesky laws?

"If the large investor does not know what is going on in the corporation, then he has neglected to watch his own investments. That makes him a fool."

Meanwhile, the small investor is lied to, and duped into thinking their investment dollars are doing one thing when they are actually doing another. Or do you think hidden loans and investments are just honest, ol' fashioned practices?

"It is the government who holds a monopoly on power and asserts its control over the business cycle."

Well, that's interesting considering the level campaign contributions are reaching. Or do you think lobbyists pour millions into Washington just to pass the time? And you can rest assured that the Sarbanes bill will be watered down to nothingness once business lobbyists remind Oxley & Company where their true loyalties lie.

"They have asserted so much control over the marketplace that they force otherwise honest businessmen to cheat in order to play the game at all."

Are you fucking smoking crack?

"The government is an inherently corrupt system with a complete monopoly on power."

Like most on the right, you seem to think that government is an institution completely segregated from the people. And given the choice between government having power or private interests, I pick government any day.

"What exactly does a business have to gain by paying profits to a corrupt government?"

Are you talking about taxes? If you are, duh. Other than that, companies have everything to gain from making campaign contributions to corrupt government officials- loopholes, special deals, government contracts, and bending their votes on key issues.

You seem to forget that companies exist within the framework of these things called nation-states, and that these same mysterious nation-state entities create systems of law that everyone is bound to. You seem to want to exempt companies from that because they turn a profit. Do you think companies should exist outside of nation-states? Do you want companies to be nation-states? Your blind support for criminal corporate practices is hopelessly absurd.

"Then I read the next paragraph were he demands for further governmental interference and controls."

That's right he does! You seem to contradict yourself. You yourself seem to see too many controls already in place, yet these corporate abuses exist even now with all these controls. Would less regulations by government make businesses only more honest? You are prescribing nothing but a new wild west where companies exist above the law. Nader is correct, more transparent monitoring and strict controls are needed to keep these criminals in business suits in check.

And, I honestly don't think you could live with the conditions you prescribe. Less controls? Ok, so when your son or daughter has their rights violated by their employer through being overworked or underpaid or worse, are you really going to say, "Oh well, kids, buck up"? I doubt it, and I doubt it even more if the story was about you. Did you ever study the Industrial Revolution? Yeah...exactly, your ideas are nothing new.

(Edited by Fires of History at 8:55 am on July 23, 2002)

Stormin Norman

23rd July 2002, 10:17

Thanks for they reply FOH. It is appreciated. Now I can begin the task of ripping your criticisms to shreds and exposing the weakness in the system that you support. The two will probably be seperate posts, because they will be quite lengthy. First, I think that it is necessary to clear up a misconception that many of you have about my nature. I do not think that corporations or the business should be immune to the laws that protect and govern the people. A post will follow that provides a brief description of my views on the governments role in the market.

Stormin Norman

23rd July 2002, 10:56

I have posted this before and it provides an explaination of what I think the government's role in the market should be, if we want to mantain the level of efficiency and innovation, which the U.S. is notorious for. It looks at the general text book problems attributed to a market economy. In no way does this describe all of the problems that exist in a market economy or the extents of the government's role in the business. It is purely a template that will give you an idea where I am coming from.

Lockean liberalism, also classic liberalism, with its root word libertas, meaning freedom, is the basis for our political system. Locke stated, and Jefferson agreed, that men are born with inherent rights. These being, life, liberty, and pursuit of property, the right to the fruit of our labors, and the right to determine our own motivations. Locke believed that government was formed in order to protect these rights from certain rouge elements that might not live by this code of ethic. When government fails to protect these rights or utilizes its monopoly of power to oppress the people, it is within the people’s right to dissolve the government through violent means if necessary. Men gave government the right to legislate and enforce the laws, provide for the national defense, and levy taxes. Government should not get involved with the market mechanism. We should look at market failures individually and decide what government’s role, if any is required.

First, economies suffer from severe business fluctuations, a.k.a the boom and bust cycle. Today we live under a government umbrella that protects us from this market reality. One can only ask whether these laws will only forgo the inevitable long enough to cause a major economic collapse. Will the bust be extremely severe due to government intervention? We reap the rewards brought about by the progressive era and continued through Johnson’s great society administration. These newly created entitlement programs invite further government intervention into our lives. Is a population that is dependent on the government in a dangerous position? One only has to look to the former Soviet Union to see how dangerous this can be.

Second, the market distributes wealth unequally. I only ask whether or not this is truly a market failure. Shouldn’t our pay be based on our merits and ability to produce? Furthermore, who gives another man the right to live by my utility and my competence? Is it in humanities best interest to unfairly compensate men of lesser ability and therefore discourage men of great ability. Welfare programs often hurt the ones they seek to protect as people fail to realize their full potential. This sort of compensation often includes income caps that insure that people remain in their current positions in order to get their subsidy. The most unfortunate result of welfarism is the hate and resentment that it breeds among fellow men.

In continuation, monopolies allocate resources inefficiently. Does this do any worse than central planning? Large firms can embark on research and development that might not be accomplished under perfect competition. The advances in technology, which have enhanced our lives, as a result, far outweigh the monopoly’s ability to charge higher prices. Moreover, I don’t think any industry can be effectively monopolized unless it is done by government decree. Monopolistic industries are constantly under the threat of being bought out by larger firms or a conglomeration of smaller firms.

Its also a fact that markets do not provide public goods. These goods include, police and fire protection, military, highway systems, and arguably education. In fact, this is true. This is one of the reasons governments are implemented by men. It is well within the scope of government to create these programs and charge fair compensation for their use.

Finally, it is important to discuss the problem of externalities caused by market failure. We’ll use the example of air and water pollution. Clean air and clean water are also public goods that benefit everyone. It is in the public’s interest and the responsibility of the government to insure the safety of these resources. An effective tax on the level of emissions from industry, as well as certain direct controls are necessary. A firm who knowingly evades the regulations and the level of toxicity is a certain danger, criminal law enforcement is necessary. If people die as a result then the death penalty should be brought down against the individuals who perpetrated the crime.

In conclusion, the government should stay out of the market unless it is absolutely necessary for the public welfare. Government should only be used to insure the rights that Locke and those who live under his principle know to be true. When these rights are threatened either through ignorance, negligence, benevolence, or malicious actions it is necessary for government intervention.

*In the wake of current market failures I still stand by my concept of when the government is needed to intervene to promote justice and stability. Bad elements of all parts of our society must be brought under scrutiny by the justice system. This includes instances of corporate fraud. Instead of passing new regulations that will affect the efficiency of our economy and destroy the principles of limited liability, the government should see to it that the perpetrators of crimes are brought to justice, and sentenced to the maximum penalty. The damage these peope have done is so great that reparations could never be paid, even with the millions of dollars that they stole. Only when it becomes evident that the government is willing to uphold the current law, and refuse safe haven for such criminals will the common investor feel inclined to invest in forward thinking companies. Trust is what the market is currently lacking. The government should be doing more to instill trust in the people that they will enforce current law, rather than writing new legislation that will be ignored by those who will continue to pay extortion fees to spineless political leaders.

marxistdisciple

23rd July 2002, 13:34

Since most of your logical arguments are conducted in a bizarre kind ofrational that most people don't understand, I will try my best to work out your strange reasoning.

"First, economies suffer from severe business fluctuations, a.k.a the boom and bust cycle. Today we live under a government umbrella that protects us from this market reality. One can only ask whether these laws will only forgo the inevitable long enough to cause a major economic collapse. Will the bust be extremely severe due to government intervention? "

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here, the market economy naturally falls in to boom and bust, it's the cyclic nature of capitalism, what the governemnt seeks to do is avoid the bust damaging people's lives too much. are your arguments completely disconnected from actual living, breathing people? and you are right, it is the enivitable, eventually there will be another depression like in the 30s, because this is the nature of capitalism. Is that good somehow?

"Second, the market distributes wealth unequally. I only ask whether or not this is truly a market failure. Shouldn’t our pay be based on our merits and ability to produce? Furthermore, who gives another man the right to live by my utility and my competence? Is it in humanities best interest to unfairly compensate men of lesser ability and therefore discourage men of great ability"

Nothing does, unfortuantely we are talking about huge amounts of money here, not the pocket change you regard as a salary. The businesses have such unequal distribution of wealth that it has impacted on a) The judicial system b ) The executive.

As far as the judicial system goes, one even in the late 1800s really screwed that over. IT was the decision to give bussiness the same rights as people! Not only that, but the bizarre limited liability arangement, which meant business had the same rights as human beings, but could also be held accountable in the same way. So when the director of a business screws things up, it's the business that suffers, not the guy responsible.

As for the executive, this is simply made possible by the huge "wealth," sorry, money, that the business holds. It makes perfect market market sense to bribe the people who make the laws, if that can benefit business.

"In continuation, monopolies allocate resources inefficiently. Does this do any worse than central planning? Large firms can embark on research and development that might not be accomplished under perfect competition. The advances in technology, which have enhanced our lives, as a result, far outweigh the monopoly’s ability to charge higher prices."

firstly, I don't agree with central planning either. Secondly, corporations WERE meant to use this power to improve living conditions and technology, but ONLY for these ends! The founding fathers enacted laws to make sure corporations were only createdin order to further the needs of human beings, unfortuantely over time these laws have been eroded, as big business bribed the governments to give them more and more rights. you want to give them more rights? How does that benefit people?? You seem to also use this as an excuse to have monopolies, which actually hold technology back. take Intel for an example, they already have the technology to create processors far exceeding the power of the ones we have, but they also planned processors in between these stages in order to derive the biggest amount of profit. Of course, makes perfect business sense. But once again, business interest is not the same as being in the interests of normal people. You don't seem to understand that.

"Its also a fact that markets do not provide public goods. These goods include, police and fire protection, military, highway systems, and arguably education. In fact, this is true. This is one of the reasons governments are implemented by men. It is well within the scope of government to create these programs and charge fair compensation for their use. "

Really? That's funny because quite a lot of education is being privatised these days. you seem to miss the big idea though, why should companies want to get involved in public services? Some would argue drinking water is a public serice, but that has been privatised. Firstly, it is easy to make a profit, from something that is partly public funded. Secondly, the company can NEVER fail! If the company gets to the point of bankrupcy, the government has two choices, a) Lets the company fail and send "public" services into disarray, or B) Prop up the company financially to avoid this happening.

As of yet, no companies have tried to get involved in the fire services. Practically every other public service has a private initiative to it's name - a) Education (private schools) B) The police (security guards/ rent a cop)
c) Hospitals (private health care) d ) Water companies (all privatised here in the Uk)

If you have control of public services, you have ultimate pwoer as a company, you can charge as much or as little as you like, and people will still have to use you. It's the same as monopolising a supermarket chain etc., people have to eat, and when there are no other stores around, you can then put up your prices as high as you like.

"Finally, it is important to discuss the problem of externalities caused by market failure. We’ll use the example of air and water pollution. Clean air and clean water are also public goods that benefit everyone. It is in the public’s interest and the responsibility of the government to insure the safety of these resources. An effective tax on the level of emissions from industry, as well as certain direct controls are necessary. A firm who knowingly evades the regulations and the level of toxicity is a certain danger, criminal law enforcement is necessary. If people die as a result then the death penalty should be brought down against the individuals who perpetrated the crime. "

I agree with mostof this statement, apart from the dealth penalty part. But a company director isnot responsible for deaths his company cause in quite the way you describe.

In the end, vast changes have to be made to ensure that government does properly stand for public interests. This is necessary as companies themselves are not capable of keeping the country stable, or happy for that matter. Firstly, private donations over a certain level should be outlawed. They undermine democracy's core principles. Secondly, governments should have Bill of Rights privledges removed, they are NOT human beings. Thirdly, limited liability should be altered, so that in fradualent companies, or companies that have commited crimes, directors, chairpeople etc are at least partially responsible financially for their failings. These would help stem companies constant pushing of governemnt policy, and mean that companies would be less likely to break the law, as the people at the head of the company could be held financially responsible. That has muvch more impact, as greedy people have plenty of chance to win leniant sentences in court with the vast amount of money they posses. In essance, they would have their crooked fortunes stripped if they were found to be breaking laws and causing damage to public interest.

mentalbunny

23rd July 2002, 18:00

Ummm, I'm knew here and I guess maybe I shouldn't be here at all cos I don't know alot about Che or anything, but I want to learn and make my own opinions so I'd really appreciate anything anyone can tell me.

My friend's a member here and he spends tons of time doing this kinda stuff so I'm interested and want to find out about this stuff. His username is guerillaradio by the way, you've probably read one of his posts somewhere.

Well thanks for your time.

Capitalist Imperial

23rd July 2002, 19:21

Quote: from mentalbunny on 6:00 pm on July 23, 2002
Ummm, I'm knew here and I guess maybe I shouldn't be here at all cos I don't know alot about Che or anything, but I want to learn and make my own opinions so I'd really appreciate anything anyone can tell me.

My friend's a member here and he spends tons of time doing this kinda stuff so I'm interested and want to find out about this stuff. His username is guerillaradio by the way, you've probably read one of his posts somewhere.

Well thanks for your time.

Hello, mentalbunny, the best advice I can give you is to join the fight for freedom, democracy, free enterprise, liberty, choice, and sovereignty.

Join the capitalists

Do not let these oppresors that seek to establish dictatorial regimes that force you into a mediocre existence devoid of freedom or choice try to sell you on their theorhetical utopia that is an unemployable fantasy at best.

marxistdisciple

23rd July 2002, 19:41

Hey CI, butt out he's one of GRs friends.

"Do not let these oppresors that seek to establish dictatorial regimes that force you into a mediocre existence devoid of freedom or choice try to sell you on their theorhetical utopia that is an unemployable fantasy at best."

Talk about making stuff up....I don't want to live in a dictorial regime anymore than you do. Do you just invent stuff in your head?
A theroetical utopia is better than resigning to the fact we are all evil, and should lounge in the blood of half the world for our own gain. And no, that is not the nature of human kind. It is the nature of you.

Welcome metalbunny, please enjoy posting in the forums, hope you learn stuff and can make up your own viewpoint free from the propaganda and untruths in the major press. I am not going to tell you who is right or wrong, that is up to you to decide, what I will say is, educate yourself on the true nature and ideals of each system.

Capitalist Imperial

23rd July 2002, 19:46

Yeah, you always like to present yourself as peaceful and objective, but I know your true agenda!

marxistdisciple

23rd July 2002, 20:02

No CI, I believe in democracy, not dictatorship, just like lenin wrote, just like Marx wrote. Since Marx invented communism, and Lenin helped, don't you think when they say that democracy is essential for communism, they mean exactly that?

Since we already have capitalism, people can see the results in action. Since we have never had communism, no one can see the results in action.

I try to understand capitalist theory, but it doesn't make fair and rational sense to me, that's all. That's why I disagree with it. Some people might well agree, but to me, all the people who seem to advocate capitalism so avidly are either a) Really rich or B) Seem to be far too into warfare too, which is another thing I detest. So no, I am not a violent person, and I don't have a hidden agenda (short of making the world a better place.)

So if I am sneaking around as an evil commie, trying to make the world a better place, and I am arrested as a terrorist, I will know the real agenda behind the war on terrorism. I don't advocate violence to get to my aims either. I'm not a stalinist.

I just believe in truth, fairness and equality to all human beings, I think that's the "hidden agenda" for all socialists. If they weren't out there to help people, or they cheat the system they are supposedly advocating, then I don't consider them socialists, and I will not support them. Anyone can call themselves anything, that doesn't make them so. Rich people buy degrees at Yale (i.e. dubbya) that doesn't make them smart either.

(If he's smart there is absolutely no hope for the education system)

marxistdisciple

23rd July 2002, 20:08

By the way, anyone want to criticise my ideas for business law reform?

Capitalist Imperial

23rd July 2002, 20:12

Quote: from marxistdisciple on 8:02 pm on July 23, 2002
No CI, I believe in democracy, not dictatorship, just like lenin wrote, just like Marx wrote. Since Marx invented communism, and Lenin helped, don't you think when they say that democracy is essential for communism, they mean exactly that?

Since we already have capitalism, people can see the results in action. Since we have never had communism, no one can see the results in action.

I try to understand capitalist theory, but it doesn't make fair and rational sense to me, that's all. That's why I disagree with it. Some people might well agree, but to me, all the people who seem to advocate capitalism so avidly are either a) Really rich or B) Seem to be far too into warfare too, which is another thing I detest. So no, I am not a violent person, and I don't have a hidden agenda (short of making the world a better place.)

So if I am sneaking around as an evil commie, trying to make the world a better place, and I am arrested as a terrorist, I will know the real agenda behind the war on terrorism. I don't advocate violence to get to my aims either. I'm not a stalinist.

I just believe in truth, fairness and equality to all human beings, I think that's the "hidden agenda" for all socialists. If they weren't out there to help people, or they cheat the system they are supposedly advocating, then I don't consider them socialists, and I will not support them. Anyone can call themselves anything, that doesn't make them so. Rich people buy degrees at Yale (i.e. dubbya) that doesn't make them smart either.

(If he's smart there is absolutely no hope for the education system)

"No CI, I believe in democracy, not dictatorship, just like lenin wrote, just like Marx wrote. Since Marx invented communism, and Lenin helped, don't you think when they say that democracy is essential for communism, they mean exactly that?"

I don't know, because in every communist regme that has existed, the actions do not follow the words

"Since we already have capitalism, people can see the results in action. Since we have never had communism, no one can see the results in action."

YES WE HAVE!!! The soviet union, east germany, china, cuba! That is what communism becomes! Those are the results! Are you in denial?

"I just believe in truth, fairness and equality to all human beings..."

So you support free-market capitalism?

"Anyone can call themselves anything, that doesn't make them so. Rich people buy degrees at Yale (i.e. dubbya) that doesn't make them smart either."

Have you seen bushes grades at yale? claiming that he essentially bought his degree is pure conjecture.

marxistdisciple

23rd July 2002, 20:30

"YES WE HAVE!!! The soviet union, east germany, china, cuba! That is what communism becomes! Those are the results! Are you in denial?"

Not at all. I believe the reason it has happened that way is because they missed an essential part of the process. Socialism must always come before communsim. Even Marx knew that. If you skip that part, then you end up just transfering the plutocracy into a different type of system, whilst they retain power. You must educate the country in the ways of socialism, before you can keep control without terrible violence. What I advocate is a transitional change over decades, not just a magical revolution that melts people's opinions and prejudices like ice! When you have been in a government system for centuries, you can't expect people to adapt spontaneously. I think the reason it has failed so drastically in the past, is not the core principles - they are based on the idealism that any system should be based on. They even have great realistic principals, and theories too. The problem was, after the revolution, the country just expects everything to get better straight away. Of course it won't. People will act they way they have been brought up under capitalism (try to get ahead in any way they can.) Stalin tried to counter this by killing the dissidents, which just shows what an evil person he was, and how detached he was from communist ideals.

The idea of communism is true democracy. The USSR and all countries since then have never had that, therefore they were never communist. This has been explained to you many times. If a capitalist system didn't have the free market, would it still be capitalism?

I just believe in truth, fairness and equality to all human beings...

"So you support free-market capitalism?"

How is that attribted to fairness? Ahh unequal wealth distribution? Equality? Ahh plutocracy? None of the things I said match free market capitalism, at least not unless it's the imaginary type of world you seem to live in.

"Have you seen bushes grades at yale? claiming that he essentially bought his degree is pure conjecture. "

No, what was his degree in, illiteracy?

Some famous bush quotes;
"This year NASA will be mostly dedicated to space."
"The people who think I'm not fit to be president are underestimating."
"We are going to have the best educated American's in the world."

He's got better now he has someone to write his speaches. So if Bush is smart enough to go to Yale, I think I ought to apply for Harvard :)
Bush could have bribed his way all the way through school, I can't see how he passed otherwise? Maybe he is really smart underneath but we never noticed. then again, if he's got a business degree, you don't really need to be that smart, in fact you can buy them now (makes good business sense.)

You not going to criticise my reform ideas?

Stormin Norman

24th July 2002, 12:46

Criticism of Vox’s evaluation of my rebuttal to Nader’s piece

Vox,

First, let me thank you for the genuine challenge that you offer. You are truly a formidable opponent. That being said I must now take they time to thank you for regarding my work as rhetorical. As I am sure that you meant it in a negative context, I will pretend that you meant it in the true sense of the word.

The critique that you offered regarding my response to the first paragraph in Nader’s work was nothing more than a personal attack, alleging that I am an illiterate baffoon. You choose to ignore what was originally stated in the article and suggest that I somehow misunderstood what was being said. That is simply not true. If you had the benefit of an unbiased opinion you would recognize that what was being said, by Nader was a farce. He suggests that regardless of the endless reporting the news media does on the fraud and corporate greed they somehow fail to address the initial causation. Am I wrong to deduce that Nader thinks mainstream reporting touches on the effects and fails to address the cause? This is a notion that is utter nonsense, and I will give you another example of why I think that he is wrong. Let us consider the controversial campaign finance reform bill that dominated the media a couple of months ago, which congress passed, regrettably I might add. At the heart of the debate was the idea that ‘big money’ was corrupting the political system, a notion that failed to address the spineless nature of the leaders that the voting public chooses to elect. This topic was covered in great detail by all media outlets. Therefore, one can only conclude that either Nader was not paying attention, or that he was lying about this issue in order to persuade you of his position. It is obvious that he believes the news media is tied to the evil corporations and deems them to be another target in all of this. A premise that I am sure many of you would agree with and is why you choose to ignore the mistruth in the original statement.

Furthermore, I do think that passing more legislation that stagnates growth and hinders innovation would be a bad move, on the part of Congress. The laws needed to prosecute such crimes already exist. The problem is not caused by lack of regulation. The problem lies in the lack of prosecution, a general relaxation of the desire to disrupt the market system. This failure was taken to new levels under the Clinton administration, because that administration benefited from a good economic outlook. Like you said any move to further legislate business would be done for cosmetic purposes, by grandstanding congressman who are up for reelection this fall. However, I disagree with your thinking. These laws would not go unused. They would simply be another way for government to encroach on corporate profits. Nothing that I said could be distorted to mean that I support fraud or deception. After all, this sort of malicious theft is the reason I hate communism. Nothing sickens me more than people benefiting from the unearned.

You then go on to site my lack of examples to support my thinking, something you failed to demand of Nader when you took the value of his word on faith. Are there any specific examples in Nader’s article? I did not see any specific examples other than the generic Enron and Worldcom corporations, which do not represent the majority of the business sector. His article was based on his own assumptions, and remains the reason why I chose to refute it with assumptions of my own. Are you saying that it is okay for him to make assumptions, but somehow I should not make any of my own? That would be ridiculous.

In addition, you failed to defend assumption 1 of Nader’s. You just offered me a sob story, saying the common man doesn’t have the necessary capital to acquire 51% of the stock of a company. That hardy demonstrates how the ‘rubber stamped’ board of directors and CEO’s are preventing investor oversight. Furthermore, there is nothing stopping the man who does have the kind of capital necessary, with exception of certain laws governing acquisitions and mergers. Presently, there are no laws governing the amount of money I can obtain, either. Why shouldn’t investors vote with their dollars again? Why shouldn’t they withdraw their support from a company when they disagree with its management style? Nader claims this to be a flaw. I say a couple stocks in a company shouldn’t give the average investor say, nor should an investor give their support to a poorly run company. Does Nader think that a corporation should run like a democracy? Should they take a vote from all the shareholders before they make a decision? I far as I know they already do that for anyone that own a significant share of the company. Both you and Nader fail to demonstrate the kind of disenfranchisement that is noted in the original work.

Then you give me the tired old charge that the CEO’s job is to increase the price of the stock, which is one of the responsibilities required by his job, but is not the only function he should be concerned with. Any CEO with common sense will tell you the best way to increase stock price are to effectively manage the corporation, by seeking new products and reducing production costs. Only a poor manager would hide his failure as a CEO, by cooking the books to present the appearance of profit in order to save their cushy job. Besides only a thief would run a company into the ground and take profit for themselves on their way out.

As far as the laws governing acquisitions and mergers go, consult your local law library for specifics on the code regulating this business practice. Fact remains; it is a necessity for a healthy economy as it weeds out weaker companies. Stronger companies used to have free reign when it came to this, but their hands have been tied to a certain degree. Now if a company wants to engage in such activity they are tied up in the state courts. A costly measure that prevents the kind of sneak attack made famous during the 1980’s. If it were made easier, then maybe a good company would have bought Enron and fired Kenneth Lay. Typically when a strong company acquires a weaker company, they replace the board of director and fire the CEO. I guess logical thinking would lead them to believe that they are the reason the stock is weak to begin with. This is a fact; any economics books will provide you the details that you requested.

Your idea of natural selection is only half-true. Actually, natural selection does refer to single organisms. Part of the theory states that weaker elements of a certain species will be weeded out by predators and disease, leaving the stronger survivors to propagate the species. This will insure that the stronger genes are passed on to the next generation. It also applies to entire species, which might not be viable or capable of adapting quickly enough. Have you even read “Origin of Species”, by Charles Darwin? I imagine you are thinking of the new branch of the theory called punctuated equilibrium.

Finally, you attack me on my laizze faire ideals, citing the so-called deregulation that persists in the oil, gas, electricity and telecommunications markets. The problem in places like California is not deregulation it is that of partial deregulation. If you investigate the situation you will find that the generators of energy have been deregulated while the transmission and distribution (T&D) ends have remained largely regulated. Furthermore, third party billing agencies have been introduced. The only thing they are responsible for is the billing. If the system were entirely deregulated, prices would decline as a direct result of competition. You claim to hate the monopoly, yet you go on to support a state run monopoly. Which is it? Are monopolies good or bad? The most surreptitious monopolies are the ones operating with the consent of the government, which claims that natural monopolies exist and should be regulated. In many cases, these monopolies avoid the taxes by passing the cost onto the consumer, under the government’s oversight.

You then go one to tell me that I have no concept of socialism, and state we are living in a plutocracy. Are you trying to tell me that socialist countries are devoid of a ruling class? A common thread within all socialist and communist countries is the absence of a middle class. There exist the political and social elitist, the men of power that hold the wealth, and the poor fools who where duped into thinking that the government would take care of their needs for them. I got news for you. We still have a rather large middle class demographic in the US. It is true that the United States is a mixed economy. Again, you can consult any economics book for evidence of my statement. However, in the wake of corporate scandal and malfeasance the balance is shifting further towards a socialized system. This shift has been happening for some time, as the liberal media has convinced the average idiot that it is the government’s job to manage every part of the people’s lives. One only has to listen to any of the news channels or read the papers to see how the common man is being duped again. Socialism has become a popular idea amongst the masses. Living in a democracy, it is assured that the politicians will react accordingly.

Maybe I have not convinced a raging liberal of my position that the market is being corrupted the government. All I did was take an argument made up of assumptions and counter it with assumptions of my own. You demand empirical evidence of me, but fail to ask Nader for the same. You then go on by telling me that extortion is a term made up by libertarians. In doing so not only do you attack my position, but also you negate the very thesis of the paper you are defending. The thesis statement of the paper is, “This is largely because expected accountability mechanisms – including boards of directors, outside accounting and law firms, bankers and brokers, state and regulatory agencies and legislatures – are inert and complicit.” The very idea of complicity acknowledges the government’s part in this. It means participating in the wrongdoing. I can only ask, why a government established to protect the rights of the people, with a stranglehold on the power structure, and every means to stop such practices, would allow such corruption? Could it be that they define the rules of the game, and in doing so design a system that allows for them to benefit directly? Yes some corporations comply and pay what is needed to continue to operate. I ask you once again is it the political system that has corrupted the corporate system, or visa versa? Furthermore, do you trust men that have already proven their inability to implement justice to further regulate the market or put himself in a position to completely control all means of production? Based on these people’s voting records you shouldn’t even reelect them, not to mention, demand they have complete control of the economy.

mentalbunny

24th July 2002, 21:30

Um, this has gone over my head a bit, but thanx marxist disciple, i like what you're saying, and I have to say CI is being a bit, well, melodramatic about the whole dictatorship thing.

i'm a bit of a hippy so I guess i just want everyone to get on and eat organic food! as churchill said "to jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war". I no he's not very lefty but that doesn't mean he's always wrong!

I don't know alot aobut marx but weren't his ideas essentially good? although i think communism's a bit squiff I think people should be more equal.

I guess I kinda sit on the fence, in a perfect world we'd all have something to offer and be willing to do it.

however as we are, the selfish bit of me says to let those willing and able to work rise to the top. however the more compassionate bit says we should all work for each other.

it's all very confusing, by the way, MD i'm female, no offence taken. i'll jsut see how i develope, I'd rather not be a capitalist tho! i don't reckon I am. I jsut want to have a bit of choice in my life.

marxistdisciple

24th July 2002, 23:25

It's all good mentalbunny, it's nice you don't believe in war, I think most people on this forum share that interest. As far as Marx's ideas go, I'd say they were essentially good, CI and SN would disagree with me though. However, the arguemnt most people use is this that people are too selfish to ever live in a utopian paradise, however good the ideas are. I disagree, because I think in the future we will be able to live in an ideal world. Maybe not right now though. So my mission is to make the world as socialist as I can, so that one day maybe people will just be nice to each other. Sounds silly, but I don't know what is wrong with idealism, more people ought to believe in it.

I just don't believe in a system that works by exploiting most of the world. I believe in letting the most competent take the most poweful positions, but I don't think that's what happens in capitalism. I believe the CEos and the Mds are simply the most ruthless and business orientated. I don't think that makes them smart, or worthy of the roles they possess. I believe communism rewards the most competent with the best positions, or it should do.

Sorry for assuming you were amle :) Most people on here are, although we do have quite a few females. You should go chat to the lovely "supermodel" she actually used to be a model too. Even narcisists can be socialist apparently :)

Hope you have a good time posting on the board, and get to sit on the fence as long as you can :)

To SN:
"At the heart of the debate was the idea that ‘big money’ was corrupting the political system, a notion that failed to address the spineless nature of the leaders that the voting public chooses to elect"

If someone gave you a million dallars and said vote this way....would you accept?

Stormin Norman

25th July 2002, 03:32

In response to:

"If someone gave you a million dallars and said vote this way....would you accept?"

You should know me well enough by now to come to your own conclusion. Do I seem like the type of guy who would sell his ideals out for anything? In case you are thinking, 'stupid capitalist, would do anything for a buck', let me clear it up for you. No I would not sell my vote or grant political favors for money. Contrary to what you believe, not everyone can be bought or sold. If I was elected to a political office by the people I would have done it by proving that I am a man of my word and intend to do what I think is right, when executing the duties of my office. Just like I do in every other aspect of my life. I would have given and oath, something that I take seriously. The job of a Congressman is serious business and represents an indescribable amount of trust given to the representative. I would not sell out my beliefs for a bribe, or because the opinion polls tell me that is what I need to do in order to get reelected. My convictions are something that I hold to, at all costs, and account for one of the things I would die to defend. I would not betray them under torture, and certainly would not let them be bought by some dirty suit. If the offer was placed on the table, I would act like I was going to accept. Then I would contact the proper authorities, and set up a sting. Then I would do everything in my power to make sure the man, offering the bribe, went to jail for the maximum sentence allowed by the statute, which covers such misdealings.

I am offended that you thought it necessary to ask me that sort of question, but I hope I have changed your mind about people's nature. Maybe now you will see the error in your ways and join the side of the just. Renounce your filthy communistic ways before it is too late and you are completely transformed by the worldview, which you hold.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 10:00 pm on July 25, 2002)

Stormin Norman

25th July 2002, 15:13

Mental Bunny,

If you want a good description of communism and excellent reasons why you shouldn't support such a system, then you should go back a few pages where I posted my criticism of Marxist theory. It exist under a post called "My odd Description of Capitalism". Be aware that I did not start that thread, as the first post makes little to no sense.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 3:17 am on July 26, 2002)

Capitalist Imperial

25th July 2002, 16:41

Yeah, mental-bunny, you should read that, it was a good post

marxistdisciple

26th July 2002, 00:01

God, "renounce your filthy communist ways, join the side of the just." you sound like a tape recording of old american cold war propoganda.

