Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[daveman]

If I'm remembering correctly, Chomsky was at one time the most frequently quoted scholar in academic journals. He was the only living academic to be quoted often enough to make the all time top ten list of thinkers quoted in those journals, but, of course, conservatives know better.

To be fair, it's not really fair. They only run on gas.

"In America, libertarian means "extreme advocate of total tyranny."

No, it doesn't. It means keeping government interference in individual lives as minimal as possible.

Look, I know that's a scary concept to leftist totalitarians, but damn...there is no way you can call this man intelligent.

He's a moron.

"In America, libertarian means "extreme advocate of total tyranny."

No, it doesn't. It means keeping government interference in individual lives as minimal as possible.

Chomsky recognizes there are other greater threats to individual liberty than that posed by a democratic government:

On "Private Tyrannies" | Ben O'Neill

"If you have ever read much of the political philosophy and commentary of renowned anarchosyndicalist intellectual Noam Chomsky, then you are probably familiar with his view that large private business organizations are 'private tyrannies' — oversized and antidemocratic institutions that function according to that most hated of organizational principles, the hierarchy! According to Chomsky,

"As state capitalism developed into the modern era, economic, political and ideological systems have increasingly been taken over by vast institutions of private tyranny that are about as close to the totalitarian ideal as any that humans have so far constructed.[1]"

SO THE OBVIOUS ANSWER IS ABSOLUTE GOVERNMENT CONTROL

Run along, dumbass.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Corporations have no power to bully us unless they enlist government to help them.

corporate bullying is implement by the government.

So just to clarify:
1. Corporations want to bully.
2. But they can't without government help.
3. So corporations seek government help.
4. Government then agrees to help the corporations bully.
5. Government alone is then responsible for corporate bullying?

 

[georgephillip]

Yep. Not to mention nitpicking over stuff recently said by (an amazingly still sharp but nonetheless) ninety year old. And finding a token black guy for backup, LOL. All leftists though, discussing world affairs at a high level. Anything noticeably missing?

If I'm remembering correctly, Chomsky was at one time the most frequently quoted scholar in academic journals. He was the only living academic to be quoted often enough to make the all time top ten list of thinkers quoted in those journals, but, of course, conservatives know better.

He's a linguist. You may as well ask Sean Penn his views on geopolitics.

Oh, wait -- you idiots did that, too.

He's a linguist. You may as well ask Sean Penn his views on geopolitics.

Oh, wait -- you idiots did that, too.

"Main article: Noam Chomsky bibliography and filmography

"Linguistics

• Syntactic Structures (1957)
• Current Issues in Linguistic Theory (1964)
• Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965)
• Cartesian Linguistics (1965)
• Language and Mind (1968)
• The Sound Pattern of English with Morris Halle (1968)
• Reflections on Language (1975)
• Lectures on Government and Binding (1981)
• The Minimalist Program (1995)

"Politics

• American Power and the New Mandarins (1969)
• Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact & Propaganda with Edward S. Herman (1973)
• The Political Economy of Human Rights (1979)
• Towards a New Cold War (1982)
• The Fateful Triangle (1983)
• Pirates and Emperors (1986)
• Manufacturing Consent (1988)
• Necessary Illusions (1989)
• Deterring Democracy (1991)
• Letters from Lexington (1993)
• The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many (1993)
• World Orders Old and New (1994)
• Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship (1997)

• Profit over People (1999)
• 9-11 (2001)
• Understanding Power (2002)
• Middle East Illusions (2003)
• Hegemony or Survival (2003)
• Getting Haiti Right This Time (2004)
• Imperial Ambitions (2005)
• Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy (2006)
• Interventions (2007)
• Gaza in Crisis (2010)
• Making the Future (2012)
• Occupy (2012)
• Requiem for the American Dream (2017)"

Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia

Yeah, looks like he started believing his own bullshit pretty early on.

Yeah, looks like he started believing his own bullshit pretty early on

Whose bullshit do you believe?

"Chomsky has described his parents as 'normal Roosevelt Democrats' with center-left politics, but other relatives involved in the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union exposed him to socialism and far-left politics.[41]

"He was substantially influenced by his uncle and the Jewish leftists who frequented his New York City newspaper stand to debate current affairs.[42] Chomsky frequented left-wing and anarchist bookstores when visiting his uncle in the city, voraciously reading political literature.[43]

"He wrote his first article at age 10 on the spread of fascism following the fall of Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War[44] and, from the age of 12 or 13, identified with anarchist politics.[40]

"He later described his discovery of anarchism as 'a lucky accident'[45] that made him critical of Stalinism and other forms of Marxism–Leninism."

Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia

 

[georgephillip]

To be fair, it's not really fair. They only run on gas.

"In America, libertarian means "extreme advocate of total tyranny."

No, it doesn't. It means keeping government interference in individual lives as minimal as possible.

Look, I know that's a scary concept to leftist totalitarians, but damn...there is no way you can call this man intelligent.

He's a moron.

"In America, libertarian means "extreme advocate of total tyranny."

No, it doesn't. It means keeping government interference in individual lives as minimal as possible.

Chomsky recognizes there are other greater threats to individual liberty than that posed by a democratic government:

On "Private Tyrannies" | Ben O'Neill

"If you have ever read much of the political philosophy and commentary of renowned anarchosyndicalist intellectual Noam Chomsky, then you are probably familiar with his view that large private business organizations are 'private tyrannies' — oversized and antidemocratic institutions that function according to that most hated of organizational principles, the hierarchy! According to Chomsky,

"As state capitalism developed into the modern era, economic, political and ideological systems have increasingly been taken over by vast institutions of private tyranny that are about as close to the totalitarian ideal as any that humans have so far constructed.[1]"

SO THE OBVIOUS ANSWER IS ABSOLUTE GOVERNMENT CONTROL

Run along, dumbass.

SO THE OBVIOUS ANSWER IS ABSOLUTE GOVERNMENT CONTROL

Run along, dumbass.

 

[dblack]

"In America, libertarian means "extreme advocate of total tyranny."

No, it doesn't. It means keeping government interference in individual lives as minimal as possible.

Look, I know that's a scary concept to leftist totalitarians, but damn...there is no way you can call this man intelligent.

He's a moron.

He's trying to suggest that the rejection of government bullying equates to an endorsement of corporate bullying. But, like most liberals, he skips over the part where corporate bullying is implement by the government.

He's trying to suggest that the rejection of government bullying equates to an endorsement of corporate bullying. But, like most liberals, he skips over the part where corporate bullying is implement by the government.

Would that be the best government money can buy?

Exactly. A "mixed economy" will always attract this kind of corruption. The more socialism (ie the more power government has to manipulate markets), the more special interests will seek to steer it to suit their ends. That's why, to get back to the OP, Warren's and Yang's proposals are so ill-considered. Vested interests will just use the new power to further enhance their wealth. Despite the naive fantasy's of the "democrats", the kind of regulatory regime you long for is never controlled by voters. It's controlled by lobbyists and bureaucrats.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Well, in case anyone's wondering.. there actually is no place called Healthcare.gov. It has no employees, no phone number. It's just a website. Though the site itself contains a "Contact Us" link with a phone number, when you call and respond to the robot menu "Something else" you wind up talking to someone who immediately identifies themself as representing something called "The Marketplace." However, that person will readily confirm that "Healthcare,gov" has no physical address. They will also refuse to answer who is listed as the payor on their paycheck because they'll say they're not allowed to divulge that information and afraid they'd get into trouble if they did. Creepy? You bet!
I ask again,

Fraud?

 

[dblack]

Well, in case anyone's wondering..

Nope. Your posts are a hodgepodge of adolescent insults and moronic memes. I don't wonder about them at all.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Well, in case anyone's wondering..

Nope. Your posts are a hodgepodge of adolescent insults and moronic memes. I don't wonder about them at all.

And yet you responded.. to a serious, insult free post containing a question.. with personal insults alone.. and you wonder..

 

[dblack]

Well, in case anyone's wondering..

Nope. Your posts are a hodgepodge of adolescent insults and moronic memes. I don't wonder about them at all.

And yet you responded.. to a serious, insult free post containing a question.. with personal insults alone.. and you wonder..

Touché!

But no, I don't wonder. As soon as I see something like "Healthcare.gov", I assume it's a corporatist gravy train. I'm not sure what your point is, other than the obvious.

 

[Grumblenuts]

What's the obvious?

 

[dblack]

What's the obvious?

That "healthcare.gov" is a corrupt mess, along with the rest of ACA's horseshit.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Okay. The point is Healthcare.gov is not real. There's nothing there but a server serving the website (which is located in a highly secured industrial park in Baltimore, MD for some reason). Since any attempt to contact a (federal) government employee through Healthcare.gov ends up putting you in touch with a private insurance representative, I submit that this constitutes fraud. It's not simply corrupt. It's criminal. Just the sort of criminal activity that civil rights activists and lawyers could get together and combat through the courts. I can't believe it's been allowed to go on this long.

The name is derived from the word government, indicating its restricted use by government entities. The gov domain is administered by the General Services Administration (GSA), an independent agency of the United States federal government.

Beyond that, it serves as a great example of how big corporations corrupt our government.. because they are too big! Not because government is hopelessly evil as described over and again by many here. Letting the "free market" rule would just free them to do much worse much faster.

 

[Grumblenuts]

A Calculator For The Billionaires | Elizabeth Warren

Sanders released a competing wealth tax plan in mid-September as the two candidates jockey for left-wing support. His proposal called for a slew of new taxes, ranging from a 1 percent tax on married couples with a net worth above $32 million to an 8 percent tax on wealth over $10 billion.

“Billionaires should not exist,” he wrote in a series of tweets introducing the bill, adding, "There is no justice when three billionaires are able to own more wealth than the bottom half of the entire country.'

 

[dblack]

Okay. The point is Healthcare.gov is not real. There's nothing there but a server serving the website (which is located in a highly secured industrial park in Baltimore, MD for some reason). Since any attempt to contact a (federal) government employee through Healthcare.gov ends up putting you in touch with a private insurance representative, I submit that this constitutes fraud. It's not simply corrupt. It's criminal. Just the sort of criminal activity that civil rights activists and lawyers could get together and combat through the courts. I can't believe it's been allowed to go on this long.

It goes on because it's the law. This is why I've been opposed to it all along, and why I think it needs to be ripped out at the roots. ACA is, and has always been, about funneling money to the insurance industry.

Beyond that, it serves as a great example of how big corporations corrupt our government.. because they are too big! Not because government is hopelessly evil as described over and again by many here. Letting the "free market" rule would just free them to do much worse much faster.

How so? The only way to prevent businesses (or any other powerful interest group) from buying favors is to prevent Congress from selling favors. And the only way to prevent Congress selling favors is to remove their power to enact them in the first place. But you want to do the opposite. You want to increase the government's power over markets. From a corruption standpoint, that's like throwing gasoline on an open fire. Hint: if the government is corrupt, more government isn't going to get you less corruption.

 

[Grumblenuts]

It goes on because it's the law. This is why I've been opposed to it all along, and why I think it needs to be ripped out at the roots.

You're opposed having laws? Laws should be ripped from their roots? We are a nation rooted in law as opposed to tyranny which is the opposite by definition:

Definition of tyranny
1: oppressive power
// every form of tyranny over the mind of man
— Thomas Jefferson
especially : oppressive power exerted by government
// the tyranny of a police state
2a: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler
// especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state
b: the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant

We could have easily remained the playthings of tyrants. We fought that off and have been trying an independent experiment instead. Rule of law. Laws created and maintained through an at least semi-democratic and -transparent process whereby the citizenry, at least in theory, ultimately rule.. Has this experimental model proven perfect? Of course not. Has a reasonable alternative suddenly suggested itself? No? Welcome to reality. Let's try real hard not to leave it again, shall we?

No one likes the ACA. That's a given. It was offered as a bullshit compromise to begin with. You don't get to claim that as a side.. as though someone had been arguing from some opposing position or was somehow blissfully unaware of that fact.

"It goes on" - In truth the pertinent law has been repeatedly challenged from the beginning with some change as a result. I agree that it's fundamentally flawed, but we disagree on the legal basis, not "because it's the law."

ACA is, and has always been, about funneling money to the insurance industry.

And there's it is. One could easily read that and conclude, Hey, "the insurance industry" is simply a victim here. They didn't ask for this. Government did it to them! You (and others) clearly do this deliberately. Whether it's because you actually believe that nonsense remains in question, but it certainly appears to be the case.

"because they are too big! Not because government is hopelessly evil as described over and again by many here. Letting the "free market" rule would just free them to do much worse much faster."

How so?

Asked and answered: "because they are too big!" You appear to think that's not serious or relevant so simply avoid dealing with it altogether. Nonetheless, that is the ultimate reason - in every case - not just regarding government. All groups. All individuals. There's a natural limit in every case beyond which widespread destruction is predictable. Just as widespread death is a predictable result of (being/having) too little.

The only way to prevent businesses (or any other powerful interest group) from buying favors is to prevent Congress from selling favors. And the only way to prevent Congress selling favors is to remove their power to enact them in the first place. But you want to do the opposite. You want to increase the government's power over markets. From a corruption standpoint, that's like throwing gasoline on an open fire. Hint: if the government is corrupt, more government isn't going to get you less corruption.

Hint: That's bullshit and you know it. I absolutely do not "want to increase the government's power over markets." I want to address the genuine root of the problem which is obviously allowing a relative few to have too much.

If you really give a shit simply follow the money. No matter how you apply the lipstick, the corruption you supposedly wish to eliminate all STARTS with someone or thing that already has too much, bribing some trusted official in an attempt to grab more, ultimately at the expense of and deceiving the people. What obviously enables all this is having too much to begin with. Outlaw that. Tax it to death. Whatever. Do something instead of just continuing to bark at nothing of actual substance.

 

[dblack]

It goes on because it's the law. This is why I've been opposed to it all along, and why I think it needs to be ripped out at the roots.

You're opposed having laws?

Where did I say I was opposed to all laws? Stow the lying horseshit, mkay?

I'm opposed to ACA because it's a corporatist scam. You're proving my point with every one of your posts. Please continue.

I absolutely do not "want to increase the government's power over markets." I want to address the genuine root of the problem which is obviously allowing a relative few to have too much.

Which you insist requires more government power over markets, eh? Can you even imagine solving the problem without passing new laws? I seriously doubt you can.

If you really give a shit simply follow the money.

Give a shit about what? I care a great deal about overreaching government. The coercive power of government is the most dangerous element of society. And when it merges with economic power it's much, much worse.

I want a "wall of separation" between capital and government. What you can't get through your head is that the more government policy interferes with our economic decisions, the more people will try to control it. They'll use whatever forms of influence they can muster - money, fame, religion, political favors, etc... And every new law you pass gives them more incentive to be "in" on the game. When you get enough government interference going on, lobbying government is the only way to win.

In short, if you want to get money out of politics, you have to remove the politicians power to control our money. As long as they wield that power

No matter how you apply the lipstick, the corruption you supposedly wish to eliminate all STARTS with someone or thing that already has too much

You're pretty fixated on this notion of 'too much'. How much is that, exactly? More than you? Should everyone be allocated the same amount of money each morning? Would that satisfy you? What if they give some of their allocated money to someone else? Should that be illegal? Have you really thought this through?

Also, let's say you succeed in banning any form of financial influence over Congress. What about other kinds of influence? Do national media outlets have "too much" power? What about religious leaders? They have a lot of influence. Should we crack down on them as well? People with a vested interest in state policy aren't going to simply give up because you ban political donations.

 

[georgephillip]

"In America, libertarian means "extreme advocate of total tyranny."

No, it doesn't. It means keeping government interference in individual lives as minimal as possible.

Look, I know that's a scary concept to leftist totalitarians, but damn...there is no way you can call this man intelligent.

He's a moron.

He's trying to suggest that the rejection of government bullying equates to an endorsement of corporate bullying. But, like most liberals, he skips over the part where corporate bullying is implement by the government.

He's trying to suggest that the rejection of government bullying equates to an endorsement of corporate bullying. But, like most liberals, he skips over the part where corporate bullying is implement by the government.

Would that be the best government money can buy?

Exactly. A "mixed economy" will always attract this kind of corruption. The more socialism (ie the more power government has to manipulate markets), the more special interests will seek to steer it to suit their ends. That's why, to get back to the OP, Warren's and Yang's proposals are so ill-considered. Vested interests will just use the new power to further enhance their wealth. Despite the naive fantasy's of the "democrats", the kind of regulatory regime you long for is never controlled by voters. It's controlled by lobbyists and bureaucrats.

That's why, to get back to the OP, Warren's and Yang's proposals are so ill-considered. Vested interests will just use the new power to further enhance their wealth. Despite the naive fantasy's of the "democrats", the kind of regulatory regime you long for is never controlled by voters. It's controlled by lobbyists and bureaucrats.

How will "vested interests" enhance their wealth if Warren's ACA requires corporations with more than a billion dollars in tax receipts to give their employees the right to elect 40% of their board of directors?

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

 

[Grumblenuts]

Where did I say I was opposed to all laws?
Stow the lying horseshit, mkay?

Lying horseshit? Sure, sure, whatever, drama queen.

In short, if you want to get money out of politics, you have to remove the politicians power to control our money.

Unbelievable. Just a wee bit of a problem there, fella:

In the federal government of the United States, the power of the purse is vested in the Congress as laid down in the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 (the Appropriations Clause) and Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (the Taxing and Spending Clause).

The power of the purse plays a critical role in the relationship of the United States Congress and the President of the United States, and has been the main historic tool by which Congress has limited executive power.

JHFC on a Triscuit!

 

[Grumblenuts]

You're pretty fixated on this notion of 'too much'. How much is that, exactly? More than you? Should everyone be allocated the same amount of money each morning? Would that satisfy you?

You're mighty triggered by this notion of "too much." Calm, logical responses do exist for such questions and more. And none of it is rocket science in the least. But you don't really care so fuck it. Go back to pissing up a rope or whatever you normally do..

 

[dblack]

You're pretty fixated on this notion of 'too much'. How much is that, exactly? More than you? Should everyone be allocated the same amount of money each morning? Would that satisfy you?

You're mighty triggered by this notion of "too much." Calm, logical responses do exist for such questions and more. And none of it is rocket science in the least. But you don't really care so fuck it. Go back to pissing up a rope or whatever you normally do..

You're right. I don't really care how government might go about deciding who has "too much", because it's not a power government shouldn't have to begin with.