Democrats and Republicans are one

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The government through the US taxpayer created the internet which is why parasites like Gates and Jobs are/were wealthy, remember?

99.9% of new products come from the private sector. Sorry. It is the job of the private sector, not the government!

It's an urban legend that the government launched the Internet. The myth is that the Pentagon created the Internet to keep its communications lines up even in a nuclear strike. The truth is a more interesting story about how innovation happens—and about how hard it is to build successful technology companies even once the government gets out of the way.

For many technologists, the idea of the Internet traces to Vannevar Bush, the presidential science adviser during World War II who oversaw the development of radar and the Manhattan Project. In a 1946 article in The Atlantic titled "As We May Think," Bush defined an ambitious peacetime goal for technologists: Build what he called a "memex" through which "wholly new forms of encyclopedias will appear, ready made with a mesh of associative trails running through them, ready to be dropped into the memex and there amplified."

That fired imaginations, and by the 1960s technologists were trying to connect separate physical communications networks into one global network—a "world-wide web." The federal government was involved, modestly, via the Pentagon's Advanced Research Projects Agency Network. Its goal was not maintaining communications during a nuclear attack, and it didn't build the Internet. Robert Taylor, who ran the ARPA program in the 1960s, sent an email to fellow technologists in 2004 setting the record straight: "The creation of the Arpanet was not motivated by considerations of war. The Arpanet was not an Internet. An Internet is a connection between two or more computer networks."

If the government didn't invent the Internet, who did? Vinton Cerf developed the TCP/IP protocol, the Internet's backbone, and Tim Berners-Lee gets credit for hyperlinks.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The top 1% pay a greater percentage of income taxes today precisely because a significantly smaller percentage of productive workers earn enough every year to be required to pay income tax.

what?? taxes for government aren't based on some arbitarily derived ability to pay any more than prices in a supermarket are based on some arbitarily derived ability to pay! A rich man and poor man both need roads or missiles so both should pay the same just like they should pay the same in a supermarket. This is only common sense.

If poor people don't earn much its because welfare entitlement payments have been growing and growing and unions have been shipping millions of jobs off shore.

 

[PaulS1950]

The government through the US taxpayer created the internet which is why parasites like Gates and Jobs are/were wealthy, remember?

The "internet" was actually developed by scientists without tax money or government involvement. ARPANET was the first to standardize the TCP/IP protocols in the mid to late 70's.
It was a way to share research among sciences and scientists without involving the mail. It began as a network of networks between colleges and universities. I was able to access the "internet" in the early 80's by going through the UW VAX computer from my home. It cost $2.50 per CPU second at that time. I was using a 1200 BPS modem and could almost read the screen as it printed information. It was all text based back then and I accessed infor from South Africa, UW, Europe and all over the globe. Each connection would slow the connection so it took a while to get information back to me but it did work.

 

[FA_Q2]

When you say "remove government" are you proposing to substitute the corporation in it's place?

What a silly statement. Why would anyone want that? Again, what you are glazing over is the fact that we have that right now. Removing government from that equation also removes corporations. It is in that very power that corporations usurp the government in the first place.

I'm not too sure many of the founding generation would agree if that's your plan.
According to these figures the federal minimum wage would stand at $10.70/hour today had it kept pace with inflation for the past forty years.

I was working a single minimum wage job in the mid-70s that paid enough to cover the rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay-off and maintain a six year old car. Today a single $7.25/ hour job (federal minimum wage) will not pay the rent on that same one bedroom I rented forty years ago. That apartment's rent has increased by a factor of ten, at least; the minimum wage hasn't.

And? That has nothing to do with the statements I made either. Nothing at all. Again, even if the minimum wage was a million dollars, the people earning it would still be poor. That is a basic fact and there really is no way around that. You are not going to legislate people to prosperity.

Perhaps we agree the government has been partially responsible for the richest 1% increasing their share of US income by a factor of three in that time. I chalk that up to the influence private wealth has on the best government money can buy. Rather than remove government, I would make it more democratic and ban the influence of private wealth on its levers.

Think one-strike laws for corporate crimes like control accounting fraud or violations of campaign finance reforms banning private money from all federal elections; with the clear understanding that the first conviction will entitle the defendant to 25 years in a real prison before becoming eligible for her first parole hearing.

That is what we have though and the star eyed concept of removing corporate influence is just plain ignorant. I am sorry but there is no way other way to put it. As long as there are billions to be made – and there is – in the gerrymandering of elections, companies are going to do it. All campaign funds illegal? All right, here is a job earning 10 million a year for sitting on your ass doing nothing. All you have to do is pass this one bill….

You see, there are as many ways to influence politicians as there are grains of sand at the beach. You cannot cover them all, you cannot illegalize them all and you certainly are not going to simply stop all influence. That game WILL be played as long as we allow the government to sell power and pick the winners. The ONLY way to take care of this is to remove that power in the first place. Make it worth nothing and even in complete absence of such laws, companies will not corrupt the government.

We have a template. It is not much different than religion, a HUGELY corrupting influence in governments for thousands of years. Not so much anymore because we have learned that the government and religion simply do not need to influence each other. There are still some problem here but they are very small compared to that of the past and also related to the same issue of allowing the government to broker power deals.

 

[FA_Q2]

Perhaps we agree the government has been partially responsible for the richest 1% increasing their share of US income by a factor of three in that time.

of course, the top 1% pay 42% of all federal income tax now, while 40 years ago they paid 15%. Also, people like Gates and Jobs are wealthy because everyone loves to buy their very affordable products, not because government makes them buy the products!!

The government through the US taxpayer created the internet which is why parasites like Gates and Jobs are/were wealthy, remember?

The top 1% pay a greater percentage of income taxes today precisely because a significantly smaller percentage of productive workers earn enough every year to be required to pay income tax. As always, the rich pay a much smaller percentage of their total income in taxes than do the middle class and working poor.

*sigh*
This often repeated misnomer has nothing to do with the subject at hand whatsoever. To make this blanket statement is to totally misrepresent what the internet is not to mention misrepresenting the entire invention process.

Further, there has been nothing in this thread so far that calls for the cessation of governmental research. Such has nothing to do with the unholy marriage of government and company nor does it have anything to do with taxes. The amount of spending that the government does on research is minuscule UNLESS you include the military.

What is the largest cuts in government spending that the left want to see? What would you cut if you could? Would you leave the military budget alone?

 

[dblack]

When you say "remove government" are you proposing to substitute the corporation in it's place?

What a silly statement. Why would anyone want that? Again, what you are glazing over is the fact that we have that right now. Removing government from that equation also removes corporations. It is in that very power that corporations usurp the government in the first place.

I simply don't get the point of view that government power stands in opposition to corporate power. Corporations derive all their power from the state. Without a powerful government to do their bidding, corporations have no more power at all.

Rather than remove government, I would make it more democratic and ban the influence of private wealth on its levers.

I don't see how you can justifying limiting a person's right to use their money to influence politics. Would you also limit them using their charm or good looks? Their oratory skill? Their fame?

The problem is not the influence of money on politics - it's what that money is able to buy. Without meaningful limitations on the government's power, legislators write laws to reward their friends and punish their enemies. As long as our government has the power to make or break companies with the stroke of a pen, those companies will jump through whatever hoops the state demands, pay whatever gratuitous donations necessary to ensure their success.

You see, there are as many ways to influence politicians as there are grains of sand at the beach. You cannot cover them all, you cannot illegalize them all and you certainly are not going to simply stop all influence. That game WILL be played as long as we allow the government to sell power and pick the winners. The ONLY way to take care of this is to remove that power in the first place. Make it worth nothing and even in complete absence of such laws, companies will not corrupt the government.

We have a template. It is not much different than religion, a HUGELY corrupting influence in governments for thousands of years. Not so much anymore because we have learned that the government and religion simply do not need to influence each other. There are still some problem here but they are very small compared to that of the past and also related to the same issue of allowing the government to broker power deals.

Exactly. I really think separating economy and state, while it will require every bit as much effort and time as separating church and state, will be the next major 'upgrade' to liberal democracy.

 

[editec]

DK asks the $64 ttrillion question:

I simply don't get the point of view that government power stands in opposition to corporate power. Corporations derive all their power from the state. Without a powerful government to do their bidding, corporations have no more power at all.

I think you're right in part without doubt.

Sans government no corporation would exist in the first place.

I also believe that much of what government does serves to keep SOME corporations powerful, too.

But without any government, say in LIBERTOPIA, corporations would BECOME THE DE FACTO governments.

Some of us, myself included, think that is nearly ALREADY the state of affairs (sotto voce).

 

[georgephillip]

The government through the US taxpayer created the internet which is why parasites like Gates and Jobs are/were wealthy, remember?

The "internet" was actually developed by scientists without tax money or government involvement. ARPANET was the first to standardize the TCP/IP protocols in the mid to late 70's.
It was a way to share research among sciences and scientists without involving the mail. It began as a network of networks between colleges and universities. I was able to access the "internet" in the early 80's by going through the UW VAX computer from my home. It cost $2.50 per CPU second at that time. I was using a 1200 BPS modem and could almost read the screen as it printed information. It was all text based back then and I accessed infor from South Africa, UW, Europe and all over the globe. Each connection would slow the connection so it took a while to get information back to me but it did work.

UW?
As in the University of Washington?

"Founded in 1861 by a private gift of 10 acres in what is now the heart of downtown Seattle, the UW is one of the oldest public universities on the West Coast."

 

[georgephillip]

DK asks the $64 ttrillion question:

I simply don't get the point of view that government power stands in opposition to corporate power. Corporations derive all their power from the state. Without a powerful government to do their bidding, corporations have no more power at all.

I think you're right in part without doubt.

Sans government no corporation would exist in the first place.

I also believe that much of what government does serves to keep SOME corporations powerful, too.

But without any government, say in LIBERTOPIA, corporations would BECOME THE DE FACTO governments.

Some of us, myself included, think that is nearly ALREADY the state of affairs (sotto voce).

Benito beat you to that punch:

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.

Benito Mussolini

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state... - Benito Mussolini at BrainyQuote

 

[FA_Q2]

DK asks the $64 ttrillion question:

I simply don't get the point of view that government power stands in opposition to corporate power. Corporations derive all their power from the state. Without a powerful government to do their bidding, corporations have no more power at all.

I think you're right in part without doubt.

Sans government no corporation would exist in the first place.

I also believe that much of what government does serves to keep SOME corporations powerful, too.

But without any government, say in LIBERTOPIA, corporations would BECOME THE DE FACTO governments.

Some of us, myself included, think that is nearly ALREADY the state of affairs (sotto voce).

No one calls for no government though. That is the grate misrepresentation of libertarianism – the idea that libertarians oppose government. Such an idea is flat out wrong. Libertarians do not oppose government, they oppose oppression. It really does not matter the source and they recognize that government is required to protect our rights from others oppression.

The problem that we face today is that the government is engaged in that oppression now rather than the protection of your rights.

 

[georgephillip]

DK asks the $64 ttrillion question:

I simply don't get the point of view that government power stands in opposition to corporate power. Corporations derive all their power from the state. Without a powerful government to do their bidding, corporations have no more power at all.

I think you're right in part without doubt.

Sans government no corporation would exist in the first place.

I also believe that much of what government does serves to keep SOME corporations powerful, too.

But without any government, say in LIBERTOPIA, corporations would BECOME THE DE FACTO governments.

Some of us, myself included, think that is nearly ALREADY the state of affairs (sotto voce).

No one calls for no government though. That is the grate misrepresentation of libertarianism – the idea that libertarians oppose government. Such an idea is flat out wrong. Libertarians do not oppose government, they oppose oppression. It really does not matter the source and they recognize that government is required to protect our rights from others oppression.

