Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
When you contemplate all of the problems that beset us in this election year it is hard not to feel daunted by the task of finding solutions. Many millions of American’s are without jobs, with the prospect of future employment seeming illusory. The top 1% of the American population controls vast amounts of the country’s wealth. http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?op=1 Wages of average Americans have stagnated for the past 40 years to such an extent that our middle class is shrinking rapidly. The housing boom of years past has become a bust of monumental proportions and foreclosures are destroying formerly viable neighborhoods. Our once barely adequate “safety net” has been shredded and there are attempts to destroy both Social Security and Medicare as we know it. Despite a weak attempt at Medical reform millions of Americans find health care unaffordable, with many dying and others forced into bankruptcy to stay alive. Due to lack of money America’s once magnificent infrastructure is rotting and solutions are not on the horizon.
The collapse and bailout of our banking industry has cost us trillions and appears to have been brought about by fraudulent practices on the part of the industry, yet no one has been indicted. In fact the remuneration of top executives in this duplicitous industry has actually increased. Efforts to impose stiff controls ensuring that these artificial crises don’t happen again and that these huge financial entities do business ethically, have failed to pass the Congress. We see that the fallout from the American banking crisis has undercut the world’s economy and that economic crises in other industrialized nations appear regularly. Please notice I’m only referring to the economic problems we face and only producing a partial list of those economic problems.
We have seemingly come to the conclusion of an unnecessary war in Iraq, where trillions were spent and perhaps a million were killed, yet the withdrawal of troops is to bases that surround Iraq. We are leaving about 40,000 Americans in country, many as mercenaries (contractors is a euphemism) as we support the largest diplomatic infrastructure in any foreign nation. The war in Afghanistan still rages in a land that has never been significantly shaped by any outside empire, this despite the killing of Osama Bin Laden and the virtual destruction of Al Qaeda. Hundreds of billions are being spent and the lives of our troops are put in danger, in an exercise with little hope of success. Billions are going towards building Afghanistan’s infrastructure as ours is falling apart. Yet these instances fail to raise the broad spectrum of the military/foreign policy problems continuing to plague us. These issues include a military budget that far greater than that of all other nations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
However, these three paragraphs still do not encompass the broad range of problems we Americans face. There is more to be touched on before we come to the conclusion that I’ve reached, that there is one problem that not only transcends all of these, but its need for immediate solution supersedes any of the others in importance.
On this blog the issue of civil liberties is constantly with us because our host/founder is a distinguished Constitutional Law Professor and Lawyer. Jonathan Turley’s career has been spent fighting for civil liberties and for our freedoms. One result of the tragedy of 9/11 has been the steady erosion of our civil liberties in the name of anti-terrorism. The formation of a “Super Agency”, the frighteningly named (on so many levels) Department of Homeland Security has centralized LEO’s of all levels, both civilian and military intelligence organizations, into an establishment with unprecedented vigilance of American’s daily lives. We have allowed torture, used brainwashing and unlimited preventive detention. This doesn’t fully subsume the efforts made in the losing War on Drugs that has cost hundreds of billions and in fact has proved to be an utter failure. The major drug dealers receive the main benefits via higher profits created by this enforcement. A side effect, but perhaps far more costly has been the phenomenon of our country having the highest incarceration rate in the world. Our incarceration rate is way beyond Russia and China, not to mention other nations whose names are synonymous with oppression. We have literally created a prison industry, with privatization and hiring out of prisoners to work for private industries in virtual chain gangs. This is a return byAmericato indentured servitude and perhaps slavery. As any of our regular readers on this blog know the above merely superficially touches upon the problems we have in ensuring civil liberties and staving off prejudice.
So far I’ve touched on the critical issues we face regarding the economy, the Military/Foreign Policy establishment and on the erosion of our constitutional freedoms. The last area I’d like to briefly explore is that of the encroachment of religion into our political life and the radical new interpretations of Church/State separation it has brought. It is true that in America there has always been a tension between those who wear their religiosity on their metaphoric sleeves and the right of average Americans to live their lives as they see fit. This encompasses the right to believe, or disbelieve as we choose. I grew up in a time when great literary works were banned from our shores, where movies were censored, where an actual husband and wife on a TV show (I Love Lucy) had to be depicted as sleeping in separate beds and when she was obviously pregnant, the word pregnant couldn’t be used. In my native New York State, our Governor’s wife had to established residence in Reno,Nevada in order to divorce him, since divorce was not allowed in New York. This was how far religion already had encroached upon civil life and the lives of ordinary people in times past.
Today we are faced with the specter of religion once again dominating our society. These new religious zealots disdain separation of church and state; re-write history to suit their narrow views; would force a woman to bear children she doesn’t want and enforce their peculiar notions of sin upon all of us. They would resurrect the marginalization of homosexuals via depriving them of their constitutional rights and even go so far as some as suggesting we ban contraception. They raise a legitimate fear of returning us to the “Dark Ages” of only sixty years ago. Sadly, these problems with religious zealots that I’ve enumerated aren’t even a complete catalog of things we should fear by their renewed rise to political power through overwhelming wealth.
What I propose to you here is that all of these difficult situations, to those who view them as problems, have arisen out of one overarching issue. This is the source for all of those dilemmas detailed above and therefore must be dealt with before all of the others. It is America’s transcendent issue. This is the problem of the influence of wealth upon our political system. All of the evils (to my mind) listed above arise from the power to control government that money gives. Think about that in context of every issue I’ve detailed above and you will see that at its root is the influence of entrenched wealth upon our political system. The economy is a no-brainer. The Military/Security/Industrial Complex, of which Dwight Eisenhower warned, has controlled our military budget and our foreign policy. This interlocking self interest group has required diminishing our civil liberties to justify the money spent on wars and intrusion into foreign affairs, by promoting a climate of fear. They also use unconstitutional intrusion to intimidate and/or punish those who expose their misdeeds. Religious institutions free of taxation and oversight have developed huge war chests to control politicians and ensure that they adhere to certain litmus tests of “putative piety”.
From lobbying efforts and emoluments offered politicians, to the vital need for campaign financing that politicians rely on to get elected/re-elected, money drives our system. All of the difficulties we face arise because of the influence of wealth upon our political system. Therefore, in my opinion this should be the transcendent issue that must be addressed if we have any hope of making America conform to the vision of our Founding Fathers. While some may argue that I’m belaboring the obvious, I would put to them that nothing else can be changed until we change our laws on campaign financing, lobbying and corporate personhood. In that mix we should ban religious entities, not from their right to freely practice their beliefs, but from the ability to influence politicians through money that is un-taxed. In America everyone should have the right to have their say, but it is intolerable that the opinions of some “elite” citizens prevail because their money is considered “free speech” as was formulated in the SCOTUS case Buckley v. Valeo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo and then recently expanded in the infamous “Citizens United Case”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission .
An example of “Citizens United” impact was seen this week in Iowa where there were massive infusions of so-called “Super-Pac” money for campaign ads, which changed the dynamic of the Iowa Caucus. The Jack Abramoff lobbying case brought out the sickening details of how politicians were bought and corrupted. Abramoff ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff ) was recently released from a minor jail term, but most of those he was involved with, like the ubiquitous Grover Norquist and Karl Rove were never indicted. That Abramoff is trying to atone for his behavior by speaking out against money in politics, is but a cruel irony of how powerless the system is to deal with its corruption by money.
My conclusion is that with so many problems to deal with in our country our efforts to bring significant reform must “follow the money”. If we can’t limit the destructive effect of wealth upon our political system, our efforts at dealing with the many other issues destroying our Constitutional government will fail. I believe we must start here. What do you think? Below are links to organizations that have been formed to fight the influence of wealth and to overturn Citizens United. If you agree with me you might check some of them out to see if they are worthy of your support.
http://democracyisforpeople.org/
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/28/free_speech_for_people_coalition_urges
http://www.movementforthepeople.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/CfAW_ActionToolkit.pdf
http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
1zb1: “Naturally, you had to end with gratutious name calling… but thats okay:
you said, “Only an idiot would look at the constitution and think he gets his right of free speech from the first amendment. This is as absurd as thinking the right of free speech didn’t exist between 1787 and 1789.”
1zb1: “I get it, so according to you…”
You’re only an idiot if you truly believe that you get your right of free speech from the fist amendment.
That’s not name calling; that’ s a statement of fact as clear as stating that only an idiot, having reached the age of 18, would believe the moon is made of green cheese.
Bob, what ever this rabid disease that Gene and Mike seem to have, I’m affraid you have caught it. Your statement that include the green cheese is incoherent. (I think you have taken quotes i made of Gene and attributed them to me)
btw: by your reasonings, if corporations, unions, and any other form of human association don’t exist in nature (which in fact is not true since in fact countless creatures – including human civilization – do exist based on some form of cooperative arangement) by such reasoning, our government itself has no greater claim on our rights then the rest of these entities. in your scheme the constitution itself means nothing since it is really nothing more – by your way of thinking – then just an artifical entity.
Face the fact guys, like most real Republican/Tparty/Liberterians, deep down the only thing you are really interested is the end of civilization: no government, no rights except those you can protect with a gun; everybody is free until they say or do something you don’t like. Its ookay to admit that what you are really after is anarchy.
It’s not name calling to describe a Corporatist Fascist either a corporatist or a fascist.
Too bad in your case the Italian shoes fit.
Bob,
If you keep talking sense, you’re only going to offend the corporatists delicate sensibilities.
I’m just sayin’ . . .
“All court decisions are political.”
Spoken like somebody who has no clue as to how the law and courts work. Where did you get your law degree from? Eddie’s Mobile Law School and Windshield Repair?
“It is not to protect speech only you think is okay – that is in fact the real facsit…
its very funny – and telling of your ignorance – that you only mention corporations in your mindless rants.”
What’s a matter? Flustered? Facts got your tongue?
“What about unions or any other association. Do people have a right to join such organizations; do those organizations have the right to participate in the political process, or is only the groups you don’t like?”
Addressed below.
” if you really weren’t such an idiotic nut job you would understand that the first amendment gives many forms of freedoms to enitities beyond individuals.”
Your statement begs the question that money is the equivalent of free speech, but when Citizens United is disposed with, the bad political decision that led to it – Buckley v. Valeo – needs to go in the trash with it. Money is money, idiot. No one is saying that groups can’t have their say. We’re saying that there is a difference between having your say and influencing politics based on financial contributions. Free speech is not the equivalent of graft no matter how much you wish it were.
“WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IS CENSOR WHAT PEOPLE CAN HEAR AND WHO THEY CAN HEAR IT FROM BECAUSE YOU ARE AFFRAID THEY ARE TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO BELIEVE AND WHAT OTHERS WANT THEM TO BELIEVE.”
Shouting doesn’t make you right. It’s not a matter of censorship. Your statement again begs the question that corporations have civil rights. Since – as Bob pointed out – they are not part of the franchise of government and power resides in the people, not the legal fictions, corporations have no inherent rights at all as they are not natural creatures part of the state of nature.
“You are not even interested in eliminating the influence of money, all you want is to control who has the influence…”
Actually, you don’t have any idea what I’m interested in, fascist tool.
I think only individuals should be allowed to contribute to campaigns and that contribution should have a very low cap. The only influence groups – including unions – should have is endorsement and the same right to petition that every citizen has. They want something changed? They can write to their representatives expressing their concerns, but no money should ever change hands. That not only eliminates the influence of money, it puts the influence over government where it rightfully belongs: with We the People. You apparently are too stupid to realize what a democracy is, slick. Democracy is government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. Got that? The political power in a democracy vests to the people, not the corporations. To suggest otherwise is to endorse corporatism; an oligarchical and usually fascist (in the Italian sense of the term; Mussolini preferred the term “corporatism” over the term “fascism” but it’s all the same) form of government. End of story.
As to the rest . . .
Being told to grow up by an enemy of democracy and the Constitution means exactly squat to me.
And guess which finger you’re still getting, Enemy of Democracy.
Now shout some more and tell me grow up again.
It’s funny.
Gene, time to come up with a new insult… you have worn out the F word.
I have this picture of you drulling at the mouth like a rabid dog. Slow down a bit… put your mind in gear before engaging your delusions.
You said, “The only influence groups – including unions – should have is endorsement and the same right to petition that every citizen has.”
Do you even realize how stupid that is. For example, you just gave enitities the right to petition the same as ciizens, but they don’t have the same right to political speech as citizens according to you…. that make sense (in your fantasy world). do you even understand what the ‘right to petition” actually means in the constitution? Do entities (corporations, unions, whatever) get to make announcements about their endorsements or petitions as in paid advertisements? Do unions get to pay for the cost of workers supporting a political event? What about corporations, or relgious groups, do they have the same right or not? What should unions do about the union memebers who don’t agree with their endorsements or politicals positions? Do they only get to “endorse” people or can they endorse policies? Is an endorsement against a person or policy legal in your scheme.
You, see Gene, in the real world life is a bit more complex then in your delusion of the world.
PS I am fiercly prow union… the issue here is what we allow or don’t allow entities of any kind to say or do in the political areana or for that matter on any subject..
1zb1: “establishment of religion” easily includes an entity beyond an individual. The same goes for “press”. Both terms involve entities well beyond the individual. “Freedom of Speech” is in the same sentence. Nothing in the structure limits this rights just to individuals.”
1zb1: “NEEDLESS TO SAY NO ONE HAS DEMONSTRATED IN ANYWAY THAT MY INTERPRETATION OF WHAT IT DOES SAY IS WRONG.”
How about the first two sentences in your reply to me, cited above, wherein you claim that the constitution confers a right of free speech to individuals, and other entities, via the first amendment.
Funny, and here I am thinking the bill of rights is nothing more than further defined restrictions of power.
Hamilton: “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.”
Rights confer power; not vice versa. Only an idiot would look at the constitution and think he gets his right of free speech from the first amendment. This is as absurd as thinking the right of free speech didn’t exist between 1787 and 1789.
BOB, have to go but there might be a few things in your comment worth addressing. You may recall that the founders did not believe in the need for the BoR and were actually against it as potentially limiting the rights of people (by specifying certain rights it would limit rights to only those specified). However, as evidenced by the very existence of the BoR, they lost that argument at least in part (though not to the extent to justify enumerated powers only concept).
The federalist vs anti-federalist argument was, afterall was the essence of the whole debate in the first place. A strong central government vs a a loose confederation. Certainly it had bits of both but clearly the federalists won out overall.
Naturally, you had to end with gratutious name calling… but thats okay:
you said, “Only an idiot would look at the constitution and think he gets his right of free speech from the first amendment. This is as absurd as thinking the right of free speech didn’t exist between 1787 and 1789.”
I get it, so according to you anybody can say anything they want about anything they want to talk about, unless of course, they are a corporation, union, association, religion. and of course liable, or shouting fire in a theatre is okay as well.
Hey, I got an idea, you go back in time to 1787 and travel through the south telling people you want to do away with slavery. Bet that would have gone over big time. Better yet trying going through the South during the 50’s and talking about doing away with segregation and see what that gets you.
Grow up already.
Auction 2012: Top 10 Reasons to Get Money Out
“1) The Candidate With More Money Wins: From the 2008 elections: ‘In 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 94 percent of Senate races that had been decided by mid-day Nov. 5, 2008 the candidate who spent the most money ended up winning.’
2) Congress’s Main Job Is to Raise Money, Not Govern – ‘Here is a general rule of thumb for US House incumbents. They need to raise roughly $10,000 a week started the day they are elected.”
3) 48 Percent Say Most Members of Congress Are Corrupt -‘A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters believe that most members of Congress are corrupt. Just 28% disagree, and another 24% are not sure.’
4) Voters Think That Cash is King – ‘A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday indicates that 86 percent of the public thinks elected officials in the nation’s capital are mostly influenced by the pressure they receive from campaign contributors.’
5) No Trust in Elected Officials – According to Pew Research less than 25% of people believe they can trust our government at all, particularly our elected officials.
6) Outsider Movements Are Quickly Coopted Headline: Tea Party House Members Even Wealthier Than Other GOP Lawmakers.
7) Faith in All Institutions Collapsing
– 83% say of American adults say they have less trust in “politics in general” than they
did 10 or 15 years ago;
– 79% say they have less trust in big business and major corporations;
– 78% say they have less trust in government;
– 72% report declining trust in the media.
– A surprising majority, 54%, “believe that my freedoms are being taken away.”
Pew confirms this.
Gallup: Satisfaction with Government at All-time Low
Pew: Public Trust in Government: 1958-2010
8) People don’t like horse race coverage. Meanwhile, distrust in media reaches all-time high. (Coincidence?)
9) Cash Determines Voting – What shaped the House vote on the proposed Keystone Pipeline? Oil industry lobbying: ‘As important as the vote total in the House, however, was another number: within minutes of the vote, Oil Change International had calculated that the 234 Congressional representatives who voted aye had received $42 million in campaign contributions from the fossil-fuel industry; the 193 nays, $8 million.’
10) The Middle Class Is Collapsing
As we watch our way of life change radically, as we see our great country consumed by corruption and greed, we must have our own debates about what to do.
You won’t find these discussions in our presidential debates, dominated as they are by money that separates the voters from their candidates with a wall of cash. That’s why those contests feel so empty.”
Read the rest of Dylan Ratigan’s article here.
Gene, thanks for proving my point…. and you think money was not in politics before? Fund raising was just invented? News media wasn’t manipulating the content. People weren’t voting for idiots until now.
Ironically, most people complain how bad it is but continue to vote for the same person and also claim that their person is not among the bad….
btw: wanted to mention the electoral college was established because the founders did not entirely trust the people anymore then they trusted themselves (government).
You have this problem in seeing the difference between what something says (which you don’t like and I don’t like but a person with any sense of reality understands can be made even worse if you change it) and finding a realistic way of solving the problem instead of living in a childish delusion.
