|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 14 2013 07:33 DoubleReed wrote:I'm always a little confused by accusations of being biased. I'm not a journalist delivering a story here. How is being "biased" a negative thing in this context? Yes, I'm giving my opinion. You say very biased things too. It's not a big deal. I'd prefer to say what I mean straightforwardly because it's fun and it's also a better way for people to gauge who they're talking to. For instance, you know exactly where I stand on libertarianism now. Easy to discuss it at this point. Hooray!
My flippant comment was meant to casually point out that you are making obviously ideological statements; that is, controversial claims that you have not substantiated with evidence.
On August 14 2013 07:33 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +My argument is not that all sides are legitimate. My argument is that both major sides in American politics are illegitimate. My argument is that you should use your own critical thinking to analyze issues individually, rather than voting along party lines. Ehhhh.... you're conflating republican with conservative and democrat with liberal. The fact is that there are actually a good amount of economically conservative democrats. And within the parties there are disagreements and ideological differences. You're the one painting with too broad a brush in this specific case.
I agree that I'm making general statements, but those general statements have truth value since they provide useful information that generally holds true. It's a truthful general statement to say that "Africans are taller than Asians", because most people understand that we elliptically imply "in general" even without the blatant disclaimer.
On August 14 2013 07:33 DoubleReed wrote:
My point is to argue against equivocation. The Democrats are pretty bad right now, but they're not crazy like the Republicans at the moment. And for people to claim that "it's all just one party" or "they're all the same" or whatever is really not getting it. This is intellectually lazy.
I agree that Republicans as a group are currently insane (thanks Tea Party!), so we are in agreement that they are not all the same. My point is to remind people that the Democrats are far from flawless either, and should be approached with caution rather than reckless abandon when running away from the Republicans.
|
On August 14 2013 08:06 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 07:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 14 2013 07:14 sunprince wrote:On August 13 2013 21:32 DoubleReed wrote: The takeaway is that American political parties are hilariously hypocritical, and pasted together from various groups on the basis of political expediency rather than any coherent philosophy. Really, because my takeaway is that liberals are driven by a pragmatic desire to solve problems, while conservatives and libertarians are driven simplistic ideologies that sound nice but have no bearing on the real world (taxation is theft!). Biased much? Conservatives do have a disturbing trend of being detached from reality. "Women's bodies fight off rape babies!" "Racism/sexism don't exist anymore!" "Being able to fight three different wars at once is the only way any country can ever be safe!" "Everyone is able to get a job whenever they want, regardless of their circumstance, and pay to move their way up in the world, get an education, and move up in socioeconomic status! I did it, so obviously everyone can!" "Kids can just get jobs anywhere to pay off those student loans, and young kids can just get jobs anywhere and save for college while they're in high school!" I could go on, but you get the point. I would certainly agree that conservatives are more "anti-science". However, liberals also ignore reality when it suits them, ranging from ignoring the criminological literature on gun control, to their obsession with blank slates in spite of biological evidence that nature matters as much as or more than nurture, to pretending that there is a gender wage gap, to ignoring consensus among economists that minimum wage increases unemployment among low-skilled workers. Essentially, every side lies and ignores science in order to support their views, and while I would agree conservatives do it more often, that doesn't excuse liberals either.
A number of these examples are sketchy at best - for example, what "criminological literature on gun control"?
|
On August 14 2013 08:06 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 07:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 14 2013 07:14 sunprince wrote:On August 13 2013 21:32 DoubleReed wrote: The takeaway is that American political parties are hilariously hypocritical, and pasted together from various groups on the basis of political expediency rather than any coherent philosophy. Really, because my takeaway is that liberals are driven by a pragmatic desire to solve problems, while conservatives and libertarians are driven simplistic ideologies that sound nice but have no bearing on the real world (taxation is theft!). Biased much? Conservatives do have a disturbing trend of being detached from reality. "Women's bodies fight off rape babies!" "Racism/sexism don't exist anymore!" "Being able to fight three different wars at once is the only way any country can ever be safe!" "Everyone is able to get a job whenever they want, regardless of their circumstance, and pay to move their way up in the world, get an education, and move up in socioeconomic status! I did it, so obviously everyone can!" "Kids can just get jobs anywhere to pay off those student loans, and young kids can just get jobs anywhere and save for college while they're in high school!" I could go on, but you get the point. I would certainly agree that conservatives are more "anti-science". However, liberals also ignore reality when it suits them as well, ranging from ignoring the criminological literature on gun control, to their obsession with blank slates in spite of biological evidence that nature matters as much as or more than nurture, to pretending that there is a gender wage gap, to ignoring consensus among economists that minimum wage increases unemployment among low-skilled workers. Essentially, every side lies and ignores science in order to support their views, and while I would agree conservatives do it more often, that doesn't excuse liberals either.
I agree that both sides lie... a lot. The big deal breaker for me is that Democrats lie almost entirely as oversimplification whereas Republicans almost always as a "no true Scotsman". When Democrats say that the minimum wage doesn't affect unemployment it is because the reality, that it only nominally increases unemployment because it is drowned out by other economic factors, is very complicated. They have the same issues with basically all "liberal" policies such as climate change and social welfare. At the end of the day any simplification is a "lie" because it obscures the details that lead to an informed decision but I understand the need for them. Republicans on the other hand just seem to have a very narrow view, an ideal, and anybody who fails to live up to that ideal is "un-American", as if that makes them irrelevant. Such a view I can not abide.
Please note, I am talking about Democrats and Republicans, not conservatives and liberals.
|
On August 14 2013 07:13 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 06:55 Wolfstan wrote:
This last page of semantics confuses me on the definition of lobbying, can you please clear something up for me?
In my fictional scenario the government wants to bulldoze a neighborhood and put in a prison. The decision will affect a residential constituency, a charity, a public school, a corporation and a competing private prison in the area. Each trying to influence the decision with their biased views.
Is that lobbying?
Who should be allowed to give their opinions/facts/figures?
Is it legal to lobby for/against this?
Should it be? opinions/facts/figures ofc they can there is nothing wrong with it but when for example the prison is financing the next election of several officials you get a conflict of interest and then it becomes a problem.
I do agree prisons should not be a private industry.
What do you believe the best way to finance campaigns is?
In Canada, funds are raised through private donations with limits on dollar value. They get these by having corporations/individuals believing in the platform to $1000 limit, 500 dollar a plate dinners, and grassroots BBQ's. These are subsidized through tax credits to donors.
We also have a system where a party gets ~$1.50 per vote from public funds.
I actually approve of the way our officials get financing for their campaigns, the donations are small enough that elected members values are stronger than a bag of money.
|
I agree that Republicans as a group are currently insane (thanks Tea Party!), so we are in agreement that they are not all the same. My point is to remind people that the Democrats are far from flawless either, and should be approached with caution rather than reckless abandon when running away from the Republicans.
Oh I see the disconnect here. I'm not ideological for the Democrats. No no no. I'm ideological for the ACLU. And they have changed my mind about a good deal of pragmatic things, like Affirmative Action.
|
On August 14 2013 08:17 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 08:06 sunprince wrote:On August 14 2013 07:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 14 2013 07:14 sunprince wrote:On August 13 2013 21:32 DoubleReed wrote: The takeaway is that American political parties are hilariously hypocritical, and pasted together from various groups on the basis of political expediency rather than any coherent philosophy. Really, because my takeaway is that liberals are driven by a pragmatic desire to solve problems, while conservatives and libertarians are driven simplistic ideologies that sound nice but have no bearing on the real world (taxation is theft!). Biased much? Conservatives do have a disturbing trend of being detached from reality. "Women's bodies fight off rape babies!" "Racism/sexism don't exist anymore!" "Being able to fight three different wars at once is the only way any country can ever be safe!" "Everyone is able to get a job whenever they want, regardless of their circumstance, and pay to move their way up in the world, get an education, and move up in socioeconomic status! I did it, so obviously everyone can!" "Kids can just get jobs anywhere to pay off those student loans, and young kids can just get jobs anywhere and save for college while they're in high school!" I could go on, but you get the point. I would certainly agree that conservatives are more "anti-science". However, liberals also ignore reality when it suits them, ranging from ignoring the criminological literature on gun control, to their obsession with blank slates in spite of biological evidence that nature matters as much as or more than nurture, to pretending that there is a gender wage gap, to ignoring consensus among economists that minimum wage increases unemployment among low-skilled workers. Essentially, every side lies and ignores science in order to support their views, and while I would agree conservatives do it more often, that doesn't excuse liberals either. A number of these examples are sketchy at best - for example, what "criminological literature on gun control"?
Contrary to gun control advocates telling us that "gun control lowers violent crime" and gun rights proponents telling us that "gun rights deter violent crime", the consensus in the field of criminology (as reflected by undergraduate level textbooks and literature reviews in peer-reviewed scholarly journals) is that gun control has no proven significant effect (positive or negative) on crime.
|
On August 14 2013 08:00 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 07:44 Danglars wrote:Straw manning conservatives as a single disgraced Republican and everything else straw men is pretty cute. I love the caricatures. You're actually close on a couple points, I'll give you that. Racism and sexism aren't huge societal problems in desperate need of solution since most of society has moved on. The businesses that refuse to hire based on race and sex are the losers in capitalism. Most everyone still has the opportunity to improve their lot in life if they work hard. I say liberals have been waging a war on this ability with their idiotic policies, but it's still there. Considering how HuffPo has had almost a post every three pages for the last hundred or so, I think it's time for some discussion from the right. Here's Mark Levin (conservative talk show host with over 7.5 million listeners a week, on Sean Hannity making a very quick case for why we're currently in a post-constitutional society that's less and less a representative republic. 2 Short Videos: Mark Levin on HannityI'll keep some barf bags handy for those of you having that reaction to Fox News. Well, other than some of the phrases which made me laugh out loud, I'm all about this. Though, I can't hear people say "statists" without cracking up. This is the goal of Wolf PAC, the Super-PAC against Super-PACs. In order to get rid of corporate personhood, we basically need a constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, things like the failure of the Disclose Act means that that's probably not going to work through the Federal Government. But as he says, you can go through the states with an Article V Constitutional Convention, which is feasible. The 17th Amendment used the convention as leverage for congress to pass the amendment. You don't actually need to go the full distance. Generally, this is something that conservatives and liberals agree on. So that's pretty cool.
Well your first two sentences may be the only time in politics that we substantively agree.
|
On August 14 2013 08:36 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +I agree that Republicans as a group are currently insane (thanks Tea Party!), so we are in agreement that they are not all the same. My point is to remind people that the Democrats are far from flawless either, and should be approached with caution rather than reckless abandon when running away from the Republicans. Oh I see the disconnect here. I'm not ideological for the Democrats. No no no. I'm ideological for the ACLU. And they have changed my mind about a good deal of pragmatic things, like Affirmative Action.
While I agree with the ACLU on some issues, I disagree with them on others:
Affirmative Action is one of them: I consider AA to be unconstitutional discrimination ("positive discrimination" is still discrimination), so regardless of the efficacy I am opposed to it. They also consider AA to be necessary due to a lack of equal outcomes, which clashes with my belief in equal opportunity over equal outcomes. They use misleading/false data such as the racial and wage gaps as indicators of discrimination (the gender wage gap myth is especially pernicious in relation to AA, given that women outnumber men 2-to-1 in undergrad, worse than the gap between men and women when Title 9 was implemented).
On that topic, the ACLU is one of the perpetuators of the wage gap myth.
The ACLU has also recently worked to restrict the due process rights of college students accused of sex offenses. For anyone who is unfamiliar with the legal issues being discussed here, the stricter federal guidelines mandate that schools make it easier to punish the innocent for offenses they haven't been proven guilty of committing. Specifically, the federal government is requiring schools to lower the standard of proof for sex offenses in order to find more persons guilty. The ACLU's position on this clear-cut restriction of civil liberties is hilariously hypocritical, especially given that the impact of these policies disproportionately falls upon minority men that the ACLU theoretically fights to protect.
In short, I find that the ACLU is also ideologically motivated by the various liberal groups that support it.
|
On August 14 2013 08:59 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 08:36 DoubleReed wrote:I agree that Republicans as a group are currently insane (thanks Tea Party!), so we are in agreement that they are not all the same. My point is to remind people that the Democrats are far from flawless either, and should be approached with caution rather than reckless abandon when running away from the Republicans. Oh I see the disconnect here. I'm not ideological for the Democrats. No no no. I'm ideological for the ACLU. And they have changed my mind about a good deal of pragmatic things, like Affirmative Action. While I agree with the ACLU on some issues, I disagree with them on others: Affirmative Action is one of them: I consider AA to be unconstitutional discrimination ("positive discrimination" is still discrimination), so regardless of the efficacy I am opposed to it. They also consider AA to be necessary due to a lack of equal outcomes, which clashes with my belief in equal opportunity over equal outcomes. They use misleading/false data such as the racial and wage gaps as indicators of discrimination (the gender wage gap myth is especially pernicious in relation to AA, given that women outnumber men 2-to-1 in undergrad, worse than the gap between men and women when Title 9 was implemented). On that topic, the ACLU is one of the perpetuators of the wage gap myth. The ACLU has also recently worked to restrict the due process rights of college students accused of sex offenses. For anyone who is unfamiliar with the legal issues being discussed here, the stricter federal guidelines mandate that schools make it easier to punish the innocent for offenses they haven't been proven guilty of committing. Specifically, the federal government is requiring schools to lower the standard of proof for sex offenses in order to find more persons guilty. The ACLU's position on this clear-cut restriction of civil liberties is hilariously hypocritical, especially given that the impact of these policies disproportionately falls upon minority men that the ACLU theoretically fights to protect. In short, I find that the ACLU is also ideologically motivated by the various liberal groups that support it.
Yea but on all those issues I disagree with you.
The accusation of liberalism is strange, considering how often they defend conservative's rights as well. It's as if you think no one could ever reasonably disagree with you on these issues, even though you constantly run into people who do. On these very forums. All the time.
Edit: I don't understand the hypocrisy in the third case. The ACLU defends Title IX, and ensuring the rights of the accuser in due process. You may disagree, but that doesn't make it hypocritical. They defend policies that help stop the cycle of violence. Their stance is that discrimination against survivors is sex discrimination. I should probably stop talking, or else you'll start talking about the Matriarchy or something.
|
On August 14 2013 08:43 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 08:17 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 08:06 sunprince wrote:On August 14 2013 07:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 14 2013 07:14 sunprince wrote:On August 13 2013 21:32 DoubleReed wrote: The takeaway is that American political parties are hilariously hypocritical, and pasted together from various groups on the basis of political expediency rather than any coherent philosophy. Really, because my takeaway is that liberals are driven by a pragmatic desire to solve problems, while conservatives and libertarians are driven simplistic ideologies that sound nice but have no bearing on the real world (taxation is theft!). Biased much? Conservatives do have a disturbing trend of being detached from reality. "Women's bodies fight off rape babies!" "Racism/sexism don't exist anymore!" "Being able to fight three different wars at once is the only way any country can ever be safe!" "Everyone is able to get a job whenever they want, regardless of their circumstance, and pay to move their way up in the world, get an education, and move up in socioeconomic status! I did it, so obviously everyone can!" "Kids can just get jobs anywhere to pay off those student loans, and young kids can just get jobs anywhere and save for college while they're in high school!" I could go on, but you get the point. I would certainly agree that conservatives are more "anti-science". However, liberals also ignore reality when it suits them, ranging from ignoring the criminological literature on gun control, to their obsession with blank slates in spite of biological evidence that nature matters as much as or more than nurture, to pretending that there is a gender wage gap, to ignoring consensus among economists that minimum wage increases unemployment among low-skilled workers. Essentially, every side lies and ignores science in order to support their views, and while I would agree conservatives do it more often, that doesn't excuse liberals either. A number of these examples are sketchy at best - for example, what "criminological literature on gun control"? Contrary to gun control advocates telling us that "gun control lowers violent crime" and gun rights proponents telling us that "gun rights deter violent crime", the consensus in the field of criminology (as reflected by undergraduate level textbooks and literature reviews in peer-reviewed scholarly journals) is that gun control has no proven significant effect (positive or negative) on crime.
There's a difference between not having definitely proved causation (which is often a hard task in social sciences) and causation not existing. Plenty of studies have shown a correlation between stricter gun control laws and smaller numbers of gun-related deaths.
|
On August 14 2013 07:11 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 06:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 06:24 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 05:59 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 05:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 05:14 DoubleReed wrote:Free speech sure does get a bad rap from liberals today. I love free speech, but fuck corporate personhood. Dude, if you learned the kind of legal bullshit that companies try to get away with using 1st amendment rights, you wouldn't say that. Verizon argued it had the right to look at everything you do while on their network because of the first amendment. Corporate Personhood makes free speech look like a joke. Verizon challenges net neutrality with first amendment claims How would that work? People have free speech but groups of people don't? As for the Verizon case, Verizon wants to treat different customers differently, not spy on you. It works like this: corporations are not people. They do not have the rights enshrined in our constitution. They have whatever rights that we determine them to have as a society. Their rights are a matter of pragmatism rather a matter of constitutionality. I am not frightened of corporations being sent to the gas chambers. This is not something that keeps me up at night. My question still stands - how do you differentiate between people and groups of people? That's the crux of the issue. Huh? I don't understand the question. A corporation is a legal construct. It's not just a group of people. It's independent of people. That's the whole point of a corporation. A corporation is something unto itself. The legal construct dictates how the group of people will collaborate. But it's still at it's core a group of people - the corporate veil doesn't fully change that. Yes it does. That's the whole point of creating a corporation. Read up on corporate personhood. One of the big effects is that shareholders are not held responsible for the corporations' debt or damages beyond their investment in the corporation. A group of people is not a corporation and a corporation is not a group of people. At its core, its not a group of people, but a robot constructed by a group of people. I'm fine with them having most of the rights they have. Obviously we want them to be able to make contracts and be sued and stuff. Even the shareholder stuff I'm cool with. Fine. However, they should not get the full protections of the constitution because they are not people, and the constitutional rights are reserved for people. It makes a mockery of our justice system. Yeah that's what the 'corporate veil' refers to. Err... so do you agree with then? I'm confused. That's an example of something that does change under corporations...
As I said before, the corporate veil doesn't fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Things like corporate person-hood and limited liability are really just there to make it easier for the group to function.
|
On August 14 2013 09:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 07:11 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 06:24 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 05:59 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 05:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 05:14 DoubleReed wrote:[quote] I love free speech, but fuck corporate personhood. Dude, if you learned the kind of legal bullshit that companies try to get away with using 1st amendment rights, you wouldn't say that. Verizon argued it had the right to look at everything you do while on their network because of the first amendment. Corporate Personhood makes free speech look like a joke. Verizon challenges net neutrality with first amendment claims How would that work? People have free speech but groups of people don't? As for the Verizon case, Verizon wants to treat different customers differently, not spy on you. It works like this: corporations are not people. They do not have the rights enshrined in our constitution. They have whatever rights that we determine them to have as a society. Their rights are a matter of pragmatism rather a matter of constitutionality. I am not frightened of corporations being sent to the gas chambers. This is not something that keeps me up at night. My question still stands - how do you differentiate between people and groups of people? That's the crux of the issue. Huh? I don't understand the question. A corporation is a legal construct. It's not just a group of people. It's independent of people. That's the whole point of a corporation. A corporation is something unto itself. The legal construct dictates how the group of people will collaborate. But it's still at it's core a group of people - the corporate veil doesn't fully change that. Yes it does. That's the whole point of creating a corporation. Read up on corporate personhood. One of the big effects is that shareholders are not held responsible for the corporations' debt or damages beyond their investment in the corporation. A group of people is not a corporation and a corporation is not a group of people. At its core, its not a group of people, but a robot constructed by a group of people. I'm fine with them having most of the rights they have. Obviously we want them to be able to make contracts and be sued and stuff. Even the shareholder stuff I'm cool with. Fine. However, they should not get the full protections of the constitution because they are not people, and the constitutional rights are reserved for people. It makes a mockery of our justice system. Yeah that's what the 'corporate veil' refers to. Err... so do you agree with then? I'm confused. That's an example of something that does change under corporations... As I said before, the corporate veil doesn't fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Things like corporate person-hood and limited liability are really just there to make it easier for the group to function.
It does fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Legally, the people taken together and the corporation are separate entities. Is there something you don't understand about this or are you simply trying to obfuscate the issue?
|
On August 14 2013 08:11 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 07:33 DoubleReed wrote:Biased much? I'm always a little confused by accusations of being biased. I'm not a journalist delivering a story here. How is being "biased" a negative thing in this context? Yes, I'm giving my opinion. You say very biased things too. It's not a big deal. I'd prefer to say what I mean straightforwardly because it's fun and it's also a better way for people to gauge who they're talking to. For instance, you know exactly where I stand on libertarianism now. Easy to discuss it at this point. Hooray! My flippant comment was meant to casually point out that you are making obviously ideological statements; that is, controversial claims that you have not substantiated with evidence. Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 07:33 DoubleReed wrote:My argument is not that all sides are legitimate. My argument is that both major sides in American politics are illegitimate. My argument is that you should use your own critical thinking to analyze issues individually, rather than voting along party lines. Ehhhh.... you're conflating republican with conservative and democrat with liberal. The fact is that there are actually a good amount of economically conservative democrats. And within the parties there are disagreements and ideological differences. You're the one painting with too broad a brush in this specific case. I agree that I'm making general statements, but those general statements have truth value since they provide useful information that generally holds true. It's a truthful general statement to say that "Africans are taller than Asians", because most people understand that we elliptically imply "in general" even without the blatant disclaimer. Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 07:33 DoubleReed wrote:
My point is to argue against equivocation. The Democrats are pretty bad right now, but they're not crazy like the Republicans at the moment. And for people to claim that "it's all just one party" or "they're all the same" or whatever is really not getting it. This is intellectually lazy. I agree that Republicans as a group are currently insane (thanks Tea Party!), so we are in agreement that they are not all the same. My point is to remind people that the Democrats are far from flawless either, and should be approached with caution rather than reckless abandon when running away from the Republicans.
Oh yea, Democrats aren't saints or anything. Part of the reason that I'm not a Democrat.
|
For years, the Central Intelligence Agency denied it had a secret file on MIT professor and famed dissident Noam Chomsky. But a new government disclosure obtained by The Cable reveals for the first time that the agency did in fact gather records on the anti-war iconoclast during his heyday in the 1970s.
The disclosure also reveals that Chomsky's entire CIA file was scrubbed from Langley's archives, raising questions as to when the file was destroyed and under what authority.
The breakthrough in the search for Chomsky's CIA file comes in the form of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. For years, FOIA requests to the CIA garnered the same denial: "We did not locate any records responsive to your request." The denials were never entirely credible, given Chomsky's brazen anti-war activism in the 60s and 70s -- and the CIA's well-documented track record of domestic espionage in the Vietnam era. But the CIA kept denying, and many took the agency at its word.
Now, a public records request by FOIA attorney Kel McClanahan reveals a memo between the CIA and the FBI that confirms the existence of a CIA file on Chomsky.
Dated June 8, 1970, the memo discusses Chomsky's anti-war activities and asks the FBI for more information about an upcoming trip by anti-war activists to North Vietnam. The memo's author, a CIA official, says the trip has the "ENDORSEMENT OF NOAM CHOMSKY" and requests "ANY INFORMATION" about the people associated with the trip.
Source
|
On August 14 2013 09:27 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 09:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 07:11 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 06:24 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 05:59 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 05:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
How would that work? People have free speech but groups of people don't?
