Corporations and Political Speech
Moderator: Global Moderator
- Cortopassi
- Executive Member
- Posts: 3338
- Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
- Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
To lighten the mood... between PS and others, I have never had to highlight so many words in these political discussions and search google for the definition. Jeez, this is like a bunch of professors arguing in a high brow university coffee shop or something. Where's the blue collar section...
I have never before seen the word: miscegenation. Sounds like a word made up specifically for an SAT test!
I have never before seen the word: miscegenation. Sounds like a word made up specifically for an SAT test!
Test of the signature line
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
What we're basically asking is how we make the USA more democratic and less oligarchic. The thing to start with is that a certain amount of oligarchy is simply baked into our system, by design, to counterbalance and fickle and violent tendencies of the mob. This is what gave us the electoral college, no direct election of senators, the filibuster, etc.
I think there is substantial evidence that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction because the elites have figures out how to take advantage of the institutions of government to oppress the proles much mores than the reverse.
It's definitely a tough question, but some off-the cuff ideas would be to make voter ID mandatory nationwide, offer gift certificates, coupons, or scrip accepted at local businesses for casting a vote, reduce the difficulty of holding recall elections, and implement recall referenda that allow the people to directly veto/nullify passed laws.
I think there is substantial evidence that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction because the elites have figures out how to take advantage of the institutions of government to oppress the proles much mores than the reverse.
It's definitely a tough question, but some off-the cuff ideas would be to make voter ID mandatory nationwide, offer gift certificates, coupons, or scrip accepted at local businesses for casting a vote, reduce the difficulty of holding recall elections, and implement recall referenda that allow the people to directly veto/nullify passed laws.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4960
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
jafs, I apologize if you perceived my comments as a personal attack. I did not intend it that way.MangoMan wrote:Exactly. Mountaineer, your comments were a cross between ad hominem, straw man, and moral high ground fallacies.TennPaGa wrote:Mountaineer wrote: I find it fascinating that you think corporations are eroding our system and yet you turn a blind eye (or even an eye of approval?) to other practices that are eroding our system in a more fundamental way such as: cohabitation, abortion, sodomy, divorce, euthanasia, idol worship, materialism, and narcissism to name a few.
The thread is entitled Corporations and Political Speech, and the discussion is around the link between the two.
The fact that he hasn't mentioned any of "cohabitation, abortion, sodomy, divorce, euthanasia, idol worship, materialism, and narcissism" only means he is sticking to the thread topic, IMO.
To make assumptions about things he has not said and to then judge him as harshly as you have is not very fair, IMO.
My suggestion would be to start a new thread if you want to get a discussion going on these things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Tenn and Pug, you guys are better at the fine points of logic than I will ever be. I yield to your superior talent in that area. It really does not matter to me how you label my comments because I'm not trying to change anyone's mind - that is an exercise in futility. You, as am I, are free to see things the way you wish. I understand there are consequences to every word written in these threads. I try not to be offensive, but I have to say, I do think those who profess to be tolerant are frequently among the more intolerant persons I know if something is said that does not fit a particular mantra, and I'm frequentily guilty of expressing my thoughts which tend toward a traditional point of view - I tend to call a thing what it is (my opinion only, based on over 70 years of human nature observation).
I do see connections between a focus on how bad corporations are screwing up our society and the absence of more harmful things being discussed in the political speech arena, however. In my mind, it is similar to seeing a street crime go down (say a robbery or rape) and not telling the police what one observed. Silence is consent, so said my previous work culture. YMMV.
... Mountaineer
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
Given that those in power are beholden to the wealthy and large corporations, none of whom wants the things you mention, how would they ever happen?Pointedstick wrote: What we're basically asking is how we make the USA more democratic and less oligarchic. The thing to start with is that a certain amount of oligarchy is simply baked into our system, by design, to counterbalance and fickle and violent tendencies of the mob. This is what gave us the electoral college, no direct election of senators, the filibuster, etc.
I think there is substantial evidence that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction because the elites have figures out how to take advantage of the institutions of government to oppress the proles much mores than the reverse.
It's definitely a tough question, but some off-the cuff ideas would be to make voter ID mandatory nationwide, offer gift certificates, coupons, or scrip accepted at local businesses for casting a vote, reduce the difficulty of holding recall elections, and implement recall referenda that allow the people to directly veto/nullify passed laws.
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
I'm not sure I understand the focus on corporations per se. Yes, there are certain benefits to organizing as a corporation--namely limited shareholder liability. I trust you wouldn't be buying Microsoft stock in your retirement account if it meant you, as a shareholder (owner), could personally be sued.
But taxation? Usually double that of what would be imposed in the case of an unincorporated entity, the last time I checked. Are there other significant "benefits" of incorporation that I've missed?
From what I can discern, a mere handful of multinational corporations wield the vast majority of the political power in this country (indeed, globally). They are thoroughly enmeshed with, and integrated into the structure of, government at virtually every level. Isn't this the problem we should be focused on?
But taxation? Usually double that of what would be imposed in the case of an unincorporated entity, the last time I checked. Are there other significant "benefits" of incorporation that I've missed?
From what I can discern, a mere handful of multinational corporations wield the vast majority of the political power in this country (indeed, globally). They are thoroughly enmeshed with, and integrated into the structure of, government at virtually every level. Isn't this the problem we should be focused on?
"We are on the verge of a global transformation; all we need is the. . . right major crisis. . . and the nation will accept the. . . new world order." David Rockefeller (1994)
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
Sure, either way is fine with me.Maddy wrote: I'm not sure I understand the focus on corporations per se. Yes, there are certain benefits to organizing as a corporation--namely limited shareholder liability. I trust you wouldn't be buying Microsoft stock in your retirement account if it meant you, as a shareholder (owner), could personally be sued.
But taxation? Usually double that of what would be imposed in the case of an unincorporated entity, the last time I checked. Are there other significant "benefits" of incorporation that I've missed?
From what I can discern, a mere handful of multinational corporations wield the vast majority of the political power in this country (indeed, globally). They are thoroughly enmeshed with, and integrated into the structure of, government at virtually every level. Isn't this the problem we should be focused on?
What do you think would improve the situation?
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
Donald Trump becomes president, galvanizes popular sentiment against stuffy elites, and establishment politicians conveniently change their positions and get on board to avoid losing their jobs in a wave of anger.jafs wrote: Given that those in power are beholden to the wealthy and large corporations, none of whom wants the things you mention, how would they ever happen?
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
I honestly don't know. One thing that's missing, and that I believe has allowed the unchecked conglomeration of power, is the refusal to enforce existing anti-trust legislation whose purpose it is to insure free enterprise. A good example of an industry that continues to skirt basic anti-trust laws is the medical/pharmaceutical industry, which has been granted (thanks to our legislators) a virtual monopoly in this country.jafs wrote: What do you think would improve the situation?
"We are on the verge of a global transformation; all we need is the. . . right major crisis. . . and the nation will accept the. . . new world order." David Rockefeller (1994)
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
Yikes. I would hate to give people rewards for voting. It's too easy to vote now. Anybody who votes only for the reward should not be voting.Pointedstick wrote: What we're basically asking is how we make the USA more democratic and less oligarchic. The thing to start with is that a certain amount of oligarchy is simply baked into our system, by design, to counterbalance and fickle and violent tendencies of the mob. This is what gave us the electoral college, no direct election of senators, the filibuster, etc.
I think there is substantial evidence that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction because the elites have figures out how to take advantage of the institutions of government to oppress the proles much mores than the reverse.
It's definitely a tough question, but some off-the cuff ideas would be to make voter ID mandatory nationwide, offer gift certificates, coupons, or scrip accepted at local businesses for casting a vote, reduce the difficulty of holding recall elections, and implement recall referenda that allow the people to directly veto/nullify passed laws.
But I totally agree about recalls and about the people vetoing/nullifying laws. Here's my take on it, and I think it lines up with the Founders' intentions. There are far far far too few Representatives. The population has exploded, but the House has not. Largely this has to do with physical size of the Capitol building.
With technology today, there's no reason for the House to not have 50,000 members. Each one subject to recall/replacement at absolutely any time by his constituents. Elections become too fickle and too many in number to buy.
And Senators should go back to being selected by state legislatures, of course.
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
That's an interesting idea.Xan wrote: With technology today, there's no reason for the House to not have 50,000 members. Each one subject to recall/replacement at absolutely any time by his constituents.
"We are on the verge of a global transformation; all we need is the. . . right major crisis. . . and the nation will accept the. . . new world order." David Rockefeller (1994)
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
That's also because that industry gives a lot of money to legislators, right?Maddy wrote:I honestly don't know. One thing that's missing, and that I believe has allowed the unchecked conglomeration of power, is the refusal to enforce existing anti-trust legislation whose purpose it is to insure free enterprise. A good example of an industry that continues to skirt basic anti-trust laws is the medical/pharmaceutical industry, which has been granted (thanks to our legislators) a virtual monopoly in this country.jafs wrote: What do you think would improve the situation?
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
I think that's incredibly unlikely, and really as much of a pipe dream as my ideas.Pointedstick wrote:Donald Trump becomes president, galvanizes popular sentiment against stuffy elites, and establishment politicians conveniently change their positions and get on board to avoid losing their jobs in a wave of anger.jafs wrote: Given that those in power are beholden to the wealthy and large corporations, none of whom wants the things you mention, how would they ever happen?
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
No argument there.jafs wrote: That's also because that industry gives a lot of money to legislators, right?
"We are on the verge of a global transformation; all we need is the. . . right major crisis. . . and the nation will accept the. . . new world order." David Rockefeller (1994)
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
+1Maddy wrote:No argument there.jafs wrote: That's also because that industry gives a lot of money to legislators, right?
Inside of me there are two dogs. One is mean and evil and the other is good and they fight each other all the time. When asked which one wins I answer, the one I feed the most.�
Sitting Bull
Sitting Bull
- Kriegsspiel
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4052
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
Since I learned about corporate personhood, I have taken to calling the chattel in my brokerage account "my immortal slaves."
You there, Ephialtes. May you live forever.
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
I often feel like you are communicating with us from another dimension.Kriegsspiel wrote: Since I learned about corporate personhood, I have taken to calling the chattel in my brokerage account "my immortal slaves."
Are there any portals you could tell us about?
The sentence above is like one of those Japanese paintings with only one brush stroke. Its elegant simplicity is stunning.
It bulges with meaning.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
Free political speech is a libertarian position, not left-leaning. The left is against free political speech. The right is for anything that makes making a profit easier.Maddy wrote: Recalling a recent thread addressed to getting the money out of politics, I found it interesting that the overriding concern of the left-leaning folks was on silencing the political speech of conservative organizations--not on ending the quid pro quo culture that has made Congress the bought-and-paid-for tool of the corporatist elite (both left and right). The takeaway, I think, is that the progressive Left, unprincipled almost by definition, is just fine with the proposition of Congress as a whore so long as it's their whore.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Sat Mar 26, 2016 6:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
The media shold be required to adhere to the Fairness Doctrine. You can trace the rise of the lamestream media directly back to the Fairness Doctrine being abolished in 1987. Everything gradually became ideological thereafter, most especially the shining star example: Faux News.jafs wrote: Ideally, the media should have to tell the truth, in my view, and make it clear when something is just opinion, not fact.
Unlimited free political speech is not coercive. The more data you have, the better decisions you can make. Although I've read that PAC's and SuperPAC's can wield the use of it in a coercive manner and threaten candidates they do and don't like, so I may have to revisit the issue eventually.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Sat Mar 26, 2016 5:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
Here's the deal though. Any organization of two or more people currently has personhood rights. In the case that allowed unlimited spending on free political speech by corporations and unions (SuperPACs), two people could not join together to express their free political speech in a general manner for or against candidates. Is that ethical when PACs could already do the same? It was crony capitalism since only those with the resources and connections could navigate the buaucratic labyrinth of campaign finance laws.jafs wrote: As long as a corporation is a legally distinct entity, it's not just another name for a bunch of people working together.
You have to deal with reality as it currently is, not as you wish it was.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
No, they would be selected by taxpayers. Think public funding of elections.Pointedstick wrote: So all political candidates would have to be rich people like Donald Trump capable of self-funding their own campaigns! Perfect!
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
The former and it is just a status designation for classification purposes at the IRS.Pointedstick wrote: My family is a legal entity that allows me to pay substantially less in taxes than if I was alone. It is distinct from me, but I am a part of it. Is my family just a shorthand for "me, my wife, and my children" or is it a separate thing that should be treated differently?
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
They currently do. You're in denial about this. Reality vs how you want things to be.jafs wrote: Corporations don't have constitutional rights, period. All of the people involved have them, and are free to exercise them.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
Why would he? He's supposedly a left winger. They all get indoctrinated with endless propaganda about the evils of corporations and rich people, not the benefits.Mark Leavy wrote:
You seem to have a very limited view as to the value that incorporation adds to society and how it increases freedom, trade, investment and general prosperity for all.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
Sigh. He has no SuperPAC's bankrolling him (except one from a bunch of old ladies). He relies on individual donations from millions of people. Where do you people always come up with this false bullshit? Stop believing everything you read from gooroo bloggers or pundits with an axe to grind.Tyler wrote: Nor would they truly want to. Take Bernie Sanders, for example. I'll believe he's truly for getting organized money out of politics when he also rebukes the the unions bankrolling him. It's almost as if he's not really against individuals organizing to express free political speech, but he's simply wants to silence organizations he disagrees with. Surely his principles run deeper than that.
For your penance, go donate $3 to the Sanders campaign. That is pure direct democracy in action and you will actively support a rebel running against the corrupt political system. Win-Win! https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/p ... -go-bernie
Last edited by MachineGhost on Sat Mar 26, 2016 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
You seriously think butthole sex is eroding our system?Mountaineer wrote: I find it fascinating that you think corporations are eroding our system and yet you turn a blind eye (or even an eye of approval?) to other practices that are eroding our system in a more fundamental way such as: cohabitation, abortion, sodomy, divorce, euthanasia, idol worship, materialism, and narcissism to name a few.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!