Just about every effort ever made to reduce corruption in politics has made it worse – including this current one, obviousely. But in your simple mind you want to continue doing the same thing.
I take it back, you don’t even want to do anything. All you can do is rant about how horrible it is that corporations can talk about subjects you don’t want them talking about. But to actually come up with a real plan that has unintended consequences is beyond you.
In your world, if 2 people get together for a common purpose and spend any money whatsoever or say anything you don’t like on what you decide is political that is against the law.
Think about how that might work out, chump.
Now run along back to your masters, Koch sucker.
It’s not a lie to say
1) that CU was a political decision as it directly impacts the political landscape in a way unimaginable to the Founders,
2) that violating the spirit of the law just to adhere to the letter of the law is the fallacy of argument from semantics,
3) that limiting a corporation’s activities – as they are a fiction created by operation of the state and have no stake in the franchise of government for the very sound reasons Bob pointed out – is not going to have “unintended consequences” other than a) corporations will have to do as they are told by the law instead of dictating the law and policy of government and b) the restoration of equality to democracy,
4) that the aspirational nature of the DOI in no way invalidates seeking to reach that goal (unless, of course, you think slavery and prohibition and denying women the vote are all good ideas), and
5) that you are without a doubt a fascist/plotocrat.
While the subject of aspirational language is on the table, let’s talk about another set of goals.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Justice demands equality among We the People, not among the legal fictions. There is no equity in allowing corporate money to further unbalance the political system that are supposed to represent all citizens in an egalitarian manner while further degrading the legal systems that have kept their monied influence in check these many years. There is no tranquility in store for society if the tyranny of a king is replaced with the tyranny of CEO’s; only discord, suffering by those unable to pay to play and eventually violence. Why? Because promoting the narrow interests of an oligarchy interested only in profits by order of operation neglects the general welfare of We the People. It does not secure liberty of the individual citizens to put those fictions (and actual natural persons) in a position of having superior rights to both free speech and petition simply because they have more money to buy off politicians by financing their political campaigns.
No. The only simplistic thing here is your naked defense of greed and corporatism over the rights of all citizens to an egalitarian and democratic form of government.
“We should have unlimited freedom so long as we don’t try and impose our rights at the expense of others…. and that my friends’ is the giant rub. [. . . ] And finally we have the problem that your solution to fixing the problem has never ever worked before in all of human history.” Bullshit. This begs the question that corporations are people and they aren’t. Corporate personality was originally (and should be again) limited to allowing them to contract, purchase property and avail to the courts if civilly wronged or a crime was committed against them. Until recent history, the limitation of corporate speech by government was the norm, not the exception, and both the nation and the Constitution were stronger for it. Giving corporations free speech crosses the line from useful fiction designed to allow business to operate into dangerous expansion of a fiction that now impinges upon the rights of all to a democratic government and threatens all with the promise of oligarchy.
As to your opinion of what constitutes simplistic? Given the specious reasoning for supporting CU that you’ve laid out? I don’t give a flying rat’s ass what a fascist has to say about anything, slick, let alone their opinion of my intelligence, “my friend”. And by “my friend”, I mean “enemy of the Constitution, civil rights and democracy”. Only an enemy of democracy would have made the “corporations are people, unintended consequences” bullshit argument that you’ve presented here.
And that is precisely what you are.
The enemy within.
So take some of your precious limited time and guess which finger that gets you, fascist tool.
Gene, you have completely lost it.
All court decisions are political. The spirit of the law is to protect speech. It is not to protect speech only you think is okay – that is in fact the real facsit…
its very funny – and telling of your ignorance – that you only mention corporations in your mindless rants. What about unions or any other association. Do people have a right to join such organizations; do those organizations have the right to participate in the political process, or is only the groups you don’t like?
And btw: if you really weren’t such an idiotic nut job you would understand that the first amendment gives many forms of freedoms to enitities beyond individuals. But the constitution only gives the right to vote to individuals. So to say that entities have the same or greater rights then individuals is flat out wrong.
ONLY CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE (ARTICLE 1 SEC 2). CORPORATIONS, UNIONS, RELIGIONS, AND NO OTHER ENTITY HAS THAT RIGHT.
WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IS CENSOR WHAT PEOPLE CAN HEAR AND WHO THEY CAN HEAR IT FROM BECAUSE YOU ARE AFFRAID THEY ARE TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO BELIEVE AND WHAT OTHERS WANT THEM TO BELIEVE.
