Corporations Versus Individuals: The End of the Left/Right Paradigm

Nolan chart. Source: Camilo Sanchez (CC)

Nolan chart. Source: Camilo Sanchez (CC)

Looks like the New World Order isn’t going to be a global Big Socialist Government (unless, perhaps, you count corporate socialism). Barry Ritholtz wrote in September of last year:

Every generation or so, a major secular shift takes place that shakes up the existing paradigm. It happens in industry, finance, literature, sports, manufacturing, technology, entertainment, travel, communication, etc.

I would like to discuss the paradigm shift that is occurring in politics.

For a long time, American politics has been defined by a Left/Right dynamic. It was Liberals versus Conservatives on a variety of issues. Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice, Tax Cuts vs. More Spending, Pro-War vs Peaceniks, Environmental Protections vs. Economic Growth, Pro-Union vs. Union-Free, Gay Marriage vs. Family Values, School Choice vs. Public Schools, Regulation vs. Free Markets.

The new dynamic, however, has moved past the old Left Right paradigm. We now live in an era defined by increasing Corporate influence and authority over the individual. These two “interest groups” – I can barely suppress snorting derisively over that phrase – have been on a headlong collision course for decades, which came to a head with the financial collapse and bailouts. Where there is massive concentrations of wealth and influence, there will be abuse of power.  The Individual has been supplanted in the political process nearly entirely by corporate money, legislative influence, campaign contributions, even free speech rights.

This may not be a brilliant insight, but it is surely an overlooked one. It is now an Individual vs. Corporate debate – and the Humans are losing.

Consider:

• Many of the regulations that govern energy and banking sector were written by Corporations;

• The biggest influence on legislative votes is often Corporate Lobbying;

• Corporate ability to extend copyright far beyond what original protections amounts to a taking of public works for private corporate usage;

• PAC and campaign finance by Corporations has supplanted individual donations to elections;

• The individuals’ right to seek redress in court has been under attack for decades, limiting their options.

• DRM and content protection undercuts the individual’s ability to use purchased content as they see fit;

• Patent protections are continually weakened. Deep pocketed corporations can usurp inventions almost at will;

• The Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations have Free Speech rights equivalent to people; (So much for original intent!)

None of these are Democrat/Republican conflicts, but rather, are corporate vs. individual issues.

For those of you who are stuck in the old Left/Right debate, you are missing the bigger picture. Consider this about the Bailouts: It was a right-winger who bailed out all of the big banks, Fannie Mae, and AIG in the first place; then his left winger successor continued to pour more money into the fire pit.

Read more hereBunglaow Bill wrote regarding Ritholtz’s article:

It didn’t take long for the light bulb to go off in my head once I got to the third paragraph to see truth in his article. The first and obvious is the recent bailouts, which included the bailouts to General Motors and Chrysler. The American people were sold on the bailouts being essential to save American jobs; perhaps there is some truth to that. However, it wasn’t long after the bailouts when GM began the talk of closing down American factories and building factories in China, Mexico, and Korea.

Left vs. Right became in government terms corporations vs. individuals. There was no guarantees in the bailouts, nothing that forced automakers to invest in our country. It was just easy money thrown their way at the expense of the taxpayer to make up for their bad corporate decisions.

We see it in the biotech business. I hate to say this, but I see the same thing developing thanks to a bad decision by our Supreme Court that allows corporations to patent life. This has led to Monsanto and other corporations taking over the nation’s food supply by forcing farmers to use genetically modified seeds thanks to pollen that contaminates farmers fields who worked hard to provide a healthy alternative to GMO foods. Innocent farmers are being taken down the river because surrounding farmers planted Monsanto seeds and the wind blew the pollen in their direction. Once the pollen mixes with a pure field, Monsanto sends it’s lawyers ready to make honest family farmers pay up for patent infringement.

Monsanto sends their Monsanto police teams onto private property spraying Round Up in non-Monstanto fields to see if the corn dies or not. If it doesn’t die, Monsanto then accuses farmers of the unauthorized use of their seeds. The problem, like I said, may revolved around the wind cross pollinating with a Monsanto GMO field.

Farmers are losing everything they have worked for all their lives over this practice. I think it’s wrong.

From 2001 on, it seems like Republicans became moderate liberal Democrats–ready to spend money and grow government. While Americans are angry at Democrats for threatening more Constitutional rights, it’s hard not to point out the Republicans set all of this up with the Patriot Act. We have known for more than a year, Obama wants to increase the power the Patriot Act gave the government to track people.

Read more at Bungalow Bill’s Conservative Wisdom.

, , , , , , , ,

  • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

    Corporate leaders became the new upper-class, The previous upper-class (including most of the politicians) became the new middle class, the previous middle class is becoming the new lower class, and the old lower class are now the new serfs and slaves.

    If you ever wondered what the masses fought for, first you have to understand what the upper eschelon is fighting for (hint: they’re winning).

  • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

    Corporate leaders became the new upper-class, The previous upper-class (including most of the politicians) became the new middle class, the previous middle class is becoming the new lower class, and the old lower class are now the new serfs and slaves.

    If you ever wondered what the masses fought for, first you have to understand what the upper eschelon is fighting for (hint: they’re winning).

    • MoralDrift

      The worst part is, that the propaganda and programming is so effective many would fight for their corporate masters right to dominate us. I can’t speak for all cases….but in mine and the usual way I’ve seen it, someone who recognizes the problem of corporate dominance was at one time in their life a true believer in the system in some way. Somewhere along the path they become disillusioned, search for answers until, for some, the entire system becomes disenchanted and the grand illusion is revealed in its pathetic soul crushing and nihilistic true form. Once you see the beast for what it really is it becomes increasingly difficult to argue with those still trapped in the paradigm, as they celebrate their chains and worship their masters

      • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

        Well the illusion is deeply entrenched and multi-layered. It has taken place of their religion as well. I’ve concocted a theory, that for the people still in the illusion, their best friends nowadays are not people, but TV shows that are spoon-feeding them their social lives from the shows, and their desires in forms of commercials. The illusion is intentionally produced, and absurdly pervasive. War is no longer combat to the masses, but another form of entertainment, or infotainment in the cases of the news. Politics is the same way.

        (on a completely unrelated note, infotainment is apparently really considered a word because it doesn’t get spell-checked)

      • joe

        corporations would not have the power they have without the government being will to acquiesce to their demands. if government weren’t so large, corporations would not be so either. the two go hand in hand.

  • WhiteRose

    I think it’s more like a circle. First it was leave your mark on the world now it’s leave no trace. I blame it on SEVERE mental illness.

  • WhiteRose

    I think it’s more like a circle. First it was leave your mark on the world now it’s leave no trace. I blame it on SEVERE mental illness.

    • Anonymous_Reader
      • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

        Beautiful image.
        This reminds me of a very interesting quote that I heard that uses this same concept, but until now i never really pictured it in my mind very accurately. I honestly cannot remember who its by (I first heard it in the middle of one of my songs long ago)

        It goes (roughly) like this:
        “…that there is a, an area of the mind which could be called unsane, beyond sanity and yet not insane. Think of a circle with a fine split in it. At one end there’s insanity, you go around the circle to sanity, and on the other end of the circle close to insanity, but not insanity, is unsanity”

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NGOWOKTAA5PI3WHOAZCY6XELGA DanielF

    Nazism was a socialist movement, even their name says “National Socialist Party.” Even Stalin said in 1938, “The logical end of Nazism is Communism.”

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NGOWOKTAA5PI3WHOAZCY6XELGA DanielF

    Nazism was a socialist movement, even their name says “National Socialist Party.” Even Stalin said in 1938, “The logical end of Nazism is Communism.”

    • Transformative

      Nazism is not socialism. The Nazis were, first and foremost, a capitalist force. Indeed, numerous US businesses supported and benefited from the Nazi movement. It is socialist as much as Federal Express is a federal institution.

      • Anonymous_Reader

        Fascism, communism, socialism, whateverism are all the same. They are sales tools for totalitarianism. They are labels for a product to be accepted by the people. The official name of the Nazi Party was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Note how quickly and easily so-called “communist” China accepted investments from capitalist industries from America, essentially becoming fascist. Communism and fascism are two flavors of the same thing: total command and control of people and the economy. It’s like a choice between Coke and Pepsi.

        The Federal Reserve is not a federal institution, either. It is owned by the banks that run the world economy. Governments are subordinate to the financial interests that actually run the world. Don’t forget, also, that governments are corporations. Witness how our congressmen are bought by the highest bidder. This is stuff we never learn in government run schools.

        • bilbo baggins

          State-communism and Anarcho-communism are different, don’t forget. It’s so easy to lump everything into labels, isn’t it?

        • renonymous

          Governments differ from corporations in that (especially) multi-national corporations don’t respect sovereignty. They know no borders.

        • Joe

          “Totalitarian” is a made up term.

          • Anonymous_Reader

            All words are “made up.” It’s called “language.”

            totalitarian |tōˌtaliˈte(ə)rēən|
            adjective
            of or relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state : a totalitarian regime.

            I guess that doesn’t exist in places like, for example, North Korea, because “totalitarian is a made up term.”

    • mrtastycakes

      “The logical end of Nazism is Communism.”

      Well, that would make sense to a Marxist, as they believe the logical end of everything is communism.

    • fedupwithallthiscrap

      Is that why Hitler went to war with Russia? What since would that make, if it were true?

  • jelyfish

    BTW Anarchy is left wing. Strong government or no government has nothing to do with left/right political leaning. This is propaganda put out by the right wing to equate their views to less government.

    • MoralDrift

      Isn’t Libertarianism similar to anarchy? Except that under a libertarian regime one would still expect property rights and contract enforcement to some extent? I’m not so sure anarchy is really left-wing in the sense most Americans understand left-right. In mainstream American politics Anarchy is not even on the radar, and really neither is libertarianism. I guess they could be considered left-right analogues in a way, each with their own special provisions.

      • jelyfish

        Libertarians are more about defending their right to ownership (right to be the authority). Anarchists are more about defending their right to common ownership without authority. For example anarchists squat on unused land.

        • Anonymous_Reader

          Henry David Thoreau has been called an individualist anarchist: “The gov­ern­ment it­self, which is only the mode which the peo­ple have cho­sen to ex­e­cute their will, is equally li­a­ble to be abused and per­verted be­fore the peo­ple can act through it.” – http://www.sniggle.net/Experiment/index.php?entry=rtcg#p03

    • Anonymous_Reader

      True “anarchy” is no “wing” of anything, unless you subscribe to the real political spectrum, which has no government on one side and total government on the other. Assuming the left-to right western method of reading text, gauges, etc., you start with zero on the left, no government, nothing. On the extreme right you have all the “isms:” communism, fascism, socialism, etc. The fake left-right political spectrum we are taught in school is 100 percent socialist. There is no room for anarchy on it anywhere.

      The United States was originally supposed to have a little more government than anarchy, with just enough laws to protect the minority from the majority. It was supposed to be a constitutional republic (small “r”). Now we are led to believe we live in a “democracy” which is nothing more than mob rule, with the mob swayed in it’s opinion and how it votes by official propaganda. Politics was never supposed to be a full time job in the US.

      The human race is still too primitive for individuals to be self governing in an anarchist society. It is only a dream at this point.

      • PB

        I don’t know how you define “true” anarchism, but anarchism grew out of the leftist workers movement. It was the competing paradigm with Marxism and they differed on their views of the necessity of the state. They are both socialist movements which is why anarchism is also known as libertarian socialism. In fact throughout the 19th and 20th century, the word libertarian was synonymous with anarchist. That is until the pro-capitalist US Libertarian party hijacked the term and now that is what many Americans think of when they here Libertarian. Anarchism never has been and never will be a movement that supports capitalism, because capitalism is antithetical to the ideas put forward by anarchists for the destruction of all hierarchy in formalized and institutionalized means.

        • Anonymous_Reader

          In my opinion “true” anarchy would be no state at all. For example, if there was a country consisting of myself and my neighbor, we wouldn’t need a state. We would mind our own business for the most part. We wouldn’t try to steal from each other, the old “do unto others…” common sense rule. We might get together and do things based on mutual need, perhaps fight a fire before it reached our properties, but that would be all. Once you have any kind of government structure, that is, a written set of rules, a mayor or sheriff, etc., you no longer have anarchy. As long as you need someone to tell others how to behave, anarchy is impossible. All of these so-called anarchic systems, such as anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, etc. have rules, and are, therefore, not really anarchy. Anarcho-primitivism might be the closest to what I think of as “true” anarchy. Something like capitalism couldn’t exist in that circumstance.

          Somewhere I read there are three kinds of laws:
          1) “God’s” law – “Do what is right.”
          2) Man’s law – “Do what you say you will do, keep to your promises and contracts.”
          3) Vulgar law – “Do what I tell you to do.”
          I guess in my ideal state we’d only need number one, but since we’re human we need number two. The problem is that politicians get in charge of things and we get a lot of number three.

          “The honest truth is that I am not really politically oriented. I would have really rather just be living out in the woods. If nobody had started cutting roads through there and cutting the trees down and come buzzing around in helicopters and snowmobiles I would still just be living there and the rest of the world could just take care of itself. I got involved in political issues because I was driven to it, so to speak.”
          — Theodore Kaczynski

          • Andrew

            Would it be anarchy if there were no state but private corporations owned and ran everything?

          • Anonymous_Reader

            Corporations owe their existence to the state. The state, corporations, trusts, etc. are all contracts. In my utopian ideal you wouldn’t need contracts. A handshake would be good enough and nobody would have the desire to screw anybody. It is hard for many people to grasp the idea of pure self-leadership. We are still herd animals always expecting the dogs to nip at our heels.

          • TagoMago

            “In my utopian ideal you wouldn’t need contracts. A handshake would be good enough and nobody would have the desire to screw anybody.” What do you think it will take in order for humanity to reach such a point? Is education enough or would genetic manipulation also be required?

            I am somewhat of an agnostic when it comes to transhumanism but I often mind myself thinking about what it would take to fundamentally alter the course of our species…when considering all of the pain and suffering and chaos we have already experienced up until this point, it is hard to imagine what it would take to finally unite us…

            My hope for our race is something along the lines of the following: in the not too distant future, there will be a one-world government and currency as well as a one-world religion whose mission statement could be summed up by the Golden Rule of Do Unto Others. There would be a one-world Bill of Human Rights as well as enforceable population control and parental licensing…

            Once the population is under control and parents have been properly vetted, we could guarantee that every child has a roof over his/her head with food on the table, a free education and a job of some sort should s/he want one. At this point, genetic modification might also be desirable. My hope is that the children of this future society would then go on to create your anarchic utopia because they would be able to maintain and sustain it.

            I welcome any thoughts you might have…

          • Anonymous_Reader

            “Once the population is under control…” That’s the problem. Control implies that some people still need to be controlled. You can’t force my idea. The trick is getting everyone to want to participate voluntarily. It might have to start out as a strictly walled off country, totally self sufficient. The members of this society would show a wide representation of skill sets and have a reasonable work ethic, so nobody works too much while others are lazy, because there would be no currency or other visible economy. You wake up, do your work, go to the food store, get what you need, eat, sleep and so forth. The “profit” would come when you get to retire (probably earlier than our current system) and have a bit more fun in your not too old age. I am hoping that there would be next to nothing in the way of an accounting system. There should be mutual trust as a key requirement. Unfortunately, if someone wanted to go on vacation outside of this country, they’d need money, so the society would have to have some interaction with the outside world’s economic system. You have to make your set-up so attractive that it spreads naturally and everyone would want to live this way. It can’t be forced. That is the key to success.

            The only law would be the “do unto others” rule, but this would somehow be ingrained into the psyche of every individual, instead of being written down. I think most people already possess this, balanced by a self preservation drive. That’s the trick. Excess self preservation leads to selfishness, which is expressed as greed. The greed trait exists because, in the past, those that saved up for times of famine were the only ones that survived. In today’s world self-preservation has been perverted into economic systems that destroy many for the sake of the few – “Do unto others, then leave.”

            Maybe the religion part should be first. You have to instill the idealism in people before the physical system can become a reality. The difference is that “salvation” isn’t going to come from some deity, rather, it is going to come from the self, as in each member of the movement. The goal is to work towards this until everyone wants in, willing to sacrifice selfishness for the good of humanity. It isn’t going to happen overnight, maybe not even in a dozen generations, but it is worth starting somewhere. It won’t work, though, unless it is completely voluntary.

          • TagoMago

            “Control implies that some people still need to be controlled” My parents are young-earth creationists who believes that “the rapture” is going to happen any day now, though they plan on voting for Sarah Palin in the meantime (presumably in the hopes of speeding up the apocalypse…) My point being, people like them will never change…they are like retarded children stumbling through the dark and – like it or not – retarded children require guidance/control (perhaps you would differentiate between the technical definitions of these two words, but in my mind they represent the same concept…)

            “The trick is getting everyone to want to participate voluntarily” That would be some “trick”! But if the threats of nuclear war and/or environmental disaster (just to name a few!) are not enough to bring us together, one has to question whether anything will ever truly be able to do so…

            “It might have to start out as a strictly walled off country, totally self sufficient.” Have you read Island by Aldous Huxley? It is superb and I suspect that you would really enjoy it. I would gladly participate in such an experimental society, though I suspect the “outside world” would not allow it to succeed because it would be perceived as the ultimate threat. Then again, I also love the society which he presented in Brave New World and feel like it could work with some minor tweaking: get rid of the genetically bred caste system and upgrade everyone, equally, while robots perform all of the grunt work. Hell, I think a mixture of the two societies would make for an idealistic future…

            “The greed trait exists because, in the past, those that saved up for times of famine were the only ones that survived” I wonder if greed and selfishness could ever truly be eliminated by something like genetic tampering, though perhaps such meddling would cause more problems than it would solve?

            “The goal is to work towards this until everyone wants in, willing to sacrifice selfishness for the good of humanity” But again…what is going to trigger this? It is a wonderful thought/idea and nothing would make me happier than if it were to happen in the next five minutes. But there are already thousands (perhaps even millions) of individuals who make such sacrifices on a daily basis…what difference is it truly making unless everyone, everywhere, instantaneously chooses to participate?

          • K8

            I love your ideas guys and have always shared similiar dreams, but I gotta crack because it sounds like one of you really liked The Village and the other really liked Gattaca haha.
            I think your plan is beautiful AnonReader. It just won’t work till we all become Vulcans~

          • Anonymous_Reader

            ST, TOS came out when I was about 10 – 11. Huge impression. Spock is still my hero. Logic is supreme.

          • Xlsyor

            The problem is, good sir, the situation could go either way. Who would have the authority, since few truly take upon themselves the ultimate of personal responisibility, of determining who does what and to whom?
            Google “Georgia Guidestones” and read the lovely, poetic, highly ambiguous claptrap that appears in eight languages on this foreboding monument. It really strikes me, as does your proposal, in its essence, as nothing more than the living conditions extant in “Zardoz”, where getting through the day made the middle ages seem like a free ride at Disney World.
            I’m all for a world in peace. But the majority of humanity just can’t seem to get out of the rut of bending the knee to some form of royalty. Witness the Milgram experiment and others like it.
            Control. That’s the problem. As a species, we are control fiends. And OCD doesn’t even begin to cover the subtleties of our ritualistic regimentation. Try reading “Escape from Evil”, or the companion book, “Denial of Death”, by Ernest Becker, for a truly humbling glimpse of what we are up against.

          • Onceinabluemoon

            On my planet, corporations don’t give a damn about the state and will do all they can to avoid paying taxes, and to maximise profit. The state , on the other hand, is a recipient of taxes which it uses to maintain the fundamentals of society (schools, drains, coastguards) and all of which suffer if corporations become the bosom-buddies of politicians. Or vice-versa.

          • Anonymous_Reader

            A corporation that exists completely independent of the state in which it operates is a criminal enterprise. The entities that come to mind are the drug cartels and similar gangs. They pay no tax to the state whatsoever, except in the form of bribes to law enforcement or similar political personnel.

            Corporations that exist under the laws of the state ultimately write the rules for themselves, by virtue of buying favors from politicians that write the laws. Most laws are written by corporate lobbyists, a dirty little “secret” that most people don’t know about. This is the major flaw in the system. The most notable result of this is that they have tax advantages favorable to those of the individual. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, corporations gained the status of a person, as they have to enter into contracts and pay taxes. A legitimate corporation that pays no taxes does so because it is operating at a loss and may soon cease operations.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6EOUMOS55IAEKKMW62FRZ34JSU Terry

            “A legitimate corporation that pays no taxes does so because it is operating at a loss and may soon cease operations.”

            Or perhaps they have moved headquarters/production to another country …or paid off (oh, excuse me – made “campaign contributions”) enough congressmen to skew the tax law in their favor …or etc., etc., etc….

          • Anonymous_Reader

            They are still paying taxes, but in a more favorable jurisdiction. A bribe is a type of tax. Taxes are no different than protection money extorted out of people by gangs.

            A government is one gang of thugs “protecting” us from another gang. If the enemy doesn’t exist, one will be created. I make no distinction between the bad guys and the good guys. They are all thugs, extracting tribute from people that actually grow food, manufacture useful things and attempt to improve themselves and their communities.

            The ultimate goal of the profit-motive-based system is to become like the criminal enterprise. Humanity needs to recognize the desire for acquisition of material wealth beyond need as a symptom of greed, which should be recognized as pathological.

    • Keith

      There are two schools of anarchism, and they are diametrically opposed: Anarcho-Socialist Syndicalism and Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarianism. The only thing in common is that they call for near or total decentralization of authority and that the most severe punishment that is moral / ethical for any crime is exile (Not to be confused with self-defense).

      In general, Anarcho-Socialist Syndicalism is considered or is what is being referred to when someone says “Anarcho-Left”, or that “Anarchism is Leftist”. This tends to be the philosophy behind Communes or Colonies that idealize self-sufficiency, but make up the difference in trade. To my understanding, the ideal nation-state is 50-150 people (maximum number of people that can all know each other). Membership is voluntary, but an individuals purpose is to serve the community to mutual benefit. The narrative of the legal system is that the victim of crime is the community. Community identity is based geographically.

      Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarianism is the form of “Right Anarchism” or what people are referring to when they say that anarchism is “right wing”. These are the “Philosophy of Liberty” advocates, all laws and contracts grounded in property rights as an extension of the self-ownership principle, and mutually voluntary trade over time creates the best “stewards of capital” (it is more “profitable” to trade your cows to a butcher, or lumber to a woodsmith, etc, or whatever best serves your values). The narrative of the legal system is that the victim of crime is the individual. Community identity is based in trade.

  • jelyfish

    BTW Anarchy is left wing. Strong government or no government has nothing to do with left/right political leaning. This is propaganda put out by the right wing to equate their views to less government.

  • Anonymous

    Nazism is not socialism. The Nazi were, first and foremost, a capitalist force. Indeed, numerous US businesses supported and benefited from the Nazi movement. It is socialist as much as Federal Express is a federal institution.

  • Anonymous

    Isn’t Libertarianism similar to anarchy? Except that under a libertarian regime one would still expect property rights and contract enforcement to some extent? I’m not so sure anarchy is really left-wing in the sense most Americans understand left-right. In mainstream American politics Anarchy is not even on the radar, and really neither is libertarianism. I guess they could be considered left-right analogues in a way, each with their own special provisions.

  • Anonymous

    The worst part is, that the propaganda and programming is so effective many would fight for their corporate masters right to dominate us. I can’t speak for all cases….but in mine and the usual way I’ve seen it, someone who recognizes the problem of corporate dominance was at one time in their life a true believer in the system in some way. Somewhere along the path they become disillusioned, search for answers until, for some, the entire system becomes disenchanted and the grand illusion is revealed in its pathetic soul crushing and nihilistic true form. Once you see the beast for what it really is it becomes increasingly difficult to argue with those still trapped in the paradigm, as they celebrate their chains and worship their masters

  • Mormonsanta

    Brother, can you shift a paradigm?

  • Mormonsanta

    Brother, can you shift a paradigm?

  • jelyfish

    Libertarians are more about defending their right to ownership (right to be the authority). Anarchists are more about defending their right to common ownership without authority. For example anarchists squat on unused land.

  • Anonymous

    True “anarchy” is no “wing” of anything, unless you subscribe to the real political spectrum, which has no government on one side and total government on the other. Assuming the left-to right western method of reading text, gauges, etc., you start with zero on the left, no government, nothing. On the extreme right you have all the “isms:” communism, fascism, socialism, etc. The fake left-right political spectrum we are taught in school is 100 percent socialist. There is no room for anarchy on it anywhere.

    The United States was originally supposed to have a little more government than anarchy, with just enough laws to protect the minority from the majority. It was supposed to be a constitutional republic (small “r”). Now we are led to believe we live in a “democracy” which is nothing more than mob rule, with the mob swayed in it’s opinion and how it votes by official propaganda. Politics was never supposed to be a full time job in the US.

    The human race is still too primitive for individuals to be self governing in an anarchist society. It is only a dream at this point.

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    Fascism, communism, socialism, whateverism are all the same. They are sales tools for totalitarianism. They are labels for a product to be accepted by the people. The official name of the Nazi Party was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Note how quickly and easily so-called “communist” China accepted investments from capitalist industries from America, essentially becoming fascist. Communism and fascism are two flavors of the same thing: total command and control of people and the economy. It’s like a choice between Coke and Pepsi.

    The Federal Reserve is not a federal institution, either. It is owned by the banks that run the world economy. Governments are subordinate to the financial interests that actually run the world. Don’t forget, also, that governments are corporations. Witness how our congressmen are bought by the highest bidder. This is stuff we never learn in government run schools.

  • Anonymous

    Henry David Thoreau has been called an individualist anarchist: “The gov­ern­ment it­self, which is only the mode which the peo­ple have cho­sen to ex­e­cute their will, is equally li­a­ble to be abused and per­verted be­fore the peo­ple can act through it.” – http://www.sniggle.net/Experiment/index.php?entry=rtcg#p03

  • bilbo baggins

    State-communism and Anarcho-communism are different, don’t forget. It’s so easy to lump everything into labels, isn’t it?

  • Anonymous

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism … Yes, interesting, but the human race isn’t advanced enough to make this work. Someone will always want to take control of the situation and you get a State. People still look for a strong leader and end up with a strong leash. Also, there’s this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA

  • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

    Well the illusion is deeply entrenched and multi-layered. It has taken place of their religion as well. I’ve concocted a theory, that for the people still in the illusion, their best friends nowadays are not people, but TV shows that are spoon-feeding them their social lives from the shows, and their desires in forms of commercials. The illusion is intentionally produced, and absurdly pervasive. War is no longer combat to the masses, but another form of entertainment, or infotainment in the cases of the news. Politics is the same way.

    (on a completely unrelated note, infotainment is apparently really considered a word because it doesn’t get spell-checked)

  • root solution

    Step outside of the old influence and bring down the Neo-Establishment Left/Right Paradigm by doing what they work so hard to prevent … Unite. Whatever preconceptions you have or differences you believe exist between you and your fellow American citizen and vote with who brings integrity and principle in 2012.

    There is not a true Left or Right like the media would have you believe … it’s the Establishment verses the Anti-Establishment.

    Which side are you on? Take the test:

    If you believe that Bush/Cheney/Obama/Clinton and cohorts portray the ideal image of leadership and that candidates of known association and that share membership in the same secret committees they do will miraculously act any different … you are voting for the Establishment.

    If you vote one way to spite the other … you are voting for the Establishment.

    If you vote for a candidate that believes there is a realistic way to resolve our countries root cause issues that does not involve the eventual dismantling of the FRB and implementation of a new monetary policy … you are voting for the Establishment.

    If you would vote to elect a person based solely on soft issues like abortion and gay rights … you are voting for the Establishment.

    If you are in favor of election leadership that circumvents the Constitution when designing laws, that promotes non-America institutions and ideologies, and allow and participate in the abuse of public information and media … you are voting for the Establishment.

    If you vote for the party without considering the candidates historical associations, voting record, lobby partnerships/sponsorships, and reputation for demonstrating integrity, honesty, and morality … you are voting for the Establishment.

    Just understand the true nature of the setup and if it is not Constitutional then it is not American. Question the person who promotes ideas that are unconstitutional as if your country depended on it and be accountable now rather than later. The method is to pull you in a direction with an emotional trigger issue to the point you don’t see the intention any longer and loss objectivity and empathy for your fellow citizens. The objective is to divide the country and turn us into them one way or another. When you take the power out of their hands you stop the madness. That’s it.

    • mrtastycakes

      Your heart is in the right place, but it’s far more complicated than that. Our first-past-the-post electoral system ensures a two-party system. You can always propel a new party to the top, but never add a third. You can thank Martin Van Buren. This leads to tactical voting to avoid electing the least intolerable candidate (re: Duverger’s Law), as voter’s realize a third party is a wasted vote. There is no way of meaningfully expressing dissent with one’s vote in a plurality system and it leads to politicians whose views rarely match those of the majority.

      Additionally, after 1968s party reform, we now use mostly primaries to select candidates. Primaries mobilize political factions, leaving us with candidates representing the most dogmatic and activist wing of both parties.

      Together this leaves us with few choices, and polarized ones at that. If you want to see a change, we need IRV or Condorcet method voting and elimination of primaries or mandatory voting.

      • root solution

        I beg to differ. The voting method is only a problem due to an untrue and unjust perception that has been constructed in the American voters mind. You actually are a great example of the paradigms affect on individuals when it comes to thinking in terms of change. The idea is to build up so many excuses for voters that nothing else ever could be, that their objectivity, inspiration, and determination become feelings of being overwhelmed hopeless and defeated. Why? Why suddenly when it comes to this one thing does suddenly our confidence and willingness to fight till the bitter end suddenly fail us? Millions of people will still line up to vote of the Establishment if nothing is ever brought to light. Isn’t it at least our morale duty to respect each other enough to prevent this lie and it’s affect to continue and skew the next election? Don’t you think if people realized they’ve been technically voting Left for 40+ years (results don’t lie) that might just stir enough of a fire in them to make the lights come on? Is it not worth a try for the sake of …. well everything?

        This choice is easy. Fight or be conquered. People can spend the next 20 months making excuses or the can put their energy into the only viable candidate that is not with the Establishment and who happens to already have serious momentum. That candidate is, of course, Ron Paul. He voted against every single unconstitutional un-American law Bush, Clinton, WBush, and Obama have put forth. He has all but exposed the Federal Reserve Bank scam. He’s already been working on the solutions for decades and is the only person with a sound, complete, transparent plan to fix the root cause issues.

        You’re ready to say he can’t win maybe? Ask yourself honestly how in the world you could possibly know that for a fact, and are you willing to risk your countries and your families futures on that guess? How did you really come to believe you and the American people can’t find a way to collectively say no to them and yes to us? For those who believe, it is all about understanding the obstacles and removing them now, for others it may be just about understanding what your thoughts are telling you and what your heart says is the right thing to do.

        Case in point … Obstacles: One thing that was missing in this article is the awakening folks have and need to come to before the next election concerning the Neo-Con 40+ year takeover of the GOP. People are still scratching their heads as to why Bush and company acted like Democrats while in power when the answer is pretty obvious when you look up the term neoconservatism and learn the history. This is, historically, a group that was born in the radical left and subscribers to the philosophy today on the right still carry on the policies of their ideological roots. Those who stayed on the left become progressives and moderates working together with their philosophic brotherhood on the right to create a one world government

        Posing as “conservatives” this group of Neo-Cons have been able to completely skew the word itself into an opposite expectation, in the mind of the majority, from its proper definition. Neo-Cons are committed to the belief that the “ends justify the means” which means, nothing is off the table in terms of winning. This includes any dirty or deceitful practice conceivable to accomplish the mission … say, hijacking the other party and change the public’s perception into what you want it to be. Philosophically founded in the corporate state power structure the Neo-Cons have firmly allied with the Military Industrial Complex, Big Energy, and Big Oil who, for all purposes, have trilateral control over all US Foreign Policy decisions as a result. Domestic policy allows for, among other things, Corporate Welfare which we have seen in the form of the Corporate Bailouts of the Auto Industry, the Insurance Industry, Banks, etc with all interests creating Corporate profits and national debt. These are not Republicans. I can only guess a true Republican looks, speaks, and acts like Ron Paul.

        The obstacle is to reverse this perception while exposing the infiltrators for who they philosophically are and what their intention was. The idea only needs momentum to turn the tides then the rest will follow along as common sense returns to the flock. For some seeing the truth is as easy as learning the definition, history, and then comparing the results and realize who perpetuates this deceit and why. Others get it then fall back into the traps like hating, dividing, bitching, and generalizing. Some will look at fact and still live in denial and defend what they hate until the bitter end. The rest who get it ultimately understand that this arrogant move by the Establishment is also the fatal flaw there to exploit in a very long and determined groups plans. These people realize the intention, learn the method, the tools, the people, the organization and conclude that the plan requires we buy into it until after the end game crisis so any disruption, like say losing control of the White House and having your counterfeiting bank closed begins to reverse the process. It’ll only take one non-Establishment President to put the whole thing in motion by divulging the truth about what’s been going on.

