The Forgotten Man

[noxiousdog]

I'll start with the easy one...

I'm just saying that the coporation is the new bogeyman.

As we've been over, time and again, the corporation is an old bogeyman. Looking at the context of the late 1700s, Corporations were intentionally shackled and barred from doing very much (including an inability to act as a separate entity in the political process). Whether you agree with the Founding Fathers or not - that they specifically and intentionally tried to keep Corporations out of the political process is neither in doubt, nor was it done out of some half-assed conspiracy theory nonsense. It was a direct result of how they got the shaft by the English Crown, at the behest of one of the largest corporations in the world (at the time). They knew what wealthy and powerful corporations did to the political process, and so they prevented them from participating.

Right or wrong, this isn't a new conspiracy theory driven problem. This is a problem that this country has been dealing with since before its birth.

Let me make sure I have this right. They specifically encoded things about religion, press, speech, due process, guns, quartering of soldiers, and states rights, yet they didn't encode a way to protect themselves from getting shafted by the East India company?

That's.... odd.

[msduncan]

Funny, a few years ago I called this place a liberal lounge before giving up on it for a couple years and I was scoffed at. Good to see it admitted. And I agree. But to compare it to a gun forum... that is ridiculous. It is a video game forum, to assume coming here conservatives should expect a fight as you would at a gun forum is absurd. If this forum is viewed by some as "liberal turf" it is far less an enjoyable place to visit. I do think things are civil here, but frankly civility is not always enough for the free exchange of ideas.

I'm not comparing it to a gun forum. I'm comparing it to any other forum that leans right and how my expectations for the way my ideas are received would change based on where I was writing them.

Well, you can rage about how things should be, or you can deal with things as they are, or you can work to change them. Complaining that people here have left leaning tendencies and thus conservative ideas are not welcomed with open arms is...true, for the most part. I guess my response is...oh well? That's too bad? I'm sorry you feel that way?

And while civility might not be enough for the free exchange of ideas, anything less is absolutely hostile to it, so we're doing the best we can I guess?

As for being scoffed at, just as I am not the final authority on whether the forum is left leaning or not, those who scoffed at you were also not the final authority. So my opinion and someone else's opinion doesn't necessarily make either opinion true. My opinion is that the forum leans farther left than right. It sure as hell isn't FAR left. Others are free to agree or disagree, but I appreciate you giving my opinion so much weight. Why you ignore my opinion on other matters I have no idea.

It may be that this forum is less liberal turf than you think, it just may be that the liberals here are the most outspoken.

Then speak up. Stop starting topics up with Rush's latest rant as the title (I'm looking at msd here) if you don't want to be dismissed immediately as a mouth piece for the party or it's ranters.

And while I don't disbelieve that there have been times where a reasoned right leaning idea has been argued eloquently, I would expect it to be countered just as eloquently, not shouted down as you suggest it was. If you could provide me an example I would love to look at it. It may alter my own behavior in this regard.

Ridiculous. I've never started anything to do with Rush Limbaugh. I don't even listen to the man.

But then again, if I did who gives a shit? He's a conservative voice and has opinions as valid as anyone else left or right. If it has Fox News, Limbaugh, or any other of your liberal demonized names attached to it you people shut down and turn Elementary school playground. At some point you guys need to realize that when I post a position on here about 75% of the time I don't get that from some sort of talking points bulletin passed around by the vast right wing conspiracy and then come here and post it. I'm posting it because I happen to think the same way as these people and it's usually a coincidence that my post sounds a lot like what they are saying.

Let me take you though an average msduncan day, ok?

1. Get up and rush to get kids on bus
2. Drive to work listening to Jox Sports talk about Alabama football (shockingly NOT conservative talk radio)
3. work
4. Drive home listening to Paul Finebaum about Alabama football (NOT Rush or any other conservative talk radio)
5. Rush around doing homework and getting kids to bed
6. Get wife to bed
7. Sit down to play Star Wars TOR, or Diablo 3 beta, or Skyrim (NOT surfing Newsmax or World Net Daily, etc).

Occasionally I delete my dad's email forwards of articles from said sites without reading them. They clutter my inbox and I don't want to read the articles and get worked up.

I'm telling you that I really don't listen or read conservative news programs or articles. When I post something that sounds like something they say, it is ONLY because we happen to think alike. That's it. End of story.

[RunningMn9]

Yes, I agree that people have to actually expend effort to make something of themselves, and I agree it's human nature to blame everyone but yourself for your problems. That is not the same as saying, "the current economic downturn is the result of people being lazy."

No, although to be fair, that wasn't me that suggested you did. The issue that I have is that people don't always have to actually expend effort to make something of themselves (to borrow a line from the TV show Jericho, "We were both born on third base, stop pretending that you hit a triple."). And while it might be human nature to blame everyone but yourself for your problems - saying that in the context that you did seems to ignore the very common reality that people aren't always to blame for their problems.

I don't have any problem with a work ethic that focuses on expending the effort to make your own opportunities, or to overcome any obstacles thrown in your way through the accident of your birth. Sometimes it even works. But one of the things that has really modified my political outlook over the past 10 years is the realization of just how little hard work really matters towards determining a person's success.

I've seen too many people working a helluva lot harder than I do, only to either get no where in life, or to get completely shit on by circumstances outside of their control. It simply isn't their fault, and it's got nothing to do with the amount of effort they've expended over their lives.

At a minimum, what you did there was make a broad socio-economic stereotype. Which is ok, as that's what Republicans do. I just wish that you either saw it for what it was, and if you did, that you'd stop doing it (which is my real gripe, which I will get to in a minute).

This is the kind of language I find incredibly condescending, and I don't even think you realize you're doing it. Ideas contrary to your own are "a fog," some murky dark recess of fantasy that is patently absurd compared to your world of truth and light.

It isn't "ideas that are contrary to my own" that are a fog. It isn't your "ideas" or "positions" that I am talking about. If we talked about it in 2004, neither of us would have any trouble describing all of the dirty and underhanded crap that Democratic politicians were willing to engage in during the political process. Through the 2008 election cycle, it appeared to me like we both finally became aware that this was a two-way street. There aren't shitty Democratic politicians willing to lie and fabricate propaganda to get elected, and virtuous Republicans that were above that sort of thing.

We both watched Republican politicians engage in the same shitty propaganda war, inventing nonsense to distract voters from the actual issues.

Now, given our already low opinion of Democractic politicians, I'm not surprised that you were ultimately disappointed with Obama. What I am surprised by, is that you went right back to the "Democratic politicians are lying shitbags, and Republicans are virtuous leaders that would never engage in such nefarious tactics". That's why I immediately reacted to your "Republicans don't engage in class warfare and don't use broad stereotypes" comment. It was an absurd comment by someone that I know knew better.

I'm not going to speak for Grundbegriff as to whether he has felt victimized or not.

I would be stunned into silence if Grundbegriff felt anything other than a smug sense of superiority after discussing a topic with me.

For the record, I don't feel victimized. I don't see myself as a victim.

You say that, but the way that you and msduncan are reacting here tells a different story. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though.

I have valid opinions just like everyone else and I'm free to state them. The fact that I continue to post on these boards despite overwhelming contrary opinion should prove that I am secure in my political philosophies.

Don't take this the wrong way, but what leads you to believe that your opinions are valid? What makes you think that everyone else's opinions are valid?

That seems to be a pretty big difference (of opinion) here. Having an opinion doesn't validate it in my mind. I have no doubt that you have many opinions. Some of them are certainly valid (even if I don't agree with them), and others just as certainly aren't. We're all human, and we all must necessarily believe wrong things and have wrong opinions. It wouldn't be possible for us to only have correct opinions.

If you asked me for my opinion on health care, for instance. I think that the opinion you will get would be substantively different than my opinion on tort reform. My opinion on one of them was formed by several years of research spent specifically on addressing the issue of health care in this country. The other would be a snap judgment that is more a reflection of my default beliefs than anything else. It's worthless.

To steal your phrase, "I have no choice but to assume" that your position, given that you never feel the need to criticize anything but Republican viewpoints, is that you have no problem with Democratic viewpoints.

You have plenty of choice. Unlike the position you put me in, where I was interpreting what you actually said, you are claiming to have no choice but to interpret what I'm *not* saying. We were talking about Republican viewpoints, because you were talking about Republican viewpoints.

I've criticized a great deal of what Obama has done (or not done). You may not have recognized it as such, because it wasn't full of instant, misplaced outrage, but it was there. He's a terrible negotiator. He immediately gives up control of the "narrative" on every issue that I've cared about. He did a complete 180 on his pledge for more transparency. The list goes on. And that's just the President. I think you'd find that my level of "support" for Congressional Democrats doesn't differ much from yours.

But in this particular case, my goal wasn't to harp on "Republican viewpoints". It was to harp on your characterization that they aren't doing any of the shitty things that they are clearly doing.

A subset of what? 3 people? It doesn't affect a lot of them because they never post about it. MSD and I are quite verbal about it. We just happen to be the squeaky wheels.

You happen to be the squeaky wheels because you two (much moreso msduncan than you) happen to be the most talkative posters in the "all of my opinions are valid because I have them" class of conservative posters. I've been trying to get msduncan to understand this for many years. When I was still largely conservative, I never had this problem.

I didn't start threads in a drive-by fashion. I didn't assume that my opinion was valid because I had it or because it was mine. I didn't have this problem because I defended my position. I didn't just state it and expect that to be good enough.

Further, you aren't alone in the sense that there are a number of "liberal" posters that do the same thing. Me not chastising them of late has to do with my own reduced level of participation over the years - not my endorsement of the way they go about their business.

You're missing it because you automatically dismiss it out of hand.

Can you link me to ONE post written by you or msduncan that you feel qualifies? I don't automatically dismiss anything out of hand. So I suspect that we have very different ideas about what constitutes "thoughtful conservative analysis".

From what I've seen, it's too much about opinions and beliefs, and far too light on facts and evidence. While that might matter in some cases (i.e. I don't believe in abortion), in others it isn't worth very much (i.e. Democrats only want to redistribute wealth).

No level of posting is going to fit your definition of "thoughtful analysis" because you automatically dismiss it as parroting the party line.

Nonsense. At a minimum, I've given you a standard of measurement (Grund) that can be achieved.

For my part, however, I will try to do a better job of posting links or excerpts from articles to support my views, if others will do the same.

As long as we understand that posted links and articles aren't always going to be treated like the immutable word of God, and that we might find fault with those too, then I welcome this turn of events.

I don't consider you incapable. That statement applied to the hivemind as a whole. I can also pinpoint specific posters and topics that have resulted in me changing my mind as well.

I believe you without asking anything further. I would love to know if msduncan agreed with that statement, and if so, if he could name a specific poster or topic that resulted in him changing his mind.

Where do you think conservative talking points came from? Sprung magically out of thin air? Conservative talking points come from conservative people. I see a lot of this "chicken and egg" argument. What bugs me is being accused of reciting the conservative talking points of the day when I haven't turned on a television or read a news website all week. Either I'm an incredible psychic, or my conservative views simply line up with what other conservatives are thinking about particular subjects because our political philosophies coincide.

Or there are other ways to become exposed to the conservative talking points of the day besides the television and news websites?

Approach this a different way. Have you ever noticed the number of liberals that seem to regurgitate liberal talking points? I have. And they don't need to be glued to MSNBC or NPR for it to happen. In many cases, the topic that you are thinking about is dictated by what is leaked to a media outlet. The way you hear about it is generally framed in a way designed to force a particular conclusion (the "you" being collective here, liberal or conservative).

While liberals and conservatives might be talking about the same issue (socially among themselves, or through media exposure, or what have you), what information they start the conversation with can be chosen to reinforce their political philosophy. The kind of editorialization offered by other conservatives (or liberals) can intentionally (or unintentionally) discard relevant but contrary information.

I'll give you an example that has nothing to do with you, maybe that will help. I was arguing with my brother last week (as I do), in response to the economic data that came out (that spilled over a little here as well). My reaction to the data (jobs numbers, unemployment rate, manufacturing data) was that it was generally positive in the sense that it represented an improvement. None of the data was "great", or even particularly "good". An unemployment rate of 8.3% isn't in any way good, but it's less bad than an unemployment rate of 8.5%. Same goes for the jobs and manufacturing data. Not really good or great, but certainly less bad.

My brother's angle was to immediately harp on the underemployment rate. Not because the unemployment rate is not a terribly useful number based on how they arrive at it. That's not an argument that I would object to (and not just because I agree with it). He harped on the underemployment rate for no other reason than he needed the data reported to be bad (because he's already convinced that things are bad and getting worse). To make matters worse, he quoted the underemployment rate - and then suggested that this true rate is what should be reported, but that the Obama Administration changed how the Dept of Labor reported data to make things look better for Obama.

Where did this idea come from? 8 seconds of investigation revealed that it was completely false. And while I showed him that it was false, his response was to grudgingly acknowledge that, but to then to continue to be outraged about the situation (even though his outrage was caused by the belief that the Obama Administration coerced the Dept of Labor to change how the unemployment rate is reported). Remove the belief...and nothing changed.

THAT is what frustrates me about posting here sometimes. We can start from a position where you are outraged because Democrats have always tried to engage in class warfare and wealth redistribution to further their political agenda. I can prove to you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no wealth redistribution going on in this country by the federal government (outside of them more efficiently moving wealth to those that are already wealthy). And even if you acknowledge that this is true - nothing will change.

Your level of outrage won't go down. It's as if the emotional aspect of your political philosophy is completely disconnected from the observations that appeared to inform it. If I am mad about X, it stands to reason that if X is shown to be !X, I should stop being mad, no?

That's why I don't get outraged at the things that Obama has done that I don't like. For me personally, the best way to avoid this phenomenon was to remove the emotional aspect altogether.

I used to be like msduncan. I use to approach politics with the same zeal that he approaches the Tide. And that's not a compliment.

Having said all of that - you are much less of a politically emotional creature than msduncan (or RM9 1.0). When I say outrage, I'm being hyperbolic. But the issue is still there that you will express a position, and even when the underlying causes of that position are removed (in this case, your assertion that Republicans don't engage in class warfare or intentionally perpetuate broad socio-economic stereotypes, and your original statement about wealth redistribution), nothing changes.

My brother is every bit as angry as he was when he believed that Obama personally changed how the Dept of Labor calculated and reported the unemployment rate. He was fully convinced that he was leading a revolution in uncovering this secret piece of government propaganda. The fact that this problem (unemployment vs. underemployment) has been a known problem since the 1960s, and that the current method of determining and reporting the unemployment rate was devised in 1994 didn't attenuate that anger at all.

His faults aren't your fault, but when I talk about YellowKing circa 2007/08 versus YellowKing circa 2012, what I'm talking about is that the things that you were talking about in 07/08 (in terms of awareness of what Republicans were doing at the time during the campaign) don't appear to have any impact on you. YellowKing circa 2012 appears to have deleted that time period and simply reverted to an earlier model. And I don't understand why.

Just because I voted for Obama?

Not directly, no. But at the time, intending to vote for Obama allowed for your initial reaction to conservative propaganda against Obama to not automatically be viewed as fact. When it took several incidents for McCain to acknowledge that no, Obama was not a secret muslim (that he knew about, of course) - you recognized that for what it was. Republicans intentionally allowing the notion that Obama was a secret muslim to take hold in a bid to influence angry old people that wouldn't be inclined to vote for a secret muslim.

You didn't consider it an honest mistake by McCain to not immediately shoot that shit down, knowing full well that Obama was not a secret muslim.

Where is that healthy skepticism of the Republican machine these days?

If anything has changed in my years on this board, it has been the social side of my conservatism and my move away from the extreme right of the party. I used to be a Limbaugh-devotee in my high school days. You would never catch me taking my viewpoints from the likes of Rush, Coulter, etc. these days. Like MSD, I've never wavered from my "core principles" which are in a nutshell - strong military, small government, fiscal conservatism.

Can I ask why not?

Your core principles were likely formed at a time when you are most likely to have not known any better (i.e. the same time that you used to be a Limbaugh-devotee in your high school days). Shouldn't they at least also be subject to a revision for similar reasons?

I'm not saying that you *should* change your "core principles". I'm just curious why both you and msduncan have offered not wavering from them as a virtue, despite a continual accumulation of life experience and the knowledge that when you formed them, you were likely an idiot (relative to your current self).

I formed a set of "core principles" around the same time, and in a similar environment (the old days of Rush and Hannity). My current understanding of that environment, and who I was at the time, legitimately called into question the utility of those "core principles". Enough so that I discarded some of them. Maybe you performed that self-analysis and found your younger self a lot more capable than I found my younger self. That's cool.

The big one for me was how I viewed the role of the federal government, and how my view of fiscal conservatism was far too simplistic for a modern world. I don't automatically view the federal government as the savior for all problems, but I no longer automatically view the federal government as incapable of addressing anything. That change has given me the freedom to consider each instance of government involvement on a case-by-case basis.

As I stated in my previous argument, I'm not arguing the current state. I'm arguing the proposed state. The "spread the wealth around" attitude that Obama and his ilk have.

So we're in agreement, that despite seven decades of accusations towards Democrats that they've converted the Federal Govt into a massive wealth redistributing welfare machine designed to punish the successful to benefit the lazy poor, that Democrats have been so bad at achieving that goal that they've actually very effectively achieved the opposite goal, helping to craft a system that has done nothing but to continue accelerating the accumulation of wealth in the hands of an ever shrinking number of citizens?

The idea that the rich should "pay their fair share" when in fact they already pay their fair share and then some.

That depends on your subjective definition of fair, doesn't it?

Does it matter that most of the dollars the wealthy are paying into the federal government are handed right back to other wealthy people (along with over a trillion dollars that were printed for the purpose of putting them into their pockets)?

I'm genuinely bothered by the "pay their fair share" language as well. Just so we are clear. But I understand the argument in a few ways:

1) The wealthy benefit far more from the federal government than anyone else. They benefit more from our strong property law. They benefit more from our economic and military might. They benefit more from the corporate tax code. While it's true that they don't get food stamps that they can use to barely survive, it's not like we are spending a metric shit ton of the budget on food stamps.

