View Poll Results: Is Citizen's United et al ruling compatible with democracy?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    29 65.91%
  • no

    15 34.09%
Page 12 of 16 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 154

Thread: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

  1. #111
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    There's a difference between pointing out the realities of corporate influence + the problems they cause and "demonizing corporations". Learn it and maybe you'll be able to address people's actual arguments instead of making up imaginary ones.
    Would it be a good arguement for me to say, black people commit crimes so we must do something about that? If you simply want to say that corporations *sometimes* promote ideas you feel are bad for society, fine. I wouldn't disagree.

    As to your point about unions, PP, etc. - I don't believe it's good for most organizations to have overwhelming power in politics. Too much power harms in a small group of wealthy organizations harms the public.
    Not only do we have free speech, we have the Freedom of Assembly.

    Freedom of assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.[1] The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, a political freedom and a civil liberty.

    Freedom of assembly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    You can not change that in the courts or a simple law.
    Last edited by 1Perry; 07-03-11 at 11:13 PM.

  2. #112
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Would it be a good arguement for me to say, black people commit crimes so we must do something about that? If you simply want to say that corporations *sometimes* promote ideas you feel are bad for society, fine. I wouldn't disagree.
    Your comment about black people and crimes doesn't make sense in the context of this discussion. I haven't been talking about "bad ideas" that corporations promote, I've been talking about the level of influence corporations have, so your second comment isn't relevant either.

    Not only do we have free speech, we have the Freedom of Assembly.

    Freedom of assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.[1] The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, a political freedom and a civil liberty.

    Freedom of assembly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    You can not change that in the courts or a simple law.
    Freedom of assembly isn't the issue, it's freedom of speech, so I'm not sure what your point is. Moreover, the country can go against the Constitution if it has a legitimate reason, so telling me what the Constitution says isn't really an argument. For more information, see slander and libel.

  3. #113
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    Your comment about black people and crimes doesn't make sense in the context of this discussion. I haven't been talking about "bad ideas" that corporations promote, I've been talking about the level of influence corporations have, so your second comment isn't relevant either.
    It's a misguided generalization all the same as the one that corporations are bad.

    Freedom of assembly isn't the issue, it's freedom of speech, so I'm not sure what your point is. Moreover, the country can go against the Constitution if it has a legitimate reason, so telling me what the Constitution says isn't really an argument. For more information, see slander and libel.
    We all seem to agree that people have the right of free speech. The problem with some seem to be when they get together. Sorry, many people aren't willing to toss our rights aside simply because we do not like how some express theirs. In the end, there may be some bumps but the courts will uphold our Constitutional rights as they did here.

  4. #114
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    It's a misguided generalization all the same as the one that corporations are bad.
    I never said corporations are bad and I don't believe that they are. As I said, I've only been talking about the amount of influence that they have on society and the potential consequences of such influence. You have created a strawman.

    We all seem to agree that people have the right of free speech. The problem with some seem to be when they get together. Sorry, many people aren't willing to toss our rights aside simply because we do not like how some express theirs. In the end, there may be some bumps but the courts will uphold our Constitutional rights as they did here.
    There's no need to be sorry, you haven't said anything that has countered my arguments. I don't think anyone here has argued that we should "simply toss our rights aside because we don't like how some express theirs". This is another imaginary argument that you have created and argued against. What I said in that last post is that we can go against the Constitution when we have a legitimate reason. How did you get "toss our rights aside because we don't like others" from "legitimate reason"?
    Last edited by ThePlayDrive; 07-04-11 at 12:33 AM.

  5. #115
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,419
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Let's also note, it's also the opinion of the USSC.



    You nor anyone else gets to decide what is "balanced". Unfortunately, those who lose always thinks it's because something wasn't "fair". No, it's because more disagreed with you than agreed with you. People do not by and large disagree with you because someone else told them to. This type of elitist thinking is pretty disgusting actually.

    "I can see the facts but others can't because corporations are spending too much money" Hog wash.



    O.K.



    You can never fix a problem until one elects someone willing to fix it. We can not change ones right to Free Speech without a Constitutional Adm and that aint going to happen.

    You would agree would you not that each individual has a COnstitutional right to free speech. Right?

    Do you agree that if 50 people are around you, they all have that right also?

    Now how does this right dissapear simply because they all decide to say the same thing at the same time?

    As an aside, it does not matter whether what they say is good, helpful or positive. They have a right to say something you deem wrong also.
    Now imagine the original 50 people are surrounded by another 50 people with a million dollars worth of amplifiers and speakers, and we are both discussing apples.

    The above illustrates the phenomenon that concerns those who are uncomfortable with the ramifications of the CU decision.

    The ability of an equal number of people to apply massive amounts of money alone to completely drown out the original 50 IS something to be concerned about.

    And then you look at a board of directors numbering say, 20, who stand to gain or lose billions of dollars depending on what party is in power, and now these 20 men can spend hundreds of millions of dollars supporting candidates and points of view before that becomes an unacceptable cost of doing business.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  6. #116
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    We all seem to agree that people have the right of free speech. The problem with some seem to be when they get together. Sorry, many people aren't willing to toss our rights aside simply because we do not like how some express theirs. In the end, there may be some bumps but the courts will uphold our Constitutional rights as they did here.
    Its not they get together that is the main problem. Its that a person who lives in NY can buy influence in SC, NH, IN, WI, visa versa etc. How is the citizens of IN served by the lobbying of a person who has no ties to IN? How is his voice given more weight?

    Of course, this could all be solved if speech were free in dollar sense.
    Last edited by xpiher; 07-04-11 at 09:42 PM.
    Hayek - too liberal for republicans

  7. #117
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    I never said corporations are bad and I don't believe that they are. As I said, I've only been talking about the amount of influence that they have on society and the potential consequences of such influence. You have created a strawman.
    No, my statement was simply misunderstood. I didn't say that you made the arguement only that the idea is as misguided as mine. There are many here making that arguement. We seem to agree.

    There's no need to be sorry, you haven't said anything that has countered my arguments. I don't think anyone here has argued that we should "simply toss our rights aside because we don't like how some express theirs". This is another imaginary argument that you have created and argued against. What I said in that last post is that we can go against the Constitution when we have a legitimate reason. How did you get "toss our rights aside because we don't like others" from "legitimate reason"?
    We can "not go against the Constitution". To do so would be tossing it aside. As an example.....shouting fire in a crowded theater. That was ruled as not protected speech, not that it was but we would simply "go against the Constitution".

  8. #118
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    Its not they get together that is the main problem. Its that a person who lives in NY can buy influence in SC, NH, IN, WI, visa versa etc. How is the citizens of IN served by the lobbying of a person who has no ties to IN? How is his voice given more weight?
    I will say that I do not care much for this myself. As I've said before though, I do not like that the KKK can have their say in the local park either. Just because I do not like it is not reason enough to curtail the rights of others.

    There is much that those who band together have to say that I do not like. I despise removing their right to say it even more though.

  9. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    Now imagine the original 50 people are surrounded by another 50 people with a million dollars worth of amplifiers and speakers, and we are both discussing apples.

    The above illustrates the phenomenon that concerns those who are uncomfortable with the ramifications of the CU decision.
    Free speech is not always pretty. Rights are not always positive. It is still better than the alternative.

    The ability of an equal number of people to apply massive amounts of money alone to completely drown out the original 50 IS something to be concerned about.
    The single charismatic speaker can drown out 50 unprepared speakers. One guy caused the death of 900 in Jonestown.

    And then you look at a board of directors numbering say, 20, who stand to gain or lose billions of dollars depending on what party is in power, and now these 20 men can spend hundreds of millions of dollars supporting candidates and points of view before that becomes an unacceptable cost of doing business.
    Do you know 20 people that have banded together to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to influence an election or is this just a hypothetical?

  10. #120
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    No, my statement was simply misunderstood. I didn't say that you made the arguement only that the idea is as misguided as mine. There are many here making that argument. We seem to agree.
    We do agree and yet I don't see anyone else in here making the generalizations that you accuse them of.

    We can "not go against the Constitution". To do so would be tossing it aside. As an example.....shouting fire in a crowded theater. That was ruled as not protected speech, not that it was but we would simply "go against the Constitution".
    Ruling that something is not protected speech is, in fact, "going against the Constitution" because it directly ignores the 1st Amendment. Many of our laws "go against the Constitution" and they do so when we decide that certain parts of the Constitution shouldn't apply to certain action (i.e. free speech shouldn't apply to libel). It's about "throwing our rights away for no reason" as you said earlier, so if your argument rests on "the Constitution says so", then that isn't a compelling or valid argument.

Page 12 of 16 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •