Rand Paul Exposes the Real Tea Party

"the Tea Partiers are being turned into foot soldiers for “owner rights,” to ensure that corporations are freed from government regulations and accountability."

Exactly! If they have their way our country will become the "Corporate States of America".

Back in the days when I was in middle-management of a large corporation I spent my share of time hanging out at the country club bar engaged in extended (scotch induced/supported) conversations. If the rank and file of the tea party crowd knew what the 'captains of industry' really thought about them there would be lynchings. . . of the leaders of the tea party.

Rand Paul and his country club buddies (where he had his victory celebration) no more care about the people who voted for him than the man in the moon. The tea party crowd wants their country back which is code for 'white folk in charge' but as far as the libertarian leaders are concerned, the white working stiff is no better than the black man who can't eat at the diner counter. If you are not at their level, you are a lower caste and you should be happy with the crumbs the ruling class gives you because everyone is 'free'.

country will become the "Corporate States of America".

To late.

"Rhazes

country will become the "Corporate States of America".

To late."

The Teabaggers' idea of America ironically is exactly Mussolini's definition of Fascism.

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.

If you think Paul is a kook wait till you see some of the others they support.

"Corporate States of America".

CSA - intentional or coincidence??

Yeah....but.....hasn't this always been the case? When Reagan took office, "the rich" paid 70% income taxes. By the time Clinton came into office, they paid 39.6% - and in that time, the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" widened to be the largest in history, effectively squeezing the middle class from the top down. (The Dems squeeze the middle class from the bottom up.....but that's a different story). Realistically, if you are not independently wealthy, the Republican party doesn't represent you, period.

They long for the dayz of the robber barrons, when you sent your kids to work as soon as they could pick up a bucket.

you were always in debt to the corp.. cause they provided your housing and food.

Big Corporations are pulling a Big Con on the common folks attracted to the Tea Party movement, getting them to focus their anger at Big Government as a threat to their “liberties” when the federal government is all that stands in the way of total corporate dominance of the United States.

Thank you, Power Is Knowledge, I knew this intuitively, but it is good to finally see it in print. And to know that others are conscious of it, too.

Clipped to my column for constant reference.

lol I totally agree with the sentiment, but sometimes the fed seems more like a speed bump than a barricade.

another reminder.. these folks want to lower capital gains taxes to zero.both the tea party and republicans.

bush lowered it from 25% to 15%

median wage went down.

the richest 400 (whose income is 100% capital gains) saw their incomes double. And they pay a lower tax rate than our lowest paying tax bracket.

and really the only thing we got for it..was 2 trillion more in debt.

people need to wake up and see what side the GOP butter their bread on.

Political spin article. Desperate. The Federal government is in bed with Corporate Amerika.

I knew this intuitively, but it is good to finally see it in print.

Too bad your intuition is to follow the blind. You guys are not very good at this provocateur game.Than of course you have your sheeple ... watch them personally learn of the liability in their decision to blindly follow your rant slant and then watch them change course.

Teodoro, do you even know what your talking about? Or are you just that confused.

Teodoro, do you even know what your talking about? Or are you just that confused.

Don't bother, Rank. Teodoro is like a Catholic Eric Albert.

The Tea Party foot soldiers irritate the living daylights out of me with their stupidity, but I also feel sorry for them. They don't see that they'll be the first to be thrown under the corporate bus when and if the time comes that their incoherent noise is no longer neeced.

Red Dirt Hippy -

"Corporate States of America". CSA - intentional or coincidence??

Father Guido Sarducci, is that you?! OMG!!! Coincidenza!!! YES, the catholics ARE on our side after all!!!

The Tea Party foot soldiers irritate the living daylights out of me with their stupidity, but I also feel sorry for them. They don't see that they'll be the first to be thrown under the corporate bus when and if the time comes that their incoherent noise is no longer neeced.

Now THERE is where you're wrong. Just the like GOP NEEDS the foot soldiers of the Christian Right, the Tea Party NEEDS their foot soldiers, who become a monolithic voting block and support pure activism on behalf of the party. No corporation would throw them "under the bus" or they'd never receive votes again.

So, instead of pressing for a democratized and energized federal government that could serve as a check on unbridled corporate power, the Tea Partiers are being turned into foot soldiers for “owner rights,” to ensure that corporations are freed from government regulations and accountability.

I'm a realist about this. And I realize the government is the only tool we have to force our grievances upon.

It's not a very good tool at this point. Politicians are bought and sold. It's like choosing between two evils.

The government is lesser (by a good measure) but it's still pretty corrupt. I think their are genuine people trying to help, but they are drowned out by a sea of corrupt officials and corporate money.

True, Tony, as long as there continues to be power in votes. I may be carrying pessimism to the extreme. In fact, I hope I am. But consider those countries where the incumbent regularly gets 100% of the vote. You're told how to vote and you'd better comply.

No corporation would throw them "under the bus" or they'd never receive votes again.

Because they don't need votes....

Corporations have achieved the greatness of individual profit without being required to follow the laws of the citizenry, while at the very same time claiming the right of Corporate Citizenship entitling them to the Bill of Rights.

They also have the store of power...not the government.

The only reason for any aristocracy (which is what corporations are) to treat people right is in case of revolt. Even then, they go with revolt over losing their power, they don't bend to the peoples will.

Oh dear, Nicey, you're not "talking me down" at all ... :-(

Sorry about the pessimism, but it's true. And the only way the public will ever take action is if they get out of this fog they're in.

'Sokay ... I started the pessimism. My problem if no one can talk me down. :-)

Nicey -

Absolute truth, every word! Kudos!

tea party = rand paul = rich white guys who don't want to pay taxes or have any government regulation supported politically by dumb racists = .....drumroll....Republicans!

meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

So, instead of pressing for a democratized and energized federal government that could serve as a check on unbridled corporate power, the Tea Partiers are being turned into foot soldiers for “owner rights,” to ensure that corporations are freed from government regulations and accountability.

Yep. Someone else makes the noise, but that would get nowhere without money behind it. The insurance companies provided the "logic" and lobbying cash for raising the drinking age to 21 while MADD and similar organizations made the noise and gave an innocent face to the move. I suspect they're also playing a part in the fight against marriage equality ( who stands to lose money if same-sex partners can be included at a family rate instead of having to pay seperately for health insurance? ). Energy companies delay development of more efficient technologies since a lowered demand would lower their profits, etc, etc.

Now, here's a frightening thought:

It’s why Massey president Don Blankenship showed up in Stars-and-Stripes apparel to give a rousing speech to a Tea Party rally.

You remember that non-union mine with the explosion that killed all those miners recently? The accident caused by inadequate safety measures after a long history of safety violations? Massey owns it. The TEA party is unwittingly fighting for Blankenship's right to continue to do "business as usual" like that, as well as for BP and other oil companies to continue skipping safety measures that could cause another Gulf coast disaster.

Hope they're proud.

Exactly! If they have their way our country will become the "Corporate States of America".

The "Corporate States of Terra". Don't forget that these corporations have no national loyalty. The only thing that they hold dear is money and power (both sides of the same coin). We have seen for decades how they pit one state against another for tax breaks and investments. They have been doing the same for the last 50 years, at least, internationally. They have used this tactic to strip away workers rights and to decimate the middle class and will only grow bolder as the TEA party attitude grows.

In AZ., they're quickly going off the deep end of insanity in the Tea Party.

Here's a sample of the craziness: http://arizonateaparty.ning.com/profiles/blogs/to-mr-barack-obama-from-we-the

God help us...

'Life, Liberty, and Private Property', as Jefferson wrote it.... private property rights, and private contracts, the base of our prosperity as a country, have been under continual assault for decades.....now a city can take your property, and give it to whoever they wish...

Large corporations have the resources to influence the political process to their favor.....it is small business, the engine of our economy, which lacks the $$ to play in the game...and who will be the loser, as well as the employees who otherwise would be employed, and able to pay their bills, and hold their heads up high.....free and self-reliant.

In AZ., they're quickly going off the deep end of insanity in the Tea Party. Here's a sample of the craziness...

The delusion in this petition reminds me of Glenn Beck's rant yesterday. He was using the book of Ecclesiastes to rally his viewers to abandon apathy and understand their strength in numbers.

Teodoro, do you even know what your talking about? Or are you just that confused.

I don't know what I am talking about? I am writing about some obvious truths...which part of the comment are you disputing desperate agitator /character assassinator...the part about the government being in bed with Corporate Amerika?

Prove otherwise since your conjecture is so vague and unsupported...take the advice of your buddy...either put up or be exposed.

Now who is the one that doesn't even know what they are talking about but takes great pride in their imposed ignorance...electoral college vote has you convinced of your voice?Yes,it's you. Not I.

And what about your url title..."inhuman vesture"?Vesture:Something that covers or cloaks.And we know what inhuman means...most of us anyway.

Is this inadvertently done? Or are you proud of this "truth" also. Sooo wise of you(sarcasm)!

Question!

Not being anywhere near up on the Libertarian movement as much as I probably should be, the pieces of information I've gathered about them have come mostly from comments made by Bill Maher.

So let me ask you and anyone who knows, is it really true that Libertarians feel:

'If you are not at their level, you are a lower caste and you should be happy with what the ruling class gives you because everyone is 'free'. ?

Thanks, PIK, great seed.

#2:As evident with Rand Paul holding his victory celebration at a country club where he wouldn't have to rub elbows with those whom he considers the lower class.

Good morning, PIK. I had to take a little respite from responding to the defenders of this racism against the Black President, and support of rand paul and his radical "small government" no government regulations and oversight proposals, specifically! We have all seen what happens when regulations are relaxed, reduced and eliminated; the world goes to hell and the rich big business proprietaries get even richer while the poor gets poorer.

But I am glad you seeded this article, as is gives me a change to add my agreement with your solid and accurate assessment of rand paul, the Teabaggers and the Repugs in general. You are spot on in every way, but the "people" of the rightwing ilk still continues to support this philosophy and the radical and "separatist" element.

As you state (and other viners here as well), if they only knew that they (the middle class, smaller and not as wealthy folk), they would go as fast as they could in the opposite direction. But they have been brainwashed by these corporate minds to such a degree, they they truly think they are a part of the "repug/corporation ruling class"!

These poorer folk (i.e., Teabaggers) are allowing their dislike of the Black President, based on race, to determine what is in their best interest. The TeaBaggers are being conned by these rich corporate masters to think that the corporations have their best interest at heart, which couldn't be farther from the truth. The Teabaggers are being used as the "tool" only to reach the goals of the corporate class which is to control everything and everybody.

The saddest part of this whole scenario is that the Teabaggers don't want to do anything constructive about what is really going on. This way, they can continue to be ruled by hate and racism, whether they lose everything or not as long as they can continue to vent and spew their evil hatred. They will feel fine and continue to attempt to obstruct and oppose everything that the Democrats and President Obama is trying to do to fix the country.

We liberals, progressive and other sane, like minded people should not forget rand paul, and should thank him, instead, for opening his mouth and removing any doubt.

Libertarian ideology stems from the non-aggression principle, or rather, they reject the idea that the initiation of force is necissary to have a functioning society. This is almost an identical philosophy to anarcho-capitalism, except in libertarianism the idea is that one can somehow restrict the governments initiation of force by changing it from the inside. It's kinda like joinging the mafia and trying to turn it into UNICEF.

Paul's point in all of this is that the government shouldn't be able to force their will on private business, which is in line with the non-aggression principle and libertarianism. The understanding that you can't force people not to be racist is a key point. The civil rights act addressed the symptom, not the fundamental problem of racism. It's a tough social issue, but it's only going to be solved through individuals educating younger generations about ethical conduct, it's not something that the government can mandate through force.

#2.3:It's a tough social issue, but it's only going to be solved through individuals educating younger generations about ethical conduct, it's not something that the government can mandate through force.

Yes, it is a tough social issue, and it can not be mandated by force. No emotion can or ever will! But what can be mandated by government regulations and standards is discrimination- which is the act or behavior-that results from the emotion of racism.

This is the whole stream of thought behind Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action was put into effect to level the playing field that had become skewered because of racist policies implemented to prevent groups from reaching their full and equal potential.

This again, is off-topic {excuse me PIK, don't mean to derail} and has already been done, so Affirmative Action is another "Big Government regulation" that rand paul would have a problem with supporting!

So you believe discrimination no longer exists because of current government regulations? I think I can safely disagree, as discrimination of all kinds is still rampant in the workplace.

Most of the discriminatory things in place prior to the civil rights movement was due to the government, in fact. It's a broader debate then focusing on racial discrimination, the spin master media pulls that card as a smear tactic. It's all about the government assuming a role over private business, and it's not like his goal is to repeal the civil rights act, it's just that libertarian philosophy is rooted in the non-aggression principle, especially when it comes to government aggression, as in, using force to mandate private businesses, possibly out of business.

If the government forces abusive, criminally culpable, ethically bereft, morally bankrupt, avariciously controlling, coercive, collusive, wealthy elite megalomaniacs out of business, I will cheer and applaud and cry "Hallelujah!" until the cows come home!

There is a straight line connection, money and "talent" trail including Dick Armey, Freedom Works and the 1984 libertarian VP candidate, David Koch all the way back to Koch Industries, the 2nd wealthiest, privately held, big-oil refineries fed corporation in the United States.

There is NO philosophy or agenda or direction that the tea party may take that isn't first scrutinized, manipulated and approved of by Charles and David Koch first. The tea party is a sadly ignorant TOOL of the Koch Brothers (whose father was cofounder of the ultra-radical, ultra-right John Birch Society) and may or may not have a collective clue.

One thing is certain though, Rand Paul does.

#2.5:So you believe discrimination no longer exists because of current government regulations? I think I can safely disagree, as discrimination of all kinds is still rampant in the workplace.

That is NOT what I said nor believe! I said that discrimination, the act, is being controlled by regulations.

Discrimination is not only rampant in the workplace, but in every place that it can hide! No regulation will abolish it totally; this is why it is up to the individual, through education and training as stated in another of the postings, to eradicate racism.

It starts with one--yourself!

..you make exactly my point, and your own counter-point in fact. -that government can't regulate away discrimination. It's like addressing the symptom rather then the fundamental cause, and through something as despicable as the threat of force no less.

Freedom is voluntary association, property rights, and freedom to use ones property as one sees fit as long as it doesn't hinder anothers inalienable rights. That's actually common law (constitutional law) in a nutshell, and that's what libertarianism is all about.

chANG-

that's what libertarianism is all about.

pucky...propaganda and practice are two different things.

I'm just letting ya'll know what it is and isn't, for those who don't know, some folks out there whom still have the ability to think for themselves may actually want to learn about it. I have no steak in any of it actually, I'm not libertarian, rep, dem, or any of that crap. It's rather nice not having the blinders of political bias mucking up my world view.

that government can't regulate away discrimination.

Nor can it regulate away murder, rape, or larceny. It can, however, impose punishments for those who break the rules.

With that comparison, murder, rape and larceny all deal with property and inalienable rights. We don't have a right to not be discriminated against. If we did, it would make every interaction between individuals suspect for prosecution, often over subjective pretense. Freedom of speech would have to be done away with completely, and every interaction would essentially have to be analyzed meticulously over ones motives of their actions. Quite Orwellian.

It's a question of how much freedom can we handle. As freedom is synonamous with responsibility, are we as a society, or rather as individuals, capable of making our own decisions, even if it's the wrong ones, without a government parent figure treating us like children? That is at the heart of the issue.

With that comparison, murder, rape and larceny all deal with property and inalienable rights. We don't have a right to not be discriminated against.

chAng,

Are you crazy? We certainly DO have a right NOT to be discriminated against. It has been codified into US law. See Civil Rights Act and Equal Protection Act.

Then you ask how much "freedom" can we handle? Yet, if you don't first recognize, for example, that not to be discriminated against is a FREEDOM, then all your arguments do is defend the "right" to discriminate. This reveals the Liberatarian mindset to be attitude of simple rebellion, nothing more than political rebellion against lawful governmental authority.

Freedom, moreover, is not synonymous with responsibility as evidenced by the fact that everyone wants "freedoms" but few live up to their "responsibilities". Case in point, BP. It sought "freedoms" from the MMS, and used those freedoms to skirt major environment safety provisions and procedures such as what to do in the event of a major oil spill.

Business has proven over and over again in this country that is needs to be regulated. You, chAng, have proven to my satisfaction that there are faults in the Libertarian political philosophy. I thank you for your post.

You're mixing a few things up here. The difference in rights and privileges.. "rights" are inalienable rights, those are defined (not granted) by the bill of rights in the constitution. Civil rights are privileges granted by the government, and which can also be taken away. The term "lawful" refers to common law, and "legal" refers to statutory law, which is preventative law basically, or "Acts" of congress.

So it is actually a privilege, or a liberty, we are afforded to have a statute enforced that says private business owners cannot discriminate on basis of race. Which I don't have a problem with, Paul doesn't have a problem with it either he said, but the larger issue he did address was that he believes private business owners shouldn't be restricted by the federal government. If it were a state law that would be acceptable, as libertarians see it.

Freedom is synonymous with responsibility, as with life in general, that's just a no-brainer and I'm very surprised you don't understand that.

Private business is run by an individual who can be sued, and isn't protected by the government with limited liability status like corporations are. It's important to distinguish between the two because they are completely different things altogether.

Rank on rank

So let me ask you and anyone who knows, is it really true that Libertarians feel:

That is a sweeping generalization and not true of all Libertarians. It is true of the Paul Libertarians more than others and TEA party more than Libertarians. I know a Libertarian running for office in Texas that does not agree with the Paul version. From conversations and his posts, he is much more a libertarian when it comes to personal behavior and rights and acknowledges the role of government when dealing with general societal issues and that there is a difference. He thinks government should set up rules that help the free market remain free and more effectively assert change on business and society.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

chAng,

I'm glad you did not take me to task on the use of the word "Libertarian". So these are Libertarian ideas. Thanks for confirming that for me.

Your assertion that the Bill of Rights in the Constitution "defines but does not grant" the very rights expressed in them is suspect. Why else would these amendments be included if not to give the people the rights therein? Even if one takes from the Declaration of Independence that we have the "inherent right" to "the enjoyment of life, liberty . . . and the pursuit and attainment of happiness and safety", as you have defined "privileges" as things granted by the government, and therefore they may also be taken away by government, it must be clear to you that even these "inherent rights" are not "rights" at all, but privileges. Again as you define "rights". Because a government can and governments have taken these rights/privileges away at will.

Civil rights are not a privilege. They were withheld from a significant segment of the American populace for hundreds of years by immoral means and unjust practices. The American Congress and Supreme Court were slow to restore these rights to all its citizens, and law enforcement far too often adversarial. It is quite evident that these are "inherent rights" all Americans are entitled to and not the "privileges" you say they are. A just Government will recognize these self evident facts, these "rights" of the people, and safeguard and protect them which is the duty of government.

Rand Paul vigorously defends the rights of business owners who wish to discriminate as opposed to the people for whom Civil Rights legislation has already been passed. Such thinking, it seems to me, would take us backward as a nation, as a society. You state that Paul also believes that business owners should not be restricted by the federal government. So Paul believes that the business owner may hire illegal aliens? Since business owners are exempt from following laws, or indeed no federal laws should apply to them. Do you see what a slippery slope that is? If business owners would regulate themselves, that is fulfill their responsibilities, then no government regulation would be necessary. Federal regulation would seem then, and in fact be, redundant.

If as you say, and I dispute, that freedom is synonymous with responsibility, then why do so many endeavor to evade responsibility. Confining this general observation to the bounds of the private sector, do you recall how before Congress Haliburton, TransOcean, and BP all tried to evade legal and financial responsibility by blaming each other for the oil spill? Businesses and business owners have frequently displayed a conflict of interest between what is their moral and legal responsibility and their profit margins.

Private business, whether a global conglomerate or small family run business should neither ever be exempt from legal government regulation. Just as legal contracts are standard when companies do business. So government oversight and regulation are necessary to discourage irresponsible conduct on the part of the private sector.

That is a sweeping generalization and not true of all Libertarians._Tim S.-560036

Thanks Tim S, for answering my question. I appreciate it.

How do Libertarians" think government should set up rules that help the free market remain free" and specifically "more effectively assert change on business and society"?

I've yet to understand the rationale behind the notion that business will somehow police itself. History—and even modern day events—bears abundant evidence to the contrary. So the obvious question becomes, who will protect the basic human rights of workers and of our environment and ecosystems? If business won't do it willingly (take the responsibility that comes with its freedom to operate, that is), there appears to be no other option but government. And if state governments won't do it, it leaves only the federal government to legislate and enforce such laws.

Seems elementary to me.

Inalienable rights are inherent in nature, or call them god-given if that's your thing. Your assertion that governments violate peoples inalienable rights, so therefore inalienable rights don't exist -argument is circular logic. It's the unethical practice of the initiation of force that's used to unjustly deprive individuals of their inalienable rights.

The government is dependent on initiating force to function, there's the threat of force behind everything from tax collecting to regulation enforcement. I personally don't think a voluntary and peaceful society is even possible with a government. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. No government means no corporations, and that's what it'd take to have a truly unregulated free market like libertarians talk about. I mean, I know anarchy has tons of negative imagery attached to it, but this kind is rooted in the non-aggression principle, and common law private property rights.

It does take responsibility to have freedom, just as we're all free to own a gun, no age restrictions or anything, right? ..but we don't let toddlers go around carrying guns, I'd hope not anyway, because they don't fully understand cause and effect, so they aren't capable of assuming such a responsibility. I think that's a good analogy also about our relationship to the government. The whole system of statutory law, preventative law, serves a purpose because some people don't take personal responsibility for their actions, like you said. -but it also enables people to avoid taking personal responsibility for their actions at the same time, but our responsibilities grease the gov's money machines, so it could be considered that way by design, or simply illustrates how you can't solve problems through the threat of force.

