Supreme Court ruling on money and free speech
POSTED BY: HKCavalier
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 22:50
VIEWED: 10274
PAGE 11 of 20
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
OOOOhhh goody. You walked right into my trap. I deliberately left out the quotes and cites for US corporate law.
Play your games.
Sorry, but it's still people, not systems, that make the world what it is. You want to change the world, better start by convincing the people you have a better way.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Oh I never said it was a NEW thing, this kind of conditioning has been around since almost since history began.
If it's been around since history began, wouldn't it be considered human nature, instead of something imposed by mysterious someone?
It's interesting that folks have to blame some outside influence, be it government, economic system, or whatever, for the way folks act.
It seems to me that, for all the problems with greed and such, we are getting better. If something similar to the Haiti disaster had happened a thousand years ago, or even two hundred, would folks have been sending aid from all over the world, or would they have been scrambling to pick the bones for what they could gain?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Any broad generalization of human nature is going to be inaccurate. That's mostly where the argument is coming from here, Geezer. If you want to be accurate, instead of arguing that "because such and such has always been around, it must be human nature," you should try "it must be part of human nature, sometimes." Or heck, don't call it human nature at all, because I don't think anyone can define just what "human nature" supposedly is, because it implies it's the way humans ALWAYS act think and behave.
Both good OR evil can't be said to be human nature. Frem wasn't saying that humans can't be evil, but he is saying that maybe we've been tweaked through the course of civilization in some ways.
You make a good point about Haiti, but in someways we're also worse off about helping other people. I was reading my grandmothers memoirs today. Used to be, as a teenage girl, unescorted, she could hitch-hike around the state of Utah from national park to national park. No way in hell an unescorted teenage girl would be safe doing that today. There's definitely been ways that the psychology of this country has changed for the negative.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
There's definitely been ways that the psychology of this country has changed for the negative.
Damaged, by my perspective, and while Perry and Miller and a lotta good folk are going about trying to set that a-rights, I've been busy kickin the props out from under the structures that do the damaging.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But if the law requires equal shares of profit (not wages, profit) to all who participate in the co-op, where does greed come in? The difference between our society and others is that greed is ENSHRINED IN LAW AND REWARDED. I keep waiting for the lightbulb to turn on your head... that society is what we make it, and human behavior tends to what is rewarded... but hasn't so far.
Because they're greedy? Same reason as greedy folk end up running some capitalist enterprises.
Quote:I'm going to quote myself, Geezer.
Sorry, but it's still people, not systems, that make the world what it is. You want to change the world, better start by convincing the people you have a better way.
Quote:
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).
"Human nature" has NOT been greedy and acquisitive since time began. Some societies are, some are not. To deny the effect of society- it's assumptions and paradigms - is ANOTHER (false) assumption on your part, a misdirection which leaves you unable to explain (for example) why the murder rate in the EU is so low compared to the US.
SOCIETY MAKES A DIFFERENCE in overall human behavior, an undeniable fact that you keep sliding over. The question is not whether it does or doesn't, but how to construct it in such as way as to make its effect what we WANT it to be. That argument "human nature" has been around since about the time of capitalism (I kid you not) and its a load of crap. I refuse to argue that point any more. It's stupid.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
By allowing Corporations to spend millions or as much money as they want to support or attack candidates, incumbents, and issues, aren't MY rights then being denied? I cannot afford to buy "free speech" like corporations, so isn't that economic discrimination against me? My rights get usurped purely based on ability to pay.
AND the Justice Dept. went after Blagjovich for PAY TO PLAY antics? They 'aint seen nuthin' yet! Henceforth, there will ONLY be pay-to-play politics all across the country, from Washington DC to Honolulu. What the hell is this ruling if not open season to bribe, corrupt, stifle debate, and get corporate stooges elected for corporate board's whatever un-seemly goals. "Influence" used to have a "shady" connotation, and the current style of "lobbying" was much despised by Americans. Obama, Pelosi, and Hari Kiri Reid were allegedly going to clean up the situation (a bit would have been a good start), but Reid was too busy bribing his own Dem senators to get bills passed. Now the Roberts' Court of Supreme Insanity has given the middle finger to America, and opened the floodgates to all possiblities of mayhem in the public arena. Like we needed more.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank you RL for bringing the thread back on topic, and away from that red herring "human nature", which is the oldest and smelliest load of crap ever toted to the board.
The funny thing is, that whole "corporation as a person" concept was never even in a Supreme Court ruling, it was some clerk's footnote to an 1860 ruling (or some such) about the railroads.
Ah, here it is:
Quote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thom_Hartmann
Hartmann is considered to have progressive/liberal politics (although he describes himself as part of the radical middle).[4] He is the author of numerous books including Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights, in which he argues that the 1886 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (118 U.S. 394) did not actually grant corporate personhood, and that this doctrine derives from a mistaken interpretation of a Supreme Court clerk's notes. Hartmann considers this a clear contradiction of the intent of the Founding Fathers of the United States.
This gives you something to follow up on.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks SignyM. Another thing is foreign corporations, isn't it? I work for a large international corporation. It is one of the top 10 employers of Americans in America, but it's a French company headquartered in Paris, France. We have operations in 78 countries. So how's that gonna work out for us little 'ole Americans? We have a headquarters in America too, so Paris can simply fund and direct all their wishes through the American Division. France now can buy our elections, and any other country can do the same. Perfect!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow! Hadn't thought of THAT one! You'd think conservatives would be all over that one, if only from a nationalist POV. Isn't NAFTA/ CAFTA bad enough???
Instead of arguing about human nature, we should be correcting correctable injustices!
Most of my sources are left-wing
I think the point is: what to DO about it?
www.alternet.org/politics/145354/the_supreme_court_just_handed_anyone%
2C_including_bin_laden_or_the_chinese_govt.%2C_
control_of_our_democracy
There are a zillion action committees. The question is, how to approach this? Require FCC to make free air time available to candidates? Oppose corporate personhood altogether? Get Congress to write new laws which skirt the ruling? Needs investigation.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You may know that I'm pretty Conservative, and I do intend to start calling and writing media people on this topic. How could something so huge, so gigantically fundamental to our basic principles and concepts of national identity and political integrity have been allowed to go virtually un-noticed before this decision? I never even heard of it until this week. Where was the Press? Where was Obama? Where was O'Reilly? Where were minority leaders, 'cause this turkey is the end of their "voice".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME