Reply With Quote
A phony ideology to promote a corporate agenda? Sounds a lot like the campaign platforms of the Democrats you blindly defend, tbh
Before Milton Friedman was earning plaudits as an economic genius, he was a shill for the real estate industry and an early pioneer for big business propaganda known as libertarianism.
Pull up libertarianism’s floorboards, look beneath the surface into the big business PR campaign’s early years, and there you’ll start to get a sense of its purpose, its funders, and the PR hucksters who brought the peculiar political strain of American libertarianism into being — beginning with the libertarian movement’s founding father, Milton Friedman. Back in 1950, the House of Representatives held hearings on illegal lobbying activities and exposed both Friedman and the earliest libertarian think-tank outfit as a front for business lobbyists. Those hearings have been largely forgotten, in part because we’re too busy arguing over the finer points of “libertarian populism.”
Milton Friedman. In his early days, before millions were spent on burnishing his reputation, Friedman worked as a business lobby shill, a propagandist who would say whatever he was paid to say. That's the story we need to revisit to get to the bottom of the modern American libertarian "movement," to see what it's really all about. We need to take a trip back to the post-war years, and to the largely forgotten Buchanan Committee hearings on illegal lobbying activities, led by a pro-labor Democrat from Pennsylvania, Frank Buchanan.
What the Buchanan Committee discovered was that in 1946, Milton Friedman and his U Chicago cohort George Stigler arranged an under-the-table deal with a Washington lobbying executive to pump out covert propaganda for the national real estate lobby in exchange for a hefty payout, the terms of which were never meant to be released to the public. They also discovered that a lobbying outfit which is today credited by libertarians as the movement’s first think-tank — the Foundation for Economic Education — was itself a big business PR project backed by the largest corporations and lobbying fronts in the country.
It starts just after the end of World War Two, when America’s industrial and financial giants, fattened up from war profits, established a new lobbying front group called the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) that focused on promoting a new pro-business ideology—which it called “libertarianism”— to supplement other business lobbying groups which focused on specific policies and legislation.
http://www.alternet.org/visions/true...nda?paging=off
A phony ideology to promote a corporate agenda? Sounds a lot like the campaign platforms of the Democrats you blindly defend, tbh
What democratic shill bull .
True history of the democratic party: a racist organization keeping the black man down for 200 years.
See how easy that is?
What did they call it when Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about it? John Stuart Mill? Mecnken? Walden? Rothbard? Locke? Adam Smith? Lao-tzu? Paine? Bastiat?
The world didnt start and stop with the current brand of two party drivel your selling, bd.
Damn, it seems Libertarians are the new Republicans. No one likes libertarians.
No one with a stake in this rigged game...the one that concentrates wealth, power, and control... can stand em.
good one!
so silly, you libertarians, a bunch of duped fools wallowing in self-congratulating fantasy.
Libertarianism = conformist, status-quo dogma
don't see why libertarianism is seen in this light. their basic mantra is essentially more freedoms/rights for all so long as they don't infringe upon freedoms/rights of others
Considering the status quo is less freedom, bigger government, more nation-building abroad, more fiat money, and total ignorance of the Cons ution, libertarianism doesn't represent the status quo in any way, shape, or form....
And the idea of libertarians being conformist is laughable.... there's an old joke about how getting libertarians to unite on anything is like herding cats...
Do your research before generalizing an ideology you seem to know nothing about, son....
We don't blindly accept Team Red or Team Blue's full list of talking points, so both sides don't like us too much, tbh....
Unfortunately for Team Red and Team Blue, the number of independent voters is growing and the electorate is becoming more libertarian on foreign policy, wedge issues (such as marijuana and gay marriage), and privacy issues.... people are fed up with the bull , so both parties have resorted to smearing libertarians as crazy people and corporate shills in order to cling on to any last shred of relevance.... pretty sad, tbh....
pretty sure teams red and blue are still relevant
"corporate shills"
yep, libertarians are corporate shills in the sense nearly all of their ideas align with (BIG) corporations, and where they don't, eg, less MIC, the libertarians are pure fantasists, deluded dreamers.
11 Questions You Should Ask Libertarians to See if They're Hypocrites
http://www.alternet.org/economy/11-q...t=2&paging=off
Seems like a serious, good-faith article. Any self-proclaimed shills here for (Kock Bros-funded) libertarianism here have enough balls to even try to demolish it?
any of you libertarian dupes agree or disagree with:
Key Concepts of Libertarianism
http://www.cato.org/publications/com...libertarianism
So you don't agree with human rights, the rule of law, or peace?
