Sigh… depends on the doctor… depends on which city… same thing with lawyers. Why are some lawyers $425 per hour?

Right..lawyers, another industry that is highly regulated, to the extent that you can be put in prison for practicing without a very difficult and expensive to receive state license.

My point is that the medical cartel enjoys a state controlled monopoly over its industry, and is able to set monopoly prices. This is a fundamental reason for the high cost of medicine in this country.

In effect, our current medical system is a fascist one – government control and private ownership, an alliance of government and corporate power.

A truly socialized system would arguably be better than the status quo – but I feel that a truly free system would be better still.

So, the clear will of the progressives was far different from this outcome. That’s well and good. But what was the end result of all that progressive energy?

The current results? Steps towards a public option, which in turn is steps towards a single payer system down the road. Once again, it wasn’t progressives putting up roadblocks to a public option and the dreaded single payer system. You act as if progressives move through a vacuum without any outside resistance.

Placing blame on the people who are actually fighting the fight is misdirected angst and unproductive…. and to be honest, kind of shitty and ungrateful.

During the Bush years, the words “single payer system” wasn’t even a part of the mainstream media’s lexicon, much less any kind of health care reform. The end result is the horrible mess we see today that kills over 45,000 uninsured Americans every year.

But you have angst for progressives who are actually trying to change things? [cow rolls eyes]

Government is like a summoned beast – you cast the spell to bring it into the world, and then what will it do? Will it follow your commands? Maybe, it will do what you want and clobber the other guy. Maybe, it will turn on you, and clobber you instead.

.. And maybe UFOs will come down and destroy us all anyway? So why even try?

It might be drastically different from what the progressives wanted, but that’s the nature of the beast. It may do what you want, it may clobber you.

.. And maybe UFOs will come down and destroy us all anyway? So why even try?

In this case, more or less, the beast turned around and clobbered the people who summoned it.

Your view of things is amazingly simplified. You (once again) ignore all the positives and focus an exacting, anal laser as brightly as you can on all the negatives. Please, for your own sake, pull off your blinders and quit being such a limp, melodramatic defeatist.

I don’t want to call forth any power greater than individuals themselves. It’s just too damned dangerous saying that we deputize any organization to use unlimited violence to achieve society’s collective goals. The beast is too unpredictable.

Yawn. Welcome to the real world. We have a system that appears to be too large for you to get a handle on, so you therefore reject it outright. The system you are looking for doesn’t exist, so you are frozen with inaction. You want a perfect system? Take a bunch of acid and hang out in the woods for the rest of your life away from society. The rest of us will have to work with what we’ve got here…. in reality and make the best of it. It’s life, it’s reality, it’s hard…. but at least we’re in the fight.

Even if it seems the only way to fight the great corporatist dragon we are faced with is to summon this beast..the risk of the dragon and the beast we have summoned uniting is just too great. If they unite, if the dragon seduces the beast we have summoned, then what do we do? That’s called true fascism, and it’s a very bad situation indeed. The best way to fight the dragon is to just walk away from it, to starve it.

Dude, this isn’t dungeons and dragons. This isn’t a game. 45,000 REAL PEOPLE die every year and much more suffer unnecessarily with our current system from inaction from people like YOU. Our current system is what we have to reform now to save lives now. You can continue to live in your fantasy world where our woes are caused by food stamps or whatever other distraction you can come up with, but the rest of us who don’t want to stand around impotent with delusional dreams of libertarianism in some distant future are knee deep in it now and are working to save lives now.

Your stance is a lazy cop-out. Just like your laziness when it comes to educating yourself on the voting records, etc.

If you ever bother to watch the Wendell Potter interview, he says a great quote from a book about why he decided to take action. All this time you’ve spent repetitiously spouting your fears of mythical dragons and beasts… you could have watched that interview 5 times over.

Here’s the link yet again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwX_soZ1GI

But they don’t, because they have forever been taught that the way to restrain the corporations is to continue to buy their services, while voting for politicians who speak anti-corporate rhetoric. Unfortunately, this doesn’t work.

There you go again. Speaking out of insulting ignorance. It’s not ALL rhetoric. In your fantasy world, dragons and whatnot are running around in Washington D.C. – In the real world, it’s people. Government is not some fantasy. It’s made up of real people, some of which are working this very moment at their own disservice to help people like you who don’t even bother to understand and only chastise them. It get childish. It gets old. Have fun riding your mystery dragons and beasts into the sunset.

“The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotion, spends himself in a worthy cause; who at best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who have never tasted victory or defeat.” -Teddy

If video stores want to level the playing field, perhaps they should start renting movies for $1/day, instead of $6/1-5 days. No? Not practical? Make your own boxes and join in. Have members get special offers for going to their boxes instead of someone else’s. C’mon, THINK!

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I wrote a long, detailed reply to your post. Unfortunately, my browser crashed just as I was doing the final edits (Oh Opera, with your 10.5 gleam, the longest love/hate relationship in my life).

So, I will just hit on a few points. Starting at the end, the words closest to my face. Oops, on a quick look over, this turned out longer than the first :P

Hoping to reform corporations without government is futile and only leads to outright fascism. History is on my side with this.

What history are you referring to, exactly? When have laws seriously managed to constrain corporations? Sure, labor and environmental standards tightened..causing the multinationals to simply traipse overseas and let the local small manufacturers to wither. But fascism? Fascism is, yes, the combination of state and corporate power. How can you have this without state power? You should remember that the fascist powers of the 20th century gained power with a decidedly anti-financial message, and a promise that the if they empowered the state it would solve all these problems. Of course, that’s not how it turned out, given power they were more than friendly to their select industries..but that’s kind of my whole point.

What examples do you cite where a laissez faire economic environment led to a fascist/totalitarian situation?

Not a progressive agenda like a single payer system or child labor laws. I was asking you to name examples of progressive laws on the books that are ruining America.

Well, it depends on how narrowly you define “progressive agenda”. I believe that the food and drug act was a good example of the progressive era, and that is having an awful effect on the country – a corporate corrupted body now has monopoly power, complete with guns and raiding parties, to provide the role of a food watchdog. This corporate-controlled monopoly cannot be broken or competed against by honest players, because they have guns.

Or hell, let’s look at workplace laws. Have they prevented cruel workplaces or child labor? No, they have simply accelerated the rate at which manufacturing is pushed overseas. This hurts small businesses and helps multinationals who are sophisticated enough to travel to China. The end result, arguably, is that a higher percentage of consumer goods are manufactured in rotten conditions than if they were still made in the US, where it is easier for watchdogs to monitor. (OSHA etc. raise cost of manufacturing in US, which encourages businesses to move overseas. Of course, there are other factors pushing them over there as well).

Or hell, minimum wage. If you’re middle class, you can afford to pay money to gain job skills at a university. If you are poor, you can’t (and it’s not just tuition, but opportunity cost, paying for student housing, transportation, etc). The best avenue open to the poor to gain job skills is by working. But if you have no skills, your work isn’t worth much per hour. If your work is worth less than the minimum wage, the bottom rungs of the ladder are effectively knocked out, and you can’t ever start climbing it, and you never gain the job skills that would one day let you open your own business and become wealthy.

Or the “consumer protection” laws, that in many cases act as a racket so that some established interest to keep prices high. I’m talking about “cosmetologist licenses” and nonsense like that. These last two go together to make it quite difficult for poor people to start businesses. They are not a direct result of the progressive agenda, but arose out of that mindset that government should be taking care of the little things.

Or welfare/subsidized housing. They provide an income cap, where if poor people make more than X they lose their guaranteed benefits and have to rely on a less secure job. So, rational people will purposely choose not to make more than X, and will fall into a “trap” of low prosperity.

Of course, there are sound arguments to be made against these, as well. But they make the core of the case that the government, in seeking to help the poor, ends up hurting them.

How is massively underfunded public education a “progressive” agenda?

The problem isn’t the funding of education. This is a common liberal misconception, that the problem with a government service is that it is underfunded. It is the compulsory nature of it, and the fact that it squeezes out (through “free” competition or high regulations) other, alternative education models. Remember the radical “free school” movement of the 70s? Well, you probably don’t, because the establishment of the Dept. of Education and its ensuing red tape made it much more difficult to run a school outside of the “accepted norms.” If you have 20 times more money, and you force the kids to sit in a chair all day, watching a screen, not moving, being surveilled all the time and generally treated like inmates – it will still be a fine mill for corporate drones suited or Wal-Mart. The problem isn’t the level of funding, it’s the basic nature of the beast.

Research is expensive and will always be

Right, but the point of a great deal of modern “research” is to simply find a new marketable product. Medicines aren’t computers. If you dig up a root (or, more often, find a nutritional remedy) that is highly effective at treating a given ailment with limited side effects and low cost, that’s it. You’re done. You don’t have to research any more.

On the one hand, this is an ugly side of capitalism – manufacturing demand, in the form of new novel pharmaceuticals more dangerous and less effective than those they replace. On the other hand, government plays a significant role in confusing the debate, and making people believe that chemically isolated pharmaceuticals (often isolated form free plants) are the only effective cures.

The tea party rose initially out of racism and ignorance.

No, that’s not true. The energy behind the tea parties is basically the energy of the Ron Paul movement. Now, whatever you might think about Paul, his basic message, that that got the kids all fired up, was specifically anti-imperialist, anti-war, anti-police state, anti-cronyism, and specifically anti-Bush/neocon. You talk about voting records – he was basically the only guy to vote against the patriot act and everything else. I have respected him since 2001 because he long provided the most strident and consistent voice against Bush and against war in the chamber, even when all the Dems were kneeling down to kiss his butt.

The tea party, then, is basically an attempt to capture all of these lost little lambs and bring them back into the warm welcoming bosom of mama GOP. Which is a shame, because they’re a bunch of schmucks. But to think that grassroots energy of the “tea parties” is a populist cry to get Obama to bomb Iran or something is misguided. It’s more or less a sophisticated Fox News propaganda job to smother the anti-war/anti-banker populist Paul movement. The fact that Fox managed to get a bunch of neocon dingbats out in the streets for an afternoon is a shame, but not that surprising.

Paul and Kucinich were the only even vaguely anti-war candidates running in that race. Obama’s political history shows that he doesn’t have an independent bone in his body, and the wars will certainly still be going on when he has left, and the corporations and bankers stronger than ever. But that was predictable from the start.

You call it “nihilistic” to not trust an institution that has the blood of million on it’s hands, that locks up more folks than China in rape chambers? I call it blindly naive to believe that there is anything good in the nature of this institution. There have been a few isolated bright spots, that were generally dissolved when the next guy came in, and used the new increased power of the state to do some even greater evil.

I invite you to give me an example of a time or two in the history of any country when government intervention has resulted in real, long term reduction in corporate/monied power.

I support anything you might do or say to remove the power and influence of money and corporations from government. Certainly, that can only be a good.

But, to the extent that our government now is basically run by lobbyists and corporatists, I urge you, in the name of simple common sense, not to support any increase of power in this entity.

Wouldn’t any such increase, given the present political environment, simply further empower the corporations?

How could our current corporatist government pass any sort of health care socialization that would be anything but pro-corporate? It’s like getting a turtle to do a pole vault.

Not that the conservatives are much better, because it is certainly true that they generally call for a reduction in government power, when it is convenient to their backers, rather than out of motives for a truly level playing field or principle.

I am not a nihilist, instead I believe this: That the only effective means of social change are setting up alternative economic and social institutions, on a micro and macro level, and educating and encouraging people to use them more and more.

But, based on some of your previous comments, I imagine you have never considered that there might be a connection between the byzantine laws that restrict who can practice medicine and what can be sold as medicine and the high prices of medical care in this country.

Don’t worry, most of the supposedly “free market” right wing media hacks don’t seem to be able to figure this out either.

Which reminds me of a recent commentary I read recently – as the Republicans have been actively working to promote outsourcing of democratic job classes for decades, they have been very protective of the more conservative lawyers and doctors, fighting to preserve the restrictions that make these fields very hard to get into. Interesting.

As in Temperance Brennan?

Mmmmmmmm.

-abs has just gone to his happy place, thinking about the ever-tasty Temperance Brennan always does that

Yes, it’s a good point that Wall Street and medicine make awful bedfellows.

The question is, who are the insurance companies able to survive on a model of screwing their customers?

It’s not a rare thing for companies to decide to pad their bottom line by screwing over their companies. Unfortunately, these companies often end up dying when more consumer friendly competitors show up.

So, why don’t small, local, people friendly insurance companies spring up to fill this void of the market?

I would argue that it is difficult, confusing, and expensive to navigate the dizzying web of regulations in place around the US medical industry in general. It takes a lot of time, money, and lawyer bills to start to make sense of it. This creates an environment hostile to small entrepreneurs, so the big guys can prosper on their “screw you” business model.

I have no doubt that the progressive Democrats want very much to reduce corporate power and increase the power and wellbeing of individuals.

The question is, “does it work?”

Setting aside any abstract philosophical discussion about government, I will sum up my arguments, limiting only to those that pertain to well intentioned progressive legislation:

1) They often creates beauracracies that, many years down the line, become infiltrated by corporate operatives and used to further corporate interests (fcc, fda for instance).

2) They are often hijacked with riders that leave the whole bill more damaging than doing nothing at all.

3) They can have unintentional side effects, which only a perceptive and insightful economist could predict.

Take, for instance, 35:00 of the Potter interview: “(a mandate without a public option will) lock them into the system and ensure their profitability into the future.”

I know progressives don’t support this measure, don’t want it, but that is the current result of this massive surge of progressive activism. That is the bill Obama signed.

Really, I don’t lose sleep over progressives or progressive legislation. What I lose sleep over is expanded government power and funding as a result of progressive legislation, that is eventually corrupted and twisted by the corporatists.

While Republicans get elected on rhetoric of reducing the power of government, that is not what they actually do in office. This is the great lie of the Republican Party. Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and II – all demonstrated this. They worked to further increase the power of government, but turn it towards more corporatist ends. They did not cut spending, they did NOT significantly reduce the power or scope of government in any significant way.

They onle cut taxes, which just puts the burden on future generations and those hurt by inflation.

This is an important point. The long term end results of both sides must be compared against the rhetoric.

So, Democrats have controlled congress for maybe 75 or the last 100 years. Generally running with populist, anti-corporate rhetoric. All well and good.

Has the result been a diminishment in corporate power in society over this 100 year period?

I just don’t see it.

This is not to say that Democrats are pro-corporate. Most of them aren’t. Simply that the tool being used, government, is not very effective at the job at hand: actively reducing the power of corporations.

It is, conversly, very effective at increasing the power of corporations and the monied interests.

I feel that the faith of progressives in the government as an effective means of reigning in corporations has been misplaced. There are more effective ways to direct time and energy to achieve progressive goals.

Surely you are familiar with Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”. To put it simply, he proposed that the best way to undermine power structures was to find the weak point in their own internal rule structure and exploit it.

Is the weak point of corporations government regulations? No, not really. Corporations are experienced and skilled at dealing with regulations. They can move their operations overseas. They can hire lawyers to find loopholes. They can hire lobbyists to exempt them and make the laws disproportionally effect their small competitors. They are very, very experienced at the political game. They have played the game so long as so well that they have found every way to win no matter which way the legislative process goes.

Most regulations are at most an inconvenience for corporations.

So, where are the weak points?

Well, profit and revenue. Corporations are very, very sensetive to their profit. Every executive from the CEO on down watches the numbers closely. Their mandates demand that they maximize their profits whenever possible. So how can their profits and revenue be attacked?

1) Consumer perceptions
2) Changing Mass Buying habits
3) Corporate Image
4) Creating more ethical, people friendly alternatives

How do you get together the money and attention span to do this? Well, it happens from the grassroots. It springs from information. Look at the large, loosely organized movement over the last ten years to shun fast food, processed food, factory farming, and industrial agriculture in general. Sure, it’s a minority of people. Sure, many corporations responded by buying organic brands. But people are wise to this. Every dollar spent in farmer’s markets or from independent food producers is a dollar that doesn’t go to a corporate bottom line. Every dollar that is spent on a gym membership or fresh produce is probably ten dollars that don’t go to a hospital’s AR department.

THAT is something that hurts corporations in their most vulnerable, and that is something that is happening right now.

If anything, shouldn’t this story be evidence against increased state intervention in the economy? Since, as mister-o so rightly points out, incumbent interests use state power to further entrench themselves, shouldn’t this make you more wary of state intervention, not less?

You propose using government power to restrain corporations – and it is not an approach without merit.

I argue that, without a powerful government, corporations would be simply unable to use force or coercion in society. They would then live or die on the merits of their services. In this environment, as you put it, the “mutts” would surely eat them.

By your defintion, am I a progressive? Yes, absolutely. Of course, the first condition applies to basically everyone who isn’t a sociopath.

In fact, I do support a more egalitarian society. Our difference is that I believe the most effective way to do so would be to get rid of the laws that put down the small guys and empower the politically connected and rich.

Frankly, i don’t see why there is such a huge supposed divide between liberalism and libertarianism. I really think that the two groups ought to be collaborating on their many shared goals – an end to corporate welfare, and end to laws the benefit corporations or hurt the poor, an end to the corporate-government fascist partnerships (which well describes the easy india company), an end the the drug war, police state, and prison industrial complex, an end to imperialism and the military industrial complex, etc.

