Posted on 09/19/2011 10:25:00 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Ralph Nader's sudden respect for Sarah Palin can only be understood by concluding Nader has only a superficial understanding of Palin's disdain for corporations that use connections with government to get unfair advantage.
Nader just sees Palin attacking corporations and, as an anti-capitalist crusader for the past five decades, gets a warm feeling in his heart. Mind, he still hates her aggressive foreign policy stance, but he really likes her taking on those big, evil oil companies.
The problem is, as Nader will no doubt shortly discover, while his approach to anti-corporatism stems from a socialistic perspective, Palin's comes from a libertarian point of view. Nader would like to curb corporate power by clamping down more rules and regulations, and even in some cases having the government take over corporations entirely.
Palin, on the other hand, would draw a bright line between business and state. Businesses would be able to make as much money as possible, under a sensible set of regulations and a low tax system, but would not be able to game the system for special advantages or get bailouts to cover for bad decisions.
Even so, the spectacle of Nader, former presidential candidate of the Green Party, giving praise to Palin, the heroine of the tea party, is something that nearly sends one to bizarro world. Doubtless Nader is not aware of Palin's very enthusiastic views on oil drilling and other forms of resource exploitation. Otherwise he might have to alter his perspective on the lady from Wasilla just a little bit.....
(Excerpt) Read more at associatedcontent.com ...
Libertarians want such little regulation that it is easy for some market participants to gain a monopolistic position from which they can game the system.
Palin's ideas are more, heaven forfend, populist. She would like to see sufficient regulation to prevent any company from gaming the system either through bribing government officials or ruling from a monopolistic roost.
I wish I could come with a word that isn’t “stupid” to describe these people.
Too much power concentrated in any one entity is almost never a good thing.
Using the power of the state to coerce people is not part of a free market.
Yep...power corrupts...absolute power corrupts absolutely...
In her book ‘America by Heart’ Palin said that there is a difference between free market and pro business - she said Republicans have been too much champions of Pro business policies instead of “true” free market principles....I agree
[ I wish I could come with a word that isn’t “stupid” to describe these people. ]
Nader is for freedom..
He wants the FREEDOM for himself to force YOU to do whatever he wants you to do..
As all socialists do..
Palin is just simply for Freedom..
[dramatic sting] DUM-DUM-DUUUUM!
That's straight out of the Marxist handbook. Monopolies can form only when government grants special rights to favored companies. Under true capitalism with no barriers to entry, competition will quickly work to deter monopolies.
Thank you BfloGuy. Every major Sherman Act case I know about fizzled after a few years because market forces changed the world.
Agreed. A perfect example is how many of them are willing to bend over and open their, uh, campaign contribution slots for Disney and the RIAA/MPAA every time they want to defy the founders' vision of copyright one more time.
Did this happen with Microsoft? With AT&T?
If you are against the creation of monopolies then you yourself are against free markets. In a completely free market corporations should be able to do whatever they want with their profits so long as it is legal. If it is legal for them to lobby congress for special favors then the free market should allow it.
What we have is the result of libertarian social policy: large corporations maintaining their monopolies through judicious use of their profits, i.e. lobbying congress for special favors.
Isn't libertarianism wonderful!
Using the power of the state to coerce people is not part of a free market.
This isn’t a good thing for Palin...Nader is the most anti-capitalist around...
Didn't McCain and Feingold try to do something like that? Wasn't that deemed by all conservatives and libertarians to be unconstitutional and antithetical to business?
Hmmm. Maybe the concept of a completely free market is incoherent. Market participants in a free market are free to change the nature of the market such that it is less free over time. This seems to occur on a regular basis. Maybe reality is more complicated than the Economics 101 lecture we are given so often by well-meaning but undereducated libertarians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.