The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/16911-financial-totalitarianism-the-economic-political-social-and-cultural-rule-of-speculative-capital

I thought it was going to be mandatory listening to Barabara Ann 30 times a day.

Close, but no banana. More like mYke's intro for BTTYS on a tape loop 24/7.

WWHHHHHHEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNN WHHHHHEEEEEENNNNNNNN WWHHHHHHHEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNN ad infinitum...

Hawwww hawwww hawwwwww

It is a long article, but someone should at least read the damn thing

Read it the other day and haven't had time to reply until now. This is right on the money, as far as I'm concerned and remarkably frightening. Someone the other day asked me to tell him what I thought the real problems are and this is certainly a significant aspect of it. Financial institutions largely control our lives and what's clear is that they don't particularly care about our lives and because unregulated and unbridled capitalism is typically disastrous, we all get put increasingly more at risk.

As far as I'm concerned, these are the things we should be talking about and getting angry about but, of course, since it is in the interests of the ruling authority that we don't pay attention to it, we are directed to comparatively more trivial issues (see most of the other political threads for examples).

Eh, it's our own fault for overriding the limitations on government power in the constitution in pursuit of delusive welfare improving projects that were largely designed and lobbied for in the first place by the very corporate institutions we're angry with.

Such as?

Interstates, the federal reserve, the department of urban housing and development

I think you could really benefit from reading The Aesthetic Education of Man R&R.

OK, so let's get rid of all that and then what? You pay less taxes suddenly? ..... Um, no.

I'm uncertain what these examples have to do with what we're talking about. In fact, the kind of thing in that Pinder is talking about has been part of the American economic plan since the beginning when Alexander Hamilton enacted protectionist policies to help businesses in the early days of post-Empire U.S.


Since that text does not describe corporate tyranny nor does it mention anything about the Federal reserve, the department of urban housing, etc. I'm not entirely sure how it is relevant here.

You never know, you might learn something

Why don't you try explaining something we might learn instead of just listing off what doesn't work and who's fault it is?

Something tells me RnR's already read the book anyhow.

You sound like you have a little crush there on R&R, how cute

You guys ever read Meister? Oh man I love Meister

rockandroll does know what he's talking about, unlike the libertarian crew here. But then you all love big business - TRBB, for example, thinks the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be repealed because it gives minorities a legal recourse against business owners who discriminate against them. Oh no, poor business.

I dunno.... Ted Danson's pretty dreamy himself ;)

Could be, don't know if you're the best to judge that though  ;)

Trust you to pick the Ted Danson character no-one likes or remembers fondly, I'd have gone for Sam Malone myself....

....but then Sam Malone was a c*** too, so I guess sometimes you can't win. ;D

The Danson mug certainly doesn't help his case...

Who was it who had David Leaf as his avatar pic a while back? I remember his posts making me instantly livid before I even read them ;)

Becker is the funniest tv show there's ever been by a wide margin.

Wasn't Dr. John Becker a liberal atheist on that show?

A failing you and he both share. Modern atheists...  ::)

This is turning into a very productive thread.... ::)

who ever said I was an Atheist? certainly not me

We are for both small and big businesses.

You are right, it should be repealed. A free society is based on individuals and voluntary contracts. If a black person refuses to sell a white person milk, so what? Buy your milk some place else. It is time we legalize the freedom to choose. Aren't you pro-choice?

There is a seaside cafe in the town where I live, run by black people who apparently refuse to serve whites. A complaint was put into the police and their responce was to shrug their shoulders and suggest to 'let it go'. Hmmmmm, I wonder what would happen if a white owned establishment refused to serve a black person based on the colour of their skin.....

I know it might be a bit much to ask (statists don't really read, do they?), but if you're going to claim to know my position you might actually take it upon yourself to know my position before claiming such. My position on repeating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is based on the fact that private property owners (just like everyone else) have the right to freedom of association. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forces people to go against their own judgment in a situation (denying employment or service for whatever reason) that does not result in a victim.

I know you guys in Britain love living under John Bull's tyranny, but please remember that not everyone is as brainwashed.

You're simply advocating for the freedom of businesses to do what they want at the expense of the population who see their choices severely limited in the process. The civil rights movement didn't happen because a black person was refused service at one establishment and your characterization as such is a really shameful portrayal of life for minorities in the 1960s. Recall that opposition to Civil Rights had absolutely nothing to do with "freedom to choose" since those who most ardently opposed it did nothing to oppose segregation laws that seemingly constrained liberty and freedom as well. It has been long acknowledged that the Civil Rights Act worked to redress what was and continues to be systemic oppression - it worked to make the system a little less unequal than it would have been without intervention.

I appreciate the recommendation but I am in the middle of writing my dissertation right now so, while I do reward myself occasionally with some fiction, I am afraid that most of my theoretical reading will be restricted to the dissertation for at least the next year.

That being said, I really don't see the value of this kind of posturing. To me, it is a bit disgraceful to use one's scholarly knowledge as a way to demean others. It is kind of like the difference between the kids who took karate and used their training for self-defense and the kids who used it to intimidate other kids. Scholarly knowledge should not be used as a means of intimidation and it's a little bit precious to see someone who complains about authority to be not only appealing to authority as often as you do but also using your own knowledge as a way to turn yourself into an authority.

And now I would like to urge both myself and others on this thread to stop being derailed by this nonsense and concentrate on the article, since it actually has a great deal of importance.

I've read it. I'm just a sucker for stupid Mike Love jokes who prefers ignorant bliss. I'm just one guy, the whole Wall Street/Corporate America wielding tremendous influence over officials who are supposed to represent "the people" rather than just the upper/elite/bourgeois class, at least in it's current incarnation, started before I was born (I was 4 when Bush Sr. took office). I was only 8 or 9 when NAFTA was passed.  I finally filled myself in on a lot of the political stuff that went down in the 90s (NAFTA, Glass-Steagall repeal, WTO, etc.) when I was around 18-19, while also following current events. Eventually it got to a point where always reading about war, torture, corruption, Wall Street assholes, etc. got me depressed. Reading this article didn't really shock me in any way. As I've already mentioned, the bankers have been ripping off society since before I was ever brought into this world. f*** if I know what to do about it except go on living my life and trying to make a living in our modern day hyper-capitalistic society. It's the system we have to deal with right now, for better or for worse. I've never given up my lefty/progressive/pinko leanings, but I have no freaking clue as to what the answers are.

"Statists don't really read"?

Hilarious thing to say on a post dedicated to a lengthy article put up by a supposed "statist" .....

I wonder if any the anti-free markets folks here -- who feel like big business makes you buy their stuff -- would also tell me "I'm free to not buy MIC box" when I moan about the re-re-re-re-release of 1/2 the stuff on it.

I just wonder...

How hard is it to see the difference between business, free market, free trade, etc etc, and the corporate stranglehold on government and the ill effects related to such upon a vast majority of the population? ...... It's like saying, "I wonder how many anti-tidal wave people who think the ocean makes them go to the beach complain about me going to a local swimming pool which is just a re-release of water from the ocean".... Doesn't make sense.

Taking issue with "the way things are" is not being anti-free market! I'm not anti anything that works, operates well, but when something is broke: fixing it is better than just accepting it as is......broken

Agree! Many on both sides fail to understand that concept.

No, no, no... I totally understand the concept and see the difference.  Like a hawk!!  :3d


I don't want to split hairs... but the "corporate stranglehold on government" comment is probably where we disagree.  It's crony-capitalism that exists.  You make it seem like Big Evil Corporations are the giant squid, strangling honest G-men.

EXACTLY!! This is why it is important to think twice about how we spend our cash, IMO. It's the quickest, easiest way to send a signal, IMO.

I never said anything about honest G-Men, nor am I some lover of the Government, but we need to face up to where A LOT of the problem lies with what's broken.... And we are splitting hairs. What you guys call crony-capitalism, I call corporate control of government. Not much difference at all. At least not enough to put any of us on the far right or left of the issue.

And Mahlo,as you've pointed out, yes, we have all the power in the world to topple this problem.....

You should read Aesthetic Education Of Man

 :lol

You'll love it I promise

I believe you.

And Meister, read Meister too

If government inserts itself into something -- corruption will occur, where there wasn't -- or it will increase ten-fold where it was.

The companies making the right contributions to the right politicians, get "research" dollars, favorable legislation, etc.  The ones that don't -- get audited.  Just looking at what we've seen recently, this practice has become grotesque.  I can't imagine what we haven't seen.

Since government has taken upon itself the role of controlling who, where, what, why and how we get oil -- for example -- there's nothing wrong with an oil company working with government.  They have to.  By design, in order to survive.  I don't think they're the ones "controlling" it.  But.. hey... what have you seen?  

And what's going to happen? He'll close the book when finished and suddenly think just like you? I doubt that's how it works.... Reading the Bible didn't make me a Christian nor did "Christianity" (Nietzsche) make me an Atheist.... We are who we are and we will gravitate toward and prop up works of art and information that confirm our self image...... which is exactly the way it ISN'T supposed to work. But we are merely human.

Bean, you are correct. I guess it just boils down to: someone like myself blames the corporations and the government, and someone like you just blames the government.... Quite silly, right?

Pinder- that is well said- where I come in is this:

In large part I can chose which businesses I would like to support- however I cannot chose how much taxes I HAVE to pay. I think the health care law in particular creates a terrible HORRIBLE precedent with untold ramifications down the road by telling American citizens BY LAW THEY HAVE TO PURCHASE SOMETHING- in this case Health Insurance. I don't like where that is headed, and if it was up to me anyone who voted for that law should be arrested for treason. That is not hyperbole. I mean that wholeheartedly- the same goes for the S.C. justices that upheld the law.

If we really want to get into it, we should start a "Monsanto non- appreciation" thread.

But ya know: this a symptom of a predatory capitalist society. Since we've allowed health care to be a commodity just like Silly Putty or Summer In Paradise: we simply can't afford to have great swaths of our citizens dropping dead in the street or funneling through the emergency room and morgues, because, you know, all that stuff costs money.... It will be cheaper in the long run if even the poorest citizen has access to health care.... Like I've said before: it all involves us personally in one way or another... If your son starts dating a girl and you've voted planned parenthood out of existence and neither your kid or the girl have the nerve to go buy condoms from the corner store where the kindly Pastor Jones might be shopping: ..... just think of what can happen..... We can't JUST think with our wallets. Well, we can but we're just fooling ourselves.... So, what's the solution? Get rid of Government? OK, so how would that work? We need more ideas and less bitching..... And one more thing: there is no damn danger at all of you guys losing your ability to buy whatever you want. That part of capitalism is forever safe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/19/decline-fall-american-society-unravelled

I believe strongly in HSA's and using insurance only for major emergencies- I don't use my car insurance to pay for my oil change. I have an HSA and I really love it. I just cut my hand and am able to use that money to pay for the costs. Insurance companies, medicaid/care, and lawsuits all jack up the price of health care- not that health care has become a "commodity". I would rather have choice and freedom than gov't provided care. WHY DO PEOPLE WANT TO TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ME AND TELL ME TO JUST TAKE THE SINGLE PAYER PLAN AND SHUT UP?? I live and work with these people- That is a real danger, Pinder. That's not cool. I believe strongly in leaving health care policies to the states. I may not like it, but constitutionally this make more sense....and cents. Doesn't medicaid cover the "poorest of citizens"? We don't have a health care problem , we have a health care cost problem. The reality that the costs are inflated way too high. It is not uncommon for people to compare the USA health care to other western countries- a debate I am always prepared for. I find comparing, say, the health care of Sweden, to the USA- Sweden has a population only slightly larger than NYC, to be misguided. Many times when I debate the health care thing people mention countries like Denmark, or France, or England, and I have to remind them that these countries are much smaller than the USA, and often smaller than many states. At the end of the day, if I need a catscan I would much rather be in the USA than in any other country in the world- period.

I will get into this more at another time- however, that premise you gave about planned parenthood is wrong, IMO. Planned Parenthood isn't about condoms, it's about abortions- the quotas they have to fill and the ways they spend our tax money- not on condoms but all the bs that I'm well enough prepared to get into. I don't know why any tax dollars go to fund abortions outside of extreme situations, period. I'm an adopted child and am so thankful that my mother didn't abort me. How many European countries that advocates of single payer love to mention have banned or severely limited abortions after the 1st tri-mester? .. btw, WHAT DID WE DO BEFORE PP? WE GOT BY SOMEHOW< RIGHT? Goodness gracious, WHERE DOES IT END WITH WHERE OUR MONEY IS TAKEN FROM US!!! ANSWER THAT!! Where are your ideas?

