I have yet to see a Ron Paul supporter convincingly make the case for how his policies will address the fundamental problem we have in this country, concentration of wealth and power directly attributable to corporate person-hood and the anti-democratic influence of that concentration of power. The government did not just suddenly turn on the people simply because "big government" is the problem. That view has it backwards, the government was stolen from us precisely because of corporate power, big corporations are the problem.
As I understand Dr. Paul's approach to address this issue, he will completely deregulate industry so the small folk can jump into the fray. Whoa, that sounds like snake oil to me. After the corporations have taken off with most all the loot, and saddled us with immense debt, how on earth is that going to solve anything.
The country may well run into serious financial turmoil in the coming year, it seems disingenuous in the extreme to say "OK, now we're going to unleash all you little folk, go out and get them." All this will accomplish is to give large corporations free reign to dump on the country. And, how pray tell does the small business man compete with corporations so large that they now swallow up each other in both the vertical (same industry) and the horizontal (unrelated industry). The current corporate model is fundamentally flawed. Unless this is addressed, we shall only trade "public" boondoggles and scandals for an even larger share of private scandal.
Ron Paul's stance is appealing in an emotional sense, but we can't afford such total regression with population and resource constraints that didn't exist in a serious way in previous decades and centuries. I suspect such regression would take us back to feudal society.
So, by all means I support restoration of The Constitution, no more illegal preemptive foreign adventures, elimination of the constructs of empire, restoration of our civil rights and a return to the rule of law. I just don't see how all this can be accomplished without acknowledging the bear in the room, the military-medical-media industrial complex. It is not possible.
Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States
I have a BSc in Computer And Information Science, enjoy riding my little Ninja motorcycle and running a few miles in the park. I volunteer with an animal rescue agency. I'm fiercely independent, stubborn and have decided to spare any woman the trouble of dealing with me long term by remaining a committed single person. More to come later, barring unforeseen circumstances.
I have yet to see a Ron Paul supporter convincingly make the case for how his policies will address the fundamental problem we have in this country, concentration of wealth and power directly attributable to corporate person-hood and the anti-democratic influence of that concentration of power.
Where do you think this concentration of wealth and power come from?
It's from getting the Federal government in bed with Large Business. Cut Federal government back to it's Constitutionally mandated role, and you won't have, for example, Andrew Mozillo getting away with stealing billions of dollars with the check of approval from our own government who is bailing his ass out.
The same is true for our Military Industry, our communications industry which is deeply in bed with the government preventing any REAL news from being reported, etc.
This won't be a panacea, or course, these "businesses" will simply be getting into bed with State governments, but when your state government becomes so unbearably corrupt, you can leave it and take your tax money with you. This was the original vision of the people that created this country - it places a limit on corruption. When it becomes intolerable, people can abandon it.
Again, I stress this isn't a perfect solution, but it's far better than what we have now.
by
fuzzy wzhe (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 4:43:22 PM
And how about the new law passed just recently by the FCC relaxing media ownership. Now Murdoch (who was banned a while ago from buying a media company because he wan't a US citizen) now owns Newscop.
The new law just past last Tuesday by the FCC allows the co-ownership of both television and print (newspaper).
He went from being banned from owning a media institution in the US to now owning the televisions and newspapers. WOW, what a change in such a short time.
Just check YOUTUBE for the fox coverage of Ron Paul and his polls during the debates. What a joke. The media pushes who they want! Again, now controlled by Murdoch. You don't think he has a stake in pushing a candidate that has his best interest in mind?
Give it back to the little people.
GO RON PAUL
by
jumper34 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 5:04:23 PM
Thanks for driving my point home, Ron Paul would only "relax" media ownership more, he would likely remove all restrictions. He would provide the final nail in the coffin of open public airways. Once corporations have reigned in the neutral Internet, we will all live in a collective fantasy entirely of corporate design. You and I will then likely be denied the voice we have now to engage in civil discourse. We will all go back to being spoon-fed our views from big media.
Yes, I agree, give our government back to the little people, reign in the corporations! Support the little people, support this forum for positive change.
by
all owners (1 articles, 58 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 141 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 5:58:29 PM
As I stated, the concentration in power came directly from corporations.
And how did the Federal Government get in Bed with Large Business? It happened because corporations have gotten so powerful that they have formed a shadow government that runs the show behind the scenes. That is why so much secrecy is required, to keep US citizens from knowing the truth. You cannot attack the coup that has occured by cutting out the role of the people, that is who our government is once the corporate tumor has been excised from it's backside. Andrew Mozillo and his ilk will continue to bilk the rest of us until the corporation is brought under control and restored to its rightful place of serving the interests of the people rather than the reverse. We have already seen what rampant privatization does, it brings obscene criminality and gives corporations free reign to further attack the common good out of which this nation has been fabricated.
Using the argument that the "free hand" will rectify this situation through eventual collapse of the criminal enterprise is not an acceptable approach. Prior to this happening great harm is done to people and the criminals often walk away greatly enriched after scamming the system, apparently the right kind of crime pays.
You can't deregulate and privatize your way out of a problem that has its roots in the private sector. I was once a supporter of Ron Paul myself, but I've done my own research and decided he's not the solution.
by
all owners (1 articles, 58 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 141 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 5:46:31 PM
It is one of those "did the chicken or the egg come first" sort of dilemmas. I agree with you, I don't think we can simplify it down entirely to a fundamentalist viewpoint on either side that ignores the tentacles that now extend between our imposter of a government and corporations, they've essentially merged. But, we would be naive to think that this abuse of power can be resolved without vigorous involvement by the citizenry. The only conduit for citizen involvement in issues that involve the common good, is the government. Why is there this blind side in the Ron Paul camp? You can't provide a solution if you are not aware of the entire problem.
All this talk of government in the the third person disturbs me. We are the government folks, take responsibility, don't let the corporate rascals smear us indirectly by attacking the government. Corporations are doing their best to dominate, obfuscate and destroy our government. Take it back! The alternative is surrender of the commonality that makes us a nation. The alternative is a private government with a private military such as BlackWater.
"A people may prefer a free government, but if, from indolence, or carelessness, or cowardice, or want of public spirit, they are unequal to the exertions necessary for preserving it; if they will not fight for it when it is directly attacked; if they can be deluded by the artifices used to cheat them out of it; if by momentary discouragement, or temporary panic, or a fit of enthusiasm for an individual, they can be induced to lay their liberties at the feet even of a great man, or trust him with powers which enable him to subvert their institutions; in all these cases they are more or less unfit for liberty: and though it may be for their good to have had it even for a short time, they are unlikely long to enjoy it." -- John Stuart Mill, Representative Government, 1861
by
all owners (1 articles, 58 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 141 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 7:21:59 PM
Enforce anti-trust laws. They're on the books and Ron Paul has NEVER said he wanted to do away with this. He is for capitalism, not corporate fascism. Much of the regulation today stifles new businesses.
Getting rid of much of the red tape and enforcing some of the decent laws we have on the books (anti-trust, immigration, etc.) will do a lot more than larger government can.
by
Justin Green (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 12:43:59 PM
Indeed much smaller government would be wonderful, start with slashing our military budget.
I'm advocating for government restored to the people. Corporations have stolen our government, hence my desire to see their power curbed. I'm not even advocating abolishing corporations, simply restoring control to the people.
I agree we should enforce existing laws and that too much regulation is bad, for instance mandating fire resistance for many articles in the home was misguided in my opinion because we have introduced a dangerous chemical into everybody's environment. If somebody is so stupid as to smoke in bed, that's sad, but it's not something that should be addressed by the government.
I favor neither nanny government, nor fascism, today fascism is ascendant, we need to deal with that or nothing else will matter if you are interested in democracy.
Thanks for your comment.
by
all owners (1 articles, 58 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 141 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 4:23:35 AM
This may be a bit long winded, but i have to say, you need to pull your head out of the clouds. You think the big corporations aren't getting one over on us now. Look at Wal-Mart. What are we doing to fix this mess. They drive every little business out of business now. How about going back to the laws written prohibiting monopolies, i.e. Standard Oil (Sherman Anit-trust Act).
Furthermore, if we get rid of that ridiculous social security and medicare act, would that be great! Who do you think supports medicare? Right again, the healthcare industry and drug companies.
This goes right along with subsidizing ethanol. Again, buy stock in ADM. They have governement subsidized corn, government subsidized ethanol, and who knows what else. Those companies can't lose.
But, as your article points out, why change it now. It is too broke to fix anyway, so we might as well stay with the status quo and vote in Hillary so that we can complete 24 years under the Bush/Clinton regime.
GO RON PAUL.
by
jumper34 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 4:53:53 PM
How else are we going to turn this ship around? I find it interesting that so many people are supporting our current foreign policy. We have extended ourselves to every corner of the globe and setup shop... doesn't history teach us anything? In the thousands of years of written history, every empire eventually collapsed, the reason has always been the same. Most recently, the USSR collapsed on its own weight by choosing to support a military that exceeded its GDP. The USSR also chose to fight useless wars for the wrong reasons. The British who once spanned the globe are retreated to an island, the Romans secluded to a Peninsula. Ottomans? Japanese? Nazi? French? Where are they now? By choosing to fight wars overseas and keeping out borders open, we are guaranteed to fall. Osama Bin Laden was proud to point out, the US has spent several trillions of dollars on the war..while Osama only spent half a million dollars provoking us. Simply put, we cant afford to continue our current foreign policy. Who is paying for this? Where are we getting the money? As of right now, many experts are predicting our economy could collapse any day, making the depression look like a day in the park. This isn't just some pessimistic perspective on reality, it couldn't be more real. Just think about it..if you support a war on terror that has no end, if you support policing the world, if you support having 130 bases around the world, if you support the war because we're on offense and fighting them over there,if you support the military complex and special interests writing government policy.. By supporting these things, you are supporting the fall of the worlds greatest empire..guaranteed. Ron Pauls foreign policy is directly proportional to his fiscal policy. Neither are flawed.
by
Bob A. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 6:20:26 PM
You need to remove yourself from your profound delusional fantasy.
The point of the article is that corporations are getting over on us right now completely. That you missed the very foundation of my article, a short and to the point one at that, is not encouraging moving forward in this discussion. You fix the mess by attacking the root of the problem, corporate power, by restoring a balance to that power, that would be a government by we the people, who would regulate corporations in our interest. Currently corporations regulate the people in their interests.
You are deflecting the discussion from the subject by your attack on social security and medicare. Eliminating social programs will in no way attenuate corporate hegemony.
I agree that ethanol should not be subsidized, but you are rambling, what's your point other than a wandering Ron Paul polemic with random points cherry picked out of the ether.
//But, as your article points out, why change it now. It is too broke to fix anyway, so we might as well stay with the status quo and vote in Hillary so that we can complete 24 years under the Bush/Clinton regime.\\
My article in no way "points out" this nonsense fantasy conclusion that you pulled out of the clouds in a final display of total illogical. You my friend are a disservice to the Ron Paul campaign.
by
all owners (1 articles, 58 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 141 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 6:21:44 PM
Ron Paul is not an anarchist. There are laws on the books that are good, but not enforced. Much of the consumer protection laws are not enforced. Anti-trust laws are ignored for monetary payoffs. Immigration laws are ignored in exchange for money and future votes.
Bringing the troops home and putting them on the border, protecting our country, is a good start. Enforcing anti-trust laws, campaign finance reform, lobbyist reform, etc., is a good start.
by
Justin Green (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 12:47:06 PM
"I have yet to see a Ron Paul supporter convincingly make the case for how his policies will address the fundamental problem we have in this country, concentration of wealth and power directly attributable to corporate person-hood and the anti-democratic influence of that concentration of power. "
Well now, I think there may be a few anti-corporate and redistributionist code words in there, but I'm going to rephrase your premise to a form that is consistent with the way a lot of people might put it, and then answer it. I hope you find my changes reasonable and not deceptive.
"concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, and the increasing gap between the rich and poor, and the anti-democratic influence of that concentration of wealth."
In fact, Ron Paul is addressing this problem directly, and he's the only candidate who is. Let me say it like this, so no one can disagree: Such excessive concentrations of wealth are not a characteristic of a truly free, Constitutional society; they are the result of over 35 years of using an unbacked paper currency which was bound and destined to be over-issued.
I've got news for all of you - this tremendous gap between rich and poor was impossible when dollars could be exchanged for gold, which Americans could until 1933, when liberal Icon FDR confiscated the people's gold, and foreign Central banks could until 1971, when Republican Nixon finished the job of leading Americans astray from the Constitution.
Fiat money is borrowed into existence by banks, which means that banks and rich people and corporations get to the new money first, before it has a chance to lose purchasing power. As time goes on, this inflation dynamic, more than any other single thing in the world, helps the rich while it penalizes poor people and prevents them from becoming rich.
So, you see, I don't care what the problem is, it's usually caused by a lack of freedom - and more freedom can usually help to solve it. Ron Paul has attempted to introduce competing currencies to break this intolerable situation up. There is nothing else - nothing - that will work to give poor people a chance in this country again if this fundamental flaw is not addressed. Someone (FED) cannot be allowed to create out of thin air, something (dollar/credit) that everybody else has to work for - it's really that simple.
You want to see poor people saving and moving up in the world? Allow competing gold and silver currencies to give them (hell, everyone) the proper incentive. Fiat money means inflation, and inflation screws poor people. Check the news on Zimbabwe, where London School of Economics graduate Robert Mugabe has literally destroyed that country with inflation.
It is this fundamental monetary inequity that is at the root of economic inequality in America just as it is in Zimbabwe. The founders saw it, which is why they insisted that money be of silver and gold. Ron Paul understands it, and it's a major part of his platform. Which means that, in my opinion, your assertion of a "fundamental flaw" in Ron Paul's platform is - thank goodness! - flawed.
Fatally.
by
Tom deSabla (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 50 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 10:16:38 PM
Once again people are attempting to put words in my mouth, trying to tell me what I'm saying. I think my words were very clear and I deliberately avoided the multi-syllabic words that might confuse the type of reader who might be inclined to be a follower and look to a leader rather than make an appeal to reason. Having said this, my appeal is primarily to the independent thinker, you obviously don't fit into this category.
There is no hidden meaning or code words in the words sir, no bogeyman liberal hiding under the bed, they directly express my ideas. So, well, well, you've somehow "analyzed" me into your preconceived view of the world, how very clever of you. Sorry, I think for myself, I invite everybody to join me. I have no desire to lead, I want people to wake up and think for themselves and stop looking to some Messiah to save them. Stop scaring yourself with conspiracies that only exist in your own mind. And please do not feel free to rephrase my premise, it stands in good stead without your posturing.
There was no "anti-corporate" code word, flat out, corporations in their present form are incompatible with democracy. What is so scary about this third rail known as the corporation for Ron Paul supporters?
Your words: \\"concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, and the increasing gap between the rich and poor, and the anti-democratic influence of that concentration of wealth."//
The addressing of the concept of the corporation is central to my argument, so your re-wording of my argument is indeed deceptive and an unreasonable attempt to twist the argument away from the very subject I am discussing. You are welcome to write your own article, but if you would like to intelligently discuss the issue I raise, please address the subject matter.
And asserting: \\"Let me say it like this, so no one can disagree: Such excessive concentrations of wealth are not a characteristic of a truly free, Constitutional society; they are the result of over 35 years of using an unbacked paper currency which was bound and destined to be over-issued."//
is nonsense, I hereby inform you that I disagree, so your assertion is false on the face of it.
I've got news for you, the fiat currency argument is a straw man issue that has nothing to do with the problem of concentrated wealth. If you convert all the paper money into gold and place all the gold in one pile, the wealth is no less concentrated.
\\"So, you see, I don't care what the problem is,"//
This little Freudian slip of yours betrays your surface argument and reveals your disregard for the facts in favor of dogma. The problem is a lack of freedom caused by a concentration of wealth and power enabled by the fundamentally flawed institution known as the corporation. And this situation is only able to continue with the apathy of people like yourself who don't care what the facts are, who are unwilling to question their own propaganda induced and nurtured perceptions.
It's that simple, you can appeal to your Messiah, everybody has the right, but you do not have the answer, you do not even have a reasonable premise.
by
all owners (1 articles, 58 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 141 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 12:25:40 AM
Whenver a politician produces a cult for their followers, something is terribly wrong. Paul cultists have misconnected the dots. On the one hand, they correctly see a great many problems with and failures of our government, but then they connect them to the solutions advocated by Paul -- and that is their mistake. They refuse to accept and understand all information that undermine Paul and his positions. Take one of my favorites: Paul's use of congressional earmarks to steer money into his district - federal, taxpayers money! He sees nothing wrong in this, but what people who really do not understand the workings of Congress do not understand is the internal politics of Congress. NO member that really attacks the political status quo and his party ever gets their earmarks into spending bills; that Paul has gotten BILLIONS in earmarks could only happen because he has played ball with the Republican leadership when they needed his votes (or his not voting on certain bills, rather than voting against their position). And the idiots that do not understand that earmarks and pork spending actually DOES INCREASE federal spending are totally ignorant.
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (131 articles, 34 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 526 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 11:07:41 AM
I agree wholeheartedly. I actually supported Ron Paul for a short while, but many of his supporter's attitudes threw up a red flag in my face, this caused me to think things through clearly and do more research. So, ironically, his supporters were instrumental in spurring me to independent thought, certainly not their intended effect, but I suppose I should grudgingly thank them for that.
by
all owners (1 articles, 58 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 141 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 6:10:58 PM
I agree wholeheartedly. I actually supported Ron Paul for a short while, but many of his supporter's attitudes threw up a red flag in my face, this caused me to think things through clearly and do more research. So, ironically, his supporters were instrumental in spurring me to independent thought, certainly not their intended effect, but I suppose I should grudgingly thank them for that.
by
all owners (1 articles, 58 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 141 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 6:12:16 PM
The current U.S. monetary system contributes to the balance of power in favor of large corporations and reforming it would be a step in the right direction, however, it is not the problem. As the dynamics of Adam Smith's invisible hand do not apply to megacorporations that are, among other problems, free to wield their enormous influence on Government, a much heavier handed approach is justified. The modern corporate charter is just the place to start.
by
Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 334 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 3:18:30 AM
Thanks for your contribution. Why is this basic fact so difficult for people to comprehend? It seems that most people are happy to spend their time attacking symptoms while the body dies of the disease.
by
all owners (1 articles, 58 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 141 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 5:10:32 AM
Problem: "Concentration of wealth and power directly attributable to corporate person-hood and the anti-democratic influence of that concentration of power .... As I understand Dr. Paul's approach to address this issue, he will completely deregulate industry so the small folk can jump into the fray."
No, Dr. Paul argues for federal deregulation, not as a solution, but on principle: Congress was never granted Constitutional power to regulate state corporations, only D.C.-chartered corporations and the like. Federal deregulation is not promoted as the answer to corporate power-grabbing, nor is it promoted without a firm transition to strengthening states' regulation of their own chartered corporations.
Dr. Paul's answer to corporate abuse addresses the moral dimension, as any answer to the problem must. Any legislative answer, such as moving the regulation to the states, or trust-busting, or creating massive oversight panels which themselves can be lobbied and corrupted, will fail to answer the moral fact that the abusers will seek alternate means to continue their abuse. The two moral vehicles which are the only solutions to abuse in general are reason and just force. First, you reason with the abuser in the hopes of peaceful resolution; failing that, you achieve consensus among we the people to use the force which that people has lawfully delegated to its leaders.
Paul affirms these two routes. He has often stated, and many have scoffed at, the value of the president's personal morality in leading by example, and championing the moral mandate of the people (particularly the victims); example has great value in many fields (such as cooling relations with Iran), although admittedly less so in dealing with entrenched interests used to getting their own way. He has often stated the states' rights position that in our system the people have delegated corporate regulatory power to the state legislatures, who are the true codependents here (the federal assumption of power only serves to heighten state codependency); and the people retain large and undefined powers to fix matters themselves en masse.
In short, corporatism will only be defeated when individuals take responsibility to hold their legislatures accountable for holding their creations (the corporations) accountable. The citizenry must demand laws which clearly and specifically punish the abuses that are obviously abuses against morality-- such as strong-armed monopolies-- and which punish attempts by monopolies to bribe and lobby legislators as well. The particular abuses and punishments should be determined locally by upstanding legislators and carried out consistently by just judges. Paul's agenda frees the people, across the board, to fix those laws, to the degree the people find necessary to stop the abuse. He does not make it a platform issue because, like so many of the changes needed, he cannot do it alone. It is free exchange (even Internet forums like this one) that nurtures the reason and just force necessary to curb this evil.
Hats off to my good friend Mr. DeSabla and his response as well. Have fun, I don't know when I'll be back.
by
Helena Handbasket (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 1:38:15 PM
Re: "Big corporations are the problem .... The current corporate model is fundamentally flawed. Unless this is addressed, we shall only trade 'public' boondoggles and scandals for an even larger share of private scandal .... I just don't see how all this can be accomplished without acknowledging the bear in the room, the military-medical-media industrial complex. It is not possible."
Obviously corporations themselves are not the problem: they are a corollary of the individual right to associate and combine. It is big (abusive) corporations that are the problem. I fail to see how this is a fundamental flaw for Paul, as it would seem to be even more fundamental in the platforms of every other major candidate, who without exception have been bought and sold by the corp-complex. It seems that even freeing the individual to compete (who can with careful planning have asymmetric effects upon the big corporation, such as Trevor Lyman), without the moral dimension, is still a better solution than any other on the table this year. Paul has also been the forerunner in exposing each of the military, media, and medical aspects of the power complex.
I wouldn't want to presume you are a little disappointed in Paul for not going far enough-- but to go far enough requires the will of the people, awakened from their enslavement to the already extant feudal system. But only in his doctrine is there any hope for the people to fix the corporate model and restore corporations to their proper place as servants of the state and of the people at large, rather than masters. I'd like you to be more specific about what the specific corporate abuses are that need the most correcting, if you'd like me to speak more specifically to the cures available to a God-fearing people.
by
Helena Handbasket (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 1:55:52 PM
