Dion hints at allowing back Liberals ousted in sponsorship scandal

[#juan]

That's what I like about you Juan, you're such an optimist..........

Personally, I think Mulroney was a deep mole planted in the PC Party by the Liberals, and activated on the political demise of Pierre Trudeau...........

You know, you are probably right. The whole political game is a giant, evil, conspiracy. How come every riding I've ever lived in elected somebody, other than who I might have voted for?

 

[Cannuck]

corporatism is the economic dimension of fascism.

I may be but I think your definition of Corporatism needs work. Read this.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3054

 

[BitWhys]

What is corporatism? In a (somewhat inaccurate) phrase, socialism for the bourgeois. It has the outward form of capitalism in that it preserves private ownership and private management, but with a crucial difference: as under socialism, government guarantees the flow of material goods, which under true capitalism it does not.

uh huh

so what's your point?

btw, any article that uses the terms "left" and "right" to make its point isn't worth the pixels its written with.

 

[BitWhys]

and if you really find this sort of thing you might find this one interesting...

...Liberals of the Mises school urge that the interference with the price system practised by representative Democracy inevitably diminishes the sum total of goods produced; Fascism is condoned as the safeguard of Liberal economics...

:evil3:

 

[Cannuck]

so what's your point?

That you don't seem to "get" what corporatism is. I thought that was pretty clear.

 

[Cannuck]

and if you really find this sort of thing you might find this one interesting...

I generally don't find anything interesting of it's being openly promoted as "left-wing" or right-wing". As I've said on other threads and other forums, I don't generally think in terms of left and right.

 

[BitWhys]

That you don't seem to "get" what corporatism is. I thought that was pretty clear.

it IS clear. and even though you're relying on a uniquely American Conservative source for its definition, the CWB scheme fits the bill.

private ownership and a government entity guaranteeing continuity of service. the fact it competes directly (so far with government writs of insurance, no less) with other entities in the market might make it seem otherwise to you, but that could be since there aren't many examples of anything that hairbrained in existence.

 

[Cannuck]

and even though you're relying on a uniquely American Conservative source for its definition...

I'm not relying on anything. I merely used it as a source. Do you require more or do you reject it simply because it is from an American Conservative source?

Private ownership as it pertains to the CWB is somewhat suspect. Since western farmers are not allowed to do as they choose with their own products, many would take issue with the notion that they "own" it....not that this had anything to do with my initial point which was that you seem to be in error in you view of what constitutes corporatism.

 

[BitWhys]

I'm not relying on anything. I merely used it as a source. Do you require more or do you reject it simply because it is from an American Conservative source?

Private ownership as it pertains to the CWB is somewhat suspect. Since western farmers are not allowed to do as they choose with their own products, many would take issue with the notion that they "own" it....not that this had anything to do with my initial point which was that you seem to be in error in you view of what constitutes corporatism.

I didn't reject it. My point was and still is that the Strahl's scheme fits the definition.

So far the CWB is a cooperative (ie Socialist) venture. Personally, I've got no problem with that.

The private ownership I'm talking about is the business entities that will be allowed to enter the market. If farmers want the CWB in the barley business competing against other vendors, great. Privatize that part of it and find a new underwriter. Anything less is FASCISM, a FASCISM by offering it as an option our current government demonstrates it has no problem with. Matter of fact Strahl made it pretty clear its the option he prefers. go figure.

 

[Cannuck]

Anything less is FASCISM, a FASCISM by offering it as an option our current government demonstrates it has no problem with. Matter of fact Strahl made it pretty clear its the option he prefers. go figure.

I'm sorry. I just don't get your logic.

 

[BitWhys]

no, eh?

Then just start with the facts that what Strahl is offering isn't socialism (unless you're Hayek in which case pretty well anything with government letterhead on it socialism - heh) and isn't free enterprise and take it from there.