Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism.

[Quantum Windbag]

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

You support corporations having rights just like people then, good to know.

Corporations do not have rights. Corporations are legally structured entities for the purpose of conducting business, sometimes providing certain tax advantages, and providing liability protections for the individuals conducting the business.

Corporations, however, are the sum of the people who run them. And the people have rights just like everybody else, yes.

And anybody has the right to form their own corporation.

People have rights, even if they get together and work toward a common goal. Arguing that corporations do not have rights just because they only exist on paper means that the people who get together to work toward a goal don't have rights because they are just meat.

 

[Intense]

INDIVIDUALISM
"Individualism is at once an ethical-psychological concept and an ethical-political one. As an ethical-psychological concept, individualism holds that a human being should think and judge independently, respecting nothing more than the sovereignty of his or her mind; thus, it is intimately connected with the concept of autonomy. As an ethical-political concept, individualism upholds the supremacy of individual rights ..." -- Nathaniel Branden HERE

"INDIVIDUALISM: The term 'individualism' has a great variety of meanings in social and political philosophy. There are at least three types that can be distinguished: (1) ontological individualism, (2) methodological individualism, and (3) moral or political individualism. Ontological individualism is the doctrine that social reality consists, ultimately, only of persons who choose and act. Collectives, such as a social class, state, or a group, cannot act so they are not considered to have a reality independent of the actions of persons. Methodological individualists hold that the only genuinely scientific propositions in social science are those that can be reduced to the actions, dispositions, and decisions of individuals. Political or moral individualism is the theory that individuals should be left, as far as possible, to determine their own futures in economic and moral matters. Key thinkers include Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick, John Locke, and Herbert Spencer." -- Stephen Grabill and Gregory M. A. Gronbacher HERE

"The foundation of individualism lies in one's moral right to pursue one's own happiness. This pursuit requires a large amount of independence, initiative, and self-responsibility.
"But true individualism entails cooperating with others through trade, which facilitates the pursuit of each party's happiness, and which is carried out not just on the level of goods but on the level of knowledge and friendship. Trade is essential for life; it provides one with many of the goods and values one needs. Creating an environment where trade flourishes is of great importance and great interest for the individualist.
"Politically, true individualism means recognizing that one has a right to his own life and happiness. But it also means uniting with other citizens to preserve and defend the institutions that protect that right." -- Shawn E. Klein HERE

"Individualism regards man -- every man -- as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful co-existence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights -- and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members." -- Ayn Rand HERE

"Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law." -- Ayn Rand

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)." -- Ayn Rand


Relevant Comments

"This right to life, this right to liberty, and this right to pursue one’s happiness is unabashedly individualistic, without in the slightest denying at the same time our thoroughly social nature. It’s only that our social relations, while vital to us all, must be chosen -* that is what makes the crucial difference." -- Prof. Tibor R. Machan, HERE and HERE

"...individualism is not antithetical to community. Rather, it can involve free association and a belief in an over-arching harmony of interests. In a free socety, individuals join with others because of love and mutual benefit, not because they are programmed or coerced." -- Prof. Clifford Thies

"One byproduct of individualism is benevolence -- a general attitude of good will towards one's neighbors and fellow human beings. Benevolence is impossible in a society where people violate each others' rights." -- Glenn Woiceshyn

"Paradoxical as it may seem, men and women who are free to pursue individualism and material wealth turn out to be the most compassionate of all." -- Financial Times, London, Nov 22, 2001

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." -- Jefferson et al, The Declaration of Independence

"The fact that most people think that ... pursuing one's own self-interest equates to behaving brutally or irrationally, is, as Ms. Rand noted, a 'psychological confession' on their part. In fact it is against one's own long-term self-interest to behave irrationally or trample others. Such actions are the exact opposite of selfish -- they're self-destructive." -- Wayne Dunn
(Emphasis added. Criminals and other sociopaths do not think in terms of how their actions affect the society around them and set bad examples for others. Nor do they empathize with others, certainly not their victims. And they certainly don't feel the pride of honest achievement or of helping to build civilization.)

"Individualism is a concept which the advocates of most political systems try desperately to avoid. They'd prefer that political contests, debates and symposia were limited to answering loaded questions such as, 'WHICH type of powerful government should we have?', 'WHICH type of dictatorship do you tend to prefer?", 'WHAT KINDS of intrusiveness should government engage in?' and, 'WHICH type of control freaks are best suited to run your life for you?' ... They often get upset, even hysterical, if you point out that socialism, fascism, communism and mixed-economy welfare-states have a lot in common.1 They carry on and on as if non-essentials such as style(!) or WHAT anybody sacrifices individual rights in the name of (the master race, the proletariat, the society, the common good, the majority, the country, the fatherland, the motherland the brother-in-law-land, the revered leader or savior or god or whatever) is a big freakin' deal, especially as only in their particular fantasies do they imagine everyone, the enforcers and even their victims, acting forever polite and cooperative in the sacrifice-extracting rituals (as have many fledgling and would-be dictators, including the incredibly bloody Pol Pot at first)." -- Rick Gaber

"Freedom is an intellectual achievement which requires disavowal of collectivism and embrace of individualism." -- Onkar Ghate

"The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom." -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

collectivism vs. individualism

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

You support corporations having rights just like people then, good to know.

Within Reason, Yes. What value is any Contract without Legal Protection. What about theft? Protection of property? Do we seek to do what is right or do we seek to do what we can get away with? Do I find comfort in Government running Unrighteous cover for Corporate Abuse? Not at all. It is the role of Government to protect us from all Enemies, both Foreign and Domestic, that list should include Corporations when they do us harm, and Government itself, when it tries to do us harm.

 

[Bfgrn]

You support corporations having rights just like people then, good to know.

Corporations do not have rights. Corporations are legally structured entities for the purpose of conducting business, sometimes providing certain tax advantages, and providing liability protections for the individuals conducting the business.

Corporations, however, are the sum of the people who run them. And the people have rights just like everybody else, yes.

And anybody has the right to form their own corporation.

People have rights, even if they get together and work toward a common goal. Arguing that corporations do not have rights just because they only exist on paper means that the people who get together to work toward a goal don't have rights because they are just meat.

You support unions having rights just like people then, good to know.

The old GOP:
"Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

The new GOP:
"We're going to crush labor as a political entity"
Grover Norquist - Republican economic guru and co-author of the GOP's 'Contract with America'

 

[Foxfyre]

You support corporations having rights just like people then, good to know.

Corporations do not have rights. Corporations are legally structured entities for the purpose of conducting business, sometimes providing certain tax advantages, and providing liability protections for the individuals conducting the business.

Corporations, however, are the sum of the people who run them. And the people have rights just like everybody else, yes.

And anybody has the right to form their own corporation.

People have rights, even if they get together and work toward a common goal. Arguing that corporations do not have rights just because they only exist on paper means that the people who get together to work toward a goal don't have rights because they are just meat.

What corporatioms have is not rights but privilege with legal protection. There is a difference between these two things. The people who form the corporation have rights.

Whenever our legal protection or forced or mutually agreed contract requires some form of participation or contribution from another, other than his/her non interference, it is not a right but a privilege whether such privilege is legally enforcible or not.

Unalienable rights are what we enjoy that require no contribution or participation from any other person, other than his non interference. Civil rights are assurance enforced by law that nobody is allowed to recognize one person's right or privileges while denying those to another; i.e. equal protection under the law.

 

[Intense]

Corporations do not have rights. Corporations are legally structured entities for the purpose of conducting business, sometimes providing certain tax advantages, and providing liability protections for the individuals conducting the business.

Corporations, however, are the sum of the people who run them. And the people have rights just like everybody else, yes.

And anybody has the right to form their own corporation.

People have rights, even if they get together and work toward a common goal. Arguing that corporations do not have rights just because they only exist on paper means that the people who get together to work toward a goal don't have rights because they are just meat.

You support unions having rights just like people then, good to know.

The old GOP:
"Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

The new GOP:
"We're going to crush labor as a political entity"
Grover Norquist - Republican economic guru and co-author of the GOP's 'Contract with America'

You support unions having rights just like people then, good to know.

Why wouldn't I. Union's have a right to voice, just like any other entity. What you don't have the right to do is drown out or censor mine. I will fight your ability to categorize me as a lesser than, because I don't belong to one. You have no moral right to take from me, as I have no moral right to take from you. Our philosophies are different, that's all. I believe compensation should be paid on merit, ability. I also don't subscribe to covering for Incompetents. I have plenty of Family and Friends that are Union. I don't wish you ill. I think we each should get a fair return of what we put in. That's all. Cause and effect. If you have a problem with your political image, take a time out and check your premise. What are you fighting for?

 

[Intense]

The 14th Amendment and Artificial Personhood
So how did corporations come to enjoy the same Constitutional protections that people do? It all started with a court reporter. In his book, "Unequal protection: The rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," author Thom Hartmann describes the situation that gave rise to Constitutional protection for corporations.
Since corporations had been viewed as artificial persons for millennia, the debate over whether they should be afforded the same rights as humans had been raging long before the 14th Amendment was adopted. Thomas Jefferson had suggested explicit language to govern corporate entities, like requiring maximum life spans, be put into the Constitution. His stipulations didn't make the cut, however. And once the 14th Amendment was created, the Constitution actually expanded -- rather than limited -- the scope of corporations' power.
The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868, and it gave the federal government ultimate power over the states in respect to the rights of newly freed slaves. The amendment sought to overturn state-level legislation that was being created to limit the liberties of freedmen after the Civil War. The federal government circumvented each one of these laws with a broad sweep: Through the 14th Amendment, Congress granted equal protection under the law to every person [source: Library of Congress]. That last word is important, since in the eyes of the law, a corporation is an artificial person.
While the 14th Amendment opened the door for corporate Constitutional rights, the issue wasn't really addressed until 1868. A dispute over whether a county has the right to tax a corporation turned out to settle this much larger issue in a very strange way.
In the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, the Supreme Court decided that only the state that charters a corporation can tax it. This decision upheld the long-standing custom in America of state governance of corporations. It's the state that grants a corporation its charter -- its license to do business -- and it's up to the state to tax and regulate the corporation.
But a note written by the court reporter at the heading of the decision went further than that. Although another, private note from the Chief Justice said that the court had purposely avoided the issue of Constitutional corporate protection, the reporter chose to make his own addition to the records. He noted that the court had decided that corporations are persons under the 14th Amendment, and as such are subject to the same protections under the law as anyone else [source: Hartmann].
What's strange, Hartmann points out, is that the justices hadn't ruled that way at all. Even fishier, the court reporter was a former railroad president [source: Hartmann]. Ultimately, since it was a headnote (a commentary prefix to the court record) written by the reporter, it didn't constitute law. But it did set precedent. Two years later, this idea was upheld in another case: Pembina Consolidated Mining and Milling Co. v. Pennsylvania [source: Aljalian].

HowStuffWorks "The 14th Amendment and Artificial Personhood"

 

[Foxfyre]

Following up on Intense's comments on unions, unions have very definitely had their place in the country, and many companies who got them deserved them, though in many other cases they were mutually beneficial contracts; i.e. social contract. For instance I once worked in human resources in a large (for that area) hospital. Because of a fairly high turnover of personnel--it was a college town so a lot of folks were rotating in and out--an in house union was a practical convenience for all. It was much easier to negotiate with the union an agreement for starting salaries and benefits, incremental pay raises, what would qualify people for merit raises, differentials in pay rates for different shifts, etc. than it would be negotiating these with each individual employee.

The decline of the unions began when they started seeing themselves as a separate entity rather than as a component of the business. When they started calling strikes when employers could not meet their demands, and requiring ridiculous rules that eventually crippled whole industries, they began falling out of public favor.

And once they began making deals with the devil--they would toe the company line so long as the executives gave them what they wanted--and the executives promised them the sun, moon, and stars and lifetime benefits just so the union made that executive look good while he was still there--it was all over except for the post mortem. Large corporations, cities, counties, and states faced inevitable financial difficulty and bankruptcy mostly due to 'unbreakable' union contracts guaranteeing retirement entitlements that the entity could in no way hope to sustain.

It is the same syndrome that has brought our nation to the brink of bankruptcy.

Conservatives do not endorse or promote entitlements, most especially those that cannot be sustained.

Progressives/liberals do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

You support corporations having rights just like people then, good to know.

Within Reason, Yes. What value is any Contract without Legal Protection. What about theft? Protection of property? Do we seek to do what is right or do we seek to do what we can get away with? Do I find comfort in Government running Unrighteous cover for Corporate Abuse? Not at all. It is the role of Government to protect us from all Enemies, both Foreign and Domestic, that list should include Corporations when they do us harm, and Government itself, when it tries to do us harm.

People have rights, that doesn't mean they can break the law.

Which is what due process is all about. Declaring that corporations do not have rights means that the government can do anything it wants to those corporations, I can walk in, search their offices, take their money, and stop them from saying anything. Do we really want to live in a country where the government can shut down CNN on a whim and no one can say anything about it? I know I don't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Corporations do not have rights. Corporations are legally structured entities for the purpose of conducting business, sometimes providing certain tax advantages, and providing liability protections for the individuals conducting the business.

Corporations, however, are the sum of the people who run them. And the people have rights just like everybody else, yes.

And anybody has the right to form their own corporation.

People have rights, even if they get together and work toward a common goal. Arguing that corporations do not have rights just because they only exist on paper means that the people who get together to work toward a goal don't have rights because they are just meat.

You support unions having rights just like people then, good to know.

The old GOP:
"Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

The new GOP:
"We're going to crush labor as a political entity"
Grover Norquist - Republican economic guru and co-author of the GOP's 'Contract with America'

I am not the one that is inconsistent here, you are. I know unions have rights, and I have a right to not join them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Corporations do not have rights. Corporations are legally structured entities for the purpose of conducting business, sometimes providing certain tax advantages, and providing liability protections for the individuals conducting the business.

Corporations, however, are the sum of the people who run them. And the people have rights just like everybody else, yes.

And anybody has the right to form their own corporation.

People have rights, even if they get together and work toward a common goal. Arguing that corporations do not have rights just because they only exist on paper means that the people who get together to work toward a goal don't have rights because they are just meat.

What corporatioms have is not rights but privilege with legal protection. There is a difference between these two things. The people who form the corporation have rights.

Whenever our legal protection or forced or mutually agreed contract requires some form of participation or contribution from another, other than his/her non interference, it is not a right but a privilege whether such privilege is legally enforcible or not.

Unalienable rights are what we enjoy that require no contribution or participation from any other person, other than his non interference. Civil rights are assurance enforced by law that nobody is allowed to recognize one person's right or privileges while denying those to another; i.e. equal protection under the law.

You don't get it, do you? Corporations are nothing more than groups of people. People incorporate for many different reasons, one of which is that the government actually requires that people who want to do certain things, **** get together to tell others about something bad that is happening, If you insist that corporations have no rights, then you are saying the government can tell people not to talk about some things. The only way you can logically argue that corporations do not have rights is if you argue that people don't. Even if you accept the absurd position that our rights come from the government, only idiots want people to give up their rights completely.

 

[bripat9643]

The new GOP:
"We're going to crush labor as a political entity"
Grover Norquist - Republican economic guru and co-author of the GOP's 'Contract with America'

I have searched the internet for proof of this quote, and the only place I can find it is on various labor union sites.

I doubt he ever said it.

 

[Foxfyre]

The new GOP:
"We're going to crush labor as a political entity"
Grover Norquist - Republican economic guru and co-author of the GOP's 'Contract with America'

I have searched the internet for proof of this quote, and the only place I can find it is on various labor union sites.

I doubt he ever said it.

I do too Bripat. The cloest thing I've found to that attributed to Norquist--who isn't even interested in the labor movement so far as I know but is President of Ameicans for Tax Reform--is that he did say: "We'll run against their tax increase, and we'll crush them."

 

[bripat9643]

The new GOP:
"We're going to crush labor as a political entity"
Grover Norquist - Republican economic guru and co-author of the GOP's 'Contract with America'

I have searched the internet for proof of this quote, and the only place I can find it is on various labor union sites.

I doubt he ever said it.

I do too Bripat. The cloest thing I've found to that attributed to Norquist--who isn't even interested in the labor movement so far as I know but is President of Ameicans for Tax Reform--is that he did say: "We'll run against their tax increase, and we'll crush them."

Are you saying the libturds are deliberately misquoting Norquist?

Nahhhhhhhh! They wouldn't do that!

 

[Foxfyre]

I have searched the internet for proof of this quote, and the only place I can find it is on various labor union sites.

I doubt he ever said it.

I do too Bripat. The cloest thing I've found to that attributed to Norquist--who isn't even interested in the labor movement so far as I know but is President of Ameicans for Tax Reform--is that he did say: "We'll run against their tax increase, and we'll crush them."

Are you saying the libturds are deliberately misquoting Norquist?

Nahhhhhhhh! They wouldn't do that!

I think somebody might easily have done that on some leftwing partisan site, and then it took on a life of its own as so many of these thngs do. There are some who grab onto anything on the internet that supports the point of view they want to have and they don't bother to check its authenticity.

 

[Bfgrn]

People have rights, even if they get together and work toward a common goal. Arguing that corporations do not have rights just because they only exist on paper means that the people who get together to work toward a goal don't have rights because they are just meat.

What corporatioms have is not rights but privilege with legal protection. There is a difference between these two things. The people who form the corporation have rights.

Whenever our legal protection or forced or mutually agreed contract requires some form of participation or contribution from another, other than his/her non interference, it is not a right but a privilege whether such privilege is legally enforcible or not.

Unalienable rights are what we enjoy that require no contribution or participation from any other person, other than his non interference. Civil rights are assurance enforced by law that nobody is allowed to recognize one person's right or privileges while denying those to another; i.e. equal protection under the law.

You don't get it, do you? Corporations are nothing more than groups of people. People incorporate for many different reasons, one of which is that the government actually requires that people who want to do certain things, **** get together to tell others about something bad that is happening, If you insist that corporations have no rights, then you are saying the government can tell people not to talk about some things. The only way you can logically argue that corporations do not have rights is if you argue that people don't. Even if you accept the absurd position that our rights come from the government, only idiots want people to give up their rights completely.

Corporations are great things, but they just shouldn't be allowed to have undue influence on government. The reason for that is they don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage and then to privatize the commons, to steal the commonwealth, to liquidate public assets for cash, to plunder, to steal from the rest of us.

 

[Intense]

What corporatioms have is not rights but privilege with legal protection. There is a difference between these two things. The people who form the corporation have rights.

Whenever our legal protection or forced or mutually agreed contract requires some form of participation or contribution from another, other than his/her non interference, it is not a right but a privilege whether such privilege is legally enforcible or not.

Unalienable rights are what we enjoy that require no contribution or participation from any other person, other than his non interference. Civil rights are assurance enforced by law that nobody is allowed to recognize one person's right or privileges while denying those to another; i.e. equal protection under the law.

You don't get it, do you? Corporations are nothing more than groups of people. People incorporate for many different reasons, one of which is that the government actually requires that people who want to do certain things, **** get together to tell others about something bad that is happening, If you insist that corporations have no rights, then you are saying the government can tell people not to talk about some things. The only way you can logically argue that corporations do not have rights is if you argue that people don't. Even if you accept the absurd position that our rights come from the government, only idiots want people to give up their rights completely.

Corporations are great things, but they just shouldn't be allowed to have undue influence on government. The reason for that is they don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage and then to privatize the commons, to steal the commonwealth, to liquidate public assets for cash, to plunder, to steal from the rest of us.

Fail. Honestly, you can say the same exact thing about Unions, PAC's, effectively, any Organization, which exists to serve it's own ends. Your Premise picks the winners and losers arbitrarily. Why not consider letting each argument stand or fall on it's own merit?
There is nothing wrong with anyone being an advocate for their own interest. What is wrong is mischaracterizing and misrepresenting your own interest, whether it's you, I, G.E., Verizon, or 7/11.
How much you can afford to spend limits you, so does concern for who you offend. Paybacks are a bitch.

Remember next time you are at the Mall, it is not your job to punish success without warrant or reason. These business succeed because of what they do right, with limited exception, usually involving Government covering for incompetence on a grand scale.

 

[Foxfyre]

What corporatioms have is not rights but privilege with legal protection. There is a difference between these two things. The people who form the corporation have rights.

Whenever our legal protection or forced or mutually agreed contract requires some form of participation or contribution from another, other than his/her non interference, it is not a right but a privilege whether such privilege is legally enforcible or not.

Unalienable rights are what we enjoy that require no contribution or participation from any other person, other than his non interference. Civil rights are assurance enforced by law that nobody is allowed to recognize one person's right or privileges while denying those to another; i.e. equal protection under the law.

You don't get it, do you? Corporations are nothing more than groups of people. People incorporate for many different reasons, one of which is that the government actually requires that people who want to do certain things, **** get together to tell others about something bad that is happening, If you insist that corporations have no rights, then you are saying the government can tell people not to talk about some things. The only way you can logically argue that corporations do not have rights is if you argue that people don't. Even if you accept the absurd position that our rights come from the government, only idiots want people to give up their rights completely.

Corporations are great things, but they just shouldn't be allowed to have undue influence on government. The reason for that is they don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage and then to privatize the commons, to steal the commonwealth, to liquidate public assets for cash, to plunder, to steal from the rest of us.

As long as the government responds to influence peddling from ANY demographic whether minorities or women or the poor or Hispanics or green indusrries or labor unions, then the people representing corporations have as much right as anybody else to benefit from government policy, and as much right as anybody else to lobby government, and as much right as anybody else to engage in influence peddling.

Don't like that? Then go with the Founder's classical liberalism as to what the proper role of the Federal government is--to secure the rights of the people and then leave them alone to form whatever sort of society they wish to have. The government could not use the people's money to benefit ANYBODY no matter how needy or deserving if it did not equally benefit everybody without prejudice.

Re-establish that princiiple and Congressional and Presidential elections will cost a tiny fraction of what they cost now, you remove 90% of the lobbyists from the equation, and with nobody able to buy influence or benefits from the government, you remove most of graft and corruption from government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What corporatioms have is not rights but privilege with legal protection. There is a difference between these two things. The people who form the corporation have rights.

Whenever our legal protection or forced or mutually agreed contract requires some form of participation or contribution from another, other than his/her non interference, it is not a right but a privilege whether such privilege is legally enforcible or not.

Unalienable rights are what we enjoy that require no contribution or participation from any other person, other than his non interference. Civil rights are assurance enforced by law that nobody is allowed to recognize one person's right or privileges while denying those to another; i.e. equal protection under the law.

You don't get it, do you? Corporations are nothing more than groups of people. People incorporate for many different reasons, one of which is that the government actually requires that people who want to do certain things, **** get together to tell others about something bad that is happening, If you insist that corporations have no rights, then you are saying the government can tell people not to talk about some things. The only way you can logically argue that corporations do not have rights is if you argue that people don't. Even if you accept the absurd position that our rights come from the government, only idiots want people to give up their rights completely.

Corporations are great things, but they just shouldn't be allowed to have undue influence on government. The reason for that is they don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage and then to privatize the commons, to steal the commonwealth, to liquidate public assets for cash, to plunder, to steal from the rest of us.

What do you mean by undue influence? How do you know what my aspirations for America are? I can name half a dozen corporations that have the exact same aspirations for America you claim you do, should I be able to force them, and you, not to be able to aspire to those goals? Do you think you can mount a cohesive argument that actually describes and defends your position without resorting to demagoguery?

 

[Bfgrn]

The new GOP:
"We're going to crush labor as a political entity"
Grover Norquist - Republican economic guru and co-author of the GOP's 'Contract with America'

I have searched the internet for proof of this quote, and the only place I can find it is on various labor union sites.

I doubt he ever said it.

You didn't search deep enough there Sherlock. Norquist said it in an interview with Reason magazine 15 years ago. And, if it was false, Norquist would have challenged it years ago.

 

[Foxfyre]

The new GOP:
"We're going to crush labor as a political entity"
Grover Norquist - Republican economic guru and co-author of the GOP's 'Contract with America'

I have searched the internet for proof of this quote, and the only place I can find it is on various labor union sites.

I doubt he ever said it.

You didn't search deep enough there Sherlock. Norquist said it in an interview with Reason magazine 15 years ago. And, if it was false, Norquist would have challenged it years ago.

As it doesn't sound like something Norquist would say, I would have to see the quotation IN CONTEXT. Most especially since fifteen years ago would be early in Clinton's second term when the GOP would not have had a great deal of say about that.