(The following was originally published on UnitedStatesMarijuana.com)
The “United We Stand” festival kicked off on May 10th in downtown Los Angeles at the Belasco Theater with musical guests Immortal Technique, Wu-tang Clan, Rooftop Revolutionaries, A-Alikes, Sounds of Solidarity, Kellee Maize, and Chuck D of Public Enemy. Social activists on a #waveofaction at the festival included comedian Lee Camp, Green party political candidates Rosa Clemente and Jill Stein, March Against Monsanto founder Tami Canal, Emma Cape of Free Chelsea Manning, Diane Goldstein of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, authors Rosa Koire, Ellen Brown, and David Swanson, and dozens more.
LOS ANGELES — Hosted by the Free & Equal Elections Foundation, the inaugural “United We Stand” festival kicked off on May 10th in downtown Los Angeles, showcasing music, journalism, and political visionaries on subjects including the war on drugs, drone warfare, foreign policy, Internet freedom, election reform, corporatism, central banking, and the oneness of the human beings of the world.
Originally planned for UCLA’s Pauley Pavilion as the launch of a 10-city university tour, the UWS festival location was changed just three days before the concert. Organizers effusively thanked the Belasco Theater for accommodating Saturday’s festival on less than 24 hours notice, after UCLA rescinded the offer for the scheduled venue.
United We Stand organizers noted, “The Woodstock location withdrew a few days before the event and had to be relocated to a farm (outside of Woodstock). Keep up your spirits, Free & Equal intends for this event to have similar historic implications towards the goal of world peace.” With the success of the last minute change, “this event sets up an even greater path for future festivals.”
Tickets for the event were sold via an IndieGoGo crowdfunding campaign and though Ticketmaster; however, after the venue was relocated, free admission was offered to all event attendees (current ticket holders received refunds). After last minute communications about the change of venue, attendees lined up outside the historic Belasco Theater on S. Hill St. for admission late Saturday afternoon.
When comedian Lee Camp took the stage, he joked “United We Stand! Now on the sidewalk outside the theater for hours…” He added, “sorry about that. We just did that because we wanted you to stand. United.”
The spirited crowd responded with exuberant applause and cheers to Lee Camp’s joke about the logistics of the festival. He continued, “We’re here because we’re in the middle of some deep shit. We’re here because every time I turn on the TV, maybe the Mayan prediction that the world was going to end in the end of 2012, maybe it wasn’t a prediction. It was a recommendation.”
“Look around. There’s economies collapsing around the world. No one’s got a good job. There’s dogs in sweaters and kids on leashes!” observed Mr. Camp.
“We are witnessing the liquidation of everything we’ve built over the last two hundred, maybe a thousand years. This unfettered capitalist domination of the mental sphere…is an extraction…of anything and everything that matters to the average human being.”
Lee Camp told the audience, “We’re putting our differences aside long enough to realize the two party duopoly is nothing but a sham. We agree on 90% of the structural issues in this country. Ask them what the differences are…in Wall St. or the military-industrial complex or the prison-industrial complex.”
On the subject of the American mass incarceration, Lee Camp accused, “We have 5% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s prisoners! Is that a bad idea?”
Specific political policies mentioned by speakers included the Patriot Act, the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act, warrantless wiretapping by the NSA, the web of debt created by the Federal Reserve, and UN Agenda 21 “sustainable development” social engineering. Poems, songs, and speeches also mentioned imperialism, war on foreign soils and by drone, the military industrial complex, the prison-industrial complex, and the corporate control of our modern government.
After an inspiring talk by criminal defense attorney Freddy Sayegh on the subject of food justice, the crowd broke out into an impromptu cheer of “Fuck Monsanto” reminiscent of the battle cries at any American sporting event.
Musical acts included revolutionary rapper Immortal Technique, founding members of Wu-tang Clan Cappadonna, U-God, and Masta Killa, the political hard rock band Rooftop Revolutionaries, independent hip Florida hop artists A-Alikes, funk band Sounds of Solidarity, and female rapper Kellee Maize. Due to the all-star nature of the five-hour evening, even headlining acts were limited to 15 minute set times.
Immortal Technique opened his short set rapping his chilling song “Bin Laden,” accusing the U.S government of masterminding terrorism. “Bush funded al-Qaeda, and now they blame the Muslim religion, even though bin Laden was a CIA tactician, t
hey gave him billions of dollars, and they funded his purpose, Fahrenheit 9/11, that’s just scratchin’ the surface.” He morphed into “The Point of No Return,” indicting the perpetrators of genocide and imperialism throughout history.
Addressing the audience, Immortal Technique made a commentary on the power of words. “When I say autistic, I don’t mean retarded, but a genius alive in a world of darkness. But regardless, our world is heartless…. I’m out of shits I used to give, so trust in death, I see the lives I used to live, our future kids…under this tutelage. When I say hip hop, I don’t mean the music, I mean the culture, not the vultures!”
Independent citizen journalism was recurring topic of the evening, with panelists including Emmy-award winning CNN International whistleblower Amber Lyon, Abby Martin of RT, Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange.org, Mint Press News founder Mnar Muhawesh, Nick Bernabe of The Anti-Media, Brad Friedman of KPFK, and countless other authors and members of the press.
One citizen journalist in attendance observed that she was “really moved that I saw NO MAINSTREAM MEDIA at #UnitedWeStand. Meanwhile, alternative media, social influencers and live streamers came out in force. The people’s media was given full access to concert speakers, artists, and organizers. There was so much solidarity and cooperation between media teams.”
The stated goal of United We Stand is to use “the momentum of the tour [to] unite and empower voters and build a base of supporters for young people running for local office in 2014.” The foundation plans to support debate initiatives to support “new candidates for office, especially those running for Congressional seats.”
Or, as Lee Camp asked, “The question now is just whether we will put our differences aside long enough to tell the assholier than thou titans of dickery at the top to go frack themselves with a rusty dildo!”
Not according to the exit polls, nor according to pre-election polls.
Plenty of polling was already done.
See https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/11/paulie-response-to-carrie-sheffield-at-forbes-on-who-will-be-the-next-libertarian-spoiler/
http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/11/sarvis-non-role-in-mcauliffes-victory-ov
Yes, and your brother/cousin/uncle CLC is straight, he just enjoys gay male porn. I sense a pattern here.
I’m referring to McAuliffe’s baggage.
s: Sarvis most definitely was a spoiler for Cuccinelli.
me: Do you have data to back that up?
I certainly can imagine many D and D-leaning VAns not wanting to vote for a person with his baggage.
Paul and Robert. Sarvis most definitely was a spoiler for Cuccinelli. There is nothing wrong with that.
Ed Crane quickly formed the Purple PAC and put I believe $425k into ads of or Sarvis to position him as a non-radical alternative to Cuccinelli (the irony huh?).
Conservative voters who saw Cuccinelli as an extremist on social issues went for Sarvis as a result of Purple PAC marketing. My own father-in-law, a conservative preacher shocked me by offering that he would be voting for Sarvis — as did his conservative parents. I thought I was in the Twilight Zone for a minute.
The end result is that Cuccinelli lost, just as intended.
Paul, if you want to put the turnout theory to the test, I can poll libertarian-leaning Virginians to see if it holds water. Just send me your questions.
I am not a “LaRouchie”. I admire him for coming up with solutions to issues by research and thought, but I am not one of his followers. I think it better to think about and inform oneself about issues and propose solutions instead of relying on the unproven fairy tales that form the basis of libertarianism.
I think I’ll stop “discussing issues” with a LaRouchie now, as NN has come out as one on another thread. It’s sort of like trying to teach a pig to sing.
Nathan,
Well, it’s better than the statist/collectivist/liberal-conservative everyone perishes either in war or mindless poverty. Aside from which, charity, keeps at least some of the “weak” from perishing. Not to mention the benefits of the wealth generated by free markets, private property, competition and profit seeking. Those societies tend to have “poor” who are far better off than the poor or middle class or above of the socialist cesspools.
My apologies, CLC’s husband and brother-cousin-uncle Nathan Norman. I must have been wrong about the tranny part but at least you are not disputing the rest so it must be correct. Where did you get the incredibly ridiculous notion that in a market “only the strongest survive and the weak perish”? Unless you mean businesses, where that is actually a good thing. What you are describing sounds more like North Korea or Pol Pot’s Cambodia than a market economy, if you mean human beings perishing. Blessings of Allah and his prophet Muhammad upon you!
Tranny? That is incredibly inappropriate. I expect nothing less from libertarians who worship a market in which only the strongest survive and the weak perish.
God bless you Nathan Norman. I assume you are CLC’s tranny husband and brother-cousin-uncle. Did you know government is by far the biggest polluter in the world and that it actually shields polluters from responsibility for the damage they do by preventing them from being sued in many cases, and capping the judgements in others? And that is just one of the many, many ways government hurts our natural environment. Did you know that government bails out failing corporate behemoths? Did you know that big government and big corporations are heavily intertwined with each other, prop each other up and work together against everyone else? Did you know that safety in the workplace and for consumers (among many other government regulations that were passed) was actually improving faster *before* these government laws and regulations were passed and that when government intervened it essentially killed this progress? Maybe instead of just assuming that government laws, regulations and spending are effective at achieving their stated purposes you should investigate a bit beyond the surface.
Dunno. Hopefully some people have been moved to be more active in the anti-duopoly cause as a result of the speeches, music and whatnot. Or maybe that is just wishful thinking.
Back to the original topic – where is this “wave of action” ignited by the festival?
Nope. Not with strict liability, along with many other things I mentioned earlier. Small business would flourish, as would voluntary cooperative efforts; big businesses would be too big not to fail.
For the answers you can start by reading this:
http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/rutoc.html
Read the whole thing or just the chapters that most interest you. But really you should read the whole thing, or better yet the new edition (however the old edition is online for free).
True that there wouldn’t be incorporation without government but there still will be big business monopolies; even larger than today because there wouldn’t be antitrust actions. How do you prevent pollution without government? How do you enforce safety regulations or unfair trade practices?
Glad it came together to some extent; too bad it was not even better than it was. Hopefully there will be more and better events in the future and that they will learn from what they did right and what they did wrong. Clearly they need better detail management, which will hopefully come with experience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFaVmVpEIZ8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFaVmVpEIZ8
http://dailybruin.com/2014/05/08/united-we-stand-festival-cancelled-scheduled-to-relocate/
I’d like to say that the two young men helping Christina, Alex Fidel and Derek Leininger, were absolutely wonderful. They were both working very hard, and both were amazing. Alex is a friend and I know he was exceptional, but I only met Derek when he came to speak to our group about the event. He’s a real greatperson.
I congratulate them all for putting on a great show!
My intent had been to write a review of the event, but I was quite burned out from it Sunday, plus it was Mother’s Day, and then by Monday a couple of good reviews were posted and I really didn’t have anything else to say. It probably looks like I was being negative about the event by the way I answered the questions above, but, actually, they did pull it off. The crowd was excited, and there were good messages in the music and many of the speakers said good things against the duopoly, giving people other choices,and so on, which was, I think, what the goal was. My opinion is that Christina had a very huge vision, and probably no one could have pulled it off. I don’t know. They barely had time for the people who were there to perform and speak, so it’s probably a good thing that some people (Larry King, Dennis Kucinich, and Gary Johnson) never showed up, because there just wan’t time. Christina is definitely a “big picture” person as opposed to details, which is just fine. I’m that way, actually. I don’t know if they’ll really be able to do it in 9 more cities. I know for a fact that many of the performers/speakers were quite upset over the lack of a venue for a few days. I don’t know if there will be repercussions for Free & Equal.
As far as whether the event made money, I don’t know how it could have. The two sponsors advertised were Ben & Jerry, and Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, but neither of them were mentioned that day at all, which makes me think they withdrew when the venue cancelled. The concert was free, and there weren’t concessions, so they didn’t make money there. However, if the $100,000 relegated to Pauley Pavilion was refunded (the $10,000 down payment, plus the $90,000 from the mystery donor), then they may have been able to break even. Christina said Friday night that she was hoping to get a $20,000 loan for the event at the hotel Friday night, and another for Saturday night. Perhaps that was to pay for the guests’ rooms. I don’t know.
As far as Starchild’s question about Libertarians being put on the back of the schedule, that may have come from my comment. There was a script that a person at my table had a copy of, but I wasn’t able to get one. They went off script fairly soon, though. I know that at 8:30 the man at the table showed me that we were only seeing the acts scheduled to appear at 6:30, so they were way behind very soon. At 9, I asked if we were halfway through the script, and my table-mate said “not even close”.In retrospect, the Libertarian I was thinking of was Gary Johnson,and he never came on, but I can’t imagine that he would have been there but not given any time. There were many Liberty minded people there who were allowed to speak. The only people with concrete goals or suggestions, however, seemed to me to be Rosa Clemente and Jill Stein, who did not pose libertarian solutions.Dr. Stein really did ask the crowd if they thought everyone should have a guaranteed income and, of course, they did.
Abruptly at 10:00 the event happened, because I guess the theater had something else going on that eventing. There was undoubtedly more that had been planned, but considering there had been almost 4 hours, I think it was a good time to close.
The attorney on Friday night told us the theater would hold 1800, but I can’t imagine that’s true. The figure of 1000 from the LA Times article seems much more accurate. For a time, it was thought people would be turned away, but I don’t think that happened. There might have been 1000, but the building wasn’t that packed. Maybe 800 people?? It’s hard to say.
I read the article in the Daily Bruin, and was there when Christina explained what happened. It seems pretty clear to me that the Festival was cancelled at UCLA because she didn’t pay on time. There was a $90,000 payment due at noon on Monday. Christina asked for, and was told she would get, a 24-hour extension. According to Christina’s story, she found an “angel” Tuesday morning who was willing to donate $90,000. The two of them talked to their contact at UCLA Tuesday morning as a conference call, and it was agreed the angel would wire the money. She said it might take a little longer than noon, and was told, apparently, that was okay. The wired money arrived at 12:30, but at 2:00 the UCLA person emailed Christina that the event hd been cancelled. You can all draw your own conclusions, but I certainly can’t put the fault on UCLA.
There’s a ten-minute video posted on IPR on one of these threads where Christina tells the story. The video was taken by Gary Franchi of the Next News Network.
I’ll answer Starchild’s questions, then look up and post the Bruin article and the video in a new comment.
Supposing that part about being relegated to the end is true, maybe they saved the best for last. You don’t put the headlining act at the beginning of a multi-performer event, after all.
As far as I know, unless I was misinformed, because they did not receive the agreed upon deposit by the agreed upon deadline.
This article – http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-united-we-stand-festival-20140510-story.html
From what I see, it looks like UCLA didn’t receive payment on time. As for attendance, I’ve heard numbers over 1000. But, according to this article, maximum capacity is just 1016. Jill Pyeatt may be able to help us get a handle on the number, if she has an idea of the percentage of seats filled. Ya gots anything, Jill?
Getting back to the original topic of this post, I’m glad to hear the United We Stand festival went off successfully despite hitches, and thanks to everyone who organized, performed, attended, etc.
A few things I’m wondering about…
• How many people attended?
• Did the event pay for itself and make money, or wind up in the hole? Numbers?
• Is the university tour still planned, and if so, what are the current plans for that if any?
• Why did UCLA pull the rug out from under the event at the last minute? Could this have been an establishment “dirty tricks” move, or is there a more innocent explanation?
• Is it true that libertarians were relegated to the end of the event, and if so, why was this allowed when the Libertarian Party is the largest and strongest alternative party in the U.S.?
Deran (May 15, 2014 at 12:13 am) writes, “It seems to me that the historical flaw in the argument that it’s the government not capitalism that’s the problem is that capitalism as we know it has existed for several hundred years, and even in the course of the last hundred or so, governments, even nationstates, have come and gone, capital remains. Democratic cnstirutionalism has acted as a sort of shock absorber against the worst excesses of capitalism, but the reason keynesianism fails is because it allows capitalism to remain. And where money is involved in vast accumulated piles, those sitting atop those piles of money will always be working to undermine, work around and abolish all reforms, regulations and taxes that impede the further accumulation of wealth by fewer and fewer people.”
I believe quite a different and no less (I would argue more) factually correct picture can be drawn with regards to the State, using parallel language:
It seems to me that the historical flaw in the argument that it’s capitalism and not government that’s the problem is that government as we know it (i.e. based on aggression) has existed for thousands of years. Even in the course of the last hundred or so years, currencies and centers of wealth have come and gone, but coercive government remains. Democratic constitutionalism has acted as a sort of shock absorber against the worst excesses of government, but the reason it fails is because it has allowed statism to remain. And where power is involved in vast accumulated piles, those sitting atop those piles of power will always be working to undermine, work around and abolish all freedoms, individual rights and independent voices that impede the further accumulation of power by the people in control.
The graphic posted by Paulie above with the quote from James Madison is very apt.
Bingo!
Same here, and I came from the left myself.
That has been going on for decades. It is intensifying, I agree. And will intensify more, which I see as a sign that we are making some good inroads and becoming a real threat to them…as we should be.
Sarvis was not a “spoiler” despite all the NSGOP whining about how he was. If anything he earned more votes away from McAuliffe than from Cuccinelli and gave a large percentage of his voters a reason to vote whereas they had none with the other two and would not have voted at all if he was not in the race.
Libertarians should cooperate with all the other parties and ideologies in areas where we agree and/or have mutual goals (even if for completely different reasons) but at the same time not downplay the differences. There is a reason why we are not Democrats, Republicans, Greens, CPers, Conservatives or Progressives, etc. And yet we have issues, causes and so forth in common with each of them, and there is no reason not to cooperate on those. Existing solely in isolation will get us nowhere.
shane: Ed Crane proved the low-cost value of a libertarian spoiler last year …
me: Expand on this, please.
I think you have it backwards Shane. As awful as they are, Republicans still win elections. Libertarians do not.
Andy: “Would you say the same thing about Libertarians working with people on the right, as in with conservatives or Republicans? Some of them are just as hostile towards libertarianism as some people on the left are.”
For the most part, yes. I would say they are more hostile to libertarians — especially here in VA after last year’s election.
There are a few “coalitions” that may be worth while — I’m just saying, let’s not force it for unity’s sake.
Republicans are beginning to fear Libertarians and are starting to talk like us — however they’ll continue to govern the same, and they’ll continue to lose.
Ed Crane proved the low-cost value of a libertarian spoiler last year and I would expect campaign strategists around the country are beginning to see the value in supporting a third-party candidate that falls in line ideologically with their opposition.
That’s about the only real support we’ll get from the left or the right — and it plays into our long-term goals.
Here is Adam Kokesh debating a conservative at CPAC on the “logic” of marijuana prohibition:
Based on this video, should libertarians not work with conservatives or Republicans in areas where there is common ground, or not do outreach to conservatives and Republicans?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QASvThi_VCA
“Shane May 15, 2014 at 9:45 am
The conversation above is the perfect example of why libertarians should not be wasting their energy and resources partnering with socialists and communists. Any progress that could be made with ballot access would be chewed up wasting time on trying to convince each other that their beliefs are correct.
Call me intolerant, but I have no patience for the idiocy of socialism. Jill Stein’s interview is a perfect example of these people having no concept of liberty and individual responsibility.
Let’s ride the train, headed in the same direction, with groups that have greater commonality — and they can get off on the earlier stops while the anarchists ride it off of the rails.”
I can’t say that I agree here. It can be advantageous to work with people or groups with different ideologies in areas where there are common ground, such as with ballot access, open access to debates, marijuana legalization, opposition to domestic spying, etc…
I can tell you that there are states where the Libertarian Party would not have made the ballot if not for working with Greens or others on the left.
This makes me think of the old Dale Carnegie book, “How To Win Friends and Influence People,” as Libertarians are not going to win friends, some of whom could be potential converts, if we refuse to work with anyone in areas of common ground just because we may disagree with them on other issues.
Sure, some people on the left are a lost cause when it comes to them becoming libertarians, but not all of them. I’ve met a lot of people who were leftists who became libertarians, and I think that I’ve helped convert some of them over to libertarianism.
Refusing to coalition with people on the left in areas where there is common ground would make libertarians look like a bunch of stuck up jerks, and would just confirm a lot of the misconceptions that people on the left have about libertarians.
Would you say the same thing about Libertarians working with people on the right, as in with conservatives or Republicans? Some of them are just as hostile towards libertarianism as some people on the left are.
I actually consider the average mainstream Republican to be worse than the average Green. Why? Because mainstream Republicans are anti-liberty on a lot of issues, and while Greens are as well, there are areas where Greens and Libertarians have common ground. Some will point out that there are areas of common ground between mainstream Republicans and Libertarians as well, and while this may appear to be true on the surface, the problem is that mainstream Republicans lie so much, or in the case of the rank-and-file Republicans, they are so easily duped by the lies told by Republican leaders, that you can’t really trust anything that mainstream Republicans say, because they so frequently say one thing and then do the opposite. The average Green is more honest than the average mainstream Republican, so at least with the Greens you actually know where they stand, unlike mainstream Republicans who are such a pack of liars and hypocrites that you can never really believe anything that they say.
The conversation above is the perfect example of why libertarians should not be wasting their energy and resources partnering with socialists and communists. Any progress that could be made with ballot access would be chewed up wasting time on trying to convince each other that their beliefs are correct.
Call me intolerant, but I have no patience for the idiocy of socialism. Jill Stein’s interview is a perfect example of these people having no concept of liberty and individual responsibility.
Let’s ride the train, headed in the same direction, with groups that have greater commonality — and they can get off on the earlier stops while the anarchists ride it off of the rails.
What exists is corporatism or government-corporate crony fascism, nothing like a free market. Governments have come and gone as have individual corporations but the system remains and the system is nothing like a free market.
Nice theory but the reality is far different.
It is always because government enables, facilitates and sometimes directly creates the process for it to do so.
Yes, they are not fond at all of free market reforms. Crony corporatists love big government, fund it, cherish it, and work to destroy its opponents every single day in countless ways.
You made funny joke.
In reality, the combined weight of regulations and taxes is exactly what causes vast accumulations of money because it is a lot harder for non-established players to live under those burdens, so the haves accumulate ever more, artificially absent would-be competition that is stifled by government red tape.
You have it entirely backwards. It is belief that government coercion can solve problems which is faith-based (and misplaced faith at that, based on massive amounts of empirical evidence showing how coercive monopoly government only makes problems worse and creates a multitude of new ones rather than solving them).
Changing people does not solve the systemic inadequacy of “solutions” based on coercion and violence.
You can if you are a shareholder, and you also vote with your dollars if you are a consumer and with who you choose to sell your labor to for as an employee, etc. All of which is bedides the point because big corportions only exist due to big government propping them up and cutting their upstart and would be competition off at the knees (or stangling in the womb). A true free market would be too turbulent to allow large accumulations of wealth, although even the poorest people in a truly free market would quickly become far wealthier than the wealthiest wealthy people are today.
Government, for politicians, bureaucrats and their friends and family as well as their incestuously partnered megacorporations? You are correct, they most certainly do.
Luckily libertarians do no such thing. Big corporations as we know them today would not exist without big government.
And trusting coercion-based government to fill the void it creates by destroying voluntary cooperation, civic society and truly freed markets is beyond insane.
Here it is:
Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein gets KOKESHED
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIxkXUU_9Kk
Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein gets KOKESHED
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIxkXUU_9Kk&list=UU0RJJ_Wm7jyOU9eY10LgcwA
“Deran May 15, 2014 at 12:13 am
It seems to me that the historical flaw in the argument that it’s the government not capitalism that’s the problem is that capitalism as we know it has existed for several hundred years, and even in the course of the last hundred or so, governments, even nationstates, have come and gone, capital remains.”
It seems that when people on the left attack libertarian economics, as in the free market, they always conflate corporate cronyism/corporatism/mercantilism, with the free market, when in reality, corporate cronyism/corporatism/mercantilism has nothing to do with the free market.
“Andy May 14, 2014 at 11:57 pm
James Ostrowski: Libertarians Batter the Corporate State
https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/james-ostrowski/libertarians-battle-the-corporate-state/”
Whoops, I just notice that I accidentally typed the word Batter instead of Battle. The article is actually titled “Libertarians Battle the Corporate State,” but now that I think about it, Libertarians Batter the Corporate State sounds pretty good as well, and is something of which I’d like to see more.
It seems to me that the historical flaw in the argument that it’s the government not capitalism that’s the problem is that capitalism as we know it has existed for several hundred years, and even in the course of the last hundred or so, governments, even nationstates, have come and gone, capital remains. Democratic cnstirutionalism has acted as a sort of shock absorber against the worst excesses of capitalism, but the reason keynesianism fails is because it allows capitalism to remain. And where money is involved in vast accumulated piles, those sitting atop those piles of money will always be working to undermine, work around and abolish all reforms, regulations and taxes that impede the further accumulation of wealth by fewer and fewer people.
http://youtu.be/eGOA2WedIQo
“Nathan Norman May 14, 2014 at 10:18 pm
The public elects people to make policy for the public. If you disagree with policy then change people.”
Yeah, and how has this been working out? Not too good. Power goes to a lot of people’s heads, and the type of people who are most attracted to government are sociopaths and psychopaths. Once in power these people rig the game so they can stay in power. Just look at how unfair the election system has become in the USA. Gerrymandering of voting districts. Restrictive ballot access laws. Shutting candidates who not Democrats or Republicans out of debates. Vote fraud. Etc….
People on the left want a big welfare state that is supposed to help people, but once money goes to the government you no longer have control over it. It takes a big taxing apparatus to support the welfare state. Sure, some of tax money goes to welfare programs, although it is a verifiable fact that government welfare programs are fraught with fraud, but a lot of tax dollars also get spent on things that a lot of people on the left say that they are against, such as wars of aggression and the domestic police state. The best thing that could be done to stop wars of aggression and to stop the domestic police state is to abolish taxation, or at least to drastically cut taxes, because then there would not be a government that would have the funding to wage a war of aggression abroad or to fund a domestic police state.
“You cannot elect people to big corporations. They make policy for private profit. Trusting them to fill the void left from lack of government under libertarianism is insanity.”
Corporations as we know they would not exist in a truly libertarian society. Corporations are legal fictions created by the state.
Having said this, nobody forces anyone to give money to a corporation (OK, outside of corporate welfare and government contracts, both of which are because of government). If you don’t like a business, then don’t spend any money with said business.
Try not “spending” money with the state (as in paying the government’s taxes, fines, and fees), and run the risk of the government sending its armed thugs after you.
James Ostrowski: Libertarians Batter the Corporate State
https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/james-ostrowski/libertarians-battle-the-corporate-state/
Free market =/= big corporations. Those corporations exist and have so much power because of government, not in spite of it. Government promotes corrupt corporate cronyism. Government passes laws & regulations that corporations can afford to comply with, and their smaller competitors can’t. Government squashes competition. Government gives sweetheart contracts, tax breaks, and subsidies to their corporate masters.
The corporate crooks are NOT the market. WE are the market. We decide who to do business with and who not. In a libertarian society, corporations are removed from the grasp of government and can succeed and fail based on our conscious decisions. Don’t like a product or service? Don’t like their ethics? Don’t like their CEO? You have the greatest vote of all. You refuse to give them your business, and with enough collective action & without the heavy hand of government to prop up the “too big to fail”, the corporate rat is reduced to nothing!
If you despise corporations, if you despise crony capitalism, if you despise the American oligarchy, vote Libertarian!
The public elects people to make policy for the public. If you disagree with policy then change people. You cannot elect people to big corporations. They make policy for private profit. Trusting them to fill the void left from lack of government under libertarianism is insanity.
“Nathan Norman May 14, 2014 at 9:34 pm
Libertarianism is a simple minded concept for those who don’t want to think too hard about economics. Believing the free market will solve all problems is akin to believing God will solve all problems. It’s faith based.”
And belief in government is not faith based? Government is not made up of angels, it is made up of people. If you don’t trust people, then why in the hell would you want to grant power to a subset of the population and call them government, especially given the fact that giving people power tends to make them more corrupt? It should not be surprising the government attracts sociopaths and psychopaths, much like fresh doggie doo in the lawn attracts flies.
Libertarianism is a simple minded concept for those who don’t want to think too hard about economics. Believing the free market will solve all problems is akin to believing God will solve all problems. It’s faith based. But rather than government using faith to keep people in line, big corporations embrace it to protect their interests.
“Shane May 14, 2014 at 1:19 pm
Josh, what substantive issues do we have in common with socialists and communists? Stein rallied for ‘a guaranteed monthly income for everyone who lives in America.'”
Part of it depends on the socialist or communist in question. Just as there is diversity among libertarians, there is diversity among people on the left as well.
There are obviously a lot of differences between libertarians and self avowed socialists and communists, however, there are areas of common ground on some issues in a lot of cases, such as legalizing marijuana and other drugs, supporting the right of people to marry who they want, opposition to police brutality, opposition to foreign wars of aggression, fair ballot access. open political debates, etc…
Some people on the left are a lost cause for being potential converts to libertarianism, but there are others on the left who are open to libertarians, some of them are just confused about economics.
Josh, what substantive issues do we have in common with socialists and communists? Stein rallied for “a guaranteed monthly income for everyone who lives in America.”
I was actually surprised that the writer said he didn’t know who Jill Stein is. She probably got more speaking time than anyone else, except for maybe Sean Stone, who seemed to be on most of the panels. I wasn’t familiar with him, BTW.
Dr. Stein seemed to really be enjoying herself. She’s quite petite, and has a very nice way about her. She always had a nice little group of fans around her. She, Ben Swann, and, of course, some of the musicians were always surrounded by fans.
Had he done any research at all or kept up with the event he would have known what it was. He would have known that Christina Tobin formerly worked on the Ralph Nader campaign as his ballot access coordinator, that Dr Stein has long been a confirmed speaker, that Free and Equal hosted the 2012 open debates in which both Stein and Anderson were participants. etc, etc, etc. But yeah, he seemed completely oblivious to what this event was about or that Free and Equal is truly a non partisan organization and that the goal is to bring together the outisders to work together on the issues which are many, that we agree on.
Agreed, Josh. He seemed to think it was a libertarian event, rather than a united opposition event.
I thought the parts about “communist” and “environmentalists” and particularly his opinion on Dr. Stein were negative. Also he said
“this was the other reason I decided to go to this event… to speak some of these rappers that are very close to figuring out what is wrong in the world (government and the central banks) and the solution (not more socialist/communist governments… the answer is 7 billion governments on Earth).
Unfortunately I never got to meet with Immortal and never even got to speak. And I would have really tore into those communists too… it’s too bad”
and he even added later,
“But, I would suggest that they get rid of these green party and communist people. Everyone else is talking about freedom and smaller government all the way down to zero government… then the watermelons (green on the outside and red on the inside) come on and act like they are part of the same theme… but they aren’t. What they want is even more government… just with the stolen money going to their favorite places.”
I would describe those as negative comments that don’t promote cooperation among third party activists, particularly progressives and libertarians.
Wish there had been a way for the other scheduled acts/speakers to have all been there but it was still a good start and hopefully something they will build on.
One small correction: Cappadonna was not one of the founding members of the Wu-Tang Clan.
Speaking as an LP member I did not see anything that I disagree with (unless there was something I missed?)
I did not see the negativity you noticed tho, and still don’t..
Joshua: exactly right in your last comment.
I understand and agree with the point that it is a bit unrealistic for all third parties to work together. But, on he areas where we agree we should work together. Take Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich for example, the most libertarian and most progressive member of congress. They often worked together. That didn’t happen from negative comments about one another. We have a lot in common, the progressives and liberty minded people, We want in the process, want in the debates, want civil liberties, we want peace, we want to audit the fed. Lets cooperate in fighting for those things.
Yes, it was a little negative, but I don’t think it was that bad. It simply was a different look at the event.
I believe in coalitions with other parties, especially here in Los Angeles County where we have a strong Liberty community. It would be good if all third parties worked together, but it’s perhaps a bit unrealistic. Many of the good liberty activists don’t align with any parties. We have a lot of people who self-identify as anarchists, for example. There aren’t a whole lot of issues in common between anarchists and Communists, except maybe anti-corporatism.
I think that write up ^^^ does a really poor job of promoting any cooperation at all among third parties. I found the tone to be rather negative when it would have been prudent, one would think, to highlight all of the positive aspects of the event to try and promote cooperation among third parties. At the end of the day, what we all want is to be heard in the political process, to be taken seriously, and to gain access to the national debates.
Here’s another good review. I also noticed that the Greens and communists had a very strong presence. I think the libertarians were mainly scrunched in at the end, and they had to end early.
http://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2014/5/10/united-we-stand-for-what-the-weekend-vigilante-may-10-2014.html
“The question now is just whether we will put our differences aside long enough to tell the assholier than thou titans of dickery at the top to go frack themselves with a rusty dildo!”
What a fabulousl statement! I wasn’t familiar with comedian, but he was very funny. This is an excellent review of the event.
The only point that I disagree with is the length of the event. It started at 6:15, and stopped abruptly at 10:00. I don’t know if there was another event scheduled, but Freddy the attorney actually said “get your asses outta here now” or something similar. Perhaps it was meant to be funny, but it didn’t strike me that way. It was a shame to end on such an unpleasant note, because it was a nice evening.