4 ms·

Just because someone is against having a massive federal government doesn't make them a corporatist. I suggest you compare the donors that Ron Paul had in his

Just because someone is against having a massive federal government doesn't make them a corporatist. I suggest you compare the donors that Ron Paul had in his campaign vs. Obama and Romney to find out who the real corporatists are. You could also count how many corporate lobbyists Obama has appointed to positions in the federal government.

ebbv 13y ago
Where did I say anything about Obama or Romney? They are both far too beholden to corporate interests as well. But Obama is right on more issues than the Pauls are, IMHO.
- waffle_ss 13y ago
  You didn't, I was giving you examples of actual corporatists (particularly Obama as he's actually appointed lobbyists to positions of power in the federal government). corporatist: "A supporter of corporatism." corporatism: "The control of a state or organization by large interest groups." Using the definition of the word, how exactly are either of the Pauls corporatists?
  - ebbv 13y ago
    Bush appointed lots of lobbyists too. It's unfortunately how our government works in an age of unfettered corporate donations. If you hate it as much as I do then you should be for publicly financed campaigns to remove corporate interest from elections. The Pauls are corporatists because they would eliminate basically all regulation and so many government services that corporations would be the government.
    - jpadkins 13y ago
      Do corporations regulate the internet? or consumer electronics? The flaw in your logic is in the absence of government regulation the buyer, not the supplier is the primary regulator in the market. Consumers are more in control of cost/quality/safety trade-offs than corporations, because corporations that tailor their product to their preferences succeed.
    - rubikscube 13y ago
      A corporation doesn't provide its services at the barrel of a gun. ebbv, who do you not give a second thought to not returning their phone call? Someone from the government, or someone from Microsoft or Ford?
    - deelowe 13y ago
      I don't think you're using the right terms for what you're describing. You actually seem to be against capitalism and an unregulated free market society. That is, you are against a world without regulation where the free market is allowed to run freely unchecked by government. However, this is not corporatism as it has nothing to do with corporations. In fact, corporations could be made illegal in capitalistic society by stating that business can only be conducted between individuals. One(capitalism and the free market) does not imply the other(corporations). I'm not sure if you'd still be against this(free market capitalism without corporations), but I imagine you would. I think you might need to read up a bit more on capitalism, classical liberalism, libertarianism, crony capitalism, and perhaps marxism or communism. It might help you make your points better. There's a bit of each(and possibly others) mixed in your views. Ron and Rand are libertarians. Also, Rand is more moderate and conservative(AKA republican in this case) than Ron. They don't always share the same views. For example, I doubt Rand would push the gold standard like Ron has in the past. This is one of the reasons I'd support Rand, but had my concerns about Ron. To be clear though, they are not corporatists. In fact, they(like most libertarians) very much believe that crony capitalism through extensive lobbying and regulation that prevents new markets from being created is precisely what's caused the somewhat recent rise of corporatism in the US. As I'm merely trying to educate and not criticize you, so I won't go into why I disagree with your viewpoints. Though I'd like to point you to the telecom, banking, and broadcast industries to see what happens when government applies strong regulations on "corporations."
- dram 13y ago
  If Ron and Rand are corporatists, why do more corporations support Obama? The status quo is what the corporations support. Limiting military spending and restricting or eliminating Fed policies would disrupt the status quo more than anything else.
- nhangen 13y ago
  'But Obama is right on more issues than the Pauls are, IMHO.' This is where you show your true colors.

ebbv 13y ago

Where did I say anything about Obama or Romney? They are both far too beholden to corporate interests as well. But Obama is right on more issues than the Pauls are, IMHO.

waffle_ss 13y ago
You didn't, I was giving you examples of actual corporatists (particularly Obama as he's actually appointed lobbyists to positions of power in the federal government). corporatist: "A supporter of corporatism." corporatism: "The control of a state or organization by large interest groups." Using the definition of the word, how exactly are either of the Pauls corporatists?
- ebbv 13y ago
  Bush appointed lots of lobbyists too. It's unfortunately how our government works in an age of unfettered corporate donations. If you hate it as much as I do then you should be for publicly financed campaigns to remove corporate interest from elections. The Pauls are corporatists because they would eliminate basically all regulation and so many government services that corporations would be the government.
  - jpadkins 13y ago
    Do corporations regulate the internet? or consumer electronics? The flaw in your logic is in the absence of government regulation the buyer, not the supplier is the primary regulator in the market. Consumers are more in control of cost/quality/safety trade-offs than corporations, because corporations that tailor their product to their preferences succeed.
  - rubikscube 13y ago
    A corporation doesn't provide its services at the barrel of a gun. ebbv, who do you not give a second thought to not returning their phone call? Someone from the government, or someone from Microsoft or Ford?
  - deelowe 13y ago
    I don't think you're using the right terms for what you're describing. You actually seem to be against capitalism and an unregulated free market society. That is, you are against a world without regulation where the free market is allowed to run freely unchecked by government. However, this is not corporatism as it has nothing to do with corporations. In fact, corporations could be made illegal in capitalistic society by stating that business can only be conducted between individuals. One(capitalism and the free market) does not imply the other(corporations). I'm not sure if you'd still be against this(free market capitalism without corporations), but I imagine you would. I think you might need to read up a bit more on capitalism, classical liberalism, libertarianism, crony capitalism, and perhaps marxism or communism. It might help you make your points better. There's a bit of each(and possibly others) mixed in your views. Ron and Rand are libertarians. Also, Rand is more moderate and conservative(AKA republican in this case) than Ron. They don't always share the same views. For example, I doubt Rand would push the gold standard like Ron has in the past. This is one of the reasons I'd support Rand, but had my concerns about Ron. To be clear though, they are not corporatists. In fact, they(like most libertarians) very much believe that crony capitalism through extensive lobbying and regulation that prevents new markets from being created is precisely what's caused the somewhat recent rise of corporatism in the US. As I'm merely trying to educate and not criticize you, so I won't go into why I disagree with your viewpoints. Though I'd like to point you to the telecom, banking, and broadcast industries to see what happens when government applies strong regulations on "corporations."
dram 13y ago
If Ron and Rand are corporatists, why do more corporations support Obama? The status quo is what the corporations support. Limiting military spending and restricting or eliminating Fed policies would disrupt the status quo more than anything else.
nhangen 13y ago
'But Obama is right on more issues than the Pauls are, IMHO.' This is where you show your true colors.