LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 01-23-2010, 11:02 AM   #1
mostlyharmless
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2008
Distribution: Slackware 14.1 (multilib) with kernel 3.15.5
Posts: 1,533
Blog Entries: 12

Rep: Reputation: 171Reputation: 171
Supreme Court Corporation madness


Anyone here besides me think the latest US Supreme Court decision was a mistake? Of course there are: despite all the fancy legal arguments given, it seems these things are always depressingly predictable along party lines, so everyone is already lining up on either side.

If you have no idea what I'm referring to, well then it's the decision to allow corporations (and similar organizations like labor unions) unlimited ability to spend money on political campaigns.

Apparently the Supreme Court, which created corporations as "persons" with a controversial decision about 100 years ago, has now decided that these "persons" have freedom of speech protected by the first amendment to the US Constitution, the same as a real person.

What next? Voting rights? Jury Duty? The ability to stand for election to public office?

Does no one see that giving more political rights to essentially immortal entities with gigantic financial power is a very unhealthy thing for all of us mere humans?
 
Old 01-23-2010, 11:30 AM   #2
easuter
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: Portugal
Distribution: Slackware64 13.0, Slackware64 13.1
Posts: 538

Rep: Reputation: 62
Sounds like total BS, I saw it on the news yesterday.
Here is a link to a video about the subject if anyone hasn't heard about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4lwGbTKFAI

Last edited by easuter; 01-23-2010 at 11:36 AM.
 
Old 01-23-2010, 11:48 AM   #3
Alexvader
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2009
Location: Japan
Distribution: Arch, Debian, Slackware
Posts: 994

Rep: Reputation: 94
Hi Mostlyharmless

I Definitely agree with you...

But i guess that the roots of such things stem from the very nature of Western Civilization itself...

PLEASE NOTE, I am *NOT* starting a Flame war here, NOR am I stating the Eastern are best than the Western NO NO NO... mothing of this here.

What I am stating is that, in the west, most ppl are given from its very early education a sense of the "self"... of the individual, and the individualism...

Without a solid backbone of ethical values, this esily leads to Greed, Selfishness, Corruption, an all those primary sins that result form the fact that the individual is granted the "Natural" right of allocating the availability of resources of the Community for himself.

So, He will pollute the environment for the sake of the stake Holders of his corporation, He will make partnerships with political parties, bounding their future leaders to a commitment that is not good for the people they are purported to protect, etc, etc, etc.

Where does all that leads us...?

To Corruption, Poverty, Scarcity, Revolt, Hatred, Chaos, Humilliation, War...

In the aftermath I only ask... is this Good... ?

Yet there is a Legal framework for all the conditions that leads to this state of things... strange isn't it...?


In the East ( Japan for instance, or China ) Traditionally the individual was raised and educated in the belief that besides of him, there was a Whole Community, and there were Leaders, commited to the welfare of the community...

No Individualism, yet some autonomy no selfishness, yet some self determination...

All this stems from our philosophical background in the Buddhism, ( Shintô Buddhism, in Japan ) and Confucianism, in China, and in some variations of Shintô...

Once again i stress :

I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE JAPANESE OR CHINESE WAY ARE BETTER THAN THE AMERICAN OR WESTERN, WE ALSO HAVE OUR OWN QUIRKS, I AM STATING THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, AND PONTING WHAT ARE THE CAUSES FOR IT... NOTHING ELSE.

BRGDS

Alex
 
Old 01-23-2010, 11:52 AM   #4
jiml8
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,171

Rep: Reputation: 114Reputation: 114
What are you complaining about?

This is an essential step in the establishment of the Fascist States of Amerika.

After all, we've always funded our politicians by bribery; might as well institutionalize it.
 
Old 01-23-2010, 11:55 AM   #5
jiml8
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,171

Rep: Reputation: 114Reputation: 114
Quote:
What I am stating is that, in the west, most ppl are given from its very early education a sense of the "self"... of the individual, and the individualism...

Without a solid backbone of ethical values, this esily leads to Greed, Selfishness, Corruption, an all those primary sins that result form the fact that the individual is granted the "Natural" right of allocating the availability of resources of the Community for himself.
Absolute nonsense.

It was the individualism of Americans that put the United States on top. It is the loss of that sense of individualism, the loss in the belief in that individualism, that is destroying America.

In every circumstance where the individualist Americans went up against any kind of collectivist nation, we the individualists won - and that most particularly includes how we hammered Japan.

We fall as we become increasingly collectivist.
 
Old 01-23-2010, 12:09 PM   #6
Alexvader
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2009
Location: Japan
Distribution: Arch, Debian, Slackware
Posts: 994

Rep: Reputation: 94
Hi Jiml8

So you state that it is Good, to let the selfishness of Individualism build up into a political regime, feed into the natural resources of its own territory, and when it is not enough start depleting resouces that are shared by the World for the sake of its own continuation... ok... i get the point.

...one thing puzzles me though : How many such "individualistically governed subjects of International law" AKA Liberal, corporate driven, Nations can there be in one single Earth Planet...?

Yes... how many....?

Is the rest of the World expected to bow to American Nation's Corporate interests... ?|

Can someone here just *immagine* what would happen in case the people from PRC would decide that they also have the right to live "The American Dream"...?

... yeah, you know, the biggest ratio of automotive vehicles per inhabitant, the greatest ammount of water consumption, Energy consumption, Garbage production, CO2 an NOx release per Inhabitant...?


Of Course Americans will say... we have the USAF, the US NAVY, the SAC, and all these things to back up the Morality of our claims...

Ok... so everyone that builds up the same brand of arguments will have "equal rights" to deplete what does not rightfully belong to him... ( Water, Air, etc ) ?

Do you really believe this.... ??


BRGDS

Alex

Edit.

For the sake of world Peace, and Harmony, lets hope that the individualism, the greed, and the "absolute" and "inquestionable" righteousness of the claims of some, which are nowadays in the Top, like you said... are not followed by others...

Like People's Republic of China, India, The Empire of Japan, Brazil...

If that would happen... well... I leave that to your immagination...

Last edited by Alexvader; 01-23-2010 at 12:19 PM.
 
Old 01-23-2010, 12:34 PM   #7
jiml8
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,171

Rep: Reputation: 114Reputation: 114
Quote:
So you state that it is Good, to let the selfishness of Individualism build up into a political regime, feed into the natural resources of its own territory, and when it is not enough start depleting resouces that are shared by the World for the sake of its own continuation... ok... i get the point.
Show me where I said that. Show me.

Oh, you can't? What does that make you, then?

Your comprehension of individualism is virtually nonexistent; that much is obvious. Your knowledge of American society is equally deficient; if it wasn't, you wouldn't put forth such manifestly stupid statements.

And I'm not interested in your strawman arguments; I won't play.

Do your homework. Learn your history. Once you have done so, AND once you can present a rational argument OR a rebuttal without first putting up a strawman so that you can attack the strawman - given that you don't understand the REAL argument, then we can talk.

Until that time, I have to say that your opinion looks totally worthless to me, and it is expressed in a fashion that causes me to conclude that even trying to educate you would be a total waste of my time.
 
Old 01-23-2010, 12:44 PM   #8
mostlyharmless
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2008
Distribution: Slackware 14.1 (multilib) with kernel 3.15.5
Posts: 1,533
Blog Entries: 12

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 171Reputation: 171
So jiml8, do you agree with individual rights for corporations? Is that an extension of the individualism that you value, or is that a form of collectivism that you despise?

BTW, you sure sound pretty angry about something...
 
Old 01-23-2010, 12:45 PM   #9
Alexvader
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2009
Location: Japan
Distribution: Arch, Debian, Slackware
Posts: 994

Rep: Reputation: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by jiml8 View Post
Show me where I said that. Show me.
Oh, you can't? What does that make you, then?
I do not need to :

Quote:
...
It was the individualism of Americans that put the United States on top...

In every circumstance where the individualist Americans went up against any kind of collectivist nation, we the individualists won
Any Nation will do WHATEVER IT TAKES to continue ON TOP...


Quote:
Until that time, I have to say that your opinion looks totally worthless to me, and it is expressed in a fashion that causes me to conclude that even trying to educate you would be a total waste of my time.
It is your opinion, and I respect it as such, does not mean that I do not have the right to have my own opinion, and have my own education.


BRGDS

Alex

PS. I did not Try to "educate you"... see, this is the difference between us...
 
Old 01-23-2010, 12:57 PM   #10
unSpawn
Moderator
 
Registered: May 2001
Posts: 27,260
Blog Entries: 54

Rep: Reputation: 2841Reputation: 2841Reputation: 2841Reputation: 2841Reputation: 2841Reputation: 2841Reputation: 2841Reputation: 2841Reputation: 2841Reputation: 2841Reputation: 2841
As noted before some people express themselves in ways that does not foster constructive, lively discussion. Please keep this thread as friendly as possible. If you can't contain yourself, if you feel you need to attack fellow LQ members instead of discussing points of view please feel free to keep yourself from posting. And that goes especially for you, jiml8.
 
Old 01-23-2010, 01:33 PM   #11
Alexvader
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2009
Location: Japan
Distribution: Arch, Debian, Slackware
Posts: 994

Rep: Reputation: 94
Hi @UnSpawn, @Forum, @jiml8

I am sorry if some of my arguments offended someone here... this was not my intention.

I felt that I did not have to introduce the FACTS ( known by everyone here, I believe ) that :

1# American Leaders driven by Corporate Interests waged a criminal War against the Nation of Iraq, based on Lies Forged to elude the public Opinion on the need an righteousness of such War.

I guess that this FACT would be enough to justify my point that

Quote:
the selfishness of Individualism built up into a political regime will feed in others resources when ever it is not stopped by means of a MAJOR FORCE
This stems from the "partnerships" built between oil industry and Military Industrial Complex and American Leaders. Once again I state this as an OPINION, and I ask someone to correct me If I am wrong here.

I guess that the knowledge of point #1, is not a strawman's argument that I created to attack someone, IMHO.

BRGDS

Alex
 
Old 01-23-2010, 01:38 PM   #12
unSpawn
Moderator
 
Registered: May 2001
Posts: 27,260
Blog Entries: 54

Rep: Reputation: 2841Reputation: 2841Reputation: 2841Reputation: 2841Reputation: 2841Reputation: 2841Reputation: 2841Reputation: 2841Reputation: 2841Reputation: 2841Reputation: 2841
It is not expressly directed at you Alexvader: please note the last sentence of my moderation post #10.
 
Old 01-23-2010, 02:11 PM   #13
johnsfine
Guru
 
Registered: Dec 2007
Distribution: Centos
Posts: 5,083

Rep: Reputation: 1110Reputation: 1110Reputation: 1110Reputation: 1110Reputation: 1110Reputation: 1110Reputation: 1110Reputation: 1110Reputation: 1110
Quote:
Originally Posted by mostlyharmless View Post
Anyone here besides me think the latest US Supreme Court decision was a mistake?
Lots of people can't think through the consequences (even after seeing them) and thus agree with you. Obviously, I don't agree.

If any government anywhere were capable of unbiased enforcement of rules for political speech, there would have been no need to even add "free speech" to the constitution.

The more power you give the government to regulate political speech, the more they will abuse that power.

This correction of the Supreme Court's earlier horrible mistake, is not about whether the power it grants to corporations and unions is a good or bad thing (of course it is bad). It is about whether the power it takes away from the government was merely bad vs. so terrible it would ultimately destroy all of our rights (I think the latter).

Quote:
it seems these things are always depressingly predictable along party lines
That's the whole point. The biased enforcement has always been at the heart of why the issue cuts along political lines and has always been at the heart of why the law was so dangerous.

The law equally takes free speech from businesses and from unions. The law equally takes free speech from conservative and liberal messages. But the enforcement of the law only took free speech away from conservative messages, such as the ones in all the test cases that brought this law before the Supreme Court.

Why were the direct advertisers in the Massachusetts Senate race the candidates, the unions, the political parties and the PACs? After Coakley herself, the Service Employees union (advertising for Coakley) seemed to run the second largest number of ads. Why were they exempt from the law?

We have a right of free speech because people understood that the opposite is a power too terrible to give the government. Free speech lets people offend or even insult you. Free speech lets louder voices get more attention than more intelligent voices. Those aren't supposed to be good things. But they are better than the long term consequences of biased enforcement of government regulation of speech.

Again, biased enforcement of such laws is not just built into the civil service system (which magnified the bias of McCain-Feingold). Biased enforcement is an unavoidable result of giving the government that power.

Quote:
Apparently the Supreme Court, which created corporations as "persons" with a controversial decision about 100 years ago,
I don't know that specific decision. But corporations as person-like entities existed in the laws of many countries long before the Supreme Court or the USA existed.

Quote:
decided that these "persons" have freedom of speech protected by the first amendment to the US Constitution, the same as a real person.
No. The right to free speech that exists individually does not cease to exist when exercised collectively. In theory, it is the stock holders speaking.

Obviously, that doesn't work in practice. A corporation actually "speaks" on behalf of its top management not on behalf of its stock holders. A union actually speaks on behalf of its leaders not on behalf of its members. A government actually speaks on behalf of itself, not its citizens.

It would be nicer if we could get rid of some of the laws that protect corporate management from answering to stock holders and protect union leaders from answering to members. But the people writing laws are fundamentally on the opposite side of that whole question, since they themselves use seniority rules and gerrymandering and everything else they can think of (including McCain-Feingold) to keep themselves from being answerable to their constituency.

Meanwhile, the right to political speech on behalf of the stockholders isn't quite as bad in the hands of corporate management as it is in the hands of the government itself.

Quote:
Does no one see that giving more political rights to essentially immortal entities with gigantic financial power is a very unhealthy thing for all of us mere humans?
Just not nearly as unhealthy as giving that power to the immortal one-party civil service structure that has been one of the four branches of government (maybe the strongest one) since Roosevelt.

Last edited by johnsfine; 01-23-2010 at 02:16 PM.
 
Old 01-23-2010, 02:38 PM   #14
Hangdog42
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 7,785
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 414Reputation: 414Reputation: 414Reputation: 414Reputation: 414
The only thing missing from the Supreme Court decision was a mandate to create a national NASDAQ like market so that companies can be assured the buying and selling of politicians is occurring at fair market rates.


This is judicial activism at its worst. Scalia and company just issued a fiat creating an entirely new category of people. Not even the most liberal of courts has ever done that.
 
Old 01-23-2010, 02:55 PM   #15
Alexvader
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2009
Location: Japan
Distribution: Arch, Debian, Slackware
Posts: 994

Rep: Reputation: 94
Hi Hangdog42

When this sort of buildup of Corporate Interests happens in a Nation as powerful as American Nation, there is virtually NO LIMIT to what is "expectable" to happen all over the world, Globalization allows for that, unless there is a Nation, powerful enough not to be Intimidated by America´s "Legitimate" interests wherever...

I was told by someone that schoolbooks in America, portray the geographic extent of Brazil as *WITHOUT* the Amazonian Forest...

it is claimed to be a property "Of Mankind".... not the Brazilian Nation...


Unlike the Oil Fields of Alaska, which are *CLEARLY* American, not *Mankind's property*...

When these things are allowed to happen... because of Contitutional Precepts in American Constitution what is any non-American allowed to expect...?

BRGDS

Alex

Now I ASK: Are there any North American Corporations Interested in Exploiting the resources of Amazonian Forest...?

Just a question... nothing more...
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Red Hat Takes Software Patents To Supreme Court DragonSlayer48DX Linux - News 0 10-02-2009 07:11 PM
LXer: Red Hat addresses Supreme Court on software patents LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 10-02-2009 02:31 PM
Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Microsoft RodWC General 5 05-04-2007 03:44 PM
LXer: Supreme Court to hear collusion case against major telecoms LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 06-29-2006 03:21 AM
Supreme Court Ruling Ridiculous kencaz General 8 06-30-2005 10:21 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:49 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration