As a former employee of a PIRG. I can respond to that part of this post. Ralph
did not receive any cash from the organization, unless it was indirectly from
literature sales. He was closely involved and offered advice, but had no power
other than that of argument and persuasion. To describe it as
I am just finishing off an article on "Ralph Nader and the
Legacy of Revolt: Populism, Socialism, and Progressivism."
It takes a very different view from Louis Proyect's cobbling
of sour grapes and rightist propaganda, although it is critical
of Nader. My paper attempts to relate Nader's search f
> In a nutshell, Nader is attempting to connect the dotted lines between the
> social movements and trade unions of today with the anti-monopoly and
> populist traditions of the pre-1917 left. This is the left of small
> shopkeepers, farmers and "citizens" who need to restore the vision of
> Jeffe
> Lots of silliness here. All effective reform "legitimate" the system by
> making it work better, or at least less destructively, for those on the
> bottom. If you oppose reforms on this basis, you will cut yourself off from
> all political activity except for PL-ish demand for total revolutio
Michael Hoover wrote:
>2) Re. anti-monopoly efforts, I wrote that they were generally ineffective.
>As for Sherman Anti-trust Act, only in few cases was legislation vigorously
>enforced. Supreme Court blocked attempt to break up monopoly on sugar
>manufacture (*U. S. v E. C. Knight Co.*, 1895),
Silly Me:
> > As for Sherman Anti-trust Act, only in few cases was legislation
> >vigorously
> > enforced. Supreme Court blocked attempt to break up monopoly on sugar
> > manufacture (*U. S. v E. C. Knight Co.*, 1895), claiming that interstate
> > commerce covered only 'transportation' of goo
> The phrase is from the famous (to Americal lawyers) footnote 4 of the 1939
> S.Ct case US v. Carolene products, explaining that for bankers and other
> objects of what is called social and economic legislation, there is no
> special constitutional protection, but for discrete and insular minorit
jks:
> TJ was at best ambivalent about the Constitution.
so you've gone *from* saying he didn't signing constitution (which I
pointed out he couldn't have done because he wasn't in Philly...btw:
my friend Bobbie, big fan of radical Jefferson, didn't sign document
either) *to* saying he indica
>I don't know about Washington, but where I live a $100,000 home is pretty
>modest. (and that is Canadian dollars!)
>
>Rod
$100,000 went further 25 years ago.
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
>Yes, but not that much further. My parents, who lived on my dad's middle
>class income of about $25,000 a year back in those days, bought a $100,000
>house in the NVA suburbs at the same time--it wasn't shabby, but it wasn't a
>mansion. You probbaly could have done better in the city in those
Lots of silliness here. All effective reform "legitimate" the system by
making it work better, or at least less destructively, for those on the
bottom. If you oppose reforms on this basis, you will cut yourself off from
all political activity except for PL-ish demand for total revolution NOW!
> 1) Re. lobbying, I didn't express opposition to it per se (nor reform for
that matter),
Good.
> Nader's his phalanx of inter-locked
groups are 'staff organizations' in which professionals conduct most
activities and members are called upon to pay dues and be 'mobilized'
('astroturf pol
Unions are expressly exempted from the provisions of the Sherman Act. Otherwise they
would indeed be a conspiracy in restraint of trade, as they were treated by the 19th
century courts. --jks
Even aside from the examples of Debs & Gompers jailed for
'anti-trust' violation, don't anti-monopoly
OK, the Sherman Act can't win. If the Court blocked trustbusting because of
the old Commerce Clause jurisprudence, the ACt was ineffective. If the Court
authorized the bustup of a trust, it didn't make a difference. In fact,
though, your vague talk about the companies beiong in thesame hands an
In a message dated 6/5/00 11:33:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< Bankers and corporations don't (at present) need much in the
way of court protection, given their power in Congress and the
Executive.
Sure, that's part of what Footnote 4 and the New Deal equal protecti
> Even aside from the examples of Debs & Gompers jailed for
> 'anti-trust' violation, don't anti-monopoly efforts tend to have
> anti-union effects? Higher wages for union members, to a certain
> extent, must come from higher profits of oligopoly or monopoly. More
> competition, lower wages,
In a message dated 6/3/00 4:31:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< I don't know about Washington, but where I live a $100,000 home is pretty
>modest. (and that is Canadian dollars!)
>
>Rod
$100,000 went further 25 years ago.
>>
Yes, but not that much further. My pa
The political criticism of Nadar is valid, but the personal attack on him is
misguided and fundamentally irrelevant.
Rod
Louis Proyect wrote:
> >Yes, but not that much further. My parents, who lived on my dad's middle
> >class income of about $25,000 a year back in those days, bought a $100,000
In a message dated 00-06-03 21:11:11 EDT, you write:
<< The main point is that it wasn't an $85 per month furnished room.
>be bought. If he stayed silent on no-fault, it was not because he was
bribed,
>but because there are serious consumerist arguments against it. There are,
The proble
Justin wrote:
>So, if you accept that refiorms are good and necessary, you have to
>support lobbuing for and otherwise trying to effect them through the
>esrablished channels. Otherwise, you will be out in the streets yelling
>for reforms that will be implemented, if at all, without your partic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>The comments about Jefferson and the Constitution are almost too silly to
>discuss. J was no great fan of the C, which he did not sign precisely because
>of its comparative conservatism, And as for the anti-majoritarainsim od the
>C, and especially the Bill of Rights, is
EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 5:03 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:19866] Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1
> The political criticism of Nadar is valid, but the personal attack on him
is
> misguided and fundamentally irrelevant.
>
> Rod
>
> Louis Proyect wrote:
>
&
What did I do to make you think I would disagree with this? --jks
This distinction (reform through established channels vs. yelling in the
streets) is a false dichotomy. The two are connected and interact with each
other.
>>
>>discrete and insular minorities << protected by the "C" were/are who
exactly? Blacks? American Indians? Women? Hispanics? Bankers?
Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >The comments about Jefferson and the Constitution are almost too silly to
> >disc
In a message dated 6/5/00 6:25:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Oh yes, the propertied minority needs vigorous protection against the
masses. Just ask Madison, Federalist #10. >>
I was thinking more of the 14th Amendment, due process, equal protection,
that sort of t
On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Jim Devine wrote:
> and even when we got the 14th, wasn't it interpreted to allow the rise of
> joint-stock corporations at the same time that Jim Crow laws were allowed
> to take hold?
Worse, it was specifically interpreted not to include the right of the
federal governme
Mark Jones has discovered that anything but the self-described express
movement for the revolutionmary overthrow of capitalsim is a distraction;
reforms that merely improve people's livesw ithin existing constrints are
bad. Hey, Mark, why doesn't this distrction theorya pply to a movement for
Mark,
I would never put blacks, Indians, women and hispanics in the same
equation with bankers. they are the victim, not the oppresssor..
Mine
>>>discrete and insular minorities << protected by the "C" were/are who
>exactly? Blacks? American Indians? Women? Hispanics? Bankers?
>Mark Jones
>h
In a message dated 6/5/00 6:34:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< discrete and insular minorities << protected by the "C" were/are who
exactly? Blacks? American Indians? Women? Hispanics? Bankers? >>
The phrase is from the famous (to Americal lawyers) footnote 4 of the 1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In a message dated 6/5/00 6:25:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
><< Oh yes, the propertied minority needs vigorous protection against the
> masses. Just ask Madison, Federalist #10. >>
>
>I was thinking more of the 14th Amendment, due process, e
At 01:20 PM 6/6/00 -0400, you wrote:
>That is why the 1964 Civil Rights Act was authorized under the Commerce
>Clause rather than the 14th Amendment, ...
the Commerce Clause refers to the role of the US federal government in
regulating interstate commerce (from the original constitution), right
In a message dated 6/5/00 7:54:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Mark,
I would never put blacks, Indians, women and hispanics in the same
equation with bankers. they are the victim, not the oppresssor..
Mine
>>
Mine, you really are irony proof. Go syeep yourself
>In a message dated 6/5/00 7:54:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Mark,
> I would never put blacks, Indians, women and hispanics in the same
>equation with bankers. they are the victim, not the oppresssor..
>Mine
>>
>Mine, you really are irony proof. Go syeep y
Thanks for the clarification, Mine, I'll bear it in mind.
Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 12:54 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:19914] Re: Re: Re: Re: The Nader camp
Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 4:12 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:19920] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1
> In a message dated 6/5/00 6:34:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
&
At 12:54 PM 6/6/00 -0400, you wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>In a message dated 6/5/00 6:25:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>><< Oh yes, the propertied minority needs vigorous protection against the
>> masses. Just ask Madison, Federalist #10. >>
>>
>>I was think
On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Jim Devine wrote:
> At 01:20 PM 6/6/00 -0400, you wrote:
> >That is why the 1964 Civil Rights Act was authorized under the Commerce
> >Clause rather than the 14th Amendment, ...
>
> the Commerce Clause refers to the role of the US federal government in
> regulating interst
>the Commerce Clause refers to the role of the US federal government in
regulating interstate commerce (from the original constitution), right?
when was it reinterpreted in a relatively progressive way? what were the
political forces and struggles behind that reinterpretation?
This was the
In a message dated Tue, 6 Jun 2000 4:42:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "M A Jones"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<< Justin, you have a way of telling me things I already know while not
answering the real point, which is about your strange affection for the
glorious 'C' especially the notably undemo
39 matches
Mail list logo