I might add that an end to the Federal Reserve should absolutely be in this list, because few entities in our modern society hurt the poor and middle class more than this one; giving the bankers any control over the money supply is an awful idea.

So, as a conclusion to this discussion: an olive branch, my friend :)

The example works for all copyfighting, actually: Drunkard, you are a thief and a robber

Though… Dr. Temperance Brennan? Yes, I believe I could spare a few bolded caps in her direction.

The difference between then and now is information. People sometimes talking about stodgy old libertarians wanting to “return to the 19th century”. But that really isn’t possible, because of the 21st century technology. In our current system, bodies would be set up that would monitor the assets and risk profiles of different banks. Instead of assuming a bank was safe, people would support responsible institutions after doing a bit of research – maybe similar to buying a car today.

And, perhaps you agree, the worst situation of all is a hyperinflationary “run on the country!” Not that that is likely to happen soon, but neither is it impossible either.

But, based on some of your previous comments, I imagine you have never considered that there might be a connection between the byzantine laws that restrict who can practice medicine and what can be sold as medicine and the high prices of medical care in this country. Don’t worry, most of the supposedly “free market” right wing media hacks don’t seem to be able to figure this out either.

How you arrive at the conclusion that I don’t think collusion is a problem is beyond me. I think you may have skipped some of my previous comments in regards to the dire need for more public participation (and therefore scrutiny) within our government. Squeaky wheels are the ones that turn.

#32:I think the important thing to remember is that a great number of the “progressive” laws we all assume the corporations hate have a similar genesis to this. That is, they were put in place to squash some sort of competitor, and the corporations only claim to be against them because if they were seen to support them they would shortly be dropped from the books.

I think specifics are in order here. Which “progressive” laws? Ok, based upon what I mentioned earlier, I’ll take a stab… a public option, perhaps? I think truly progressive laws on the books are few and far between because the corporatists are obviously calling the shots within our government for the most part. Ever try to get some “talk time” back in the day with Tom Delay without shoving money up his ass first? Won’t happen unless there’s a photo op (which also gets more money shoved up his ass in the long run somehow).

It’s kind of like the myth that the mainstream media outside of Fox News is actually liberal or progressive. Yes, they tend to flirt with socially liberal issues as a front. But, make no mistake, at their core they are an incredibly strong conservative arm for the corporatists. Name ONE mainstream, so-called “liberal” media outlet that did NOT absolutely cheerlead the public into our current Iraq war?

This same, so-called “liberal” media refused, absolutely REFUSED to mention the words “single payer system” until activists had to practically throw themselves like information bombs into the front of C-SPAN cameras (repeatedly). Yeah, those “kooks”, huh…

The mainstream media has proven itself over and over again to be run and edited by corporatists who attempt to control the message. Sure… well read, educated journalists tend to be more progressive, but the facts they would normally present are diced, sliced and muted by the editorial staff that answers to the corporate messengers from above.

I hope before you challenge me on any of this above you do a modicum of research first yourself. The proof of this is overwhelming. You can start with my ridiculous assertion about the “liberal” mainstream media’s initial avoidance of the words “single payer system”. How is it this “liberal” mainstream media seemed to “overlook” a system in place in nearly every other westernized country in the entire world for so fucking long? A system that would radically impact and benefit most Americans? It’s because they are not “liberal”… they are corporatists. The media only used the words once they were literally forced to and even then usually only as long as they wrap words like “radical”, “leftist”, “socialist”, “communist”, etc. around the term.

That’s why they tout a “public option” as some far left-wing, liberal, progressive vehicle when in the form it’s been in, it has been nothing but yet another brick for the corporatist wall (yay insurance lobby). So while I agree with you that this particular “public option” (if we can get specific here) in its current form is nothing but corporatist trickery to avoid what terrifies them the most (a true single payer system)… I disagree that the “public option” is progressive, it’s just another brick in the wall between the elite who like things the way they are where they don’t have to really work for a living and the rest of us who make an honest buck producing worthwhile products and services that takes actual ethics fused with talent, skill, etc.

You put up ethical barriers and lazy, slothlike corporatists crumble. They haven’t the skill, drive nor talent to compete with the rest of us on a level playing field and they know it. I just wish more average Americans knew it too.

Jesus Christ, you guys act like you didn’t just witness a massive deregulation from the last administration that fucking wrecked our economy. You’re in denial. No matter how much evidence is in your face… it’s simply amazing… you still want more deregulation. LOL… yay, let’s deregulate ourselves into another economic depression… a recession isn’t manly enough… hahaha….

Through such things government is corrupted, yet the solution is to fix the problem by eliminating or minimizing the cdorporate interventions, not removing the government.

Yes, I type to much. I will be very brief here.

You are entirely right in pointing out that it is bad for people to just become sick of government and not be involved in it in any way. I don’t think that is a fair characterisation of most Libertarians, many of whom are much more actively involved in politics than your average joe.

And I am sorry if I put words in your mouth. Reviewing our conversation, you did not imply that.

But it is a fair point.

You are also right that I type to much; for that I apologize.

Let me just sum up a few points from this conversation.

You said that “taking the guns away from government” results in fascism. I feel this is an absurd statement.

You said that “the corporations spend lots of money trying to convert people to libertarianism.” If you have any evidence to back this up, I would love to see it. I feel that it comes instead from political dogma.

The reason is that Libertarians are at least as opposed to the power of corporations as progressives.

I asked you to name some real, substantive ways in which government has effectively curtailed corporations. You named a few things.

1) Monopoly busting, which is a good example, certainly. I will grant that.

2) OSHA/EPA/etc., which I feel are more of an inconvenience to corporations, other than something that effectively reigns them in. To demonstrate this, look around your immediate environemnt: How many items do you see that were manufactured in an OSHA/EPA regulated environment? I woulo bet you can count them on one hand. Not that these things are bad, just that they are not effective at really hurting corporations, but merely inconvenience them.

3) A popular uprising against the british empire / east india company.

4) The civil war freeing the slaves.

Please, is that all you can come up with? That is the core of this whole 40 page debate. “Is government effective at reigning in corporations?” I am sure you can do better than that. Did I miss some better examples you gave?

I can sit down and punch out literally 50 ways that a strong central government benefits corporations. If you want me to I will.

This is the reality: with a drastically reduced central government, the power of corporations would be less. Big agri would be hurt, big oil would be hurt, big medi would be hurt, the military industrial complex would be hurt, etc.

Thus my argument that libertarians are strongly anti-corporate power.

In effect, libertarians and progressives are hacking away at the fascist state from different ends. I don’t see why you think we are opposed.

I did watch the Potter interview, BTW, and it said basically what I thought it would..the insurance companies are crooks. But why are they allowed to be crooks without non-crooked competition?

One final question to ponder. You don’t have to answer this, but think about it. If you understand it, this question sums up everything I have written so far. Why does it cost in 2010 $500 without insurance to see a doctor for a routine checkup? Can you explain that?

This happened in Utah a few years back. All of the major auto dealerships here are owned by predominant rich white Mormons, and there are seriously miles of dealerships that are father/son ownerships right next to each other over and over… anyway, one year a new little shop opens up, starts advertising like mad hell and is RAKING in the cash from Sunday auto sales. Advertising sales on the radio pointing out that they were the only ones open on Sunday… Well pretty soon the LDS dominated legislature here made it ILLEGAL to operate an auto dealership on Sunday. You see, all those good old Mormon boys didn’t want to work on Sunday, BUT they weren’t willing to let some little upstart take a chunk of their cash either.

Illinois in 1890, Utah in 2005 or so.

Yes, that’s what it’s like living here. For the love of all you hold dear, don’t ever move to this state unless you REALLY enjoy living in a church-run state. And a poorly run one at that.

Two side points – an single payer initiative, passed in the current environment, would simply be a massive transfer of wealth from the people to the pharmaceutical corps (or an institutionalization of a transfer process that is already in place.) In reality, most medicine should be so cheap that it can simply be given away (I’m talking about the plants and herbs that most pharmaceuticals are based on, and that can substitute for pharmaceuticals a majority of the time, and the nutritional deficiencies that are the root of the current public health crisis). Until some of the fundamental restrictions on the economic supply of medicine are reversed, it is foolish to just put the whole stinking mess on uncle sam’s credit card.

And, on a side note, i disagree that the current economic crisis is wholly the result of the “free market”. There are several reasons for this, which I went into in response to Cory’s post on “Whoops! Why Everyone Owes Everyone and No One Can Pay”..in effect, the investment banks that caused the crisis were basically fascist entities, acting with government support and government “safety nets” should they fall. So, they took huge risks, knowing they wouldn’t lose their shirts if it all collapsed.

But, I think that you think we are more ideologically different than we are. Is the news media corporatiest? Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. It may embrace a few kernels of liberal principles – gay rights generally, more government whenever possible, etc.. And it may embrace a few kernels of conservative principles – less government and deregulation – where it is convenient for the corporations. Both sides are dangerous, because they offer a kernel of truth and wisdom wrapped in thick swabs of deception and lies, that can draw people in and then confuse them.

For instance the tea party movement has many nobles sentiments behind it, remember that it rose out of public furor about the massively corrupt TARP plan. Unfortunately, to the extent that it is “led” by the Becks and Palins of the world, it is completely neutralized and represents to threat to anybody..which is a shame.

Liberals often argue that we just need to take back the government from corporations and the monied interests. I feel that this is a pipe dream. We have 100 senators, 364 reps, and how many aren’t corporate stooges? Like, a dozen? When has the American ever not been run by corporate stooges? Maybe JFK and a lesser extent Eisenhower and FDR weren’t, but other than them..it’s hard to find anyone. Generally, politicians who actually care about the well being of the people are short lived oases in a puke green timeline of glop.

Look, we just had an election where the clear mandate of the people was and end to the corporate cronyism of the Bush era. The will of the people could not have been more clear. And what do we get? Oh, more corporate cronyism and war.

Certainly, corporations, while they may provide some useful services, are no friends of liberty – and nothing is more dangerous than when they take control of government.

My main disagreement with you is the implicit belief that there is some divide between corporations and government – that they are somehow at odds. They aren’t, and they haven’t been for a long time. I applaud any efforts to seperate them, but I believe that it is futile. if you have an entity that is allowed to use force and violence to achieve it’s ends, then it is impossible, in the long run, to keep people interested in force and violence from corrupting it.

Corporations and government go hand in hand; government acts as the armed enforcers to the corporations. I don’t support “shrinking” the government; instead, I support simply removing its guns.

Hoping to reform government is like trying to tame a fierce man eating tiger to be a good house pet that plays well with children.

How exactly do you define progressivism?

That’s like asking how do you exactly define conservatism. It’s probably easier to say what it’s not than everything it is, but I’ll go with the top definitions as society defines it:

http://www.google.com/search?&q=define%3A+progressivism

“ … the political orientation of those who favor progress toward better conditions in government and society … “

“ … Progressivism is a political and social term for ideologies and movements favoring or advocating changes or reform, usually in an egalitarian direction for economic policies (public management) and liberal direction for social policies (personal choice). … “

It seems to me that you define progressive laws as those that affect large corporations and not small business, but I ask, what laws are those exactly?

You are obviously very capable of drumming these laws up yourself. To get you started, I can assure you as someone who deals with small businesses that breaking up monopolies is an example of progressive law that drastically benefits small business in the long run.

A few points. You notice I don’t waste a single breath defending the Republican party. While I might agree with a limited subset of their platform, I absolutely agree with you that they are pure evil and willful henchmen of the corporations. I have never voted for a Republican in my life (except in primaries to try and prevent an even worse Republican from being elected), and it’s unlikely that I ever will (with the exception of Ron Paul, who ran on a basically anti-imperialist platform).

