Supreme Court ruling on money and free speech by HKCavalier

Quote:
(Look at Hugo Chavez as a classic example of how good intentions can go so very, very badly when the madness of power begins chewing on a persons psyche)

And beyond that, remember that whether he believes it or not, Chavez is indeed mortal, and one day will be out of office, be it from old age or death. And then there's going to be somebody AFTER him. Even if you consider Chavez a "benevolent dictator", how do you ensure that the next guy will be benevolent as well?

And THAT is why you don't hand them that much power, ANY of them. Because one day, they have to hand it back, or hand to off. And do you really trust them to hand it back?

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 1:07 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mike,

Quote:
If we're lucky, the thread will one day serve as an archive, a how-to for dealing with entrenched incumbents who are more worried about monied interests than they are about the interests of the people they were allegedly elected to represent.

Do you seriously think we're the first to come up with all this stuff? "Knowing" and "doing" are two very different things.

Sig:

Quote:
BTW, may I point out that this travesty was approved by REPUBLICAN-appointed judges???? Anyone who thinks that voting Republican is some kind of protest vote also prolly thinks that shooting yourself in the foot is good aim!

My point about voting for Brown. And

Quote:
Corporations, OTOH, have ONE and ONLY one motive: the highest amount of profit possible. Pay the least possible, and charge what the market will bear. Develop a monopoly. Sink the workers. It doesn't matter to them if it means shipping off American jobs to Chinese prison labor, or creating inscrutable pyramid schemes with funny-money, or dumping toxic waste in your water table, or ravaging the entire planet. They're answerable to nobody except (maybe) their shareholders, whose interests are the same as theirs: greater profitability, higher dividends, higher stock prices.

Dead on the money (no pun intended).

Quote:
it seems to me if we can sift through thousands of people to come up with one winner on American Idol, we can sift through thousands of candidates to come up with the top twenty or so who will actually run on competing platforms.

You're allowed to dream. Takes money to win an election, the way things are now (and going more that way every day); many have come to office who want to do good, then need for re-election means compromise, and so it goes. Hasn't changed in decades, only gotten worse. Whatever we few think, it's a long, hard road to change the system, and I don't see it happening in my lifetime.

Quote:
I think if you don't figure out what the corrupting influence is and remove it, you will get the same result.

Bingo Rue; but we already KNOW what the corrupting influences are, and nobody's thus far changed 'em.

Quote:
and what took THAT down, was a singular person... bent on freeing the people

Uh, again Wulf...if you meant V, he was another of your FICTIONAL heroes, y'know? Ooops, I see Mike covered that down the line...

Quote:
We can't change the system until we learn how to use it against itself.

I would say "we can't change the system until we learn how to MOTIVATE the people", myself.

Quote:
BTW, that's the major problem with the proposition system in California. You'd THINK it would be a way to get direct democracy. But what happens is a wealthy individual, group of individuals, corporation, or group of corporations create a fictitious group, then fund the group and all its petition signing efforts. The more people you have out there flogging the petitions, the more chance they have of getting on the ballot. And THEN they spend money to sell it to 'the people' who often don't even read the ballots, but instead vote with their gut. Many, many bad laws have gotten on the books that way, for example Prop 13, the single biggest factor in bankrupting California (and tranferring billions from homeowners to large landholding corporate interests, like railways and ulilities.)

Boy, you nailed it Rue, especially on Prop. 13. And, think a minute; isn't that exactly the way it works nationally? Put "candidate" in place of "proposition" and...?

Personally, I don't see anything changing; major change takes convincing so many people, and kicking the apathetic in the ass, and fighting big business and moneyed interests, and getting an elected politician to stay true to representing the people, and dismantling the big machines of both parties...it's too much, and there are too few willing to do it.

And no, guessing ahead, Wulf, maybe it was done fictionally but we're talking about REAL people, REAL politicians, REAL big Business, and there are no "heroes".

As to the subject this thread started with:

Today, that about covers my reaction. I'm gonna go curl up and enjoy the rain...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 1:39 PM

Quote:
Posted by Niki:

Do you seriously think we're the first to come up with all this stuff? "Knowing" and "doing" are two very different things.

Well... No. But we might be the first people HERE to come up with all this and put it in one handy place. But if you're against doing that, we can leave it to everyone else to figure out on their own. That's certainly gotten us this far, after all...

Heck, I s'pose PN might as well just take over and clutter up every post, since there are no original ideas anymore!

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:22 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'm sorry. All I can think of is that joke - an honest politician is one who, when they're bought, STAYS bought !

*laughs*
I guess that makes me pretty honest, they "bought" me by enough of em pushing me into it to convince me they really meant it...

And they wanted me to do X,Y,Z things...
Or at least they thought they did, enough to say so loudly and repeatedly.

And so, when installed, I went and DID X,Y,Z things, despite much wailing, gnashing of teeth, and general cussing and spitting from many of the very folk who put me to doin it in the first bloody place.

And then got the hell outta dodge.

Do yourselves a favor, think it all the way through before you set a political act in motion, and make damned SURE you fully comprehend the side effects and consequences of what you're asking first.

-Frem

There always has to be a price.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:40 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Do you seriously think we're the first to come up with all this stuff? "Knowing" and "doing" are two very different things.

Truer words were never spoken...

Call your Congress Person, volunteer, keep posting, talk to a friend, better still talk to a complete stranger. On a train, on the corner, in line at Wendy's, just start up a conversation, "Crazy what's going on with Health Care, innit?" You would be amazed what you find out. Every contact is another ripple.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 4:11 PM

BYTEMITE

Sig, I really do think so too. This is a great idea.

Remember when John Stewart joined the Daily Show? Fake news, entertainment. Now, heck, even though it's very liberal, sometimes I think the news they show is more real than the ACTUAL news, and they're an actual platform for important people to speak.

Truth in humour.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 7:18 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Does any one else here see the correlation of this ruling to Buy-N-Large from Wall-E?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 12:16 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Never saw Wal-E. I try not to take my cues from corporate media!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 12:49 AM

LITTLEBIRD

I find myself excited and challenged when I read threads like this. Maybe this stuff is not new, but some of it is new to ME. I kinda like the idea of having an archive of all of this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 2:55 AM

JONGSSTRAW

This Supreme Court decision is just plain wrong. Free Speech?? How is BUYING ads FREE?
I have not even liked the current system too much. We get bombarded with crap that we really don't understand, and we don't know who is behind it. Corps will not attach their names to these things; they will hide behind "coalitions" or other catchy phrases intended on mis-leading the public. We already get too much of that now, our election oversight is crap, and it will only get worse. Very disappointing!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 2:55 AM

Quote:

Do yourselves a favor, think it all the way through before you set a political act in motion, and make damned SURE you fully comprehend the side effects and consequences of what you're asking first.

That's the part that people miss out on, seemingly every single time. Case in point: Republicans are calling for Harry Reid's ouster as Senate majority leader in light of some unfortunate word choices he made over a year ago. I'm no fan of Reid, so I say "Sure, let's get rid of him!"

Of course, we both have different motives. THEY think they'll hamstring the party, and some of their more dimwitted followers have this misconstrued notion that if Harry Reid were no longer majority leader, the Democrats would somehow not still hold the majority.

I, on the other hand, want him gone because he's a quisling, a milquetoast, a do-nothing. He's the least dynamic leader I can recall, and I think if we boot his worthless ass, we might have a chance to install a die-hard liberal firebrand more in the mold of the late Ted Kennedy or House Speaker Tip O'Neill.

So... different motives, same goal. The Republicans can't see past the fact that Reid's a Democrat and they want him gone for that. I see their blind fury as an opportunity. You want him gone? Okay, I'm with you. But you might not like who we replace him with. :)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 3:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
This Supreme Court decision is just plain wrong. Free Speech?? How is BUYING ads FREE?
I have not even liked the current system too much. We get bombarded with crap that we really don't understand, and we don't know who is behind it. Corps will not attach their names to these things; they will hide behind "coalitions" or other catchy phrases intended on mis-leading the public. We already get too much of that now, our election oversight is crap, and it will only get worse. Very disappointing!

I agree 12,000 percent. :)

Right now, the best person I've seen at digging down and finding who's REALLY behind this crap is Rachel Maddow. And even though she's trying to put it in Cap'n Dummy talk, it's still hard to follow sometimes, because it's so convoluted.

Simplify. If you're going to allow corporate money, then force the corporation to attach its name to its ads. If GM wants to endorse of oppose something, put GM's name on it, not "The Harley Earl Foundation For American Change In Progress".

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 4:43 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Corporations, OTOH, have ONE and ONLY one motive: the highest amount of profit possible. Pay the least possible, and charge what the market will bear...They're answerable to nobody except (maybe) their shareholders, whose interests are the same as theirs: greater profitability, higher dividends, higher stock prices.

And if we were to replace all the Corporations with, say, Cooperatives, the members of the Co-ops wouldn't want greater profitability, higher dividends to the members, and higher value for the Co-op? Wouldn't they want to pay the least possible for raw materials and charge what the market would bear? Mightn't a Co-op be willing to pay campaign contributions to get favorable treatment from a legislator or get their man into office?

Corporations and Cooperatives and pretty much any form of business enterprise you can set up are, at the end of the day, just bunches of people. They want better, or what they consider better, for themselves and family, and rank the common good somewhat below that. Until you can make fundamental changes in human nature, you're stuck with it, though you bring all the corporations down.

That being said, doing something about Corporate "personhood" does seem a good idea.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 5:19 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

After reading further through what the decision states, I come away with this.

1. Corporations and special interests are allowed to donate as much money as they want to the manufacturing/production of political ads.

2. Corporations are NOT allowed to donate money directly to a candidate. (i.e bribes)

3. Ads for a candidate may run right on up to the election.

But... its still on the people to decide who to vote for.

Hate Walmart? Don't vote for the candidate they are promoting.

I have no intention of destroying the governments tyranny to only have it replaced by a corporate one.

Its hard to make a call on this one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 5:22 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 5:23 AM

Where they're losing me on this argument is that they keep making the argument that corporations have all the same rights as an individual person, while somehow retaining NONE of the responsibilities of those people.

Let's take the infamous Ford Pinto debacle as a case in point. Ford had a problem with the Pinto (they tended to explode, to put it simply); Ford KNEW they had a problem with the Pinto; Ford, as a corporate decision, decided to do nothing to fix the problem, deciding that it would be cheaper (and therefore more profitable for them) to simply pay off the families of any victims of their exploding cars, since it was going to add something like $14.83 to the bottom line of each Pinto to enact a solution.

So, knowingly and with malice aforethought, Ford continued selling cars that it already knew were killing people.

I'm not sure about you, but last time I looked, Felony Murder charges seem to apply. Ford knowingly committed a crime, and people quite clearly died as a direct result of that crime.

So, if a corporation is indeed a person, shouldn't the entire corporation have been on trial for Felony Murder?

Or take a more recent case: Blackwater. Instead of trying the people involved in the murders of 17 Iraqi civilians, charge the company as a whole. They set the tone, Eric Prince calls himself a holy warrior and a crusader; let's take the corporation at its word, and charge the entire board and all its shareholders.

Hey, if you're going to speak for all your people when you want to buy a Senator, you have to take responsibility for the actions of those individual people, too. Right?

Now all we need is a daring prosecutor with the stones to try something bold. Too bad we don't know any of those. I wonder what it would cost to buy one, since it's completely legal to do so now.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 5:48 AM

JONGSSTRAW

I guess we'll be seeing a lot of this kind of thing all year :

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/01/025329.php

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 5:58 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Nice call Jong, I've been pushing this vid out to everyone I know for the last few weeks.. (I think I even posted it here, earlier.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 6:03 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Again:

I have no intention of destroying the governments tyranny to only have it replaced by a corporate one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 6:06 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Nice call Jong, I've been pushing this vid out to everyone I know for the last few weeks.. (I think I even posted it here, earlier.)

Apologies then for that. I had not seen it here before.

But I DO have problems with it :

It's threatening
It's generally un-fair
It's purely ideological
It's mean-spirited
It's balls-out negative and meaningless
It's un-American
It helps no one.
It offers nothing.
It will ignite the other side to escalate the rancor which hurts everyone
It's juvenile

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 6:23 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

There are actually 2 videos.

1 for the Democrats.

1 for the Republicans.

http://www.lonelyconservative.com/2010/01/17/america-rising-2-a-letter
-to-the-republican-party/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 7:11 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Until you can make fundamental changes in human nature, you're stuck with it, though you bring all the corporations down.

That being said, doing something about Corporate "personhood" does seem a good idea.

Thing is, it ain't our nature - it's actually against our nature and trained into us by social engineering, and I consider those conflicting messages to be a great part of the source of much aberrant childhood behaviors.

That said, we're workin on that problem, and have been for quite a well.

And yes, corporate personhood is a seriously suck idea, look into it and you'll see.

-Frem

PS: Siggy ? you'd actually LIKE Wall-E, I think, not only is it beautifully animated (the space dance scene is phenomental) but I found it a little inspiring, and I think you would also, so take it as a personal reccommendation, which coming from ME in regard to a hollywood product is pretty high praise.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 7:25 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Thing is, it ain't our nature - it's actually against our nature and trained into us by social engineering...

Not so sure I go along with that. Throughout history there have been lots of folks who, in big ways or small, wanted to get ahead. Some of them always were willing to sacrifice the other guy's welfare for their own. I find it hard to believe that it's a new thing. Neither did Kipling.

A General Summary

We are very slightly changed
From the semi-apes who ranged
India's Prehistoric clay;
He that drew the longest bow
Ran his brother down, you know,
As we run men down to-day.

"Dowb," the first of all his race,
Met the Mammoth face to face
On the lake or in the cave:
Stole the steadiest canoe,
Ate the quarry others slew,
Died -- and took the finest grave.

When they scratched the reindeer-bone,
Some one made the sketch his own,
Filched it from the artist -- then,
Even in those early days,
Won a simple Viceroy's praise
Through the toil of other men.
Ere they hewed the Sphinx's visage
Favouritism governed kissage,
Even as it does in this age.

Who shall doubt "the secret hid
Under Cheops' pyramid"
Was that the contractor did
Cheops out of several millions?
Or that Joseph's sudden rise
To comptroller of Supplies
Was a fraud of monstrous size
On King Pharaoh's swart Civilians?

Thus, the artless songs I sing
Do not deal with anything
New or never said before.
As it was in the beginning
Is to-day official sinning,
And shall be for evermore!

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 8:04 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Sorry Mike:

Quote:
But we might be the first people HERE to come up with all this and put it in one handy place. But if you're against doing that, we can leave it to everyone else to figure out on their own. That's certainly gotten us this far, after all...

Heck, I s'pose PN might as well just take over and clutter up every post, since there are no original ideas anymore!

After yesterday, I’m pretty cynical and dispirited. . .

Byte:

Quote:
sometimes I think the news they show is more real than the ACTUAL news, and they're an actual platform for important people to speak.

Truth in humour.

It’s always been that way, hasn’t it? Humorists can say truths politicians would never dare speak. Remember Mark Twain. . . sometimes humorists can be the spark that sets thing in motion, or maybe galvanizes people to THINK.

Mike, Harry Reid is a “quisling, a milquetoast, a do-nothing”? You mean a Democrat? Wasn’t there an old saying, something about Democrats “snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory”? Seems to me there was . . .

Quote:
the best person I've seen at digging down and finding who's REALLY behind this crap is Rachel Maddow. And even though she's trying to put it in Cap'n Dummy talk, it's still hard to follow sometimes, because it's so convoluted.

Me, too. I try hard to follow It. . . not that it does me any good, just because I want to KNOW and she seems about the only one who’ll do the digging for me.

Geezer,

Quote:
the members of the Co-ops wouldn't want greater profitability, higher dividends to the members, and higher value for the Co-op?

that hasn’t been my experience or observation. The co-ops I’ve known are more interested in working together, not having a hierarchy, and the employees are treated better because THEY are owners. If they get things cheaper, isn’t it the corporations who make the things cheaper by overseas labor, low wages, etc? There isn’t any actual monetary profit in the co-ops I’ve known. . . but then, those have been food co-ops, so I may be wrong. Does anyone else know more about this who can shed some light on the question?

Wulf, in my opinion people are too apathetic and ignorant, for the most part, to pay attention to the small print at the bottom telling who funded the ad. I’ve always looked, and it’s usually pretty easy to see who’s sponsoring it and what their agenda is, like “paid for by Exxon” is a dead giveaway. The kind of trickery Maddow exposes makes that more difficult, and I don’t know that the corporations might not do exactly the same thing. . . ?

I agree with JS about the ad, I found it over-dramatic and offensive, myself. That’s just me.

Okay, I gotta ad this poem. It’s a tribute by Lord Byron to his dog Boatswain, and inscribed on his grave. Perhaps it’s anthropomorphic, I can’t say, but it kinda nails the two species to me, and explains in part why I prefer the company of my dogs to that of most people:

Quote:
Near this spot
Are deposited the Remains
Of one
Who possessed Beauty
Without Vanity,
Strength without Insolence,
Courage without Ferocity,
And all the Virtues of Man
Without his Vices.

The Price, which would be unmeaning flattery
If inscribed over Human Ashes,
Is but a just tribute to the Memory of
“Boatswain” a Dog
Who was born at Newfoundland,
May, 1803,
And died in Newstead Abbey,
Nov. 18, 1808.

When some proud son of man returns to earth,
Unknown by glory, but upheld by birth,
The sculptor’s art exhausts the pomp of woe,
And stories urns record that rests below.
When all is done, upon the tomb is seen,
Not what he was, but what he should have been.
But the poor dog, in life the firmest friend,
The first to welcome, foremost to defend,
Whose honest heart is still his master’s own,
Who labors, fights, lives, breathes for him alone,
Unhonored falls, unnoticed all his worth,
Denied in heaven the soul he held on earth –
While man, vain insect! Hopes to be forgiven,
And claims himself a sole exclusive heaven.

Oh man! Thou feeble tenant of an hour,
Debased by slavery, or corrupt by power –
Who knows thee well must quit thee with disgust,
Degraded mass of animated dust!
Thy love is lust, thy friendship all a cheat,
Thy smiles hypocrisy, thy words deceit!
By nature vile, ennoble but by name,
Each kindred brute might bid thee blush for shame.
Ye, who perchance behold this simple urn,
Pass on – it honors none you wish to mourn.
To mark a friend’s remains these stones arise;
I never knew but one – and here he lies.

That about says it for me, especially the part in italics. I memorized it when I was a teenager, and never forgot it. Today, that’s how I feel. . . in spades. Back to watching the rain and forgetting about the strange little species I’m part of . . . .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 8:15 AM

BYTEMITE

The problem is, Geezer, that these are the individuals who have had the tendency to write history, so monstrous were their actions.

But the little things, the acts of good and kindness, sympathy and self sacrifice, they don't get covered so much, because the effect one person to another just seems so small. But I can tell you, it's a ripple effect. I believe, truly and completely, that none of us would be here if it weren't for kindness and selflessness.

And even though I'm not religious, even though religion I think has been co-opted by people who want to use it for their own ends and so tell people that evil is all there is... I think this is a truth that hasn't been completely forgotten. Every religion is based on the idea of one human or one human formed divinity and their works of enlightened goodwill.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 8:23 AM

BYTEMITE

For those of you who believe in this system, this may be a way for you to fight back.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1826/show#

Likely this will be subverted like anything else attempted to stymie corruption... It will also have to challenge this supreme court ruling. But good luck anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 8:35 AM

Quote:
After yesterday, I’m pretty cynical and dispirited. . .

I'm right here beside you, Niki, feeling the same damn way.

I'm disgusted, but I'm already looking for opportunities to exploit this. Union membership is going to grow as a result of this. If you don't want corporations speaking for you, join a union and have THEM speak for you, against the corporations.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 8:35 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The problem is, Geezer, that these are the individuals who have had the tendency to write history, so monstrous were their actions.

But the little things, the acts of good and kindness, sympathy and self sacrifice, they don't get covered so much, because the effect one person to another just seems so small. But I can tell you, it's a ripple effect. I believe, truly and completely, that none of us would be here if it weren't for kindness and selflessness.

People do good things and people do bad things. Always have. All I'm saying is that the idea that greed and acquisitiveness are new things, taught us by social engineering, doesn't seem to be supported by any reading of history. These things have been with us forever. So have kindness, sympathy and self-sacrifice.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 9:30 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"... greed and acquisitiveness ... have been with us forever. So have kindness, sympathy and self-sacrifice."

But our economic structures (ie capitalism) only reward greed and acquisitiveness. Which is why we need different economic structures.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 9:35 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yeah, Mike, but for now I think I'll wallow in my cynicism and disaffection. Just for now.

Quote:
All I'm saying is that the idea that greed and acquisitiveness are new things, taught us by social engineering, doesn't seem to be supported by any reading of history.

Yup. Anyone see "Gods Must Be Crazy"? Give even simple people something to be acquisitive about, and there's a beautiful example of what happens.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 10:14 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Some cultures have escaped that.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 12:04 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Going back ...

".... pretty much any form of business (is) ... just bunches of people."

Not true.

Corporations have a single defined goal and run by a set of rules that make their decisions and actions different from those of any individual, or group of individuals. When the board meets, they don't check around the table to see if they are being personally nice to the prisoners in China. They look at the bottom line as is their mandate, the rules they operate under, and the rules they can skirt, or at least maintain plausible deniability on.

As a result, corporations are NOT just a bunch of individuals acting out of personal motivations.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 12:20 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And FWIW, I am not a fan of 'human nature' arguments coming from either direction. The problems of those arguments are these:
1) Human behavior and culture are too varied to conclude that there is any kind of cast-in-concrete 'human nature' that can't somehow be altered with the proper inputs. I'm going to give some animal examples to show that animals can exhibit these changes:
a) It is 'dolphin nature' for a group of males to chase a female for days until she tires, and then effectively gang rape her. Except for a large group of dolphins off of Australia who, for some reason, prefer to befriend and gently court their females, and who don't seem to realize that they are giving up being dolphins (seeing as they don't have that 'dolphin nature').
b) It is chimp nature to exhibit extreme alpha male behavior. Until you distribute that pile of food around as it would be in nature, and then they become cooperative and friendly.
c) It is baboon nature for males to be violently aggressive towards all. Unless you kill off the most violent and aggressive males, and then the society becomes far more peaceable for females and the young.

2) Limiting 'human nature' to just one trait means you have to ignore all that doesn't fit.

3) Thinking that human nature is one thing in particular keeps you from considering the small and obvious and large and unobvious circumstances that can significantly alter human behavior for better or worse.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 12:45 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"... greed and acquisitiveness ... have been with us forever. So have kindness, sympathy and self-sacrifice."

But our economic structures (ie capitalism) only reward greed and acquisitiveness. Which is why we need different economic structures.

Well, so do Feudalism, and Merchantilsm, and Socialism, and Communism, Tribalism, and all the other isms, IF there are people working under those structures who are greedy and acquisitive. If you forced communal or cooperative enterprise on everyone at gunpoint, instead of letting folk self-select, there would be greedy, acquisitive people running greedy, acquisitive communes and co-ops - buying legislators and trying to crush other businesses.

I believe that although you can change the economic system, or the governmental system, or even both, unless you also change the philosophical and ethical mindset of the people, you're still gonna have greedy, acquisitive folks doing their thing.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 12:46 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
When the board meets, they don't check around the table to see if they are being personally nice to the prisoners in China. They look at the bottom line as is their mandate, the rules they operate under, and the rules they can skirt, or at least maintain plausible deniability on.

Geeze, Rue. Stereotype much?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 1:07 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Geezer

A corporation, BY LAW, MUST look after the fiduciary interests of its investors, and ONLY look after those interests. It is not a stereotype, as you so ignorantly think. It is LAW.

Got anything else you want to flaunt your ignorance on ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 1:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"... greed and acquisitiveness ... have been with us forever. So have kindness, sympathy and self-sacrifice."

But our economic structures (ie capitalism) only reward greed and acquisitiveness. Which is why we need different economic structures.

Well, so do Feudalism, and Merchantilsm, and Socialism, and Communism, Tribalism, and all the other isms

Jeez, Geeze - stereotype much?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 1:39 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"If you forced communal or cooperative enterprise on everyone at gunpoint ..."

Now here you are making ASSumptions, as usual.

"... there would be greedy, acquisitive people running greedy, acquisitive communes and co-ops ..."

Does not logically follow. ASSuming people would be 'forced' into co-ops, why would the greedy one end up running them ?

Furthermore, in co-ops, at least the ones I've belonged to - EVERYONE VOTES. On everything. You don't get a small group of greedy people running the show. And when larger groups of people hold the reins of power, the few authoritarian types can't get traction.

"... unless you also change the philosophical and ethical mindset of the people ..."

And, BTW, you're assuming that it is 'human nature' to be exactly what we are here, today. You seem to have missed a very important point - when you change the structure people relate to, they themselves become different.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 1:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And FWIW, I am not a fan of 'human nature' arguments coming from either direction.

Yuppers. To say that "human nature" will self-regulate anything is to say that we can go ahead and do away with laws, law enforcement agencies, government regulation, regulating agencies, etc.

Traditionally, how's that worked out? Seems lots of our "human nature" isn't quite as benign as we'd like to believe.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 2:05 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Kwicko

I think we become our structures (aided and abetted by abstract language).

There was a study maybe 6 years ago where the researchers asked pre-monetary peoples to engage in a particular economic game. How people acted had nothing at all to do with the type of environment they were in. Suspicious hoarding peoples lived in the jungles in small family groups, and on the steppes in villages. Generous people also lived in villages and in family groups in the jungle.

What determined how people interacted was WHAT THEY TOLD THEMSELVES THEY SHOULD DO. 'People' do this is what they said. 'That's what people are.'

People interact with their structures.

I think it's a mistake to impugn humans so broadly. Not every person, not every culture turns out violent, selfish and destructive.

I think we need to specifically understand what we respond to so that we change. We need to 'manipulate our stimuli.'

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 2:40 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Geezer

Quote:
Not so sure I go along with that. Throughout history there have been lots of folks who, in big ways or small, wanted to get ahead. Some of them always were willing to sacrifice the other guy's welfare for their own. I find it hard to believe that it's a new thing. Neither did Kipling.

Oh I never said it was a NEW thing, this kind of conditioning has been around since almost since history began.
(I have references to this kinda thing goin back to the 1600's, myself)

Nor is the idea of actively working AGAINST that conditioning particularly new either, the Protestants came from somewhere, didn't they ?
(and then in a drastic turn of irony, became oppressors themselves.)

But again, the Pullman-Philosophy, with all the benefits of modern research into pyschology, neurochemistry, social engineering and group dynamics, and the application of every modern technology in sabotaging that engineering ?
Over a period of more than three straight decades ?

Not sure that's been done before, and I do believe some day Feb 2009 will be listed as the pebble that started an avalanche.

Niki

Quote:
It’s always been that way, hasn’t it? Humorists can say truths politicians would never dare speak. Remember Mark Twain. . . sometimes humorists can be the spark that sets thing in motion, or maybe galvanizes people to THINK.

That was the whole purpose of the court jester, after a while, the one person able to speak truth to power without consquence, to point out the flaws in your brilliant little "plan" no one else dared to, because they cloaked it in humor.
S'why those Catholic Altar Boy jokes didn't offend me, cause they offended others enough to get em off their ass and face the goddamned reality of the problem - gotta remember that was once "just a myth" too - till it wasn't.

I say again, Ridicule is a weapon, and a potent one, if used well.

Oh, and Niki, regarding co-ops, you might find the MCC pretty interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

I note that the roots of the concept were firmly rooted in spanish anarchism, which we and our fascist-friendly corps helped Franco suppress at every turn and corner, even while americans were volunteering and sneaking over there to fight for the other side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abe_Lincoln_Brigade

George Orwell was actually there on the scene for much of it, and I suspect the experience was very much a source of later inspiration, he also wrote a book on those experiences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia

Funny how every bit of social progress, especially in regards to workers rights, has come from us "dirty-commie-hippie-liberal-scum" isn't it ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_Riot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Day_Riots_of_1919
Most folk these days think the forty hour work week was some kinda benevolent corporate gift, but we shed our blood by the gallon to get it.

Byte

Quote:
The problem is, Geezer, that these are the individuals who have had the tendency to write history, so monstrous were their actions.

But the little things, the acts of good and kindness, sympathy and self sacrifice, they don't get covered so much, because the effect one person to another just seems so small. But I can tell you, it's a ripple effect. I believe, truly and completely, that none of us would be here if it weren't for kindness and selflessness.

And even though I'm not religious, even though religion I think has been co-opted by people who want to use it for their own ends and so tell people that evil is all there is... I think this is a truth that hasn't been completely forgotten. Every religion is based on the idea of one human or one human formed divinity and their works of enlightened goodwill.

Indeed, I think I made that point in a rather drastic fashion just above.

Mikey

Quote:
I'm disgusted, but I'm already looking for opportunities to exploit this. Union membership is going to grow as a result of this. If you don't want corporations speaking for you, join a union and have THEM speak for you, against the corporations.

And I have JUST the one...

http://www.iww.org/

-Frem

There always has to be a price.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 2:43 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
unless you also change the philosophical and ethical mindset of the people

Exactly. And what we have NOW is a mindset/ philosophy of greed, individualism, and acqusitiveness. The mindset is based on several assumptions that run so deep most people don't even know they're there. One is that individual greed creates the MOST PRODUCTIVE economy. (Curiously, the exact opposite is true. If everyone were to behave like capitalists, we would have a society of thieves and scam artists, and NOTHING would ever be produced!) This, in turn, is based on a misinterpretation of Darwinism, an assumption that "natural selection" is based on fierce and unrelenting INTRAspecies competition. And finally, the reliance on nature as the model to which we should hew is based on yet ANOTHER assumption, that "nature knows best" (when, in fact, nature is a stochastic process full of blind alleys and catastrophic destruction. This assumption goes all the way back to the French Enlightenment and its rebellion against dogmatic religion.)

In fact, none of these assumptions are true. Cooperation yields a non-zero-sum system; a intraspecies competition is not the driver of natural selection; and nature is not an orderly phenomenon and certainly not one on which to base a purposeful system (society).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 3:09 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'd like to point out that while you may have many enlightened individuals, until the structures under which they live change, they will have to behave exactly as if they didn't know any different.

While it is possible to change society by changing what people think and organizing them (generally they act at some personal cost as they go against TPTB, Ghandi and his followers for example), it is also possible to change people by changing their social structures.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 4:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Kwicko

I think it's a mistake to impugn humans so broadly. Not every person, not every culture turns out violent, selfish and destructive.

Oh, don't get me wrong - I don't think we're ALL violent, selfish, and destructive. But it seems enough of us are that we have to have some rules in place. Like Frem, I think we need to veer toward LESS rules, but I don't think we're in a "no rules needed" place just yet. ;)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 4:42 PM

Quote:
Most folk these days think the forty hour work week was some kinda benevolent corporate gift, but we shed our blood by the gallon to get it.

That should be somebody's motto. Or a sig line. It needs to be shouted from the goddam rooftops on a daily basis, so all those fuckers who hate everything about unions will one day wake up, buy a fucking clue, and thank a union worker.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 4:58 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer

A corporation, BY LAW, MUST look after the fiduciary interests of its investors, and ONLY look after those interests. It is not a stereotype, as you so ignorantly think. It is LAW.

So you oppose the NAACP and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting? Habitat for Humanity? CARE? The Red Cross? The March of Dimes? Doctors Without Borders? The Wounded Warriors Project?

Could it be that you need to rethink your terminilogy? So who's the idiot here?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 5:12 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

OOOOhhh goody. You walked right into my trap. I deliberately left out the quotes and cites for US corporate law.

But - I'm on my way home to a waiting family.

You can think about whether or not you want to pursue this line. Bring it back up next week on Tues if you REALLY want a load of bricks dumped on you, and I will be happy to oblige. Otherwise, I'll figure you chickened out.

OH - btw - you might want to look up the difference between idiot and ignorant.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2010 5:59 PM