Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
a lot of people argue that the libertarian Theory of the free market is the best way to run the country.
In my opinion that's exactly what we have right now because corporations are bribing our politicians to create laws so de facto corporations are running our country.
Via the principles of the open and free market they control the lawmakers.
is this not a free-market Libertarian Theory in practice?
I always hear them say: let the free market decide... and I would argue the free market decided to pay off politicians and de facto controls our country
That is what Citizen's United is all about, taking away your vote, or essentially suppressing or devaluing your vote by anointing corporations as super-citizens. With the latest incarnation of the Supreme Court, the concept of representation of individuals will be a quaint idea of yesteryear.
You've hit on a very uncomfortable point for the supposed "libertarians." What we have now is what happens when you let the "free market" decide - those at the top make the rules, and they make them with the intent of enriching themselves and crushing anyone and anything that threatens them. A "free market" rapidly becomes non-free.
This is ridiculous. Under libertarianism the government doesn't even have the power to regulate/pick winners and losers in the market, making lobbying redundant. The only reason there are lobbyists in the first place is because the government was granted rights to meddle in the free market with their regulations, so lobbyists can influence those regulations to favor their industry/company and shut out free market competition.
I keep hearing conspiracy theorists talk about how big and bad the government is
my theory is the government doesn't have much control at all and in fact the corporate powers are the ones pulling most of the strings
however the most ignorant amongst us blame democracy and our own government and seem to somehow be able to ignore the fact that all this money is pouring in.
I think you have it all backwards. The government has TOO MUCH control over the economy. Because that's the case, the corporations, which are inherently purely economic entities, have an incentive to commit the bribery of politicians that you deplore. If the government had less control over the economy, there would be little reason for corporations to lobby/bribe government officials. In the complete absence of government control of the economy, there would be absolutely no benefit for corporate bribery.
I am not advocating a complete absence of government control over economic matters. However, if you really do think that corporate influence over politics is the main problem facing our society, then getting government out of the business of regulating the economy would be the answer. Like any other "solution" to any problem, this would of course come with all manner of consequences, many of them unintended. It would solve the issue of corporate influence, though.
That is what Citizen's United is all about, taking away your vote, or essentially suppressing or devaluing your vote by anointing corporations as super-citizens. With the latest incarnation of the Supreme Court, the concept of representation of individuals will be a quaint idea of yesteryear.
May I ask a question: how do you feel about labor unions being allowed to influence political discourse? If you are okay with unions doing so, then why not corporations as well? After all, what is a labor union? It's simply a group of people who are wage earners banding together in order to make as much money as they can. What is a corporation? It's a group of business owners banding together to make as much money as they can. I fail to see a fundamental difference, other than that the goals of the two groups often are in opposition.
If Corporations are given the same rights as people as seems to be trending then imho we should clarify what that means to the air-breathing, flesh & blood people.
Corporations, or businesses are legally however fictitious 'persons'. Inherently, the fact they are not air-breathing, flesh & blood persons, cannot go to prison/jail, et cetera means, in reality, they are somewhat 'untouchable' & potentially immortals. They are more similar to artificial-persons, robots, automatons.
Let's face it, the founding designers of our Country were a heck of a lot more cautious re: these realities.
We the people have, apparently, thrown much caution to the winds. How's that working out for US?
Do you even understand what a corporation is or what it means to say that a corporation has legal personhood? The whole point of corporations is limited liability. Corporations need not be large, rich entities, but of course they can be. The whole point is that if you wish to start a business, that entails a tremendous amount of risk. You may well rack up enormous debt in the process of starting your business. If your business should fail (as many startups do), without the protection of incorporation, you are personally responsible for that debt. Creditors may be able to enlist collection agencies and may be able to seize your personal assets, including your home.
Incorporation provides a remedy for this. Incorporation creates a new legal entity that is liable for the debt it incurs. This means that the person or people who own the corporation are not personally liable for the debts incurred by the corporation. In my example above, it means that you cannot lose your home or have future wages garnished because of a failed business venture.
In practical terms it also means that more people can invest in the American economy. If you were to assume personal liability for any potential losses suffered by a business in which you might invest, you may well shy away from doing so. By contrast, if you buy stock, you are investing in a business, but you don't personally have to pay any money when the company loses money. You may lose your investment if the company goes under, but you won't have collection agencies beating down your door looking to have you pay off the debt of that failed company.
That's what legal personhood entails, the elimination of personal liability on the part of the owners. As far as decisions like Citizen United, it means that corporations have the right to take out political ads supporting whatever issue or candidate they see fit. Why would you deny corporations this right anyway? It seems like a no-brainer--corporations are nothing more than groups of people pooling their resources in an effort to make a profit. Why should these people be silenced by the law?
People vote in the scum bags they grow to love. Why? I have no idea.
"My scumbag is OK. It's that other scumbag in that other district that's the problem."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heyschios
The problem is big dark money. We need a constitutional amendment to assert that corporations are NOT people and the rich will not swamp the elections with their obscene amounts of dirty money.
Too late. You decided that corporations were citizen/persons when you decided you wanted to tax them. And corporations, like any other citizen/taxpayer, have a right to petition the government for a redress of grievances under the First Amendment.
It's curious that you would advocate abridging the First Amendment rights of anyone, whether they are an individual or corporate taxpayer/citizen. Certainly not a very progressive attitude, to say the least.
I agree that corporations are able to use money/lobbying to extract benefits from the government. But the ONLY reason they are able to do so is that we have gotten away from the 18th-19th century ideal of limited government. If gov't did not have so much money and power, there would be nothing for corporations to extract. As any exterminator will tell you, remove the food, and the rats will go away.
A good example of this is our Seattle Seahawks stadium. Paul Allen, then the world's 6th richest man, bought the Seahawks and wanted the gov't to build him a brand spanking new stadium. He agreed to hold a statewide election. He literally bought the election (paid for the cost of holding it), and spent about $5 million on a marketing campaign. He won with 51% of the vote. From that, he got a $1 billion new tax-funded stadium. That's a sweet ROI of about 20,000%.
And that's how the extraction game works, in a nutshell. Allen would not have been able to do it except that we had accepted building pro sports stadiums as a legit function of government.
Corporations/ the top .01% (Not the 1%)
The rent seekers.
Quote:
Rent-seeking distorts the efficient operation of markets. When financial gains from speculation are taxed at a lower rate than innovation, resources that would support productivity-boosting activities are diverted into, well, legalized gambling. Predatory lending policies and abusive credit-card practices fit in this same rent-seeking category.
There are plenty of other examples: Executive compensation packages that come at the expense of the stakeholders and employees. Drug companies have successfully lobbied to stop the federal government – the largest purchaser of drugs – from negotiating lower drug prices. Bankruptcy laws in the US are given a higher priority in a workout than student loans, which can’t be discharged even under bankruptcy!
Economic rent seekers have been enabled by the SCOTUS ruling on Citizens United:
Quote:
...During the 2016 election cycle, the top 20 individual donors (whose contributions were disclosed) gave more than $500 million combined to political organizations. The 20 largest organizational donors also gave a total of more than $500 million, and more than $1 billion came from the top 40 donors.
At a time when Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were confirming that large numbers of people donating small amounts could fund successful campaigns, the extraordinary role being played by the very few donors who give the most may be the most important element in this new era. ...
8 years later: How Citizens United changed campaign finance
May I ask a question: how do you feel about labor unions being allowed to influence political discourse? If you are okay with unions doing so, then why not corporations as well? After all, what is a labor union? It's simply a group of people who are wage earners banding together in order to make as much money as they can. What is a corporation? It's a group of business owners banding together to make as much money as they can. I fail to see a fundamental difference, other than that the goals of the two groups often are in opposition.
I'm going to guess that you think it's OK for big people to beat down smaller people....because, after all, they are big and they enjoy beating down others???
You are definitely doing some simplistic thinking here. Let me throw one small example at you.....
Said Corporation, in it's quest to make "the most money" may pollute the air, land, water or through their products in such a way as to kill and hurt 10's of thousands or even millions of people. This is not a made-up scenario....look up respiratory illness.
You are saying above....that it's even-steven. That a person going to work to try and keep a roof over their heads and food on the table, is the "same, just a different side" of this equation????
It's not.
Or, more accurately, it is if you don't believe in the Happiness of the People and the General Welfare and the ideas of commonwealth and a country built for human beings.
If money and power are your God and Religion, well then, you have a solid point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