Well, that’s why I’m confused why you previously stated that conservatives are the lesser evil per se compared to progressives. At least progressives are fighting the fight.

Incidentally, I didn’t post those planks of the Nazi platform to claim there is some link between progressivism and nazism, but rather to argue that you have to look deeper than the stated intention in order to realize the long term effects.

Long term effects of what then?

I generally agree with the end goals of the progressive agenda. I simply feel that the means employed by the progressive groups are not effective at realizing them. If the Republicans are the willful henchmen of the corporatists, I feel that the Democrats serve the interests of the corporatists unintentionally. “The evil party vs. the stupid party,” as some wag has said.

Well, for a “stupid party” the democrats have done an amazing job of fighting the corporatists while having the entire game massively skewed against them. They have to fight 100 times harder for every penny compared to the republicans who have access to nearly open checkbooks from the corporatists.

Dude, if you stripped away the corporate money from the republicans and they had to fight the democrats on a level playing field, the democrats would eradicate them. The republicans would resort to violence and the democrats would even beat them at that too on a level playing field (see civil war ass kicking).

Yes, the democrats are dependent on corporatists money to compete with the republicans, but If we stripped away all the corporatist money from both sides, the republican party would crumble overnight and the democrats would thrive (as a whole). What does that tell you?

Sure, some of the rank and file may have very good intentions, even if flawed ideas; but the leadership is totally corrupted.

This is probably the crux of where we disagree. If they were totally corrupt, they would join the republican party and get all the spoils thereof. Are the democrats at the top corrupt? Damn right they are, because they wouldn’t be anywhere near the top if they weren’t. You don’t fight a giant machine with bean sprouts.

Hell, Pelosi’s husband is a multimillionare military industrial complex lobbyist or something.

What? No. He’s in real estate and as far as Nancy goes… she’s clean as hell as far as powerful politicians go. Trust me, the conservatives have checked with a fine toothed comb.

“ … Ken Boehm, head of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center in Virginia, spent months last year looking into Nancy Pelosi’s financial records, campaign contributions and legislative records, looking for any hint of impropriety. “There was no sign that she enriched herself personally by her official actions,” he told The Chronicle last year. “She didn’t cross the line as far as I could tell.” … “

If she was completely corrupt and nothing but a power hungry money whore, she could just say fuck all this bullshit and join the republican party and have far less headaches and reap far more spoils. Like I’ve been saying, you’re barking up the wrong tree.

The mythical democrats you’re looking for would not exist in the American publics mind, much less ever get enough media airplay, etc. to win elections. It takes money to win elections. Some people are more megalomaniacal than others. I would prefer to have the lesser maniacs in office.

Democrats tend to want to be loved by the people. They will sacrifice money for adoration. Republicans, on the other hand, tend to have disdain for the common people and want to merely make them their royal subjects. Republicans tend to want respect from their elite peers. Their voting history shows this time and time again.

While you can dig and find many similarities between the two parties, there are extreme differences between them that can’t be denied (unless you listen to the corporatists, of course).

It is through long thought on this matter that I have come around from socialism to libertarianism. I have simply come to decide that the best way to increase the wellbeing of all people is to minimize force, violence, and coercion from the picture in any way possible, and simply let people be free to do whatever they feel is best. The way to wither corporations is to wake people up and stop giving them money.

I’ve been an extreme moderate for as long as I can remember. I have complex and evolving views on pretty much everything. Over the years, libertarianism has left a bad taste in my mouth because it often falls right into the hands of the corporatists. What better way to run roughshod over the American public than by having them abandon all trust and power in themselves (a.k.a, a government for the people and by the people)?

As far as socialism goes, I’m against it. I’m for a hybrid capitalist/socialist system instead where there is some balance between the general welfare of the public while still having a big enough carrot on the end of the stick to attract entrepreneurs. Thank goodness we still have a country where you really can make it if you’ve got the brains to pull it off, but it’s becoming less and less of a meritocracy as the corporatists try to reign that horrible nonsense in.

Corporatists cannot survive in a meritocracy. They don’t have the aptitude for it and they know it. All those years of inbreeding have not been kind. We mutts can kick their asses on a level playing field, period. Look at all the humble beginnings of some of the hugest tech companies as a reference. I honestly think the desperate acts you are seeing (the Bush administration, Tea Parties unwittingly led by corporatists, fighting net neutrality, etc.) are the final throws of a dying elite. I think the last thing they’ll finally attack is the internet, but they are terribly outmatched.

You keep talking about the voting records. I thought I gave an answer by implication above, but let me be more clear: sure, the democrats have a vastly different record in terms of voting for measures that have the stated purpose of reigning in corporations and empowering the common man. My question is, how effective have these measures really been?

Everything from drinking water to product labeling and safety… workplace safety (OSHA?)… The lists of progressions goes on and on. I’m frankly getting tired of naming all of them (it goes into the thousands) for you only to ignore them again and again. I’ll just refer you back to that youtube video link I mentioned above in regards to “joe republican”.

Were corporations any weaker at, say, 1968 (which could be called the end of a fairly long stream of progressive presidents) than they were in 1900? I feel that it’s hard to argue that, in terms of their political, economic, and social power, they were weaker in any measurable way. On the contrary, much stronger.

I still don’t see how you think a progressive agenda is to blame for that? It’s a result of the evolution of technology and growing pains of the human race. I’m sure the first caveman burned the shit out of himself before he learned to cook with fire. What you don’t seem to understand is how much incredibly worse things would be right now if there was a complete lack of progressivism.

So, if I didn’t address your issue of voting records, because I feel that it is not relevant to the core of the argument, whether government is measurably effective at reigning in corporations, I don’t feel that you adequately answered any of my arguments of economic cause.

I’ve shown example after example of how progressive agendas have triumphed over corporatist/facists agendas over the ages throughout this thread. I’m frankly tired of giving examples any more.

I’ve yet to see even one example from you of where corporatists have ever chosen to reign themselves in without public scrutiny and activism.

My argument is there is an effect of what can be called a “Low Wage Trap,” where people are afraid to make more than X dollars because they will lose their benefits, and will then be be bringing in less money per month for more work. For instance, maybe they will be afraid that they will never be able to make as much money through wages as their low wage job + food stamps + public housing + medicaid, so they simply never try to improve and stay in the low wage job forever. A better number to test the validity of this theory would be one measuring years living on food stamps, or total lifetime earnings in an area with food stamps versus without.

Half of food stamp participants receive benefits for nine months or less. Elderly and disabled individuals tend to receive food stamp benefits for longer periods of time because they are horrible slackers apparently?

Most people turn to food stamps because of a job loss or reduction in earnings, and remain on the program for a brief period of time. Why focus all your attention of an extreme minority that doesn’t?

I just don’t get it. Why aren’t you more focused on the massive corporate welfare problem we have in this country? This food stamp business is a corporatist distraction and frankly… a waste of time.

This isn’t a matter of “corporatist propaganda,” but simply thinking like an economist. Economists try to find all of the small ways that laws and economic realities affect people’s decisions. What they find is often quite surprising.

Except, you don’t seem to have your facts straight about things like food stamps, etc. so I’m not sure you’re actually in touch with economic realities (or priorities for that matter).

I don’t think you have really addressed this simple economic argument either: regulations affect businesses both big and small, but the relative cost is much higher on the small business than the large, and this can have the effect of giving a relative advantage to the large business/corporation. You can claim that progressive laws only affect corporations, but I think that’s a bit of a cop out – can you name any?

I’ve addressed it over and over ad nausuem, but I’ll humor you one last time. For instance, when progressives go about breaking up monopolies that positively affects small businesses in the long run. When you apply OSHA standards to businesses big and small is helps level the playing field as well. I have a feeling you have a distorted reality of how that works and you probably think large corporations can merely throw money at OSHA, but that would be a knee-jerk opinion not based on facts. OSHA is very much open to the public. I suggest you start here:

http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.html

If you read anything else in this entire thread… read this:

So how does OSHA benefit small businesses? Well, if a small business is creating an unsafe work environment in order to gain higher profits they can easily be sued out of existence. Without OSHA, a large corporation could profit from an unsafe work environment and handle lawsuits as a mere “cost of business” and not only survive, but thrive despite the lawsuits. OSHA, while not perfect and not entirely incorruptible (show me any human institution in existence that isn’t?), at least puts the large corporations in check and on a much more level playing field with small businesses. Before you ask, yes… corporations get higher fines, etc. and it’s also a matter of public record and negative exposure that can hurt the corporation as well.

Once again, I could go on and on with progressive laws, agendas, etc. that benefit small businesses but I’d rather teach you to fish than to keep feeding you. Delve into how these “evil” agencies really work with an open mind and quit focusing like a laser on all the negatives. Believe me, the corporatists love nothing more than a public that has a skewed perception of regulation.

On a tangent, what about the Federal Reserve? Not a progressive law

I think this thread is gargantuan enough without yet another tangent especially when you already admit it’s not a progressive agenda so what’s the point really?

Umm..the FDA, which has become one of the most corporatized agencies in the company, without which the pharmas could not be nearly as profitable and widespread as they are (because the FDA actively goes after small time competitors), was a milestone of the progressive era. Whatever the bill was called, that’s simply historical fact. One hallmark of the progressive era was an increase in regulation of business of all types, in theory to protect consumers. (On a side note, it was FDR who signed the law effectively banning cannabis).

So, once again… sigh… blame the corporatists for attacking the progressive agenda. With your mentality, if I was to buy a poor person a house and it later got robbed… you’d accuse me of being a thief.

It’s an ongoing battle. The progressive agenda is under constant, unrelenting attack by corporatists… of course, you are going to find where corporatists try to game every progressive system you put into place. So do we stick a white flag in our assholes, bend over and give up? No, you keep fighting. The corporatists love nothing more than anyone who looks at nothing but the downsides of regulation. They spend a fortune trying to create libertarians, tea party “activists” and the like. That pays off, that’s for sure.

But, as these things go, when you create a power that has the force of law behind it, shady actors will be tempted to corrupt it.

Welcome to humanity. Sucks, huh?

You just inadvertently showed why it’s so massively important that we continue a progressive agenda despite the odds. Without it, we’d be in a far more horrible boat right now.

That’s what happened with the FDA, and that is why I don’t support ANY organization (private or government) being able to resort to use of violence.

Ok…. then I suggest you teleport to the year 3000 when all of humanity has evolved. In the meantime, I’m going to deal with the institutions in our present day reality and make the best of it. It’s all you can do without giving up and crawling into a corner.

Respectfully, I am not going to watch that Potter interview now, not because I don’t admire Moyers and think there are some interesting tidbits in it, but simply because I doubt I will hear much that I don’t know. Yes, the insurance companies are scumbags who profit from pain. It’s idiotic and predictable that the republicans support them.

My point was….

Many of the points you were making earlier fall right in line with the bullet points CIGNA Public Relations were pumping out to the public through every channel imaginable. When your points match up with theirs, it’s probably time to question the validity of said points. Then again, without watching that interview… you’re not going to be armed for this, so I’ll just stop here and you should too.

Not needing fully trained MDs to provide these services, they could charge very low prices. Why don’t they?

Because they would be killing people left and right. We have enough trouble getting fully trained MDs to wash their hands, much less Uncle Frank’s healthcare-orama.

For instance, why have computer and software prices plummeted over the last 30 years, while health care prices have exploded? Without being too obvious, I will state that computers are totally unregulated, while health care is highly, highly regulated, and has been more so through the decades.