VisionCoast - the idea of a self regulating market is one based on a market free from any sort of regulations, so through free associations and voluntary actions people and businesses would react to various incentives, like competitive pricing and quality of goods or services. A true democracy is a good analogy, as consumers would vote with their dollar and purchasing decisions, which keeps businesses competitive and ideally provides high quality goods at the lowest possible prices for the consumer.

In that next to last paragraph, I meant to say, "our irresponsibility greases the gov's money machine" -rather then "responsibilities" (thought I'd note that to avoid any confusion there)

Rank,

How do Libertarians" think government should set up rules that help the free market remain free" and specifically "more effectively assert change on business and society"?

That depends on the Libertarian. Some think that government has no role in this. I vehemently disagree with them. I believe that government has a very important role to play. It is to guarantee that rights of the largest number of individuals, without consideration of demographic criteria, are not infringed upon by any individual or group of individuals. Some think that this places too much emphasis on a collective or aggregate. In my opinion we are an aggregate. There is not an individual that does not rely on others or effected by the actions of others in this country.

Most believe that monopolies are not part of the free market and should be prohibited by the government because of their ability to coerce or cheat the market. Some think the only role for government is to enforce contracts and discourage fraud. This is too limited for my tastes and allows for the consolidation of power by a few that leads to manipulation of the market and undermines the rights of all others. I think government has the duty to prevent this infringement by a few on the rights of the general populace.

Obama is up there fighting to give the country back to us. The corporations are using Paul Rand, the Tea Party and Fox news et al to try and keep the country for themselves as the rulers. When you need money to survive and the corps hold all of it, you are not free. We need to fight for our country and OUR freedom. We have more value than as working slaves kept poor by a corporate feudalism/fascism. Self reliance is meaningless when you cannot earn enough money to even survive.

I am not sure just how much Obama is fighting against corporatism. Other than that I agree with your analysis. I would like to see him do more to define corporations and companies as non-person entities. I do not know what is view is on this. From what I have seen, I am not impressed with his efforts on this issue. And I am totally against Rand and Ron Paul's position on this issue.

Tim, would you consider yourself a leftist-libertarian? -that's just what it sounds like. There's not a whole lot of ya'll out there, most just take it to the next level and consider themselves anarcho-communists, or social anarchists. It's like night and day with what most people consider libertarianism to be. What are your views on property rights? If it had to be one or the other, should everything be public or private?

Obama is a corporatist, in no way is he trying to take power away from corporations for the benefit of the people. Monopolies work only through the use of force, and a truly free market is based on voluntary interactions, that's why monopolies are not part of the free market.

I am not sure just how much Obama is fighting against corporatism. Other than that I agree with your analysis. I would like to see him do more to define corporations and companies as non-person entities.

Tim, Wouldn't that be difficult for President Obama to accomplish now that the Supreme Court has decided that corporations are in fact persons or person entities? How do you think the President should go about it?

Thank you for your insights.

What are your views on property rights? If it had to be one or the other, should everything be public or private?

I believe the more people your actions impact the more people have the right, no duty, to set limits on those actions to minimize the negative impact on their individual rights. So it depends. It does not have to be one or the other. In fact, society in my opinion should set the basic general rules and objectives and leave it to individuals to achieve these goals as they see best. We all agree that killing others on a whim is not desirable. It is societies duty to set this rule by consensus along with the idea of due process and leave it to individuals to come up with services that minimize the occurrence of murder. In this case we have come up with laws and jury trials.

I do not believe in government ownership of the means of production, but do strongly believe in the government, as the agent of the society in general, being the overseer and enforcement arm of the society. Your home or TV or car or sporting equipment is yours and is subject to minimal intrusion by society. Part of the intrusion for your home might include building codes that reduce the likelihood that your property will damage mine and others. The basic concept here is that the bigger the operation the more potential for that operation to negatively impact the lives and properties of others. The more likely this potential the more societal oversight that is warranted. It is still your property, but your ability to do with it what you want is tempered by the potential damage those actions may cause others, infringement on their rights.

Rank,

Tim, Wouldn't that be difficult for President Obama to accomplish now that the Supreme Court has decided that corporations are in fact persons or person entities? How do you think the President should go about it?

Yes it is. And it will be either until we get rid of the activist Roberts court or we pass a Constitutional amendment that clearly differentiates between people and social constructs of all kinds, including corporations. This would then allow Congress to pass legislation that pertains to these constructs as they exist without them being confused with human beings.

chAng,

Thanks for your reply.

