Quote :

"Probably because the purest form of libertarianism is anarchism."

No, IMO, it's not.

Anarchy is the absence of laws and government. Libertarianism advocates minimal law and minimal government, but still advocates for the existence of a state, but sees the role of the state very differently than most political ideologies.

There are varying degrees to which libertarians believe that government should exist, but there is a distinct line between anarchists and libertarians.

2/3/2012 5:58:17 PM

I mean, it kind of is. What is minimal government? No government. Is this even possible? Theoretically yes, but it's kind of like how some feminists argue for the extinction of gender. It's not going to fucking happen.

The purest form of communism is also anarchism, incidentally.

2/3/2012 6:05:55 PM

Libertarianism has some basic tenets that sort of make anarchism incompatible, like the belief in private property.

Government exists to enforce contracts and protect individuals from coercive force by other individuals. That's about as minimal as you can get. It varies from there based on what other roles you think government should play. There are varying degrees of libertarianism, ranging from near anarcho-capitalism to those who believe in a constitutionally bound federal system.

2/3/2012 6:27:50 PM

Quote :

"Anarchy is the absence of laws and government."

Anarchy is the absence of a state. It's not the absence of laws or justice. Libertarian "anarchy" is not chaos or dog eat dog, it just means that the state (an entity that has a monopoly on force within a given territory) is eliminated, instead opening up current state functions to competition.

2/3/2012 6:36:40 PM

People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, but the government shouldn't provide these things. Other people should make sure everyone is fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, but those other people suck, are not altruistic, and are self-serving.

I got lost in there somewhere.

2/3/2012 6:58:50 PM

Quote :

"First step as I've said would be to repeal Citizens United. Removing as much money as possible from the election process. Not allowing corporations to donate to political causes. Individuals who control those companies can donate as much of their own money as they wish, but corporations are not people. The role of lobbyists and special interest groups should be severely lessened."

would you include unions in this lessening of influence?

Quote :

"However, doesn't the freedom to have clean air and drinking water trump the freedom to pollute them?"

If you are polluting the air, then you are damaging someone else's property, by definition, and you should have to compensate them or else stop polluting. there actually are systems in the world where people have common ownership of a resource and then decide how much pollution they will allow companies to put into that resource.

2/3/2012 9:36:16 PM

Quote :

"I don't think it's necessary to fine Google for lobbying and educating the American people on an issue that would greatly affect them and encouraging them to individually contact their representatives."

And yet, you ask for a repeal of Citizens United, a decision for a non profit "lobbying and educating the American people on an issue".

2/3/2012 10:39:19 PM

^^ without a doubt I would include unions in that. Like I said, it's necessary to have some people come in and testify in front of a committee or something. But that should be where the relationship ends.

I think citizens united pretty much allows corporations to give unlimited money to campaigns and that's what is wrong with it.

2/4/2012 1:57:56 AM

Quote :

"I think citizens united pretty much allows corporations to give unlimited money to campaigns and that's what is wrong with it. "

Then I think you need to actually read up on Citizens United, since (despite the shrieking of the opposition, and also many of the supporters), the decision did no such thing. From everyone's favorite source:

Quote :

"Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), 558 U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 876 (January 21, 2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment prohibits government from placing limits on independent spending for political purposes by corporations and unions. The 5–4 decision originated in a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act in reference to its primary Senate sponsors.[2] ... The Court did uphold requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.[5]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission


[Edited on February 4, 2012 at 9:24 AM. Reason : zxcv]

2/4/2012 9:23:27 AM

Please explain to me how allowing for the existence of SuperPACs is different from just handing the money to the candidate. If anything, it's worse since the person campaigning can claim no responsibility over ads the SuperPAC runs and since many of the donations are anonymous. And don't say SuperPACs are not controlled by the candidate's campaign. They have a very intimate relationship.

2/4/2012 3:43:34 PM

Quote :

"Please explain to me how allowing for the existence of SuperPACs is different from just handing the money to the candidate."

The same way that Google or Wikipedia blacking out to protest SOPA is different from Google or Wikipedia just handing money to Ron Paul.

2/4/2012 9:13:00 PM

^^^that just means that they can't coordinate with the candidate....


This is Newt Gingrich, NOT COORDINATING with his SuperPac:

Quote :

"I am calling for the Winning Our Future Super-PAC supporting me to either edit its 'King of Bain' advertisement and movie to remove its inaccuracies, or to pull it off the air and off the Internet entirely"

video of Newt NOT coordinating: http://southflorida.sun-sentinel.com/videogallery/67358361/Politics/Exclusive-Video-Newt-Gingrich-in-Orlando-calls-for-Super-PAC-to-fix-ads

[Edited on February 4, 2012 at 9:40 PM. Reason : ]

2/4/2012 9:37:35 PM

Quote :

"Please explain to me how allowing for the existence of SuperPACs is different from just handing the money to the candidate."

It isn't. Which is why it should be legal to just hand the money to the candidate. The current system of restricted candidates and unrestricted non-candidates is absurd. But as the SCOTUS has ruled, per the First Amendment we cannot legally imprison non-candidates for speaking their mind on pressing issues of the day. As such, since it is unconstitutional to censor and imprison non-candidates for spending money on an election, we should stop censoring and imprisoning candidates for spending money on the election. It is only logical conclusion we can reach.

2/4/2012 11:54:56 PM

So you actually believe that the Supreme Court, a main branch of the government you so despise, is an infallible institution that should never be questioned?

2/5/2012 1:42:38 AM

I'm pretty sure that he is arguing that political advertising by private organizations is protected under the First Amendment, and that the SCOTUS correctly ruled as much. If you want to prevent organizations from funding public advertisements for particular candidates or issues, it has to go through the legislative process, and it has to be written in a way that does not violate the First Amendment. But per the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Citizen's United, which struck down parts of McCain-Feingold restricting political speech prior to an election, was probably the correct decision.


[Edited on February 5, 2012 at 11:40 AM. Reason : 2]

2/5/2012 11:22:09 AM

Well, I disagree with you. This is why I believe SCOTUS is the most powerful branch, as long as its rulings are followed. You can only legislate around a SC decision so far. Eventually they can throw up a total blockade around anything Congress is trying to legislate.

I don't think this is a First Amendment issue, although I can see why you might argue that. This is an issue of having our government up for sale to the highest bidder. If Google decides to spend $5 billion dollars on Rick Santorum, that is going to make him an immediate contender against any candidate. The only thing really stopping this from happening is the disclosure that they are doing this and the public outrage at the realization. But private donations to SuperPACs are not scrutinized this closely making many donations virtually anonymous. It is impossible to have a properly functioning government when the highest court in the land has basically allowed for our politicians to be bought and sold by the highest bidder, which now includes international megacorporations. The SCOTUS just legislated corruption into our political system. Plus, corporations are not people. People are people.

2/5/2012 11:46:29 AM

Well, regardless of your opinion, it is quite plainly a first amendment issue. At question is whether the sanctity of our electoral system trumps first amendment rights, and whether first amendment rights are granted to organizations such as unions and corporations.

2/5/2012 1:31:34 PM

Fuck it, you're right. We should allow corporations to have complete and total freedom of speech by bankrolling politicians at the expense of having a functioning government. The Constitution told me so.

2/5/2012 1:42:00 PM

Quote :

" and whether first amendment rights are granted to organizations such as unions and corporations"

I think this is the big issue, as i see it.

It seems if you are one of those people that believes the constitution should be taken literally, then i don't see how you can argue that the first amendment applies as they say it does in the Citizens United.

If you believe the constitution is a "living document" then what aspect of the constitution seems like it would cede control of the electorate to a potentially small group of spenders?

Corporations clearly aren't people, as they can't be pepper sprayed or arrested like OWS protesters. And historically, going back even to the ancient greek times, power was always battled for between the political class and wealthy land owners. Citizens United is a modern day version of this battle, and we've given up some of our democracy to take a step closer to an oligarchy.

2/5/2012 1:47:28 PM

Quote :

"seems like it would cede control of the electorate to a potentially small group of spenders?"

This is why discussion around this place fucking suck. Literally, nothing is fucking accomplished. You people are not at all interested in having a debate as evidence by the language you use in your posts.

If people spending money running ads is controlling the election then you're admitting that the state of our society is fucked...not because the ads are being run, but because the populace is too retarded to think for itself at all. Is this in fact what you are saying, that America is stupid?

2/5/2012 2:06:10 PM

It's basically a fact that the more money a campaign has access to, the better likelihood that candidate has of getting elected. moron was not far off base when he said Citizens United makes a solid leap toward oligarchy. The entire Constitution was written to protect democracy. Why don't we use all of the Constitution and not just the Amendments to decide policy.

2/5/2012 2:32:44 PM

Quote :

"It's basically a fact that the more money a campaign has access to, the better likelihood that candidate has of getting elected."

It doesn't follow. To follow from the points above, if google started a $5 billion ad campaign to overthrow the government and install the United States of Google, is it more or less likely they succeed over someone running with $50 million with more "normal" views?

Quote :

"moron was not far off base when he said Citizens United makes a solid leap toward oligarchy."

Only in the mind of liberals.

Quote :

"The entire Constitution was written to protect democracy."

The fuck?

2/5/2012 3:25:46 PM

Quote :

"It doesn't follow. To follow from the points above, if google started a $5 billion ad campaign to overthrow the government and install the United States of Google, is it more or less likely they succeed over someone running with $50 million with more "normal" views?"

What in the hell are you talking about? This isn't even a theoretical possibility.

Quote :

"Only in the mind of liberals."

Derailing.

Quote :

"The fuck?"

Derailing.

You're the one who is preventing any type of discussion.

2/5/2012 3:32:42 PM

Quote :

"If people spending money running ads is controlling the election then you're admitting that the state of our society is fucked...not because the ads are being run, but because the populace is too retarded to think for itself at all. Is this in fact what you are saying, that America is stupid? "

Who here ever argues that America, or any mass of humans, isn’t stupid? This is just plain statistics.

You realize that Plato realized this 2000 years ago? The Mob was as big a problem then as now.

The Founding Fathers realized this when they created America as a Republic, and set up our wonky electoral system— this was all designed to accommodate for the fact that the average person doesn’t have the time, energy, and often intellect to contemplate political issues.

2/5/2012 3:33:10 PM

Quote :

""The entire Constitution was written to protect democracy." The fuck?"

Don't take what he said literally. I believe he meant to say protect the people from the government and set down ground rules for this democratic republic government.


Don't take what I said literally either

2/5/2012 3:33:48 PM

Quote :

"Why don't we use all of the Constitution and not just the Amendments to decide policy."

I agree. But that means that if one part of the Constitution says that you can't do X, then you can't fucking do X. The 1st Amendment, a part of the Constitution, says that you can't restrict speech. Telling anyone that they can't spend money on elections is restricting speech, period. Don't like it? CHANGE THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION. Don't just pass laws that piss on it.

2/5/2012 5:12:48 PM

Quote :

"Fuck it, you're right. We should allow corporations to have complete and total freedom of speech by bankrolling politicians at the expense of having a functioning government. The Constitution told me so."

I don't believe I said that. And I don't believe in complete and total freedom of speech. Libel and slander are obviously illegal, and for good reason. "Hate speech" and speech that incites panic, such as screaming "fire!" in a crowded room, is also punishable by law. But certainly you can see the slippery slope argument posed by the creation of a law which restricts political speech. The media is owned largely by corporations. How do you differentiate the media's political coverage and editorials from the "electioneering communications" that McCain-Feingold restricted? Surely there is a way to "get money out of politics" that doesn't involve an express ban on political speech by organizations.

It should be noted that liberals, who are typically shrill defenders of First Amendment rights (haven't we heard enough about SOPA, PIPA and ACTA yet?), are on the opposite side in this particular instance. Funny how that works.

2/5/2012 5:34:42 PM

Quote :

"It should be noted that liberals, who are typically shrill defenders of First Amendment rights (haven't we heard enough about SOPA, PIPA and ACTA yet?), are on the opposite side in this particular instance. Funny how that works."

not at all. for all of the liberals' belly-aching about voter suppression and the like, they know that corporations support conservative candidates more, so it only makes sense that they would suppress the voice of more conservative people.

2/5/2012 5:36:39 PM

^ that's not really true.

It's likely the citizens united decision will end up benefitting Obama. He's expected to out raise the republican candidate this round.

Conservatives already have the most watched, most popular news station at their sides, and have generally been more effective with getting their message out (I'm still to tickled they started using the term vulture capitalists before the left).

The CU decision doesn't affect this dynamic though. It gives more power not to an ideology but to singular voices like Karl Rove or the Koch bros.

[Edited on February 5, 2012 at 5:47 PM. Reason : ]

2/5/2012 5:44:00 PM

Quote :

"It's basically a fact that the more money a campaign has access to, the better likelihood that candidate has of getting elected. "

All evidence to the contrary. The best statistical evidence we have is that no election has ever been swayed by spending more money. Hell, Freakanomics had a chapter on this. Every time you doubled your spending over your opponent gained you 1% of the vote, yet elections are almost never that close. And all the examples we have from congressional elections are that whenever the vote has been that close the candidates either spent about the same or the winner spent less.

Quote :

"Who here ever argues that America, or any mass of humans, isn’t stupid? This is just plain statistics."

My philosophy holds that people are not stupid, they just don't care equally about all things. Being ignorant about something you don't care about is not stupidity.

2/6/2012 12:43:48 AM

^I think the point he was trying to make was that the candidate who spends more wins the election a disproportionate amount of times. Something like 90% or higher (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/17/occupy-wall-street/occupy-wall-street-protesters-sign-says-94-percent/). This is obviously concerning with Citizens United, because it means a candidate is more likely to whore himself/herself out to the highest bidder.

As to how much a vote is "worth" is probably hard to determine since funding for campaigns has become an arms race. I'm sure there is an upper limit where you see less of a return on your investment in terms of campaign financing. But the point still remains that there mere necessity of needing heavy cash to win an election renders the everyday citizen impotent in their own representative democracy.



And, for a recent piece of anecdotal evidence: A Florida Congresswomen literally just turned in a bill for a vote and she FORGOT to edit out the business source's mission statement who wrote the legislation for her.



http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/02/417488/florida-gop-alec-forget/?mobile=nc

2/6/2012 2:59:18 AM

Quote :

"I don't believe I said that. And I don't believe in complete and total freedom of speech. Libel and slander are obviously illegal, and for good reason. "Hate speech" and speech that incites panic, such as screaming "fire!" in a crowded room, is also punishable by law. But certainly you can see the slippery slope argument posed by the creation of a law which restricts political speech. The media is owned largely by corporations. How do you differentiate the media's political coverage and editorials from the "electioneering communications" that McCain-Feingold restricted? Surely there is a way to "get money out of politics" that doesn't involve an express ban on political speech by organizations. "

I don't think it should be illegal for any group to publicly express their favor or opposition to policies, in a broad or specific way. But donating money to a candidate and "sponsoring" them with the implicit understanding that the politician will be in their pocket after elected should be illegal. I don't think this really restricts free speech, it just restricts corporations voting with their dollars.

And don't for a second believe I think I'm doing this because I believe GOP candidates get more money from corporations. Democrats also raise a significant source of campaign money from SuperPACs as well and stand to lose a lot. It's a problem of corruption and both sides are equally guilty. I oppose Citizens United solely out of principle.

2/6/2012 4:49:59 AM

Quote :

"But donating money to a candidate and "sponsoring" them with the implicit understanding that the politician will be in their pocket after elected should be illegal."

How the hell is an outsider supposed to know there is such an implicit understanding unless the politician volunteers that information?

We oppose McCain Feingold because it banned groups attempting to "publicly express their favor or opposition", it said nothing about "donating money to a candidate and "sponsoring" them with the implicit understanding that the politician will be in their pocket after elected." It said nothing about the latter because there is no way for the legal system to oppose such agreements. What it can and did do is arrest people that try to "publicly express their favor or opposition" without getting the right credentials.

2/6/2012 9:22:23 AM

^^^

2/6/2012 9:49:41 AM

Quote :

" But donating money to a candidate and "sponsoring" them with the implicit understanding that the politician will be in their pocket after elected should be illegaL."

Well let's be perfectly clear; it IS illegal. Of course, the law banning collaboration between PACs and campaigns is meaningless if isn't being enforced. But "bankrolling" candidates is a violation of campaign finance laws, and any kind of quid pro quo involving endorsements is also against the law.

To an extent, I am being pedantic here. I share your concern about the influx of corporate and union money and influence in politics. I believe that our government would function better if superPACs were illegal. But that is not how our court system works, and by design. The courts are guided by the constitution as opposed to what "might be better for government". At issue is the power of congress to restrict political speech. Viewed from that angle, citizens United was probably the correct decision.

2/6/2012 10:00:46 AM

The problem here isn't groups/companies having power over politicians.

The real problem is the media having power over the decisions of individuals.

The media industry gladly commoditizes this power. They are an "industry". The broken link isn't the people to the politicians. You can still call your representative, and you can still get a response for no reason other than that you're a constituent.

To everyone in this thread: please be coherent

politicians -> interest groups w/ money -> the media -> the people -> politicians

2/6/2012 10:37:00 AM

Quote :

" I don't think this really restricts free speech, it just restricts corporations voting with their dollars. "

money is speech. you cant restrict speech because you personally dont like a particular group.

(not that corporate spending in politics is new like you somehow seem to think)

2/6/2012 10:45:17 AM

I see what you're saying Prawn, but I disagree with you still. The fact is that policing politicians and the SuperPACs from coordinating with each other is virtually impossible. Couple that with the fact that corporations are not in fact people, and also that money does not necessarily equate to freedom of speech. When you take the fact that it is impossible to realistically deter communication between SuperPACs and that there is no form of censorship actually taking place, in addition to the fact that corporations are quite literally, not people, there is a compelling case for repealing Citizens United. In my opinion.

I'm sure the 4 dissenting Supreme Court Justices had a more compelling argument but I haven't read any of them. This is just my take on the issue.

If we follow down the road that Citizens United has laid out before us then eventually corporations could potentially have the right to vote. It's clearly the wrong path.

[Edited on February 6, 2012 at 10:48 AM. Reason : ]

2/6/2012 10:46:21 AM

Please explain to me how exactly money is speech when applied to corporations.

2/6/2012 10:47:21 AM

lol. CENSOR THESE GROUPS I DONT LIKE!! (but dont censor mine pls!!!)

2/6/2012 10:47:33 AM

money is speech regardless of the group spending the money. doesnt matter if its a corpration or a political party. you cant censor one and not the other

2/6/2012 10:48:13 AM

^ HAHAHAHA Wtf the fuck kind of vague, bullshit argument is that?

I think the things I'm talking about should be applied across the board, affecting all parties equally. It's not a political issue, it's an issue of government structure.

2/6/2012 10:52:28 AM

Raided the McPherson sq. camp over the weekend un DC. supposedely theyre allowing 24 hour vigils still, and allowing tents given no one is sleeping in them.

2/6/2012 10:56:08 AM

i mean i get you've been reading alot of really bad talking points from idiots and liars, but heres the breakdown.

People do not lose their right to free speech when they choose to associate in a group. Doesnt matter what type of group it is.

Corporations are a group of people bound together torwards a common goal (provide goods/services, and more importantly get paid).

Therefore the corporation may speak publicly on whatever issues they think matter to the group.

Money has been long established as a means to free speech. It buys advertising and other time in the media which is the primary means of mass delivery of your message.

Therefore corporations may spend publicly on whatever issues they think matter to the group.

I dont know why you (and many others) cant seem to understand this cause its pretty damned basic:
Groups retain the right to speech granted to the individuals. Money is a form of speech.

[Edited on February 6, 2012 at 11:04 AM. Reason : a]

2/6/2012 11:02:59 AM

So basically SuperPACs are now corporations which are allowed to take anonymous donations from other corporations. Gotcha. Again I ask, "How is this any different than corporations donating unlimited amounts of money directly to the candidate?"

I don't see how individual people were in any way having their freedom of speech infringed upon in the old system.

[Edited on February 6, 2012 at 11:10 AM. Reason : ]

2/6/2012 11:06:12 AM

in the old system specific groups were not allowed free speech. ex: citizens united.

under the new system, all groups enjoy the same level of freedom of speech

groups are people

2/6/2012 11:10:30 AM

i mean i might be for banning the idea of money as speech for all groups. ex: banning political advertisments from the media, but you'd need to do it to everyone at the same level.

2/6/2012 11:11:45 AM

Quote :

"groups are people*"

* except trade unions, governments, or any public/democratic entity

I mean I'm going to assume this is what you mean here

2/6/2012 11:18:20 AM

no?

2/6/2012 11:19:00 AM

idk where you'd get that from.

2/6/2012 11:19:21 AM