Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[daveman]

Warren is proposing to create a new healthcare plan from scratch that would offer broad benefits and immediately cover tens of millions of people -- those on Medicaid, those over 50, under 18, and anybody else who wants to buy in. She claims that she'll be able to pass it within 100 days, and by year three, the the new plan will be so firmly established that the system will be ready to pass full "Medicare for all."

Also, every American will be issued his or her own unicorn.

 

[georgephillip]

Warren is proposing to create a new healthcare plan from scratch that would offer broad benefits and immediately cover tens of millions of people -- those on Medicaid, those over 50, under 18, and anybody else who wants to buy in. She claims that she'll be able to pass it within 100 days, and by year three, the the new plan will be so firmly established that the system will be ready to pass full "Medicare for all."

Elizabeth Warren Retreats From Medicare for All

"'Why would anyone go through all the trouble of running for president just to get up on stage and talk about what’s not possible?'

"This is the question Elizabeth Warren posed to thumb-faced millionaire John Delaney at a Democratic debate in July, as paraphrased by her campaign in a tweet, in response to Delaney’s characterization of bold policies as 'impossible promises.'

"And yet it is the logic of possible and impossible, of disarming yourself in an attempt to appease your opponent before you’ve met upon the battlefield, that undergirds Warren’s newly released plan to split up the passage of Medicare for All into two steps: First, the enactment of a public option and then, two years later, the passage of a separate bill to achieve single-payer. It signals that Warren believes that only a public option is possible, without requiring her to say so out loud."

What should progressives learn from this allegation?

Bernie Sanders Can Still Set Himself Apart on Medicare for All

 

[dblack]

Do you have any examples of corporate tyranny that don't employ government?

I'm unaware of any examples of corporations that don't require government for their existence, are you?

They could exist without government, but they wouldn't have government looking out for their interests - and they wouldn't have nearly as much power.

It is impossible to diminish the power of corporations without using government, but I don't believe it's possible to shrink government without corporations filling that vacuum.

Unless you're talking about giving corporations a police force and an army, your claim is delusional. Corporations don't have the power to coerce us.

Unless you're talking about giving corporations a police force and an army, your claim is delusional. Corporations don't have the power to coerce us.

Depending on you definition of "coerce"

Of course. Cue the equivocation machine.

To be clear, when I say coerce I mean the threat of physical violence. Nothing less.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Corporate crime is often violent crime. The FBI estimates that, 14,000 Americans are murdered every year. Compare this to the 54,000 Americans who die every year on the job or from occupational diseases such as black lung and asbestosis and the additional tens of thousands of other Americans who fall victim every year to the silent violence of pollution, contaminated foods, hazardous consumer products, and hospital malpractice. These deaths are often the result of criminal recklessness. Yet, they are rarely prosecuted as homicides or as criminal violations of federal laws.

The April 2010 Upper Big Branch mining disaster in West Virginia – cost 29 lives. A Labor Department report found that the company’s unlawful policies and practices were the root cause of the disaster. Yet, the company was given a non prosecution agreement.

 

[georgephillip]

Do you have any examples of corporate tyranny that don't employ government?

I'm unaware of any examples of corporations that don't require government for their existence, are you?

They could exist without government, but they wouldn't have government looking out for their interests - and they wouldn't have nearly as much power.

It is impossible to diminish the power of corporations without using government, but I don't believe it's possible to shrink government without corporations filling that vacuum.

Unless you're talking about giving corporations a police force and an army, your claim is delusional. Corporations don't have the power to coerce us.

Unless you're talking about giving corporations a police force and an army, your claim is delusional. Corporations don't have the power to coerce us.

Depending on you definition of "coerce"

Of course. Cue the equivocation machine.

To be clear, when I say coerce I mean the threat of physical violence. Nothing less.

Of course. Cue the equivocation machine.

To be clear, when I say coerce I mean the threat of physical violence. Nothing less.

Definition of COERCE

"Definition of coerce


transitive verb

1: to compel to an act or choice was coerced into agreeing abusers who coerce their victims into silence
2: to achieve by force or threat coerce compliance coerce obedience
3: to restrain or dominate by force religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious— W. R. Inge"

Agreed?

 

[dblack]

Do you have any examples of corporate tyranny that don't employ government?

I'm unaware of any examples of corporations that don't require government for their existence, are you?

They could exist without government, but they wouldn't have government looking out for their interests - and they wouldn't have nearly as much power.

It is impossible to diminish the power of corporations without using government, but I don't believe it's possible to shrink government without corporations filling that vacuum.

Unless you're talking about giving corporations a police force and an army, your claim is delusional. Corporations don't have the power to coerce us.

Unless you're talking about giving corporations a police force and an army, your claim is delusional. Corporations don't have the power to coerce us.

Depending on you definition of "coerce"

Of course. Cue the equivocation machine.

To be clear, when I say coerce I mean the threat of physical violence. Nothing less.

Of course. Cue the equivocation machine.

To be clear, when I say coerce I mean the threat of physical violence. Nothing less.

Definition of COERCE

"Definition of coerce


transitive verb

1: to compel to an act or choice was coerced into agreeing abusers who coerce their victims into silence
2: to achieve by force or threat coerce compliance coerce obedience
3: to restrain or dominate by force religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious— W. R. Inge"

Agreed?

Not interested in the equivocation game, george. "Economic coercion" isn't.

 

[dblack]

I'm unaware of any examples of corporations that don't require government for their existence, are you?

They could exist without government, but they wouldn't have government looking out for their interests - and they wouldn't have nearly as much power.

It is impossible to diminish the power of corporations without using government, but I don't believe it's possible to shrink government without corporations filling that vacuum.

Unless you're talking about giving corporations a police force and an army, your claim is delusional. Corporations don't have the power to coerce us.

Unless you're talking about giving corporations a police force and an army, your claim is delusional. Corporations don't have the power to coerce us.

Depending on you definition of "coerce"

Of course. Cue the equivocation machine.

To be clear, when I say coerce I mean the threat of physical violence. Nothing less.

Of course. Cue the equivocation machine.

To be clear, when I say coerce I mean the threat of physical violence. Nothing less.

Definition of COERCE

"Definition of coerce


transitive verb

1: to compel to an act or choice was coerced into agreeing abusers who coerce their victims into silence
2: to achieve by force or threat coerce compliance coerce obedience
3: to restrain or dominate by force religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious— W. R. Inge"

Agreed?

Not interested in the equivocation game, george. "Economic coercion" isn't.

To clarify, it's not coercion when someone won't do what you want them to. If that's how you define it, let's just be clear that it's not how I'm using the word.

 

[georgephillip]

Corporate crime is often violent crime. The FBI estimates that, 14,000 Americans are murdered every year. Compare this to the 54,000 Americans who die every year on the job or from occupational diseases such as black lung and asbestosis and the additional tens of thousands of other Americans who fall victim every year to the silent violence of pollution, contaminated foods, hazardous consumer products, and hospital malpractice. These deaths are often the result of criminal recklessness. Yet, they are rarely prosecuted as homicides or as criminal violations of federal laws.

The April 2010 Upper Big Branch mining disaster in West Virginia – cost 29 lives. A Labor Department report found that the company’s unlawful policies and practices were the root cause of the disaster. Yet, the company was given a non prosecution agreement.

Your link:

"Over the years, we’ve interviewed hundreds of prosecutors, defense attorneys, law school professors, reporters, and activists.

"Our first interview, which appeared in Volume One, Number One on April 13, 1987 was with the premier corporate crime prosecutor of his day.

"That was Rudolph Giuliani, then U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York.

"At the time, he was prosecuting the likes of Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky and Marc Rich. President Bill Clinton later pardoned Marc Rich.

"Apparently Marc Rich’s wife was dumping big cash into the Clinton library. Rudy is now solidly in the hands of the corporate crime lobby.

"He prosecuted corporate crime as a way to achieve higher office.

"Then he learned one of the key lessons of corporate crime prosecution."

I wonder how Rudy's net worth has changed since '69?
And how much of the increase has come from assisting corporate criminals like Donald Trump?

Wall Street and the Frankenstein Economy

 

[georgephillip]

They could exist without government, but they wouldn't have government looking out for their interests - and they wouldn't have nearly as much power.

Unless you're talking about giving corporations a police force and an army, your claim is delusional. Corporations don't have the power to coerce us.

Unless you're talking about giving corporations a police force and an army, your claim is delusional. Corporations don't have the power to coerce us.

Depending on you definition of "coerce"

Of course. Cue the equivocation machine.

To be clear, when I say coerce I mean the threat of physical violence. Nothing less.

Of course. Cue the equivocation machine.

To be clear, when I say coerce I mean the threat of physical violence. Nothing less.

Definition of COERCE

"Definition of coerce


transitive verb

1: to compel to an act or choice was coerced into agreeing abusers who coerce their victims into silence
2: to achieve by force or threat coerce compliance coerce obedience
3: to restrain or dominate by force religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious— W. R. Inge"

Agreed?

Not interested in the equivocation game, george. "Economic coercion" isn't.

To clarify, it's not coercion when someone won't do what you want them to. If that's how you define it, let's just be clear that it's not how I'm using the word.

To clarify, it's not coercion when someone won't do what you want them to. If that's how you define it, let's just be clear that it's not how I'm using the word.

When employees who file charges of workplace abuse are threatened with loss of job into accepting forced arbitration instead of filing charges in court, are they being coerced?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Your link:

"Over the years, we’ve interviewed hundreds of prosecutors, defense attorneys, law school professors, reporters, and activists.

Gotta love Russell Mokhiber! Just keeps pluggin' away

Speaking of pluggin' away.. conservatives hate The Hightower Lowdown
The people are revolting! A brief introduction to populism • Hightower Lowdown

 

[dblack]

When employees who file charges of workplace abuse are threatened with loss of job into accepting forced arbitration instead of filing charges in court, are they being coerced?

Of course not. Firing someone is not an act of violence. If we can't agree on that, there's not much point in talking about the other stuff. We're not using the same language.

 

[Grumblenuts]

When employees who file charges of workplace abuse are threatened with loss of job into accepting forced arbitration instead of filing charges in court, are they being coerced?

Of course not. Firing someone is not an act of violence. If we can't agree on that, there's not much point in talking about the other stuff. We're not using the same language.

Coercion - Wikipedia

The purpose of coercion is to substitute one's aims to those of the victim. For this reason, many social philosophers have considered coercion as the polar opposite to freedom.

 

[dblack]

When employees who file charges of workplace abuse are threatened with loss of job into accepting forced arbitration instead of filing charges in court, are they being coerced?

Of course not. Firing someone is not an act of violence. If we can't agree on that, there's not much point in talking about the other stuff. We're not using the same language.

Coercion - Wikipedia

Ahh...yes. More equivocation. Have fun with that.

 

[Grumblenuts]

When employees who file charges of workplace abuse are threatened with loss of job into accepting forced arbitration instead of filing charges in court, are they being coerced?

Of course not. Firing someone is not an act of violence. If we can't agree on that, there's not much point in talking about the other stuff. We're not using the same language.

Coercion - Wikipedia

Ahh...yes. More equivocation. Have fun with that.

You being direct about your word usage demands make no difference. Falsely limiting the available descriptive language is common fallacious bullshit. While it's normally nice to know what you'd like words to mean, good to know your intent, that doesn't make you right. At all.

 

[georgephillip]

Your link:

"Over the years, we’ve interviewed hundreds of prosecutors, defense attorneys, law school professors, reporters, and activists.

Gotta love Russell Mokhiber! Just keeps pluggin' away

Speaking of pluggin' away.. conservatives hate The Hightower Lowdown
The people are revolting! A brief introduction to populism • Hightower Lowdown

Gotta love Russell Mokhiber! Just keeps pluggin' away

Speaking of pluggin' away.. conservatives hate The Hightower Lowdown
The people are revolting! A brief introduction to populism • Hightower Lowdown

Your link:

"Populism is not a style, nor (and this is important to note in this moment of The Donald) is it a synonym for 'popular outrage.'

"Populism is a historically grounded political doctrine that supports ordinary folks in their ongoing democratic struggle for power over their own lives.

"In the late 1800s, the original Populist Movement successfully challenged the robber-baron corporate structure of the day, advancing such serious solutions as women’s suffrage; wage protections and an eight-hour work day; direct election of U.S. senators by the people; the elimination of poll taxes and literacy tests for voting; corralling the power of lobbyists; civil-service laws; pensions for veterans; a graduated income tax; elimination of public subsidies to private corporations; outlawing the system of corporate mercenaries employed to bust unions; and preserving America’s natural resources from being monopolized for speculative purposes."

During that progressive age, Oklahoma was the US state with the most self-described Socialists in its state legislature. A century later their descendants confuse Trump with Eugene Debs; what next?

 

[dblack]

When employees who file charges of workplace abuse are threatened with loss of job into accepting forced arbitration instead of filing charges in court, are they being coerced?

Of course not. Firing someone is not an act of violence. If we can't agree on that, there's not much point in talking about the other stuff. We're not using the same language.

Coercion - Wikipedia

Ahh...yes. More equivocation. Have fun with that.

You being direct about your word usage demands make no difference. Falsely limiting the available descriptive language is common fallacious bullshit. While it's normally nice to know what you'd like words to mean, good to know your intent, that doesn't make you right. At all.

 

[dblack]

When employees who file charges of workplace abuse are threatened with loss of job into accepting forced arbitration instead of filing charges in court, are they being coerced?

Of course not. Firing someone is not an act of violence. If we can't agree on that, there's not much point in talking about the other stuff. We're not using the same language.

Coercion - Wikipedia

Ahh...yes. More equivocation. Have fun with that.

You being direct about your word usage demands make no difference. Falsely limiting the available descriptive language is common fallacious bullshit. While it's normally nice to know what you'd like words to mean, good to know your intent, that doesn't make you right. At all.

Nuts, I'll explain how this applies, because I know you're pretty stupid:

Let's say I make a claim like - "the government should protect us from coercion", and we (supposedly) agree on that statement. Usually this happens when we assume the context clarifies any ambiguities. But the equivocator thrives on ambiguities, and, later in the argument twists the original statement to mean something else. For example, they might claim that "coerce", in the agreed upon premise, includes when someone looks at you funny. That's not what I meant, so we didn't actually didn't agree on the premise. We have to start over. Of course, the equivocator is hoping no one notices.

It's sort of a way to lie after the fact. It's shitty, but sometimes it's all you got. Sorry.

 

[Grumblenuts]

^Agreed, it's clearly all you've got.

When employees who file charges of workplace abuse are threatened with loss of job into accepting forced arbitration instead of filing charges in court, are they being coerced?

Of course not. Firing someone is not an act of violence. If we can't agree on that, there's not much point in talking about the other stuff. We're not using the same language.

Coercion - Wikipedia

Ahh...yes. More equivocation. Have fun with that.

You being direct about your word usage demands make no difference. Falsely limiting the available descriptive language is common fallacious bullshit. While it's normally nice to know what you'd like words to mean, good to know your intent, that doesn't make you right. At all.

Very nice. Now since it's you making the claim that coercion necessarily involves violence while dictionaries do not, the equivocator is you.
Quick, characterize blackmail.. Time's up. Survey says,.. Brrrrump. Coercion.
Sorry. You lose.

 

[georgephillip]

When employees who file charges of workplace abuse are threatened with loss of job into accepting forced arbitration instead of filing charges in court, are they being coerced?

Of course not. Firing someone is not an act of violence. If we can't agree on that, there's not much point in talking about the other stuff. We're not using the same language.

Of course not. Firing someone is not an act of violence. If we can't agree on that, there's not much point in talking about the other stuff. We're not using the same language.

Coercive acts may include violence;however, some examples of coercion do not:

Coercion - Wikipedia

"In law, coercion is codified as a duress crime.

"Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in a way contrary to their own interests.

"Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat.

"The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced."

 

[dblack]

^Agreed, it's clearly all you've got.

Of course not. Firing someone is not an act of violence. If we can't agree on that, there's not much point in talking about the other stuff. We're not using the same language.

Coercion - Wikipedia

Ahh...yes. More equivocation. Have fun with that.

You being direct about your word usage demands make no difference. Falsely limiting the available descriptive language is common fallacious bullshit. While it's normally nice to know what you'd like words to mean, good to know your intent, that doesn't make you right. At all.

Very nice. Now since it's you making the claim that coercion necessarily involves violence while dictionaries do not, the equivocator is you.
Quick, characterize blackmail.. Time's up. Survey says,.. Brrrrump. Coercion.
Sorry. You lose.

Why don't you just say "I give up!"?