It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Capitalism is a lot more important then democracy

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
At least according to Trump top economic pick Stephen Moore:


Stephen Moore, a distinguished visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation and co-founder of the Club for Growth, which supports candidates who advocate slashing the tax rates of the top 1 percent.


Yeah this is really going to 'benefit' working class people.


Stephen Moore is also, like Trump, a charlatan. After a guest op-ed under his byline in the Kansas City Star contained glaringly false statistics, the paper’s editorial page editor vowed that she would never run anything by Moore again, and that any other submissions by Heritage Foundation staff would be fact checked by the Star. (Moore’s errors were discovered by Star columnist Yael Abouhalkah, who is my cousin.)


Source: theintercept.com...

Yep - these are the best in the field. Lying, cheating and thieving field.

People who 'make # up' because it 'sounds good' are only marginally less irresponsible then those that believe them over and over again, despite amble evidence of deceit.

For those who will respond with HRC is no better, I say - It's not an either/or proposition. She may, in fact, be more dangerous to working people and the planet. But Trump is a psyhopath whereas HRC is being loyal to her constituency (the .5 %) that has paid her way from the beginning....

www.nytimes.com... -region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


Hillary Clinton’s relationship with money has long puzzled even some of her closest supporters: Despite choosing a life in government, she has appeared eager to make money, driven to provide for her family and helping amass a fortune of more than $50 million with her husband.




posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

if I have to choose I'd take Heritage over the KC Star any time.

Capitalism only works with freedom. If one is not free to own property, one is not free. If one is not free to start and run a business, one isn't free. and without capitalism there isn't much incentive to work and the result is almost always poverty. Look at Cuba after 50 years of Castro. Or Venezuela.

one can have capitalism without democracy but it's unnatural, especially in this era. despots have prospered for years when allowing businesses and merchants freedom to operate. inevitably these people accumulated wealth and started demanding a greater voice in government.
so capitalism leads to democracy.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd
At least according to Trump top economic pick Stephen Moore:


Stephen Moore, a distinguished visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation and co-founder of the Club for Growth, which supports candidates who advocate slashing the tax rates of the top 1 percent.


Yeah this is really going to 'benefit' working class people.


Stephen Moore is also, like Trump, a charlatan. After a guest op-ed under his byline in the Kansas City Star contained glaringly false statistics, the paper’s editorial page editor vowed that she would never run anything by Moore again, and that any other submissions by Heritage Foundation staff would be fact checked by the Star. (Moore’s errors were discovered by Star columnist Yael Abouhalkah, who is my cousin.)


Source: theintercept.com...

Yep - these are the best in the field. Lying, cheating and thieving field.

People who 'make # up' because it 'sounds good' are only marginally less irresponsible then those that believe them over and over again, despite amble evidence of deceit.

For those who will respond with HRC is no better, I say - It's not an either/or proposition. She may, in fact, be more dangerous to working people and the planet. But Trump is a psyhopath whereas HRC is being loyal to her constituency (the .5 %) that has paid her way from the beginning....

www.nytimes.com... -region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


Hillary Clinton’s relationship with money has long puzzled even some of her closest supporters: Despite choosing a life in government, she has appeared eager to make money, driven to provide for her family and helping amass a fortune of more than $50 million with her husband.




Top 1% pay the bulk of taxes, so any tax cut is going to affect them the most. Simple math. I'm a 1%er and I can assure you that my taxes are too high and it does affect the way I spend my money. Keep in mind that to be in the top 1% of income earners in the US, you only need to make about $375k a year. It is good money, but it isn't rich by any means. It took me damn near 20 years of busting my ass and nearly $100k in graduate education to get to this point in my career. If I am lucky, I can stay here long enough to put money away for retirement and take care of my family. The last thing I need is government pissing away half my income.

Moore is correct. Capitalism is more important because capitalism is freedom. Democracy without a free market simply does not work. Having the right to vote but not having a pot to piss in doesn't help anyone.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: FyreByrd
At least according to Trump top economic pick Stephen Moore:


Stephen Moore, a distinguished visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation and co-founder of the Club for Growth, which supports candidates who advocate slashing the tax rates of the top 1 percent.


Yeah this is really going to 'benefit' working class people.


Stephen Moore is also, like Trump, a charlatan. After a guest op-ed under his byline in the Kansas City Star contained glaringly false statistics, the paper’s editorial page editor vowed that she would never run anything by Moore again, and that any other submissions by Heritage Foundation staff would be fact checked by the Star. (Moore’s errors were discovered by Star columnist Yael Abouhalkah, who is my cousin.)


Source: theintercept.com...

Yep - these are the best in the field. Lying, cheating and thieving field.

People who 'make # up' because it 'sounds good' are only marginally less irresponsible then those that believe them over and over again, despite amble evidence of deceit.

For those who will respond with HRC is no better, I say - It's not an either/or proposition. She may, in fact, be more dangerous to working people and the planet. But Trump is a psyhopath whereas HRC is being loyal to her constituency (the .5 %) that has paid her way from the beginning....

www.nytimes.com... -region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


Hillary Clinton’s relationship with money has long puzzled even some of her closest supporters: Despite choosing a life in government, she has appeared eager to make money, driven to provide for her family and helping amass a fortune of more than $50 million with her husband.




Top 1% pay the bulk of taxes, so any tax cut is going to affect them the most. Simple math. I'm a 1%er and I can assure you that my taxes are too high and it does affect the way I spend my money. Keep in mind that to be in the top 1% of income earners in the US, you only need to make about $375k a year. It is good money, but it isn't rich by any means. It took me damn near 20 years of busting my ass and nearly $100k in graduate education to get to this point in my career. If I am lucky, I can stay here long enough to put money away for retirement and take care of my family. The last thing I need is government pissing away half my income.

Moore is correct. Capitalism is more important because capitalism is freedom. Democracy without a free market simply does not work. Having the right to vote but not having a pot to piss in doesn't help anyone.

I bet the 99% disagree that 375k a year is not rich.
You think that you pay too much in taxes and we don't, after taxes you have enough left to do pretty much anything you want, and we, after taxes struggle to make ends meet.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: FyreByrd
At least according to Trump top economic pick Stephen Moore:


Stephen Moore, a distinguished visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation and co-founder of the Club for Growth, which supports candidates who advocate slashing the tax rates of the top 1 percent.


Yeah this is really going to 'benefit' working class people.


Stephen Moore is also, like Trump, a charlatan. After a guest op-ed under his byline in the Kansas City Star contained glaringly false statistics, the paper’s editorial page editor vowed that she would never run anything by Moore again, and that any other submissions by Heritage Foundation staff would be fact checked by the Star. (Moore’s errors were discovered by Star columnist Yael Abouhalkah, who is my cousin.)


Source: theintercept.com...

Yep - these are the best in the field. Lying, cheating and thieving field.

People who 'make # up' because it 'sounds good' are only marginally less irresponsible then those that believe them over and over again, despite amble evidence of deceit.

For those who will respond with HRC is no better, I say - It's not an either/or proposition. She may, in fact, be more dangerous to working people and the planet. But Trump is a psyhopath whereas HRC is being loyal to her constituency (the .5 %) that has paid her way from the beginning....

www.nytimes.com... -region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


Hillary Clinton’s relationship with money has long puzzled even some of her closest supporters: Despite choosing a life in government, she has appeared eager to make money, driven to provide for her family and helping amass a fortune of more than $50 million with her husband.




Top 1% pay the bulk of taxes, so any tax cut is going to affect them the most. Simple math. I'm a 1%er and I can assure you that my taxes are too high and it does affect the way I spend my money. Keep in mind that to be in the top 1% of income earners in the US, you only need to make about $375k a year. It is good money, but it isn't rich by any means. It took me damn near 20 years of busting my ass and nearly $100k in graduate education to get to this point in my career. If I am lucky, I can stay here long enough to put money away for retirement and take care of my family. The last thing I need is government pissing away half my income.

Moore is correct. Capitalism is more important because capitalism is freedom. Democracy without a free market simply does not work. Having the right to vote but not having a pot to piss in doesn't help anyone.

If you truly worry about your retirement at nearly 400k a year, how do you think everyone else feels?



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: JHumm

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: FyreByrd
At least according to Trump top economic pick Stephen Moore:


Stephen Moore, a distinguished visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation and co-founder of the Club for Growth, which supports candidates who advocate slashing the tax rates of the top 1 percent.


Yeah this is really going to 'benefit' working class people.


Stephen Moore is also, like Trump, a charlatan. After a guest op-ed under his byline in the Kansas City Star contained glaringly false statistics, the paper’s editorial page editor vowed that she would never run anything by Moore again, and that any other submissions by Heritage Foundation staff would be fact checked by the Star. (Moore’s errors were discovered by Star columnist Yael Abouhalkah, who is my cousin.)


Source: theintercept.com...

Yep - these are the best in the field. Lying, cheating and thieving field.

People who 'make # up' because it 'sounds good' are only marginally less irresponsible then those that believe them over and over again, despite amble evidence of deceit.

For those who will respond with HRC is no better, I say - It's not an either/or proposition. She may, in fact, be more dangerous to working people and the planet. But Trump is a psyhopath whereas HRC is being loyal to her constituency (the .5 %) that has paid her way from the beginning....

www.nytimes.com... -region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


Hillary Clinton’s relationship with money has long puzzled even some of her closest supporters: Despite choosing a life in government, she has appeared eager to make money, driven to provide for her family and helping amass a fortune of more than $50 million with her husband.




Top 1% pay the bulk of taxes, so any tax cut is going to affect them the most. Simple math. I'm a 1%er and I can assure you that my taxes are too high and it does affect the way I spend my money. Keep in mind that to be in the top 1% of income earners in the US, you only need to make about $375k a year. It is good money, but it isn't rich by any means. It took me damn near 20 years of busting my ass and nearly $100k in graduate education to get to this point in my career. If I am lucky, I can stay here long enough to put money away for retirement and take care of my family. The last thing I need is government pissing away half my income.

Moore is correct. Capitalism is more important because capitalism is freedom. Democracy without a free market simply does not work. Having the right to vote but not having a pot to piss in doesn't help anyone.

I bet the 99% disagree that 375k a year is not rich.
You think that you pay too much in taxes and we don't, after taxes you have enough left to do pretty much anything you want, and we, after taxes struggle to make ends meet.


50% of the populace doesn't pay a dime in federal taxes. Top 1% pay almost 45% of federal income taxes. That is nearly HALF.

It doesn't matter what you think in regards to taxes. The reality is that at some point, people like me will say screw it and stop working and then you won't be getting sh*t in taxes.

I know I earn a decent living. However, it is not RICH as most people define being rich. I live in a small house. Up until recently drove a 10 year old car. Any extra money goes towards preparing for a retirement. I am not flyign private planes. Driving $100k cars. Poppin bottles with Jay Z and blowing $50 racks at a strip club. HUGE difference between a working stiff like me making $400k/yr and say a pro athlete making $5 million. Both of us are 1%ers but worlds apart in terms of finances.

It would only take one medical or financial disaster and I'm broke.

Globally, you only need to make $37k a year to be considered part of the 1%. Anyone with a full time job in America is pretty much part of the 1%.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Stephen Moore! Libertarian economist! Yay! The Koch Libertarian ideology takeover of the Republican Party is now complete! Via Donald Trump, who is clueless


Quixotic ’80 Campaign Gave Birth to Kochs’ Powerful Network


“The development of a well-financed cadre of sound proponents of the free enterprise philosophy is the most critical need facing us today,” he said, according to a copy of his speech in a Libertarian Party archive at the University of Virginia, one of thousands of documents reviewed by The New York Times for this article.


Let Freedom..... Fascism... ring!



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
50% of the populace doesn't pay a dime in federal taxes. Top 1% pay almost 45% of federal income taxes. That is nearly HALF.


That's because 50% of the populace couldn't pay them even if they had to because they have no money. Do you know why the 1% pay those taxes, because they can. Most of the 99% literally can't pay them.


It doesn't matter what you think in regards to taxes. The reality is that at some point, people like me will say screw it and stop working and then you won't be getting sh*t in taxes.


Then stop working and stop paying them then. You act like we're getting the money or something. The rest of us work too ya know.


I know I earn a decent living. However, it is not RICH as most people define being rich. I live in a small house. Up until recently drove a 10 year old car. Any extra money goes towards preparing for a retirement. I am not flyign private planes. Driving $100k cars. Poppin bottles with Jay Z and blowing $50 racks at a strip club. HUGE difference between a working stiff like me making $400k/yr and say a pro athlete making $5 million. Both of us are 1%ers but worlds apart in terms of finances.


Like the rest of us are doing those things??? I don't think you're getting what's being said here. Nobody is claiming you're on easy street here or anything but you are complaining about how tough it is to be in the 1% of earners because you're taxed more. But consider how tough it is for you as the 1% what it's like for the other 99%!! They also work, pay bills, have expenses, etc. but do it at a fraction of what you do it on. Many of them can't even get a small house or drive a 10 year old car and most of them have no way to even think about saving for retirement. At least you do get to think about retirement. Most people just work until death.


