Forum Post: Common ground v. divide and conquer - Abuse of power is the enemy, not each other
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 13, 2011, 1:55 a.m. EST by EndTheFedNow
(692)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
"Look at the latitude," Nader says, referring to the potential for cooperation between libertarians and the left. "Military budget, foreign wars, empire, Patriot Act, corporate welfare—for starters. When you add those all up, that's a foundational convergence. Progressives should do so good."
I thought I'd bring up the subject of Ron Paul with Nader after seeing the two jointly interviewed on Fox Business Channel in January. Nader had caught me off guard when he identified an emergent left-libertarian alliance as "today's most exciting new political dynamic." It was easy to foresee objections that the left might raise: if progressives are in favor of expanding the welfare state, how well can they really get along with folks who go around quoting the likes of Hayek and Rothbard?
[..]
"Libertarians like Ron Paul are on our side on civil liberties. They're on our side against the military-industrial complex. They're on our side against Wall Street. They're on our side for investor rights. That's a foundational convergence," he exhorts. "It's not just itty-bitty stuff."
[..]
"Ron Paul has always been anti-corporate, anti-Federal Reserve, anti-big banks, anti-bailouts," Nader says. "I mean, they view him in the same way they view me on a lot of these issues. .."
http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/28/ralph-nader-hearts-ron-paul-ha
When you see these people trying to divide us with their left/right/Democrat/Republican/progressive/libertarian paradigms - rise above it! We need to unite for the win so we can take back our freedom from the sociopaths in government. It is they who write the laws that enable corporations and banks because they're in bed with them. Separation of business and state, NOW!
There are some thorny differences between Paulite libertarianism and general OWS sentiment. Most centrally, Paulites generally advocate financial deregulation, while OWS almost universally demands increased financial regulation. If you've got a straightforward resolution for this disparity, I'm anxious to hear it, and I would love to have more reason to be hopeful.
What the "more regulation" people don't grasp is that it's regulation (i.e., laws) that allow corporations and banks to get away with what they do. They rely upon their cronies in government to PREVENT free enterprise and create a legal environment favorable to big business. This is a HIGHLY regulated, anti free enterprise system. Just read a trade agreement and you'll see what I mean. This is crony capitalism, which is fascism. Big business couldn't do any of this without the express permission of government. As long as there is a business-government nexus, IT WILL NOT CHANGE, because corporations have the money to buy politicians, and they do. Any contact between the two has to be verboten. We can reinstate Glass-Steagall and the politicians will still vote for bailouts. We will still have corporate socialism (public risk for private profit). ALL subsidies for ALL business must end. No govt involvement whatsoever. As long as that is allowed, there will be payoffs, bribery, and corruption - GUARANTEED.
Thanks for illustrating the problem, ETFN. Moreover, thank you for illustrating why the protest needs to put pressure on Wall Street in particular -- Wall Street represents giant corporate business interests more clearly than any other place, entity, or notion on the entire planet.
I'd urge you to remember that big businesses tend to annihilate all competition in an unregulated environment -- monopolization and collusive behavior was a big part of the lead-up to the Great Depression. An unregulated market is no more free than cavemen were free -- the strong thrive, and all others exist only at their behest. Deregulation isn't the answer; a concerted effort to specifically regulate big business is warranted (probably with stricter laws that contain small- and medium-business exceptions and allowances). Some subsidies are also warranted, in desirable industries that have records of responsible behavior -- the agricultural industry, in many ways, fits this description. The financial sector, in particular, has demonstrated grave irresponsibility; now is NOT the time to give them absolute free rein. If, over the coming years, our financial sector can demonstrate responsible behavior, we can try gradually unbinding them -- but they've got a LOT of trust to recapture before we can do so.
The financial sector OWNS government. The relationship is one of lender/debter and the borrower is always the slave to the lender. The banks rose to the level of power they have today by funding wars (all sides).
Agricultural subsidies have destroyed small farming. They pay farmers NOT to grow. They subsidize millionaires and billionaires. They have allowed anti life monstrosities like Monsanto to poison our food supply and patent seeds. Ag subsidies are corporate socialism.
It is REGULATION that has made big pharma and given these death purveyors a monopoly on medicine. It is REGULATION that sends SWAT teams to health food stores and co-ops to arrest and destroy small businesses selling healthy food.
And on and on it goes. There's a foundational difference between the totally-free-markets-at-any-cost perspective (Paulites) and the responsible governance perspective (OWS, for the most part). This is why I hesitate to accept the notion that Paulites can co-exist within this movement. We all agree something's wrong, but we absolutely disagree on how to deal with it. I don't find coexistence inconceivable, merely quite improbable.
