Forum Post: The REAL 1% is the State
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 24, 2011, 9:06 a.m. EST by libertarianincle
(312)
from Cleveland, OH
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
"The 1 percent do not generate any wealth of their own. Everything they have they get by taking from others under the cover of law. They live at our expense. Without us, the state as an institution would die."
"Let's understand through a simple example. Let's say you go into a restaurant and hate the wallpaper. You can complain and try to persuade the owner to change it. If he doesn't change it, you can decide not to go back. But if you break in, take money out of the cash register, buy paint, and cover the wallpaper yourself, you will be charged with criminal wrongdoing and perhaps go to jail. Everyone in society agrees that you did the wrong thing.
But the state is different. If it doesn't like the wallpaper, it can pass a law (or maybe not even that) and send a memo. It can mandate a change. It doesn't have to do the repainting: the state can make you repaint the place. If you refuse, you are guilty of criminal wrongdoing.
Same goals, different means, two very different sets of criminals. The state is the institution that essentially redefines criminal wrongdoing to make itself exempt from the law that governs everyone else."
The state is bad, I agree, but the government is different than the state. Government is supposed to be a bunch of people who represent our ideals. Obviously it's nothing like that now. This is because big business bought the best congress money can buy.
1% lobbies for special favors from the government. take the special favors away from government so they won't be able to hand them out.
The 99 percent is lobbying, that's the point. Your side only wants the 1 percent to rule us. Their rule is over.
And I thought you righties thought the 1 percent were holy.
my side? give me a break. i have been complaining about this shit a lot longer than most of the people here, who mostly have poor ideas on how to fix it. and you are kidding yourself if you think this fight is anywhere near over. half the 99% sounds like they just want special favors for themselves, rather than getting them out of the system entirely.
I want equal favors.
there will never be equal favors, for then they wouldn't be favors at all.
Then get the State OUT of our lives.
I am for smashing the state.
Government, we need.
Move it to a local and community level I agree.
Read Top Secret America by Dana Priest. That shit will blow your mind.
The Pentagon lost 2.3 trillion in 2002.
You do know the military is the state.
Absolutely! That is where we need scaled down the most.
No, clearly the 1% are the 1%.
Taken literally, the top 1 percent of American households had a minimum income of $516,633 in 2010 — a figure that includes wages, government transfers and money from capital gains, dividends and other investment income.
...
When you look at the disparity in net worth, things look even more skewed. Wealthier Americans have assets — in home equity, stocks and other investments — that generally outstrip their cash income. Average wealth of the top 1 percent was almost $14 million in 2009
...
By contrast, the poorest households were experiencing declines in net worth even before the recession hit. In 2007, the bottom 20 percent of households had an average (negative!) net worth of –$13,800 in 2007, which fell further to –$27,200 in 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/who-are-the-1-percenters/2011/10/06/gIQAn4JDQL_blog.html
Stay On Target........Stay On Target.........
Matt, I am sorry the point of this article went right over your head. The point is, without federal government involvement, YOUR 1% don't get to be THE 1%
Personal Insults Get You Nowhere.
What allows them to be 1% is an unbalanced tax system designed to allow private people to benefit from a corrupt public institution.
The state is not in inherently evil; It represents the will of those who compose its body.
As of now, people beholden to corporate influences have manipulated that system for their greedy economic self-interests.
These interests involve using the government against the people it was designed to protect by limiting the influence and power of its weakest members, the common working people.
Once taken back by the people and redesigned to ensure that no single individual may gain a disproportional amount of power and representation over his or her fellows, then the institution will become relegitimized (new word).
You article demonizes the idea of government and falls both flat and outside the scope of this particular movement.
I wasn't insulting you. I was saying you missed the point of the article.
"You article demonizes the idea of government and falls both flat and outside the scope of this particular movement."
The fact that you think that is EXACLY why I think OWS will fail.
I'm sorry that my argument is beyond your understanding.
This is not an insult.
:) That is why the ranks of OWS will dwindle, and eventually be co-opted by a Union or another progressive group. You fail to see when and where people agree with you and work for that common ground. Good luck, Matt. You are going to need it.
Thank You for you efforts in attempting to turn me towards a Austrian Economics.
I truly enjoy these engagements when they occur from time to time.
You fail to see where we are aligned as evidence from your post. Our only alignment is likely foreign policy, if that.
This movement does not want more corporate control but less.
Thank You for your suggestion to adopt the Austrian School of Economic thought (aka European corporatism), but I will pass.
Good Luck in you future endeavors.
If you think Austrian Economics supports monopolistic corporate control, I think you better go back to school. Your ignorance is showing.
Your Personal Insults are Showing.
Your Personal Insults are Showing.
households are not the problem, we want households to be wealthy. But we do not want power broker families like the Rockefeller family to become trillion dollar entities that as david rockefeller admits in his book control our government along with other governments around the world.
Paranoia runs deep...
So does herd mentality...
Agree
So I suppose you want corporations like Halliburton running the show?
Corporations like Halliburton wouldn't exist without the government, silly argument...and poor example especially given what Halliburton does and the no-bid contracts they have received FROM government.
That's an ignorant satement.
Haliburton's economic activity is in no way, shape, or form relegated to the US. They are the world's second largest oilfield services corporation with operations in more than 70 countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton
Do you think a smaller company might be able to do the same thing if they were given the chance to bid? Do you think EPA and Government imposed regulations and compliance stifle smaller companies from getting into this field and competing with Halliburton?
Ignorant statement it is not.
I think Capitalism has run it's course and that debating on whether or not smaller companies can compete with bigger companies is tantamount to an apology for an outmoded, unsustainable, unethical and morally bankrupt economic system.
And no, I do not think "a smaller company might be able to do the same thing if they were given the chance to bid", that "EPA and Government imposed regulations and compliance stifle smaller companies from getting into [these] field[s]" or that government is the root of our problems. That is, unless you mean government that has been hijacked by corporations like Halliburton - who systematically use government to destroy competition.
1) Well I am glad you disagree with me without even giving a reason why.
2) We don't have capitalism we have fascism
3) I wouldn't say they have been hijacked, its more of symbiotic relationship. They both (corporations and the State) get rich off each other and screw you and I.
1) I disagree because market dynamics dictate that those with the most buying-power are able to get the best deals and by-extension, offer the best rates, thereby undercutting competition. My grandmother made delicious Jam, but she was never going out-sell Smuckers.
2) I can agree with this assessment, although it seems like kind of a weird hybrid of the two if you ask me. Fascio-Capitalism perhaps.
3) Agreed.
1) Do you ALWAYS by what is cheapest? Secondly, that isn't always true, if you grandmother found a way to make Jam that used half of the energy (I am making this up) than Smuckers, she might be able to compete on price. She certainly would have less overhead.
2) You are correct. I once read it called "Participatory Fascism"
3) We probably agree on a lot more than you think ;)
1) This doesn't hold water. One does not simply 'find' a way to make X using half the resources without enhanced buying power. This goes hand in hand with that old Capitalist dogma of "if you want it bad enough you will find a way to get it". It rejects the reality of the situation in favor of a fantasy.
2) That's an interesting term for it. Unfortunately it's also a right wing slur used to denounce the left. One of those Orwellian newspeak phrases like "class warfare" that attempts to paint the victim as the oppressor.
3) Seems unlikely.
1) I think most entrepreneurs with a good idea would disagree with you
2) Really, who was called a Fascist more, George Bush or Obama? (both are fascist by the way.)
3) Sorry you feel that way. As I told someone else, that is why OWS will fail.
1) Most people who openly call themselves 'entrepreneurs' are well-healed enough to get the capital that they need for whatever venture they are pursuing. Not like the rest of us. As such, these guys are the 1%.
2) Agreed, they are both fascist. But I'm certain that Bush got called one WAY more (not to mention his father, Reagan and everyone in their cabinets)
3) No we won't
Interesting take on it - when you consider there are no laws about insider trading from congress and so many other laws Congress has decided they don't need to follow, I would agree. The problem is that you can't limit the 1% to the state. It's the super-rich and gigantic corporations/banks who are enabling the state. That's why I hope OWS opens the eyes of the people to the corruption. Organized, we can rid ourselves of these corrupt despots.
Agree 100%. Its the symbiotic relationship between those with money and those in government.
Lets look at a simple example. Look at a large monopolistic company like Verizon. I like Verizon, I think they are great at what they do, however, why do you think they back the ONEROUS regulations, compliance issues, etc that get imposed on them by the FCC? Is it because it makes their bottom line better? NO! They have to fund ENTIRE divisions to make sure their products are in complience with the heavy regulations imposed on them. Why do they support this then? Because it prevents me from starting up the Libertarian Cell Phone Company to compete with them. I need to spend ALL of my money getting my product to market, I cannot afford the compliance work. Therefore I am squashed.
I like it! How true, the state is the one percent, they contribute nothing of value to the 99%, have full control but no responsibility or accountability!
Finally OWS can direct their protests in the right direction!
Great post!