"Freedom is Participation in Power"

[SwimExpert]

What are your credentials?

I'm not an idiot, those are my credentials. What are yours? Better yet, it doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with the fact that you have this asinine idea that an international trade agreement somehow amounts to corporatism. Get off it, you simply don't know what corporatism is. Instead of babbling do some reading so you'll know what you're talking about next time.

 

[georgephillip]

Why should someone who buys a share of stock have his entire net worth at risk if the issuing corporation gets sued?

For the same reason Wall Street investment bankers took better care of other people's money when bankers functioned as private partnerships instead of their current corporate incarnations.

 

[SwimExpert]

Yes. I'm a "leftist". Embrace stupidity!

If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck....

 

[dblack]

Yes. I'm a "leftist". Embrace stupidity!

If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck....

And if you have no idea what a "duck" is ...

 

[georgephillip]

Here Nader indulges the common conflation of the "corporations" of corporatism with incorporated business, but that's not accurate. Corporatism is a broader concept that encompasses any organized interest group. Essentially, it's government that assigns rights and privileges to classes and interest groups rather than equally to all individuals.

True, Ralph is talking about large corporations:
" Corporatism is a world-view that large corporations should manage our political economy, and they should strategically plan it and things will come out okay."
Ralph Nader Q amp A How Progressives and Libertarians Are Taking on Crony Capitalism and Corrupt Dems and Reps - Reason.com

 

[dblack]

Here Nader indulges the common conflation of the "corporations" of corporatism with incorporated business, but that's not accurate. Corporatism is a broader concept that encompasses any organized interest group. Essentially, it's government that assigns rights and privileges to classes and interest groups rather than equally to all individuals.

True, Ralph is talking about large corporations:
" Corporatism is a world-view that large corporations should manage our political economy, and they should strategically plan it and things will come out okay."
Ralph Nader Q amp A How Progressives and Libertarians Are Taking on Crony Capitalism and Corrupt Dems and Reps - Reason.com

Right. Whereas the corporatism that libertarians oppose is more general, more about the overall notion of government parsing out special privilege to organized interest groups. This, of course, encompasses government doing special favors for business, but it also includes any other interest group that lobbies government for special treatment (labor unions, religious groups, protected minorities, etc...).

 

[georgephillip]

I'm not an idiot, those are my credentials. What are yours? Better yet, it doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with the fact that you have this asinine idea that an international trade agreement somehow amounts to corporatism. Get off it, you simply don't know what corporatism is. Instead of babbling do some reading so you'll know what you're talking about next time

You're not an idiot?
Why do you write like one?
If you think you understand the definition of corporatism, prove it.

 

[SwimExpert]

I'm not an idiot, those are my credentials. What are yours? Better yet, it doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with the fact that you have this asinine idea that an international trade agreement somehow amounts to corporatism. Get off it, you simply don't know what corporatism is. Instead of babbling do some reading so you'll know what you're talking about next time

You're not an idiot?
Why do you write like one?
If you think you understand the definition of corporatism, prove it.

*yawn*

All of this, I'm sure you think you've adequately distracted from your stupidity which started it all. Namely, you're bullshit implication that an international trade agreement is somehow some form of corporatism. Yes, I understand what corporatism is, and your attempts to mislabel a trade agreement as corporatism will not pass muster, ever. Simply admit you were talking out of your ass and move on.

 

[SwimExpert]

Right. Whereas the corporatism that libertarians oppose is more general, more about the overall notion of government parsing out special privilege to organized interest groups.

Except that they really don't oppose it. Libertarians simply chalk up corporate influence in politics as free speech and an inherent right.

 

[georgephillip]

Right. Whereas the corporatism that libertarians oppose is more general, more about the overall notion of government parsing out special privilege to organized interest groups. This, of course, encompasses government doing special

Nader seems to be limiting his criticism to global corporations which might not be in strict compliance with the definition of "corporatism"; however, I don't see any threat to democracy from any other organized interest group rivaling that from globalization.
"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."
Can Ralph Nader Get Progressives and Libertarians to Make Common Cause - Forbes

 

[georgephillip]

All of this, I'm sure you think you've adequately distracted from your stupidity which started it all. Namely, you're bullshit implication that an international trade agreement is somehow some form of corporatism

I'm not stupid enough to believe the WTO was a trade agreement; You might be.

 

[bripat9643]

Right. Whereas the corporatism that libertarians oppose is more general, more about the overall notion of government parsing out special privilege to organized interest groups.

Except that they really don't oppose it. Libertarians simply chalk up corporate influence in politics as free speech and an inherent right.

Correct. That's how capitalism works in a democracy. Ugly, isn't it? However, the problem does not lay with capitalism, but with democracy.

 

[dblack]

Right. Whereas the corporatism that libertarians oppose is more general, more about the overall notion of government parsing out special privilege to organized interest groups.

Except that they really don't oppose it. Libertarians simply chalk up corporate influence in politics as free speech and an inherent right.

Again, it depends on your definitions of both "libertarian" and "corporatism". It doesn't sound like you see either as I do.

 

[georgephillip]

Correct. That's how capitalism works in a democracy. Ugly, isn't it? However, the problem does not lay with capitalism, but with democracy.

"The World Trade Organization (WTO), the new 'governing' structure [of GATT], was crafted at the end of the Uruguay Round negotiations [in the Fall of 1994] to organize and enforce this new system of limits on every nation's laws and policies.

"The new global agency was not in the original plans for the Uruguay Round when its terms of reference were agreed upon in 1986.

"The WTO was hatched to provide a global executive branch that would judge a country's compliance with the rules, enforce the rules with sanctions, and provide the legislative capacity to expand the rules in the future."
Do you see the WTO as a threat to democracy?
WTO CAGE

 

[bripat9643]

Correct. That's how capitalism works in a democracy. Ugly, isn't it? However, the problem does not lay with capitalism, but with democracy.

"The World Trade Organization (WTO), the new 'governing' structure [of GATT], was crafted at the end of the Uruguay Round negotiations [in the Fall of 1994] to organize and enforce this new system of limits on every nation's laws and policies.

"The new global agency was not in the original plans for the Uruguay Round when its terms of reference were agreed upon in 1986.

"The WTO was hatched to provide a global executive branch that would judge a country's compliance with the rules, enforce the rules with sanctions, and provide the legislative capacity to expand the rules in the future."
Do you see the WTO as a threat to democracy?
WTO CAGE

No, I see it as a threat to my freedom. I also see democracy as a threat to my freedom.

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

 

[SwimExpert]

I'm not stupid enough to believe the WTO was a trade agreement; You might be.

The WTO is an organization. It was created by a treaty to regulate trade by serving as a body that provides a framework through which trade agreements are made. Thus, the Marrakesh Agreement is essentially a trade agreement.

 

[georgephillip]

The WTO is an organization. It was created by a treaty to regulate trade by serving as a body that provides a framework through which trade agreements are made. Thus, the Marrakesh Agreement is essentially a trade agreement

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.

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

 

[georgephillip]

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

Ralph seems clear about how corporatism, which often targets conservatives, is increasingly targeting "liberals" thereby creating the opposite type of convergence than the one he is calling for. Given the current low approval rating of congress, I would think there's a large majority of US voters looking to fight against the inherent corruption in American politics, and Nader has been among the leaders of that struggle for decades.