The latest rhetorical tantrum thrown by pouty-faced foot stompers who are seeing a decline in the legislation of their religious beliefs, and the special privileges that have come with it.
Their claims that they support liberty, freedom and individual sovereignty have been exposed for the facades they are.
The masks are coming off.
ReplyDeleteFascism exists on segments of both sides; they might disagree on some things such as foreign policy and religion (one wants to eliminate religion, the other wants theocracy), but both want to empower government and crony capitalists.
More of this is better, so they both de-legitimize themselves.
Well said!
DeleteYes. Both "sides" want to grow government. Sometimes they disagree on how fast. Of course, since all government wealth and power comes at the expense of the people (they gain = we lose) this is bad in so many ways.
DeleteWhat we need is both "sides" pushing to reduce the size of government.
The wealth and power of the plutocrats comes at the expense of The People (they gain = we lose). Unbelievably there are some who wish to further empower the plutocrats do they can become even more wealthy and powerful. The way to do this? Shrink government. Which is why those on the side of The People will push to increase the size of government (which needs to be large enough to restrain the plutocrats).
ReplyDeleteDervish's ideology is the reason the citizen just pay tax and obtain a license to cut and arrange flowers......as but one example.
DeleteThe antithesis of liberty.
CI said: "The antithesis of liberty."
DeletePerfect summary, since "Dervish's ideology" sees every thing the State can prevent the people from doing as an advance.
Yes, CI's "summary" was "perfect"... Except that I said nothing about getting a license for cutting or arranging flowers. I spoke of plutocrats, not ordinary citizens. It is easy to understand the confusion, however... given the fact that CI and dmarks are most concerned about the rights of plutocrats. Plutocrats are "the people" in their minds... the only people who matter, that is... although I don't know of any plutocrats who have accumulated vast wealth cutting and arranging flowers!
DeleteThose who abhor individual liberty are prone to long-winded diatribes with a scripted personality focus. They are also the ones who, despite the sordid history behind it, liberally invoke "the people". For extra credit, this sometimes precedes "democratic".
Delete...just like in the official names of Red China and East Germany, CI.
DeleteWhich ironically exemplified the power of the 'plutocrat' better than the poor harangue from Dervish.
DeleteYes, in order for plutocrats to have real power, the most power possible, there needs to be a socialist system, or some other such system in place.
DeleteActually, the system that would give the plutocrats the most power would be Libertarianism.
DeleteIt's pretty funny, CI.
ReplyDeleteIf one researches the history of libertarianism, you will see schools of thought dating to the Age of Enlightenment: intellectuals, revolutionaries, great thinkers, those who railed against the entrenched aristocracy. I tried to find any sort of "plutocrat" among them. I should have known that looking for them was a waste of time.
ReplyDeleteThe Koch Brothers are libertarian plutocrats. Libertarianism = do what's best for the plutocrats.
DeleteLibertarianism does not go back to the age of enlightenment, it was invented in 1946 by FEE, which was the first Libertarian think tank. FEE (which CI has cited) was put together by a number of large corporations as a lobbying/propaganda organization to indoctrinate people into "Libertarianism" (do what's best for the plutocrats).
You looking (which I doubt you did) was a waste of time because you did not find that which you did not wish to find.
Dervish did not find a factual account. But he did find an opinion piece from a hard-left editorial site.
DeleteOf course he bases his position on a left wing OpEd....you wouldn't really expect him have read The Concept of Human Dignity in the French and American Enlightenments: Religion, Virtue, Liberty or Pioneers of American Freedom: Origin of Liberal and Radical Thought in America [as but two examples].....now would you?
DeleteI've not read them yet, but appreciate learning about them. Will put them on my list and read these.
DeleteIgnorance about matters is unavoidable. But willful ignorance... one has to be a real dolt to revel in that.
And the real plutocrats (if you go by the top 1% as your criteria) are for the most part doctors, lawyers, dentists, architects, engineers, accountants, optometrists, chiropractors, administrators, small business entrepreneurs, etc.; people, in other words, who've gone to college for 6 to 8 years and spent the better part of a decade establishing themselves by working 60 plus hour weeks. Instead of denigrating these people, we should be celebrating them.
DeleteAnd libertarianism goes back more than 70 years. It was just labeled something else; classical liberalism.............P.S. Some additional libertarian writers to check out are Robert Higgs, Ralph Raico, John V. Denson and of course the classic works of Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, and Hazlitt.
DeleteDictionary: Plutocracy defines a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth.
DeleteWill Hart: we should be celebrating these people (plutocrats).
Me: Proof that Libertarians worship wealth and hate democracy.
No. You've proven that you can continue to rely on unsupported [and pedestrian] blanket assertions...and still think that you're the smartes guy in the room. All without realizing that the joke is on you.
Deletedmarks: Dervish did not find a factual account.
DeleteIt is 100 percent factual... FEE itself confirms that members of their organization were called before congress in 1950. Although their spin is that they were victims of a "witch hunt". But the FEE spin does not change the fact that this organization (the first Libertarian thin tank) represents the thinking behing the modern Libertarian movement. It was (and is) a business lobby whose objective is pushing for economic policies that behefit the plutocrats.