It would only take one medical or financial disaster and I'm broke.


Join the club. The 99% are already broke even without the medial disaster.


Globally, you only need to make $37k a year to be considered part of the 1%. Anyone with a full time job in America is pretty much part of the 1%.



Yeah, well since there are places around the Globe where you make $1 a day for working 12 or more hours that is really going to skew the averages to the point of making such comparisons irrelevant.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: JHumm


You think that you pay too much in taxes and we don't


Who's we? Who decides how much is too much? Do you feel you are owed someone else's earnings simply because they make "enough?"

Social many questions can be asked just based on that statement alone.

Got answers?



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   
If Trump said that then it just shows how self assuming he is, since we are supposed to be in the era of Democratic Capitalism which is supposed to be pluralistic.
However Trump doesn't work that way, he likes to make it on the backs of migrants and pay the lowest amount of shekels, or not even pay at all if possible, though I guess his now political arrogance over migrants will possibly have killed that utility in the future....rub it up 'im



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
Top 1% pay the bulk of taxes, so any tax cut is going to affect them the most. Simple math. I'm a 1%er and I can assure you that my taxes are too high and it does affect the way I spend my money. Keep in mind that to be in the top 1% of income earners in the US, you only need to make about $375k a year. It is good money, but it isn't rich by any means. It took me damn near 20 years of busting my ass and nearly $100k in graduate education to get to this point in my career. If I am lucky, I can stay here long enough to put money away for retirement and take care of my family. The last thing I need is government pissing away half my income.

Moore is correct. Capitalism is more important because capitalism is freedom. Democracy without a free market simply does not work. Having the right to vote but not having a pot to piss in doesn't help anyone.
I bet the 99% disagree that 375k a year is not rich.

50% of the populace doesn't pay a dime in federal taxes. Top 1% pay almost 45% of federal income taxes. That is nearly HALF.

It doesn't matter what you think in regards to taxes. The reality is that at some point, people like me will say screw it and stop working and then you won't be getting sh*t in taxes.
I know I earn a decent living. However, it is not RICH as most people define being rich. I live in a small house. Up until recently drove a 10 year old car. Any extra money goes towards preparing for a retirement. I am not flyign private planes. Driving $100k cars. Poppin bottles with Jay Z and blowing $50 racks at a strip club. HUGE difference between a working stiff like me making $400k/yr and say a pro athlete making $5 million. Both of us are 1%ers but worlds apart in terms of finances.
It would only take one medical or financial disaster and I'm broke.
Globally, you only need to make $37k a year to be considered part of the 1%. Anyone with a full time job in America is pretty much part of the 1%.

Your perceptions are flaky and shaky, what you fail to address is that the 21% of the 1% are in grades $200 for your $1, however they pay tax in the area of 17cents of every dollar they earn, and meticulous use of tax avoidance probably enhances that a great deal. Notwithstanding that the 1% zones in America means that the 1% figure is variable by huge margins, in NY and DC it's near $600,000 perhaps more, despite near poverty groups there, or even the middle class, neither of which can afford much in the way of trust funds for their kids, however the Federal taxation system tends to ignore dependants tax files, up to nine million of them, mostly kids who have trust funds...do you get that?
That's never mind a big number of those who hide the money elsewhere, and that nobody in America, and many other places get any benefit from.
edit on 10-8-2016 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElGoobero
a reply to: FyreByrd

if I have to choose I'd take Heritage over the KC Star any time.

Capitalism only works with freedom. If one is not free to own property, one is not free. If one is not free to start and run a business, one isn't free. and without capitalism there isn't much incentive to work and the result is almost always poverty. Look at Cuba after 50 years of Castro. Or Venezuela.

one can have capitalism without democracy but it's unnatural, especially in this era. despots have prospered for years when allowing businesses and merchants freedom to operate. inevitably these people accumulated wealth and started demanding a greater voice in government.
so capitalism leads to democracy.



And you are free to choose to only listen to the Heritage Foundation and nothing else. But I consider freedom - the freedom to decide between multiple viewpoints and opinions backed by verifiable facts and analysis - on my own. Blind faith in an 'authority' of whatever kind is slavery not freedom and it is all the worse for being self-imposed.

