the whole notion of who is capitalist or what the power relationship is between capitalism and monopolies is completly moot. Regardless of wether you, as a capitalist, personally support monopolizing buisness practices, your support and advocacy of a system which allows monopolizing buisness practices to occur makes the question of whether or not you personally support it irrelevant.
The notion that George Bush has a socialist agenda is absolutely ludacris. NAFTA is by no means a socialist agenda either, Bush advocates free trade blocs and mass privatization of social programs, akin to the social darwinist justification of "the churches will help the poor people". Simply his rhetoric is enough to qualify him as a neo-liberal.
Also, it's not as if Nader and his supporters think he can actually garner the majority of the electoral votes, it's more of an act of rejection in trying to get the Democrats to realize it's in their own interest to push for election reform(i.e. run-off elections, etc) when dealing with a candidate like Nader. This is so they can play together in the political arena without splitting the vote
Ugh...When will people realize that third party votes aren't about winning;)
If you're a "neoliberal" then you're certainly not in the center of the American political spectrum, do matter how conservative it is economically. Neoliberal[Wikipedia] should be equated with libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism, in which case you should love Ayn Rand.
Maybe Republican would be a better classification
if you knew what you were saying, besides restating the obvious, you would know that over half of Nader voters in 2000 said that if they hadn't voted for Nader, they wouldn't have voted at all. Besides, Gore still won Florida in 2000 despite the 2.5% nader vote, it was the supreme court and Jeb Bush.
Also, it's not as if Nader and his supporters think he can actually garner the majority of the electoral votes, it's more of an act of rejection in trying to get the Democrats to realize it's in their own interest to push for election reform(i.e. run-off elections, etc) when dealing with a candidate like Nader. This is so they can play together in the political arena without splitting the vote
you want to talk about playing on rhetoric? okay lets talk about playing on rhetoric. Conservatives are more guilty of that than any other political entity. So many marginal or politicaly apathetic citzens vote republican because of their domination of politics with "pro-american" rhetoric. By demonizing the term liberal as pinko, anti-american, weak they play on that inherent patriotism that many Americans feel comfortable with. They see Republicans as this big strong pro-american party. Why? because of the conservative rhetoric spun into the political spectrum. Look at Ann Coulter, Focus on the Family, Bill O'Reily, do you think anything they are saying isn't trumped up on rhetoric.
You yourself are spinning this Horatio Alger "Ragged Dick" idealism which is complete shit. of all the immigrants how many became robber barons like Rockefeller?
The idea of a virtue of selfishness is hogwash. When you let everyone do what they want and unregulate this type of capitalist system and let people do what they want the political and economic power will ultimately become consolidated and that's what leads to massive oppression, it's emperically proven. That's why you need progressives (ie liberals) to moderate and regulate. We're not giving people a crutch but merely a tool to break the socioeconomic bonds that supress them and make them subject to these robber barons that live this "ragged dick" life which doesn't exist.
Conservatives dominate the political sphere by creating these linguistic constructs like the "free market" to dominate politics. Look to the analysis from the Rockridge institute.
The "free market" doesn't exist. There is no such thing. All markets are constructed. Think of the stock exchange. It has rules. The WTO [World Trade Organization] has 900 pages of regulations. The bond market has all kinds of regulations and commissions to make sure those regulations carried out. Every market has rules. For example, corporations have a legal obligation to maximize shareholder profit. That's a construction of the market. Now, it doesn't have to be that way. You could make that rule, "Corporations must maximize stakeholder value." Stakeholders -- as opposed to shareholders, the institutions who own the largest portions of stock -- would include employees, local communities, and the environment. That changes the whole notion of what a "market" is.
Suppose we were to change the accounting rules, so that we not only had open accounting, which we really need, but we also had full accounting. Full accounting would include things like ecological accounting. You could no longer dump your stuff in the river or the air and not pay a fee. No more free dumping. If you had full accounting, that constructs the market in a different way. It's still a market, and it's still "free" within the rules. But the rules are always there. It's important for progressives to get that idea out there, that all markets are constructed. We should be debating how they're constructed, how they should be constructed, and how are they stacked to serve particular interests.
Slashdot Mirror
the whole notion of who is capitalist or what the power relationship is between capitalism and monopolies is completly moot. Regardless of wether you, as a capitalist, personally support monopolizing buisness practices, your support and advocacy of a system which allows monopolizing buisness practices to occur makes the question of whether or not you personally support it irrelevant.
The notion that George Bush has a socialist agenda is absolutely ludacris. NAFTA is by no means a socialist agenda either, Bush advocates free trade blocs and mass privatization of social programs, akin to the social darwinist justification of "the churches will help the poor people". Simply his rhetoric is enough to qualify him as a neo-liberal.
I think he meant their website needs a new design
chips? oh my god, a bunch of crappy cops in skimpy 70s uniforms are going to kill me with their bare hands...2+2=7
sweden, norway? arguably not a free market
you look at porn at work? you deserve to get caught you perve
Quote:
;)
Also, it's not as if Nader and his supporters think he can actually garner the majority of the electoral votes, it's more of an act of rejection in trying to get the Democrats to realize it's in their own interest to push for election reform(i.e. run-off elections, etc) when dealing with a candidate like Nader. This is so they can play together in the political arena without splitting the vote
Ugh...When will people realize that third party votes aren't about winning
If you're a "neoliberal" then you're certainly not in the center of the American political spectrum, do matter how conservative it is economically. Neoliberal[Wikipedia] should be equated with libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism, in which case you should love Ayn Rand. Maybe Republican would be a better classification
ding-dong, here comes the SHlT Mobile!
if you knew what you were saying, besides restating the obvious, you would know that over half of Nader voters in 2000 said that if they hadn't voted for Nader, they wouldn't have voted at all. Besides, Gore still won Florida in 2000 despite the 2.5% nader vote, it was the supreme court and Jeb Bush.
Also, it's not as if Nader and his supporters think he can actually garner the majority of the electoral votes, it's more of an act of rejection in trying to get the Democrats to realize it's in their own interest to push for election reform(i.e. run-off elections, etc) when dealing with a candidate like Nader. This is so they can play together in the political arena without splitting the vote
True, this scenario as I've outlined it makes no sense
enough said.
you want to talk about playing on rhetoric? okay lets talk about playing on rhetoric. Conservatives are more guilty of that than any other political entity. So many marginal or politicaly apathetic citzens vote republican because of their domination of politics with "pro-american" rhetoric. By demonizing the term liberal as pinko, anti-american, weak they play on that inherent patriotism that many Americans feel comfortable with. They see Republicans as this big strong pro-american party. Why? because of the conservative rhetoric spun into the political spectrum. Look at Ann Coulter, Focus on the Family, Bill O'Reily, do you think anything they are saying isn't trumped up on rhetoric. You yourself are spinning this Horatio Alger "Ragged Dick" idealism which is complete shit. of all the immigrants how many became robber barons like Rockefeller? The idea of a virtue of selfishness is hogwash. When you let everyone do what they want and unregulate this type of capitalist system and let people do what they want the political and economic power will ultimately become consolidated and that's what leads to massive oppression, it's emperically proven. That's why you need progressives (ie liberals) to moderate and regulate. We're not giving people a crutch but merely a tool to break the socioeconomic bonds that supress them and make them subject to these robber barons that live this "ragged dick" life which doesn't exist. Conservatives dominate the political sphere by creating these linguistic constructs like the "free market" to dominate politics. Look to the analysis from the Rockridge institute. The "free market" doesn't exist. There is no such thing. All markets are constructed. Think of the stock exchange. It has rules. The WTO [World Trade Organization] has 900 pages of regulations. The bond market has all kinds of regulations and commissions to make sure those regulations carried out. Every market has rules. For example, corporations have a legal obligation to maximize shareholder profit. That's a construction of the market. Now, it doesn't have to be that way. You could make that rule, "Corporations must maximize stakeholder value." Stakeholders -- as opposed to shareholders, the institutions who own the largest portions of stock -- would include employees, local communities, and the environment. That changes the whole notion of what a "market" is. Suppose we were to change the accounting rules, so that we not only had open accounting, which we really need, but we also had full accounting. Full accounting would include things like ecological accounting. You could no longer dump your stuff in the river or the air and not pay a fee. No more free dumping. If you had full accounting, that constructs the market in a different way. It's still a market, and it's still "free" within the rules. But the rules are always there. It's important for progressives to get that idea out there, that all markets are constructed. We should be debating how they're constructed, how they should be constructed, and how are they stacked to serve particular interests.