Rather than give public money to candidates in order to compete with corporate money given to other candidates, why not limit the ability of the government to control the market, thus disinsentivising corporations from meddling with politics?
After all, when lobbyists so easily convince politicians to write laws that benefit the lobbyists' corporations, how can you trust politicians to write laws that will limit the influence of the lobbyists?
@superfisto Totally agree and campaign finance reform will not help this whatsoever...The rich will still find ways to pay politicians and give them under-the-table perks for passing favorable legislation for them that ends up screwing all of us. The only way to solve this is to decentralize the government and take this power away from the government. In my opinion, the only solution that will work is a more libertarian-based solution. DO pass campaign reform, but do not solely depend on it.
There is one reason and one reason alone that a government goes out of its way to draft and pass a bill that gives the government power to indefinitely detain citizens within its borders without charge or trial: because it intends to disappear people. Coupled with the patriot act, this is very scary. Fourth amendment gone. Fifth amendment gone. Habeus corpus gone. Why would a government seize these powers?
Ron Paul has simply called a spade a spade. Corporations have succeeded in making a huge power grab and they use their financial clout to stack the legislative deck in their own favor. Until citizens "get" this they will continue to by hypnotized by the corporate controlled media and will continue to believe that there is a big difference between Republicans and Democrats. They truth is, they are just two heads of the same hydra.
You are wrong here @liberalviewer. If you do what you call "real campaign finance reform" would be set in place, there is always other ways for corporation to pour money into candidates they like. The best way to fix the problem would be to rain in the federal power. remember that every state in united states is large enough to handle all the important functions of a country. And would be small enough to be less affected by corpuption.
@Terje1337 The states are small enough to be more affordable for corporate control. State governments would be economy class governments to buy. This is why the state supreme court in Montana overturned Citizens united in that state, because the local government was being bought off by business interests. Ever hear the phrase, "Divide and conquer."
Yes, Ron Paul is absolutely right. Government has crept into so many areas of our economy it's become accepted as normal or mainstream thinking. Look at banking, healthcare, transportation, energy, agriculture, and education for just a few examples. Money directs behavior in a market economy, and when the government took control of the currency it gained the ability to direct our economy. Favored businesses like Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs get special treatment. It's Democratic Fascism.
Ronny P's exactly correct. All a thinking person need do is open his/her eyes, read a little and you will see.
Goldman Sacks has installed their generals in literally every top position in every government around the world. Then the generals sign the country they control or advise, onto the derivative debt.
Then, since they are so deep in debt, by NO accident, they then say they need a bail-out, which puts them deeper in debt. Eventually, signing onto the NWO plan.
(cont) The type of wealth that the government produces and enforces, will always benefit the same type of industry, will always benefit the experts who can transfer the money and buy their way around the laws, and therefore it is fraudulent by design and by destiny: it does not stand the test of time, nor will it ever stand the test of time. Wealth must be reinvented or history will be repeated again and again and again.
Corporatism is not soft Fascism, it is Fascism, it is the road to Fascism, it may seem "soft" now, but give it twenty years and you will see how the "softness" will no longer be there. This is what happens when your government is fundamentally religious, it is a government that educates you so that you believe that wealth and profit are very specific things, when in actual fact, wealth and profit can be many things.
Yes, I think Ron Paul is correct just as many others on this wall have stated. As for campaign finance reform, yes that would be good but there would be other ways to influence politicians via money. Then you'd have to worry about already elected politicians, like congress.
This is one of the few things I might agree with Ron Paul with. Providing public funds for campaigns would go a long way, but would not go all the way.
Another big problem is there is simply no consequence for corporations lying through your teeth. This ability to deflect, delay, misdirect any sort of recourse for irresponsible speech is exactly why corporate free speech needs to be treated separately from carbon unit free speech.
What Ron Paul was talking about is a oligarchy style fascist. I also don't think that system was working well because the government would start to get to decide who runs for office.
@tadanorm Part of what Ron Paul is talking about is someone like Dick Cheney being president of Haliburton, using his political ties to help get out of asbestos liability, then quitting and becoming Vice President, pushing an unpopular war, then taking his company Haliburton from 20th largest Army contractor to #1 largest contractor in 3 years. Bribe the system get a few billion. Is that how it's supposed to work?
Is there any doubt whatsoever that this is flat-out blatant corruption?
@sfjeff1089 it wouldn't really matter because who ever controls the government gets to decide who works in the government. but this just means the government can choose who works in the government. a better donation system would be when someone donates a large sum of money that has to be public. its more corrupt when the government decides who gets support and who doesn't.
@tadanorm What wouldn't really matter? We need to be a nation of laws, not just a nation where we hope our leaders behave well. Our founding fathers understood this when they set up the separation of powers to ensure that a reliable system will trump unreliable individuals. Modern Republicans have not understood this or deliberately ignored it as they set up the rich as an unofficial 4th branch of government that can trump the other three. The problem is Dick Cheney was never indicted.
Ron Paul is absolutely correct corporatism is a soft form of fascism Mussolini described it that way. Campaign wont work. What will is taking away the ability of the government to favor one corp or industry or group over the other "If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."
"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt."
"Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains, rather than do an immoral act."
All quotes are Thomas Jefferson's
Look to the words of the Founding Fathers and fear what is happening to you. Vote while you still are able and ignore the Machine's Media...they are full of lies and half truths.
@AllForARadicalChange These are nice sentiments, but the problem is that the people with Ron Paul's economic viewpoints are precisely the people who have created the debt problem in the first place. Laissez faire policies created the Great Depression and the Reagan Bush Bush laissez faire policies have massively shrunk the economy while creating massive debt.
Meanwhile the Clinton growth by itself would have paid off WWII and reached break-even if not for Reagan's debt fiasco.
Read the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Bastiat's The Law. Know the history of USA or you can't support & defend it. Restore America 2012 Ron Paul RonPaul2012dotcom 1835 “Minute” on India written by Thomas Babington Macaulay; A government cannot be wrong in punishing fraud or force, but it is almost certain to be wrong if, abandoning its legitimate function, it tells private individuals that it knows their business better than they know it themselves.
Ron Paul is such a liar. He really expect people to believe with small/no government there won't be corperations? The reason corperations are so big and have so much power is because governmnet is not big enough and does not regulate enough.
In Ron Pauls perfect world as he describes it there would be only one corperation that would swallow up all others and we would be its slaves.
@srspower The government should be there to protect liberty and create a safe environment for economic prosperity. Increasing regulations and taxes don't result in liberty nor economic growth. The creative power of the marketplace will continue to be oppressed, and the entitlement system will continue to serve a dependent populace, learning under an ever diminishing education system to accept the idea that government knows best.
The marketplace does not help or protect those who are vulnerable in society. It does not feed the homeless and heal the sick. It doesn't stop unscrupulous people accidentally poisoning us with their products.
America is the closest example of such a system in the world and today is responsible for a worldwide economic meltdown as well as having NEVER taken care of those most vulnerable in its society. And you are saying it needs to go further that way?
@srspower The marketplace is a collection of individuals. People heal each other in the market, they also poison each other. What utopian society are you looking to as a model? You have capitalism to blame for everything you own and have experienced in your life. Keep on crying. Oh and don't blame capitalism on the artificial aggregation of the corrupt monetary policy of the US government, which brought on the financial collapse. There is footage of Ron Paul warning of this.
People with somthing to trade heal each other. But thats the problem with health, people who need protection have nothing to offer thats why a civilised society looks after its most vulnerable. The 'market' does not offer this.
THe corrupt monetary policy of the US was caused precisely by the sorts of policy Paul postulates. Everyone else in other countries can see that blatently.
@srspower Paul does not postulate anything that expands the role of government. People do have the option to buy health insurance, that is the market. The only thing the government can do to make it better is force everyone to buy it, basically transferring wealth from the healthy to the sick. This doesn't align with the freedom to choose and Ron Paul wants to give people the right to opt out. The free market can lower prices but when the government steps in, prices tend to rise.
In a civilised society, the sort of society that i and most people in the developed world want to live in, healthcare, education and help when you can not help yourself is a right.
And yes your right the market does not provide this which is the point i am making. Its why the market fails and why regulation and government taxing and spending works.
@srspower Actually the market does provide education. Ever since the government has stepped in to provide federal loans to students, education prices have risen and quality has gone down, not to mention a glorious trillion dollars of debt held by students. You are a prime example of this generation thinking a quick easy fix at a federal level will satisfy all. Lets just steal from people through taxes and throw money at it right? Look up Friedman's four ways to spend money...
I do not need a fix mate, i am not american. In my country healthcare is free and so is education up until university which used to be free and still should be. The problem with student loans is that there are too many students and not enough apprentices.
Tax is not theft, profit without tax is theft. In my country if i get ill and can not work the state helps me. If i get a serious illness the state gives me the care, treatment and medicine i need for free the tax is worth it.
@srspower I am not American either, I know for a fact that private schools provide a better education than the public school system however. I also know that healthcare could be more affordable if it weren't practice to charge the highest rate because "the government has to pay for it". There is billions (may close to 50B) dollars of fraud every year under medicare.
Thats because medicare is merely state insurance. It is not a national health service. Perversely the UK pays less tax payers money per head of population for healthcare than the US does for medicare. Yet for that the UK gets universal free top notch healthcare as where in the U.S millions of people have no cover at all.
Private insurance in the US often doesn't even cover people who do pay. Those corperations pay millions every year in legal fee's to deny people cover.
@srspower UK is so far gone on the road to serfdom, they don't even realize that. Good thing they have North Sea oil to pay for that, for now, and awesome thing they do not waster all those trillions on supporting Empire anymore.
At any rate - even World Health Organization (a proponent of centrally planned and government managed health care systems) did not consider UK system top notch. But if you live there and happy - good for you and good luck
@srspower healthcare + education is not free. It is just paid by money extracted from unwilling others.
As for taxes, it is extortion - taking away stuff/money under a threat of violence (try not to pay taxes, you will see what kind of violence will be applied to you). aka "Protection money". aka "Legal plunder" .search youtube for "philosophy of liberty plunder" and watch the clip to understand the argument (no need to agree, just to understand)
No. I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Just because I am against public funded campaigns doesn't mean I don't understand the fact that corruption exists in washington. If you are to parlay your argument over to lobbying, which is the only way in which I can see it is relevant, then again, I would say distributing money evenly to the parties is still taking money from people who don't neccessarily want to give that money to certain candidates, or any candidate at all. It is about freedom.
Also, he said it is a soft term for fascism initially, which is more along the lines of what I believe. Not soft fascism, but corporatism being a softer, more pallet-able word for fascism. To reiterate, I don't see anything wrong with candidates, senators, or government for that matter receiving money VOLUNTARILY. What we currently have is involuntary. INDIVIDUAL taxpayers are being forced to pay money where they would not otherwise pay, at the force of the barrel of the IRS' gun.
There are two ways to conquer a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by DEBT. John Adams 2nd Pres of the US. WE are under siege RIGHT NOW. Paul is absolutely correct. Restore America Now 2012 vote for Ron Paul. Register republican to vote for him in the primary to get him on the ballot...then change back to independent, etc... the overlay is not the way to have a free exchange of ideas. As for individual freedom-gone. What is the job of the Fed gov? To protect individual freedom.
yes it is fascism but its nothing new this country has been fascist since 1947 when they created the national Security State.it was exacerbated with Bush now with Obama.
Ron Paul is not some libertarian messiah, he is just a genuine conservative Republican. He looks like a messiah because despite the fact that much of his rhetoric is borderline insane (like his proposal to abolish the Federal Reserve) he actually mixes in some measure of sanity into his rhetoric as well. That is in stark contrast to nearly all of his republican colleagues, whose ideologies reflect a corporatist-fascist approach to governance, which is pure fucking evil and crazy.
@neon0lemonade The corporate fascist approach would be to have a Federal Reserve in the first place, how else are you going to control people? By their money, and outlaw all competition. Fascists want a huge government, you can't run an empire nor fund one on a limited constitutional one, that requires a Fed and monopoly on the media.
Why should we give MORE money to Big Government to tell us what we support? We have the internet, newspapers, smart phones and a vast infrastructure of means to move media and information. Smaller government, no subsidies especially for companies who make over X in profit and/or own Y amount of property. You must take the avenues of their greed away, not put in an express lane. The public is going to have to make a choice not to be victimized in order for anything to really change.
The FCC limits the power of CB radios. Not to do so would let those with the highest powered transmitter to silence everyone else. It's a limitation of free speech that actually facilitates free speech. Limiting money spent on campaigns is similar.
Representative government is still majority rule, which is ridiculous; with greatest influence retained by whoever proffers a majority of dollars. We need something like technocracy, a whole-cloth rejection of our current system, which exists as a relic of pre-1930s technological and economic paradigms.
@VotePaineJefferson , Ron Paul is still a Republican and believes in removing all regulations from business.
Deregulation made legal the practices that led to the bailouts. Now we are hearing that many of the practices where illegal and the FTC covered for them. You also, forget it is Republican appointed Justices that gave individual rights to corporations. Ron Paul is part of the problem not the solution.
@zaurakdigis Regulation is what leads to the bailouts of big business. Here is how it works: Government is influenced by corporations from campaign money among other things. The federal reserve is never audited, they merely print money when a politician wants to appease voters with an injection of funds - bubble continues to grow. Then, interest rates are too low, too long because the Fed manipulates it. Free market to blame? Not even close. Ron Paul to blame, even more erroneous.
@spiderman991 , you are incorrect, deregulation led to the bailouts not regulation. In 1999 they eliminated regulation passed post the 1929 stock market crash. Give me an example of when regulation led to catastrophic failure. Deregulation is what corporations are lobbying for and it is contrary to individual interest. Ron Paul is on board with this corporate agenda, so by his own logic he is supporting this growth of fascism.
@zaurakdigis You must be confused. Ron Paul is against bailing out big business. The financial crisis WAS an example of regulation leading to a catastrophic failure. Ron Paul would not allow money from the taxpayers to be used to bail out the rich - how is that fascist? Fascism promotes a single-party state. Like, um I don't know, where the government is headed? This is what happens when uneducated people think government knows all the solutions and should have their hands in everything.
@spiderman991 Well, that's all correct assuming you ignore the facts.
The fact is is that deregulation was one of the main reasons for the financial crisis. Carter's monetary control act is just one of the many deregulatory practices that allowed banks to lend more money, enter into speculative lending and other aspects of the shadow banking system.
Interesting that you don't actually list a single reason how regulation lead to catastrophic failure. Probably because it's not remotely true.
@xxFortunadoxx "Probably because it's not remotely true." Exactly.
Let me take you back to 1930, Bank of America fails for the first time, about 17% capital reserve (nice and high), most of which in real estate however -their assets were not liquid enough. From this we spur greater aggregation through a centrally planned Freddie and Fannie?!?! It seems we need more intelligent bankers as opposed to people looking to run the United States government and all the special interests therein.
@xxFortunadoxx Deregulation does not equal bailing out banks because they are "too big to fail" nor does it mean creating a federal apparatus that sets up artificial aggregation in the first place. Rather, deregulation means freeing up the market place, allowing risk to actually have repercussions on greedy practices, resulting in swift corrections that would not be as painful in the long run.
@spiderman991 Your idealized version of what deregulation means is completely at odd with the facts. The causes of the financial crisis are as follows:
subprime mortgage lending
repeal of glass-steagall
betting on credit default swaps and other derivatives
predatory lending
All of which are the fault of deregulation. This is why the financial crisis occurred. This is not interpretation. This is fact.
I and zaura are still waiting for a single case in which regulation lead to failure.
@xxFortunadoxx It is not idealized, the banks were bailed out, that is regulation (corporatism not capitalism) and I hear many people complain about that. If government mechanisms did not blow up the bubble because they wanted everyone to have their own house, this mess would not have happened. The government did the same thing with guaranteeing homes built in naturally hazardous areas, I suppose you think we need more FEMA funding.
@spiderman991 I said your version of DEREGULATION was idealized. Not regulation. Bailouts did not cause financial collapse. The Shadow Banking System did along with Credit Default Swaps which were both enabled by the repeal of Glass-Steagall. This is all a case of deregulation. Please stay on point.
Still waiting for a case in which regulation lead to catastrophic failure like deregulation clearly did.
@xxFortunadoxx I already argued my point, you seem to miss the parts which directly condemn the practices of the US government creating an environment which allows abnormal aggregation. Shouldn't have to walk you through how that works. There is no such thing as a little bit of freedom. The credit bubble crisis stinks of government Keynesian policy. Interest rates were too low for too long. Ron Paul predicted this, regulation allows this artificial bubble to come.
@spiderman991 Actually, no you didn't. I showed you what caused the mortgage crisis. It has nothing to do with regulation and everything to do with mortgage dealers engaging in speculative lending. You don't even have to do real research. Just going to the wikipedia page utterly refutes everything you've said in this entire discussion. I recommend you do that instead of making false generalizations about what deregulation actually entails. Because it's not what you think it is.
@xxFortunadoxx If you understand macroeconomics and monetary history you will see eye to eye. I can pull something straight from wiki if you want: "Some long-time critics of government and the GSEs, like American Enterprise Institute fellow Peter J. Wallison,[33] claim that the roots of the crisis can be traced directly to risky lending by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are government sponsored entities". Of course the government would refute this, but why wouldn't they. They are all knowing
@xxFortunadoxx But who wants to get at the root of the problem these days anyway? America is on the verge of collapse and we blame the free market, not the ones pulling the strings.
@spiderman991 are you kidding? Do you believe that's the best way to deal with someone who breaks your window and steals your VCR? Wait for them to go out of business due to inefficient practices? Or are you saying that somehow greed takes on a different character when you depersonalize it and add a few zeros to the pot?
@sfjeff1089 Greed takes on a different character when the government bails out the greedy. The greed was exacerbated by the easy lending set forth by the government. Someone can be greedy in the free market, they just assume more risk. That is not the case when the government backs securities. It is an abomination of the eloquent intricacies and balances in a free market - resulting in inflated prices. People blame greed, when in reality greed is fine as long as people assume their own risk.
@spiderman991 I don't disagree that bailing out corporations that mess up is bad. However there are several problems with letting your response be that simple. 1) Often Management is the problem. It might be prudent to bail out the corporation and put management in jail, for example. 2) Often Laws or regulation is the problem. Make sure the rules are explicit next time so you *can* put in jail. 3) Sometimes total risk is the problem. That's why we need Glass-Steagel.
@spiderman991 In any case, you have to deal with what's in front of you rather than abstract ideals.
1) Save the patient.
2) Save the organ.
3) Save the tissue.
4) When stable, change behavior.
You have to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior, but also remember *people* made the decisions. Not corporations. Also, the "free market" is a Republican myth. Every market transaction is based on negotiating leverage, which is never even and fair/unfair is a matter of best possible approx.
Greed is fine when the system of incentives is set up so that good behavior is rewarded and bad behavior is punished. For example, it should be a more profitable transaction to build something, sell it, and buy a VCR than to go across the street, break a window, and take your neighbor's VCR.
The job of private effort is to optimize rewards. The job of public effort is to create a reward system such that people who are contributing more are rewarded better.
@spiderman991 If you give corporations complete freedom to set up their own reward system, then that is like giving private citizens the ability to decide on the relative rewards for breaking your neighbor's window and taking his VCR vs earning one with hard work. When stealing becomes more rewarding than building, society falls apart. Corporations should be free to compete on a somewhat level playing field in which the system is set up so the best producer with the best service has good odds
@zaurakdigis You are conflating entire deregulation that is left with market forces based on economics via consumer demands, with secondary deregulation that still has government in the position of power creating loop holes for corporate gains while competitors have more red tape. The two are really different, the second being a moral hazard. Corporations lobby to increase regulations on competitors while lessen it for themselves. Regulations can also be purely bad. Patriot Act for example.
@zaurakdigis Also the construct of the Corporation (state created entity), through corporate person-hood, corporate law, limited liability, Intellectual Property (Monopoly), Anti Trust (despite popular belief vs reality), Patent Monopoly, Legal Tender Laws, (I'm sure I am leaving out a few) all these factors are regulations that hinder competition and create monopolies. So to say that the whole of regulations has been on a decrease isn't true, that would mean government has been shrinking.
Sorry Liberal Viewer, but your solution is a bit naive. Money is fungible, and it is an unstoppable force. Trying to stop some forms of campaign fiance would just lead to further corruption, as prohibition of alcohol and now drugs has done. When you ban the purchase of certain desired goods, in this case political influence, you don't make it disappear, you push it into the black market.
The real solution is to restrict, as far as possible, the areas of our lives that govt deals with.
yes, it's fascism. Campaign finance reform won't work. The only thing that will work is introducing terms. Every congressman and senator should only get 2 terms in office, no more !
Ron Paul is correct and limiting free speech is not the answer. Limiting the power of government and therefore the incentive to poor tons of money into it, is the right way to go. as long at the gov has tons of our money to spend as they want there will be those who lobby to give it to them.
From Mussolini, a founder of Fascism, "For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death." We are already Fascist, there is no need for 'soft', just read the PNAC document; is is fascist, pure and simple.
And to say it's not a form of socialism is wrong. Fascism is the flip side of communism. They are both forms of socialism. The National Socialists Party was the Nazi's! They both give dictatorial powers to the state.
@bibleprophecy1st , Nazi's were socialists in name only, they more closely resemble the extreme right wing in American politics not he left. They gave power to Corporations not the people, Corporations ruled Nazi Germany.
@paulstroie , What are you talking about? Nazi's purged the leftist on Hitler's "night of the long knives". Workers lost all rights and unions were abolished by Hitler, they were opposite of the communists and despised them. Not as much as the jews though, Hitler exploited rampant anti-semitism to achieve his objectives. Today we associate Fascism with Racism, racial purity is what Fascism was trying to achieve. Liberals hardly support giving dictatorial powers to anyone.
@zaurakdigis yes you DO support giving dictatorial powers, you want the government tot take other peoples money BY FORCE.... and the fact that Hitler outlawed unions doesn't matter at all because so did Stalin...and a great deal of racism is institutionalized in communist countries as well.
Socialism is not for the poor, socialism is for the rich that has always been the case, what makes you think that in a socialist country the money will be taken from corporations and given to people?
@paulstroie I like what you say. Regulations are often looked to as the answer, while people fail to recognize that was the problem in the first place. The Fed is what manipulates the fiat currency. This deception allows government to get bigger because people think they are saints and will protect them from "evil corporations".
Considering the fact that I can't remember a time when we were not at war with at least one country or sizeable militant group, our insane military spending, homeland security, wallstreet, and our bullshit news channels funded by pr campaigns, I would say we are damn well getting to fascism.
RON PAUL, WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER! TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE HOW EXACTLY RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? OK LETS SAY ALL TROOPS CAME BACK AND THEN WHAT? THEY ARE GOING TO SELL IPHONES AND BLACKBERRIES? DUDE BE A MEN, HOW RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? POPULATION OF CHINA IS 1.4 B CHINESE WORK LIKE ROBOTS, BE HONEST TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BUY UR BOOK U NEED CASH , U LOVE POWER, U LOVE CASH, U WILL NEVER CREATE JOBS, U HAVE NO ANSWER!
I hate corporations.. In Australia fast food places are being bought up all by the same person. Of course money wins out, but choice is deminished and quality goes down.
It already is soft fascism ............ TSA, Homeland security (with the 1-800 call if you suspect a terrorist and LED screens which will cover all the US advertising this need for security and protection), the patriot act, Wallstreet, haliburton and so on. Liberties are lost!!!! war is the main business and are troops are simply assassins doing their dirty work there is no more honor............Ron Paul maybe the only man standing to save the US and the world!!
@jimmy55run55 Listen to Noam Chomsky. He has also been decrying the nanny state for a very long time. He has excellent research to back his claims. Just be prepared to have your views challenged, he will make you think if you really listen and understand what he means by words like libertarian.
@shadowgeyser what leads to corporatism is mixed markets. markets with strong defenses against intervention disallow the mixing of state and business powers and allows them remain weaker decentralized. whether state or corporate power must remain decentralized at all cost. power to everyone and therefore no one.
You have to understand where Ron Paul is coming from. He's obviously a libertarian, which means when he talks about the financing of government campaigns by big businesses, his solution is to reduce government's influence on the business sector, so that they have no reason to try to buy politicians in the first place. This in my opinion gets more to the source of the problem, and gets more than one problem out of the way at the same time as well. And without the extra taxes.
NO i don't agree that taxing people for campaign funding is the way to go. So stealing peoples money... whether they care about politics or not is what you think should be implemented? c'mon man. Taxation unless everyone benefits equally is stealing. Like the guy without a car paying for roads is being robbed. The guy without kids paying for education is being robbed. Etc. etc.
No you have it wrong, you need to make it illegal for the government to subsidize business. In short the only money that should go to business from the government is when that business provides a service, like making weapons, not for merely having jobs in the US or whatever stupid reasons governments fork money over to business. That is the root of evil. There is no constitutional basis for governments distributing money in that fashion. Take the government out of business.
Any business regulation that is needed can be done at the state level, and I mean everything: minimum wage laws, how each business conducts itself. This needs to be done at a more easily accountable state level. The commerce clause should refer to a trade that crosses state lines, not anything leading up to the trade, not how the goods are transfers, nothing. each of these things can be decided by the state, where each is free to determine things like the hourly price of work.
When corporations are in BED with government ... it goes beyond profit ..it causes markets to actually be manipulated via government support/protection of specific companies who can then corner the market and destroy competition.
How does smaller government prevent corportations from making deals with the government? It doesn't matter how small the government is, it matters how the government operates.
Than how should the government operate? You can't rely on the goodness of politicians. There should be a total restructuring of govern power where minimal amount of corruption is possible.
A small government will reallocate a minimal amount of resources in a economy, since that is part of my definition of small government. When the government has less resources to their disposal they have less to give to well connected individuals. Less = less.
@madass888 , the Best solution against corporatism is to vote out Republicans and the Tea Party. Corporatism is Fascism, believing Nazi's gave power to the people is naive. They blamed their woes on the disabled, unemployed, and jews and placed them in concentration camps. Corporations ruled Nazi Germany they were not "socialists", and regardless what the named themselves. It was a little like Bush naming something as good for the environment when in fact it was for its destruction.
RON PAUL IS GOING TO BE PROSECUTED BY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO CALL AMERICAN PEOPLE INVADERS AND INITIATERS OF WARS.
RON PAUL SAID THE USA INVADES COUNTRIES AND STARTS WARS, WHICH GIVES USA A BAD REPUTATION AROUND THE WORLD , THEREFORE IT IS CONSIDERED A CRIME . A US CITIZEN WHO
WAS BORN IN USA CANT GO AGAINST GOVERNMENT POLICIES WHICH MIGHT TREATEN THE FUTURE
I would be overjoyed if this extremely intelligent man is elected in 2012, but realistically, I realize he probably won't, which is depressing. This country is doomed.
It does not mean "rule by corporations" as in incorporated businesses. It is the belief that society is a corporal entity. It is one corpus (body). It is essentially a communitarian ethic which states "we are all in this together" and that the various constituent parts of the economy (capital, labor, etc) are not naturally struggling and eternally opposed classes as the marxist says but members of a symbiotic partnership. Ron Paul is completely off the mark here.
The best way to fix corporatism is to get the government out of the economy. Yes Ron Paul is right, we see this every day. Companies have to use the government as a weapon to stay in business if they don't then someone else will.
RON PAUL IS GOING TO BE PROSECUTED BY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO CALL AMERICAN PEOPLE INVADERS AND INITIATERS OF WARS.
RON PAUL SAID THE USA INVADES COUNTRIES AND STARTS WARS, WHICH GIVES USA A BAD REPUTATION AROUND THE WORLD , THEREFORE IT IS CONSIDERED A CRIME . A US CITIZEN WHO
WAS BORN IN USA CANT GO AGAINST GOVERNMENT POLICIES WHICH MIGHT TREATEN THE FUTURE
How are you a strong civil libertarian when you advocate the redistribution of wealth you suggest when the government steals everyone's money to give it to politician's war chest?
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
-Benito Mussolini
Yeah I'm pretty sure that Mussolini has a little better understanding of Fascism than does this moronic video poster. Corporatism is incorporated in both Fascism and Communism/Socialism in that it is their professed valuing of group rights over individual's rights. Look it up.
what libertarians fail to understand is that 'corporatism' is capitalism and always has been. companies will always seek more profit and power, in fact the only way to stop them is *gasp!* 'socialist' style regulation that harms the freedom of businesses.
@bobzilla211 I think you misunderstand. Fascism is the merger of Corporations and Government to benefit the corporations and government, at the expense of the working and poor classes. It is government regulating out competition and financially propping up poorly run companies in exchange for campaign contributions.
@bobzilla211 Wrong, the problem is that we have a large government. the bigger the government the more easily it is corrupted. Remember, you only have lobbying in areas of industry that the government either controls or has a influence over. Simply making the government bigger only makes the problem worse. There are very few differences between fascism and socialism if you actually study them both. e.g. "Nazi" was short for National Socialist German Workers' Party.
@anryth that's because the government has to have an influence over certain things. the free market doesn't apply in areas like energy and water because companies don't and couldn't create the infrastructure for it. do you think basic food standards would be maintained by a free market?
if you actually studied them both you'd know the claim that socialism = fascism is total horseshit. why do you think the left were the first against the wall in nazi germany?
@bobzilla211 the ignorance, it burns. a lot of companies like McDonalds already have higher food standards than the law requires.
both systems believe in a totalitarian state, control over wages and hours, higher taxes on rich, gov't set limits on profits, gov't care for elderly, deemphasis on the family, gov't taking on the role of changing the nature of humans, and gov't directing production.
btw, the Nazi's did not build the Berlin Wall, it was the East German gov't controlled by the soviets
@anryth you're using mcdonalds as your example of the free market ensuring food standards? priceless.
if you define everything by its role on regulating the market, then i suppose you could see them as similar, that's if you ignore the massive differences just so you can try to godwin's law socialism.
just so you know, the phrase 'first against the wall' means that the left were the first to be oppressed when the nazis took power. they banned the communist and social democratic parties.
@bobzilla211 So you would have the government ensure that everyone has to pay for more expensive food in order to 'protect them from themselves'? never before in human history has it been possible to be poor and overweight at the same time. Mussolini, the founder of fascism, defined fascism as national socialism in a state that was totalitarian. Charles Beard, Wallace Stevens, Du Bois, H.G. Wells, Lincoln Steffens, George Shaw, all wrote admiringly of the European Fascist movement.
@anryth oh i see, so people being overweight = high food standards. amazing...
surely informed consumers are required for there to be a truly free market? how are people going to know whats in their food without regulation obliging companies to publish it?
why did the nazis oppress german leftists? why did socialists volunteer to fight franco in spain?
fascism favoured inequality, private property and the class system. it merely claimed elements of socialism to get support from the poor.
The "leftists" that the Nazi's suppressed where people like Ludwig Von Mises because of their anti-state and free-market positions. The political left in contemporary terms is far different than the liberty minded "left" of those days. Present day "liberals" care not for liberty as they advocate for a large, suppressive government, that gives special favors to some and takes from others. Socialism at its core is a system of violence and coercion.
@anryth that's simply incorrect, at their most basic 'left and right' have always been about economic policy. classic liberalism has never been 'left wing' at any point in history. in fact german liberals like hjalmar schact actually supported the nazis at first.
fascism has economic interventionism but upholds conservative values (religion, the family, race, patriotism) and property rights. i'll say it one more time - the nazis suppressed COMMUNISTS and SOCIALISTS.