Colbert takes on Rand Paul’s Syria incoherence and ‘slumbering wombat’ hairstyle
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/1...bat-hairstyle/
Libertarian Writings that Read Like Comic Books
Free-market libertarians go to outrageous exremes to convince themselves and others of the infallibility of the market. Even when opposing evidence smacks them in the face, they conjure up sound bites that seem vaguely convincing but are in reality meaningless. Here are some examples.
1. A Free Market is Good for Everyone.
Milton Friedman[3] was a magician with words, making reality disappear: "There is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people [than] the free-enterprise system...The free market system distributes the fruits of economic progress among all people."
The Cato Ins ute[4] added their own banality: "Free markets create a future promoting integrity and trust."
2. The Market Works. It Just Doesn't Feel Like It.
The Wall Street Journal [5],the Heritage Foundation[6], and The Economist[7] have teamed up to try to convince us all is well. The Wall Street Journal [8] exclaims, "Middle-class Americans have more buying power than ever before." Perhaps the Journal staff should compare notes. Their own writer tells us[9] that "the middle class...has shrunk considerably over the past few decades."
The Heritage Foundation contends[10] that "In reality, the living conditions of poor Americans have shown significant improvement over time." Heritage may equate living conditions with TV sets and window air conditioners, but for the rest of us many[11]studies[12]show[13] the relationship[14] between poverty and ill health -- chronic diseases, depression, and a slew of other physical and emotional maladies.
Finally, The Economist[15] states: Before the 1960s...most blacks were poor, few served in public office and almost none were to be found flourishing at the nation's top universities, corporations, law firms and banks. None of that is true today. But much of that IS true today.
According to Pew Research[16], median wealth for black families in 2009 was $5,677, compared to $113,149 for white families. Meanwhile, Blacks and Hispanics, with 29%[17] of the population, are severely under-represented in both the corporate boardroom[18] and higher education[19].
3. Why Can't You Be a Successful Individual Like Me?
The Wall Street Journal published a remarkably self-congratulatory article[20] that is, once again, short on facts and high on emotion. "The American dream," trumpets the author, "has traditionally been one of individual success that is rewarded and admired." Perhaps he's not aware of the recent Executive Excess study[21] that found "Nearly 40 percent of the CEOs on the highest-paid lists from the past 20 years were eventually 'bailed out, booted, or busted.'" And how about that "individual success" part?
The fact is that the richest 10% own almost 90 percent[22] of stocks excluding pensions, and the stock market has historically risen three times faster[23] than the GDP itself. Success comes easy when you can make money just by going to bed at night.
The author goes on to announce, "In Silicon Valley, the rich commonly reinvest their wealth close to home...I have reinvested most of my net worth in 8.5% of the shares of my own company." Good for him. But Over 90% of the assets[24]owned by millionaires are held in a combination of low-risk investments (bonds and cash), the stock market, and real estate.Business startup[25] costs made up less than 1% of the investments[24] of high net worth individuals in North America in 2011.
Perhaps, instead, they're building businesses on their own? No. Only 3 percent of the CEOs, upper management, and financial professionals were entrepreneurs[26] in 2005, even though they made up about 60 percent of the richest .1% of Americans. A recent study[27] found that less than 1 percent of all entrepreneurs came from very rich or very poor backgrounds. They come from the middle class.
4. If You're Not a Successful Individual, You Must Be Lazy.
The Cato Ins ute claimed[28] that "Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour."
Both the Economic Policy Ins ute[29] and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities[30] discredit the claim, noting that, contrary to Cato's implications, hardly any families receive multiple benefits at the same time. Furthermore, the benefits do not replace work. Many employed families are simply not making enough to survive. Over 83 percent[31] of all benefits going to low-income people are for the elderly, the disabled, or working households.
5. If I Accomplish Everything on My Own, Why Should I Pay Taxes?
Using their pet buzzwords 'capital' and 'mobility,' the Wall Street Journal came to the roundabout conclusion[32] that a lower capital gains tax rate would end up causing higher-income taxpayers to pay more taxes. The logic is too elusive to explain here.
The Journal also attacks[33] the Financial Transaction Tax, calling it a "sin tax" that will "punish sinners" to raise revenue for the U.S. Treasury. Never mind that the current sales tax on financial transactions is ZERO.
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-an...t=7&paging=off
Reich destroys the libertatian (pro-business, anti-human) concept of "free market"
The Myth of the "Free Market"
One of the most deceptive ideas continuously sounded by the Right (and its fathomless think tanks and media outlets) is that the "free market" is natural and inevitable, existing outside and beyond government.
So whatever inequality or insecurity it generates is beyond our control. And whatever ways we might seek to reduce inequality or insecurity - to make the economy work for us - are unwarranted constraints on the market's freedom, and will inevitably go wrong.
By this view, if some people aren't paid enough to live on, the market has determined they aren't worth enough. If others rake in billions, they must be worth it. If millions of Americans remain unemployed or their paychecks are shrinking or they work two or three part-time jobs with no idea what they'll earn next month or next week, that's too bad; it's just the outcome of the market.
According to this logic, government shouldn't intrude through minimum wages, high taxes on top earners, public spending to get people back to work, regulations on business, or anything else, because the "free market" knows best.
In reality, the "free market" is a bunch of rules about
(1) what can be owned and traded (the genome? slaves? nuclear materials? babies? votes?);
(2) on what terms (equal access to the internet? the right to organize unions? corporate monopolies? the length of patent protections? );
(3) under what conditions (poisonous drugs? unsafe foods? deceptive Ponzi schemes? uninsured derivatives? dangerous workplaces?)
(4) what's private and what's public (police? roads? clean air and clean water? healthcare? good schools? parks and playgrounds?);
(5) how to pay for what (taxes, user fees, individual pricing?). And so on.
These rules don't exist in nature; they are human creations. Governments don't "intrude" on free markets; governments organize and maintain them. Markets aren't "free" of rules; the rules define them.
The interesting question is what the rules should seek to achieve. They can be designed to maximize efficiency (given the current distribution of resources), or growth (depending on what we're willing to sacrifice to obtain that growth), or fairness (depending on our ideas about a decent society). Or some combination of all three - which aren't necessarily in compe ion with one another. Evidence suggests, for example, that if prosperity were more widely shared, we'd have faster growth.
The rules can even be designed to entrench and enhance the wealth of a few at the top, and keep almost everyone else comparatively poor and economically insecure.
Which brings us to the central political question: Who should decide on the rules, and their major purpose? If our democracy was working as it should, presumably our elected representatives, agency heads, and courts would be making the rules roughly according to what most of us want the rules to be. The economy would be working for us.
Instead, the rules are being made mainly by those with the power and resources to buy the politicians, regulatory heads, and even the courts (and the lawyers who appear before them). As income and wealth have concentrated at the top, so has political clout. And the most important clout is determining the rules of the game.
Not incidentally, these are the same people who want you and most others to believe in the fiction of an immutable "free market."
If we want to reduce the savage inequalities and insecurities that are now undermining our economy and democracy, we shouldn't be deterred by the myth of the "free market." We can make the economy work for us, rather than for only a few at the top. But in order to change the rules, we must exert the power that is supposed to be ours.
http://robertreich.org/post/61406074983
Libertarians supporting "free market" are nothing but shills for the 1%, aka, total frauds, holier-than-thou hypocrites.
And of course, the Kock Bros wanted to buy/control libertarian stink tank Cato Inst to crank up the pro-1% "free market" propaganda even above the current Cato propaganda.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-30-2013 at 09:09 AM.
Look up Nixon's southern strategy and try again.
Those racist Confederate Dems all converted to racist Confederate Repugs after the ERA, VRA, etc of the 1960s. They now form the racist, controlling base of the Repug party.
Libertarians in 2013: The Even Whiter, Wealthier, WASPier Bastion of Republican Party
They are not the same as Tea Partiers or the religious right; this is a different crowd.
You could call it the wealthy white fratboy wing of the GOP. Or perhaps its masters-of-the-universe subset, as exemplified by Wall Streeters who regularly rank private profits above the common good and whose credo is “get government out of my way.”
Libertarians make up a small but enduring slice of the Right, a nationwide studyby the Public Religion Research Ins ute confirms. Of course, they have their own party that nominates presidential candidates—like the Greens. But, practically speaking, libertarians line up with Republicans most of the time.
They are the economic conservatives and privacy rights adherents that existed before the Tea Party emerged in 2010, PRRI finds, and today—as in years past—they split with the religious right on regulating morality, and they are not always Tea Party fans.
PRRI’s “ 2013 American Values Survey” is the latest reminder from respected pollsters that “committed libertarians”—who comprise seven percent of all voters, with another 15 percent leaning their way—have an out-sized influence. Libertarians feel that there is almost nothing good that government can do for them personally or for society, PRRI reports. In contrast, the GOP’s evangelical wing wants government to ban abortion, reject same-sex marriage and bar assisted suicide for the terminally ill.
According to PRRI, a room full of libertarians would be overwhemingly young, male and white. “Nearly all libertarians are non-Hispanic whites (94 percent), more than two-thirds (68 percent) are men, and more than six in 10 (62 percent) are under the age of 50,” they report. Libertarians tend to be WASPs—white Anglo-Saxon Protestants (27 percent)—or religious agnostics (27 percent), but a few are Catholic (11 percent) and amazingly “no libertarians identify as black Protestant,” PRRI said, without offering an explanation.
http://admin.alternet.org/tea-party-...tter916829&t=3
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-30-2013 at 10:08 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
