Real World Event Discussions

Supreme Court ruling on money and free speech

POSTED BY: HKCavalier
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 22:50
VIEWED: 10274
PAGE 10 of 20

KWICKO

Friday, January 22, 2010 11:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And FWIW, I am not a fan of 'human nature' arguments coming from either direction.

Yuppers. To say that "human nature" will self-regulate anything is to say that we can go ahead and do away with laws, law enforcement agencies, government regulation, regulating agencies, etc.

Traditionally, how's that worked out? Seems lots of our "human nature" isn't quite as benign as we'd like to believe.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

RUE

Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:05 AM

Kwicko

I think we become our structures (aided and abetted by abstract language).

There was a study maybe 6 years ago where the researchers asked pre-monetary peoples to engage in a particular economic game. How people acted had nothing at all to do with the type of environment they were in. Suspicious hoarding peoples lived in the jungles in small family groups, and on the steppes in villages. Generous people also lived in villages and in family groups in the jungle.

What determined how people interacted was WHAT THEY TOLD THEMSELVES THEY SHOULD DO. 'People' do this is what they said. 'That's what people are.'

People interact with their structures.

I think it's a mistake to impugn humans so broadly. Not every person, not every culture turns out violent, selfish and destructive.

I think we need to specifically understand what we respond to so that we change. We need to 'manipulate our stimuli.'

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:40 AM

Geezer

Quote:
Not so sure I go along with that. Throughout history there have been lots of folks who, in big ways or small, wanted to get ahead. Some of them always were willing to sacrifice the other guy's welfare for their own. I find it hard to believe that it's a new thing. Neither did Kipling.

Oh I never said it was a NEW thing, this kind of conditioning has been around since almost since history began.
(I have references to this kinda thing goin back to the 1600's, myself)

Nor is the idea of actively working AGAINST that conditioning particularly new either, the Protestants came from somewhere, didn't they ?
(and then in a drastic turn of irony, became oppressors themselves.)

But again, the Pullman-Philosophy, with all the benefits of modern research into pyschology, neurochemistry, social engineering and group dynamics, and the application of every modern technology in sabotaging that engineering ?
Over a period of more than three straight decades ?

Not sure that's been done before, and I do believe some day Feb 2009 will be listed as the pebble that started an avalanche.

Niki

Quote:
It’s always been that way, hasn’t it? Humorists can say truths politicians would never dare speak. Remember Mark Twain. . . sometimes humorists can be the spark that sets thing in motion, or maybe galvanizes people to THINK.

That was the whole purpose of the court jester, after a while, the one person able to speak truth to power without consquence, to point out the flaws in your brilliant little "plan" no one else dared to, because they cloaked it in humor.
S'why those Catholic Altar Boy jokes didn't offend me, cause they offended others enough to get em off their ass and face the goddamned reality of the problem - gotta remember that was once "just a myth" too - till it wasn't.

I say again, Ridicule is a weapon, and a potent one, if used well.

Oh, and Niki, regarding co-ops, you might find the MCC pretty interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

I note that the roots of the concept were firmly rooted in spanish anarchism, which we and our fascist-friendly corps helped Franco suppress at every turn and corner, even while americans were volunteering and sneaking over there to fight for the other side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abe_Lincoln_Brigade

George Orwell was actually there on the scene for much of it, and I suspect the experience was very much a source of later inspiration, he also wrote a book on those experiences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia

Funny how every bit of social progress, especially in regards to workers rights, has come from us "dirty-commie-hippie-liberal-scum" isn't it ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_Riot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Day_Riots_of_1919
Most folk these days think the forty hour work week was some kinda benevolent corporate gift, but we shed our blood by the gallon to get it.

Byte

Quote:
The problem is, Geezer, that these are the individuals who have had the tendency to write history, so monstrous were their actions.

But the little things, the acts of good and kindness, sympathy and self sacrifice, they don't get covered so much, because the effect one person to another just seems so small. But I can tell you, it's a ripple effect. I believe, truly and completely, that none of us would be here if it weren't for kindness and selflessness.

And even though I'm not religious, even though religion I think has been co-opted by people who want to use it for their own ends and so tell people that evil is all there is... I think this is a truth that hasn't been completely forgotten. Every religion is based on the idea of one human or one human formed divinity and their works of enlightened goodwill.

Indeed, I think I made that point in a rather drastic fashion just above.

Mikey

Quote:
I'm disgusted, but I'm already looking for opportunities to exploit this. Union membership is going to grow as

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SIGNYM

Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:43 AM

Quote:
unless you also change the philosophical and ethical mindset of the people

Exactly. And what we have NOW is a mindset/ philosophy of greed, individualism, and acqusitiveness. The mindset is based on several assumptions that run so deep most people don't even know they're there. One is that individual greed creates the MOST PRODUCTIVE economy. (Curiously, the exact opposite is true. If everyone were to behave like capitalists, we would have a society of thieves and scam artists, and NOTHING would ever be produced!) This, in turn, is based on a misinterpretation of Darwinism, an assumption that "natural selection" is based on fierce and unrelenting INTRAspecies competition. And finally, the reliance on nature as the model to which we should hew is based on yet ANOTHER assumption, that "nature knows best" (when, in fact, nature is a stochastic process full of blind alleys and catastrophic destruction. This assumption goes all the way back to the French Enlightenment and its rebellion against dogmatic religion.)

In fact, none of these assumptions are true. Cooperation yields a non-zero-sum system; a intraspecies competition is not the driver of natural selection; and nature is not an orderly phenomenon and certainly not one on which to base a purposeful system (society).

RUE

Saturday, January 23, 2010 1:09 AM

I'd like to point out that while you may have many enlightened individuals, until the structures under which they live change, they will have to behave exactly as if they didn't know any different.

While it is possible to change society by changing what people think and organizing them (generally they act at some personal cost as they go against TPTB, Ghandi and his followers for example), it is also possible to change people by changing their social structures.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KWICKO

Saturday, January 23, 2010 2:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Kwicko

I think it's a mistake to impugn humans so broadly. Not every person, not every culture turns out violent, selfish and destructive.

Oh, don't get me wrong - I don't think we're ALL violent, selfish, and destructive. But it seems enough of us are that we have to have some rules in place. Like Frem, I think we need to veer toward LESS rules, but I don't think we're in a "no rules needed" place just yet. ;)

KWICKO

Saturday, January 23, 2010 2:42 AM

Quote:
Most folk these days think the forty hour work week was some kinda benevolent corporate gift, but we shed our blood by the gallon to get it.

That should be somebody's motto. Or a sig line. It needs to be shouted from the goddam rooftops on a daily basis, so all those fuckers who hate everything about unions will one day wake up, buy a fucking clue, and thank a union worker.

GEEZER

Saturday, January 23, 2010 2:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer

A corporation, BY LAW, MUST look after the fiduciary interests of its investors, and ONLY look after those interests. It is not a stereotype, as you so ignorantly think. It is LAW.

So you oppose the NAACP and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting? Habitat for Humanity? CARE? The Red Cross? The March of Dimes? Doctors Without Borders? The Wounded Warriors Project?

Could it be that you need to rethink your terminilogy? So who's the idiot here?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Saturday, January 23, 2010 3:12 AM

OOOOhhh goody. You walked right into my trap. I deliberately left out the quotes and cites for US corporate law.

But - I'm on my way home to a waiting family.

You can think about whether or not you want to pursue this line. Bring it back up next week on Tues if you REALLY want a load of bricks dumped on you, and I will be happy to oblige. Otherwise, I'll figure you chickened out.

OH - btw - you might want to look up the difference between idiot and ignorant.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

GEEZER

Saturday, January 23, 2010 3:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Does not logically follow. ASSuming people would be 'forced' into co-ops, why would the greedy one end up running them ?

Because they're greedy? Same reason as greedy folk end up running some capitalist enterprises.

Quote:
Furthermore, in co-ops, at least the ones I've belonged to - EVERYONE VOTES. On everything. You don't get a small group of greedy people running the show.

I would suspect that the folk in the co-ops you've been in, like the ones I'm familiar with, are self-selected. They want to be in co-ops because they buy into the egalitarian nature of the co-ops they're familiar with. But even in those, I'm betting that there are a subset of the members who make most of the decisions.

If you force everyone into a co-op, there would be G/A folks, scammers, swindlers, confidence men, charismatic leaders, etc., rather than just the egalitarians. chaos ensues.

Quote:
And, BTW, you're assuming that it is 'human nature' to be exactly what we are here, today. You seem to have missed a very important point - when you change the structure people relate to, they themselves become different.

I disagree. I think that people will be what they are, regardless of the structure. The Apparatchiks in the Soviet Union had their good apartments, dachas, and limos. I'd bet that the politicos in China have the same. The nobility had the best life in feudal times. Religious nabobs in many cultures had the best of it. It's the ethics of the people that make the difference.

"Keep the Shiny side up"