Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[WildCat]

My son recently quit Wallmart. He never made $10 an hour. Safeway has health benefits (and I believe other benefits) that Wallmart doesn't. It wouldn't be surprised that Wallmart can claim $10 minimum wage for certain positions.

Your son works at a Walmart in Chicago? And I hope he can spell it...

And it's $8.75, I misremembered.

 

[RandFan]

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality

Thanks, I remember that now. I find it hilarous, if true, that rights afforded people carry to corporations due to a court reporters error.

 

[Alt+F4]

I've not taken a position on corporate personhood. Could you explain why it is that an entity that is not a person cannot be sued? Is it conceptually impossible to sue entities that are not "virtual people" or is it because of legal precedent? If the latter could you cite the precedent? If the former could you provide justification?

The proposed amendment that seems to be picking up the most steam states,

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

So how could you sue a corporation? It would be the same thing as trying to sue a dog or a coffee table.

 

[WildCat]

Thanks, I remember that now. I find it hilarous, if true, that rights afforded people carry to corporations due to a court reporters error.

It's not true. It's a concept that has its roots in common law at the start of the Industrial Revolution, and predates the existence of the United States.

 

[RandFan]

Your son works at a Walmart in Chicago? And I hope he can spell it...

And it's $8.75, I misremembered.

I missed your post. Sorry, I sit corrected.

 

[bookitty]

So you want to put limits on political speech for the specific purpose of not having speech influence elections?

Like I said, you are incapable of seeing the consequences of such demands. For starters, the entire opinion/editorial/commentary sections of the New York Times is now under government regulation, can't print anything that might influence the election!

This has to be the first time in history people are using the 1st Amendment to demand a repeal of the 1st Amendment. And you wonder why we call them occutards?

No, the limitations are specifically on spending amounts. The NY Times editorial section would not be targeted.

Our constitution protects both the majority and minority in a careful balance. If it didn't we would soon have some type of tyranny. If, for example, Christians were able to make Christianity the official religion of the US, people of other religions would lose the protections that they now enjoy. Even though the majority of Americans are Christians, our constitution is set up to defend people of other religions against undue influence or persecution by Christians. We have already seen how some Christians would like to influence the public sector by introducing a religious belief - Creationism - into public school. Our constitution protects against this while still allowing the majority, Christians, to practice freely. It's this type of careful checks and balances which make our poor tattered constitution such a marvel of political philosophy. (Seriously, the founding fathers were idealistic in the extreme, it's amazing that we've lasted this long on what is basically a utopian dream.)

Do a minority of people have the right to influence legislation that benefits themselves and harms the majority or in many cases goes entirely against the will of the majority, simply because they represent the majority of wealth in the US?

 

[RandFan]

It's not true. It's a concept that has its roots in common law at the start of the Industrial Revolution, and predates the existence of the United States.

I don't know that to be true but I'll defer to you for the moment.

 

[Virus]

Sexual assault at Occupy Hartford. Hush it up. Cover it up. Movement more concerned about negative publicity than victim's rights.

When asked why no one from Occupy Hartford, including the victim reported the sex assault to police, they told officers they did not want to draw any negative attention to their cause.

 

[RandFan]

Do a minority of people have the right to influence legislation that benefits themselves and harms the majority or in many cases goes entirely against the will of the majority, simply because they represent the majority of wealth in the US?

I think that is a fair question. I'm willing to consider limits on public spending by corporations but I find the implementation problematic.

Then again, the current staus quo is inherently problematic. Extraordinary citizens with limited means are largely precluded from the upper echelons of politics. Elections are very, very expensive. Aside from unions the only basis for the wealth necessary for publicr office at the federal level comes from corporations. Absent any change the status quo will ensure that they will always have more speech and more influence. It is foreseeable that many of the rights that govt cannot infringe, corporations will be able to infringe. Unelected power to dictate what we can say and do. Freedom, in many if not most contexts, only means that govt cannot infringe on our rights. Outside of govt the rights of speech or action or movement do not exist.

Corporations could, theoretically, require contracts limiting what we can do on our own time. Freedom of association? Freedom from unlawful search and seizure? It's been pointed out in this thread that freedom of speech isn't an inherent freedom outside of govt. Why should most other rights not also be like speech?

The Declaration of Independence is not the constitution. The United States does NOT recognize or guarantee inalienable rights beyond life and some very, very limited rights of liberty (you cannot hold someone against their will). If a corporation required you to be in bed by 9:00 pm, that you cannot engage in risky behavior or that you cannot use the internet then they could. Again, these are not inalienable rights.

Your only right is to quit your job. If the trend toward monopolies continues then that right will diminish considerably. Instead of imprisonment the punishment of the unelected power will to keep you from making a living.

 

[RandFan]

Sexual assault at Occupy Hartford. Hush it up. Cover it up. Movement more concerned about negative publicity than victim's rights.

Yes. Conceded. Not much different than many other groups. It's wrong. I find it unfortunate. It DOESN'T mean that the movement is unjustified or wrong.

 

[WildCat]

No, the limitations are specifically on spending amounts. The NY Times editorial section would not be targeted.

Do you have any idea how much money it takes to print the New York Times? I'm pretty certain it would apply.

Our constitution protects both the majority and minority in a careful balance. If it didn't we would soon have some type of tyranny. If, for example, Christians were able to make Christianity the official religion of the US, people of other religions would lose the protections that they now enjoy. Even though the majority of Americans are Christians, our constitution is set up to defend people of other religions against undue influence or persecution by Christians. We have already seen how some Christians would like to influence the public sector by introducing a religious belief - Creationism - into public school. Our constitution protects against this while still allowing the majority, Christians, to practice freely. It's this type of careful checks and balances which make our poor tattered constitution such a marvel of political philosophy. (Seriously, the founding fathers were idealistic in the extreme, it's amazing that we've lasted this long on what is basically a utopian dream.)

And the answer is to repeal the 1st Amendment?

Do a minority of people have the right to influence legislation that benefits themselves and harms the majority or in many cases goes entirely against the will of the majority, simply because they represent the majority of wealth in the US?

Examples?

 

[WildCat]

Then again, the current staus quo is inherently problematic. Extraordinary citizens with limited means are largely precluded from the upper echelons of politics.

And when a group of citizens decided to rectify this by pooling their limited means and forming a group called Citizens United the government came after them and tried to shut them down. The court said the government couldn't shut them down, and now all the occutards are in a tizzy over that for some reason.

 

[bookitty]

I think that is a fair question. I'm willing to consider limits on public spending by corporations but I find the implementation problematic.

Then again, the current staus quo is inherently problematic. Extraordinary citizens with limited means are largely precluded from the upper echelons of politics. Elections are very, very expensive. Aside from unions the only basis for the wealth necessary for publicr office at the federal level comes from corporations. Absent any change the status quo will ensure that they will always have more speech and more influence. It is foreseeable that many of the rights that govt cannot infringe, corporations will be able to infringe. Unelected power to dictate what we can say and do. Freedom, in many if not most contexts, only means that govt cannot infringe on our rights. Outside of govt the rights of speech or action or movement do not exist.

Corporations could, theoretically, require contracts limiting what we can do on our own time. Freedom of association? Freedom from unlawful search and seizure? It's been pointed out in this thread that freedom of speech isn't an inherent freedom outside of govt. Why should most other rights not also be like speech?

The Declaration of Independence is not the constitution. The United States does NOT recognize or guarantee inalienable rights beyond life and some very, very limited rights of liberty (you cannot hold someone against their will). If a corporation required you to be in bed by 9:00 pm, that you cannot engage in risky behavior or that you cannot use the internet then they could. Again, these are not inalienable rights.

Your only right is to quit your job. If the trend toward monopolies continues then that right will diminish considerably. Instead of imprisonment the punishment of the unelected power will to keep you from making a living.

There are some small examples of this - School teachers who are fired or reprimanded because they were in a porno, even though porn is legal. Or employee weight-loss programs that demand a lifestyle change. But that sort of corporate abuse on a large scale is a future doomsday scenario.

The present is a little more insidious. We already have millions of people working part time jobs so that the corporation does not have to pay for health care or other benefits. These employees are then reliant on state-funded care and the cost is passed on to taxpayers.

If the employees or tax-payers want to legislate against this abuse of the system, they need to match the amount spent by lobbyist for the corporation, funds donated to candidates who are beholden to the corporation and political ads portraying this legislation as against their own best interests. At this point, there are very limited options for the tax-payer and employee.

Of course, labor is only one example.

 

[bookitty]

Do you have any idea how much money it takes to print the New York Times? I'm pretty certain it would apply.


And the answer is to repeal the 1st Amendment?


Examples?

The Keystone XL pipeline which will carry Canadian oil to foreign, not domestic, markets; offers a limited amount of employment; a great risk of environmental damage over more than 1,500 miles; a great risk of contamination to the Ogallala Aquifer (which supplies 1/3 of the irrigation water for the US); would extend a property tax moratorium which would lead to millions in lost tax revenue, and would result in at least 50 eminent domain cases.

Because the oil is destined for foreign markets, there will be no benefit to the majority of people who will be affected by the pipeline. Benefits will go primarily to TransCanada with Koch Industries taking a fat slice for themselves.

 

[RandFan]

There are some small examples of this - School teachers who are fired or reprimanded because they were in a porno, even though porn is legal. Or employee weight-loss programs that demand a lifestyle change. But that sort of corporate abuse on a large scale is a future doomsday scenario.

Conceded. I anticipated that criticism but not from you. But it is a fair point,

The present is a little more insidious. We already have millions of people working part time jobs so that the corporation does not have to pay for health care or other benefits. These employees are then reliant on state-funded care and the cost is passed on to taxpayers.

If the employees or tax-payers want to legislate against this abuse of the system, they need to match the amount spent by lobbyist for the corporation, funds donated to candidates who are beholden to the corporation and political ads portraying this legislation as against their own best interests. At this point, there are very limited options for the tax-payer and employee.

Of course, labor is only one example.

Agreed.

 

[WildCat]

The Keystone XL pipeline which will carry Canadian oil to foreign, not domestic, markets; offers a limited amount of employment; a great risk of environmental damage over more than 1,500 miles; a great risk of contamination to the Ogallala Aquifer (which supplies 1/3 of the irrigation water for the US); would extend a property tax moratorium which would lead to millions in lost tax revenue, and would result in at least 50 eminent domain cases.

Because the oil is destined for foreign markets, there will be no benefit to the majority of people who will be affected by the pipeline. Benefits will go primarily to TransCanada with Koch Industries taking a fat slice for themselves.

So your claim is that the country is better off without oil pipelines? Shall we get rid of railroads also?

 

[RandFan]

So your claim is that the country is better off without oil pipelines?

FWIW: That's not the conclusion I got from her. It seems to me the point is why should we bear the risk of environmental harm for little return?

 

[bookitty]

So your claim is that the country is better off without oil pipelines? Shall we get rid of railroads also?

My point is that we are better off without this particular pipeline.

And reaching for an argument, we would be better off without that as well.

 

[WildCat]

My point is that we are better off without this particular pipeline.

Why is it different from the dozens of other pipelines crisscrossing the aquifer? Have pipelines in the US proved to be a danger to aquifers?

 

[WildCat]

FWIW: That's not the conclusion I got from her. It seems to me the point is why should we bear the risk of environmental harm for little return?

What is the risk? What is "little return"? It would create tens of thousands of jobs and create a stable oil supply from a friendly country that doesn't funnel the profits to terrorist groups.