5 ms·

What's funny is that a lot of people are worried about the "government" limiting their liberty, whereas in cases like this it's the big corporations that need t

What's funny is that a lot of people are worried about the "government" limiting their liberty, whereas in cases like this it's the big corporations that need to be defeated to win back your freedom. Maybe freedom-above-all folks need to rethink what freedom is all about in this new reality.

coryrc 12y ago
Huh? It's the state government that has the law mostly preventing municipal broadband. If the government wasn't so powerful, the corporations couldn't use it as a tool against us.
- DrJosiah 12y ago
  That is some fucked up doublespeak right there. If corporations weren't so powerful, they wouldn't be able to manipulate the government into passing laws that restrict choice among citizens.
  - sanderjd 12y ago
    You are talking around each other because there isn't one "the government", but rather a bunch of different levels constantly pushing and pulling against one another. It's very reasonable to be a small government ideologue while simultaneously wanting a more powerful city government. Many people who want "small government" simply want a less powerful federal government. A few states are playing with this balance (Colorado certainly among them) at all levels. Should the federal government control the state's drug policy? Should the state control the county's or municipality's infrastructure or natural resources? What about schools, who should control those? These sorts of questions are where you see major differences between lots of different people who would all identify themselves as "conservatives" and agreement with many people would would identify themselves as "liberals". It isn't a simple system!
    - Florin_Andrei 12y ago
      I could not agree more with the liberty-above-all folks - in terms of sentiment. I could not disagree more with them that the greatest threat to individual liberty is the "government" - that was true back in the day of Paul Revere maybe. But times have changed. Nowadays the greatest threat, and a much more intelligent and subtle threat, too, is from Big Money. There's a war out there for people's minds, and we-the-people are currently losing. Chaining up the bodies is so medieval and inefficient, so why bother, when you can chain up the minds and then the slaves will passionately defend their own chains. It's easy, too, just set up some "think tanks", or promote some newfangled ideologies that seem to promise "liberty" while in fact weaken the very defenses that support it. Problem solved. I lived the first 2 decades of my life under communist dictatorship, so I think I know from first hand experience what freedom, or lack thereof, truly mean.
      - refurb 12y ago
        I could not disagree more with them that the greatest threat to individual liberty is the "government" - that was true back in the day of Paul Revere maybe. But times have changed. You've got to be kidding. Most of the violations of human rights that occur in the world come from governments. What other entity is powerful enough to take everything you have and thrown you in prison?
        namlem 12y ago
        There's no such thing as a world without governments. A large scale stateless society is impossible. If you weaken the power of democratic governments, non-democratic entities will take their place as the de facto government.
        refurb 12y ago
        That didn't answer the question. If the world can't exist without governments, that doesn't imply that governments won't take away your freedoms.
      - 12y ago
  - baddox 12y ago
    Your statement sounds like the doublespeak to me. At the end of the day, it's government that physically enforces things with relative impunity. The "power" of corporations in this context is just the power of government being used for corporate interests; it doesn't work the other way around.
    - DrJosiah 12y ago
      Nominally, governments act at the behest of the good of the people, powerful or not. Regulation is part of its purpose. If they are not operating for the good of the people, then who are they operating for? This is a clear case where a government founded for the good of the people has been side-tracked to operate at the good of a corporation, at the expense of the people. So I will stick with my earlier statement: governments have power due to the will of the people, and blaming the existence of governmental power for the fact that corporations bought the legislation is doublespeak. The problem is not the existence of government (unless you are anarchist), nor is the fact that the government has the power to regulate. The problem is that a corporation bought legislation to restrict consumer choice, and that neither the politicians nor the corporations are being held accountable for the implicit (or even explicit) bribery that went on to make it happen.
- Florin_Andrei 12y ago
  Yes, if the gun wasn't so powerful, the criminal could not kill people. Let's blame the gun.
  - baddox 12y ago
    No, you blame the actual person with the gun, i.e. the group of people who physically enforce rules. That's government, not corporations.
gretful 12y ago
ahh, but who provides the framework that denies the local governments the right to implement this? That's right, the Judicial branch (local, state or federal). So, while corporations initiate and shepherd the process through the court systems, it is the court systems that allow this process.
- Florin_Andrei 12y ago
  Yes, let's accuse the sock puppet. The hand in it, however, is blameless.
  - adventured 12y ago
    Yes, let's definitely accuse the government officials taking the legal bribes to sell citizens down the river. They deserve a lot of blame as well.
dvanduzer 12y ago
"We the people" have the right to amend the United States Constitution. Are we out of ideas for ways to protect the liberty of individuals? :)
- logn 12y ago
  Not out of ideas. http://www.wolf-pac.com/28th http://www.wolf-pac.com/28th
  - dvanduzer 12y ago
    As a resident of Colorado, I'm slightly wary of amendments with language involving the definition of personhood.
    - logn 12y ago
      That language is only proposed and carries no legal weight or significance. The call for a constitutional convention has to have a singular focus it's just based around money in politics. E.g., http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2014/Resolutions/JRS027/ACTR454%20As%20Adopted.pdf http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2014/Resolutions/JRS027/ACTR... The wording of the amendment would be decided and voted upon at the convention (75% of states required).
      - dvanduzer 12y ago
        I was half joking, but I also don't think that "get money out of politics" is a pragmatic approach to amending the constitution. Maybe something like "get governance back into politics" could take the form of a constitutional amendment requiring that every citizen vote (along with mandated funding to make that convenient for every citizen).
    - Florin_Andrei 12y ago
      The time when you should have been worried about personhood and legislation has passed. It was when they messed with Citizens United, and gave humongous power over the political process to semi-anonymous legal fictions. Now is the time to fix that. > I also don't think that "get money out of politics" is a pragmatic approach to amending the constitution. But that's the current root of all evil. Unless you pull that out of the ground, bad stuff will keep sprouting up.

coryrc 12y ago

Huh? It's the state government that has the law mostly preventing municipal broadband. If the government wasn't so powerful, the corporations couldn't use it as a tool against us.

