Ralph Nader and Ron Paul on Freedom Watch: Alliance Against Corporatism

From Raw Story via Poli-Tea:

on Wednesday’s broadcast of Freedom Watch on the Fox Business channel, Judge Napolitano sat down for an amiable interview with Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Ralph Nader to discuss a progressive-libertarian alliance in the 112th session of respective chambers in Congress.

Nader, who has recently called this coalition “the most exciting new political dynamic” in the US today, explained that it works well because both groups stand against corporatists who believe government should be run in the interests of corporations.

“I believe in coalitions,” Rep. Paul echoed. “They talk about we need more bipartisanship, and I say we have too much bipartisanship because the bipartisanship we have here in Washington endorses corporatism.”

Paul added that he agreed with Nader on a host of issues, such as cutting the US military’s budget, ending undeclared US wars overseas, restoring civil liberties and civil rights by dumping from the Patriot Act, and withdrawing from the NAFTA and World Trade Organization agreements. . . .

Ron Paul ran as the Libertarian Party candidate for President in 1988 and remains a life member of the Libertarian Party, saying recently that “I believe the Libertarian Party has done a great service in promoting the libertarian philosophy, and I continue to have many friends and supporters in the Libertarian Party.”

Ralph Nader ran as a Green Party candidate for President in 1996 and 2000 and as an Independent candidate for President in 2004 and 2008. In the 2010 elections, he campaigned for Green Party candidates such as Howie Hawkins for Governor of New York.

See previous IPR articles and comment threads:

Nader advocates for Progressive-Libertarian Alliance

Ron Paul could lead a new libertarian/progressive coalition

17 thoughts on “Ralph Nader and Ron Paul on Freedom Watch: Alliance Against Corporatism

  1. Brian

    This is great! Only problem is that the Tea Party isn’t anti-corporatist. Despite their free market rhetoric they have shown no willingness to address the size of the corporate state. I expect that they will continue corporate and agriculture subsidies just like their predecessors did.

  2. Pingback: Ron Paul and Ralph Nader Agree on Withdrawing from NAFTA and WTO | Conservative Heritage Times

  3. Gene Berkman

    “Corporatism” and “The Corporate State” do not refer to joint stock companies with limited liability. Corporatism generally refers to government intervention in economic matters, often in partnership with big business.

    The Corporate State in Italy under Mussolini was also called by Il Duce “National Social Syndicalism.”
    The Corporation (Corporazione) in Italy was a compulsory association of business enterprises and workers union, so they could receive orders from the state.

    Ron Paul I am sure understands Corporatism to mean state intervention. Nader seems to just think large businesses are inherently bad, and he finds common cause with Libertarians who oppose the specific bad things that businesses do when they partner with government.

  4. Gordon Caie Galveston Tx

    The corporations and wall St have nothing to fear from a Ron Paul administration or coalition. Dr. Paul knows it is these very same corporations which allow Americans a fruitful existence and the power they wield can help protect our liberties and are a great asset to our country. Now, that being said, Dr. Paul is an honest man, and if there are corporations that are inherently evil then they would have no place in a free society. But these misgivings of a “Bad Corporation” would come out in a court room lawsuit filed by complaints from people affected and ” the free market competition” will pile on to take them down. Now what we see is big governments hand swoops in and saves said “bad company” and bails it out at the last minute saving them from court..Or a miniscule fine to be paid when they have to take a company to court.
    They have been bailing out the airlines for decades and nothing changes.
    Auto as well.
    The only ones that need to fear Ron Paul are the ones against the Constitution, because thats whats coming for them, NOT RON PAUL!
    Ron Paul is very compassionate and will deliver equal justice.

  5. paulie Post author

    Gene Berkman @3 is correct. I’m not aware of Ron Paul specifically opposing noncensual limited liability, although I’m not aware of him specifically supporting it, either.

    Regardless of where they may part company down the line if we ever start heading in that direction, I think the salient point here is that Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Greens, Constitutionalists, Libertarians and people of like mind within both of the larger parties an outside of all political parties can all agree that government-corporate collusion is a huge and growing problem.

    This creates the potential for an anti-establishment/anti-corporatist synthesis, in opposition to the pro-establishment/pro-corporatist synthesis that sometimes gets called Bipartisanship in US politics.

  6. Gene Berkman

    I am not sure that everyone understands what “Limited Liability” means. It does not mean that a corporation is not liable for any and all damages it might be sued for. It means that people who own stock in a joint-stock company will not be personally liable for actions of the joint-stock company.

    Right now the owners of IPR are liable if IPR is sued. The contributors to IPR are not liable, so that is a form of limited liability. If not for that, I doubt that any of the contributors would work for this website.

  7. paulie Post author

    Why would IPR contributors be liable? We are volunteers who receive no compensation. You might as well say that commenters could be liable, as a whole, as in anyone who ever posted a comment at IPR.

    And, I understand why people want non-concensual limited liability. I believe you probably also understand why those who are damaged by corporate entities may want to have some recourse that is cut off by it. Suppose a corporation befouls your land, kills your kid and gives you a terrible disease. Then, they engage in creative accounting to say they can’t pay you any damages, while they rank in massive profits and enjoy great dividends for their managers and shareholders.

    Again, I don’t know where Ron Paul stands on this. I think Nader’s position may be that corporations should be chartered for limited purposes and not in perpetuity, as used to be the case.

    But either way, I think we can all agree that we are having increased degrees of corporatism in the same sense in which you defined it above in #3:

    government intervention in economic matters, often in partnership with big business.

    The Corporate State in Italy under Mussolini was also called by Il Duce “National Social Syndicalism.”

    The Corporation (Corporazione) in Italy was a compulsory association of business enterprises and workers union, so they could receive orders from the state. [..] bad things that businesses do when they partner with government.

    This is a huge problem, and it’s getting worse.

    If and when we reverse course, and start breaking up this partnership, we can at some point part company over how far we want to go. Now is not the time when that particular concern is a practical one.

  8. Jill Pyeatt

    paulie, you might call a local insurance compay and ask about buying a renters policy. They’re inexpensive, but will give you some personal liability in case any of the readers do go crazy and name you in a lawsuit. Just a suggestion.

    I very much appreciate what you do. I’m sorry that I got caught up in all the brouhaha over the weekend. There’s something in the air–people seem to be fighting everywhere.

  9. paulie Post author

    Dear readers:

    Feel free to name me in a lawsuit. I have no assets, virtually no income, and no physical address. I usually share motel rooms all over the US with other people, and I’m not usually the one who registers with the front desk. I don’t own a car or drivers license. I usually get paid in cash, and have no steady employment.

    If you win, good luck with collecting.

    Jill, thanks for the suggestion, but I can’t afford insurance.

  10. Gene Berkman

    “Suppose a corporation befouls your land, kills your kid and gives you a terrible disease. Then, they engage in creative accounting to say they can’t pay you any damages, while they rank in massive profits and enjoy great dividends for their managers and shareholders.”

    Creative accounting is not the same as limited liability. I don’t see how creative accounting can get a corporation out of any liability from a lawsuit. Creative accounting is normally done to avoid paying royalties to a creative artist, residuals to an actor, or taxes to a thief claiming the mantle of government.

    Anyway, can you name an example of a corporation using creative accounting to avoid liability?

    No, limited liability means the corporation is completely liable, but stockholders are not liable to the extant that assets that are not part of the corporation cannot be taken in a judgment against the corporation.

  11. Gene Berkman

    “Why would IPR contributors be liable? We are volunteers who receive no compensation. ”

    I used this to indicate that the liability of IPR is limited to the assets of IPR and its owners, and contributors are protected. In the same way, a corporation’s limited liability protects workers and shareholders against liability, but the corporation remains totally liable. (except in the case of nuclear power plant operators protected by Price-Anderson.)

    Many corporations do not pay dividends, so shareholders are not compensated that way. If you take away the concept of limited liability, then these non-compensated shareholders would be liable for the acts of the corporation. It would be hard to establish any cooperative enterprise, including a coop grocery store, if that were the case.

  12. paulie Post author

    Anyway, can you name an example of a corporation using creative accounting to avoid liability?

    Off the top of my head, a friend of a friend had her book essentially stolen by the publisher, who slapped her own writing into the text, published it under the original author’s name, refused to pull it, exercised the copyright on it, then reorganized her corporation under a new name after being sued and kept right on going.

    Again, this theoretical tangent about just how far we would want to go in curbing corporatism in an ideal world amounts to discussing whether we are getting off the train in New York or Boston when it’s off the tracks and headed for the Malibu coast.

  13. Gene Berkman

    Your friend could have sued the culprit as an individual. In the case of corporations or LLCs that are owned by a single person, the courts have over the last 20 years been looking behind the corporate shield.

    My source on this is the Nolo Press legal self-help book titled “Corporation or LLC?”

  14. Porn Again Christian

    http://thirdpartydaily.blogspot.com/2011/02/poll-68-see-collusion-of-big-government.html

    Poll: 68% See Collusion of Big Government and Big Business as Serious Threat
    From Rasmussen:

    68% of Likely U.S. Voters believe that government and big business already work together against the interests of consumers and investors. The latest Rasmussen Reports poll shows that only 13% disagree with this assessment, while 18% are not sure. The view that government and big business work together against the interests of others is shared across partisan, demographic and ideological lines . . .

  15. Pingback: Daily Paul: Ron Paul says NO 3rd Party or Independent Run | Independent Political Report

Leave a Reply