2) The federal government needs more revenue to balance the budget. Cutting spending in the amounts required to balance the budget (without an increase in tax revenue) would be catastrophic to the economy (they would represent an immediate drop in the economy of about 10%, as that money flows into our economy from overseas). Given that the federal government needs more revenue to balance the budget, we have a limited set of options. If we are going to get it by raising tax rates, then we are limited further by the fact that we can't really increase the tax rate on people that don't have anything. I've heard a lot in the past from conservatives lamenting that the bottom 50% of income earners pay 0% of the income tax in this country. I don't ever seem to hear the followup point which is that the bottom 50% of income earners in this country earn an average of $15,000 per year (and that number is going down by the way). This idea that those people are living large at the expense of the top 50% is mind-boggling.

But I would still never frame the discussion as the "rich" should "pay their fair share". That line of thinking isn't any more useful than the notion that the poorest 50% aren't paying their fair share.

And yes, I know we have a ginormous deficit. I never supported Bush's spending when he was in office.

We don't have a ginormous deficit because of "Bush's spending" when he was in office. We have a ginormous deficit because we slashed revenue at the same time that we embarked on two wars, dramatically expanding Medicare, and then tried to spend our way out of one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression, all while the revenue base continued to erode because of the economic climate.

My point is simply to not reduce what is actually a complex set of circumstances and policy decisions to "Bush's spending".

It's not like I was ever advocating going into debt and now I'm rebelling against any efforts towards fixing that debt.

You personally may not be. The political party that you support is absolutely doing that. Well, rebelling against any efforts by !Republicans towards fixing that debt.

We shouldn't have gotten into this mess in the first place, but we did, and it only proves my point that big government can't be trusted to handle a Girl Scout cookie bill, much less trillions of taxpayer dollars.

And yet, there are some things that simply cannot be handled any other way. There are some things that we simply have to handle collectively, and the federal government is the only vehicle available. So what do we do? Not handle them because the federal government can't handle other things (keeping in mind that we also might have different definitions of "handling" those other things)?

What's the answer? I don't know. If I had the answers I sure as hell wouldn't be wasting time arguing in a message board. I can only state my opinion that the government got us into this mess, let the government get us out. Don't take money from hard working people to fix your mistakes.

Then don't get upset when I treat your opinion like an opinion.

[RunningMn9]

Let me make sure I have this right. They specifically encoded things about religion, press, speech, due process, guns, quartering of soldiers, and states rights, yet they didn't encode a way to protect themselves from getting shafted by the East India company?

That's.... odd.

The specifically encoded things about citizens into the Constitution. They didn't specifically encode things about badgers into the Constitution either, but I'm not sure that entitles the honey badger to equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

And they absolutely encoded a way to protect themselves from getting shafted by corporate entities. They just didn't encode it in the document that detailed the structure and powers of the Federal Government (corporations are state entities, not federal ones) and the inalienable rights of individual citizens (which corporations are not). They encoded the a way to protect themselves from getting shafted by corporate entities in their state laws that set out the rules for incorporating (where they belonged).

[GreenGoo]

Ridiculous. I've never started anything to do with Rush Limbaugh. I don't even listen to the man.

Drudge then. Beck. Whoever. The who is not the important part anyway. Whatever talking point is making the rounds in conservative circles. You literally post the idea or a link to the idea and then walk away. I don't mind because it stimulates a response and I much prefer an active forum versus inactive, but it's not exactly part of a reasoned discussion, which is what Chrisoc13 was talking about.

As for how you spend your day, I didn't read it as that's not why I'm in this thread.

[Isgrimnur]

Let me make sure I have this right. They specifically encoded things about religion, press, speech, due process, guns, quartering of soldiers, and states rights, yet they didn't encode a way to protect themselves from getting shafted by the East India company?

That's.... odd.

The specifically encoded things about citizens into the Constitution. They didn't specifically encode things about badgers into the Constitution either, but I'm not sure that entitles the honey badger to equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

No, but the Supreme Court ran with it (Corporate Personhood):

The Supreme Court of the United States (Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819), recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the Supreme Court recognized corporations as persons for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a headnote—not part of the opinion—the reporter noted that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

[GreenGoo]

No, but the Supreme Court ran with it (Corporate Personhood):

The Supreme Court of the United States (Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819), recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the Supreme Court recognized corporations as persons for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a headnote—not part of the opinion—the reporter noted that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

But that's the purpose of a corporation. It's a surogate person from a contractual/business standpoint. That doesn't make it a person. It's an entity to relieve liability from the people actually operating the corporation. Presumably to encourage economic growth.

Four principles were asserted in the text of the 14th amendment. They were:

1. State and federal ciizenship for all persons regardless of race both born or naturalized in the United States was reaffirmed.
2. No state would be allowed to abridge the "privileges and immunities" of citizens.
3. No person was allowed to be deprived of life, liberty,or property without "due process of law."
4. No person could be denied "equal protection of the laws."

Clearly #1 doesn't apply. They are not citizens and cannot vote. So a broad statement from the supreme court that corporations are people under the 14th is not enough without clarification, or worse, outright wrong.

2, 3 and 4 are all about people being protected from a lack of due process. So you can't fuck over specific people because you want to. The problem arises when you try to apply laws to people that are incompatible when applied to non-living entities. I don't want corporations to be screwed over by going against the law. I want a clear delineation between laws that apply to people, and laws that apply to corporations. Some may overlap. That's fine. As I said, a corporation is a substitute person in purpose anyway. But they shouldn't be a substitute person when it comes to the political process. They shouldn't vote and they shouldn't sponsor individual candidates. Otherwise it erodes the "for the people" concept and turns it into a "for the corporations unless there is a large enough outcry from the people" government.

[RunningMn9]

No, but the Supreme Court ran with it (Corporate Personhood):

The Supreme Court of the United States (Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819), recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the Supreme Court recognized corporations as persons for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a headnote—not part of the opinion—the reporter noted that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

Those two cases are not similar (in the context of corporate personhood), as was discussed when Mr. Fed originally brought it up.

