Toward A Truly Free Market w/ Author John Medaille


now on to other authors john the dye he
is the although the book toward truly free market is that some
revolutionary ideas in it done what leon purpose take her acting motivator alright john
that the let’s really broad how do we go toward it truly free market that’s a great question and be one thing you have to understand
first of that we’re talking about a free market we’re not actually talking about
capitalism in fact you can believe in a free market or you can believe in capitalism but you
can walk logically believed involved wall wallow today now your
drug-resistant all rights everybody’s am fucks so it’s all meal out what’s the
difference well what the difference in a free
market at the market where productively sources work property it distributed through a lot of people
and a lot of different levels of the feisty and back for making any given commodity there’s a bad number of firm cannot back
number of choice capitalism is the opposite sex where you
concentrate power in a few water where you have a few big giant companies but more or less control the economy but why are we really are a perfect you know okayed but that is a matter
definition though i mean i can define tab was a man’s but you know basically a free market where
everybody’s competing et-cetera and that would you define tab listen are usually call corporate because that so the corporations
takeover and try to kill the free market sure ennaku him if you have if you define capitalism as
competitive system but then you will have a system where a lot of people are
competing in a few don’t have a lot of people competing but obviously you really don’t have a free market right so ok you know i think it’s a
matter definition i guess but also lets uh… go base on your site
arrived well butler say they’re weekend the capitalist and we had okay regardless of how one different
capitalism in the abstract the capitalism one real one actually seafood
place if the capitalism of wal-mart eva capitalism that displaces small
owners that displaces anyplace oval entrepreneurship star the subject of my
book all right let’s ask i get it so didn’t whatever work life
how to get back to a free market how do you get away from samples and slice
corporate ism where wal mart center are dominating and
in my opinion windup buying the government et cetera how to
get back to the free market exactly well you can start by simply
having the government enforcement own lol which are already on the book i’m going to be enforce the argument
happily laws a lot of these entities with jeff
galloway you could take advantage of the
opportunities that you haven’t they come up so for example in the recent meltdown of
the financial industry instead of just shoveling conjul public money into the people who call of the problem we could have broken up those entities
those too big to fix feed entities and broken them up and distributed
directly actual director co-op to the smaller thug regional bank what’s not one criticism of people would
hamburgers well you know in the old days when
you’re market was basically the united states of america well okay then you can get rid of
monopolies and in that helps competition free-market et cetera but now you’re
markets the world civ you’ve got a bust up but an american company well then you’re hurting its competitive
advantage verses other company yes separate update the problem is it
isn’t cruel infarct corporation our new york
economically efficient they are politically efficient that if there are a particularly good actor m managing their internal affairs because internal to a corporation if
like a socialistic there is no market internally division a filter division b they have
to use pm computing services that the corporate
computing service to the token services at all that there’s no pricing system within the
corporation it’s all done by socialist party what corporations are good at fell it getting political power cotton getting from the state subsidies and privileges and protection against any real competition well these are a lot of cars that album decided to come on even some could argue it’s near monopoly
large especially in in terms of advertising online of zulus you bust up
google dot well you know what the for anything
because the internet the promise of the internet was to create a great program in which many many people could compete but the internet so far has proven itself much easier to
monopolize until we have a few big entity like
amazon dot com google microsoft they have dominated okay and i’ve heard approved a problem we the uh… so i’ve got a wonderful area for reflection and i thought to what went to wrong why
isn’t the internet white house in it developed out the
common in the way that it might have right but
you know snowed a bus up google with sansa you know you have to reflect on
that but if you did didn’t you know it it’s
possible that the new who would be french or german or chinese
and then what we did and because the chinese back in a bus of their monopoly anything well again i picked up the i think that
wonderful question on the federal government to collect and because i have
more word today not about google i worried about our ability to make
things because in the end we couldn’t get along
without local but we can get along without shoes
without held to fill them out food without cars and to me that dole is going to be here if its ability to make things that has
been uh… taken away from us if they took away google moved it to
china we’d lay-up but right now they’re taking all these
other things and moving it to china after completely different problem
slides so what your solutions and without a lot of john
the guy who wrote the book forty truly free market way solutions is enforce
antitrust palos would you get rid of or or lessen the power of these diye dat corporations now that routinely by our politicians to lobbyist
money well you will find i think that they’re many
many opportunities that are coming along because i think we’re facing um… or
about the faith of much more profound cope ob than we ever had much deeper than that nineteen twenty got deep when her son yet okay i don’t have to be spilled we will have to rebuild the economy from the bottom up and that the first thing that we
understand that economy the warranty built from the
bottom up not from the top down your check today if we had to make their own shoes in this country we no longer know how to do that we no longer have the ability we’ve shipped everything overseas organs and then let me ask you about
that how do you saw that i mean they make this is his super inside or so
we’re going to do well ivy one you have to examine the uh… the
bacon from which the free-trade ideology bill and when you examine did you find it
just didn’t wrote it just doesn’t really does not lead to
year kind of overall development that people forget them zoom really itself but look you know i a m i’m not easy to peg in terms of these
liberal-conservative neoliberal ever paradigm straight so moment as i say
china icy you know certainly there are a lot
of abuses and they’re not they’re not stare standards are there by mail
centers labor standards are nowhere near where we want them to be eventually but has there been progress certainly
economic progress in china i’d be harder than i would know well at the murder of her carpenter
karina late debate for a total destruction try to have a wonderful opportunity china could have used it money to
develop china internally um… and it would have the benefit of the
largest internal market in the world instead they used all their earnings to prop up the american consumer and they’ve been awakened impoverished
both countries com the chinese economy right now in my
opinion is somewhat distorted and it will faithful friend kind of
structural problems especially in the banking system that we’re facing only works i think so and sinus australia this
wonderful opportunity to improve training of and instead have kind of uh… and they’ve developed one third of the
country but they’ve over invested in real estate and infrastructure that
they don’t need and ignored two-thirds of the country yeah good-bye before he but but when you’re developing a country
as large as china and and your unfortunately started out so behind in
some ways from europe or the america it cetera you’re not going to get a perfect and of
course you’re not going to the whole country it once did set but i’m just i’m
not buying it to be honest with you i think yes of course shyness and problems and
in the short term a or run into they now have some significant bumps on the road edu of co of course it made economic
progress esos india and you know i’m not saying that they have made it in a way
that that’s ophthalmol or evil equal and you gave stratification over there as
you have over here of the richer the poor in that that is not a good idea in
terms of equilibrium they are getting richer and they are
developing et cetera so you know yeah were getting poorer and
that sucks for us as far as america’s concern and i you know i share your
concerns about what’s happening in this country but it’s not like everybody’s losing honestly i think some
countries are gaining from our loss well-prepared apparent you know people real progress is about everybody moving ahead and when you find out that your progress
depend on you know imbalance trade would expand them to
prep and some of your own population when it depends on development great differences between wealth and
poverty you find out that the the up the
progress turned out to be smoke and mirrors wellness heading for a big all what was
dolce we are going to go through in the fall that the train compare it with the development of
taiwan writercorporation trait culturally different people okay same language right and yet they developed beautifully they went from a feudal backwater to an industrial powerhouse in one generation what i did right well what’d they do right they broke up the big plantation and they distributed the latter ironically that sells condoms ironic no pepperoni didn’t go to break
up the plantation it just came to be ownership so instead of behera warlord owning the plantation our an official of
the state on the plantation nothing really changes what one real people have all our ship of their whole
resources well they get very clever they get very
creative they work very hard they build up the economy are you guys
glenn beck warn me about what the red-hot act well i i i i don’t think so but i i hope ac uh… i hope i’ll get to that stage f yes out know that that redistribution of wealth
visit to make things more equal though winds up helping the economy
overall is that we’ve been in my understanding that right now we’re generally in several papers we
have agreed to confirm i mean where you have me there’s play preconditions like that in
taiwan yep that’s america most of the time it’s not a matter of
getting the government to do something it’s a matter of getting the government
to stop doing things to stop stop the fighting big businesses to stop growing up regulations that
worked against the multiplicity usually done in the name of controlling
big business but actually in the name of protecting them from
regulation john there are cases the rush to the arcade were severe action as quickly as
required so it’s a couple of hours that’s not our
six right final question for you and without a job and i agree with the
book court that truly free market how do we stuff and get institutionally structurally eg get it so the corporations cannot buy
our politicians that seems to be the core the problem their corporations gets
so large there by the politicians then they kill
competition and it hurts all so how do we start at and that that the biggest problem good
luck at the corporation economically efficient they’re
politically efficient it used to be a better corporate charter prohibited you from indulging in
politics not changed in the late nineteenth
century between the period of civil war in
turn-of-the-century the whole idea of the corporation
changed what we have a corporation is a very
very we had an idea uh… but we have to go back to the older
ralph form of a corporation which people
understood how dangerous it was you know the great irony of today is at the tea party the
original tea party with a protest against park it with the protest against corporations in fact it was protecting the uh… t_-bill
seventeen seventy three which had removed to keep track but had given he’s india company a monopoly on the petri right now that’s right he was actually uh… at attacks cut for the east india
company but they were protesting because the
city of a basically etc after the government and what’s yet or awesomely appropriate
not iran but appropriated is that then you know many many years later when the
new tea party started this latest incarnation they actually were organs corporations
are being to remember they were against the bailouts that’s how they fit lately they were caught that by the corporations to do their bidding to get tax cuts for
the richest companies and people in the country that’s exactly correct reflecting jefferson american but wanted
an amendment that part of the bill of rights which precipitated the formation of
cooperation uh… vietnam or multilateral a bright and what about a completely different
histories at that so but in any case i get the major point
of the both of them if they’re just different economic are intimately cook connected night and the fault of the problem of
our economic system is that they have separated the two they have relegated jeff took to the political
realm but left the economic rome off on the phone into a sort of greed is good philosophy well it’d be good and when you lower equity in the
economic you cannot have equilibrium yes that’s a really good point in my
final note on this views i think dylan madigan is right when he
says we need to have a separation of business thursday that’s out it’s the first i’ve heard
from someone say that i’m sure somebody must settle before but i heard from
delet as a grade point what we have to remember is what the founding fathers
new which is that the government and business have to be to some degree adversarial
not to kill business but watch out for businesses like the rest of the players
are somewhat adversarial the rough makes the calls and any government has to remember that
again and it seems that our country’s completely forgot that and that’s why we’ve gotten taken over
by these giant corporations that have as your book argues till the free market so it’s it’s an interesting read it’s
called porter truly free market job but i think you joining us really appreciate can’t get thank you very much

Author Since: Mar 11, 2019

  1. Why do we want a free market? Why do we want capitalism? Why can't we have an economic system based on common values and needs? I just don't understand why that's never brought up.

  2. @00maharum00ma because that means that everyone gets equal opertunity, and equal opertunity means things are cheap, business' arent in the business of distributing their product to better mankind, they are in the business of making money.

  3. The Internet was more of a "commons" during the late 90's but looked what happened. Too many companies, too many risky moves, not enough gauging for consumer demand, and it all crashed. The companies that rose out of those ashes rightly took more of a share due to better business practices and offering consumers services that they actually wanted.
    He's absolutely right on China though. They are way too dependent exports and government spending while domestic consumption is severely slagging.

  4. It took Cenk 15 minutes to catch on – wow!! East India Trading Company – the company store – the plantation owner – CORPORATISM is NOT the free market.

    Adams and Jefferson were right about Corporations and Washington was right about no political parties – all wastes of resources and evil in the end

  5. Man, I liked this interview, Cenk challenged him on a bunch of different fronts and brought the other side of the argument to the table (The "rational" other side anyway) THESE are the debates we should be having between conservatives and progressives, Conservatives making SMART points and progressives making smart points…

    (I am referring to cenk bringing up rational right wing arguments)

  6. Put simply: if we enforce anti-monopoly laws (a total no-brainer) and increase the power (and presence) of trade unions, America will be a fairer and less corrupt country. Here's another idea: outlaw corporate funding to politicians and impose an electoral tax on the population. The same amount of money will be delegated to each candidate. That way elections will be fought and won on ideas only. Simple.

  7. this emotional attachment to "capitalism" is one of our main problems in this country. actually, emotional attachment to the ideals of a completely flawed system is the main problem. you can see it in teabaggers, they want the "good ol' days". anyway, capitalism is something that puts the powerful's interests over what is prudent for the society we live in. its cheaper to make shoes in china, but in order for me to buy those overpriced shoes, i could use a job. but, all the work is gone

  8. does anyone know how much walmart has saved us? even if you shop there? walmart has forced mom and pop stores to be competitve and ether increase their services or lower their prices as well… walmart is not a bad thing

  9. Anyone who thinks that Walmart is practicing Fair Trade policies must be happy that more and more US jobs are being outsourced to Asia. Because hey, that means we either have to lower our wages or be put out of business… much like the mom and pops need to do to compete with Walmart (and we won't even mention Walmart helping to destroy american based manufacturing by going to asia to undercut competitors). After all what's the worse that can happen.

  10. This is a really great discussion. And the difference between this argument compared to the opposing consensus, is that one is supported by historical evidence. While the other popped out of some conservatives asshole when they snuck into the second signing of the Emancipation Proclamation that corporate entities should have human freedoms. 😉

    Fight the power! (capitalistic power that is)

  11. How can rightwingers defend transnational big businesses like Walmart & local small businesses like mom & pop stores? It's interesting that Medaille describes the internal functioning of a monopolistic corporation as being socialist in that they decrease competition & having a strict hierarchical structure. Many rightwingers love both big businesses & the military which combined as the military-industrial complex form the largest manifestation of socialism in the US & possibly in the world.

  12. The founding fathers idealized a professional political class, a disinterested aristocracy. They hoped that this political class would be disinterested in that they'd be independently wealthy enough so as to not be involved in business affairs. They thought it was dangerous for powerful people to be simultaneously involved in both politics and capitalism. They wanted a political class that didn't favor any group but instead were able to dispassionately make decisions for the good of all.

  13. I am sorry, what bullshit. Google is one of many search engines, there is plenty of competition on line, but Google used the real world to do its IPO, which gave it an enormous amount of CASH that allowed them to BUY various services, like YOUTUBE, like Google Maps, and others, they BOUGHT those services and consolidated but its not due to their EARNINGS it's due to the IPO and the share price system.

    They ARE competitive though, why would you BUST Google up, it provides services at GOOD PRICE!

  14. @romanmir01 How much does it cost YOU to search with Google? How much does it cost YOU to post YOUTUBE videos with Google?

    How much does it cost YOU to use GMail, Google Maps, Google Translator?

    Isn't the price for consumer + quality the real indication whether this so called monopoly is doing GOOD by customer?

    Also ANYBODY can compete with Google, they are not the only OR the first search engine

    Lycos, Infoseek, Altavista, remember those? They were outcompeted. But Yahoo, Mamma, Bing exist

  15. OMG., also on China, this guy is SO WRONG!

    China has NO PROBLEM that US has, they have now the manufacturing that allows them to create things of value, it's NOT MONEY, NOT CASH that makes a country rich, it's their production, their manufacturing, their science, which is all improving.

    Even if in terms of MONEY they are getting screwed, but in terms of PRODUCTION China is getting richer and richer.

    When USD failis, China will shrug off it money problem and will turn to their consumer

  16. Also this guy is very confused. How exactly would it work in Free Market to redistribute wealth from one entity to another and then what? Wait until the redistributed wealth grows and then REDISTRIBUTE IT AGAIN?

    He expects the government to do the redistribution but the market to do the work? Excellent. Idiot.

  17. This guy is not a thinker, just trying to use a few soundbites to sell a book.

    You want an actual Free Market approach, look at Peter Schiff and Ron Paul

  18. Greed is not only good, it's the only moving force, it's unstoppable and it should be channeled and used. You can fight it as well, as you can fight the force of Gravity while living on a planet. Sure, you can go up, but you'll come down eventually, the question is will you be in one piece after that or not.

    Greed is the only primal mover. Greed for money. Greed for sex. Greed for life, whatever.

  19. @dEdGrimley As an atheist I abhor any notion that a country with a supposed separation of church and state is a 'Christian country'.

  20. @dEdGrimley More importantly, that's not what Free Market needs – more government enforcement. It needs separation of corporations and government and shrinking of government to get rid of the deficit.

  21. @dEdGrimley I don't understand what 'the right' has to do with Free Market, can you please explain? On 'the right', except for Ron Paul and Peter Schiff, who else actually cares about Free Market?

  22. @dEdGrimley

    I truly suggest watching these, not that I need to convince you anything, but if you watch it, can you actually truly say that this guy doesn't know his stuff, or that he does not CARE about the real economics and economy? He ran an online campaign as a republican senator in Connecticut, but he is libertarian. He lost to Linda McMahon spent over 30million to win, she won, too bad for USA. He got 22.7%

    watch?v=Z0YTY5TWtmU
    watch?v=UOBXSewoP0s
    watch?v=rEVTDeu8-04
    watch?v=3wGzZqAKbiw

  23. u can't have a free market with an income tax and a central bank, those are planks of the communist manifesto. The constitution says that only congress can issue the currency. If u end the income tax, we can restore our manufacturing power and have free trade at the same time. But if u are gonna tax small business men into oblivion u have to have tariffs. Anti-monopoly laws are pointless, just lower taxes and their will be less monopolies, competition is the best way to have choices

  24. @romanmir01 Ron Paul? A thinker that doesn't flog himself through soundbites? Yeah right.

    "Federal reserve must be destroyed! Gold standard must be put in place! Bla bla bla…"

    Sound familiar? Ron Paul – and his dweeby son – are windbags. I don't agree with everything this guest says, but he's absolutely right about anti-trust laws. These are the measures that worked in the past. Stuff like gold standard was an effect of such policies, not a cause in its own right…

  25. @pilkingtonphil anti-trust laws? First anti-trust case was against Standard Oil, in fact that particular trust was the reason for the anti-trust laws, except that it had nothing to do with the good of the market.

    Standard Oil had plenty support from various governments around the world, but by the time they lost the anti-trust lawsuit, they were not even a monopoly anymore, they had 5 or 6 competitors at least.

    Ron Paul is correct, or did you see gold go down over the years? right.

  26. I don't know what point you're trying to make – but you're certainly talking through your ass to make it. Anti-trust laws can be traced back to Roman times. Look up the history on Wiki.

    You have no idea what you're talking about.

    In addition, while I'm not against the gold standard per se I know it's not the panacea Paul thinks it is.

  27. @romanmir01 Better than nothing… better than your "the first anti-trust law was against Standard Oil" bullshit. No it wasn't. You're wrong.

    The Sherman Antitrust Law has nothing to do with my point that Anti-Trust is the way to go. Take your libertarian talking points elsewhere.

  28. @pilkingtonphil You are a moron. Before Sherman Act USA had no way to pursue anti-trust cases. Thus, you are a moron.

    You can stop talking to me anytime you want, you started the conversation with me, so fuck off.

  29. @romanmir01 "Before Sherman Act USA had no way to pursue anti-trust cases. Thus, you are a moron."

    Wow, do you have a degree in analytical philosophy or what? Because your argument structure is quite brilliant.

    "Fish live in water. Thus, you are clever."

    "Most cats have tails. Thus, you have brown hair."

    Profound, man. Let me try one:

    "Romanmir01 brings up particular examples of US anti-trust law to respond to a general comment about said laws. Thus, he cannot reason properly."

  30. @pilkingtonphil I still hear you squeak, thus you are still unfortunately a moron. Didn't you say you don't want to speak with me?

  31. @romanmir01 Tried speaking. No repsonse. Like most libertarians you simply talk to yourself. Talking to you is like watching someone jerk off. It's embarissing.

    Anyway, I've had my fun. See you over at the Von Mises institution or whatever other deluded ideological propaganda website you hang out on.

  32. @pilkingtonphil I can't rePsond to you, because you know everything about most libertarians. I wish you could watch me jerk off, some entertainment for you, more than you get now, reading wikipedia and listening to Cenk for you points.

    Cheers.

  33. @romanmir01 Oh I already watched you pull your parson….. and look at the mess that you made. Five irrelevant comments that the poor YouTube community now have to read!

    Someone get a wet towel!

  34. @romanmir01 This is getting a little too hot for the YouTube comments section. How about we carry it on over at on of those popular libertarian sex sites. ronsballs. org or goldstandardinmybutt. com – they're pretty good.

    Seriously though. Libertarian-baiting on YouTube is so much fun. They always think that they have it all figured out. But a nagging little voice inside my head always tells me that I should be doing something better with my time…

  35. @pilkingtonphil so you know all about those sex sites AND you have a little voice inside your head talking to you?

    There IS something better you should be doing with your time, it's called a rehab.

  36. @romanmir01 That little voice is referred to as a conscience, you pillock! Also Rehab is where drug and alcohol addicts go. Tell me, have you ever got confused as to which is your ass and which is your elbow?

  37. @pilkingtonphil Your conscience is talking to you while you are talking to me on youtube? Are you SURE ABOUT THAT? I am quite certain you actually meant 'common sense', not that you have more common sense than you have conscience, after all, you are still yapping.

  38. @romanmir01 Yes, my conscience tends to inform me when I've done something wrong. I joked that baiting libertarians was the wrong thing to do. Hence, my conscience – the 'little voice in my head' – warns me against doing it.

    Man, you're dumb. And you have no sense of humour to boot.

    Thanks for the short lecture in your perverse conception of human psychology though. It was almost as ass backwards as you economics 'commentary'.

  39. @pilkingtonphil Oh boy, you can't stop, can you? Conscience, common sense, uncommon sense, psychology, economics, politics, ideology, thinking, perverted sexual pleasures… all of these things have failed you and I am NOT interested in helping you figure it all out, you'll just have to go into the world and make your own mistakes, it wouldn't be that hard, you are an expert in that field.

    Goodbye. Good bye. Bye bye. Arrivederci. Ciao. Xin chào.再见. Tschüss, auf wiedersehen. Au revoir. Прощай.

  40. @romanmir01 Oh please help me. Please, Mr. Libertarian man. I just don't know how I'm going to make it in the world without your telling me what you've gleaned from some biased propaganda website.

    We need people like the Randroids and LaRouchites to feed us pseudo-analysis and conspiracy theories about big government. We need to know The Truth. Don't leave me yet. I need to know more about irrelevent anti-trust laws. Maybe you could teach me goodbye in other languages too – you pretentious ass.

  41. @pilkingtonphil Why, I could tell you many things in a number of languages, for example почему бы тебе не отсосать у верблюда уже, явно же хочешь?

    But I have so much more to do in the world and your cause is lost, you have voices in your head and you have porn websites to visit, you should do that, time is in short supply.

  42. @romanmir01 You truly are a pretentious ass. "Oh look at me… I can speak what appears to be Russian – I am so smart." I'll bet you're the type of guy that people try to get away from at parties…

  43. @pilkingtonphil Surely, you didn't think English was my first or second or even third language?

    As to the parties, I am sure you are a center of attention at your local tight-ass club, be sure to turn your back to the right person.

  44. @romanmir01 No, obviously I failed to recognise your brilliance… But now you've cleared that up and we can all stand in awe of you…

    Here's a little advice though, you know, in case you miss cultural nuance. Most people consider those who go around bragging about how many languages they speak clowns. Most people think doing things like this is rather pathetic. Personally I think you've shown that you're not half as clever as you think you are. But that's just my opinion.

  45. @pilkingtonphil Oh, common, it's time for you to visit your tight-ass club, and we both know, only men are allowed.

  46. Free market is impossible.

    1. The government placing ANY regulation on business in ANY way means no free market.

    2. In a real free market a few will consolidate power very quickly and then the free market is no more.

    Free market cannot exist, no more of this nonsense discussion

  47. @ltajambi The Constitution, drawing mostly on the work of Locke and Rousseau, respects private property, to a point….5th amendment, not so much.

    But the Constitution was drafted, in large part, to provide for a government an even greater ability to tax and regulate than did the failing Articles of Confederation.

  48. @Choblik Socialism is an overbroad term…considering the fact that both fascism and communism fall under the pervue of 'socialism,' and those two are mortal enemies.

  49. @ltajambi You are clearly unaware of the fact that developers and land speculators literally create special districts and other forms of local government specifically to employ the 5th.

    Eminent domain comes from the 5th amendment, and it is used hundreds of times a year to take property in the name of progress for all…not always true, of course

    But its use still devalues the concept of property

  50. That's not what he means by "free." You can't change or ignore his definition, then critique the strawman you've created.

  51. Why? Because he doesn't have the right religion for the Young Turks. He's not a materialist. Therefore, he is not welcome in the modern left.

  52. Cenk doesn't get the concept of a capital versus debt. China (whatever that means) is emphatically not "getting richer," and it has emphatically not developed or improved beyond any previous state in the last century, in that the vast majority of people are not and can not by law become owners over the means of production, hence capital is not widely distributed at all. As John Medaille said quite clearly, they are heading for a worse disaster, once they can no longer sell at a loss to the U.S.

  53. Mortal rivals, not enemies in the sense that their theories of government are radically opposed. They are almost identical, differing only in scope, and even then, by far most communists were nominal communists in order to get international support from other "communist" countries, but were internally of a national character, and thus exactly the same in practice as fascism.

  54. I'd like to believe that, but most leftists I know don't care about sharing capital or universal healthcare as much as they care about abortion and similar practices like creating embryos to harvest stem cells, which is really another way to describe making materialism the basis of public biotech policy. Had the left in the United States been willing to compromise with pro-lifers, many progressive policies could have been implemented, simultaneously forming a powerful non-violence movement.

  55. 1. Well, no one has memory of their birth or even their first year, so consciousness cannot be a judge, else people in comas or even sleep would deprive people of their rights. The issue is capacity or substance, and it is clear that being human is not a mechanical process that people ought to judge like machines.

  56. 2. Your view is not radical; if you knew this was an unmovable ethical issue for over half the country, and no one denies life takes precedence over liberty, no sane person would cross their arms and pout, and stonewall every chance of compromise and reform by insisting on this one point. That is exactly what the left in this country has done. It is radicalized and blind and doesn't care about helping poor people as much as keeping open avenues to kill very young life, and everyone knows it.

  57. Sometimes great happiness comes only through suffering. But regardless, my friend, I only wish you happiness. Thank you for the interesting conversation.

  58. Government regulation is older than capitalism…and it's the result of collusion and other greedy tendancies within to the market.

    Over 700 years ago, in France and England, merchants went out into the countryside, bought up commodities and horded them to drive up the price…this was the genesis of government regulation.

    Such collusion was punishable by death.

Related Post