@ToxinalX - Libertarian capitalism is a ridiculous oxymoron. Capitalism entails a private unaccountable bureaucrat between you and the market, reaping the fruits of your labor. Therefore you don't own what you yourself produce, and capitalists derive non-labor income from the workers. Also your definition of corporatism is entirely backwards. Corporatism is when private elites control the government, not when government controls private elites. That sounds more like communism to me.
@Vote3rdParty It's a forced "partnership" between government and buissnessess.
But, government is the ultimate monopoly and has much more power than buissnessess and in fact rules over them, as is the definition of government; they are the ones that rule the rest by force.
Corporativism is not communism backwards, it is simply a darwinist form of of statism which is sometimes called "state capitalism" or "state socialism".
It is just righteously called either much depending otc
@ToxinalX - It's not a forced partnership, it's as simple as money. Private elites flow money into politics and buy politicians, therefore the state is a puppet and the corporations are holding the strings. Government doesn't imply a monopoly, the STATE implies a monopoly. All classical anarchists support communal ownership of the MoP over dictator control. In a world with unlimited resources, I agree with your position. But since resources are limited they must be shared.
@Vote3rdParty In its ultimate form it is forced since a single individual or buissness can not go against and challenge the system and therefore not replace it either.
@ToxinalX - There is no forced partnership, it's a bought partnership. Corporations don't need to "challenge" government. They already have rigged it in their favor! What's to challenge? Low taxes for wealthy elites and deregulation? That's why we need to separate money from politics, or we'll keep trending toward corporatism.
@Vote3rdParty "Resources" are hard to define since we progress all the time and find new ways to use what could not be utilized just a few years before.
@Vote3rdParty "Libertarian capitalism" on the other hand is very strange idea, since it implies that capitalism is in its original form something completely different than the libertarian variant of it. In reality, libertarianism is (generally, although there is also social libertarianism/anarchism) the ideas of classical liberalism and individualism, depending on capitalism in its original form, which is a free market.
(Free market) Capitalism = No preemptive regulations
@ToxinalX - I think you mean Free Market = fascist dictator monopolies over the MoP, the land, and the water. Libertarian = owning what you yourself produce, having a say in decisions to the effect you are effected by those decisions, and your freedom ending where another's freedom begins. Anarchism is not merely anti-statism, it's anti-hierarchy which rules out any chance of the free market. And striving for a free market has historically only lead to corporatism.
I'm a Mathematics grad student; I'm as poor as they cum. I've read & thought lots on Economics & Philosophy. I've studied Marxist, Keynesian, Monetarist, and Austrian perspectives. I find the Austrian and Monetarist arguments the most convincing. In addition, these views unify beautifully with my Ethical values. (In particular I am speaking of Kant, and Aristotle). Finally, I've never heard of the ppl in the vid, nor do I really care who they are. I was just glad to find others with a like mind.
@Thyrdeye3000 - By like minded you mean easily fooled by their capitalist masters? The Tea Party is not grassroots, it's a corporate created illusion.
It's also interesting to consider that other movements opposing FDR's New Deal manifested in different ways that the business plot. An odd, eery example is "The Fellowship". I'd take a look at them if you want to be a bit spooked..
I think their power comes from the fact that they are already coddled by the government. a corporation wouldn't exist in a government free market. The liability would always lie with the owner of the business.
Corporations are government entities, they aren't capitalist, they just function well with capitalism
@darris321 - Actually, I would go farther that. Private property doesn't exist without the government. But corporate power comes from the mere fact they have money in a free market political political system. The government is owned by the private sector because of lack of restrictions on private donations.
Sure, corporations are a government entitlement. Private property is a government entitlement as well. Without government laws, what's to stop me from taking your shit?
I think Saint Ron is just as much a part of this movement to bring the rest of us to our knees as the so-called mainstream tea party. He's quite the snake.
I was previously of the impression that Ron Paul began the Tea Party, and that it was then taken over by the Fox News crowd once Sarah Palin got involved.
This documentary has filled in some gaps in my knowledge, as well as corrected some false impressions that I previously held.
@PurpleHoneyBear - Yeah, I thought Ron Paul started it too. But Ron Paul held the a Tea Party rally after the Rick Santelli made his Tea Party rant. Here's the whole documentary "Billionaires Tea Party" if you want to know more. /watch?v=GO_WC0FINmA
Thanks for commenting on my videos! It's nice getting friendly comments once in a while. I mostly just get right-wingers hating. You're the man! ;)
@alCIAdadidit - The American Liberty League wanted to establish a fascist dictatorship in place of FDR. This knowledge is well known. Now they have a new name, the Libertarian Party and the Tea Party, both far-right organization created by corporate elites to stop a progressive agenda. It didn't work in the 1930's but it is working now. Obama bows to the corporations and right-wingers in fear. Congrats.
@Vote3rdParty Learn your "Tea Party" History. The Tea Party was NOT created by the corporate elite -- it was HIJACKED by the corporate elite. I thought you were an anarchist? anarchists want to stop the "progressive agenda" too. Obama bows in fear???? in fear of what??? losing votes??? if he were a man of principle he wouldnt be afraid of that! The America Liberty League does NOT equal "Libertarian" just because they share the word "liberty". Is the "Patriot" act, patriotic??
@alCIAdadidit - Progressives are the founders of anarchism. All of the anarchist "founders" are socialists, and VERY anti-capitalist.
The Tea Party was not hijacked. If you watched this video you would know how the Tea Party was created. Obama bows in fear of the corporations as I just mentioned. Obama only won in 2008 because he raised more money. Therefore he could buy more adds and hire more people, thus getting more people to vote. Our political system is based on money, not on democracy.
@Vote3rdParty ... I can't tell if youre uneducated or just misguided. How the hell is Obama afraid of corporations? If that's the case, why the hell do we have such a pussy president? Democracy is what's making the system based of of corporate money.
@Vote3rdParty LOL. no Progressives are NOT the founders of Anarchism. lol. you obviously dont know what either are. Progressives are pro-taxes and pro-government. Anarchists are anti-taxes and anti-government. Complete opposites. and no, they were hardly "socialists" lol. Anarchists are basically voluntarists.
@alCIAdadidit - Anarchists have always opposed the thievery and wage slavery of capitalism, while opposing the monopoly of the state as well. I suggest not commenting on anarchism until you know the basics. If you really want to know where an anarchist stands on the issues, just look up any video by Noam Chomsky. Capitalism entails a private sector bureaucrat between you and the market, stealing the profit of your labor. Capitalism is not compatible with anarchism. No response to the Tea Party?
@alCIAdadidit - Chomsky only agrees with Paul on one single issue, and that's the wars. Chomsky is a libertarian/anarchist. Paul is a Paleoconservative.
@alCIAdadidit - 2) "Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin was a well-known Russian revolutionary and theorist of collectivist anarchism. He has also often been called the father of anarchist theory in general"
"Proudhon favored workers' associations or co-operatives, as well as individual worker/peasant possession, over private ownership or the nationalization of land and workplaces."
psycho politics
jugeteable 2 weeks ago
@Vote3rdParty I'm sorry, but even though I don't really like the Tea Party movement, you wouldn't spot fascism if Hitler came knocking on your door.
You think Individual Liberty/Capitalism equals Fascism and that is completely wrong.
Fascism / Corporativism requires the goverment coming to choose which businesses to grow and which businesses to destroy.
ToxinalX 3 months ago
@ToxinalX - Libertarian capitalism is a ridiculous oxymoron. Capitalism entails a private unaccountable bureaucrat between you and the market, reaping the fruits of your labor. Therefore you don't own what you yourself produce, and capitalists derive non-labor income from the workers. Also your definition of corporatism is entirely backwards. Corporatism is when private elites control the government, not when government controls private elites. That sounds more like communism to me.
Vote3rdParty 3 days ago
@Vote3rdParty It's a forced "partnership" between government and buissnessess.
But, government is the ultimate monopoly and has much more power than buissnessess and in fact rules over them, as is the definition of government; they are the ones that rule the rest by force.
Corporativism is not communism backwards, it is simply a darwinist form of of statism which is sometimes called "state capitalism" or "state socialism".
It is just righteously called either much depending otc
ToxinalX 3 days ago
@ToxinalX - It's not a forced partnership, it's as simple as money. Private elites flow money into politics and buy politicians, therefore the state is a puppet and the corporations are holding the strings. Government doesn't imply a monopoly, the STATE implies a monopoly. All classical anarchists support communal ownership of the MoP over dictator control. In a world with unlimited resources, I agree with your position. But since resources are limited they must be shared.
Vote3rdParty 2 days ago
@Vote3rdParty In its ultimate form it is forced since a single individual or buissness can not go against and challenge the system and therefore not replace it either.
ToxinalX 2 days ago
@ToxinalX - There is no forced partnership, it's a bought partnership. Corporations don't need to "challenge" government. They already have rigged it in their favor! What's to challenge? Low taxes for wealthy elites and deregulation? That's why we need to separate money from politics, or we'll keep trending toward corporatism.
Vote3rdParty 2 days ago
@Vote3rdParty The politicans are bought by CERTAIN WEALTHY PEOPLE. They're not bought by *some guy* who happens to own a buissness.
What I mean is that for ordinary people like you and me and some *ordinary* buissness men as well, IT IS forced upon us.
I'm pretty sure that we're on the same page here, we just use different language really.
ToxinalX 1 day ago
@Vote3rdParty "Resources" are hard to define since we progress all the time and find new ways to use what could not be utilized just a few years before.
ToxinalX 2 days ago
@Vote3rdParty "Libertarian capitalism" on the other hand is very strange idea, since it implies that capitalism is in its original form something completely different than the libertarian variant of it. In reality, libertarianism is (generally, although there is also social libertarianism/anarchism) the ideas of classical liberalism and individualism, depending on capitalism in its original form, which is a free market.
(Free market) Capitalism = No preemptive regulations
ToxinalX 3 days ago
@ToxinalX - I think you mean Free Market = fascist dictator monopolies over the MoP, the land, and the water. Libertarian = owning what you yourself produce, having a say in decisions to the effect you are effected by those decisions, and your freedom ending where another's freedom begins. Anarchism is not merely anti-statism, it's anti-hierarchy which rules out any chance of the free market. And striving for a free market has historically only lead to corporatism.
Vote3rdParty 2 days ago
@Vote3rdParty I'm not an anarchist, I'm a left leaning classical liberal.
ToxinalX 2 days ago
@Vote3rdParty "Therefore you don't own what you yourself produce, and capitalists derive non-labor income from the workers."
This is something we will have to deal with untill the morality of the people become more generous and understanding.
ToxinalX 3 days ago
Tea Party Fascism? LOL So I guess Ben Franklin and ALL the other founding fathers were Fascists? LOL Free Market FASCISM? LOL Get a grip guy!! :)
dougfromeagan 3 months ago
@dougfromeagan Most modern socialists believe this shit you know...
To them Capitalism = Survival of The Fittest = Dictatorship = Fascism.
I used to be kind of a true socialist, but not even I come to this conclusion when I look at it from a "purely" (subjective) logical perspective.
I think the main problem here is that a lot of fascists/alternative believers are flying under the libertarian flag as well.
ToxinalX 3 months ago
I'm a Mathematics grad student; I'm as poor as they cum. I've read & thought lots on Economics & Philosophy. I've studied Marxist, Keynesian, Monetarist, and Austrian perspectives. I find the Austrian and Monetarist arguments the most convincing. In addition, these views unify beautifully with my Ethical values. (In particular I am speaking of Kant, and Aristotle). Finally, I've never heard of the ppl in the vid, nor do I really care who they are. I was just glad to find others with a like mind.
Thyrdeye3000 4 months ago
@Thyrdeye3000 - By like minded you mean easily fooled by their capitalist masters? The Tea Party is not grassroots, it's a corporate created illusion.
Vote3rdParty 4 months ago
great video. thanks
LouieDaProtectionist 4 months ago
18:10 plain and simple
Frickitall 4 months ago
@Vote3rdParty
It's also interesting to consider that other movements opposing FDR's New Deal manifested in different ways that the business plot. An odd, eery example is "The Fellowship". I'd take a look at them if you want to be a bit spooked..
6jpp6f 5 months ago
useful idiots
catwoman662 5 months ago
I think their power comes from the fact that they are already coddled by the government. a corporation wouldn't exist in a government free market. The liability would always lie with the owner of the business.
Corporations are government entities, they aren't capitalist, they just function well with capitalism
darris321 5 months ago
@darris321 - Actually, I would go farther that. Private property doesn't exist without the government. But corporate power comes from the mere fact they have money in a free market political political system. The government is owned by the private sector because of lack of restrictions on private donations.
Sure, corporations are a government entitlement. Private property is a government entitlement as well. Without government laws, what's to stop me from taking your shit?
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
I think Saint Ron is just as much a part of this movement to bring the rest of us to our knees as the so-called mainstream tea party. He's quite the snake.
Homer177 5 months ago
I was previously of the impression that Ron Paul began the Tea Party, and that it was then taken over by the Fox News crowd once Sarah Palin got involved.
This documentary has filled in some gaps in my knowledge, as well as corrected some false impressions that I previously held.
Live it up fascist nation!
PurpleHoneyBear 5 months ago in playlist More videos from Vote3rdParty
@PurpleHoneyBear - Yeah, I thought Ron Paul started it too. But Ron Paul held the a Tea Party rally after the Rick Santelli made his Tea Party rant. Here's the whole documentary "Billionaires Tea Party" if you want to know more. /watch?v=GO_WC0FINmA
Thanks for commenting on my videos! It's nice getting friendly comments once in a while. I mostly just get right-wingers hating. You're the man! ;)
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The TEA PARTY is a CANCER on America
TKDMike58 5 months ago
@TKDMike58 no, government is. How many people has the Tea Party killed?
alCIAdadidit 5 months ago
guilt by association? I think your tinfoil hat is on a bit tight...
alCIAdadidit 5 months ago
@alCIAdadidit - What is guilt by association? Explain yourself.
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
@alCIAdadidit - What is guilt by association? Explain yourself.
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
@alCIAdadidit - What is guilt by association? Explain yourself.
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
How is this "Fascism"? What's wrong with a Sound Currency???
alCIAdadidit 5 months ago
@alCIAdadidit - The American Liberty League wanted to establish a fascist dictatorship in place of FDR. This knowledge is well known. Now they have a new name, the Libertarian Party and the Tea Party, both far-right organization created by corporate elites to stop a progressive agenda. It didn't work in the 1930's but it is working now. Obama bows to the corporations and right-wingers in fear. Congrats.
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
@Vote3rdParty Learn your "Tea Party" History. The Tea Party was NOT created by the corporate elite -- it was HIJACKED by the corporate elite. I thought you were an anarchist? anarchists want to stop the "progressive agenda" too. Obama bows in fear???? in fear of what??? losing votes??? if he were a man of principle he wouldnt be afraid of that! The America Liberty League does NOT equal "Libertarian" just because they share the word "liberty". Is the "Patriot" act, patriotic??
alCIAdadidit 5 months ago
@alCIAdadidit - Progressives are the founders of anarchism. All of the anarchist "founders" are socialists, and VERY anti-capitalist.
The Tea Party was not hijacked. If you watched this video you would know how the Tea Party was created. Obama bows in fear of the corporations as I just mentioned. Obama only won in 2008 because he raised more money. Therefore he could buy more adds and hire more people, thus getting more people to vote. Our political system is based on money, not on democracy.
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
@Vote3rdParty ... I can't tell if youre uneducated or just misguided. How the hell is Obama afraid of corporations? If that's the case, why the hell do we have such a pussy president? Democracy is what's making the system based of of corporate money.
alCIAdadidit 5 months ago
@Vote3rdParty LOL. no Progressives are NOT the founders of Anarchism. lol. you obviously dont know what either are. Progressives are pro-taxes and pro-government. Anarchists are anti-taxes and anti-government. Complete opposites. and no, they were hardly "socialists" lol. Anarchists are basically voluntarists.
alCIAdadidit 5 months ago
@alCIAdadidit - Anarchists have always opposed the thievery and wage slavery of capitalism, while opposing the monopoly of the state as well. I suggest not commenting on anarchism until you know the basics. If you really want to know where an anarchist stands on the issues, just look up any video by Noam Chomsky. Capitalism entails a private sector bureaucrat between you and the market, stealing the profit of your labor. Capitalism is not compatible with anarchism. No response to the Tea Party?
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
Comment removed
alCIAdadidit 5 months ago
@Vote3rdParty LOL. chomsky is indeed a socialist. but i do usually agree with him on most issues. and likewise, chomsky agrees with Ron Paul.
alCIAdadidit 5 months ago
@alCIAdadidit - Chomsky only agrees with Paul on one single issue, and that's the wars. Chomsky is a libertarian/anarchist. Paul is a Paleoconservative.
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
@alCIAdadidit - 2) "Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin was a well-known Russian revolutionary and theorist of collectivist anarchism. He has also often been called the father of anarchist theory in general"
"Proudhon favored workers' associations or co-operatives, as well as individual worker/peasant possession, over private ownership or the nationalization of land and workplaces."
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago