"Freedom is Participation in Power"

[dblack]

Ralph Nader gave us George Bush

All we need to know

No. He didn't.
Jeb gave us George Bush because Big Al was too gutless to fight for what he won at the polls.

The votes Nader pulled from Al Gore were more than enough to push Bush to 270

What? Gore owned those votes? And Nader stole them? Take your evil-of-two-lessers nonsense elsewhere.

Naders exercise in narcissism gave us George Bush

No, Al Gore's exercise in corporatist phoniness gave us George Bush.

 

[georgephillip]

o believe that Libertarians will unite with Progressives to tackle corporatism is foolish. Ultimately, they're in bed with corporatism. They're just angry that they are the ignored third in the menage a trois.

Can you supply any examples?
As I recall there were prominent Libertarians who opposed the WTO "trade agreement" in 1995 which was championed by "progressive" Bill Clinton. Nader refers to that treaty as the biggest surrender of local. state. and national sovereignty in US history.

 

[georgephillip]

Naders exercise in narcissism gave us George Bush

Are you ever going to stop whining about a 100,000 voters who would NOT have been gullible enough to "choose" between a Republican OR Democrat REGARDLESS of whether Ralph was on the ballot or not? They would NOT have voted for corporate Al Gore any more than they would have for corporate George Bush. They would have voted third party or not at all for President.

 

[rightwinger]

Naders exercise in narcissism gave us George Bush

Are you ever going to stop whining about a 100,000 voters who would NOT have been gullible enough to "choose" between a Republican OR Democrat REGARDLESS of whether Ralph was on the ballot or not? They would NOT have voted for corporate Al Gore any more than they would have for corporate George Bush. They would have voted third party or not at all for President.

From the Kentucky cold mines, to the California sun, Nader voters would have gone for environmentalist Gore

 

[SwimExpert]

Can you supply any examples?
As I recall there were prominent Libertarians who opposed the WTO "trade agreement" in 1995 which was championed by "progressive" Bill Clinton. Nader refers to that treaty as the biggest surrender of local. state. and national sovereignty in US history.

Not sure what you're getting at. It's natural that Libertarians would oppose it. But I don't see it as having any relevance to what's been said here. How does that have anything to do with the de facto corporatism of the present?

 

[georgephillip]

The votes Nader pulled from Al Gore were more than enough to push Bush to 270

Not according to exit polls:
"
The Democratic Party assumption is that most, if not all of Nader's votes came from people who would have voted for Gore if Nader had not run. That is a myth according to exit polls.

In Florida, CNN’s exit polling showed Nader taking the same amount of votes from both Republicans and Democrats: 1 percent. Nader also took 4 percent of the independent vote.
...
Had Nader not run, Bush would have won by more in Florida. CNN’s exit poll showed Bush at 49 percent and Gore at 47 percent, with 2 percent not voting in a hypothetical Nader-less Florida race. If Nader hadn't run, about half of the Nader voters would have stayed home according to the exit polls.
#2) OK. So you don't believe exit polls. Then let's look at the actual votes..."

The Ralph Nader Myth

 

[georgephillip]

From the Kentucky cold mines, to the California sun, Nader voters would have gone for environmentalist Gore

Why did corporate Al support NAFTA?

 

[georgephillip]

Not sure what you're getting at. It's natural that Libertarians would oppose it. But I don't see it as having any relevance to what's been said here. How does that have anything to do with the de facto corporatism of the present?

What did you mean when you wrote: "To believe that Libertarians will unite with Progressives to tackle corporatism is foolish"? Are you saying Libertarians rejected corporatism twenty years ago and embrace it today?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

 

[dblack]

Not sure what you're getting at. It's natural that Libertarians would oppose it. But I don't see it as having any relevance to what's been said here. How does that have anything to do with the de facto corporatism of the present?

What did you mean when you wrote: "To believe that Libertarians will unite with Progressives to tackle corporatism is foolish"? Are you saying Libertarians rejected corporatism twenty years ago and embrace it today?

He, along with numbskulled liberals, misconstrues libertarianism as blindly "pro business".

 

[SwimExpert]

Not sure what you're getting at. It's natural that Libertarians would oppose it. But I don't see it as having any relevance to what's been said here. How does that have anything to do with the de facto corporatism of the present?

What did you mean when you wrote: "To believe that Libertarians will unite with Progressives to tackle corporatism is foolish"? Are you saying Libertarians rejected corporatism twenty years ago and embrace it today?

He, along with numbskulled liberals, misconstrues libertarianism as blindly "pro business".

Try that again, Sally.

 

[SwimExpert]

Not sure what you're getting at. It's natural that Libertarians would oppose it. But I don't see it as having any relevance to what's been said here. How does that have anything to do with the de facto corporatism of the present?

What did you mean when you wrote: "To believe that Libertarians will unite with Progressives to tackle corporatism is foolish"? Are you saying Libertarians rejected corporatism twenty years ago and embrace it today?

.....

I don't think you know what corporatism means. What corporatism 20 years ago? Because your previous comments have nothing to do with corporatism.

 

[georgephillip]

He, along with numbskulled liberals, misconstrues libertarianism as blindly "pro business".

Are there currently any Libertarians in the US Congress?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

He, along with numbskulled liberals, misconstrues libertarianism as blindly "pro business".

Yes, when it's actually pro-me-me-me, like the politics of any infant.

 

[georgephillip]

I don't think you know what corporatism means. What corporatism 20 years ago? Because your previous comments have nothing to do with corporatism.

Do you consider the WTO an example of corporatism?
"The World Trade Organization(WTO) is an organization that intends to supervise and liberalize international trade. The organization officially commenced on 1 January 1995 under the Marrakech Agreement, signed by 123 nations on 15 April 1994, replacing the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which commenced in 1948.[5"
World Trade Organization - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

This correct. To a libertarian, progressives are the enemy that must be crushed. In recent years these so-called libertarians have adopted so many pro-big business issues of their own that it is clear that they have sold their soul to big donors in return for some national exposure. Nothing but republican voters who have no wish to defend their sorry asses.

I think Nader's campaign is a nice litmus test to distinguish a true libertarian from a tea party republican - and likewise, a true progressive from a corporatist liberal.

ROFL! Apparently you believe there are no true libertarians since no libertarian would ever support Nader's anti business agenda.

There are more than you'd realize.

More what than I realize?

There are more libertarians who would support Nader's efforts to undermine corporatism than you realize.

I'm all in favor of abolishing crony capitalism, but Nader wants to abolish plain old capitalism.

 

[bripat9643]

o believe that Libertarians will unite with Progressives to tackle corporatism is foolish. Ultimately, they're in bed with corporatism. They're just angry that they are the ignored third in the menage a trois.

Can you supply any examples?
As I recall there were prominent Libertarians who opposed the WTO "trade agreement" in 1995 which was championed by "progressive" Bill Clinton. Nader refers to that treaty as the biggest surrender of local. state. and national sovereignty in US history.

I agree with that, and so do most libertarians.

 

[SwimExpert]

Do you consider the WTO an example of corporatism?

No, nor would any intelligent person who understands what corporatism is.

 

[georgephillip]

Hmmmmm . . . no it's not. Freedom is absence of coercion. "Participation in power" means to be a serf who does what the mob wills.

If freedom is the absence of coercion, than no one would ever be forced to comply with the rules and norms laid down by society. Which sounds suspiciously like anarchy. Participating in the process that determines the rules is what Nader's calling participation in power.

 

[georgephillip]

No, nor would any intelligent person who understands what corporatism is.

Care to supply your definition?