This is a damning article and worth reading the entire thing.
The question is, in all the justifying by the leftist drones for Obama and his programs, do they even realize what they're doing and what road they are headed down?
The Left’s growing support for a soft authoritarianism is reminiscent of the 1930s, when many on both right and left looked favorably at either Stalin’s Soviet experiment or its fascist and National Socialist rivals. Tom Friedman of the New York Times recently praised Chinese-style authoritarianism for advancing the green agenda. The “reasonably enlightened group” running China, he asserted, was superior to our messy democracy in such things as subsidizing green industry. Steven Rattner, the investment banker and former Obama car czar, dismisses the problems posed by China’s economic and environmental foibles and declares himself “staunchly optimistic” about the future of that country’s Communist Party dictatorship. And it’s not just the gentry liberals identifying China as their model: labor leader Andy Stern, formerly the president of the Service Employees International Union and a close ally of the White House, celebrates Chinese authoritarianism and says that our capitalistic pluralism is headed for “the trash heap of history.” The Chinese, Stern argues, get things done.
A victorious Obama administration could embrace a soft version of the Chinese model. The mechanisms of control already exist. The bureaucratic apparatus, the array of policy czars and regulatory enforcers commissioned by the executive branch, has grown dramatically under Obama. Their ability to control and prosecute people for violations relating to issues like labor and the environment—once largely the province of states and localities—can be further enhanced. In the post-election environment, the president, using agencies like the EPA, could successfully strangle whole industries—notably the burgeoning oil and natural gas sector—and drag whole regions into recession. The newly announced EPA rules on extremely small levels of mercury and other toxins, for example, will sharply raise electricity rates in much of the country, particularly in the industrial heartland; greenhouse-gas policy, including, perhaps, an administratively imposed “cap and trade,” would greatly impact entrepreneurs and new investors forced to purchase credits from existing polluters. On a host of social issues, the new progressive regime could employ the Justice Department to impose national rulings well out of sync with local sentiments. Expansions of affirmative action, gay rights, and abortion rights could become mandated from Washington even in areas, such as the South, where such views are anathema.
http://www.city-journal.org/2012/eon0106fsjk.html
Originally Posted by Cyclown Ranger
Why don't we try eliminating the EPA and other commie agencies? That way, companies can go about their business, like Occidental Chemical did in the 1950's. Link:http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ve-canal_x.htm
Maybe Bob's kids were missing a kidney or their livers were a bit too swollen. But that's a small price to pay for a good paying job, right?
We don't need a government agency to keep companies from screwing up.
When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? [Henry David Thoreau]
If we had an independent business that absorbed companies that operated like Occidental Chemical, then absorbed all financial assets (personal and business) of company owners/employees who were responsible for such levels of contamination, I would agree. Witnessing an ex-CEO living on the street after he lost every single one of his worldly goods would be a more effective deterrent than the current method of companies taking the hit for corrupt executives.
Until that day comes, we need gov't agencies to provide & enforce rules, so companies will conserve resources and not kill or injure people while doing business. I have not seen any libertarian proposal for a needed threat against misbehaving parts of the business community, just as we have needed threats imposed on misbehaving citizens (the criminal code).
Someone hasn't heard that 'slippery slopes' are logical fallacies.
Show us not the aim without the way, for ends and means on earth are so entangled
That changing one, you change the other too; each different path brings other ends in view
optimus (01-11-2012)
Why don't we try eliminating the EPA and other commie agencies? That way, companies can go about their business, like Occidental Chemical did in the 1950's. Link:http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ve-canal_x.htm
Maybe Bob's kids were missing a kidney or their livers were a bit too swollen. But that's a small price to pay for a good paying job, right?
Why must it be an either or, black and white approach? Nobody is advocating it so why do you raise this red herring?
Actually, It's pretty funny that you picked up on that phrase. I used the term because it's so often used by leftists and I wanted to throw their own rhetoric back at them.
Regardless, we see the totalitarian, Statist leanings of the left and it appears as though they aren't even denying it these days.
No you weren't. I notice this is the same excuse as in your Occupy Wall Street fake research thread -oh, I never believed it in the first place, it was just a test...
The vast majority of Western socialists abandoned Stalinism after the second world war (and some never picked it up in the first place), and that's only part of the 'left' -the rest are social democrats or mere liberals. A liberal wanting increased state participation in people's development is not the same as a typical socialist's demand for a welfare state, or a communist's ubiquitous state. The factor of democracy is also important: while Bolshevik communists placed little emphasis on democratic accountability, Bennite socialism in the UK is unthinkable without it. Arguing that any two positions are the same or that one leads to the other is a logical fallacy.Regardless, we see the totalitarian, Statist leanings of the left and it appears as though they aren't even denying it these days.
Show us not the aim without the way, for ends and means on earth are so entangled
That changing one, you change the other too; each different path brings other ends in view
Gosh. Can you please fill the rest of us in on your incredible mind reading powers? I'm sure we'd all like to be able to read people's minds the way you can.
