Political Crossfire Forums

[anselfir]

A.D wrote: zero18 wrote: A.D wrote: Quote: Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to corporations that represent economic, industrial and professional groups. Unlike pluralism, in which many groups must compete for control of the state, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process.

This fits as much, if not more, with the libertarian parties policies as it does the republican party.

Note where it says 'legislative power is given to corporations'. Now point to me where libertarians say corporations should get legislative powers.

That's simple. Combine the libertarian party position on anti-trust laws with its lack of a policy on campaign finance. it's not corporatism when corporations are only one particular interest. what the corporatiosn cannot do is sway the people from their interests, wich is still deterministic.

[Kindred]

oneofthem wrote: A.D wrote: zero18 wrote: A.D wrote: Quote: Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to corporations that represent economic, industrial and professional groups. Unlike pluralism, in which many groups must compete for control of the state, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process.

This fits as much, if not more, with the libertarian parties policies as it does the republican party.

Note where it says 'legislative power is given to corporations'. Now point to me where libertarians say corporations should get legislative powers.

That's simple. Combine the libertarian party position on anti-trust laws with its lack of a policy on campaign finance. it's not corporatism when corporations are only one particular interest. what the corporatiosn cannot do is sway the people from their interests, wich is still deterministic.

Corporatism does not necessarily mean rule by corporations. Its more traditional definition is rule by groups, whether it be kings, Gods, or business. You are a classic corporatist because you so righteously advocate the rule of lobby groups. Democracy or republicanism are the only systems which can be thought of as anti-corporatist because they represent the shared disinterest of society.

[anselfir]

Corporatism does not necessarily mean rule by corporations. Its more traditional definition is rule by groups, whether it be kings, Gods, or business. You are a classic corporatist because you so righteously advocate the rule of lobby groups. Democracy or republicanism are the only systems which can be thought of as anti-corporatist because they represent the shared disinterest of society.

eh? that's rather distorting the present emphasis on "Corporations, as in BIG BUSINESS." there is no "interest of society," there is only interest nad disinterest of groups. society is not the poor.

[Goggalor]

Libertarianism does not allow that because under that ideology Government has no real power, only the power to protect the rights of the people. The more federal power that is given to our government, via Socialist reform or whatnot, the more likely it becomes that those in power become corrupt.

[The Civil Society]

Just a quick note on corporate, or even more generally, business lobbying. If certain laws were enacted that ended practices such as corporate welfare, subsidies, tax breaks, etc. for business, then I find it perfectly legitimate for corporations to donate any sum of money to a given politician. If the politican somehow makes an illegal deal (such as enacting favorable legislation not conducive to a free market economy), then the politican can go to jail as far as I'm concerned.

Besides, corporations are considered individuals under law, so preventing them from donating money is an infringement of individual rights.

A Libertarian society would punish public officials the same as private individuals for crimes. And violating free-market ensuring laws would be a criminal offense.

[Eclectic]

Infinite911911 wrote: Comrade Guihermo wrote: Now, I do not wish to offend members of TRP BUT I do wish to have a clean, gentlemenly debate over its issues and those who agree with it, and not. Well, the republican party in my eyes is terrible at running the states, I think Socialism would would work well in USA, what do you think?

I think you've smoked too much _____. But please tell me why you think Socialism would work in America, I could use the laugh.

No kidding, the Republican Party should be replaced by something much better than a Socialist Party. :roll:

[Matthew18]

Hey Republicans you can win 2006,2008 by doing the fellowing.

1# Close the borders. "IF another attack on this country comes from one of these SOB coming over our borders. YOUR FINSHED AS A PARTY!

2# Cut spending like pigs. Your going to run this country into the ground.

3# GET us the heck out of Nafta...NO North America unioin crap....GOD BLESS AMERICA. If you sell us out your just as much tradiors as the rats or commies.

If not the Dems will win 2006,2008. Why because there truthful. I'm voting third party beacuse of the 3#.

[Hecatomb]

Socialism will only work if major coporate figures like Wal-Mart and Microsoft band together and mow-down any goverment interferance of a new world order.. It could be done, but what would be thier motivation?

Power? They already have that..
Peace? Peace is like sleep, it's short and most either get too much or too little and either way it's unhealthy..

No, Americans are on this freedom schnict. They want the freedom to sleep with thier teachers, they want the freedom to buy a big house despite how they can't afford it, Americans are gluttones fools who dig thier own graves by not conserving on thier bank accounts, thier moral choices, and thier mouths.. Even if the conservatives are left-centre at best.. I can hardly call Bush a true conservative when his focus is to bring "democracy" to Iraq. Great, that's all we need, another country on the hallucinating drug that is a democratic state..

[Gremlin]

Comrade Guihermo wrote: Now, I do not wish to offend members of TRP BUT I do wish to have a clean, gentlemenly debate over its issues and those who agree with it, and not. Well, the republican party in my eyes is terrible at running the states, I think Socialism would would work well in USA, what do you think?

Commie, maybe you should pay attention to your own country before your under a dictatorship.

Abolition of Parliament Bill

Sorry that wasnt gentlemanly but in recent years ive become more and more intolerant to commies.

[Hecatomb]

England gets all the breaks lol.. Wish they'd pass something like that everywhere..

[Matthew18]

So you would support Bush becoming King?