Lord Acton

Yet he somehow managed to support the confederates… nobody is perfect.

Hence the concept of democracy. Division of power.

Why then are our constitutions not democraticaly constituted, when latin america is taking steps in that direction… Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela?

Why are we sent on handing over absolute power over the economy on national and international basis to “autonomous” central banks, and international subdivisions (eg. IMF)?

Why do we only have a single form of media, the private one?

Why do we let private industrial interests dominate all interests public?

- one of the definitions of fascism:

“I’ve removed this spurious section, which appears to have been based on a quote by Ronald Reagan. State intervention in the economy is not fascism.FelixFelix talk 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Reagan is far from the only one. President Hoover talking about the New Deal said, “I tried to show him that this stuff was pure fascism; that it was a remaking of Mussolini’s “corporate state” -Herbert Hoover. Alot of politicians around that time admired fascism and the New Deal was American version of it. For example, US Conferssman Milford Howard said “I want to go on record at the beginning of this unpretentious book by avowing my faith in Benito Mussolini, Italy’s great premier, and Fascism, the child of his marvelous brain, as the highest expression of a pragmatic philosophy of government…”Anarcho-capitalism 19:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Corporatism is a defining characteristic of fascism. Corporatism is characterized by a high degree of state intervention in the economy. It just doesn’t require the nationalism and militarism of fascism. The New Deal doesn’t deserve its own section but FDR’s government certainly warrants a mention in the first paragraph of this section.
(JoeCarson 18:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

You are correct in saying corporatism is a defining characteristic of fascism and you seem to be using corporatism mostly correctly. However, that section sounded almost overtly POV. If the section was rewritten in a more NPOV tone it could possibly be included. For example, the line “Some aspects of the Roosevelts New Deal were labeled as fascist.” is very vague and seems to be almost intentionally so to be weasel-y. Did FDR call the New Deal fascist or use fascist models? Do scholars call the New Deal fascist and are those scholars reputable and/or neutral? Etc. – DNewhall 18:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Lots of reputable scholars say the New Deal was fascist, largely from the Austrian School of economics. As far as “neutral” I don’t know, but, is there such a thing as a “neutral” scholar?Anarcho-capitalism 18:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The passive tense is not anybody’s friend. To say that conservative opponents of Roosevelt labelled the New Deal as fascist (or, alternately, communist!) is true, and perhaps should be mentioned somewhere. It is going a good deal further to say that “reputable scholars” have made this claim. What are these people scholars of? I would posit that they were not scholars of fascism. john k 19:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)”

– source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fascism

“Franklin D. Roosevelt in an April 29, 1938 message to Congress warned that the growth of private power could lead to fascism:

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism–ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.[18][19][20]

From the same message:

The Growing Concentration of Economic Power. Statistics of the Bureau of Internal Revenue reveal the following amazing figures for 1935: “Ownership of corporate assets: Of all corporations reporting from every part of the Nation, one-tenth of 1 percent of them owned 52 percent of the assets of all of them.”[18][20]
”
– source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Corporatism_and_Fascism

“In Washington, the headquarters of both the World Bank and the IMF (International Monetary Fund) face each other on the same street. What are these organisations, and who controls them?

To find out we need to look back to just after WWI. At this point the money changers were attempting to consolidate the central banks under the guise of peacemaking. To stop future wars they put forward the formation of a world central bank named the Bank of International Settlements, a world court called the World Court in the Hague, and a world executive for legislation called the League of Nations.

In his 1966 book entitled Tragedy and Hope, president Clinton’s mentor Carroll Quigley writes about this.

“The powers of financial capitalism had [a] far-reaching [plan], nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.

This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences.

The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.

Each central bank… Sought to dominate its government by its ability to control treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.”
Carroll Quigley, Professor, Georgetown University

They got 2 out of 3. The league of nations failed largely owing to the suspicions of the people and while opposition concentrated on this, the other two proposals snuck their way through.

It would take another war to wear the public resistance down. Wall street invested heavily to rebuild Germany, as the Chase bank had propped up the Russian revolution.

Now the Chase merged with the Warburg’s Manhattan Bank to form the Chase Manhattan which would later merge with the Chemical Bank to become the largest bank on Wall Street.

In 1944 the US approved its full participation in the IMF and the World Bank. By 1945 the second League of Nations was approved under the new name ‘The United Nations’. The war had dissolved all opposition. The methods used in the National Banking Act of 1864 and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 were now simply used on a Global scale.

The Federal Reserve Act allowing the creation of Federal Reserve notes is mirrored by the IMF’s authority to produce money called Special Drawing Rights (SDR’s). It is estimated the IMF has produced $30 billion dollars worth of SDR’s so far. In the United States SDR’s are already accepted as legal money, and all other member nations are being pressured to follow suit. With SDR’s being partially backed by gold, a world gold standard is sneaking its way in through the back door, which comes with no objection from the money changers who now hold two-thirds of the worlds gold and can use this to structure the worlds economy to their further advantage.

We have gone from the goldsmith’s fraud being reproduced on a national scale through the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve, to a Global level with the IMF and the World Bank. Unless we together stop giving these exchange units their power by our collective faith in them, the future will probably see the Intergalactic Bank and the Federation of Planets Reserve set up in much the same way.

This radical transfer of power has taken place with absolutely no mandate from the people.

Nations borrow Special Drawing Right from the International Monetary Fund in order to pay interest on their mounting debts. With these SDR’s produced at no cost, the IMF charges more interest. This contrary to bold claims does not alleviate poverty or further any development. It just creates a steady flow of wealth from borrowing nations to the money changers who now control the IMF and the World Bank.

The permanent debt of Third World Countries is constantly being increased to provide temporary relief from the poverty being caused by previous borrowing.

These repayments already exceed the amount of new loans. By 1992 Africa’s debt had reached $290 billion dollars, which is two and a half times greater than it was in 1980. A noble attempt to repay it has caused increased infant mortality and unemployment, plus deteriorating schools, and general health and welfare problems.

As world resources continue to be sucked into this insatiable black hole of greed, if allowed to continue the entire world will face a simular fate.

As one prominent Brazilian politician, Luis Ignacio Silva,ðput it.

“Without being radical or overly bold, I will tell you that the Third World War has already started – a silent war, not for that reason any the less sinister. This war is tearing down Brazil, Latin America and practically all the Third World. Instead of soldiers dying there are children, instead of millions of wounded there are millions of unemployed; instead of destruction of bridges there is the tearing down of factories, schools, hospitals, and entire economies . . . It is a war by the United States against the Latin American continent and the Third World. It is a war over the foreign debt, one which has as its main weapon interest, a weapon more deadly than the atom bomb, more shattering than a laser beam . .”1 ”

– source: http://www.xat.org/xat/worldbank.html

DOES ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPT ABSOLUTELY?

“Origin

Lord ActonThis arose as a quotation by Lord Acton in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887:

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”

William Pitt the Younger, The Earl of Chatham and British Prime Minister from 1766 to 1778, is sometimes wrongly attributed as the source. He did say something similar though, in a speech to the UK House of Lords in 1770:

“Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it”"
– source: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/288200.html
Firstly is there such a thing as absolute power? Clearly there is an absolute power over certain matters possible but it is hard to see how there could be a truly absolute power as such.

Is it the aquisition of power that corrupts, or the nature of the system in place that requires corruption as a trait?
The documentary “spin” might give some food for thought:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7344181953466797353

Democraticaly defined constitution,

Equality before the law,

Right to inform and BE informed, it ain’t enough to have the freedom to speak if it is not TRANSMITTED.

Equality of CONDITIONS, not just oportunity…

Transparency in affairs not justified to secrecy, the right to public inquest, and the duty of justice to prevent corruption in affairs whether public or PSEUDO PRIVATE (ie CORPORATE).

A corporation is not a person, it has nor conscience, nor freedom, nor ethics (other than psychotic ones that bind it to profit maximisation)

THE RIGHT TO DEMOCRACY IN ALL AFFAIRS OF STATE…… ESPECIALY ECONOMIC.

Therefore an “autonomous” European Central Bank, and the special laws that give corporations the rights of a PERSON under law are INCOMPATIBLE WITH NEITHER DEMOCRACY, CULTURE NOR HUMANITY.

Well OpenSolaris and DesktopBSD are pretty good alternatives to Kubuntu. I’ll be ditching ubuntu as will a lot of people. It’s a pity, I really had gotten behind ubuntu but this ignorant and misguided support of the rich right wing scum undermining democracy in Venezuela is too much.

What a pity, it was all going so well.

I am a Venezuelan and is heart breaking to see that a man comes first for his fanatic followers than the nation.