Computers are completely regulated. Check out those markings underneath your computer thar. I’m happy to say I haven’t lost any family or friends to computer fires and I can thank regulation for that one. Somehow, computer manufacturers have survived the regulation.

Microsoft has acted in an abusive manner for years and years, delivering a shoddy product with too high prices, similar to our modern health care system. People got so fed up, they created replacements for MS’s core products (OpenOffice/Abiword/Gnumeric, Linux, MySQL, etc.) for FREE! People just wanted to see the world work better. What would happen if you tried to offer free unlicensed medical services to your community, out of the good of your heart? You’d be arrested, that’s what.

I’m sorry, offering open source software and taking out someones appendix isn’t even close to a good comparison in my book. Personally, I’m glad that unlicensed medical doctors are thrown in jail; they have a bad habit of killing people on the cheap.

The thing that Thom Hartmann audio misses is this: the services that government provides are crucial services, this is true. But why do we have to deputize some entity to have the power to compel everyone to use it’s services, and use force if anyone doesn’t want to “buy”? Sure, we need some body that will ensure that our food is safe. But what would be wrong with a private organization, like Underwriters Laboratory, that stakes their careers and reputation on providing testing of food, for a small fee?

But guess what keeps the UL afloat aside from the fees it charges manufacturers for product evaluation/certification? The “evil” government (see its parent non-profit status).

Why do we have to rely on organizations that are accountable only to this gargantuan, slow political process?

Answer:

Because there are 6 billion people on this planet and counting and we just recently evolved from shit-throwing monkeys.

citing the Indian freedom movement as an example of the progressive agenda seems irrelevant. That was a popular uprising against an entrenched imperialistic government power. It was not using the tools of government, but rather throwing the government off.

Study your history a little more closely. See ‘East India Company’.

And the civil war, that’s a whole nother discussion. But I strongly feel that it was a poor way of accomplishing what it did. They could have spent 1% of the cost to simply buy all of the slaves..

I don’t think the slave holders would have accepted a reasonable price. And, I don’t think you thought that out very far.

a great many other countries in the world had slavery, and they ALL, without exception, abolished it without violence.

Not even remotely true. Slavery is synonymous with bloody rebellion throughout history. And you should go back and read what my point was anyway.

We abolished slavery, but in the meantime, killed more people than Americans who died in all wars of the 20th century combined, and created a vast sea of resentment and anger, that poisoned the atmosphere in the south to this present day.

Fuck the south.

I don’t dislike Obama for being a supposed “black communist.” I dislike him for being a corporatist stooge in sheep’s clothing, just like Bush, just like Clinton, etc. etc.

Have you ever considered Obama just might be a progressive in corporatist stooge clothing? If you think you can just waltz into public office and dismantle the elite without getting a bullet in your head… you’re nuts.

Also, saying Clinton and Obama are “just like Bush” is once again focusing like a laser on all the negatives and completely discounting and/or disregarding all the massive progressive struggles these men have put forward.

There you go again, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

law that mandates that everyone buy insurance from this mafia, etc. etc.

See everything I’ve written about above and see if you can piece together why Obama can’t get a single payer systems pushed through in his first year of office. Your expectations are incredibly unrealistic. Thank god you’re not an advisor for Obama, he’d already be impeached somehow. There’s not any progressives who are thrilled about the mandate. I see you are participating in the new Boing Boing thread about the passage of healthcare reform. Read what everyone is saying in there about how they hold their nose, but realize it’s appeasing the corporatists in order to push towards the next steps.

By the way, if you want insurance now you have to get it from this mafia. Baby steps, baby steps. For someone who wants peaceful change, you sure are impatient.

The problem is just that the US Federal Government is too damned big to be controlled. Its beyond being able to be controlled by popular will (and popular will is too easy to manipuate with mass media anyway) Its power and money represents to tempting a target for those with bad intentions.

You keep saying this, but the facts don’t back you up. If the government was completely out of control of the people, believe me… all would be lost. The reality for average Americans would be incredibly worse right now. And, once again, the voting history doesn’t back you up on this.

As Obama said, the republicans weren’t running out to all the major networks screaming that the democrats were going to lose their seats if they voted for healthcare reform because the had a change of heart and suddenly “cared” about democrats losing their seats. They were trying to use fear to stop the progressive aspects of the bill that don’t further their corporatist agenda.

Fortunately, the fear shit isn’t working as well as they’d like. I’m sure you’ll focus like a laser on all the negatives within the bill and blow them out of proportion for the good direction it starts to push us in… so I’ll stop here because it’s probably useless to get you to see the light. But I will say this, progressivism takes time and it takes steps. Stop looking at the end of your nose and try to look a little further down the road.

Covering people with pre-existing conditions isn’t some nazi, fascist agenda, my friend… it’s progressivism. The best things Obama could have done for the corporatists would have been nothing… just like Bush did… nothing. Just like the republicans wanted to do… nothing.

Baby steps… baby steps…

Like I said – you want to support more citizen participation in government, a more robust democratic process? Fine, that’s all well and good. I won’t oppose you. In the meantime, I’m going to do my damndest to disarm and shrink that same government, so it has less destructive power if/when it falls into the wrong hands.

The government is already in the wrong hands and it’s already in the right hands. It’s not this one dimensional monolithic structure you imagine. Once again, if you follow the voting history that tells you a lot about who to support within YOUR government. Disarm and shrink the corporatists within the government. Know your enemy.

Now go out there and get that baby out of the bathwater before you throw it out.

Small and micro businesses are the best hope for America,it’s true. Corporations only think about the bottom line, thus the best way to fight them is to starve them. I work assidiously to not give a penny of my money to large corporations, and encourage everyone I know to do the same.

Hmmm… now how are you going to encourage enough people to even make a dent in corporatism without getting a bunch of money together? Reality is knocking.

my claim that the best way to control the corporations is to disarm their hired thugs in the government.

You do that with progressivism. I think you’re a closet progressive. Please consider that a compliment.