You sincerly believe the capitalist system is just? Well go on believing it if you like, I'm not that gullable, or ready to fall in line. As for the comment about the money, sorry if it offended you, it was a straight yes or no question. The point I was trying to make out is that capitalism can put a political representative in the possition that they could be bribed to do things which they may see as small things, but which would advantage businesses hugely. What other reason can you attribute the bill of rights being appiled to companies in 1886...or whenever is was?

Capitalism creates a system where people have to make the choice between their values and money, for some people, many times in their life. When people are offered money not to tell, and they do it, when political repressentatives are bribed. when people chosoe a job for the money, and not because they enjoy it. Everyone has their price they say. And yes, I believe that some people do not, and hopefully you are one of them. but as a realist, I also realise that almost every person, seeing a million dollars in cash on the table for a comparitavily small favour, would at least be tempted by it.

People feel indebted when they accepts large amounts of money off people too, even if it is a gift to a political party, it buys respect and humility for your company. It is not simply a gift, how would that help business? It does help political standing whether you believe it or not, and companies do have a great deal of power on the government.

reagan lives

26th July 2002, 01:01

"The point I was trying to make out is that capitalism can put a political representative in the possition that they could be bribed to do things which they may see as small things, but which would advantage businesses hugely."

Capitalism can put a political representative in that position, whereas in communist systems political respresentatives are in that position by default.

"What other reason can you attribute the bill of rights being appiled to companies in 1886...or whenever is was? "

Legal expediency, for starters.

"Capitalism creates a system where people have to make the choice between their values and money"

Here's one that will blow your mind: would they be "values" if one didn't have to make that choice now and then?

Mazdak

26th July 2002, 02:02

wow, this reagan lives guy is back.

You are still saying, Mr. Reagan Lives(although the guy is barely alive and hopefully wont be for long) that you have to comprimise your values to make money. So you are admitting the faults of capitalism right there!

reagan lives

26th July 2002, 03:00

wow, this Mazdak guy is stupid.

I said nothing of the sort. First and foremost, the phrase "you have to" has no place in capitalist philosophy. Second of all, I think you should ruminate upon the term "value" for a few moments and then get back to me, but from now on base your comments on what I say rather than what you want me to say.

Guest

26th July 2002, 03:02

All Nader showed with that was what happens when a true capitalism is curropted with socialism. Once government and business become one it screws everything up. It showed nothing of the natural result of capitalism, only the normal processes of a socialistic country, where business/government/majority rule all individuals.

Guest

26th July 2002, 03:37

In a true capitalist society government only servers to protect individual rights, therefore the representatives should have no reason to take bribes, unless it was from socialists trying to invade and corrupt the system.

Stormin Norman

26th July 2002, 12:45

Yes Reagan, that guy is stupid. I have tried to encourage him to put more thought into his posts with little to no avail. I believe I argued with him about whether or not ants had the ability to reason. Can you guess what his stance was?

Good to see you Mr. President.

vox

27th July 2002, 09:52

"The critique that you offered regarding my response to the first paragraph in Nader’s work was nothing more than a personal attack, alleging that I am an illiterate baffoon."

Example, please. I think you're lying.

"You choose to ignore what was originally stated in the article and suggest that I somehow misunderstood what was being said. That is simply not true. If you had the benefit of an unbiased opinion you would recognize that what was being said, by Nader was a farce. He suggests that regardless of the endless reporting the news media does on the fraud and corporate greed they somehow fail to address the initial causation. Am I wrong to deduce that Nader thinks mainstream reporting touches on the effects and fails to address the cause? This is a notion that is utter nonsense, and I will give you another example of why I think that he is wrong. Let us consider the controversial campaign finance reform bill that dominated the media a couple of months ago, which congress passed, regrettably I might add. At the heart of the debate was the idea that ‘big money’ was corrupting the political system, a notion that failed to address the spineless nature of the leaders that the voting public chooses to elect. This topic was covered in great detail by all media outlets. Therefore, one can only conclude that either Nader was not paying attention, or that he was lying about this issue in order to persuade you of his position. It is obvious that he believes the news media is tied to the evil corporations and deems them to be another target in all of this. A premise that I am sure many of you would agree with and is why you choose to ignore the mistruth in the original statement."

Sadly, you try to divert attention by talking about campaign reform, which is another issue. That's a typical tactic of the desperate, of course.

The fact of my original statement remains.

"Furthermore, I do think that passing more legislation that stagnates growth and hinders innovation would be a bad move, on the part of Congress. The laws needed to prosecute such crimes already exist. The problem is not caused by lack of regulation. The problem lies in the lack of prosecution, a general relaxation of the desire to disrupt the market system. This failure was taken to new levels under the Clinton administration, because that administration benefited from a good economic outlook. Like you said any move to further legislate business would be done for cosmetic purposes, by grandstanding congressman who are up for reelection this fall. However, I disagree with your thinking. These laws would not go unused. They would simply be another way for government to encroach on corporate profits. Nothing that I said could be distorted to mean that I support fraud or deception. After all, this sort of malicious theft is the reason I hate communism. Nothing sickens me more than people benefiting from the unearned."

From the unearned? What does that even mean? Of course, we shouldn't expect right-wingers to be rational, I suppose.

It's funny to me, though, that SN writes that he hates corporate crime when he previously wrote that he "will site the fact that it is the political apparatus that has over regulated the corporate world to the point where bribery and payoffs are common practice."

That's not hating corporate crime, obviously, but excusing it.

"You then go on to site my lack of examples to support my thinking, something you failed to demand of Nader when you took the value of his word on faith. Are there any specific examples in Nader’s article? I did not see any specific examples other than the generic Enron and Worldcom corporations, which do not represent the majority of the business sector. His article was based on his own assumptions, and remains the reason why I chose to refute it with assumptions of my own. Are you saying that it is okay for him to make assumptions, but somehow I should not make any of my own? That would be ridiculous."

But I didn't refute Nader, dolt. When you say something is wrong, shouldn't you be able to give an example? At least one? You can't, of course.

"In addition, you failed to defend assumption 1 of Nader’s. You just offered me a sob story, saying the common man doesn’t have the necessary capital to acquire 51% of the stock of a company. That hardy demonstrates how the ‘rubber stamped’ board of directors and CEO’s are preventing investor oversight."

No sob story at all. Stop lying. I simply pointed out a truth that you choose to ignore.

"Furthermore, there is nothing stopping the man who does have the kind of capital necessary, with exception of certain laws governing acquisitions and mergers."

Can I get a number here?

"Presently, there are no laws governing the amount of money I can obtain, either. Why shouldn’t investors vote with their dollars again? Why shouldn’t they withdraw their support from a company when they disagree with its management style? Nader claims this to be a flaw."

Point it out for me, please.

"I say a couple stocks in a company shouldn’t give the average investor say, nor should an investor give their support to a poorly run company."

Who disagreed with you on this, exactly? I didn't. Are you making up arguments again?

"Does Nader think that a corporation should run like a democracy?"

Perhaps you should ask him. I only wrote about your very silly response to Nader.

"Should they take a vote from all the shareholders before they make a decision? I far as I know they already do that for anyone that own a significant share of the company."

Actually, all shareholders get a vote. You don't know much, do you?

"Both you and Nader fail to demonstrate the kind of disenfranchisement that is noted in the original work."

I don't have to note anything, right-winger. Like I've already said, I was only responding to your diatribe. You seem very frightened of answering me directly, though.

"Then you give me the tired old charge that the CEO’s job is to increase the price of the stock, which is one of the responsibilities required by his job, but is not the only function he should be concerned with. Any CEO with common sense will tell you the best way to increase stock price are to effectively manage the corporation, by seeking new products and reducing production costs. Only a poor manager would hide his failure as a CEO, by cooking the books to present the appearance of profit in order to save their cushy job."

Really? Why?

SN states this as fact. Back it up, SN, or shut your hole. Fact is, we have documented cases of CEOs behaving precisely the way you say they wouldn't. You're either a liar or a fool. Take your pick.

"Besides only a thief would run a company into the ground and take profit for themselves on their way out."

How profound. No kidding. Want to talk about the Savings and Loan scandal now?

"As far as the laws governing acquisitions and mergers go, consult your local law library for specifics on the code regulating this business practice. Fact remains; it is a necessity for a healthy economy as it weeds out weaker companies. Stronger companies used to have free reign when it came to this, but their hands have been tied to a certain degree. Now if a company wants to engage in such activity they are tied up in the state courts. A costly measure that prevents the kind of sneak attack made famous during the 1980’s. If it were made easier, then maybe a good company would have bought Enron and fired Kenneth Lay. Typically when a strong company acquires a weaker company, they replace the board of director and fire the CEO. I guess logical thinking would lead them to believe that they are the reason the stock is weak to begin with. This is a fact; any economics books will provide you the details that you requested."

Again, SN restates the argument that has already been ripped to shreds. SN doesn't allow for a company to simply fail, even now. Nope. SN demands a company be bought.

It's truly a bizarre argument.

If anyone here hasn't already, go back and read what I wrote before. That should give some indication as to how SN is so totally avoiding the argument now.

"Your idea of natural selection is only half-true. Actually, natural selection does refer to single organisms. Part of the theory states that weaker elements of a certain species will be weeded out by predators and disease, leaving the stronger survivors to propagate the species. This will insure that the stronger genes are passed on to the next generation. It also applies to entire species, which might not be viable or capable of adapting quickly enough. Have you even read “Origin of Species”, by Charles Darwin? I imagine you are thinking of the new branch of the theory called punctuated equilibrium."

Nothing SN has said here invalidates ANYTHING I wrote. Not at all. SN didn't quote me, of course, because he knows the truth.

Indeed, SN didn't even show how Darwinism is applicable to corporations. All he said is that some are more successful in an artificial marketplace than others. This, of course, has nothing to do with natural selection, which is *gasp* all about sex, for procreation is awfully important to Darwin's theory. Instead, SN wants eternal creatures, which are the legal fictions of corporations.

"Finally, you attack me on my laizze (sic) faire ideals, citing the so-called deregulation that persists in the oil, gas, electricity and telecommunications markets. The problem in places like California is not deregulation it is that of partial deregulation. If you investigate the situation you will find that the generators of energy have been deregulated while the transmission and distribution (T&D) ends have remained largely regulated. Furthermore, third party billing agencies have been introduced. The only thing they are responsible for is the billing. If the system were entirely deregulated, prices would decline as a direct result of competition."

Hee! It's hard to believe that someone is still arguing that, especially after the revelations of Enron's price fixing!

HEE!

Anyway, this right-wing garbage was answered way back in 2001 (http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/deregulation/articles.cfm?ID=4179). I'm sure the right-wingers will never know about it.

"You claim to hate the monopoly, yet you go on to support a state run monopoly. Which is it? Are monopolies good or bad?"

I do? Please provide a quote, okay? Or are you just making things up again?

"The most surreptitious monopolies are the ones operating with the consent of the government, which claims that natural monopolies exist and should be regulated. In many cases, these monopolies avoid the taxes by passing the cost onto the consumer, under the government’s oversight."

Avoid taxes by passing them on to consumers? Explain this, if you can.

"You then go one to tell me that I have no concept of socialism, and state we are living in a plutocracy. Are you trying to tell me that socialist countries are devoid of a ruling class?"

You're lying on a couple of levels here. I said that you seem to believe a plutocracy is socialist. That, of course, is odd. No wonder you avoid the issue.

Oh, and this isn't about me or socialist countries. This is about you and Nader. Don't try to change the subject yet again.

"A common thread within all socialist and communist countries is the absence of a middle class."

No, that's not true. It's the absence of all classes. Do you quite know what you're arguing against?

"There exist the political and social elitist, the men of power that hold the wealth, and the poor fools who where duped into thinking that the government would take care of their needs for them. I got news for you. We still have a rather large middle class demographic in the US. It is true that the United States is a mixed economy. Again, you can consult any economics book for evidence of my statement."

Actually, since the Eighties, the US has drifted, with terrible consequences, to the right. You can consult any economic statistics about wages for evidence.

"However, in the wake of corporate scandal and malfeasance the balance is shifting further towards a socialized system."

Really? Do you have any proof of this, or is it another lie?

"This shift has been happening for some time, as the liberal media has convinced the average idiot that it is the government’s job to manage every part of the people’s lives."

Really, do you have any proof of this? Or is it another lie?

"One only has to listen to any of the news channels or read the papers to see how the common man is being duped again."

The "common" man or the "idiot?" Make up you mind, please.

"Socialism has become a popular idea amongst the masses."

Do you have any proof of this? Or is it another lie?

"Living in a democracy, it is assured that the politicians will react accordingly."

Have they started to sing the Internationale at the start of congressional meetings? Or is the killing of civilians in Afghanistan proof of socialism?

"Maybe I have not convinced a raging liberal of my position that the market is being corrupted the government. All I did was take an argument made up of assumptions and counter it with assumptions of my own."

No, that's not what you did at all. You provided rhetoric, that's true, but you didn't disprove anything.

"You demand empirical evidence of me, but fail to ask Nader for the same."

I was responding to you, not to Nader. You fail in more ways than I can count.

"You then go on by telling me that extortion is a term made up by libertarians. In doing so not only do you attack my position, but also you negate the very thesis of the paper you are defending."

I say that's an outright lie. Please quote me, specifically where I said it's a made up term.

Indeed, I offered a dictionary definition of the word. SN, of course, cannot claim the same thing.

Such dishonesty is pitiful.

"The thesis statement of the paper is, “This is largely because expected accountability mechanisms – including boards of directors, outside accounting and law firms, bankers and brokers, state and regulatory agencies and legislatures – are inert and complicit.” The very idea of complicity acknowledges the government’s part in this. It means participating in the wrongdoing. I can only ask, why a government established to protect the rights of the people, with a stranglehold on the power structure, and every means to stop such practices, would allow such corruption? Could it be that they define the rules of the game, and in doing so design a system that allows for them to benefit directly? Yes some corporations comply and pay what is needed to continue to operate. I ask you once again is it the political system that has corrupted the corporate system, or visa versa?"

Again, you simply state that corruption exists. You don't talk about the defunding of the SEC or the focus in the last few years of the IRS on individuals rather than corporations (you can look both of those up).

SN still claims, despite an avalanche of evidence, that the government is somehow extorting businesses, even though the largest pay no taxes, as I showed and SN didn't talk about.

Does SN have any credibility left? I don't think so.

"Furthermore, do you trust men that have already proven their inability to implement justice to further regulate the market or put himself in a position to completely control all means of production?"

No. Why would you think that?

"Based on these people’s voting records you shouldn’t even reelect them, not to mention, demand they have complete control of the economy."

I don't.

SN attributes to me, often, things I never said.

But the record is here, freely available to those who may be interested.

vox

Stormin Norman

27th July 2002, 13:02

Vox,

The things that I attribute to you are based on the fact that you are a socialist or communist. That is what I have to base my assumptions on, since you are too cowardly to back up your positions. I ask you simple questions that will help me to clarify exactly where you stand on the left end of the spectrum, but all you do accuse me of avoiding the initial argument. There is a difference between shifting the argument and avoiding questions, and it appears that you are the one who is guilty of evading an honest debate. This is made abundantly clear by your constant accusations calling me a liar and other ad hominem attacks. If you wish to engage in further debate with me, why don't you back up your position? Addressing the questions that I posed regarding allocation of resources in a economy run by central planners, and how such an economy would account for certain built in inefficiencies would be a start. Clearly, you are not the challenge I was hoping you were.

guerrillaradio

27th July 2002, 13:11

Be nice to Bunny, she won´t let you fuck her around. I don´t have time to join in this debate at the mo, my clock´s ticking and I don´t wanna have to spend too many euros...I´ll be back tomorrow.

marxistdisciple

27th July 2002, 13:59

"In a true capitalist society government only servers to protect individual rights, therefore the representatives should have no reason to take bribes, unless it was from socialists trying to invade and corrupt the system. "

Back that up, please. show me some emperical evidence at least.

To Reagan, who chooses to name himself after one of the crappiest presidents who ever existed - You said something about values, and how they are linked to the system. The point I was trying to make is that capitalism changes people, and they grow up believing that they are competing with every other person for their money, status and position.
What were you talking about? Can you refute that?

reagan lives

27th July 2002, 15:38

"To Reagan...You said something about values, and how they are linked to the system."

What the hell are you talking about? Look, buddy, I didn't write that much. Go back and read it, please. Sheesh...when a person begins a response to your argument with "you said something about X..." you know it's probably not worth your time.

"The point I was trying to make is that capitalism changes people, and they grow up believing that they are competing with every other person for their money, status and position."

I don't believe that I'm competing with every other person. Do you believe that? Hey Norman, do you believe that? Do you have any positive proof at all to back this asssertion up? Because it seems to me that you're forming conjecture about not only what people believe (which is foolish enough), but also why they believe it. That's not a good idea if we're to have any kind of productive discussion here.

marxistdisciple

27th July 2002, 16:45

I am going to go over your post, qhilst quoting this time, I was being lazy in my arguments, I admit :)

"Capitalism can put a political representative in that position, whereas in communist systems political respresentatives are in that position by default."

This is completely inaccurate. On what do you base your arguments? Communism as desribed by Marx envisages total democratic power to the proletariat. The decisions that the people "in power" make, are entirely and fundamentally linked to the will of the country, that's the whole idea of the system. Money is seen to be a bad repressentation of worth, and labour, therefore, better representations are inacted to provide fairly for everyone in the society. If you understand the fundamentals, then the rest is detail which must stem from those key points. It's obviously the philosophy that the cappies seem to misunderstand. Again, it leads me to the question, where did you get that idea from?

"Legal expediency, for starters."

True, but you missed the point. Why should a known breathing, none living thing, be given the same rights as a living, breathing human being? Companies do not suffer pain. Companies do not suffer injustice, or indeed, inact it either. Companies are inanimate, they are groups of workers, and nothing more. the ideal of a corporation was to create better living conditions and to further intelectual, and scientific pursuit. They are not anything more than that. They were supposed to be but a tool for change.
They have now got the same rights as humans, and it seems like your biolgical knowledge is a little blurred here.

Why indeed when a company commits fraud, should the human being responsible for that fraud not be held responsible? These are the types of legal problems companies have being trying to push out of for years. It is almost as stupid as me crashing my car, and trying to blame the car itself for crashing! The point is, the person who is control of making a decision, should be held responsible for it.

" First and foremost, the phrase "you have to" has no place in capitalist philosophy. Second of all, I think you should ruminate upon the term "value" for a few moments and then get back to me, but from now on base your comments on what I say rather than what you want me to say. "

I still don't understand you argument...make one please. Are you getting at semantics and arguing that "values" are ill conceived, or that us believing in values is wrong? What are you arguing?

As for the "you have to" it does have a place in capitalist philosophy. Firstly, you have to pay taxes, otherwise you will be sent to prison. Secondly, you have to make money in some way, otherwise you will starve to death. You aren't another one of these people that believe starving people choose not to eat are you? You would know, from being a human (or at least having the fundamental remnants of one) that hunger is an insatiable feeling, that only goes away when you eat. You don't have a choice, you have to eat.

As for societal bindings (which I assume you meant when you were talking about choice) then no, you do not have to wear certain clothes, you don't have to buy a certain brand of car, or shop in a certain supermarket, or even choose a certain lifestyle. However, you do have external pressure to do a lot of these things. It is much more difficult for someone to go against the flow of societal pressure than you make out. You can disagree, and still have the right to disagree about pretty much anything, but certain social boundaries inhibit people's ability to do that. Let me give you a tired old example.

Almost all schools choose to have a compulsary uniform in this country. They have a very valid social reason for doing so - people's brand madness seems to inhibit their ability to think clearly.

People get teased for not wearing the right brands, or the right clothes. Of course, they have a "choice", but it is choosing between torment, or conformism. A lot of the time though, they don't have a choice, because they cannot afford to do the things their peerage expects from them.

In a communist society, these ideals would be turned on their head. Not because, (like most of the cappies try to inflict) that we would all be armies of marching clones, but because people would have much greater ability to express themseleves, and their indivduality without the confines of a class system. A class system is almost entirely based on money, although there are exceptions.

Communism itself shouldn't be a word linked to the USSR, because that was not communism. As I have argued before, but this is important, semantically that was not communism by Marx's own ideals.
If a society does not meet important points of it's philosophy(i.e. democracy, fairness, equality) then it is not the society that people choose to call it.

If baseball had a flat bat, and you ran back and forth instead of around, would it still be baseball? Of course not. What you choose to call something, doesn't make it so.

"I don't believe that I'm competing with every other person. Do you believe that? Hey Norman, do you believe that? Do you have any positive proof at all to back this asssertion up? Because it seems to me that you're forming conjecture about not only what people believe (which is foolish enough), but also why they believe it. That's not a good idea if we're to have any kind of productive discussion here."

It doesn't matter what people believe, it was made on a factual basis, and I will explain;
Firstly, you do have a choice of many things. Firstly, you have the choice of who you work for, or even to start your own compnay if you have the skills AND money.
Unfortuantely, certain restrictions inhbit your choices from then on. You have to do certain things (much as you argue you don't) you have to pay your bills, eventually, however much you don't want to, you have to eat, and to eat you must either grow or buy your food, (although time constraints and laziness mean most people will choose to buy it.)

You also must pay taxes on your income (or they will find out and take it back from you later via the courts.) You do not get a choice on where your taxes are spent, except for one vote which indirectly affects these decisions.

As a voter, democratically you do have some say. You get to vote for the person who makes the important decisions. Legally, that is your only form of actual representation, all other forms are purely superfluous to the system. The reason for this is that although you can attend council meetings, or campaign about issues, the legally responsible elected has no actual duty to perform your wishes. Although most people may disagree with a decision the goverment has made, they have no legal way of revesing the system unless they actually break a law in permoing it. Unfortuantely, although this is the case, the goverment also controls the laws. They are not supposed to in America, that is why you have the three clearly defined levels, Executive, Legalastive, Judiciary - but most decisions are made from the top down in important issues (i.e. the war on terrorism) and most of the govermnet emplyees are responsible for making sure the people stay relatively happy.

The only people who have undue influence on these top heavy decision makers are big business, as their business has financial sway on the economy. If ford chose to make all their cars in other countries - this would highly damage the economy, and lose many jobs. It is this finacial clout that lets them wield so much power. The government can choose not to follow their wishes, but the company will just seek a different country that will accept their terms (easy to do for multinationals.) This is reason many car companies moved away from britian, as the goverment stood against many of the terms they wanted to help their business.
You may not think this erodes democracy, or is unfair, but I do. I believe democracy should be used to benefit the lives of people, not as a buzzword that has little sembelance of direct meaning. If you use a wrod incorrectly enough times, eventually it begins to take on a new meaning. america is not one in the same as "democracy." Democracy is a term in itself and is mutually exclusive to a particular country. Just because it is america doesn't make it democratic - that is the assumption most of us are expected to make to believe the governments arguments. They preach democracy, but gradually remove civil rights. Hence, a plutocracy is formed.

But I have written enough, and I ought to stop as it is turning into a small novel.

reagan lives

27th July 2002, 17:32

"Communism as desribed by Marx envisages total democratic power to the proletariat. The decisions that the people "in power" make, are entirely and fundamentally linked to the will of the country, that's the whole idea of the system. Money is seen to be a bad repressentation of worth, and labour, therefore, better representations are inacted to provide fairly for everyone in the society. If you understand the fundamentals, then the rest is detail which must stem from those key points. It's obviously the philosophy that the cappies seem to misunderstand. Again, it leads me to the question, where did you get that idea from?"

The most telling quote from this paragraph is "If you understand the fundamentals, then the rest is detail which must stem from those key points." The fundamentals and ideals are all well and good, but you're talking about making a polis the size of a nation function under these ideas. Which means there has to be a central administrative system to determine who does what and what goes where to make sure that shit gets done. The consequence is that everything is done by government contract. Therefore, whoever is making the decisions (the so-called "planner") is by definition in the position that you say capitalist politicians "may" find themselves in.

"Why should a known breathing, none living thing, be given the same rights as a living, breathing human being? Companies do not suffer pain. Companies do not suffer injustice, or indeed, inact it either."

I disagree. Companies are just groups of people who work together for a common economic objective. The people who comprise it, and the people who control its assets, have to be accountable. Treating corporations as individuals prevents them from hiding behind their company. And as they're responsible for putting food on the tables of their shareholders and employees, they have to have rights as well.

"Why indeed when a company commits fraud, should the human being responsible for that fraud not be held responsible?"

Yes, and that's exactly what happens. If a company somehow defrauds me, and I sue them successfully, the company is responsible to compensate me. And 11 times out of 10, the person who is responsible for the fraud will lose his job over it.

"I still don't understand you argument...make one please. Are you getting at semantics and arguing that 'values' are ill conceived, or that us believing in values is wrong? What are you arguing?"

I'm sorry for assuming that I don't have to spell everything out for you. You said that in capitalism you have to compromise your values to make money. First of all, as I said, in capitalism you don't have to do anything. Second of all, the term "value" implies that some transactive value (presumably a high one) is assigned to an idea or moral or something like that. I never said that anyone had to compromise anything, but I do agree with the first thing you said (way back when) that you have to make "choices." If you never have to choose between a "value" and something else, then it's not a value. Understand?

"Firstly, you have to pay taxes, otherwise you will be sent to prison. Secondly, you have to make money in some way, otherwise you will starve to death."

I know you haven't read Kant, so we'll take this slow. There's a difference between a categorical imperative and a hypothetical imperative. Categorical imperatives are things that must be done all the time, regardless of time, place, or situation. Hypothetical imperatives are things that must be done if certain conditions are present. Words like "if" and "otherwise" indicate hypothetical imperatives. The dependent clauses in your above sentences indicate that the actions in the independent clauses MUST be done IF and ONLY IF the outcomes in the dependent clause are desirable. The history of America is full of examples of people who have foregone one or the other for the sake of what they believe.

Then we have a wonderfully out-of-place junior high schooler's rant about how all the popular kids wear Tommy Hilfiger. How original. Eventually we get to this:

"In a communist society, these ideals would be turned on their head. Not because, (like most of the cappies try to inflict) that we would all be armies of marching clones, but because people would have much greater ability to express themseleves, and their indivduality without the confines of a class system. A class system is almost entirely based on money, although there are exceptions."

Let me see if I've got this straight. If every kid in school can afford the most popular clothes, there will be less conformity?

"Communism itself shouldn't be a word linked to the USSR, because that was not communism. As I have argued before, but this is important, semantically that was not communism by Marx's own ideals.
If a society does not meet important points of it's philosophy(i.e. democracy, fairness, equality) then it is not the society that people choose to call it."

But if the conditions of that society are a necessary consequence of the attempted implementation of that philosophy, then we can only judge the philosophy in those terms. I blame the atrocities of the Soviet Union on communism the same way I blame a bullet wound on the gun. The bullet inflicted the wound, and the bullet is not the gun, but the firing of the gun necessitated the bullets flight and therefore the wound.

"It doesn't matter what people believe"

It does if you choose to make assertions like "X causes people to believe Y."

Then you wank on for a while about things that seem to have nothing to do with the original point, that people allegedly believe that they're in mortal competition with each other in capitalist systems. I apologize, there seems to be a lot of home-run derby pitches in there, but I'm a little short on time this morning, I'll whack them out of the park later.

vox

27th July 2002, 17:36

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 8:02 am on July 27, 2002
Vox,

The things that I attribute to you are based on the fact that you are a socialist or communist. That is what I have to base my assumptions on, since you are too cowardly to back up your positions. I ask you simple questions that will help me to clarify exactly where you stand on the left end of the spectrum, but all you do accuse me of avoiding the initial argument. There is a difference between shifting the argument and avoiding questions, and it appears that you are the one who is guilty of evading an honest debate. This is made abundantly clear by your constant accusations calling me a liar and other ad hominem attacks. If you wish to engage in further debate with me, why don't you back up your position? Addressing the questions that I posed regarding allocation of resources in a economy run by central planners, and how such an economy would account for certain built in inefficiencies would be a start. Clearly, you are not the challenge I was hoping you were.

SN,

You seem to fail to realize that this isn't about me. You wrote a paragraph by paragraph response to an essay. Now, you want to talk all about me. That's an old and obvious trick, and it's entirely deceitful.

The fact is, you can't back up what YOU said. You haven't answered a thing, but you want, desperately, for people to think that your "assumptions" should pass as fact.

Indeed, you want to talk about the "allocation of resources in a economy run by central planners," but that wasn't mentioned anywhere as far as I can tell. Yet, when I point this out as an example of you avoiding the issues, you simply say that I'm not answering your questions.

You have my text to respond to, and that's all you need. I answered your post, relying on the text you provided, and now you lie about it and call me a coward. Such is the scope of right-wing arguments.

You've been beaten like a dog in the street, SN. Go lick your wounds and shut your hole.

vox

Stormin Norman

27th July 2002, 18:09

Alright then why don't you expand on this, "Actually, since the Eighties, the US has drifted, with terrible consequences, to the right. You can consult any economic statistics about wages for evidence." What do wages have to do with political climate?

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 7:40 am on July 28, 2002)

Stormin Norman

27th July 2002, 18:10

"Sadly, you try to divert attention by talking about campaign reform, which is another issue. That's a typical tactic of the desperate, of course."

Diverting attention? Purely offering yet another example of where Nader was wrong in his assumption that the main stream media had been ignoring the political influence on business. Why else would businesses try to influence political decision making? This can only be a function of the over-regulation that persists in the market. Are you denying the claim that politicains benefit for corporate payoffs and have created an environment that makes it necessary for big businesses to act in such manners to guarantee that the industrial machinery continues to move. If the economy where left to the devices of socialists, like yourself, the economy would come to a complete standstill. This remains the reason why you dodged my question. You have no concept of good economic principle.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 7:56 am on July 28, 2002)

Guest

27th July 2002, 18:25

You guys have derested all laogic and reasob. A person owning a corporation has as much right to run his business as to run his life. Rights aren't to protect the weak, they are to protect from the weak, the mob. Rights are to protect the individual.

marxistdisciple: If you want proof you must be able to integrate the idea and reasonably process it. The only politician in a capitalist society who would take a bribe would be one who sold out on the ideals of philosophies f capitalism, and individualsism. The same would have to be true of the briber.
It is a terrible thing to blame the mask you where for your actions as an excuse for acceptance of what you really are. Do you need evidence for that.

Stormin Norman

28th July 2002, 05:45

Vox,

I added another post to the "Groupthink" thread where I further criticize communist/socialists on many more levels. You are as guilty as any communists of that type of behavior. Do you care to argue against any of my points on that thread?

Stormin Norman

4th August 2002, 16:25

Vox,

Earlier you had asked me to provide evidence of the nations shift towards socialism. I think a good case in point would be the opinion poll conducted by US News and World Weekly regarding water distribution. When asked if water resources should continue to be privatized over 60% of the population said it was better left to the government. Just over 30% thought they would be better served by a private enterprise.

Now, are you goning to continue to evade the questions that many of us have asked of you? Are you going to defend your precious system, which has been ripped to shreds by us capitalist? I think you going to continue to call us liars and retreat to your safe haven in the commy club? I am not impressed.

Stormin Norman

4th August 2002, 16:44

I also found this to be funny, especially coming from a guy who calls himself marxistdisciple. He states, "firstly, I don't agree with central planning either. Secondly, corporations WERE meant to use this power to improve living conditions and technology, but ONLY for these ends!" What are you saying marxistsdisciple? Have you renounced your communist ways? Corporation were never intended to make a profit. Is that what you think?

marxistdisciple

4th August 2002, 23:49

Yup. Corporations were meant to be used to benefit mankind - not to make a profit. If capitalism ran that way still, things would be better I admit.

Trouble is, can't happen....systems always progress to their enivitable future. for capitalism that is lazy fare.

Stormin Norman

5th August 2002, 10:24

Is that a fact? Just because you want that to be true makes it true. Is that your logic? I can provide you with examples of the first corporations. Their charters were enacted by monarchies in order to produce a profit for the king. Of course, the investors expected a percentage for doing the king's bidding. Would you like me to present you with the facts, Marxistsdisciple, or would you rather live in your world of psychotic delusions?

Stormin Norman

6th August 2002, 09:50

Here is a good example of leftists ignoring the questions. Typical.

Notice that marxistdisicple avoided the main question, in the only reply I have gotten to a question.

Marxist are you or aren't you a commy pinko? You can't have communism without a centralized economy. Can you?

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 9:56 pm on Aug. 6, 2002)

ArgueEverything

6th August 2002, 12:23

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 4:25 pm on Aug. 4, 2002
Vox,

Earlier you had asked me to provide evidence of the nations shift towards socialism. I think a good case in point would be the opinion poll conducted by US News and World Weekly regarding water distribution. When asked if water resources should continue to be privatized over 60% of the population said it was better left to the government. Just over 30% thought they would be better served by a private enterprise.

i don't think vox would mind if i do the honours for him here.

so, americans are moving towards socialism because......they dont want to privatise water resources?

non sequitur, anyone?

ever heard of keynesian economics? this sort of thing is advocated by many capitalists, as are many other forms of state intervention in the economy. would you call keynes a socialist?

Also, the water system is a very very bad example, because it is an essential service. most people, regardless of economic persuasion, like having essential servies regulated. especially in times like this, when the market has shown itself to be....less than adequate, lets say.

Finally, you haven't given us PREVIOUS stats. this is essential if you want to prove your initial statment (that the nation has made a "shift" towards socialism). i dont see a shift, because u haven't given past data.

vox

6th August 2002, 14:34

The truth-challenged SN has accused me of ignoring his questions, though he, in this thread, has ignored the very long response I gave him and has decided NOT to answer the specific allegations I made against him that he is lying in several places. The response to which I refer is on the seventh page of this thread. Several times I ask him for proof of his rhetoric or ask him to quote me when he misrepresents what I say or lies about it (example "You then go on by telling me that extortion is a term made up by libertarians," something I didn't say) but he doesn't respond AT ALL to those charges. Now, he has the audacity to pretend that I'm ignoring him. This coming from someone who just yesterday said he'd answer a post (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=756&start=0) and then didn't, though he had many other posts after that.

The sheer number of untruths spewed by SN here is shameful.

But it gets worse.

SN, who started this whole thing by taking on a piece by Nader, wants to suddenly talk about the "allocation of resources in a economy run by central planners," though that wasn't an issue that Nader addressed at all. This is just the common misdirection of one who has lost, badly, and is desperately trying to save face. Indeed, rather than respond to what I actually write, SN says that he attributes to me things that he believes socialists and communists think, claiming I'm too "cowardly" to back up my position, but he has NOT backed up his OWN position in this thread, even ignoring the post I wrote to him and offering my "cowardliness" as an excuse. He seems to fail to understand that I did back up what I wrote. He's the one who has not. I point out his lies and he calls me a coward, for that is the best that the right-wing can do.

He says that calling him a liar is just an ad hominem attack, when, in reality, he LIED. The accusation might offend him, but he offers no evidence to the contrary. I gave an example of this above.

SN has since posted a couple of things which do actually draw directly from my post to him. I suggest that anyone interested in SN's credibility read through my exchange with him in this thread to see the kind of shoddy logic the right-wing uses, the assumptions stated as fact, the outright lies, the maneuvering around inconvenient facts which is the style of the right-wing.

"What do wages have to do with political climate?"

Wages are a part of the political economy. The right-wing, with its allegiance to the ruling class, does not increase the minimum wage. "From 1973-1993, wages in constant dollars stagnated even as
prices for necessities continued to rise, leaving blue collar workers struggling to simply hold on to
what they had." Source (http://www.northern.wvnet.edu/~gnorton/soc125/soclec10.htm)

This is an effect of right-wing political economy which supports anti-union laws and the suppression of wages for the many while allowing loopholes for the rich which allows corporations to move jobs overseas, funnel money through offshore accounts and, as we've all seen, promotes creative bookkeeping.

Clearly, the class war rages on, only it's being fought by the rich against the poor.

SN goes on to say that politicians force businesses to give them money. Asked and answered. SN wants to put the cart before the horse here. It just doesn't work. He says that the corporate funding of campaigns "can only be a function of the over-regulation that persists in the market." He even asks, with wide-eyed innocence, "Why else would businesses try to influence political decision making?"

Could it be to get the kind of favorable legislation that allows them to not be held accountable when they pollute (see Bush on the Super Fund)? Perhaps it's for tax loopholes (see Microsoft and Cisco, which I believe I previously cited in this thread). Nowhere, of course, does SN give an example of this "over-regulation." We are expected to take his word for it. He gives his perception the status of Undeniable Truth, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world does.

SN then cites a poll that he says shows the country is moving to the left. However, he doesn't give numbers for any previous years, so how do we know if the country has moved left or right?

The fact is opinion polls have always shown the majority of the people in the US are to the left of corporate-sponsored politicians on many issues. On health care, polls show that a majority want a tax-funded system (http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/health-care-viable.html), but that proposal isn't even allowed on the table in DC, where so many politicians are beholden to the HMOs.

Perhaps SN thinks his thoughtless rhetoric can stand, but I have to wonder why he didn't respond to my long post to him.

The record is here for all to see. You decide if SN is credible or not.

vox

Stormin Norman

7th August 2002, 16:33

Vox,

Don't you think that I have forgotten about you. I will get back to you with the evidence you request, since you are incapable of recognizing reality when you see it.

However, I will reply to your first charge that I am a liar, a charge you use against everyone I might add. One can only wonder if the is the pot calling the kettle black. I suppose that I should have said, "Vox then accuses me of misusing the word extortion and claims that it doesn't apply to the argument at all. He said something to the effect that it was a libertarian dream that governments would abuse their power." Whatever the case, by using that argument you not only refuted my argument, but the argument laid forth by Nader. It simply demonstrates your ignorance to assume that this is a one sided practice that benefits business only.

By the way, you never answere my question. I guess they will have to look to me for answers, since you seem incapable of producing any of your own.

vox

7th August 2002, 16:58

Comrades,

Does SN's post make sense to anyone?

Instead of providing a quote from me proving that his initial statement, which I quoted, wasn't inaccurate, he simply says that he should have said something else. This, I suppose, means that I'm right.

As for not answering his questions, perhaps SN didn't read my entire post. It's clear that I indeed did answer his questions. It may be that he doesn't like the answers I gave, but that's another matter entirely.

vox

marxistdisciple

7th August 2002, 23:46

"Is that a fact? Just because you want that to be true makes it true. Is that your logic? I can provide you with examples of the first corporations. Their charters were enacted by monarchies in order to produce a profit for the king. Of course, the investors expected a percentage for doing the king's bidding. Would you like me to present you with the facts, Marxistsdisciple, or would you rather live in your world of psychotic delusions?"

Since when did the USA ever have a king? I was talking about the founding fathers, when did we ever have them in europe? Please check your reading abilities.

The first corporations is the U$ didn't make a profit. They were inacted to provide better means for citizans to create large projects, and helped raise capital in one place for the needs of human beings. That's what they were designed for. as none profit organisations (kind of like charities) what is wrong with that? I am not talking about europe, I am talking about early America. Tell me Ci, what use is a corporation if it does not help the citezans? Ask vox about this, I think I got the web link off him to read about it in the first place.

vox

7th August 2002, 23:57

I think you're talking about this site:

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstatete...rateHidden.html (http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/plutocracy/CorporateHidden.html)

marxistdisciple

8th August 2002, 00:04

Thanks vox, I admitidly was wrong about them not making a profit, they did but their profits could be limited, and they could not buy stocks in other companies. The companies were created for their sole purposes in charters, and disolved if they were not needed for that anymore, or they abused their position.

Stormin Norman

8th August 2002, 09:42

Not the source that I would have used, but it succeeded in shutting down the liberal clap trap of markistdisciple. I would have used any high school history book to prove my point, since it would have held more credibility than some anonymous crack pot web site like Che-lives or something. At least you and I agree that the first manifestations of the corporation intended on making a profit. That's a good place to start.

What if I sited Che-lives.com as a source for an academic paper? Now that would be funny!

marxistdisciple

9th August 2002, 16:07

http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/28/usa.html

here's another source SN

Stormin Norman

10th August 2002, 04:06

Nice source, that person is hardly known for there historical commentary. Judging from what I did read of that tripe, it is no coincidence.

Sorry but I am not interested in your revisionists views of history. For now I will choose to get my history knowledge from a reputable source. I think you could possibly stand to benefit from making a trip to your local library and seeking out information that isn't disseminated by crack pots on the web. There remains a remarkable similarity in most of the sources cited by the left on this website. They all come from no name liberal machines dedicated to the destruction of America. Such sources are hardly credible in my mind. Tell me if I am wrong, for I am willing to hear you defend your sources. Seriously, what you guys do here would be the equivalent of me citing Rush Limbaugh, Matt Savage, and Micheal Reagan for all of my arguments.

I find you to be laughable in your ignorance. When will you grow up and realize that your living in a real world with real problems that all the whining in the world won't solve? When will you recognize that the best way for you to better society is to get off your ass and do something of value? In striving to meet your own goals that benefit you directly, the rest of the world will gain from the secondary effect of your actions.

When I invent something and get rich, not only is my bank account doing better, but the people who find my invention to be a better alternative to previous products. Everyone is happy, for if they aren't there is no reason for them to pay me for my creation. What have you sought to create lately. Judging from your posts nothing but malcontents and ignorant fools, truly a deadly combination.

Do either you or Vox work? Please answer me that. If so, can you tell me what you do without compromising your cyber identify? I am seriously curious

vox

10th August 2002, 04:15

SN,

You continue to ignore my post, yet you seem to want to continue this thread. What gives? Have you nothing to say? That's the most likely conclusion.

Your silliness won't distract me. I'm still waiting for a reply.

vox

vox

10th August 2002, 04:19

Oh, SN. Since you attempted to "call me out," I want to point out that you said you'd respond in this thread (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=756&start=0), but you never did.

Don't worry, I didn't believe you when you wrote it.

vox

Stormin Norman

10th August 2002, 04:21

You of all people should not accuse anyone of ignoring your posts. I have been a little short on time lately. Please accept my apology. Anyone here can see who is dodging who. I was simply answering them in the order received. Trust me your gonna like it. It's worth the wait. However, I have not started it. In the mean time why don't you answer my simple question. You can be assured that I will not attack it without having given you the response you so desperately need.

vox

10th August 2002, 04:25

"I was simply answering them in the order received."

More bullshit.

SN may be physically uncapable of speaking the truth.

vox

Stormin Norman

10th August 2002, 04:44

Why should I respond to someone who deliberately ignores my questions. However, I like to force myself into thinking more about my positions, unlike you. I have nothing to prove to you Vox, since I have forgotten more than you will ever know. I purely do this for my own enjoyment, not yours. However, I do respect other people's requests for my opinion, as I would not want to deprive anyone of such golden truths. Rest assurred I try to allocate my time as fairly as possible.

Now do you honestly care to hear what I have to say or would you rather annoy me with baseless accusations. If so, I suggest you shut your trap and allow me the time away from bullshit like this, so I can produce a thought provoking response.

vox

10th August 2002, 04:55

SN,

I believe I've answered everything you've asked. What you HAVE NOT DONE is answer my point by point response to you. I don't think you can.

You may want to turn this on to me, SN, but anyone who reads the thread can see you've not done very much at all.

I tell you what. You "remind" me of any questions in this thread you've asked and I've not addressed, and that means direct quotes, and I will answer them as best I can.

In return, you answer, point by point, the long response I gave on page seven of this thread.

I very much doubt you can. Rather, you'll simply say how terrible and stupid I am. That's the argument of the weak and beaten, and so, SN, it's your argument.

I already gave my argument. It's yet to be answered, just like the thread I linked.

vox

Stormin Norman

10th August 2002, 05:34

You have proven nothing to me except that you disagree with my views. You have failed to give me good reasons for your positions. You simply say that corporations are bad and should not be allowed to operate free of heavy restrictions.

Do you, Vox support independent management of corporations? Do you think that the public would be better served if the operators of businesses lacked a vested interest in the company? Should stock options for board directors, CEO's, and other top level employees be outlawed to ensure the problem of 'greed' be solved?

It seems to me that I have offered pages of answers to your allegations, Nader's stupidity, and general liberal party line nonsense. In the process I have posed quite a few questions, most of them dodged by you. What nerve you have to come out and claim victory when your cowardice is so blatantly obvious. When you submit a couple answers to questions, like those above and countless others, I will do what you ask. However, there remains no reason for me to appease you, until you lay some of your own ideas on the table.

Fuck, how many pages must I waste asking you to participate in a honest debate. If you refuse to submit, then my previous criticism of you will stand, and I will eventually post another thread dedicated to providing evidence of the government's overregulation of the market.

Perhaps, someone else will be up for the challenge of participating in a conversation. It appears that such ideas are beneath you, the typical liberal elitists. "I have all the right ideas, just don't ask me what they are. It is too complicated for the common worker who I support wholeheartly. After all, aren't selfless acts of altruism the way to prove our superiority to the lesser man who, by the way, is equal to us in every way." God damn liberals, hypocrits in every way.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 5:38 pm on Aug. 10, 2002)

vox

10th August 2002, 06:08

Comrades,

I asked the whining SN to "remind" me of any questions I've not answered. Did he?

NO.

I asked SN to answer the long post to him I made on page seven. Did he?

NO.

I ask all of my comrades now, does SN have any credibility?

NO.

The record is clear, folks.

SN has evaded everything. It appears he no longer is interested in the Nader piece. It appears he won't even respond to the piecemeal questions HE asked and I answered.

Like I said, the record is clear. Read through it and you will, I believe, come to the same conclusion.

SN hasn't even made an attempt. He simply attacks me.

He is dismissed.

vox

Stormin Norman

10th August 2002, 09:48

Check yourself, fucker.

marxistdisciple

11th August 2002, 19:03

SN, firstly;

"I find you to be laughable in your ignorance. When will you grow up and realize that your living in a real world with real problems that all the whining in the world won't solve? When will you recognize that the best way for you to better society is to get off your ass and do something of value? In striving to meet your own goals that benefit you directly, the rest of the world will gain from the secondary effect of your actions."

Hey, I do my bit okay? I do work, I work hard. I work for local government as a database programmer/technical assistant. Basically I look after the social services office accommodation and day to day maintenance databases, and help make them more efficient, developing them to help make us meet tight budgets and e-government regs. So, yes I do work.

I have just got a new job which will involve porting old DB2 known persons registers over to Oracle, and the user support involved with the rollout of new email and computers county-wide. I know my job indirectly helps people, and I do everything I can to try and avoid the beauocracy and ridiculousness that gets handed down to local government. I supported the trade unions in their recent strikes, and I am a member of unison and an advocate of a lot of principals and values that I feel are getting washed away in the constant strive for efficiency and fast turnover. Perhaps people have got too impatient in the modern world to notice that change takes time, and effort. And no, I don't just sit on my ass all day posting on here. And no, helping the council manage their budgets also doesn't make me a hipocrit for believing capitalism is counter-productive.

I do believe some of the money is spent badly, and I try to do my little bit to make the spending more efficient, so it can go to the real needs. but Marx himself said that you cannot remove the system without first working inside it. all I try to do is make people aware of my views, and about hard facts inmost cases. Sometimes I post sources that are perhaps biased in ways, but you are making a little bit of a big deal about it. I wasn't whining either, although I don't see why that would be such a bad thing. Unfortuately, people's efforts to moderate and make the world a better palce are constantly put down by arrogant, self-centered, storming morons like yourself. I just want to make the world a btter place, for everyone. the way I choose to go about those things, I feel is as fair and as much I can do at the current time. I would not ever advocate violence to meet my needs...but i will and do protest things which I believe to be unjust.

Stormin Norman

11th August 2002, 19:14

I was just wondering whether you even had a job, since you hate corporations so much. I should have known you'd be working in the public sector.

marxistdisciple

11th August 2002, 21:43

Well, I do hate corporations but I would rather work for a corporation than die of starvation, and I have worked for many I didn't like.

I did a little stint at a credit reference agency which was the depths of nastiness, I also worked at the insolvency service for some time and got to see just how much companies get away with when they fail.

In fact, our letting agent just packed up and left town last week, with our landlords deposit and first months rent. The longer I live the more things start to convince me of the stupidity of the corporate world. Of course, once they catch the bastard owner of Aaron Scargill, Mr Johal, they will only be able to take the money and fines from the company, as it has limited liability. Having worked for the insolvency service, I know how difficult it is to get money back off companies when they liquidate, (which they haven't as of yet, they are probably in the bahamas by now.)

Anyone think our landlord will get his money back?

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/displayN...ntentPK=2332825 (http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=66056&command=displayContent&sourceNode=65583&contentPK=2332825)

That's the article if anyone wants to take a look. Mr Johal has proably packed up and left the country by now. It must be because companies are regulated too tightly stormin? Incidently, the company in question made a £150,000 sponsorship deal for the local soccer team Notts County, this fell through also after the first payment, and the Stadium was actually called the "Aaron Scargill" stadium for a month. Bastards.

Stormin Norman

13th August 2002, 12:36

I think you are wrong about limited liability. It does not protect individuals who commit criminal acts within a corporation. Show me the clause where it states that a person commiting theft by for a corporation is protected, by the corporation from to the criminal justice system. I don't think you will find it, though it may happen in some instances. Such a failure of the law should be viewed as a miscarriage of justice, but I don't think it's statute.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 12:39 am on Aug. 14, 2002)

glamgirl610

16th August 2002, 23:17

Fires of History: i dint even read all that junk that u put on as ur 1st entry cuz it's boring and i wonder if u actually think for yourself or if its all fluff. i think capitalism is great, we're free to make our own choices and have the chance to get ahead in the world!

Nateddi

16th August 2002, 23:28

When over 2 million people in the world make less than $2 every day, having the freedom to "choose" is hardly on their mind.

Like it or not, most (lets save over 90% of the world) people are not born into rich families where their worries are which luxury car to buy. Their worries are if they will have enough money to get food for next week. They could hardly care about choice and other materialist perversions.

The problem is that the world belongs to everyone, the global system must be the one that has the potential to benefit everyone, and is representative of everyone, not one that serves the privileged few at the top.

deadpool 52

18th August 2002, 03:13

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 12:56 pm on July 20, 2002
You see that is the difference between you and me. You claim that all of my logic comes from right wing web sites. I say that I spend all of my time here, so how would I have any time left to visit right wing websites. You are the ones who find security on a web site that replicates your own opinions. I am the one who seeks out people with differing opinions. The logic I use is my own.

I do not subscribe to political parties, because they are simply a way of keeping people from thinking outside the box. Partisan politics is a way to distract the voters from the real issues. It is a smoke screen designed to make sure that people are too afraid to challenge the status quo. "Oh no, the republicans might win back the senate. I had better vote for the democrat to insure that I can still have an abortion. I must keep my social security. I need guarantees that the government will continue to support my crack habit by feeding me more welfare and entitlements." You see it is the single-issue voter who is a dip shit. It is the guy who voted for Nader simply because they love trees and hate corporations who lacks the ability to think any deeper.
Let us forget about the fact that Nader is an advocate for weathering away the Bill of Rights. Nader is a communist. It is clear by the issues, which he champions. Do you think you have a right to choose whether you buckle your seat belt? I do. By not buckling up, I am only risking my own life. Therefore, the government has no business legislating on the matter. Nader disagrees. The mandate of the government indicates that its purpose is to protect the right of the people and prevent its citizens harm caused by other people. It is not the government's job to strip me of my rights and become my mommy. Furthermore, he is a big proponent of CAFE standards. When was the last time that Nader designed an engine? I doubt that he is knowledgeable enough to understand exactly how they work. Yes he supports the nanny state. This is what the modern day liberals asks. That is why he didn't even get 3% of the vote. Most Americans find communism abhorrent. They do not wish for the heavy hand of government to assume control of industry. Regardless of their politics, the typical voter is smart enough to have learned from history, and realize communism stifles freethinking.
Nader is a genius because he went to Harvard? Bush went to Yale and O'Rielly went to Harvard. What is your point? The education offered at such institutions can be bought. They have implemented a heavy curving scale to hide the fact that a Harvard education is no longer worth the paper it is printed on. There are a lot of people who hold degrees, but that is not what makes them smart. Nader is a man who attacks intellectual property. The person who believes that men should not have a right to their intellectual property is devoid of such property. They are the epitome of mediocrity and seek to reduce everyone to a level equal to their own.

The reason I didn't give you a direct rebuttal to someone else's arguments is because I work full time and go to school. My time is important. When making an argument I take the time to present my own work. Yes, I have posted articles written by others. However, I never used them to make an argument for me. I have never posted articles and said, "Here, refute this. By the way I agree wholeheartedly with everything that this person said." That would be lazy, something that I am not. If someone wants to debate with me they must put forth an effort before they expect me to do the same. I could have gone to Rush Limbaugh's website and cut and pasted enough material to refute every last one of Nader's points, but that is not debate. That is regurgitation. You are the one who slacked off when putting forth an argument. Don't try to pass the buck onto me because you lack the necessary analysis, synthesis, and evaluation skills needed to hold an honest debate with a third grader.

You have quite the skill to write so much about nothing.