As for the Verizon case, Verizon wants to treat different customers differently, not spy on you.
It works like this: corporations are not people. They do not have the rights enshrined in our constitution. They have whatever rights that we determine them to have as a society. Their rights are a matter of pragmatism rather a matter of constitutionality. I am not frightened of corporations being sent to the gas chambers. This is not something that keeps me up at night. My question still stands - how do you differentiate between people and groups of people? That's the crux of the issue. Huh? I don't understand the question. A corporation is a legal construct. It's not just a group of people. It's independent of people. That's the whole point of a corporation. A corporation is something unto itself. The legal construct dictates how the group of people will collaborate. But it's still at it's core a group of people - the corporate veil doesn't fully change that. Yes it does. That's the whole point of creating a corporation. Read up on corporate personhood. One of the big effects is that shareholders are not held responsible for the corporations' debt or damages beyond their investment in the corporation. A group of people is not a corporation and a corporation is not a group of people. At its core, its not a group of people, but a robot constructed by a group of people. I'm fine with them having most of the rights they have. Obviously we want them to be able to make contracts and be sued and stuff. Even the shareholder stuff I'm cool with. Fine. However, they should not get the full protections of the constitution because they are not people, and the constitutional rights are reserved for people. It makes a mockery of our justice system. Yeah that's what the 'corporate veil' refers to. Err... so do you agree with then? I'm confused. That's an example of something that does change under corporations... As I said before, the corporate veil doesn't fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Things like corporate person-hood and limited liability are really just there to make it easier for the group to function. It does fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Legally, the people taken together and the corporation are separate entities. Is there something you don't understand about this or are you simply trying to obfuscate the issue?
Yeah I know the legal distinction exists. It matters why the distinction exists too.
DoubleReed started out this line of discussion by saying "fuck corporate personhood." Prior to corporations we just went directly to the owners in legal matters. Going back to that would just result in full free speech rights since we're dealing with real people all over again. Coming up with some new construct just brings us back to the point that, at their core, corporations really are groups of people.
|
On August 14 2013 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 09:27 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 09:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 07:11 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 06:24 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 05:59 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
It works like this: corporations are not people. They do not have the rights enshrined in our constitution. They have whatever rights that we determine them to have as a society. Their rights are a matter of pragmatism rather a matter of constitutionality.
I am not frightened of corporations being sent to the gas chambers. This is not something that keeps me up at night. My question still stands - how do you differentiate between people and groups of people? That's the crux of the issue. Huh? I don't understand the question. A corporation is a legal construct. It's not just a group of people. It's independent of people. That's the whole point of a corporation. A corporation is something unto itself. The legal construct dictates how the group of people will collaborate. But it's still at it's core a group of people - the corporate veil doesn't fully change that. Yes it does. That's the whole point of creating a corporation. Read up on corporate personhood. One of the big effects is that shareholders are not held responsible for the corporations' debt or damages beyond their investment in the corporation. A group of people is not a corporation and a corporation is not a group of people. At its core, its not a group of people, but a robot constructed by a group of people. I'm fine with them having most of the rights they have. Obviously we want them to be able to make contracts and be sued and stuff. Even the shareholder stuff I'm cool with. Fine. However, they should not get the full protections of the constitution because they are not people, and the constitutional rights are reserved for people. It makes a mockery of our justice system. Yeah that's what the 'corporate veil' refers to. Err... so do you agree with then? I'm confused. That's an example of something that does change under corporations... As I said before, the corporate veil doesn't fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Things like corporate person-hood and limited liability are really just there to make it easier for the group to function. It does fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Legally, the people taken together and the corporation are separate entities. Is there something you don't understand about this or are you simply trying to obfuscate the issue? Yeah I know the legal distinction exists. It matters why the distinction exists too. DoubleReed started out this line of discussion by saying "fuck corporate personhood." Prior to corporations we just went directly to the owners in legal matters. Going back to that would just result in full free speech rights since we're dealing with real people all over again. Coming up with some new construct just brings us back to the point that, at their core, corporations really are groups of people.
Ooooh. No no, I'm not that extreme. I just meant that the legal fiction of corporations should not be protected by the full power of constitutional rights, like they are now.
|
On August 14 2013 09:54 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 09:27 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 09:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 07:11 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 06:24 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
My question still stands - how do you differentiate between people and groups of people? That's the crux of the issue. Huh? I don't understand the question. A corporation is a legal construct. It's not just a group of people. It's independent of people. That's the whole point of a corporation. A corporation is something unto itself. The legal construct dictates how the group of people will collaborate. But it's still at it's core a group of people - the corporate veil doesn't fully change that. Yes it does. That's the whole point of creating a corporation. Read up on corporate personhood. One of the big effects is that shareholders are not held responsible for the corporations' debt or damages beyond their investment in the corporation. A group of people is not a corporation and a corporation is not a group of people. At its core, its not a group of people, but a robot constructed by a group of people. I'm fine with them having most of the rights they have. Obviously we want them to be able to make contracts and be sued and stuff. Even the shareholder stuff I'm cool with. Fine. However, they should not get the full protections of the constitution because they are not people, and the constitutional rights are reserved for people. It makes a mockery of our justice system. Yeah that's what the 'corporate veil' refers to. Err... so do you agree with then? I'm confused. That's an example of something that does change under corporations... As I said before, the corporate veil doesn't fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Things like corporate person-hood and limited liability are really just there to make it easier for the group to function. It does fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Legally, the people taken together and the corporation are separate entities. Is there something you don't understand about this or are you simply trying to obfuscate the issue? Yeah I know the legal distinction exists. It matters why the distinction exists too. DoubleReed started out this line of discussion by saying "fuck corporate personhood." Prior to corporations we just went directly to the owners in legal matters. Going back to that would just result in full free speech rights since we're dealing with real people all over again. Coming up with some new construct just brings us back to the point that, at their core, corporations really are groups of people. Ooooh. No no, I'm not that extreme. I just meant that the legal fiction of corporations should not be protected by the full power of constitutional rights, like they are now.
You could do that to an extent. Constitutionally you'd be really limited though.
Edit: afaik the only way to completely restrict corporate personhood is to amend the constitution.
|
On August 14 2013 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 09:27 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 09:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 07:11 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 06:24 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 05:59 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
It works like this: corporations are not people. They do not have the rights enshrined in our constitution. They have whatever rights that we determine them to have as a society. Their rights are a matter of pragmatism rather a matter of constitutionality.
I am not frightened of corporations being sent to the gas chambers. This is not something that keeps me up at night. My question still stands - how do you differentiate between people and groups of people? That's the crux of the issue. Huh? I don't understand the question. A corporation is a legal construct. It's not just a group of people. It's independent of people. That's the whole point of a corporation. A corporation is something unto itself. The legal construct dictates how the group of people will collaborate. But it's still at it's core a group of people - the corporate veil doesn't fully change that. Yes it does. That's the whole point of creating a corporation. Read up on corporate personhood. One of the big effects is that shareholders are not held responsible for the corporations' debt or damages beyond their investment in the corporation. A group of people is not a corporation and a corporation is not a group of people. At its core, its not a group of people, but a robot constructed by a group of people. I'm fine with them having most of the rights they have. Obviously we want them to be able to make contracts and be sued and stuff. Even the shareholder stuff I'm cool with. Fine. However, they should not get the full protections of the constitution because they are not people, and the constitutional rights are reserved for people. It makes a mockery of our justice system. Yeah that's what the 'corporate veil' refers to. Err... so do you agree with then? I'm confused. That's an example of something that does change under corporations... As I said before, the corporate veil doesn't fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Things like corporate person-hood and limited liability are really just there to make it easier for the group to function. It does fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Legally, the people taken together and the corporation are separate entities. Is there something you don't understand about this or are you simply trying to obfuscate the issue? Yeah I know the legal distinction exists. It matters why the distinction exists too. DoubleReed started out this line of discussion by saying "fuck corporate personhood." Prior to corporations we just went directly to the owners in legal matters. Going back to that would just result in full free speech rights since we're dealing with real people all over again. Coming up with some new construct just brings us back to the point that, at their core, corporations really are groups of people.
Ok, so you really are simply trying to obfuscate the issue. I know why legal personhood exists. Nobody is advocating removing corporate personhood. What DoubleReed very clearly said was that corporate personhood should not come with the same rights and liberties as "regular" personhood, in particular in terms of free speech. This would not mean placing any free speech restriction on the people who are behind the corporation, but it would prevent the corporation as a legal entity (= different from the group of people behind it) from having access to certain possibilities in terms of free speech (i.e. in terms of campaign financing).
|
On August 14 2013 10:33 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 09:27 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 09:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 07:11 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 06:24 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
My question still stands - how do you differentiate between people and groups of people? That's the crux of the issue. Huh? I don't understand the question. A corporation is a legal construct. It's not just a group of people. It's independent of people. That's the whole point of a corporation. A corporation is something unto itself. The legal construct dictates how the group of people will collaborate. But it's still at it's core a group of people - the corporate veil doesn't fully change that. Yes it does. That's the whole point of creating a corporation. Read up on corporate personhood. One of the big effects is that shareholders are not held responsible for the corporations' debt or damages beyond their investment in the corporation. A group of people is not a corporation and a corporation is not a group of people. At its core, its not a group of people, but a robot constructed by a group of people. I'm fine with them having most of the rights they have. Obviously we want them to be able to make contracts and be sued and stuff. Even the shareholder stuff I'm cool with. Fine. However, they should not get the full protections of the constitution because they are not people, and the constitutional rights are reserved for people. It makes a mockery of our justice system. Yeah that's what the 'corporate veil' refers to. Err... so do you agree with then? I'm confused. That's an example of something that does change under corporations... As I said before, the corporate veil doesn't fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Things like corporate person-hood and limited liability are really just there to make it easier for the group to function. It does fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Legally, the people taken together and the corporation are separate entities. Is there something you don't understand about this or are you simply trying to obfuscate the issue? Yeah I know the legal distinction exists. It matters why the distinction exists too. DoubleReed started out this line of discussion by saying "fuck corporate personhood." Prior to corporations we just went directly to the owners in legal matters. Going back to that would just result in full free speech rights since we're dealing with real people all over again. Coming up with some new construct just brings us back to the point that, at their core, corporations really are groups of people. Ok, so you really are simply trying to obfuscate the issue. I know why legal personhood exists. Nobody is advocating removing corporate personhood. What DoubleReed very clearly said was that corporate personhood should not come with the same rights and liberties as "regular" personhood, in particular in terms of free speech. This would not mean placing any free speech restriction on the people who are behind the corporation, but it would prevent the corporation as a legal entity (= different from the group of people behind it) from having access to certain possibilities in terms of free speech (i.e. in terms of campaign financing).
Maybe this will clear it up.
The laws surrounding corporate personhood can't violate the constitution. Because corporations really are groups of people. Any legislation to restrict corporations will run against a couple hundred years of supreme court decisions that extend constitutional protections to corporations on the ground that corporations are groups of people.
For example, the supreme court extended the 14th amendment to include corporations (because corporations are groups of people) way back in 1819: Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the reporter noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania - 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since.
Also, The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively. In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction which allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions which would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association.
Edit: The obligatory wikipedia link.
Edit 2: or in other words, if you deny the corporation the right to free speech you are effectively denying the people who make up the corporation of the right to collectively voice their opinion through the corporation.
|
On August 14 2013 11:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 10:33 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 09:27 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 09:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 07:11 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 06:24 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Huh? I don't understand the question. A corporation is a legal construct. It's not just a group of people. It's independent of people. That's the whole point of a corporation. A corporation is something unto itself. The legal construct dictates how the group of people will collaborate. But it's still at it's core a group of people - the corporate veil doesn't fully change that. Yes it does. That's the whole point of creating a corporation. Read up on corporate personhood. One of the big effects is that shareholders are not held responsible for the corporations' debt or damages beyond their investment in the corporation. A group of people is not a corporation and a corporation is not a group of people. At its core, its not a group of people, but a robot constructed by a group of people. I'm fine with them having most of the rights they have. Obviously we want them to be able to make contracts and be sued and stuff. Even the shareholder stuff I'm cool with. Fine. However, they should not get the full protections of the constitution because they are not people, and the constitutional rights are reserved for people. It makes a mockery of our justice system. Yeah that's what the 'corporate veil' refers to. Err... so do you agree with then? I'm confused. That's an example of something that does change under corporations... As I said before, the corporate veil doesn't fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Things like corporate person-hood and limited liability are really just there to make it easier for the group to function. It does fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Legally, the people taken together and the corporation are separate entities. Is there something you don't understand about this or are you simply trying to obfuscate the issue? Yeah I know the legal distinction exists. It matters why the distinction exists too. DoubleReed started out this line of discussion by saying "fuck corporate personhood." Prior to corporations we just went directly to the owners in legal matters. Going back to that would just result in full free speech rights since we're dealing with real people all over again. Coming up with some new construct just brings us back to the point that, at their core, corporations really are groups of people. Ok, so you really are simply trying to obfuscate the issue. I know why legal personhood exists. Nobody is advocating removing corporate personhood. What DoubleReed very clearly said was that corporate personhood should not come with the same rights and liberties as "regular" personhood, in particular in terms of free speech. This would not mean placing any free speech restriction on the people who are behind the corporation, but it would prevent the corporation as a legal entity (= different from the group of people behind it) from having access to certain possibilities in terms of free speech (i.e. in terms of campaign financing). Maybe this will clear it up. The laws surrounding corporate personhood can't violate the constitution. Because corporations really are groups of people. Any legislation to restrict corporations will run against a couple hundred years of supreme court decisions that extend constitutional protections to corporations on the ground that corporations are groups of people. For example, the supreme court extended the 14th amendment to include corporations (because corporations are groups of people) way back in 1819: Show nested quote +Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the reporter noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania - 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since. Also, Show nested quote +The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively. In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction which allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions which would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association. Edit: The obligatory wikipedia link. Edit 2: or in other words, if you deny the corporation the right to free speech you are effectively denying the people who make up the corporation of the right to collectively voice their opinion through the corporation.
Yes, it requires a constitutional amendment as far as I know. Something like Wolf-PAC is what I would support. It's a significant legal hurdle, but the vast majority of Americans are against Citizen's United, so there's that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
