The Glade 4.0

I thought my phrase was fairly clear. The government was setup to provide for the people, not for corporations or unions. I firmly believe that both corporations and unions have a corrupting influence on our government. IMHO, the only entities that should have any direct control over our politics is the individual.

As for the long term definition, I don't view 3-5 years as long term, even for a company. Yet that is how most public companies are managed. Obviously I don't consider most public companies to be competently managed.

I firmly believe that having sand on your feet can make the beach dirty.

Not that I entirely disagree with your other points, because I think they're valid. I just think government does just fine corrupting itself--corporations and unions, if they contribute, are just pissing in the ocean.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Yeah, see, that's called "grass roots."

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Corporations and unions are organizations formed by people to represent some common interest. What this is really saying is that people shouldn't be able to represent certain common interests by forming certain types of organizations. It's ultimately a limitation on the individual.

As for "having direct control" the only entity that does have direct control over politics is the individual. No matter how much money is spent, corporations, unions, and other organizations never have any direct control. All they can do is try to influence voters and politicians to do as they please, and they must compete against other organizations doing the same.

This really comes down to certain ideas (those that benefit corporations and the individuals that make them up or those that benefit unions and the individuals that make them up) should have artificial limitations placed on them. It's really absurd because the interests represented by those ideas can exist in the same individual that is supposedly no longer able to influence politics. A single person can be an investor in corporations, a union member and of course hold their own personal interests that may or may not compete with either or both of the others.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I know what you're getting at, and when it comes to the vote itself, you are correct. But with so many congressmen and senators directly sucking at the corporate/union/church teat and basing their policies on the whims of the hand that feeds them, I'm not entirely sure this is true.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I don't really see how this is the case given that A) every one of them is being courted by multiple interests B) those interests tend to court congressmen whose constituents are liable to be similar C) the voters aren't taking the initiative to kick out the congressmen supposedly doing this D) "sucking at the teat" is an undefined use of loaded language that has no real meaning; almost any sympathy to any cause could be called "sucking at it's teat and E) there is no sucking at any church "teat" that I'm aware of given the tax limitations placed on churches and their relative lack of funds compared to industries and unions.

In other words, I'm just not buying the "they're all corrupt" line. Many are, and some more than others. Many others are really not.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Sucking at the teat = On the dole. Whether for funds, perks, campaign support, or simply the salvation of their souls, they are being influenced by things other than their duty to those that voted for them.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I don't see how this is inherently a problem. Those that voted for them don't necessarily disagree with those influences, and if they do and see it as a problem, they need to kick them out at the next election.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yeah, if there were more than two choices, or the other guy weren't the exact same...

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I disagree with your claims at the scope. I believe this will have a HUGE impact on the way our elections and government work. It will be slow at first, but once businesses are comfortable with the new changes, it's going to turn politics on it's ear.

I don't see that the other guy is exactly the same. This smacks of circular argument, where we know that everyone running is corrupt because they're running, and they wouldn't be running if they weren't corrupt.

I also don't see how we can assume that the interests of the constituents are A) all the same or B) conflict with the interests of various organizations necessarily. If there's a large Toyota plant in a given district, then it stands to reasont he employees will be generally supportive of Toyota's interests.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I believe it is, unfortunately, true. It's not so much circular, but it's a factor of the system itself being corrupt from its core. NOTHING can fix it short of an absolute replacement, a new system with better checks and balances and safeguards and far more limited power.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I don't see that the problem you are describing exists in the first place, and even if there was, I don't think any new system could realistically avoid the same "problems".

I certainly agree tht there are problems with the specific policies that have been pursued in many regards, but I see no reason to think that they are problems of "everyone is inherently corrupt". Perhaps that depends on what one defines as corruption, but to be perfectly honest if the current situation is so corrupt according to one's definition of corruption that athe whole "system" needs to be replaced, then one may as well throw up one's hands in depair and accept it. No replacement system will ever avoid the same problems in the future. We are simply not ever going to get rid of the portion of the population that demands more government for every ill they see thereby facilitating this "problem" in the first place.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

THIS is what I'd like to see:



You want to limit corruption? Limit power. Corruption will go to wherever the power is.

But that's just crazy talk.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

We already had that. Inevitably, that group of citizens I mentioned will demand expansion of that power. Even constitutions will not prevent that as they will inevitably demand amendment.

So yes, it is crazy talk. Not in the sense that wishing for it and trying to push it in that direction is crazy, but rather in the unrealistic expectations that we can just "replace the system" and everthing will be hunky-dory. What are we going to do, ban the ideas of those who want more government? I don't think we need to rehash the problems of trying to police ideas.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm pleased with this decision. This opens up some problems, but these can be corrected. The Congress passed some stupid laws, these were struck down as unconstitutional, good. Now Congress needs to get back to work and write better laws. Campaigns need to be regulated, in a constitutional manner that does not violate people's constitutional rights simply because they have more money.

LA Times calls the Decision Judicial Activism
You can read the whole opinion piece at the link, but this is precisely why the decision is a good thing. You should also look at the by-line for the editorial. It might explain why I scoff at our law schools.

_________________

I'm still not sure where I stand on this issue.

_________________
The Dude abides.

If anyone doesn't think this was judicial activism, then quite frankly they don't know what the term means.

Im curious Aizle, what is your definition of "judicial activism"? Because from most of the people that I have heard rail against it, it is nothing more than a decision they don't like.

How, exactly, is holding Congress to the First Amendment "Judicial Activism"? Indeed, you would need to show that, contrary to the First Amendment, that collections of individuals cannot exercise their unified freedom of speech through a collaborative entity. You will also need to show that any such consideration was STRICTLY prohibited or denounced in the literature produced by the "Framers". So, how is it Judicial Activism, Aizle?

_________________

I don't really see how this can be judicial activism. The constitution is very clear on your right to free speech, and the laws regulating campaign spending clearly violate that constitutional right.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I am sorry that your belief of what the Constitution says does not match with what the Constitution says.

Oh wait, no I am not, I like what the Constitution says.

Money is speech. Deal with it.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

The term does not mean "decisions that fearmongers don't like".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Except that the individual's make up the organization, and, being a regulated entity, they are thus regulated as part of that organization. As such, there would be no way for those individuals to have representation or a voice for their organization. In other words, you would restrict their rights of association.

Now, perhaps if you'd like to elimnate direct lobbying by organizations, I could probably get behind that, but eliminating the broadcasting of ads and such is simply inequitable application of rights.



Except that it is long-term. The entire market for a company can change in 90 days in the modern era, much less 5 years. Forecasting anything past that timeframe becomes a total guessing game. Would you feel better if organizational leadership provided you guesses? I wouldn't. Responsible management literally cannot forecast beyond that timeframe in most industries without undermining that whole "responsible" part.

An individual, however, doesn't have to adapt to a changing environment nearly as much as an organization does. Just look at any 5 year period in the last, say, 25 years and compare the start point with the end point. How many organizations wouldn't have had to make substantial changes to survive that timespan? Very few.


@ Monty: You're blatant ignorance of the function of corporate finance and governance is what is laughable. You have zero comprehension of how corporations work beyond your hatred and slander of all of them. I have no desire to get into a back and forth "nuh, uh... you suxx" with you beyond making the statement I just made, and which I'll reiterate now: you have from what I can tell, no knowledge or experience with corporate finance on which to base any of your statements.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine