Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Again, it depends on your definitions of both "libertarian" and "corporatism". It doesn't sound like you see either as I do.
It's not about definitions. It's about what actually happens. Conservatism by definition opposes intrusive government. But what actually happens is that most conservatives embrace intrusive government.
The argument made by Nader in his book Unstoppable is that, as a treaty, the WTO should have been subject to a two-thirds vote as required by the Constitution instead of being fast tracked through congress as a "trade agreement." If Ralph is correct when he writes the WTO "was the largest single surrender of local, state, and national sovereignty in US history", this is one issue where libertarians and progressives might find common ground.
Except that, as I pointed out, Libertarians don't actually care. They're just as much in bed with the pandering as anyone else.
I find it interesting that Nader seems to be referring to progressives as if they were an independent political party, when the vast majority of progressives are Democrats. It underscores the fact that Nader seems to foolishly think [hope] that there is an independent political will to fight against the inherent corruption in 21st century American politics.
No one cares, literally."Eighty years old and still full of piss and vinegar, Ralph Nader should perhaps add honey to his repertoire, as he attempts to woo libertarians, and maybe a Tea Partier or two, to his latest campaign.Nader burned his 15 minutes on the Corvair, the cute little deathtrap of 40 years ago
"In his new book, Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State, Nader challenges these strange bedfellows to come together to shake up Washington’s dysfunctional, cronyist status quo."
Can Ralph Nader Get Progressives and Libertarians to Make Common Cause - Forbes
Ralph Nader is echoing Cicero's declaration that freedom is participation in power in his new book, Unstoppable: The Emerging Left/Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State; Bill Freeza writing at Forbes interviews Ralph and Cato scholar Brink Lindsey trying to determine if progressives and libertarians can find enough common ground to challenge the corporate status quo.
"Nader describes our current political system as a duopoly that brooks no competition. 'I don’t think there is any other Western country that has so many obstacles to third party or independent candidate challenges,' he says. 'And given the way they gerrymander the districts, in 90 percent of the House of Representatives districts are essentially one party.'
"Libertarians certainly sympathize.
"But can Nader convince them to set aside their fundamental philosophical differences with progressives to tackle a specific and limited set of issues where there is agreement?
"In his book, Ralph lists 24 such areas, including civil liberties and subsidies to big business.
"Brink Lindsey is not so sure.
"But he notes that 'libertarians are a pretty small minority in American politics, so when anybody reaches out to us, I think we ought to be hospitable.'”
Can Ralph Nader Get Progressives and Libertarians to Make Common Cause - Forbes
In what sense?Could be influenced by Foucault.
I'm sure you can find many examples of people who call themselves libertarians who fit this description. But the base ideology of libertarianism is diametrically opposed to corporatism, and the libertarians that I know and work with care a great deal.
The Subject and PowerIn what sense?Could be influenced by Foucault.
"Foucault is sometimes criticized for his prominent formulation of principles of social constructionism, which some see as an affront to the concept of truth.
"In Foucault's 1971 televised debate with Noam Chomsky, Foucault argued against the possibility of any fixed human nature, as posited by Chomsky's concept of innate human faculties.
"Chomsky argued that concepts of justice were rooted in human reason, whereas Foucault rejected the universal basis for a concept of justice.[172]
"Following the debate, Chomsky was stricken with Foucault's total rejection of the possibility of a universal morality, stating 'He struck me as completely amoral, I’d never met anyone who was so totally amoral' ... 'I mean, I liked him personally, it's just that I couldn't make sense of him. It's as if he was from a different species, or something.'"
Michel Foucault - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
I'm sure you can find many examples of people who call themselves libertarians who fit this description. But the base ideology of libertarianism is diametrically opposed to corporatism, and the libertarians that I know and work with care a great deal.
No true Scotsman fallacy.
I'm sure you can find many examples of people who call themselves libertarians who fit this description. But the base ideology of libertarianism is diametrically opposed to corporatism, and the libertarians that I know and work with care a great deal.
No true Scotsman fallacy.
That makes sense to me. The concept of political segregation also resonates since party loyalists of both major parties often turn a blind eyes to the transgressions of their party that they rightly condemn when the other party is in power. Elites in both parties rightly fear any definition of freedom that includes a participation in power plank in its platform.Well, if you are trying to break the ideology of two party political system, Foucault's philosophy would break down the idea of power and how the two party system is about power and political segregation......along those lines it makes sense to uniting libertarians and progressives to break that power hold would follow along with Foucault.
