Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Protestors Right to Rail against Bank Bailouts

Expand Messages
  • Nathan Byrd
    The implication being that if you take down the U.S. government, the financial oligarchy would be just as powerful (or at least, still quite strong)? Nathan
    Message 1 of 40 , Oct 5, 2011
      The implication being that if you take down the U.S. government, the financial oligarchy would be just as powerful (or at least, still quite strong)?

      Nathan

      --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <beausabreur52@...> wrote:
      >
      > I disagree that the 'protestors are in the wrong city'. Washington may be the nominal seat of the US 'government' but the the so-called politicians are mere lapdogs of Wall Street. Policy revolves areound the interests of Corporate America. Take down the financial oligarchy and you deprive Washington of any actual power.
      >
      > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "George H. Smith" <smikro@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Government regulators are centered in Washington, D.C. This
      > > is also the location of the Federal Reserve Board of
      > > Directors. The protesters are in the wrong city.
      > >
      > > I haven't taken a poll, but I would bet dollars to donuts
      > > that the vast majority of protesters want more government
      > > intervention in the economy, not less.
      > >
      > > Which "television news people" are you referring to? The
      > > progressives and socialists on MSNBC love the protesters.
      > >
      > > Ghs
      >
    • James
      ok, I assume there are other articles?
      Message 40 of 40 , Oct 14, 2011
        ok, I assume there are other articles?

        --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Katz <jalankatz@...> wrote:
        >
        > http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/holmes1.html
        >
        > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 5:20 PM, James <jeo1@...> wrote:
        >
        > > **
        > >
        > >
        > > Mike Holmes writes for LRC?
        > >
        > >
        > > In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Katz <jalankatz@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Mike Holmes
        > > >
        > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:31 PM, James <jeo1@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > > **
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Mike who?
        > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Katz <jalankatz@> wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > This varies widely among the posters here. To my count, Anthony,
        > > Mike,
        > > > > and
        > > > > > myself all write for LRC, while Jeff writes for Mises. I certainly
        > > admire
        > > > > > the man, and have also corresponded with him, including getting help
        > > from
        > > > > > him when I dealt with significant problems in the past. I consider
        > > him a
        > > > > > great man.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 4:08 PM, g_keagle <g_keagle@> wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > > **
        > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Lew Rockwell apparently does not enjoy much in the way of accolades
        > > in
        > > > > this
        > > > > > > bailiwick, but a day or two ago he posted a text of a speech on
        > > > > "fascism" to
        > > > > > > his site that lends significance to this thread:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > "....Fascism is the system of government that cartelizes the
        > > private
        > > > > > > sector, centrally plans the economy to subsidize producers, exalts
        > > the
        > > > > > > police State as the source of order, denies fundamental rights and
        > > > > liberties
        > > > > > > to individuals, and makes the executive State the unlimited master
        > > of
        > > > > > > society.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > "This describes mainstream politics in America today. And not just
        > > in
        > > > > > > America. It's true in Europe, too. It is so much part of the
        > > mainstream
        > > > > that
        > > > > > > it is hardly noticed any more.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > "It is true that fascism has no overarching theoretical apparatus.
        > > > > There is
        > > > > > > no grand theorist like Marx. That makes it no less real and
        > > distinct as
        > > > > a
        > > > > > > social, economic, and political system. Fascism also thrives as a
        > > > > distinct
        > > > > > > *style* of social and economic management. And it is as much or
        > > more of
        > > > > a
        > > > >
        > > > > > > threat to civilization than full-blown socialism.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > "This is because its traits are so much a part of life – and have
        > > been
        > > > > for
        > > > > > > so long – that they are nearly invisible to us.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > "If fascism is invisible to us, it is truly the silent killer. It
        > > > > fastens a
        > > > > > > huge, violent, lumbering State on the free market that drains its
        > > > > capital
        > > > > > > and productivity like a deadly parasite on a host. This is why the
        > > > > fascist
        > > > > > > State has been called The Vampire Economy. It sucks the economic
        > > life
        > > > > out of
        > > > > > > a nation and brings about a slow death of a once thriving
        > > economy..."
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > (emboldening mine)
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > http://lewrockwell.com/rockwell/fascist-threat192.html
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > I agree with Nathan that nothing happens until "we" submit to their
        > > > > > > incursions into markets and into our lives. Most of those who
        > > "protest"
        > > > > are
        > > > > > > in their predicament because they've lain down and spread their
        > > legs at
        > > > > the
        > > > > > > advances of the beast. No questions asked.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Most of us recognize the incestuous relationship between banking,
        > > Wall
        > > > > > > Street and civil government. It's not going to go away with
        > > protests or
        > > > > > > whining or wringing of hands. Or voting.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > But I can be relatively free if I stay sovereign -- non compliant
        > > until
        > > > > or
        > > > > > > unless I am threatened by force or violence. Never voluntarily
        > > interact
        > > > > > > with agents of state. Sam.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "Nathan Byrd" <nfactor13@
        > > >
        > > > > > > wrote:
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Eric: "I would assume so. Wall Street has enough resources to
        > > build
        > > > > and
        > > > > > > maintain its own enforcement arm---in fact, have been moving in
        > > that
        > > > > > > direction, such as replacing national military with 'defense
        > > > > contractors'
        > > > > > > and private armies like Blackwater."
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > I don't think that that's a very good analogy, though, because
        > > the
        > > > > > > funding for defense contractors and such are not coming from Wall
        > > > > Street on
        > > > > > > its own. Are you saying that Wall Street spends (net) resources to
        > > > > produce
        > > > > > > those armies?
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > The main reason that police forces can act as they do with such
        > > small
        > > > > > > numbers compared to the populace as a whole is that the population
        > > > > submits
        > > > > > > to it. Even with the recent militarization of police forces that
        > > we've
        > > > > seen,
        > > > > > > it wouldn't be sustainable in any way without people actively
        > > > > supporting the
        > > > > > > idea that the police are there to protect and serve them. It's hard
        > > to
        > > > > > > imagine people giving the same obeisance to a private army that
        > > drives
        > > > > down
        > > > > > > their street.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Eric: "Also, the Prison-Idusrial Complex is a means of co-opting
        > > law
        > > > > > > enforcement to their own ends."
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Of course, but again, it's because people give automatic
        > > credibility
        > > > > to
        > > > > > > government that it goes on. Yes, the reality is that private
        > > companies
        > > > > > > profit immensely, but public perception is that it's a vital
        > > government
        > > > > > > function. To make the case that the private companies could
        > > continue as
        > > > > they
        > > > > > > do after government collapse, you'd have to show that people would
        > > just
        > > > > > > transfer all their goodwill towards government to Prison Corp. I
        > > don't
        > > > > think
        > > > > > > that's as plausible as you do. The reason private companies have
        > > been
        > > > > able
        > > > > > > to do what they do is because they have extremely good camouflage.
        > > Take
        > > > > the
        > > > > > > camouflage away, and I doubt people would remain as enamored of
        > > what
        > > > > they're
        > > > > > > doing. The only way it could work is if the government collapse is
        > > > > quickly
        > > > > > > followed by the erection of a brand-new government in its place.
        > > "UNDER
        > > > > NEW
        > > > > > > MANAGEMENT!"
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Eric: "And they've managed to manage entire elections and control
        > > the
        > > > > > > media with little or no government apparatus to build upon."
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > You think the media is independent of the government?
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Eric: "The one flaw in their scheme, though, is they depend on
        > > > > taxpayer
        > > > > > > subsidies from the government because, like government itself, they
        > > are
        > > > > not
        > > > > > > a consumer-driven entity. If the means of cutting off the subsidies
        > > > > they
        > > > > > > extort were cut off, they would have a genuinely serious problem;
        > > > > although
        > > > > > > they might meet it by establishing some kind of fake 'currency
        > > > > reform'."
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Which is basically what I'm saying. They rely on government in
        > > the
        > > > > sense
        > > > > > > that they rely on people's obeisance to government and government's
        > > > > demands.
        > > > > > > Without that, they can't rely on people obeying their claims
        > > because
        > > > > they
        > > > > > > won't have the force of law (in people's minds).
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Nathan
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "Nathan Byrd"
        > > <nfactor13@
        > > > > >
        > > > > > > wrote:
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > The implication being that if you take down the U.S.
        > > government,
        > > > > the
        > > > > > > financial oligarchy would be just as powerful (or at least, still
        > > quite
        > > > > > > strong)?
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > Nathan
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "Eric"
        > > <beausabreur52@>
        > > > > > > wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > I disagree that the 'protestors are in the wrong city'.
        > > > > Washington
        > > > > > > may be the nominal seat of the US 'government' but the the
        > > so-called
        > > > > > > politicians are mere lapdogs of Wall Street. Policy revolves
        > > areound
        > > > > the
        > > > > > > interests of Corporate America. Take down the financial oligarchy
        > > and
        > > > > you
        > > > > > > deprive Washington of any actual power.
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "George H. Smith"
        > > > > > > <smikro@> wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > Government regulators are centered in Washington, D.C.
        > > This
        > > > > > > > > > > > is also the location of the Federal Reserve Board of
        > > > > > > > > > > > Directors. The protesters are in the wrong city.
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > I haven't taken a poll, but I would bet dollars to donuts
        > > > > > > > > > > > that the vast majority of protesters want more government
        > > > > > > > > > > > intervention in the economy, not less.
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > Which "television news people" are you referring to? The
        > > > > > > > > > > > progressives and socialists on MSNBC love the protesters.
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > Ghs
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.