Have you seen the Ron Paul "SuperBomb" where there is NO LIMIT upon contributions that can be made?
YouTube.com/watch?v=ngkpAswjxg0
I guess the only part of the "Campaign Finance Reform" Ron Paul really cared about was reducing the number of signatures to get someone on the ballot...
@WeRoar4All "Campaign finance reform" is a euphemism for "incumbent protectionism." It does NOTHING to curb corporate influence of politicians--in fact, it does just the opposite--but it makes it VERY difficult for challengers to mount effective campaigns.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you we have a corporation (known as the United States & the New Columbia-formerly and still known as DC) pretending to be a govt. ;o)
I don't know ShaneDK, I usually agree with most of your opinions but I'm pretty sure large groups pooling funds is a dangerous thing no matter what. Any law that insists organizations should be treated like people is dangerous (including news organisations). A person isn't a crowd or vica versa. While I appreciate your respect of the constitution, there are some interpretations (strict or "inspired") that make this base of our government a monstrosity instead of salvation. :-/
@mkjackson If people can't pool their resources, then how CAN they compete with the large groups? The big corporations were NEVER fettered by these bogus laws. Only grassroots efforts.
What do you people even MAKE of the fact that incumbents get stronger and corporations have even greater say when these laws are passed?
@shanedk I don't mean to sound like your take is completely flawed. I only wish there were legislation to ensure "one person, one vote". If large corporations are already corrupting the system then how will unbinding us AND them help anyone? In trying to think of a solution I'm stumped, I suppose "it will always be broken" is the only (ironic) conclusion I can come up with.
Thanks for the reply, I've been a long time viewer.
@shanedk I see your point, I suppose my concern is that as things get bigger, accountability becomes less binding. If we get bigger, we only create another monster (IE Tea Party) that is just as obscure/bizarre but without the brand recognition of the "Pepsi/Coke" duo we see today. Regardless, thanks for your quick replies and your insight.
@shanedk I've searched as hard as I could for a particular clip but since I can't find it any longer I'll just sum up. I've seen some pretty extreme (and racist) folks in there that I just can't deal with such as Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin. When I say monster, I mean as in Frankenstein's monster. There doesn't really seem to be a consistent stance with the Tea Party, so to stand with them seems impossible. As for "grassroots", am I misinformed about the Koch brother's (and friends) involvement?
@shanedk I apologize for the double reply but I just want to ensure that I clarify that "one person, one vote" is meant in the figurative as in this day and age, it is not the good of the people who vote who matter to a politician as much as it's the backers who pay for their commercials. Maybe you're right... but I wish there were a way to level the playing field by bringing the big boys down to earth more than prop us up to their unreal heights (which is part of the problem IMHO). :-(
Mate, I'll abstain from commenting on the material under discussion because that could get heated. Instead I'll ask, what the Hell is wrong with your voice? Or have your testes not descended yet?
the grassroots movement has NO equitable leverage against the power of corporations. you do understand that corporations are the 1% and that the technicality of noting the James Randi's foundation as a corporation does not erase the fact that his organization does not have a massive lobbying arm. The massive, separate-from-the-corporation lobbying arms that are bigger than Randi's "corporation" in itself. You're lying and you have a mullet dude.
@itsokaytobeafraid "the grassroots movement has NO equitable leverage against the power of corporations."
Because the corporations get TONS of government support. Remove that support--indeed, remove the entire fiction of a corporation altogether--and all of that changes.
@shanedk so you're saying they do have massive influence but you're denying economic statistics that reveal the nature wealth disparity? let me guess you are against monopoly laws too?
yeah and let's give trickle-down economics another try! haha. i thought Reagan and Rand and Thatcher's stupidity was already proven to be false. I thought we were beyond such blatantly disastrous policies that caused the crash and then bailed out the thieves. nope, let's do it all over again.
@itsokaytobeafraid Thank you for showing not only your profound ignorance but also your willingness to strawman and your complete refusal to learn. You're a cultist woo; all there is to it.
Great, so now free speech should be changed to cash speech.
In reality only the ones with the most money will have any voice. While some of your arguments are valid, like lobbies basically not being regulated at all, this change isnt good.
Too me this seems like the sugar food vs healthy food ads. While both are legal to run ads as much as they like its only the sugar foods that gets any attention because they have 100x the budget to run ads.
@Lobos222 No, money is the EQUALIZER here. Without it, only those with political clout and connections will have speech, as I demonstrated. How else are ordinary people going to compete with that, without the ability to pool their resources? How else are they even going to come CLOSE to the level of speech that the news media and politically-connected corporations enjoy?
@shanedk 1% HAS all the money you fucking twat. the people and the other 99% can't be equalized when there is nothing there. THE BAN WAS THE GODDAMN EQUALIZER you pathetic lying shit. This ruling says that BP can wipe out the campaign funding of any opposition because any opposition could never equal the power of the corporations. The corporate money laundered through lobbying firms (same thing) was already TOO POWERFUL.
No, they don't, you fucking LIAR. If you have to make up bullshit statistics to make your point you've automatically lost.
"THE BAN WAS THE GODDAMN EQUALIZER you pathetic lying shit."
No, it wasn't, you pathetic cultist shill! Do you know ANYTHING about the people who brought that lawsuit forward and what they were trying to do? No, you don't care the first thing about the truth, only about supporting your cult leaders.
@shanedk you mean Citizens United? a lobbying organization darling of the right wing who want to decimate all government regulation so that they can have ultimate reign to make as much money as possible even if it destroys the planet and kills innocent people?
who are my cult leaders? the only real members in government are people like Kucinich and Sanders, the rest are cronies for your darling "free market entities" (corporations).
@itsokaytobeafraid No, LIAR, Citizens United is a GRASS-ROOTS group who put out a documentary about Hillary Clinton. This law forbade them from showing it on pay-per-view to people willing to pay to watch it.
This is the level of despicable LIES you're willing to tell. By the way, you're now in violation of Rule #5 of this channel. First warning.
@shanedk HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. It forbade them why? Because they were showing and promoting it right during the election and refused to disclose it's donors.
They are a lobbying group just like Freedomworks who are run & funded by corporations (get a nice face to run it and make up a deceitful, marketable name that makes it sound grass roots). look up the Donatelli Group, look up the Citizens United for the Bush Agenda. Yep, just a grass roots with friends in all the right places group!
@itsokaytobeafraid NO, LIAR!!! It was ONLY because it mentioned the name of a Federal candidate. That's IT!!! Even MENTIONING a Federal candidate was against the law!!!
But it's clear you hate free speech, and will tell any lie for the sake of your cult leaders.
@shanedk HAHA. Despicable! Dastardly! How dare I not immediately disavow everything I have spent my life learning and just listen to some random douche with a mullet on the internet! Seriously, you need to calm down.
You didn't answer my question; are you against monopoly laws? Libertarian twits usually are so I'm curious as to whether or not you actually would believe similarly that removing monopoly laws would allow small biz to compete with corporations?
No, LIAR, it's the TRUTH. The law FORBADE people from MENTIONING Federal candidates within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Their movie was banned because it MENTIONED Hillary!
Oh, and the ONLY reason there are monopolies are your precious government. They do NOT happen in a free market.
I refuse to deal with such a hideously dishonest person. Go away.
you quoted the court ruling that says flat out that corporations can spend ANY amount of money. i dunno if your reading comprehension is flawed, or if you're just retarded. the decision quite plainly says that any corporation can use any amount of money for or against any candidate. you think it's a win for people? it might be if the poverty gap wasn't so insanely massive. 5% of the top richest people in the us control 50% of the money. you think grassroots can compete with that? idiot.
@kingbane2 This decision is the only way the grassroots CAN compete with that! Before then, the grassroots were prevented from even TRYING! Why don't people get that?
@shanedk before neither could compete which is by far much more even then what it is now. where corporations can drop millions. how much can real grassroots organizations muster? at best a few hundred thousand per state? when corporations are dropping millions per state. you are either hopelessly optimistic or woefully blind. what's happened is you've pit an olympic runner against an 8 year old infant missing 1 leg and asked them to race. the more fair option was that neither raced each other.
@kingbane2 This is only ONE STEP towards equalizing the power of the corporations--but it's power that the government GAVE to them, lying and calling it "campaign finance reform."
@shanedk you completely ignore the point with some odd optimism for some imagined future. once again you prove you're either hopelessly optimistic and blinded to what's right in front of you. or you're just plain stupid, possibly even worse you're purposely trying to deceive people to make the bill more acceptable. i dont know whether to be sad or reviled by you.
@shanedk always fun when you can't refute the point so you move on to name calling. i may be guilty of the same but at least i make a point while i insult you. it's pretty clear to me and everyone who reads your comments what kind of person you are. it's a toss between stupid, ignorant, or flat out deceptive.
@shanedk and yet you've stated no fact. the lines you quoted from the court ruling itself pointed out quite flatly it how money ='s votes. especially when you make the point halfway through your vid about money being such a key factor. you realize that grassroots organizations are collections of tons of people, individually they could have donated together. what the ruling has done is let a handful of people gain the same amount of buying power as hundreds of thousands. you moron.
@shanedk you're such an idiot. yes individuals have a limit to how much they can donate. that's why THEY HAD MORE POWER BEFORE THE COURT case. you freaking moron. cause people could get together and pool their limited individual donations. are you THAT stupid? i didn't say they could get together and donate INFINITELY you just assumed that cause you're stupid. seriously how dumb are you?
@kingbane2 You're the one who keeps LYING. YOU said--and DON'T DENY IT, LIAR: "what the ruling has done is let a handful of people gain the same amount of buying power as hundreds of thousands."
When in reality, it's the EXACT OPPOSITE!
The fact is, YOU are the one who supports the big corporations and hates the grass-roots individuals, and you'll tell ANY lie to cover that fact and make it look like it's the opposition that does that.
@kingbane2 No, the quotes say that money=SPEECH. In order to exercise your FREE SPEECH rights on television, you need MONEY to do so. You hate speech, that's all there is to it.
Or at least, you only like YOUR speech. When it's THEIR speech, and goes against your cult leaders, you're against it.
I see some of the blood stain debates going on here. Hey Shanedk! Just want to applaud what you are doing here. Do more of this and sometimes you can ignore these people. Just make more videos, and build a following.
@vspqbd He dismissed every single one of my arguments by saying I clearly suffered from Asperger's, and Asperger's people are very violent and emotionally unstable--which is not only bigoted, it's laughably wrong!
@shanedk Oh my...I am actually diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome. It's not easy, especially since I didn't know until I was 21 years old and I'm 23 now. I really feel bad for him that he looks at AS people that way.
@QuietReckoning "Apparently, disagreeing with you about media access and campaign financing is creationism."
No, trying to argue that your opponent has no morals and his position leads to evil makes you like the creationists. But you don't want to own up to the consequences of your own actions.
"There's no reason campaign season would work any differently than Christmas season."
Then why doesn't it work the same? There are only so many stations and so much ad time in prime time television.
And if I get your opinion right (correct me, if I'm wrong) the richer side is automatically entitled to a greater right to free speech than the poorer side?
@QuietReckoning "Then why doesn't it work the same?" Because of these damn "reform" laws!
If you'd actually bothered to research the FIRST FUCKING THING about campaigns and how to run them, you'd know that campaign advertising is the CHEAPEST advertising you can get! And yet, most ads in campaign season are for other products and services. There's PLENTY of room there. You're just making more lame fucking excuses to try and prop up your dogma.
@QuietReckoning And HOW DARE YOU say that I'M the one saying that the rich are entitled to greater rights WHEN THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE FUCKING DOING!!! I'm the one wanting people who AREN'T rich to be able to pool their money to take on incumbents. Your way, you have to be Ross Fucking Perot to do it.
Just one more way you fucking dogmatists are EXACTLY LIKE THE CREATIONISTS: you project your evil onto the opposition.
Is that what you were arguing when you said “The more you buy of something, the more people make of it. So, attempting to buy out the means of speech would only result in the creation of additional means.”
How could this happen in time for the end of the very temporary campaign season. How would their be a guarantee that next year, the same two candidates would square off and the means of speech would be completely bought out?
“"Then why doesn't it work the same?" Because of these damn "reform" laws!”
Yes, I forgot. Laws are the embodiment of evil and responsible for every one of societies’ ills. How is it that the reform laws prevent this from working?
And the most important point you didn’t address is this: You're telling me a temporary lack of a product is enough to create an entirely new industry, literally overnight?
@QuietReckoning I ALREADY explained it. You just don't want to listen. Your cult leaders can do no wrong, and you're not open to ANY criticism of them.
@shanedk If those with money are able to purchase more of the means of speech, then they have greater free speech than the other side. This happened to McCain, and then it happened to Congressional Democrats this year. It seems like if we had publicly funded campaigns, and every party with more than 500 members got to participate with TV ads and such, that would allow poor people to run for office.
@shanedk I make a logical point and ask questions, and you respond with profanity and ad-hominems.
But let’s at least be charitable enough to examine the points you seemed to be trying to make.
“HOW DARE YOU say that I'M the one saying that the rich are entitled to greater rights WHEN THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE FUCKING DOING!!!”
I argued that if you allow completely unrestricted campaign financing, those with money will by definition have a greater right to speech than those without.
What no one's talking about is why these laws went into place in the first place, and I find that rather interesting.
It's possible to damage the speech of another by completely buying out the means to speech.
That's what we're concerned about.
Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Unlimited donations allow one side to completely drown out the other. Just like Obama did to McCain in certain places in 2008.
@QuietReckoning "It's possible to damage the speech of another by completely buying out the means to speech"
No, it isn't. That's completely ridiculous, and ignorant of basic economics to boot. The more you buy of something, the more people make of it. So, attempting to buy out the means of speech would only result in the creation of additional means.
You're buying the lie the incumbent politicians sell to try and protect their empire.
It's really like the First Rule of Tyranny or something: If you want to take away people's right to do X, tell them it's necessary to defend their right to do X.
The interesting thing about this ruling is that nobody is quite certain what the outcome will be. One thing is for sure, campaigns will be flooded with money. Where will it come from primarily though? Unions will be able to produce eleventh hour smear adds too.
@shanedk Independant action. Adds will increase which will force canditates to find similar backing from large special interests. The question is, how will that really be any different?
@Emperordante Because now the law won't allow only certain organizations and corporations to do it; now, ANYONE can form a corporation and voice their opinion, the way Citizens United tried to do.
God libertarians are so stupid. so basically this retard thinks buildings and bank accounts are people with civil liberties. Its an extension of corporate personhood. The Anti-worker anti-union right to work committee was in favor of this ruling, as well as the chamber of commerce. Anyone who sides with those two anti-american organizations should be bitch slapped.
@louiscaponecchia No, YOU are the one who thinks that companies just somehow work on their own without any humans involved.
Again, here's what this case is REALLY about: Some people got together and formed a NON-PROFIT organization to make movies about American politics. They weren't able to distribute their movies 60 days before an election. That's a BLATANT free-speech violation! We're not talking fucking Exxon here, we're talking a NON-PROFIT group of CITIZEN activists.
@louiscaponecchia You said this was about big corporations. It ISN'T. You said this was about corporate personhood. It ISN'T. You were either lying when you said you watched this video and read the decision, lying about what the decision says, or the stupidest person on the planet.
Respond to this video... And when the Dems and Obama wanted to pass the disclose act, right to work and the chamber of evil, er, commerce, screamed obnoxiously about it. hmmmm.....
@shanedk eh..whatever. nobody watches your shit anyways. the amazing atheist stomps your arguments on a regular basis. You are like the libertarian version of how the world works, you just obnoxiously yell "matter of factly" into your screen while maintaining a dead pan unblinking stare into your webcam.
@shanedk oh, he hasnt. you apparently are not significant enough. he has however covered the same issues as you. you differ on free market capitalism.
@shanedk no, i didnt lie. you, someone who takes every syllable of the constitution literally, much like an islamic fundamentalist does with his koran, did so with my words. i didnt lie. you lied. this ruling is entirely about corporate personhood, and is an extension of their abilities to fund campaigns. you lied. you misinformed. you dont know what you are talking about. You want to call obama a liar, but you conveniantly leave out the disclose act and why it was brought up in response to this
@louiscaponecchia "you, someone who takes every syllable of the constitution literally"
Because you're SUPPOSED TO--it's the LAW! What's the point of the law if not to be clear, literal, and specific?
You are a thoroughly vile and disgusting individual. "Islamic fundamentalists take their religious text literally, therefore anyone who says a text must be taken literally is like an Islamic fundamentalist." Do you not see that this is not only dishonest, but a foul insult as well?
@shanedk so you believe we should have a right to own nuclear missiles as private citizens if we have the cash since our 2nd amendment says we have a right to bear arms? what about tanks? You know...the guys who wrote the constitution didnt think women should vote or own property, nor blacks, nor indians. Afterwards we over saw a century of genocide and 2nd class citizenry and slavery, etc. Highly flawed men may have had some good ideas, but some arent that well thought out at all.
