Bend over

[j_b]

The libertarians are coming, or how the plutocracy controls the nations politics.

 

Covert Operations

by Jane Mayer

 

The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation. These views dovetail with the brothers’ corporate interests. In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States. And Greenpeace issued a report identifying the company as a “kingpin of climate science denial.” The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus.

 

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer#ixzz0ytnrk2of

[Stonehead]

The more one considers the matter, the clearer it becomes that redistribution is in effect far less a redistribution of free income from the richer to the poorer, as we imagined, than a redistribution of power from the individual to the State.

 

--Bertrand de Jouvenel, French philosopher, political economist, and futurist.

[prole]

The more one considers the matter, the clearer it becomes that redistribution is in effect far less a redistribution of free income from the richer to the poorer, as we imagined, than a redistribution of power from the individual to the State.

 

--Bertrand de Jouvenel, French philosopher, political economist, and futurist.

 

Oh, don't kid yourself, it's certainly both. If you're going to take this tack, it may be a good time to broaden a definition of the State to include a wider array of actors, something along the lines of Gramsci's "extended state" lest one fall into the myopic "big guvermint" schtick that blind to exactly the kind of private economic power j_b's post is about.

[j_b]

The state is us until we decide otherwise. Don't let the Koch brothers (and their corporate shills) decide for you.

[j_b]

It's nice that aristocrats like Bertrand had time to philosophize about liberty but freedom from basic want is most liberating.

Edited September 8, 2010 by j_b

[KaskadskyjKozak]

It's nice that aristocrats like Bertrand had time to philosophize about liberty but redistribution results in much more freedom than spin. Stonehead, pull your head out of your ass.

 

"redistribution"...no you're not a commie cocksucker, really!

[j_b]

"redistribution" is your term, moron.

 

According to jackass, progressive taxation is communism. Fucking libertarian extremist!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

"redistribution" is your term, moron.

 

According to jackass, progressive taxation is communism. Fucking libertarian extremist!

 

"redistribution results in much more freedom"

 

Go fuck yourself, j_b. Oh, wait, you do that daily.

[j_b]

you have nothing of substance to say, and are incapable of responding to any comment.

[Hugh Conway]

The more one considers the matter, the clearer it becomes that redistribution is in effect far less a redistribution of free income from the richer to the poorer, as we imagined, than a redistribution of power from the individual to the State.

 

--Bertrand de Jouvenel, French philosopher, political economist, and futurist.

 

French? Must be a commie faggot

[prole]

Hey Kojak, how come all your posts are about sucking cocks and fucking and guzzling cum and stuff? Seems weird...

[j_b]

"In 1958, Fred Koch became one of the original members of the John Birch Society, the arch-conservative group known, in part, for a highly skeptical view of governance and for spreading fears of a Communist takeover. Members considered President Dwight D. Eisenhower to be a Communist agent. In a self-published broadside, Koch claimed that “the Communists have infiltrated both the Democrat and Republican Parties.” He wrote admiringly of Benito Mussolini’s suppression of Communists in Italy, and disparagingly of the American civil-rights movement. “The colored man looms large in the Communist plan to take over America,” he warned. Welfare was a secret plot to attract rural blacks to cities, where they would foment “a vicious race war.” In a 1963 speech that prefigures the Tea Party’s talk of a secret socialist plot, Koch predicted that Communists would “infiltrate the highest offices of government in the U.S. until the President is a Communist, unknown to the rest of us.”

 

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=3#ixzz0yuk3Icbh

[Stonehead]

The more one considers the matter, the clearer it becomes that redistribution is in effect far less a redistribution of free income from the richer to the poorer, as we imagined, than a redistribution of power from the individual to the State.

 

--Bertrand de Jouvenel, French philosopher, political economist, and futurist.

 

Oh, don't kid yourself, it's certainly both. If you're going to take this tack, it may be a good time to broaden a definition of the State to include a wider array of actors, something along the lines of Gramsci's "extended state" lest one fall into the myopic "big guvermint" schtick that blind to exactly the kind of private economic power j_b's post is about.

