The Beach Boys and Ronald Reagan???

[Chocolate Shake Man]

You're quite right.  You don't actually state that you equate right-wing extremism with racism and homophobia.  I stand corrected.  Sorry about that.  Nevertheless, you still define being a Republican as being a right-wing extremist.  What do you see as right-wing extremism?

Well, keep in mind that the party under the influence of Newt Gingrich in the 90s consciously veered to right wing extremism once it became clear that the Democrats were establishing themselves as the centre-right business party. It became necessary for the Republicans to distinguish themselves, and this entailed quite public pronouncements of being the party of right wing social values. But their right wing extremism is a consequence of their social conservatism (which is much different than real conservatism, a philosophy that is now entirely ignored by both parties), their rampant commitment to a very rich miltary-industrial complex, staunch support of corporate welfare and corporate protectionism, which extends as far as extending more privilege to corporate personhood (which doesn't even exist) than to actual people. Again, not too different from the Democrats in policy, but their fervent support for these issues (Democrats are a bit more moderate in their corporate zeal), plus what began under the Bush Adminstration as a wilful reactionary attempts at undermining and undoing of entrenched reforms, really worked to place the Republican party on the far end of the right wing spectrum.

[SMiLE Brian]

The supreme court case where the court ruled that a corporation is a person has to rank up with Dredd Scott case as one of the worst court decisions ever.

[Awesoman]

How is that reductivist?  If a person crosses our borders illegally, they have broken federal law.  It is a criminal offense.  A nation has the right to defend its own borders and control its own immigration policies.  I don't understand why this is such a shock to you.  If you don't like the law, then work to change it, but don't say that it is an injustice to enforce an existing law.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the State recognizing gay marriages, but I also don't have a problem with a church that refuses to recognize them.   And I don't think the government should ever make an attempt to force that church to comply.  However, I do think that if a state is going to recognize same-sex marriages, it needs to happen through the ballot box and not through a decree from a federal court judge.

Pretty much agree with what you've said.  Not all laws are fair, but the law is the law.  If you want to live in another country, please respect that country's laws and enter legally. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

How is that reductivist?  If a person crosses our borders illegally, they have broken federal law.  It is a criminal offense.  A nation has the right to defend its own borders and control its own immigration policies.  I don't understand why this is such a shock to you.  If you don't like the law, then work to change it, but don't say that it is an injustice to enforce an existing law.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the State recognizing gay marriages, but I also don't have a problem with a church that refuses to recognize them.   And I don't think the government should ever make an attempt to force that church to comply.  However, I do think that if a state is going to recognize same-sex marriages, it needs to happen through the ballot box and not through a decree from a federal court judge.

Pretty much agree with what you've said.  Not all laws are fair, but the law is the law.  If you want to live in another country, please respect that country's laws and enter legally.  

Again, I don't really think the United States is in much of a position to make such claims here -- particularly since its foreign policy has very much been built upon entering countries illegally. And I suppose ultimately this comes down to a value judgement - what is more important? That Mexicans are in the United States illegally causing relatively little harm or that the United States enforced NAFTA policies have led to Mexican wages being driven down, millions of Mexican farmers being driven off their land by subsidized US and Canadian agribusiness and price of goods being raised? I think only once the United States admits to its very real responsibility in the rising poverty in Mexico (which is the reason why so many try to get into the US) will they be in any credible position to actually determine whether or not Mexicans have a right to be in a land that was actually once there's until it was violently taken in an imperial expansion project.

[Awesoman]

And I suppose ultimately this comes down to a value judgement - what is more important? That Mexicans are in the United States illegally causing relatively little harm--

Riiiiiiighhhttt...so that Arizona Immigration Act was simply because its citizens don't like Mexicans?  I guess you weren't aware of the sharp increase in crime that state has endured caused by...none other than those harmless illegal immigrants.

I don't claim that the U.S. has never made an unfair decision (no country has ever been perfect); but I refuse to be an apologist here.  Every country has the right to protect their borders.  I will admit that the U.S. has turned a blind eye to the illegal immigration problem for years, and we're responsible for how out of control it has become.  But the bottom line is if you're trespassing in another country by illegal means, that country has every right to deport you, regardless to whether you are friend or foe.  To let anyone pass through our borders freely is just plain stupid on incalculable levels. 

