"Freedom is Participation in Power"

[bripat9643]

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.

Yes, that is anarchy: absence of government. Why should I be forced to participate in the "norms of society" if I'm not agreessing on other individuals?

 

[georgephillip]

Aside from being incredibly stupid, what do any of those ideas have to do with freedom? They are the essence of totalitarianism.

Starting at the top of Nader's list:
Banks and telecommunication companies should be run as public utilities which would enhance freedom of speech and safeguard the public's money from authoritarian corporate bankers and internet trolls.

 

[georgephillip]

Yes, that is anarchy: absence of government. Why should I be forced to participate in the "norms of society" if I'm not agreessing on other individuals?

Because you aren't an impartial judge of when you might be transgressing on the rights of others.

 

[Rusty Houser]

........unless you are not a pinko liberal

 

[SwimExpert]

Care to supply your definition?

At this point, no. At least, not unless you're willing to pay tuition.

 

[georgephillip]

Libertarianism is the antithesis of corporatism

Where do you place your political opinions among the following examples of libertarianism?
"The term libertarianism originally referred to a philosophical belief in free will but later became associated with anti-state socialism and Enlightenment-influenced[9][10]political movements critical of institutional authority believed to serve forms of social domination and injustice.

"While it has generally retained its earlier political usage as a synonym for either social or individualist anarchism through much of the world, in the United States it has since come to describe pro-capitalist economic liberalism more so than radical, anti-capitalist egalitarianism.

"In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, libertarianism is defined as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.[11]

"As individualist opponents of social liberalism embraced the label and distanced themselves from the word liberal, American writers, political parties and think tanks adopted the word libertarian to describe advocacy of capitalist free market economics and a night-watchman state."
Libertarianism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Do you consider yourself a pro-capitalist?

 

[georgephillip]

Care to supply your definition?

At this point, no. At least, not unless you're willing to pay tuition.

What are your credentials?

 

[georgephillip]

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

"As each side suspiciously eyes the other across the dance floor, Nader is determined to make the first move.

"I teased him about starting a new grass roots movement as he enters his eighth decade. He replied, 'The only true aging is the erosion of one’s ideals.' On that basis, Ralph could surely outlive us all."
Can Ralph Nader Get Progressives and Libertarians to Make Common Cause - Forbes

 

[dblack]

Libertarianism is the antithesis of corporatism

Where do you place your political opinions among the following examples of libertarianism?
"The term libertarianism originally referred to a philosophical belief in free will but later became associated with anti-state socialism and Enlightenment-influenced[9][10]political movements critical of institutional authority believed to serve forms of social domination and injustice.

"While it has generally retained its earlier political usage as a synonym for either social or individualist anarchism through much of the world, in the United States it has since come to describe pro-capitalist economic liberalism more so than radical, anti-capitalist egalitarianism.

"In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, libertarianism is defined as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.[11]

"As individualist opponents of social liberalism embraced the label and distanced themselves from the word liberal, American writers, political parties and think tanks adopted the word libertarian to describe advocacy of capitalist free market economics and a night-watchman state."
Libertarianism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Do you consider yourself a pro-capitalist?

I'd go with the last one. Freedom implies free markets, and in as much as free markets imply capitalism, I support it. Though I retain reservation about the current standard formulation of the corporate charter

 

[georgephillip]

I'd go with the last one. Freedom implies free markets, and in as much as free markets imply capitalism, I support it. Though I retain reservation about the current standard formulation of the corporate charter

Would you agree with Nader about using the federal government to limit the size of corporations and also to reform limited liability protections for investors?

 

[dblack]

Care to supply your definition?

At this point, no. At least, not unless you're willing to pay tuition.

Then you make it impossible to communicate with you. I'm content with the overall concept outlined in the wikipedia article on the subject. From that conception, it's actually more of a stretch envisioning progressives as rejecting corporatism. But I think many of today's progressives are beginning to realize the corrosive nature of corporatist government, and are rightly rejecting it.

 

[dblack]

I'd go with the last one. Freedom implies free markets, and in as much as free markets imply capitalism, I support it. Though I retain reservation about the current standard formulation of the corporate charter

Would you agree with Nader about using the federal government to limit the size of corporations and also to reform limited liability protections for investors?

Definitely the latter, which I think would resolve the former with no mandated limits.

 

[bripat9643]

I'd go with the last one. Freedom implies free markets, and in as much as free markets imply capitalism, I support it. Though I retain reservation about the current standard formulation of the corporate charter

Would you agree with Nader about using the federal government to limit the size of corporations and also to reform limited liability protections for investors?

No. Both ideas are beyond stupid. Why should someone who buys a share of stock have his entire net worth at risk if the issuing corporation gets sued?

 

[georgephillip]

Then you make it impossible to communicate with you. I'm content with the overall concept outlined in the wikipedia article on the subject. From that conception, it's actually more of a stretch envisioning progressives as rejecting corporatism. But I think many of today's progressives are beginning to realize the corrosive nature of corporatist government, and are rightly rejecting it.

Nader offered this definition of corporatism during an interview with Reason Magazine:
"NADER: 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.

"It’s part of the overall globalization which undermines local, state and national sovereignty and which pulls down economies to their lowest levels in countries overseas.

"GILLESPIE: What’s the kind of growth curve of corporatism? Is this something that in a lot of ways starts with the new deal and then extends into the post war era of the government or the state and corporation saying were going to work together to stabilize everything.

"NADER: Well that’s one - sort of an emergency partnership, but I think the marker was around 1979, when congressman democrat from California, Tony Cuello, persuaded the democrats that they could raise a lot of money from corporate sources just like the republicans, From then on, you can see the decline in public hearings, the corporate malfeasance.

"You can see the decline in enforcement of health and safety standards, doctorants (2:18?) like deferred prosecution.

"They never had to plead guilty – the corporations – they cut deals. And you see the enormous increase in PACS, commercial PACS, and political action committees."

Ralph Nader Q amp A How Progressives and Libertarians Are Taking on Crony Capitalism and Corrupt Dems and Reps - Reason.com

 

[georgephillip]

No. Both ideas are beyond stupid. Why should someone who buys a share of stock have his entire net worth at risk if the issuing corporation gets sued?

No one is saying someone who buys a share of stock should have her entire net worth at risk. Some are calling for increasing shareholder responsibility in cases of gross negligence. Like Bhopal, for example.

 

[dblack]

I'd go with the last one. Freedom implies free markets, and in as much as free markets imply capitalism, I support it. Though I retain reservation about the current standard formulation of the corporate charter

Would you agree with Nader about using the federal government to limit the size of corporations and also to reform limited liability protections for investors?

No. Both ideas are beyond stupid. Why should someone who buys a share of stock have his entire net worth at risk if the issuing corporation gets sued?

Why should someone profit from illicit gains? The problem is that currently there's no accountability at all. If a sole owner of a business hires someone to run his business and says "do whatever is necessary to turn a profit. I don't wanna know about the details.", and then the person they hire commits heinous crimes in the name of turning that profit, the owner of the business is culpable. They will share some of the responsibility for the crimes their employees commit on their behalf.

There's no reason investors should be able to do effectively the same thing and get away scott-free. This is the reason CEO salaries are ridiculously high. It's because they're the "hired guns" ruthlessly chasing profits on behalf of investors. And they will be the "fall guys" if they get caught cheating. The investors will, at most, lose their investment - usually not even that because our corporatist government stands by ready to bail them out.

I don't think anyone would say that every stockholder of a company should be fully responsible for the misdeeds of the corporations employees, but they should shoulder more of that responsibility than they currently do.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Why did corporate Al support NAFTA?

Why wouldn't he?

Only whack job isolationists opposed it

 

[dblack]

Then you make it impossible to communicate with you. I'm content with the overall concept outlined in the wikipedia article on the subject. From that conception, it's actually more of a stretch envisioning progressives as rejecting corporatism. But I think many of today's progressives are beginning to realize the corrosive nature of corporatist government, and are rightly rejecting it.

Nader offered this definition of corporatism during an interview with Reason Magazine:
"NADER: 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.

"It’s part of the overall globalization which undermines local, state and national sovereignty and which pulls down economies to their lowest levels in countries overseas.

"GILLESPIE: What’s the kind of growth curve of corporatism? Is this something that in a lot of ways starts with the new deal and then extends into the post war era of the government or the state and corporation saying were going to work together to stabilize everything.

"NADER: Well that’s one - sort of an emergency partnership, but I think the marker was around 1979, when congressman democrat from California, Tony Cuello, persuaded the democrats that they could raise a lot of money from corporate sources just like the republicans, From then on, you can see the decline in public hearings, the corporate malfeasance.

"You can see the decline in enforcement of health and safety standards, doctorants (2:18?) like deferred prosecution.

"They never had to plead guilty – the corporations – they cut deals. And you see the enormous increase in PACS, commercial PACS, and political action committees."

Ralph Nader Q amp A How Progressives and Libertarians Are Taking on Crony Capitalism and Corrupt Dems and Reps - Reason.com

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.

 

[SwimExpert]

Then you make it impossible to communicate with you.

Because someone else is an ignorant fool? You leftists are so predictable. Always blame someone else for your own stupidity.

 

[dblack]

Then you make it impossible to communicate with you.

Because someone else is an ignorant fool? You leftists are so predictable. Always blame someone else for your own stupidity.

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