Maher at his best

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1322711429' post='1069626']
laissez faire is basically the same thing as the invisible hand correct?

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qjvwQrZmpk[/media]
[/quote]
Close cousins. The invisible hand is Adam Smith's formulation, while [i]laissez faire [/i]originates with the French Physiocrats. Both were critical of the then prevalent mercantile systems in place in both England and France.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' timestamp='1322764337' post='1069751']

I don't disagree that this may be true, but if it is, why does he get not only no support from the entrenched oligarchy, but derision from said oligarchy?
[/quote]
Lots of factors, I imagine. Foremost, he is a principled person. And principled folk don't do well in history (during their lifetimes.) See Socrates and Thomas More for example. Also, people tend to assume that the oligopoly is more or less monolithic; it isn't. Above all, these folks have power and tend to use that power in their own interest. So, there are lots of shenanigans among them. Perhaps the best recent example is the case of M.F. Global, which went under not too long ago--taking a shit-ton of client money down the tubes, too. Lots of folks see that as payback to Corzine for his behavior during the LTCM crisis. When people with power act in their own self-interest, even when it betrays the common interest of society, they find it a tough pill to swallow when they encounter a person who doesn't think that way. Can't be trusted.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1322766601' post='1069766']

Good stuff. I agree with your notion one hundred percent that on paper his Plan to restore America looks like the opposite of what we need. That said when the time comes for nominations, everyone is picking from the same toxic shelf. Is it worth it to gamble on the guy who wants to end the wars, end the war on drugs and have a serious look at the Federal Reserve even though he has some radical ideas about the role of government within the US because, as with any president, they're not likely to get even 25% of the things they want? And unlike any of the other candidates he actually has a pretty transparent, grounded set of beliefs?

I imagine after 2012 the Senate and House will look a little different, but as I penned those last questions I'm starting to wonder if the only ideas that he could actually gain traction with are the radical ones, while his feel good anti-military zeal will probably get lost in congressional sludge that slows down any good idea.
[/quote]
I think this next election is already shaping up to be a case of "more of the same." And politicians will continue to go with whatever system is in place. Even Rand, though as an outsider. Any significant change to our system will come in one of two ways--either from a groundswell of public opinion insisting on some modifications, or by a further entrenching of this creeping, corporate neo-fascism that is already more or less in place. At some point we'll hit a critical moment ( a la 9-11) and then the scales will tip one way or another. Well, I guess there is a third possibility--the majority of the population will continue not to care very much because their personal horizons are not very far away. In which case, it's more likely that the latter, neo-fascist takeover of America will endure, but at a slower pace.

[Homer_Rice]

Squirrelnutz and MichaelWeston: I apologize for taking so long to get back to this. Earlier,[url="http://forum.go-bengals.com/index.php?showtopic=60394&view=findpost&p=1069439"] in this post[/url], I claimed that the practical political intent of environmentalism helps to preserve those already in power.

Here is what I said:
[quote][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Were the U.S. to adopt the radical platform of [/font][/color][i]what is viewed as socialism [/i][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]in current times, then those who are currently in power would remain so. For example, the whole point of environmentalism (as a political force) is to preserve the status quo--to halt technological progress, to embrace a weird form of zero sum economics, and thus to condemn the vast bulk of the population to poverty and not much of a future.[/font][/color][/quote]

First an aside, then a preface, then some bullet points for consideration.

The aside: If anyone had any doubt about the complete silliness of how the term [i]socialism[/i] is bandied about in this modern political climate, one needs to look no farther than the Romney and Bachmann campaigns description of Gingrich as a socialist in the wake of the Gingrich-allied SuperPAC's documentary on [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_859968&src_vid=_evS-T-c35M&v=qHM__yj1_jI&hd=1"]Bain Capital[/url] during the New Hampshire primary. (The doc is not too bad if one remembers that it is an attack and not a straightforward attempt to be truthful.)

The preface: If we consider the large problems and challenges of human civilization as a long arc over time, then it is fair to say that what defines the current period (+ or - 100 years or so) is the character of how our species interacts with nature-at-large. This has always been true, but the industrial revolution and its concomitant effects in terms of worldwide population and resource usage make the problem pressing. In this broad sense, the notion of environmentalism is a valid inquiry. The problems are very real and they will demand very real solutions if the world is not to implode in an orgy of self-destruction over the coming decades.

My claim: Most of the present approaches to this genuine problem will exacerbate and propel this crisis into un-manageability. This serves the interests of those who seek to impede progress of the species in general (e.g. those who wish to continue their hold on power by utilizing and promoting many false conceptions about human nature and how it ought to approach the problems.) It also condemns the bulk of humanity into a vicious cycle of austerity and poverty. In other words, a combo of the exercise of power and the use of the tools of entertainment and bad science which promote a series of unfeasible solutions to our population and resource challenges.

Bullet points:

--Review all the popular science/entertainment shows you have seen that touch on various aspects of the challenge. Count the number of them which, at some moment in the script, explicitly define humanity as an antagonist contra nature, rather than pose the problem properly: that humans are not "otherness" in contention with nature, but that they are a part of nature. At best what one gets is some elaboration of the concept of "stewardship" which implies an accountant's mentality in approaching the problem and not a genuinely scientific one.

-- Who funds all this "entertainment" and is there a concerted attempt to define the parameters of discussion on these issues?

-- From whence the environmentalist movement at all? Who funds and controls the various institutions which fall into this rubric? Pick a few and investigate. In many cases, it's a game of "find the power elite under the rocks."

-- Consider the premises of the so-called "hard science" and rigorous scholarship that conceptually underpins the environmentalist movement. For the modern period, consider "The Limits To Growth" through Diamonds' "Guns, Germs, and Steel." Historically, consider Malthus, et al.

--How are "natural resources" defined? What fundamental mistake do most citations of this concept accept as a premise?

--Does modern civilization have an [i]energy[/i] problem? Or a [i]power[/i] problem? What's the difference?

This should suffice to kick things off. Pick an aspect which appeals to you and let's dig deeper.

[Ron~Popeil]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1322675846' post='1069489']
She pretty much nails it (as always)

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQrc81Coemk[/media]
[/quote]


The problem is that the same guys that set up the problem would be expected to regulate it much liek the FDA and USDA are run by former big ag execs and drug company execs. They come in, change the rules to their liking and then go back to fucking us all with bad drugs and industrialized food that makes us obese and sick. Then they tell us we need to eat more of that industrialized food and take those bad drugs in order to get thin and healthy. It's not unlike bad monetary policy and former bankers running the fed.

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='Ron~Popeil' timestamp='1327555013' post='1092269']


The problem is that the same guys that set up the problem would be expected to regulate it much liek the FDA and USDA are run by former big ag execs and drug company execs. They come in, change the rules to their liking and then go back to fucking us all with bad drugs and industrialized food that makes us obese and sick. Then they tell us we need to eat more of that industrialized food and take those bad drugs in order to get thin and healthy. It's not unlike bad monetary policy and former bankers running the fed.
[/quote]

{Let me just preface this by disclosing that I've been drinking, so sorry if it's not as eloquent or intelligible as intended}

Then cut off the fucking two way corporate-government highway.

If you work in or for a large, publicly traded corporation such as Monsanto or BoA, you are not allowed to serve for in a government post until you have been out of that position for 5 years. If you are in a post of power within the government such as head of the DEA, EPA, Commerce, etc., you are not allowed to take a position within the private sector within the same industry for 10 years after leaving office.

Not foolproof but it'd make it harder for these skinflute tuners to double dip like they are {a pox on their households}

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1327557141' post='1092274']

{Let me just preface this by disclosing that I've been drinking, so sorry if it's not as eloquent or intelligible as intended}

Then cut off the fucking two way corporate-government highway.

[/quote]


No kidding.

The answer would be no regulation "let the market work" from the anarcho capitalists. Problem is look where that got us.

[Ron~Popeil]

[quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1327557141' post='1092274']

{Let me just preface this by disclosing that I've been drinking, so sorry if it's not as eloquent or intelligible as intended}

Then cut off the fucking two way corporate-government highway.

If you work in or for a large, publicly traded corporation such as Monsanto or BoA, you are not allowed to serve for in a government post until you have been out of that position for 5 years. If you are in a post of power within the government such as head of the DEA, EPA, Commerce, etc., you are not allowed to take a position within the private sector within the same industry for 10 years after leaving office.

Not foolproof but it'd make it harder for these skinflute tuners to double dip like they are {a pox on their households}
[/quote]


I agree completely. This is where conservatives typically miss the real issue. The free market does not work when you have a government stacked with people that have a monetary interest in the outcome. Liberals tend to miss the point that social engineering through regulation creates the exact same issues. Then the two sides sling blame at each other when the outcomes hurt people and use these "crisies" to further their own political agendas. Then you get things like Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes-Oxley, McCain-Feingold, and the Patriot Act that do more harm than good. The they wonder why we don't trust them.

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='Ron~Popeil' timestamp='1327602938' post='1092362']


I agree completely. This is where conservatives typically miss the real issue. The free market does not work when you have a government stacked with people that have a monetary interest in the outcome. Liberals tend to miss the point that social engineering through regulation creates the exact same issues. Then the two sides sling blame at each other when the outcomes hurt people and use these "crisies" to further their own political agendas. Then you get things like Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes-Oxley, McCain-Feingold, and the Patriot Act that do more harm than good. The they wonder why we don't trust them.
[/quote]

[IMG]http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b226/lodge308/corpwhores.jpg[/IMG]

[Ron~Popeil]

[quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1327637677' post='1092468']

[img]http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b226/lodge308/corpwhores.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

That is just awesome. They would make nascar uniforms look empty.