Jump to content

angelofdeath

Member
  • Posts

    3,604
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by angelofdeath

  1. i gotta disagree. licenses to carry infringe on gun rights, they do not PROMOTE them. rights do not require permission. privileges require permission.

     

    while im 100% against a CCW permit itself, many states if not most states with shall issue permits require an 8hr class for the average citizen (excluding military, etc). in this class it is supposed to teach you the law and you have to 'qualify' by shooting. its basically like the requirements for a drivers license. you then get your certificate and can then get your permit. if you think a drivers license promotes safer roads, you must also think that this arbitrary ccw class promotes safer side arm carriers. how many people do you know or see with drivers licenses that cant drive good, get in accidents all the time, etc? more than i can think of. 40K people a year die on the highways.

     

    i dont believe a drivers license promotes good driving at all. it just means you can pass the little driving test they give you. the same way passing the little written test and stupid little firing proficiency test they give you when you get a CCW permit.

     

    it boils down to being responsible. it is everyones responsibility to be accountable for their own actions. its the way freedom works. if you purposefully murder someone or have a negligent discharge, its on you. someone will come and put you in front of a judge. there is absolutely no way to prove that one is a 'capable' gun owner before purchasing. not only is this impossible, it also infringes on ones right to own an inanimate object to defend themselves. and if there was some objective way to determine exactly how a gun toter will react and act in every situation, it will still be screwed up because government would administer the program.

  2. i carry every where i go (excluding legally restricted areas, *hello po-po's)

     

    i suppose you are correct on the draw/turn in on the 870 at least. although the guy i mentioned previously comes into the gym everyday with an empty holster saying he has to lock his side arm in his truck because the gym (stupidly) has a no gun sign.

     

    eh, i think the analogy is sound because even with govt required insurance, if you kill someone you can still be charged with murder, manslaughter, etc which, as far as i know, isnt quite covered by an insurance policy. even if such a thing as 'gun carrying insurance' existed, it wouldnt limit the liability of one who murders someone.

  3. hey man, im with you on that. i believe government should only exist to protect rights. that was the original mantra. however, the problem is that government has all this power and is even capable of handing out the favors. if you have a pot of honey, you attract bears. everyone fights over the honey. passing a law saying that a certain group cant lobby to get its part of the honey wont solve anything as they'll just get more creative.

    you have to get rid of the honey. in this case, a government that gives out special favors, handouts, etc. if government doesnt have the power, they cant hand it out to others. there is then nothing to lobby. problem solved.

     

    i just dont think that telling a group of people where they can put their money or in teh case of citizens united, telling a group of people that they cant make a movie about a politician, therefore infringing on a persons rights is hardly a solution to the problem.

     

    the general line of thought is:

     

    corporations control the government

    we need government to protect us from the corporations.

     

    yeah, that will work.

  4. thats true. they do have tests on it. for what that is worth.

    i was talking to a prison guard recently. he carries an sw mp everyday at work. also carries an 870. he said the only time he is 'allowed' to fire either weapon is qualifications once a year. the results of the most recent one, including his own shooting was laughable at best. he said 3 guards could barely qualify with the 870.

     

    i guess the point im alluding to is...firearms are serious business. there is potentially a lawyer at the other end of every round that comes out of one. there is no successful means to 'screen' people who carry firearms. some guys who are given extra legal privileges and badges arent any good. some citizens who have never taken a formal course can outshoot guys who have been to magpul dynamics. with freedom there is responsibility. people operating motor vehicles are more likely to kill someone than they are with a gun. so the entire issue with allowing people the option to decide which way is best to defend themselves is about allowing people the choice. its not about guaranteeing that armed assailants in a classroom are going to be able to subdue every crazy man with a gun. its about people being allowed to exercise their own rights to attempt to defend themselves. it is my understanding that outside of tier 1 groups like sfod-d and the like, the police of america lack the ability to successfully and routinely take down multiple armed assailants which is why they always stay behind the barricades when these school shootings occur.

     

    one of the biggest deterrents to these things could potentially be if the crazy shooter has to deal with resistance from the inside and/or not know where or how he might meet his death. to me its no coincidence these shootings occur in victim disarmament zones. they like shooting fish in a barrel.

  5.  

    i gotta give the left credit for finally using an honorable way to achieve their goals.

    however, if some 'right wing' cause used these means, they would be up in arms for infringing on the 14th amendments application of the bill of rights to the states. just like they were up in arms about 'made in montana' firearms.

  6. shooting quickdraw from the hip is tough without practice.

    i don't know of many ranges that allow from-the-hip shooting, not indoor anyways, and i generally feel uncomfortable at outdoor ranges when anyone other than cops or military are doing it.

     

    shots will likely be on target, but a kill shot?

     

    i sort of feel the opposite.

    i'd probably leave if i saw cops trying to do from the hip shots.

    you have much more of a chance of being shot by a cop than by anyone else.

     

    i'd also like to say that it is pretty naive what some of you guys are implying. or at least what im taking away from some of these posts. that some arbitrary government requirement = trained gun owner.

    CCW classes are a joke. some of the guys around here teaching them dont even know the laws and they are 'state certified' and have a monopoly on the training classes that allow one to apply to the state for permission to exercise their natural rights. all these classes do is make the statists feel slightly more comfortable about the slaves being armed. a majority of cops cant shoot and they are the state's men. i think that is all that needs to be said about this sort of thing.

  7. Well no, because a couple guys making a video is barely a drop in the bucket of capital that makes up any given candidate's campaign finance.

     

    it must be noted that that is basically what citizens united overturned. it allowed a group of people to put out a video about a candidate.

     

     

    You're not tying up a congress, whose lights are kept on with my taxes, with the duty of passing all the phony laws that only serve to benefit you.

     

    but such is the inherent problems with supporting a coercive institution in the first place. no ones interest is represented all the time. everyone is coerced in one way or another. absent laws that protect property rights, life and liberty, all laws passed are simply phony laws that benefit a special interest. even the laws you support benefit a special interest.

     

    Citizens united was a ruling that decided corporations have the same rights as people to infinitely finance federal campaigns, so now not only do they control the congress (lawmakers, those who decide taxes and so on) they're trying to control the whitehouse as well. Citizens united has nothing to do with you and three friends, because even if you guys were trying to get a couple laws written to favor your private interests you don't have the capital. You aren't even a corporation. The right to make that video is protected without citizens united.

     

    you still dont get it.

    if 3 friends pool their money, file a form with the state, they are a g'damn corporation. everyone is so tied on how people associate themselves its just funny. we all agree on the limited liability thing, but if you are saying that because a group of people call themselves a corporation that they all of a sudden lose their rights to collectively pool resources and put out a message, this is a major problem for the rights of everyone in this country.

     

    you have this fantasy that every 'corporation' is some multi billion dollar enterprise when in fact a corporation can be owned by 1 person with 1$ as its assets.

     

     

    Exactly, but how do you do that? Regulate lobbying. Congress controls federal spending, taxes, lawmaking and so on. You shrink the amount of cash lobbyists have, you shrink the number of favors that congress gives out, you shrink the federal spending. Thanks to lobbyists, Washington's median income is as high as silicon valley. You have to take the monetary incentives out of beurocracy to reduce the power corporations have in it.

     

    given that every law has a dozen unintended consequences, you are just creating more problems

    and given that the federal government with virtually unlimited resources cannot keep drugs out of max security prisons, the most controlled environment in this country, how do you propose that the government is going to keep special interests out of washington when washington still has the power to give out special favors to groups x, y, and z?

     

     

    Im all for a Friedman-style of unregulated free market capitalism..maybe. There's a 50-50 chance socialized medicare would work wonderfully in America. Annnd I think government regulatory departments like he EPA are good but the people who work at them suck.

     

    friedman wasnt the unregulated free market guy you think. he was in favor a central bank, in favor of central planning in monetary policy and was the guy who gave us income tax with holding, but understand what you are trying to say.

     

    the same EPA that threw a guy in jail for a few years, fined him hundreds of thousands of dollars, and harassed and harangued him for CLEANING UP A PUBLIC DUMPING SPOT ON PROPERTY HE BOUGHT?

     

    It's all about how you limit the amount of favors congress gives. I say corporations have way too much capital so just remove their lobbyists from congress. It makes the market fair because if no corporation has a lobbyist, no corporation's getting any special treatment. No special treatment means no subsidies, tariffs, limited liability, tax exemptions or otherwise. All disputes between companies has to be settled through the market. Wallmart can't enact a law that prohibits banks from charging debit transaction fees because they dont want to pay $0.68 anymore. Banks wont have anything protest. Taxpayers won't have to pay to keep congress's light's on through that bitchfest. If you want a free market then you dont want corporations using corporate personhood to get special favors.