@bobzilla211 I tried not to go into this because I thought you would already know. Instead of looking at it from a left vs. right perspective you need to look at it as liberty minded (classic liberal) vs. authoritarians (modern liberal). Authoritarians support both fascism and socialism. The only difference between the two systems is property rights, thats all. Religion and family are suppressed in both systems and race is only a factor in Nazism, not fascism in general. Stateism is stateism.
@anryth no, that's completely wrong. political ideology does not only exist on an authoritarian-liberal scale, it also exists on a left-right scale. this is why you get both authoritarian/liberal right and the authoritarian/liberal left. go read something you idiot.
@bobzilla211 Those who disagree with me are generally those who deny the fact that the modern liberal cares not for liberty or individualism and instead wants full control by fooling the masses that they need the government to hold their hand. It's either top-down or bottom up. The further you investigate your argument the harder it will be for you to believe your argument. You probably think we actually have a two party system in the U.S. don't you?
@anryth i just realised its pointless talking to someone who has a utopian worldview that only accepts a perfectly free market, and automatically conceives everything else as authoritarian fascism. when you grow up you'll realise the world is unfortunately not that simple. if it was maybe we could all live our lives according to 19th century economics.
@bobzilla211 Who ever said anything about utopia? A free market system does not center around perfection, mistakes are made constantly. The difference is that a free market system quickly weeds out these mistakes through market forces while the system you advocate institutionalizes and feeds them. The fact that the world is so complex is why free markets work, dont be so naive as to think that a handful of political elite somehow have more knowledge than the rest of society combined.
@anryth i'm not. its utopian because a true free market system has never existed and never can. why? because real life does not conform to the laws of classical economics. it is far, far too complex and you cannot accurately model human behaviour for any area larger than a small experiment, whether you stick to a few simple assumptions about actor behaviour or create a complex model with thousands of conditions and assumptions.
but i guess its nice to have something to believe in, huh? bye now.
@bobzilla211 You do realize that the ones who are trying to create complex aggregate models are the Keynesians who don't believe that free markets work and who advocate for state intervention right? I'll say it again so that your simple brain can understand, free markets work BECAUSE the world is so complex. It is foolish to assume that some authority can direct the economy (as socialists and fascists claim). Go ahead, keep believing that government is your Saviour, maybe one day you'll wake up.
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
-Benito Mussolini
He who has the money has the power. This is why a strong, vibrant middle class is so important. As the middle class shrinks so does it's influence. Just sayin...
incorrect feildman07. Our Gubment has been for sale...and is so because Big Business is all about buying (and sometimes taking) influence! They make the rules.
Corporatism is fascism. If the state and its miligtary are dictated to by corporate concerns and the state enoforces those dictates on the labour force then the staet is a fascist.
@yossariancomplex No, without any romanticism of violence and nationalism a country cannot be considered fascist, just because a country has very powerfull corporations doesn't make it fascist.
@Imhornydadcomeinside Can you give me an example of a country in which Corporations dictate the political agenda but do not foster violent nationalism aslo?
@Imhornydadcomeinside Violence and nationalism are a result of corporatism or fascism or what ever you wish to cal it, such traits are merely the uniform Fascism wears. So far as i'm aware all Fascist dictators have been men. These things are merely circumstantial in that they aid the Fascist agenda, though many would agrue that is changing: the fascism of tomorrow will not be nationalist but globalist, preaching unity, or centralisation to persaud the people to wave their individual rights
I go back to watch Ron Pauls interviews 4-5-10-20 years after what has transpired. RP is the only one that has warned us time and time again and he is the only hope I see to help us turn our nation around. Yes he is is right about corporatism and fascism. Check out a video on my page regarding this...
the Fascism of Benito Mussolini IS extreme corporatism, so it's almost stupid to have to state that corporatism is soft Fascism. Rather or not it's fascism without the capital "f" is still left for debate....... as far as publicly funded campaigns, it might mix things up for 1-4 election cycles but without ending simple majority voting it will just result in a new two party hegemony with it's simplistic and stupefying lowest common denominator arguments. And that is being optimistic.
The Fascism of which Ron Paul speaks is "soft" precisely because more covertly than European & Latin American Fascism it functions primarily in the shadows as big business coersion through the soft power of the revolving door,as well as the hard power of private finance.There's no debate:Fascism is just a catchy,provocative term describing a condition in which the state is privately owned & publicly managed.Sound familiar?
The 'citizens united' decision was the final safeguard.
I agree that campaign finance reform is part of the problem but it is linked to the other problem described by Ron Paul. I believe our country is run by a fairly small group of corporate interests which could be interpreted as a form of fascism(I think) . While we are ,in theory, represented im congress, I don't believe anything happens without big business's approval. Those same people will never allow the financing of a candidate who might cost them money. That's my wacky opinion.
I think you are wrong on this. Corporations only have the power to influence the government because the government is in bed with them and gives them that power. If you shrink the government down then it also shrinks down the power of corporations and lets a free market and competition work the way it is suppose to work.
Capitalism gets a bad rap. When the left points out problems in the system, I generally agree with their observations. However, the left typically makes one big mistake. They tend to blame capitalism for the problem. The US isn't a capitalistic society, it is what Ron Paul says... Corporatism.
McDonalds gave a waver from Obama not to pay the upcoming health care tax. If i owned a family ran burger joint, I would still have to pay that tax. IS that fair and equal before the law?
@lambowolf What about the problems that come with the need for Profit? Let's not get this confused with Improvement and advancement...Though Ron Paul is onto something with Corporatism...
@ThePyro3825 I agree but there is no way you can do that without the government dropping power and letting people take care of themselves. I know that is scary to a lot of people but what would you rather have, you taking care and defending yourself or a violence coercive government that wants to control your behavior taking care of you?
Rather than give public money to candidates in order to compete with corporate money given to other candidates, why not limit the ability of the government to control the market, thus disinsentivising corporations from meddling with politics?
After all, when lobbyists so easily convince politicians to write laws that benefit the lobbyists' corporations, how can you trust politicians to write laws that will limit the influence of the lobbyists?
superfisto 2 weeks ago 2
@superfisto Totally agree and campaign finance reform will not help this whatsoever...The rich will still find ways to pay politicians and give them under-the-table perks for passing favorable legislation for them that ends up screwing all of us. The only way to solve this is to decentralize the government and take this power away from the government. In my opinion, the only solution that will work is a more libertarian-based solution. DO pass campaign reform, but do not solely depend on it.
mrtuber88 1 week ago
There is one reason and one reason alone that a government goes out of its way to draft and pass a bill that gives the government power to indefinitely detain citizens within its borders without charge or trial: because it intends to disappear people. Coupled with the patriot act, this is very scary. Fourth amendment gone. Fifth amendment gone. Habeus corpus gone. Why would a government seize these powers?
Because shit is about to get real.
devourerofbabies 2 weeks ago
Ron Paul has simply called a spade a spade. Corporations have succeeded in making a huge power grab and they use their financial clout to stack the legislative deck in their own favor. Until citizens "get" this they will continue to by hypnotized by the corporate controlled media and will continue to believe that there is a big difference between Republicans and Democrats. They truth is, they are just two heads of the same hydra.
MyDeadHorse 3 weeks ago 2
You are wrong here @liberalviewer. If you do what you call "real campaign finance reform" would be set in place, there is always other ways for corporation to pour money into candidates they like. The best way to fix the problem would be to rain in the federal power. remember that every state in united states is large enough to handle all the important functions of a country. And would be small enough to be less affected by corpuption.
making it less proftiable to corrupt politicans.
Terje1337 3 weeks ago
@Terje1337 The states are small enough to be more affordable for corporate control. State governments would be economy class governments to buy. This is why the state supreme court in Montana overturned Citizens united in that state, because the local government was being bought off by business interests. Ever hear the phrase, "Divide and conquer."
LancePoint9 3 weeks ago
@Terje1337 Small enough to be less affected? The smaller it is the easier it is to buy.
devourerofbabies 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God damn people this is why I'm a Communist. COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF FASCISM IF YOU FUCKING OPEN A BOOK.
bdoughty814 1 month ago
Comment removed
bdoughty814 1 month ago
Yes, Ron Paul is absolutely right. Government has crept into so many areas of our economy it's become accepted as normal or mainstream thinking. Look at banking, healthcare, transportation, energy, agriculture, and education for just a few examples. Money directs behavior in a market economy, and when the government took control of the currency it gained the ability to direct our economy. Favored businesses like Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs get special treatment. It's Democratic Fascism.
Ghost9909 1 month ago
Ron Paul 2012!!
Sylinic 1 month ago
John McCain's a globalist criminal too.
2tommyrad 1 month ago
Ronny P's exactly correct. All a thinking person need do is open his/her eyes, read a little and you will see.
Goldman Sacks has installed their generals in literally every top position in every government around the world. Then the generals sign the country they control or advise, onto the derivative debt.
Then, since they are so deep in debt, by NO accident, they then say they need a bail-out, which puts them deeper in debt. Eventually, signing onto the NWO plan.
Criminal acts.
2tommyrad 1 month ago
(cont) The type of wealth that the government produces and enforces, will always benefit the same type of industry, will always benefit the experts who can transfer the money and buy their way around the laws, and therefore it is fraudulent by design and by destiny: it does not stand the test of time, nor will it ever stand the test of time. Wealth must be reinvented or history will be repeated again and again and again.
leadleader2023 1 month ago
Corporatism is not soft Fascism, it is Fascism, it is the road to Fascism, it may seem "soft" now, but give it twenty years and you will see how the "softness" will no longer be there. This is what happens when your government is fundamentally religious, it is a government that educates you so that you believe that wealth and profit are very specific things, when in actual fact, wealth and profit can be many things.
leadleader2023 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL BECAUSE MEDIA SOLD OUT
PRESSTITUTE GLOBAL MEDIA PAWNING AMERICAN SHEEPLE AS USUAL
THE MEDIA SHOULD BE QUESTION THE FED, THE WAR ROOMS & 9/11 TRUTHS, BAILOUTS FOR WALL STREET BUBBLES, ETC.
USE IPAD, IPOD TO FIGHT MEDIA BLACKOUT
WORLD WATCHES ON - AMERICAN MEDIA IS ON THE TRUMAN SHOW
DO THEY KNOW THAT?
♥ RON PAUL ♥ RON PAUL ♥ RON PAUL ♥ HE WINS HEARTS NOT JUST VOTES
ALSO WRITE ON DOLLAR BILLS : RONPAUL2012 END THE FED OR FEED THE END
ashwadhwani 1 month ago
Yes, I think Ron Paul is correct just as many others on this wall have stated. As for campaign finance reform, yes that would be good but there would be other ways to influence politicians via money. Then you'd have to worry about already elected politicians, like congress.
torgyman 1 month ago
This is one of the few things I might agree with Ron Paul with. Providing public funds for campaigns would go a long way, but would not go all the way.