The problem that we face today is that the government is engaged in that oppression now rather than the protection of your rights.

What if the source of that oppression hasn't changed in five thousand years, namely, vast private fortunes dedicated to creating the best government money buy? Isn't the choice between democracy and oligarchy?

 

[georgephillip]

of course, the top 1% pay 42% of all federal income tax now, while 40 years ago they paid 15%. Also, people like Gates and Jobs are wealthy because everyone loves to buy their very affordable products, not because government makes them buy the products!!

The government through the US taxpayer created the internet which is why parasites like Gates and Jobs are/were wealthy, remember?

The top 1% pay a greater percentage of income taxes today precisely because a significantly smaller percentage of productive workers earn enough every year to be required to pay income tax. As always, the rich pay a much smaller percentage of their total income in taxes than do the middle class and working poor.

*sigh*
This often repeated misnomer has nothing to do with the subject at hand whatsoever. To make this blanket statement is to totally misrepresent what the internet is not to mention misrepresenting the entire invention process.

Further, there has been nothing in this thread so far that calls for the cessation of governmental research. Such has nothing to do with the unholy marriage of government and company nor does it have anything to do with taxes. The amount of spending that the government does on research is minuscule UNLESS you include the military.

What is the largest cuts in government spending that the left want to see? What would you cut if you could? Would you leave the military budget alone?

Which Pentagon budget?

"A black budget is a budget that is secretly collected from the overall income of a nation, a corporation, a society of any form, a national department, and so on. A black budget usually covers expenses related to military research. The budget is kept secret for national security reasons..."

"The United States Department of Defense has a black budget it uses to fund black projects—expenditures it does not want to disclose publicly. The annual cost of the United States Department of Defense black budget was estimated at $32 billion in 2008[1] but was increased to an estimated $50 billion in 2009."

I would put this up for review, for starters; would you?

"It was the Nazi’s in the 1930s, it seems, who first used the term 'guns and butter' as metaphor for the choices a nation makes about how to use its scarce resources for defense versus domestic needs. The Nazis chose guns. 'Butter only makes us fat,' the corpulent Luftwaffe chief Hermann Goering told the German people."

THE FAIR SOCIETY: Search results for defense spending

 

[FA_Q2]

What if the source of that oppression hasn't changed in five thousand years, namely, vast private fortunes dedicated to creating the best government money buy? Isn't the choice between democracy and oligarchy?

There are a lot of choices out there but that really does not have much to do with the comment that you directed this at. I would put forth, though, that what you are advocating is not a choice between democracy and oligarchy. Instead, you are trying to choose what type of oligarchy you want to be a part of; one where the oligarchy is mostly in the open like we are today or one where the oligarchy is in shadows because you have kept the driving force present why trying to control the means (campaign finance et al). Both are the same result though with little difference. What I want is an actuial republic where freedoms are protected and the oligarchy is largely nonexistent.

As long as you continue to fight the symptoms of brokered power from the government, you will perpetually suffer the ill of that system; oligarchy. That is a basic reality. You cannot fix the problem by repairing all the little symptoms. You MUST attack the core.

Which Pentagon budget?

"A black budget is a budget that is secretly collected from the overall income of a nation, a corporation, a society of any form, a national department, and so on. A black budget usually covers expenses related to military research. The budget is kept secret for national security reasons..."

"The United States Department of Defense has a black budget it uses to fund black projects—expenditures it does not want to disclose publicly. The annual cost of the United States Department of Defense black budget was estimated at $32 billion in 2008[1] but was increased to an estimated $50 billion in 2009."

I would put this up for review, for starters; would you?

"It was the Nazi’s in the 1930s, it seems, who first used the term 'guns and butter' as metaphor for the choices a nation makes about how to use its scarce resources for defense versus domestic needs. The Nazis chose guns. 'Butter only makes us fat,' the corpulent Luftwaffe chief Hermann Goering told the German people."

THE FAIR SOCIETY: Search results for defense spending

I would cut the entire thing to ribbons. The focus on ‘black’ projects is a misnomer and rather pointless. There is a simple need to keep the current military top of the line projects secrete. If not, we might as well buy our jets from China rather than pay for developing new tech that we are going to hand them. In essence, ‘black’ projects are a necessity of the military need to be one step ahead.

The point though, as you seem to have missed it, is that you are being entirely disingenuous when you make claims about the military developing new tech as that would be the EXACT type of spending that you would cut if given the chance. That, coupled with the fact that most tech being attributed to the government is an absolute falsehood, makes your previous point moot.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But without any government, say in LIBERTOPIA, corporations would BECOME THE DE FACTO governments.

sounds great and Republican since there are millions of corporations all competing with each other. Our Founders idea was to divide government so millions and million of governments or corporations would certainly accomplish that in spades!!

It seems you are a Republican without knowing it! Am I correct?

 

[PaulS1950]

Democracy is not a choice it is a path to different forms of government. Democracy always fails because the majority can grant and remove the rights of the individuals and it always leads to an overthrow of the democracy.
We live in a republic where the majority governs but the rights and freedoms of the individual are protected against majority decisions. The majority can still make the decisions of law as long as those laws do not conflict with the rights and freedoms of the individual.

 

[dblack]

DK asks the $64 ttrillion question:

I simply don't get the point of view that government power stands in opposition to corporate power. Corporations derive all their power from the state. Without a powerful government to do their bidding, corporations have no more power at all.

I think you're right in part without doubt.

Sans government no corporation would exist in the first place.

I also believe that much of what government does serves to keep SOME corporations powerful, too.

But without any government, say in LIBERTOPIA, corporations would BECOME THE DE FACTO governments.

Some of us, myself included, think that is nearly ALREADY the state of affairs (sotto voce).

No one calls for no government though. That is the grate misrepresentation of libertarianism – the idea that libertarians oppose government. Such an idea is flat out wrong. Libertarians do not oppose government, they oppose oppression. It really does not matter the source and they recognize that government is required to protect our rights from others oppression.

The problem that we face today is that the government is engaged in that oppression now rather than the protection of your rights.

It's not always clear to me whether people really believe the 'cartoon' version libertarian ideology is an accurate representation, or if they are merely engaging in hyperbole to make a point. I know from personal experience that some do labor under such misconceptions. They think libertarians are simply immature libertines who don't want to follow the rules, or want there to be no rules at all.

This is one reason why I think it's a mistake to focus on the amount of government. The point of libertarian politics is to limit the scope of government, not render it weak and ineffective. Within that scope, we want government to have all the power necessary to achieve it's objectives. That's why I'm always circling back around to what I consider the most important question we all have to answer: What is the purpose of government?

From the libertarian perspective, the reason we need government, in a nutshell, is to protect us from bullies. Government should not be used to force one particular version of the 'good life' on everyone whether they want it or not. It should not be used to "run" society like a business. It's not there to tell us how to live, how to raise our children, how to care for our personal health, etc, etc... It's not there to commandeer society, driving us to greater heights of wealth and global dominance.

Government exists to make it possible for us to enjoy the benefits of social cooperation with some degree of trust. We want to be able engage with our community without constantly worrying that the people we are dealing with are plotting to lie, cheat, steal, or otherwise do us harm - or at least with the confidence that if they do, they will face serious consequences.

 

[editec]

DK asks the $64 ttrillion question:

I simply don't get the point of view that government power stands in opposition to corporate power. Corporations derive all their power from the state. Without a powerful government to do their bidding, corporations have no more power at all.

I think you're right in part without doubt.

Sans government no corporation would exist in the first place.

I also believe that much of what government does serves to keep SOME corporations powerful, too.

But without any government, say in LIBERTOPIA, corporations would BECOME THE DE FACTO governments.

Some of us, myself included, think that is nearly ALREADY the state of affairs (sotto voce).

No one calls for no government though. That is the grate misrepresentation of libertarianism – the idea that libertarians oppose government. Such an idea is flat out wrong. Libertarians do not oppose government, they oppose oppression.

Yes I understand that many (not all) LIBERTARIANS are not entirely nuts, mate, I truly do.

It really does not matter the source and they recognize that government is required to protect our rights from others oppression.

What you are also describing right now is the general POV of most liberal democrats, most old time Republicans and many nonpartisans like me, mate.

However NONE of those types are in power in EITHER party, something else I have no doubt you understand just as well as I do.

The problem that we face today is that the government is engaged in that oppression now rather than the protection of your rights.

Yup.

And see how brilliantly the MASTERS can deal with this fundamental problem?

they control both government AND corporate power so regardless of whether we give the government more power or we strip the government of power, THEY ARE STILL THE PEOPLE WITH ALL THE POWER.

This is why I believe our two party system is nothing more than a shadow-puppet theater.

People leaning right understand this (well not a lot of the right leaning posting here, these people are mostly just trolls, not social science thinkers) people leaning left understand this, libertarians understand it, too.

But NONE of us have a POLITICAL nexus that can stand up to the DUELOPOLY, politically..

There's the political rub, mate.

This nation's real problems have nothing whatever to do with socialism, communism or even with FREE MARKET capitalism, either.

We do not have a free market, we do not have a socialist government, we are living in a SHAMOCRACY invented by the DUELOPOLY to fool the fools.

And this board shows us that the damned fools (read the blinded partisans) outnumber those who are NO LONGER FOOLED.

 

[dblack]

And see how brilliantly the MASTERS can deal with this fundamental problem?

they control both government AND corporate power so regardless of whether we give the government more power or we strip the government of power, THEY ARE STILL THE PEOPLE WITH ALL THE POWER.

But I think this misses the point we're making. Corporate power is dependent on government's power to intervene on behalf of corporations. They enjoy elevated privilege and power, as a direct result of state's power. Stripping government of the power to enrich and grant perks to wealthy interests, WILL undermine the power of corporations.

This nation's real problems have nothing whatever to do with socialism, communism or even with FREE MARKET capitalism, either.

We do not have a free market, we do not have a socialist government, we are living in a SHAMOCRACY invented by the DUELOPOLY to fool the fools.

And this board shows us that the damned fools (read the blinded partisans) outnumber those who are NO LONGER FOOLED.

The word you're looking for is 'corporatism'. And as I've pontificated on enough (too much?) on this board, its core aspect is the fact that it abandons individual rights and equal protection in favor of group rights and subjective regulation. I don't see much changing until we recognize, and reject, that trend.

 

[georgephillip]

Democracy is not a choice it is a path to different forms of government. Democracy always fails because the majority can grant and remove the rights of the individuals and it always leads to an overthrow of the democracy.
We live in a republic where the majority governs but the rights and freedoms of the individual are protected against majority decisions. The majority can still make the decisions of law as long as those laws do not conflict with the rights and freedoms of the individual.

Where does oligarchy fit into the US Republic/Democracy debate.
It would seem democracy doesn't exist when oligarchs fund the election campaigns and retirements of elected Republicans AND Democrats alike:

"We think of the US as the Shining City on the Hill of Democracy. Maybe so. But as Jeffrey Winters and Benjamin Page say in their article Oligarchy in the United States?, kindly made available by the author, it is perfectly possible for an oligarchy to function quite nicely inside a democracy..."

"...(they) define oligarchy to mean rule by the richest citizens, a definition that follows Aristotle. This is from Politics, IV, viii:

"For polity or constitutional government may be described generally as a fusion of oligarchy and democracy; but the term is usually applied to those forms of government which incline towards democracy, and the term aristocracy to those which incline towards oligarchy, because birth and education are commonly the accompaniments of wealth."

Oligarchy Exists Inside Our Democracy « naked capitalism

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Government should not be used to force one particular version of the 'good life' on everyone

Ron Paul believes that the good life in part comes from forcing you to not kill or abort your baby or not to kill anyone for that matter.