     

    the only way to effectively limit the special favors is to take away the govts power to give them. anything else is just wishful thinking. because we have been a society who seeks everything from government, we have an unlimited state that can do what it wants.

     

    the only way to separate corporation and state is to get the state out of the equation. if the state has nothing to offer, there will be no lobbyists. you dont see lobbyists lobbying ron paul for special favors and bail outs do you? but you surely see obama installing montsanto's lawyer in the FDA. goldman sachs isnt giving ron paul money, but they surely gave more to obama last time around than anyone else. this is because they know where to go to get the favors. if the govt was run by ron pauls who followed the rule of law, there would be no lobbying because there is nothing to give.

     

    the only lobbying i support is lobbying government to leave me the F alone.

     

     

    And I think your understanding of corporate personhood is a bit skewed. I'm not a corporation. You're not a corporation. An assembly of people is not a corporation. Railroads are corporations. My gas company is a corporation. Google is a corporation. Enron is a corporation. Your rights to freedom of speech are protected under the constitution which was written by people for people. It's only in the last couple decades that corporations have even been given the right to lobby, finance political officials and so on. And also keep in mind that private companies giving private money means tracking who gave what to who is also private.

     

    a corporation is an association of people who filed some paper work with the state and got a EIN. that is it. a corporation can be 1 person and it can own 0 assets. i can create a corporation in the state of new mexico in about 10 min and pay 25$ to do it. if we didnt have this ridiculous taxation, a society full of litigation, and the like, and a state that refused to grant special privileges, corporations wouldnt hardly exist. the incentive to incorporate would be insignificant. a corporation boiled down is nothing but a group with a govt ID number.

     

    corporations and corporate welfare and hand outs and favors go all the way back to the internal improvement debates between jefferson and hamilton. the big government people were always the ones supporting the corporatism. it seems however that the people who want govt to help other interest groups like the 'poor' and the uninsured have taken over the task. abe lincoln was nothing but a railroad lawyer and lobbyist. jefferson argued that corproate welfare was unconstitutional, yet the big government people ruled the day.

     

    Also finally how do you come to the conclusion that free speech is somehow limited in an OWS-style participatory democracy? How do you foresee news stations being restricted? I dont know if you're mixing issues of corporate personhood with participatory democracy but that doesn't make sense.

     

    because you are supporting an ideology that subjugates your own people from getting a message out. lets say you and OWS camp want to pool your resources. in order to easily arrange yourselfs and properly allocate and collect the money, you call yourself a corporation. but because you believe that groups of people, in this case a corporation, (a group with a EIN) dont have rights, you just restricted yourself from making a movie about how bad corporate greed is because you want stringent campaign laws that restrict free speech. during the citizens united case, after much weaving and dodging, in response to a judges question they stated that they think the govt has a right to ban a book if the last page of the book say 'vote for _____'

     

    if you support the idea that a group of people calling themselves a corporation dont have rights, then you must support the abolition of the new york times. this is a corporation that practices free speech!

     

    the first amendment doesnt say 'congress shall write no law.... abridging free speech, unless this free speech is made by a group of people with a EIN, in which case we can ban movies and books if they dare mention one word about a politician.' even the ACLU denounced citizens

     

     

    That said, end corporate personhood doesn't end anybody's freedom of speech or any other constitutional right. It insures your voice is being heard when there are people who are wealthier or more famous than you and use that wealth and fame to shut you out on social issues.

     

    it always cracks me up when i hear that argument.

    the whole, 'we gotta trample this freedom, in order to increase the freedom of others.'

    you cant infringe on liberty and say you are increasing it, #1.

    2. making that argument is the exact same thing as saying this:

    'we need to force all these greedy home owners and private property occupiers to leave their front doors open, because we need to increase the freedom of the homeless to live under a roof!'

     

    or

     

    "you must keep your wifes legs stretched open because we need to allow these sexually deprived people more freedom!'

     

    you cant trample one set of rights and say you are increasing freedom for all.

     

     

    Edit: and to the other post you made—I didn't make up "public interest group" look it up. You know what a private group is compared to a public group is, don't you? And yeah, all interest groups effectively argue in favor of big government. They wouldn't be knocking on congress' door if they didn't think it was big enough to offer them something.

     

    the idea of a 'public' interest group is entirely subjective.

    you would say it is in the public good that we take all the wealth from the 1% and give it to the 99%. you would say its in the public good to force everyone to pay for your grandmothers retirement, your sisters schooling and your college education. i would say all those examples are slavery, theft and an infringement on a peoples natural rights.

     

    to show the subjective nature of the term 'public interest' i'd argue that a corporation like apple is in the public interest because they revolutionized smart phone technology and make banging ass computers that are affordable to a very large portion of the population. they are making everyone richer by seeking their own self interest and satisfying consumer demand and trading computers for cash.

    now suppose you had some people hi jacking the 'public interest' word and started using this to do the very thing you are against, lobby big government for handouts so we can subsidize an industry to allow more people to get iphones.

     

    that is why the term public interest is a not a good one to use.

  8. I've talked about it a lot already so I'll just cliff notes it: Lobby reform, campaign finance reform, ending private interest groups, ending senators and congress and elections on every level from president to school board official being won through wealth and publicity. End tariffs and subsidies and government favors to corporations (but this is the hardest one when we live in a state capitalist world). End asymmetrical accounting of the GDP, because if you end that and people could visibly see the effect the BP oil spill has on people's businesses and lives, nobody would want to support BP.

     

    im with you on ending tariffs and favors. i agree the GDP numbers are bogus as are the CPI numbers.

     

    however, ending a 'private interest group' (i'd be interested in knowing what a 'public' interest group is, perhaps one that argues for big government?) is ending the right to assemble and petition for a redress of grievances. campaign finance reform effectively is nothing but a limitation on free speech.

     

    a much better solution is to shrink the state to a manageable size before under taking cutting it more. if it has no power to hand out favors, all the problems go away. you cant have your cake and eat it to. a big government that is not steered by the big players be it welfare statists or warfare statists.

  9. Do you even read my posts? I talked about citizens united. It didn't overturn a law banning free speech. It overturned a law effectively banning private interest groups, like corporations, from spending unlimited money to fund campaign ads for or against any federal candidate they wanted. Frankly I dont want any private interest groups influencing any part of the federal government. There should only be public interest groups.

     

     

     

    hahaha. really? 'public' interest groups?

    you really mean to tell me that if 3 of my friends get together, put out money together, create a movie about hillary clinton and release it during an election cycle, you have a right to tell me i cannot do this?

    that is the essence of citizens united.

     

    if you want to limit influence on government, the only rightful remedy is to make government so small that is has nothing to influence. the only public good a government could possibly do is protect rights.

     

    Limited Liability is ridiculous because it's effectively a subsidy awarded to every company involved in the BP oil spill by forcing on the American Tax-Payers to clean up the mess. Why the hell should limited liability exist?

     

    exactly, it shouldnt exist. why does it? because of government. if we had a free market, polluters are responsible for their own actions. you dont have the price anderson act limiting liability of nuclear power producers in a free market. such is the problem when you have a government that can grant favors, special privileges, etc. you cant expect a government that has the power to give out anything it wants to only give out the favors to college students, the poor, the retired and the sick. its going to give out favors to others. wishing for a state that only does 'good' things is like wishing for a lion that only purrs and cuddles. or rattle snake that only plays percussive accompaniment to meriachi music.

     

    the part i want you think about is if you effective agree that it is ok for a collective body to decide what rights a group of individuals have it means your favorite leftist anti corporate news company cant exist because they are a group putting out the news, free press, free speech and all that. ideologically it also means, if groups of people dont have rights, that if OWS pools their money together and puts out a documentary during election time about evil republican corporate bastards, they arent allowed to. it means unions cant put out a billboard ad. if means you can say whatever you want to as long as you dont talk about a politician. these campaign laws and their cousins are the same laws that make it illegal to put a sign in a yard before a certain number of days before election with a g'damn name on it. if these people dont have rights because they pooled their resources, you are infringing on basic liberties.

  10. You're probably right but I think you're seeing it as a case of the tail wagging the dog. Corporations have a reputation of lobbying for special treatment while abrogating their responsibilities. It's not necessarily in the state's best interest to cut corporations deals on taxation and regulation because eventually they're going to be the ones that have to clean up the mess.

     

    no doubt.

    but this is a failure of government. if we have given the power of government to enforce property rights, and if they are failing, like the currently are, its their fault. government should be holding everyone accountable for their externalities. if i dump a bunch of garbage on my neighbors yard, i am responsible for it. if a corporation dumps a bunch of shit in my drinking water source, they say 'we arent responsible because its the EPA's responsibility' and the EPA isnt liable. they cant be sued. the system sucks and it sucks because property rights arent enforced.

     

    one of the underlying themes to this conversation is that anti market people try to paint the average corporation as being in favor of a true free market. they are just as in favor of a centrally planned state as the left. if libertarianism was truly about 'letting corporations get away with stuff...' why arent they supporting libertarians? if they have all this power, they can buy anyone they want. just goes to show they are not in favor of free markets.

     

     

     

    That's one of the cool things about the GAs, they're consensus based and voluntary. The catch is that you don't really have a right to bitch if you don't participate.

     

    thats is all well and good.

    they are not however voluntary when they reach an agreement and demand the state to pay for college tuition, healthcare or to infringe on someone elses liberty which is the only thing i can see the end game being with them.

  11. thats pretty much what i've been trying to get a straight answer on. the answers all seem to involve either ignoring the question or abstract thoughts that dont answer the question.

     

    the OWS crowd seems to be hung up on citizens united as well, which overturned a federal law banning free speech around election time. it ruled that a group of people, a corporation, has a right to put out a movie about a political candidate.

  12. i cant just say they only enforce laws that 'benefit' them. i would say that they do enforce laws that they get something out of FIRST, but lets get one thing straight...citizens rights mean nothing in america and if you challenge the authority of any LEO, they will respond with force. period. very few cops are actual peace officers these days.

    but to be fair, there are some good cops. after all we wouldnt want the bad apple cops to give the other 5% a bad name.

     

    perfect example of how they enforce laws that benefit them first, before going after the other 'offenders' is the civil asset forfeiture rackets they have going on with supposed 'drug activity.' if your house is broken in, they'll just take a phone report. but if you say you smell marijuana, the swat team will be out.

  13. archaic case law[/url] that never really served the interests of the general populace.

     

    some of those earlier 'corporate personhood' cases are all side effects of the state as they deal with taxes, etc on the property. if we had no taxes, some of those cases wouldnt of existed.

     

    im with you on the part about corporations or people for that matter, being liable. the problem isnt the corporations, its the government giving them special treatment. the problem is the state, as it usually always is. framed a different way. its sort of like a bunch of anti welfare types going down to the local welfare office and protesting the welfare recipients. its silly and counterproductive because the actual problem is the state taking their money to give away in their name.

     

    i do think however that the blanket statement that groups of individuals dont have rights or they only have rights that the collective decides, is a bad way to move forward. a much better approach is to get rid of the corporatism. if you eliminate the state from the equation, you eliminate most of the problems. lets be realistic, corporations exist as a convenient way to set up a business largely for tax purposes. if these taxes didnt exist, and if the govt didnt offer special favors and the like to the corporate structure, im sure the number of 'corporations' would be dramatically lower

     

     

     

    I feel like you're really reaching here, but I can tell you that in Oakland the cops are more focused on property issues surrounding the occupation (i.e. squatting bank owned buildings, the grass in front of City Hall, broken windows and graffiti) than they are with actually protecting and serving the people. Okay...I may be stretching this a bit, but it doesn't take that big of a deductive leap to see what's going on.

     

     

    since im not on the ground, i dont really know whats going on, but from an outsider looking in, it seems that the police started harassing people. shit got out of hand. then came the property damage, etc. the most basic duty of the police is to protect property. this is a legitimate function. so the property damage sort of justified their existence. if all the damage didnt take place, its a much easier case to show how idiotic the cops are. for instance, lets suppose rich people started protesting and started burning down poor neighborhoods. i would surely like to see cops stepping in and defending the property owners if they couldnt do so themselves.

     

    Government is neither good nor evil, it's just the means to get things done on a large scale. I agree with you that I would like a lot less of it in my life, but it's human nature to want organization and order yet believe they have some measure of autonomy. Go figure.

     

    there is no issue with organizing on a voluntary level, the problem comes forcing others to join or forcing your will on others.

    govt by its very existence is evil, in the same manner that slavery is evil because it demands compliance. some plantations treated their slaves well, some govts treat their citizens ok. this doesnt change the fact that they are enslaved in the first place.

  14. my police point was this: frank has for the last 20 pages of this thread argued semantics in nearly every post. if you question the validity of soup's posts because he uses system in place of method, then don't post moronic shit that uses police in place of government, thats a far greater stretch.

     

    if you and aod need that broken down and want to start another 3 page derail about how enslaved you are, make nazi comparisons, etc then you're clearly out of touch with reality, and too far into your roundabout rhetoric.

     

    i think it is rather silly to not believe that police in america are not enforcing government laws and are therefore PART OF THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT.

     

    im sure if montsanto was sending guys in blue costumes with badges down to the local occupy camp out and were shooting rubber rounds at people, you would say montsanto is initiating force against those non violent people. yet when government goons in blue costumes do the same thing you are trying to tell me its not the government engaging in this actions.

  15. Unless you Google it yourself you might be waiting for a while...I think what you want me to do is tell you what I think it means then pick that apart, and I'm not going to fall for that one.

     

    im actually REALLY interested in what people mean by this. because there are certain aspects of 'corporate personhood' that are illegitimate. i do not however believe that because people pool their money together and put out a movie about hillary clinton, with the name of their group on it... that they do not have a right to do this. it seems the height of silliness to say that the new york times can have the right to speak freely, but some other group of individuals doesnt.

    ending 'corporate personhood' seems to be one of those things like 'end corporate greed.' its not really defined, its fuzzy and you only get answers like you gave.

     

     

     

     

    This is all over the place, but again my interpretation of what the police should be and what they've become has gotten me into a lot of arguments with otherwise intelligent and informed people, so...let's just say that I think that they don't serve my interests and leave it at that.

     

    my point is simple. the occupy movement is protesting corporations, corporate greed, etc. yet walmart is not breaking up their protests, throwing people in jail and throwing flash bangs at them...government is. government is violent, corporations engaged in voluntary trade are not.

     

    on other side note:

    what happens when the 1% is eliminated by the 99%, does the whole thing start over again and the 99% attack the new 1%?

  16. police are not the government any more than a fireman, the mailman, or a security guard at the court house...

     

    you guys flip from real educated to real dumb real fast.

     

    REALLY?

    police do not enforce the laws of the government? really? concentration camp guards, SS, the stasi, were just simple bureaucrats and were actually just private citizens doing their 'job' in the market place? cmon.

     

    if it werent for enforcement agents, govt's would have no authority. they cannot enforce there will on others, centrally plan society, and rule over their tax cattle without force. i'd urge you to try to tell 'the government' after the separate entity known as the police haul you into court for violating some mala prohibitum law that...'i read on the interwebz that police arent part of the government so they have no authority and my arrest is unlawful. a legislator must come and put me in jail.'

  17. no doubt. i believe that 100%. EVERYTHING should be separated from the state. however on a side note, every day that goes by, i dont believe any govt can truly be effective to its people.

     

    but i do not seek to then steer the ship of state to forcibly extract resources from others in order to give to the Free Stuff Army

  18. pointless exercise this discussion, you blame government, I say government is in the pocket of business. The number of politicians who are on the boards of banks, oil companies, gas companies, huge retailers etc is huge they will make sure that policy is in favour of business. There needs to be a seperation from government and business, if you want to be a politician that should mean you are not allowed to be invested into these companies, you are there to serve the peoples interest not companies, there is too much conflict of interest when you have your hand in both pies.

     

    We already know you want to get rid of government AOD, the arguement always come back to that which is something I disagree with because I believe in free education, healthcare, roads, lights, welfare for people that need it, disability benefits for people that need it. All these people would be left to rot if not for government assistance because big business isnt going to help them.

     

    your view rests entirely on the basis that someone else is responsible for your life. that individuals are not responsible for themselves. i reject this on its face.

     

    you say govt is in the pocket of big business. there is no doubt there is a lot of truth in that statement. this is exactly what i think OWS should concentrate on. separating corporation and state. but dont you think its ironic that you want to use an entity that is controlled by corporations to reign in the corporations? do you think this will work?

     

    corporations control govt.

    we need the govt to protect us from corporations.

    sounds perfectly logical. *sarcasm

  19. the busines owner has rights as an individual, his company doesn't. I just dont understand how people can't see the difference. Political donations would have to come from his personal bank accounts NOT his business accounts, he would have to put his personal details as the contributor not hide behind a business name. But all that is beside the point corporations are not people.

     

    To say that a bank has the same rights as I do is stupid, if it was then it would have to comply with all the rules I do, such as working regulations, if that single company is the same as an individual then it isn't allowed to work over x amount of hours per week then it would have to close it doors and business after reaching that numder of hours. Should companies be allowed to adopt children then? they are individuals after all.

     

    since you choose not to take into account that your stand is hypocritical and are choosing to base your entire case on the fact that a 'business' engages in 'for profit' activities and that makes this GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS not have any rights, there is no use going any further on that. a corporation is nothing but a group. if you really believe that this group of people doesnt have any rights, why arent you calling for abolition of the new york times? the bbc? any news corporation is engaging in practices they do have a right to be doing. period. please call for their disbandment. please also call for the disbanding of any anti corporate leftist groups that put out anti corporation messages, they are engaging in rights they do not have.

     

    the entire case against a group of people having rights by the left is in its relationship to elections. why is this an understandably big concern? why is this so important, because they seek to influence a government that has coercive power over people. in essence, seeking govt power is seeking legal authority to enforce your will on others. because we have allowed a government to exist that knows no limits to its own powers. because of this, we have a government that can be bought off. think of the govt as a honey pot. if you keep this honey pot and allow everyone to have a portion, you have the current government special interest/lobbying set up. everyone is going after their portion. if you eliminate the honey pot, then there is nothing to hand out. there is no reason for a corporation, union, welfarist, etc to try to get something from the government because they dont have anything to give. that is my solution. get rid of the power to give anything away. but the majority of the left or OWS crowd or whoever would not support this, because they want THEIR piece of the pie. they want to steer the ship of state to coerce people they dont like and want to trample on. this movement is obviously not about just separation of corporation and state because they want to regulate any capitalist acts between consenting adults out of business. if we did sever corporation and state these people would still be raging anti capitalist talking about profits, talking about greed and everything else, even though these companies hold no coercive power over anyone.

     

    look at the protests. the government is shooting people with rubber bullets, throwing flash bangs in the crowd, beating and maiming people, jailing them, enforcing stupid regulations and laws on them.... wells fargo and starbucks arent doing that. its government. see the difference.

    this is what government does:

     

    article-0-0E8C3A7D00000578-44_634x439.jpg

     

    walmart didnt do this.

  20. If an individual wants to make a payment to a politician or political party then they should have to do it from their personal money, it shouldn't come from a business, it should be fully transparent and should always be made public record.

     

    i think the entire theory isnt on a sound footing.

    what if said business owner doesnt take any income? what if its just one person? it seems absolutely silly to think that as soon as someone hangs a shingle outside their property and says they are in business selling fruit and vegetables that no longer have rights. that the business owner cannot use income generated for whatever purpose he desires.

    what if the business owner takes ALL the money out of the business that was generated under its business status, and then uses it to influence the election by campaign contributions? owning a business is just like owning a bank account or stocks. the person who OWNS it, OWNS it. should we eliminate money from bank accounts and stock income from the list of prohibited contributors?

     

    I fully understand that a corporation is made up of individuals but that doesn't mean as a business it still holds the same rights as an individual, this also goes for small businesses with maybe only 2 or 3 employees.

     

    so are you in favor of shutting down the new york times because this business is exercising certain 'rights' and engaging in activities related to free press and free speech rights?

     

    People working within a business do not have the same rights as others working there, a boss can dictate to the workers what they need to do but a worker cannot dictate to the boss, similarly if the business has free speech and can then say whatever it wants, it isn't talking as a collective viewpoint of the individuals it is the company line, the management views, so if the individuals who work for the company arent equal then how can I say that a business has the same rights as an individual.

     

    you are trying to take the conversation on a convoluted theory of rights. of course if you are voluntary under someone elses control, you voluntarily cede your rights. if i come over your house and i take out a bull horn and start reading the declaration of independence to you, you can tell me to GTFO. if i refuse, you can forcibly remove me.

    you are trying to say that if i form a business. i incorporate, i am the sole share holder and i am 1 of 2 employees that i some how no longer have rights? that i cant put a sign out front of the building lot advertising my work? if i hire a subcontractor to do work for me, i hire him specifically to do that work. i do not have to ask his permission what i put on my sign out front, i am doing the work, i will put the sign out front. employees are hired to do a certain job. it is a voluntary contract. in the same way i can tell an employee to GTFO, he can leave voluntarily. If he doesnt like a business practice i engage in, he is free to leave, i am free to fire him.

     

    do families also not have rights? after all its a group of people, 'profiting' with voluntary cooperation. what if you hire a maid to clean the house, and you put out an election sign out front supporting the local anarchist and she doesnt like it. do you really think that we need govt to come into this voluntary arrangement, say that the group doesnt have rights, and some how force the maid to have an equal say in what goes out in the front yard?

    cmon. its ludicrous.

     

    think about it this way. a local OWS group all gets together. they pool their money and they put out an ad in the paper or the local news station. they sign it 'from occupy _________'

    according to the liberal theory this is illegitimate because this group of people do not have rights. ban the ad.

  21. i think the fundamental point people miss is that it is a group of individuals.

    if a company makes a claim about a cake that it will cure cancer, and it doesnt, then that is fraud. a crime.

    i think the line of logic that says an individual can make a false claim its ok, but if a group of people do it, its not ok is faulty. what if its not just corporations that make the claim, what if it is a sole proprietor type entrepreneur that is a business or 1 person that is the sole share holder of the corporation that controls the business??

    address this point:

    if a group of individuals call themselves a corporation, and broadcast the news, how can you allow this to happen? are you in favor of shutting down any company that acts on their rights as an association of individuals to speak freely? shutting down the most anti corporate media company because they are a group of individuals and they dont have rights? seems odd that the same people trying to say that a group of individuals dont retain their individual rights are the people that are trying to tell everyone that other groups (minorities, homosexuals, whoever) have MORE rights than other individuals.

     

    if a person who owns a business cannot use income generated from this arrangement to give to political candidates then an employee who makes a profit on his wages shouldnt be able to donate either.

    i'll do you one better... govt should be so small and have so little power that no amount of money from anyone could use it to their advantage, nor would they. you dont see goldman sachs trying to buy off ron paul do you? but you sure do see goldman sachs OWNING obama, dont you? see the difference?

  22. This is really all that needs to be said, and it also conveniently answers your question as to what's wrong with corporate personhood.

     

    I'm listening to the radio as I type this and so far about half of the newscast has been about police actions on various occupations. Sounds like the Man is running scared.

     

    im still waiting on a definition of what is 'corporate personhood.'

    the position of separation of unions and state and separations of corporations and state are not the same as getting rid of 'corporate personhood.' denying that a group of individuals have rights is not really the same as separation of union and state or corp and state.

     

    i say unions have a right to pool their resources and protest, put up signs, voluntarily interact, use their money to put out movies about political candidates, etc. i also say corporations have these same rights. to say we need to take away union 'personhood' and corporate 'personhood' is troubling as if it is taken literally, it means people in any group have absolutely no right to act on their natural liberties. now, the taking away the special privileges, liability protections, handouts, favors, favorable regulations, protectionism, etc. is what needs to be done. the problem is, from what i gather many of the OWS mindset just simply want to take over the govt and use it for their ends as opposed to just separating the government and corporation. i mean hell, what if we really held that groups dont have rights. what if the .gov decided to use this to forcibly shut down the OWS protests? arent they a group of individuals, voluntarily interacting and exercising their rights? no different than a group that calls themselves a corporation or union.

     

    police actions on the occupations.

    seems odd to me though. considering basically what the occupation movement stands for is using the government to solve problems and reign in corporations that the government has propped up, subsidized and protected. seems odd that the government is maiming, caging, bullying, enforcing stupid laws against the protesters. i dont see walmart, whole foods and wells fargo sending cops out there doing it. who is more violent?

  23. 2 points.

    on corporate personhood.

    what you actually mean when you say eliminate corporate personhood.

    do you literally mean that corporations (groups of people that arrange themselves this way for tax and investing purposes) have no rights?

     

    for instance, if corporate 'personhood' is eliminated a news paper or a news organization should then not be able to speak freely or put out news. it also means, that if you are against citizens united, that a corporation that runs a small store that has 1 or 2 shareholders, say a husband and wife, wouldnt be able to hang a sign in their business because they would be 'speaking.'

     

    2. unions.

    i support unions. i support organizing on a voluntary basis. i support en masse quits. i do not support a group of people who organize and FORCE themselves to associate with employers who dont want to deal with them. if a 'union' has a right to quit en masse, an employer has a right to 'en masse' fire them. the only way to have a real free market union is to separate union and state, just like we should separate corporation and state.

    union workers would then have to compete with 'scabs' and see who comes out on top.

×
×
  • Create New...