Watch, as the folks who decry governmental regulation -- the self-described libertarians who either knowingly or unknowingly shill for the big-ass corporations, those Supreme Court protected entities -- demonstrate the fallacy of their malignantly narcissistic ideology and allow unfettered capitalism to take America down.
You don't have to be an expert to know that all those competing socio-political and economic philosophies are great on paper but fail utterly when put to use by their smarmy emissaries.
Because, as cleverly worded as they may be, as apparently rational as they sound in finally achieving what was thought to be previously impossible symmetry, they ultimately fail to take into consideration the reality of the very agents who constructed and who seek to implement them: that they're human.
And humans, as history mercilessly shows time and time again, are relentlessly, hopelessly flawed and prone to epic greed and highly contagious fear. Once those factors are introduced into the pristine environment of a twee socio-political theory, all those perfectly composed Utopian dreams collapse into painfully obvious psychological swindles.
But the people who espouse those philosophies, almost always swollen with arrogance and power like smug, strutting ticks, rarely show restraint. The misused and abused Founding Fathers, having observed all in the form of fatuous, dewlapped aristocrats, must have foreseen this possibility, and did all they could to build safeguards into the Constitution should such things occur.
And it worked. For a while, anyway.
Because while, certainly, people were as prone to greed and corruption in the 18th century as they are now, they did not have the tools available now to calculate probabilities at superhuman speeds, to sway opinion using far reaching and consciousness-penetrating media, to distract and confuse a citizen's purpose with culture-defining fetishes for gizmos and personality cults.
So now, the shallow approach to capitalism that, say a guy like Rand Paul speaks of, is absolutely discredited by the the most visible icons of libertarian/capitalist philosophies -- big oil, big pharma, big banking -- who have been exposed as the usurer pigs they really are, careless and gutless, destroying the environment and crushing livelihoods.
Of course they loathe regulation. They loathe any impediment to unfettered profit: democracy, morality, sanity. Behold the triumph of the unregulated.
The fucking bastards.
Follow Steven Weber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@TheStevenWeber
Humans are emotional meat bags that can be tricked into voting against their own interests. No, I don't think the founding fathers could fathom the power of today's information age, but they did provide a means of making changes to the constitution through the amendment process.
They wave the Ten Commandments in our face, and decry their absence from our government buildings. They fully accept those "rules" and "regulations," and often use them to infiltrate the most private areas of our personal lives legislatively. Telling us who we can or cannot marry being just one of the most offensive of their "Commands."
Yet when it comes to the natural tendency of some humans, when given too much power and control, to "steal, covet, bear false witness" and even "kill," they demand NO regulations. NO Controls.
They claim the the government has no authority to hinder human freedom. That only the Bilble and God has that right.
Well how do you control immoral behavior that threatens all of us, if these perpetrators don't care about the Ten Commandments?
We must have some form of representative government regulation. A rule of law. Primitive hunter-gatherer societies don't need governments. They know their survival depends on one another, and not crapping in their own nest.
So-called "civilized" societies, however, must be regulated to survive. We bit into the apple from the "Tree of Knowledge," and can no longer be trusted to place "Eden" above our own self interests. Hunter-gatherers don't need the EPA, to realize they won't survive defiling their environment.
Sadly, billionaires in their fancy mansions far from their ecological crimes, do.
I agree with this post for the most part.. the "superhuman speed".. the tools at our disposal today.. those who originally proposed these philosophies couldn't have even imagined what life would be like today... the evolution of those philosophies which brought about inventions and technology that will eventually.. probably.. wipe us all out. How could they foresee that?
But shouldn't they have realized that the less desirable side of humanity would eventually take over and "crumble" their idealistic plan eventually, somehow?
Who is to say that they ALSO wouldn't succumb to those same less than desirable traits? It's clear that the left are human also.. even Obama!
I believe that our founding fathers were aware of this.
This is the bottom line... with all of the greed that has infested this "good on paper" philosophy, what is the alternative?? What is the answer then? And will that answer NOT involve humans??
The Republican / libertarian philosophy is the best option of the two. The left's, the Democratic, philosophy, leaves us even MORE vulnerable to the bad side of humanity.
Giving the government more power.. allows for a small number of humans having MORE power. And if you study history.. you can see very clearly what that always leads to.
We need to stick with the best of the two choices and try to work together to better that choice. And as long as the left use the problems of society to do nothing more than push their agendas (more government control).. we will never make any progress towards bettering the better choice. Liberals, please get out of the way.
kams, liberals are not in the way,
they are just in front of you,
follow the lead.
that's why they are there.
As we have all become accustomed to, you posit, as a statement of fact, that which is no more than a "position" (and not a very sound position) in an ongoing debate.
"The Republican / libertarian philosophy is the best option of the two. The left's, the Democratic, philosophy, leaves us even MORE vulnerable to the bad side of humanity."
This may work as a rhetorical device kams, but in any serious debate you must present support for your position. What "facts" do you present? That the "libertarian philosophy looks good on paper"? That hardly supports it being the "best option". You've completely missed the point.
I'm sure you would argue against this, but the reality is that COMMUNISM looks good on paper. SOCIALISM looks good on paper. Some might even argue that FASCISM looks good on paper.
The point being WE DON'T LIVE on paper. The REAL WORLD seldom works the way it is laid out ON PAPER. Reason would dictate that NO ABSOLUTE PHILOSOPHIES work well in the REAL WORLD. Certain concepts work better to address certain issues, where others fail. A HYBRID is what is needed!
America's ability to choose the best fit for the problem to be resolved, from the multiple ideologies available, has been our strength. Blind adherence to ONE IDEOLOGY, and the refusal to discuss ALL THE OPTIONS, will be our downfall.
Hmmmm..."blind adherence to one ideology" and "refusal to discuss all options"; Who does that sound like?
by "they," the Founding Fathers, they most certainly did recognize the foibles of human nature.
The US Constitution was "their" attempt to circumvent the vicissitudes of such folly. Should "they"
have anticipated "superhuman speed," our modern world of today? The Founding Fathers were
very bright, but I don't know of one who claimed clairvoyance.
which sums up what the Founding Fathers knew only too well: ". . . humans, as history mercilessly shows time and time again, are relentlessly, hopelessly flawed and prone to epic greed and highly contagious fear." This is exactly what the framers of the Constitution recognized when they set
about to design a document which was intended to circumvent the worse of human frailties.
For those who focus instead on some alleged 1790 mind-set which claims the FF were intent
only on "preserving freedoms," they miss the point of the philosophical erudition of these men
who had lived under aristocracy and tyranny, and realized that--sometimes--it's very, very difficult
to love one's neighbor as oneself. Thanks again, Steven Weber, for knocking it out of the park!
Hope for a reciprocal fan in the spirit of networking here on HP.
Both parties have contributed to this mess. NAFTA? Repeal of Glass Steagall? The formation of the WTO? All under Clinton's watch. A Democrat.
Bashing Rebublicans and the right might feel good and give you a sense of superiority, but the truth is both parties have ruined this country.
And those that continue to support this left/right paradigm are as much as fault as the corporations and politicians that take advantage of this divide and conquer strategy.
Our two party system has become two sides of the same coin. Start writing about what is really ruining this country instead of these masturbatory holier than thou rants against the "other" side.
Yes the Republicans can be vile with some of their policies but so can the Democrats. And together it is evil.
Steven, you are just rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic with your partisan rants. And your choice of important sounding words is rather pathetic. Speak to common the man with common words. It's much more effective.
That said, it's easy to prove that in the long view repubs have done substantially more damage to the fragile balance necessary to maintain quality lifestyle.
An example for the common man would be the growth in the national debt. Google it. You'll find the contemporary major culprits to be Reagan, Bush and Bush.
"diatribe" and "rants." ( And you have the audacity to criticize me [on another thread] for
delivering a "cheap shot" when I was merely engaging in satire, using the writer's own words? ) I don't know whether you have any formal background in publishing, but
Steven Weber's fine article is neither a diatribe or a rant.
your smart remark and insulted me.
NAFTA: "Last night's vote culminated an odd political path of a 1992 agreement that Republican President George Bush negotiated to create a free trade zone "from the Yukon to the Yucatan." Bill Clinton tepidly endorsed the pact during last year's campaign."
"A bipartisan coalition of 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats prevailed over the opposition of 156 Democrats, 43 Republicans and one independent."
"Majority Whip David E. Bonior (D-Mich.), who led the House opposition to the trade pact, made a passionate plea at the end of the day-long debate. "It will cost jobs. It will drive down our standard of living," Bonior said. "If we don't stand up for the working people in this country, who is going to?"
Opposition was centered in the industrial Midwest: 59 percent of lawmakers from the seven Great Lakes states voted against NAFTA. In Sun Belt and southern states, stretching from Virginia to California, 57 percent supported the agreement."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/trade/stories/tr111893.htm
please. come again.
correction:
regulate whom a mom and pop business serves is anywhere near the blatant racism of former president clinton's coffee server.
And hey: you ain't wrong. My president is indeed a businessman doing the business presidents do. The world is a business, Mr. Beale ("Network" 1975). As for singling out Dr. Paul (any relation to Ru Paul or Mrs. Paul of fish stick fame?), it's tough not to marvel at the right's blatantly retrograde representatives. I mean, the way you guys (and don't forget Big Mama Gov-ilf Palin) are standing up for the eye doctor who took a wittle beating this week? That's positively liberal!
I do not disagree that Obama is playing the business of politics. You need major campaign finance reform before that old horse will die.
Mom and pop businesses should be held to the same social and civil rights laws as any business – private or public. And trying the sad ploy of "what he's doing is not as bad as what that guy did" shows contempt for all civil rights – period.
Oh, and Lincoln freed the slaves, but the Republican party of 1860 was nothing like today's selfish, narrow-thinking conservative Republican party. Time marched on. Read about it in the history books.
As is the norm, you have your facts wrong. You might actually do some research prior to posting, but I guess you really don't mind looking ignorant, and it would apparently take more effort than you care to exert.
There was more than "one bailout". One, enacted by your previous lord and master, "W", had no restrictions, no oversight, no limits, and no consequence to the recipients if they "misused" the money. This is the money that President Obama was citing as being "outraged" by the banks abuse of.
The OTHER bailout, enacted by the current administration, has restrictions on its use, oversight, and limits. Most of that "bailout" has been repaid to the Government, and/or went to programs that helped the citizens of the Nation.
Two different "bailouts"!
Get it?
As for the "racism" comparison, you must be seriously delusional if you think this had anything to do with "who a 'mom and pop business' serves" or doesn't serve. The business at the heart of the Civil Rights argument, was, at the time, the largest chain of "5 and dimes" in the country. Mom and Pop had nothing to do with it, other than "Pop" being the Manager of the store that imposed segregation (while the Corporation did nothing to preclude him from doing so).
The OTHER bailout, enacted by the current administration, has restrictions on its use, oversight, and limits"
There you go bringing up the facts. Tea Party People would rather think of these things in bulk. And wrongheadedly.
It will not happen without US, making our voices heard.
(succinct, articulate, & spot-on!)
"...the the most visible icons of libertarian/capitalist philosophies -- big oil, big pharma, big banking -- who have been exposed as the usurer pigs they really are, careless and gutless, destroying the environment and crushing livelihoods.
Of course they loathe regulation. They loathe any impediment to unfettered profit: democracy, morality, sanity..."
As written (& later amended) by the Pigs in Orwell's book Animal Farm:
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others!"
Or, more apropos perhaps:
"Four legs good, two legs better!"
As Orwell showed us, societal Utopia is just that, unattainable & found only in the imagination.
But then, this new flood of Libertarians, these Tea-Baggers, have probably never read Animal Farm...
The problem is both the government and the (cough) "free market." They have joined forces to bilk the American people out of all our land, money and initiative. We would have similar problems if we tried to go communist (people are greedy!), so fighting against corporate fascism is not a vote for communism, it's a vote for simple fairness.
We need to completely revise our "blue sky" laws so that corporations have an EQUAL responsibility to workers, customers and the environment as they currently do to shareholders. They hide behind these "shareholder benefits at any cost" rules to pillage. Next, we need to revise our elections - no money at any time to any elected officials. None. Ever.
If you're not leaning on Jesus as a substitute for receiving actual justice in the workplace and in society, then you ain't country.
Listen to the chorus of "Red Dirt Road." It is an homage to mediocrity, settling, and taking joy in the scraps that are available "down that red dirt road."
I'm not saying that finding joy in the simple life and taking comfort in religion when there's precious little other comfort available aren't noble. But I think there's perhaps a little too much celebration of that nobility and a little too little effort undertaken to understand why you, as a producer, have nothing, and the exploiters have everything.
Wake up, little guy. It's not gummint and the libruls who have spirited away the fruit of your labors. It's the corporations, and their "conservative" and "libertarian" enablers.
Against the conditions that spawn the downtrodden workin' man lyrics and the ethic that makes it preferable to take comfort in religion rather than to seek justice.
But thanks anyway...
What we need is a motivated and vocal citizenry, to craft a coherent and unyielding proposal to CHANGE THE SYSTEM!
We currently have in place, laws and policies that PROMOTE greed. Indeed, in many ways the corporations can not reasonably be blamed for their greed, because failing to act in their own best interest (as opposed to the "common good"), and by extension, their "shareholders" best interest, is actually ILLEGAL.
This FLAW in our system, along with the flawed "non decision" that granted corporate personhood, is central to the numerous decisions that corporations make which place profit over societal good.
Until these are changed, nothing else will.
The problem with corporations is similar, in that they are geared for continued profits,and the more and quicker the better. If an employee finds any way to further those profits, he promoted; if the bottom line suffers, heads will roll. This ethos guarantees that the greediest suceed best.
Fanned
The robbber barons of a century ago (and longer) made billions on the backs of working people by "importing" labor from overseas and paying them nearly nothing (including children) while working them to death.
In the teens but especially the 20's through the 60's the masses fought back - banding together to gain a standard of living not acheived by the masses before in history (thanks mainly to our constitution and , um, oh yes, tons of blood and tears shed).
But, although all the original robber barons were long dead, along came a new group in the 1980's who needed new ideas to rob the citizens of everything they had gained and hoard the money back for themsleves (human nature?).
And in the last 30 years, because of our own deficits in character including an eagerness to turn on one another & "stick it to the next guy," (human nature?) this new group of robber barons has succeeded in turning back the clock to nearly a century ago (despite all the empty talk of technology advancing our "enlightened society").
Can seven day work weeks by far behind?
Today's robbers move money , steal money , make money.
I only wish I could re-state his last line.