The question I raise is not how a free market would operate in theory but from a practical standpoint. Though I'm surely no expert on these subjects, I've got a fairly good grasp on the principles of free markets in their authentic sense.

What I question is humankind's ability to meet the ideals of these principles. Any armchair student of U.S. economic history should readily know that lack of regulation is a welcome mat to abuse of workers, the environment and consumers. I have no confidence that incentives steered by consumer choice would remove or even diminish the corporatism this country is suffering.

I also question whether Big Business would welcome an actual free market environment. All the subsidies would cease, leveling the playing field in ways we haven't had since...when? Ever? I think not because, from what I've learned, the U.S. has never in its history had a true free market system. This is part and parcel of the ruling class and how it has worked the U.S. economic system to its advantage at the expense of the rest of us.

BTW, I understand your leanings toward anarchy. I'm not sure I share your opinion on capitalism even if it's tempered by anarchy because this country has yet to learn if that system would work.

Basically, private property does not give you the right to deny others their rights. That is where it ends for me. I do not have the right to discriminate without just cause against people using a public accommodation. Your home is not a public accommodation nor is your lawn, car, tv, etc. But a store is a public accommodation. Its purpose is for the public to enter and purchase your goods or services. You are not allowed to discriminate in this aspect without just cause. The same with employment. Qualifications are just cause. If you can demonstrate a justification why skin color, religious belief, sex, ethnicity, or any other factor is just cause for denying this individual the right to earn a living you are well with in your rights. If not, you are in violation.

It is not ownership where I put my emphasis. It is in justification of denying an individual access to the expression of their more basic rights to pursue survival. Those rights trump property, all things being equal. Justification would require a comparison starting with the most fundamental requirements and rights of each individual and working up a hierarchy of rights. As the individual in the position of denying access to the other individual the burden of proof lies with the denier. Why is this individual being treated different than those individuals? That is the question and that is the burden of proof.

"It is not ownership where I put my emphasis. It is in justification of denying an individual access to the expression of their more basic rights to pursue survival." -So if a person is starving, on the verge of death even, they have a right to steal food from me?

All regulations and stuff you are advocating are preventative measures, under statutory law. We had clear protections of individual rights and property before that under common law, only any dispute was settled after the fact, so to speak. In common law everyone has their inalienable rights and exclusive ownership of their property, they are free to do anything, and use their property as they see fit, up until the point where it infringes on someone elses property, or inalienable rights. So the difference in view is really if things should be prevented through the use of force of the government, or if things should be settled after the fact, leaving everyone with true freedom, and bearing the burden of responsibility for those freedoms.

VisionCoast, in reference to your point about corporations being in the way for a self regulating free market to really work, that's where I see a conflict in libertarian ideals, and is why I think anarcho-capitalism is the only way to achieve a self regulating free market. As corporations only enjoy a limited liability status due to government protections, no government equals no corporations. In a practical sense, we could contract services federal agencies now provide from private business. With a truly free market in place, compitition would act as a check and balance system. Dispute resolution organizations (DRO's) could enforce the agreed to terms in voluntary contracts, as the repercussions of not fullfilling ones obligation to the contract would be agreed upon at the time of entering into that contract. I could send you some further info on all this if you want. This site is about philosophy and anarcho-capitalism in general. http://www.freedomainradio.com

The assertion that "no government equals no corporations" is a new one to me, one that's an attractive alternative to the corporatism we're experiencing. But I wouldn't sign on to simply vacillate from one extreme system to another. Nor do I place much trust in checks and balances, for several reasons. It appears idealistic to me, and we rarely—if ever—live up to our ideals.

I can't imagine a system that operates with no oversight, one that is adjusted only by the actions of the populace. Honestly, I can't envision how this would work effectively. For example, if we had the DROs you mention, how would we know in whose interest they're behaving before we had the outcomes they would create? Further, if we dissolved all government agencies and handed over their tasks to the private sector, we would have to contribute to their profits. Why should we pay for that? To be free of government? Or, despite contributing to profit, would consumer costs decrease over the long term?

This is an interesting concept. Thanks for the link. I've already found some interesting content there and will keep looking.

So the difference in view is really if things should be prevented through the use of force of the government, or if things should be settled after the fact, leaving everyone with true freedom, and bearing the burden of responsibility for those freedoms.

The part where I take exception with your view is that all regulations that we have today are in reaction, after the fact, as you put it. Limits on mercury contamination or asbestos came in to effect after people were injured. They were enacted in an awkward attempt to prevent FUTURE additional injuries. We don't have a regulation I am aware of that is truly proactive prevention.

The only regulation I think is necessary today is that boards and top management can not hide behind the corporation when the corporate culture they create results in injury; physical, environmental, economic, or to others rights. The way to avoid this personal liability is to demonstrate a culture of adherence to "best practices" in that activity. So far the evidence at the Deep Horizons catastrophe indicates that BP does not have a culture that promotes best practices. They did not use the best technology in blow out preventers and maybe other equipment. They did not follow best practices in their use of the real time data generated for several hours leading up to the disaster. They did not use best practices in report of possible damage to the blow out preventer when pieces of the annular started appearing in the fluids rising out of the drill pipe. They did not use best practices by having the inspections done by the people charged with that function.

Because of this, the board and top officers of the company should be liable under RICO statutes for the 11 deaths as aggravated homicide (murder for money) and all the costs associated with clean up and the economic damage done to businesses and individuals affected by the spill. Because of the last item listed above the same is true for the individuals in the government that did not do their job of inspecting the operation and traced over in ink the inspection reports supplied by BP.

No regulation telling BP how to drill or what precautions would be necessary if this one regulation was implemented. In fact no other regulation would be needed for any other business either. It applies as well to every industry and government. And it should apply to government.

tim

in a dream world that is all possible, but we are humans, and humans stink.

money, money, money, money. money!

Tim:

Because of this, the board and top officers of the company should be liable under RICO statutes for the 11 deaths as aggravated homicide (murder for money) and all the costs associated with clean up and the economic damage done to businesses and individuals affected by the spill.

Couldn't agree more. Imagine the fallout if BP was held accountable, as it should be. We could learn something valuable from the French.

And I can't help but wonder how one of the Tea party's favorite talking head feels about her "Drill, baby, drill!" cheer now. The silence is deafening.

hey, sometimes accidents happen. oh, and rand paul is a schmuck.

Couldn't agree more. Imagine the fallout if BP was held accountable, as it should be. We could learn something valuable from the French.

Not just the corporation. More important is holding the people in the corporation that create the policies and practices personally responsible. A CEO will think much harder about the potential downside of a policy decision if s/he is not confident of the ability to have the corporation take the consequences of his/her actions and still get the golden parachute or retention bonus after destroying the company, environment, life of an employee, life of a customer, life of a member of the general public, or economy.

800,

I think we need this because we don't live in a perfect world. Right now we have a system where a CEO does not consider the impact of his/her policy decisions on them personally. The consequences are limited to the effect on the corporation. This leads to the attitude of "who cares, I still have my millions and my golden parachute.". This leads to poor decision making. If that CEO is personally responsible to the point of losing everything, materially, monetarily, and freedom (jail time), they are much more likely to make policy that reduces negative impacts on society and individuals. It is a suggestion based on the fact that it is not a dream world and people are flawed.

tim

money drives things. yes, we need the regulation, but at this time, the corporations deem money to be more important than human life (no regulation), and for whatever reason, many fiscal conservatives agree. like i said, rand paul, and his ilk, are schmucks. i am human, but i do not love money.

I agree 800. That is why my idea is to punish this attitude and active policy making with total forfeiture of wealth and personal freedoms by incarceration. It is totally unacceptable to put money, wealth, and power ahead of the rights of others and any violation of this principle should receive the harshest punishments, including loss of these driving desires. Hit those that will abuse where it will cause them the most pain personally.

I agree the Rand and those that follow that extreme belief in property over human life are schmucks, to put it mildly. And I disagree that a free society has to tolerate these actions to be free. We do not tolerate murders and rapists to be free to inflict their harm on individuals and society. We should not tolerated these "murders and rapists" to inflict theirs.

It reminds me of the memorable movie quote: "It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business."

Make consequences personal and watch how fast policies and practices change—insofar as they effect profit and loss. Also responsible are the inspectors and other government officials who turn a blind eye to industry practices. After all, protecting the country and its citizens is the government's No. 1 job.

We get an "F" grade on this report card.

...the corporations deem money to be more important than human life (no regulation), and for whatever reason, many fiscal conservatives agree...

We are enduring an epidemic of people whose brains cannot process information that doesn't conform to their ideologies. I think we can safely say that many fiscal "conservatives" are operating under a misnomer and are more accurately described as Mammon worshippers. How else would we identify those who value money over life?

in china and japan, they execute those who have committed the most egregious errors, such as putting toxins in baby food. good for them. i am sure that it is a deterrent to some.