SO if there is no regulation bribery and corruption will go away. Absolute nonesense.
Theoretically, we have a system in place to arbitrate that kind of disagreement. It's not working properly, at the moment. So we should be focusing on repairing it.
Yeah, ok, I'm being coy. The system is called democracy, and it's not working because the central goal of governance has been subjugated to the goal of fundraising. I submit that we could rally around fixing that, and then letting a more functional democracy arbitrate the policy disputes. Get money out of governance.
"Get money out of governance." By what means? Even at this stage, most OWS people will say, "regulate more," and most Paulites will say, "regulate less." I agree, we've got a lot in common in our outlooks, but there's an 800-pound gorilla here that's going to start beating its chest and throwing around the furniture the instant we transition from the "There's a problem" statement to the "Here's how to fix it" discussion.
The thing to be aware of with regulation is the regulating body will be the first thing the corporations buy. The regulating bodies need to be removed from corporate money as well. Just like the congress.
For sure. Responsible governance is the most difficult task facing humanity, because it pits us against our most basic impulses. It tasks us with managing our cleverest, most intelligent, and most driven individuals along with the great expanse of the average and the unfortunate nadirs of mediocrity, all for our mutual best interests. Nevertheless, we've no choice but to attempt it.
The specific demands that are being bandied about are:
1) Enact Strong Campaign Finance Reform.
2) Expel the Lobbyists.
3) End Corporate Personhood.
4) Disclose Private Finances of Congress.
5) Enact Congressional Term Limits.
These demands are systemic reforms. There are more ideas to close other loopholes, but I think this is the right track. What do you think?
Point being, Paulites will likely have problems with anything that forces corporations and rich people to change their economic behavior.
Without giving a yea or nay on them from my own perspective, I'm thinking #'s 1, 2, and 3 are going to lead pretty straightforwardly to things Paulites don't like. Campaign Finance reform means audits, and lots of them, and a bunch that will play hob with corporate interests. Removing lobbyists means big new restrictions on how rich people can spend their money (and probably more audits!). And, ending corporate personhood clashes with libertarian ideals on how people ought to relate to corporations, and how corporations ought to behave in society generally. Paulites would probably also have plaints on #4 (unwarranted and intrusive!), though I think they'd yield on them pretty readily.
Yes, I'm strawmanning a bit (sorry Paulites), but I think that any list of demands given on behalf of OWS that doesn't include "Increased Financial Regulations" seriously misrepresents OWS, by ignoring the sentiment that irresponsible banking practices significantly contributed to our current situation.
I agree. Lets focus on the common ground and pound away at those issues with whoever agrees with them, regardless of affiliation.
:-)
I have voted for both Ralph Nader and Ron Paul. Nader is right, we have common ground. I'm sick of those pushing confining ideologies just to see us divided.
Yes! Though I think we need fundamental changes to our political system rather than just a new politician. The environment of Washington is one of corruption and even the most honest, iron-willed, well-meaning politician will eventually succumb to it's temptations.
Change the rules of the game and the players will fall in line.
Ron Paul has never succumbed and doesn't see lobbyists. That said, Ralph Nader is not making an endorsement of Paul's presidential run, rather he's calling on us to work together on the critical issues that we agree on. We work together we can end these damn wars, repeal the abusive laws like the PATRIOT Act, restore habeas corpus, close foreign military bases, rein in the military-industrial complex, repeal telecom immunity, protect health freedoms, abolish big phama and big ag monopolies, end corporate welfare, stop bailouts, and abolish the Fed which is the main mechanism for the transfer of wealth from Main Street to Wall Street and to the bankster families of America and Europe. Or not. We can overlook our common desires and focus on what we don't agree on and be defeated.
Be very cautious of Ron Paul and their supporters they are wolves in sheeps clothing. One of my biggest problems with Ron Paul is his stance on deregulation, and his confessed racism, lets not forget what one of rand pauls supporters did to a woman at one of his rallies(stomped on her neck) SO BEWARE
People need to be very cautious of you and the BS you're spewing. You embody the sinister and dishonest attempts to keep people divided through deception.
The guy who stepped on that woman was a thug, just as the SEIU goons who assaulted a black man for opposing the health care bill were thugs. Your divide and conquer efforts fuel that type of hostility between people who otherwise may work together for mutual benefit. Keep on sewing those seeds of hate while the rest of us go in the other direction.
BS not BS at all but fact. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txU55iFG9UA
nonono! Business, government - it's all us. It's not some aliens from Gamma quadrant (I hope).
I posted on this, so I won't copy it here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/one-direction/