http://www.isil.org/resources/fnn/2007sept/text-wmsbg-speeches/maccallum-somalia.html

I don’t mean to come across as sounding harsh, as that’s not my intent. I do, however, still disagree with your angle of approach on this matter and the subsequent commentary you have attached to it.

I don’t intend to attack your position towards corporations, as even Adam Smith once opined that it was dangerous to detach profits from responsibility. I do, however, seek to dismantle some of the supporting comments you’ve made as if they’re a matter of fact when, in fact, they are not.

You stated:
“When the farmers in the South and West were being squeezed by railroads and banks, they formed alliances that grew into political entities. They were thus able to pass regulations limiting the despotic power that corporations wielded over common people.”

While true that there was tension between railroads and banks, you are dismissive of the causes in what appears to be a selective interpretation of history.

The railroads were more or less granted privileges by government that should not have been allowed (and would not have been allowed under a libertarian system). In fact, most railroads were subsidized by the government, which allowed for a great deal of centralization. They (the railroads) were also doing some unsavory business deals with Standard Oil, which is a side issue, but when news of this relationship broke the market ecosystem punished Standard Oil, as drillers stopped selling their product to them (allowing Rockefeller’s maneuvering to blow up in his face).

Progressives seem to have a selective memory when it comes to the railroad, praising the ‘voice’ of the masses for rising up and calling for regulations that tamed their wicked practices. In actuality, it was the same government that enacted such regulations that allowed the railroad monopoly to develop in the first place.

The ‘issue’ with the banks of which you speak is actually a reflection of the worst aspects of populism, and is a large part of my opposition to the early populist movement. What populists were seeking to do was trade in their silver certificates at the same value as a gold certificate which, in effect, is like calling 50 cents a dollar. Add a dash of Bryanesque grandstanding and you have the nasty beginning of mob-rule democracy.

“The challenge will be to avoid the fate of the Populist party, which was brought on by trying to deal with a major party from a weaker position. Dealing with other parties is part of politics, but it can only hurt the smaller party if they don’t enter the room as an equal player.”

My reading of history seems to be more in the direction that the populists actually overtook the Bourbons and, in capturing the Democratic Party, saw no need for a third party anymore. This is evidenced by Bryan’s 3-time selection for the nomination to the presidency.

Granted, I know that Bryan was not the embodiment or only leader of the populist movement, nor do I seek to make the assumption that he was. But, it is worth noting that he was the most prominent of populists, and his (sad) victory over the Bourbons in the Democratic Party had much more to do with populists drifting in to the Democratic Party than any particular failure of the Populist Party itself.

All that being said, I still tend to agree with you and Adam Smith concerning the detachment of profits from ownership. I’d actually like to see more criticism of corporations from libertarians, as I think much of the current criticism is lost on the mainstream public since it is attached to people generally of the far-left persuasion. Most ‘anti-corporation’ types (from what I’ve observed, but by no means am I assuming you’re among this group) seem to bash corporations while only proposing socialism as an alternative form of business. This isn’t necessarily fair, but it’s the perception. Just like many of the lesser-educated mainstream left-leaners seem to think what the Republicans advocate is free market economics, when it most certainly is not. Again, turning back to Adam Smith, the short-term interest of some capitalists is often the enemy of capitalism.

A truly free market (one without corporations or socialist intervention) would be the fairest way to deal with many of these issues, but most people have been trained to either fear this idea or are too stuck in their overly-democratic use of ‘social democracy,’ be it for labor or corporate gains.

” Greens must give up socialism.”

Socialism is dead.

Long live the new socialism: http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-06/nep_newsocialism

I was speaking to Ronald Lake. Not to you.

For the record. I have been done with you folks for a long time now.

Too busy, working with people who are serious about building alternatives to the rotten, pro-war, corporate corrupted system.

Bye Bye.

//:-)>———–

Libs: smaller government with out criticizing the worst agencies, like lethal military veterans [so called] care. Like they really do not want to make a difference.

Libs: criticism of Social Security as a retirement plan with out a peep on nation wide high profile proposition[s] for privatization of such. Like they really do not want to make a difference.

Greens: anti war with out reaching out to proven but not long term, ‘proven comfortable’, non traditional, non leftie organizations. Rebuffing and rejecting them left, right, and center. Like the really do not want to make a difference.

Government can only maintain its rule over us by having a monopoly on force. That is all that separates a government agent from me or you. It is what allows congressmen to make laws which affect us, but does not allow us to make laws which affect them.

Government only works in a world wherein those in charge of it are somehow simply better human beings than the rest of us. They aren’t. They never have been and they never will be.

I want to emphasize that there are plenty of good folks in Greens for Democracy and Independence. It was a handful of Destructo-Greens who caused our problems on the National Committee.

Michael Cavlan // May 8, 2009 at 12:10 am

“Lou Novak

Just had a thought.

do not respond to this. Please. No point.

I will stop being dragged into infighting and petty back and forth attacks.

I have found a group of dedicated activists with whom I and others can work with.

You do your gig and we will do ours.

Good luck with your ventures, go with God.”

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/05/michael-cavlan-appearance-on-gpw-radio/

What a total crock. When Greens like Phil Huckelberry wanted the National Party to focus on things like ballot access, Cavlan and his pals were staging one disruption on the National Committee after another. All the witch hunts for “Demo-Greens”, the attacks on smaller state parties instead of building them up, the inflation of submicroscopic arguments to intergalactic proportions, the slandering of our staff, etc.

Cavlan and his pals did a number on the Green Party and then they turn around and complain about how ineffective it is. Amazing.

Rabidly anti-poor folks, pro-police, authorized the police to brutalize protesters during the RNC last year and a whole lot of other real neato stuff.

Green pages or GP WAtch will never tough this little story.

The folks who actually did that were the Nader supporters and other GDIers. But they/we have been disenfranchised and/or driven out by people determined to do nothing and make a lot of noise doing it.

It was in that context that I made my cute story comment. You can not build on the ideals of progressive popularism when you drive out the very folks who represent that.

Oh well, as the Minnesota Green Party completely implodes over the attempt to un-endorse Cam Gordon, the GP Councilman in Minneapolis for his own endorsing of the Democratic Party mayor, amongst other things (oddly, this story is not covered in GP Watch, (oh yeah GP censorship) many of us are carrying on and organizing elsewhere.

Carry on though. Please.

What a funny, cute little story.”

The worst big town mayor since Jerry Springer is merely a media humor factoid? No wonder the country and culture is going to Hyades! Some sense of humor Mike!

The Libertarian Party is also there to establish the rights of the individual and the role of government to secure those rights. Only individuals have rights, not groups of people. It doesn’t matter if those groups are certain segments of society based on race, gender, religious or sexual preference etc. or a corporate entity.

I think we would be more effective to work together in this area.

While many pundits nowadays use ‘populism’ as a derogatory term for demagogic rabble-rousing, Jim Hightower uses it fully aware of populism as a distinct movement in American political history. When the farmers in the South and West were being squeezed by railroads and banks, they formed alliances that grew into political entities. They were thus able to pass regulations limiting the despotic power that corporations wielded over common people.

Of the five national parties, I see only the Greens ready and willing to tackle the pernicious influence of corporations over our government. The challenge will be to avoid the fate of the Populist party, which was brought on by trying to deal with a major party from a weaker position. Dealing with other parties is part of politics, but it can only hurt the smaller party if they don’t enter the room as an equal player.

By denying to humans the fiat authority only granted by the title of “government”, however, we can limit the scope of harm that can be done. Hence, anarchism is the only way to build a peaceful and free society.

It used to be that corporation were regarded with great suspicion. They were chartered only for a specific purpose and a limited amount of time. They could not own property or hold stock in other corporations. Conservatism changed that in the 19th century.

Now corporations have been granted the rights of people, they can own property and not only can they go on forever, the government will help them go on forever if they are big enough.

That is a big, big problem, and it can only be addressed by asserting the rights of the individual.