The issue LaL talked about will never be cured by "campaign finance reform" except in the propaganda statements of both parties. Campaign finance "reform" is often "bipartisan" for the very reason that the issue is simply to fool the public.

What he was referring to has been decried on the far-left, left, and moderate-left for years. It has also been decried in the middle. You can not have a fair economic game if the large players receive an extraordinary legal benefit.

I am somewhat surprised that you are against that. I realize the fog of hate you look through can made discerning the essentials of an issue very hard for you --- but this issue is not a "libertarian" only issue. The left has talked about this for years; but Democratic Party congressional members did not take it on back when they ruled government entirely, and of course the Repugs did not.

You stopped making any sense days ago so it's no surprise that this last comment is nothing more than your usual amalgam of conspiracist bullshit, a pox on all their houses and tap dancing ignorantly around the political realities of money and the influence it buys in the halls of government. L@L seems to have a glimmering of comprehension. Let me be quite blunt. Not too many people here are inclined to view Hayek as kindly as I am, except for Mona. You are way off in Lala-land. We don't know where L@L is yet. I don't think he knows yet.

Here is a good portion of Bertram Gross' book, Friendly Fascism, excerpted online:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Friendly_Fascism_BGross.html

It comes from a website called Third World Traveler

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/index.html

I'd bet that some portion of the commenters here will be sympathetic with the progressive views and positions expressed there, and particularly with the progressive economic positions espoused. Not all, but many. You probably won't. You may find them quite distastefully progressive, egalitarian, democratic and to the left of you. If you wish to applaud Glenn's fiercely pro-civil libertarian stance, fine. We all do. Just try to understand that this site is not as "ideologically pure" as Lew Rockwell.com. We don't wait on a word from him to make up our minds. Given the realities of American politics, most of us here will hold our noses to a greater or lesser degree as we vote for Democrats in the upcoming election. Even I will allow that I wish I could cut and paste some, not all, of Ron Paul into any of the candidates I will have to vote for. I'll leave it to you to figure out what pieces I would cut and paste.

... You stopped making any sense days ago ...

Now that was funny. You can read '... The term "corporate welfare" comprehends many more phenomena than most people realize. ...' and turn that into "campaign finance reform". bejesus!

stupid is as stupid writes.

The following brief (accurate enough) summary by the US State Department is important historical background for understanding the evolution of the relationship between the corporation and the state in the US:

(http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-41.htm)

"The conflict that took shape in the 1790s between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists exercised a profound impact on American history. The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, who had married into the wealthy Schuyler family, represented the urban mercantile interests of the seaports; the Anti-federalists, led by Thomas Jefferson, spoke for the rural and southern interests. The debate between the two concerned the power of the central government versus that of the states, with the Federalists favoring the former and the Anti-federalists advocating states' rights.

"Hamilton sought a strong central government acting in the interests of commerce and industry. (My emphasis). He brought to public life a love of efficiency, order and organization. In response to the call of the House of Representatives for a plan for the "adequate support of public credit," he laid down and supported principles not only of the public economy, but of effective government.

"Hamilton pointed out that America must have credit for industrial development, commercial activity and the operations of government. It must also have the complete faith and support of the people. There were many who wished to repudiate the national debt or pay only part of it. Hamilton, however insisted upon full payment and also upon a plan by which the federal government took over the unpaid debts of the states incurred during the Revolution.

"Hamilton also devised a Bank of the United States, with the right to establish branches in different parts of the country. He sponsored a national mint, and argued in favor of tariffs, using a version of an "infant industry" argument: that temporary protection of new firms can help foster the development of competitive national industries. These measures -- placing the credit of the federal government on a firm foundation and giving it all the revenues it needed -- encouraged commerce and industry, and created a solid phalanx of businessmen who stood firmly behind the national government.

"Jefferson advocated a decentralized agrarian republic. He recognized the value of a strong central government in foreign relations, but he did not want it strong in other respects. Hamilton's great aim was more efficient organization, whereas Jefferson once said 'I am not a friend to a very energetic government.' Hamilton feared anarchy and thought in terms of order; Jefferson feared tyranny and thought in terms of freedom."

Thomas Jefferson: "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Ken Rogers: "The Corporation has effectively co-opted the State in order to consolidate and extend its self-serving power."

Scientia est potentia

KR

one paragraph in your quote to shooter raises real questions about Rockwell's credibility/source reliabiity:

... In the 1930s, a tougher breed of Americans didn't just demonstrate. They formed the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, went to Spain and fought in the Spanish Civil War. A famous movie star, Errol Flynn, risked his life and suffered wounds carrying money through enemy lines to the loyalist forces. Of course, Flynn was no sissy. Before becoming an actor, he was a deep-water sailor and smuggler and barroom brawler par excellence. He was real man, not an image of a man.

Journalists George Seldes covered the the Spanish Civil War and was with Flynn from from Paris to their arrival in Spain to Flynn's ignomimous departure. They were in Valencia waiting to be transported to the front, where Flynn was chauffered to no-man's-land in a private car. He then went along with the journalists (including Hemingway) to the tenches where both sides could be seen. Once the shootong began he asked for recommendations to a "good clean whorehouse" and split. The next day Flynn telegraphed a coded message to Paris, and the following day the Daily News headline read "Errol Flynn killed on Spanish Front."

Flynn then drove to Barcelona and showed corresponents a bandage on hia arm and left Spain the next day. No "wounds." No million dollars.

This account is from Seldes's Witness to a Century, pp. 325-25.

The men of Lincoln's Brigade are certainly to be emulated, but not Flynn, who had nothing to do with them.