Another big problem is there is simply no consequence for corporations lying through your teeth. This ability to deflect, delay, misdirect any sort of recourse for irresponsible speech is exactly why corporate free speech needs to be treated separately from carbon unit free speech.
sfjeff1089 2 months ago
Listening to Ron Paul for more than 89 seconds is the best choice I've made in my entire life.
jjenningsoh 2 months ago
What Ron Paul was talking about is a oligarchy style fascist. I also don't think that system was working well because the government would start to get to decide who runs for office.
tadanorm 2 months ago
@tadanorm Part of what Ron Paul is talking about is someone like Dick Cheney being president of Haliburton, using his political ties to help get out of asbestos liability, then quitting and becoming Vice President, pushing an unpopular war, then taking his company Haliburton from 20th largest Army contractor to #1 largest contractor in 3 years. Bribe the system get a few billion. Is that how it's supposed to work?
Is there any doubt whatsoever that this is flat-out blatant corruption?
sfjeff1089 2 months ago
@sfjeff1089 it wouldn't really matter because who ever controls the government gets to decide who works in the government. but this just means the government can choose who works in the government. a better donation system would be when someone donates a large sum of money that has to be public. its more corrupt when the government decides who gets support and who doesn't.
tadanorm 2 months ago
@tadanorm What wouldn't really matter? We need to be a nation of laws, not just a nation where we hope our leaders behave well. Our founding fathers understood this when they set up the separation of powers to ensure that a reliable system will trump unreliable individuals. Modern Republicans have not understood this or deliberately ignored it as they set up the rich as an unofficial 4th branch of government that can trump the other three. The problem is Dick Cheney was never indicted.
sfjeff1089 2 months ago
Ron Paul is absolutely correct corporatism is a soft form of fascism Mussolini described it that way. Campaign wont work. What will is taking away the ability of the government to favor one corp or industry or group over the other "If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
mbcannan 2 months ago 12
"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."
"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt."
"Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains, rather than do an immoral act."
All quotes are Thomas Jefferson's
Look to the words of the Founding Fathers and fear what is happening to you. Vote while you still are able and ignore the Machine's Media...they are full of lies and half truths.
AllForARadicalChange 2 months ago
@AllForARadicalChange These are nice sentiments, but the problem is that the people with Ron Paul's economic viewpoints are precisely the people who have created the debt problem in the first place. Laissez faire policies created the Great Depression and the Reagan Bush Bush laissez faire policies have massively shrunk the economy while creating massive debt.
Meanwhile the Clinton growth by itself would have paid off WWII and reached break-even if not for Reagan's debt fiasco.
sfjeff1089 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Read the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Bastiat's The Law. Know the history of USA or you can't support & defend it. Restore America 2012 Ron Paul RonPaul2012dotcom 1835 “Minute” on India written by Thomas Babington Macaulay; A government cannot be wrong in punishing fraud or force, but it is almost certain to be wrong if, abandoning its legitimate function, it tells private individuals that it knows their business better than they know it themselves.
possumpistol 2 months ago
Ron Paul is such a liar. He really expect people to believe with small/no government there won't be corperations? The reason corperations are so big and have so much power is because governmnet is not big enough and does not regulate enough.
In Ron Pauls perfect world as he describes it there would be only one corperation that would swallow up all others and we would be its slaves.
srspower 2 months ago
@srspower The government should be there to protect liberty and create a safe environment for economic prosperity. Increasing regulations and taxes don't result in liberty nor economic growth. The creative power of the marketplace will continue to be oppressed, and the entitlement system will continue to serve a dependent populace, learning under an ever diminishing education system to accept the idea that government knows best.
spiderman991 2 months ago
@spiderman991
The marketplace does not help or protect those who are vulnerable in society. It does not feed the homeless and heal the sick. It doesn't stop unscrupulous people accidentally poisoning us with their products.
America is the closest example of such a system in the world and today is responsible for a worldwide economic meltdown as well as having NEVER taken care of those most vulnerable in its society. And you are saying it needs to go further that way?
You are insane.
srspower 2 months ago
@srspower The marketplace is a collection of individuals. People heal each other in the market, they also poison each other. What utopian society are you looking to as a model? You have capitalism to blame for everything you own and have experienced in your life. Keep on crying. Oh and don't blame capitalism on the artificial aggregation of the corrupt monetary policy of the US government, which brought on the financial collapse. There is footage of Ron Paul warning of this.
spiderman991 2 months ago
@spiderman991
People with somthing to trade heal each other. But thats the problem with health, people who need protection have nothing to offer thats why a civilised society looks after its most vulnerable. The 'market' does not offer this.
THe corrupt monetary policy of the US was caused precisely by the sorts of policy Paul postulates. Everyone else in other countries can see that blatently.
srspower 2 months ago
@srspower Paul does not postulate anything that expands the role of government. People do have the option to buy health insurance, that is the market. The only thing the government can do to make it better is force everyone to buy it, basically transferring wealth from the healthy to the sick. This doesn't align with the freedom to choose and Ron Paul wants to give people the right to opt out. The free market can lower prices but when the government steps in, prices tend to rise.
spiderman991 2 months ago
@spiderman991
In a civilised society, the sort of society that i and most people in the developed world want to live in, healthcare, education and help when you can not help yourself is a right.
And yes your right the market does not provide this which is the point i am making. Its why the market fails and why regulation and government taxing and spending works.
srspower 2 months ago
@srspower Actually the market does provide education. Ever since the government has stepped in to provide federal loans to students, education prices have risen and quality has gone down, not to mention a glorious trillion dollars of debt held by students. You are a prime example of this generation thinking a quick easy fix at a federal level will satisfy all. Lets just steal from people through taxes and throw money at it right? Look up Friedman's four ways to spend money...
spiderman991 2 months ago
@spiderman991
I do not need a fix mate, i am not american. In my country healthcare is free and so is education up until university which used to be free and still should be. The problem with student loans is that there are too many students and not enough apprentices.
Tax is not theft, profit without tax is theft. In my country if i get ill and can not work the state helps me. If i get a serious illness the state gives me the care, treatment and medicine i need for free the tax is worth it.
srspower 2 months ago
@srspower I am not American either, I know for a fact that private schools provide a better education than the public school system however. I also know that healthcare could be more affordable if it weren't practice to charge the highest rate because "the government has to pay for it". There is billions (may close to 50B) dollars of fraud every year under medicare.
spiderman991 2 months ago
@spiderman991
Thats because medicare is merely state insurance. It is not a national health service. Perversely the UK pays less tax payers money per head of population for healthcare than the US does for medicare. Yet for that the UK gets universal free top notch healthcare as where in the U.S millions of people have no cover at all.
Private insurance in the US often doesn't even cover people who do pay. Those corperations pay millions every year in legal fee's to deny people cover.
srspower 2 months ago
@srspower UK is so far gone on the road to serfdom, they don't even realize that. Good thing they have North Sea oil to pay for that, for now, and awesome thing they do not waster all those trillions on supporting Empire anymore.
At any rate - even World Health Organization (a proponent of centrally planned and government managed health care systems) did not consider UK system top notch. But if you live there and happy - good for you and good luck
rtcell 2 months ago
@srspower healthcare + education is not free. It is just paid by money extracted from unwilling others.
As for taxes, it is extortion - taking away stuff/money under a threat of violence (try not to pay taxes, you will see what kind of violence will be applied to you). aka "Protection money". aka "Legal plunder" .search youtube for "philosophy of liberty plunder" and watch the clip to understand the argument (no need to agree, just to understand)
rtcell 2 months ago
No. I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Just because I am against public funded campaigns doesn't mean I don't understand the fact that corruption exists in washington. If you are to parlay your argument over to lobbying, which is the only way in which I can see it is relevant, then again, I would say distributing money evenly to the parties is still taking money from people who don't neccessarily want to give that money to certain candidates, or any candidate at all. It is about freedom.
musashi1707 3 months ago
Also, he said it is a soft term for fascism initially, which is more along the lines of what I believe. Not soft fascism, but corporatism being a softer, more pallet-able word for fascism. To reiterate, I don't see anything wrong with candidates, senators, or government for that matter receiving money VOLUNTARILY. What we currently have is involuntary. INDIVIDUAL taxpayers are being forced to pay money where they would not otherwise pay, at the force of the barrel of the IRS' gun.
musashi1707 3 months ago
Fascism - Syndical Corporatism , nothing to do with the dictatorship of today's parasitical private corporations.
SlavicFront88 3 months ago
There are two ways to conquer a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by DEBT. John Adams 2nd Pres of the US. WE are under siege RIGHT NOW. Paul is absolutely correct. Restore America Now 2012 vote for Ron Paul. Register republican to vote for him in the primary to get him on the ballot...then change back to independent, etc... the overlay is not the way to have a free exchange of ideas. As for individual freedom-gone. What is the job of the Fed gov? To protect individual freedom.
possumpistol 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
203 people do not know history.
ORACLE063 3 months ago
Yes. I agree, and so does Lawrence Lessig of Harvard Law School, who is proposing a Constitutional Convention. See ChANGE COngress.
deneicy 3 months ago
yes it is fascism but its nothing new this country has been fascist since 1947 when they created the national Security State.it was exacerbated with Bush now with Obama.
robaquarian 3 months ago
Ron Paul is not some libertarian messiah, he is just a genuine conservative Republican. He looks like a messiah because despite the fact that much of his rhetoric is borderline insane (like his proposal to abolish the Federal Reserve) he actually mixes in some measure of sanity into his rhetoric as well. That is in stark contrast to nearly all of his republican colleagues, whose ideologies reflect a corporatist-fascist approach to governance, which is pure fucking evil and crazy.
neon0lemonade 4 months ago
@neon0lemonade The corporate fascist approach would be to have a Federal Reserve in the first place, how else are you going to control people? By their money, and outlaw all competition. Fascists want a huge government, you can't run an empire nor fund one on a limited constitutional one, that requires a Fed and monopoly on the media.
BIackOp 4 months ago
Why should we give MORE money to Big Government to tell us what we support? We have the internet, newspapers, smart phones and a vast infrastructure of means to move media and information. Smaller government, no subsidies especially for companies who make over X in profit and/or own Y amount of property. You must take the avenues of their greed away, not put in an express lane. The public is going to have to make a choice not to be victimized in order for anything to really change.
PDXorcist 4 months ago in playlist RON PAUL
The FCC limits the power of CB radios. Not to do so would let those with the highest powered transmitter to silence everyone else. It's a limitation of free speech that actually facilitates free speech. Limiting money spent on campaigns is similar.
AsciiSillyQuestion 4 months ago
Representative government is still majority rule, which is ridiculous; with greatest influence retained by whoever proffers a majority of dollars. We need something like technocracy, a whole-cloth rejection of our current system, which exists as a relic of pre-1930s technological and economic paradigms.
mknomad5 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
VOTE RON PAUL 2012
paulstroie 5 months ago
The merging of corporate and government powers, THAT'S what Ron Paul is trying to warn you about in this clip.
Campaign finance reform won't prevent trillion dollar bailouts and legalized money laundering from the federal reserve.
VotePaineJefferson 5 months ago
@VotePaineJefferson , Ron Paul is still a Republican and believes in removing all regulations from business.
Deregulation made legal the practices that led to the bailouts. Now we are hearing that many of the practices where illegal and the FTC covered for them. You also, forget it is Republican appointed Justices that gave individual rights to corporations. Ron Paul is part of the problem not the solution.
zaurakdigis 4 months ago
@zaurakdigis Regulation is what leads to the bailouts of big business. Here is how it works: Government is influenced by corporations from campaign money among other things. The federal reserve is never audited, they merely print money when a politician wants to appease voters with an injection of funds - bubble continues to grow. Then, interest rates are too low, too long because the Fed manipulates it. Free market to blame? Not even close. Ron Paul to blame, even more erroneous.
spiderman991 4 months ago
@spiderman991 , you are incorrect, deregulation led to the bailouts not regulation. In 1999 they eliminated regulation passed post the 1929 stock market crash. Give me an example of when regulation led to catastrophic failure. Deregulation is what corporations are lobbying for and it is contrary to individual interest. Ron Paul is on board with this corporate agenda, so by his own logic he is supporting this growth of fascism.
zaurakdigis 4 months ago
@zaurakdigis You must be confused. Ron Paul is against bailing out big business. The financial crisis WAS an example of regulation leading to a catastrophic failure. Ron Paul would not allow money from the taxpayers to be used to bail out the rich - how is that fascist? Fascism promotes a single-party state. Like, um I don't know, where the government is headed? This is what happens when uneducated people think government knows all the solutions and should have their hands in everything.
spiderman991 4 months ago 17
@spiderman991 Well, that's all correct assuming you ignore the facts.
The fact is is that deregulation was one of the main reasons for the financial crisis. Carter's monetary control act is just one of the many deregulatory practices that allowed banks to lend more money, enter into speculative lending and other aspects of the shadow banking system.
Interesting that you don't actually list a single reason how regulation lead to catastrophic failure. Probably because it's not remotely true.
xxFortunadoxx 2 months ago
@xxFortunadoxx "Probably because it's not remotely true." Exactly.
Let me take you back to 1930, Bank of America fails for the first time, about 17% capital reserve (nice and high), most of which in real estate however -their assets were not liquid enough. From this we spur greater aggregation through a centrally planned Freddie and Fannie?!?! It seems we need more intelligent bankers as opposed to people looking to run the United States government and all the special interests therein.
spiderman991 2 months ago
@xxFortunadoxx Deregulation does not equal bailing out banks because they are "too big to fail" nor does it mean creating a federal apparatus that sets up artificial aggregation in the first place. Rather, deregulation means freeing up the market place, allowing risk to actually have repercussions on greedy practices, resulting in swift corrections that would not be as painful in the long run.
spiderman991 2 months ago
@spiderman991 Your idealized version of what deregulation means is completely at odd with the facts. The causes of the financial crisis are as follows:
subprime mortgage lending
repeal of glass-steagall
betting on credit default swaps and other derivatives
predatory lending
All of which are the fault of deregulation. This is why the financial crisis occurred. This is not interpretation. This is fact.
I and zaura are still waiting for a single case in which regulation lead to failure.
xxFortunadoxx 2 months ago
@xxFortunadoxx It is not idealized, the banks were bailed out, that is regulation (corporatism not capitalism) and I hear many people complain about that. If government mechanisms did not blow up the bubble because they wanted everyone to have their own house, this mess would not have happened. The government did the same thing with guaranteeing homes built in naturally hazardous areas, I suppose you think we need more FEMA funding.
spiderman991 2 months ago
@spiderman991 I said your version of DEREGULATION was idealized. Not regulation. Bailouts did not cause financial collapse. The Shadow Banking System did along with Credit Default Swaps which were both enabled by the repeal of Glass-Steagall. This is all a case of deregulation. Please stay on point.
Still waiting for a case in which regulation lead to catastrophic failure like deregulation clearly did.
xxFortunadoxx 2 months ago
@xxFortunadoxx I already argued my point, you seem to miss the parts which directly condemn the practices of the US government creating an environment which allows abnormal aggregation. Shouldn't have to walk you through how that works. There is no such thing as a little bit of freedom. The credit bubble crisis stinks of government Keynesian policy. Interest rates were too low for too long. Ron Paul predicted this, regulation allows this artificial bubble to come.
spiderman991 2 months ago
@spiderman991 Actually, no you didn't. I showed you what caused the mortgage crisis. It has nothing to do with regulation and everything to do with mortgage dealers engaging in speculative lending. You don't even have to do real research. Just going to the wikipedia page utterly refutes everything you've said in this entire discussion. I recommend you do that instead of making false generalizations about what deregulation actually entails. Because it's not what you think it is.
We're done.
xxFortunadoxx 2 months ago
@xxFortunadoxx If you understand macroeconomics and monetary history you will see eye to eye. I can pull something straight from wiki if you want: "Some long-time critics of government and the GSEs, like American Enterprise Institute fellow Peter J. Wallison,[33] claim that the roots of the crisis can be traced directly to risky lending by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are government sponsored entities". Of course the government would refute this, but why wouldn't they. They are all knowing
spiderman991 2 months ago
@xxFortunadoxx But who wants to get at the root of the problem these days anyway? America is on the verge of collapse and we blame the free market, not the ones pulling the strings.
spiderman991 2 months ago
@spiderman991 are you kidding? Do you believe that's the best way to deal with someone who breaks your window and steals your VCR? Wait for them to go out of business due to inefficient practices? Or are you saying that somehow greed takes on a different character when you depersonalize it and add a few zeros to the pot?
sfjeff1089 2 months ago
@sfjeff1089 Greed takes on a different character when the government bails out the greedy. The greed was exacerbated by the easy lending set forth by the government. Someone can be greedy in the free market, they just assume more risk. That is not the case when the government backs securities. It is an abomination of the eloquent intricacies and balances in a free market - resulting in inflated prices. People blame greed, when in reality greed is fine as long as people assume their own risk.
spiderman991 2 months ago
@spiderman991 I don't disagree that bailing out corporations that mess up is bad. However there are several problems with letting your response be that simple. 1) Often Management is the problem. It might be prudent to bail out the corporation and put management in jail, for example. 2) Often Laws or regulation is the problem. Make sure the rules are explicit next time so you *can* put in jail. 3) Sometimes total risk is the problem. That's why we need Glass-Steagel.
sfjeff1089 2 months ago
@spiderman991 In any case, you have to deal with what's in front of you rather than abstract ideals.
1) Save the patient.
2) Save the organ.
3) Save the tissue.
4) When stable, change behavior.
You have to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior, but also remember *people* made the decisions. Not corporations. Also, the "free market" is a Republican myth. Every market transaction is based on negotiating leverage, which is never even and fair/unfair is a matter of best possible approx.
sfjeff1089 2 months ago
Greed is fine when the system of incentives is set up so that good behavior is rewarded and bad behavior is punished. For example, it should be a more profitable transaction to build something, sell it, and buy a VCR than to go across the street, break a window, and take your neighbor's VCR.
The job of private effort is to optimize rewards. The job of public effort is to create a reward system such that people who are contributing more are rewarded better.
sfjeff1089 2 months ago
@spiderman991 If you give corporations complete freedom to set up their own reward system, then that is like giving private citizens the ability to decide on the relative rewards for breaking your neighbor's window and taking his VCR vs earning one with hard work. When stealing becomes more rewarding than building, society falls apart. Corporations should be free to compete on a somewhat level playing field in which the system is set up so the best producer with the best service has good odds
sfjeff1089 2 months ago
@zaurakdigis You are conflating entire deregulation that is left with market forces based on economics via consumer demands, with secondary deregulation that still has government in the position of power creating loop holes for corporate gains while competitors have more red tape. The two are really different, the second being a moral hazard. Corporations lobby to increase regulations on competitors while lessen it for themselves. Regulations can also be purely bad. Patriot Act for example.
BIackOp 4 months ago
@zaurakdigis Also the construct of the Corporation (state created entity), through corporate person-hood, corporate law, limited liability, Intellectual Property (Monopoly), Anti Trust (despite popular belief vs reality), Patent Monopoly, Legal Tender Laws, (I'm sure I am leaving out a few) all these factors are regulations that hinder competition and create monopolies. So to say that the whole of regulations has been on a decrease isn't true, that would mean government has been shrinking.
BIackOp 4 months ago
This has nothing to do with real corporatism..
SlavicFront88 5 months ago
The only good republican!
LeftWingPOG 5 months ago
Sorry Liberal Viewer, but your solution is a bit naive. Money is fungible, and it is an unstoppable force. Trying to stop some forms of campaign fiance would just lead to further corruption, as prohibition of alcohol and now drugs has done. When you ban the purchase of certain desired goods, in this case political influence, you don't make it disappear, you push it into the black market.
The real solution is to restrict, as far as possible, the areas of our lives that govt deals with.
Aliothemage 5 months ago
I think RON PAUL is right.
d3tach3d 5 months ago
i just think that there should be a maximum amount of money that can be given to the canidate.
sk8sk8ss 5 months ago
yes, it's fascism. Campaign finance reform won't work. The only thing that will work is introducing terms. Every congressman and senator should only get 2 terms in office, no more !
HectorElCapitan 5 months ago
Ron Paul is correct and limiting free speech is not the answer. Limiting the power of government and therefore the incentive to poor tons of money into it, is the right way to go. as long at the gov has tons of our money to spend as they want there will be those who lobby to give it to them.
bobctupper 5 months ago
From Mussolini, a founder of Fascism, "For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death." We are already Fascist, there is no need for 'soft', just read the PNAC document; is is fascist, pure and simple.
shishkabobby 6 months ago
idk bout soft but he is right other than that
GuyPennebaker 6 months ago
He would be right if he left out the word soft!
Was the Waco massacre, Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11 what you consider soft? They were all perpetrated by our fascist government.
bibleprophecy1st 6 months ago
He would be right if he left out the word soft!
And to say it's not a form of socialism is wrong. Fascism is the flip side of communism. They are both forms of socialism. The National Socialists Party was the Nazi's! They both give dictatorial powers to the state.
bibleprophecy1st 6 months ago
@bibleprophecy1st , Nazi's were socialists in name only, they more closely resemble the extreme right wing in American politics not he left. They gave power to Corporations not the people, Corporations ruled Nazi Germany.
zaurakdigis 5 months ago
@zaurakdigis YOU TOTALLY FAIL
paulstroie 5 months ago
@paulstroie , What are you talking about? Nazi's purged the leftist on Hitler's "night of the long knives". Workers lost all rights and unions were abolished by Hitler, they were opposite of the communists and despised them. Not as much as the jews though, Hitler exploited rampant anti-semitism to achieve his objectives. Today we associate Fascism with Racism, racial purity is what Fascism was trying to achieve. Liberals hardly support giving dictatorial powers to anyone.
zaurakdigis 4 months ago
@zaurakdigis yes you DO support giving dictatorial powers, you want the government tot take other peoples money BY FORCE.... and the fact that Hitler outlawed unions doesn't matter at all because so did Stalin...and a great deal of racism is institutionalized in communist countries as well.
Socialism is not for the poor, socialism is for the rich that has always been the case, what makes you think that in a socialist country the money will be taken from corporations and given to people?
paulstroie 4 months ago
@paulstroie I like what you say. Regulations are often looked to as the answer, while people fail to recognize that was the problem in the first place. The Fed is what manipulates the fiat currency. This deception allows government to get bigger because people think they are saints and will protect them from "evil corporations".
spiderman991 4 months ago
@bibleprophecy1st , no Hitler and Stalin asserted dictatorial powers by force, socialism did not create them.
Socialism was hardly the hallmark of Fascism and certainly not Hitler, to say otherwise is to ignore a large part of history.
zaurakdigis 4 months ago
He would be right if he left out the word soft!
bibleprophecy1st 6 months ago
Considering the fact that I can't remember a time when we were not at war with at least one country or sizeable militant group, our insane military spending, homeland security, wallstreet, and our bullshit news channels funded by pr campaigns, I would say we are damn well getting to fascism.
mattwithlove 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL, WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER! TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE HOW EXACTLY RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? OK LETS SAY ALL TROOPS CAME BACK AND THEN WHAT? THEY ARE GOING TO SELL IPHONES AND BLACKBERRIES? DUDE BE A MEN, HOW RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? POPULATION OF CHINA IS 1.4 B CHINESE WORK LIKE ROBOTS, BE HONEST TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BUY UR BOOK U NEED CASH , U LOVE POWER, U LOVE CASH, U WILL NEVER CREATE JOBS, U HAVE NO ANSWER!
democratsaresmart 6 months ago
I hate corporations.. In Australia fast food places are being bought up all by the same person. Of course money wins out, but choice is deminished and quality goes down.
valcarni1 6 months ago
It already is soft fascism ............ TSA, Homeland security (with the 1-800 call if you suspect a terrorist and LED screens which will cover all the US advertising this need for security and protection), the patriot act, Wallstreet, haliburton and so on. Liberties are lost!!!! war is the main business and are troops are simply assassins doing their dirty work there is no more honor............Ron Paul maybe the only man standing to save the US and the world!!
jimmy55run55 6 months ago
@jimmy55run55 Listen to Noam Chomsky. He has also been decrying the nanny state for a very long time. He has excellent research to back his claims. Just be prepared to have your views challenged, he will make you think if you really listen and understand what he means by words like libertarian.
shishkabobby 6 months ago
@shadowgeyser what leads to corporatism is mixed markets. markets with strong defenses against intervention disallow the mixing of state and business powers and allows them remain weaker decentralized. whether state or corporate power must remain decentralized at all cost. power to everyone and therefore no one.
Ravengaurd6 6 months ago
You have to understand where Ron Paul is coming from. He's obviously a libertarian, which means when he talks about the financing of government campaigns by big businesses, his solution is to reduce government's influence on the business sector, so that they have no reason to try to buy politicians in the first place. This in my opinion gets more to the source of the problem, and gets more than one problem out of the way at the same time as well. And without the extra taxes.
eggory 6 months ago
What he's talking about is called Plutocracy. Facism is a little further down the road and a lot meaner.
TammyTurnip 6 months ago
NO i don't agree that taxing people for campaign funding is the way to go. So stealing peoples money... whether they care about politics or not is what you think should be implemented? c'mon man. Taxation unless everyone benefits equally is stealing. Like the guy without a car paying for roads is being robbed. The guy without kids paying for education is being robbed. Etc. etc.
freezazoid 7 months ago
No you have it wrong, you need to make it illegal for the government to subsidize business. In short the only money that should go to business from the government is when that business provides a service, like making weapons, not for merely having jobs in the US or whatever stupid reasons governments fork money over to business. That is the root of evil. There is no constitutional basis for governments distributing money in that fashion. Take the government out of business.
NathanJosephCole 7 months ago
@NathanJosephCole
Any business regulation that is needed can be done at the state level, and I mean everything: minimum wage laws, how each business conducts itself. This needs to be done at a more easily accountable state level. The commerce clause should refer to a trade that crosses state lines, not anything leading up to the trade, not how the goods are transfers, nothing. each of these things can be decided by the state, where each is free to determine things like the hourly price of work.
NathanJosephCole 7 months ago
"The Patriot Act". Ever heard about Orwellian language?
underdogg20 7 months ago
When corporations are in BED with government ... it goes beyond profit ..it causes markets to actually be manipulated via government support/protection of specific companies who can then corner the market and destroy competition.
Wonglow 7 months ago
Best solution against Corporatism is smaller government. Campaign finance reform won't do shit. They'll find other ways.
madass888 7 months ago 16
@madass888
How does smaller government prevent corportations from making deals with the government? It doesn't matter how small the government is, it matters how the government operates.
GnomesAmok 6 months ago
@GnomesAmok
Than how should the government operate? You can't rely on the goodness of politicians. There should be a total restructuring of govern power where minimal amount of corruption is possible.
A small government will reallocate a minimal amount of resources in a economy, since that is part of my definition of small government. When the government has less resources to their disposal they have less to give to well connected individuals. Less = less.
madass888 6 months ago
@madass888 , the Best solution against corporatism is to vote out Republicans and the Tea Party. Corporatism is Fascism, believing Nazi's gave power to the people is naive. They blamed their woes on the disabled, unemployed, and jews and placed them in concentration camps. Corporations ruled Nazi Germany they were not "socialists", and regardless what the named themselves. It was a little like Bush naming something as good for the environment when in fact it was for its destruction.
zaurakdigis 5 months ago
@zaurakdigis
You forgot the democrats. The biggest corporate fascists are the Federal Reserve owners and none of the dems wants to get rid of them.
madass888 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL IS GOING TO BE PROSECUTED BY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO CALL AMERICAN PEOPLE INVADERS AND INITIATERS OF WARS.
RON PAUL SAID THE USA INVADES COUNTRIES AND STARTS WARS, WHICH GIVES USA A BAD REPUTATION AROUND THE WORLD , THEREFORE IT IS CONSIDERED A CRIME . A US CITIZEN WHO
WAS BORN IN USA CANT GO AGAINST GOVERNMENT POLICIES WHICH MIGHT TREATEN THE FUTURE
OF THE COUNTRYS SECURITY .
RON PAUL WILL BE PROSECUTED BY US GOVERNMENT!
democratsaresmart 7 months ago
I would be overjoyed if this extremely intelligent man is elected in 2012, but realistically, I realize he probably won't, which is depressing. This country is doomed.
wilproK 7 months ago
It does not mean "rule by corporations" as in incorporated businesses. It is the belief that society is a corporal entity. It is one corpus (body). It is essentially a communitarian ethic which states "we are all in this together" and that the various constituent parts of the economy (capital, labor, etc) are not naturally struggling and eternally opposed classes as the marxist says but members of a symbiotic partnership. Ron Paul is completely off the mark here.
cruzander 7 months ago
The best way to fix corporatism is to get the government out of the economy. Yes Ron Paul is right, we see this every day. Companies have to use the government as a weapon to stay in business if they don't then someone else will.
mrhnm 7 months ago
RON PAUL IS GOING TO BE PROSECUTED BY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO CALL AMERICAN PEOPLE INVADERS AND INITIATERS OF WARS.
RON PAUL SAID THE USA INVADES COUNTRIES AND STARTS WARS, WHICH GIVES USA A BAD REPUTATION AROUND THE WORLD , THEREFORE IT IS CONSIDERED A CRIME . A US CITIZEN WHO
WAS BORN IN USA CANT GO AGAINST GOVERNMENT POLICIES WHICH MIGHT TREATEN THE FUTURE
OF THE COUNTRYS SECURITY .
RON PAUL WILL BE PROSECUTED BY US GOVERNMENT!
democratsaresmart 7 months ago
@democratsaresmart Your comments are just Pathetic! Get your shit together!
lust4design 7 months ago
RON PAUL , I HAVE A MESSAGE FOR YOU! UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL
NEVER BE A PUSSY COUNTRY!
HOW DO YOU HAVE ENERGY IN A DAYTIME , IF YOU WAKE UP TWICE A NITE
TO TAKE A PISS, WHAT ANTIAGING DRUGS DO YOU TAKE AND HOW IS IT
GOING TO AFFECT CHEMICALS IN UR BRAIN, I MEAN TESTOSTERON LEVEL,
DO YOU TAKE TESTOSTERONE INGECTIONS TO BE A MEN ?
democratsaresmart 8 months ago
@democratsaresmart Well said
keys1320001 7 months ago
Buy Silver - Earn Silver
Fast Delivery
htt p(colon)//silversnowball(dot)com/3897
frankiegmh 8 months ago
How are you a strong civil libertarian when you advocate the redistribution of wealth you suggest when the government steals everyone's money to give it to politician's war chest?
mithrandircomics 9 months ago
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
-Benito Mussolini
Yeah I'm pretty sure that Mussolini has a little better understanding of Fascism than does this moronic video poster. Corporatism is incorporated in both Fascism and Communism/Socialism in that it is their professed valuing of group rights over individual's rights. Look it up.
mithrandircomics 9 months ago
what libertarians fail to understand is that 'corporatism' is capitalism and always has been. companies will always seek more profit and power, in fact the only way to stop them is *gasp!* 'socialist' style regulation that harms the freedom of businesses.
bobzilla211 9 months ago
@bobzilla211 I think you misunderstand. Fascism is the merger of Corporations and Government to benefit the corporations and government, at the expense of the working and poor classes. It is government regulating out competition and financially propping up poorly run companies in exchange for campaign contributions.
atchisrj1 9 months ago
@bobzilla211 Wrong, the problem is that we have a large government. the bigger the government the more easily it is corrupted. Remember, you only have lobbying in areas of industry that the government either controls or has a influence over. Simply making the government bigger only makes the problem worse. There are very few differences between fascism and socialism if you actually study them both. e.g. "Nazi" was short for National Socialist German Workers' Party.
anryth 9 months ago
@anryth that's because the government has to have an influence over certain things. the free market doesn't apply in areas like energy and water because companies don't and couldn't create the infrastructure for it. do you think basic food standards would be maintained by a free market?
if you actually studied them both you'd know the claim that socialism = fascism is total horseshit. why do you think the left were the first against the wall in nazi germany?
bobzilla211 9 months ago
@bobzilla211 the ignorance, it burns. a lot of companies like McDonalds already have higher food standards than the law requires.
both systems believe in a totalitarian state, control over wages and hours, higher taxes on rich, gov't set limits on profits, gov't care for elderly, deemphasis on the family, gov't taking on the role of changing the nature of humans, and gov't directing production.
btw, the Nazi's did not build the Berlin Wall, it was the East German gov't controlled by the soviets
anryth 9 months ago
@anryth you're using mcdonalds as your example of the free market ensuring food standards? priceless.
if you define everything by its role on regulating the market, then i suppose you could see them as similar, that's if you ignore the massive differences just so you can try to godwin's law socialism.
just so you know, the phrase 'first against the wall' means that the left were the first to be oppressed when the nazis took power. they banned the communist and social democratic parties.
bobzilla211 9 months ago
@bobzilla211 So you would have the government ensure that everyone has to pay for more expensive food in order to 'protect them from themselves'? never before in human history has it been possible to be poor and overweight at the same time. Mussolini, the founder of fascism, defined fascism as national socialism in a state that was totalitarian. Charles Beard, Wallace Stevens, Du Bois, H.G. Wells, Lincoln Steffens, George Shaw, all wrote admiringly of the European Fascist movement.
anryth 9 months ago
@anryth oh i see, so people being overweight = high food standards. amazing...
surely informed consumers are required for there to be a truly free market? how are people going to know whats in their food without regulation obliging companies to publish it?
why did the nazis oppress german leftists? why did socialists volunteer to fight franco in spain?
fascism favoured inequality, private property and the class system. it merely claimed elements of socialism to get support from the poor.
bobzilla211 9 months ago
@bobzilla211 Simple, fear of bankruptcy.
The "leftists" that the Nazi's suppressed where people like Ludwig Von Mises because of their anti-state and free-market positions. The political left in contemporary terms is far different than the liberty minded "left" of those days. Present day "liberals" care not for liberty as they advocate for a large, suppressive government, that gives special favors to some and takes from others. Socialism at its core is a system of violence and coercion.
anryth 9 months ago
@anryth that's simply incorrect, at their most basic 'left and right' have always been about economic policy. classic liberalism has never been 'left wing' at any point in history. in fact german liberals like hjalmar schact actually supported the nazis at first.
fascism has economic interventionism but upholds conservative values (religion, the family, race, patriotism) and property rights. i'll say it one more time - the nazis suppressed COMMUNISTS and SOCIALISTS.
bobzilla211 9 months ago
@bobzilla211 I tried not to go into this because I thought you would already know. Instead of looking at it from a left vs. right perspective you need to look at it as liberty minded (classic liberal) vs. authoritarians (modern liberal). Authoritarians support both fascism and socialism. The only difference between the two systems is property rights, thats all. Religion and family are suppressed in both systems and race is only a factor in Nazism, not fascism in general. Stateism is stateism.
anryth 9 months ago
@anryth no, that's completely wrong. political ideology does not only exist on an authoritarian-liberal scale, it also exists on a left-right scale. this is why you get both authoritarian/liberal right and the authoritarian/liberal left. go read something you idiot.
bobzilla211 9 months ago
@bobzilla211 Those who disagree with me are generally those who deny the fact that the modern liberal cares not for liberty or individualism and instead wants full control by fooling the masses that they need the government to hold their hand. It's either top-down or bottom up. The further you investigate your argument the harder it will be for you to believe your argument. You probably think we actually have a two party system in the U.S. don't you?
anryth 9 months ago
@anryth i just realised its pointless talking to someone who has a utopian worldview that only accepts a perfectly free market, and automatically conceives everything else as authoritarian fascism. when you grow up you'll realise the world is unfortunately not that simple. if it was maybe we could all live our lives according to 19th century economics.
bobzilla211 9 months ago
@bobzilla211 Who ever said anything about utopia? A free market system does not center around perfection, mistakes are made constantly. The difference is that a free market system quickly weeds out these mistakes through market forces while the system you advocate institutionalizes and feeds them. The fact that the world is so complex is why free markets work, dont be so naive as to think that a handful of political elite somehow have more knowledge than the rest of society combined.
anryth 9 months ago
@anryth i'm not. its utopian because a true free market system has never existed and never can. why? because real life does not conform to the laws of classical economics. it is far, far too complex and you cannot accurately model human behaviour for any area larger than a small experiment, whether you stick to a few simple assumptions about actor behaviour or create a complex model with thousands of conditions and assumptions.
but i guess its nice to have something to believe in, huh? bye now.
bobzilla211 9 months ago
@bobzilla211 You do realize that the ones who are trying to create complex aggregate models are the Keynesians who don't believe that free markets work and who advocate for state intervention right? I'll say it again so that your simple brain can understand, free markets work BECAUSE the world is so complex. It is foolish to assume that some authority can direct the economy (as socialists and fascists claim). Go ahead, keep believing that government is your Saviour, maybe one day you'll wake up.
anryth 9 months ago
Dear anryth... I want to have ALL your babies.
dressupjesus 7 months ago
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
-Benito Mussolini
He who has the money has the power. This is why a strong, vibrant middle class is so important. As the middle class shrinks so does it's influence. Just sayin...
FSUSW15009 10 months ago
incorrect feildman07. Our Gubment has been for sale...and is so because Big Business is all about buying (and sometimes taking) influence! They make the rules.
STKpc 10 months ago
Corporatism is fascism. If the state and its miligtary are dictated to by corporate concerns and the state enoforces those dictates on the labour force then the staet is a fascist.
yossariancomplex 11 months ago 4
@yossariancomplex No, without any romanticism of violence and nationalism a country cannot be considered fascist, just because a country has very powerfull corporations doesn't make it fascist.
Imhornydadcomeinside 6 months ago
@Imhornydadcomeinside Can you give me an example of a country in which Corporations dictate the political agenda but do not foster violent nationalism aslo?
yossariancomplex 6 months ago
@Imhornydadcomeinside Violence and nationalism are a result of corporatism or fascism or what ever you wish to cal it, such traits are merely the uniform Fascism wears. So far as i'm aware all Fascist dictators have been men. These things are merely circumstantial in that they aid the Fascist agenda, though many would agrue that is changing: the fascism of tomorrow will not be nationalist but globalist, preaching unity, or centralisation to persaud the people to wave their individual rights
yossariancomplex 6 months ago
I go back to watch Ron Pauls interviews 4-5-10-20 years after what has transpired. RP is the only one that has warned us time and time again and he is the only hope I see to help us turn our nation around. Yes he is is right about corporatism and fascism. Check out a video on my page regarding this...
oellerich007 11 months ago
Comment removed
oellerich007 11 months ago
the Fascism of Benito Mussolini IS extreme corporatism, so it's almost stupid to have to state that corporatism is soft Fascism. Rather or not it's fascism without the capital "f" is still left for debate....... as far as publicly funded campaigns, it might mix things up for 1-4 election cycles but without ending simple majority voting it will just result in a new two party hegemony with it's simplistic and stupefying lowest common denominator arguments. And that is being optimistic.
IsaacKarjala 11 months ago 9
@IsaacKarj
The Fascism of which Ron Paul speaks is "soft" precisely because more covertly than European & Latin American Fascism it functions primarily in the shadows as big business coersion through the soft power of the revolving door,as well as the hard power of private finance.There's no debate:Fascism is just a catchy,provocative term describing a condition in which the state is privately owned & publicly managed.Sound familiar?
The 'citizens united' decision was the final safeguard.
thirdshift47 8 months ago
I agree that campaign finance reform is part of the problem but it is linked to the other problem described by Ron Paul. I believe our country is run by a fairly small group of corporate interests which could be interpreted as a form of fascism(I think) . While we are ,in theory, represented im congress, I don't believe anything happens without big business's approval. Those same people will never allow the financing of a candidate who might cost them money. That's my wacky opinion.
MrSafetymeeting 11 months ago
I don't like Paul's economics, but make that man the chief of the Pentagon.
videoguy604 11 months ago 2
Corporatism and Socialism are the 2 most dangerous in America. Their must be a balance.
commandoslayer 1 year ago
@commandoslayer There is no socialism in america. There probably never will be.
Keinlicht 1 year ago
I think you are wrong on this. Corporations only have the power to influence the government because the government is in bed with them and gives them that power. If you shrink the government down then it also shrinks down the power of corporations and lets a free market and competition work the way it is suppose to work.
DavidValley 1 year ago 2
He can back some odd positions fairly well
Proudnewfoundlander1 1 year ago
Capitalism gets a bad rap. When the left points out problems in the system, I generally agree with their observations. However, the left typically makes one big mistake. They tend to blame capitalism for the problem. The US isn't a capitalistic society, it is what Ron Paul says... Corporatism.
McDonalds gave a waver from Obama not to pay the upcoming health care tax. If i owned a family ran burger joint, I would still have to pay that tax. IS that fair and equal before the law?
lambowolf 1 year ago 2
@lambowolf yay!
usimate 1 year ago
@lambowolf What about the problems that come with the need for Profit? Let's not get this confused with Improvement and advancement...Though Ron Paul is onto something with Corporatism...
keys1320001 7 months ago
Just as we have separation of church and state, we need separation of business and state.
ThePyro3825 1 year ago
@ThePyro3825 smart, smart, very smart
udical 1 year ago
@ThePyro3825 I agree but there is no way you can do that without the government dropping power and letting people take care of themselves. I know that is scary to a lot of people but what would you rather have, you taking care and defending yourself or a violence coercive government that wants to control your behavior taking care of you?
DavidValley 1 year ago
I doubt that any of us have ever seen true Capitalism in our lifetime.
rendellical 1 year ago
@rendellical yeah, only in the 1800's
delgande 10 months ago
@SIGN666 No, lol. Go look at a dictionary.
MrOlympic2011 1 year ago