Racine Journal Times Discussion Excerpt:It says THAT in the Constitution? I never thought I would hear anyone sound more beholden to government of the corporation, for the corporation and by the corporation than Rep. Paul Ryan until now. Meet Joseph Kexel, Libertarian candidate for the 1st Congressional District of Wisconsin.
On the other hand, Kexel supported taking a step away from government and placing more power in the private market. "The constitution is the key. Go back to the Constitution, get limited government so businesses can excel and we can once again take over our place as the manufacturing capital of the world," Kexel said.
This leaves us with three viable candidates willing to restore the sovereignty of government to the people in the 1st CD. Marge Krupp, Paulette Garin and Mike Hebert.
Did you know?
That nearly four years before Ryan's touted "Roadmap for America's Future," Norm Aulabaugh, Independent candidate running against Rep. Paul Ryan in 2004, offered a 15-minute presentation he called "Saving America's Future."
Found this button at Democratic Stuff and thought it was very cool.
6 comments:
I do not favor corporations over people. All I stand for is to have our federal government follow the Constitution. See Article 1, section 8. There is not much power there. We must get the federal government out of the way of progress.
People tend to forget that they are part of the free market. They get to choose who they buy from. Everyone must stop feeling powerless and embrace the liberty they are born with. If, you hate corporations making your decisions for you, you will hate the government making them for you. In a free market you can say no and go elsewhere, even do it yourself. A government will FORCE you to comply.
I am beholden to no corporation. Not even my own business is a corporation. My campaign is financed 97% by myself. The dangerous 3% is a fellow Libertarian friend who gave me 19 bucks. Yes, 19 bucks, my campaign is less than $700.
Embrace liberty, the Constitution and the free market. Do not fear them. We will all succeed together.
Joseph Kexel
Candidate for Congress, Wisconsin's 1st District
Sorry Joe, but I'm not one to think OUR government is our main problem. We live in a world where those who have so much wealth now view government as a mere hindrance and the only obstacle left to conquer. They (wealthy) own the media to get the message out and are able to convince regular folks that if they participate with them - go along to get along, we will all become a stakeholder and get rich - just like they are.
In my view, incumbents and candidates alike who preach that government (labor protection, regulations, etc.) must withdraw in order to allow free markets to run wild to achieve the prosperity they supposedly cannot achieve otherwise, are advocates of more corporate power and the turning of public assets over to private interests. In that case, I'll take a democratic government by the people 99 over a 100 times when it comes to rule of law and it's enforcement.
We are not a democracy, we are a republic. Why not enforce the rule of law and follow the Constitution? Apparently, liberals feel the Constitution means whatever they say it means. That is NOT enforcing the rule of law. If, you want it to mean something else, amend it.
Corporations are gifts from government. They do not exist in a vacuum. We can demand they do the public some good, that is the reason for them in the first place. If, a corporation acts in an anti-social manner, we must pull its charter. We do not need to regulate them as much as culling those who act inappropriately, the rest will learn that they must behave.
If, anybody wants to understand liberty, start here:
http://josephkexel.com/philosophy-of-liberty-english.swf
So we're a democratic Republic.
The Constitution means whatever we can all agree to say what it means. It's written in vague terms and broad strokes on purpose - this I believe. Just take the Peamble for instance, "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," sort of is saying "do whatever it takes - whatever we see fit." If it's your way, Joe, I might disagree with some it - same for you with mine. So we have politics - we have government.
Why should government have the power to pull a corporations charter if it behaves in someone's definition of an "anti-social" way? Won't the free markets take care of that? Yet we don't need to regulate certain conditions and guidelines in which to operate?
I'm under the impression you're using "liberty" here as in completely unfettered wild west privately held economic liberalism secured by an all encompassing "liberty".
It's highly commendable your campaign is not financially beholden to corporations. I never said it was. But it's clear to me anyways, in simple terms, that under the guise of "liberty" your platform is promoting less government (people) power and more privately held power. I find this intrinsically linked to an ideology beholden to corporate interests.
"Free Markets" are a myth in America and everywhere else on the globe. What is ignored is the assumption that all parties involved have equal access to the information needed to make informed decisions in the marketplace, that there are no negative or positive externalities to market forces, and that players in the market have equal power and monopolies cannot occur. None of these apply in the real world. Therefore regulation is needed.
Libertarians automatically assume that the legal system, which is itself a construct of the government, will provide the checks and balances that will prevent defective products, and bad corporate behavior from running wild. Unfortunately, some of their think tanks want to have it both ways by creating tort reforms and other limits to legal liability. In final analysis, I think Thom Hartmann had it right by saying a libertarian is simply a republican who wants to make it with the girls and smoke dope.
People have power, they do not need the government to do it for them.
I agree that it would be great, if the market would hold corporations in line, but the people are not doing their part in investigating what they buy. Non-profits could help in the education process.
As for pulling charters, I do not intend it to be for abstract reasons. The Ford Pinto is a great example of premediated murder by a corporation. They knew people would die and they left the problem as it was. If, you could convict a person of a crime, then we convict corporations and pull their charters. We can still provide a fair justice system with trials, juries, etc.
As for limiting liability, do you really think that the FDA, EPA and other federal agencies do not protect corporations.
Post a Comment