Capitalism has nothing to do with freedom - except for the exploiter class however you choose to define it.

The 'freedom' to exploit/oppress others is tyranny not freedom.
edit on 11-8-2016 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-8-2016 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 12:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated


Top 1% pay the bulk of taxes, so any tax cut is going to affect them the most. Simple math. I'm a 1%er and I can assure you that my taxes are too high and it does affect the way I spend my money. Keep in mind that to be in the top 1% of income earners in the US, you only need to make about $375k a year. It is good money, but it isn't rich by any means. It took me damn near 20 years of busting my ass and nearly $100k in graduate education to get to this point in my career. If I am lucky, I can stay here long enough to put money away for retirement and take care of my family. The last thing I need is government pissing away half my income.

Moore is correct. Capitalism is more important because capitalism is freedom. Democracy without a free market simply does not work. Having the right to vote but not having a pot to piss in doesn't help anyone.


Less look at your un-cited 'fact' - top 1% pay the bulk of taxes.

First if you are going to make a 'statement of fact', you'd better provide some references...

So I'll respond with a source for you.... from the Business Insider no less ....


CNBC ran a story yesterday with the headline "The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes."

The story has thousands of Facebook shares. And its premise is completely false.


www.businessinsider.com...

and it the interest of actually seeing both/multiple sides to any question, from the same article:


Rich people do pay a lot more taxes than poor people, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of income. But the rich are not paying all the taxes. And looking just at the federal personal income tax and trying to draw conclusions about who pays "taxes" will lead you to wrong answers.


Try - make the attempt - to listen to people that don't agree with you and actually hear what they say. We all have parts of the answer but if we don't listen to others (or judge them without hearing them), we will never survive.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

And we aren't even mentioning 'corporate' tax theft. As for the Donald, there is a very good reason that he is not releasing his tax records and it isnt' because of 'auditing'.


In a burst of temper, Trump made it clear what he is hiding. Donald Trump isn’t paying his fair share of taxes. How little, if any tax the Trump actually pays could be a major campaign issue. The Republican nominee is trying to hide the information from voters because he knows that it will cost him votes in November.

Donald Trump lies every day, but the media is beginning to scratch the surface of what is most important. The presumptive Republican nominee is hiding information that voters need to know to make an informed evaluation of his candidacy for president.


www.politicususa.com...



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Edumakated


Top 1% pay the bulk of taxes, so any tax cut is going to affect them the most. Simple math. I'm a 1%er and I can assure you that my taxes are too high and it does affect the way I spend my money. Keep in mind that to be in the top 1% of income earners in the US, you only need to make about $375k a year. It is good money, but it isn't rich by any means. It took me damn near 20 years of busting my ass and nearly $100k in graduate education to get to this point in my career. If I am lucky, I can stay here long enough to put money away for retirement and take care of my family. The last thing I need is government pissing away half my income.

Moore is correct. Capitalism is more important because capitalism is freedom. Democracy without a free market simply does not work. Having the right to vote but not having a pot to piss in doesn't help anyone.


Less look at your un-cited 'fact' - top 1% pay the bulk of taxes.

First if you are going to make a 'statement of fact', you'd better provide some references...

So I'll respond with a source for you.... from the Business Insider no less ....


CNBC ran a story yesterday with the headline "The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes."

The story has thousands of Facebook shares. And its premise is completely false.


www.businessinsider.com...

and it the interest of actually seeing both/multiple sides to any question, from the same article:


Rich people do pay a lot more taxes than poor people, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of income. But the rich are not paying all the taxes. And looking just at the federal personal income tax and trying to draw conclusions about who pays "taxes" will lead you to wrong answers.


Try - make the attempt - to listen to people that don't agree with you and actually hear what they say. We all have parts of the answer but if we don't listen to others (or judge them without hearing them), we will never survive.


Source for you to chew on...

Top 1% Pay 45% of Income Taxes....

From the same article...

"The one percenters' share of taxes is 2.7 times their share of income in taxes." in other words, we earn no where near 45% of the income.

Your business insider source is conflating local and state taxes with federal income taxes. If you don't know the difference, it is pointless trying to discuss.

There is only so much you can take. The problem is government is too big and won't cut spending. You can take 100% of all the 1% income and you still can't fund government.

I don't have an issue paying reasonable taxes but I also expect some fiscal discipline.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 09:42 AM
link   
It's not like democracy hasn't been a complete failure, the same people that promote democracy still control almost all aspects of society so democracy is in effect moot. People don't really have a say.. and when they do have a say, their say is mostly the product of behaviourism being applied in the political theatre.

People.. stop pretending like democracy as an institution isn't completely hollow. What say do you really have? When was the last time you helped decide anything important at all?



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: desert
a reply to: FyreByrd

Stephen Moore! Libertarian economist! Yay! The Koch Libertarian ideology takeover of the Republican Party is now complete! Via Donald Trump, who is clueless


Why would a corporation promote libertarianism when it means more competition for them?

Quixotic ’80 Campaign Gave Birth to Kochs’ Powerful Network


“The development of a well-financed cadre of sound proponents of the free enterprise philosophy is the most critical need facing us today,” he said, according to a copy of his speech in a Libertarian Party archive at the University of Virginia, one of thousands of documents reviewed by The New York Times for this article.


If libertarianism is so loved by the elite why don't they promote it? The Kochs endorsed Hillary Clinton not Gary Johnson. Look at who donates to Hillary's campaign.



Let Freedom..... Fascism... ring!


www.forbes.com...

Hmm.... lol
edit on 14-8-2016 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: changed text

edit on 14-8-2016 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: changed text



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Libertarianism is a far right extremist view of govt promoted by Koch money. Not all capitalists subscribe to it. Having no govt function save police and military would mean no enforcement of anti-trust laws. Libertarianism ideology means more monopolies, not more competition.


We’ve been told that antitrust is sort of a technical issue and we use these laws to engineer competition and ensure that we have healthy competition in our economy. The origins of antitrust are really quite different, however. Anti-monopoly law, which is really a better way to understand what antitrust is, is fundamentally a set of political laws. —people using their control over something we need (e.g., grain, transportation, etc.) to enrich themselves and raise themselves up above their fellow citizens politically.
....
There was this battle in the early years between the Jeffersonians (e.g., Jefferson and Madison) and the Hamiltonians. The basic conflict was Hamilton really wanted what he saw as an aristocratic republic (i.e., democracy among rich people), kind of like what existed in Athens a couple of millennia ago. You have a bunch of folks who entirely sit above society, they were the lords of the local domain, but among themselves there was no king. They were equal, the gathered together. They came together and engaged in a democratic process of deciding what to do with the nation.
....
Madison and Jefferson imagined, by contrast, what they called a Democratic Republic. The idea was that every citizen would have property, every citizen would have a vote, every citizen would be roughly equal, every citizen would have a stake in running the economy—
We saw for most of the nineteenth century, at least among the white folks, we had a Democratic Republic. Then for seventy years or so we had massive concentration during the Plutocratic years, right up really to the New Deal. Then, in the New Deal we had kind of this second American Revolution in which we actually took the power that had been concentrated and we distributed it out among ourselves. And then what we had thirty years ago when Reagan came to power was another reaction, an overthrow of the Democratic Republic. And now what we have today is the fight—it’s the final fight—to restore the Democratic Republic. If we don’t do it now—and one of the key elements is to ensure that the economic system itself is not concentrated, that power itself is not concentrated in the economic system that leads to concentration of power in the political system—if we don’t fix it now, we’re in deep trouble for a very long time.

source

David Koch ran as LP VP in 1980, then switched back to RP. They promote the Libertarian viewpoint. Charles did not endorse Hillary, rather they made a general statement about all the candidates:
Q. You couldn’t see yourself supporting Hillary Clinton, could you?

A. Well, I– that– her– we would have to believe her actions would be quite different than her rhetoric. Let me put it that way. But on some of the Republican candidates we would– before we could support them, we’d have to believe their actions will be quite different than the rhetoric we’ve heard so far.

The Kochs are hedging their bets about turning the fed govt libertarian by a strategy of state by state via ALEC etal.


The states, it turns out, are more receptive to the drive of the Koch Companies and their corporate allies to protect their business interests.
The Koch brothers’ have invested in such state-regulated areas as refining, chemicals, biofuels and ingredients; forest products; fertilizers; polymers and fibers. For the extractive industries, in particular, along with chemical, pharmaceutical, and lumber concerns, Republican-led deregulatory efforts can increase profits.
....
conservatives maintained their investment in building state-level infrastructure, not only in ALEC but in the State Policy Network and the interlocking foundations created by Charles and David Koch.

NYT article

edit on 14-8-2016 by desert because: bold



new topics




 
6

log in

join