Support NeoGAF

[Metaphoreus]

Formatted for Chichikov's reading pleasure:

Part the First. On Citizens United

I might concede (3) but the other two are factually wrong. The case didn't invent the concepts but said A) corporations have 1st amendment rights for 'political speech' and 2) it relied on the buckely v valeo precident which did state as such. Your distinction saying that their not saying money is speech but restricting spending is limiting speech is a ridiculously pedantic distinction and has no real world difference.

The Court's decision in Citizens United did not turn on whether corporations were "persons." After all, the First Amendment does not limit its protection to "persons," unlike the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (for instance). Instead, the First Amendment simply provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." That provision is not contingent on the personhood of the speaker, or on any other attribute of the speaker's identity. So the Court didn't need to--and didn't--rely on the concept of corporate personhood.

Regarding the distinction between money-as-speech and restrictions-on-spending-on-speech-as-restrictions-on-speech, I don't understand how that distinction could be any more clear. Independent expenditures aren't protected under the First Amendment because they involve money--all expenditures involve money, yet many are banned outright without Constitutional consequence--but because they involve speech. The government can ban spending money to buy ivory from Africa, but it can't ban spending money to air advertisements for a political documentary. That difference doesn't make sense if the rationale in Citizens United was that money is speech; it does make sense if the rationale was that restrictions on spending on speech are restrictions on speech.

Third, that rule--that restrictions on spending on speech are restrictions on speech--seems to be obviously true. In fact, during the first oral argument, the government claimed that, under the law being challenged, it could prohibit the publication of pamphlets or books within the relevant time period before a primary or election. What else could that be but a restriction on speech?

Finally, citing Buckley doesn't mean that Citizens United relied on every sentence in Buckley or every point of law made by Buckley. Because Citizens United did not turn on whether money is speech, any assertion in Buckley to that effect is irrelevant to the present discussion.

Part the Second. On Motives for Campaign Contributions

Why does he want him to win? I'm gonna guess because he wants his policy enacted. . . .

Let you in on a secret, that isn't true. Politicians change their views to suit their donors. You can deny it but I've seen it. It happens

Its not like there are examples: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/lindsey-graham-sheldon-adelson-internet-gambling-104825.html

There is no corruption (nor, necessarily, the appearance of corruption) involved in a contribution to a political campaign when the reason for the contribution is a desire that the candidate win or a desire that the policies supported by the candidate be implemented. The way you define corruption here would make voting a corrupting influence, and that just can't be. For two reasons, it makes no difference that sometimes politicians change their views to suit their donors' desires. First, we're considering the motives of the donors in donating, not the reactions of politicians to receiving donations. Second, politicians can't possibly change their views to suit the desires of every donor. Mostly, donors with a particular view will donate to politicians who already hold similar views.

Part the Third. On Scarcity and the Spectrum; and Poor Folk and the Takings Clause

You do realize there is a limit on the spectrum? There is no such limit on domain names. The comparison is absurd, your position on this is absurd. Your an apologist for rich people owning the electromagnetic spectrum and limiting peoples use of it with no democratic control. The position is radical and scary.

Let me put it this way. Its limited to property owners. Poor people don't own much property. I'm not saying that it doesn't 'protect' poor people if they do own property I'm arguing that in the real world it doesn't help them. It helps rich people.

The spectrum may be scarce, but that's no reason to say it can't be privately owned. Every good is scarce, yet private ownership is perfectly compatible with basically all of them. In the case of the electromagnetic spectrum, there's also the advantageous fact that using a particular frequency doesn't consume the frequency. It may be possible that every tree be cut down and every fish, fished, but it isn't possible to use up electromagnetic frequencies. Useful domain names are likewise scarce, though, based on my experience with radio stations, less so than usable frequencies. I don't view this as a distinction which destroys the analogy.

Second, regarding the electromagnetic spectrum, you keep saying that I'm talking about "the rich." I'm not. I'm talking about everyone. Not only the rich own land. Not only the rich own web domains. Not only the rich would own frequencies if the spectrum were privatized. The geographic scope of broadcast towers is finite, so we're not talking about someone buying up the rights to broadcast at 91.1 FM nationwide. Smaller operators could easily buy broadcast rights for a small enough station. To summarize, it's true that private property is good for the rich, but it's also good for everyone else.

Regarding the Takings Clause, I think you're wrong about who benefits the most from its requirement of just compensation. It is the politically connected wealthy who are most likely to benefit from the use the power of eminent domain, and the politically unconnected poor who are most likely to fall victim to that power. The Takings Clause makes sure that the rich cannot expropriate the poor without paying for that taking. And note that the Takings Clause doesn't merely protect fee ownership--a tenant is also entitled to just compensation if the leased property is condemned. Obviously that compensation won't be for the value of the fee, but it isn't nothing, either.

Part the Fourth. Miscellaneous Responses

You claimed that monetary contributions open the debate, I claimed other nations which limited campaign donations don't have a limited debate. Your assertion was pull from no where.

Your disbelieve that mass marketing works that flooding the airwaves with one view point doesn't change peoples vote. Your denying basic psych 101 and assuming voters have information they're not guaranteed to have.

Concerning the first paragraph, to which country or countries were you referring? Remember that my comment didn't have to do with where contributions were limited, but where they were prohibited.

Concerning the second paragraph, please expand. And I don't view "Psych 101" as a useful citation.

Yes there is. And again I'd like to see you argue with a straight face the government doesn't have a good interest in regulating these giant sums of money. It gives at least the 'appearance of corruption'. Do you really deny that?

Yes.

 

[East Lake]

There is no corruption (nor, necessarily, the appearance of corruption) involved in a contribution to a political campaign when the reason for the contribution is a desire that the candidate win or a desire that the policies supported by the candidate be implemented. The way you define corruption here would make voting a corrupting influence, and that just can't be. For two reasons, it makes no difference that sometimes politicians change their views to suit their donors' desires. First, we're considering the motives of the donors in donating, not the reactions of politicians to receiving donations. Second, politicians can't possibly change their views to suit the desires of every donor. Mostly, donors with a particular view will donate to politicians who already hold similar views.

Corruption wasn't in the exchange. You just decided to use it because you were wrong about politicians being bought.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Corruption wasn't in the exchange. You just decided to use it because you were wrong about politicians being bought.

Sorry, what?

 

[East Lake]

All donation to political candidates, at some level, are in some way motivated by a "return on investment." At the most basic level, the expectation that the politician in question will support the same policies you support.

I think that's a stretch. I think that, more likely, donors provide donations because the politician supports the same policies as the donor, not as an inducement for the politician to do so. I imagine that the only "return on investment" most political donors hope for is that the donee win the election.

Its not like there are examples: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/lindsey-graham-sheldon-adelson-internet-gambling-104825.html

There is no corruption (nor, necessarily, the appearance of corruption) involved in a contribution to a political campaign when the reason for the contribution is a desire that the candidate win or a desire that the policies supported by the candidate be implemented. The way you define corruption here would make voting a corrupting influence, and that just can't be. For two reasons, it makes no difference that sometimes politicians change their views to suit their donors' desires. First, we're considering the motives of the donors in donating, not the reactions of politicians to receiving donations. Second, politicians can't possibly change their views to suit the desires of every donor. Mostly, donors with a particular view will donate to politicians who already hold similar views.

Still having trouble?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Still having trouble?

No, but you appear to be.

Let me explain. When I said, "Sorry, what?" I meant, "What does your post even mean?" Reposting posts I've already read--and two of which I wrote--doesn't explain what you meant in your post.

 

[East Lake]

No, but you appear to be.

Let me explain. When I said, "Sorry, what?" I meant, "What does your post even mean?" Reposting posts I've already read--and two of which I wrote--doesn't explain what you meant in your post.

My response actually assumes you can read and comprehend what you've written. Maybe reading again will help.

 

[East Lake]

Dax : Political donations are made to get a return on investment.
Meta: They are made to elect people with similar ideology.
APK: Provides example that contradicts Meta.
Meta: But it's not corruption.
Me: You were wrong in your judgment, so now you're talking about corruption.

Should be clear to a pedant.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Frankly, I'm having trouble as well. Could you explain what you're getting at more clearly?

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he means that APKmetsfan, Dax01, and I had not used the word "corruption" until my most recent response to APKmetsfan. If so, that's obviously false, since APKmetsfan used the term here, here, and in response to me, here. And, even ignoring those express uses of that term, I would think that that portion of our discussion thus far clearly related to the topic of corruption. For instance, APKmetsfan and I sparked that part with a discussion of what constitutes a bribe, beginning with APKmetsfan's post here.

 

[Manarola]

And note that the Takings Clause doesn't merely protect fee ownership--a tenant is also entitled to just compensation if the leased property is condemned. Obviously that compensation won't be for the value of the fee, but it isn't nothing, either.
.

What's the citation for this? I thought the Takings Clause didn't apply to tenants.

 

[East Lake]

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he means that APKmetsfan, Dax01, and I had not used the word "corruption" until my most recent response to APKmetsfan. If so, that's obviously false, since APKmetsfan used the term here, here, and in response to me, here. And, even ignoring those express uses of that term, I would think that that portion of our discussion thus far clearly related to the topic of corruption. For instance, APKmetsfan and I sparked that part with a discussion of what constitutes a bribe, beginning with APKmetsfan's post here.

LOL, why would I claim they hadn't used or brought up the topic of corruption. I was addressing a specific exchange that had claims in it that could be true or false regardless of whether "corruption" exists.

 

[Metaphoreus]

What's the citation for this? I thought the Takings Clause didn't apply to tenants.

From U.S. v. General Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373, 377-78:

The critical terms are "property," "taken" and "just compensation." It is conceivable that the first was used in its vulgar and untechnical sense of the physical thing with respect to which the citizen exercises rights recognized by law. On the other hand, it may have been employed [378] in a more accurate sense to denote the group of rights inhering in the citizen's relation to the physical thing, as the right to possess, use and dispose of it. In point of fact, the construction given the phrase has been the latter. When the sovereign exercises the power of eminent domain it substitutes itself in relation to the physical thing in question in place of him who formerly bore the relation to that thing, which we denominate ownership. In other words, it deals with what lawyers term the individual's "interest" in the thing in question. That interest may comprise the group of rights for which the shorthand term is "a fee simple" or it may be the interest known as an "estate or tenancy for years," as in the present instance. The constitutional provision is addressed to every sort of interest the citizen may possess.

LOL, why would I claim they hadn't used or brought up the topic of corruption. I was addressing a specific exchange that had claims in it that could be true or false regardless of whether "corruption" exists.

I was wondering the same thing, but decided you must not have read far enough back in the exchange to see the origins of the discussion. The "specific exchange" you refer to originated in a back-and-forth between me and APKmetsfan regarding the meaning of bribery, which is corruption.

 

[East Lake]

No, actually what happened was you made a claim that donations were more likely ideological and not inducement to change policy. Now that you realizing you probably can't support this you've reverted to claiming it's not corruption as if that's what you were talking about.

 

[Metaphoreus]

No, actually what happened was you made a claim that donations were more likely ideological and not inducement to change policy. Now that you realizing you probably can't support this you've reverted to claiming it's not corruption as if that's what you were talking about.

I haven't changed my position, and I think it's readily apparent that most donations are more likely ideological and not inducements to change policy. I'd venture to guess that nearly all contributions fit that description.

I hope this clarifies things.

 

[B-Dubs]

I haven't changed my position, and I think it's readily apparent that most donations are more likely ideological and not inducements to change policy. I'd venture to guess that nearly all contributions fit that description.

I hope this clarifies things.

But unless someone is literally running on not changing anything ever, then any donation is about shifting government policy. People donate so people who agree with them ideologically can get into office and enact new policy that they agree with. That's the whole point of the debates and taking positions on the issues. So people can find out what you want to do differently and support you should they agree. Or oppose you should they not. Every election is fundamentally about changing policy.

 

[East Lake]

I haven't changed my position, and I think it's readily apparent that most donations are more likely ideological and not inducements to change policy. I'd venture to guess that nearly all contributions fit that description.

I hope this clarifies things.

Unfortunately it doesn't because your initial response provided little to support it other than obfuscation. Here's 200,000 contrary opinions. I'd note they probably think their money will hurt more than their votes.

CHICAGO — A liberal group upset over potential cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security delivered pledges Friday to President Barack Obama's national campaign headquarters threatening to pull its support.

About a dozen people representing the Progressive Change Campaign Committee delivered what they said were 200,000 pledges from people who will refuse to donate or volunteer for Obama's re-election campaign if he cuts the entitlement programs.

"It's not a question of who they're going to support for president, they're going to vote for Barack Obama. It's a question of where their time and money is going to go," spokesman T. Neil Sroka said.

Obama has been taking heat from the left over the debt ceiling negotiations, in which he has been willing to target the long-standing programs. His approach is certain to sit better with independent voters, many of whom have told pollsters they want Washington politicians to work together to solve the big problems.

Sroka said the 200,000 people represent more than $17 million in donations to Obama's campaign in 2008 and about 2.6 million volunteer hours.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/15/progressive-change-campaign-committee-obama_n_900155.html

 

[GaimeGuy]

Wrong thread.

 

[Metaphoreus]

But unless someone is literally running on not changing anything ever, then any donation is about shifting government policy. People donate so people who agree with them ideologically can get into office and enact new policy that they agree with. That's the whole point of the debates and taking positions on the issues. So people can find out what you want to do differently and support you should they agree. Or oppose you should they not. Every election is fundamentally about changing policy.

Sure it is, but that's not corruption. There's nothing untoward in supporting the campaign of a person you agree with, whether that support be financial, through volunteering, or by some other means, such as by simply talking with others about a candidate you like. When I say "inducements to change policy," I'm not talking about supporting candidates who will change government policy in a way you prefer. I'm talking about giving money to a politician (in this context, as a campaign contribution) to induce the politician to support your policy preferences.

Unfortunately it doesn't because your initial response provided little to support it other than obfuscation. Here's 200,000 contrary opinions. I'd note they probably think their money will hurt more than their votes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/15/progressive-change-campaign-committee-obama_n_900155.html

Do you understand the word "obfuscation"?

And how does this disprove anything I've said? Potential donors withholding contributions from politicians with contrary policy preferences is consistent with what I said. What you need to show is an example of 200,000 donors (or other, preferably larger, numbers) who donated to a politician to induce a change in policy.

 

[East Lake]

I think it's becoming clear now, when you said "donors provide donations because the politician supports the same policies as the donor" you actually meant that 200,000 donors don't want policy changed with their 17 million, and that since they don't want policy changed it's not corrupt.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I think it's becoming clear now, when you said "donors provide donations because the politician supports the same policies as the donor" you actually meant that 200,000 donors don't want policy changed with their 17 million, and that since they don't want policy changed it's not corrupt.

No, I'm saying that the 200,000 didn't contribute to Obama with the expectation that their contributions would curry favor or cause him to adopt their policy preferences. They withheld their donations because he didn't support their policy preferences, and they told him (and the public) they were doing so. I don't think that's corruption.

The problem I'm having here is this: even if we say that what those 200,000 donors did was an example of corruption, we're still talking about less than 5% of donors to Obama's 2012 campaign. I'm not making an argument that all donors have non-corrupt motives, but that most do. Even if we threw in as corrupt all donors who gave over $200.00 to Obama in the 2012 campaign cycle, that argument would still be true, because those numbers combined still account for less than 25% of Obama donors. I just can't imagine that any significant portion of the 4.4 million Obama donors believed their donation would sway Obama's politics.

 

[eBay Huckster]

But what does the concept of donors expecting a return on investment mean for Benghazi?

 

[East Lake]

No, I'm saying that the 200,000 didn't contribute to Obama with the expectation that their contributions would curry favor or cause him to adopt their policy preferences. They withheld their donations because he didn't support their policy preferences, and they told him (and the public) they were doing so. I don't think that's corruption.

The problem I'm having here is this: even if we say that what those 200,000 donors did was an example of corruption, we're still talking about less than 5% of donors to Obama's 2012 campaign. I'm not making an argument that all donors have non-corrupt motives, but that most do. Even if we threw in as corrupt all donors who gave over $200.00 to Obama in the 2012 campaign cycle, that argument would still be true, because those numbers combined still account for less than 25% of Obama donors. I just can't imagine that any significant portion of the 4.4 million Obama donors believed their donation would sway Obama's politics.

A. They're withholding labor and money.

B. They likely did think it will have some effect or they wouldn't have withheld the money or publicized it.

C. Even if the donors were wrong in their judgment and drowned in a sea of donations, corruption is not a factor in the question of whether most donations are made to induce policy change. It's a yes or no question. In the case of these 200,000 the answer is yes. They withhold money until Obama changes policy. When he changes policy he is rewarded with campaign labor and 17 million dollars. This is the biggest campaign there is and donors are still willing to make monetary threats over policy.

 

[Oblivion]

Has this been posted?

http://www.alternet.org/occupy-wall...ster-cecily-mcmillans-guilty-verdict-travesty

Basically, a girl who was part of OWS accidentally elbowed a cop in his eye when he grabbed her breast. She got convicted of a felony and is going to serve up to 7 years in prison. The judge seemed like a complete asshole and refused an appeal.

Shit like this is both immensely fucked up, and scary as well. You fuck up even a little like this, and you life is pretty much over. Meanwhile the teabaggers at Bundy ranch can threaten to kill federal agents yet are able to roam free as heroes.

This country is truly sick some times.

 

[The Librarian]

I think that's a stretch. I think that, more likely, donors provide donations because the politician supports the same policies as the donor, not as an inducement for the politician to do so. I imagine that the only "return on investment" most political donors hope for is that the donee win the election.

That's how lobbyists work when it comes to working with politicians. While it would be useless to funnel money to a politician that doesn't support your views, it doesn't mean all the donor needs is for the politician to win the election. I mean, c'mon, there's a reason why many of the times the opinion of the economic elite get there way so many times!

Why does this logic escape you?

 

[The Librarian]

Also, Mitt Romney needs another software reboot

 

[East Lake]

It's by design. Nearly every post he makes includes portions that are tailored to distract from the main argument he's responding to. So it runs in circles. Every time one position comes under scrutiny it shifts to the other.

It's why it's a waste of time to discuss corruption with him at all. Argue about corruption with him for ten pages and see where it gets when he doesn't even believe that people donate money to change policy. He'll be happy to do it because when he gets tired he'll just claim people don't donate to change policy, which is required behavior for the corruption of the we're talking about. It's like arguing whether there's feathers on dinosaurs with someone who thinks the earth is a few thousand years old.

There's also an excellent contrast between the example of the donors I presented and his view of donors overall. Where in my article they explicitly say in plain English that Obama will not get his money if he doesn't change his policy, but he does not believe them. But with donors at large he is absolutely certain that they are largely ideological and not corrupt, despite having no such evidence to prove this. So what to do? Distract from the issue again. Alright, maybe they donate for policy change, and maybe it's corrupt, but even if it was Obama is in a big campaign and can't listen to everybody. So now we're arguing not over the original premise but whether Obama's campaign is theoretically big enough to withstand losing 17 million. And even if it was not big enough and he changed his policies, well that doesn't mean Obama is corrupt, maybe he just changed his mind. And when he gets caught with an escort it doesn't mean he had sex. He only paid for the time together as far as we know.

 

[RustyNails]

All joking aside, I really think Kay Hagan needs to win to truly shift the Obamacare debate. Her race is now seen as a nationwide litmus test on acceptance of Obamacare.

 

[empty vessel]

Government interests. Society itself has a compelling interest in protecting the speech rights of its members against infringement by the government. You're talking about when the government's interests permit the government to override those rights.

Government is society. It is the tool by which society organizes and protects its collective interests. Society certainly has an interest in protecting speech rights of individuals. It has a greater interest in protecting its democratic form of government.

And I don't think the "ruling economic class" that makes "decisions about what speech will be amplified" is anywhere near as narrow as you suggest. It's certainly not as narrow as the ruling political class consisting of 536 elected individuals (subject to competition only once every 2, 4, or 6 years) that you wish to entrust our speech rights to.

Yes, I would prefer to have democracy regulated by people that society elects rather than an unelected politburo.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Dat projection

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2548278

They want you to believe that Benghazi is not an issue. As one of their spokesmen said, dude, it was two years ago.

But they are the ones who politicized this. From day one, the White House was more worried about their political future than bringing terrorists to justice.

It’s right there in the new emails. The White House didn’t want Americans to think it was terrorism. They wanted to protect their Image to save themselves in the 2012 election.

Then, when they were under investigation, they politicized it again. They withheld those emails for fear Americans would see what they were really up to.

And even today, they’re playing politics by attacking Republicans for wanting to get answers for the American people.

But how can Americans trust them anymore? How can Americans trust an administration that put politics first?

They lied about the attacks. They lied about being transparent. They even lied about their lies.

So Republicans are going to keep fighting for the truth — no matter what the Democrats accuse us of. And that’s why we applaud House Republicans for voting to form a Select Committee to investigate.

"Subrirp Ecnier"

Well, it's a tactical and strategic one, you have to go through the powers that be.

You force them to act. That's my point. You seem to think that if the dems and republicans don't want it, it will never happen. My point is political action changes this and can force them to act.

 

[benjipwns]

Government is society. It is the tool by which society organizes and protects its collective interests.

Government is a corporation. It is the tool by which elites claim legitimacy in using violence to protect their interests.

Why should this be a consideration? Political movements demanding things don't ask for permission. And it would allow the parties to compete in other areas that can't because of donor pressure. The GOP would be able to drop more radical things and the Dems could compete in red areas.

Well, it's a tactical and strategic one, you have to go through the powers that be.

 

[benjipwns]

You force them to act. That's my point. You seem to think that if the dems and republicans don't want it, it will never happen. My point is political action changes this and can force them to act.

How do you "force them to act"? A multi-billion dollar third party campaign? Where are you ever going to find those resources? How are you going to sustain it?

 

[empty vessel]

Government is a corporation. It is the tool by which elites claim legitimacy in using violence to protect their interests.

That's one interpretation (Marx's). And government is indeed a corporation. One whose directors are elected by the society at large to run society's affairs. (Not all corporations are created equal.) That means that the extent to which it is captured by a particular ruling class depends upon how vigilant the society at large is in protecting its democratic features. So people like you seem to take contradictory positions. You assert that the government is bad because it is a tool by which elites claim legitimacy in using violence to protect their interests while at the same time vigilantly protecting the power of elites to do so. There is nothing inherent to government that makes it capturable by elites.

 

[benjipwns]

One whose directors are elected by the society at large to run society's affairs.

That's one interpretation.

So people like you seem to take contradictory positions. You assert that the government is bad because it is a tool by which elites claim legitimacy in using violence to protect their interests while at the same time vigilantly protecting the power of elites to do so.

You assert that corporations are bad because of their outsized power while at the same time vigilantly protecting the one corporation that claims power above all others because something something magic, the will of the people!

There is nothing inherent to government that makes it capturable by elites.

So monopolies don't produce elites? Interesting theory.

 

[Wilsongt]

Man. Conservatives certainly have a raging hard on for faux scandals. They are really going balls deep to try to link the irs stuff to te white house in any way possible.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

How do you "force them to act"? A multi-billion dollar third party campaign? Where are you ever going to find those resources? How are you going to sustain it?

Stop looking top down. You seem not to understand political movements, organization, community organizing, etc.

 

[empty vessel]

You assert that corporations are bad because of their outsized power while at the same time vigilantly protecting the one corporation that claims power above all others because something something magic, the will of the people!

I haven't asserted that corporations are bad because of their outsized power. My position is that unaccountable corporations are bad because of their outsized power. It's the difference between a dictatorship (tyranny) and a democracy (better). Democratic governments are accountable, or at least some of us are trying to make them more so. I would have far less objections to other corporations if their directors and executives were elected and accountable to the society at large. I consider the reckless creation of unaccountable corporations a plague on society (a bunch of little tyrannies wielding power over the society). I would feel the same about a reckless, unaccountable government (tyranny).

So monopolies don't produce elites? Interesting theory.

I don't know what this means in the context of the discussion.

 

[benjipwns]

Stop looking top down. You seem not to understand political movements, organization, community organizing, etc.

You seem not to understand how entrenched the two parties are, by law in many cases, and how many resources would be needed to pry them out of it.

What instances in modern memory have the "people" risen up and forced both parties into giving away their advantages?

Unless the idea is that we should force the two parties together into a singular actual entity like most cases where independents thrive.

My position is that unaccountable corporations are bad because of their outsized power. It's the difference between a dictatorship (tyranny) and a democracy (better). Democratic governments are accountable, or at least some of us are trying to make them more so. I would have far less objections to other corporations if their directors and executives were elected and accountable to the society at large. I consider the reckless creation of unaccountable corporations a plague on society (a bunch of little tyrannies wielding power over the society). I would feel the same about a reckless, unaccountable government (tyranny).

What government is more accountable than most other corporations are to their shareholders? Especially to "the society at large" whatever that means.

What government anywhere is as accountable on a personal level as most other corporations? At least, when the former isn't making you "purchase" from the latter.

I don't know what this means in the context of the discussion.

What determines what an "elite" is? Power, no?

 

[benjipwns]

Oh, and while I've got you here EV, I'd be up for making a rights theory thread if I had any idea what to put in an OP other than maybe quoting famous and not-so-famous dopes.

 

[thepotatoman]

Rassmusen: Kay Hagan gained 6 points since January against Tom Tillis, from 47%-40% to 45%-44%.

Something something Kay Hagan.

 

[benjipwns]

Man. Conservatives certainly have a raging hard on for faux scandals. They are really going balls deep to try to link the irs stuff to te white house in any way possible.

Fine, how about a real scandal then?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._its_committed_by_a_clinton_or_a_kennedy.html

ANN COULTER: If we're going to start a the list of things Bill Clinton should have done, this is going to be a long night, a really long segment. But, yeah, Sidney Blumenthal, as Christopher Hitchens said, was going around spreading to journalists that Monica was a stalker and a lunatic.

SEAN HANNITY: Nuts and sluts.

COULTER: It's the way they treated --

HANNITY: Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broaddrick, another whole different issue.

COULTER: Yeah, that's a big one.

HANNITY: Kathleen Willey. I mean, all the jokes --

COULTER: And Juanita Broaddrick, by the way, is the rape.

HANNITY: That would be rape.

COULTER: As exposed --

HANNITY: He had Kathleen Willey shoved up against the wall.

COULTER: As exposed by NBC, ABC, and others.

HANNITY: But they were all attacked. And this is the side of this because the war on women, Republicans are guilty of war on women. Wait a minute, they started a war against women to a degree that we have not seen before.

COULTER: Right, right, they're against rape unless it's committed by a Clinton or a Kennedy.

HANNITY: Okay. That made news. Uh, let's go to --

COULTER: Just giving you the rules.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You seem not to understand how entrenched the two parties are, by law in many cases, and how many resources would be needed to pry them out of it.

What instances in modern memory have the "people" risen up and forced both parties into giving away their advantages?

Unless the idea is that we should force the two parties together into a singular actual entity like most cases where independents thrive.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about pressuring politicians to adopt ideas. This happens all the time.

From Syria, deficit hysteria, religious right, civil rights, progressive movements in the early 20th century, pro-israeli politics, original pushes for campaign finance after watergate, McCain-Fiengold, gay equality.

Politicians change views to capture voters, you also have avenues in states and municipalities that build a broader movement. Your focus on political parties as actual entities that decide things isn't how politics works. And the focus on that is why liberals suck so bad at politics. Policy doesn't come from parties and politicians, they co-opt it.

 

[Wilsongt]

Fine, how about a real scandal then?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._its_committed_by_a_clinton_or_a_kennedy.html

I wouldn't associate anything Ann Coulter talks about as a scandal. That just reads as a list of names.

 

[benjipwns]

What the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about pressuring politicians to adopt ideas. This happens all the time.

From Syria, deficit hysteria, religious right, civil rights, progressive movements in the early 20th century, pro-israeli politics, original pushes for campaign finance after watergate, McCain-Fiengold, gay equality.

Which of these things fundamentally threatened the balance of power of the two parties together vs. everyone else? Not the balance of power within the parties or between the two parties.

The hypothetical reforms would cut large swaths through the carefully constructed legal regime of the two parties to raise costs of participation for anyone outside them.

If I can go down with a few signatures and get equal public financing to run for office, what use do I have for the parties' resources in the long term? If Christine O'Donnell could have easily run as a Tea Party candidate and not had to run in the primary there is lot less interest in this than her winning a Republican primary (even if they lose the general) because that still maintains the blocs within the party. (And they'd probably lose the general anyway like 1912.)

That's why, unlike the other things you listed, these types of things are a fundamental threat to the very power of the two major parties and the regime they have setup to profit disproportionality off of. All of those things are incredibly useful ways to draw people INTO their regime and strengthen their power.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Which of these things fundamentally threatened the balance of power of the two parties together vs. everyone else? Not the balance of power within the parties or between the two parties.

The hypothetical reforms would cut large swaths through the carefully constructed legal regime of the two parties to raise costs of participation for anyone outside them.

If I can go down with a few signatures and get equal public financing to run for office, what use do I have for the parties' resources in the long term? If Christine O'Donnell could have easily run as a Tea Party candidate and not had to run in the primary there is lot less interest in this than her winning a Republican primary (even if they lose the general) because that still maintains the blocs within the party. (And they'd probably lose the general anyway like 1912.)

That's why, unlike the other things you listed, these types of things are a fundamental threat to the very power of the two major parties and the regime they have setup to profit disproportionality off of. All of those things are incredibly useful ways to draw people INTO their regime and strengthen their power.

You're now talking about something I've never talked about.

 

[benjipwns]

Then what were you responding to?

 

[empty vessel]

What government is more accountable than most other corporations are to their shareholders? Especially to "the society at large" whatever that means.

I'm curious if this is a serious question. The government's share holders are all members of the society. And its directors are directly elected in periodic elections in which each person in the society gets an equal number of votes per position (1). I personally can envision a more accountable and direct form of governance, but that is just quibbling over details. Business corporations are accountable only to people who can buy into them, and then only in proportion to the share bought. As well, shareholder power is limited, whereas people power is not under a theory of popular sovereignty. I'm curious if you are suggesting that democratic government should be abolished in favor of rule by business corporations. You can't possibly be, but honestly that is how your statement reads.

What government anywhere is as accountable on a personal level as most other corporations?

All of them that are democratic. And probably even most of them that aren't. Corporations have little to no accountability, and I am kind of shocked that anybody would suggest they want to be governed by business corporations.

What determines what an "elite" is? Power, no?

Power, yes, which I view as control over resources. I still don't understand what you are trying to say, though.

 

[benjipwns]

Did you see my post about a rights theory thread? Any suggestions?

The government's share holders are all members of the society. And its directors are directly elected in periodic elections in which each person in the society gets an equal number of votes per position (1). ... Business corporations are accountable only to people who can buy into them, and then only in proportion to the share bought.

But this is the important distinction! As a shareholder of other corporations not only am I entering into the deal completely under my own free will but I can accrue the necessary shares to be able to start affecting policy or I can theoretically withdraw completely at any point if disappointed in the elected and appointed governance. With the government I am claimed as under its rule against my will and "granted" one share of which I can do absolutely nothing with to affect policy unless I accrue enough shares to become a Senator or the President. And I'm not allowed to withdraw with my property, especially from the United States in particular.

All of them that are democratic. And probably even most of them that aren't. Corporations have little to no accountability

The government corporation has borderline zero accountability. It determines on what grounds you can sue it, it prevents you from bringing criminal charges against it, it can imprison you at will, it establishes the standards by which you can petition it or speak against it, it claims authority to murder you at will, fuck it can even charge your property with crimes or merely just seize it, and the only ones who ever wind up paying are taxpayers.

Losing an election doesn't hold the government any more accountable than a CEO getting fired (or even charged!) holds the rest of the corporation accountable.

Power, yes, which I view as control over resources. I still don't understand what you are trying to say, though.

Monopoly power creates and maintain elites. Of course elites from without want control of monopoly power.

 

[PhoenixDark]

here we go fellas

Report: FBI Questioning Local Law Enforcement About Bundy Militia

Those supporters of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy who may have pointed weapons at law enforcement during a showdown at Bundy's ranch last month could soon face consequences.

Las Vegas TV station KLAS reported Thursday that the FBI has begun interviewing Clark County sheriff's officials in what the news station describes as a "formal investigation into alleged death threats, intimidation and possible weapons violations" on the part of the Bundy militia.

Sheriff Doug Gillespie confirmed to KLAS that FBI agents asked him whether he saw Bundy supporters point guns at metro police officers during last month's showdown, but declined to share what he told the agents.

Federal authorities with the Bureau of Land Management ended their round-up of Bundy's cattle on April 12 over safety concerns. Hundreds of protesters, some armed, had gathered at the site to support the rancher. Those militias continued to maintain an armed presence on roads around Bundy's ranch well after the federal authorities withdrew.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/report-fbi-questioning-sheriffs-officials-bundy-militia

 

[NYCmetsfan]

lets me meet your starting line up!

 

[AntoneM]

lets me meet your starting line up!

It's just 7 of the same person.

 

[Trouble]

lets me meet your starting line up!

*boggle*