Saint_;1407945 wrote: [QUOTE=koan;1407943][QUOTE=Accountable;1407941]:-2 The top 100 families make laws??Their corporations do.
The United States of ALEC
Congress people are invited to sift through over 800 bills pre-drafted by ALEC and all of which allow their corporations to make more money. The bills even have an index page sorting them by subject.[/QUOTE]You didn't know that? You didn't think that controlling virtually ALL of a country's money and resources would give you the power to sway "elections" , or politicians? America is a plutocracy...everyone knows that.
I never thought I would ever find anything I agreed with Bill Moyers about:
Matt Taibbi and Chrystia Freeland on the One Percent's Power and Privileges | Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.com
Plutocracy
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Plutocracy
Accountable;1408553 wrote: I never thought I would ever find anything I agreed with Bill Moyers about:
Matt Taibbi and Chrystia Freeland on the One Percent's Power and Privileges | Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.comI find it to be as ironic as anything else I can think of.
Everyone wants freedom but they choose a dog-eat-dog capitalist economic system in their attempt to achieve it. What's seen as a neurotic phobia of "socialism" is the very way a society has the freedom to make choices that ensure their right to live and act under their own conduct as opposed to rendering all of their autonomy to the private ownership of industry that dictates what it is they can and cannot do.
It's sad. The most ironic aspect of this irony is that it's all derived from an underlining cultural issue that begins with our schools pumping children full of bogus dreams of becoming rich through emphasis on economic growth and the military power to protect it.
Matt Taibbi and Chrystia Freeland on the One Percent's Power and Privileges | Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.comI find it to be as ironic as anything else I can think of.
Everyone wants freedom but they choose a dog-eat-dog capitalist economic system in their attempt to achieve it. What's seen as a neurotic phobia of "socialism" is the very way a society has the freedom to make choices that ensure their right to live and act under their own conduct as opposed to rendering all of their autonomy to the private ownership of industry that dictates what it is they can and cannot do.
It's sad. The most ironic aspect of this irony is that it's all derived from an underlining cultural issue that begins with our schools pumping children full of bogus dreams of becoming rich through emphasis on economic growth and the military power to protect it.
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Plutocracy
I never thought I would ever find anything I agreed with Bill Moyers about
Rachel Maddow surprises you too Accountable. Maybe it's time for a major re-think.
Rachel Maddow surprises you too Accountable. Maybe it's time for a major re-think.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Plutocracy
AnneBoleyn;1408575 wrote: Rachel Maddow surprises you too Accountable. Maybe it's time for a major re-think.
My thinking seems to be doing fine, seeing how I'm open-minded enough to sometimes agree with those who aren't.
My thinking seems to be doing fine, seeing how I'm open-minded enough to sometimes agree with those who aren't.
Plutocracy
I would like to ask a question posed by Carl Cohen, a professor of Philosophy at the University of Michigan, but first I'd like to paraphrase a certain section of his book "Four Systems"...
If we all as a collective society strive for democracy that is united under a core set of values then why is it that we come to fear and ignore the connotation behind the word "socialism"? We all accept, without question, that our national defense should not be given free reign to private enterprise, our laws and ways of enforcing them, and we all agree that our health and environment should not be jeopardized in any way, then why is it that we do not apply these concepts to our economy? Is not action needed by a collective society to ensure that the production and distribution of the necessities in our lives are not threatened in any way? Is this not especially more important now than in the past while the few get everything and the most get barely enough to subsist on in today's world? What is the reality of this free enterprise thus far observed? Does not control of industry and finance perpetuate the disparity between the few wealthy and the many poor in today's democracies? What freedom does the worker have with regard to today's market economy other than the sweat from their brow? We all know the power a people can exhibit when bound together to shout one voice. All of us seem to not be upset when we're expected to pay our taxes that combine to ensure the integrity of our schools, hospitals, courts, and parks, so why are we complacent with allowing all of the natural resources of the world to be privately owned by only a few individuals? Why does no one question that? Has anyone honestly thought about that at all? Does anyone think at all?
Here's Cohen's question..."...why not exhibit the same community concern for steel that we exhibit for our parks?"
Is everyone aware of the importance of steel in everyone's day to day lives and cannot everyone agree that steel is a natural resource?
If we all as a collective society strive for democracy that is united under a core set of values then why is it that we come to fear and ignore the connotation behind the word "socialism"? We all accept, without question, that our national defense should not be given free reign to private enterprise, our laws and ways of enforcing them, and we all agree that our health and environment should not be jeopardized in any way, then why is it that we do not apply these concepts to our economy? Is not action needed by a collective society to ensure that the production and distribution of the necessities in our lives are not threatened in any way? Is this not especially more important now than in the past while the few get everything and the most get barely enough to subsist on in today's world? What is the reality of this free enterprise thus far observed? Does not control of industry and finance perpetuate the disparity between the few wealthy and the many poor in today's democracies? What freedom does the worker have with regard to today's market economy other than the sweat from their brow? We all know the power a people can exhibit when bound together to shout one voice. All of us seem to not be upset when we're expected to pay our taxes that combine to ensure the integrity of our schools, hospitals, courts, and parks, so why are we complacent with allowing all of the natural resources of the world to be privately owned by only a few individuals? Why does no one question that? Has anyone honestly thought about that at all? Does anyone think at all?
Here's Cohen's question..."...why not exhibit the same community concern for steel that we exhibit for our parks?"
Is everyone aware of the importance of steel in everyone's day to day lives and cannot everyone agree that steel is a natural resource?
Plutocracy
Very cool you investigated that more, Acc. I thought it very significant when I caught the bit on Democracy Now. I'm not always pleased with how slanted their coverage is, so I'm keen to read your link now too and maybe investigate further. I tend to like Bill Moyers but I've mostly seen him interviewing Joseph Campbell and it's impossible to not enjoy a Campbell interview.