-8 votes

Obama, Wall Street, and the Federal Reserve, A Fascist Regime

Obama's partnership with the Fed and Wall Street cronies equates to a fascist regime. A fascist regime creates monopolies and cartels that eliminate competitive markets and have the ability to buy judges, politicians and elections. This usurpation of our right to representation is a betrayal of all the men and women who've fought and died for American ideals.

The generally accepted definition of fascism is a dictatorial centralized regime that imposes severe economic and social repression. The Federal gov't, Federal Reserve and Wall Street created a subprime bubble. This precipitated the financial crisis and the creation of Too Big To Fail (TBTF) banks, which according to the CBO will cost taxpayers 8.6 Trillion to prop up. The links are short videos of Sen. Brown citing the CBO report, Rep. Sherman saying Dodd-Frank's Resolution Authority equates to taxation without representation, and Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron saying Dodd-Frank "institutionalizes TARP for bank holding companies".

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/3343308
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/3343222
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/3343218

The subprime bubble led to the creation of TBTF banks, which led to Dodd-Frank. Dodd-Frank allows Trillions of tax dollars to be spent for future bailouts, without Congressional approval. So market manipulation by gov't and corporations has eliminated one of our core Constitutional rights, i.e., no taxation without representation. America's founders endured similar oppression under King George III and his private sector cronies, so they rebelled against tyranny and instituted a government to "secure" their unalienable rights, which are given to us by the Creator. For solutions to hold the fascist regime accountable and restore our rights, check out this post titled "Fraud and the Federal Debt".

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1047

Wild animals function in a social hierarchy based on the strong dominating the weak. They don't possess a transcendent morality like humans, which translates into moral judgments that protect the weak from being assaulted, robbed or killed by the strong. The same Darwinian principles that govern wild animals (strong dominate the weak), are practiced by Machiavellian tyrants who feign morality while imposing the full weight of moral judgement on their citizens. These Darwinian principles are used to justify the lawless, immoral activities of large corporations, their officers, and boards of directors. The combination of Machiavellian leaders and immoral corporatism has resulted in a fascist regime. The legal and moral double standard they practice is the root of increasing global corruption.

George Soros and others argue that markets are amoral, i.e., markets are not subject to judgments whether moral or immoral. But markets are created and run by humans, and all nations have laws against fraud, theft, murder, etc., and these laws are based on moral judgments. Furthermore, the human activities that animate markets are subject to these laws, so the argument that markets are amoral is just a clever attempt to place financial elites above the law.

When drafting our founding documents, the founders drew upon John Locke's Treatises on Government and Montesquieu's "The Spirit of Laws", among others. Within the moral framework of a Constitutional Republic, a competitive capitalist economy provides the greatest amount of economic freedom while providing for the free exercise of unalienable rights. And a capitalist economy requires rules, for example, if you commit fraud and bankrupt your business, you must be allowed to fail and go to jail. Rules when enforced, eliminate the problem of TBTF banks. Also, monopolies are anti-competitive and don't allow for price discovery based on supply and demand. So in a capitalist economy, rules are necessary to ensure the efficient allocation of resources, price discovery based on supply and demand, and an economy where success is based on merit, not privilege.

So the question is, which political and economic models provide the most freedom for the most people? I believe Ron Paul's libertarian concept of limited gov't is the political model that best secures unalienable rights, and within that moral framework, a competitive capitalist economy provides the most economic freedom. These are self evident truths proven by thousands of years of empirical observation. For common sense solutions to limit the power of fascist banking cartels and the government that supports them, check out this DP post.

http://www.dailypaul.com/274979

Thomas Paine said the following: If there were to be a king, it would have to be the rule of law, and if a day of celebration were to be set aside, then homage should be paid to the law, a crown set upon it to remind those gathered that the law is king.

Check out these posts titled "Morals, Ethics and the Role of Gov't in a Capitalist Economy" and "Occupy Wall Street". The OWS post demonstrates the leftist connection to fascist corporations.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=917
http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=523



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Bill of Rights.....

Our first ten amendments gave nothing to the people, it restrained the central government.
Our Constitution does not define rights, it establishes a rule of law that was to promote and protect the individuals rights...including the right to fail.
Example, the first - "Congress shall make no law.......etc..." this gives nothing and defines nothing. It restrains government, especially congress.

You have the right to drink raw milk, eat your own horse and grow and consume what you want. Yet they are all prohibited by the central government, under what authority I ask ?

The Bill of Rights gave citizens nothing?

Is not the restraint of central gov't something? In fact, in a gov't of, by and for the people, isn't that everything? Those who favored a strong central gov't started chipping away at the Bill of Rights even before the ink was dry, but they've yet to put the final nail in the coffin of our unalienable rights. If not for the Bill of Rights, the dead corpse of our individual liberities would've been swinging in the wind long ago. But as we see every day on the Daily Paul and elsewhere, the God given gift, the Bill of Rights, is still inspiring citizens and moving them to action. Not just in America but all around the world. So localboy's attempt to minimize the protections and blessings that the Bill of Rights gave to citizens all around the world, represents an insidious attempt to devalue the meaning of that precious document.

At one time, I lived in a community with a lot of people who openly declared themselves anarchists, and the rhetoric they used was very similar to that of localboy. So I say beware of anarchists in libertarian clothing. Ron Paul, with his libertarian philosophy, makes more sense than any politician in my lifetime, but that only means there will be those who dress themselves up as libertarian as a means to lead citizens astray. These are perilous times for Constitutionalists, so consider carefully, the words of those who seek to minimize the benefits afforded by our Bill of Rights.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Try this

Mark, if I may.....google "positive and negative rights"
You will find your answer
Note - George Mason, James Madison and John Locke

Happy Hunting.....

Love your perspective on this..

My rights don't come from a piece of paper, and they aren't subject to legislation. Writing them down in a Constitution doesn't create them, it just explains them to a candid world.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

True, but...

While Thomas Jefferson explained this concept to a candid world in the Declaration, he also said people institute governments to "secure" those rights, because even though Jefferson's rights existed under the tyranny of King George III, he was prevented from exercising them. That is until independence was declared and a government was instituted to secure their rights.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Best example I can give...

...about "just" laws or unalienable rights in a free market is this. We have freedom of speech, but that doesn't extend to fraud. It is illegal to lie to someone in order to get money from them. Why? because the concept of ownership of your property means that you should only give up your property to someone if you both mutually agree and enter into a contract to exchange your property for something of value. So, if someone commits fraud, they have stolen property from you in some fashion by lying about some aspect of that exchange. Fraud is illegal, and it is illegal because we have laws against it. It is consistent with the concept of a free market because it is a law enforceable to protect your 100% ownership of your property. In an anarchy, no law exists to protect you from fraud, so you don't really have ownership of your property any further than you are able to prevent yourself from being defrauded. In a free market, society at least tries to enforce your right to be safe from fraud. So if you lose money due to fraud, you have legal recourse to sue for damages. The system is by no means perfect, but at least you can try to protect yourself from theft in this manner. That is the courts job, as it is also their job to decide what constitutes "fraud" as opposed to just good salemanship. Hopefully in this example, you see that fraud isn't allowed in a free market, where it would be "allowed" in an anarchy. A free market demands laws to protect your individual property, where anarchy has no such laws. These laws can be defined as "unalienable rights".

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

There's nothing in the Bill of Rights about free markets...

so you're comparing apples and oranges.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Thanks for making my point

Like you said, free speech rights are subordinate to the rule of law, i.e., the Constitution, and markets are subordinate to the rule of law, i.e., the Constitution. This is precisely the point I made in the last paragraph of my post. And that point is a competitive capitalist market economy requires rules. Rules to prevent anti-competitive monopolies from interfering with price discovery based on supply and demand. Rules to eliminate Too Big To Fail banks that inhibit the efficient allocation of resources. And rules to ensure merit, not privilege, determines winners and losers in the market. So why are you down voting my post and comments that agree with my position?

Furthermore, you said it's illegal to commit fraud. The first clip below is Inspector General of TARP Neil Barofsky, he says "fraud" by the nine largest banks caused the financial crisis. The second link is former prosecutor William Black, he helped obtain 1000 felony convictions of elite bankers after the 1980's Savings and Loan meltdown. In the radio interview, he lays out compelling evidence of Wall Street fraud that hasn't been prosecuted. At least listen to the first five minutes. So why aren't free market disciples like you snakepit, who just said fraud is illegal, concerned about unchecked fraud in the "free" market? Particularly when the CBO says it will cost taxpayers 8.6 Trillion to prop up failing banks. In the last link you'll hear about the 8.6 Trillion.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/3343248
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/10/18/prosecuting-wall-street/p...
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/3343308

And why aren't free market "capitalists" demanding an end to TBTF banks. You just said free market capitalism has rules, well doesn't that include allowing banks to fail when CEO's commit fraud and bankrupt the business?

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

What?

why are you blaming unprosecuted fraud on the free market? We don't have a free market, yet you are somehow trying to say that fraud on wall street is an evil of the free market? I don't get it. And yes, we have "rules", but a law against fraud is not the same as a law against being "too big to fail". A free market doesn't support such a thing as too big to fail, yet you keep trying to say it does, because we have that ideology in the US. Again, we aren't a free market, so stop trying to blame our problems on the free market. We are state sponsored capitalism, or corporatism like I said. So the idea that some companies are too big to fail is an idea that comes from that state sponsored aspect of our economy. The fact that some fraud went unprosecuted isn't the fault of the free market that we don't have. It is the fault of the statist economy/government mix we have. However, to the most important point you keep mixing up, free market doesn't mean anarchy. A law against fraud isn't inconsistent with the idea of a free market, it is essential to the idea of a free market. Free market capitalism doesn't not mean anarchy, it means 100% ownership of your property. That requires a law which protects you from theft. It doesn't however require laws which "regulate" how big a company can be, or what prices they can charge. Laws protecting rights are not to be confused with regulations which states make to "guide" business. Free markets are not anarchistic. I don't know how many more ways I can explain it without you constantly missing that point. I am not "free" if I have no right to protect my property from theft. With that concept in place, a company is not "free" to steal from me, only to offer me a contract to exchange my property, labor, land, etc. for theirs. Fraud, theft, murder, are all ways in which individuals property is stolen from them, thus, they are robbed of a percentage of their means of production. When you lose even 1% of the ownership of your means of production, you are no longer a free market capitalist. Laws should exist only in so far as they protect your 100% stake in your ownership of your means of production. That is free market capitalism. Any thing I need to clear up about that?

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

It would help if you read my comments before replying...

Had you done so, you would know that I did not use the term "free market" a single time. And yet, you begin by saying I'm blaming unprosecuted fraud on free markets. What I was doing was pointing out your blatant hypocrisy. On one hand, you admit there are rules against fraud, but in all your comments here and other topics, you've never expressed any concern about unprosecuted fraud, or the cost to taxpayers, or the fact that gov't is backstopping our largest banks. But you claim to support the priciples of free market capitalism which you allege is subordinate to the law.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

look up the definition

or stop replying to me. It's as clear as day that a free market is "subordinate" to a law such as "no killing". It's also very clear that a free market is NOT subordinate, in fact it is inconsistent with a law that says something like, "all Americans must purchase health insurance." THE LAW, is not one thing, like you are trying to make it out to be in your last comment. It is many things and a free market can exist with protection of individual property through just laws such as property rights laws. You are trying to cling to this idea you have that free market capitalism means no laws. Just as you admitted before, YOU are the one defining capitalism in your own way and refusing to look up the actual definition that most everyone else uses. If you'd look it up, you'd see that capitalism, free market capitalism specifically, does not imply absence. It doesn't not imply that murder is somehow legal. Free market capitalism simply implies that private citizens own their means of production. Laws exist to protect that ownership. Contract laws, anti-fraud laws, personal protection laws, etc. all have a place in a free market. These ideas are perfectly congruent, if you'd just look up the damn definition and stop using your own made up definition.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

snakepit, your right about the free market definition

and I wasn't taking enough time to read your replies. The reason I wrote the orignal post was to challenge the notion that Wall Street crony CRAPitalists are free market advocates, not to challenge the commonly used definition of free markets. My apologies for being dismissive of your comments.

The problem is crony CRAPitalists dominate the media and use the power of propaganda to convince millions that crony CRAPitalism is the free market. That's why I was being so bullheaded, but let's get past that because recent comments raised the issue of ending the Fed's exclusive franchise on our monetary supply. I'd like to hear your suggestions. Post a new comment so others can get in on the thread. Your input would be appreciated.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

In addition....

..you guys act like Rockefeller took over an industry which already existed and was man's right to have. JRock essentially changed the way people lit their homes with the intorduction of kerosene. He didn't invent it, but he organized the resources to make it the new most popular way to light your home. Because of his work, the market shifted towards what he was doing. That is why he was so successful. In addition, he took market share from Corneleus Vanderbuilt, who was the JRock of the previous few decades. Vanderbuilt could have just as easily been called a monopolist, but the market allowed for Rockefeller to come in and compete. Just as Rockefeller changed the market and took customers from Vanderbuilt, JP Morgan took the market from Rockefeller. JP organized the resources which replaced kerosene with electricity. As people claimed Rockefeller was a monopolist, Morgan was busy changing the market and steering it towards the future and towards his electricity empire. Keep in mind, oil for cars wasn't even what Standard Oil was built on. That came later. So long story short. None of those tycoons had monopolies. All of them brought America into the future and made our lives better. The fact that they got uber rich doing it really should cast as negative a light on them as you all would like. I'm not saying they were all saints, but they sure as hell didn't have monopolies, and if anything, their story shows how monopolies can't exist in a free market, and even when the government stepped in to help them, the market always found a competitor, and that competition kept driving us into the future.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Its a nuance, snakepit

Monopolies occur all the time, then over time the market takes it away. Getting a monopoly is not hard, keeping it is near impossible without force.
Hill and Vanderbilt created quite a few monopolies, Rockefeller used force to keep the one he had.

THe length of the monopoly is determined by the free consumers and the value of the product or service provided, as you know.

Morgan and Rockefeller are bad examples, for they may or may not have earned their market share but they for sure used government force to keep it.

To all the free market disciples, answer one question...

Why not just use the term market capitalism to describe your economic philosophy, instead of free market capitalism? You must have a reason, what is it? Or are you trying to hide something?

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Free.....

Free - Not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.

Free markets is a phrase, free describes the market. Free is important because it describes the relationship between buyer and seller. Seller can walk away and so can the buyer. Free describes the relationship between two consenting parties, neither using force or coercion.

Free does not mean a factory is free to lie cheat and steal........or anybody else.

Capital is saved production, so are we capitalist ?

And more double talk

First you say "Free-not under the control or in the power of another". Then you say "free does not mean a factory is free to cheat and steal" How can a factory NOT be free to cheat or steal if it's not under the power of an entity that can restrict stealing?

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Simple....

Rule of law....the rule of law does not allow for fraud, theft , etc....
The purpose of law is to protect the rights of the people.

Free markets cannot exist with a corrupt government or an anarchist, immoral society.

More contradictions...

You can't have it both ways, i.e, free means "not under the control or power of another" and then suggest that the rule of law is not putting a factory or individual under the control of another. Someone will use force to enforce the law, and that means the factory or individual is under the control and power of another.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

No confusion....

Mark, free market capitalism is a political/economic philosophy.
In the United States, under our Constitution, a persons rights are protected because the government is restrained. The restraint placed upon it is the law of the land, period. Within that framework we discuss free markets and capitalism, because without the restraint on government we have tyranny, period.
It is not confusing if you look at your personal freedoms the same way you do your economic freedom. Sure, you have free speech but still cant yell fire in the movie house....yet we call that free speech because it is without restraint UNTIL you us it as force to violate another.
Free markets under our rule of law........

Priorities -
1) Your God, or whatever you hold higher than yourself...morals
2) Your Constitution - a restrained government
3) Freedom

You say look at personal freedoms the same as...

economic freedoms. But there's no mention of free markets in the Bill of Rights, so you're comparing apples and oranges. And....(continue reading "I'm not confused at all")

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

I'm not at all confused

Nor do I think you're confused, you just like to talk in circles. For example, you said "The restraint placed upon it [government] is the law of the land, period. Within that framework we discuss free markets and capitalism, because without that restraint we have tyranny, period."

You say the law restrains government, so who or what enforces the law? It's government of course. So you're saying gov't restrains itself? Once again you've talked in a little circle and you're back where you started, nowhere. Unlike your double talk, the truth is very simple, we institute gov't to secure our rights and abolish gov't when it fails to secure our rights.

Next you say "without that restraint we have tyranny, period". So the gov't is restrained by the law, enforces the law, and only gov't can impose tyranny. If there were no gov't and somebody forced you to be their slave, wouldn't that be tyranny? You've really got your wheels spinning but you're going nowhere, again.

You did say one thing I agree with, "Within that framework [the restraint of law] we discuss free markets and capitalism." You must not have read my original post because that's exactly my point, in a Constitutional Republic, capitalism operates within the restraints of the law. That's why rules are needed to prevent anti-competitive monopolies from interfereing with price discovery based on supply and demand. And rules are needed to regulate fraud and eliminate TBTF banks that prevent the efficient allocation of resources. And rules are needed to ensure that those who succeed in the market do so based on merit, not privilege. Now you're free to see how simple things can be.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

It's a philosophical paradox...

...to say that you are free to steal from someone. To say you are free from theft means you must agree you are prohibited from making someone else endure theft at your hands. If I think I have the right to keep my property, I must equally admit that I am prohibited from taking away another person's right to their property. So, being "free to steal" is not a logical concept. To expand on that, this is why taxation is theft. This is why the death penalty is so obviously immoral. If crime is illegal when committed by an individual, it is equally if not more illegal when committed by a government. The idea of government, or just laws, in it's only moral format, is the idea that the members of society agree that they have no right to infringe on the personal property of other individuals. In the case that one individual does infringe on another's rights, society is only empowered as a government in so far as they are able to correct that wrong, or protect that person's property. Even if this libertarian utopia was the way society is, it could never truly rid the world of injustice, but so long as every injustice was handled with the lowest extent of force used, (self defense basically requires force, but obviously justified) then I think most libertarians would be okay with a "system of government" which most of us like to call a bill or rights. Outside of the bill or rights, or basic agreement of rights we all have, there really is little use or justification for anything else the government does outside of protecting those basic rights.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

You're working very hard to avoid answering my question...

So I'll ask it again. Why not just describe your economic philosophy as capitalism, rather than free market capitalism? It's not a difficult question. I am a capitalist, I believe in the private ownership of the means of production, I believe competition is required in order to achieve the efficient allocation of resources, I believe price discovery should be based on supply and demand, I believe winners and losers in the market should be determined by merit, not privilege. I said this in my post but you guys disagree with me while pretending to agree with me. The Granger is the only one who came close to being honest, he said a free market is a "black market". And as we know, black markets operate outside the law and that poses a threat to a Constitutional Republic based on the rule of law. I believe that's why you all don't want to be honest about your true beliefs.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Let me try this...

.Mark, do you believe that taxation is theft, and thus morally wrong? I do, and that is an important part of what makes me a free market capitalist rather than what someone like Ronald Reagan who was obviously a capitalist, but not a free market capitalist. Reagan supported the idea of smaller government and private ownership of the economy, but he still thought taxation to run government was permissable. In his view then, ownership of the means of production should be "mostly" private, except for the small taxation used to run the government. A true free market capitalist would see that taxation as theft of an individuals means of production by use of force, and thus, it is morally indefensible.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Just admit you're an anarchist and be done with it

Like our founders, I believe gov't is a necessary evil. Why? I'll say it again, it's in the Declaraton of Independence, governments are established by men in order to secure our unalienable rights. And the people have the right to abolish a government that fails to secure their rights. And governments cannot run on air or some form of BS green energy that General Electric says it can conjure up. Running a gov't requires money, and that requires the necessary evil known as taxation. However, our current gov't and its tax schemes are nothing more than organized crime, and I'm doing what I can to achieve a non-violent revolution. You think taxes are a crime, well check out this clip demonstrating a historic level of taxation without representation. And it's all the work of Wall Street anarchists and their bipartisan criminal co-conpirators.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/3343222

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

again, just look up the damn definition.

capitalism deals specifically with the economy. To say you are free market capitalist by no means implies you are anarchist. Whether or not murder should be legal is not part of the debate on what sort of economy we should have. If you'd simply look up the definition, you'd see capitalism is an economic system, not a system for all of society. To say a person is a free market capitalist almost specifically implies that they DO believe in laws, because those laws are required to protect their right to their property. Anarchy, or black markets rely on your ability to use more force than the next guy to protect your goods. In a free market, your goods are protected by the law. If you'd just look at the definition, you'd see how easy it is to be a free market capitalist without being an anarchist. I believe a law against murder or theft is just because it protects my 100% ownership of my means of production. See, free markets AND laws, all in one happy place. Just look up the definition so you know what you are debating. Free markets don't mean anarchy, and if you continue to pretend they do, it is simply because you are embarrassed that you didn't look up the definition of the term before you started insulting me.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Jesus Christ Mark, look up the definition of capitalism.

I told you already, I describe myself as a free market capitalist because it is different than a state sponsored capitalist. Look up the definition in a dictionary, or even wikipedia. There is more than one variety of capitalism and it depends on how much of that ownership is private. I advocate 100% private or laissiez-fair. It seems you do as well. People like Obama, Bush, Mao, Putin, etc. advocate capitalism where the ownership is part private, part public, or as the dictionary will tell you "state capitalism" or state sponsored. They don't advocate a system of kings and lords who own lands and peasants and thus the means of production is in the aristocracy. Chavez is even a capitalist, simply put, a state sponsored capitalist. Private companies own the means of production for the most part, but the communist, or socialist, or US government owns a percentage as well.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

I will never concede to your premise that....

State sponsored enterprises are, as you said in the first sentence, "capitalist". What you're describing is COMMUNISM, and you know it. I will never agree with anyone who tries to equate State ownership with the words capitalist, capitalism or state capitalism. There is no such thing as state capitalism, it's a contradiction in terms. Just like I believe there's no such thing as free market capitalism, unless like Granger, you admit that free market capitalism is the black market, i.e., a market that operates outside the rule of law. Bottom line, I define capitalism as a competitive market economy based on the rule of law. Words and definitions matter, so we're probably going to have to agree to disagree.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

I understand why...

...you object to something called "state capitalism" as it seems like a contradiction and to a capitalist pre-depression, it would be a contracition, however, economists, scholars, and politicians for the last 100 years have all argued about the extent to which ownership of the means of production should be private, and because partial state ownership is so common, the term capitalism has taken on multiple levels. I agree that it should mean specifically private ownership, nothing else, but if you look at the definition that the overwhelming majority of people are using, it becomes clear why there is need to clarify. When the dictionary gives state capitalism and laissez-faire as two forms of capitalism, isn't it obvious why a free market guy would want to be associated with laissez-faire rather than state capitalism. Despite your personal definition of it, I feel the need to clarify my stance on it, not because of some hidden agenda, but because society currently views state capitalism as a valid form of capitalism. I do not, but if I"m going to explain my beliefs, can't you see why I would add "free market" onto "capitalist" when explaining my beliefs?

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).