• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Is Citizen's United et al ruling compatible with democracy?

  • yes

    Votes: 9 39.1%
  • no

    Votes: 14 60.9%

  • Total voters
    23
  • Poll closed .
No. I have never heard any libertarian argue that the state should go out of its way to encourage this sort of behavior.

Who said anything about encouraging it? The classic libertarian way of thinking is that you are allowed to hire and fire anyone at will for whatever reason, allowed to deny service to customers for any reason, etc. The government does not have that privileged. This is why a lot of libertarians do not like parts of the Civil Rights Act.


Are you talking about the idea of requiring anonymity? Why isn't it plausible? Donations do not have to be made in cash or by handing someone a check. It may not have been that plausible 50 years, but when I donate to a cause I usually do it online. The only reason they know who I am is because the government makes them gather that information.

The reason requiring anonymity is not a plausible solution to the problem is because of the fact that there would be no way to prove that the law is being upheld. Becuase you donate on-line, if I really really wanted to, I could find out who you are donating too. The parties could just say "the candidate figured it out"

I find it odd that you believe that people can not think for themselves. It seems to be a common belief of those who generally are on the minority side of things. There must be someone pulling the strings to get people to think in a way you do not understand.

Yes, people try and influence people's belief but the majority are perfectly able to make up their own mind. They do not need some group to instruct them how to do this. I suppose if you feel the need of an outside organization to help you do this, well good for you for taking the steps necessary.

You don't know much about modern propaganda and influencing thinking on a wide scale do you? Or are you one of those people that believe most people actually think critically about issues?
 
Ok, I had to go back and read up.

Corrections to my above posts as follows:

CU wanted an end to rules against electioneering near elections. The Supreme Court threw in ending spending limits on corporate/union/non-profit campaign activities.

So I take it that a lobbyist being able to threaten a legislator with campaign expenditures against them for failure to vote the way the lobbyist wants is ok?

That is what they do. Nobody is forced to listen to them. Granted, the politician craves their money and will kiss their ass. So it would seem that your problem is with the politician. If they wanted to, they could all agree to limit what they will spend.

Further, there is no mechanism in place to prevent corp. donors from using corp assets for political purposes that their individual shareholders might disagree with without their knowledge. Which would seem to be a violation of free speech itself. Anti union forces use this argument as it applies to unions all the time.

Not in this ruling there wasn't as they do not make the laws so to speak but this was added to one of the reform packages passed recently. I'll have to go look for it.
 
You don't know much about modern propaganda and influencing thinking on a wide scale do you? Or are you one of those people that believe most people actually think critically about issues?

I hate answering a question with a question but please allow me the exception here to start with. I'm assuming that you believe you do so you are simply more knowledgeable than the unwashed masses?

(besides, I already answered this) Post 49.
 
That's going to cause you trouble. Assuming that others are "programmed" or are "not thinking for themselves" will alienate them. I looked over your link and it mostly seems to be common sense stuff about how to manipulate people, e.g., avoid alienating them. Nothing revolutionary.

"Scanned briefly" would have been a better descriptor. Tbe methods/techniques described on that site are the basis for a $10 billion dollar industry and are at the heart of every single political message we see.

Did you see the article about how people universally believe that they are less susceptible to these techniques than "other people" are even though they are not?

My method is to encourage people to become aware of this science, as much of it can be rendered less effective by simple exposure. Much like stage magic, once you know how the trick works, it doesn't fool you any longer.

Thank you for another opportunity to inspire curiosity about this subject.:2wave:
 
"Scanned briefly" would have been a better descriptor. Tbe methods/techniques described on that site are the basis for a $10 billion dollar industry and are at the heart of every single political message we see.

Most of which are dismissed as nothing more than political mumbo jumbo.
 
I agree, mostly, and would add that being obsessed with how others might be trying to manipulate you will turn you into a cynical prick, which really is not much better than being a manipulative prick. You have to let your guard down or nobody ever gets in and you become isolated and alone.

I do think it is good to be aware of how you are vulnerable to manipulation, especially, when dealing with politicians, car salesman and other unscrupolous scumbags. The information on the site is all fairly well known, common sense stuff. I am a skeptic and read things written by skeptics on how to spot hokum. So, maybe, it is just that exposure that makes it seem rather mundane to me.

That makes sense and means that my dismissal of your dismissal should be qualified appropriately. Most people are NOT aware of this science though, so I feel it important to bring it to the attention of as many as possible.
 
Who said anything about encouraging it? The classic libertarian way of thinking is that you are allowed to hire and fire anyone at will for whatever reason, allowed to deny service to customers for any reason, etc. The government does not have that privileged. This is why a lot of libertarians do not like parts of the Civil Rights Act.

You are talking about encouraging it by requiring disclosure. Your argument is akin to a state law that requires you to disclose your sexual preference and makes the data easily accessible. While SOME libertarians might believe that people should be free to discriminate in commercial activities, none of them would support the state encouraging it by forcing people to disclose their private information. Your argument fails, miserably.

The reason requiring anonymity is not a plausible solution to the problem is because of the fact that there would be no way to prove that the law is being upheld. Becuase you donate on-line, if I really really wanted to, I could find out who you are donating too. The parties could just say "the candidate figured it out"

There is no law that cannot be violated. That's just a worthless point.

It is definitely plausible, with the use of electronic transactions to shield the donor from whoever receives the donation. You just setup accounts where the deposits are made directly by the donor and do not allow the recipient to know who donated. Yes, you could violate the law. So? You can violate the law on disclosure by simply using multiple proxies to donate smaller amounts or even just one proxy.



You don't know much about modern propaganda and influencing thinking on a wide scale do you? Or are you one of those people that believe most people actually think critically about issues?

Yeah, nobody thinks for themselves, except you. This sort of thinking actually make you more vulnerable to manipulation. The site actually touches on it. Maybe, you should look it over.
 
Last edited:
Most of which are dismissed as nothing more than political mumbo jumbo.

$10 billion dollars a year, plus State department "public diplomacy" and military "psyops" and all the PR professionals in politics is "mumbo jumbo"?

Seriously?
 
$10 billion dollars a year, plus State department "public diplomacy" and military "psyops" and all the PR professionals in politics is "mumbo jumbo"?

Seriously?

Indeed there is (we'll use your figure) $10 billion spent to reach a relatively small number of people.
 
"Scanned briefly" would have been a better descriptor. Tbe methods/techniques described on that site are the basis for a $10 billion dollar industry and are at the heart of every single political message we see.

Did you see the article about how people universally believe that they are less susceptible to these techniques than "other people" are even though they are not?

"Looked it over" or "scanned briefly" whichever you prefer is fine with me. I did not read everything on the site. I looked for new information and did not find any. I am a subscriber to the Skeptical Inquirer and read articles on this sort of thing regularly. So, it is kind of like preaching to the choir, but I am not one of the choir members that gets all excited about hearing the preacher reaffirm what I already know/believe week after week.

No, I did not miss the thing about people believing they are less vulnerable. This is common in all subjects. For instance, as Ron Paul pointed out in the SC debate, most people defend drug laws on the basis that others (not them, but the unwashed ignorant masses) will be not be able to resist drugs if they are readily available.

If it is impossible to avoid being vulenrable to manipulation then what is the point? I thought you were arguing that by exposing people to the techniques they are less vulnerable to manipulation? If that is true, then obviously, some people ARE less vulnerable to manipulation.

I do agree that believing you are totally immune makes you more vulnerable. You have to almost constantly check yourself and not let ego or arrogance fool you into believing you are above it.

I have also found that it is useful not to makew excuses for others who are manipulators, but do so for some interest you believe is right. That is, avoid the manipulators. We all tend to try to manipulate a little, but I mean when they do it consciously and without any bit of remorse. Those people should be avoided unless you want to end up being manipulated.

My method is to encourage people to become aware of this science, as much of it can be rendered less effective by simple exposure. Much like stage magic, once you know how the trick works, it doesn't fool you any longer.

Thank you for another opportunity to inspire curiosity about this subject.:2wave:

See above. Your statements are contradictory. Either some people are less vulnerable due to knowledge of how one can be manipulated or they are not.

Also, it seems that you are the one who is certain that everybody else is just ignorant. It seems to me, that most people know that people are susceptible to manipulation. Their real error is in assuming that that knoweldge makes them special. It does not.

Some of the most manipulative people I have known were otherwise idiots. They did not learn to manipulate from a book. They learned it through observation and, possibly, introspection. I think, every female on the planet knows that males can be manipulated fairly easily through sexual attention. I have certainly walked into that one a few times and I doubt there are many males that have not or are completly unaware of how it makes them vulnerable.

The ones that really think they are above it all are almost invariably young douchebags who lack the experience of being manipulated. Young people tend to think their epiphanies are revolutionary instead of rather mundane and boring to anyone that has been around the block once or twice. Older people tend to be a little more cynical and weary of others, but I don't really think that is all good. It inspires bitterness and fear which can actually make you more vulnerable to manipulation.

I prefer to be aware but open. That is, I am aware of how others might try to manipulate me. But I refuse to build a wall around myself. A few dicks might take advantage of it, but at least I won't be constantly turning away people who sincerely want to be friends. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
 
This is a statement based upon my opinion. In those cases most of those types do not care about whatever is being pushed anyway so it doesn't matter. There are a ton of claims and statements made that I have no desire to research.

If it's relevant to them, I'd guess many. Especially with the internet now available to them. Few of them smply take an ad at face value. It doesn't take long at all to get other opinions on the internet. If they have no need to buy a car, those statements go in one ear and out the other. Before the internet this was largely done by word of mouth from people they trusted. A neighbor would tell you that they had a good or bad experience.

IMO that means they don't care, not as you note, they have been programmed to believe that way. As an example. I have a cell phone provider. It suits my purpose. There may be ones with better and cheaper plans but eh, mine is good enough for me to not want to bother.
First, to the highlighted part, I noted that I don't think "programmed" is an accurate term, so that's not my position. Second, I agree that people don't examine things that they don't care about - that's simply another way of stating my original position - that people are too lazy to examine issues and information critically. It seems to me that people are most willing to examine things that cost them a lot of money or things having to do with their children (car prices, mortgages, school districts, etc.) in addition to their hobbies (sports, celebrities,etc.).

However, most people do not care enough (as you put it) or are too lazy (in my own words) about large scale policy, corporate or political (in general) issues. Most people don't understand the economy and don't take the time to examine candidates' different economic plans. They don't know much about foreign policy or the different ways of examining it. They don't know, understand or examine education policy or how a corporation works or avoids taxes. They don't know, understand or examine much of anything which is why political candidates have to dumb down their positions to buzz words and why people are either thrilled or outraged about the state of union without being able to explain the causation that they think underlies the correlation of the United States' domestic and international condition. What if...? is right. People do not, at all, do much critical thinking.
 
Completely compatible.
A corporation is merely a collective of people lobbying government.

Democracy tends to end itself because it is the belief that all people have valid opinions in the operation of government.
Basically, an appeal to the majority.

Yes, but that "collection" of people welds so much financial clout "collectively" IF you consider their corporate Board of Directors to speak for everyone at that company. This is where the check-card issue comes into play.

If Boards are to speak for everyone in their company in one loud voice, does it not make sense that a powerful corporation would seek to hire only those individuals whose opinions on certain moral of political issues would mirror their own? If you don't know what my moral or political views are as an employee, you can neither lock me out of employment based solely on my views nor can you manipulate me into thinking as you - the Corporation - does. After all, aren't we all as American citizens:

...endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

...

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Seems to me all the Citizen's United case ultimately does is allow big Corporations to use their great wealth to buy the airwaves and :spin: the truth, thereby drowning out the voices of the people. Do you really think that ordinary citizens who Republicans claim are the real power by virtue of their vote can amass the capital necessary to put forward a counter message to big corporations who are behind powerful politicians? It's insane to think so.

Form a political action committee (PAC) themselves you say? Good luck with getting off the ground without the wealth and influence of wealthy individuals to start with. The little man has virtually no chance except to hope to find a decent enough politician who they believe has their best interest at heart.
 
Last edited:
First, to the highlighted part, I noted that I don't think "programmed" is an accurate term, so that's not my position. Second, I agree that people don't examine things that they don't care about - that's simply another way of stating my original position - that people are too lazy to examine issues and information critically. It seems to me that people are most willing to examine things that cost them a lot of money or things having to do with their children (car prices, mortgages, school districts, etc.) in addition to their hobbies (sports, celebrities,etc.).

However, most people do not care enough (as you put it) or are too lazy (in my own words) about large scale policy, corporate or political (in general) issues. Most people don't understand the economy and don't take the time to examine candidates' different economic plans. They don't know much about foreign policy or the different ways of examining it. They don't know, understand or examine education policy or how a corporation works or avoids taxes. They don't know, understand or examine much of anything which is why political candidates have to dumb down their positions to buzz words and why people are either thrilled or outraged about the state of union without being able to explain the causation that they think underlies the correlation of the United States' domestic and international condition. What if...? is right. People do not, at all, do much critical thinking.

Only thing I can say to this is, "Reading is fundamental", and there are two very powerful tools at nearly every man, woman and child's disposal at their leisure: library and the internet. Both carry a wealth of knowledge on the issues that are before us today, as well as the history behind how we got to this point.
 
Last edited:
First, to the highlighted part, I noted that I don't think "programmed" is an accurate term, so that's not my position. Second, I agree that people don't examine things that they don't care about - that's simply another way of stating my original position - that people are too lazy to examine issues and information critically. It seems to me that people are most willing to examine things that cost them a lot of money or things having to do with their children (car prices, mortgages, school districts, etc.) in addition to their hobbies (sports, celebrities,etc.).

If they have no interest in something they are not being lazy in not researching it. I have no interest in soccer. I don't know anything outside of the basics. It's because I'm not interested that I don't know more, not because I'm lazy.

However, most people do not care enough (as you put it) or are too lazy (in my own words) about large scale policy, corporate or political (in general) issues. Most people don't understand the economy and don't take the time to examine candidates' different economic plans. They don't know much about foreign policy or the different ways of examining it. They don't know, understand or examine education policy or how a corporation works or avoids taxes. They don't know, understand or examine much of anything which is why political candidates have to dumb down their positions to buzz words and why people are either thrilled or outraged about the state of union without being able to explain the causation that they think underlies the correlation of the United States' domestic and international condition. What if...? is right. People do not, at all, do much critical thinking.

IMO most politicians do not "dumb down" their positions. They lie about them. That they do is why people don't bother to research their positions. They can't be trusted to do what they claim their positions are in the first place. How is Obama's position about banning those who were previously lobbyists or worked for the industry they are to oversee coming along?
 
IMO most politicians do not "dumb down" their positions. They lie about them. That they do is why people don't bother to research their positions. They can't be trusted to do what they claim their positions are in the first place. How is Obama's position about banning those who were previously lobbyists or worked for the industry they are to oversee coming along?

Obama has viewer former lobbyist as part of his Administration than the last four presidents before him.

From the book, "The Promise: President Obama, Year ONE," top of page 47:

Even before he had decided his own fate, Rahm Emanuel was at work staffing the White House. Because he couldn't hire lobbyists - whatever the qualities, they were too toxic - it sometimes seemed as if Obama was staffing his administration through a single Washington think thank, the Center for American Progress, founded and run by John Podesta. Eventually more than fifty people from CAP would join the administration.

I'll say it again...

Only thing I can say to this is, "Reading is fundamental"...
 
Last edited:
Seems to me all the Citizen's United case ultimately does is allow big Corporations to use their great wealth to buy the airwaves and :spin: the truth, thereby drowning out the voices of the people. Do you really think that ordinary citizens who Republicans claim are the real power by virtue of their vote can amass the capital necessary to put forward a counter message to big corporations who are behind powerful politicians? It's insane to think so.

Your argument is what makes CFR a first amendment violation. Congress is strictly prohibited from regulating speech in order to equalize it. The only CFR laws that have ever been upheld are based upon the idea that congress has some interest in preventing impropriety or the appearance of impropriety.
 
Completely compatible.
A corporation is merely a collective of people lobbying government.

Democracy tends to end itself because it is the belief that all people have valid opinions in the operation of government.
Basically, an appeal to the majority.

I disagree with the bold part.

A corporation is merely a collective of a few persons at the top lobbying government for the good of the corporation but may not be the views of the majority of its share holders.

I have held stock in many corps and not once have any ever asked my opinion on political matters. The few times I have received correspondence in a political manner from companies I have owned stock in it has been to inform my on how I should vote to better insure the businesses interests and may or may not be better for the country.

It is a means for the rich and powerful to influence government in the name of "collective interests".
 
If they have no interest in something they are not being lazy in not researching it. I have no interest in soccer. I don't know anything outside of the basics. It's because I'm not interested that I don't know more, not because I'm lazy.
Right, but that's not my point. People do care about the economy, foreign policy, education, corporate influence and so on, but they are too lazy to do anything about. This is the part you don't address - the fact that people do not "critically think" in regards to politics. Like I said, most people know nothing about policy, general politics and other important things that they care about and choose candidates by.

IMO most politicians do not "dumb down" their positions. They lie about them. That they do is why people don't bother to research their positions. They can't be trusted to do what they claim their positions are in the first place. How is Obama's position about banning those who were previously lobbyists or worked for the industry they are to oversee coming along?
Politicians definitely dumb down their positions whether they're lying or not. The average citizen could not understand economics and foreign policy strategy. Ask your average conservative what they think of Obama and they'll say, "He and his policies hurt the economy and caused unemployment to rise." Ask them about the mechanisms by which his policies did these things and they won't be able to explain. Ask your average about Clinton and they'll say, "Clinton improved the economy greatly." Ask them about the mechanisms by which his policies did this and they won't be able to explain. Most people do not critically think.
 
You are talking about encouraging it by requiring disclosure. Your argument is akin to a state law that requires you to disclose your sexual preference and makes the data easily accessible. While SOME libertarians might believe that people should be free to discriminate in commercial activities, none of them would support the state encouraging it by forcing people to disclose their private information. Your argument fails, miserably.

The difference between your counter example and the one we are talking about is that you being gay has no affect on me, you contributing money to a candidate does.



There is no law that cannot be violated. That's just a worthless point.

That was never the point. The point was enforcement was virtually impossible.

Yeah, nobody thinks for themselves, except you.

That wasn't my contention and you should know better than to say it was. I was simply saying that propaganda, mostly half truths, require a healthy level of skepticism and intellect to not let it affect you. Most people simply do not have the time to do the requisite research to protect themselves from propaganda.
 
Obama has viewer former lobbyist as part of his Administration than the last four presidents before him.

Whether he does or not is irrelevant. He said there would be none.
 
I disagree with the bold part.

A corporation is merely a collective of a few persons at the top lobbying government for the good of the corporation but may not be the views of the majority of its share holders.

And then again, it may be right? And if not, they can address that. Right?

I have held stock in many corps and not once have any ever asked my opinion on political matters. The few times I have received correspondence in a political manner from companies I have owned stock in it has been to inform my on how I should vote to better insure the businesses interests and may or may not be better for the country.

It is a means for the rich and powerful to influence government in the name of "collective interests".

If you own 4 shares in something, your opinion isn't going to make a difference. If you disagree with their actions, simply sell.
 
If you own 4 shares in something, your opinion isn't going to make a difference. If you disagree with their actions, simply sell.

Which isn't going to make a difference either, unless you have enough shares to cause the stock to decrease in value.
 
Which isn't going to make a difference either, unless you have enough shares to cause the stock to decrease in value.

Right, you are irrelevant. Why you think your opinion matters here is beyond me.
 
Completely compatible.
A corporation is merely a collective of people lobbying government.

Democracy tends to end itself because it is the belief that all people have valid opinions in the operation of government.
Basically, an appeal to the majority.

Corporations are not held together by opinion beyond that of people desiring a paycheck. They are hardly the same as an ideological organization and should not be treated as similar for purposes of political participation.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom