Mediaboss Marketing

Why atheists are disproportionately drawn to libertarianism is a question that many liberal atheists have trouble grasping. To believe that markets operate and exist in a state of nature is, in itself, to believe in the supernatural. The very thing atheists have spent their lives fleeing from.

According to the American Values Survey, a mere 7 percent of Americans identify as consistently libertarian. Compared to the general population, libertarians are significantly more likely to be white (94 percent), young (62 percent under 50) and male (68 percent). You know, almost identical to the demographic makeup of atheists white (95 percent), young (65 percent under 50) and male (67 percent). So theres your first clue.

Your second clue is that atheist libertarians are skeptical of government authority in the same way theyre skeptical of religion. In their mind, the state and the pope are interchangeable, which partly explains the libertarian atheists guttural gag reflex to what they perceive as government interference with the natural order of things, especially free markets.

Robert Reich says that one of the most deceptive ideas embraced by the Ayn Rand-inspired libertarian movement is that the free market is natural, and exists outside and beyond government. In other words, the free market is a constructed supernatural myth.

There is much to cover here, but a jumping-off point is the fact that corporations are a government construct, and that fact alone refutes any case for economic libertarianism. Corporations, which are designed to protect shareholders insofar as mitigating risk beyond the amount of their investment, are created and maintained only via government action. Statutes, passed by the government, allow for the creation of corporations, and anyone wishing to form one must fill out the necessary government paperwork and utilize the apparatus of the state in numerous ways. Thus, the corporate entity is by definition a government-created obstruction to the free marketplace, so the entire concept should be appalling to libertarians, says David Niose, an atheist and legal director of the American Humanist Association.

In the 18thcentury, Adam Smith, the granddaddy of American free-market capitalism, wrote his economic tome The Wealth of Nations. But his book has as much relevance to modern mega-corporation hyper-capitalism today as the Old Testament has to morality in the 21stcentury.

Reich says rules that define the playing field of todays capitalism dont exist in nature; they are human creations. Governments dont intrude on free markets; governments organize and maintain them. Markets arent free of rules; the rules define them. In reality, the free market is a bunch of rules about 1) what can be owned and traded (the genome? slaves? nuclear materials? babies? votes?); 2) on what terms (equal access to the Internet? the right to organize unions? corporate monopolies? the length of patent protections?); 3) under what conditions (poisonous drugs? unsafe foods? deceptive Ponzi schemes? uninsured derivatives? dangerous workplaces?); 4) whats private and whats public (police? roads? clean air and clean water? healthcare? good schools? parks and playgrounds?); 5) how to pay for what (taxes, user fees, individual pricing?). And so on.

Atheists are skeptics, but atheist libertarians evidently check their skepticism at the door when it comes to corporate power and the self-regulatory willingness of corporations to act in the interests of the common good. In the mind of an atheist libertarian, both religion and government is bad, but corporations are saintly. On what planet, where? Corporations exist for one purpose only: to derive maximum profit for their shareholders. The corporations legally defined mandate is to pursue, relentlessly and without exception, its own self-interest, regardless of the often harmful consequences it might cause others, writes Joel Bakan, author of The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power.

Corporations pollute, lie, steal, oppress, manipulate and deceive, all in the name of maximizing profit. Corporations have no interest for the common good. You really believe Big Tobacco wouldnt sell cigarettes to 10-year-olds if government didnt prohibit it? Do you really think Big Oil wouldnt discharge more poisons and environmentally harmful waste into the atmosphere if government regulations didnt restrict it? Do you really believe Wal-Mart wouldnt pay its workers less than the current minimum wage if the federal government didnt prohibit it? If you answered yes to any of the above, you may be an atheist libertarian in desperate need of Jesus.

That awkward pause that inevitably follows asking a libertarian how it is that unrestricted corporate power, particularly for Big Oil, helps solve our existential crisis, climate change, is always enjoyable. Corporations will harm you, or even kill you, if it is profitable to do so and they can get away with it recall the infamous case of the Ford Pinto, where in the 1970s the automaker did a cost-benefit analysis and decided not to remedy a defective gas tank design because doing so would be more expensive than simply allowing the inevitable deaths and injuries to occur and then paying the anticipated settlements, warns Niose.

Go here to see the original:
The atheist libertarian lie: Ayn Rand, income inequality and the fantasy of the free market

Science and Progressives
Fuels of tomorrow. Green energy is in our nations future. New business provide jobs, careers, that our nation is lacking. But we need to give education for o...

By: TheAngelofDorkness

Continue reading here:
Science and Progressives - Video

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may be headlining Sen. Tom Harkin's annual Steak Fry today, but the longtime progressive senator indicated that shouldn't be taken as an endorsement should she decide to run for president in 2016.

Harkin, who is retiring after 30 years in the Senate and was hosting his last annual Steak Fry today, said progressives should raise questions about Clinton's foreign policy and economic positions.

"As someone who has carried the liberal, progressive populist banner for many years, we're always nervous about people moving too far to the right," Harkin told ABC News' Jonathan Karl for "This Week." "See we, a lot of us believe the center ought to be moved back, that the center has moved too far right."

ABC News

PHOTO: Senator Tom Harkin (D) Iowa on 'This Week'

Asked where Clinton's positions fell on the political spectrum, Harkin responded, "Well, I don't know, I mean I think this is something that will be developed and we'll find out when, if she, if she decides to run. You know, what's her vision for America?"

When asked if he had "real questions" about Clinton's stances on issues, Harkin said, "I do about everybody" considering a run for the White House.

He added that President Barack Obama's positions have been less progressive than he had hoped they would be.

"I must be frank with you, I thought Barack Obama was a great progressive and a great populist and quite frankly, I haven't, some things have happened that I don't agree with," Harkin said.

And while most eyes on Clinton this weekend are reading signs for what her return trip to Iowa means for her 2016 presidential prospects, Harkin said Clinton's trip will have more impact on the 2014 midterm elections, as she and former President Clinton begin hitting the campaign trail for Democrats facing tough election battles.

Read more here:
Progressives Want to See Clinton's 'Vision for America'

Daniel P. Finney,, dafinney@dmreg.com 11:51 p.m. CDT September 14, 2014

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., speaks Saturday at a town hall meeting in Dubuque. He also spoke Sunday at gatherings in Waterloo and Des Moines. (Photo: Mike Burley, Dubuque Telegraph Herald/Associated Press )

Voters must fight to repeal policies pushed through Congress by the billionaire ruling class if the United States hopes to restore its middle class and protect representative democracy, Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, said Sunday in Des Moines.

Earlier this year, Sanders said he was prepared to run for president in 2016. The fiery liberal who describes himself as a socialist independent told NBCs Meet the Press on Sunday that his trip to Iowa was an effort to check the pulse of voters in the home of states first-in-the-nation caucuses.

More than 250 people filled the basement community room of Grace United Methodist Church near Drake University in Des Moines. Though the sampling was small and the audience obviously partisan toward progressives, Sanders message inspired roaring applause during his hourlong speech.

Sanders touched on a broad range of issues, from campaign financing to the economy, but stressed that community organizations must turn out the vote against widespread apathy.

The pundits tell us, if we dont change it in the next two months, that 60 percent of the American people are not going to vote, Sanders said. Of the 60 percent who dont vote, 70 to 80 percent of those who make minimum wage will not vote. Theyve given up on the political process. Something like 75 percent of young people arent going to vote.

So thats democracy. The people who are the future of America are not going to vote. The people who are hurting the most economically are turned off, so they dont vote.

Sanders cautioned the standing-room-only crowd: You have people who are not turned off, and that is the billionaire class who are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to elect candidates to represent the rich and the powerful.

Sanders spoke in favor of expanding Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other federal benefits, including requiring those with the highest incomes to pay more into the system.

See more here:
Sanders cautions progressives about voter apathy

There is nothing progressive about red ink.

This year, progressives will run on strengthening the economic recovery, reducing inequality, improving college affordability, promoting broad-based wage growth and making sure the most vulnerable among us are well cared for. And if we want all these to happen, we also need to campaign on fixing the national debt not as budget scolds but as the wing of the party that connects how growing debt is incompatible with the American dream.

The national debt is currently higher than it has been at any time since World War II and is on pace to continue growing faster than the economy. Yet, when confronted with this reality, many in my party deny that this is a problem and point to the declining deficit. They ignore the Congressional Budget Offices projections that the deficit will begin to rise again and the fact that the short-term deficit and long-term debt are not interrelated. They also associate any discussion of the debt with calls for gutting welfare programs, slashing entitlements and imposing needless austerity.

As progressives, we should fight against these alleged solutions, but that does not give us the right to ignore the problem. A growing national debt can have real and profound effects on the lives of ordinary Americans. High debt levels can hobble economic growth by stifling job-generating investments and slowing wage growth. Meanwhile, debt can increase the cost of living on working families by driving up the interest rates on everything from mortgages to student loans to credit-card debt. High debt levels can reduce the availability of affordable loans for first homes or small businesses.

The precise impact of higher debt levels is somewhat uncertain but far from abstract. According to the CBO, wages two decades from now would be more than 10 percent lower if debt is on an upward path relative to the economy, compared to a downward path. In todays dollars, thats a $330,000-per-person wage cut for someone who works 40 years beginning today. Similarly, just a 0.3 point swing in the interest rate could lead a family with a $300,000 mortgage to pay an additional $20,000 in interest.

The very wealthy can bear these costs. But for ordinary Americans, that could be the difference between getting ahead and treading water or even falling further behind.

And if the direct impact of the debt werent enough, it is increasingly impairing the governments ability to be a positive force in peoples lives.

Each year, more and more of the federal budget is going toward interest payments, leaving less room for important investments in energy, education, infrastructure, low-income support and basic research. Between 2013 and 2024, interest payments will quadruple from $220 billion to nearly $880 billion. And only a few years later, 100 percent of the revenue the government collects will go toward interest payments and mandatory spending instead of spending to promote economic opportunity and improve prosperity for the next generation.

Sensible reforms that close unneeded tax breaks and better target our health and retirement programs could make the room for these important public investments. Instead, our leaders have kicked the debt down the road through discretionary spending cuts and indiscriminate sequestrations, which just make a bad situation worse and represent exactly the kind of austerity we need to avoid. Progressives can protect and strengthen our most important programs only if we show the other side that were willing to make room for these priorities in the budget.

Creating economic opportunity for all will require Washington to enact a number of policy changes. But none of these changes will have a lasting effect if we dont have a plan to keeps us from drowning in a sea of red ink.

See original here:
Commentary: Lower debt is good politics and policy