It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....
Originally posted by budski
Nader calls U. S. "corporate fascism"
(visit the link for the full news article)
Independent candidate for President Ralph Nader described the current government and economic system of the United States as "corporate fascism" at a campaign event held in Berkeley on May 12.
"We're living in a country whose democracy is beyond the breaking point. The extent of corporate control has developed into corporate fascism," declared Nader.
"We don't have a capitalist economic system - it's corporate fascism. Every major tenet of capitalism is violated by corporate power," said Nader. Only small businesses still practice capitalism, according to Nader.
Nader explained that major corporations buy politicians and write the laws through their lobbyists, thus owning the Capitol. They receive billions in government subsidies and hand-outs, but 68 percent of corporations pay no federal income tax, according to Nader.
Corporate fascism not only rules U. S. politics and the economy, but also other aspects of life including the way people think, said Nader. "We grow up corporate with commercialized childhoods. We get a corporate education."
Originally posted by sisyphus3
Corporate industrial interests essentially co-opted and shaped the Nazi movement in Weimar germany. They wanted the full-swing production that only war could give them, and Hitler was either an all-too-willing accomplice or a dupe.
War keeps factories going in a way that fickle consumers cannot be counted on to do.
I think one way to prevent corporate fascism would be to abandon the tactic of using anti-trust laws to try to preserve competition and instead amend the constitution to add a procrustean bright line in terms of size or market share that if crossed by a corporation would deprive its shareholders of the limitation of liability historically enjoyed by corporations. In other words, go ahead and get as big as you want, but if you do something bad and you go bankrupt, your shareholders will have to make those that are damaged whole.
There might be a few corporations that would actually choose to go ahead and cross that line. Something tells me they would only be the best-behaved, most ethical corporations on the planet.
Smaller corporations need the limitation of liability in order to get off the ground. After the corporation reaches a certain size, the limitation feature is nothing but a free pass where none should exist.
As for corporations paying taxes: they shouldn't be taxed at all.
Only a live human being can pay a tax--all taxes come out of somebody's pocket ultimately. Which simply means that taxing estates and taxing corporations provides a level of insulation between those taxed and the taxing authority. If you tax a corporation, perhaps it will charge more for its products, or pay its workers less, or pay out less in dividends. At the end of the day some live human being has taken the hit. If you tax an estate, it reduces the amount that any heir can receive. Same deal. Somebody took the hit.
I believe people should write a check for every dollar in tax that they pay. If that happened, there would be a lot more accountability placed on elected officials, and a lot less frivolous government spending.