Welcome to Walmartia

[Pure]

formerly, USA.

the new Supreme Court ruling says corporations have unlimited 'free speech' rights, e.g. in spending for advertising during election campaigns.

Walmart made about 14 billion, in 2008. Suppose a tenth of that is invested in US. Senators-- before and during elections.

I wonder if any alleged 'libertarians' are concerned here; for instance, does Ayn Rand's 'individualism' and virtuous egoism apply to corporations? i believe so.

The text of the decision is at

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

be sure to read the dissent of Stevens, which starts about half way through the document.

 

[amicus]

Hello, Pure...I wonder if you would care to explain your objection to Free Speech and Free Trade?

I know you hate Walmart because they refuse to let organized labor represent their employees. I wonder about that also as Labor Unions increase the cost of doing business and consequently the prices charged for merchandise and services.

Do you really think a free press will so influence the general public that it will force them to buy an Edsel or a Candidate?

Just wondering...

amicus

 

[jacks4u]

Hello, Pure...I wonder if you would care to explain your objection to Free Speech and Free Trade?

I know you hate Walmart because they refuse to let organized labor represent their employees. I wonder about that also as Labor Unions increase the cost of doing business and consequently the prices charged for merchandise and services.

Do you really think a free press will so influence the general public that it will force them to buy an Edsel or a Candidate?

Just wondering...

amicus

oopps!

 

[jacks4u]

Hello, Pure...I wonder if you would care to explain your objection to Free Speech and Free Trade?

I know you hate Walmart because they refuse to let organized labor represent their employees. I wonder about that also as Labor Unions increase the cost of doing business and consequently the prices charged for merchandise and services.

Do you really think a free press will so influence the general public that it will force them to buy an Edsel or a Candidate?

Just wondering...

amicus

Gawd, how to spell this out so that you can understand it?

First, It's not free press if it's bought and paid for.

Second, The loudest isn't always the [rightest], but with enough money the loudest will <always> reach a wider audience. Often with a message spun, nay! whirled and pinched, to sound like the best thing since sliced bread.

Third, I think the 'Money' in this country has enjoyed enough freedom. Perhaps too much. Financial institutions were giving out six figure bonuses, even while driving the entire economy into the ground, at the expense of something a little less than 10% of the entire population (the unemployed).

Fourth, Even if you feel that your congresspeople are not up to par, you only have two choices: vote for the opposite party, or suffer the imbecile. Rarely is there a third choice. Very often election results hinge on which candidate has the resources to get their message heard, and with this Kangaroo oops Supreme court ruling, now the gap between candidates will, potentially, be proportional not to the candidate's efforts, but to the largess of the corporations that support the candidates.

Fifth, Certainly, if left to it's own devices, a market will straighten it's self out. But that's a big 'If'. It's widely understood that money and power are at least co-equal partners, if not synonymous. Markets will never truly be free as long as the proceeds of that market are used to tilt it in favor of one side or the other. With this Court ruling, there is another handle that corporations can grab, to 'adjust' the market in their favor.

Of the People, By the People, For The People? Don't give me that shit! It ain't that way, not now. And by the way, All I see in that statement, 'Of the People, By the People, For The People' is people, nothing else.

 

[LaRocha]

Time and time again the Supreme Court has upheld the human rights of corporations. Scalia is just the current protector of corporate power under the Fourteenth Amendment and Bill of Rights.

"One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of "corporate personhood," thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a "natural person.""
====
"Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end."

The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

These last two points are fucking epic, though no one cares about the laws and definitions of incorporation and why when you incorporate you should be giving up your individual rights within that incorporated entity.

 

[DeeZire]

I'm surprised Amicus didn't go with the standard response:
"Pure, why do you hate freedom?"

 

[trysail]

formerly, USA.

the new Supreme Court ruling says corporations have unlimited 'free speech' rights, e.g. in spending for advertising during election campaigns.

Walmart made about 14 billion, in 2008. Suppose a tenth of that is invested in US. Senators-- before and during elections.

I wonder if any alleged 'libertarians' are concerned here; for instance, does Ayn Rand's 'individualism' and virtuous egoism apply to corporations? i believe so.

If you're so worried about it, why don't you invest in WalMart or— better yet— go to work for them?

 

[R. Richard]

formerly, USA.

the new Supreme Court ruling says corporations have unlimited 'free speech' rights, e.g. in spending for advertising during election campaigns.

Walmart made about 14 billion, in 2008. Suppose a tenth of that is invested in US. Senators-- before and during elections.

If the CEO of WalMart decided to spend significant sums on political activity, he would have to first answer to the Board of Directors and then to the stockholders. The chances are pretty much nil.

The Supreme Court ruling you reference came about because a corporation made a for-profit movie about Hillary Clinton back in 2008. The FEC decided that the movie was prohibited political speech. The corporation then took the case to the Supreme Court.

 

[Lisa Summers]

Isn't money considered 'political speech'? If so, shouldn't it be unfettered and free of government control?

As long as donations have to be completely open and publicized, I'm okay with Walmart or anyone else being able to contribute as much as they like. As someone above noted, they must answer to their boards, as well as to voters.

It's the back room deals that worry me.

 

[DeeZire]

If you're so worried about it, why don't you invest in WalMart or— better yet— go to work for them?

I realize it's hard for you to comprehend, Trysail, but some people would rather exercise their personal freedoms without being restrained by the corporate mindset that rewards shareholders at the expense of stakeholders. If we allow the corporate mentality to take over government, the values of society will be reduced to the results of a cost benefit analysis. (Oh, crap, now I've given old Trysail a boner.)

 

[rgraham666]

As I said on another board, a common method of interfering with democracy is to shout down your opponents. A century ago Fascists and Communists both used it. They'd send crowds of supporters to political gatherings and when opponents started talking the supporters started shouting. Opponents couldn't get the message out over the noise.

This law will enable the corporations to create enough noise to keep contrary points of view out of the public eye. A modern way to shout down opponents.

 

[DeeZire]

Isn't money considered 'political speech'?

Apparently, 5 Supreme Court Justices agree with you. 4 don't. Here's a snippet of the dissenting opinion:

Stevens, in a 90-page dissent, argued that the Founding Fathers never intended to protect corporate speech, an argument that Justice Antonin Scalia spend some pages trying to rebut.

Stevens also disagreed with the court's willingness to see corporations as equivalent to people. "In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant," he wrote. "Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process."

 

[DeeZire]

As I said on another board, a common method of interfering with democracy is to shout down your opponents....

The image of tea party protesters disrupting town hall meetings comes to mind, but on a national scale.

 

[amicus]

It is amusing to follow DeeZire's logic, or lack of it, through the various posts.

DeeZire has no problem whatsoever with Statist Monopolies of resources and labor. Big Brother can impose any system and DeeZire, is there to applaud.

Corporate ventures began to appear prior to the Industrial Revolution as Trade association began to challenge the supremacy of King and Pope. The rising Middle Class, desiring to multiply the ability of the individual to compete against Church and State, created a new entity to facilitate commerce by financing and sharing the rewards of commercial ventures by joining together as a corporate venture.

The sleazy academics who claimed the Church and the State as Patrons, were then faced with dealing with the Merchant and his plump wife, and begging for their sustenance. They still, to this day, detest commerce, business and corporate enterprise, to whom they must beg for handouts.

That is why you will always find the elite intellectual cadre always in link step with Big Government in whatever form it takes. By their intellect, they confiscate a sinecure for their pursuits, always in the Public Interest and for the Greater Good.

Such a deal....

amicus

 

[Pure]

I figured on amicus and trysail being evasive.

So let me restate: Follow your rules of strict construction. NO law- making [activism] by the SC.


Where in the bill of rights, is a right of free speech for corporations stated? Most amendments refer to persons or people, and corporations are neither. "Freedom of Speech" in the First Amt is not so specified, but i think the intent to apply to individuals is clear.

Further, the existing legislation compromised no one's BR rights. Sam Walton's offspring, as among the wealthiest individuals in the world, retain all right to speak, take out ads on TV, and praise the right of Americans to have their jobs 'shipped' to China.

It seems a bit much if Gates, Walton heirs, and other individual billionaires, BESIDES their huge individual clout as to "speech", including owning newspapers that say whatever they damn well please, buying an hour of prime time TV, etc. now get to draw on the FURTHER billions in corporate coffers for any political objective they can convince a compliant Board of Directors to go along with. These are the same Boards, who under executives' pressure, grant them huge bonuses despite incompetent performance; they screw the stockholders, and, if it's a Bank or Investment House, the individual investors. ('screw', as in destroy a life's savings).

Perhaps Walmart too, now, has freedom to exercize religion: Insist that employees spend an hour a day on the religion of 'Walmartism', singing Hosannas to Sam. {I believe the Japanese corps do some of this "rah","rah" stuff..}



BILL OF RIGHTS

Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

TOP
Right to keep and bear arms

2. A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

TOP
Conditions for quarters of soldiers

3. No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

TOP
4. Right of search and seizure regulated

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

TOP
Provisons concerning prosecution

5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

TOP
Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.

6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

TOP
Right to a trial by jury

7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

TOP
Excessive bail, cruel punishment

8 Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

TOP
Rule of construction of Constitution

9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

TOP
Rights of the States under Constitution

10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[trysail]

For god's sake! Corporations have been considered individuals under the law for many, many years. It is a long-established principle.



From the dummkopf encyclopedia (a/k/a wikipedia):

Legal personality refers to the ability of an organization to enter into legal transactions such as holding property or entering into debt. Some examples of legal persons include:

companies
cooperatives (co-ops)
corporations
corporations sole
European economic interest groupings (EEIGs)
international organizations such as the United Nations or the Council of Europe
limited liability companies
municipalities
natural persons
political parties[citation needed]
political action committees (PACs)[citation needed]
sovereigns[citation needed]
states

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with taxation of railroad properties. The case is most notable for the obiter dictum statement that corporations are entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[amicus]

Every so often, Pure, an admitted Socialist, trots out an attack on Capitalism or some portion thereof.

There is no evasion on my part, Pure, and you know that:

~~~

In Defense of the Corporation (Hoover Institution Publication 207) (Hardcover)

http://blog.mises.org/archives/004269.asp

“When I say ‘capitalism,’ I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.”

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/corporations.html

Corporations

A corporation is a union of human beings in a voluntary, cooperative endeavor. It exemplifies the principle of free association, which is an expression of the right to freedom. Any attributes which corporations have are attributes (or rights) which the individuals have—including the right to combine in a certain way, offer products under certain terms, and deal with others according to certain rules, for instance, limited liability.

An individual can say to a storekeeper, “I would like to have credit, but I put you on notice that if I can’t pay, you can’t attach my home—take it or leave it.” The storekeeper is free to accept those terms, or not. A corporation is a cooperative productive endeavor which gives a similar warning explicitly. It has no mystical attributes, no attributes that don’t go back to the rights of individuals, including their right of free association.[/QUOTE]

~~~

I take the time to respond to Pure and other Socialists infecting the forum as most who have at least some higher education, never received any instructiion concerning the operation of the free market place, Capitalism, as the driving force behind man's advance beyond the feudal system.

Individual human liberty, freedom, has always been and remains a rare commodity.

One would hope that those who enjoy the fruits of unfettered Capitalism might make an effort to understand and appreciate the system that has given you the highest living standard in the world and the most humane society in all of history.

Amicus

 

[trysail]

I realize it's hard for you to comprehend, Trysail, but some people would rather exercise their personal freedoms without being restrained by the corporate mindset that rewards shareholders at the expense of stakeholders. If we allow the corporate mentality to take over government, the values of society will be reduced to the results of a cost benefit analysis. (Oh, crap, now I've given old Trysail a boner.)

I swear to god there's an actual thought lurking somewhere in the above paragraph but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is...

...you appear to be attempting to say that individuals are lobotomized when others exercise free speech and that people are soooooooooooo stuuuuuuuuuuupidddd that they can't be trusted to make up their own minds...

... but I could be wrong— a fair amount of translation, prayer and assumption was required in my effort to divine your meaning.

 

[DeeZire]

I swear to god there's an actual thought lurking somewhere in the above paragraph but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is...

...you appear to be attempting to say that individuals are lobotomized when others exercise free speech and that people are soooooooooooo stuuuuuuuuuuupidddd that they can't be trusted to make up their own minds...

... but I could be wrong— a fair amount of translation, prayer and assumption was required in my effort to divine your meaning.

My incomprehensible statement was intended to answer the question: "Why don't you just go to work for Walmart?" The point I was trying to make is that not everyone wants their life to be run by a corporation.

As you may recall, in the old days, child labor was common in this country. So was slavery. Today, American corporations take advantage of child labor and slavery in other countries because it is illegal in this country. If they could make child labor and slavery legal in this country, they would, because it's beneficial to their bottom line.

This is but one example of the lack of integrity inherent in the corporate mentality. If you give this corporate mentality a blank check to brainwash the public, they will succeed in swaying enough of the ignorant and ill-informed to elect their chosen candidates.

In a democracy, an informed public is essential. When corporate propaganda (Fox News is a good example) succeeds in "uneducating" the public, democracy no longer exists, because an informed public no longer exists.

This is the danger of granting corporations the same "free speech" rights as individuals. To say it's okay because of a court case from 1886 is ignoring common sense. Some state courts still say it's okay to make sodomy a crime. Does that mean sodomy should be a crime, or does it mean the courts are out of step with the reality of the times?

The latest Supreme Court decision to subvert the will of the people in order to appease corporations will go down in history as one of the biggest failures of democracy ever. If this concept is still incomprehensible to you, I'd suggest you have lost touch with the basic moral values we've come to expect in a civilized society.

 

[Pure]

free speech is an individual right;

it does not necessarily transfer to larger entities, association, organizations, churches, corporations.

interestingly the atheist websites are onto the issue. see below. if Walmart can spend a billion to influence an electioin, why not the Southern Baptist Churches? groupings are part of freedom of association, of course, but their *privileges* are specified in the law [and not directly determined by the Constitution or BR], and their 'rights' are delimited according to their recognized obejctives. a church's opposing condoms or General Motors opposing laws on auto emissions, and buying TV time to influence the legislature or public, is outside their legitimate objectives. the same, of course, applies to political advertizing by labor unions.

ami and trysail and other rightists are merely bloviating here; they in fact have no major interest in individual rights, e.g. of free speech. they apparently believe that the unalienable rights possessed by *persons*, transfer to any larger entities. there is no constitutional basis for their views. AND they are unable to say how exactly billionaires like Gates have lost 'free speech' if they only have private funds to buy ads, and can't dip ALSO in the corporate coffers. they are faux libertarians, sham individualists. they favor the "liberty" of entities like Enron or AIG, and not my liberty and right to have my investments or funds safeguarded by honest, disclosed, business practices.

http://explicit-atheist.blogspot.com/2009/09/supreme-court-undermining-our-political.html

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Supreme Court threatens to undermine our political free speech rights

The Supreme Court is currently weighing a free speech dispute. At its narrowest, the case tests whether it is constitutional to prohibit the primary election season broadcasting by a cable television video-on-demand service of a movie attacking candidate Hillary Clinton that was promoted by a non-profit organization. Congressional law restricts the spending of money by corporations and labor unions for partisan purposes during elections. Money and speech are linked since money buys access to billboards, pamphlets, signs, research, letters, radio, television, internet web pages, transportation, hotels, meeting hall rentals, telephone calls, etc. The Supreme Court could just rule on the specifics of this case, but the conservative Supreme Court majority appears to be eager to make a sweeping first amendment free speech decision against the existing court precedents upholding congressional restrictions on partisan spending by corporations and labor unions.

All free speech law should be firmly rooted in giving priority to the speech of individuals because all speech originates as an action of individuals and because civil rights are people-centered. Corporations, as legal constructs, should not have free speech priority over individuals, particularly with regard to political speech which has civil rights priority over other forms of speech. Individuals have free speech rights to associate with others of like mind and pool their resources to promote their shared viewpoint. Accordingly, corporations and labor unions in the United States can sponsor Political Action Committees, or PACs, which are associations of individuals to promote the partisan political interests of the corporation or labor union. PACs fulfill the requirement of rooting free speech in individuals and give both for-profit and non-profit organizations, including corporations and labor unions, equal opportunity to influence the political process with all other associations of individuals.

The conservative judges on the Supreme Court are endorsing weak arguments that corporations are entitled to the same free speech rights as individuals. They are claiming that somehow the 1st amendment free speech right for individuals is being denied when corporations and labor unions can't spend their general funds on political parties and candidates. Those are strange arguments, they defy common sense.

The fortune 100 companies in 2007 reported over 500 billion in profits. The profits of major United States corporations is no doubt well over a trillion a year. Political parties and candidates in the United States take in about 3 billion dollars a year. The numbers demonstrate that when corporate general funds start flowing to political parties and candidates they can, and probably will, dominate over the speech of individuals. Corporations tend to favor more freedom to sell anything, no matter the costs to health and future generations, using any means, no matter how dishonest, while paying the least salaries and benefits to workers, without accountability to anyone else and without paying.

Corporations tend to favor more freedom to sell anything, no matter the costs to health and future generations, using any means, no matter how dishonest, while paying the least salaries and benefits to workers, without accountability to anyone else and without paying taxes. They also favor unfair restrictions on and advantages over competitors. Corporations will contribute their profits to the political party and candidates who agree to favor laws that will impose such skewed outcomes. Giving the same legal privileges to labor unions doesn't create a balance here, corporations have much more money to spend than labor unions do.

===

there is a good neutral discussion at

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstate101/a/freespeech.htm

 

[amicus]

Oh, my! Two plump juicy Plums to be plucked! How fortunate can one be?

~~~

DeeZire writes:

"...As you may recall, in the old days, child labor was common in this country. So was slavery. Today, American corporations take advantage of child labor and slavery in other countries because it is illegal in this country. If they could make child labor and slavery legal in this country, they would, because it's beneficial to their bottom line.

This is but one example of the lack of integrity inherent in the corporate mentality. If you give this corporate mentality a blank check to brainwash the public, they will succeed in swaying enough of the ignorant and ill-informed to elect their chosen candidates.

In a democracy, an informed public is essential. When corporate propaganda (Fox News is a good example) succeeds in "uneducating" the public, democracy no longer exists, because an informed public no longer exists..."

Neither 'child labor' or 'slavery', were, 'common' in America.

I find no historical evidence of children being kidnapped and forced to work in factories. A loving parent would hardly force a child to labor beyond chores and duties to build character. As America was an agrarian nation, most of the population lived on farms. I myself rose at 5am for years to milk cows, feed chickens and rabbits and chop firewood for the day. I considered that a way of life, not child labor although I was but eight years old.

It took money to buy a slave; it took a great deal of investment capital to supply a Plantation with a work-force, therefore, owning slaves was the province of wealthy land-owners, usually endowed by the King and Charter rights.

To repeat for effect, neither child labor or slavery were common in America.

Point the first.

Please provide documentation that American Corporations in modern times kidnap or steal children for labor purposes in other countries. To state that if corporations could pass laws permitting child labor and slavery, should make even Deezire blush with shame at such chicanery.

"The lack of inherent integrity..." Another silly assessment patently ludicrous to anyone more than about five years old. The weaknesses and frailties of each individual are well known and inherent in the species, with some having a larger dose than others.

Corporations are no more or less honest that the individuals that comprise the organization; we are all human after all.

Which leads me to question why DeeZire and similar ilks, would entrust a hired bureaucrat over a corporate employee or manager when they too, are all too human.

A 'free' public is essential in a Democracy. That 'free' public includes those who write for newspapers, magazines; those who own and operate or perform on radio and television, in fact all forms of free speech is protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Human individual freedom for all is a concept that totally escapes DeeZire and likewise, Pure, whom I shall address next.

Democracy, freedom, is every so messy and without direction; quite like herding cats, people tend to choose that which pleases and benefits them, not the hive.

The unsaid or unwritten threat that accompanies the philosophy of the hive, is that once an individual, all individuals and whatever associations they choose to make, can be controlled and regulated, they can be driven in a direction suitable to those in control.

Freedom, as it has in so many, many cases, been lost in the quest for unanimity and consensus of goals and purposes. It is not the nature of a human to be led by others as our collectivist comrades assume; it is our nature to be free.

Amicus

 

[amicus]

For the second plum, which is more like a prune... (A dried plum)

Pure writes:

"...free speech is an individual right; it does not necessarily transfer to larger entities, association, organizations, churches, corporations..."

Do tell, oh Pure one, one can have Constitutionally guaranteed free speech but not two?

Pure's hatred of the Corporation is merely another aspect of Marx', Class Warfare theory, in which the poor always struggle against the evil rich.

There is a process for turning Iron into Steel, called the 'Bessemer' process, named after its' inventor whose last name was Bessemer, Henry, I think, if memory serves.

He became a very rich man at the top of a very rich Corporation and in doing so, provided the world with a means of making high quality steel that changed architecture forever.

Other men, other innovative ideas, Edison, Westinghouse, Ford, Rockefeller, all created Corporate empires that provided the world with goods and services of the highest quality at the lowest possible price.

I am about to patent a cone shaped device that deflects birds from the intakes of jet engines. Should I make a pile of money I will incorporate for tax advantages and leverage in the money market. Try to stop me!

DeeZire, Pure, the uber elite (self named), wish only drones in the rest of the world they inhabit; they wish no one to excel or exhibit superior abilities in any field. Only the collective, in their addled minds, can create the Utopian vision of their dreams.

Again the unwritten, unspoken intentions to control, manage, restrict and regulate the free actions of individual human beings. That is always at the core of what the hivists desire, control, pure and simple.

There is both a philosophical and psychological motive of those driven to control. Often called the Napoleonic Complex of physically small men who over compensate; this consumate urge to control others arises from an intense feeling of inferiority and fear.

Those who advocate the sacrifice of 'self' to the greater good, be they Christians or Communists, do so as they have no 'self' and cannot imagine that anyone would be audacious enough to claim self interest over the greater good for all.

Have fun, kiddies...

Amicus

 

[JackLuis]

You are in rare form tonight Amicus, but you err.

I guess you forgot the 18th and early 19th Centuries and the spindel stiffs in the mills or the shirtwaist girls who burned in a fire because the exits were locked so the girls wouldn't leave.

As much as you praise American Industry you forget the seamy side of the Steel Trust or the horrid conditions in the textile mills, that have been sent to places like Bangladesh and India where the wages are low and the conditions of the people putrid.

We should not forget that America is not alone in having this sordid past. Sweat shops have existed in mines, factories, mills and farms as long as people have been around. It is a principle of unprincipled Capitalism, you know the Randian type with isolated aristocracies and educational elites.

But other than that, Rave On!

 

[LaRocha]

Legal Personality and its protection under the Bill of Rights conflicts with all of the Limited Liability that comes along with incorporating. The persons involved in a corporation are protected better than any other citizen.

The Supreme Court changed the legal status of a corporation, and upheld the corporation as a citizen entity with the same rights as Joe Blow. The Southern Pacific Railroad case and subsequent cases are the finest examples of 'activist judges' backing corporate power over citizen's rights.

There wasn't a state granting corporate charters that didn't include:

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

The Supreme Court overturned the legislation that was meant to protect the people. It's still doing it.

 

[Pure]

simple questions

ami: There is a process for turning Iron into Steel, called the 'Bessemer' process, named after its' inventor whose last name was Bessemer, Henry, I think, if memory serves.

He became a very rich man at the top of a very rich Corporation and in doing so, provided the world with a means of making high quality steel that changed architecture forever.

Other men, other innovative ideas, Edison, Westinghouse, Ford, Rockefeller, all created Corporate empires that provided the world with goods and services of the highest quality at the lowest possible price.
====

These are some giants of industry, and innovators. But why is it these extremely rich fellows, get all the 'free speech' they can buy personally--which already exceeds the common person's by a factor of a thousand or more [e.g. through owning a newspaper]-- AND on top of that, get to apply *corporate* profits also, to influencing the political process? Surely Bill Gates *personal* fortune gives him all the 'rights' and access to 'free speech' that he could possibily want; why does he need access to Microsoft profits as well?

Do you mind if the Catholic or Baptist church spends lots of money directly trying to influence voters?