|
|
On October 24 2012 12:38 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 12:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 24 2012 12:34 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 24 2012 12:31 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 24 2012 12:22 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:13 HunterX11 wrote:On October 24 2012 12:08 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 11:57 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
LOL
classical liberalism is not eternal and is furthermore an extraordinarily recent phenomenon. things change
somebody bring me my fukuyama voodoo doll I have some stress to let out I was unaware that the 17th century was "recent," though I suppose it is all relative. The idea of individuals being superior to the state goes back much farther than John Locke and the Founding Fathers though; perhaps all the way back to the dawn of humanity. I'm pretty sure there have been no states in plenty of places even well into historical times, never mind the dawn of humanity. There are those that argue that there have always been states, even if it's something well removed from what we normally consider a state. A the alpha caveman who lead the other caveman could be interpreted as the existence of a state. Assuming this were true (and it really isn't proven or agreed upon by scholars) In those "states" the alpha caveman certainly was superior to the individuals comprising the state, so I'm not sure how you can say they embodied Locke's ideas. I'm sure someone at some point thought: "hey, this isn't right, why are you in charge?" At the "dawn of humanity"? Not a lot of evidence for that whatsoever. There's not really evidence for or against it, there's no way of knowing how the people back then thought, as the only evidence we have of their communication is through crude cave paintings. So don't bring up the philosophy dating back to the "dawn of humanity" in when there's no evidence it was there... It's simply human nature for people to want to be free. There are three things everyone has the right to: life, liberty, and the fruits of your labor. And those three things branch out to various different other rights. For instance, the right to life extends to the right to bear arms (and self-defense); the right to the fruits of your labor branches out to the rights of private property, etc.
Actually, there is no relation to the "right to life" and the right to bear arms. There is also no right to self-defense. There is also no right to private party or ownership of your labor. These things are not constitutionally based.
|
On October 24 2012 12:41 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 12:38 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 24 2012 12:34 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 24 2012 12:31 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 24 2012 12:22 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:13 HunterX11 wrote:On October 24 2012 12:08 Swazi Spring wrote:
[quote]
I was unaware that the 17th century was "recent," though I suppose it is all relative. The idea of individuals being superior to the state goes back much farther than John Locke and the Founding Fathers though; perhaps all the way back to the dawn of humanity. I'm pretty sure there have been no states in plenty of places even well into historical times, never mind the dawn of humanity. There are those that argue that there have always been states, even if it's something well removed from what we normally consider a state. A the alpha caveman who lead the other caveman could be interpreted as the existence of a state. Assuming this were true (and it really isn't proven or agreed upon by scholars) In those "states" the alpha caveman certainly was superior to the individuals comprising the state, so I'm not sure how you can say they embodied Locke's ideas. I'm sure someone at some point thought: "hey, this isn't right, why are you in charge?" At the "dawn of humanity"? Not a lot of evidence for that whatsoever. There's not really evidence for or against it, there's no way of knowing how the people back then thought, as the only evidence we have of their communication is through crude cave paintings. So don't bring up the philosophy dating back to the "dawn of humanity" in when there's no evidence it was there... It's simply human nature for people to want to be free. There are three things everyone has the right to: life, liberty, and the fruits of your labor. And those three things branch out to various different other rights. For instance, the right to life extends to the right to bear arms (and self-defense); the right to the fruits of your labor branches out to the rights of private property, etc. ...and that philosophy was only enumerated in the 17th century, unless you can show EVIDENCE that it dates back before that to support your earlier assertion.
Various different aspects of classical liberalism go back before the 17th century, but Locke was one of the first (if not the first) to combine all of the ideas under a single umbrella.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 24 2012 12:40 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 12:36 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:28 turdburgler wrote:
how can you claim obama is anti gun when all hes done is give out socialised guns to poor mexicans? HAHAHA oh God that was good. But really, has Obama even touched guns during his term? He said he is going to ban "scary looking guns" and he did try to block a bill that would allow concealed carry on all government property (including parks). He knows that trying to push for gun control laws will only result in his losing the election. I suggest you look at his record as a federal senator and a state legislator though and the various statements he made prior to running for president.
I have no doubt in my mind that Obama wants to slap on stricter gun control laws. Unfortunately he can't afford to so it's not really something gun lovers should fret about.
|
On October 24 2012 12:43 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 12:38 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 24 2012 12:34 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 24 2012 12:31 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 24 2012 12:22 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:13 HunterX11 wrote:On October 24 2012 12:08 Swazi Spring wrote:
[quote]
I was unaware that the 17th century was "recent," though I suppose it is all relative. The idea of individuals being superior to the state goes back much farther than John Locke and the Founding Fathers though; perhaps all the way back to the dawn of humanity. I'm pretty sure there have been no states in plenty of places even well into historical times, never mind the dawn of humanity. There are those that argue that there have always been states, even if it's something well removed from what we normally consider a state. A the alpha caveman who lead the other caveman could be interpreted as the existence of a state. Assuming this were true (and it really isn't proven or agreed upon by scholars) In those "states" the alpha caveman certainly was superior to the individuals comprising the state, so I'm not sure how you can say they embodied Locke's ideas. I'm sure someone at some point thought: "hey, this isn't right, why are you in charge?" At the "dawn of humanity"? Not a lot of evidence for that whatsoever. There's not really evidence for or against it, there's no way of knowing how the people back then thought, as the only evidence we have of their communication is through crude cave paintings. So don't bring up the philosophy dating back to the "dawn of humanity" in when there's no evidence it was there... It's simply human nature for people to want to be free. There are three things everyone has the right to: life, liberty, and the fruits of your labor. And those three things branch out to various different other rights. For instance, the right to life extends to the right to bear arms (and self-defense); the right to the fruits of your labor branches out to the rights of private property, etc. Actually, there is no relation to the "right to life" and the right to bear arms. There is also no right to self-defense. There is also no right to private party or ownership of your labor. These things are not constitutionally based.
Actually, they are.
The right to bear arms is in the federal constitution and in almost every single state constitution. Additionally, the Constitution states that the government CANNOT take away one's life or property without due process, which can easily be interpretted as respecting them as rights.
Our rights don't come from the Constitution though, they come from nature; the Constitution only protects are already pre-existing natural rights.
|
On October 24 2012 12:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 12:28 turdburgler wrote:On October 24 2012 12:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 24 2012 11:18 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 24 2012 11:08 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 11:05 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 24 2012 10:58 Swazi Spring wrote:
Jill Stein: "I want to get rid of our national debt! I also want to transform America into a completely socialist state, give away 'free' college, give away 'free' healthcare, and wage a war on climate change!"
I don't think she understands how economics work. then tell us by not taxing rich people and not building roads is a good idea? Rich people don't get taxed? We don't build roads? What? if your guy romney gets his way. like he paid 13% of his taxes but he could have given more millions to charity and had that rate in single digits. and if he lets the auto makers go bankrupt we won't need paved roads but it is great for our army on horses! That 13% tax rate doesn't include double taxation. The auto makers already went bankrupt. Sucks that he gives so much to charity. What a woeful example he's setting for the wealthy. giving to the mormon church is a funny version of charity. Giving to a royal family is a funny version of public spending. To each his own...
we dont give anything to the royal family, its a myth but ok :D and they do political work for us even if we did. state visits both here and abroad, diplomatic and charity work, tourism. the royal family is a cash cow, its not public spending at all ;p
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 24 2012 12:45 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 12:43 BluePanther wrote:On October 24 2012 12:38 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 24 2012 12:34 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 24 2012 12:31 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 24 2012 12:22 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:13 HunterX11 wrote:
[quote]
I'm pretty sure there have been no states in plenty of places even well into historical times, never mind the dawn of humanity. There are those that argue that there have always been states, even if it's something well removed from what we normally consider a state. A the alpha caveman who lead the other caveman could be interpreted as the existence of a state. Assuming this were true (and it really isn't proven or agreed upon by scholars) In those "states" the alpha caveman certainly was superior to the individuals comprising the state, so I'm not sure how you can say they embodied Locke's ideas. I'm sure someone at some point thought: "hey, this isn't right, why are you in charge?" At the "dawn of humanity"? Not a lot of evidence for that whatsoever. There's not really evidence for or against it, there's no way of knowing how the people back then thought, as the only evidence we have of their communication is through crude cave paintings. So don't bring up the philosophy dating back to the "dawn of humanity" in when there's no evidence it was there... It's simply human nature for people to want to be free. There are three things everyone has the right to: life, liberty, and the fruits of your labor. And those three things branch out to various different other rights. For instance, the right to life extends to the right to bear arms (and self-defense); the right to the fruits of your labor branches out to the rights of private property, etc. Actually, there is no relation to the "right to life" and the right to bear arms. There is also no right to self-defense. There is also no right to private party or ownership of your labor. These things are not constitutionally based. Actually, they are. The right to bear arms is in the federal constitution and in almost every single state constitution. Additionally, the Constitution states that the government CANNOT take away one's life or property without due process, which can easily be interpretted as respecting them as rights. Our rights don't come from the Constitution though, they come from nature; the Constitution only protects are already pre-existing natural rights.
How do rights come from nature? Did a tree suddenly speak to you?
|
On October 24 2012 12:43 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 12:40 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:36 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:28 turdburgler wrote:
how can you claim obama is anti gun when all hes done is give out socialised guns to poor mexicans? HAHAHA oh God that was good. But really, has Obama even touched guns during his term? He said he is going to ban "scary looking guns" and he did try to block a bill that would allow concealed carry on all government property (including parks). He knows that trying to push for gun control laws will only result in his losing the election. I suggest you look at his record as a federal senator and a state legislator though and the various statements he made prior to running for president. I have no doubt in my mind that Obama wants to slap on stricter gun control laws. Unfortunately he can't afford to so it's not really something gun lovers should fret about.
If he wins the election, what's to stop him from trying?
|
On October 24 2012 12:35 Survivor61316 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 12:26 sam!zdat wrote:On October 24 2012 12:20 Survivor61316 wrote:On October 24 2012 12:10 sam!zdat wrote:On October 24 2012 12:08 Survivor61316 wrote:On October 24 2012 11:59 sam!zdat wrote:On October 24 2012 11:51 Survivor61316 wrote:On October 24 2012 11:44 sam!zdat wrote:On October 24 2012 11:42 Survivor61316 wrote:On October 24 2012 11:33 Swazi Spring wrote:
[quote]
I support democracy, but much like the Founding Fathers, I am weary of too much democracy. They feared that due to the inability for information to travel quickly, people would often be making uninformed choices, and simply voting on superfluous attributes. This is no longer really relevant in this day and age, as at no other time in history has the individual voter been as informed as they are now (thank you internet and new cycle). the news cycle is not your friend don't assume that just because information travels faster that is good for democracy I rather think that modern information technology is the undoing of democracy... edit: talk about "superfluous attributes" lol I beg to differ, modern technology makes it much harder for things to be covered up. How many Rodney King beatings were there before that one was video taped and caused mass riots across the country? Though I agree you must take the 24 hr. news cycle with a huge grain of salt, you cannot deny that it absolutely airs every single possible piece of dirty laundry that a candidate could possibly have. When the only thing people ever learned about candidates came from the stump speeches that they would hear outside their local town center, how often do you think the candidate told them exactly what they wanted to hear, and then went to the next town and did the same to them? Things like that are no longer possible, as modern technology will catch you 9 times out of 10 (just ask Romney). It makes things DIFFERENT, it's doesn't make things BETTER sure, you can have more facts and more facts-checking but when you have a population with the attention span of an ADD goldfish and no education... we don't have politics, we just have advertising edit: the dirty laundry bit is as much of a bad thing as a good thing. All attention on dirty laundry (sells eyeballs), no attention on actual politics (doesn't sell eyeballs) Yeah stopping the Rodney King style beatings..not a BETTER thing. seriously? how can you interpret me to mean this? srsly
I agree that there is an absolute over saturation of information out there to anyone who gets CNN, MSNBC, or FOX NEWS. However, to argue that its not better now than before is ludicrous. Literally just now I watched Romney going back and flip flopping on the issues or Iraq and Syria. This further confirms for me that he is someone that absolutely does not deserve my vote. Whereas before modern technology, he could have gotten away with telling people what they wanted to hear to gain more votes, now its clear that is doing this, and thus turns many voters against him.
I'm skeptical that anybody is being turned away from Romney for this reason. I think the amount of oversaturation of information has actually just made people stop caring about facts entirely. Everybody's got facts. Facts are cheap. Facts mean everything. Facts mean nothing. Because it is just one example of how wrong you are...that I mentioned in the post you quoted... Yes, that is a way in which it is good. I'm talking about the aggregate effects of information technology on democracy, which I hold are a net negative.
Actually facts do mean everything, youre half right. How you can think that people are not turned off by Romney's constant double talk absolutely confounds me. Never in any other election has the left wing media went after a candidate so harshly for doing just that than this one. To think that this was not the reason for Obama's massive lead in the polls is a bit naive. It was not until the first debate, which was filled with information and facts, that Romney surged back to be only down by a few points to Obama. But as he gets caught in more and more lies, that resurgence is slowly eroding.
getting caught lying means nothing, I don't think. I don't think anybody actually cares about lies. They are expected to lie. The fact that people aren't turned off by double talk is important, please meditate on this phenomenon And where did you come up with this "fact"?
I never claimed it was a "fact." Don't go around putting epistemology in people's mouths. I do claim it, however.
I do think people are turned off by double talk, and the impartial polls conducted by third party polling companies measuring who people were going to vote for would seem to back me. Just go back and look at exactly what I mentioned in my previous post. Forgive me if I take the very real data collected by such companies over your personal beliefs.
Hey, man, let's not get started on the "we disagree so your thing is just a silly and stubborn 'personal belief' which you cling to despite overwhelming evidence to contrary which is obvious to all educateds"...
I'm advancing the thesis, It's somewhat in my job description to advance theses about these things. I'd be interested in looking at the data you mention - I don't primarily work with statistical data so I'm sure it will be extremely informative, but I'm gonna have to look at their methodology and not take your word on it.
Just watch the daily show sometime, or go back and watch an episode over the past half a year; they have new material nearly every single day on Romney double talking on issue after issue. This multi Emmy winning show reaches millions of people every week, who obviously do care about this exact problem.
I don't watch tv, so no thanks. but just because the daily show has it doesn't mean that means anything. The point is that everybody knows that all politicians lie all the time, and it doesn't make any difference to the way politics works. Jon Stewart "exposing" doubletalk to a primarily D audience doesn't really mean anything, it's just part of the dance so people can feel self-righteous and how they know all the facts and don't fall for the truthiness. What I'm saying is that I don't think any of this makes a difference in politics, and that information technology helps truthiness much more than it helps debunking. Serious discourse loses the arms race in an information age, I'm afraid, so even if you can help serious discourse with information tech the aggro memes way outpace them.
I'd be really interested to see any psychological studies on the matter (self-report polls are less compelling to me as I think this process is primarily ideological and therefore largely unconscious, so like I say methodology matters)
|
On October 24 2012 12:15 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 11:58 Wombat_NI wrote:On October 24 2012 11:54 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 11:47 Wombat_NI wrote:On October 24 2012 11:29 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 11:25 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 24 2012 11:11 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 11:10 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 24 2012 10:58 Swazi Spring wrote:
Jill Stein: "I want to get rid of our national debt! I also want to transform America into a completely socialist state, give away 'free' college, give away 'free' healthcare, and wage a war on climate change!"
I don't think she understands how economics work. Denmark seems to be doing really well with their free healthcare and free education and I also hear those Europeans care very much about their enviroment. Why has their society not collapsed? And please tell me you are not an economics student. Europe is falling apart, though cradle to grave socialism is only a small part of the reason why. As Gary Johnson said in the debate: "'Free' comes at a cost." Europe isn't falling apart. The Eurozone is in trouble, but that's got nothing to do with socialism. That's what happens when you have a single currency, losing exchange rates as an adjustment mechanism, without a single fiscal authority and banking union or your own central bank, and you get hit by a massive shock such as the GFC and the bursting of a giant housing bubble. If it's all about socialism, by isn't Germany or Sweden falling apart? They have larger welfare states than Spain and Greece. Why isn't Australia falling apart? What's the economic reasoning that leads from Socialism to the Eurozone crisis? Again the welfare state is only part of the problem. You said it yourself that having a single-currency that spans various culturally diverse regions is another part of it. I wasn't just referring to Europe's economic failure though, in general they are falling part at the seems. You're right that we have seen economic crisis after economic crisis in Europe, but we've also seen the rise of Islamic extremism, the rise of extreme nationalism, the loss of civil liberties, and the undemocratic EU growing stronger and stronger. What civil liberties are we losing over in Europe? Freedom of speech, right to bear arms, freedom of religion, and the right to privacy for starters. Specifics please? Not disputing that there may be instance of this across a continent that encompasses some 350 million people, but don't just throw those terms out there without anything to back it up. The right to bear arms isn't considered one of our core civil liberties across the continent anyway, so it isn't there 'to lose' in the first place. The right to bear arms is a nature right, whether the British/French/Polish government recognizes it or not. Though actually, the first recorded legal reference to a "right to bear arms" was actually in the English Bill of Rights. Forgive me for not providing examples, but most European countries have laws against "unpopular" speech, especially so-called "hate speech;" both on the "far-right" and the "far-left." Additionally, most European countries have draconian gun laws and in some countries guns are (for all intents and purposes) flat-out banned (such as in the United Kingdom). Countries like France may have an establishment clause, but unlike America, they do not have a free-exercise clause. This is just one example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/20/schools.franceAs for privacy rights: http://www.develop-online.net/news/39582/Tough-EU-piracy-laws-branded-Europes-SOPA^ I'm sure there are also laws by national governments which violate the right to privacy, but I haven't looked it up. Luckily the European Parliament struck down ACTA, though.
Guns aren't 'flat-out banned' in the UK, unless all those hunters and farmers are breaking the law and the police are turning a blind eye. What we have in the UK is strict gun control - you better have a damn good reason to own something that removes any kind of physical immediacy from the act of killing and makes it a simple matter of pulling a trigger as well as spotless personal character, otherwise we don't allow you to own one. PLease be mindful of drawing on examples from other countries you clearly aren't 100% on, as people on these forums actually know what they are talking about regarding gun laws there.
I've heard this notion of the right to bear arms being a natural right before, but honestly I have no idea what it means. How does the right to have a weapon compare to the right to habeas corpus and the like? And how does a country insist on this right above the right to medical treatment?
|
On October 24 2012 12:46 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 12:45 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:43 BluePanther wrote:On October 24 2012 12:38 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 24 2012 12:34 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 24 2012 12:31 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 24 2012 12:22 Swazi Spring wrote:
[quote]
There are those that argue that there have always been states, even if it's something well removed from what we normally consider a state. A the alpha caveman who lead the other caveman could be interpreted as the existence of a state. Assuming this were true (and it really isn't proven or agreed upon by scholars) In those "states" the alpha caveman certainly was superior to the individuals comprising the state, so I'm not sure how you can say they embodied Locke's ideas. I'm sure someone at some point thought: "hey, this isn't right, why are you in charge?" At the "dawn of humanity"? Not a lot of evidence for that whatsoever. There's not really evidence for or against it, there's no way of knowing how the people back then thought, as the only evidence we have of their communication is through crude cave paintings. So don't bring up the philosophy dating back to the "dawn of humanity" in when there's no evidence it was there... It's simply human nature for people to want to be free. There are three things everyone has the right to: life, liberty, and the fruits of your labor. And those three things branch out to various different other rights. For instance, the right to life extends to the right to bear arms (and self-defense); the right to the fruits of your labor branches out to the rights of private property, etc. Actually, there is no relation to the "right to life" and the right to bear arms. There is also no right to self-defense. There is also no right to private party or ownership of your labor. These things are not constitutionally based. Actually, they are. The right to bear arms is in the federal constitution and in almost every single state constitution. Additionally, the Constitution states that the government CANNOT take away one's life or property without due process, which can easily be interpretted as respecting them as rights. Our rights don't come from the Constitution though, they come from nature; the Constitution only protects are already pre-existing natural rights. How do rights come from nature? Did a tree suddenly speak to you?
Okay, so do you think murder, theft, rape, etc. are acceptable?
Do you think they would be acceptable, even if laws were NOT in place against them?
|
On October 24 2012 12:35 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 12:21 Leporello wrote:On October 24 2012 12:07 BluePanther wrote:On October 24 2012 11:58 Leporello wrote:On October 24 2012 11:54 BluePanther wrote:On October 24 2012 11:52 Leporello wrote:On October 24 2012 11:49 .Wilsh. wrote:On October 24 2012 11:43 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 24 2012 11:40 .Wilsh. wrote:On October 24 2012 11:28 Leporello wrote:
[quote]
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
Does one individual have the right to stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. Do two individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. (You might say 'No' I guess.) Do a hundred individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap and speak? Still Yes. The Citizens United case was ruled correctly. It is free speech. but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? the same people want unions to not be able to spend their money to educate people on bad working conditions and bad teaching conditions but that's wrong because that leaves less profits for the companies but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies?Free speech is free speech. So even lying is protected (if they do lie). Companies don't take profits they make them. (I think your class warfare is showing.) Unions have and should have the same rights. PS I like how unions teach and companies lie. lol You didn't respond to my last post, but again, we have political parties, where individuals can voice their concerns as a group. Corporations are not political groups. They're not congenial. Someone who works at Walmart doesn't have the same political views as the Walton family. But you're saying the money that worker earns for the company should be spent by that company for political concerns that many of the workers don't believe in. It's a disgusting disregard for the political process, and goes completely against the spirit of democracy. Democracy is supposed to give individuals -- actual people -- the ultimate voice against all other powers -- especially monetary powers. shareholders, not employees. shareholders are the speakers there, not the employees. Incorrect. Way incorrect. The majority of shares has the say, even if that majority of shares is held by a minority of shareholders as is often the case. And you're missing the point that the money, or "speech", being spent here was earned by, yes, the workers. Corporations are not formed for political influence. The controller(s) of these corporations should not be given some massive political influence, spending money in terms of "speech" even though that money was earned collectively, because you think it equates to "freedom" out of some backwards interpretation of the constitution. Can't believe people really think it's a good thing for our Republic to have Citizens United. It so plainly is not. weren't you the one incorrectly lecturing to me earlier about legal stuff. just stop. You obviously interpret things differently, and see it as somehow being definitively correct. That is what should stop. If you disagree with me about something, than say what it is or why. If you can't, then don't. You said something wrong, deal with it. Shareholders are not the speakers of a company, shares are, and that's a very crucial difference that you conveniently missed, Professor. And the "speech" we are referring to in this discussion is the monetary sum of the corporation's assets, which was earned by the workers. All workers have a vested interest in their company, and its assets. Shareholders hold a share. When you buy a share you are assenting to a company's charter. The charter delegates authority to a board of directors. This board of directors you may elect, but you are essentially delegating your money to them and entrust them to use it wisely. It very much IS the shareholders speech. The board is allowed to spend that money on anything they can relate back to being a business decision. Donating money to a political candidate that favors a desired business environment is allowed because of that. I could break it down much more (while my specialty isn't corporate law, I have taken the basics in this field). Long-story-short, you are telling me what you WANT a system to be. Not what the system IS. PS, Workers do not have a right to a company's assets. Only shareholders do. And even those are limited due to their agreement to invest w/r/t the corporate charter.
You missed the point that I've been saying to you repeatedly: shareholders are not of equal worth. That is all I was correcting you on.
For example, a million people own a million shares of my company. I own a million-and-one. Ergo, my vote is the only vote that matters. A million shareholders -- overridden by one man.
Shareholders are not how you measure a company's voice -- you measure it in the shares themselves. Talking about "shareholders" in the context you were previously makes it all sound much more democratic -- but it's misleading. Shareholders don't vote --- SHARES VOTE. How many different ways do I have to make this point?
I have made this point repeatedly and you continue to willfully ignore it and pretend the argument is over something else entirely. You're talking about "board of directors" -- save me the lecture that has nothing to do with what we were talking about.
Strawmen City up in this thread, I'm out for a while.
|
On October 24 2012 12:46 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 12:43 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:40 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:36 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:28 turdburgler wrote:
how can you claim obama is anti gun when all hes done is give out socialised guns to poor mexicans? HAHAHA oh God that was good. But really, has Obama even touched guns during his term? He said he is going to ban "scary looking guns" and he did try to block a bill that would allow concealed carry on all government property (including parks). He knows that trying to push for gun control laws will only result in his losing the election. I suggest you look at his record as a federal senator and a state legislator though and the various statements he made prior to running for president. I have no doubt in my mind that Obama wants to slap on stricter gun control laws. Unfortunately he can't afford to so it's not really something gun lovers should fret about. If he wins the election, what's to stop him from trying?
Like...how the entire legislative process works?
|
On October 24 2012 12:46 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 12:43 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:40 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:36 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:28 turdburgler wrote:
how can you claim obama is anti gun when all hes done is give out socialised guns to poor mexicans? HAHAHA oh God that was good. But really, has Obama even touched guns during his term? He said he is going to ban "scary looking guns" and he did try to block a bill that would allow concealed carry on all government property (including parks). He knows that trying to push for gun control laws will only result in his losing the election. I suggest you look at his record as a federal senator and a state legislator though and the various statements he made prior to running for president. I have no doubt in my mind that Obama wants to slap on stricter gun control laws. Unfortunately he can't afford to so it's not really something gun lovers should fret about. If he wins the election, what's to stop him from trying?
the political future of his party?
On October 24 2012 12:48 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 12:35 BluePanther wrote:On October 24 2012 12:21 Leporello wrote:On October 24 2012 12:07 BluePanther wrote:On October 24 2012 11:58 Leporello wrote:On October 24 2012 11:54 BluePanther wrote:On October 24 2012 11:52 Leporello wrote:On October 24 2012 11:49 .Wilsh. wrote:On October 24 2012 11:43 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 24 2012 11:40 .Wilsh. wrote:
[quote]
Does one individual have the right to stand on a soap box and speak?
Yes.
Do two individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap box and speak?
Yes. (You might say 'No' I guess.)
Do a hundred individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap and speak?
Still Yes.
The Citizens United case was ruled correctly. It is free speech. but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? the same people want unions to not be able to spend their money to educate people on bad working conditions and bad teaching conditions but that's wrong because that leaves less profits for the companies but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies?Free speech is free speech. So even lying is protected (if they do lie). Companies don't take profits they make them. (I think your class warfare is showing.) Unions have and should have the same rights. PS I like how unions teach and companies lie. lol You didn't respond to my last post, but again, we have political parties, where individuals can voice their concerns as a group. Corporations are not political groups. They're not congenial. Someone who works at Walmart doesn't have the same political views as the Walton family. But you're saying the money that worker earns for the company should be spent by that company for political concerns that many of the workers don't believe in. It's a disgusting disregard for the political process, and goes completely against the spirit of democracy. Democracy is supposed to give individuals -- actual people -- the ultimate voice against all other powers -- especially monetary powers. shareholders, not employees. shareholders are the speakers there, not the employees. Incorrect. Way incorrect. The majority of shares has the say, even if that majority of shares is held by a minority of shareholders as is often the case. And you're missing the point that the money, or "speech", being spent here was earned by, yes, the workers. Corporations are not formed for political influence. The controller(s) of these corporations should not be given some massive political influence, spending money in terms of "speech" even though that money was earned collectively, because you think it equates to "freedom" out of some backwards interpretation of the constitution. Can't believe people really think it's a good thing for our Republic to have Citizens United. It so plainly is not. weren't you the one incorrectly lecturing to me earlier about legal stuff. just stop. You obviously interpret things differently, and see it as somehow being definitively correct. That is what should stop. If you disagree with me about something, than say what it is or why. If you can't, then don't. You said something wrong, deal with it. Shareholders are not the speakers of a company, shares are, and that's a very crucial difference that you conveniently missed, Professor. And the "speech" we are referring to in this discussion is the monetary sum of the corporation's assets, which was earned by the workers. All workers have a vested interest in their company, and its assets. Shareholders hold a share. When you buy a share you are assenting to a company's charter. The charter delegates authority to a board of directors. This board of directors you may elect, but you are essentially delegating your money to them and entrust them to use it wisely. It very much IS the shareholders speech. The board is allowed to spend that money on anything they can relate back to being a business decision. Donating money to a political candidate that favors a desired business environment is allowed because of that. I could break it down much more (while my specialty isn't corporate law, I have taken the basics in this field). Long-story-short, you are telling me what you WANT a system to be. Not what the system IS. PS, Workers do not have a right to a company's assets. Only shareholders do. And even those are limited due to their agreement to invest w/r/t the corporate charter. You missed the point that I've been saying to you repeatedly: shareholders are not of equal worth. That is all I was correcting you on. For example, a million people own a million shares of my company. I own a million-and-one. Ergo, my vote is the only vote that matters. Shareholders are not how you measure a company's voice -- you measure it in the shares themselves. Talking about "shareholders" in the context you were previously makes it all sound much more democratic -- but it's misleading. Shareholders don't vote --- SHARES VOTE. How many different ways do I have to make this point? I have made this point repeatedly and you continue to willfully ignore it and pretend the argument is over something else entirely. You're talking about "board of directors" -- save me the lecture that has nothing to do with what we were talking about. Strawmen City up in this thread, I'm out for a while.
my county has the most gun licenses in the whole of england, REPRESENT BITCH.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 24 2012 12:46 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 12:43 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:40 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:36 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:28 turdburgler wrote:
how can you claim obama is anti gun when all hes done is give out socialised guns to poor mexicans? HAHAHA oh God that was good. But really, has Obama even touched guns during his term? He said he is going to ban "scary looking guns" and he did try to block a bill that would allow concealed carry on all government property (including parks). He knows that trying to push for gun control laws will only result in his losing the election. I suggest you look at his record as a federal senator and a state legislator though and the various statements he made prior to running for president. I have no doubt in my mind that Obama wants to slap on stricter gun control laws. Unfortunately he can't afford to so it's not really something gun lovers should fret about. If he wins the election, what's to stop him from trying?
Uhm, the NRA? It's not like Obama's gonna suddenly turn his back on his own party and pit them against the bulls.
|
On October 24 2012 12:43 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 12:41 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 24 2012 12:38 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 24 2012 12:34 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 24 2012 12:31 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 24 2012 12:22 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:13 HunterX11 wrote:
[quote]
I'm pretty sure there have been no states in plenty of places even well into historical times, never mind the dawn of humanity. There are those that argue that there have always been states, even if it's something well removed from what we normally consider a state. A the alpha caveman who lead the other caveman could be interpreted as the existence of a state. Assuming this were true (and it really isn't proven or agreed upon by scholars) In those "states" the alpha caveman certainly was superior to the individuals comprising the state, so I'm not sure how you can say they embodied Locke's ideas. I'm sure someone at some point thought: "hey, this isn't right, why are you in charge?" At the "dawn of humanity"? Not a lot of evidence for that whatsoever. There's not really evidence for or against it, there's no way of knowing how the people back then thought, as the only evidence we have of their communication is through crude cave paintings. So don't bring up the philosophy dating back to the "dawn of humanity" in when there's no evidence it was there... It's simply human nature for people to want to be free. There are three things everyone has the right to: life, liberty, and the fruits of your labor. And those three things branch out to various different other rights. For instance, the right to life extends to the right to bear arms (and self-defense); the right to the fruits of your labor branches out to the rights of private property, etc. ...and that philosophy was only enumerated in the 17th century, unless you can show EVIDENCE that it dates back before that to support your earlier assertion. Various different aspects of classical liberalism go back before the 17th century, but Locke was one of the first (if not the first) to combine all of the ideas under a single umbrella.
Really? Who (convincingly) established the individual as superior to the state before the 17th century?
|
On October 24 2012 12:42 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 12:34 .Wilsh. wrote:On October 24 2012 12:19 Leporello wrote:On October 24 2012 12:07 .Wilsh. wrote:On October 24 2012 11:52 Leporello wrote:On October 24 2012 11:49 .Wilsh. wrote:On October 24 2012 11:43 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 24 2012 11:40 .Wilsh. wrote:On October 24 2012 11:28 Leporello wrote:On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
"End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process. Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe. Does one individual have the right to stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. Do two individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. (You might say 'No' I guess.) Do a hundred individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap and speak? Still Yes. The Citizens United case was ruled correctly. It is free speech. but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? the same people want unions to not be able to spend their money to educate people on bad working conditions and bad teaching conditions but that's wrong because that leaves less profits for the companies but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies?Free speech is free speech. So even lying is protected (if they do lie). Companies don't take profits they make them. (I think your class warfare is showing.) Unions have and should have the same rights. PS I like how unions teach and companies lie. lol You didn't respond to my last post, but again, we have political parties, where individuals can voice their concerns as a group. Corporations are not political groups. They're not congenial. Someone who works at Walmart doesn't have the same political views as the Walton family. But you're saying the money that worker earns for the company should be spent by that company for political concerns that many of the workers don't believe in. It's a disgusting disregard for the political process, and goes completely against the spirit of democracy. Democracy is supposed to give individuals -- actual people -- the ultimate voice against all other powers -- especially monetary powers. we have political parties, where individuals can voice their concerns as a groupYou don't have to be in or have a political party to voice concerns as a group. You and 10 of your friends can pool your money and take an add in the paper. So if you own a business with 10 employees you should be able to take an add as well. Now your employees might not agree with the ad, but it is your business. But you're saying the money that worker earns for the company should be spent by that company for political concerns that many of the workers don't believe in. The owner of the business earned that money and paid the worker for helping. So the owner can do whatever he wishes with the money. Is there a company wide vote about the budget every year? No because the owner (or whoever the owner appoints) sets the budget. It's a disgusting disregard for the political process, and goes completely against the spirit of democracy. Democracy is supposed to give individuals -- actual people -- the ultimate voice against all other powers -- especially monetary powers.Companies are made up of individuals. Also we are a Republic, not Democracy. =P I underlined a sentence that you need to reread carefully. We're not talking about the owner's take-home pay, of which he can gladly spend to his favorite political party. You're talking about the corporation's assets. These assets were earned collectively and are owned, collectively. Yes, the owner(s) can ultimately sell the company and take whatever assets are there -- and then it becomes their personal money to spend. But as long as the corporation exists, it is the corporation's money, and doesn't belong to any actual living person. Corporations are NOT people. And then there is the separate matter of letting unlimited money into our political process, from corporations or actual people. This too is disgustingly derisive to our democratic process. Owners == shareholders != employees. Example: You start a landscaping company that has 10 employees. 1) Who decides if you buy new tools? (For the following questions I assume that you answered 'Me' for this one) 2) Can you buy a new truck for your company? 3) Can you buy a smart car for your company even though there is no use for it? 4) Can you buy an add in the news paper for your company? 5) Can you buy an add in support of gay marriage for your company? This is a strawman that misses the whole point. You're not arguing with anything I was saying. I never said shareholders==employees. All I have ever said is that the shareholders are spending money earned by the employees.That money is being spent, collectively, for the good of the company, when it goes to buying a new truck, or an advertisement for the company. It should not go into the political process. You have not given one good reason why it should go into our political process. Politics is for the people -- the living, breathing citizens of the country, to have control of the country. You want to trivialize that basic principle by introducing monetary powers into our politics a very direct way -- monetary powers that are often international (how are we continually skipping over this point that corporations aren't even bound to a single country????!!) and of a collective and diverse of interests that often will conflict with the interest of the workers and the actual people that live and breath. Dis-gust-ing.
Shareholders are spending their own money as the corporation's money is the shareholders money.
Yes employees helped the company make that money, but the company helped the employees earn their wage as well.
Employees have no more a right to decide how the corporation spends its money than the corporation has a right to tell the employee how to spend theirs.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 24 2012 12:47 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 12:46 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:45 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:43 BluePanther wrote:On October 24 2012 12:38 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 24 2012 12:34 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 24 2012 12:31 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
Assuming this were true (and it really isn't proven or agreed upon by scholars) In those "states" the alpha caveman certainly was superior to the individuals comprising the state, so I'm not sure how you can say they embodied Locke's ideas. I'm sure someone at some point thought: "hey, this isn't right, why are you in charge?" At the "dawn of humanity"? Not a lot of evidence for that whatsoever. There's not really evidence for or against it, there's no way of knowing how the people back then thought, as the only evidence we have of their communication is through crude cave paintings. So don't bring up the philosophy dating back to the "dawn of humanity" in when there's no evidence it was there... It's simply human nature for people to want to be free. There are three things everyone has the right to: life, liberty, and the fruits of your labor. And those three things branch out to various different other rights. For instance, the right to life extends to the right to bear arms (and self-defense); the right to the fruits of your labor branches out to the rights of private property, etc. Actually, there is no relation to the "right to life" and the right to bear arms. There is also no right to self-defense. There is also no right to private party or ownership of your labor. These things are not constitutionally based. Actually, they are. The right to bear arms is in the federal constitution and in almost every single state constitution. Additionally, the Constitution states that the government CANNOT take away one's life or property without due process, which can easily be interpretted as respecting them as rights. Our rights don't come from the Constitution though, they come from nature; the Constitution only protects are already pre-existing natural rights. How do rights come from nature? Did a tree suddenly speak to you? Okay, so do you think murder, theft, rape, etc. are acceptable? Do you think they would be acceptable, even if laws were NOT in place against them?
You're dodging the question. How do rights come from nature? What on Earth possessed you (literally) to believe that guns are a natural right?
|
Northern Ireland23755 Posts
On October 24 2012 12:47 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 12:46 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:45 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:43 BluePanther wrote:On October 24 2012 12:38 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 24 2012 12:34 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 24 2012 12:31 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
Assuming this were true (and it really isn't proven or agreed upon by scholars) In those "states" the alpha caveman certainly was superior to the individuals comprising the state, so I'm not sure how you can say they embodied Locke's ideas. I'm sure someone at some point thought: "hey, this isn't right, why are you in charge?" At the "dawn of humanity"? Not a lot of evidence for that whatsoever. There's not really evidence for or against it, there's no way of knowing how the people back then thought, as the only evidence we have of their communication is through crude cave paintings. So don't bring up the philosophy dating back to the "dawn of humanity" in when there's no evidence it was there... It's simply human nature for people to want to be free. There are three things everyone has the right to: life, liberty, and the fruits of your labor. And those three things branch out to various different other rights. For instance, the right to life extends to the right to bear arms (and self-defense); the right to the fruits of your labor branches out to the rights of private property, etc. Actually, there is no relation to the "right to life" and the right to bear arms. There is also no right to self-defense. There is also no right to private party or ownership of your labor. These things are not constitutionally based. Actually, they are. The right to bear arms is in the federal constitution and in almost every single state constitution. Additionally, the Constitution states that the government CANNOT take away one's life or property without due process, which can easily be interpretted as respecting them as rights. Our rights don't come from the Constitution though, they come from nature; the Constitution only protects are already pre-existing natural rights. How do rights come from nature? Did a tree suddenly speak to you? Okay, so do you think murder, theft, rape, etc. are acceptable? Do you think they would be acceptable, even if laws were NOT in place against them?
Ghengis Khan sure did a fair amount of all of those back in the day. Conceptions of rights evolve over time surely?
|
On October 24 2012 12:47 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 12:46 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:45 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:43 BluePanther wrote:On October 24 2012 12:38 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 24 2012 12:34 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 24 2012 12:31 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
Assuming this were true (and it really isn't proven or agreed upon by scholars) In those "states" the alpha caveman certainly was superior to the individuals comprising the state, so I'm not sure how you can say they embodied Locke's ideas. I'm sure someone at some point thought: "hey, this isn't right, why are you in charge?" At the "dawn of humanity"? Not a lot of evidence for that whatsoever. There's not really evidence for or against it, there's no way of knowing how the people back then thought, as the only evidence we have of their communication is through crude cave paintings. So don't bring up the philosophy dating back to the "dawn of humanity" in when there's no evidence it was there... It's simply human nature for people to want to be free. There are three things everyone has the right to: life, liberty, and the fruits of your labor. And those three things branch out to various different other rights. For instance, the right to life extends to the right to bear arms (and self-defense); the right to the fruits of your labor branches out to the rights of private property, etc. Actually, there is no relation to the "right to life" and the right to bear arms. There is also no right to self-defense. There is also no right to private party or ownership of your labor. These things are not constitutionally based. Actually, they are. The right to bear arms is in the federal constitution and in almost every single state constitution. Additionally, the Constitution states that the government CANNOT take away one's life or property without due process, which can easily be interpretted as respecting them as rights. Our rights don't come from the Constitution though, they come from nature; the Constitution only protects are already pre-existing natural rights. How do rights come from nature? Did a tree suddenly speak to you? Okay, so do you think murder, theft, rape, etc. are acceptable? Do you think they would be acceptable, even if laws were NOT in place against them?
No such thing as a "natural right." you can make a universalizing moral claim (and I often do), but that's not the same as a "natural" right
|
On October 24 2012 12:48 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 12:46 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:43 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:40 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:36 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:28 turdburgler wrote:
how can you claim obama is anti gun when all hes done is give out socialised guns to poor mexicans? HAHAHA oh God that was good. But really, has Obama even touched guns during his term? He said he is going to ban "scary looking guns" and he did try to block a bill that would allow concealed carry on all government property (including parks). He knows that trying to push for gun control laws will only result in his losing the election. I suggest you look at his record as a federal senator and a state legislator though and the various statements he made prior to running for president. I have no doubt in my mind that Obama wants to slap on stricter gun control laws. Unfortunately he can't afford to so it's not really something gun lovers should fret about. If he wins the election, what's to stop him from trying? Like...how the entire legislative process works?
Again, what's to stop him from trying? Especially if Democrats control both houses of Congress.
If Obama gets re-elected, he'll be able to appoint several new Supreme Court justices, and he'll most likely appoint left-wing justices who don't care about the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
