Gyroscopic Investing

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!

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.

MangoMan wrote:

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.

Exactly. Mountaineer, your comments were a cross between ad hominem, straw man, and moral high ground fallacies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

jafs, I apologize if you perceived my comments as a personal attack.  I did not intend it that way.

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

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.

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?

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?

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?

Sure, either way is fine with me.

What do you think would improve the situation?

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?

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: What do you think would improve the situation?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's an interesting idea.

Maddy wrote:

jafs wrote: What do you think would improve the situation?

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.

That's also because that industry gives a lot of money to legislators, right?

Pointedstick wrote:

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?

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.

I think that's incredibly unlikely, and really as much of a pipe dream as my ideas.

jafs wrote: That's also because that industry gives a lot of money to legislators, right?

No argument there.

Maddy wrote:

jafs wrote: That's also because that industry gives a lot of money to legislators, right?

No argument there.

+1

Since I learned about corporate personhood, I have taken to calling the chattel in my brokerage account "my immortal slaves."

Kriegsspiel wrote: Since I learned about corporate personhood, I have taken to calling the chattel in my brokerage account "my immortal slaves."

I often feel like you are communicating with us from another dimension.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You have to deal with reality as it currently is, not as you wish it was.

Pointedstick wrote: So all political candidates would have to be rich people like Donald Trump capable of self-funding their own campaigns! Perfect!

No, they would be selected by taxpayers.  Think public funding of elections.

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?

The former and it is just a status designation for classification purposes at the IRS.

jafs wrote: Corporations don't have constitutional rights, period.  All of the people involved have them, and are free to exercise them.

They currently do.  You're in denial about this.  Reality vs how you want things to be.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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

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.

You seriously think butthole sex is eroding our system?