That CI, dmarks and Will are reveling in their doltish ignorance re the true history of modern Libertarianism does not change this history.
Note that Dervish now employs the rhetorical device of modern Libertarianism.....apparently thinking that we wouldn't notice his clumsy dodge.
DeleteVery clumsy... when in fact libertarianism is the most plutocrats HOSTILE ideology.
DeleteIt was not a dodge. I was simply clarifying - in response to Will's claim that "It was just labeled something else". No, it was not. Libertarianism can claim this, but to does not make it true. Although many who call themselves Libertarians have been duped into believing this, but the Libertarian party is a front for big business. As such, Libertarianism is VERY friendly to the desires of the plutocrats.
DeleteAh, yes.....clarifying. Of course.
Deletebut the Libertarian party is a front for big business
You can likewise claim any things....but this does not make them true. You do follow the script well though. Libertarianism is friendly to business...both large and small. It's not Libertarianism that is going after raw milk vendors at farmers markets......and it's not Progressives who are standing up for them. But given you're previous statements on the free market...I do know exactly where you're coming from. And it's not a good place.
One wonders how you treat the plutocrats of your own camp.
Maybe it can be said that libertarianism is more neutral to business than "friendly".
DeleteSo much of what makes corrupt private - sector plutocrats salivate? Opposed by libertarians. Special industry-targeted (cough: donor payoff) tax-breaks, corporate welfare, and other gifts to big business, regulations designed solely to create private monopolies.... all tend to be opposed by libertarians.
And CI is right... while the progressives will go for the throat of Main Street /small businesses, libertarians will stand up for them.
dmarks: Special industry-targeted (cough: donor payoff) tax-breaks, corporate welfare, and other gifts to big business, regulations designed solely to create private monopolies.... all tend to be opposed by libertarians.
DeleteThe plutocrats will utilize every avenue available for making money. If they can use government to make money, they will. Although they would prefer to get government out of the way by deregulating, removing consumer protections, taking away protections for workers, etc... everything advocated for by Libertarians, in other words.
CI: You can likewise claim any things....but this does not make them true.
History makes them true (Fee started by a coalition of the biggest of big businesses). I linked to an article that gave the facts, I was not "just saying" anything.
You weren't making blanket statements about FEE, you were making blanket statements about Libertarianism.
DeleteSo we've discovered after all of this, that you hold Libertarians in just as much disdain as we hold "progressives". And we all care just as much about each others opinions.
Congratulations. Now go revel in the fact that nearly very action and activity conducted by the citizen is regulated and taxed [often at multiple levels]. Once again, congratulations.
wd is very selective in his outage. He hammers the Koch brothers but lets slide guys like Al Gore and Geoffrey Immelt.......And as far as Obama goes, this is how HE operates - a) He took massive amounts of cash from the big-wigs at Google and alakazam, Google skated on its anti-trust and illegal manipulation charges less than 2 months into his administration. b) He assigned a fellow by the name of Mark Ernst to craft the new tax preparation law which would have had as one of it's side effects the putting out of business of a lot of small guys and did I mention that Mark Ernst was a former bi-wig at H&R Block? c) He had as his main business adviser GE's Jeffrey Immelt and damned if this whole green energy scam hasn't benefited that company immensely. d) For some strange reason he gave Philip Morris a seat at the table in the crafting of the tobacco bill and that legislation quite literally solidified their status as the #1 tobacco company (they apparently already had the new testing equipment and the smaller companies didn't). e) The stimulus package itself was a veritable grab-bag for corporate America; big tech, big energy, big concrete, big pharma, etc.. And f) the dude was against the individual mandate until he got a boatload of money from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries and then he was for it; forcing American citizens at gunpoint to purchase their product.......You're right, CI, he doesn't care about "plutocrats" in his own camp.............And I don't worship people with money. I respect people who do something with their life and accomplish something. Big difference.
DeleteAnd how can libertarians be pro big business when they are opposed to ALL bailouts and ALL corporate welfare?............And I most assuredly consider people like Frederic Bastiat, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison libertarian.
DeleteAnd there are so many ways the idea of libertarianism being the ideology of the very rich/plutocrats can be disproven:
Deletehttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/jun/23/do-many-billionaires-support-democratic-party/
The very rich are more aligned with the left than anything else.
So, objectively, one can say that the Democrats are a front for big business more than the Republicans are.... and much much more than the libertarians are.
DeleteEvery instance of corrupt crony capitalism, of government serving wealthy corporate elites, that Mr. Sanders is confronted on, he ends up defending. From TARP handouts to banksters to the costly auto bailout (paying them to byild factories in China) to gifts to energy scamming companies to help them build stuff in China also.
DeleteHe shows a strong dedication to government service to corporate interests that all others in this discussion completely lack.
While libertarians may be friendly to big and small businesses, crony-capitalists like Mr. Sanders are "friends with benefits" to the wealthy interests.
dmarks: And there are so many ways the idea of libertarianism being the ideology of the very rich/plutocrats can be disprove.
DeleteWhat this shows is that you don't know what a plutocrat is (contrary to dmarks' "joke" that I think mom & pop small business owners are plutocrats). And Will admits he does not know who the plutocrats are on his blog! (Will Hart, from his post Notes on the "Plutocrats"... QUOTE: "I'm still not entirely certain who these individuals are").
The Democratic Party wishes to raise taxes on the wealthy. Rich people who support the Democratic party are supporting the idea of raising taxes on themselves! Plutocrats donate to politicians in exchange for actions that are beneficial to themselves.
Which isn't to say that billionaires never donate to Democrats in order to curry political favor, it's just that a list of donations doesn't prove WHY the support is occurring.
And Dennis lies (and he KNOWS he lies) when he says I defended the TARP handouts. I strongly opposed this legislation signed by George W. bush. I also have never supported any "gifts" to "energy scamming companies to build stuff in China". The lie that the auto bailout funded moving jobs to China is a Romney campaign lie that one of those fact-checking websites debunked.
I am strongly opposed to "government service to corporate interests". Unless there is an aligning of interests, as with green energy, which would be very beneficial to the American People. dmarks opposes such things because he cares more for the interests of the wealthy (over the interests of the American people).
Will lies as well, with his list above (implying I support all this, or am "silent"). I am 100 percent opposed to crony capitalism.
Nope. If you wish to continue your obsession with commenters from blogs that you're banned from....do so on one of your many fetish sites.
DeleteThe unnecessary auto bailout had not moved jobs to Chins at the time Romney made his statement. But it happened afterwards. However the issue is corporate welfare, not what Romney said.
DeleteFetish sites is correct, CI.
DeleteNot that there is anything wrong with that....
Well, there's fetish....then there's you have some serious mental issues that you may want to have looked at....
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteReferences to the blogs involved in this infantile tantrum will forthwith be summarily deleted. As will equally infantile exclamations of 'liars' and 'lying'.
DeleteAs will further off-topic posts regarding 'plutocrats', in this thread at least.
It's your blog, your rules. Quite fair.
DeleteThe auto bailout saved a LOT of jobs. I'm not defending it in it's entirety, by the way... the bailout was absolutely the right thing to do, but the government shouldn't have sold it's stake in the company so soon (and lost money). Instead they gave into pressure from those slinging the "Government Motors" ad hominem and sold off the shares prematurely. According to NBC News "the company now is sitting on $26.8 billion in cash (as of 12/2013) and "since leaving bankruptcy, GM has been profitable for 15 straight quarters, racking up almost $20 billion in net income". So we did end up giving the automakers a big taxpayer gift. But we could have bailed them out (which was the right thing to do) without the gift.
Delete"Secular Jihadists"? Sounds like something that O'Reilly would come up with.
ReplyDeleteRight. While CI has been crystal clear in his connents, I could not figure out what the parent post was about. For once.
Delete"Secular jihadists" is the latest pejorative spewed by those who would see unequal protection under the law for their fellow citizens, and the legislation/codification of their religious beliefs....complete with institutional recognition and special benefits/privileges bestowed upon them....again...at the expense of their fellow citizens.
DeleteAfter the Obergefell ruling....many across the land have a terminal case of the sad that the above is no longer the law of the land.
Got it, just needed a little clarification. I had mis-read (my bad) that you were attacking some sort of secularists, instead of attacking those who are using this certain label of against others.
DeleteNow, if only ALL of those who read and comment on this blog so readily admitted and corrected their ignorance when it comes up.
As for GM having "sitting on $26.8 billion in cash (as of 12/2013)"
DeleteConsidering that as of the same month, GM still had not paid back $11 billion of the handout from the federal government. Can we all agree that there is no reason that GM shouldn't pay this back?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2013/12/09/taxpayers-dont-have-government-motors-to-kick-around-any-more/
When I listed the multiple examples of welfare to wealthy interests that Mr. Sanders defended, I erroneously included TARP. I was thinking of either Jersey or Ducky in that instant. I admit this error, and was wrong to accuse Mr. Sanders of supporting this one particular handout.
ReplyDeleteRe TARP, Jersey said, "crooked people are going to raid our tax dollars" and Ducky said, "we are GIVING money to the capitalist pukes that did boom-boom all over the economy". Does not sound to me like either of these two defended TARP. (Note: see my "fetish site" for links/proof).
ReplyDeleteI won't address external links, as per the blog host's request.
ReplyDeleteYou could address the comments. Unless you think I "faked" them.
DeleteCI never made a request that you not visit my "fetish site". You could view and address the comment there (where I have links/proof). Unless dmarks decides to cop out.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI will answer here if C.I. requests it. It's his blog, and he is on a short fuse when it compares to off topic stuff. And this sort of "he said, he said" stuff which has nothing to do with secular jihadists is far afield. Up to the blog host....
ReplyDelete