BTW, it's hard not to get passionate, or to even post- this politics on the internet crap is a real waste of time more often than not. Forgive me if I come across as jerk, it is not intended.

Er, this justification of your previously stated position on the board that people should not be able to have legal recourse against businesses who discriminate against them (you mentioned it on the election thread last year, I think, and it has stuck with me as a mark of your character) is.... well, it's not very liberal. Either my sense of the word or yours.

Your solution, I think, was that if someone was discriminated against by a business they did not need the law to fight against such discrimination. A simple boycott would suffice. Have I got you down right?

You're not for the 'freedom of the individual', in this case - you're for the freedom of the business, a faceless, unaccountable identity, to deny service to anyone on, well, any ground - from understandable things like being aggressive to staff, sure, but also skin colour, sexual orientation, appearance, political views - you support the right of business to reject service to any individual on any ground because it's private property? You're sure about that?

Never ever apologize for being passionate about these things! I highly respect your opinions even when we disagree. It is nearly impossible to be "correct" about such things right down the line because we all come at them from our different/unique situations etc etc.... I didn't mean what I said about PP as a summing up of what they are: just an example of something they offer. Most every woman I've ever dated or know get their condoms, (thus preventing abortions: when used properly), pregnancy tests, HIV testing, etc at PP. If we somehow have a problem with women doing such things, that is an, er, separate issue. I am no fan of abortions myself. However, it's all how you look at things. How is sending a young soldier off to die for lies and bullshit any more honorable that a women getting an abortion? But we simply can't create a world where bad things don't happen and we have to live with what we can't control. If one wishes to try and control/prevent women from having abortions: good luck. You'll have to eliminate wire coat hangers as well as abortion clinics.... I think you are probably right about health care being better off in the state's hands. Then again, I'm a pinko who thinks it should be free in the first place to all citizens. It's not hard to envision a world where such is the case. All you have to do is have the will and not be scared you won't be free to buy stuff.... or whatever.

..... I also follow your logic of only using insurance for major emergencies. I bruised some ribs a couple years back and just went to a local walk-in place and paid up front. Much easier and nicer WHEN you have the money. So why not freedom of choice health-care wise if you can afford it and free health care for those who can't? Kind of like it is, but it should be be allowed to get worse? And why no co-op style housing (not government ran) for those who can't afford increasingly expensive rents without it having to be in some ghetto somewhere? What's wrong with that? It's not going to prevent anyone else from renting in the usual way? There are oceans of possibilities/ideas.

As for OUR MONEY BEING TAKEN? ..... Live with it. It sucks but they'll take our money no matter what we cut or who we vote for. They will take it and keep taking it and taking it and taking it.....

You live in a country where harder battles have been fought than whether or not you pay taxes for health care. If you don't like it, you can do something about it. If you can't do anything about it, then the problem is not taxes but a dysfunctional democratic system, which is also in your power to change. But it ain't gonna happen by "voting with your wallet."

Exactly..... You take a look back over the history of this country and it is quite shameful how many folks given no damn about anything other than the less fortunate among us getting a pittance of their tax pennies....

l am absolutely for the freedom of the individual. Businesses don't run themselves; they're run by people. Those people have the right to freedom of association, too. Same as anyone else. And this view is consistent with individual liberty, since the wronged individual will associate with those who want the business.

Felix! How many times have I told you not to drink from the pitcher!

This is my #1 all time favorite post here. The dismissive tone combined with the accidental recapitulation of major thematic strains from the novel make it downright delectable.

Hammers also only become useful when they are used by people but this required association with individuals does not mean that hammers should get any rights that humans get.

A hammer is an object, a business is not. A business is an organization where humans sell and buy goods and services.

In other words, it's also an object.

A hammer is inanimate object. Humans are alive. Humans perform actions, hammers can not do jack.

I agree. And a corporation isn't a human.

No one has claimed a corporation is a person.

I agree. A business is specific human activities pertaining to producing or selling goods and services.

You're suggesting that they should have the same rights as people. How is that different?

A business is not an activity, which is why it is a noun in this case, not a verb.

Allow me to quote my statement.


If a person runs a business then, as the property owner, that person has a right to freedom of association for his or her business. That is not the "corporations are people" bullshit and you know it.

This is becoming quite circular. This is why I evoked the hammer example. You are also radically mischaracterizing the entrenched right to freedom of association, which in US history was evoked mostly to protect people's rights to join trade unions, not to deny people service based on specious reasoning.

That's clearly not how the U.S. founders saw it.

The founders didn't entrench freedom of association. That didn't enter the constitution until 1958, at which point the term had been long associated with trade unionism.

Not to sound like Mr. Constitution or anything, but the First Amendment provides for freedom of association.

Again, that was only recognized in 1958. The first amendment doesn't actually say anything about freedom of association.

Just want to jump in with an observation and question regarding unions and freedom of association concepts. As much as there is the notion of "freedom of association", how about something I'd term "freedom to not associate"?

It's an issue I saw around what was called "Card Check" for many years and recently started to fall under the label "Employee Free Choice Act" or EFCA.

The unions favoring this proposal point to the rights of employees to unionize then have that union recognized based on the percentage of workers who vote to join the union being organized at their workplace.

Those opposing EFCA point to what would eliminate the process of a secret ballot system, where instead of casting their votes to join or reject unionization, the results of who was voting and how they were voting would not be private, and those who may vote against the union may be compelled to change their vote through coercion or intimidation either from union organizers or from fellow co-workers or even management or ownership of the business when they'd either sign the ballot in public, in front of these people in the open, or have their names and their votes made available.

As much as there is the freedom to associate to consider, how would the "card check" proposals which included eliminating a secret or anonymous ballot system ensure the right of those workers to not associate with a particular union by having their votes kept private and therefore not subjecting them to even the threat of retaliation from either the union or the business?

And again, you are badly missing the point on freedom of association. It simply guarantees the rights of people to assemble and has nothing to do with people's right to exclude others. In fact, given the traditional understanding of the term freedom of association, Civil Rights laws in reaction against segregationist policies, were far more in favour of freedom of association than what you are proposing.

Yes, people should have the right not to associate though it's a real achievement of propaganda that one should associate coercion and intimidation with the union given the reality of labour history.

A business owner should have the right to refuse association with unions and to fire those who wish to join one.

It's the issue of the secret ballot for me: I cannot understand why there was such a strong opposition from union leaders and spokespersons at the times the issue had come up for proposal and debate in Washington.

Stating it again, why were the unions and their supporters so vehemently and publicly opposed to the secret ballot process in terms of workers voting for or against joining a union?

Yes, like any good leader of a tyrannical dictatorship, where the only rights belong to the person in charge and he or she can do whatever he or she wants to the vast majority. You are describing the perfect dictatorship.

At any rate, this is somewhat shifting the goal posts at this point to a position that is somewhat laughable given the historical relationship between freedom of association and trade unionism.

Sorry - in a rush to get out the door. Will be gone for most of the weekend.

You are excellent at adding two and two and ending up with twenty-two. The property owner has final say as to what happens on his or her property. By your logic I should be allowed to enter your home without invitation because if you don't let me in you're a tyrannical dictator.

A person's right to cast a secret ballot vote without fear of reprisal of any kind from anyone in a position of leadership or power based on that vote would seem to be a major deterrent to a dictatorship. Which again is why I need to question the strong opposition from union leadership to the secret balloting process of employees voting yes or no to forming a union.

Should we take this over to the "What Beer Do You Drink" thread? ;)

Well, I haven't read the book, so who cares? Delectable to you and you only. Anyone else just sees that you didn't answer the question...

Considering it was clearly a rhetorical question, I'm not going to be loosing any sleep over it, promise.

Probably better that way.....

I honestly don't get you..... Minus one lengthy statement which basically just demonstrated apathy, all you've done is recommend a book.... over and over and have shrugged off any efforts by rocknroll to initiate a conversation with this intellectual pose and not so subtle hostility.

 Um, my favorite book is Kangaroo by DH Lawrence. You should read it..... I guess I'll repeat this statement over and over and over....

But seriously: the book does have relevance toward such discussions as these...

And I have looked into On The Aesthetic Education Of Man, and will get my hands on a copy.... The French Revolution interests me greatly, so I am looking forward to it. 

You should read it, it's great