        Let’s take a closer look real quick. If you wanted to take over a county and subvert their ideology to yours any group whose presence would potentially derail your efforts would need to be neutralized. Effectively it’s favorable for determined philosophies that are bent on world control and power to infiltrate a targeted group and destabilize it the point it is no longer a threat. It’s far more effective to condition a perception of fear, deceit, betrayal, while you further your interests all at your enemies expense. Consider what comes to the mind of most Americans, maybe the world, when they hear or see the word Republican … W.Bush, Terror, 911, Iraq, Oil, War, etc.

        So the if the people go Left your enemy is there with Corporatism, Debt, Welfare, Social Justice, and Dependency/Entitlement thinking, if they go Right they get Corporatism, Debt, Warfare, Empire Building, and Class/Elitist thinking in the middle there is infighting and division while the countries resources are moved under the control global corporate descendants and the policy bankrupts the nation.

        Finally, realize there is no Left or Right anymore and the 3rd option we’ll eventually be presented with will arrive conveniently as the foundation is coming apart in the hands of the implementers who will present this plan as our Saviors and our only chance to restore order and prosperity. In this “new” world (real a very old world super sized and futuristic) the issues that have divided us will no longer be the source of conflict as input allowed from outside the power structure will be forbidden by design. Having already been conditioned for most of/an entire lifetime for this lifestyle, adapting to the new process will be easy in a short time and having cleaned house of the descendants, as well as, all known threats, there will be no choice for those left but to accept how things are and face the fact we went along with plan for the new world and government the entire time.

        It’s one thing to lose a fair fight but there is nothing honorable about cowardly covert tactics that manipulate truth with trust and chose greed and power over humanitarianism. The worst part may prove to be for those who never woke up in time to put up a fight.

        • root solution

          But I will add the next step is taking the election and the idea about winning in the primaries is well taken!

    • http://pandoranage.com/ Dante D’Anthony

      Brilliant.

  • root solution

    Step outside of the old influence and bring down the Neo-Establishment Left/Right Paradigm by doing what they work so hard to prevent … Unite. Whatever preconceptions you have or differences you believe exist between you and your fellow American citizen and vote with who brings integrity and principle in 2012.

    There is not a true Left or Right like the media would have you believe … it’s the Establishment verses the Anti-Establishment.

    Which side are you on? Take the test:

    If you believe that Bush/Cheney/Obama/Clinton and cohorts portray the ideal image of leadership and that candidates of known association and that share membership in the same secret committees they do will miraculously act any different … you are voting for the Establishment.

    If you vote one way to spite the other … you are voting for the Establishment.

    If you vote for a candidate that believes there is a realistic way to resolve our countries root cause issues that does not involve the eventual dismantling of the FRB and implementation of a new monetary policy … you are voting for the Establishment.

    If you would vote to elect a person based solely on soft issues like abortion and gay rights … you are voting for the Establishment.

    If you are in favor of election leadership that circumvents the Constitution when designing laws, that promotes non-America institutions and ideologies, and allow and participate in the abuse of public information and media … you are voting for the Establishment.

    If you vote for the party without considering the candidates historical associations, voting record, lobby partnerships/sponsorships, and reputation for demonstrating integrity, honesty, and morality … you are voting for the Establishment.

    Just understand the true nature of the setup and if it is not Constitutional then it is not American. Question the person who promotes ideas that are unconstitutional as if your country depended on it and be accountable now rather than later. The method is to pull you in a direction with an emotional trigger issue to the point you don’t see the intention any longer and loss objectivity and empathy for your fellow citizens. The objective is to divide the country and turn us into them one way or another. When you take the power out of their hands you stop the madness. That’s it.

  • mrtastycakes

    “The logical end of Nazism is Communism.”

    Well, that would make sense to a Marxist, as they believe the logical end of everything is communism.

  • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

    Beautiful image.
    This reminds me of a very interesting quote that I heard that uses this same concept, but until now i never really pictured it in my mind very accurately. I honestly cannot remember who its by (I first heard it in the middle of one of my songs long ago)

    It goes (roughly) like this:
    “…that there is a, an area of the mind which could be called unsane, beyond sanity and yet not insane. Think of a circle with a fine split in it. At one end there’s insanity, you go around the circle to sanity, and on the other end of the circle close to insanity, but not insanity, is unsanity”

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=63908951 Tim Glaim

    How does any of that point to the END of the Left/Right paradigm?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=63908951 Tim Glaim

    How does any of that point to the END of the Left/Right paradigm?

  • mrtastycakes

    Your heart is in the right place, but it’s far more complicated than that. Our first-past-the-post electoral system ensures a two-party system. You can always propel a new party to the top, but never add a third. You can thank Martin Van Buren. This leads to tactical voting to avoid electing the least intolerable candidate (re: Duverger’s Law), as voter’s realize a third party is a wasted vote. There is no way of meaningfully expressing dissent with one’s vote in a plurality system and it leads to politicians whose views rarely match those of the majority.

    Additionally, after 1968s party reform, we now use mostly primaries to select candidates. Primaries mobilize political factions, leaving us with candidates representing the most dogmatic and activist wing of both parties.

    Together this leaves us with few choices, and polarized ones at that. If you want to see a change, we need IRV or Condorcet method voting and elimination of primaries or mandatory voting.

  • mrtastycakes

    Oh, great. They even put my ideology in there . . . right in between communism and fascism.

  • mrtastycakes

    Oh, great. They even put my ideology in there . . . right in between communism and fascism.

  • rtb61

    To break the corporate paradigm, the US electorate must shift their focus to the primaries. That is were US corporations stack elections in their favour so that no matter who, wins they win. It is time to fight back with Labour Democrats and Green Republican, forget a third party they is just misinformation put out by corporate propagandists. The third party already exists in the primaries, if the existing elected candidate is a corporate lapdog then get them out and replace them.
    Substantially less people vote in the primaries than in the election making the shift from corporate politics to peoples politics far easier to achieve.

  • Anonymous

    To break the corporate paradigm, the US electorate must shift their focus to the primaries. That is were US corporations stack elections in their favour so that no matter who, wins they win. It is time to fight back with Labour Democrats and Green Republican, forget a third party they is just misinformation put out by corporate propagandists. The third party already exists in the primaries, if the existing elected candidate is a corporate lapdog then get them out and replace them.
    Substantially less people vote in the primaries than in the election making the shift from corporate politics to peoples politics far easier to achieve.

  • Anomecron

    Isn’t the article really describing the ultimate utopian Fascist ideology as espoused by the likes of Mussolini ?
    Sounds very similar to me in many respects or do people foolishly equate the National Socilaism of the Nazi Party with what true Fascism really stood for ie: a perfect marriage of corporation and state.

  • Anomecron

    Isn’t the article really describing the ultimate utopian Fascist ideology as espoused by the likes of Mussolini ?
    Sounds very similar to me in many respects or do people foolishly equate the National Socilaism of the Nazi Party with what true Fascism really stood for ie: a perfect marriage of corporation and state.

  • root solution

    I beg to differ. The voting method is only a problem due to an untrue and unjust perception that has been constructed in the American voters mind. You actually are a great example of the paradigms affect on individuals when it comes to thinking in terms of change. The idea is to build up so many excuses for voters that nothing else ever could be, that their objectivity, inspiration, and determination become feelings of being overwhelmed hopeless and defeated. Why? Why suddenly when it comes to this one thing does suddenly our confidence and willingness to fight till the bitter end suddenly fail us? Millions of people will still line up to vote of the Establishment if nothing is ever brought to light. Isn’t it at least our morale duty to respect each other enough to prevent this lie and it’s affect to continue and skew the next election? Don’t you think if people realized they’ve been technically voting Left for 40+ years (results don’t lie) that might just stir enough of a fire in them to make the lights come on? Is it not worth a try for the sake of …. well everything?

    This choice is easy. Fight or be conquered. People can spend the next 20 months making excuses or the can put their energy into the only viable candidate that is not with the Establishment and who happens to already have serious momentum. That candidate is, of course, Ron Paul. He voted against every single unconstitutional un-American law Bush, Clinton, WBush, and Obama have put forth. He has all but exposed the Federal Reserve Bank scam. He’s already been working on the solutions for decades and is the only person with a sound, complete, transparent plan to fix the root cause issues.

    You’re ready to say he can’t win maybe? Ask yourself honestly how in the world you could possibly know that for a fact, and are you willing to risk your countries and your families futures on that guess? How did you really come to believe you and the American people can’t find a way to collectively say no to them and yes to us? For those who believe, it is all about understanding the obstacles and removing them now, for others it may be just about understanding what your thoughts are telling you and what your heart says is the right thing to do.

    Case in point … Obstacles: One thing that was missing in this article is the awakening folks have and need to come to before the next election concerning the Neo-Con 40+ year takeover of the GOP. People are still scratching their heads as to why Bush and company acted like Democrats while in power when the answer is pretty obvious when you look up the term neoconservatism and learn the history. This is, historically, a group that was born in the radical left and subscribers to the philosophy today on the right still carry on the policies of their ideological roots. Those who stayed on the left become progressives and moderates working together with their philosophic brotherhood on the right to create a one world government

    Posing as “conservatives” this group of Neo-Cons have been able to completely skew the word itself into an opposite expectation, in the mind of the majority, from its proper definition. Neo-Cons are committed to the belief that the “ends justify the means” which means, nothing is off the table in terms of winning. This includes any dirty or deceitful practice conceivable to accomplish the mission … say, hijacking the other party and change the public’s perception into what you want it to be. Philosophically founded in the corporate state power structure the Neo-Cons have firmly allied with the Military Industrial Complex, Big Energy, and Big Oil who, for all purposes, have trilateral control over all US Foreign Policy decisions as a result. Domestic policy allows for, among other things, Corporate Welfare which we have seen in the form of the Corporate Bailouts of the Auto Industry, the Insurance Industry, Banks, etc with all interests creating Corporate profits and national debt. These are not Republicans. I can only guess a true Republican looks, speaks, and acts like Ron Paul.

    The obstacle is to reverse this perception while exposing the infiltrators for who they philosophically are and what their intention was. The idea only needs momentum to turn the tides then the rest will follow along as common sense returns to the flock. For some seeing the truth is as easy as learning the definition, history, and then comparing the results and realize who perpetuates this deceit and why. Others get it then fall back into the traps like hating, dividing, bitching, and generalizing. Some will look at fact and still live in denial and defend what they hate until the bitter end. The rest who get it ultimately understand that this arrogant move by the Establishment is also the fatal flaw there to exploit in a very long and determined groups plans. These people realize the intention, learn the method, the tools, the people, the organization and conclude that the plan requires we buy into it until after the end game crisis so any disruption, like say losing control of the White House and having your counterfeiting bank closed begins to reverse the process. It’ll only take one non-Establishment President to put the whole thing in motion by divulging the truth about what’s been going on.

    Let’s take a closer look real quick. If you wanted to take over a county and subvert their ideology to yours any group whose presence would potentially derail your efforts would need to be neutralized. Effectively it’s favorable for determined philosophies that are bent on world control and power to infiltrate a targeted group and destabilize it the point it is no longer a threat. It’s far more effective to condition a perception of fear, deceit, betrayal, while you further your interests all at your enemies expense. Consider what comes to the mind of most Americans, maybe the world, when they hear or see the word Republican … W.Bush, Terror, 911, Iraq, Oil, War, etc.

    So the if the people go Left your enemy is there with Corporatism, Debt, Welfare, Social Justice, and Dependency/Entitlement thinking, if they go Right they get Corporatism, Debt, Warfare, Empire Building, and Class/Elitist thinking in the middle there is infighting and division while the countries resources are moved under the control global corporate descendants and the policy bankrupts the nation.

    Finally, realize there is no Left or Right anymore and the 3rd option we’ll eventually be presented with will arrive conveniently as the foundation is coming apart in the hands of the implementers who will present this plan as our Saviors and our only chance to restore order and prosperity. In this “new” world (real a very old world super sized and futuristic) the issues that have divided us will no longer be the source of conflict as input allowed from outside the power structure will be forbidden by design. Having already been conditioned for most of/an entire lifetime for this lifestyle, adapting to the new process will be easy in a short time and having cleaned house of the descendants, as well as, all known threats, there will be no choice for those left but to accept how things are and face the fact we went along with plan for the new world and government the entire time.

    It’s one thing to lose a fair fight but there is nothing honorable about cowardly covert tactics that manipulate truth with trust and chose greed and power over humanitarianism. The worst part may prove to be for those who never woke up in time to put up a fight.

  • root solution

    But I will add the next step is taking the election and the idea about winning in the primaries is well taken!

  • Rowan Duffy

    Firstly, that political map is worse than useless. The non-existence of cooperative institutions can be far more tyrannical than having cooperative institutions that are democratic.

    Secondly, the problem isn’t that we’re post-right/left politics. It’s that the meaning of class struggle has been completely lost on the left. The corporate take over of our lives is not individual versus collective. If it’s viewed that way then we’re doomed, since we’ll never be able to individually out-compete corporations. We need to be able to come up with mutualist solutions that are capable of overcoming the hegemony imposed by these essentially monarchical institutions.

    We need a return to class struggle. Cooperative working class struggle against the approximately 3% of the population who derive the vast majority of their income from the exploitation of our labour. Dems and Republics are both on the right.

  • Rowan Duffy

    Firstly, that political map is worse than useless. The non-existence of cooperative institutions can be far more tyrannical than having cooperative institutions that are democratic.

    Secondly, the problem isn’t that we’re post-right/left politics. It’s that the meaning of class struggle has been completely lost on the left. The corporate take over of our lives is not individual versus collective. If it’s viewed that way then we’re doomed, since we’ll never be able to individually out-compete corporations. We need to be able to come up with mutualist solutions that are capable of overcoming the hegemony imposed by these essentially monarchical institutions.

    We need a return to class struggle. Cooperative working class struggle against the approximately 3% of the population who derive the vast majority of their income from the exploitation of our labour. Dems and Republics are both on the right.

    • Onceinabluemoon

      Well said

  • PB

    I don’t know how you define “true” anarchism, but anarchism grew out of the leftist workers movement. It was the competing paradigm with Marxism and they differed on their views of the necessity of the state. They are both socialist movements which is why anarchism is also known as libertarian socialism. In fact throughout the 19th and 20th century, the word libertarian was synonymous with anarchist. That is until the pro-capitalist US Libertarian party hijacked the term and now that is what many Americans think of when they here Libertarian. Anarchism never has been and never will be a movement that supports capitalism, because capitalism is antithetical to the ideas put forward by anarchists for the destruction of all hierarchy in formalized and institutionalized means.

  • PB

    I don’t know how you define “true” anarchism, but anarchism grew out of the leftist workers movement. It was the competing paradigm with Marxism and they differed on their views of the necessity of the state. They are both socialist movements which is why anarchism is also known as libertarian socialism. In fact throughout the 19th and 20th century, the word libertarian was synonymous with anarchist. That is until the pro-capitalist US Libertarian party hijacked the term and now that is what many Americans think of when they here Libertarian. Anarchism never has been and never will be a movement that supports capitalism, because capitalism is antithetical to the ideas put forward by anarchists for the destruction of all hierarchy in formalized and institutionalized means.

  • Anonymous

    In my opinion “true” anarchy would be no state at all. For example, if there was a country consisting of myself and my neighbor, we wouldn’t need a state. We would mind our own business for the most part. We wouldn’t try to steal from each other, the old “do unto others…” common sense rule. We might get together and do things based on mutual need, perhaps fight a fire before it reached our properties, but that would be all. Once you have any kind of government structure, that is, a written set of rules, a mayor or sheriff, etc., you no longer have anarchy. As long as you need someone to tell others how to behave, anarchy is impossible. All of these so-called anarchic systems, such as anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, etc. have rules, and are, therefore, not really anarchy. Anarcho-primitivism might be the closest to what I think of as “true” anarchy. Something like capitalism couldn’t exist in that circumstance.

    Somewhere I read there are three kinds of laws:
    1) “God’s” law – “Do what is right.”
    2) Man’s law – “Do what you say you will do, keep to your promises and contracts.”
    3) Vulgar law – “Do what I tell you to do.”
    I guess in my ideal state we’d only need number one, but since we’re human we need number two. The problem is that politicians get in charge of things and we get a lot of number three.

    “The honest truth is that I am not really politically oriented. I would have really rather just be living out in the woods. If nobody had started cutting roads through there and cutting the trees down and come buzzing around in helicopters and snowmobiles I would still just be living there and the rest of the world could just take care of itself. I got involved in political issues because I was driven to it, so to speak.”
    — Theodore Kaczynski

  • Andrew

    Would it be anarchy if there were no state but private corporations owned and ran everything?

  • Anonymous

    Corporations owe their existence to the state. The state, corporations, trusts, etc. are all contracts. In my utopian ideal you wouldn’t need contracts. A handshake would be good enough and nobody would have the desire to screw anybody. It is hard for many people to grasp the idea of pure self-leadership. We are still herd animals always expecting the dogs to nip at our heels.

  • Umm, no

    ugh, sorry, but this “nolan chart” is total bullshit… i don’t see how left-wing is somehow associated with “powerful government” and right with “no government”… anarchism has it’s roots in left-wing ideology… and nazism was an extreme form of totalitarian socialsim in which the state sought ultimate authority over all aspects of the populace’s lives: economic, artistic, reproductive, etc – individualism was spat upon… the only reason the nazis didn’t get along with the soviets was they didn’t feel their form of socialism went far enough…

  • Umm, no

    ugh, sorry, but this “nolan chart” is total bullshit… i don’t see how left-wing is somehow associated with “powerful government” and right with “no government”… anarchism has it’s roots in left-wing ideology… and nazism was an extreme form of totalitarian socialsim in which the state sought ultimate authority over all aspects of the populace’s lives: economic, artistic, reproductive, etc – individualism was spat upon… the only reason the nazis didn’t get along with the soviets was they didn’t feel their form of socialism went far enough…

    • Andrew

      Sorry? For what? Not reading the articles and realizing they call out the bullshit the Nolan chart is based upon?

      • Artemis

        Uh, the article does not refute the provided chart, so, now who’s not reading the article?

        • Andrew

          Are you kidding me? The articles totally invalidate the chart. I don’t see how you can think they don’t.

          • joe

            they put a chart that only vaguely resembles the nolan chart which in fact highlights the fact that left and right wing people are both in some way statists (republicans through violations of social liberties and the left through market interference). Here is a better one. http://www.insteadofablog.com/images/nolanchart.gif

    • Onceinabluemoon

      actually, the Nazi’s gained popularity on the back of Socialist ideology,that was rising at the time. Once in power, they murdered socialist activists and adopted a fascist ideology, advocating ‘us and them’ in a political hierarchy, thus destroying their socialist position but retaining it by name. It really bugs me that people don’t know what Socialism is. Read some actual Marx, for goodness sake, not biased interpretations of it.

    • amendment_9

      It’s not talking about the current ‘right’, in fact the current right wing is just about the same as the left just different flavors, it’s literally talking about no government vs. total government. Check out this video and you can see both sides have gone far from what our founders had desired, individual freedom and liberty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw

  • renonymous

    Governments differ from corporations in that (especially) multi-national corporations don’t respect sovereignty. They know no borders.

  • TagoMago

    “In my utopian ideal you wouldn’t need contracts. A handshake would be good enough and nobody would have the desire to screw anybody.” What do you think it will take in order for humanity to reach such a point? Is education enough or would genetic manipulation also be required?

    I am somewhat of an agnostic when it comes to transhumanism but I often mind myself thinking about what it would take to fundamentally alter the course of our species…when considering all of the pain and suffering and chaos we have already experienced up until this point, it is hard to imagine what it would take to finally unite us…

    My hope for our race is something along the lines of the following: in the not too distant future, there will be a one-world government and currency as well as a one-world religion whose mission statement could be summed up by the Golden Rule of Do Unto Others. There would be a one-world Bill of Human Rights as well as enforceable population control and parental licensing…

    Once the population is under control and parents have been properly vetted, we could guarantee that every child has a roof over his/her head with food on the table, a free education and a job of some sort should s/he want one. At this point, genetic modification might also be desirable. My hope is that the children of this future society would then go on to create your anarchic utopia because they would be able to maintain and sustain it.

    I welcome any thoughts you might have…

  • Anonymous

    “Once the population is under control…” That’s the problem. Control implies that some people still need to be controlled. You can’t force my idea. The trick is getting everyone to want to participate voluntarily. It might have to start out as a strictly walled off country, totally self sufficient. The members of this society would show a wide representation of skill sets and have a reasonable work ethic, so nobody works too much while others are lazy, because there would be no currency or other visible economy. You wake up, do your work, go to the food store, get what you need, eat, sleep and so forth. The “profit” would come when you get to retire (probably earlier than our current system) and have a bit more fun in your not too old age. I am hoping that there would be next to nothing in the way of an accounting system. There should be mutual trust as a key requirement. Unfortunately, if someone wanted to go on vacation outside of this country, they’d need money, so the society would have to have some interaction with the outside world’s economic system. You have to make your set-up so attractive that it spreads naturally and everyone would want to live this way. It can’t be forced. That is the key to success.

    The only law would be the “do unto others” rule, but this would somehow be ingrained into the psyche of every individual, instead of being written down. I think most people already possess this, balanced by a self preservation drive. That’s the trick. Excess self preservation leads to selfishness, which is expressed as greed. The greed trait exists because, in the past, those that saved up for times of famine were the only ones that survived. In today’s world self-preservation has been perverted into economic systems that destroy many for the sake of the few – “Do unto others, then leave.”

    Maybe the religion part should be first. You have to instill the idealism in people before the physical system can become a reality. The difference is that “salvation” isn’t going to come from some deity, rather, it is going to come from the self, as in each member of the movement. The goal is to work towards this until everyone wants in, willing to sacrifice selfishness for the good of humanity. It isn’t going to happen overnight, maybe not even in a dozen generations, but it is worth starting somewhere. It won’t work, though, unless it is completely voluntary.

  • Andrew

    Sorry? For what? Not reading the articles and realizing they call out the bullshit the Nolan chart is based upon?

  • TagoMago

    “Control implies that some people still need to be controlled” My parents are young-earth creationists who believes that “the rapture” is going to happen any day now, though they plan on voting for Sarah Palin in the meantime (presumably in the hopes of speeding up the apocalypse…) My point being, people like them will never change…they are like retarded children stumbling through the dark and – like it or not – retarded children require guidance/control (perhaps you would differentiate between the technical definitions of these two words, but in my mind they represent the same concept…)

    “The trick is getting everyone to want to participate voluntarily” That would be some “trick”! But if the threats of nuclear war and/or environmental disaster (just to name a few!) are not enough to bring us together, one has to question whether anything will ever truly be able to do so…

    “It might have to start out as a strictly walled off country, totally self sufficient.” Have you read Island by Aldous Huxley? It is superb and I suspect that you would really enjoy it. I would gladly participate in such an experimental society, though I suspect the “outside world” would not allow it to succeed because it would be perceived as the ultimate threat. Then again, I also love the society which he presented in Brave New World and feel like it could work with some minor tweaking: get rid of the genetically bred caste system and upgrade everyone, equally, while robots perform all of the grunt work. Hell, I think a mixture of the two societies would make for an idealistic future…

    “The greed trait exists because, in the past, those that saved up for times of famine were the only ones that survived” I wonder if greed and selfishness could ever truly be eliminated by something like genetic tampering, though perhaps such meddling would cause more problems than it would solve?

    “The goal is to work towards this until everyone wants in, willing to sacrifice selfishness for the good of humanity” But again…what is going to trigger this? It is a wonderful thought/idea and nothing would make me happier than if it were to happen in the next five minutes. But there are already thousands (perhaps even millions) of individuals who make such sacrifices on a daily basis…what difference is it truly making unless everyone, everywhere, instantaneously chooses to participate?

  • http://twitter.com/DrCRousseau Dr Thomas M Campbell

    duh.

  • http://twitter.com/DrCRousseau Thomas M Campbell

    “This may not be a brilliant insight, but it is surely an overlooked one. It is now an Individual vs. Corporate debate”

    – Welcome. You were sick but now you’re well. Hurry, there’s work to do.

  • K8

    I love your ideas guys and have always shared similiar dreams, but I gotta crack because it sounds like one of you really liked The Village and the other really liked Gattaca haha.
    I think your plan is beautiful AnonReader. It just won’t work till we all become Vulcans~

  • Reverend Draco

    It isn’t the Left vs the Right.
    It isn’t the Republicrats vs the Demoblicans.

    It’s the Government vs YOU! Paid for with your tax dollars and (let’s call Lobbying what it really is) Corporate Bribery.

    Welcome to Amerika.

  • Anonymous

    It isn’t the Left vs the Right.
    It isn’t the Republicrats vs the Demoblicans.

    It’s the Government vs YOU! Paid for with your tax dollars and (let’s call Lobbying what it really is) Corporate Bribery.

    Welcome to Amerika.

  • Anonymous

    ST, TOS came out when I was about 10 – 11. Huge impression. Spock is still my hero. Logic is supreme.

  • dr.whizgig

    The Left gave the bailouts too.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6EOUMOS55IAEKKMW62FRZ34JSU Terry

      Correct. Which is exactly what the article said.

  • dr.whizgig

    The Left gave the bailouts too.

  • Peter

    ‘Conservatism,’ is and has always been 100% malleable to the whims of the plutocrats. The republican party line is whatever conveniently fits the interests of the wealthy elite and the fusion of money and government has forced the democrats to follow suit.

    • joe

      and it appears that the left is no different. just in different ways. they establish regulations to force out competition as well as just give them money through bailouts.

  • Peter

    ‘Conservatism,’ is and has always been 100% malleable to the whims of the plutocrats. The republican party line is whatever conveniently fits the interests of the wealthy elite and the fusion of money and government has forced the democrats to follow suit.

  • Joe

    “Totalitarian” is a made up term.

  • Anonymous

    All words are “made up.” It’s called “language.”

    totalitarian |tōˌtaliˈte(ə)rēən|
    adjective
    of or relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state : a totalitarian regime.

    I guess that doesn’t exist in places like, for example, North Korea, because “totalitarian is a made up term.”

  • TongTow

    Oh wow, OK, those guys seem to know what they are talking about.

    http://www.anon-tools.es.tc

  • Anonymous

    Oh wow, OK, those guys seem to know what they are talking about.

    http://www.anon-tools.es.tc

  • Brian Korsedal

    Don’t forget automated software for astroturfing and paid astroturfing campains. I’m sure soon the astroturfing jobs will be sent overseas and we will be astroturfed by Filipino script kiddies.

    There was a lot of this uncovered by Anonymous. Scary identity management software. Advanced stuff.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6EOUMOS55IAEKKMW62FRZ34JSU Terry

      Believe me, Brian – the astroturfers are here in this forum, and in many others. Hopefully, sharp webmasters will adopt better methods to ferret them out, but for now one must keep in mind that there is VERY good software designed to distort/block freedom of speech by injecting poison into forums. Further, corporations and governments (yes, ours) have thousands employed to “join the discussion.”

      Sadly, I cannot provide the links, but within the past week I read of the US Navy (!) leasing a huge office building that was to be filled (or is filled …by now) with nothing but astroturfing agents. Of course, by now we all know of the efforts of the US Chamber of Commerce. Further, a concerted PR effort was started around two months ago by a PR consortium of the TBTF banksters, and that campaign is using advanced astroturfing methods.

  • Brian Korsedal

    Don’t forget automated software for astroturfing and paid astroturfing campains. I’m sure soon the astroturfing jobs will be sent overseas and we will be astroturfed by Filipino script kiddies.

    There was a lot of this uncovered by Anonymous. Scary identity management software. Advanced stuff.

  • Brian Korsedal

    Don’t forget automated software for astroturfing and paid astroturfing campains. I’m sure soon the astroturfing jobs will be sent overseas and we will be astroturfed by Filipino script kiddies.

    There was a lot of this uncovered by Anonymous. Scary identity management software. Advanced stuff.

  • Keith

    There are two schools of anarchism, and they are diametrically opposed: Anarcho-Socialist Syndicalism and Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarianism. The only thing in common is that they call for near or total decentralization of authority and that the most severe punishment that is moral / ethical for any crime is exile (Not to be confused with self-defense).

    In general, Anarcho-Socialist Syndicalism is considered or is what is being referred to when someone says “Anarcho-Left”, or that “Anarchism is Leftist”. This tends to be the philosophy behind Communes or Colonies that idealize self-sufficiency, but make up the difference in trade. To my understanding, the ideal nation-state is 50-150 people (maximum number of people that can all know each other). Membership is voluntary, but an individuals purpose is to serve the community to mutual benefit. The narrative of the legal system is that the victim of crime is the community. Community identity is based geographically.

    Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarianism is the form of “Right Anarchism” or what people are referring to when they say that anarchism is “right wing”. These are the “Philosophy of Liberty” advocates, all laws and contracts grounded in property rights as an extension of the self-ownership principle, and mutually voluntary trade over time creates the best “stewards of capital” (it is more “profitable” to trade your cows to a butcher, or lumber to a woodsmith, etc, or whatever best serves your values). The narrative of the legal system is that the victim of crime is the individual. Community identity is based in trade.

  • Artemis

    Uh, the article does not refute the provided chart, so, now who’s not reading the article?

  • Xlsyor

    The problem is, good sir, the situation could go either way. Who would have the authority, since few truly take upon themselves the ultimate of personal responisibility, of determining who does what and to whom?
    Google “Georgia Guidestones” and read the lovely, poetic, highly ambiguous claptrap that appears in eight languages on this foreboding monument. It really strikes me, as does your proposal, in its essence, as nothing more than the living conditions extant in “Zardoz”, where getting through the day made the middle ages seem like a free ride at Disney World.
    I’m all for a world in peace. But the majority of humanity just can’t seem to get out of the rut of bending the knee to some form of royalty. Witness the Milgram experiment and others like it.
    Control. That’s the problem. As a species, we are control fiends. And OCD doesn’t even begin to cover the subtleties of our ritualistic regimentation. Try reading “Escape from Evil”, or the companion book, “Denial of Death”, by Ernest Becker, for a truly humbling glimpse of what we are up against.

  • Xlsyor

    The problem is, good sir, the situation could go either way. Who would have the authority, since few truly take upon themselves the ultimate of personal responisibility, of determining who does what and to whom?
    Google “Georgia Guidestones” and read the lovely, poetic, highly ambiguous claptrap that appears in eight languages on this foreboding monument. It really strikes me, as does your proposal, in its essence, as nothing more than the living conditions extant in “Zardoz”, where getting through the day made the middle ages seem like a free ride at Disney World.
    I’m all for a world in peace. But the majority of humanity just can’t seem to get out of the rut of bending the knee to some form of royalty. Witness the Milgram experiment and others like it.
    Control. That’s the problem. As a species, we are control fiends. And OCD doesn’t even begin to cover the subtleties of our ritualistic regimentation. Try reading “Escape from Evil”, or the companion book, “Denial of Death”, by Ernest Becker, for a truly humbling glimpse of what we are up against.

  • Andrew

    Are you kidding me? The articles totally invalidate the chart. I don’t see how you can think they don’t.

  • http://twitter.com/xMabans Marcelo Abans

    You just figured this out?

    You have just posted this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeCMSLP3Wy8

    Network is a GREAT movie.

  • http://twitter.com/Mabans_Plays MarceloAbans

    You just figured this out?

    You have just posted this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeCMSLP3Wy8

    Network is a GREAT movie.

  • amendment_9

    If the government didn’t have the power that it did, would corporations be able to take advantage of it? No. It’s us vs. government.

    • http://www.facebook.com/lorem.ipsum.dolor Ju Li

      If the government had no power, maybe the corporations wouldn’t need to take advantage of the government. They’ll be too busy taking advantage of us the people.

      • amendment_9

        I didn’t say NO power, the government should prevent force and fraud through military and courts. Otherwise, it’s your choice to work for or buy from a business.

        • Freedom7

          The government, at least those in government who aren’t in the pockets of big business, is the only defense we, the people have against corporations. Even the Supreme Court is corrupt (Thomas and Scalia). As far as working for or buying from a business, if there aren’t very many jobs available we can’t be choosey who we work for. So the front for corporate America, the Republican/Teabaggers, is telling us that government is the enemy and those who believe that will vote against their own best interests as we’ve seen too many times.

  • Anonymous

    If the government didn’t have the power that it did, would corporations be able to take advantage of it? No. It’s us vs. government.

  • Jay

    Watch “Who killed the electric car” and “food Inc” To see a more clear picture of what this post is about
    Ps. don’t buy GM cars or tyson or smithfield brand foods

  • Jay

    Watch “Who killed the electric car” and “food Inc” To see a more clear picture of what this post is about
    Ps. don’t buy GM cars or tyson or smithfield brand foods

  • meh

    Do you think this is new? This has been going on since at least the turn of the 20th century. It’s never been about politics.

  • meh

    Do you think this is new? This has been going on since at least the turn of the 20th century. It’s never been about politics.

  • Vivin Paliath

    You hit the nail on the head. I’ve been talking about this to my friends for a long time (whenever we have political discussions). I’ve thought of myself to be slightly left of center, but I’m noticing that regardless of whose in power (Reps or Dems), it seems to be corporations that are winning. In that regard, I found myself framing my arguments as the individual vs. the corporations. I thought I was the only one who felt this way.

  • Vivin Paliath

    You hit the nail on the head. I’ve been talking about this to my friends for a long time (whenever we have political discussions). I’ve thought of myself to be slightly left of center, but I’m noticing that regardless of whose in power (Reps or Dems), it seems to be corporations that are winning. In that regard, I found myself framing my arguments as the individual vs. the corporations. I thought I was the only one who felt this way.

  • joe

    they put a chart that only vaguely resembles the nolan chart which in fact highlights the fact that left and right wing people are both in some way statists (republicans through violations of social liberties and the left through market interference). Here is a better one. http://www.insteadofablog.com/images/nolanchart.gif

  • joe

    corporations would not have the power they have without the government being will to acquiesce to their demands. if government weren’t so large, corporations would not be so either. the two go hand in hand.

  • joe

    and it appears that the left is no different. just in different ways. they establish regulations to force out competition as well as just give them money through bailouts.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lorem.ipsum.dolor Ju Li

    If the government had no power, maybe the corporations wouldn’t need to take advantage of the government. They’ll be too busy taking advantage of us the people.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4XNN47PG34DUV55SXTO2JCFTDE Lizard

    What is a corporation, but individuals who have chosen to act together? Many “corporations” consist of no more than ONE person, actually — anyone who does any kind of business independently will find they have a lot to gain by incorporating. Most corporations have a few dozen to a few hundred employees, at best.

    Oh, but those aren’t the “corporations” you mean, right? You mean some OTHER corporations. You know, THOSE corporations. It’s really nice to have a faceless, nameless, enemy you can hate, without realizing that if you say “I hate Exxon!” (or Walmart, or Microsoft, or Bob’s Family Grocery, Inc.) you are saying “I hate the dozens (or hundreds, or thousands, or sometimes hundreds of thousands) of actual individual human beings that FORM that corporation”. “The corporation” doesn’t decide anything or do anything; human beings do, and, for the most part, these human beings are pretty much your neighbors, your family, and probably yourself.

    Whenever someone tries to turn real people into something inhuman, when they apply a broad label to tens of millions of individuals and then try to rile up hatred against them… I get deeply, deeply, worried.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4XNN47PG34DUV55SXTO2JCFTDE Lizard

    What is a corporation, but individuals who have chosen to act together? Many “corporations” consist of no more than ONE person, actually — anyone who does any kind of business independently will find they have a lot to gain by incorporating. Most corporations have a few dozen to a few hundred employees, at best.

    Oh, but those aren’t the “corporations” you mean, right? You mean some OTHER corporations. You know, THOSE corporations. It’s really nice to have a faceless, nameless, enemy you can hate, without realizing that if you say “I hate Exxon!” (or Walmart, or Microsoft, or Bob’s Family Grocery, Inc.) you are saying “I hate the dozens (or hundreds, or thousands, or sometimes hundreds of thousands) of actual individual human beings that FORM that corporation”. “The corporation” doesn’t decide anything or do anything; human beings do, and, for the most part, these human beings are pretty much your neighbors, your family, and probably yourself.

    Whenever someone tries to turn real people into something inhuman, when they apply a broad label to tens of millions of individuals and then try to rile up hatred against them… I get deeply, deeply, worried.

    • Andrew

      The government is made up of real people, including your neighbors, too.

  • http://torpeykin.blogspot.com/ William F. Torpey

    The only thing we can do is re-elect President Obama and urge him to appoint progressive justices to the U.S. Supreme Court at every opportunity.

  • http://torpeykin.blogspot.com/ William F. Torpey

    The only thing we can do is re-elect President Obama and urge him to appoint progressive justices to the U.S. Supreme Court at every opportunity.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6EOUMOS55IAEKKMW62FRZ34JSU Terry

      President Obama will appoint judges who mirror his own agenda. Unfortunately, his administration seems a continuation of Bush II – especially considering Obama’s inner-circle advisers. Should I have been asleep the past two years, and upon waking shown only the political results of the last two years, I should think that somehow W was still in office.

      Mr. Obama is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the corporations …as was his predecessor …as was his predecessor …as was………..

  • Onceinabluemoon

    from here in the UK I don’t see ‘left’ politics in the US, although I believe there is a socialist party. Which of your politicians support the view that those who produce the nation’s wealth, should have the right to control it, and that wealth should be distributed? How can there be any ‘left’ from politics who actively support capitalism (albeit in a warm, friendly sort of way) ? When health and wealth are co-dependent? When workers get paid cents and lazy shareholders make money just by being lazy shareholders? The true ‘Left’ in the US is the people’s only hope – it is the people/individuals themselves realising what is going on (as you have stated) and deciding it has to change…good luck…it’s not much better here in the UK, but we’re waking up…

  • Onceinabluemoon

    from here in the UK I don’t see ‘left’ politics in the US, although I believe there is a socialist party. Which of your politicians support the view that those who produce the nation’s wealth, should have the right to control it, and that wealth should be distributed? How can there be any ‘left’ from politics who actively support capitalism (albeit in a warm, friendly sort of way) ? When health and wealth are co-dependent? When workers get paid cents and lazy shareholders make money just by being lazy shareholders? The true ‘Left’ in the US is the people’s only hope – it is the people/individuals themselves realising what is going on (as you have stated) and deciding it has to change…good luck…it’s not much better here in the UK, but we’re waking up…

  • Onceinabluemoon

    actually, the Nazi’s gained popularity on the back of Socialist ideology,that was rising at the time. Once in power, they murdered socialist activists and adopted a fascist ideology, advocating ‘us and them’ in a political hierarchy, thus destroying their socialist position but retaining it by name. It really bugs me that people don’t know what Socialism is. Read some actual Marx, for goodness sake, not biased interpretations of it.

  • Onceinabluemoon

    On my planet, corporations don’t give a damn about the state and will do all they can to avoid paying taxes, and to maximise profit. The state , on the other hand, is a recipient of taxes which it uses to maintain the fundamentals of society (schools, drains, coastguards) and all of which suffer if corporations become the bosom-buddies of politicians. Or vice-versa.

  • Onceinabluemoon

    Well said

  • WallStreetClassAction

    These “financial services groups” a.k.a. fraudsters have financed the repeal of the regulations safeguarding public and taxpayers. They said they were going to “supervise themselves” and then melted down the economy, collected bonuses and now are hard at obstructing justice. Our very government is complicit, it is evident in the way SEC and Justice Department are p us sy-footing around the fat cats. The very fabric of our governance has been destroyed and more, bigger financial disasters await in the wings, unless we see to it that the justice is served.
    “I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” – Thomas Jefferson once said. How fitting, how prophetic! How alarming that we failed to accomplish that!
    At http://www.WallStreetClassAction.com we organize a class action against the banks, the ratings agencies and other financial institutions involved in staging the colossal securitization fraud and subsequently crashing the economy and resulting in over $5 Trillion in asset losses in the US alone.
    We realize that our own government is effectively a captured entity, so no criminal indictments will be forthcoming. But WE THE PEOPLE will hold the fraudsters accountable. United we stand.

  • WallStreetClassAction

    These “financial services groups” a.k.a. fraudsters have financed the repeal of the regulations safeguarding public and taxpayers. They said they were going to “supervise themselves” and then melted down the economy, collected bonuses and now are hard at obstructing justice. Our very government is complicit, it is evident in the way SEC and Justice Department are p us sy-footing around the fat cats. The very fabric of our governance has been destroyed and more, bigger financial disasters await in the wings, unless we see to it that the justice is served.
    “I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” – Thomas Jefferson once said. How fitting, how prophetic! How alarming that we failed to accomplish that!
    At http://www.WallStreetClassAction.com we organize a class action against the banks, the ratings agencies and other financial institutions involved in staging the colossal securitization fraud and subsequently crashing the economy and resulting in over $5 Trillion in asset losses in the US alone.
    We realize that our own government is effectively a captured entity, so no criminal indictments will be forthcoming. But WE THE PEOPLE will hold the fraudsters accountable. United we stand.

  • Anonymous

    I didn’t say NO power, the government should prevent force and fraud through military and courts. Otherwise, it’s your choice to work for or buy from a business.

  • Anonymous

    It’s not talking about the current ‘right’, in fact the current right wing is just about the same as the left just different flavors, it’s literally talking about no government vs. total government. Check out this video and you can see both sides have gone far from what our founders had desired, individual freedom and liberty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw

  • Paddy

    Actually it is the middle class versus the bureaucracy where the real battle lines are drawn.

  • Paddy

    Actually it is the middle class versus the bureaucracy where the real battle lines are drawn.

  • Anonymous

    A corporation that exists completely independent of the state in which it operates is a criminal enterprise. The entities that come to mind are the drug cartels and similar gangs. They pay no tax to the state whatsoever, except in the form of bribes to law enforcement or similar political personnel.

    Corporations that exist under the laws of the state ultimately write the rules for themselves, by virtue of buying favors from politicians that write the laws. Most laws are written by corporate lobbyists, a dirty little “secret” that most people don’t know about. This is the major flaw in the system. The most notable result of this is that they have tax advantages favorable to those of the individual. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, corporations gained the status of a person, as they have to enter into contracts and pay taxes. A legitimate corporation that pays no taxes does so because it is operating at a loss and may soon cease operations.

  • Andrew

    The government is made up of real people, including your neighbors, too.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6EOUMOS55IAEKKMW62FRZ34JSU Terry

    Correct. Which is exactly what the article said.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6EOUMOS55IAEKKMW62FRZ34JSU Terry

    “A legitimate corporation that pays no taxes does so because it is operating at a loss and may soon cease operations.”

    Or perhaps they have moved headquarters/production to another country …or paid off (oh, excuse me – made “campaign contributions”) enough congressmen to skew the tax law in their favor …or etc., etc., etc….

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6EOUMOS55IAEKKMW62FRZ34JSU Terry

    President Obama will appoint judges who mirror his own agenda. Unfortunately, his administration seems a continuation of Bush II – especially considering Obama’s inner-circle advisers. Should I have been asleep the past two years, and upon waking shown only the political results of the last two years, I should think that somehow W was still in office.

    Mr. Obama is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the corporations …as was his predecessor …as was his predecessor …as was………..

  • Anonymous

    Exactly. The ultimate goal of the profit-motive-based system is to become like the criminal enterprise. Humanity needs to recognize the desire for acquisition of material wealth beyond need as a symptom of greed, which should be recognized as pathological.

  • curmudgeonman

    It is a shame that many corporate officials are not being held accountable for the actions of their corporations. These officials benefit even when their stockholders do not. In the case of the recent control frauds that created the housing bubble, and its subsequent crash, financial corporation officials and their co-conspirators in Con-gress are walking away from any responsibility and any penalties yet keeping the gains from their fraud. Legal entities should not be given all the same rights as real persons until the real persons controlling those legal entities can be held fully and personally liable for their legal entity’s tortious acts. In the case of influencing Con-gress, corporations (including unions) should be allowed to speak their piece, to inform, but never allowed to donate money.

  • curmudgeonman

    It is a shame that many corporate officials are not being held accountable for the actions of their corporations. These officials benefit even when their stockholders do not. In the case of the recent control frauds that created the housing bubble, and its subsequent crash, financial corporation officials and their co-conspirators in Con-gress are walking away from any responsibility and any penalties yet keeping the gains from their fraud. Legal entities should not be given all the same rights as real persons until the real persons controlling those legal entities can be held fully and personally liable for their legal entity’s tortious acts. In the case of influencing Con-gress, corporations (including unions) should be allowed to speak their piece, to inform, but never allowed to donate money.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6EOUMOS55IAEKKMW62FRZ34JSU Terry

    Believe me, Brian – the astroturfers are here in this forum, and in many others. Hopefully, sharp webmasters will adopt better methods to ferret them out, but for now one must keep in mind that there is VERY good software designed to distort/block freedom of speech by injecting poison into forums. Further, corporations and governments (yes, ours) have thousands employed to “join the discussion.”

    Sadly, I cannot provide the links, but within the past week I read of the US Navy (!) leasing a huge office building that was to be filled (or is filled …by now) with nothing but astroturfing agents. Of course, by now we all know of the efforts of the US Chamber of Commerce. Further, a concerted PR effort was started around two months ago by a PR consortium of the TBTF banksters, and that campaign is using advanced astroturfing methods.

  • Artimusmaxtor

    It really is not about Capitalism. It’s more about hiding who owns what. Another words Corporations hiding in other Corporations. Ok. So who cares. No big deal. We as the public have a right to know who owns what. Well we don’t.

    However why hide? It may be no one elses business. It’s good to be discret. People get jealous. They want what you have. It may be a good reason to hide things in a corporation.

    The thing is the shuffling around of assets. The money being lent. One corporation buying another. Is this advertising. To make one related corporation look like its buying another. Or something to bilk money out of people? See its the bilking and dishonesty that people have a problem with. If it was used soley as a discretionary tactic. That would be one thing. When your stealing thats another.

    The Federal Reserve as a private Corporation. Would be one very looming example. People actually think that the Federal Reserve is a Federal entity. It is not of course. Why aren’t the member banks of the Federal Reserve ever disclosed? Who has the controlling votes? Why is not this ever discussed by those newshounds? See we need to know whats bought and paid for. The newshounds don’t care wonder who butters that bread? Not a word. Not much said by our Politicians either. See? Now we have a finiancial nightmare. No ones hauled in to account for it. If they did. They could not get into the maze of Corporations that are involved with this mess. Any politician that accused them or individual would be called crazy. After all they are Corporations. So who knows?

    We do know one thing however the Federal Reserve. That privatly held bank. A Corporation made up of member banks holds all the squares on the monopoly board. They mulitply money a will. Someones getting rich here. Please spare us your line that no one benifits from these hiding Corporations. I mean why would they form these things in the first place to begin with. Because the are benovolent? Please. They amass piles of interest. From clever schemes. They are in business in a big way. No sense trying to fool us with Corporation benevolency. If you wanted a bunch of slaves. Why didn’t you just haul everyone away in chains? The dependency you foster with your Corporations. Clever interest schemes. Price fixing and other ways of making convience and getting people into your system is beyond compare.

    The U.S. Government needs to take control of the cash in this land. They need to be financially responsible. Instead of giving the ability to make cash to a Corporate held bank. Either that or they need to diaper congressmen. Because either they are to immature to handle money or they are afraid.

  • Artimusmaxtor

    It really is not about Capitalism. It’s more about hiding who owns what. Another words Corporations hiding in other Corporations. Ok. So who cares. No big deal. We as the public have a right to know who owns what. Well we don’t.

    However why hide? It may be no one elses business. It’s good to be discret. People get jealous. They want what you have. It may be a good reason to hide things in a corporation.

    The thing is the shuffling around of assets. The money being lent. One corporation buying another. Is this advertising. To make one related corporation look like its buying another. Or something to bilk money out of people? See its the bilking and dishonesty that people have a problem with. If it was used soley as a discretionary tactic. That would be one thing. When your stealing thats another.

    The Federal Reserve as a private Corporation. Would be one very looming example. People actually think that the Federal Reserve is a Federal entity. It is not of course. Why aren’t the member banks of the Federal Reserve ever disclosed? Who has the controlling votes? Why is not this ever discussed by those newshounds? See we need to know whats bought and paid for. The newshounds don’t care wonder who butters that bread? Not a word. Not much said by our Politicians either. See? Now we have a finiancial nightmare. No ones hauled in to account for it. If they did. They could not get into the maze of Corporations that are involved with this mess. Any politician that accused them or individual would be called crazy. After all they are Corporations. So who knows?

    We do know one thing however the Federal Reserve. That privatly held bank. A Corporation made up of member banks holds all the squares on the monopoly board. They mulitply money a will. Someones getting rich here. Please spare us your line that no one benifits from these hiding Corporations. I mean why would they form these things in the first place to begin with. Because the are benovolent? Please. They amass piles of interest. From clever schemes. They are in business in a big way. No sense trying to fool us with Corporation benevolency. If you wanted a bunch of slaves. Why didn’t you just haul everyone away in chains? The dependency you foster with your Corporations. Clever interest schemes. Price fixing and other ways of making convience and getting people into your system is beyond compare.

    The U.S. Government needs to take control of the cash in this land. They need to be financially responsible. Instead of giving the ability to make cash to a Corporate held bank. Either that or they need to diaper congressmen. Because either they are to immature to handle money or they are afraid.

  • JBL71

    America is oligarchy.

    Corporations have slowly digested congress and whatever part of the government that controls them.

  • JBL71

    America is oligarchy.

    Corporations have slowly digested congress and whatever part of the government that controls them.

  • JBL71

    America is oligarchy.

    Corporations have slowly digested congress and whatever part of the government that controls them.

  • Freedom7

    The government, at least those in government who aren’t in the pockets of big business, is the only defense we, the people have against corporations. Even the Supreme Court is corrupt (Thomas and Scalia). As far as working for or buying from a business, if there aren’t very many jobs available we can’t be choosey who we work for. So the front for corporate America, the Republican/Teabaggers, is telling us that government is the enemy and those who believe that will vote against their own best interests as we’ve seen too many times.

  • Dik

    re: root solution
    Did you forget the Democrat turned Republican President that directly precedeeded those you mentioned and the AWFUL mess the country was left in due to trickle down policies? Although he was a man with charm and charisma I believe his domestic policies were the seed sown to bring us to where we are now.

  • Dik

    re: root solution
    Did you forget the Democrat turned Republican President that directly precedeeded those you mentioned and the AWFUL mess the country was left in due to trickle down policies? Although he was a man with charm and charisma I believe his domestic policies were the seed sown to bring us to where we are now.

  • deplume

    I agree with his points, but, hate the fact that nobody edits their writing anymore, which makes it often irritating to read and makes the writer appear amateurish. Even professional writers are guilty of this.

  • deplume

    I agree with his points, but, hate the fact that nobody edits their writing anymore, which makes it often irritating to read and makes the writer appear amateurish. Even professional writers are guilty of this.

  • Vincenzo Pietracatella

    Without the government being empowered by the people to protect us, would would be at the mercy of all sorts of criminal activity. To suggest that the government sould not regulate or police is ludicrous in its implications. No labor laws, no control over the greed of corporations or of banks or of wall street. What good would contract law be without enforcement. If you think business gives a hoot about your welfare or whether you live or die as a result of their actions or inaction you are simply living an illusion.

  • Vincenzo Pietracatella

    Without the government being empowered by the people to protect us, would would be at the mercy of all sorts of criminal activity. To suggest that the government sould not regulate or police is ludicrous in its implications. No labor laws, no control over the greed of corporations or of banks or of wall street. What good would contract law be without enforcement. If you think business gives a hoot about your welfare or whether you live or die as a result of their actions or inaction you are simply living an illusion.

  • Anonymous

    I wonder a bit about the path a politician must take to get elected. Money seems to be the prime advantage. As for congress, very few non-millionaires go in, none come out. Takes money to make money, who takes the money when a few have all the money? Corporations have the same freedom of speech as an individual. I’m sure they follow their conscience. Money talks, bovine fertilizer walks, but that too will get you elected.

    Eat the rich, only reasonable answer.

  • WoodGas1

    I wonder a bit about the path a politician must take to get elected. Money seems to be the prime advantage. As for congress, very few non-millionaires go in, none come out. Takes money to make money, who takes the money when a few have all the money? Corporations have the same freedom of speech as an individual. I’m sure they follow their conscience. Money talks, bovine fertilizer walks, but that too will get you elected.

    Eat the rich, only reasonable answer.

  • fedupwithallthiscrap

    Is that why Hitler went to war with Russia? What since would that make, if it were true?

  • Mznmz

    Combating corporations in the name of the individual is not complicated, but our society has yet to catch on. Were there to be social unions, easily formed through popular movements, which would call for the boycott of any institution or mutual fund, being the largest shareholders of public corporations, which weren’t activist in choosing corporate boards of directors. Directors could be voted on for nomination just as politicians presently are. They are politicians in a sense, after all.

  • Mznmz

    Combating corporations in the name of the individual is not complicated, but our society has yet to catch on. Were there to be social unions, easily formed through popular movements, which would call for the boycott of any institution or mutual fund, being the largest shareholders of public corporations, which weren’t activist in choosing corporate boards of directors. Directors could be voted on for nomination just as politicians presently are. They are politicians in a sense, after all.

  • Anonymous

    This is the the left right struggle. Reagan, from the right, made a lot of progress against the people, anded by his vice president, Bush the first, who started the deregulation of banks as his primary assignment for Reagan. The corporations are coming at us from the right, and very few from the left are getting elected. The far right tea party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the far right’s money men. Nothing has suddenly changed, except it has gotten worse. 
    We need to learn to vote against money. If you voted a straight ticket of those with less money that their opponent, I think this would immediately result in better government.

  • Third_stone

    This is the the left right struggle. Reagan, from the right, made a lot of progress against the people, anded by his vice president, Bush the first, who started the deregulation of banks as his primary assignment for Reagan. The corporations are coming at us from the right, and very few from the left are getting elected. The far right tea party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the far right’s money men. Nothing has suddenly changed, except it has gotten worse. 
    We need to learn to vote against money. If you voted a straight ticket of those with less money that their opponent, I think this would immediately result in better government.

  • Anonymous

    Brilliant.

21