52 Comments

1. Neo:

As I posted before, the folks in the Netherlands drew a direct parallel between Theo Van Gogh and Michael Moore. both are/were a “pain-in-the-ass“.

Yo, Michael Moore, when someone (not me) blows your brains out, the silence from Hollywood will be equally deafening.

Nov 24, 2004 - 8:12 am 2. Atlanta Lawyer:

Hey, at least Ms. Johnson gave you a plug by recognizing that you had spoken out and by mentioning your blog. It was too bad that she didn’t include a link, however.

Nov 24, 2004 - 8:32 am 3. Samuel:

As a “September 12″ Republican myself, I obviously view the questions concerning the silence in Hollywood about the murder of Theo Van Gogh as rhetorical. The real flicker of hope for me is to witness a mild undercurrent of conservatism in the intelligentsia and other heretofore liberal bastions. The following to me is a huge sign, but it also make me question the polls and exit polling even more. There are many “realities” that must be come to terms with by both sides.

On a previous topic, I had posted earlier a “mini-poll” I did at a business convention that showed Bush’s Jewish support increasing in the Northeast. I have since talked with a person that used to do such work for me and I was flabbergasted by what was revealed to me. In a poll he took, the Jewish vote according to him (and he is a Democrat) MORE THAN DOUBLED! In other words, what was around 20 percent according to him increased to over 40 percent! This also was a scientific poll of more than 500 people. Again I am flabbergasted and wouldn’t believe it if I didn’t know the source. I asked. Why is this not being discussed? His reply, “It is a ‘dirty secret’ they want to keep a secret, don’t expect them to talk much about some of their internal polls, they aren’t very encouraging.”

My daughter, the 17 year old “neo-con”, is a gifted artist and debater, the day after the election she did a brilliant “political cartoon” that displayed a GOP Elephant lumbering through the election saying “OOPS!” as it inadvertently trampled on a bewildered, confused Donkey. I think Hollywood and the Liberal establishment are still somewhat bewildered by what happened on November 2nd., but I think in some ways even the GOP is just coming to realize what just happened.

Nov 24, 2004 - 8:37 am 4. Caroline:

Talking to a liberal acqaintance of mine the other day and arguing over everything from the Iraq war to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to the Patriot Act – I came to see even more clearly that currently there are 2 seemingly irreconcilable “narratives” (which actually cannot be easily categorized into liberal vs. conservative so I will use the term “narratives”): one either views the US (Bush)/Israel as the new Nazi threat or one views radical Islam as the new Nazi threat, with the Palestinians and their European and liberal American Democratic supporters worldwide as engaged in engineering a kind of “final solution” by forcing the Israeli’s into a suicidal position. In a sense I trust that both sides are genuinely trying to avoid a repetition of history – they just martial different assumptions and evidence to support their respective narratives.

I say this in order to put into context the point I want to make about film. While those adopting the US(Bush)/Israel narrative might welcome these new “conservative” voices in film (although regular readers of this blog might have reason to question which of these narratives is in fact more conservative and which more liberal), I can almost guarantee that those adopting the other narrative will see this as further evidence that America is becoming more fascistic, more “patriotic”, more “nationalistic” – in other words they will see alarming Nazi propoganda. That is my prediction.

My conclusion is that a great many (I will assume) well-meaning people are confused about fascism and nazism, which is why we have 2 competing narratives, i.e. Bush=Hitler” vs. “Islamofascism”. These competing narratives are bound to have a bearing on public reception of the new kinds of films that the WSJ reporter is forecasting.

Nov 24, 2004 - 8:40 am 5. Caroline:

Addendum to my post – along with “patriotic” at the bottom of paragraph 2 – I should have added “militaristic”…

Nov 24, 2004 - 8:43 am 6. Caroline:

Samuel – I would love to see your daughter’s cartoon. This format probably doesn’t allow for posting it here here but it occurs to me that there should be a website for posting political cartoons (”cartoon blogging?”) as there is for posting comments. Do you know of any?

Nov 24, 2004 - 8:55 am 7. Emerald:

Caroline, it’s hard to figure how the left can explain away the murder of Theo Van Gogh in their Bush==Hitler narrative.

Here’s a link to my favorite Brain-Terminal video.

Neo, if something were to happen to Moore the left would go berserk. It would probably start a whole new wave of movies characterizing conservatives as neo-Nazis. This on top of the typical Liberal Hubris.

Nov 24, 2004 - 9:07 am 8. Caroline:

Further musings: Most big Hollywood films require clear audience identification with the “good guys” vs the “bad guys”. Apropos of my previous post (and in order to foretell how the audience of these new hypothetical “conservative” films is likely to identify with the respective protagonists), I ask readers of the blog (who are much better students of history than I am):

which (or darn it – is it “what”?) constitutes the greater “imperialistic” threat: Islam or multinational corporations?

Nov 24, 2004 - 9:12 am 9. Caroline:

Emerald – they will simply point out that Van Gogh is one man – and then they will regale you with hundreds of stories about individual Palestinians murdered by the Israeli’s.

What is very interesting though is how it took the murder of only one Dutchman to provoke a cry for Patriot Act-like legislation in liberal Holland (along with burning down some mosques). I wonder how American liberals here view the Dutch reaction!

Nov 24, 2004 - 9:20 am 10. Samuel:

Emerald

I agree, the left would go beserk, but that is also because he is an “American Leftist”. I do want to add that he isn’t a liberal, he is a leftist (not that you said he was), I know that may sound defensive on my part but as a Jewish “liberal mugged by reality”, I feel a need to make that distinction. Most true liberals (Christopher Hitchens etc.) support this War.

Caroline

My daughter did this in “chicken sratch” pencil on the back of an envelope, not high quality for her standards, but brilliant for a High School Senior, especially in capturing so early the realities of this election. If I can find it, I will scan it and offer it through e-mail. If you would like me to do that then let me know at…

samuel_freedman@hotmail.com

–

Great posts by the way, and for me when you say…

although regular readers of this blog might have reason to question which of these narratives is in fact more conservative and which more liberal

I will say up is down and down is up my. I am a “neo-con” and never felt more liberal in my life. :^)

Nov 24, 2004 - 9:24 am 11. Lola:

Samuel, I would be glad to host it on my web server – I have plenty of space in my account.

Nov 24, 2004 - 9:34 am 12. jerry:

Caroline:

You said: “My conclusion is that a great many (I will assume) well-meaning people are confused about fascism and Nazism, which is why we have 2 competing narratives, i.e. Bush=Hitler” vs. “Islamofascism”. These competing narratives are bound to have a bearing on public reception of the new kinds of films that the WSJ reporter is forecasting.”

Your statement of the “two narrative” narrative, is the common thread between the two parties. However, while there may be two narratives, that isn’t the paring. The pairing is individual freedom [republican governing institutions] and collectivism [socialism, fascism and Nazism] Those who we characterize as “left” are collectivists while conservatives or “right” are freedomists.

The reason that the left chooses the “Bush-Hitler” narrative is that they mirror image [as we say in intelligence] their opposition. Because the collectivist left views the world as a dichotomy between socialism and Fascism/Nazism, they use associate the freedomist right as their ideological opposites [Nazis]. At the same time they lionize the opponents of freedom [the Islamicists] as socialism brothers, hence the “Moorist” view that the Zarqawi and the Baathists are “freedom fighters opposing Nazi occupation.

We need to continually recast the narrative pairing as Collectivism versus Freedom and not even debate the “Bush-Hitler” narrative. We should continually to equate Collectivism = Socialism = Fascism = Nazism = Radical Islam. It would be great if we could wean ourselves from the term Islamofacism and replace it with Islamosocialism. Not only would it discomfort the opposition, it would be more accurate as well. Radical Islam in practice is a socialist system.

Nov 24, 2004 - 9:41 am 13. ray_g:

Caroline:

I think that the answer is obvious, and you don’t need to know history, just some current events. The Islamofascists have publicly stated that their goal is an Islamic theocracy for the entire world, which will impose sharia law. If you get out of line there will be serious and unpleasant consequences. While it is fashionable to demonize the multinational corporations, their main motivation is to sell you stuff. I don’t consider it imperialism when a corporation expands into another country and the citizens voluntarily buy their products. Despite what some on the left may think, there is no Ronald McDonald Brigade running around France forcing French citizens to eat Big Macs at gunpoint. (Although I think that would be a hilarious short web animation, if I had the skill to do it.)

Nov 24, 2004 - 9:47 am 14. Cap'n Billy:

Roger’s post and the WSJ Opinion Journal piece remind me that I can count the movies I’ve attended during the past 30 years or so on the fingers of one hand. This piece from the same publication from about a week earlier (Link…) brought back some memories. I was a Strategic Air Command Pilot at the time, and that movie caused great merriment among my colleagues and me, which I mentioned in the letter I sent to WSJ and was published in the responses section. What was so funny was that nobody with any familiarity with SAC operations could possibly believe such a scenario was remotely possible, yet I expect that a majority of the general public was led to believe just the opposite by that movie. Some of the procedures shown were quite similar to ours, however, which caused me to suspect that someone involved with the movie had obtained some classified information.

Because of this example, the Tom Clancy movie and numerous others, the last couple of generations have a completely erroneous notion of history, even the most recent events. This is not harmless.

Nov 24, 2004 - 9:50 am 15. Cap'n Billy:

OK, so I’m not the sharpest HTML writer in the drawer. Here’s another try:

Link

If that doesn’t work, copy & paste the below:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110005898

Nov 24, 2004 - 9:55 am 16. Caroline:

Samuel – yes, thanks for clarifying that distinction between “leftist” and “liberal”. I have to wonder how long before that distinction makes it into mainstream discourse. Frankly, I can’t wait until it does because I really look forward to seeing that debate out in the open.

And yes – Moore is an American leftist. But if he were murdered here the left would go crazy over fascism in the US – but the differece is that he criticized America rather than Islam – so the likely culprit would obviously be a Bushie Fascist – giving further strength to their narrative. As I said – 2 competing narratives. Unfortunately we are in fact in the middle of a blockbuster film – in which history (the ultimate film) actually has to unfold in real time in order for the audience to figure out who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. In this light it is interesting that so many people on 9/11 literally felt like they were watching a Hollywood movie! I wonder if that doesn’t explain the drop off of interest in blockbuster Hollywood films? When reality is so much more amazing (is this really happening?) how can Hollywood compete?

And regarding your daughter’s cartoon – you provided enough description for me to realize that it was very clever – without needing to see it. But I am still hoping that someone will come up with a website for posting those cartoons in order to identify real talent – much as political blogs like this have opened a new venue for jouranalism. Why not?

Nov 24, 2004 - 9:58 am 17. jerry:

Cap’n Billy:

The Clancy movie genre has not only given an erroneous notion of history, it has given the public a fanciful notion of the nature of war and an inflated view of our military capabilities. This has had a enormous impact on the Administrationís ability to successfully wage real war. The general public now looks at any setback as an indication of “another Vietnam” and any deaths as “heavy casualties.” The entire “where is the plan” discussion derives from the Hollywood scripted view of the world while actual war is all about improvisation and adaptation to a rapidly changing battlefield reality.

Nov 24, 2004 - 10:05 am 18. jerry:

Caroline:

Why would you suppose that the murder of Micheal Moore would be a Bushie? Moore is as offensive to Islam as he is to a secular conservative.

Nov 24, 2004 - 10:07 am 19. Bostonian:

Cap’n Billy–

Not only does much of the public have a complete misunderstanding of the nature of warfare and the military, the idea of the “resistance movement” has acquired a near-holy status, with little understanding of what that kind of fighting can actually accomplish.

Most especially in sci-fi shows, the resistance movement actually achieves its goals, eventually.

I haven’t read as much military history as some others, but resistance movements throughout history have seemed pretty useless to me. Perhaps others here could correct me on that.

Nov 24, 2004 - 10:19 am 20. Caroline:

Jerry and Ray – I am truly the slowest poster on the blogosphere so forgive my time lapse. And then I have to login again! Ghrrr.

I see what you are saying about collectivism vs. freedom and also about McDonald’s etc. Did you see a recent article on Free Republic about the Bremer administration having established laws in Iraq whereby the farmers were obligated to purchase seed from the US multinationals (thereby relinquishing patents on seeds they had controlled for at least a hundred years?). I read the rebuttals to the article with great interest. One patent lawyer stated that if the seeds were X number of years old – the law didn’t apply. Another stated that such international law couldn’t apply to Iraq if they didn’t agree with it. But on the whole, there were few rebuttals. This is a major issue to do with control over one’s resources. It cannot be dismissed easily. Now perhaps there is much conspiracy theory revolving around multinational corporations – I don’t know and would gladly welcome facts from the informed – but one central theme in the 2 narratives I am talking about – is the left’s concern over the ordinary person’s loss of control of their basic resources – land, water, seed etc – to the forces of capitalism – versus the (what is the term now? what was once the left but now the right?) concern over human rights violations – freedom of speech, women’s rights, etc. So we have 2 things – what we would call human rights (which seem to most concern the American right these days) vs. the right to keep one’s community resources out of the control of multinational corporations – (which seems to most concern the American left these days). Why are well-meaning people forced to choose between these two? How can we resolve this so that all well-meaning people can fight simultaneously for BOTH!! Whoever can figure that out should have a lock on all future American elections as well as widespread support in the international community. My only question is – is or is not – the “leftist” narrative about multinational corporations correct? Or does it border on conspiracy theory? These are not frivolent claims. Intelligent, informed people – please weigh in and educate me! And sorry for the meandering, poorly edited post!

Nov 24, 2004 - 10:32 am 21. Caroline:

Jerry – why would any Islamist murder Moore? (yet anyway!) Bin Laden used him for talking points in his last tape, remember?

Nov 24, 2004 - 10:34 am 22. jerry:

Caroline:

Multinational Corporations provides jobs and services to the public. Although they do it for money rather then altruism they increase welfare and freedom. The left’s obsession with multi-nationals comes from a purely Marxist exploitation model. They would rather people go hungry under socialism then for anybody to make money. To the left, the Masses are merely an abstraction. Material used to build socialism for the Vanguard [them]. Leftists don’t believe in human rights because don’t believe in the existence of any human grouping below a collective, hence their focus as race, sex, or sexuality. In a free society only individuals have rights not collectives.

Why would an Islamicist kill Moore? Because he is an infidel just like any other non-Muslim and therefore equally deserving of death. Just because UBL quotes him doesn’t mean that he thinks Moore is part of the elect. Most likely UBL sees Moore as symptom of our moral corruption

.

Nov 24, 2004 - 10:44 am 23. Bostonian:

Caroline,

You’ve got to be very careful about your definition of “rights.” The classic definition in our constitution is that these are areas where the government may not intrude. These are negative rights. This is the theory followed by conservatives.

The more recent definition of rights is positive, so that rights are entitlements, things that one is supposed to receive from government and/or society. This is the theory of rights currently embraced by both the leftists and modern American liberals, I think.

This is an irreconcilable difference. The positive-rights formulation seeks to control the outcomes. The negative-rights formulation seeks to control the process (mainly by keeping government out).

***

There is a most wonderful book I can recommend to you: _Free to Choose_ by Milton Friedman (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0156334607/qid=1101322256/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/104-6728765-7238353?v=glance&s=books&n=507846).

Nov 24, 2004 - 10:51 am 24. Barrett:

Jerry,

Thank you for your concise, accurate description of the ideological conflict between collectivism and freedomists.

Conservatives such as myself place freedom at the pinnacle of our political and social views, which you termed as “freedomist”.

Your equation of collectivism equating to socialism equiating to fascism equating to Nazism equating to Islamosocialism quickly frames the debate.

Please, Jerry, write here more often.

What I find amazing is that the apologists for collectivism would actually lose their freedom of speech if they ever received what they ask for. Then what?

Their ability to object, criticize, protest and dissent has been paid for those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for the cause of freedom. How ironic.

May I suggest that we add to our reflection on our blessings this Thanksgiving, our thanks to those who have made us free and those who are keeping us free.

Nov 24, 2004 - 11:11 am 25. Cap'n Billy:

jerry & Bostonian:

Thanks for your additional points. I can enthusiastically second the recommendation of the Milton Friedman book. I also saw the mini-series of the same name on PBS (back when they broadcast such stuff!).

And Caroline, not to be contentious, but I don’t know what you mean by “community resources.” If you mean privately-owned businesses that happen to be located in your community, no one has a right to prevent them from taking whatever actions they deem necessary in order to more efficiently operate their businesses. For instance, if excessive taxation causes them to move to a location where taxes are lower, no one is to blame but the community that levels those taxes. Bostonian’s comment about the Constitution is correct, it doesn’t bestow rights, it is supposed to protect those we already have from being taken away. Thanks to courts who frequently rule against the clear wording of that document, it?s not as effective nowadays as it should be. Dr. Walter Williams, one of Friedman?s disciples, has said that ⅔ of our laws are unconstitutional. Even if he?s wrong by a factor of 2, it is still a huge scandal, but unfortunately one which I do not see being addressed.

Nov 24, 2004 - 11:28 am 26. Caroline:

Must change my moniker to “world’s slowest poster”?

Jerry – I would agree with your point re Moore – its why I stuck “(yet anyway)” onto the end of my post – to indicate that Moore (as an infidel) is certainly not immune – but also to indicate that in the short run he would be a much more obvious target for the “Bushie-fascists” than for the “Islamofascists.”

However, to try to grasp what you and Bostonian (and now Cap’n Billy) are saying about multinationals – your point seems to be that they provide “jobs and services to the public” and given Bostonian’s point that these are “areas where the government may not intrude” – please clarify for me how these principles apply to the issue of “privatization” – of oil supplies, seed patents, water (you may recall a recent riot – in Bolivia was it? – when Bechtel “privatized” their water supply and water prices shot through the roof for ordinary village-based people?

I realize that multinationals are operating according to international law – but who establishes those laws – is it the multinationals themselves under cover of the US government? Does the US control a kind of corrupt international business order akin to what we’ve recently seen in the UN vis a vis the human rights domain of the freedom index?

As an aside – a definition of fascism in the “new World Dictionary”:

“A system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism…..”

Odd definition – how is it distinguishable from communism? It seems to me that somewhere else I saw a definition of fascism that explicitly linked a melding of corporations/big business with government (a definition that I suspect has had a pivotal role in fueling the Bush=Hitler narrative – although the suppression of opposition and racism would seem to be more prevalent among the “Islamofascists”). While the leftists view the Republicans as moving towards a “one-party dictatorship”, most of us see that as rather hysterical to date, and obviously Bush is rather militaristic – but then Islam is even more so – and we can always vote Bush out, assuming no really serious hanky-panky at the polls!

As should be (or I hope is) clear – I am definitely with Bush on the human rights side of the narrative – but I am not yet willing to dismiss the leftists concerns re the “resources” part of the human rights equation – thats bascially the notion of a corrupt one-world government controlled by US corporations under the guise of international law.

I still need to be convinced that the multinationals – given so much power under the US – but perhaps even more so under Bush – do not fit into the “fascistic” narrative.

How else can I know who to unambiguously root for at the new blockbuster conservative Hollywood film? The good guys and the bad guys have to, in the end, be clearly identifiable! (she adds to prevent this thread from wandering too far off topic!)

Nov 24, 2004 - 11:57 am 27. Caroline:

To cut to the chase of my last post – which was too wordy – can an informed person provide me with a good liberal defense of “privatization”? (in 8th grade language please – as required in human research consent forms!).

Nov 24, 2004 - 12:17 pm 28. vegetius:

Caroline:

“A system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism…..”

How can enterprise be ‘private’ while under ‘centralized control’? Seems like a contradiction in terms.

Nov 24, 2004 - 12:20 pm 29. Knucklehead:

Well, this thread has taken and interesting direction. I’ve long pondered what the heck it is that the “left” or “right” wants from the world. Ultimately I believe there is little difference between the extremes of the “left” and “right”. At the extremes both are statist. Both wish for a state which controls everyone’s behavior for the common good. Each would draw up a different list of what is “forbidden” and what is “acceptable” but in the end if either got their way the rest of us would be abused and miserable.

Someone above mentioned “positive” vs. “negative” rights. I fall on the side of the “negative” rights (although I don’t like that “negative rights” label much). I want those who potentially have the power to coerce me to be as restricted in their actions as possible; governments (and their quasi-governmental offspring), people and corporations with enormous resources, criminals, lunatics, and some variants of the infectiously ill should be be subject to very clear and rigidly enforced restrictions. Government is a special case on that list since it is the job of government to protect those who aren’t on the list from those who are. Its the goverment’s job to establish such restrictions as necessary on the rest. Restricting the power of govermentment is always the tricky part.

The “positive” rights folks would, as best as I can determine, want “rights” to be difined, in essence, as one “collective right” (everyone to be free from want) and one “individual right” (do whatever the hell I want to do whenever the hell I want to do it while preventing others from doing things I don’t like). This idea of “rights” is, however, systemically flawed.

The problem with the “collective” right to be “free from want” is there’s no limit to what constitutes “want”. Over time humans have moved that bar from “enough food, shelter, and clothing to stay alive” to “anything anyone else has”. Freedom from want, in a society where starvation and exposure are not everyday threats to survival, becomes instead a relentless and futile drive towards “freedom from envy” – “gimme enough of everything so that I never feel humiliated by what someone else has and then I’ll be free!” It also suffers from the inane idea that “wealth” is a zero-sum game and that some sort of “steady state” condition of human existence is possible.

The individual right to behave in any way one wishes is also impossible. Every right to behave in whatever fashion is inherently limited by granting the same rights to everyone else. Individual rights are like an engine with a governor installed. And they are intertwined in ways that nearly impossible to fathom until one person’s individual rights are stomped on by another person seeking to exercise an individual right. And I doubt it would take all that much contemplation to identify some “rights” that, if granted indiscrimately, would yield the loss of that right to everyone.

Caroline mentioned the left’s animosity (my word, not hers) to “multinational corporations”. What is the left’s basic problem with “corporations” and “businesses” (they scream loudest about “multinational” but I don’t see any particular love for the non-multinational either)? They seem to have some idea that corporations/businesses have some insatiable level of greed that won’t be satisfied until all the world’s people (except the corporations’ boards of directors and Benedict Arnold CEOs) are enslaved and impoverished.

Reality, however, is that corporations/businesses have no use – none whatsoever – for enslaved and impoverished people. If corporations could somehow implement their “ideal world” everyone would have unlimited wealth. Corporations sell stuff. Wealthy people buy stuff. Poor people don’t buy much stuff. Free people are incredibly creative when it comes to deciding what they’d like to buy. Enslaved people aren’t the least bit creative about much beyond figuring out how to get loose. Business people may not have nice, altruistic motivations for wanting to see everyone become rich. Many or most are undoubtedly driven by some form and level of “greed”, but they really don’t have any desire to make people miserable. Governments, on the other hand, seem to conjure up all sorts of motivations and excuses to enslave and impoverish people.

Oh well, sorry to go on so.

Happy Thanksgiving to all the folks here at Roger’s Place!

Nov 24, 2004 - 12:34 pm 30. Cap'n Billy:

Re: Caroline at November 24, 2004 11:57 AM:

This discussion is out of my depth, but it seems to me that communism and fascism are very similar systems, the primary difference being that under communism the means of production are owned by the state, whereas under fascism the means of production are “private economic enterprise under centralized control.” Not much difference, I grant you.

Again, I’m totally over my head here, but I believe the reason privatization causes so many problems is that after a long period of state ownership and/or control, transitioning to private ownership causes lots of problems, such as the ones you mentioned, and these sometimes take a long time to resolve. One case I am familiar with is the partial deregulation of the airlines, which occurred in 1979 and is still causing disruption in the industry. That is the principal reason I chose to take early retirement from my airline job in 1986.

(I justify these supposedly off-topic comments by referring you to the title of this thread!)

Nov 24, 2004 - 12:35 pm 31. Knucklehead:

Caroline,

You ask how “multinational corporations” are not fascistic. I’ll turn that back on you and ask you how they are fascistic? Fascism, in practice if not in theory or by definition, is “of the state, for the state, by the state”. In a fascist system everything (people, property, legal entities such as corporations) is the property of the state – the nation. How can an corporation that is “multinational” and, by definition, spans multiple states (national entities) be “fascist”?

Nov 24, 2004 - 12:46 pm 32. Rick Ballard:

Caroline,

The Bolivian example you mentioned noted prices going through the roof for villagers. You didn’t note that, in all probability, the villager’s previous pricing amounted to a significant subsidy provided by the flatlanders and city dwellers.

The classical liberal argument for privitization would emphasize the utilitarian individual benefit achieved by providing a variety of competitively derived pricing alternatives for any service or product. The current liberal argument does not allow for freedom of choice (or freedom of much else, either) so I can’t really think of a simple argument based upon it.

Nov 24, 2004 - 12:47 pm 33. lindenen:

“Fascism, in practice if not in theory or by definition, is “of the state, for the state, by the state”. In a fascist system everything (people, property, legal entities such as corporations) is the property of the state – the nation. How can an corporation that is “multinational” and, by definition, spans multiple states (national entities) be “fascist”?”

I think that when they say “fascist” they mean that the coporation wants to control everything. It’s all the property of the corporation. I think the meaning of the word ‘fascist’ has drifted a bit. Sort of like ‘nazi’ as in ’soup nazi’.

Nov 24, 2004 - 1:21 pm 34. Caroline:

world’s slowest blogger, signing in again…..

From Jerry: “The left’s obsession with multi-nationals comes from a purely Marxist exploitation model. They would rather people go hungry under socialism then for anybody to make money.”

No Jerry – I personally know too many leftists. This is demonizing them in the same way they demonize Republicans.

From Cap’n Billy: “I don’t know what you mean by “community resources.” If you mean privately-owned businesses that happen to be located in your community, no one has a right to prevent them from taking whatever actions they deem necessary in order to more efficiently operate their businesses.”

No Billy – by community resources I mean the REAL resources – food, seed, water – the stuff you take for granted until its gone.

From vegetius:”How can enterprise be ‘private’ while under ‘centralized control’”:

What if multinational corporations essentially fell under a rubric of international law dictated by the US – in control of the UN? – or something to that effect. Would that qualify? Does anyone know anything about international law as it relates to multinational corporations? Again – I am not prone to conspiracy theorizing. I just want the basic system explained to me in 8th grade language.

To knucklehead: “The problem with the “collective” right to be “free from want” is there’s no limit to what constitutes “want”. Over time humans have moved that bar from “enough food, shelter, and clothing to stay alive” to “anything anyone else has?Reality, however, is that corporations/businesses have no use – none whatsoever – for enslaved and impoverished people. If corporations could somehow implement their “ideal world” everyone would have unlimited wealth. Corporations sell stuff. Wealthy people buy stuff. Poor people don’t buy much stuff.”

I get the basic argument but to really address what I’m talking about one has to go back to the fundamentals – who controls the water, who controls the seeds the farmer plants and so on. The folks seeking to make a profit on these necessities are not necessarily the same folks seeking to sell you a designer dress or a pair of roller blades so I don’t see how their profit scenarios can be conflated.

From Cap’n Billy: “I believe the reason privatization causes so many problems is that after a long period of state ownership and/or control, transitioning to private ownership causes lots of problems”.

Rick Ballard makes the same point – growing pains – as resources go from state ownership to multinational ownership. I kind of get it. I know most republicans hate state ownership but how do they really see all that much difference when the multinationals take over with their “privatization” schemes? Actually I suspect we’ll know soon enough – for instance when the water runs out in the American southwest. Who owns it? Another issue concerns the Mexicans being force to accept genetically engineered corn through NAFTA.

From kuncklehead: “How can an corporation that is “multinational” and, by definition, spans multiple states (national entities) be “fascist”?”

I’m not sure but again – take the UN for example as a centralized agency that controls the nation states. Is there similar centralized control of the multinationals? Does anyone know about international corporate law and how it operates? Is it under UN/US auspices? The World Bank? The IMF? The lefties complain about these policies ad nauseum.

Obviously I really don’t understand these things. I do know that the leftists on the whole understand these issues very well and all of the ones I know are well meaning people who cannot be demonized. I look forward to a time when ordinary people via the blogosphere will be able to get to the bottom of these issues as rapidly as they penetrated the political spin in the past few years – in order to fight for real freedom for everyone. I really do think most people are well-meaning and that when these issues are argued logically and empirically – we will get to the bottom of them. Who knows if a new political party won’t come to fruition as a consequence?

Well – whatever our current imperfections – we have a lot to be thankful for. Happy Thanksgiving all…….

Nov 24, 2004 - 1:28 pm 35. RogerA:

Caroline–you may be a “slow poster,” but the wait is worth it. You mention as an example the UN as a centralized entity controlling nation states–I would take exception to that because in reality the UN controls nothings–In fact I would argue it is a classic example of Hobbes (real) Leviathan–not the fanciful version that has emerged. Hobbes Leviathan emerged out of a state of nature–a war of all against all. The people who covenanted in Hobbes construct are very much like the member states who covenanted to create the UN. The did NOT give the Leviathan the sword, and has Hobbes himself said, “Covenants without the sword are but words alone without the strength to bind.” James Harrington, Hobbes’ contemporary and not nearly studied enough these days, picked up the point in his critique of the Leviathan.

Nov 24, 2004 - 1:42 pm 36. Emerald:

I’m not sure I even know what the distinction is between a liberal and a leftist today. But I am a fan of Christopher Hitchens. But his belief in the equitable distribution of wealth is purely leftist since it would take a very powerful government to make such a thing happen. But he is absolutely correct that Globalism is a good thing. Any economic activity, anywhere, is a good thing…a rising tide lifts all boats. But when governments have stringent laws which inhibit the flow of capital and laws which inhibit individuals from getting rich, growth and progress will stagnate and thus the leftist prescription for equitable distribution will eventually do more harm in the long term than good.

Nov 24, 2004 - 1:55 pm 37. Emerald:

Caroline, the great thing about “food, seed, water – the stuff you take for granted until its gone” is that it’s all renewable. At least under private ownership.

BTW, you are not the slowest blogger….I take that prize hands down.

Nov 24, 2004 - 2:04 pm 38. Knucklehead:

Caroline,

I get the basic argument but to really address what I’m talking about one has to go back to the fundamentals – who controls the water, who controls the seeds the farmer plants and so on. The folks seeking to make a profit on these necessities are not necessarily the same folks seeking to sell you a designer dress or a pair of roller blades so I don’t see how their profit scenarios can be conflated.

Who do you believe “controls the water… seeds… and so on”? I’m no water rights expert, nor do I play one on TV, but as far as I understand it, here in the US we have government (fed, state, and local) control of water in some places, quasi-governmental (regulated utility) control in some cases, corporate control in some cases, and even private ownership of water rights (similar to ownership of other natural resources).

As for “control of seeds”, I’m at a loss to even imagine what the issue you’re trying to get at is. What’s up with the seeds? I understand that there are large corps who develop seeds for “staple” crops and apparently make a nice profit doing so, but what’s the issue with that? Is there a shortage of seeds or are farmers being denied access to seeds?

Regarding “profit scenarios”… profits are profits. That’s what businesses are in business for. No buyers no profits. It really doesn’t matter whether one is selling seeds or roller blades, you have to have a product that the buyers in your market want to buy. There are very real economic factors involved and, short of monopolies and their ugly cousins oligopolies, market forces will prevail. If a business tries to make “too much” profit it will lose sales and open the door to competition. There are natural drivers and brakes on the economic realities of pricing models. Maximizing profits is not automagically the same as charging a high price or monopolizing or controlling a market. And, believe it or not, maximizing profit is not always the first concern a business has. A corporation may “trade” profit for market share or increased revenue, for example. Profit is a “dirty word” to much of our society but it is the ONLY reason anyone does business. No profits, no economy.

Nov 24, 2004 - 2:13 pm 39. BeckyJ:

Caroline:

YOu’re not the world’s slowest poster…I just lost my post because the stupid system signed me out while in the middle of it!

Anyway…International law is the product of treaties between governments. The UN (itself a product of a treaty) does not “write” international law. It can provide opinions and the Security Council can make suggestions and issue strongly worded statements (”we don’t like genocide”). For the most part, international law is followed by nation-states even though there is no effective enforcement mechanism.

Multinationals are subject to the regulations of the WTO (product of treaties) and to laws of their home and host countries. Years ago, I saw a statement by the CEO of Dow in which he wished for a private island, subject to no governmetn for the headquarters of Dow because then he would only have to worry about conforming to the host country’s laws.

Here’s an interesting article from the other side of multinationals or globalization that we don’t see a lot about.

Nov 24, 2004 - 2:25 pm 40. BeckyJ:

Following on Kucklehead’s comments…

One of the arguments that is heard about Halliburton is that they are “war profiteers.” The definition of a profiteer is one who makes excessive profits by exploiting a situation that is beyond the control of those buying the products (i.e. charging $10 for a small bottle of water after an earthquake because people are desparate and willing to pay anything). Yes, Halliburton is making profits from its contracts in Iraq, but nothing so far suggests that those are excessive profits gained through price gouging.

Nov 24, 2004 - 2:31 pm 41. jerry:

Caroline:

You wrote: “No Jerry – I personally know too many leftists. This is demonizing them in the same way they demonize Republicans.”

I do not demonize leftists; I often have contempt for them. When you demonize someone you turn him into a non-person.

Why do I say Leftists would rather see people starve under socialism then have someone make a profit? Well here is an answer in three parts.

(1) Theory: Leftists only recognize collectives. As such they view real people abstractions. This doesn’t mean that they aren’t personable; love their wives, their children and their dogs. Many are a pleasure to be with. However, once they gaze out from personal immediacy they only see abstractions. That is why so many “progressives” bleed for occupied Iraq without considering the displaced regime’s mass graves. To quote “the Man of Steel” Joseph Stalin, “the death of an individual is a tragedy but the death of a million is a Statistic.”

(2) Empirical: This is not the 1920’s when the USSR was building the socialist paradise from scratch. This in the 21st century, so we know that socialist of all kinds [and that includes Hitler] murdered in excess of 100 million people and delivered only misery to the rest. The days of innocence are over in my book. I view all socialists the same way that we selectively call out neo-Nazis.

(3) Case Study: There was an UN environmental conference last year where the leftwing anti-globalists attacked US multinational corporations like Monsanto. As part of their efforts these socialist NGOs convinced several famine-struck African nations not to distribute American foodstuffs produced with genetically modified seed. While this success made socialist NGOs feel morally superior real people died because their success.

Nov 24, 2004 - 2:45 pm 42. BeckyJ:

Jerry makes a good argument. Here’s a paragraph snippet from the article I mentioned above:

The “indigenous” customs enjoyed by such tourists are not so charming when they make up one’s day-to-day existence. The protesters curse the use of DDT, the only effective control of malaria, because it harms birds — but they never have to wonder if their children will survive the current malaria epidemic. They argue against the use of pesticides and pest- and drought-resistant crops — but they never have to wonder how they will survive if a pest invasion or drought destroys all their grown food.

They argue against new technologies, such as the genetic modification of crops, that might increase productivity and help us move from subsistence farming to cash crops — but they never have to worry that there might not be food on the table.

That attitude, that everything must stay “indigenous,” is the problem with socialist or leftist (as opposed to liberal) views of how the world should work.

Nov 24, 2004 - 3:00 pm 43. Bostonian:

To Jerry’s comment, I will add that for decades, leftists have fawned over Stalin’s and other totalitarian regimes, eyes completely averted from the horrors.

Paul Hollander’s book _Political Pilgrims_ documents, for example, field trips taken by American socialists & communists to Stalin’s USSR. They were shown “model prisons” that had no walls and to which “prisoners” claimed they returned voluntarily after release. They believed these lies and asked for more, please.

By the 1960s and 1970s, there would be no excuse left to believe that kind of nonsense, yet leftists would visit Cuba & fall for the same games.

Whatever was in their heads, it was not compassion or understanding.

Nov 24, 2004 - 3:01 pm 44. BeckyJ:

Bostonian,

Cuba is still held up as a socialist paradise that the US would do well to emulate. 98% literacy rates, free health care, etc. are cited. However, the only things people have to read are government approved books, and articles. They are not allowed to use the great gift of a high literacy rate to educate themselves in any direction they might choose. And every time I ask about the almost continual attempts by Cubans to cross 90 miles of shark-infested waters to reach Florida (given that Cuba is such a paradise) the subject gets rapidly changed. The most disengenuous make some attempt to argue that those refugees have been brainwashed by the US into believing that life is better here…in other words they’re too stupid to figure out that they have a great life in Cuba, random arrests, centralized control, and all.

Also conveniently overlooked by American & European leftists were the arrests of some 70-odd journalists and writers by Castro back in spring 2003; a news item that got swept under the rug by the Iraq invasion.

These are just some of the issues that leftists choose to ignore when making their arguments regarding the virtues of socialism vs. free-market capitalism. This puts them into Lenin’s “useful idiots” category.

Nov 24, 2004 - 3:12 pm 45. Karl:

This thread has been really interesting, but I would like to go on-topic for a second. My favorite part of the WSJ link was this:

“In a recent conversation with a struggling liberal screenwriter, I brought up the Clancy film as an example of Hollywood shying away from what really affects filmgoers–namely, the al Qaeda threat vs. the neo-Nazi threat. He vehemently defended the script switch. ‘It’s an easy target,’ he said of Arab terrorism, repeating this like a parrot, then adding, ‘It’s a cheap shot.”

Ms. Johnson then addressed the last part. I would like to address the first part. Arab terrorism is not an easy target for Hollywood, as the Clancy movie and the hysterical reaction to True Lies make clear. Neo-Nazis, on the other hand are an easy target. They have no nations that fund a global terror network. They have no system of education like the madrasas. They have no effective lobbying and PR outfits in Washington, our state capitals and our universities. That a liberal screenwriter gets it completely backwards is not surprising, but should be instructive to the rest of us as to the magnitude of the problem we face in getting our fellow citizens to appreciate the nature of the threat we face in this war.

Of course, Caroline is right that any media that would attempt to reflect reality instead of political correctness will be viewed by a fair chunk of the Left as propaganda. However, I think that is precisely the worldview that is causing the Left to lose elections here. Thus, I view any such debate as a teachable moment. There may be some on the Left who are beyond education, but it seems increasingly clear that folks in the middle of the political spectrum are turned off by the anti-U.S., anti-capitalism propaganda of the Left. So, to quote both of the nominees for President this past year, “Bring It On!”

Nov 24, 2004 - 8:04 pm 46. richard mcenroe:

BeckyJ ó If I understand correctly, Halliburton posted losses the past two years.

Nov 24, 2004 - 8:13 pm 47. Roberts:

Caroline, those people on the Left who you somehow believe “understand” all these issues you hint at but admit to not understanding are really often just making things up.

The “multinationals” you refer to – as if that actually meant anything – just sound like another Leftist conspiracy theory. You seem to be repeating third-hand some idea that there are a handful of companies in complete control of all of our lives. Just isn’t true.

The genetically-modified corn you are afraid of is just another Leftist boogyman popularized by Leftist Luddites who truly would prefer people starve in the name of ideology. Witness Greenpeace’s opposition to genetically engineered rice that would erase vitamin deficiencies in children.

Nov 24, 2004 - 8:13 pm 48. Caroline:

“How can an corporation that is “multinational” and, by definition, spans multiple states (national entities) be “fascist”?” (Knucklehead): I guess we can certainly ask the same question about “Islamofascism” – since it is equally a transnational phenomenon. Which means its probably time to dispense with the term fascism altogether as it relates to these issues!

“What’s up with the seeds?” (Knucklehead): I was referring to the general issue of agricultural seed patents and how these patents are impacting indigenous farmers in countries brought under WTO regulations. On the surface – without knowing any details – it looks worrisome – more proof that the multinationals are taking over the world and all that! And as I’m not a seed patent lawyer it is difficult to evaluate the claims but Roberts is probably correct in calling it another “leftist boogyman”.

To BeckyJ – I read your link. Very interesting. Actually it confirms my worst fears about the left. And I also think it explains why anti-globalization protesters find themselves marching next to Islamic radical sympathizers. They’re both freaked out by modernization and they retreat to some idyllic fantasy that they wish to impose on everyone else. I think they’re suffering from a crisis of “meaning” and projecting a collectivist (thank you Jerry) solution to their personal crisis onto everyone else. My own sister is pretty much a radical leftist and the Iraq war created a definite division between us. I guess I was hoping to find common ground somewhere. And yes – she is enamored by anything “indigenous”. The whole hippy thing with all the handmade crafts etc. But I agree with a previous post that the evidence mounts that leftists tend to love humanity but hate individuals ( I have noticed this unfortunate tendency in my sister sadly). This stuff gets really personal for me. Its like I have an ongoing argument with my sister in my head – wanting to believe that she is expending so much effort for something valuable and not ultimately destructive!

Well by the time the world’s (second or third?) slowest poster completed this, others have already stated much of this. Oh boy. Time to change my party registration. Next thing you know I’ll be buying a gun?..

Nov 24, 2004 - 9:13 pm 49. Roberts:

Actually Caroline, “Islamofascism” as a coined term has a lot of validity.

There is an Arab political movement called “Baathism” ( sometimes spelled “Ba’ath” ). In recent times, there were Syrian and Iraqi forms of it. The Baath party could be roughly described as an arab nationalist form of National Socialism – substituting arab nationalism for the German nationalist core.

Baathism was a mostly secular, albeit fanatical, Arab socialist variation. It had a relation to Nasserism although both Nasserites and Baathists would deny it.

Osama Bin Laden and many of his ideological kin are advocating a weird ideology that is as if Wahabism and Baathism merged with Bin Laden taking the role of Adolph Hitler did with National Socialism. Hitler deemphasized the socialist economics and emphasized the German nationalism. The emerging “Islamofascism” also dumps most of the socialist economics and grafts on a extremist Islamic religious ideology to the arab nationalism of Baathism.

The result is that “Islamofascism” is a more valid use of “fascism” than 99% of Leftist ravings.

Nov 24, 2004 - 9:32 pm 50. Caroline:

Robert – now thats the kind of 8th grade informed consent language that I like! Like millions of Americans I am working hard to educate myself simultaneously on history, economics, theology etc! It literally appears that time is of the essence – like cramming for a final – in which the stakes of the exam are high indeed – in this case the stakes involving possible genocide and the like!

To Roger – my apologies for hijacking the thread. I do remember, however, from the movie “The Player” – the scene where folks pitch the basic concept of the movie. How about: “agricultural seed patent law (in the context of globalization and the WTO) meets radical Islamic jihad”? Now there’s a blockbuster in the making!

Nov 24, 2004 - 9:59 pm 51. Frederick:

Caroline,

I doubt from your description of your friends’ “leftist narrative” that they have any clear idea what they are talking about. I suspect that what they consider compelling, moral arguments consist not of assertions that are right or wrong, but of assertions that are really meaningless in economic or legal terms. Those who have responded here have found it difficult to address the arguments you are describing, and the economic and legal questions you are asking, because 1) it’s not clear what you already understand, and 2) the arguments and questions are so general that they are susceptible to different interpretations.

As to economic issues relevant to “privatization,” I join the prior posters in urging you to read Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose, which is a superb introduction to the basic economic concepts that must be understood before the economic plusses and minuses of privatization can even be discussed meaningfully.

As to legal issues relevant to “multilateral corporations” and what “community resources” they can own through “privatization,” the issues are very complex, and must be addressed by lawyers. Some basics will illustrate that. 1. A corporation is an artificial person recognized by law as able to own and take action that has legal effect, just as if it were a human. The reason corporations exist, at least in America, is so that those who own them can have their corporations, not themselves personally, owe the debt that must be incurred in doing business. 2. Most countries’ laws allow investors to create corporations. In America, state laws do that. The world’s largest corporations (some of which now are called “multilateral” because of their international ownership or global scope of operations) exist because some country or, in America, some state, allowed their original owners to incorporate their business. 3. “International” legal problems for such businesses arise because laws can conflict. What happens, e.g., when a Delaware or California corporation wants to buy from Thais, sell to Germans, or operate a factory in Italy? Some, but only a few such problems, are resolved because countries have treaties addressing them, or agree to allow international organizations to decide disputes or to issue rules that the countries will accept and enforce as if they were their own laws. 4. Corporations can own things like seeds. But what does “own” mean? An American lawyer considers a seed to be just a bundle of different rights to possession and use that different people can have at the same time. One person may have a right to possess a seed now, but not to use it; another to possess or use it tomorrow; another to purchase it the day after; another to take it if a debt is not repaid; still another to take it if one of the other persons dies. One or more governmental entity may at the very same time have a right to possess the seed if taxes aren’t paid, or if it’s used to commit a crime, or if there is a need to purchase it for a public purpose. Another country’s lawyer, however, may conceptualize ownership of a seed in very different terms. 5. “Privatize” or “community resources” are not terms that have any meaning to an American lawyer. What they might mean under some other country’s law, if anything, would depend on that country’s law.

Sorry about the length. I hope this is helpful.

Nov 24, 2004 - 11:37 pm 52. kparker:

Caroline,

[Moore] would be a much more obvious target for the “Bushie-fascists” than for the “Islamofascists.”

Except there aren’t any such Bushie-fascists.

Also, on the seed issue, you seem to be conflating a number of issues. Surely you don’t think Monsanto goes in to an area, scoops up a bunch of indigenous seeds, and tries to patent those?

Nov 25, 2004 - 12:14 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: