Comments for Anti-Empire Report: The Separation of Oil and State at http://www.pacificfreepress.com , comment 1 to 2 out of 2 comments http://www.pacificfreepress.com Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:43:42 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/1512-anti-empire-report-the-separation-of-oil-and-state.html#comment-1380 "Does [Ron Paul] think that corporations are not bureaucratic? Do libertarians think that any large institution is not overbearingly bureaucratic?" No, and that libertarians or Ron Paul think otherwise is something that cannot logically be deduced from the statement that government is too bureaucratic and wasteful. There is a big difference, however. Government earns no funds from people voluntarily giving to its cause. For better or for worse (worse in my opinion) it is a leech on society. By definition, it is negating voluntary exchange by forcing people to pay for certain services that they would not have otherwise chosen to pay for. Also, governments can waste at will without repercussion. Corporations (which are government-created fictions, I might add) that aren't on the government dole like Halliburton etc, earn their funds from voluntary exchange. Other people's desires or needs are directly satisfied through this exchange without being coerced into doing so. They, unlike government, cannot simply waste resources and survive. Libertarians (gasp) don't have a problem with voluntary exchange. If a business becomes larger by meeting demand, there is no problem with that in and of itself. The power it has should be viewed with caution, but so long as it is not violating the lives, liberty, or property of others, there is no problem. Colluding with government, however, is a no-no, given that government can legally violate people's rights. This is the system we currently have in the U.S. Such is not a free market, but corporatism - the merger of government and corporate interests. You have it to a great deal in Canada as well. It is the natural consequence of nominal capitalist ideals combined with a government that is not limited. Special interests rule the day and the victims are the middle class and the poor. "[Libertarians] don't recognize "that the corporations that control most economic resources, and therefore most people's access to the necessities of life, have far more power than government to dictate our behavior and the day-to-day terms of our existence." To speak of corporations as a class in this regard makes no sense at all. The assumption that corporations in general have the same or even similar interests or are the same "apparatus" making decisions about resources has no basis in reality. Different industries and corporations within industries are in competition with each other. Further, corporations fall flat everyday, because they fail in the marketplace. Governments, however, continue to go on by making false promises of redemption and enforcing short-sighted policies that show no regard for future generations or economic reality. When they fail, they just demand that the people give them [b][i]more[/i][/b] money. Ever notice how the problem is [i]always[/i] that they haven't taken enough from us? All one needs to do is look at 9/11, and the federal government's involvement in education. Both are examples of failures, and both led to more money for the government. Corporations only get away with such failure when the government bails them out. "Ron Paul and other libertarians are against social security. Do they believe that it's better for elderly people to live in a homeless shelter than to be dependent on government "handouts"? That's exactly what it would come down to with many senior citizens if not for their social security." Were old people living in homeless shelters before social security? No. Not even any of my older ancestors were and they were on the lower end of the socio-economic scale given that they were black. But the program did create servants out of future generations without our consent. Now the program is bankrupt along with our Medicare system. I know, we should smile and thank the government for handing us over $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities, right? Do you believe the end justifies the means? Like all central planning, those entitlement systems are destined for collapse. More than likely, it will inflate the dollar into oblivion, robbing the poor and middle class of their purchasing power along the way through our private central bank called the "Federal" Reserve (corporatism on steroids). Finally, the newsletter quotes from Ron Paul were dealt with over a decade ago. He didn't write them, and if anyone views his speeches and reads writings [i]that he actually wrote[/i], that person will see that the comments are nothing like anything else that Ron Paul has said or written in public life. - a guest Sat, 11 Aug 2007 06:47:43 +0100 http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/1512-anti-empire-report-the-separation-of-oil-and-state.html#comment-1379 I also am not sure how the neo-cons can delude themselves and others about rewriting the history of Vietnam and how it is not comparable to Iraq. Obviously the lack of jungle in Iraq makes it "completely different". This is sarcasm. You are correct that at the same time they blame our pull out of Vietnam for Cambodia's millions of deaths. So since we had already gone in for the wrong reasons in both places we were stuck until we made it better. There is something wrong with this logic IF we really can NOT make it better. How about we throw money out of the military vehicles as we are leaving? And give $10 billion a year for 10 years to the government that quits killing. It might be cheaper and save LOTS of lives. My only real quibble is that a blind hatred of government or business is just as silly as a blind love of government or business. Power is always to be feared as it becomes concentrated. It needs to be balanced with opposing powers (for example three independent branches of government) or bad things happen, humans being what they are. One of the real problems in modern times is that business and government have joined forces and there is no one to oppose the combination. We try to keep religion weak and the press (mainstream) has been bought or bribed by BOTH big business and big governement. That leaves the internet and google. I would be very afraid if google were the sole source of access to the internet. We need some other developing powers. Maybe stronger states. Maybe a President who wanted to weaken the ability of government to be co-opted by big business. Maybe laws that did not require businesses to be gigantic to be successful. I am thinking of drug companies and telephone/cell phone companies. Something! So much of what we do in the name of fairness and helping control big business and government is in reality reinforcing their control. I have in mind campaign finance reform and moving of the primaries up sooner so that grass root campaigns do not have time to develop through the internet. Interesting times for folks who know the status quo needs changing and NEED time to do it. - a guest Sat, 11 Aug 2007 03:22:31 +0100