 

Certainly it might be an oversimplification but doesn’t everyone recognize the root problem as one of concentration of power whether that power resides in government or in the monied interests of the private sector or in both?

 

I just find it amusing that Otto von Bismarck in recognition of the growing threat from the socialists presided over what was to become the modern welfare-warfare state. To counteract the socialists he used the goals and to some extent the methods of his opponents to achieve the ends of power. We know it wasn’t altruism that informed his actions in the creation of that state.

 

I happen to believe that Government in its proper role should only be large enough to protect our interests but only to the extent that it counteracts another source of power; so government in its wisdom serves to act as a check and balance on the concentration of power. I can’t help with the internal contradiction that might arise due to the fact that one party might have to be more powerful than the other to keep the other in check.

 

 

[Fairweather]

When I saw your thread title I began to think that maybe you had put up a new route down at Smith or something. Then I remembered how you're much too, um, aristocratic to share your climbing exploits with we commoners here...

[j_b]

Certainly it might be an oversimplification but doesn’t everyone recognize the root problem as one of concentration of power whether that power resides in government or in the monied interests of the private sector or in both?

 

By definition, the social contract that exists in all societies demands delegating power to government. That isn't in question and hasn't been for several centuries despite the best attempts by libertarian nincompoops to make us believe it is still an open question.

 

This article is about how libertarian plutocrats manufacture consent to enforce their grab of government, not about the need for this essential democratic institution.

[JosephH]

So, the plan now is to align with the interests of an Australian right-wing media mogul who sold out to China and two uber-wealthy, polluting bigots in an attempt to counter 'big government'?

 

Dude, where's my country? It got played hard and OBL is laughing his ass off...

[ivan]

 

Dude, where's my country? It got played hard and OBL is laughing his ass off...

i thought laughter was a violation of sharia law?

[j_b]

That has been the plan for over 40 years now, when plutocrats (Coors, Scaife, Koch, etc ..) started pouring 100's of millions into "think tanks" like CATO, Heritage, AEI, etc) and propaganda campaigns to give an air of legitimacy to regressive views in the corporate media. Just take the concept of 'trickle down' that has been spewed like religion for decades now to justify growing economic inequalities despite never having been shown to have any legitimacy whatsoever by academics.

[tvashtarkatena]

CATO wrote a great report on the benefits of drug legalization in Portugal in '08. They're not all bad.

[tvashtarkatena]

So, the plan now is to align with the interests of an Australian right-wing media mogul who sold out to China and two uber-wealthy, polluting bigots in an attempt to counter 'big government'?

 

Dude, where's my country? It got played hard and OBL is laughing his ass off...

 

Um...that was always the plan. It's just the most of the hoopleheads have yet to catch on.

[tvashtarkatena]

Hey Kojak, how come all your posts are about sucking cocks and fucking and guzzling cum and stuff? Seems weird...

 

So the guy gives a mean blow job? NTTAWWT.

 

I've been tryin' to get on his 'climbing' calendar for months....Sumbitch is BOOKED UP.

[j_b]

CATO wrote a great report on the benefits of drug legalization in Portugal in '08. They're not all bad.

 

Please, do tell me you are joking. With Democrats like you, who needs neanderthals to defend regressive propaganda outfits that justified the greatest upward transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.

[prole]

Certainly it might be an oversimplification but doesn’t everyone recognize the root problem as one of concentration of power whether that power resides in government or in the monied interests of the private sector or in both?

 

No, everyone doesn't recognize this. The fundamental flaw in modern libertarianism (anarcho variants notwithstanding) is its blindness to economic power and it's relation to political power. Libertarianism's sanctification of private property, no matter how concentrated, ends that conversation before it even begins. Also, the assumption the governance is always bad or bad if powerful leaves the possibility for democratic decision making completely off the table.

As far as Bismark is concerned, power always and only seeks to maintain itself by whatever means are at its disposal. Lady Gaga, Prozac, and fear are doing pretty good right now. Not so much elsewhere...

 

 

[j_b]

A one-pager version of the 10 pages New Yorker piece for those without the time or desire:

 

Two Multibillionaire Brothers Are Remaking America for Their Own Benefit

 

by Jim Hightower

 

There's a difference between being paranoid and being suspicious. Paranoia is mental disturbance; suspicion is a rational deduction.

 

For example, if you suspect that America's economy, politics, government, media, judiciary and practically every other system has been wired to favor corporate interests over every other interest in our country, you're deducing, not hallucinating. From the infamous Wall Street bailout to the Supreme Court's shameful decree that corporations have more political rights than humans, we see again and again that corporate might overwhelms what's right.

 

This is not by accident, but by the deliberate, relentless efforts of corporatists to bend our nation's institutions to their will. Take one huge corporation you've probably never heard of, even though your consumer dollars are financing its right-wing agenda.

 

Do you buy Northern tissue, Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups or Vanity Fair napkins? These well-known brands are owned and produced by Koch Industries (pronounced "coke") in Wichita, Kan. Koch is also a major producer of oil, gas, timber, coal, cattle, refined petroleum, asphalt, polyethylene plastic ... and much, much more.

 

Charles and David Koch, who control this family-owned empire, have a net worth of $14 billion each, ranking both in a tie for the 19th richest person on the planet. They boast of being "self-made" billionaires, though they had a little help from Daddy. Fred Koch started this namesake business, and his sons got a leg up on their climb to billionairedom by inheriting Fred's company. They also inherited something else: a burning ideological commitment to right-wing politics (Daddy Fred helped found the John Birch Society).

 

Charles and David have used the wealth they draw from Koch Industries to fuel a network of three Koch Family Foundations, which have set up and financed a secretive army of political operatives dedicated to achieving the brothers' antigovernment, corporate-controlled vision for America.

 

This force includes national and state-level think tanks, Astroturf front groups, academic shills, university centers, political-training programs, fundraising clearinghouses, publications, lobbyists and various other units useful to their ideological cause. They spend freely on dozens of ideologically grounded right-wing groups to influence schoolteachers and high-school curricula, state and federal judges, lawyers and legal scholars, conservative policy thinkers and media producers, city-council candidates and local party activists.

 

Their aim is to shove the country's national debate to the hard right, discombobulate the public's progressive wishes, and alter government policies to advance corporate interests generally and the Kochs' own interests specifically.

 

Americans for Prosperity, the third-largest recipient of Koch foundation largesse, is the brothers' overtly political unit. Essentially, it is a front group for mass-producing front groups. Much like McDonald's churns out Big Mac franchises, AFP can pop out a grass-rootsy-looking, cookie-cutter political operation on demand. Its menu includes such garnishes as hoked-up studies, alarmist talking points, deceptive attack ads, divisive hate messages, celebrity and religious endorsers, and a menagerie of media stunts.

 

Consider the "tea bag" rebellion. No one professes more hatred for the two-party, business-as-usual political system in Washington than those angry Americans who're caught up in the tea-bag rallies. Yet unbeknownst to most of the mad-as-hellers who have showed up, it was AFP's Republican-tied lobbyists and political functionaries who cynically financed, organized and orchestrated the very first tea-bag protest. AFP has steadily co-opted the tea-bag faction to make it a front for the corporate agenda, and many of the tea-bag groups have devolved into subsidiaries of the Republican Party.

 

Indeed, AFP has become the Astroturf-to-Go Store, fabricating and spreading fake grass-roots organizations all across the country, including Patients United Now (anti-health care reform), Hot Air Tour (anti-global warming), Free Our Energy (pro-offshore drilling), No Stimulus (tried to kill Obama's economic recovery plan) and Save My Ballot Tour (tries to keep workers from joining unions).

 

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you - and they are! While such corporate elites as the Kochs are a tiny minority of Americans, they are able to hide their own selfish agenda behind front groups, surreptitiously skewing our public debate, agenda and policies to serve themselves. Ultimately, what they are out to get is nothing less than America's essential uniting ethic of the common good, replacing our democracy with their corporate kleptocracy.

 

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/09/08-6

[prole]

or here...