Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders Launching 'Political Revolution' With Help from Ben & Jerry's

It's all subjective for socialists.

|

benjerry.com

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the Democratic presidential hopeful, is apparently doing the formal announcement of his candidacy (a 'political revolution'!) this afternoon in Burlington, the city the socialist once ruled as mayor in the 1980s. Although Sanders bemoaned the choice of dozens of spray deodorants and sneakers when children are going hungry, it's not stopping him from getting Vermont ice cream company Ben & Jerry's involved in today's event. It's no Baskin-Robbins, Ben & Jerry's offers more than twice as many as the 31 at Baskin-Robbins. It takes its flavors seriously, even putting them in a graveyard for possible future resurrection. Why can't you enjoy dozens of varieties of ice cream—or pop-tarts, deodorant, sneakers,  or toilet paper—on the way to a granola-munching socialist utopia? Not all socialists are as enamored by Ben & Jerry's socially-conscious corporate style as Sanders—the Socialist Worker doesn't think the ice cream company, owned by Unilever, has the politically correct stance on Israel and Palestine.

Sanders' embrace of Ben & Jerry's shouldn't be surprising. As he suggested this weekend, the mega-rich can empathize with the poor—presumably they show as much by supporting candidates like Sanders, a neat self-serving set-up. Ben & Jerry's flavors, too, are a sign of the economic prosperity enjoyed in a society. As David Simpson explained in The Rediscovery of Classical Economics, the wealth and economic well-being of a society can be measured more accurately when taking into account how many different goods and services are on offer. Such measurements show a hundred-million fold difference in the wealth of contemporary New York and a society existing 15,000 years ago, writes Simpson, but they still "hardly convey the sheer speed and vibrancy of the rate of change of modern economic life."

Insomuch as Bernie Sanders represents a position outside the mainstream of Democrat thought (debatable) he offers more choice at the ballot box. How much pressure he creates for other Democratic candidates (and perhaps Republicans) to adopt populist rhetoric could become a sobering barometer for how popular such economically ignorant, harmful to the poor, and bankrupt policy positions actually are.

Advertisement

NEXT: On the origins of 'established by the State' in the Affordable Care Act

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.

  1. Socialists have never been very enthusiastic about deodorant or shoes. Ice cream, however…that they like.

    1. I don’t know. I think they would prefer their artisinal and organic deodorant and sustainable material shoes/sandals to those that the state would mass produce and distribute.

      1. Russian Soviet USSR Vintage Men Man Stick Deodorant Antiperspirants Cosmetics

        http://www.ebay.com/itm/Russia…..0587445847

        1. It’s actually called DUR. I don’t know why, but this pleases me. It looks like a glue stick.

          1. Please tell me they have a women’s product as well:

            “HER DUR”.

            1. “HER DUR”.

              Why I love the Reason comments… I will laugh harder than any comedy on TV.

          2. It’s not “yug”?

          3. It obviously shriveled by drying over a long time.

            1. Hey!

              Oh, you meant the Soviet deodorant. Never mind.

        2. That’s why the Soviet Russkies we shared a train car with in Turkey in 1985 had such bad BO.

    2. They like ice cream because it boosts their “meat and dairy” consumption numbers so they can pretend their victims are as well fed as citizens in market economies.

    3. Would be ironic if his first act as president would be to make ice cream a schedule 1 drug. For teh childrenz.

      1. I’m surprised Michelle has not done that move already.

    4. You’re confusing socialists w hippies.

      1. This calls for a Venn diagram.

  2. “Sanders’ embrace of Ben & Jerry’s shouldn’t be happen.”

    I don’t know what this means… but I like it. It reminds me of “where it’s at.”

  3. “Although Sanders bemoaned the choice of dozens of spray deodorants and sneakers when children are going hungry, it’s not stopping him from getting Vermont ice cream company Ben & Jerry’s involved in today’s event.”

    Sigh.

    Second failure today to point out that Unilever, owner of B&J…. is the largest supplier of deodorants in the world.

    It was teed-up for you, right there…. and twice, Reason has whiffed. FOR SHAME.

    1. so you’re saying corporations back politicians who openly decry their products? for what, a change in stance? NEVER!

      1. Sanders is on the payroll of Big Underarm!!

        (the implicit strategy here is similar to that of Philip Morris/Altria – who has attempted to partner with Govt to get FDA regulation of Tobacco, putting cigarettes behind the sales-counter, and forcing customers to request brands by name *rather than be influenced by marketing*. This would naturally benefit whomever the current market-share leader is, and cement their market position in perpetuity)

        He’s clearly got a bias against Unilever’s arch nemesis, Procter & Gamble – whose Old Spice remains the underarm brand of choice of red-blooded American capitalists.

        We’re through the looking glass here people.

        1. We can pit them vs. each other!

          1. There’s clearly something up their sleeve

    2. Ooh, look at this:

      “Another key reason why Unilever remains the company to place your bets on in the deodorant space in the near future is because Unilever wields incredible influence in emerging markets. Unilever remains way ahead of its close competitors in terms of established distribution channels and historical brand recognition in these regions. The company earns majority of its revenues (more than 55%) from emerging markets and is very well-entrenched in regions such as South Asia and Africa. Thanks to rising levels of disposable income and demographics highly skewed towards a younger population (the primary target for Unilever’s advertising campaigns), these are precisely the regions which are expected to drive deodorant sales in the future.”

      Don’t buy so much deodorant, think of the starving children in Africa!

      1. “Don’t buy so much deodorant, think of the starving children in Africa”
        Think of the smelly teenagers in Africa! Unilever is!

      2. Of course the people in Africa who work for Unilever or other businesses that sell all those different deodorants and different brands of sneakers, have jobs. So they aren’t starving.

        Socialists are pathologically unable to understand the connection between commerce and prosperity.

        1. Sneakers! Consider their very name!

          1. You know it!

            And when we stopped calling them sneakers I knew it was part of their diabolical plan , I just knew it !

  4. Sanders’ embrace of Ben & Jerry’s shouldn’t be happen.

    But it shouldn’t be not happen either!

  5. The new liberal slogan:

    IT’S DIFFERENT WHEN WE DO IT!!

    1. umm… that’s not new.

  6. So I can assume what his stance on campaign ice cream reform is, right?

    1. 1 flavor for everyone until we end hunger.

      1. Soylent Green?

        1. Vegan Soylent Green…is that even possible?

  7. As he suggested this weekend, the mega-rich can empathize with the poor?presumably they show as much by supporting candidates like Sanders, a neat self-serving set-up. Ben & Jerry’s flavors, too, are a sign of the economic prosperity enjoyed in a society.

    As I posted earlier today, The Stranger got indignant that people had pointed out the kayak protest against Shell oil consisted nearly entirely of kayaks made from oil.

    They got some nice “professor said” quotes about how ONE can drive to the protest in a 76 Chevy pickup and still fight Shell’s powerful lock on our lives which force us to use oil products. Therefore protesting in petrochemical kayaks aren’t inconsistencies at all.

    But they are. When you buy a kayak made of oil, you are, in fact stoking the fires of Shell’s literal and figurative engines. You are reaping the benefits of oil products in terms of price, flexibility, longetivty and availability. Otherwise, we’d be hewing down forests to make these kayaks– and pretty much everything else if we didn’t use these petrolium products.

    Point being, the inconsistency IS the point, and Sanders is no different than all the other social-signaling progressives.

    1. BLOOD KAYAKS!!!! CONFLICT CANOES!!!!!

      1. I’ve always found it amazing how people who endorse “conscious consumerism” and make efforts to spend their money on conspicuously ‘socially responsible’ items, seem to have zero concern about any of their behaviors which contradict or undermine their stated concerns about said social-issue.

        For instance, the ungodly wasteful use of electricity by the average modern urbanite. The term “conservation” to them means having a cloth grocery bag, and nothing to do with their air conditioning, computer use, refrigerator, or any of their preferred behaviors/activities.

        Back when i did consumer research about this sort of thing, the term used was “Debits and Credits”….where “moral” consumption in one area gives a person the sense of self regard which they then ‘reward’ with things that are less-defensible from the POV of “Saving the Planet” or whatever the fuck their issues are.

        Basically, you buy earth-friendly hemp shoes, but splurge on a luxurious calfskin wallet, and remain ethically “in balance”. Also = the important parts are what other people see, while the indulgent bits remain less visible.

        1. Conspicuous conscious consumption for the Right Sort of People; austerity for the Wrong Sort of People.

        2. Gilmore discovers people often do not live up to their stated ideals!

          1. Tulpa thinks continuing to post under a handle of his that got outed will somehow magically make people forget he got outed!

            1. Whatever Queen Bee.

        3. Yeah, the childless couple who wants a “green” 5000 sq ft home full of wall to wall windows in Arizona.

          1. A boss at a former job was one of these people. He had solar panels on his home…

            …to power the Pool-Heater.

          2. ” a “green” 5000 sq ft home “

            Its made from recycled bamboo! imported from Thailand! This wall is actually compressed Garbage!

            1. Look, gais, they don’t want to have to truly sacrifice and give up their lifestyle. That really isn’t the point.

              That you must sacrifice for the common good and give up your lifestyle, is.

              1. What’s the point of living large if everybody can do it?

        4. IT’S HARD WORK TO BE ENLIGHTENLY PROGRESSIVE!!!

        5. Hell, this whole idea of buying a new hybrid car to reduce energy consumption is a flagrant con from beginning to end. I know it is too much to expect these ninnies to understand iow much energy it takes to smelt then form the steel and other metals that go into their shiny, new toy, and all the logistics required to bring it all together but how this remains a complete secret sometimes amazes me.

        6. My enviro-fundie roommate filled up the bathroom waste basket with tissues every day. Filled it. Every. Day.

          She would do conservation as long it didn’t affect her beauty routine (or any of her other routines, for that matter). But your beauty routine? Surely you can sacrifice your routine.

          1. You should have said to her ‘in your case, any ‘beauty’ routine truly is a waste, so just let me use the hair dryer hun.’

  8. Also noteworthy, Burlington’s other tourist-friendly factory destination, The Vermont Teddy Bear Company, has also been conquered by the capitalist class enemy. They were acquired by the Mustang Group in 2005.

    1. But what of the coat factory?

      1. That’s Burlington, New Jersey. Dude.

        1. I thought their only products were orange guidos and toxic waste. But I repeat myself.

  9. Not as incongruent as it might look – one of the great achievements of Soviet Five Year Plans was that ice-cream must be produced massively and sold at a reasonable price.

    1. Those have to be the most somber looking ice cream eaters I’ve ever seen:)

      1. It’s Russia – things done in public are done somberly. Cheer is for private occasions 🙂

    2. What flavors did they have?

      Vodka, and what else?

      1. Sadness.

      2. “Wood, liver, corn and vanilla. And we’re out of vanilla”

        … Hobbit

  10. “Bernie Sanders Launching ‘Political Revolution’ ”

    For some reason I get really nervous when people like him start talking about revolution.

    1. Yes, but has anyone tried – I mean really tried – centrally planning out and controlling an/the economy? I think people may actually eventually thank leaders for freeing them of the burden of choice.

      1. They tried it in Chile when they got their hands on a fancy 1970s computer. The central econ control room looked like the bridge of the Enterprise, down to the stage hands throwing slides onto screens to simulate real data.

      2. I like to see those thankful people.

  11. Bernie is harmless. He will get most of the Kucinich vote.

    1. Bernie Huckabee is harmless. He will get most of the Kucinich Santorum vote.

      Odd that we don’t see shriek posting this sentence, no?

      1. Christfags should be spit on, while socialists are to be benignly tolerated.

      2. The Huckster won 6-8 states in the 2008 GOP primaries iirc. He could win it all this time if the GOP bigshits split their support between Jeb, Scottie, and Christie.

        Kucinich probably never finished in the top three in any state.

        1. Still trying to salvage your sock, Tulpa? God damn you are astoundingly pathetic.

    2. Fuck off, Tulpa.

      1. Wait, wait, PB is Tulpa? Did I miss something?

        1. You missed Sunday. Tulpa is Bo and shriek (PB). Enjoy reading.

          1. This need to link anyone who dares find Episarch and his clique less than impressive to be one person, preferably from the past, is a testament to the bizarre insularity this group suffers from. In the past I’ve been called Tulpa, Mary, MNG, PB, ‘Joel’, etc., etc. I mean, it can’t be that numerous people come across Reason and the comments and see Episarch and his Mutt and Jeff companions and think, wait, what? It’s actually all the work of one devoted, maniacal dissenter!

            Goldstein is everywhere!

            1. I love when your attempts to pretend it isn’t you sound more like you than this handle ever has. Holy fuck, your stupidity is glorious in its majestic scope. You literally can’t not fuck up. You’re a loser’s loser. You’re the person they call a loser.

              1. You’re epically full of shit and have obviously been in your pretend-world gamer dungeon too long.

                Come out and soak your fucking head in some reality for once.

                1. Tsk, tsk, Tulpy-Poo. If you go using “Bo” insults with your shriek handle, it makes it kind of obvious. You really are quite inept, aren’t you.

                  1. You’re insular derangement is enjoyable, I’ll say that.

                    1. Oh my gosh, I just went to your link that ‘proves’ that I’m really Tulpa (and PB is too apparently). The ‘proof’ is that all three of us were (gasp!) commenting on the same thread! Lol!

            2. Can I be Mutt?

            3. Who is Joel?

              1. Joel is Tulpa, apparently

                1. THERE IS NO JOEL, ONLY ZUUL.

    3. Poor you, still struggling to displace your head from your anal cavity. Sanders will easily do far better than Kucinich. People are actually taking this idiot seriously, and he’s pushing Hillary to the left. He’s not quite nothing to worry about.

      Plus, in case you forgot, the moron is a United States senator. He cannot possible be called harmless.

  12. So I’m expecting the Usual Suspects to erupt in outrage at a filthy corporation (Ben & Jerry’s) providing support for a candidate.

    Any minute now.

    Any . . . . minute . . . now. Just polishing up their talking points, I’m sure.

    1. Ben and Jerry are not people.

  13. TOO MANY FLAVORS! Bernie Sanders is NOT a serious candidate. But Ben&Jerry;’s still makes some delishush iced creams.

    1. Americone Dream is pretty freakin’ awesome

    2. Sanders is reminiscent of the Buchanan Commission that Doherty wrote about in Radicals for Capitalism.

  14. So Bernie wants to bring a economic model to this country from South America? Then we can use dollars for toilet paper! And many here on H&R will get rich on the black market.See,it’s all good/,

    1. Everyone here already wipes their ass with hundred dollar bills or rather have their orphans do it.

      1. I’m far too important to waste time on such pedestrian matters as digestion and elimination. I have orphans do that for me as well.

  15. Is Vermont still the whitest state in the nation?

    1. I believe that’s Maine, but Vermont and New Hampshire come pretty close.

      1. Actually I thought NutraSweet was right, that it was Vermont. Ever been to Vermont?

        1. I’ve been several times, my grandparents lived across the lake from Burlington in Plattsburgh.

          But per, Wikipedia:

          Maine has the highest percentage of French Americans among U.S. states. It also has the highest percentage of non-Hispanic whites of any state, at 94.4% of the total population, according to the 2010 Census.

          1. Since when do the French count as white?

            1. Or as people, for that matter.

              1. Well, its not like they’re gingers (most of ’em, anyway). That’s got to count for something.

          2. I think it is entirely reasonable to simply lump VT, NH, and ME together in one big “Here There Be Whitey” blotch on the map.

          3. There are probably a few non-white people in Burlington, if I recall correctly. I wouldn’t really be able to say the same about Augusta or Bangor. Maybe Portland.

            1. Lewiston, ME has a large Somali population.

              1. Slight change of scenery for the Somalis.

                Arabs in Michigan, Somalis in Maine… what, they *really* didn’t like the desert, I guess? Also = do they suffer from Moosephobia?

              2. Apparently a shitload of Sudanese refugees got resettled on the outskirts of Portland several years ago. Seems pretty cruel, if you ask me.

          4. Plattsburgh! Saranac Lake Ho!

          5. Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Iowa.

            http://www.indexmundi.com/fact…..tage#chart

          6. I’ve been several times, my grandparents lived across the lake from Burlington in Plattsburgh.

            I would assume you are familiar with Church st. in Burlington. Very entertaining place when the crazes are having one of their protests.

            1. When I was a kid, Church St. was actually fun & quirky. I was shocked at the vanilla mass market sanitized retail that is there now when I was there 4 years ago. Ain’t been back (to Church St.) since.

    2. Just like vanilla ice cream

    3. They’re following that South African model that Bernie was promoting.

    4. Utah.

  16. Besides, Bernie is opposed to Obama’s TPP. That makes him a joke of a candidate. The very large Dem business community will shun him.

    1. …you say in the comments section about a large Dem business endorsing Bernie Sanders rather than shunning him.

      First rule of human nature: Even self interest is no match for stupidity.

  17. he’d be happy with one flavor of ice cream as long as the flavor is cake.

  18. And libertarians will drive on government roads to vote!!!!
    This is a pretty silly attack on an admittedly pretty silly politician.

    1. Secret. strong enough for a leftist man, but made for a woman. but I repeat myself.

    2. what are government roads exactly? Ones where government vehicles can go only?

      If you mean roads in general….im not sure anyone here is opposed to roads which are funded by tax dollars so your analogy is lacking.

      Note libertarians are for limiting government. Perhaps you are thinking of anarchists.

  19. They have good coats, dude.

  20. Krayewski’s username is Ed-PC? How pedestrian. That’s right, hackers can glean all manner of useful information from bad links. (Unless you meant to share out to readers your documents folder.)

    1. Krayzie Eddie

  21. Place your bets : over/under 6.5 times Bernie calls out the Koch Brothers in his speech

  22. He’s got my vote. Although I directly oppose him on pretty much all of his ideological stances, he has the right idea on getting money out of government. Crony capitalism is the crux of pretty much all that ails us. Until we fix that one, everything else is just so much smoke. No one else, not Rand Paul, not even Gary Johnson, has come up with anything to attack that cancer. Only Bernie.
    Once we bring down the oligarchy and return governance to the people, then will be the time to debate and persuade our peers of all the benefits, to everyone, of the truly free market.

    1. when did Bernie come out against money in government? getting rid of the 16th amendment would do it, but I doubt you or Bernie mean that. what you and Bernie mean by getting money out of government is shut up citizen.

      1. That’s really cool how you have the ability to tell me what I mean. I guess you need to practice a little more on accuracy though. I could, if you wish, post links to a shit ton of vids of Sanders speaking on this subject. But only if you wish, I don’t have pissing everyone off as my prime objective.

        1. You can link to him railing against nebulous boogeymen all you like, and maybe you’ll even find some specifics in his rants, but unless he’s going full Pol Pot, he has no real interest in getting “money out of government”. For one thing, I doubt he’s against taxation, and that’s the prime source of “money in government”. For another, he almost certainly is more interested in keeping his opponents from spending money, but not so much his supporters.

          1. I can only guess you are being intentionally obtuse. I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the undue influence money is able to purchase in government. The kind of influence that allows special interests to write the legislation that our congress members add on as riders to completely unrelated bills and slip them through virtually unnoticed.
            The sort of money in government that stifles competition by allowing lobbyists to author regulations that create insurmountable barriers of entry.
            In the last five years the top 200 donor companies have given 5.8 billion dollars in influence. For that they’ve received 4.4 TRILLION dollars in taxpayer support.
            Am I clearly stating my position now?

            1. the only way to stop the kind of influence you describe would be to strip government of the power to give these kinds of favors. i.e. trim the tax code down to a note-card, and shutter most of the major regulatory agencies.

              If you think that’s where a socialist like Bernie is headed, you’re insane. But whatever, i fully encourage support for Bernie for whatever reason. The longer he’s in the race, the better.

              1. Actually, Sanders wants to come from the other direction and hobble lobbyists, while maintaining constitutionality. By not trying to prevent lobbying altogether but severely limiting the campaign contribution amounts allowed, along with restrictions involving how much time must pass between when a congressional member accepts a donation from a lobbyist and when they can accept a position with the lobbying firm.

                1. hobble lobbyists, while maintaining constitutionality

                  So, we’ll be getting rid of that pesky ” petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances” language, eh?

                  severely limiting the campaign contribution amounts allowed

                  Maybe you don’t really have any idea of what you’re talking about, in terms of constitutionality.

                  1. No, we won’t. And that’s what makes the plan actionable.
                    Imposing a $500 contribution limit on lobbyists is very
                    likely to be found constitutional. The Supreme Court
                    has never directly addressed the constitutionality of
                    applying a lower campaign contribution limit to lobbyists.
                    However, the Fourth Circuit recently upheld a North
                    Carolina law that completely prohibits contributions in
                    any amount from lobbyists in Preston v. Leake, 660 F. 3d
                    726 (2011). The Second Circuit also has recently issued
                    an opinion suggesting that contributions by lobbyists
                    can be strictly limited, but not prohibited entirely, in
                    Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield, 616 F. 3d 189,
                    206 (2d Cir. 2010), and such limits enacted by New York
                    City were subsequently upheld by the Second Circuit
                    in 2011 in Ognibene v. Parkes, 671 F. 3d 174, 179-80
                    (2d Cir. 2011). The Act does not prohibit contributions
                    from lobbyists entirely, but rather limits them to $500
                    per calendar year to each recipient. This $500 amount
                    permits lobbyists to express their support for candidates,
                    but recognizes the increased danger of corruption and
                    the appearance of corruption presented by contributions
                    made by lobbyists.

                    1. Why don’t you try to form an original thought instead of parroting some nonsense?

                      This $500 amount permits lobbyists to express their support for candidates, but recognizes the increased danger of corruption and the appearance of corruption presented by contributions made by lobbyists.

                      I must have missed the “ask permission” part of the First Amendment. Also, heaven forbid the system “appears” corrupt! We wouldn’t want the corruption to actually be visible.

                      This is all such hogwash. You first of all haven’t proved a damn thing about the effectiveness of your solution in eliminating corruption (or do we have to “pass it to find out what’s in it”?), and your appeal to constitutionality is vapid. Well, if we just let the people have a little freedom, then it’s all good!

                      At the end of the day, you don’t want to own up for the fact that you vote in politicians (like Sanders!) who are so easily bought. It’s a fucking joke that you want the very same corrupt people you can’t help yourself from voting for to reign in their own ability to be corrupt.

                    2. That’s quite a bit of vitriol. In another post Here, I linked to the proposed act in it’s entirety. Feel free to read it, along with the evaluations of each of it’s provisions by constitutional law attorneys.
                      Since I became of voting age in 1986, I voted for Ron Paul in 88, Perot in 92, Harry Browne in 96 and 2000, Badnarik in 2004, Paul again in 2008, and Johnson in 2012. What a bunch of crooks, right?
                      In Sander’s long political career, you can’t find a single instance of corruption. Go ahead, try.
                      Put up or shut up.

                    3. No, we won’t. And that’s what makes the plan actionable.
                      Imposing a $500 contribution limit on lobbyists is very
                      likely to be found constitutional.

                      Money is speech.

                      Fail.

                    4. I guess if that’s what you really believe, there’s no sense discussing further with you.
                      Enjoy your oligarchy. I’ll keep plugging along for my republic.

                    5. How much did Insurance companies and big pharna pay lobbying for PPACA- and how did that fucking communist shitbag vote?

    2. This is the dumbest concern trolling I’ve ever seen in my life.

      1. Especially because the corporate PAC money and individual donations are pretty evenly split and cancel each other out.

        1. That’s not how it works. They buy access to everybody, regardless of who wins. “Evenly split” describes well some particular donors’ strategy.

      2. Seriously? You don’t see how nothing good will ever happen until we remove the ability for the ultra wealthy to unduly influence our government?
        You’re more concerned that Bernie thinks we have too many choices of deodorant than that our government is owned by whichever special interests have lobbyists that funnel the most money to their campaigns or offer them the most lucrative jobs?
        How do you achieve a free market from that?

        1. You don’t see how nothing good will ever happen until we remove the ability for the ultra wealthy to unduly influence our government?

          It’s called an election. It happens every 2-6 years. Everybody gets one vote, and last time I checked the “ultra-wealthy” (which is who, exactly?) constitute a very small share of the population. If it’s such a problem, vote the fuckers out.

          1. You actually have no idea how government works do you?

            1. I don’t think any regular here is the one who’s unclear on the concept of money in politics.

              Naivete of this magnitude is almost cute.

            2. Are you suggesting that electoral fraud is a problem? I’m not sure what money has to do with that, unless election officials are being bribed.

        2. You don’t see how nothing good will ever happen until we remove the ability for the ultra wealthy to unduly influence our government?

          Poor boy has it backwards. John, are you familiar with protection schemes? Works kinda like this. Guido walks into your business and says “you got a nice business here, would be to bad if something terrible happened to it”. Guido then sells you ‘insurance’ that if you make your payments, not only with nothing bad happen to your business, but as an added bonus Guido will insure that you won’t have to worry about any pesky competition.

          1. I would be happy to check out an example of this in action. I’m assuming that in your scenario Guido is the government and the large corporation is the poor mook getting leaned on, right?

            1. I would be happy to check out an example of this in action.

              Microsoft pretty much stayed out of Washington politics until 98 when Janet Reno filed an anti-trust suit against them. They have been paying the protection money since.

              1. “Microsoft says it had to take action after it was beaten to Washington by its rivals in the software business ? including Netscape Communications Corp. and Sun Microsystems Inc. ? which mounted an aggressive campaign in late 1996 accusing Microsoft of rampant antitrust violations. That lobbying effort, Microsoft officials believe, helped launch the antitrust suit filed last May by the Justice Department and 19 state attorneys general.

                Now, the two sides are engaged in the Washington version of a shootout, with Microsoft’s opponents fielding an equally daunting team of well-connected lobbyists and scrambling to keep up with Microsoft’s political giving.”
                http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..050799.htm

                Still sorta looks to me like lobbying is the problem here.

                1. Still sorta looks to me like lobbying is the problem here.

                  Yes, the DoJ was playing hard to get.

                2. You are sure thick John. From the article you posted:

                  Such tightfistedness and indifference to politics had long been a point of pride for Microsoft and its billionaire chairman, Bill Gates. Washington, he boasted at the time, wasn’t “on our radar screen.”

                  Then Guido came a knocking and Microsoft started paying the man. See how it works John?

                  1. I do indeed. What was it again that brought Guido knocking? Being as thick as I am I forget these things.

                    1. Government regulation of their industry.

                      If the government is not in a position to grant special favors, then lobbying becomes pointless. But try to ‘hobble the lobbyists’ all you want, it just means some bureaucrat or some judge or some prosecutor gets to decide which lobbyists to hobble worst. Here’s a hint: the ones supporting the causes they hate the most; while the ‘friendly’ ones get a blind eye.

                      We already have regulations. With regulations comes regulators who get to enforce those regulations at their discretion. That’s the problem.

                    2. In this particular instance, since it would be all lobbying affected, there would be no discretionary decisions to make. And even being as sticky a widget as lobbying is, it’s a much simpler and easier task to manage, with immediate effect, than trying to tackle the behemoth that is government regulation.
                      But in general, I’m on the same page. I wouldn’t go so far as to say we should remove ALL regulation, or shutter ALL regulatory agencies, but there is lots of garbage regulation that could and should be removed. And it will take time and due diligence to sort through the more than 180000 pages of the CFR to determine what chaff can be cut and what should remain.

                  2. “Don’t hate the playa, hate the game.”

                    Dum-dum hates the playa, doesn’t see anything wrong with the game.

    3. I oppose him on everything but he is the only one i can vote for.

      Makes sense!

      1. Yeah that would be really dumb. If I’d said that.
        But instead, what I said was that I agree with him on this one very important issue, one that I think trumps and outweighs all the petty BS that commenters here seem to be rabid about.
        Who gives a shit how many choices of deodorant Sanders thinks we should have?
        What exactly do you think he can do to limit that?

        1. People getting fucked by their government, up to and including getting killed, is “petty BS”?

          1. People are being fucked by the government and killed with icecream? Or are you just going completely out of context?

            1. all the petty BS that commenters here seem to be rabid about

              Maybe you should use a narrower brush next time, or else you will drag in a lot of “context” with your rants.

              1. Forgive me for assuming you had the intelligence to discern that a post regarding this article would be in the context of this article.
                My bad. I’ll try to be more clear moving forward.

        2. Provides citation – “Venezuela”

          1. I probably would respond more thoughtfully if I had any idea what you’re on about.

            1. They got money out of government! And most everything else, really. They haven’t gone full Pol Pot yet, though.

        3. “Who gives a shit how many choices of deodorant Sanders thinks we should have?
          What exactly do you think he can do to limit that?”

          You’re kidding, right? I mean, please tell me you’re joking.

          Have you not been paying any attention to the left’s MO these past 100 years or so?

          If he/they could find a way he/they WOULD ABSOLUTELY try to limit it. Of course, they can’t explicitly do that (because, well, retarded) so they putz around at the margins with banning and censoring schemes – ie salt, sugary drinks etc.

          Piece by piece they get it done.

          Also, I think Gilmore explained your position well. Fine, you want money out of politics but Sanders is not the guy to pull that off as explained.

          1. Sanders is the only guy who has put forth an actionable plan to do just that. I would LOVE for someone like Paul to come up with a plan to fix it. Johnson even more so, but I honestly could care less who it is, or which party they come from, so long as they take action to repair the republic.
            Yes, I’m a capitalist. I love free market ideas. I love choices. I believe in the invisible guiding hand that self regulates free markets. I believe capitalism has raised more people from poverty than any other economic system in history. I’ve probably been a large L Libertarian since before some of you were born.
            I also can plainly see that we have nothing like a free market and won’t ever until we can remove the overwhelming influence that corporations, banks, and multi-billionaires have on our legislative branch. That’s the war.
            I never imagined when I joined the Libertarian Party in 1986 that it would someday champion the idea that corporations are people and that money is free speech.
            How big of a Big Gulp I can buy or how many brands of deodorant are available kinda pales in comparison.
            I’ve always had a bit of pride that libertarians based their ideas on a foundation of logic and reason. That pragmatism was at its core. In the last decade or so it’s devolved into blind following of dogma with the same sort of superioristic mud slinging I always thought was reserved for fanatical liberals and conservatives.
            So tell me, who IS the guy to pull it off then?

            1. Sanders is the only guy who has put forth an actionable plan to do just that.

              He has the jackboot vote.

              “We’ll get the money out of politics, even if it kills you!”

            2. I also can plainly see that we have nothing like a free market and won’t ever until we can remove the overwhelming influence that corporations, banks, and multi-billionaires have on our legislative branch.

              If you want money out of politics, you first have to get politics out of money.

              Anything else is just jerking off.

              1. Exactly. Glad someone else sees it too.

            3. I also can plainly see that we have nothing like a free market and won’t ever until we can remove the overwhelming influence that corporations, banks, and multi-billionaires have on our legislative branch. That’s the war.

              You have it backwards. Corps, etc actively seek to buy influence because of the power the government has over them. If there wasn’t so much meddling in the day-to-day economic affairs of private citizens then they would not have to seek protection in the way they do.

              Capital always flows to where it achieves its best return, and I think we agree that the return through “lobbying” is too high. Our solution is to decrease the amount of benefits available to those that play the game. Yours is to merely raise the barrier to entry, which we know from experience simply entrenches the existing players.

              1. I never imagined when I joined the Libertarian Party in 1986 that it would someday champion the idea that corporations are people and that money is free speech.

                You don’t think these concepts through nearly enough and are letting your hatred of monied entities guide your policy preferences. This is bad; it makes you susceptible to demagoguery. Corporations aren’t literally people, but the individuals which compose them are. They do not forfeit their rights merely because they speak and act on behalf of a group, and the group itself has every right to communicate the wishes of its membership.

                Likewise, money isn’t actually speech, but it does make mass, directed communication possible. Regulating the amount that can be spent in politics produces the exact same environment as simply telling certain individuals and groups that they may not utter any additional words about an election.

                1. You’ve got me wrong. I don’t hate monied entities. I’d even like to be one. I don’t even blame them for utilizing every avenue available to them to enhance their success. That is capitalism by definition. I blame the government for perverting what was intended to be a protection in our constitution to ensure that every citizen had access to have their grievances addressed into a bidding war for influence that strips 99.9% of us of that access.

                2. money isn’t actually speech, but it does make mass, directed communication possible. Regulating the amount that can be spent in politics produces the exact same environment as simply telling certain individuals and groups that they may not utter any additional words about an election.

                  That analogy may have made sense at one time, but not any more. Communication is now extremely cheap. For practically nothing, you can make your writings available to billions of people in the blink of an eye.

                  What’s limited & therefore expensive is att’n. In fact that seems to be a fixed resource per capita. So people compete vs. each other for att’n. The more att’n one commands of someone, the less att’n available for everyone else from that person. It really is a fixed pie that cannot be grown, only distributed.

                  The complaint is that those who can afford it & willing are hogging most of people’s att’n. Not only that, but att’n is subject to a lot of positive feedback; the more att’n you command, the more you’re likely to get. This is essentially the complaint about the bipartisan presidential debates commission, for instance.

                  I don’t see a way out of this jam.

                  1. What’s limited & therefore expensive is att’n.

                    We’re making the same point, essentially. If you can’t pay for the attention then you may as well not even be speaking. You’re equivalent to some mook yelling obscenities at a football game. Because of this reality, preventing individuals from pooling resources so their voices can be heard (i.e. forming a corporation) is tantamount to stifling the free speech of those individuals.

              2. So you see banks and corporations as private citizens?
                My solution is to decrease the amount of benefits available to those who play the game. Limiting lobbyists contributions to $500 annually lowers the barrier of entry. It allows anyone with $500 to be on equal footing with any huge corporation in terms of access to petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

                1. So you see banks and corporations as private citizens?

                  Yes, absolutely. How are they not?

                  Limiting lobbyists contributions to $500 annually lowers the barrier of entry. It allows anyone with $500 to be on equal footing with any huge corporation in terms of access to petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

                  Again, your obsession with money is blinding you. If money is no longer the primary barrier to entry (which it isn’t at present, if we’re being honest) then influence will be reserved to those that have preexisting connections with lawmakers, can provide non-financial quid pro quos, or can simply do a better job of hiding any attempts to purchase influence.

                  Those qualities (particularly the first) are significantly harder for newcomers to acquire. Sanders’s plan merely serves to better entrench incumbents and the existing elite, but I guess that’s a small price to pay to avoid the sinful stench of cash.

                  1. Yes, absolutely. How are they not?
                    Well, for one thing, banks and corporations don’t die. They also don’t vote, or if we’re being honest, pay taxes.

                    I also can’t understand how you can claim that money isn’t the primary barrier to entry. I’m open to hearing your explanation so I may better understand your reasoning.

                    Thirdly, to save space, I didn’t post all the provisions of the proposed Anti-Corruption Act, but it does provide remedies to all of the contingencies you listed.
                    Anti-Corruption Act

                    Lastly, you seem to be stuck on this idea that I have some problem with money. I do not. I have a problem with the process that allows those with money to influence policy to the point where public opinion has near zero impact upon it.
                    A recent Princeton study, Gilens and Page – Testing Theories of American Politics, shows that legislation is likely to become law about 30% of the time, regardless of public opinion either for or against. However, it also shows that for those able to gain access through lobbying, favored legislation is passed about 68% of the time, and unwanted legislation is squashed nearly 100% of the time.

                    That’s a problem

                    1. Well, for one thing, banks and corporations don’t die. They also don’t vote, or if we’re being honest, pay taxes.

                      They’re not people themselves, they’re composed of people. I mean this is literally something a first-grader can understand. Do you possess abstract thinking at all?

                      Trees also don’t vote or pay taxes either, should we clamp down on the ominous threat of arboreal influence on politics?

                      I also can’t understand how you can claim that money isn’t the primary barrier to entry. I’m open to hearing your explanation so I may better understand your reasoning.

                      Clearly not, as he just gave it but it flew over your head. You are already putting your voice on a medium that practically anyone in the world can see. How much did it cost you? The problem is that nobody (rounded down) gives a shit what you think (nor what I think, for that matter). But that’s democracy for you.

                    2. They’re not people themselves, they’re composed of people. I mean this is literally something a first-grader can understand. Do you possess abstract thinking at all?

                      So are baseball teams, classrooms, lines at McDonald’s, and for that matter the Federal Government. Does this also give each of those a collective identity as a private citizen? If you think so, obviously you are more of an abstract thinker than myself.

                      Trees also don’t vote or pay taxes either, should we clamp down on the ominous threat of arboreal influence on politics?

                      Trees? This is what you counter with? How about babies, or dogs, or birds?
                      It’s very difficult to give your opinion any serious consideration when you come forth with silly shit like that, but I am trying..

                      You are already putting your voice on a medium that practically anyone in the world can see. How much did it cost you?

                      You miss the point completely. You somehow equate the ability to publicly post in a forum to bribing an elected to act in your interest regarding legislation. You really can’t see the difference?

          2. Without any legislation at all, in the USA they could ban most underarm deodorants from interstate commerce. All they’d need is a FDA rulemaking saying the antimicrobials in the amounts used in such products are too dangerous, rendering the products “adulterated cosmetics”. It wouldn’t get rid of the product category, but limit it to those products that were basically perfume (masking fragrances), and possibly some that absorbed odors. Banning them from interstate commerce would under most state pharmacy laws make them illegal in intrastate commerce too.

            1. By (miss)using the interstate commerce clause, the government can ban or regulate pretty much anything, without legislation.
              However, for the most part, they don’t. And it’s because if you take away people’s 18 or whatever choices of deodorant, people would lose their minds.
              It’s why I’m not overly concerned by Sander’s dreaded socialism. It would never fly in consumerist America. I’m waaaay more interested in how he proposes to return our republic to a government of the people, for the people, by the people.
              Seriously, I’m not some Bernie fanboy.
              Show me someone with an actionable plan to fix the lobbying problem that also shares my (and for the most part OUR) ideology and I’m all over it.

        4. You do realize socialism and more government results in more money and lobbying in politics. You want to vote for someone where his ideology is the exact opposite of what you want. The way to do it is by reducing government

          1. You do realize that’s been true of every administration since Eisenhower, right? Regardless of what their stated ideologies were. Of course I want to reduce government, it’s pretty safe to say anyone on this site does. There is absolutely no hope that will ever happen until we successfully minimize the effect of big money on policy.

            1. reduce government

              You keep using that word.

              1. Yes, both of them. And?

  23. Exactly. Someone should ask Bernie. Who needs all those funky flavors when chocolate and vanilla (and sometimes strawberry) will do.

    Fuckheads.

    1. …will do?

    2. Did anybody ask Bernie about Chunky Monkey yet?

      1. I heard Sanders speech today.

        The guy sounds like he’s back in 1932 with all his populist goobily-mi-gooky gibberish.

        Bizarre assertions he made.

        1. IIRC, according to Milton Friedman the most influential Party in the US in the 1930s was the Socialist Party. The ruling Parties kept taking their ideas and implementing them.

    3. I for one like vanilla just fine. If I want chocolate, I’ll go get a damn chocolate bar.

      Which will be rationed, of course.

  24. We studied Ben & Jerry’s in a strategic management class, early 1990s. IIRC, the commie duo founded the company with a set of rules, one was the lowest paid employee will be paid no less than 1/10 of the highest paid person in the firm.

    A “problem” arose when they started making a lot of money. It was portrayed in class that they ran into problems when they needed to hire a financial manager, but they could not find one of the proper caliber for chicken-feed. Eventually they came to some compromise of their rule, or something.

    For some reason, I sounded like the only person in the class (including the PhD student instructor) with the solution of “Just pay the lowest paid guys more and make the ratio.”

    Somehow this seemed unreasonable to them. It reminded me of Orwell’s “Animal Farm” and the solution was to change the rules.

    1. Sounds interesting, but I have to admit I’m not following.

    2. It would be a BIT more expensive to pay thousands of ice cream scoopers twice as much than to pay one financial manager twice as much.

      1. Ah.

      2. If the Financial Manager is so important (and apparently, he was) make him the highest paid guy and adjust the remainder accordingly.

        When I was in the Defense biz I knew of more than a few engineers who were paid better than the Executive VPs they worked for. I’m sure that happens in plenty of other places too.

        1. Any financial manager worth his pay would tell them not to stick to any fixed ratios of compensation and just manage the company cash flows for growth and margin expansion. then sell the company at a significant premium based on those numbers. Like they did.

          1. Yea, IF they would have talked to one before they set off on their collectivist milk-fat-fueled dream. My point is they could have kept to their stupid original rule and their Utopian dream of DA MAN not becoming rich off the workers would come true.

            1. So, did anyone in the class see them as the hypocrites that they are? Or at least see how socialism doesn’t work in the real world?

            2. ” they could have kept to their stupid original rule and their Utopian dream of DA MAN not becoming rich off the workers would come true”

              Sure. But that would be fucking stupid. Which is why no one in the real world sticks to those kind of “college dorm” kind of business models.

    3. But the financial manager wouldn’t be the highest paid person in the organization, would he?

      1. Depends. Many senior financial execs might demand performance-related compensation. Or at least that was the kind of incentive package common @ growth-oriented companies in the 1990s.

  25. file:///C:/Users/Ed-PC/Documents/Reason/ reason.com/blog…

    Thanks for the direct link to your harddrive!

    1. It was an interesting read.

      Although after snooping around some, his taste in music left much to be desired.

      1. He’s a Lou Reed fan?

  26. Sanders bemoaned the choice of dozens of spray deodorants and sneakers when children are going hungry

    I wonder what he thinks of all those unnecessary flavors of ice cream.

    1. INVIZIBLE BILLIUNAIRES R TAKIN UR SHIT!!

      Dems love to just go, “herblegurble RICH PEOPLE!! garblinggurg” and it apparently makes sense to people. Somehow the idea that we’re going to make *the rest of the country better off* by having Government take rich people’s stuff is just the most compelling logic.

      1. HEADBANG WITH BERNIE!

  27. BTW, there are a shit-ton of small, local, non-corporate ice cream makers in VT. He didn’t have to go with the corporate megalith.

    1. Did they offer? I’m supposing your options are limited to those who offer.

      1. Yea, because Bernie and his team couldn’t pick up the phone and ask, either. Hurpdadurp.

        1. Right. Because I’m sure the idea of offering free icecream to promote the campaign originated with Bernie’s team. And they thought to themselves ” let’s call a small, local, non corporate ice cream maker and ask them to donate 5000 or so servings. I’m sure they can swing it”

          1. What, socialists only turn out to an event if there’s free shit offered?

            If you’re a guy who rails against corporations and the wealthy, maybe you should think to go to the little guy without expecting them to give you freebies they can’t afford…

            And yes, it obviously is a troll account.

            1. You have it backwards. Sanders didn’t got to B&J or anybody else and ask them to supply freebies. B&J offered and the Sanders team accepted. It’s not criminal.
              And sure, obviously, pretty much the only commenter here using his real name must be a troll.

      2. Hi new tulpa!

  28. I got it! I got it!!

    If we just diverted deodorant sprays from underarm use to sneakers, we could get by w fewer pairs of them. 2 birds, 1 stone.

    Thank you, I am your benefactor.

  29. I got it: deodorant flavored ice cream. No, sneakers-smelling deodorant. Sneakers flavored ice cream? Ah, sneaker-flavored ice cream that you can use as deodorant! Someone get me a wheelbarrow for all the money I’m about to make!

  30. I just don’t get you, Bernie. I suppose I don’t hate rich people, or resent rich people – or blame them for my troubles.

  31. My dear, the next five minutes can change your life!
    Give a chance to your good luck.
    Read this article, please!
    Move to a better life!
    We make profit on the Internet since 1998! ????? http://www.workweb40.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.