@louiscaponecchia "so you believe we should have a right to own nuclear missiles as private citizens" Never said it ONCE. And libel is NOT allowed on this channel. First warning. I reiterate: you are a vile and disgusting individual.
Since when are nuclear weapons "arms"?
"You know...the guys who wrote the constitution didnt think women should vote or own property, nor blacks, nor indians."
More disgusting Poisoning the Well. Did they put that into the Constitution? NO!
@louiscaponecchia "Highly flawed men may have had some good ideas, but some arent that well thought out at all." The problem with you is, you're trying to make their bad ideas be a refutation of their good ideas--like all dogmatists do. But reality just doesn't work that way.
@louiscaponecchia "i didnt lie. you lied." No, YOU lied. I went with what YOU said, and what YOU said could ONLY have been a lie.
"this ruling is entirely about corporate personhood" Quote the part of the ruling saying that.
"is an extension of their abilities to fund campaigns." No, it's about the ability of people to pool their resources to purchase advertising, or, in this case, make a movie expressing their political opinions. YOU ARE A LIAR.
@louiscaponecchia "you misinformed. you dont know what you are talking about." Yet, I can quote the decision supporting me, and you can't.
"you conveniantly leave out the disclose act and why it was brought up in response to this"
First of all, that happened MONTHS after I made this video, so you just LIED again. Second, the DISCLOSE act was an attempt to get their anti-free-speech incumbent protectionism back into law where it DOESN'T belong.
@shanedk anti-free speech....by saying corporations and multibillionaires have to disclose who they are...you know, currently the chamber of commerce is pocketing and spending millions of foreign dollars on campaigns, and not even the federal government can find out whos it is. one of the "freedoms" of citizens united.
@louiscaponecchia That's NOT what the DISCLOSE Act does. That's what they WANT you to think, but as I showed the Citizens United decision does NOTHING to take away the requirements forcing people to disclose who paid for the ad.
Here's some good info on it: w w wDOTdownsizedcDOTorg/blog/former+fec+commissioners+oppose+disclose+act
And these are FORMER FEC COMMISSIONERS. You're just blindly spewing the rhetoric your cult leaders give you; it does NOT match reality.
It's also clear that those who benefit the most from corporate profits (the shareholders and board of directors) are often able to escape unlimited liability, which obviously is a legal advantage others just don't have.
Roderick Long has explained: 'It is unclear who owns the corporation, given that there is no identifiable group whose relationship to the corporation involves the usual characteristics of ownership such as unlimited liability (in tort)...But the case against regarding them as fully liable seems like an equally good case against regarding them as full owners; it turns them into something more like clients of the corporation, leaving it unclear where the real ownership lies."
@shanedk Long is looking at it more from a philosophical standpoint (Carson's claim that tradeable instruments do not constitute ownership in any real sense is an example of this kind of thinking), while you are taking a legal approach. Long is an indvidualist anarchist just to give you an idea where he is coming from. You also haven't addressed the issue of limited liability. Unlimited liability is a typical feature of ownership, but many corporations escape it. Why?
@TheAgnosticInfidel If you look at it from a "philosophical standpoint," you can make it out to be however the hell you want. So you're really saying nothing at all.
And there's nothing inherent about liability in ownership; that's a legal construct.
@shanedk What are the chances it would only stay on their part though? Going beyond rivers it's quite clear BP should not have limited liability in the case of the Gulf oil spill.
@TheAgnosticInfidel I don't think you understand what limited liability means. It does NOT mean the liability caps they are under which prevents them from having to pay every penny of the clean-up. Limited liability would still mean that BP has to pay every penny, but they can't go after the personal property of every little old lady who happens to have BP stock in her retirement account.
@shanedk I would also mention I have no prolem with limited liability as you describe it, but it should probably be granted through a voluntary agreement/contract not through government privilege.
As Kevin Carson has put it, "The problems, briefly stated: that tradeable instruments do not constitute ownership claims in any real sense; that internal stakeholders like human capital have no property rights in the equity they create (and hence no incentive to increase productivity); and that management not only self-deals from capital it did not contribute, but also appropriates the productivity gains created by others' efforts, and therefore has the time horizons of a Turkish tax farmer."
@shanedk State Socialist? It can be, but that isn't necessarly the case. Worker cooperatives are not anti-free market and one can argue as Carson does later on that the incentives for worker cooperatives are superior to those of shareholder corporations: "The conventional firm presupposes hierarchy and the divorce of labor from ownership, and then tries to find a mechanism to elicit effort from those who have no rational interest in maximizing productivity."
Workers have an incentive to maximize their own individual productivity--if they produce more, they make more, if not directly, then by being able to demand a raise or a better job later on. What you're talking about is making each and every worker liable for the bad decisions of others that reduce productivity, even when they themselves had no say in those decisions. How is THAT fair?
@shanedk Is a wage equivalent to what a worker produces? Wages will likely never rise to match or exceed the profits that are generated from labor's products. It should also be pointed out that increases in productivity have not always been met by an increase in real wages. While productivity rose under Reagan I believe there may have been a slight decline in real wages. Since the 70s hasn't productivity soared, while wages have only increased by a fraction of that?
@TheAgnosticInfidel To the worker, the wage is worth more than production. To the employer, the production is worth more than the wage. That's how wealth for BOTH parties increases. And if that weren't the case, the worker would never have taken the job and the employer would never have hired him.
@shanedk Only because our economy has been built around wage labor. You also didn't address the fact that wages tend to lag significantly behind the rate of productivity. Obviously, a worker can work for wages if he wants to as I am strongly against coercion, but does that mean I think they should if worker cooperatives are an option on the table? No.
@shanedk I agree with you there. It's likely communities would experiment with different forms of economic organization under a true free market economy. Our economy would look very different without the distortions of government intervention. From 1947-1973, productivity experienced a rise of 103.7%, while median income actually rose by 103.9%. Between 1973 and 2005, median income went up by about 22%, while productivity went up about 76%.
@TheAgnosticInfidel In nominal wages? It probably wouldn't. However, that same wage rate, simply because of the increase production, would be able to purchase a greater number of goods and services in the economy. The prices of these--both in real and in nominal terms--would go down, making everybody's paycheck go farther.
@shanedk youre wrong about everything and your voice is annoying. this is why people hate libertarians. socialists will win elections (like Bernie Sanders) before a libertarian or constitutionalist ever does, because libertarians and constitutionalists are obnoxious "know it alls" that inevitable side with plutocrats and multibillionaires.
Libertarians are "know it alls"? If libertarians were "know it alls" then we wouldn't advocating libertarianism. The point is that we don't know it all. Nobody does.
@Scoforever Exactly. It's the statists that are the know-it-alls--or, at least, they believe that their precious state can know it, even if no human or group of humans can. In fact, that's their point: the state can set interest rates, invest properly in the economy, and other things that people can't be trusted to do on their own. They therefore--whether they realize it or not--consider their state to have supernatural abilities, leading to the phrase, the Cult of the Omnipotent State.
"they therefore--whether they realize it or not--consider their state to have supernatural abilities, leading to the phrase, the Cult of the Omnipotent State."
Exactly.
It's why folks like me, Fringeelements, and Dale Everett (the Anarchyinyourhead guy) call statism a religion.
@vspqbd Um no, it's a political ideology as is libertarianism. You are whining about people who disagree with your ideology and calling them "statists" and worse still, religious zealots. Can't you see that bringing this into a political debate makes you look a little stupid?
It's kinda like creationists saying "Darwinism is a religion".
@shanedk can "any other group of people" agree to abide by our laws and values? Sure, why not? Do they though?
I'm not disagreeing with the notion of libertarianism, what I'm disagreeing with is the lazy manner in which people are commenting on this video. Why mischaracterize political opponents as religious zealots? You can at least recognize how uncompelling the argument is when it is levied against free marketeers.
@shanedk Just to expand on the previous quotation: "Worker cooperatives require far less front-line supervision precisely because the work force has residual claimancy and internalizes the results of its ownership. In addition, the cooperative avoids many of the Hayekian information problems involved in the centrally planned corporation because those in possession of distributed or idiosyncratic knowledge about production are in control of the work process."
Corporate personhood is a difficult issue because coporations as they are now structured are very undemocratic and have vague property rights that make it hard to disinguish who is in charge of the decision making and who should be held liable for mistakes. Shareholders have few enforceable ownership rights (allows management to focus almost entirely on short term) and the value of most such corporations is determined by the internal stakeholders and is subsequently seized by the management.
Expensive campaigns do nothing but keep hacks in office. We need to have a system where average people can run and have a chance of winning and not well connected or career politicians.
@34thstreetman Which is why we need to get rid of this so-called "campaign finance reform" (really incumbent protectionism). It all gets in the way of small challengers taking on the big dogs.
Cronyism and downright corrupt politicians doesn't justify any censorship and any one who tells you that is down right victimizing you. Is it fair to let Rache Maddow or Bill O' to monopolize debate? Hell no! Its ironic that you attack a man who barely spends enough to make a significant impact financialy but blindly listen to some one who gets paid to be a talkinghead. And I'm not just attacking liberals, I bet you conservatives salivate at the idea of censoring gun control advocates.
So, now it's come out that Obama received over $3.5 million in campaign donations from PACS related to BP--and people are worried that THIS decision will help corporations buy candidates? THEY ALREADY WERE!!!
@shanedk No more paranoid than you, libertarian extremist! When you call people liars for expressing their opinions and disagreeing with yours, you lose what credibility you had from your videos about science. You are as dogmatic as those you criticize.
@DaleHusband And this, class, is a classic example of "projection."
So, what exactly is one SUPPOSED to do if one finds out that someone has lied? If the mere act of saying that someone lied makes you lose credibility, then how can ANYONE be called out a liar?
Bottom line: the decision DOES NOT DO WHAT THEY SAY IT DID. Not even CLOSE.
@shanedk How did you prove anyone to be a liar in your video? All you did was contradict them and spin it to make the Supreme Court decision look like a gift to the people. Sorry, I don't beleive that in the long run that will be the case.
@shanedk Again, you are calling me a liar because I disagree with you. Yes, you quoted the decision, but you only the part of it you wanted us to see. And is it "dogmatic" to say that the Supreme Court decision gives total freedom to corporations like Exxon and McDonald's to finance candidates who will them, once elected, push for deregulation and more corporate bailouts, among other things?
@DaleHusband Ah, the part I WANTED you to see. Okay, fine: why don't YOU quote the part of the decision backing up what they're saying? You could have done that at ANY point; I even LINKED TO THE ENTIRE DECISION IN THE VIDEO INFO BOX. Why don't you?
People who AREN'T liars do that kind of thing. People who ARE just keep doing what you're doing.
The court overturned decisions that upheld laws that limited and/or eliminated corporate spending on election campaigns. So... that basically means that similar laws are unconstitutional (like tillman)... yes?
@shanedk Look, the point here is you're drawing on a technical difference between campaign contributions as direct monetary donations into a campaigns treasury, and money spent promoting an election campaign. I don't think that many pundants or politicians see a need to distinguish these different types of election spending because one, they believe the end result is basically the same, and two, because it's in their interest to make information easily digestible.
@entro666 No, we are NOT TALKING ABOUT EITHER OF THOSE!!! Not ONE thing in this decision has ANYTHING to do with ONE SINGLE PENNY going into anyone's campaign funds!!!
And at this point, it's clear that you're just another dogmatist who's going to believe what he needs to believe
Was the pay-per-view movie in question "promoting an election campaign"? NO IT FUCKING WAS NOT!!!
Have you seen the Ron Paul "SuperBomb" where there is NO LIMIT upon contributions that can be made?
YouTube.com/watch?v=ngkpAswjxg0
I guess the only part of the "Campaign Finance Reform" Ron Paul really cared about was reducing the number of signatures to get someone on the ballot...
WeRoar4All 5 months ago
@WeRoar4All "Campaign finance reform" is a euphemism for "incumbent protectionism." It does NOTHING to curb corporate influence of politicians--in fact, it does just the opposite--but it makes it VERY difficult for challengers to mount effective campaigns.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk I completely agree.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you we have a corporation (known as the United States & the New Columbia-formerly and still known as DC) pretending to be a govt. ;o)
WeRoar4All 5 months ago
@shanedk @weWhy would he limit his own campaign when all the others have no limits? That would be to definition of stupid.
birchroot56 2 months ago
@birchroot56 WTF are you talking about?
shanedk 2 months ago
I don't know ShaneDK, I usually agree with most of your opinions but I'm pretty sure large groups pooling funds is a dangerous thing no matter what. Any law that insists organizations should be treated like people is dangerous (including news organisations). A person isn't a crowd or vica versa. While I appreciate your respect of the constitution, there are some interpretations (strict or "inspired") that make this base of our government a monstrosity instead of salvation. :-/
mkjackson 8 months ago
@mkjackson If people can't pool their resources, then how CAN they compete with the large groups? The big corporations were NEVER fettered by these bogus laws. Only grassroots efforts.
What do you people even MAKE of the fact that incumbents get stronger and corporations have even greater say when these laws are passed?
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk I don't mean to sound like your take is completely flawed. I only wish there were legislation to ensure "one person, one vote". If large corporations are already corrupting the system then how will unbinding us AND them help anyone? In trying to think of a solution I'm stumped, I suppose "it will always be broken" is the only (ironic) conclusion I can come up with.
Thanks for the reply, I've been a long time viewer.
mkjackson 8 months ago
@mkjackson "I only wish there were legislation to ensure "one person, one vote"."
There is! Not that it works...
"If large corporations are already corrupting the system then how will unbinding us AND them help anyone?"
For the same reason that arming good people protects against criminals, who are going to get the guns anyway.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk I see your point, I suppose my concern is that as things get bigger, accountability becomes less binding. If we get bigger, we only create another monster (IE Tea Party) that is just as obscure/bizarre but without the brand recognition of the "Pepsi/Coke" duo we see today. Regardless, thanks for your quick replies and your insight.
mkjackson 8 months ago
@mkjackson How is the "Tea Party" a monster to you? Is this not the very kind of grassroots power we've been talking about?
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk I've searched as hard as I could for a particular clip but since I can't find it any longer I'll just sum up. I've seen some pretty extreme (and racist) folks in there that I just can't deal with such as Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin. When I say monster, I mean as in Frankenstein's monster. There doesn't really seem to be a consistent stance with the Tea Party, so to stand with them seems impossible. As for "grassroots", am I misinformed about the Koch brother's (and friends) involvement?
mkjackson 8 months ago
@shanedk I apologize for the double reply but I just want to ensure that I clarify that "one person, one vote" is meant in the figurative as in this day and age, it is not the good of the people who vote who matter to a politician as much as it's the backers who pay for their commercials. Maybe you're right... but I wish there were a way to level the playing field by bringing the big boys down to earth more than prop us up to their unreal heights (which is part of the problem IMHO). :-(
mkjackson 8 months ago
omg how much were u paid fr that lol SELLOUT!!
barefootization 8 months ago
Mate, I'll abstain from commenting on the material under discussion because that could get heated. Instead I'll ask, what the Hell is wrong with your voice? Or have your testes not descended yet?
Mazsimiliian 8 months ago
the grassroots movement has NO equitable leverage against the power of corporations. you do understand that corporations are the 1% and that the technicality of noting the James Randi's foundation as a corporation does not erase the fact that his organization does not have a massive lobbying arm. The massive, separate-from-the-corporation lobbying arms that are bigger than Randi's "corporation" in itself. You're lying and you have a mullet dude.
itsokaytobeafraid 8 months ago
@itsokaytobeafraid "the grassroots movement has NO equitable leverage against the power of corporations."
Because the corporations get TONS of government support. Remove that support--indeed, remove the entire fiction of a corporation altogether--and all of that changes.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk so you're saying they do have massive influence but you're denying economic statistics that reveal the nature wealth disparity? let me guess you are against monopoly laws too?
yeah and let's give trickle-down economics another try! haha. i thought Reagan and Rand and Thatcher's stupidity was already proven to be false. I thought we were beyond such blatantly disastrous policies that caused the crash and then bailed out the thieves. nope, let's do it all over again.
itsokaytobeafraid 8 months ago
@itsokaytobeafraid Thank you for showing not only your profound ignorance but also your willingness to strawman and your complete refusal to learn. You're a cultist woo; all there is to it.
shanedk 8 months ago
Great, so now free speech should be changed to cash speech.
In reality only the ones with the most money will have any voice. While some of your arguments are valid, like lobbies basically not being regulated at all, this change isnt good.
Too me this seems like the sugar food vs healthy food ads. While both are legal to run ads as much as they like its only the sugar foods that gets any attention because they have 100x the budget to run ads.
Lobos222 8 months ago
@Lobos222 No, money is the EQUALIZER here. Without it, only those with political clout and connections will have speech, as I demonstrated. How else are ordinary people going to compete with that, without the ability to pool their resources? How else are they even going to come CLOSE to the level of speech that the news media and politically-connected corporations enjoy?
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk 1% HAS all the money you fucking twat. the people and the other 99% can't be equalized when there is nothing there. THE BAN WAS THE GODDAMN EQUALIZER you pathetic lying shit. This ruling says that BP can wipe out the campaign funding of any opposition because any opposition could never equal the power of the corporations. The corporate money laundered through lobbying firms (same thing) was already TOO POWERFUL.
itsokaytobeafraid 8 months ago
@itsokaytobeafraid "1% HAS all the money you fucking twat."
No, they don't, you fucking LIAR. If you have to make up bullshit statistics to make your point you've automatically lost.
"THE BAN WAS THE GODDAMN EQUALIZER you pathetic lying shit."
No, it wasn't, you pathetic cultist shill! Do you know ANYTHING about the people who brought that lawsuit forward and what they were trying to do? No, you don't care the first thing about the truth, only about supporting your cult leaders.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk you mean Citizens United? a lobbying organization darling of the right wing who want to decimate all government regulation so that they can have ultimate reign to make as much money as possible even if it destroys the planet and kills innocent people?
who are my cult leaders? the only real members in government are people like Kucinich and Sanders, the rest are cronies for your darling "free market entities" (corporations).
itsokaytobeafraid 8 months ago
@itsokaytobeafraid No, LIAR, Citizens United is a GRASS-ROOTS group who put out a documentary about Hillary Clinton. This law forbade them from showing it on pay-per-view to people willing to pay to watch it.
This is the level of despicable LIES you're willing to tell. By the way, you're now in violation of Rule #5 of this channel. First warning.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. It forbade them why? Because they were showing and promoting it right during the election and refused to disclose it's donors.
They are a lobbying group just like Freedomworks who are run & funded by corporations (get a nice face to run it and make up a deceitful, marketable name that makes it sound grass roots). look up the Donatelli Group, look up the Citizens United for the Bush Agenda. Yep, just a grass roots with friends in all the right places group!
itsokaytobeafraid 8 months ago
@itsokaytobeafraid NO, LIAR!!! It was ONLY because it mentioned the name of a Federal candidate. That's IT!!! Even MENTIONING a Federal candidate was against the law!!!
But it's clear you hate free speech, and will tell any lie for the sake of your cult leaders.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk HAHA. Despicable! Dastardly! How dare I not immediately disavow everything I have spent my life learning and just listen to some random douche with a mullet on the internet! Seriously, you need to calm down.
You didn't answer my question; are you against monopoly laws? Libertarian twits usually are so I'm curious as to whether or not you actually would believe similarly that removing monopoly laws would allow small biz to compete with corporations?
itsokaytobeafraid 8 months ago
@itsokaytobeafraid "HAHA. Despicable! Dastardly!"
No, LIAR, it's the TRUTH. The law FORBADE people from MENTIONING Federal candidates within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Their movie was banned because it MENTIONED Hillary!
Oh, and the ONLY reason there are monopolies are your precious government. They do NOT happen in a free market.
I refuse to deal with such a hideously dishonest person. Go away.
shanedk 8 months ago
you quoted the court ruling that says flat out that corporations can spend ANY amount of money. i dunno if your reading comprehension is flawed, or if you're just retarded. the decision quite plainly says that any corporation can use any amount of money for or against any candidate. you think it's a win for people? it might be if the poverty gap wasn't so insanely massive. 5% of the top richest people in the us control 50% of the money. you think grassroots can compete with that? idiot.
kingbane2 8 months ago
@kingbane2 This decision is the only way the grassroots CAN compete with that! Before then, the grassroots were prevented from even TRYING! Why don't people get that?
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk before neither could compete which is by far much more even then what it is now. where corporations can drop millions. how much can real grassroots organizations muster? at best a few hundred thousand per state? when corporations are dropping millions per state. you are either hopelessly optimistic or woefully blind. what's happened is you've pit an olympic runner against an 8 year old infant missing 1 leg and asked them to race. the more fair option was that neither raced each other.
kingbane2 8 months ago
@kingbane2 This is only ONE STEP towards equalizing the power of the corporations--but it's power that the government GAVE to them, lying and calling it "campaign finance reform."
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk you completely ignore the point with some odd optimism for some imagined future. once again you prove you're either hopelessly optimistic and blinded to what's right in front of you. or you're just plain stupid, possibly even worse you're purposely trying to deceive people to make the bill more acceptable. i dont know whether to be sad or reviled by you.
kingbane2 8 months ago
@kingbane2 No, LIAR, I'm looking at HISTORY. You're just spewing bald assertions and blatant propaganda.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk always fun when you can't refute the point so you move on to name calling. i may be guilty of the same but at least i make a point while i insult you. it's pretty clear to me and everyone who reads your comments what kind of person you are. it's a toss between stupid, ignorant, or flat out deceptive.
kingbane2 8 months ago
@kingbane2 Whereas I, on the other hand, use OBSERVED FACT. But like the pathetic creationists, you just can't handle that...
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk
I suspect he didn't read the court decision.
vspqbd 8 months ago
@vspqbd He lied about who Citizens United are and what they do--do you really think he's going to let a little thing like that stop him?
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk
Of course not.
vspqbd 8 months ago
@shanedk and yet you've stated no fact. the lines you quoted from the court ruling itself pointed out quite flatly it how money ='s votes. especially when you make the point halfway through your vid about money being such a key factor. you realize that grassroots organizations are collections of tons of people, individually they could have donated together. what the ruling has done is let a handful of people gain the same amount of buying power as hundreds of thousands. you moron.
kingbane2 8 months ago
@kingbane2 "individually they could have donated together."
NO THEY COULD NOT HAVE, YOU FUCKING LIAR!!! You know quite well that individuals are VERY limited when it comes to donating to campaigns!
ALL you have are LIES!!!
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk you're such an idiot. yes individuals have a limit to how much they can donate. that's why THEY HAD MORE POWER BEFORE THE COURT case. you freaking moron. cause people could get together and pool their limited individual donations. are you THAT stupid? i didn't say they could get together and donate INFINITELY you just assumed that cause you're stupid. seriously how dumb are you?
kingbane2 8 months ago
@kingbane2 You're the one who keeps LYING. YOU said--and DON'T DENY IT, LIAR: "what the ruling has done is let a handful of people gain the same amount of buying power as hundreds of thousands."
When in reality, it's the EXACT OPPOSITE!
The fact is, YOU are the one who supports the big corporations and hates the grass-roots individuals, and you'll tell ANY lie to cover that fact and make it look like it's the opposition that does that.
shanedk 8 months ago
@kingbane2 No, the quotes say that money=SPEECH. In order to exercise your FREE SPEECH rights on television, you need MONEY to do so. You hate speech, that's all there is to it.
Or at least, you only like YOUR speech. When it's THEIR speech, and goes against your cult leaders, you're against it.
shanedk 8 months ago
I see some of the blood stain debates going on here. Hey Shanedk! Just want to applaud what you are doing here. Do more of this and sometimes you can ignore these people. Just make more videos, and build a following.
sai18kit 11 months ago
Now what are we gonna do about gerrymandering?
ThePyro3825 1 year ago
QuietReckoning has been blocked for making bigoted statements about people with Asperger's Syndrome.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
"QuietReckoning has been blocked for making bigoted statements about peopl with Asperger's Syndrome."
Good grief!
And and him were talking about the subject in the video.
Where on Earth did his bigoted comment come from?
And do I even want to know what he said? -.-
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd He dismissed every single one of my arguments by saying I clearly suffered from Asperger's, and Asperger's people are very violent and emotionally unstable--which is not only bigoted, it's laughably wrong!
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
[sarcasm] Gee, what a compassionate person. Clearly this QuietReckoning guy truly cares about the under privileged. [/sarcasm]
vspqbd 1 year ago
@shanedk I think we learned everything we need to know about you from your comments and responses here.
kimjxx 1 year ago
@shanedk Oh my...I am actually diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome. It's not easy, especially since I didn't know until I was 21 years old and I'm 23 now. I really feel bad for him that he looks at AS people that way.
ManOfDeath567 10 months ago
@QuietReckoning "Apparently, disagreeing with you about media access and campaign financing is creationism."
No, trying to argue that your opponent has no morals and his position leads to evil makes you like the creationists. But you don't want to own up to the consequences of your own actions.
ALL you have are lies and insults.
shanedk 1 year ago
@QuietReckoning "Actually, I responded with questions."
Questions that contained lies. Answer me straight, yes or no: have you stopped beating up children?
shanedk 1 year ago
@QuietReckoning No, I compared you to creationists because you're doing the EXACT SAME THING they do. DEAL with it.
shanedk 1 year ago
"There's no reason campaign season would work any differently than Christmas season."
Then why doesn't it work the same? There are only so many stations and so much ad time in prime time television.
And if I get your opinion right (correct me, if I'm wrong) the richer side is automatically entitled to a greater right to free speech than the poorer side?
QuietReckoning 1 year ago
@QuietReckoning "Then why doesn't it work the same?" Because of these damn "reform" laws!
If you'd actually bothered to research the FIRST FUCKING THING about campaigns and how to run them, you'd know that campaign advertising is the CHEAPEST advertising you can get! And yet, most ads in campaign season are for other products and services. There's PLENTY of room there. You're just making more lame fucking excuses to try and prop up your dogma.
shanedk 1 year ago
@QuietReckoning And HOW DARE YOU say that I'M the one saying that the rich are entitled to greater rights WHEN THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE FUCKING DOING!!! I'm the one wanting people who AREN'T rich to be able to pool their money to take on incumbents. Your way, you have to be Ross Fucking Perot to do it.
Just one more way you fucking dogmatists are EXACTLY LIKE THE CREATIONISTS: you project your evil onto the opposition.
shanedk 1 year ago
Is that what you were arguing when you said “The more you buy of something, the more people make of it. So, attempting to buy out the means of speech would only result in the creation of additional means.”
How could this happen in time for the end of the very temporary campaign season. How would their be a guarantee that next year, the same two candidates would square off and the means of speech would be completely bought out?
This seems like a pretty stupid investment.
QuietReckoning 1 year ago
@QuietReckoning Easy: stations would open up more commercial slots.
Duh.
Idiot.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Oh, and this:
“"Then why doesn't it work the same?" Because of these damn "reform" laws!”
Yes, I forgot. Laws are the embodiment of evil and responsible for every one of societies’ ills. How is it that the reform laws prevent this from working?
And the most important point you didn’t address is this: You're telling me a temporary lack of a product is enough to create an entirely new industry, literally overnight?
QuietReckoning 1 year ago
@QuietReckoning I ALREADY explained it. You just don't want to listen. Your cult leaders can do no wrong, and you're not open to ANY criticism of them.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk If those with money are able to purchase more of the means of speech, then they have greater free speech than the other side. This happened to McCain, and then it happened to Congressional Democrats this year. It seems like if we had publicly funded campaigns, and every party with more than 500 members got to participate with TV ads and such, that would allow poor people to run for office.
How does this argument favor the rich, Shane?
QuietReckoning 1 year ago
@QuietReckoning "If those with money are able to purchase more of the means of speech, then they have greater free speech than the other side."
Look up "point of diminishing returns" and never say a completely stupid thing like this again.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I make a logical point and ask questions, and you respond with profanity and ad-hominems.
But let’s at least be charitable enough to examine the points you seemed to be trying to make.
“HOW DARE YOU say that I'M the one saying that the rich are entitled to greater rights WHEN THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE FUCKING DOING!!!”
I argued that if you allow completely unrestricted campaign financing, those with money will by definition have a greater right to speech than those without.
QuietReckoning 1 year ago
@QuietReckoning And I showed you that you're wrong. And instead of refuting me, you attack me, ignore the points, and make excuses.
shanedk 1 year ago
"So, attempting to buy out the means of speech would only result in the creation of additional means."
Really? What if a specific politician just rents them for a few months?
You're telling me a temporary lack of a product is enough to create an entirely new industry, literally overnight?
What happens when the market pressures disappear after the campaign?
Politicians still don't know about You Tube as it's nowhere near as effective as other means of communication.
QuietReckoning 1 year ago
@QuietReckoning "What if a specific politician just rents them for a few months?"
Oh, come on!
Rental increases demand for renting. Same effect. Learn some basic fucking economics.
There's no reason campaign season would work any differently than Christmas season.
shanedk 1 year ago
What no one's talking about is why these laws went into place in the first place, and I find that rather interesting.
It's possible to damage the speech of another by completely buying out the means to speech.
That's what we're concerned about.
Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Unlimited donations allow one side to completely drown out the other. Just like Obama did to McCain in certain places in 2008.
QuietReckoning 1 year ago
@QuietReckoning "It's possible to damage the speech of another by completely buying out the means to speech"
No, it isn't. That's completely ridiculous, and ignorant of basic economics to boot. The more you buy of something, the more people make of it. So, attempting to buy out the means of speech would only result in the creation of additional means.
You're buying the lie the incumbent politicians sell to try and protect their empire.
shanedk 1 year ago
It's really like the First Rule of Tyranny or something: If you want to take away people's right to do X, tell them it's necessary to defend their right to do X.
shanedk 1 year ago
The interesting thing about this ruling is that nobody is quite certain what the outcome will be. One thing is for sure, campaigns will be flooded with money. Where will it come from primarily though? Unions will be able to produce eleventh hour smear adds too.
Emperordante 1 year ago
@Emperordante YET again, this decision has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with campaign funding.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Independant action. Adds will increase which will force canditates to find similar backing from large special interests. The question is, how will that really be any different?
Emperordante 1 year ago
@Emperordante Because now the law won't allow only certain organizations and corporations to do it; now, ANYONE can form a corporation and voice their opinion, the way Citizens United tried to do.
This is a VICTORY for the voice of the people.
shanedk 1 year ago
God libertarians are so stupid. so basically this retard thinks buildings and bank accounts are people with civil liberties. Its an extension of corporate personhood. The Anti-worker anti-union right to work committee was in favor of this ruling, as well as the chamber of commerce. Anyone who sides with those two anti-american organizations should be bitch slapped.
louiscaponecchia 1 year ago
@louiscaponecchia No, YOU are the one who thinks that companies just somehow work on their own without any humans involved.
Again, here's what this case is REALLY about: Some people got together and formed a NON-PROFIT organization to make movies about American politics. They weren't able to distribute their movies 60 days before an election. That's a BLATANT free-speech violation! We're not talking fucking Exxon here, we're talking a NON-PROFIT group of CITIZEN activists.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Sounds like louiscaponecchia is yet another wanker who didn't even bother to watch your video, much less read the court decision.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd i did both.
louiscaponecchia 1 year ago
@louiscaponecchia Oh, so you were lying, then.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk nope. i have no reason to. apparently you do.
louiscaponecchia 1 year ago
@louiscaponecchia You said this was about big corporations. It ISN'T. You said this was about corporate personhood. It ISN'T. You were either lying when you said you watched this video and read the decision, lying about what the decision says, or the stupidest person on the planet.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk who happen to be exxon, Koch, the chamber of commerce and 75 million dollars of foreign money, healthcare industry, big pharma, etc...
louiscaponecchia 1 year ago
Respond to this video... And when the Dems and Obama wanted to pass the disclose act, right to work and the chamber of evil, er, commerce, screamed obnoxiously about it. hmmmm.....
louiscaponecchia 1 year ago
@louiscaponecchia Yeah, and Hitler painted watercolors, so anyone who paints watercolors is evil.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk eh..whatever. nobody watches your shit anyways. the amazing atheist stomps your arguments on a regular basis. You are like the libertarian version of how the world works, you just obnoxiously yell "matter of factly" into your screen while maintaining a dead pan unblinking stare into your webcam.
louiscaponecchia 1 year ago
@louiscaponecchia "the amazing atheist stomps your arguments on a regular basis."
When has he responded to a SINGLE video of mine?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk oh, he hasnt. you apparently are not significant enough. he has however covered the same issues as you. you differ on free market capitalism.
louiscaponecchia 1 year ago
@louiscaponecchia So, then, you lied AGAIN.
The only thing he's covered are strawman versions, and I've refuted him several times. Those refutations stand without response.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk no, i didnt lie. you, someone who takes every syllable of the constitution literally, much like an islamic fundamentalist does with his koran, did so with my words. i didnt lie. you lied. this ruling is entirely about corporate personhood, and is an extension of their abilities to fund campaigns. you lied. you misinformed. you dont know what you are talking about. You want to call obama a liar, but you conveniantly leave out the disclose act and why it was brought up in response to this
louiscaponecchia 1 year ago
@louiscaponecchia "you, someone who takes every syllable of the constitution literally"
Because you're SUPPOSED TO--it's the LAW! What's the point of the law if not to be clear, literal, and specific?
You are a thoroughly vile and disgusting individual. "Islamic fundamentalists take their religious text literally, therefore anyone who says a text must be taken literally is like an Islamic fundamentalist." Do you not see that this is not only dishonest, but a foul insult as well?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk so you believe we should have a right to own nuclear missiles as private citizens if we have the cash since our 2nd amendment says we have a right to bear arms? what about tanks? You know...the guys who wrote the constitution didnt think women should vote or own property, nor blacks, nor indians. Afterwards we over saw a century of genocide and 2nd class citizenry and slavery, etc. Highly flawed men may have had some good ideas, but some arent that well thought out at all.
louiscaponecchia 1 year ago
@louiscaponecchia "so you believe we should have a right to own nuclear missiles as private citizens" Never said it ONCE. And libel is NOT allowed on this channel. First warning. I reiterate: you are a vile and disgusting individual.
Since when are nuclear weapons "arms"?
"You know...the guys who wrote the constitution didnt think women should vote or own property, nor blacks, nor indians."
More disgusting Poisoning the Well. Did they put that into the Constitution? NO!
shanedk 1 year ago
@louiscaponecchia "Highly flawed men may have had some good ideas, but some arent that well thought out at all." The problem with you is, you're trying to make their bad ideas be a refutation of their good ideas--like all dogmatists do. But reality just doesn't work that way.
shanedk 1 year ago
@louiscaponecchia "i didnt lie. you lied." No, YOU lied. I went with what YOU said, and what YOU said could ONLY have been a lie.
"this ruling is entirely about corporate personhood" Quote the part of the ruling saying that.
"is an extension of their abilities to fund campaigns." No, it's about the ability of people to pool their resources to purchase advertising, or, in this case, make a movie expressing their political opinions. YOU ARE A LIAR.
shanedk 1 year ago
@louiscaponecchia "you misinformed. you dont know what you are talking about." Yet, I can quote the decision supporting me, and you can't.
"you conveniantly leave out the disclose act and why it was brought up in response to this"
First of all, that happened MONTHS after I made this video, so you just LIED again. Second, the DISCLOSE act was an attempt to get their anti-free-speech incumbent protectionism back into law where it DOESN'T belong.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk anti-free speech....by saying corporations and multibillionaires have to disclose who they are...you know, currently the chamber of commerce is pocketing and spending millions of foreign dollars on campaigns, and not even the federal government can find out whos it is. one of the "freedoms" of citizens united.
louiscaponecchia 1 year ago
@louiscaponecchia That's NOT what the DISCLOSE Act does. That's what they WANT you to think, but as I showed the Citizens United decision does NOTHING to take away the requirements forcing people to disclose who paid for the ad.
Here's some good info on it: w w wDOTdownsizedcDOTorg/blog/former+fec+commissioners+oppose+disclose+act
And these are FORMER FEC COMMISSIONERS. You're just blindly spewing the rhetoric your cult leaders give you; it does NOT match reality.
shanedk 1 year ago
It's also clear that those who benefit the most from corporate profits (the shareholders and board of directors) are often able to escape unlimited liability, which obviously is a legal advantage others just don't have.
TheAgnosticInfidel 1 year ago
Roderick Long has explained: 'It is unclear who owns the corporation, given that there is no identifiable group whose relationship to the corporation involves the usual characteristics of ownership such as unlimited liability (in tort)...But the case against regarding them as fully liable seems like an equally good case against regarding them as full owners; it turns them into something more like clients of the corporation, leaving it unclear where the real ownership lies."
TheAgnosticInfidel 1 year ago
@TheAgnosticInfidel "'It is unclear who owns the corporation"
No, it's not. It's all in the incorporation papers.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Long is looking at it more from a philosophical standpoint (Carson's claim that tradeable instruments do not constitute ownership in any real sense is an example of this kind of thinking), while you are taking a legal approach. Long is an indvidualist anarchist just to give you an idea where he is coming from. You also haven't addressed the issue of limited liability. Unlimited liability is a typical feature of ownership, but many corporations escape it. Why?
TheAgnosticInfidel 1 year ago
@TheAgnosticInfidel If you look at it from a "philosophical standpoint," you can make it out to be however the hell you want. So you're really saying nothing at all.
And there's nothing inherent about liability in ownership; that's a legal construct.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk So if you pollute a river to the tune of $1 million then you shouldn't have to pay for the entie clean-up?
TheAgnosticInfidel 1 year ago
@TheAgnosticInfidel Only if it's SOMEONE ELSE'S RIVER.
What about that do you people not get?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk It's highly unlikely an individual would have control over an entire river.
TheAgnosticInfidel 1 year ago
@TheAgnosticInfidel They'd have control over their part of it, though. Again, look at Fish Legal in the UK.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk What are the chances it would only stay on their part though? Going beyond rivers it's quite clear BP should not have limited liability in the case of the Gulf oil spill.
TheAgnosticInfidel 1 year ago
@TheAgnosticInfidel I don't think you understand what limited liability means. It does NOT mean the liability caps they are under which prevents them from having to pay every penny of the clean-up. Limited liability would still mean that BP has to pay every penny, but they can't go after the personal property of every little old lady who happens to have BP stock in her retirement account.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I meant in the sense of a liability cap.
TheAgnosticInfidel 1 year ago
@shanedk I would also mention I have no prolem with limited liability as you describe it, but it should probably be granted through a voluntary agreement/contract not through government privilege.
TheAgnosticInfidel 1 year ago
@TheAgnosticInfidel I agree.
shanedk 1 year ago
As Kevin Carson has put it, "The problems, briefly stated: that tradeable instruments do not constitute ownership claims in any real sense; that internal stakeholders like human capital have no property rights in the equity they create (and hence no incentive to increase productivity); and that management not only self-deals from capital it did not contribute, but also appropriates the productivity gains created by others' efforts, and therefore has the time horizons of a Turkish tax farmer."
TheAgnosticInfidel 1 year ago
@TheAgnosticInfidel "internal stakeholders like human capital have no property rights in the equity they create"
Because they're being paid for their efforts. The exchange is work for pay, not work for ownership.
This is nothing but long-refuted socialist garbage.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk State Socialist? It can be, but that isn't necessarly the case. Worker cooperatives are not anti-free market and one can argue as Carson does later on that the incentives for worker cooperatives are superior to those of shareholder corporations: "The conventional firm presupposes hierarchy and the divorce of labor from ownership, and then tries to find a mechanism to elicit effort from those who have no rational interest in maximizing productivity."
TheAgnosticInfidel 1 year ago
@TheAgnosticInfidel There are anarcho-socialists as well.
Workers have an incentive to maximize their own individual productivity--if they produce more, they make more, if not directly, then by being able to demand a raise or a better job later on. What you're talking about is making each and every worker liable for the bad decisions of others that reduce productivity, even when they themselves had no say in those decisions. How is THAT fair?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Is a wage equivalent to what a worker produces? Wages will likely never rise to match or exceed the profits that are generated from labor's products. It should also be pointed out that increases in productivity have not always been met by an increase in real wages. While productivity rose under Reagan I believe there may have been a slight decline in real wages. Since the 70s hasn't productivity soared, while wages have only increased by a fraction of that?
TheAgnosticInfidel 1 year ago
@TheAgnosticInfidel To the worker, the wage is worth more than production. To the employer, the production is worth more than the wage. That's how wealth for BOTH parties increases. And if that weren't the case, the worker would never have taken the job and the employer would never have hired him.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Only because our economy has been built around wage labor. You also didn't address the fact that wages tend to lag significantly behind the rate of productivity. Obviously, a worker can work for wages if he wants to as I am strongly against coercion, but does that mean I think they should if worker cooperatives are an option on the table? No.
TheAgnosticInfidel 1 year ago
@TheAgnosticInfidel "You also didn't address the fact that wages tend to lag significantly behind the rate of productivity."
Because you haven't shown that they do.
Nothing would stop the formation of worker co-ops in a free market.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I agree with you there. It's likely communities would experiment with different forms of economic organization under a true free market economy. Our economy would look very different without the distortions of government intervention. From 1947-1973, productivity experienced a rise of 103.7%, while median income actually rose by 103.9%. Between 1973 and 2005, median income went up by about 22%, while productivity went up about 76%.
TheAgnosticInfidel 1 year ago
@TheAgnosticInfidel Because of inflation. Wages lag behind inflation, and inflation takes wealth from workers for the government and the banks.
shanedk 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheAgnosticInfidel 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheAgnosticInfidel 1 year ago
@shanedk Yes, you're right that inflation likely has played a part in this. Probably not the only one, but a major part nonetheless.
TheAgnosticInfidel 1 year ago
@shanedk Also, how can we be sure a rise in productivity would result in an equivalent rise in wages without the factor of inflation?
TheAgnosticInfidel 1 year ago
@TheAgnosticInfidel In nominal wages? It probably wouldn't. However, that same wage rate, simply because of the increase production, would be able to purchase a greater number of goods and services in the economy. The prices of these--both in real and in nominal terms--would go down, making everybody's paycheck go farther.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk True, but the initial issue was whether or not a rise in productivity will result in an equivalent increase in wages.
TheAgnosticInfidel 1 year ago
@shanedk youre wrong about everything and your voice is annoying. this is why people hate libertarians. socialists will win elections (like Bernie Sanders) before a libertarian or constitutionalist ever does, because libertarians and constitutionalists are obnoxious "know it alls" that inevitable side with plutocrats and multibillionaires.
louiscaponecchia 1 year ago
@louiscaponecchia
Libertarians are "know it alls"? If libertarians were "know it alls" then we wouldn't advocating libertarianism. The point is that we don't know it all. Nobody does.
Scoforever 1 year ago
@Scoforever Exactly. It's the statists that are the know-it-alls--or, at least, they believe that their precious state can know it, even if no human or group of humans can. In fact, that's their point: the state can set interest rates, invest properly in the economy, and other things that people can't be trusted to do on their own. They therefore--whether they realize it or not--consider their state to have supernatural abilities, leading to the phrase, the Cult of the Omnipotent State.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
"they therefore--whether they realize it or not--consider their state to have supernatural abilities, leading to the phrase, the Cult of the Omnipotent State."
Exactly.
It's why folks like me, Fringeelements, and Dale Everett (the Anarchyinyourhead guy) call statism a religion.
Because it is a religion.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd Um no, it's a political ideology as is libertarianism. You are whining about people who disagree with your ideology and calling them "statists" and worse still, religious zealots. Can't you see that bringing this into a political debate makes you look a little stupid?
It's kinda like creationists saying "Darwinism is a religion".
Emperordante 1 year ago
@Emperordante No, that's what the statists do when they say we have "faith" in the free market.
Answer straight: How can the government do ANYTHING any other group of people can't do, given that the government IS a group of people?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk can "any other group of people" agree to abide by our laws and values? Sure, why not? Do they though?
I'm not disagreeing with the notion of libertarianism, what I'm disagreeing with is the lazy manner in which people are commenting on this video. Why mischaracterize political opponents as religious zealots? You can at least recognize how uncompelling the argument is when it is levied against free marketeers.
Emperordante 1 year ago
@Emperordante Except we can SHOW that they're being religious zealots. I just showed how they consider the government to have supernatural powers.
shanedk 1 year ago
@TheAgnosticInfidel
and for the politically connected corporations; basically, whoever gets to spend the new money first.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@shanedk Just to expand on the previous quotation: "Worker cooperatives require far less front-line supervision precisely because the work force has residual claimancy and internalizes the results of its ownership. In addition, the cooperative avoids many of the Hayekian information problems involved in the centrally planned corporation because those in possession of distributed or idiosyncratic knowledge about production are in control of the work process."
TheAgnosticInfidel 1 year ago
Corporate personhood is a difficult issue because coporations as they are now structured are very undemocratic and have vague property rights that make it hard to disinguish who is in charge of the decision making and who should be held liable for mistakes. Shareholders have few enforceable ownership rights (allows management to focus almost entirely on short term) and the value of most such corporations is determined by the internal stakeholders and is subsequently seized by the management.
TheAgnosticInfidel 1 year ago
Expensive campaigns do nothing but keep hacks in office. We need to have a system where average people can run and have a chance of winning and not well connected or career politicians.
34thstreetman 1 year ago
@34thstreetman Which is why we need to get rid of this so-called "campaign finance reform" (really incumbent protectionism). It all gets in the way of small challengers taking on the big dogs.
shanedk 1 year ago
This ruling was nothing to do with Free speech you dumb fucking republican piece of shit.
This ruling says that a non person/citizen can determine the electorate in this country.
You fucking dick sucking republican, why don't you read the decision.
Every time your mouth opens it's in the shape of a dick.
The republican support of this, shows they are owned by corporate, special and foreign interest and not of the people.
YuraJagov 1 year ago
@YuraJagov 1) I'm not a Republican, you political dogmatist.
2) So, what ARE corporations, then? Martians? Flying Spaghetti Monsters? Super-intelligent shades of the color blue?
3) I DID read the decision--I even POSTED the parts that showed the reporters to be LYING! Why don't you respond to that?
shanedk 1 year ago
@YuraJagov
Cool story, bro.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
Cronyism and downright corrupt politicians doesn't justify any censorship and any one who tells you that is down right victimizing you. Is it fair to let Rache Maddow or Bill O' to monopolize debate? Hell no! Its ironic that you attack a man who barely spends enough to make a significant impact financialy but blindly listen to some one who gets paid to be a talkinghead. And I'm not just attacking liberals, I bet you conservatives salivate at the idea of censoring gun control advocates.
pjfislord 1 year ago
@pjfislord Whom are you talking to?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk to those who have a hard time agreeing with you. Sorry for the confusion.
pjfislord 1 year ago
ENRON. ENOUGH SAID.
cesar333 1 year ago
@cesar333 Enron was the result of government corporatism. The only thing you "said" was your own ignorance of what happened.
shanedk 1 year ago
So, now it's come out that Obama received over $3.5 million in campaign donations from PACS related to BP--and people are worried that THIS decision will help corporations buy candidates? THEY ALREADY WERE!!!
This is a good thing for the little guy, folks.
shanedk 1 year ago
Bullshit with this decision what's to stop exxon from buying the election
mrgetrealpeople 1 year ago
@mrgetrealpeople Competition, real life, the fact that it's impossible... MAN, you dogmatists are paranoid!
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk No more paranoid than you, libertarian extremist! When you call people liars for expressing their opinions and disagreeing with yours, you lose what credibility you had from your videos about science. You are as dogmatic as those you criticize.
DaleHusband 1 year ago
@DaleHusband And this, class, is a classic example of "projection."
So, what exactly is one SUPPOSED to do if one finds out that someone has lied? If the mere act of saying that someone lied makes you lose credibility, then how can ANYONE be called out a liar?
Bottom line: the decision DOES NOT DO WHAT THEY SAY IT DID. Not even CLOSE.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk How did you prove anyone to be a liar in your video? All you did was contradict them and spin it to make the Supreme Court decision look like a gift to the people. Sorry, I don't beleive that in the long run that will be the case.
DaleHusband 1 year ago
@DaleHusband Now YOU'RE the one lying. I QUOTED the decision. I showed it saying something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to what they claim it says.
And you keep attacking me with NO evidence for your claims. That's dogmatist behavior. You're protecting your cult leaders, nothing more.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Again, you are calling me a liar because I disagree with you. Yes, you quoted the decision, but you only the part of it you wanted us to see. And is it "dogmatic" to say that the Supreme Court decision gives total freedom to corporations like Exxon and McDonald's to finance candidates who will them, once elected, push for deregulation and more corporate bailouts, among other things?
DaleHusband 1 year ago
@DaleHusband Ah, the part I WANTED you to see. Okay, fine: why don't YOU quote the part of the decision backing up what they're saying? You could have done that at ANY point; I even LINKED TO THE ENTIRE DECISION IN THE VIDEO INFO BOX. Why don't you?
People who AREN'T liars do that kind of thing. People who ARE just keep doing what you're doing.
shanedk 1 year ago
The court overturned decisions that upheld laws that limited and/or eliminated corporate spending on election campaigns. So... that basically means that similar laws are unconstitutional (like tillman)... yes?
entro666 1 year ago
@entro666 Not automatically, but it's an argument that can be made in future cases.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk So, the entire point of your video is wrong?
entro666 1 year ago
@entro666 What? No, it's not wrong at all. Why would you say that?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Isn't your main point that this supreme court decision has nothing to do with how campaigns are financed?
entro666 1 year ago
@entro666 Right, it didn't.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk So, by that same chain of logic, overturning 'roe v. wade' would have nothing to do with abortions?
entro666 1 year ago
@entro666 First of all, I don't see how that follows. Second, your question would depend on what parts of Roe v. Wade are overturned.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Look, the point here is you're drawing on a technical difference between campaign contributions as direct monetary donations into a campaigns treasury, and money spent promoting an election campaign. I don't think that many pundants or politicians see a need to distinguish these different types of election spending because one, they believe the end result is basically the same, and two, because it's in their interest to make information easily digestible.
entro666 1 year ago
@entro666 No, we are NOT TALKING ABOUT EITHER OF THOSE!!! Not ONE thing in this decision has ANYTHING to do with ONE SINGLE PENNY going into anyone's campaign funds!!!
And at this point, it's clear that you're just another dogmatist who's going to believe what he needs to believe
Was the pay-per-view movie in question "promoting an election campaign"? NO IT FUCKING WAS NOT!!!
Geez...
shanedk 1 year ago