You don’t actually care what the constitution says, why it says it or what it means. All you care about is censoring what is said and who says it.
You are not even interested in eliminating the influence of money, all you want is to control who has the influence… so a corporation that owned a newspaper would be okay in your book but then you would get to decide what is a newspaper.
Please grow up. If you really want to get corruption out of the system stop talking like a child in a tantrum.
Okay, Its now early morning my way and I get to see that overnight we have had a few pathetic excuses for barbs but not a single coherent thought. I liked the one with the Dunning–Kruger effect – it perfectly describes what “you-all” been doin’. Not one of you had anything that even resembled a rebuttal based on facts, or law, or reason, or any other basis. Your responses have totally been about elitist kinds of snobbish attacks on me but rather badly done at that).
Apparently, none of you are capable of distinguishing between my view of what the Constitution actually says as written and what I believe is a just and democratic society. Apparently, none of you are capable of understanding the challenges and conflicts between the many rights we value and trying to protect them or the consequences of such actions. Many of you seem to think you have a deep grasp of civil liberties but the more you talk the more clear it is you only have a childs understanding at best – Simplistic, and unrelated to facts or reality.
And like children caught with their hands in a cookie jar you have proven yourselves not above lying about what I said to squirm your way out of it.
Lets try this one more time: At issue is what the constitution actually says, and the problems that creates for a free and vibrant democratic society; and how best to address that problem, in the context of the real world. (or at least those are my issues here and more or less the subject of Mikes’ “Trancedental” thoughts (oh please, give me a break)
Do I really need to remind all of you that a more or less democratic German people effectively voted in the nazi party and dictatorship; or that in the middle east people who have risen up against dictatorships of one kind seem to be democratically voting in dictatorships of another kind?
However, since, Gene H. actually quotes from one of our founding documents it is at least worthy of a direct response, even if he uses it in such simple minded and misplaced fashion.
Some perspective on the Constitution. We could mention that the revolution was inspired by a lot of rich people who didn’t like paying taxes to pay for defending them (sounds just like the Republican/tparty, don’t you think?) or in the south they were afraid Britain was headed toward ending slavery which is why they joined in. Perhaps we might mention that barely more then half the population actually supported the revolution or that only a tiny fraction actually fought in it (coincidently, about the same percent as our current volunteer military). Of course we could mention the part about “all men created equal” somehow not including blacks or Indians (whose lands were stolen), and needless to say, no mention of woman. (many blacks and Indians fought with the British against it because they thought they would be less free. Many who fought for the Revolution were betrayed afterwards)
But lets not quibble about the small stuff, shall we, and take DOI not on its hypocrisy and think of it as an aspiration instead of a reality. A very nice dream if you will.
Then of course The Articles of Confederation proved a completely unworkable means of implementing the dream in the real world. Keep in mind that even the the founders recognized they needed some form of united entity to both fight the war and preserve and implement the “dream”. So they came up with something called the Constitution (some of you might have heard of it even if most of you seem never having ever read it).
Do I really need to remind you that it was a document based on compromises, checks and balances between a central government, states, and the “people” (or at least some of the people). Do I really have to explain to you that the checks and balances included checks on the people as well (Can you say “Senate”).
Do I really have to explain to you what the constitution itself was actually about or the bill of rights.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
or the Bill of rights:
“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
In the end it was all about a means for how people can work together and implicit in that was not just the rights of the people (as paramount as that is) but the necessity of compromise for the rights of the people to be protected. We should have unlimited freedom so long as we don’t try and impose our rights at the expense of others…. and that my “friends” is the giant rub.
Now, you may want the Constitution to say free speech only applies to “Citizens”, but it doesn’t; you may want it to say that the right to assembly only applies to unions (or whatever group you say); you may want it to say that religious freedom only applies to who you say is a religion; and you may want it to say that “freedom of the press” only applies to who you say is a news corporation; and you may also want to say what exactly constitutes political speech (the most highly protected form of speech) and what is some other kind of speech, but guess what, that is not what it says.
So first we have that the constitution doesn’t say what you think it says.
Then we have the problem that given that evil corporations, unions, and each and every form of assembly that you don’t like gets to spend a lot more money on influencing the political process then any of us think is good or healthy for protecting the rights of individuals (who, btw don’t have unlimited rights), you have decided the Constitution must say something that it actually doesn’t say. NEEDLESS TO SAY NO ONE HAS DEMONSTRATED IN ANYWAY THAT MY INTERPRETATION OF WHAT IT DOES SAY IS WRONG. ONLY THAT YOU DON’T LIKE THE RESULT. AND EVEN THOUGH I HAVE MADE CLEAR I DON’T LIKE THE RESULT ALSO YOU ACCUSE ME WITH LIES.
Then we have the problem that what you want to do creates a host of even more problems for civil liberties then you actually solve (unintended consequences)
And finally we have the problem that your solution to fixing the problem has never ever worked before in all of human history.
If CU was decided in the most favorable way to your view, do any of you actually think the influence of money on politics and government would seriously be diminished? I mean, really, talk about idiotic that takes the cake of stupidity.
So what is ultimately at issue is not our views on the corrupting effect of money in politics and government but how best to kill the beast. In that regard you all live in a world of delusion and at least my notion offers some promise based on history and facts.
PS, forgive me if this all seems rather sophomoric, first I have limited time and there are better ways to spend it; and second it seems about the level most of you are operating at.
If CU was decided in the most favorable way to your view, do any of you actually think the influence of money on politics and government would seriousely be dimminished? I mean, really, talk about idiotic that takes the cake of stupidity.
@ekeyra: Considering anyone who is a stockholder or employee can at least be said to have accepted those positions voluntarily and explicitly,
I reject that notion. Political and social positions have nothing to do with business, and I reject the very idea that, as a shareholder, a politicians tax treatment of my investment should trump his positions on the social issues I care about, or that my servant in the CEO’s office has any right whatsoever to exercise his own political or social judgment with my money.
That is outside the realm of his duties, his duty is to run the business, find clients and customers and suppliers and distributors, advertise the product, maintain the factories, and earn a profit.
If I hire a gardener to tend the roses, I do not give him either explicit or implicit permission to start posting political yard signs. If I hire a factory floor manager and he has a few thousand in petty cash to buy parts or lubricant or other necessities, he does not have implicit permission to donate that money to a candidate of his choice, even if he has some twisted logic about how it will benefit the company. The same is true for the CEO. He is a servant, hired for a specific purpose, and using his own judgment to spend on anything that is outside the realm of business is not within his implicit authority.
@ekeyra: how can a non-existent, implicit, social contract grant governments the right to collective decision making over people’s lives?
I am not speaking for Bob (or Gene) but I propose my own viewpoint:
Because it isn’t a contract, or a compact, it is a birth right and birth responsibility. More specifically, it is mutual responsibility: The members of the society have the responsibility to collectively protect, enforce, or exact justice on behalf of any member, and any member has the responsibility to do the same for any other member.
Americans are born into a free society, and the responsibility to others has been abstracted from actual physical defense to paying taxes that result in physical defense, enforcement, and pursuit of violators.
The free society grants us specific rights in return for specific responsibility; although at infancy our parents bear all of our responsibility, and voluntarily, as evidenced by their continued citizenship.
The burden of responsibility shifts to us as we achieve maturity, and at maturity, we have a choice: Renounce our citizenship and leave, dissolving the mutual responsibility, or stay and accept the mutual responsibility. By virtue of their citizenship, our parents obviously accepted responsibility on our behalf, which both entitled us to the full protection of society, and committed us to obey the laws of the society.
Man does not leave a state of nature to join a society, it is the other way around: He is born into a society. Not against his will, for we are born without any understanding of rules to be against, and must learn for many years before we comprehend the circumstances of our existence and whether or not we agree with the law. But at adulthood, when we have the right to act without permission from a guardian, we have the option of leaving the society and entering a state of nature if we so choose. There are still wild and lawless places on the Earth, on multiple continents, where that life can be lived.
A fair society chooses rules that then apply to everybody in it, including the rule makers. In our case, we are not quite fair (but close), and we essentially decide on the rules by majority vote (with many, many caveats).
The issue is that the mutual obligations of others to protect our rights and our obligation to protect theirs require bright lines to have any hope of working in practice. The decision of the police to stop a robbery, or beating, or murder, or any other criminal activity cannot wait until they have identified the criminal, and the victim, and determined whether or not they should act. If a bank robbery is in progress they cannot wait to see if some of the hostages have rights and others do not, or the bank is up on their anti-robbery payments. They may not even know who the hostages are, or who was killed, or kidnapped, or assaulted. They have to act, and the bright line is: Everybody is protected, and nobody is allowed to break the law.
Just like the crime shows, if they find a murder victim they cannot identify for some reason, they still expend the funds and effort to find the murderer, and then expend the funds and effort to try him and incarcerate him. On the same grounds: All murders are pursued to best of our ability.
The information problem was solved by the invention of “jurisdiction.” Fundamental rights are granted to all persons within our borders, additional rights apply after a positive determination of citizenship.
But there is no contract. If I had been born a wealthy Englishman 300 years ago, I would have argued that point philosophically as a poor choice of wording. Now it is written into law and too late.
What makes a society different than a mob is the mutual obligation of the members to protect each other. The protection and the obligation are flip sides of the same coin, and the coin must be accepted whole or rejected whole: You cannot get the protection of the group without the obligation to join the group in protecting or avenging any other member. What protects you from murder or robbery or enslavement is the threat the group poses to the criminals that would violate your rights for fun or profit. The protection is not bulletproof, but if the cost of crime is high it acts as a deterrent.
So it is not a contract you signed, or a compact you agreed to, it is just a system you were born into. The right to be part of our society with both protection and responsibility is your birthright if you are a born citizen, or granted if you are a naturalized citizen, but because our country is free you can dissolve those mutual obligations at any time you choose: Renounce your citizenship and leave the country, for South America, Africa, India, even parts of the Asian territories, and make your own way without us.
Short of that, as you request, here is your alternative: Figure out how to get a majority to change the laws and Constitution to meet your needs. That is also your right as a citizen, get enough people elected that agree with you to change the system.
However, I suspect when you try to figure out the pragmatic details and implications of your position, you will find the majority of Americans reject such a system as too much danger and too much personal responsibility and allowing too much outrageous exploitation for their taste. The vast majority of restrictive laws passed, after all, good or bad, were passed as a result of citizens being outraged by the practice of something that was legal at the time.
Bob,
“Working for or purchasing stock in a corporation is not the equivalent of being a party to the social contract. ”
I think you may have missed my point. Even though I agree wholeheartedly with your opinion that corporations cannot collectively represent their employees or stockholders, I was using the same logic to call into question the validity of the social contract.
Considering anyone who is a stockholder or employee can at least be said to have accepted those positions voluntarily and explicitly, and that still does not grant corporate executives the right to collective decision making over their lives, how can a non-existent, implicit, social contract grant governments the right to collective decision making over people’s lives?
pete,
🙂
Mike S.,
It is an arduous task to prepare an article for this blog. The choosing a subject, the research, the organization, the composition, even the physical posting … the effort required is huge. Then, of course, there is the discussion and criticism that follows all that work and putting oneself on the line, so to speak.
Weekend after weekend you challenge our minds and provoke our interest. Support you and your fellow guest bloggers? Hell yes!
Mike S.,
The facts keep getting in 1zb1’s way. Citizens United only makes sense if you are in favor of corporate rule of government. If corporations are persons, why can they give unlimited cash to get someone elected and a real person has a limit on how much they can give to a candidate?
some can’t help it ms b
Thank you all for your support. When I began to write this piece I feared it my be interpreted. by some as too simplistic and by others as too obvious. I didn’t expect a reaction though by someone basically stating that we mustn’t infringe on corporate personhood to protect free speech for everyone. Even the SCOTUS ruling in Citizens didn’t make that argument. There is an oddity to 1zb1’s logic that makes little sense in imaginning a coherent perspective. It strikes me as phony in the sense of someone, from his perspective, pretending he’s a ‘Librul” to in his limited mind, to mess with peoples heads.
These types typically bore me because I could well imagine disputing “Citizen” with a. coherent conservative. perspective, I would most probably disagree, but could respect the effort as a good faith pleading. In 1zb1’s case sometimg doesn’t ring true.
pete,
quacking was not a typo 🙂
OS,
It’s disheartening at times but illuminates the difficulties we face in trying to right the ship of state … also explains why we got so far off coarse in the first place.
Blouise, we keep getting textbook examples of the Dunning–Kruger effect over and over. I really ought to go back and gather up all the examples–there are enough of them to completely fill a trade paperback textbook on cognitive blindness due to bias.
1zb1,
It’s okay darlin’ … you’re used to to preaching foolishness to dummies who are easily impressed because they understand the Constitution even less than you do.
On this blog you’ve encountered many individuals who are completely unimpressed by your pseudo knowledge and not the least bit shy about telling you exactly how wrong you are and, more importantly, why you are wrong.
It’s embarrassing for you and so you lash out in a vain attempt to bully those who have called your ignorance, ignorance. Now you are discovering that no one is quacking in their boots … in fact, they seem to find your rants somewhat humorous.
That’s because there have been so many like you over the years … it’s a ho-hum, here we go again.
You’ve been given a great deal of good information … if only your ego would allow you to see that. Sadly, I don’t think it will.
Blouise, I looked for something in your rant that was actually and argument or fact but there wasn’t anything.