Why?Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
"Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters."
Lewk will probably blow a fuse if he discovers who said that
Why?"Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters."
Lewk will probably blow a fuse if he discovers who said that
Crack is like sex. Even when it's bad it's good.Pfft. Like you've never smoked some bad crack either.
Or maybe crack is like scooping your eyeball out with a spoon, even when it's good it's bad.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
I think you just illustrated the impossibility of freedom. The last thing you have left is your life and when that's gone freedom is meaningless. What I was trying to say above is that no matter how a society is structured, even if it attempts to maximize individual freedom, we are not free. Most of what we are in a behavioral sense - the many things we do that we think we choose - is really more like a program.
Everyone likes chocolate. I went through a period of time where I craved and loved spinach. I didn't choose that, it just happened - probably because of some nutrition deficit. We don't choose much. Really. Freedom to practice being gay when you are gay? Wow. Talk about making big decisions in life. It's a sad commentary on our society that we can't even get past that low threshold of freedom....The relevance to sexuality isn't about human beings being able to freely (willfully) change their brain's hard-wiring of who they find attractive (any more than we can willfully decide to prefer broccoli over chocolate). It is related to peoples' freedom to freely (and willfully) practice the sexual orientation they're born with, the freedom to marry whom they choose, and have a family if they want.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Actually, my posts reflect the politicization of freedom, and the tilting of scales. Technology + Homeland Security --- what's that famous quote about trading freedom for security leading to neither? State legislatures + Christian Conservatives --- redefining Personhood to give embryos equal status, while defining marriage to deny homosexuals equal status. The Vatican expects their Catholic-affiliated employers be exempt from covering Birth Control, as extension of their religious freedoms, while Bishops preach politics from the pulpit and expect to retain their tax exempt freedom.
Par for the course, since corporations are people and money is free speech?
So, where's the post on your concept/definition of Freedom, Loki?
Just because freedom is never total doesn't mean it's impossible. There have always been degrees, and "maximum" is a moving metric.
Well, yeah. That's the point...thresholds. Ironic that Freeedom Fighters generally claim to want maximums, while their political party can't get beyond that minimum threshold.Everyone likes chocolate. I went through a period of time where I craved and loved spinach. I didn't choose that, it just happened - probably because of some nutrition deficit. We don't choose much. Really. Freedom to practice being gay when you are gay? Wow. Talk about making big decisions in life. It's a sad commentary on our society that we can't even get past that low threshold of freedom....
I still fail to see how anyone can make the case that it is perfectly OK for an individual to have free speech but then do not think its OK for a group of individuals to have free speech.
Par for the course, since corporations are people and money is free speech?
How do you mean? We're all born as 'sexual beings', or at least as curious and physical learners. Toddlers running naked in the backyard sprinkler, or fiddling with their private parts in the bathtub is normal. But they need to be taught it's not okay to do that at the local Mall. They also need to learn all that 'good touch, bad touch', and the concept of personal space. I suppose that's removing some of their "freedom", but it's a necessary preparation for real life, public and school life...and it can be done without using fear or punishment.
Children are one group most of us would agree don't have much freedom, for obvious reasons, but gain more liberties as they mature. We assume maturity and responsibility hit an automatic point in time....at 16th-18th-21st birthdays....and give them legal 'adult freedoms' to drive, vote, enlist in the military, marry, buy booze. But it's crazy that those ages aren't consistent, that an 18 yr old can fight and die in a War, but not buy a beer. Or still needing someone over 21 to co-sign an apartment lease or credit card application.
When it comes to economic freedom, which is a big political platform lately, very few 18 to 25 yr olds are totally independent or free from relying on others, private or public. Whether it's help from family, student loans, subsidized healthcare, or public transit, their level of freedom depends on a lot of things outside their control. Now that college debt has surpassed credit card debt for the first time in our history, there will be (too) many young adults who will spend a decade or two as debt hostages. Talk about fear...
How can one voice speak for the disparate individuals that make up a group? In the case of a corporation, not everything espoused by the leadership is in the best interest of the entire group.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
With that logic we should eliminate elected officials too?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Participating in an election means you are participating in consensus. Corporate workers do not elect their leadership. Corporate workers have in no way given their leadership consent to speak on worker's individual beliefs.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
And yet we keep having these debates about unions.
Usually the distinction is between unions organizing (free speech/freedom of action) vs. unions changing the legislative environment to prohibit the freedom of assembly/speech/commerce of non-unions and anyone opposed to them (union coercion).
Is that meant to be amusing?
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Um what the hell do the workers have to do with anything? I'm talking about the owners of the business.
And why would they have such input? The owners and shareholders do this. I don't tell my boss's boss's boss's boss how to speak for me (cause they dont). Our arrangement is I do work they want done and they pay me with money and other benefits that we have both agreed too.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Not everything espoused by any organization is agreed-to by the whole group. Most union members don't support all the political positions taken by their union on things like abortion or taxes, but that doesn't negate the legitimacy of the union itself.
Wow, started a response but you guys are really beyond hope if you don't understand what I said. Consensus, consent, and then what you are trying to gum things up with. We need a middle finger emoticon because that's what you are getting.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
You said free speech applies to groups as well as individuals. Most people agree with that concept of speech. When voluntary group members pick a spokesperson or representative (a union, shareholders, political parties), that's consensus by consent (Being's post). It's just as bad to force/coerce people to join a group, as it is to force/coerce groups from organizing. What makes it problematic is that organized groups (unions, corporate boards, political parties....PACs or super PACs) can exert their money and power to suppress others' voices, and affect the legislative process (Dread's post).
Surely you see how that's playing out in our political process, and when "political speech" can become a different animal, a chimera? A few examples:
Multiple millions from one billionaire feeding Gingrich's super PAC to keep him in the race
The RNC deciding which candidates can participate in Republican national debates, based on fund-raising minimums or poll results that didn't include all the names
Lobbyists and 501-c groups (like ALEC) who buy access, and ghost-write legislation to favor their donors' agenda
Unions getting non-competitive bidding or limiting non-union participation
Politicians trying to change voter ID laws that exclude the poor, elderly, or college students (or ESL minorities)
Top six banks/investment firm CEOs having 'closed-door special audience' to Treasury and Fed officials when designing crisis monetary policy....
All of that's anti-thetical to "one person, one vote". Is it a functional Representative Democracy if just two political parties have all the money/power, and those parties can be bought by wealthy/powerful special interest groups, to run-campaign-install legislators to do their bidding?
It's strange when people who claim to value The Individual, and generally criticize anything collective, can say "Corporations Are People"
Everyone understands what you said, but they don't agree with it.
I think what's being missed here is the ownership structure of corporations. Shareholders are the ones who make these choices. Almost every company I own stock in has shareholder initiatives on their ballots to change how these corporations practice free speech. The measures are overwhelmingly designed to submit corporations to political pressure and interest-group bullying. Most won't pass, but there is a line-of-authority here.All of that's anti-thetical to "one person, one vote". Is it a functional Representative Democracy if just two political parties have all the money/power, and those parties can be bought by wealthy/powerful special interest groups, to run-campaign-install legislators to do their bidding?
It's strange when people who claim to value The Individual, and generally criticize anything collective, can say "Corporations Are People"
Shareholders can also be subverted, depending on how the rules have been written. The Board can decide what is political speech, and how corporate funds are allocated to political parties (or lobbyist groups), without requiring shareholders' votes. It can take a full term or more to expel those board members, and only after a proxy vote has been extended to all shareholders. Read the fine print -- the shareholders that don't return their proxy agree to have the board cast their vote.
It depends on how the stock is titled for trading and/or tax purposes, whether you'll get a proxy vote form, or your votes are cast by the representing institution. It's just an anecdote, but my mother fought this kind of thing for decades with GM. She eventually resorted to having all her shares taken out of "trading name" consolidation, simply to cast her personal votes. Talk about a bombardment of corporate prospectus booklets, and other group shareholders sending 'literature' from secondary 'advisory' groups. What a nightmare.
Individual free speech can be undermined by political speech or corporate speech, when the only "valuable" speech has the most dollar signs behind it.
So we should restrict freedom of speech because you don't like the outcome of certain types of political speech. Oh ok that makes sense. I mean I'm sure the founding fathers were mostly concerned with the ability to say curse words in public. Political speech surely was the last thing they wanted the 1st amendment to protect.You said free speech applies to groups as well as individuals. Most people agree with that concept of speech. When voluntary group members pick a spokesperson or representative (a union, shareholders, political parties), that's consensus by consent (Being's post). It's just as bad to force/coerce people to join a group, as it is to force/coerce groups from organizing. What makes it problematic is that organized groups (unions, corporate boards, political parties....PACs or super PACs) can exert their money and power to suppress others' voices, and affect the legislative process (Dread's post).
Surely you see how that's playing out in our political process, and when "political speech" can become a different animal, a chimera? A few examples:
Multiple millions from one billionaire feeding Gingrich's super PAC to keep him in the race
The RNC deciding which candidates can participate in Republican national debates, based on fund-raising minimums or poll results that didn't include all the names
Lobbyists and 501-c groups (like ALEC) who buy access, and ghost-write legislation to favor their donors' agenda
Unions getting non-competitive bidding or limiting non-union participation
Politicians trying to change voter ID laws that exclude the poor, elderly, or college students (or ESL minorities)
Top six banks/investment firm CEOs having 'closed-door special audience' to Treasury and Fed officials when designing crisis monetary policy....
All of that's anti-thetical to "one person, one vote". Is it a functional Representative Democracy if just two political parties have all the money/power, and those parties can be bought by wealthy/powerful special interest groups, to run-campaign-install legislators to do their bidding?
It's strange when people who claim to value The Individual, and generally criticize anything collective, can say "Corporations Are People"
I think there's stark difference between corporations being recognized as associations of individuals, and as such should be allowed to make political donations and exercise free speech, and the very kitsch slogan, "Corporations are people." Should we likewise place limitations on the speech of large news conglomerates because they happen to be corporations?It's strange when people who claim to value The Individual, and generally criticize anything collective, can say "Corporations Are People"
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 04-24-2012 at 02:31 AM.
I'm not sure that distinction is valid. Corporations are not designed to express political will. They are designed to make money and are formed with the express intent of doing so. Their bylaws, modes of operations, and actions are for this purpose, yet we're all pretending like these are vehicles for collective will. They're not. That's not how they were designed and that's not what they do. Investors in Company X through a mutual fund are not being thoroughly consulted on Company X's political position. The random trader that holds a stock for the two weeks it takes to make profit isn't carefully scrutinizing Company X's stance on abortion. These are not entities set up to represent the political opinions of their shareholders, so they don't, Yet, if we look how we're treating them, that's the happy fiction we're presenting. They're being treating like 10 people in a room who happen to agree on political issues. That's obviously not the case. There's a dynamic going on that is really not captured by corporations as "associations of individuals".
As for news conglomerates, their opinions are expressed, not by the CEO or spokesman of the conglomerate, but by individuals in that organization. In that the company gives those individuals a platform does not mean that it necessarily endorses the views expressed, nor that the shareholders agree with those views. If we were to treat corporations differently than individuals in regards to political speech (or even ban outright corporate involvement), news organizations could still present the opinions of individuals.
How about we ban unions and all interest groups from political speech? If the NAACP gives money to a political candidate, jail time for the executives! If the AARP spends money promoting a law beneficial to old people, jail time for the executives!
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm afraid you're mistakenly attributing the commonly accepted and understood definition of a corporation for a universal one. While corporations often are created with the express and stated purpose of making money for their shareholders, they are not limited to this. In fact, corporations certainly can be designed and organized to express a political will and purpose. Nothing says a corporation needs to be designed to make money, (in fact, nonprofit organizations can and do form corporations) and nowhere does it say that a corporation's, "bylaws, modes of operations, and actions," have to be confined to making a profit. Many corporations are not publicly traded, and don't answer to traders who purchase mutual funds, investors, or shareholders in the traditional sense. To give you a better idea just the extent with which disparate groups can form corporations, and to illustrate just one of the many possible reasons behind their incorporation, corporations can be created for legally purchasing and sharing silencers for firearms.
This seems like a distinction without much of a meaningful difference to me.As for news conglomerates, their opinions are expressed, not by the CEO or spokesman of the conglomerate, but by individuals in that organization. In that the company gives those individuals a platform does not mean that it necessarily endorses the views expressed, nor that the shareholders agree with those views. If we were to treat corporations differently than individuals in regards to political speech (or even ban outright corporate involvement), news organizations could still present the opinions of individuals.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 04-24-2012 at 03:48 AM.
They certainly can, but, if we're going to use the term "corporation", you're going to have to defend businesses as well as corporations formed for other purposes. That being said, my point still holds. Corporations create a group dynamic that dilutes actual representation. Now, unlike Loki's strawman above, I don't think this means we should outright ban corporate speech, but I do believe this makes corporate speech a lesser form of individual speech, rather than its aggregate, and should be treated accordingly.
Practically, you're right. Fox News goes on being Fox News. MSNBC goes on being MSNBC. I mentioned it to show that one can limit corporate speech and still allow for media and the like by viewing them as platforms rather than entities that speak for themselves.
You haven't shown what the practical difference between corporations and interest groups is, especially when the latter are frequently incorporated. We live in a country with millions of people. One voice simply does not matter. How meaningful is the very idea of free speech if it doesn't apply to large groupings that could actually influence policy?
I also fail to see how corporations "dilute actual representation", probably because everything you've written is a series of empty assertions.
Hope is the denial of reality
I have no problems defending the same rights for businesses that choose to incorporate. The first amendment makes no reference of a specific person, group, or organization that are the sole benefactors of its protection, and I would imagine it does so for good reason.
It also doesn't mention that fruit bats, moldy bread, and brighter-than-average rocks don't receive these same rights, yet we can all assume they don't receive protections. I suspect we're exceeding my deep in legal scholarship, but I also would imagine that the founders did not anticipate multinational corporations funding nationwide campaigns deserved free speech protection. Goldman Sachs did not exist in 1789.
The courts seem to feel (with good basis) that the founders explicitly didn't want to start segmenting different levels of groups who would be relegated to "lessor" levels of speech. The valued this even above giving slaves voting rights.
But I really don't see the distinction you're drawing regarding corporations versus any other group. Saying that "corporations create a group dynamic that dilutes actual representation" assumes that corporations are meant to represent any person who is affiliated with that corporation, even if that affiliation is marginal.
If you stretch the logic a bit, it's almost like saying parents who hire a nanny should lose free speech rights just because they employ a nanny. The employment of the nanny (and his/her lack of say in the free speech of the parents) doesn't negate the free-speech rights of the parents.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
