Fascism: The Father of American Liberalism.

[Oddball]

No.

That duty belongs at the state level and in the courts.

 

[MIPS]

The old reducto-ad-anarchist is one of Polkie's favorite strawmen.

Yep that particular straw man is a golden oldie, that being said I still get a good laugh whenever I see someone attempting to use it, can't blame them for trying it though it's not like authoritarians have much else in their arsenal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong, yet again. Unlike you, I can make those subtle distinctions between a well and judiciously regulated market and authoritarian central planning.

Rudimentary rules for uniform weights & measures and against force & fraud impinge upon nobody's liberty,

That's it? Weights and measures?

What about, say, federal regulations against industrial pollution?

More often than not, such pollution ends up violating someone's rights to property. Moreover, things like particulate standards that may make sense in the L.A. basin are completely irrelevant in a place like Rapid City, so one-size-fits-all federal rules and laws end up causing as many problems as the supposedly solve.

Then why not object to 'central planning' at the state level? California is as big or bigger than many countries.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No.

That duty belongs at the state level and in the courts.

I just asked, why quit at the state level. California is the size of a nation. What right (in principle, ie, your principles) does the central government in Sacramento have making pollution laws that effect everywhere from San Diego to the Oregon border?

 

[dab11999]

The government regulating the markets for some alleged "common good" or "public interest" is at the very heart of what erodes capitalism. It is a philosophy that favors statism. A welfare state, socialist state or any other form of statism all work towards the same effect; the erosion of the rights of the individual, i.e., the right to own property. This is at the very heart of what makes capitalism work.
In a mixed (or confused) economy, statists promote the "common good" theme and believe that the individual has no rights other than those that benefit the "public interest". The individual does not have the right to his own mind or property. He works and exists for strictly for the benefit of the government that controls his life.
Fascism and communism are two sides of the same coin. One controls the rich, the other controls the poor. But statism does not work, except on a temporary basis, as a politico-economic system. When there is nothing left to take, then it can only expand into other economies and take what is needed by force. Only capitalism can produce. Because it promotes individual freedom, capitalism is free to expand to the capacity of the individual. But in statism, the individual can only be locked into the capacity that he is allowed to.
What makes capitalism so successful, is that profits are reinvested into the economy. In a statist government, profits are taken as "public surplus" for the "common good". That "common good" being whatever benefits the government.
The economic meltdown of the USSR is a classic example of what happens to a statist government. Statism always ultimately leads to war for resources. Capitalism can only survive in a free trade environment. Statism benefits from capitalism, but capitalism benefits nothing from statism.
In a mixed economy like ours, this can only lead to market volatility until the economy can no longer sustain itself amid the imbalance. Statism benefits the most from this imbalance. The rise of Nazism in pre- WWII Germany is a good example of this. A mixed economy can not survive as a capitalist economy. It will ultimately lead to a statist economy by eroding the rights of the individual by taking away the right of the individual to own property and self in favor of "public interest". It does this by making the businessman the scapegoat for economic downturns. It does not take responsibility for the government policies that are the real reason.
Government regulation is based on standards. By establishing minimum standards, they eliminate competition for quality. If all they have to do to be acceptable is meet minimum standards, then the minimum becomes the maximum. In this environment, an economy can not produce, it can only achieve a certain level of mediocrity.
That is where we are now.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are times when a well known meme is, upon further inspection, clearly the reverse.

Fascism is regularly identified with Conservativism.

But try to define 'fascism,' and a straight line can be drawn between the definition and modern liberalism.

Some of the definitions are as follows:

1. Palingenetic ultranationalism is a theory concerning generic fascism formulated by British political theorist Roger Griffin. The key elements are that fascism can be defined by its core myth, namely that of "national rebirth" — palingenesis. (Palingenesis is the concept of mythic rebirth from the ashes, embodied by the Phoenix.

2. Stanley Payne's work, which offers a "typological definition" of fascism:

a. Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state based not merely on traditional principles or models

b. Organization of some new kind of regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure, whether called national corporatist, national socialist, or national syndicalist

c. Specific espousal of an idealist, voluntarist creed, normally involving the attempt to realize a new form of modern, self-determined, secular culture

d. Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style and with the goal of a mass party militia

e. Positive evaluation and use of, or willingness to use, violence

f. Exaltation of youth above other phases of life, emphasizing the conflict of generations, at least in effecting the initial political transformation

g. Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command, whether or not the command is to some degree initially elective7
Stanley Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980), p. 7.


3. Emilio Gentile: "A mass movement, that combines different classes, but is predominantly of the middle classes, which sees itself as having a mission of national regeneration, is in a state of war with its adversaries and seeks a monopoly of power by using terror, parliamentary tactics, and compromise to create a new regime, destroying democracy." Stanley Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980), p. 5 n.6


And, the most precise and telling definition that I have come across:

4. "Fascism is a religion of the state. It is totalitarian in that it assumes everything is political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is defined as the enemy. American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism." Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, p. 23

YOu really like to throw those words around, don't you?
Calling liberals fascists just shows what a parisan hack you are, and that you really don't know what fascism means. When liberals start putting in place programs like postive eugenics, you can then post crap like this.

You can't be as ignorant as you appear, and have the gall to show the ignorance in a post such as this.

Eugenics is a policy of the early 19th century Progressives, the ones that Hillary claims as her provenance.

"Eugenics, the attempt to improve the human species socially through better breeding was a widespread and popular movement in the United States and Europe between 1910 and 1940. Eugenics was an attempt to use science (the newly discovered Mendelian laws of heredity) to solve social problems (crime, alcoholism, prostitution, rebelliousness), using trained experts. Eugenics gained much support from progressive reform thinkers, who sought to plan social development using expert knowledge in both the social and natural sciences. In eugenics, progressive reformers saw the opportunity to attack social problems efficiently by treating the cause (bad heredity) rather than the effect."
Eugenics and American social history, 1880-1950. [Genome. 1989] - PubMed result


For your education:
Francis Galton, geneticist, statistician, eugenicist, and psychologist: a prime mover in these fields in the 19th century. He introduced terms like “nature versus nurture,” and used surveys to gather data about intellect, and encouraged the breeding of those he believed superior. By the early 20th century, Galton’s eugenics-disciples predominated in academia, and wrote that the mentally retarded and other ‘degenerates’ should be prevented from breeding. A utopia organized by a eugenic religion, designed to breed fitter and smarter humans. Francis Galton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1927, a young unwed mother named Carrie Buck was sterilized against her will by order of the Supreme Court, decision written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said : ”The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.” Based on the Buck Decision, more than 60 thousand were operated on across the U.S. as late as the 1970’s. And the opinion was adopted in Germany, where, within a year, some 56 thousand German ‘patients’ had been sterilized.

"Ultimately, 60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized — legally and extra-legally. Many never discovered the truth until decades later. Those who actively supported eugenics include America's most progressive figures: Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes."
War Against the Weak


And we see the echo in the current administration: Now called ‘bioethicists,’ there are new acolytes of eugenics who are ready and able to make decisions about the lives of patients, assigning numerical ‘quality of life’ measurements, and parcel out health care based on the scores. The retarded, handicapped, elderly, infirm would be low on the list. Those who don’t score high enough will surely be deprived of healthcare.

"In the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age. Economists are familiar with the formula already in use in the U.K., where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYS or quality-adjusted life years) the patient is likely to benefit. In the U.K., the formula leads to denying treatments for age-related diseases because older patients have a denominator problem -- fewer years to benefit than younger patients with other diseases."
Defend Your Health Care

 

[Bfgrn]

Unfortunately with today's politicians version of regulatory "reform" is just another way of saying exchanging one form of corruption for another form of corruption, the current regulatory "reforms" on the table are coming no where close to following the simple "rules" that Hayek set forth, they are simply "reform" efforts aimed at scoring political advantage and granting favors to special interests which is just as bad a regulation for regulations sake or de-regulation for de-regulations sake.

Same shit, different day.

Bullshit mumbo jumbo cop out.

Why because it doesn't agree with your partisan view of the world? I can't take anybody seriously that apparently thinks the motives of Washington politicians are pure because they happen to be members of their favorite corporate owned political party ,,,,, sorry.

Hayek even warns us about the Frank Luntz's ...

"The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those they have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognized before. And the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as this complete perversion of language."
Hayek

It's unclear why you consider Frank Luntz to be such an important player in our economic policy, I certainly do not consider him as such, nor I suspect would Hayek since Luntz is just a glorified poll taker and political pundit with an inflated sense of his own self importance, I find the Hayek quote that you pointed out much more applicable to the progressives currently occupying the White House and Congress.

Do you understand the difference between a free market and the subsidized capitalism we currently have?

Apparently you're preparing to dazzle us with your inestimable wisdom, so pray continue and share your brilliance with the rest of the class, 'xplain it, I for one await with breathless anticipation.

If Frank Luntz is 'a glorified poll taker and political pundit with an inflated sense of his own self importance' then why do ALL Republicans lawmakers today parrot his words as gospel? He undermined health care reform with GOP parrot talk, an energy policy and regulatory reform are next...and the GOP mindless parrots will be on the floors of the Senate and House of Representatives leaving Frank's little turds all over the chambers...

Here's a flash for you...Goldwater conservatism is dead in the Republican party. Old Goldy couldn't even pass their 'purity' test.

I have never affiliated with a party. There was a time when I voted for Republicans on a national level...NO MORE...you need to take some wise advice from Barry Goldwater's closest friends and associates...the GOP was hijacked by far right theocrats, far left neocons and Machiavellian authoritarians ...

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are times when a well known meme is, upon further inspection, clearly the reverse.

Fascism is regularly identified with Conservativism.

But try to define 'fascism,' and a straight line can be drawn between the definition and modern liberalism.

Some of the definitions are as follows:

1. Palingenetic ultranationalism is a theory concerning generic fascism formulated by British political theorist Roger Griffin. The key elements are that fascism can be defined by its core myth, namely that of "national rebirth" — palingenesis. (Palingenesis is the concept of mythic rebirth from the ashes, embodied by the Phoenix.

2. Stanley Payne's work, which offers a "typological definition" of fascism:

a. Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state based not merely on traditional principles or models

b. Organization of some new kind of regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure, whether called national corporatist, national socialist, or national syndicalist

c. Specific espousal of an idealist, voluntarist creed, normally involving the attempt to realize a new form of modern, self-determined, secular culture

d. Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style and with the goal of a mass party militia

e. Positive evaluation and use of, or willingness to use, violence

f. Exaltation of youth above other phases of life, emphasizing the conflict of generations, at least in effecting the initial political transformation

g. Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command, whether or not the command is to some degree initially elective7
Stanley Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980), p. 7.


3. Emilio Gentile: "A mass movement, that combines different classes, but is predominantly of the middle classes, which sees itself as having a mission of national regeneration, is in a state of war with its adversaries and seeks a monopoly of power by using terror, parliamentary tactics, and compromise to create a new regime, destroying democracy." Stanley Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980), p. 5 n.6


And, the most precise and telling definition that I have come across:

4. "Fascism is a religion of the state. It is totalitarian in that it assumes everything is political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is defined as the enemy. American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism." Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, p. 23

YOu really like to throw those words around, don't you?
Calling liberals fascists just shows what a parisan hack you are, and that you really don't know what fascism means. When liberals start putting in place programs like postive eugenics, you can then post crap like this.

You can't be as ignorant as you appear, and have the gall to show the ignorance in a post such as this.

Eugenics is a policy of the early 19th century Progressives, the ones that Hillary claims as her provenance.

"Eugenics, the attempt to improve the human species socially through better breeding was a widespread and popular movement in the United States and Europe between 1910 and 1940. Eugenics was an attempt to use science (the newly discovered Mendelian laws of heredity) to solve social problems (crime, alcoholism, prostitution, rebelliousness), using trained experts. Eugenics gained much support from progressive reform thinkers, who sought to plan social development using expert knowledge in both the social and natural sciences. In eugenics, progressive reformers saw the opportunity to attack social problems efficiently by treating the cause (bad heredity) rather than the effect."
Eugenics and American social history, 1880-1950. [Genome. 1989] - PubMed result


For your education:
Francis Galton, geneticist, statistician, eugenicist, and psychologist: a prime mover in these fields in the 19th century. He introduced terms like “nature versus nurture,” and used surveys to gather data about intellect, and encouraged the breeding of those he believed superior. By the early 20th century, Galton’s eugenics-disciples predominated in academia, and wrote that the mentally retarded and other ‘degenerates’ should be prevented from breeding. A utopia organized by a eugenic religion, designed to breed fitter and smarter humans. Francis Galton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1927, a young unwed mother named Carrie Buck was sterilized against her will by order of the Supreme Court, decision written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said : ”The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.” Based on the Buck Decision, more than 60 thousand were operated on across the U.S. as late as the 1970’s. And the opinion was adopted in Germany, where, within a year, some 56 thousand German ‘patients’ had been sterilized.

"Ultimately, 60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized — legally and extra-legally. Many never discovered the truth until decades later. Those who actively supported eugenics include America's most progressive figures: Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes."
War Against the Weak


And we see the echo in the current administration: Now called ‘bioethicists,’ there are new acolytes of eugenics who are ready and able to make decisions about the lives of patients, assigning numerical ‘quality of life’ measurements, and parcel out health care based on the scores. The retarded, handicapped, elderly, infirm would be low on the list. Those who don’t score high enough will surely be deprived of healthcare.

"In the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age. Economists are familiar with the formula already in use in the U.K., where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYS or quality-adjusted life years) the patient is likely to benefit. In the U.K., the formula leads to denying treatments for age-related diseases because older patients have a denominator problem -- fewer years to benefit than younger patients with other diseases."
Defend Your Health Care

Do you want to provide unlimited government healthcare for everyone regardless of condition, regardless of cost? Because if you don't, you're just as guilty of what you're trying to blame on others.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's again go to the real fascist:

"The fate of nations is intimately bound up with their powers of reproduction. All nations and all empires first felt decadence gnawing at them when their birth rate fell off."

Benito Mussolini

Sounds like a FASCIST guy against birth control and abortion. Doesn't sound at all like American liberalism.

 

[Oddball]

No.

That duty belongs at the state level and in the courts.

I just asked, why quit at the state level. California is the size of a nation. What right (in principle, ie, your principles) does the central government in Sacramento have making pollution laws that effect everywhere from San Diego to the Oregon border?

You quit at the state level because legislators from Vermont will have much less of an idea --if any at all-- as to what conditions my be like in San Diego than someone from Sacramento.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC, you are distorting Griffin's concern with the right as it it is the left which he examines. That is not the case. For instance, "Roger Griffin has also published numerous articles and chapters relating to fascism and ultra-nationalism both inter-war and post-war (see publications list), as well as developing a specialist interest in related issues, including neo-fascism and new forms of radical right (e.g. ‘ethnocratic liberalism’ and the ‘groupuscular right’), national identity, racism, multi- culturalism and multi-ethnicity, modernity, globalization, ecologism, and the psycho-historical dynamics of terrorism. Roger Griffin | Oxford Brookes University

You have to be fair to the source before you extend it.

You are, of course, correct re: Griffin. I chose the snippet, actually, to lay the groundwork for the Goldberg quote.

I had intended a much longer post, but mine often become unwieldy.

Thanks, and I will leave you to it.

 

[ihopehefails]

I actually agree that fascism and modern liberalism are almost identical to each other.

 

[ihopehefails]

There are times when a well known meme is, upon further inspection, clearly the reverse.

Fascism is regularly identified with Conservativism.

But try to define 'fascism,' and a straight line can be drawn between the definition and modern liberalism.

Some of the definitions are as follows:

1. Palingenetic ultranationalism is a theory concerning generic fascism formulated by British political theorist Roger Griffin. The key elements are that fascism can be defined by its core myth, namely that of "national rebirth" — palingenesis. (Palingenesis is the concept of mythic rebirth from the ashes, embodied by the Phoenix.

2. Stanley Payne's work, which offers a "typological definition" of fascism:

a. Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state based not merely on traditional principles or models

b. Organization of some new kind of regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure, whether called national corporatist, national socialist, or national syndicalist

c. Specific espousal of an idealist, voluntarist creed, normally involving the attempt to realize a new form of modern, self-determined, secular culture

d. Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style and with the goal of a mass party militia

e. Positive evaluation and use of, or willingness to use, violence

f. Exaltation of youth above other phases of life, emphasizing the conflict of generations, at least in effecting the initial political transformation

g. Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command, whether or not the command is to some degree initially elective7
Stanley Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980), p. 7.


3. Emilio Gentile: "A mass movement, that combines different classes, but is predominantly of the middle classes, which sees itself as having a mission of national regeneration, is in a state of war with its adversaries and seeks a monopoly of power by using terror, parliamentary tactics, and compromise to create a new regime, destroying democracy." Stanley Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980), p. 5 n.6


And, the most precise and telling definition that I have come across:

4. "Fascism is a religion of the state. It is totalitarian in that it assumes everything is political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is defined as the enemy. American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism." Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, p. 23

I would like to add something and that fascism or its way of thinking has infected the entire system in this country. We can thank our progressive friends of both parties for doing that.

 

[ihopehefails]

Let's again go to the real fascist:

"The fate of nations is intimately bound up with their powers of reproduction. All nations and all empires first felt decadence gnawing at them when their birth rate fell off."

Benito Mussolini

Sounds like a FASCIST guy against birth control and abortion. Doesn't sound at all like American liberalism.

Birth rate is linked to the survival of a nation but when did it become the concern of a government to worry about those things? Most people who oppose birth control do it on an individual level and abortion was always a eugenics scheme to begin with that was designed to weed out the undesirables.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No.

That duty belongs at the state level and in the courts.

I just asked, why quit at the state level. California is the size of a nation. What right (in principle, ie, your principles) does the central government in Sacramento have making pollution laws that effect everywhere from San Diego to the Oregon border?

You quit at the state level because legislators from Vermont will have much less of an idea --if any at all-- as to what conditions my be like in San Diego than someone from Sacramento.

That makes no sense in principle. Why is California central government small enough for you? If California government is small enough for you, why shouldn't Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine be combined?

Why shouldn't Orange County, CA, for example, be able to secede from California?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I actually agree that fascism and modern liberalism are almost identical to each other.

See, that's why people around here insult you for your ignorance. Because they're justified.

 

[MIPS]

Bullshit mumbo jumbo cop out.

Why because it doesn't agree with your partisan view of the world? I can't take anybody seriously that apparently thinks the motives of Washington politicians are pure because they happen to be members of their favorite corporate owned political party ,,,,, sorry.


It's unclear why you consider Frank Luntz to be such an important player in our economic policy, I certainly do not consider him as such, nor I suspect would Hayek since Luntz is just a glorified poll taker and political pundit with an inflated sense of his own self importance, I find the Hayek quote that you pointed out much more applicable to the progressives currently occupying the White House and Congress.

Do you understand the difference between a free market and the subsidized capitalism we currently have?

Apparently you're preparing to dazzle us with your inestimable wisdom, so pray continue and share your brilliance with the rest of the class, 'xplain it, I for one await with breathless anticipation.

If Frank Luntz is 'a glorified poll taker and political pundit with an inflated sense of his own self importance' then why do ALL Republicans lawmakers today parrot his words as gospel? He undermined health care reform with GOP parrot talk, an energy policy and regulatory reform are next...and the GOP mindless parrots will be on the floors of the Senate and House of Representatives leaving Frank's little turds all over the chambers...

So Frank Luntz is responsible for the failure of the most egregious portions of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid progressive agenda? gee I guess I owe Mr. Luntz an apology and the American People owe him a big "THANK YOU FRANK" note.

Here's a flash for you...Goldwater conservatism is dead in the Republican party. Old Goldy couldn't even pass their 'purity' test.

Thanks for the completely non sequitur comment (I realize you zombies cannot focus on one subject at a time so I forgive inability to focus on the topic of the thread), unfortunately for you Barry Goldwater was philosophically a classical liberal and I don't really give two hoots about the Republican party and never have.

I have never affiliated with a party. There was a time when I voted for Republicans on a national level...NO MORE...

That's nice, you however come off as a typical Democratic Party hyper-partisan Drone, if you don't like being mistaken for one you should probably stop acting like one.

you need to take some wise advice from Barry Goldwater's closest friends and associates...the GOP was hijacked by far right theocrats, far left neocons and Machiavellian authoritarians ...

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

LOL, once again you prove your inability to read with comprehension........

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's again go to the real fascist:

"The fate of nations is intimately bound up with their powers of reproduction. All nations and all empires first felt decadence gnawing at them when their birth rate fell off."

Benito Mussolini

Sounds like a FASCIST guy against birth control and abortion. Doesn't sound at all like American liberalism.

Birth rate is linked to the survival of a nation but when did it become the concern of a government to worry about those things? Most people who oppose birth control do it on an individual level and abortion was always a eugenics scheme to begin with that was designed to weed out the undesirables.

Our government gives you lucrative tax breaks for having children. Is that wrong? Is that fascist?

 

[Bfgrn]

Why because it doesn't agree with your partisan view of the world? I can't take anybody seriously that apparently thinks the motives of Washington politicians are pure because they happen to be members of their favorite corporate owned political party ,,,,, sorry.


It's unclear why you consider Frank Luntz to be such an important player in our economic policy, I certainly do not consider him as such, nor I suspect would Hayek since Luntz is just a glorified poll taker and political pundit with an inflated sense of his own self importance, I find the Hayek quote that you pointed out much more applicable to the progressives currently occupying the White House and Congress.


Apparently you're preparing to dazzle us with your inestimable wisdom, so pray continue and share your brilliance with the rest of the class, 'xplain it, I for one await with breathless anticipation.

If Frank Luntz is 'a glorified poll taker and political pundit with an inflated sense of his own self importance' then why do ALL Republicans lawmakers today parrot his words as gospel? He undermined health care reform with GOP parrot talk, an energy policy and regulatory reform are next...and the GOP mindless parrots will be on the floors of the Senate and House of Representatives leaving Frank's little turds all over the chambers...

So Frank Luntz is responsible for the failure of the most egregious portions of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid progressive agenda? gee I guess I owe Mr. Luntz an apology and the American People owe him a big "THANK YOU FRANK" note.


Thanks for the completely non sequitur comment (I realize you zombies cannot focus on one subject at a time so I forgive inability to focus on the topic of the thread), unfortunately for you Barry Goldwater was philosophically a classical liberal and I don't really give two hoots about the Republican party and never have.

I have never affiliated with a party. There was a time when I voted for Republicans on a national level...NO MORE...

That's nice, you however come off as a typical Democratic Party hyper-partisan Drone, if you don't like being mistaken for one you should probably stop acting like one.

you need to take some wise advice from Barry Goldwater's closest friends and associates...the GOP was hijacked by far right theocrats, far left neocons and Machiavellian authoritarians ...

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

LOL, once again you prove your inability to read with comprehension........

And you lack the comprehension to realize that the 'socialist' and tyranny Hayek despised and Goldwater would despise takes the form of today's global corporate entity...it would be Hayek' 'other forms of totalitarianism.'

Frank Luntz is the voice of 'human' destruction...THAT was never the voice of Barry Goldwater.

The Rise and Concentration of Corporate Power

It is not really business per se, but rather a complex interlocking web of global financial markets and corporations, a subset of the institutions of business, that have become the planet's most powerful institution. The power issue centers on the global corporation as a distinctive form of business organization.

It is instructive to recall that the institution of the corporation was first created by kings to serve as an agent of colonial expansion. Some claim the American revolution was as much a revolution against the crown corporations as against the crown itself. As a consequence, corporations were treated with great caution in the early days of the new republic. The few corporate charters issued were generally for a limited duration to serve a carefully delineated public purpose. The crown has since been replaced by the modern shareholder and access to corporate charters has been democratized. Yet the original power and function of the corporation - concentrating wealth and power in the hands of an elite ruling class - have been largely restored.

Although a CEO may by choice organize the internal operations of a corporation around self-organizing networking structures that decentralize responsibility and make relationships more egalitarian, this does not change the corporation's formal structural overlay. Inherently one of the most authoritarian of human institutions, the structure of the corporation is designed to concentrate wealth and power at its apex. The CEO has the legal authority to at any time reclaim the power or authority previous delegated, hire, fire, and reassign staff, open and close plants, add and drop product lines, and change transfer pricing almost at will with virtually no recourse by the people or communities affected - either inside or outside the organization. Nor is the CEO at liberty to relinquish this power. By law it goes with the position.

Historically, exercise of the regulatory powers of the state was the primary restraint on the expansion of corporate power. Together the processes of deregulation and globalization have effectively relieved that constraint by placing the power of global corporations and finance beyond the reach of the state. The hopeful claims of some business observers notwithstanding, the mega- corporations are not shedding their power. To the contrary they continue to concentrate and consolidate it through mergers, acquisitions, and strategic alliances. The statistics are sobering.

* Of the world's 100 largest economies, 51 are corporations. Only 49 are countries. The economy of Mitsubishi is larger than that of Indonesia, the world's fourth most populous country and a land of enormous natural wealth.

* The combined sales of the world's top 200 corporations are equal to 28 percent of the world GDP.

* These same 200 corporations employ only 18.8 million people, less than 1/3 of one percent of the world's people - and the downsizing continues.

* In 1995 the total value of mergers and acquisitions for the world exceeded any prior year by 25 percent.

The primary accountability of these corporations is to the global financial markets in which each day $1.4 trillion in foreign exchange changes hands in the search for speculative profits wholly unrelated to any exchange of real goods or services.

Whose interests are represented by these financial markets to which the world's most powerful corporations are beholden? In the United States 77 percent of share holder wealth is owned by a mere 5 percent of house holds. The broader population that holds a beneficial ownership through pension funds is represented in corporate governance by a few hundred fund managers who have no accountability to the beneficial owners beyond protecting the security of their benefits. Globally the share of the world's population that has a consequential participation in corporate ownership is far less than 1 percent. This concentration of corporate power accountable only to a tiny global elite denies the most basic principles of democratic governance. It also results in an ever increasing concentration of the world's wealth. Forbes magazine now identifies 447 billionaires in the world, up from only 274 in 1991. Their combined assets are roughly equal to the total annual incomes of the poorest half of humanity.

It is axiomatic. In a healthy democratic society the dominant institution must be both responsible for the whole and accountable to the whole. Not long ago, nation states were our dominant institutions. The nation state had a clearly mandated responsibility for the whole and the institutions of democratic societies were structured to assure commensurate accountability to the whole.

By contrast, global corporations and financial markets serve financial bottom-line mandates that are as narrow as their constituencies. The deregulation and economic globalization that have increased their power, have done nothing to broaden their mandates and or accountability. To replace the power of the state with the power of the global corporation is tantamount to an act of collective suicide.

We are experiencing the consequences in the form of six current tendencies of the global system identified by Willis and colleague Thomas Hurley in a co-authored paper written only days before Willis' cancer was diagnosed.

1. Destruction of the natural environment.
2. Destruction of community.
3. Transfer of wealth upward.
4. Marginalization of persons, communities, and cultures.
5. Erosion and denial of the sense of the spiritual or sacred.
6. Creation of learned incapacity and helplessness.

Spiritually impoverished and on the brink of destroying the natural and social fabric on which human life and civilization depend, we are creating societies that diminish the human spirit and place our very survival at risk. Dominated by the power and values of global corporations and financial markets, the global economy bears a major responsibility

It is ironic that the policies that have concentrated power in our most authoritarian and least accountable institution have been promoted in the name of human freedom, democracy, and the market economy. In the true market economy envisioned by Adam Smith small producers compete for the favor of small consumers on the basis of price. We do not have an economy centrally planned by socialist governments to serve the party bosses. But what we do have is not so different as we might think - an economy centrally planned by the world's largest corporations to serve the interests of their wealthiest shareholders.

There is indeed a positive relationship between a market economy comprised of small independent producers and human freedom. However, corporate freedom is to human freedom and the market economy what monarchy is to democracy - they are fundamentally at odds. Confronting this conflict is key both to reversing the devastating trends that threaten our future and to defining the real challenge of socially responsible management. The perhaps startling implication is that the number one priority of socially responsible business leaders must be a commitment to create the conditions of a socially efficient market economy.

 

[ihopehefails]

Let's again go to the real fascist:

"The fate of nations is intimately bound up with their powers of reproduction. All nations and all empires first felt decadence gnawing at them when their birth rate fell off."

Benito Mussolini

Sounds like a FASCIST guy against birth control and abortion. Doesn't sound at all like American liberalism.

Birth rate is linked to the survival of a nation but when did it become the concern of a government to worry about those things? Most people who oppose birth control do it on an individual level and abortion was always a eugenics scheme to begin with that was designed to weed out the undesirables.

Our government gives you lucrative tax breaks for having children. Is that wrong? Is that fascist?

It is a little since those who choose not to reproduce are penalized for their decision.