Dartmouth College wasn't a corporation formed under the State laws of New Hampshire. It was chartered by King George prior to the American Revolution, and the issue was whether or not the NH legislature could pass a law reforming the College as a State institution. It was held that they could not, as the formation of the College was a private contract between King George and the Trustees of the College.

It did NOT hold that corporations formed under the State laws were native persons. One should also note the response to the decision in many states, which was to alter their constitutions to give them the authority to revoke or alter private charters (which are different than the public charters that spawned post-revolution US corporations), which generally held up to SC scrutiny at the time.

The later case is certainly when the Supreme Court began to unravel the protections that the Founders put in place. But they occurred in a very different context. The strength of the Federal government after the Civil War was very different than the one that came into existence more than 100 years prior to that court decision. Had the Founders anticipated that change, perhaps they would have dealt with corporations at the federal level rather than the states. No one can really know that.

I'd have to take the time to read up on it at the time, but I recall seeing some analysis on the composition of that court, and how they came to be in the context of the rise in corporate wealth during and after the Civil War. But that's a dim and foggy memory that I don't trust at the moment. I'd have to get back to that.

That decision though, was very different than the Dartmouth decision on the topic of corporate personhood.

[noxiousdog]

Let me make sure I have this right. They specifically encoded things about religion, press, speech, due process, guns, quartering of soldiers, and states rights, yet they didn't encode a way to protect themselves from getting shafted by the East India company?

That's.... odd.

The specifically encoded things about citizens into the Constitution. They didn't specifically encode things about badgers into the Constitution either, but I'm not sure that entitles the honey badger to equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

And they absolutely encoded a way to protect themselves from getting shafted by corporate entities. They just didn't encode it in the document that detailed the structure and powers of the Federal Government (corporations are state entities, not federal ones) and the inalienable rights of individual citizens (which corporations are not). They encoded the a way to protect themselves from getting shafted by corporate entities in their state laws that set out the rules for incorporating (where they belonged).

I tend to disagree, but it's very difficult to find any information one or the other. There's a lot alleging that it was a big deal, but not much evidence. If it was such a big deal there should be more restrictions littered around the constitution and early US/state law. The Contract Clause and Fletcher v. Peck decided by 1810 that contracts were more important than harm to citizens. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward said British charters were still valid.

In addition they did code for the "Full faith and credit" clause which means they knew if even 1 state started giving corporations more latitude they'd be valid in all states. They did encode for fugitive slaves, which obviously was a big deal at the time.

I understand how charters were allowed and created, but I'm skeptical that this was done by government fears so much as investor fears. Communication and transparency were unheard of. Would you fork over hundreds of thousands (let alone millions) to a board directors without the ability to even contact them by telegraph?

Yes, they certainly had to codify laws around corporations, but they only had to address what the investors wanted at the time. They didn't have to address issues that weren't issues at the time.

There's just so many restrictions (as compared to complete laissez faire) that have been put on corporations over the years, that I'm skeptical of their ability to overly influence politics. From the Sherman anti-trust act (during likely the most corrupt period in our government) to Sox, I'm just skeptical.

But I'm open to further reading. If you have something, I'll put it in my queue.

[RunningMn9]

It's an entity to relieve liability from the people actually operating the corporation. Presumably to encourage economic growth.

That came later, also in the mid-to-late 1800s as well. Prior to that, shareholders could be held liable (criminally and financially) for the behavior of the corporation. The could also only exist on a year-to-year basis at the pleasure of the legislature, they could only exist to pursue a defined public good (i.e. railroads), and when they met their defined objective, they were dissolved.

As noted by ND, these protections were in no small part the result of observing the nearly 200 year old, and massively wealth British East India Company, and how they directly manipulated the British crown to their own ends (at the expense of the colonies). Well, he didn't note that, but he mentioned the BEIC.

[noxiousdog]

As noted by ND, these protections were in no small part the result of observing the nearly 200 year old, and massively wealth British East India Company, and how they directly manipulated the British crown to their own ends (at the expense of the colonies). Well, he didn't note that, but he mentioned the BEIC.

That's absolutely a critical factor. I can't imagine that if it was a such a big deal they wouldn't have codified there could be no national charters, and/or expressly limited them to intrastate commerce.

[Kraken]

When I describe Obama as right-of-center, I'm using the old center. I'm kinda stuck in the 70s that way.

Yeah, these must be wild times for those who's political coming of age was decades past.

Let's just say that the future ain't what it used to be.

Yeah, it's fascinating from a sociological standpoint.

Hippies must be rolling over in their graves.

Most of us are still comfortably this side of the grave, although we are all in the AARP now.

What sums it up for me is that the one candidate who proposed building a moon base by 2020 -- something we expected to do 40 years earlier -- is a national laughingstock and the idea is a pipe dream. That symbolizes a whole lot that started going wrong (culturally) in the 80s.

Not that actually building a moon base would make it all better. Rebuilding a society that's capable of building a moon base (or tackling any comparably high-minded goal) would. Just rising above the muck, instead of endlessly flinging it at one another, would be an encouraging start.

[Holman]

What sums it up for me is that the one candidate who proposed building a moon base by 2020 -- something we expected to do 40 years earlier -- is a national laughingstock and the idea is a pipe dream. That symbolizes a whole lot that started going wrong (culturally) in the 80s.

Not that actually building a moon base would make it all better. Rebuilding a society that's capable of building a moon base (or tackling any comparably high-minded goal) would. Just rising above the muck, instead of endlessly flinging it at one another, would be an encouraging start.

Doesn't this belong over in the Forgotten Moon thread?

[RunningMn9]

That's absolutely a critical factor. I can't imagine that if it was a such a big deal they wouldn't have codified there could be no national charters, and/or expressly limited them to intrastate commerce.

You confuse me.

They did codify that there could be no national charters (I don't believe that granting a national article of incorporation is one of the enumerated powers of congress, is it?)

Although maybe I'm wrong about that given the issues between Andrew Jackson and the Second National bank.

Although the idea of a national bank chartered by Congress was opposed by Jefferson and Madison on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, as that is not an enumerated power. But what would those two guys know, right?

[noxiousdog]

That's absolutely a critical factor. I can't imagine that if it was a such a big deal they wouldn't have codified there could be no national charters, and/or expressly limited them to intrastate commerce.

You confuse me.

They did codify that there could be no national charters (I don't believe that granting a national article of incorporation is one of the enumerated powers of congress, is it?)

Neither is creating social security, medicare, and medicaid, but they found ways of doing that. Specifically, a national corporate charter to me seems more like regulating interstate commerce than a lot of things it's been used for. I suppose you could argue that the framers would outlaw all that stuff too, but then we're talking a whole different argument. If we want to go strict constitutionalism, I'm fine with that, but then we have to accept everything else is BAD that hasn't been encoded in amendments yet stretches the fundamental framework.

Although maybe I'm wrong about that given the issues between Andrew Jackson and the Second National bank.

That seems a little late to lump him in with the constitution writers and ratifiers.

Although the idea of a national bank chartered by Congress was opposed by Jefferson and Madison on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, as that is not an enumerated power. But what would those two guys know, right?

Obviously there was disagreement, but they were more worried about the government operating as a bank than they were about whether it was a corporation or not.


edit: According to wiki, Madison was opposed on corporate grounds. However, Hamilton (it was his idea) and Washington (signed the bill) expressly authorized the charter in addition to all the congressmen that voted for it. The charter expired in 1811. Ironically, Madison after vetoing the 1st charter for the 2nd national bank, signed the 2nd one.

[silverjon]

On the subject of people who work hard and make no money and blame themselves
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=81020

[Pyperkub]

Certainly you're not contending that money does not influence political outcome via control of media messaging. Are you?

Influence? Certainly. If it didn't have influence we wouldn't have an advertising industry. However, how much influence and more importantly how much at the margins. How much does that extra 1M really get you?
Control? Hardly.

I'm just saying that the coporation is the new bogeyman. It's not a particularly new argument that the Shadow government is controlling everything. It used to be Jews. Then it was The Banks and the Fed. Now it's the big monolithic Corporation working to suppress the 99%.

If, however, there is some evidence to point to it. I know i know, medicare part D. One bad piece of legislation in 12 years shows the corporate masters are controlling us? Why don't they just get rid of the corporate income tax? They would generate them all a hell of a lot more money than medicare part D and every industry would be on board. They could spread the lobbying dollars over every industry. Miniscule per company. Oh, they did a great job preventing Sox and Dodd Frank too.

If you buy that money is the end all be all, then it's tough to figure out how we ever get a Democrat elected ever, no? Yet we consistently do in both Congress and the presidency.

Nice strawman. I speak of balance and you flip the entire board.

Here's a question - why do elections need to cost so much? This article states that all Congressional and Presidential races cost $5.3 Billion in 2008 (which is greater than the SUM of all previous elections) . The 2012 election is now projected at $8 Billion (and probably growing). I don't know if I'd call that 'free' speech .

And is it really your argument that there are no corporations backing Democrats? How about the failed attempt by the well known forces of democratic pocketbooks (entertainment industry goes pretty solidly democratic) to pass SOPA and PIPA as another recent example? Or perhaps the lack of a Public Option in the recent Health Care Omnibus? As to Dodd Frank, what's been the consequence of that law so far? A couple of new regulations that didn't really affect the industry and a non-existent CFPA (or at least one which will be held up in the courts indefinitely). Barney Frank (as well as Obama) received a ton of money from the financial services industries.

Additionally, I would say that there has been a dramatic increase in this tilt since the K-Street project, where the Republican Leadership (led by DeLay) actively decided to pursue a 'with us or against us' lobbying/funding strategy, which has paid great dividends, despite DeLay's problems.

My argument isn't that corporations and corporate influence is evil, it's that unchecked it threatens to overwhelm our institutions of government, and that recent developments have removed the prior checks to that power and haven't adequately replaced them. Our Governmental system is based on one of checks and balances, fearing the concentration of too much power, and when there is power, trying to balance that power out in such a way as to benefit all.

Since I started writing this post, there has been some good discussion on the history of Corporations, but let's not forget the underpinnings that have made out government strong - those checks and balances. I just don't see a stable equilibrium arising out of SuperPAC's and Citizen's United.

PS Corporations as the new jew? Goodness gracious! Stick with boogeyman

[noxiousdog]

My argument isn't that corporations and corporate influence is evil, it's that unchecked it threatens to overwhelm our institutions of government, and that recent developments have removed the prior checks to that power and haven't adequately replaced them. Our Governmental system is based on one of checks and balances, fearing the concentration of too much power, and when there is power, trying to balance that power out in such a way as to benefit all.

Since I started writing this post, there has been some good discussion on the history of Corporations, but let's not forget the underpinnings that have made out government strong - those checks and balances. I just don't see a stable equilibrium arising out of SuperPAC's and Citizen's United.

PS Corporations as the new jew? Goodness gracious! Stick with boogeyman

But why 'corporations' and not limited partnerships, unions, or trusts? The whole point is that it sounds like a big conspiracy story.

"They" are out to use their money to control our government and force us to be wage slaves! This isn't a new story, it's the the "they" that changes depending on the audience.

[Combustible Lemur]

My argument isn't that corporations and corporate influence is evil, it's that unchecked it threatens to overwhelm our institutions of government, and that recent developments have removed the prior checks to that power and haven't adequately replaced them. Our Governmental system is based on one of checks and balances, fearing the concentration of too much power, and when there is power, trying to balance that power out in such a way as to benefit all.

Since I started writing this post, there has been some good discussion on the history of Corporations, but let's not forget the underpinnings that have made out government strong - those checks and balances. I just don't see a stable equilibrium arising out of SuperPAC's and Citizen's United.

PS Corporations as the new jew? Goodness gracious! Stick with boogeyman

But why 'corporations' and not limited partnerships, unions, or trusts? The whole point is that it sounds like a big conspiracy story.

"They" are out to use their money to control our government and force us to be wage slaves! This isn't a new story, it's the the "they" that changes depending on the audience.

I would say unions do have the same problem. The difference is Unions are at least perceived to be populist if not socialist. Unions are seen as wealth spreaders, not wealth consolidators. And unions are seen as trying to protect health and well being, whereas corps are seen as looking for loop holes to save money regardless of collateral damage.

People aren't afraid that the union is letting their tap water catch on fire.

It may be completely unfair, but perception is a big factor.

[El Guapo]

I would think the difference is that unions as a group have far less power than corporations as a group too. Of course some unions (AFLCIO) are more powerful than some corporations (start ups as a class, say). Any group that gets a lot of power is going to be of concern, but that's why I'd worry more about corporations and corporate power as a group than unions and union power.

[noxiousdog]

I would say unions do have the same problem. The difference is Unions are at least perceived to be populist if not socialist. Unions are seen as wealth spreaders, not wealth consolidators. And unions are seen as trying to protect health and well being, whereas corps are seen as looking for loop holes to save money regardless of collateral damage.

People aren't afraid that the union is letting their tap water catch on fire.

It may be completely unfair, but perception is a big factor.

People perceive that gays are icky and a threat to the conventional family. Surely, you don't believe we should avoid letting them marry because of perception?

People are afraid that the teacher's unions protect bad teachers and the AMA protects bad doctors. I'm sure one near and dear to your heart is police unions protecting bad officers. You tell me which has done more damage, bad police officers or fracking?

[noxiousdog]

I would think the difference is that unions as a group have far less power than corporations as a group too.

What is this corporations as a group? What exactly does The Corporation want?

[RunningMn9]

ND, I brought up Jackson, not as a framer, but as an example of a nationally chartered entity (thus countering my initial point that the feds didn't have that as an enumerated power).

What I've objected to in the past is the notion that we should treat corporations as people because that's what the framers intended. It isn't. IMHO, it is clearly the opposite.

Most of the expanded powers you listed are post-Civil War, when we obviously took a giant turn towards a much stronger federal government.

If you believe that a Corporation like Apple with $98B in the bank is the same as Joe the Plumber with $0.16 in the bank, that's your business. Just don't use the Founders intent as your justification. They are the same people that passed law after law to specifically prevent that.

[Smoove_B]

I am looking forward to the thread next month titled, "One Nation Under Socialism".

[GreenGoo]

I am looking forward to the thread next month titled, "One Nation Under Socialism".

The amount of traffic the story generated even crashed his website.

Lol, unless he's Amazon, I could crash his website, and I'm just one guy and a couple of boxes.

Which is not to say he's not getting an increase in traffic. I'm 100% sure he is.

[Combustible Lemur]

I would say unions do have the same problem. The difference is Unions are at least perceived to be populist if not socialist. Unions are seen as wealth spreaders, not wealth consolidators. And unions are seen as trying to protect health and well being, whereas corps are seen as looking for loop holes to save money regardless of collateral damage.

People aren't afraid that the union is letting their tap water catch on fire.

It may be completely unfair, but perception is a big factor.

People perceive that gays are icky and a threat to the conventional family. Surely, you don't believe we should avoid letting them marry because of perception?

People are afraid that the teacher's unions protect bad teachers and the AMA protects bad doctors. I'm sure one near and dear to your heart is police unions protecting bad officers. You tell me which has done more damage, bad police officers or fracking?

Of course not, but you asked why not unions. As you pointed out, it's exactly because they aren't the bogeyman. Even though they are as potentially harmful as corps. Perception is powerful, and as we've seen in the other thread, often blinding.

sent from incredible'

[noxiousdog]

ND, I brought up Jackson, not as a framer, but as an example of a nationally chartered entity (thus countering my initial point that the feds didn't have that as an enumerated power).

What I've objected to in the past is the notion that we should treat corporations as people because that's what the framers intended. It isn't. IMHO, it is clearly the opposite.

Most of the expanded powers you listed are post-Civil War, when we obviously took a giant turn towards a much stronger federal government.

If you believe that a Corporation like Apple with $98B in the bank is the same as Joe the Plumber with $0.16 in the bank, that's your business. Just don't use the Founders intent as your justification. They are the same people that passed law after law to specifically prevent that.

Again, they passed the First National Bank within 10 years of the the constitution's signing. I'm not sure they were as against it as you think they were.

I think the 'people' argument is bogus. It has nothing to do with whether they are people or not. It's whether or not a collective has rights, and whether being organized as a llp, union, trust, or corporation makes any difference.

[GreenGoo]

I think it's about whether a collective has rights independent and separate from the rights of those who make up the collective.

[Zarathud]

Corporations, limited liability partnerships, limited liability corporations, unions, associations and trusts (business and common law) are state law constructs. State law governs their creation, operations, continuation, and dissolution (sometimes on an involuntary basis). To say that these legal fictions have natural rights is absolutely ludicrous. I can see how equal protection of the law may apply in certain circumstances, but the right to free expression?

If Illinois and Delaware law can regulate a minimum number of directors, how shareholder meetings must be conducted and how officers are elected, it is simply ludicrous to attribute entities operating under those restrictions natural rights under federal law. Under a state's rights analysis, the states should adopt provisions similar to the UK's Companies Act, which requires shareholder authorization of corporate political expenditures before the money is spent, as well a as clear disclosure of where the money went. On a more realistic analysis, we should have seen federal legislation at least authorizing the SEC to adopt disclosure requirements (everyone except for corporate apologists should be able to agree that this would be reasonable regulation on a publicly traded company). Without those corporate restrictions, the hypothetical analysis of corporate governance in Citizens United doesn't make sense.

Corporations are not evil, they are constructs. They can be of any alignment. But if law created the damn things, and the law should be permitted to destroy them -- even if doing so is misguided and bad economic policy.

[noxiousdog]

If Illinois and Delaware law can regulate a minimum number of directors, how shareholder meetings must be conducted and how officers are elected, it is simply ludicrous to attribute entities operating under those restrictions natural rights under federal law.

I don't agree with this. If that's the case, you're agreeing that any [legal entity] should not be subject due process.

Under a state's rights analysis, the states should adopt provisions similar to the UK's Companies Act, which requires shareholder authorization of corporate political expenditures before the money is spent, as well a as clear disclosure of where the money went. On a more realistic analysis, we should have seen federal legislation at least authorizing the SEC to adopt disclosure requirements (everyone except for corporate apologists should be able to agree that this would be reasonable regulation on a publicly traded company). Without those corporate restrictions, the hypothetical analysis of corporate governance in Citizens United doesn't make sense.

I do agree with the rest of it.

[Zarathud]

I do not see the limited 14th amendment protections granted to corporations (due process and equal protection) as necessarily extending to the 1st amendment (speech) or the 5th amendment (self-incrimination).

[Jaymann]

Why is Jay Leno poking Lincoln in the back?

[RLMullen]

I do not see the limited 14th amendment protections granted to corporations (due process and equal protection) as necessarily extending to the 1st amendment (speech) or the 5th amendment (self-incrimination).

If 1st amendment protections don't extend to corporations then corporate owned newspapers, radio stations, television stations, broadcast networks, and websites aren't protected by the 1st? You could argue that the "speech" is created by individuals and is thus protected, but others would argue that the "speech" is owned by the corporation via copyright and is thus not protected. Who owns the "speech" on Wordpress blogs? The blogger or Wordpress. What about the speech here on this board?

I notice that you didn't mention the 4th. I'm sure that prosecutors everywhere would love another angle to further diminish 4th amendment protections. All corporate owned property would now be subject to search and seizure at the whim of the government? In a world where corporations get no constitutional protections I wonder if my house would be protected? Who actually owns my house... the mortgage holder, the trustee of the title, or me? Two of those entities are corporations.

[RunningMn9]

I don't agree with this. If that's the case, you're agreeing that any [legal entity] should not be subject due process.

Of course he isn't agreeing to that.

He's saying that born humans are born with inalienable rights. He's also saying that artificial legal entities are not born with inalienable rights, since they are made up conveniences.

There is nothing stopping these made up entities from being granted certain alienable rights, including the right to due process.

You skipped the question I had for you about explaining how a corporation advocating for its own benefit is actually representing my political interests, even when they are directly opposed to my political interests.

I would argue that unions fall into the same bucket, although for some different reasons (coerced membership). Again, I think that unions were formed around joint economic interest, which may or may not result in shared political interest.

Lobby groups are different. Assuming for the moment that we weren't treating corporations as people that can buy the government they want, lobby groups would be formed by individual citizens explicitly because of shared political interest.

The rest of the legal constructs for organizing economic entities fall into the same bucket as corporations (IMO). LImited Partnerships shouldn't be participating as distinct entities from their partners either.

[RunningMn9]

My bad ND, got my threads confused. You answered me in the other one.

[noxiousdog]

I do not see the limited 14th amendment protections granted to corporations (due process and equal protection) as necessarily extending to the 1st amendment (speech) or the 5th amendment (self-incrimination).

Why not? Other than "because you don't see it", if 1 doesn't apply, why should the other?

[silverjon]

Who owns the "speech" on Wordpress blogs? The blogger or Wordpress. What about the speech here on this board?

Most terms of service for blogs and forums that I've read basically wash their hands of us. We're responsible for what we write, and we also own it, though objectionable blog content may be removed if reported (and this is where things can get fuzzy, since objection may not be universal). Wordpress is just the software though, not necessarily a host. Blogs with Blogger get deleted sometimes for sharing taboo sexual imagery. That's a violation of ToS though, not that Blogger claims to own the content.

On a privately run forum like this, our esteemed staff are the overseers. On a corporate-owned one (like IGN, say), there are rules about what you can post ("family-oriented"), but they're not claiming ownership of your writing, or monitoring it other than by authorizing a few moderators out of the rabble. BioWare's forums are staffed by BioWare's people, so moderation is more hands-on, but they still don't own what you post there.

Also, are you familiar with Creative Commons?

[Pyperkub]

I do not see the limited 14th amendment protections granted to corporations (due process and equal protection) as necessarily extending to the 1st amendment (speech) or the 5th amendment (self-incrimination).

Why not? Other than "because you don't see it", if 1 doesn't apply, why should the other?

Because they aren't (necessarily) citizens/citizen groups. Just as non-citizens have some 1st amendment protections, they don't enjoy all of them (for example, foreign nationals can be barred from entering the US based upon speech that would be protected here). We can and do place limits upon the rights of non-citizens in this country, and doing so to corporations (or unions, etc.), could be limited thusly.

[noxiousdog]

I do not see the limited 14th amendment protections granted to corporations (due process and equal protection) as necessarily extending to the 1st amendment (speech) or the 5th amendment (self-incrimination).

Why not? Other than "because you don't see it", if 1 doesn't apply, why should the other?

Because they aren't (necessarily) citizens/citizen groups. Just as non-citizens have some 1st amendment protections, they don't enjoy all of them (for example, foreign nationals can be barred from entering the US based upon speech that would be protected here). We can and do place limits upon the rights of non-citizens in this country, and doing so to corporations (or unions, etc.), could be limited thusly.

I'm aware of no instances where citizens are required to give up rights when they join a collective (military?). It strikes me in that scenario you could be free to practice any religion you like, but churches would not be subject to similar protections. Churches aren't citizens after all.

[Pyperkub]

I do not see the limited 14th amendment protections granted to corporations (due process and equal protection) as necessarily extending to the 1st amendment (speech) or the 5th amendment (self-incrimination).

Why not? Other than "because you don't see it", if 1 doesn't apply, why should the other?

Because they aren't (necessarily) citizens/citizen groups. Just as non-citizens have some 1st amendment protections, they don't enjoy all of them (for example, foreign nationals can be barred from entering the US based upon speech that would be protected here). We can and do place limits upon the rights of non-citizens in this country, and doing so to corporations (or unions, etc.), could be limited thusly.

I'm aware of no instances where citizens are required to give up rights when they join a collective (military?). It strikes me in that scenario you could be free to practice any religion you like, but churches would not be subject to similar protections. Churches aren't citizens after all.

Religion is explicitly noted in the Bill of Rights. Corporate Charters are not. (But I see your point). For now, I'm going to lump churches into a separate box, because of their special character. Citizens have had to give up rights (Taliban fighters), but that would be another special case.

Additionally, in the case(s) we're discussing, the Citizen hasn't given up the rights, the group they have joined simply doesn't have those rights (e.g. voting).