johnm214 said:

Are you going to respond to those claims you've made which I rebutted in my post?

You accused me of being ignorant of the relative wealth of businesses around the time of the founding and now. I challenged that claim and I'd like to see your reply.

You've also apparently abandoned the other points I challenged. I'd appreciate a reply or concession as to those points as well.

---

johnm214 said:

Further, you are simply wrong. Corporations, as legal entities, do have rights. Is your preference that the secretary who places the orders for some big corp. be legally liable herself when the company doesn't pay their debt? How do you propose to work this new legal structure without corporate rights?

Finally, what practical effect does your scheme have? Corporations, as you recognize, are legal fictions which act through natural persons. So is your only gripe, besides wishing to ban anonymous political speech apparently, that the board members should take authorship of corporate speech? Exactly what would the point of this bullshit be?

---

KauaiOrca said:

johnm214 said:

Are you going to respond to those claims you've made which I rebutted in my post?

You accused me of being ignorant of the relative wealth of businesses around the time of the founding and now. I challenged that claim and I'd like to see your reply.

You've also apparently abandoned the other points I challenged. I'd appreciate a reply or concession as to those points as well.

---

The East India company was a British company and, of course, we fought the British to detangle ourselves from their control.  Interestingly, John Adams wrote at length that what really caused the revolution was the increased control of the Colonies by the Bank of England … The Colonies had a very effective bootstrapped monetary system that was enabling growth and economic progress and the Bank of England was pressing hard to eradicate it. It's an interesting perspective on how the FF's felt about corporations which, at that time, were banks. 

The FF's wrote at some length about the polluting influence that big money was  having on the British political system and most detested it.  George Washington favored the outlawing of political parties entirely.  in the late 1700's, large corporations were viewed with great suspicion and their limited charters were mandated to be in the public's best interest. 

Have you read the Swiss study on real corporate ownership?

---

johnm214 said:

I don't see how this reply is responsive, however. You claimed I was ignorant about the relative size of corps at the founding vs now and that they were bigger then than now. You've yet to address my rebuttal.

You've also failed to reply to my rebuttal of your claim that political power of the individual is less now.

You've also failed to reply to my rebuttal of your claim that corporations don't (or perhaps shouldn't) be legal persons, especially the counterargument regarding the secretary's liability for corporate debt if the corp is no longer afforded legal personhood.

The issues seem to be multiplying as you introduce new ones, but have you abandoned the previous ones? This isn't a very clear way to make your point-- tossing out claims only to abandon them immediately and move on to new ones.

---

johnm214 said:

Are you going to respond to those claims you've made which I rebutted in my post?

You accused me of being ignorant of the relative wealth of businesses around the time of the founding and now. I challenged that claim and I'd like to see your reply.

---

Quote:

Your claim that the size of the East India Company in the 1700's (and their political influence on American politics) somehow is equal to the size, scope and political influence of corporations today is laughable.  It's utterly ridiculous and doesn't require a response. 

---

Quote:

Corporations literally have more power and influence than states do

---

psyconaught said:

Quote:

Your claim that the size of the East India Company in the 1700's (and their political influence on American politics) somehow is equal to the size, scope and political influence of corporations today is laughable.  It's utterly ridiculous and doesn't require a response. 

---

given the fact that the EIC was in bed with the monarchy i don't think his comparison is that far off.

Quote:

Corporations literally have more power and influence than states do

---

let me know when Walmart starts throwing people in prison.

---

psyconaught said:

let me know when Walmart starts throwing people in prison.

---

johnm214 said:

I reject the premise that... the government was set up for the 'people' as you imply to be a class seperate from the wealthy.

The constitution was promulgated by rich, powerful, landed members of society and I don't see how to read it as some document granting power to the downtrodden particularly. 
It works well percisely because it doesn't make those distinctions, however; I doubt all the protections of possesory rights were included to protect the poor. This seems to be some fantasy history.

---

johnm214 said:

Enlil said:

So,  it's effectively a ban on all political commentary.

---

No, only political commentary he doesn't like. Can't you see the distinction?

---

johnm214 said:

KauaiOrca said:

I think you are grossly underestimating the power and reach of global corporations.

---

You want to give me an example of a present-day company with the wealth and political power of the Dutch East India company? It was practically a nation state on its own.

---

I think big corporations had significant power until after WWII, when the Government became pro-working class, and the middle class rose to levels never seen before.  The middle class held their power for a good time, until the 80's when it started returning to the corporations.  And it's gotten worse since then.  I'd like to see the return of a Government that works for the middle class rather than the big corporations at the expense of the middle class. 

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

For probably the dozenth time in this thread, I'm saying that no commentary should be banned.  Only spending.  You would still free to make any political commentary that you like.

---

zappaisgod said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

For probably the dozenth time in this thread, I'm saying that no commentary should be banned.  Only spending.  You would still free to make any political commentary that you like.

---

So all newspapers and all TV and radio stations and billboards should be forced to offer their space to any group for free?

---

zappaisgod said:

The most important advertising to protect is political.  The rest is crap.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

zappaisgod said:

The most important advertising to protect is political.  The rest is crap.

---

No one here is proposing to eliminate political advertising.  Just to implement an individual spending limit to slow corruption.  Anyone can pool their money together to get out any message they like.

---

johnm214 said:

"The government is too corrupt: it's bought and paid for by corporations. We should give it massive new authorities to decide what political speech is legal and then it wouldn't be so corrupt"

Is this not a reduction of your argument?

---

johnm214 said:

Why do you think the corrupt corporatist entities won't control your speech police just like they control everything else, according to you?

Is it not contradictory to complain of corruption while proposing expansive new authorities be granted to the corrupt w/ ill-defined provisions (I've still not read a clear rule and test for what your outlawing that allows it to be distinguished from permissive conduct and doesn't make the provision a nullity).

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

So far, the latest version seems to be working.

---

zappaisgod said:

There are already strong limits on direct campaign contributions.  Citizens United has nothing to do with direct campaign contributions.

---

luvdemshrooms said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

So far, the latest version seems to be working.

---

Seeing as most disagree...

---