Ralph Nader Q&A: How Progressives and Libertarians Are Taking on Crony Capitalism and Corrupt Dems and Reps

"The total support of the military-industrial complex and empire by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is staggering," Ralph Nader tells Reason TV. And don't get him started on the 2000 election.

"Everybody has an equal right to run for election. We're either all spoilers of one another, trying to get votes from one another or none of us are spoilers. We’re not second-class citizens because we’re a Green Party candidate or a Libertarian candidate....The brass of these two parties is they control the election machinery so they keep you off the ballot, harass you, file a lawsuit, delay you, exhaust you."

Nader's latest book is Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State.

The longtime consumer activist, recidivist presidential candidate, and several-time host of Saturday Night Live talks with Nick Gillespie about what he sees as a new libertarian-progressive attack on crony capitalism, whether GM cars were ever any damn good, and why the Democrats still wrongly insist that he cost Al Gore the 2000 presidential election. Oh yeah, and that article of his Reason published in the early 1970s.

It's a wide-ranging, spirited, fun, and at times contentious conversation.

About an hour long. Produced by Joshua Swain.

Transcript below.

This is a rush transcript.

GILLESPIE: Hi, I’m Nick Gillespie with Reason TV and today I’m happy to say we’re talking with the one and only Ralph Nader about his latest book Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State. Ralph, thanks for talking to Reason TV.

NADER: Thank you, Nick.

GILLESPIE: You were born in 1930.

NADER: 1934.

GILLESPIE: You are one of the most influential public policy advocates or social figures of the past 50 or 60 years, lets call it the post World War 2 era. You’ve been on Sesame Street, Saturday night live, the Ali g show, everything else. Your first big book was Unsafe at any Speed. In 1966, you followed that up with the NATO Report on the FTC, which might’ve been as influential in a lot of ways.  You’ve created organizations like Public Citizen as well as all the PIRGs that college students especially know about. In Unstoppable, you write about what you call the emerging left-right alliance to dismantle the corporate state. Talk about corporatism, how do you define it, and why do you see the left and right coming together to say enough already?

NADER: Corporatism is a world-view that large corporations should manage our political economy, and they should strategically plan it and things will come out okay. It’s part of the overall globalization which undermines local, state and national sovereignty and which pulls down economies to their lowest levels in countries overseas.

GILLESPIE: What’s the kind of growth curve of corporatism? Is this something that in a lot of ways starts with the new deal and then extends into the post war era of the government or the state and corporation saying were going to work together to stabilize everything.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Unsafe at any volume.

  • Paul.||

    *golf clap*

  • Sigivald||

    *slow clap*, indeed.

    I'll care about Nader's thoughts when he stops being, well, Ralph Nader.

    I'm not sure the man's ever seen a government intervention he didn't like, or desired any limits to the State's power.

    The PIRG system he founded is a constant enemy to liberty, if fortunately often an ineffective one.

    Zero respect.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    I made it about 10 minutes in when Nader said drug companies shouldn't profit if any of their patents had NHA funded research. Nick struggled mightily to get him to admit the drug companies may have indeed invested billions, but, no.

    His anti-cronyism is predicated on pro-government regulation. It's the same thing Ralph. The same fucking thing.

  • Mt low rider||

    You got that right, m'lady.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Sorry you had to endure that torment so I don't have to.

    The very descriptive and accurate comment for him is Communist. His idea to fit cronyism is to eliminate private enterprise and give it all to the state so his cronies can run, and profit, from everything.

  • Irish||

    Nick struggled mightily to get him to admit the drug companies may have indeed invested billions, but, no.

    It's better that no drugs be produced and people die than that a drug company make any profit.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    The Nader solution is that the government decide what drugs are the right drugs and produce them too. For the common good, of course.

  • Cyto||

    I stopped at approximately the same place. It was actually pretty interesting to see into Nader's head like this. He seemed completely incapable of comprehending the discussion. He had his world-view and that was the end of it. It seemed like all he heard from Nick was gibberish.

    "Because it saves lives" was the only thought in his head. Any regulation, any intrusion into your life could be fully justified by "because it saves lives". He couldn't even understand that there might be another point of view on the "and then what do you do about it" side of the "it saves lives" equation.

    It explains the whole "they are evil" mentality progressives have toward their political opponents. The calculus is "this will save lives" therefore opposing it is evil. More welfare payments save lives! More medicare saves lives! Banning guns saves lives! Banning large sodas saves lives!

    Any disagreement is because you are evil and want people to die.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Frederick Hayek was opposed to Medicare and Medicaid because they weren’t universal.

    I didn't know that.

  • Game of Thrones fan||

    You know nothing, PB.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Well, Holy shit, you Tea Party bigshot. It is right there in the Road to Serfdom.

    Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance, where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks, the case for the state helping to organise a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to supersede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatibility in principle between the state providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom.

  • Sigivald||

    Of course, contra Mr. Buttplug, that is not a requirement that they be "universal" on Mr. Hayek's part.

    In fact, er, the latter part of that is pretty much an assertion that 'universal' welfare state systems are exactly what Mr. Hayek is opposing.

    (I read Road, and I'm pretty sure he didn't repudiate support for a limited "safety net" welfare state in Constitution either.

    I am bemused by how many people assume that libertarian theory requires one be a Randroid caricature.)

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I am bemused by how many people assume that libertarian theory requires one be a Randroid caricature.

    That is the prevailing notion of the Peanut Gallery here.

  • Brian||

    Blasphemy! Blasphemy! Burn the heretics! Burn them! Boil them in a Rearden metal cauldron full of oil, and cleanse them with fire at the top of the Wynand Building!

  • Mt low rider||

    When you are a progtard caricature like this dolt the unawareness of irony is pretty funny.

  • Tony||

    All current libertarian/tea party rhetoric is Randian--they would reject all the real libertarian founders for stuff like the above. But few openly embrace Rand. In Paul Ryan's case he went back in the closet because of the atheism thing, I guess.

    Social issues just don't matter that much to libertarians--which is why they're able to sacrifice them to the Christians if it means they get their tax cuts.

  • VicRattlehead||

    Personally I have yet to read any Rand, my ideas were shaped because my brain is hardwired for logic, even in the face of the public education system I came to the conclusion that most adults were just as inept as children, that all people are highly failable, and it was better to assume responsibility for my actions and morality than to let others dictate it for me. Albert J Nock's "memoirs of the superfluous man" and an Anarchist manifesto "days of war nights of love" shaped me more than an author whom i have heard much of but only recently purchased Atlas Shrugged and haven't yet had time to read it.
    but its funny how the "progressive" thinks he knows us all because libertarians are so conforming to a single set of purity standards, you know because they arent individualistic as fuck or made up of all sorts of people who want to limit government all the way from Anarchists to Limited government federalists

  • Tony||

    Limited government is a slogan, not a thing that can actually exist. It stands for low taxes for rich people and fewer services for poor people. It stands for a government that protects the luxuries of the rich while ignoring the basic needs of the poor. It has no moral underpinning--it's just propaganda in support of plutocratic looting.

    When I say you're all Randian I mean none of you make provisions for a safety net, as many libertarian thinkers did. It's all about parasitism vs. productivity--more euphemisms. But I do grant that many of you are willing to compromise--with theocrats.

  • ||

    You wouldn't know what libertarian thought even if you were a real boy Pinochio.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    That's an absolutely incredible way of thinking, Tony.

    I'm an anarchist at heart. In my mind, freedom isn't real until there is absolutely no defining government of any kind.

    Thing is, I'm also a rational and logical person. I understand that a certain amount of government is necessary for a society such as ours to function.

    But that does not give the state the right to thieve from us. Nor does it make it right for the state to re-purpose that money to others against our will.

    Charities such as community help organizations, soup kitchens, churches outreach programs, food pantries, and dozens of other types of charitable organizations exist, and have for a long time.

    When the government ceases to steal from us, we in turn have more money for ourselves. Those of us (such as myself) with bleeding hearts will donate and/or volunteer to help those less fortunate. The key factor to giving is having something to give, and we tax the entire middle class close to poverty with our fuel taxes, sales taxes, vice taxes, corporate taxes, and state and federal income taxes.

    All of those people can't be the mindless, drooling libertarian beasts you think they are. If they had more, how many do you think would give more?

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    I myself tend to take in strays who are down on their luck. I also help my neighbors when they are having issues with their home or family. I have taken in, raised, and adopted out numerous kittens and cats as well. I even had someone dump to adorable baby kittens on my doorstep in the middle of winter, once.

    Don't tell me that libertarians are heartless. Don't tell me that we don't care, or that we don't desire a safety net. I'm living proof that it isn't true.

    We just want the safety net to be individuals, not the government.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Want to talk about charitable? My current neighbor just moved into the apartment next to mine about three months ago.

    When she had a fight (and was stabbed) by her cancer-riddled friend, he was hauled off to jail, bailed out, and came back and took practically everything from her place. She had a couch, a dresser, and a bed.

    I gave her my $2500 flat screen television and a Sony wireless movie player with Netflix, so she would have something to entertain herself with while she worked on getting a new job and supporting herself. I'm also letting her piggyback off of my wifi.

    I've also been passing her money when she needs it and helping her through a tough emotional time because her psycho ex-room mate keeps sending her threatening texts on her Obamaphone and the local copshop refuses to do anything about it.

    This is all while helping my sister with a place to live since HER room mate and she had a nasty fight and she moved out without anywhere to go. I've spent the last several days carting her stuff back and forth to and fro as we found places to store it while she finds a new place to stay.

    These are just current examples.

    Charity comes from individuals. I am a charitable individual. I help people.

    I am also a libertarian.

    In conclusion, Tony, go fuck yourself.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I have no issue with your views. I support Ayn Rand.

    Just don't try to convince me Republicans give a fuck about liberty. I escaped the GOP plantation long ago.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|6.13.14 @ 9:54AM|#
    "Limited government is a slogan, not a thing that can actually exist."

    In which case you argue for the Nork example, right?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Limited government is a slogan, not a thing that can actually exist.

    Tony finally admits his desire for totalitarianism.

  • fish||

    All current libertarian/tea party rhetoric is Randian--they would reject all the real libertarian founders for stuff like the above.

    Funny that you defend it when you think it supports your vacant destructive positions....away with you Fellatio Boy.

  • ||

    Lol. Shriek is so unhinged. He doesn't even know what he's responding to anymore.

  • ||

    Well, Holy shit, you Tea Party bigshot. It is right there in the Road to Serfdom.

    It's a real shame what abusing crack can do to your brain.

  • fish||

    It's not that....heavens no! Gotta be the bad air in his moms basement.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Please don't defile the memory of my dearest Ygritte by using her line on that fucking retard.

    I'm in mourning.

  • robc||

    Did that just finally happen? Fuck they are going slow.

  • robc||

    Also, no spoilers! If I cant discuss 15 year old books, you cant discuss tv shiws until after Ive had a chance to watch the dvds next spring.

  • Almanian!||

    Fuck Nader.

    That is all.

  • BakedPenguin||

    He played a huge part in getting trucking and airlines deregulated in the late 1970's, so it's not like he's worthless. Also, this latest push against cronyism is correct, even if we'd disagree with him on its origins.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    A broken clock is right twice a day.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    I'll break YOUR clock, if you get my drift.

    *wiggles eyebrows*


    . . . . .that was supposed to be sexy.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    In Soviet Russia, clock breaks you. Figured you would know that.

  • Irish||

    Also, this latest push against cronyism is correct, even if we'd disagree with him on its origins.

    Except the policies he advocates would increase cronyism since a more powerful government will inevitably find a way to enrich the friends of those in power.

    He can 'push' against cronyism all he wants, but if he advocates policies that would increase the very problem he's whining about, then he's just an idiot rather than evil.

    Kind of damning with faint praise, isn't it?

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    If by "deregulated" you mean getting one tiny aspect of transportation industry regulation, the rate bureaus, removed then you might have something there.

    I am not familiar with Nader's contribution to these efforts begun by Nixon, and following through the Ford, Carter, and Reagan administrations. Yes, I did Google for the information and somehow missed the Nader efforts in deregulating anything.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    NADER: The government is a big consumer. It buys almost everything we buy – food, energy, transportation, plus missiles, which we don’t buy.

    GILLESPIE: Let’s be clear though – the government buys a lot more prostitutes than I think you or I do.

    This is why I love Nick Gillespie.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    I thought GM (pre-Obama management) supplied Nader's prostitutes?

  • ||

    I wonder how many people agree with Nader and Obama until they find out the two don't agree, and do their heads explode?

  • Paul.||

    Obama agrees with Nader, but is politically savvy and as such, knows that Nader's vision isn't possible. Obama sticks to the possible, but secretly nods when Nader speaks.

    It's what I call the Kashama Sawant syndrome.

    An entire city council of socialists that are all too happy to have an avowed socialist on the council. Let them step out in front suggest something retarded, like a $15 minimum wage, then talk about rational compromise, and then unanimously vote for a $15 minimum wage.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Obama would invoke Nader in the same manner as Boxer was invoked in Animal Farm, or the same way Kennedy was invoked by Johnson. Just a name to be used in a marketing campaign for any old thing, no matter that it has nothing to do with their advocacy.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Nader is absolutely idiotic when it comes to nuclear power. He still believes wind and solar will someday provide the majority of our power.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And only the government can lead us to our glorious future.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Wind and solar WILL provide most of our power, when he finally has all of the other power plants shut down.

    It won't be enough, of course, but that's why the elite in DC will get their own coal fired or nuclear power plants.

    It's the Plebs that have to live off of the dregs.

  • John||

    Fuck Nader. He is one of the biggest contributors to the creation of the Prog hive mindset that currently exists in the Democratic party. Why are there no more reasonable Democrats left who would stand up to Obama over this shit? Well Ralph Nader is one of the biggest reasons why. And now he whines about how the situation he spent a large part of his adult life creating doesn't suit him. Too fucking bad. If you don't like Obama and the total and mindless dedication to him at the expense of all principles exhibited by Democrats, well Ralph you should have thought about that when you and your various ilk and minions were creating such a party.

  • craiginmass||

    Without him you'd probably be mangled in a 20 MPH car crash.

    And now you use your gained health to attack him?

    Shame.

    He's one of the real heroes of our time - and, yes, he's left of center. He's against the war machine and against corporate welfare and irresponsibility.

    Those two subjects alone would endear him to any true "revolutionary".

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the stupidest thoughts ever recorded on the Internet:

    Without him you'd probably be mangled in a 20 MPH car crash.

    And now you use your gained health to attack him?
  • Michael||

    Damn, that is impressive.

  • ||

    Every time I think Tony has reached peak derp, craig comes along and out does him.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Has to be sarcasm.

  • VicRattlehead||

    yes because my brain couldn't have possibly figured out what that strap with the buckle on the end of it is for...
    true revolutionaries do not advocate the government to gain more power.

    plus hes a hardcore supporter of UN Agenda 21 the scary conspiratorial NWO totalitarianism crazy as shit plan to eradicate freedom and sovereignty in the world
    definitely not a friend to liberty
    absolutely not our ally

  • Irish||

    Without him you'd probably be mangled in a 20 MPH car crash.

    And now you use your gained health to attack him?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, no one had ever bought a car with a seatbelt before Nader. Thank Christ the God-King of the Green Party saved us from our own stupidity.

    He's one of the real heroes of our time - and, yes, he's left of center. He's against the war machine and against corporate welfare and irresponsibility.

    Except he advocates an extension of government power that will inevitably lead to greater payouts to the allies of the powerful. If you've got a government with essentially no checks on its power, which is Nader's dream, then how on Earth can anyone conceivably stop them from behaving like corrupt scum?

  • WDATPDIM?!||

    How can progressives and libertarians take on crony capitalism without each side undoing the other's efforts? Progressives' solution is more laws and more levels of bureaucratic oversight. Libertarians' solution is fewer laws and smaller government.

  • Overt||

    "Progressives' solution is more laws and more levels of bureaucratic oversight. Libertarians' solution is fewer laws and smaller government."

    ^^THIS!!!

    It's extremely annoying that the Libertarian talking heads think people are just "waking up" to the idea that Big Business too involved in the State, and therefore everyone will support rolling back the power of the government. Hello- this is what Marx was talking about. And does anyone remember all that claptrap about the Military-Industrial Complex post WWII?

    The left has always been apoplectic about the level of influence business has on our lives and their answer has ALWAYS been "NEEDZ MOAR LAWZ!!11ONE".

    It is undoubtable that while the Democrats were preaching "REGULATE" and the GOP was preaching "Laissez Faire" they were both in fact implementing CORPORATISM. And it is absolutely true that both the left and right are increasingly aware of this problem. That doesn't mean there is any alliance on the remedy for this problem.

  • Winston||

    Or the Populists or the Progressives.

  • ||

    I would argue that the military-industrial complex does actually exist. I mean can you say F-35?

  • craiginmass||

    Lots of people around me (NJ) bought Yachts and new Luxury cars while that contract was being awarded.

    These people are not Democrats! In fact, Lockheed Martin run insidious programs whereby the pay people for not working if those people inject themselves into government - even on the relatively local level.

    At one time our town council was 80% made up of LM employees. What happens then if that the few who stick around and climb the ladder are beholden to LM and the War Machine.

    It's big time stuff - right up there with Koch Industries, etc. in their attempts to control the dialog.

    It's a great deal. They take taxpayer money and use it for fake hires who are really bought off because they have entered government.

  • R C Dean||

    It's extremely annoying that the Libertarian talking heads think people are just "waking up" to the idea that Big Business too involved in the State, and therefore everyone will support rolling back the power of the government.

    Hell, even the libertarian talking heads all too often direct most of the blame at the business side, not the government side, of crapitalism. Can't recall the article here this week, but the way it was written, crapitalism was mostly the fault of Big Corp.

  • ||

    I like how Nader just completely fails to understand Nick's question about why you shouldn't have to force airbags.

  • brokencycle||

    We really should have had government regulate VHS out of existence. How could the mouth breathers know better?

  • Knarf the Yenrabian||

    NADER: Oh, because you want to save lives – police power. I mean why have police in towns? To save lives.

    GILLESPIE: By the same token, it was not a recall of all cars that didn’t have airbags, so we recognize that this is going to be phased in. What’s wrong with allowing more of a voluntary, opt-in rather than mandating a perceived “this is the best way let’s mandate it for everyone.”

    NADER: Because it saves lives. I mean it’s like fire prevention codes. It’s like having bridge standards.

    GILLESPIE: I get all of that but we understand there’s not always going to be a phase in. Because we don’t actually say ok, when we up fire standards we don’t tear down all the old buildings.

    NADER: We can rely on the auto companies to coerce a phase in – then they’d keep delaying and delaying.

    Par for the course for someone who doesn't understand that it isn't state action that improves worker or consumer safety, but technological advances made possible by increased capital per worker.

    Nader seems to be the sort of person who thinks that all our children would be working 16-hour days in sweatshops if not for child labor laws.

  • Mark22||

    Of course! Didn't you know that it was philosophers, sociologists, and progressive activists who are responsible for all human advances?

  • craiginmass||

    Actually, the truth hurts since almost no scientists identify as Republican (right).

    So, yes, liberals ARE responsible for most human advances. You know - those horrible universities in CA, MA, etc. where they built the foundations of the modern world.

  • GILMORE||

    You're confusing Progressives with Jesuits.

  • wadair||

    since almost no scientists identify as Republican

    citation needed.

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure the foundations for the modern world were built everywhere, not just your hallowed CA and MA.

  • robc||

    Actually, the truth hurts since almost no scientists identify as Republican (right).

    Citation needed. I went to an engineering school. A large percent identified as gop. And that was in academia. Go to private research institutes and the number goes up.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    He is probably referring to those who are brave enough to announce to the media that they are "right." Perhaps with billboards and print ads.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    He thinks Real Scientists™ have degrees ending in 'studies' or 'science'.

  • craiginmass||

    Oh, if you are white your children probably wouldn't be - but those brown and black people would. And, many other people around the world are....for your cheap clothes, etc.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yes, because all Brown and Black babies are automatically born into poor families.

    Nothing racist about that assumption, whatsoever.

  • Irish||

    Especially given that most black and brown people who are born into poverty are born into poverty in non-white countries.

    And most of those countries, particularly in South America, are run by the very big governments that Craig and Nader advocate.

    Craig doesn't realize his policies increase the poverty of poor people.

  • ||

    Oh he does, but much like Tony or Warren or Obama he Just. Doesn't. Care.

  • Yenrab. Knarf Yenrab.||

    Can't believe I let this one slide:

    I mean why have police in towns? To save lives.

    Yes, Ralph, that's why police exist: to save lives. That's why they hand out speeding and seat belt tickets: to save lives. Not to pay their own salaries.

    An 80-year-old man who's spent his life dealing with the public sector, and he doesn't understand the first thing about how human beings respond to incentives. I can only imagine how cynical public choice must seem to that portion of the population that still believes in unicorns, rainbows, the brotherhood of man, and police & building codes whose primary function is to save lives.

  • Christophe||

    Of all the examples of police "saving lives", I'd have gone with no-knock raids.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Because it saves lives.

    The proper retort is "Where's your proof of that assertion?"

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Nader seems to be the sort of person who thinks that all our children would be working 16-hour days in sweatshops if not for child labor laws.
    Thanks to child labor laws, I had to lie about my age to work 4 hours a day at a tire store in 1979. Perhaps Nader would call me a "survivor."

  • R C Dean||

    I mean why have police in towns? To save lives.

    I thought it was to raise revenue and enforce the dominance of the State.

  • craiginmass||

    Not requiring airbags is perhaps the most idiotic example of Libertarian over-reach.

    This is also why, according to libertarians, you should not use "best available technology" to clean up the air, water and land so fewer people get sick.

    Taking it one step further, libertarians seem to believe if you can get away with things and make $$$ on them, the consequences don't matter.

    Without airbags we'd have tens of thousands more people who we'd need to put in long term care facilities due to brain and other injuries. Of course, Libertarians would say to dump them at the side of the road.

    Really? Do you guys think things through past one move?

    Maybe we also should not have to use high-spec rivets on our airliners. Or, we shouldn't have to test our foods for purity (yeah, I've heard the libertarian argument against that!).

    Some of you have really went off the deep end - as they say, you threw the baby (human happiness and welfare) out with the bath water. What you are left with is a pile of Gold and a kid who is brain dead due to a low speed car crash.

    You lose ALL cred. All of it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yes, because that's what businesses do; they seek to kill their customer base.

  • Cis Shitlord||

    That is a loooooot of straw men.

  • GILMORE||

    because if you didn't MANDATE roofing, no one would have a roof on their house!!

    Which is why we need to MANDATE airbags! NO ONE WOULD PAY MORE FOR A CAR FOR *SAFETY*?

    Because everyone knows, markets are the least efficient way to improve anything.

  • craiginmass||

    As is proven by the GM fiasco and many more, people often have to buy an item just because of price. No, they can't afford the luxury of buying the Mercedes or Volvo with the "extra" features.

    They simply can't.

    Again, your point makes no sense. We aren't questioning whether ANYONE would pay extra. What I am saying is that many more deaths and much more suffering would be the result if not for Nader.

    You guys are always for something - until you are against it! Libertarians argue that the Courts are the place to set many things straight - tort and all that. Then you critique Nader for doing just that.

    Which is it? Or are you just such authoritarians that you truly believe the Koch's want the air and water to be as clean as possible. Remind me of what incentive the Koch's have to clean up any more other than the lowest they can get away with.

    It's all about money, right?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Onstar must have been mandated, as it's on every new car.

    Fucking retard.

  • ||

    Not to mention air conditioning, power windows, stereo systems, intermittent wipers, and cup holders. Without the government people would spill hot coffee in their laps!

  • R C Dean||

    people often have to buy an item just because of price.

    Because government-mandated features are free, they don't increase the price? Is that the idea?

    Or perhaps they do, and people can't afford new cars and thus driver older, less safe cars longer?

    I mean, if I can't afford a car with the latest safety feature because it adds $500 to the cost of the car, does it matter if its mandated by government or a high-end option?

  • Michael||

    Is this supposed to be Joe's brother or something? I haven't been following along lately.

  • Yenrab. Knarf Yenrab.||

    Some handle that's been trolling for a few months and stirring the pot when ennui strikes.

  • wadair||

    Your an idiot.

    People are now paying extra for collision avoidance systems on their cars, without government requirement, because they want them. They CAN make choices on their own. And only they know what is best.

    Your main problem is that you're convinced that citizens would not make good choices unless you, Nader and Obama tell them what to choose.

  • craiginmass||

    "Your an idiot."

    You are an idiot
    or
    You're an idiot

    Just saying. It's good to get command of the language before you attempt to debate a position.

  • MJGreen||

    So who will break out the Bastiat quote?

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Please, the honors go to you.

  • Greg F||

    Not requiring airbags is perhaps the most idiotic example of Libertarian over-reach.

    As Thomas Sowell noted in 1996:

    Now that we know that 30 children have been killed by air bags, maybe there is some hope that we will stop and think about the trade-offs involved in "safety" campaigns by the government.

    The only idiotic over-reach is people like you who over simplify safety and their trade offs.

    Really? Do you guys think things through past one move?

    It is apparent that you don't think past one move as you assume that safety improvement only happens due to government action. Dr. Sowell points out:

    For example, during the era of unbridled "corporate greed," the fatality rate in automobiles declined far more than it has during the more recent era of noble saviors.

    Read the whole thing fool.

  • R C Dean||

    I've walked away from a bad accident (glancing head-on collision at combined speed of probably 100 mph, axle ripped out of other car, my Civic hatchback totaled). No airbag.

    I've been injured in a routine fender-bender in a Chevy Silverado because the fucking airbag went off. Bonus: a truck that would be easily repairable was written off because the airbag going off is an automatic "totaled" from the insurance company.

    Wear your seatbelt, and I believe airbags are a net minus. I wouldn't buy them if I had the choice.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Don't own any vehicle manufactured after 1974. All of the cool stuff from suspension to interior trinkets can be added and you don't have to deal with catalytic converters, airbags, and all that other crap that is of limited value.

  • Rev-Match||

    Since when have progs ever been against Cronyism? They do not have a principle against it (or any principles, for that matter). They are very pro-cronyism, just for the "right" things.

    P.s.
    Fuck Nader. That is all.

  • craiginmass||

    Uh, Teddy Roosevelt and the Trust Busters. FDR and his panels against war profiteering.

    It was your hero, Reagan, who did away with most anti-trust rules (very closely related to additional cronyism).

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Teddy Roosevelt on American Indians: "I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth. The most vicious cowboy has more moral principle than the average Indian. Turn three hundred low families of New York into New Jersey, support them for fifty years in vicious idleness, and you will have some idea of what the Indians are. Reckless, revengeful, fiendishly cruel, they rob and murder, not the cowboys, who can take care of themselves, but the defenseless, lone settlers on the plains. As for the soldiers, an Indian chief once asked Sheridan for a cannon. 'What! Do you want to kill my soldiers with it?' asked the general. 'No,' replied the chief, 'want to kill the cowboy; kill soldier with a club.'" He later became much more favorable"

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Teddy Roosevelt on eugenics:"I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feeble-minded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them."

  • craiginmass||

    As you may know, Eugenics was all the rage for about a 40 years period from the late 1800's into...well, until about 1945.

    There are, of course, some parts of it which make sense - which is why many tests are performed these days.

    These are all difficult issues.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    These are all difficult issues.

    No, it isn't, you racist piece of shit. The genetic health of a child is no one's concern except the parents'.

  • MJGreen||

    Look, these are difficult issues, especially for a peace-loving liberal like craig. But some folks need to be forcibly sterilized, and other groups need to be eliminated entirely.

    But don't you dare try to judge craig's humanitarianism. The world is just complex, OK?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The difficult part for racists like craig is implementing his policies without getting his hands dirty.

  • craiginmass||

    Ah, so THEY can make that choice, but yet so many here say they can't (no termination of preggies)....

    As a libertarian, wouldn't you say that the parents of a child have to set aside a financial arrangement so that you don't have to pay extra taxes for their decision?

    Or is it just that simple? They make the choice and you volunteer to pay?

  • Overt||

    I love this logic. "Force people to pay taxes to support the unfortunate. Now the unfortunate are obligated to act in the way you choose or THEY are forcing tax payers to pay extra".

    It's like when proggies forced all hospitals to give healthcare to anyone who came into a clinic, and then started complaining that it was the uninsured that was costing us all this money in Hospital Emergency rooms.

  • Sevo||

    craiginmass|6.12.14 @ 5:02PM|#
    "As you may know, Eugenics was all the rage for about a 40 years period from the late 1800's into...well, until about 1945."

    You ignorant piece of shit:
    "Nevertheless, in Sweden the eugenics program continued until 1975."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

  • VG Zaytsev||

    There are, of course, some parts of it which make sense -

    Yep, craig's a fucking racist.

  • craiginmass||

    Actually, General Sherman said in some of his notes that if we left a single southern secessionist alive, we would come to regret it.

    We did and we have. The General was right but civilization required that we couldn't go that far.

    Still.

    I sense the same about these current Islamists. Terrible to say for a peaceful dude like myself, but they have to go. They will never be reformed.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Wow. You're a scumbag.

    Tell me where in MA you live so I can drive down and punch you in the face.

  • craiginmass||

    Are you from Maine?

  • OneOut||

    You seem to have a lot in common with Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

    If you FEELZ that we have to kill all the Islamists you are not a "peaceful dude".

    You are just another delusional liberal with zero self awareness.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    You are just another delusional liberal with zero self awareness.

    THIS!

    Being principled means adhering to the things I agree with.

    /cim

  • Irish||

    Actually, General Sherman said in some of his notes that if we left a single southern secessionist alive, we would come to regret it.

    Yeah, it would have made the southern states vastly more peaceable if we massacred their sons, fathers, and brothers. It worked so well for the British in Ireland.

    I sense the same about these current Islamists. Terrible to say for a peaceful dude like myself, but they have to go. They will never be reformed.

    No one hates radical Islam more than me, but you're talking about slaughtering tens of millions of people living in dozens of sovereign countries. This would probably end up including vast numbers of innocent civilians caught in the cross fire.

    Go fuck yourself, you murderous sociopath.

  • ||

    It's nice that he doesn't just try to out derp Tony with shit like "you mean libertarians don't want ANY airbags in cars" but also out sociopaths him too with shit like that.

  • MJGreen||

    Teddy Roosevelt and the early progressives boosted cronyism to new heights. FDR's thugs went after small businesses; after all, it was big businesses that were "collaborating" on the depressed economy.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    They really needed to stamp out those rogue pants pressers and their predatory pricing.

  • ||

    Nothing says "I'm for the little guy" like telling a farmer he can't grow extra wheat to use to feed his family.

  • Christophe||

    Wasn't it for his chickens? Not that it makes any difference.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Wickard. Wheat. When the history of the downfall of America is written, Wickard will be noted as the beginning of the end of the great experiment.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    The Trust Busters were not anti-crony, they WERE cronyists. So was FDR.

  • R C Dean||

    The idea that anti-trust enforcement is another engine of cronyism escapes you, doesn't it, craig.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    FDR's first policy, the NRA was blatant corporatist fascism.

  • ||

    I got to page 3 of the transcript where the super-annuated windbag basically says "government built that drug."

  • thorsmjollnir||

    One problem with Nader, and the left generally, is they believe that as long as the proper people are elected to Washington, cronyism can be defeated. Of course the reality is that cronyism is a symptom of large, centralized government. The only way to truly reduce cronyism to a tolerable level is to short circuit the power source of big government.

  • Mark22||

    One cannot ally with progressives on a fight against crony capitalism because progressivism is one of the primary causes of crony capitalism.

  • craiginmass||

    And you read that in Mein Kampf? Or the Bible?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Theodore Roosevelt on imperialism: ""..it is of incalculable importance that America, Australia, and Siberia should pass out of the hands of their red, black, and yellow aboriginal owners, and become the heritage of the dominant world races."

    -- The Winning of the West

  • craiginmass||

    And...so it came to pass. Nothing he or anyone else could do about it. The White Folks had "the system" which beat all others (slavery, resource extraction, chain of command, corporations, etc.).

    That's too big picture for me. I was born into the world as it is.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Nothing he or anyone else could do about it.

    He didn't shrug his shoulders and sigh; he actively pursued a foreign and domestic policy based on imperialism and imagined "Nordic" superiority.

    You raised your sword under his banner.

    Own up to it.

  • craiginmass||

    I thought we were talking about whether he stopped some corporate cronyism?

    Can you enlighten us as to why he didn't? If so, why did the pro-biz republicans dump him?

    Answer: Because then, as now, they wanted monopolies and cronyism.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Can you enlighten us as to why he didn't?

    Why do you think the most war-mongery-est President in history wouldn't stop cronyism in the arms industry he depended on. Or the railroads who benefited from his extermination of Native Americans?

    You are one dumb motherfucker.

  • craiginmass||

    I know, I know - Abe Lincoln was the worst President in History and FDR and Teddy and those others in the top Five are really at the bottom - and GW and Nixon and (who else?, Hoover?) are the top dogs, eh?

    Backwards Bizzarro world. I don't make history - just quoting it. If you really dislike America that much as to take issue with it's entire existence, you should take that short drive up into the Queen's domain.

    My ancestors didn't come over on the Mayflower - so we are glad to be here!

  • VicRattlehead||

    Abe Lincoln- started a civil war with an unconstitutionally procured army and started a war of aggression with the confederacy who peacefully seceded from the union due to not having adequate representation at the federal level.

    FDR- took us off the gold standard and prosecuted those who kept gold, set our monetary system afloat and unleashed the worst monopoly in history which still screws us to this very day the private corporation The Federal Reserve

    and dont tell me i must love slavery because i hate the civil war, slavery was going out of style because of the costs, it was deemed far more viable to give them pay then tax them to create a system of profitable slavery known as minimum wage.

  • ||

    You do know we're not Republicans right?

    I think it's safe to say that most libertarians don't like any of the presidents you mentioned.

  • craiginmass||

    Actually, I was against the Spanish-American War back then!

    :-)

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    You are one of the most disingenuous cunts I have ever seen.

    Rot in hell. Seriously, like, right now.

    Go to hell. Then rot there.

  • Sevo||

    He won't.
    He's a slimy lefty who will deny any fact to claim he's on the side of angels.
    Slimy only begins to define assholes like that, but it's a good start.

  • Acosmist||

    Cronyism is ok as long as it's the right cronies.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    I knew all these comments sounded repetitive..

  • GILMORE||

    "NADER: Corporatism is a world-view that large corporations should manage our political economy, and they should strategically plan it and things will come out okay."

    This is ridiculous.

    'Corporatism' is the fantasy world-view of a segment of the populace who are entirely ignorant of how the world works and fill in the giant blank-spaces in their Map of Reality with fictitious 'corporate power' as though world events are simply a combination of how McDonald's sources their burgers, Colgate makes their toothpaste, and The Gap pays vietnamese/maylays to stitch up duds.

    Its a view which charlatan power-hungry Top Men-regulatory-state True Believers use to their advantage to desperately position themselves to be the 'Alternative' to this imagined Corporate Hegemony of all aspects of life - Instead, THEY will become the Real Leviathan to replace the invisible tentacles of Starbucks and DuPont. As with all things, Politicians need to invent invisible dragons to slay, and this is the current Boogeyman Du Jour. (and when it proves to be 'not scary enough', well, we always have Climate Change DOOM to fall back on)

    I don't think that there is nothing to criticize about the structure of modern corporate economies; I think the manner in which idiots like nader popularize this view that CORPORASUNS!! is the root of all social malaise serves only to make this generation even more profoundly stupid than they already are.

  • toolkien||

    Of course Nader gets it exactly backwards, but one needs to be sensitive to the fact that government has largely invaded the corporate structure, weeded out many of the resistors, and we now have a largely merged entity between government bureaucrats and corporate executives who have risen within the merged structure. I would have little problem with a business growing to a vast size within a free market. But the corporate structures we have today are peopled by those who acquiesced long ago and are of a breed that thrives within the "Brazil"-ian insanity of Federal and State policy. Of course, Nader wants even MORE penetration of the bureaucracy while libertarians want considerably less. But there's the problem - how do ramp down government interference in the market place when so many large corporations are manned by mealy mouthed quislings? It's not universal, of course, evidenced by SOME financiers who wanted no part of the bail out and were told it wasn't an option, but I believe the majority of large corporations are manned by a lowly breed - the John Galts having abandoned the whole process some time ago.

  • Yenrab. Knarf Yenrab.||

    we now have a largely merged entity between government bureaucrats and corporate executives who have risen within the merged structure.

    One of our aspiring wordsmiths should invent a term to describe such an arrangement.

    But there's the problem - how do ramp down government interference in the market place when so many large corporations are manned by mealy mouthed quislings?

    Businesses are always going to pursue what's in their best interests, so it's unrealistic to expect them to invest in innovation rather than lobbying when it's lobbying that turns the greater profit. Politicians and bureaucrats are also going to do what's in their best interests, so it's unrealistic to expect them to rein in state power.

    Which is another way of saying that corruption and abuse of power is the natural order of things, and that you can't change anything until you change the incentives. Which can't happen, as the lawmakers responsible for creating the system of incentives in the first place have every reason to sustain the system that exists today, and will until a free(r) market emerges and begins leeching away entrepreneurs who favor markets over modern mercantilism.

  • GILMORE||

    Just as an odd-example...

    ... if 'corporations' are so much the driving force and prime beneficiaries of legislation via their disproportionate influence on government...

    ...how is it New York State has been repeatedly at the forefront of demonizing Carbonated Soft Drinks, attempting to impose taxes, bans, limiting access in schools, etc., yet still is the home of Pepsico? the #2, 100bn+ beverage giant?

    I'm just saying... it just seems to me that if PEP had any influence at all, it would be in their *home state*?

  • Harvard||

    " 100bn+ beverage giant?"

    Most of which relies on greasy, shugary, salty snacks, not Pepsi.

  • GILMORE||

    So what? Tropicana and Pepsi et al make up nearly half their business - is being a 50 billion beverage giant somehow in any way change my point?

  • Harvard||

    Think of it as merely a clarification for the uninitiated, albeit better left unsaid, you prickly fuck.

  • Robert||

    And AMSTAR's nearby.

    And how about Colt in Conn.?

  • VicRattlehead||

    there is a word for it, it just looks a little different from this angle but it appears to be Fascism in another disguise
    with a bit less nationalism than its last incarnation.
    maybe we should call them the GSDAP
    Globalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei

  • Yenrab. Knarf Yenrab.||

    there is a word for it, it just looks a little different from this angle but it appears to be Fascism in another disguise

    That would be the one.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Term limits. A single term. When politicians have no use for money, lobbyists will disappear.

  • GILMORE||

    ""The corporate structures we have today are peopled by those who acquiesced long ago and are of a breed that thrives within the "Brazil"-ian insanity of Federal and State policy. ""

    What the fuck are you talking about? Be specific and give me an example.

    (sans gross, fantasy-generalizations - which is exactly the thing i complained about)

    Do you think "corporations *manage our political economy*"?

    (I don't even know what *that* really means, other than maybe the suggestion that most legislation is tuned to the needs of various corporate interests)

  • Yenrab. Knarf Yenrab.||

    He's complaining that corporate types are conditioned to navigate the regulatory waters without complaint, as though having Top Men tell you how to run your business is what all intelligent people understand to be for the greater good. And if they get to benefit from regulatory capture, well, that's just the nature of business.

    Which is how brilliant investors and entrepreneurs like Bloomberg and Gates can be such massive statist windbags.

  • GILMORE||

    That seems a fair point.

    Didn't grab that from his comment.

    But - i still take issue with 'corporate types' being generalized about. I dont know what that means;

    I had some insight with Tobacco, alcohol, and soda companies. All had some degree (from extreme to nascent) of 'regulatory capture'; all were completely different in their attitudes toward it and their adoption of its benefits/liabilities for their survival/flourishing.

    Meaning, even in this fairly narrow area of what i called The 'Quick-E-Mart'-Supply Industry (*or, as I joked: "Big Evil") there was no cultural uniformity about their relation to government regulators at all. (unless maybe you were in the Legal department)

    Generalizing even wider across industries seems completely ridiculous to me. I just find these sorts of complaints to be completely inconsistent with my own experience, and it suggests to me that the people making said complaints aren't actually all that familiar with the structural/business-culture diversity in the 'corporate universe'.

  • Invisible Finger||

    how do ramp down government interference in the market place when so many large corporations are manned by mealy mouthed quislings?

    Put the whore Congressmen in jail?

  • Robert||

    Whore Congless?

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    How could this whole discussion occur (to this point) with nobody invoking Il Duce? He was the godfather of Corporatist Fascist National Socialism. Corporations arranged into neat guild categories for the government to manage. Corporations exist at the pleasure of the state, and produce what the state says, for a price that the state sets.

    Mussolini's second biggest fan, after FDR, even nationalized labor. Well, FDR did that too with his labor boards, but Hitler came up with the catchy name "German Worker's League."

    Of course, Teddy Roosevelt paved the way for them all.

  • Billybobjoe||

    The government needs to stop sucking up to (and sucking off) these "small businesses".

    As an angry man once said, Bring in the Chains!

    I trust Disney, Coke, and Electronic Arts more than I trust the shady liquor store across the street that won't tell me they charge $0.50 for credit card transactions below $10.

    A 7-11 on every corner and two burgers in every stomach.

    Local government is getting in the way. What I fear about Libertarianism is that they'll just reduce the power of the federal government to increase the local government power and there will be less personal freedom.

    Around here, in Aging Hippie Central, we get plastic bags banned and then everyone gets even more junk mail for the local supermarket.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I trust ... Electronic Arts more than I trust the shady liquor store

    The shady liquor store didn't fuck me over with SimCity 5.

    And if you think government is a friend to, much less "sucking up" to small business, you're a lunatic.

  • OneOut||

    Mulatto I'm kinda thinking that was supposed to be sarcasm.

    It just wasn't very good nor labeled.

  • VicRattlehead||

    the shady liquor store didnt ruin the end of Mass Effect 3 just to shove the unfinished product out the door than charge 20 bucks up front the next day for a code to unlock content that was already created for the game on the disc and was intended for the finished product.
    the only reason you fear local government is because your locality has elected fucking morons to run the show.
    who knows best how to use taxes rather than the people they are being collected from?

  • Tony||

    Nader says a lot of true things and has gotten a couple things accomplished, but he apparently doesn't understand how the American election system works. And running for president when you're 100% sure to lose isn't activism, it's narcissism. There was a reason his election numbers from 2000 to 2004 plummeted to nothing. He caused liberals to wise up about the consequences of voting 3rd party. Which in a perverse way is another accomplishment. I just could have done without the 2 unnecessary wars and torture, personally.

  • craiginmass||

    Correct. I voted for him but never again....

    We are going to pay the price for that Texas Conservative “Permanent Republican Majority ” for 50 years or perhaps more.

    The cost of the VA, for example, peaks 40 years after the wars in question. That means, in addition to the entire middle east falling apart now, that we will still be borrowing money to pay for those wars then!

    The Die is Cast.

    I guess I should blame the voters - not Nader. If I had lived in FL, I would not have voted for him.....

  • Harvard||

    Christ. Now Tony is replying to Tony.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    I think I get how this goes. Let me give it a try.

    Derp

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Derp Derp?

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Derp Derp Shakka Derpitty Derp!

  • VicRattlehead||

    right because compromising your values to support someone who simply isn't the other color (red or blue) of the same totalitarian party is an accomplishment.
    good job selling out your ideals guys, be proud of your slavery!

  • MJGreen||

    Hey, the Democrats are sure to respond to their concerns now! After they've sworn to never vote third party again.

  • ||

    So it's going to be BOOOSH's fault for another 50 years?

  • VicRattlehead||

    with the left its always Booshs fault
    except before boosh, that was Regans fault

    shit these are the same dolts that think the Americans were the terrorists during the revolution.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Reagan was never a good boogie man for them because everything was looking up when he left office.

    The real analogy is Hoover, who they were still using to scare people in the 1970s.

  • craiginmass||

    Well, yeah - why don't you do a bit of study and give us your guess.....here are the topics...

    1. The VA costs peak 40 years after a war. That means costs will peak about 2060 or so.

    2. Many trillions were and will be borrowed for that war - when do you think it will all be paid off?

    3. The shit-storm Bush whipped up in the middle east will go on for a long time. When do you think the effect of his policies there will end?

    4. The Great Recession caused the largest drop in personal wealth in history. We just wrote off nearly 8 years - although the repercussions last much longer.

    What do you think is a fair time frame - when all the causations are kept in mind - to trace back to the Bush/Cheney/GOP Forever Majority they created (and many of you backed). ?

  • dpbisme||

    So like Usual ralph says nice things but does not get it. I am not fond of Corporatism because it is a way of centralizing power. That is why the Democrats love it so much. Corporations have deep pockets and the they support things like O-bozo-care for one reason. It reduces competition and entry in to the marketplace. Corporations can be controlled by legislation much more than small business. So a concentration of power occurs that is not good for the country. Republicans on the other hand want a bit more freedom in the marketplace. A country like the US does not lend it self to being RULED by a Strong Central Government (it was the whole reason for States Rights). We ate to large a country with a to diverse of a population. I don't care how the people in New York, California, and Illinois want to live it is their business, I just don't want to live that way. Give the Democrats a bit more time and the whole country will have to take orders from "DC" and the elite. Y, that has worked so well other places...

  • VicRattlehead||

    hey hey hey New York does not want to live this way, the godforsaken shithole of a city to the south that we all on the mainland pray falls into the atlantic and takes the progtard movement with does.
    the rest of NY meaning the whole state minus albany NYC and Buffalo, fucking hate the retards that vote for the fastest way to ruin our state further and do our best at local levels to head their backwards ideologies off by electing sheriffs that run on the platform of refusal to enforce the safe act and other things. its not perfect but its work for good

  • Free Society||

    And like with Chicago, the dominant city-dwellers sneer at the provincial;s who would deign to govern themselves without the patronage of the wise inhabitants of Chicago.

  • erikemiller@me.com||

    I had to laugh at Nader's hypocrisy. He tells Brian Lamb that he does not use email. Email is a waste of time. It's one of the things making Americans dumb et cetera all the old fart arguments.
    Lamb then points out that Nader has an email address. Nader tells him that he has someone who checks all of his email.
    Well gosh Ralph. I sure wish I could afford to have somebody check my email for me. Sounds very elitist to me. So you do use email. But that's not for us little people who get too distracted by email to pay attention to know-it-all Nader.
    What a jerk! Go away. And your weird eye creeps me out.

  • Sevo||

    Dunno if this is a the click-generator re-run they hoped for. There's only so much anger you can work up for such a boring guy.
    And Ralph? Go pull a plastic bag over your head.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    A recycled, warmed-over article about a warmed over political figure.

  • ||

    And like an idiot I've been responding to two day old comments.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Me too. Just noticed.

  • R C Dean||

    Hey, they're new to me, too.

  • OldOllie||

    There's no such thing as "crony capitalism." It's an oxymoron, like "drunken sobriety" or "promiscuous virginity." You can have cronyism OR you can have capitalism, but you can NEVER have both at the same time.

    It frustrates the hell out of me when conservatives and libertarians merrily join with liberals in slandering capitalism by implying that cronyism is part and parcel of it. Just STOP IT!!!

  • Sevo||

    "It frustrates the hell out of me when conservatives and libertarians merrily join with liberals in slandering capitalism by implying that cronyism is part and parcel of it"

    Uh, are you sure you know what libertarians promote?
    Doesn't sound like it.

  • Mike M.||

    In my opinion, it's more accurately referred to as "crony socialism".

    And Obama and his lickspittles running the Federal Reserve are the biggest crony socialists in American history.

  • ||

    One of the things that keeps me wondering is why anyone believes there is any such thing a a monolithic leftwing or a monolithic rightwing in American politics.

    There are, in fact, a number of positions one can take.

    There are big governement rightwingers and there are left wingers who are collectivists and leftwingers who have some notion of individualism.

    Now, while I believe that leftwingers who have some notion of individualism are mistaken in there beliefs I am not prepared to dismiss them as my enemies.

    the fact of the matter is that if one wants to reduce the factions of American politics to two simple divisions of belief one is forced to recognize them as those who believe in "American Managerial Liberalism" and those who are in some sense "libertarians".

Click here to follow Reason on Instagram

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE