Awwe, he seems like a real dear.

Him. Not Hitler.

Him?
Hitler?

Himmler?!

Oops! I posted to the wrong profile. Sorry about that! Glad we were able to continue our dialogue.

My comments/responses interspersed:

> "economics has never been my strong suit."

I know, my friend, I know. As soon as I hear some defense of "socialism," I know.

> "but i AM quite literate in history and government and of
> course politics."

Yes, my dear friend, but history is tied to economics, and these days, unfortunately, politics too.

> "while you are correct that a socialist state can become a
> fascist one,so too can a democracy."

Again, we agree! Yes, in fact, fascism is the offspring of democracy. And while not strictly a fascist, was not Hitler elected?
Is there here some assumption that I regard "Democracy" as some sort of "holy cow?" On the contrary, "democracy" is a type of "soft" socialism.
At least as practiced and typically defined.
Not market democracy, however, which is the same as the free market, and not problematic. But pandering political democracy is something else.

> "it is really the forces of ideology"

Yes, in fact the book I am now reading makes this point throughout. So did Mises. But I will say that Mises was not altogether correct in dismissing Marx' assertion that systems and structures influence ideology and not the other way around. Mises was mostly correct, ideology creates systems and structures and institutions, but Marx was a little bit correct, there is also some influence in the other direction.

> "i do apologize for my oftentimes rambling.maybe because i
> am a little out of my comfort zone when it comes to
> economics"

Do not worry my friend, this is the case with most people who have strong political/economic opinions. It has been called afterall the "dismal science." If people knew about economics, we'd have a totally different system of government or no government at all.

> "your last post really cleared so many misconceptions i was
> having during this conversation."

Glad to hear. Some of my other "debaters" get very little out of our debate so it is a refreshing situation.

> "i knew we were more in agreement than disagreement.
> and we are."

I think most people are actually in agreement about goals, they just disagree about means, mostly because of lack of economic education. But once that is cleared, the agreements become more evident.

> "the banks need to held accountable."

1. yes banks need to be held accountable for fraud, like any other business or person.

> "which by inference means the governments role should be
> as fraud detector and protector of the consumer."

2. if you still want a government, meaning you still want a monopolist to do this. But a monopoly is inefficient (this is one of those "economics" laws, but one I think is almost self-evident). So asking a monopoly run by kleptocrats to do this is like asking the wolves to look over the sheep.

> "you didnt mention it but i hope you agree the corporate
> charter needs to be rewritten in a way where they are NOT a
> person and therefore shall be removed from the political
> landscape."

3. Since I don't think government (monopolist) are necessary, I don't think it should be inventing legal entities and forcing those on everyone else. Corporations are the creation of the state. Without a state monopoly, they would look much different than they do at present. In actuality, regardless of legal definitions, a corporation is a group of persons, like a union or social club or a partnership.

> "this will (or should) re-balance our political system (which is
> diseased at the moment)."

4. Corporations are a symptom, not the cause of all our social ills. Lack of economic calculation is much more problematic on all levels. In short, government is not a solution, but the major contributor to the problem. And we still have not gone into the whole issue of how the government is not "we" or "the people" in any meaningful way and how having coercive rulers is a problem.

> "which will return this country to a more level playing field and
> equate to=more liberty."

5. I don't know that we agree here. Corporations are not the cause of lack of liberties. Government is. Corporations won't throw you in jail for not obeying the rulers; government will. Corporations will not garnish your wages. Government will.

> "this will open innovation,progress and advancements in ALL
> fields AND due to competitive forces ,will lower prices."

6. Things like getting rid of IP laws will do so. So will getting rid of most/all taxation and arbitrary regulation.

> "how am i doing so far?"

Doing great!

> "what is governments role"?

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
I don't want government to do anything for me, and I don't want it to force me at gunpoint to do anything at all.
A monopoly cannot do anything good that a free competitive market cannot do better.

> "the anarchist finds it perfectly acceptable to tear down that
> government to build a new one."

If you want someone to rule over you by force, you are not an anarchist. What kind of government would you consider "anarchy?"

> "if something aint working the way it was meant to,get rid of
> it and try another."

What if I don't want you or anyone else imposing rulers on me? What if I believe I have a right to self-ownership and voluntary interactions and property?
What if I don't want your form of "government?' Then what? You still want to impose it on me?
I thought you were my friend.

> "well in an unrestricted market and pesky government out of
> the way what do YOU think is going to happen to a system
> driven by self interest and profit?"

Everything will improve. But government had to be totally out of the way. btw, where do you get that government is not driven itself by self-interest and profit?

> "and i am ok with that."

Well, the difference between what you want and what I want is that what I want is not to be imposed on you but what you want is to be forcefully imposed on me, violently too, if I don't comply.

> "illegal to have an employee owned business."

Like I said, government is a problem.

> "i dont know why it was illegal in this area and i dont see how
> employee owned companies would threaten a free market."

In a free market anyone can own any business they want or else it is not a free market.

> "but as you figured out.
> economics is not my strong suit."

Just because there is a law prohibiting co-op ownership of a bar, it does not mean that it is there for some reason that makes economic sense. It actually makes no economic sense so it must be there for some political reason or because someone somewhere profits from this restriction, as is always the case with regulations.

> "and my man,cant tell ya how grateful i am to have had this
> conversation with you.i learned tons,about you and your
> views and even some about free markets."

Remember, a free market means free, not "semi" free. Not privilege for some, like regulations tend to do.
Always a pleasure.

In their defense though, this is the most human I've seen these people act so far. so in that aspect, it's actually somewhat refreshing.

And see, that's the thing. I'm voting Obama, and while I do firmly believe the right is becoming more and more out of touch with the average American and that the right's goals will not be good for this country. As robotic, dysfunctional, and as pretentious as these two are, they're still human beings and even if Romney wins, the nation will *not* go to hell in a handbasket. Romney is not Hitler. Romney is not a terrorist. Romney is an American Citizen.

Now try and get a right winger to say that about Obama.

Umm. But bush was fascist like... Not hitler, but he said himself he would prefer a dictatorship.

In one fell swoop the Patriot Act stole more freedoms from Americans than any administration had previously done. The Bush administration unrepentantly approached all national and international activities unilaterally without debate or diplomacy.

The difference is: People protested Bush because he DID remove freedoms.

There hasn't been one single clamp down on freedom's since Obama was elected. Not agreeing with the policies is not the same thing.

^Only in the best sense of the word. I know all of you Socialists want to be like Hitler, but it's comforting to know you're really Libertarians and not Hitler at all.

>> ^Peroxide:
My point, should i restate it, is that generalizing all religions into one "categorization," exactly the same, and each as capable as the next of evils; is MISGUIDED.
That would be equivalent to me saying that because Hitler embraced evolution, all evolutionists embrace Hitler ( which by the way, i embrace. Evolution that is, not Hitler)
STOP GENERALIZING

Oh Please, it's fair to lump religions as she does. It's not generalizing when the negative aspects of religion she points out can be attributed to the vast majority of religions. And news flash, every religion is as capable of "evil" as every other, be it exploitation, exclusion or indoctrination.

I'll tell you what I'll accept that she was unfairly generalizing if you can name a single religion that doesn't exclude people, doesn't have a history of violence, doesn't indoctrinate its youth, doesn't exploit its followers and doesn't throw rational thinking out the window.

My point, should i restate it, is that generalizing all religions into one "categorization," exactly the same, and each as capable as the next of evils; is MISGUIDED.

That would be equivalent to me saying that because Hitler embraced evolution, all evolutionists embrace Hitler ( which by the way, i embrace. Evolution that is, not Hitler)

STOP GENERALIZING

>> ^Peroxide:
So religion caused the holocaust hey? ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer


Dietrich Bonhoeffer's religion didn't cause the holocaust, Adolf Hitler's beliefs caused the holocaust. Whether or not Hitler's beliefs about Jewish extermination were due to religion or not has been a topic of debate among much smarter people than myself. This wikipedia article has a lot of information on the topic.
My point is, pointing to Bonhoeffer doesn't prove that religion didn't cause the holocaust, it proves that Bonhoeffer's blend of religion didn't cause the holocaust.

You call this a community, but you consider everything on an individual level, as if there's no such thing as "knock-on effects". Myopic is the word.
You introduce features and then stare blankly at the dissenters, shrugging your shoulders and saying "but we can't see the problem".

good luck with that.

for more information see USSR, 1984-1991. Not Hitler. Hitler would have sorted this place out in no time.

Oh please.

Don't be this patheitc. Obama is not Jesus, and Hillary is not Hitler. They are both equally pandering politicians, and if you're a Dem, they're all you got. It's either one of them, or McCain.

(insert retarded "but Hillary is a Republican!" nonsense)

So she went on Fox News. So did Kucinich, like 100 times, and noone started crying like a baby then. Just stop it people.

Five seconds of googling reveals that the "strength in numbers" quote is Jesse Ventura quoting Karl Marx not Hitler.

Nice research staff, Joe.

I loved the Hedges war book as well, but I fear that he may be fearmongering in the most empty way in the new book.

He seems to paint a picture of psychological and economic devastation along with a crippled Progressive movement in America during the 'Aughts that has served only to boost the fortunes of the evangelical 'fascists'. But the Hedges' fascists have been around an awfully long time, from Billy Sunday to Billy Graham to Jimmy Swaggart to Jerry Falwell to Ralph Reed to Robertson/Dobson, from Black Baptists to White Southern Baptists. And there haven't been forced re-locations and mass exterminations (yet).

Like his counterparts in the Bush White House and on the Right, Hedges now finds America particularly vulnerable to attack and control from the fascist Other. It is empty when Cheney does it and I find it equally vacuous when Hedges does it.

If anything, the Dobsonite Right in America is equivalent to something like Hamas (provides social services and a lot of angry rhetoric) and not Hitler or Mussolini or Al Qaeda. I also think that the conflation of the neocons with the Christianist is a bit of a mistake, though their interests are certainly convergent now. Although Hedges backs away from the direct Italian fascism, Spanish fascism, and German fascism comparisons in interviews, his 'generalized' theoretical fascism that he prefers (ivory tower fascism) is a construct without a sound historical anchor. Or a boogeyman in the closet.

But it is a very good fight to incite and I am glad Hedges is taking it on. Certainly, the Christianists are far more interested in crippling the judicial branch than they have been historically.