Where did you get this power from?
Does your mind reading power work 24/7 or does it come and go?
When did you get it?
How can the rest of us get it?
You obviously don't know me then. I illustrate leftist absurdity by using your own terms and tactics. I've done it for years. The funny part is that most of you are too stupid to even realize it and almost always respond so predictably.I notice this is the same excuse as in your Occupy Wall Street fake research thread -oh, I never believed it in the first place, it was just a test...
And by the way, you didn't prove the article was phony. I know this is difficult for you to accept but your declarations don't make it so.
The vast majority of Western socialists abandoned Stalinism after the second world war (and some never picked it up in the first place), and that's only part of the 'left' -the rest are social democrats or mere liberals. A liberal wanting increased state participation in people's development is not the same as a typical socialist's demand for a welfare state, or a communist's ubiquitous state. The factor of democracy is also important: while Bolshevik communists placed little emphasis on democratic accountability, Bennite socialism in the UK is unthinkable without it. Arguing that any two positions are the same or that one leads to the other is a logical fallacy.
Let me help you out and simplify things for you. I, and many others, have argued that leftists have Totalitarian tendencies. The evidence demonstrating this is overwhelming. This most recent article is yet another piece supporting that argument. Do you have a coherent, on topic response or are you just going to babble about more mindless, stupid bullshit?
Who is attempting to point out the gray, in between the black & white? Certainly not you. The OP article proposes the states, not federal, should handle Environmental Protection issues. With what funds? The Love Canal choice was anything but a red herring. No type of fish was able to live in Love Canal, and NY state was ill-equipped to handle the consequences on it's own. Beyond Occidental Chemical, think about those multi-nationals who would cut too many corners and endanger those around them (another example: Bhopal). But let's make it a black & white choice for Powerboss: choose between a predatory multi-national company that exists to consume that part of any company which causes significant environmental damage. Or choose a national gov't agency. Because the OP's choice -a state or some other local agency- can be way outclassed by a multi-national (let alone a regional like Occidental), as my two examples illustrate.
-Curious, as neither PB or F&L have the smallest comment to make about my "capitalist" solution -the predatory company. As if their only solution is a weak, ineffective local gov't agency, which could do little to no damage to an offending company. Shills make poor arguments, due to their cynically calculated, limited range of solutions. Weak & decentralized gov't is not the solution to overly strong corporations who misbehave. Try again.
Last edited by 9ball8; 01-11-2012 at 10:21 PM. Reason: illustrate BS
Archaix (01-12-2012)
Oh shit, did you just admit that you bought into the flawed logic of your opponents? Yeah, you did.
I totally ripped it apart. And, if you recall, you then said:
So was it true 'research' or not, Powerboss?
Your inability to differentiate between factions amongst the left is the problem. Totalitarianism has nothing at all to do with political spectrum -which is why those sorts of governments have run the full gamut left-to-right.
The article you cited is littered with lies, making pronouncements on American liberalism ("the left") through deliberately narrow readings of liberal figures. Tom Friedman's argument in his One Party Democracy article is taken out of context -read it and you'll find that he's not so much endorsing Chinese authoritarianism but conceding that (in comparison to hamstrung American system) it actually gets things done, like a working country should. Rattner's rather safe forecast that China will continue to perform well economically is presented as an endorsement of "that country’s Communist Party dictatorship". And Andy Stern apparently celebrates Chinese authoritarianism, even though he's clearly more interested in improving capitalism to compete with China than adopt it's political system:
(Source)
Face it: you and the 2-bit hacks you read have more interest in conservative circle-jerking than acknowledging facts, logic and sense.
Show us not the aim without the way, for ends and means on earth are so entangled
That changing one, you change the other too; each different path brings other ends in view
9ball8 (01-12-2012)
Oh good grief. You aren't that dense are you?
LOL. you "ripped" it apart? ROFL!!!!!!! Your argument is silly.I totally ripped it apart.
I already stated my position on the matter.And, if you recall, you then said:
So was it true 'research' or not, Powerboss?
In American politics, the Totalitarians of today reside on the left. This recent article is more evidence supporting it.Your inability to differentiate between factions amongst the left is the problem. Totalitarianism has nothing at all to do with political spectrum -which is why those sorts of governments have run the full gamut left-to-right.
The article you cited is littered with lies, making pronouncements on American liberalism ("the left") through deliberately narrow readings of liberal figures. Tom Friedman's argument in his One Party Democracy article is taken out of context -read it and you'll find that he's not so much endorsing Chinese authoritarianism but conceding that (in comparison to hamstrung American system) it actually gets things done, like a working country should. Rattner's rather safe forecast that China will continue to perform well economically is presented as an endorsement of "that country’s Communist Party dictatorship". And Andy Stern apparently celebrates Chinese authoritarianism, even though he's clearly more interested in improving capitalism to compete with China than adopt it's political system:
(Source)
Face it: you and the 2-bit hacks you read have more interest in conservative circle-jerking than acknowledging facts, logic and sense.
Please point out the specific lies in the article, then demonstrate how they are lies.
Stop apologizing and making excuses for your fellow leftists showing their true colors. It's sickening.
Oh, it is? Well, let's see how it stands up to your 'counterattack':
You already stated 2 contrasting positions on the matter, fool.
Your article is bullshit and I showed that. Thus, you have no argument.
You didn't read my post, did you? Oh, the shame.
I didn't apologise for anything. You, on the other hand, ought to apologise for being a hypocrite, being selectively illiterate and for being such an obviously lying shit.
Show us not the aim without the way, for ends and means on earth are so entangled
That changing one, you change the other too; each different path brings other ends in view
optimus (01-18-2012)
We have a court system that deals with these matters. We don't need a government agency to keep companies from screwing up.
When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? [Henry David Thoreau]
Friedman, Rattner, Stern - looks like entries in a Tel Aviv phone book.
Jews praising the Chinese on keeping their people enslaved...
I Pledge Resistance, to the Nazi Flag, of the United Police States of America, and to the Private Federal Reserves for which it stands. One Corporation, under Goldman Sachs, unaccountable, with poverty and slavery for all.
Give my regards to Farnsworth.
Show us not the aim without the way, for ends and means on earth are so entangled
That changing one, you change the other too; each different path brings other ends in view
ROFL. You're an idiot. Oh, learn how to spell apologize, you buffoon.Oh, it is? Well, let's see how it stands up to your 'counterattack':
You already stated 2 contrasting positions on the matter, fool.
Your article is bullshit and I showed that. Thus, you have no argument.
I didn't apologise for anything. You, on the other hand, ought to apologise for being a hypocrite, being selectively illiterate and for being such an obviously lying shit.
Face it, you're just another leftist loser making excuses for the newest form of Totalitarianism.
Completely befuddled by my suggestion for "the predatory company", I see. Why would you want to have the judicial system spend significant money on such matters, or risk "judicial activism" to regulate/punish environmental misfits? Why, that sounds a bit too ....communisty, to me.
Let me spell it out in two simple sentences: Capitalists who want to make resource abusers pay immediately need an equally strong, multi-national company to prey upon resource abusers. The gov't does not have to be involved, other than to oversee independent audits of said company(s).
To convince reasonable voters, libertarians need to explain how overbearing gummint agencies would be replaced by effective private agents to control critical sectors of our society. Hard to believe you would propose that a lame court judge would somehow be more effective than the wimpy NY state agency, which failed in the Love Canal case.
Archaix (01-19-2012)
Surely you're aware that the British spell some things slightly differently? I don't type 'centre' 'defence' and 'armour' that way for the hell of it, you know.
Or perhaps you're not aware because you have the same intelligence quotient of a pickled egg.
Hitler was a socialist! Jonah Goldberg was right!!!1
Moron.
Last edited by Archaix; 01-19-2012 at 06:19 AM.
Show us not the aim without the way, for ends and means on earth are so entangled
That changing one, you change the other too; each different path brings other ends in view
Situations like Occidental are exactly why we have a judicial system. The courts job isn't to be activist or regulatory. It just needs to punish the offenders and compensate victims.
Let each country deal with their own problems.Let me spell it out in two simple sentences: Capitalists who want to make resource abusers pay immediately need an equally strong, multi-national company to prey upon resource abusers. The gov't does not have to be involved, other than to oversee independent audits of said company(s).
No they don't. If it improves business, companies will be compelled to do it themselves. Government agencies stifle private organizations.libertarians need to explain how overbearing gummint agencies would be replaced by effective private agents to control critical sectors of our society
When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? [Henry David Thoreau]
The courts cannot punish certain offenders, those executive officers who hide behind the legal protection of incorporation. A private concern has fewer legal restrictions; it can slowly strangle the corporation until it provides full disclosure on responsible executives. A corporation that survives because it gave up responsible executives who were subsequently wiped out financially, would be a much stronger deterrent than a court ordering a faceless corporation to pay thru the nose.
...And those countries that chose a non-socialist solution would do well to allow a strong and agile force to clean up companies that fail to care for common resources. How many voters in any given country would choose a too-late court decision over a hungry multi-national that takes out executives or other complicit individuals as soon as it has the goods on them? How many corporations would like a predator to dismantle the worst offenders among them, and take advantage of the fire sale of their parts?
Let's try one more time, for the capitalist-impaired among us: A psychopath who finds enuf co-conspirators will sell slow poison if they can make a sure profit on it. Pretty lead paint on childrens toys come to mind, but there are other examples. Libertarians whose "plan" -
Last edited by 9ball8; 01-20-2012 at 08:49 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks