| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Bret Cahill" |
| Date: |
02 Feb 2008 09:46:33 AM |
| Object: |
"Private Sector" Is Only About 50 Years Old |
The corp. media would have everyone believe the term "private sector"
has it roots in the Constitution or something fundamental to American
life.
Actually a little research will show it was nothing more than post
WWII military glory induced daydreaming.
"Yeehaa! I have my own private business! I can be my own king!"
Anyone who still believes that fantasy will soon be out of business.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
| User: "Jerry Kraus" |
|
| Title: Re: "Private Sector" Is Only About 50 Years Old |
02 Feb 2008 09:51:47 AM |
|
|
On Feb 2, 9:46=A0am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
The corp. media would have everyone believe the term "private sector"
has it roots in the Constitution or something fundamental to American
life.
Actually a little research will show it was nothing more than post
WWII military glory induced daydreaming.
"Yeehaa! =A0I have my own private business! =A0I can be my own king!"
Anyone who still believes that fantasy will soon be out of business.
Bret Cahill
The system is self-destructing as we speak. There is a total
disconnect between the corporate controlled media in the U.S. cheering
on the stock market and the vast majority of the U.S. population.
Most of the American people are cheering the collapse of the stock
market! And of the U.S./world economy and the millionaires who profit
from it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: "Private Sector" Is Only About 50 Years Old |
03 Feb 2008 01:15:21 PM |
|
|
The corp. media would have everyone believe the term "private sector"
has it roots in the Constitution or something fundamental to American
life.
Actually a little research will show it was nothing more than post
WWII military glory induced daydreaming.
"Yeehaa! =EF=BF=BDI have my own private business! =EF=BF=BDI can be my o=
wn king!"
Anyone who still believes that fantasy will soon be out of business.
The system is self-destructing as we speak. =EF=BF=BDThere is a total
disconnect between the corporate controlled media in the U.S. cheering
on the stock market and the vast majority of the U.S. population.
Whoaa! There's no conflict between main street and Wall Street.
Buffet, a Clinton supporter, makes his money off of a high tax
economic boom.
Most of the American people are cheering the collapse of the stock
market! =EF=BF=BDAnd of the U.S./world economy and the millionaires who pr=
ofit
from it.
Actually financiers-investors like Soros and Buffet level as well as
create wealth.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Private Sector" Is Only About 50 Years Old |
04 Feb 2008 04:13:55 PM |
|
|
On Feb 2, 10:51 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Feb 2, 9:46 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
The corp. media would have everyone believe the term "private sector"
has it roots in the Constitution or something fundamental to American
life.
Actually a little research will show it was nothing more than post
WWII military glory induced daydreaming.
"Yeehaa! I have my own private business! I can be my own king!"
Anyone who still believes that fantasy will soon be out of business.
Bret Cahill
The system is self-destructing as we speak. There is a total
disconnect between the corporate controlled media in the U.S. cheering
on the stock market and the vast majority of the U.S. population.
Most of the American people are cheering the collapse of the stock
market! And of the U.S./world economy and the millionaires who profit
from it.
Really, most of the American people. Have you ever been to America?
Most of the "working" American people have money (in one form or
another) the stock market. I doubt they (like I) are cheering to much.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZerkonX" |
|
| Title: Re: "Private Sector" Is Only About 50 Years Old |
03 Feb 2008 09:33:43 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 07:46:33 -0800, Bret Cahill wrote:
The corp. media would have everyone believe the term "private sector"
has it roots in the Constitution or something fundamental to American
life.
Actually a little research will show it was nothing more than post WWII
military glory induced daydreaming.
I think you are wrong in a way but right in a more important way.
It was fundamental in American life for citizens to decide their own
economic course in life. That is why taxation was a sore subject. They
were being taxed but did not have the proportional representation in the
English Law process.
There was something else too. The East India Trading Company was a
monopoly that was backed by the crown which demanded that some things,
like tea, be bought from them and only them. It was sort of private but
also sort of public. This 'sort of' ***** is exactly what we see today.
Corporations claiming to be part of a "private sector" do their backbone
business with government(s) and the biggest ones with the military. This
is new and has to be disassembled.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: "Private Sector" Is Only About 50 Years Old |
03 Feb 2008 01:12:17 PM |
|
|
The corp. media would have everyone believe the term "private sector"
has it roots in the Constitution or something fundamental to American
life.
Actually a little research will show it was nothing more than post WWII
military glory induced daydreaming.
I think you are wrong in a way but right in a more important way.
It was fundamental in American life for citizens to decide their own
economic course in life.
On an _equal_ basis. They were intent on stripping the "private
sector" of their day, George III, of power to decide fiscal policy.
And George III was without question "private sector," or at least
before Jefferson and Paine decided to unceremoniously kick the
"private sector" out of American life.
George III is key to understanding a term that so many believed had
any meaning for such a long time. The term should have been ridiculed
in 30 seconds back when it first appeared in 1958.
In fact, it probably was. It's just that the "private sector" media
wouldn't publish it.
Once George III is called the "private sector" the Gipster's "private
sector solves all problems" becomes pure nonsense.
That is why taxation was a sore subject. They
were being taxed but did not have the proportional representation in the
English Law process.
The Revolutionary Americans knew taxation was necessary. That wasn't
the sore issue.
The sore issue was they wanted the decision making on an equal basis.
No king, no private sector.
The eventual solution was to have representatives in congress decide
all national economic policy, Art. I, Sec. 8.
165 years later the right wing reaction against FDR -- after a big guy
is gone he leaves a political vacuum -- was the 22nd Amendment and the
fantasy of a lot of little half assed despotisms:
The "private sector."
They tried to prop up their fantasy any way they could.
The GOP made a Faustian bargain with the fundies.
The "private sector" media were quick to, when confronted with
Jefferson, say, "but, ah, Jefferson had slaves." [Only the 'private
sector' should make decisions on economic policy because we don't have
slaves.] If you try to launder Jefferson through DeTocqueville
they'll say, "but he's French." The "private sector" media will do
anything to refute or undermine Jeffersonian democracy including
historical revisionism. The _New York Times_ for example would have
everyone believe Pat Robertson's fascism came over on the Mayflower.
The internet threatened to expose the fantasy and what did they do?
The "private sector" tried to rejuvenate their fantasy by going back
to it's origins:
The military glory of WWII.
The _Washington Post_ wrote ~ 30 editorials saying the Iraq invasion
was a great idea, _The New York Times_ was even more jingoistic.
Just before the invasion the neocons were sitting back sipping
champagne watching PBS's rousing rendition of "Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy
of Company C" daydreaming that military glory would restore the glory
to the "private sector" fantasy.
Bush and Cheney, on the other hand, knew better.
That's why they would be so easy to prosecute on war crimes charges.
There was something else too. The East India Trading Company was a
monopoly that was backed by the crown which demanded that some things,
like tea, be bought from them and only them. It was sort of private but
also sort of public. This 'sort of' ***** is exactly what we see today.
They can't make up their empty heads, can they?
Corporations claiming to be part of a "private sector" do their backbone
business with government(s) and the biggest ones with the military. This
is new and has to be disassembled.
It's a lot easier to call the bluff on the "private sector" scam.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
