6 ms·

How? Less gov limitations? You cant have it both ways. Limits on government force are inverse to limits on it's people. The Bill Of Rights is a list of things

How? Less gov limitations? You cant have it both ways. Limits on government force are inverse to limits on it's people. The Bill Of Rights is a list of things we want to remember that the gov can never do (see it's preamble), it's a bit of a bug that it's called that. Gov is special, we _give_ it the ability to use violence to enforce the rules we set. Corporations don't get to use violence to enforce their rules (unless they buy the gov in a country without the 2ndA). It's a real difference. We are not forced to use a private service (which is why conservatives are so anti forced "health care"), nobody is required to use FB, or YT. Only confused (or ill) people think they are. A properly functioning system of exchange regulates this via monetary physics. FB is going to be myspace sooner or later. People learn from their mistakes if they have the freedom to make them.

rectang 9y ago
You say that like the US government serves the interests of people-people and not corporation-people.
- jakeogh 9y ago
  Anyone can incorporate. If that's the distinction, then it's meaningless.
- fwdpropaganda 9y ago
  This kind of corruption in the case of the USA seems quite simple to solve. You've made it legal to buy politicians, how about changing that back? It's a start...
  - jakeogh 9y ago
    How do you propose to do it? Limit contributions by corporations? I don't see the distinction, corporations are people, I can become a one man corporation by clicking a few buttons. Money like code, is ultimately speech. I'll take that any day over the alternative limitations as long as we have legit voting and non-forced spending of money.
    - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
      > Money like code, is ultimately speech Money is speech and bribes are just conversations, right? "Money is speech" is a propaganda talking point pushed by those who benefit from having a lot of people eating it up. People like you. > I don't see the distinction, corporations are people Your idealogical zeal prevents you from seeing the distinction. Corporations have the buying power that people don't have, and are able to position themselves to take advantage of individual pieces of legislation to a degree that covers their politician buying plus profit. Isn't this obvious?
      - jakeogh 9y ago
        If there is a legit distinction between speech and conversations, you didn't make it or I missed it. I could start throwing labels about your POV, but that would be a good indication that I don't have a real point to make. Saying corporations are different because they have buying power that people don't have is incorrect. There are plenty of people that can and do vastly outspend most corporations. They do this by making many corporations and using those to socially engineer the target population instead of contributing directly (this is why money is speech). It also ignores the point that corporations are made of people, and people have one vote. Politicians that do what a small group wants (a corp) vs their larger constituency get voted out (Cantored' in recent US lingo).
        fwdpropaganda 9y ago
        > If there is a legit distinction between speech and conversations, you didn't make it or I missed it. Ok, lets try again: Money: something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment. Speech: the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words Is that clear? Listen, I love these conversations but you already convinced me that you're not in good faith, which makes this a waste of time. Stay cool.
        jakeogh 9y ago
        I even gave the mechanism, you can use money to generate speech. I don't think you are commenting in bad faith, and I don't think talking to you is a waste of time.

rectang 9y ago

You say that like the US government serves the interests of people-people and not corporation-people.

jakeogh 9y ago
Anyone can incorporate. If that's the distinction, then it's meaningless.
fwdpropaganda 9y ago
This kind of corruption in the case of the USA seems quite simple to solve. You've made it legal to buy politicians, how about changing that back? It's a start...
- jakeogh 9y ago
  How do you propose to do it? Limit contributions by corporations? I don't see the distinction, corporations are people, I can become a one man corporation by clicking a few buttons. Money like code, is ultimately speech. I'll take that any day over the alternative limitations as long as we have legit voting and non-forced spending of money.
  - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
    > Money like code, is ultimately speech Money is speech and bribes are just conversations, right? "Money is speech" is a propaganda talking point pushed by those who benefit from having a lot of people eating it up. People like you. > I don't see the distinction, corporations are people Your idealogical zeal prevents you from seeing the distinction. Corporations have the buying power that people don't have, and are able to position themselves to take advantage of individual pieces of legislation to a degree that covers their politician buying plus profit. Isn't this obvious?
    - jakeogh 9y ago
      If there is a legit distinction between speech and conversations, you didn't make it or I missed it. I could start throwing labels about your POV, but that would be a good indication that I don't have a real point to make. Saying corporations are different because they have buying power that people don't have is incorrect. There are plenty of people that can and do vastly outspend most corporations. They do this by making many corporations and using those to socially engineer the target population instead of contributing directly (this is why money is speech). It also ignores the point that corporations are made of people, and people have one vote. Politicians that do what a small group wants (a corp) vs their larger constituency get voted out (Cantored' in recent US lingo).
      - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
        > If there is a legit distinction between speech and conversations, you didn't make it or I missed it. Ok, lets try again: Money: something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment. Speech: the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words Is that clear? Listen, I love these conversations but you already convinced me that you're not in good faith, which makes this a waste of time. Stay cool.
        jakeogh 9y ago
        I even gave the mechanism, you can use money to generate speech. I don't think you are commenting in bad faith, and I don't think talking to you is a waste of time.