DrJosiah 12y ago
That is some fucked up doublespeak right there. If corporations weren't so powerful, they wouldn't be able to manipulate the government into passing laws that restrict choice among citizens.
- sanderjd 12y ago
  You are talking around each other because there isn't one "the government", but rather a bunch of different levels constantly pushing and pulling against one another. It's very reasonable to be a small government ideologue while simultaneously wanting a more powerful city government. Many people who want "small government" simply want a less powerful federal government. A few states are playing with this balance (Colorado certainly among them) at all levels. Should the federal government control the state's drug policy? Should the state control the county's or municipality's infrastructure or natural resources? What about schools, who should control those? These sorts of questions are where you see major differences between lots of different people who would all identify themselves as "conservatives" and agreement with many people would would identify themselves as "liberals". It isn't a simple system!
  - Florin_Andrei 12y ago
    I could not agree more with the liberty-above-all folks - in terms of sentiment. I could not disagree more with them that the greatest threat to individual liberty is the "government" - that was true back in the day of Paul Revere maybe. But times have changed. Nowadays the greatest threat, and a much more intelligent and subtle threat, too, is from Big Money. There's a war out there for people's minds, and we-the-people are currently losing. Chaining up the bodies is so medieval and inefficient, so why bother, when you can chain up the minds and then the slaves will passionately defend their own chains. It's easy, too, just set up some "think tanks", or promote some newfangled ideologies that seem to promise "liberty" while in fact weaken the very defenses that support it. Problem solved. I lived the first 2 decades of my life under communist dictatorship, so I think I know from first hand experience what freedom, or lack thereof, truly mean.
    - refurb 12y ago
      I could not disagree more with them that the greatest threat to individual liberty is the "government" - that was true back in the day of Paul Revere maybe. But times have changed. You've got to be kidding. Most of the violations of human rights that occur in the world come from governments. What other entity is powerful enough to take everything you have and thrown you in prison?
      - namlem 12y ago
        There's no such thing as a world without governments. A large scale stateless society is impossible. If you weaken the power of democratic governments, non-democratic entities will take their place as the de facto government.
        refurb 12y ago
        That didn't answer the question. If the world can't exist without governments, that doesn't imply that governments won't take away your freedoms.
    - 12y ago
- baddox 12y ago
  Your statement sounds like the doublespeak to me. At the end of the day, it's government that physically enforces things with relative impunity. The "power" of corporations in this context is just the power of government being used for corporate interests; it doesn't work the other way around.
  - DrJosiah 12y ago
    Nominally, governments act at the behest of the good of the people, powerful or not. Regulation is part of its purpose. If they are not operating for the good of the people, then who are they operating for? This is a clear case where a government founded for the good of the people has been side-tracked to operate at the good of a corporation, at the expense of the people. So I will stick with my earlier statement: governments have power due to the will of the people, and blaming the existence of governmental power for the fact that corporations bought the legislation is doublespeak. The problem is not the existence of government (unless you are anarchist), nor is the fact that the government has the power to regulate. The problem is that a corporation bought legislation to restrict consumer choice, and that neither the politicians nor the corporations are being held accountable for the implicit (or even explicit) bribery that went on to make it happen.
Florin_Andrei 12y ago
Yes, if the gun wasn't so powerful, the criminal could not kill people. Let's blame the gun.
- baddox 12y ago
  No, you blame the actual person with the gun, i.e. the group of people who physically enforce rules. That's government, not corporations.

gretful 12y ago

ahh, but who provides the framework that denies the local governments the right to implement this? That's right, the Judicial branch (local, state or federal). So, while corporations initiate and shepherd the process through the court systems, it is the court systems that allow this process.

Florin_Andrei 12y ago
Yes, let's accuse the sock puppet. The hand in it, however, is blameless.
- adventured 12y ago
  Yes, let's definitely accuse the government officials taking the legal bribes to sell citizens down the river. They deserve a lot of blame as well.

dvanduzer 12y ago

"We the people" have the right to amend the United States Constitution. Are we out of ideas for ways to protect the liberty of individuals? :)

logn 12y ago
Not out of ideas. http://www.wolf-pac.com/28th http://www.wolf-pac.com/28th
- dvanduzer 12y ago
  As a resident of Colorado, I'm slightly wary of amendments with language involving the definition of personhood.
  - logn 12y ago
    That language is only proposed and carries no legal weight or significance. The call for a constitutional convention has to have a singular focus it's just based around money in politics. E.g., http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2014/Resolutions/JRS027/ACTR454%20As%20Adopted.pdf http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2014/Resolutions/JRS027/ACTR... The wording of the amendment would be decided and voted upon at the convention (75% of states required).
    - dvanduzer 12y ago
      I was half joking, but I also don't think that "get money out of politics" is a pragmatic approach to amending the constitution. Maybe something like "get governance back into politics" could take the form of a constitutional amendment requiring that every citizen vote (along with mandated funding to make that convenient for every citizen).
  - Florin_Andrei 12y ago
    The time when you should have been worried about personhood and legislation has passed. It was when they messed with Citizens United, and gave humongous power over the political process to semi-anonymous legal fictions. Now is the time to fix that. > I also don't think that "get money out of politics" is a pragmatic approach to amending the constitution. But that's the current root of all evil. Unless you pull that out of the ground, bad stuff will keep sprouting up.