[Alex]

And I suppose ultimately this comes down to a value judgement - what is more important? That Mexicans are in the United States illegally causing relatively little harm--

Riiiiiiighhhttt...so that Arizona Immigration Act was simply because its citizens don't like Mexicans?  I guess you weren't aware of the sharp increase in crime that state has endured caused by...none other than those harmless illegal immigrants.

I don't claim that the U.S. has never made an unfair decision (no country has ever been perfect); but I refuse to be an apologist here.  Every country has the right to protect their borders.  I will admit that the U.S. has turned a blind eye to the illegal immigration problem for years, and we're responsible for how out of control it has become.  But the bottom line is if you're trespassing in another country by illegal means, that country has every right to deport you, regardless to whether you are friend or foe.  To let anyone pass through our borders freely is just plain stupid on incalculable levels. 

I say let's open up those borders. Enough of the petty nationalism. We're all humans. We all live on the planet Earth. National borders are an antiquated concept in this 21st century high-tech global information age.

[Aegir]

Holy s.h.it this is one of the worst threads in the history of this board. someone please close this down. this is a Beach Boys forum! god.

[b00ts]

Holy s.h.it this is one of the worst threads in the history of this board. someone please close this down. this is a Beach Boys forum! god.

Agreed. Can we at least move this out of "on-topic discussions?" This board is getting weird...

[smile-holland]

Yep, the Sandbox is a much better place for this discussion...

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Riiiiiiighhhttt...so that Arizona Immigration Act was simply because its citizens don't like Mexicans?

I'm very tired of this rhetorical trick of inventing a position out of thin air because someone is incapable of dealing with what I've actually said. Like I said to another poster earlier, I will gladly debate points that I have actually stated but I'm not interested in continually defending points that have been falsely characterized, misrepresented, and entirely made up. This is nothing more than a strawman tactic which is covered up by the "So" at the beginning and a question mark at the end, giving it the pretense of intellectual inquiry. But it's just as disingenuous and it's just as productive in a conversation (by that, I mean entirely unproductive) as any strawman. It's become quite common in this thread alone. The following are two examples of points being attributed to me that I not only never said, but in fact, entirely countered with the things I actually said, both of which use the same "So" rhetorical tactic that you've employed here, demonstrating just how much of a rhetorical device it in fact is:

So they aren't necessarily racist and homophobic, but they do suck, therefore they deserve to be called racists and homophobes.

According to him, if you disagree with Barack Obama's policies in any way, you are an "extreme right-winger" who is a racist, sexist homophobe. Nice. So instead of debating the issues, you resort to name-calling and stereotypes.

Now, getting back to reality, I already explained my position very clearly on why I believe there is opposition to undocumented Mexicans and it had exactly zero to do with citizens not liking Mexicans (I assume you mean as a culture). To repeat, I noted that the whole construction of Mexicans as "illegal immigrants" emanates from powerful imperial sectors who require a large, cheap Mexican work-base in Mexico and it is filtered to the population through scare tactics like "they are draining our economy" and "they are stealing our jobs" and so the American people who are also exploited by the powerful imperial state are often scared into adopting their positions.

I guess you weren't aware of the sharp increase in crime that state has endured caused by...none other than those harmless illegal immigrants.

In fact, there has been no "sharp increase in crime" in Arizona -- this is one of those scare tactics that I mentioned earlier. A recent article from The Arizona Republic noted that despite the image concocted by people like John McCain who noted that the violence in Arizona was "the worst [he had] ever seen" the reality of the situation was in fact much different. In reality, crime rates in border towns such as Nogales, Douglas, Yuma had "remained essentially flat for the past decade" and crime rates were down statewide. This is unsurprising given some of the conclusions reached in studies throughout the last decade which showed that immigrants commit fewer crimes per capita than native-born citizens. According to the chairman of the sociology department at Harvard University, the data shows that so-called illegal immigrants are "disproportionately less likely to be involved in many acts of deviance, crime, drunk driving, any number of things that sort of imperil our well-being."

But of course what little violence there has been has been exploited significantly by the mainstream media whose interests are those of the ruling elite who, as I noted, depend on a large, cheap Mexican work-base in Mexico. It is consequently necessary to focus on crime of undocumented Mexicans in order to portray them as dangerous and a threat to the national well being. Once the public is sufficiently frightened because of myths and fairy-tales, they can be persuaded to support policies that continue to disenfranchise and exploit Mexican labor for the benefit of a very small concentration of power in the US. And, of course, the very premise that Arizona has enacted the Immigration Act for security purposes is completely fraudulent. As the Washington Post noted, US police chiefs said at the time that the immigration law would more than likely lead to an increase in crime, not a decrease. That the the law was passed despite such warnings from those who would be in a position to know, suggests quite convincingly that security was certainly not the primary drive behind the bill and that Arizona doesn't particularly care about reducing crime rates that were already stable or reducing anyway.

I don't claim that the U.S. has never made an unfair decision (no country has ever been perfect); but I refuse to be an apologist here.  Every country has the right to protect their borders.  I will admit that the U.S. has turned a blind eye to the illegal immigration problem for years, and we're responsible for how out of control it has become.  But the bottom line is if you're trespassing in another country by illegal means, that country has every right to deport you, regardless to whether you are friend or foe.  To let anyone pass through our borders freely is just plain stupid on incalculable levels.  

Again, the problem is not undocumented immigrants. As the data shows, they are relatively harmless. If the United States truly cared about really solving this problem (they don't), they would admit their responsibility in creating the very situation that has led to Mexican immigration in the first place - namely by aggressively supporting programs that have led to Mexican wages being driven down, millions of Mexican farmers being driven off their land by subsidized US and Canadian agribusiness and price of goods being raised.

[guitarfool2002]

I'm holding a lot more of this back, but I'd like to say a sarcastic "thank you" to those who moved this thread and those who derailed it to the point of being moved. I asked publicly a few pages ago not to move the thread because I felt there was some very on-topic "new" information *directly* related to the Beach Boys' history, not the least of which was Ed Roach revealing some information which was new and very revealing to me, at least...concerning Dennis' friendship with Reagan's daughter Patti Davis and other notable figures from that era. And being a bit selfish, I put quite a bit of time into this thread putting out some historical info which I thought would add to the discussion and perhaps present a different side of the story which has been told a certain way for over three decades, so anyone getting into the band could search, find this forum and thread, and get several sides of the story, an information resource which this board provides so well for Beach Boys fans.

The need to turn this into a political debate instead of starting a new off-topic "sandbox" thread to debate the politics is kind of frustrating...why not just start a new thread? Seriously! If the discussion is raging, but it's so far off-topic, pick it up in another thread devoted to that topic! It's an easy fix. Instead some good information DIRECTLY related to the Beach Boys and their history is relegated to the "sandbox". I'm upset by this. Thanks again. With much sarcasm.

As for this:

Holy s.h.it this is one of the worst threads in the history of this board. someone please close this down. this is a Beach Boys forum! god.

I've had it. I don't call out individuals I don't know personally, I don't like to at all, trust me, but you should consider lightening up a bit, instead of coming on and posting this kind of stuff. I take what you said personally since I contributed a lot of time to what I wrote in this thread, and I find it to be a slap in the face after spending time (time I really didn't have) to contribute to the discussion and trying to keep the thread informative and hopefully sparking other posts which might reveal more information, taking it into a pop culture discussion and commentary as well. But I guess people writing about things they're interested in, know something about, and care to comment on, share and discuss with others is "one of the worst threads in the history of this board." Give me a fucking break. Seriously, think before posting a veiled insult or expect a strong reaction in return.

And if this happens again, please consider starting the political discussion in another thread so the historical stuff can stand on its own. And yes, this is one grain of sand on a large beach, but it touched a nerve and since this is the sandbox, I had to get it out.

[Jason]

I must admit that I love the political "left-right" discourse in this thread; as if anyone here doesn't truly know that the so-called "left and right" serve one entity and only one entity.

"Respect the law and enter the country legally." Yeahhhhhh, that certainly has been a hallmark of the foreign policy of the United States. And that foreign policy has been the policy of both Democrats and Republicans. And then the United States has the nerve to label nations that may disagree with them as "terrorist states" or "state sponsors of terrorism". A bitter irony and a glaring hypocrisy from a country that has grown by leaps and bounds to become the leading terrorist state in the world. Of course, many Americans are vapid, stupid, and ignorant to the point that they'll blindly support any kind of violation of their rights or the rights of others as long as it's under their favorite president.

I agree with Mr. Wilson above. The United States is a sinking ship. Germany lost the Second World War; fascism won. Read the NDAA for FY 2012. If you still support Obama (and indeed, the members of Congress who voted for it) after that, you need your head examined. There's some spooky sh*t in that legislation. Almost to the point of "thoughtcrime" and "doublethink".

You know what other countries had policies to commit terrorism against their own people, right? Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The United States has now joined their ranks. Enjoy. Americans were so willing to trade away their liberty for the illusion of safety.

[SMiLE Brian]

Don't forget Rick santorum and his plans for an American theocracy.

[Jason]

A good 99% of the clowns in the Republican Party are liberals in Republican suits who want more war, more taxes, more spending, more government, more intrusions. Rick Santorum is certainly among them.

The only man who works within and builds upon the actual credentials that the Republican Party was founded upon, like it or not, is Ron Paul. And he scares the living hell out of the establishment. As great as it would be to see him win the election (and he's the only member of the GOP who stands a snowball's chance in hell against Obama), the man has so many people against him, ranging from the media, the Mittens/Newt the Reptile/Tricky Ricky fanboys, and guilty white liberals who are allegedly so anti-racist (but will cry "n*****" if pushed hard enough). And even if he were to be elected, I'd half-expect him to be assassinated by some radical member of AIPAC or the Mossad.

[SMiLE Brian]

Ron Paul 2012!

[Jason]

Ron Paul 2012!

Wrote him in back in '08 and am more than ready to do it again. A vote for any other candidate is a vote for furthering the terrorist state.

[SMiLE Brian]

Ron Paul 2012!

Wrote him in back in '08 and am more than ready to do it again. A vote for any other candidate is a vote for furthering the terrorist state.

voting for him no matter what happens.

[rab2591]

Ron Paul 2012!

Wrote him in back in '08 and am more than ready to do it again. A vote for any other candidate is a vote for furthering the terrorist state.

voting for him no matter what happens.

I'm writing him in too.

The Real Beach Boy is right: The "left" and "right" are the EXACT same thing in this country....anyone who believes differently needs to turn off CNN or Fox news for a few days.

[Aegir]

As for this:

Holy s.h.it this is one of the worst threads in the history of this board. someone please close this down. this is a Beach Boys forum! god.

I've had it. I don't call out individuals I don't know personally, I don't like to at all, trust me, but you should consider lightening up a bit, instead of coming on and posting this kind of stuff. I take what you said personally since I contributed a lot of time to what I wrote in this thread, and I find it to be a slap in the face after spending time (time I really didn't have) to contribute to the discussion and trying to keep the thread informative and hopefully sparking other posts which might reveal more information, taking it into a pop culture discussion and commentary as well. But I guess people writing about things they're interested in, know something about, and care to comment on, share and discuss with others is "one of the worst threads in the history of this board." Give me a f*cking break. Seriously, think before posting a veiled insult or expect a strong reaction in return.

I have absolutely no problem with the Beach Boys content of this thread. in fact, I appreciate the knowledge I gained from it. even the other stuff you wrote about in this thread (Bob Hope, etc) were great posts. but then it turned into a generic angry political debate. I didn't have a problem with anything before that and I'm sorry you were offended by my statement.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Well, here I might be particularly at odds with some of the people on this thread that I would otherwise agree with. First, I don't quite agree with the assessment that left and right are the same thing in the United States. Rather, the left has been entirely disenfranchised at the political level. That is not to say there aren't plenty of Americans who hold leftist views and represent leftist positions. In fact, most polls shows that the public is typically to the left of both political parties on many issues. The world of the political elite though is typically represented by two very close positions - the centre-right (Democrats) and the extreme right (Republicans). There is some room for minor difference there but for the most part one will find mostly agreement amongst the parties on the major issues. So I would say that if anything is the same it's Democrats and Republicans (though there are differences that are crucial) rather than left and right. Part of the problem is confusing the Democratic Party with the left, since they as the centre-right party are as left as one can acceptably be at the political level in the United States at this point. But I think that whether one is in favor of the status quo or stridently against it, it is important to understand that and make clear that the Democrats and the left should not be conflated because in both cases it ignores the fact that there was once a very vibrant left in the United States (both politically and culturally) and there can be again - though saying that the left is the same as the right seemingly would make that very difficult.

On that line, and here is where we differ, I don't find Ron Paul to be particularly good alternative. He is somewhat differernt but his economic proposals are, in my view, draconian and can only have really negative consequences to the extent that I would rather have Obama's policies than Paul's -- even though Obama's policies are horrible. That should give you an idea less of my support for Obama (there is none) than my genuine fear of Paul. Ultimately, he's not quite the stand-out figure that he and many of his followers purport him to be. Again, look at this political compass which was critiqued earlier for really no good reason - it uses one of the most sensical methodologies to establish one's political position than anything I have encountered thus far:

http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

As you'll see Paul is less authoritarian than every other Republican on the right, but in terms of economics he is about as far to the right as it gets. Paul still occupies a pretty firm place in the legitimate US political sphere. His very agreeable position on free market capitalism mixed with his somewhat disagreeable position on foreign policy (much of which I agree with, though mostly for different reasons) has led him to being certainly not a media darling but fairly nicely tolerated. Put it this way, he has probably had twice the amount of media coverage and interviews in the last four years than Noam Chomsky has had his entire life. And there's a pretty good reason for that. Now, why do I think his policies are so dangerous? Ron Paul supports a system of pure, unadulterated corporate tyranny thanks significantly to what would ultimately be reducing and neutering the most crucial instrument of public power - namely the government. And while it is currently difficult to exert public power given the power that concentrated wealth wields over government, there is at the very least the possibility of that exertion that exists now. That possibility will be gone under Paul's policies. Paul's supporters will tell you that no government intervention means no corporate subsidies, no pro special interest-loaded bills, no power to control the country's monetary system in complete secrecy and no bailouts. But that presupposes that you'd be starting from scratch when Paul comes into power - that the kind of enormous welfare state that corporations have always had would not serve them well for decades even if it were suddenly taken away. You take away government control in all areas, you'd still have an enormous disparity in power between owners and workers. Given the US history, you could never really have anything resembling a free market. So you'd then have an enormous working class depending on the corporate world to be benevolent with the power that has been left them, since labor wouldn't have the government to step in and make sure that workers rights were being attended to, and so on. Cutting off someone who already has billions of dollars is not exactly going to close any gaps anytime soon - not for generations and only then if you pretended that the capitalist system didn't work the way it did. Free market capitalism is supposed to generate enormous wealth with or without government intervention and, if it functions right, should exploit workers and create a disparity between those who are wealthy and those who are working for wealth. The only thing that has lessened the severity of exploitation of the dominated class by the ruling elite historically has been public power - and, really, that's the power Ron Paul wants to do away with. Here I find that, in fact, Paul is not in line with traditional Republicans at all, though he never stops saying he is. Traditional Republicans based their policies on traditional conservatism held by people like Adam Smith who held that capitalism will lead to the destruction of humanity (that's the part of Adam Smith you're supposed to ignore while you're praising him for inventing capitalism). This is why Lincoln's Republicans abhored wage slavery or what is currently understood as "just the way things are" by most Democrats and Republicans. Paul though supports such a system and, in that respect, stands in opposition to both traditional conservatism and traditional Republicans. Ultimately, I really believe that Paul's policies would lead to a kind of Dark Ages.

[Jason]

Government intervention in economic matters does nothing but make booms disappear and busts worse. Traditionally, both Democrats and Republicans have invested heavily into the notion that government-subsidized programs designed to "strengthen the economy"; as we all know, this is a hallmark of Keynesian economics. The Great Depression was made even worse by government intervention, the 1971 "Nixon shock" was made even worse by government intervention (including the final abolishing of the gold standard), and the late-2000s recession was made even worse by government intervention. The problem is (and this is where a lot of Americans have come out in praise of a misguided socialism) that Americans have been led to believe that the current system is capitalism. It is anything but capitalism.

In 2008, when the recession hit full swing, there was bipartisan support for bailing out the same companies that were going to go under after the housing bubble burst. I was one of the few people saying "let them go bankrupt". When debt becomes unbearable you cannot keep propping it up. You have to liquidate debt by declaring bankruptcy and reorganizing/restructuring. You don't bail out the companies that are bankrupt and then dump the debt on the people. That $700 billion TARP bailout went into the American public debt. That's not capitalism; that's socialism. Who lost out? Not the government. Not the banks. Not the corporations. The PEOPLE lost out.

This same housing bubble was created by the government and by the Federal Reserve under the watchful eye of the Clinton administration; they rationalized it by saying to the banks that if they did not make housing loans for minorities, they would be sued for "discrimination". Never mind the fact that these loans were given out at 0% interest to people who had no form of credit whatsoever and who could not possibly pay it back. It basically created money out of thin air, which the Federal Reserve has no trouble doing at the beck and call of big business. Printing money out of thin air dilutes the value of the dollar; we're currently at 96.2% towards complete isolation. This is why you need a gold standard; this is instituted to keep government spending in a constant check. The Federal Reserve, alongside the military-industrial complex, is the single greatest threat to liberty. Inflation is the most ghastly and criminal tax of all. Government intervention in the economy DOES NOT WORK. A privately-owned, unaccountable central bank DOES NOT WORK. It creates debt and malinvestment; it creates more wealth for the rich and more poverty for the poor. It has completely destroyed the middle class. It has allowed people to make the most radical of financial calls with little consequence for them, since they know full well that the debt will just be dumped on the people to begin with. That is not capitalism. That is cronyism, it is socialism, and it DOES NOT WORK. People have the right to keep 100% of what they make. Taxation is theft.

Government-subsidized healthcare is a bad idea, too. The United States government can't even balance their f*cking checkbook; why the hell would people want the GOVERNMENT involved in healthcare? Healthcare should be between two people and two people only - the PATIENT and his DOCTOR. Period. Subsidies on the part of government drive up the price of healthcare as well as the price of insurance. Market delivery of healthcare, due to the abundance available, would be done at a tiny fraction of the cost that is currently burdening the consumer. And for all of you who think you have a right to healthcare, you don't. You have no right to the fruits of other peoples' labor. Get the government out of the medical business. They're there to do one job and one job only - follow the Constitution.

As far as unaccountable corporations go, in a free market, companies that do not respect their work force will crumble and fall. Sure, companies are run by people, but there will always be more people in the free market than in corporations. These people want to work, they want to make money, and they may even wish to start their own business. A free market will inevitably grant the worker a greater value to employers, and if employers wish to build their business with that worker, then they will pay the wage required to make that happen. A government-mandated minimum wage DOES NOT WORK. Now, you might say that if there's no minimum wage in a free market, companies will make their employees work for pennies or even for free. No, it doesn't work like that. A company that thinks they will pay next to nothing for their labor force will NEVER survive in a free market. However, if you don't like the wages you make in your current profession, and indeed what you might make under a free market, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to work.

The position taken by rockandroll (and I do agree with him on a few points) maintains that people are generally stupid and naive (I'd generally agree) and somehow unable to take matters into their own hands without the benevolent, caring hand of government nearby. People are individuals. They know what's best for themselves more than anyone else does. The government is completely unaccountable and needs to be made accountable for its actions. Why people put so much faith in government is beyond my comprehension and indeed the comprehension of libertarians, including Ron Paul.

This is the position Ron Paul runs on and has run on for over thirty years. And if it's a position that is so dangerous and if he's the nut people claim he is, why is the media so afraid of him? Normally the media would just want to expose the danger of such a situation, correct? Wrong. The establishment is afraid of Ron Paul because they know that limited government means that once sh*t hits the fan (and it will for them, too) they're finished. Done. Bankrupt. Adios. By "the establishment", I mean the government, the media, the corporatist system, the banking system, the Federal Reserve, and the Israel lobby. At the end of the day, the American establishment is the greatest and most diabolical terrorist entity of all.

[feelflows]

The thing about arguing about politics?

You're never going to convert the other person.

Jus' sayin'.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Government intervention in economic matters does nothing but make booms disappear and busts worse. Traditionally, both Democrats and Republicans have invested heavily into the notion that government-subsidized programs designed to "strengthen the economy"; as we all know, this is a hallmark of Keynesian economics. The Great Depression was made even worse by government intervention, the 1971 "Nixon shock" was made even worse by government intervention (including the final abolishing of the gold standard), and the late-2000s recession was made even worse by government intervention. The problem is (and this is where a lot of Americans have come out in praise of a misguided socialism) that Americans have been led to believe that the current system is capitalism. It is anything but capitalism.

I think we have to be careful about generalizing here. First, it is impossible to say that "Government intervention in economic matters does nothing but make booms disappear and busts worse." For one, it's impossible to judge because we don't really know how a truly free market capitalist system might operate in a first world country since there has never been anything close to free market capitalism in the first world. So what would happen without any government intervention is impossible to judge in any rational way since we've never had it here to judge. In the case of the United States, the country was founded on protectionist economic principles - namely tariffs and subsidies imposed by Alexander Hamilton. It was these protective measures that were primarily responsible for establishing the stability of the country. After that there were periods that were more protectionist than others, but the security of the country's economic stability has always come down to government intervention - same as in any first world nation. In that respect, I don't think we can quite come to the conclusion that you have that government intervention makes "booms disappear and busts worse". Take a recent example - the economic boom that the United States experienced in the 90s. According to the New York Times, it was "one of the longest and healthiest in American history." What was responsible? According to Alan Greenspan, mostly the internet but also computers in general, transistors, lasers, etc. Now all of these were products of public funding, not private innovation. The internet, probably the biggest economic powerhouse of the last thirty years, was funded by the public via the Pentagon for three decades through the crucial risk period. Only once it was deemed profitable was it put into private hands - the public pays for the risk but is denied the profits. Now that's one of the longest economic booms in American history and it is specifically a testament to the public sector.

Now again, how a truly free market system would work in the United States is difficult to say but the examples that we have aren't very promising. Take two cases of the past 50 years where there was something resembling an unfettered free market, namely Haiti and Nicaragua, the two leading targets of US intervention in the hemisphere. Both had free-market systems shoved down their throats by the United States and unlike in powerful and wealthy nations like the United States and England which have historically relied on crucial intervention for their prosperity, they as third world countries had to accept an unfettered market system with no intervention. The result was that by the end of the 20th Century, Haiti and Nicaragua had become the poorest countries in the hemisphere.

In 2008, when the recession hit full swing, there was bipartisan support for bailing out the same companies that were going to go under after the housing bubble burst. I was one of the few people saying "let them go bankrupt". When debt becomes unbearable you cannot keep propping it up. You have to liquidate debt by declaring bankruptcy and reorganizing/restructuring. You don't bail out the companies that are bankrupt and then dump the debt on the people. That $700 billion TARP bailout went into the American public debt. That's not capitalism; that's socialism.

No, it's not socialism. If socialism means anything, it means the workers controlling the means of production. Period. In fact, if one were to properly read Marx, they would see that in a properly functioning socialist society, there wouldn't be what Marx called any "political power" - meaning, people are not organized by states, which by nature require an oppressive ruling class and an establishment of hierarchies. Rather individuals organize themselves into what might be called workers' councils or revolutionary councils. Socialism is then an organization of worker associations in a stateless society with no political power in which each worker has equal control over the means of production and can each meaningfully participate and contribute to what happens in their organization. Governments bailing out corporations is, in fact, the very antithesis of socialism since socialism is, by defintion, about undermining and destroying the corporate structure and certainly wouldn't allow the kind political power that is presupposed by the act of a government bailing out a corporation. People who consider themselves free market enthusiasts (though are usually just private corporation enthusiasts without knowing it) often like to equate government intervention with socialism because they don't like government intervention and socialism has a buzz effect in the United States, wherein if you associated it with anything, it should be instantly understood to be a bad thing.

Government-subsidized healthcare is a bad idea, too. The United States government can't even balance their f*cking checkbook; why the hell would people want the GOVERNMENT involved in healthcare?

Well, the fact is that the people do historically want the government involved in healthcare and the reasons why are probably because it's the only way that the people can have some control over it, and also because it is widely known that the United States healthcare system is the most inefficient in the industrialized world precisely because it is privately operated. It was recognized by the central framers of the  current healthcare system in 1973 that this "free enterprise" system works because "the less care they give...the more money they make."

As far as unaccountable corporations go, in a free market, companies that do not respect their work force will crumble and fall.

Completely untrue. In fact, it's embedded in the very structure of capitalism that workers must be exploited in order for the system to function properly. The system functions to privilege the controllers and the owners at the expense of the laborers. The cost of labor plus the cost of the means of productions, in a functioning capitalist system without intervention is supposed to produce more value than their cost. That surplus that is produced is where profit comes from and that profit goes to the owners - meaning in order for the system to function properly it must be necessarily exploitative and it depends on a disparity of wealth and power between the ownership class and the labor class. So any capitalist system whether it is mixed or "free" is, by virtue of the system, tipped to advantage the ruling, ownership class. In such a system, the corporation that can get away best with exploiting their workers will be the most successful ones.

However, if you don't like the wages you make in your current profession, and indeed what you might make under a free market, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to work.

That's true - a laborer can always ultimately choose starvation and death rather than exploitation by the ruling class. In that respect, slaves had a relative degree of autonomy too.

The position taken by rockandroll (and I do agree with him on a few points) maintains that people are generally stupid and naive (I'd generally agree) and somehow unable to take matters into their own hands without the benevolent, caring hand of government nearby.

Quite the opposite. For one, I don't believe "that people are generally stupid and naive" and ultimately as a social liberatarian, I believe that an ideal society is stateless. In that case, both positions attributed to me are entirely false. What I am doing though is recognizing that a democratic government if it functions properly is meant to represent the will of the people. A corporation, if it functions properly is tyrannical, and the will of the people must be subordinated to a ruling elite. If you have any real respect for the intelligence and creativity of people, you could certainly never support the kind of de-regulated tyranny that Paul ultimately endorses. I recognize precisely what Marx recognized when he called for a stateless society in which individuals have genuine control over their lives and the work they do, which is that it is through the State where people can effectively take the kind of control that could lead to such a society, a control which is entirely prohibited by capitalist institutions like business and corporations. The State (if it is functioning democratically) opens up the possibility of direct public power, whilst capitalist institutions (if they function properly) close those possibilities in the name of private concentrated power.

Why people put so much faith in government is beyond my comprehension and indeed the comprehension of libertarians, including Ron Paul.

Ron Paul isn't a libertarian. He's a bastardized, Americanized re-writing of libertarianism, which in reality emerges from socialist-anarchist principles. What Ron Paul represents is precisely the opposite of what real libertarians stand for.

And if it's a position that is so dangerous and if he's the nut people claim he is, why is the media so afraid of him?

The simple answer to that is, they're not. As I mentioned in my last post, Ron Paul gets a fair amount of media coverage. He's not completely in line with the status quo to be a media darling, but he's in line enough to get a decent amount of media coverage - certainly more than people who are actually disenfranchised from political power (you know, the ones that don't get a full hour on Piers Morgan, a regular slot on Fox News Sunday, etc.).

Normally the media would just want to expose the danger of such a situation, correct?

Incorrect. They certainly had no problem not exposing the danger of George W. Bush who was probably the most dangerous President in the history of the country. And the reason why they had no problem is simple: for the most part, Bush represented the same interests that produce mainstream media. And to a certain degree, Ron Paul does too. Why would the mainstream media, owned by major corporations, have any real, serious problems with his notion of an unfettered free market system? Where they would have problems with him would be in his non-interventionist policies. This is why Paul isn't as favored by the media as, say, Obama or Romney but he certainly gets more airtime than, say, Mike Gravel or Bob Barr ever did.

[guitarfool2002]

As for this:

Holy s.h.it this is one of the worst threads in the history of this board. someone please close this down. this is a Beach Boys forum! god.

I've had it. I don't call out individuals I don't know personally, I don't like to at all, trust me, but you should consider lightening up a bit, instead of coming on and posting this kind of stuff. I take what you said personally since I contributed a lot of time to what I wrote in this thread, and I find it to be a slap in the face after spending time (time I really didn't have) to contribute to the discussion and trying to keep the thread informative and hopefully sparking other posts which might reveal more information, taking it into a pop culture discussion and commentary as well. But I guess people writing about things they're interested in, know something about, and care to comment on, share and discuss with others is "one of the worst threads in the history of this board." Give me a f*cking break. Seriously, think before posting a veiled insult or expect a strong reaction in return.

I have absolutely no problem with the Beach Boys content of this thread. in fact, I appreciate the knowledge I gained from it. even the other stuff you wrote about in this thread (Bob Hope, etc) were great posts. but then it turned into a generic angry political debate. I didn't have a problem with anything before that and I'm sorry you were offended by my statement.

I'm really sorry, Aegir, I misread and misunderstood your comments and overreacted. It was one of those times where I hit the "send" button way too soon before thinking it out, and again I apologize, I took your words the wrong way. I was upset at the way the thread disappeared and wasn't seeing things clear. Again, I'm sorry for that.

[Aegir]

No worries, we're all cool on this end.