Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[dblack]

In short, if you want to get money out of politics, you have to remove the politicians power to control our money.

Unbelievable. Just a wee bit of a problem there, fella:

In the federal government of the United States, the power of the purse is vested in the Congress as laid down in the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 (the Appropriations Clause) and Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (the Taxing and Spending Clause).

The power of the purse plays a critical role in the relationship of the United States Congress and the President of the United States, and has been the main historic tool by which Congress has limited executive power.

And? We're not talking about the power of the purse. We're talking about the government's power to decide who has "too much". If you setup government to make those kinds of decisions, people will fight hard to control that process.

 

[dblack]

How will "vested interests" enhance their wealth if Warren's ACA requires corporations with more than a billion dollars in tax receipts to give their employees the right to elect 40% of their board of directors?

The same way the do with every other regulation scheme. Their lawyers and lobbyists will write the laws and make sure it suits their interests. This happens every. fucking. time.

ACA was only the most overt example.

 

[Grumblenuts]

In short, if you want to get money out of politics, you have to remove the politicians power to control our money.

Unbelievable. Just a wee bit of a problem there, fella:

In the federal government of the United States, the power of the purse is vested in the Congress as laid down in the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 (the Appropriations Clause) and Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (the Taxing and Spending Clause).

The power of the purse plays a critical role in the relationship of the United States Congress and the President of the United States, and has been the main historic tool by which Congress has limited executive power.

And? We're not talking about the power of the purse. We're talking about the government's power to decide who has "too much". If you setup government to make those kinds of decisions, people will fight hard to control that process.

Oh, now we're talking about the government's power to decide who has too much are we? That's odd,. Here I thought that's what I originally wanted to discuss, but you launched into some nonsense about "you have to remove the politicians power to control our money" nonsense instead? Hmm... Not the power of the purse, eh? Hmmm...
Yep, best get back to your peeing and rope.

 

[Grumblenuts]

who has "too much". If you setup government to make those kinds of decisions, people will fight hard to control that process.

Here's news for when you take a pee break. Government already decides who makes "too little." Not a problem except between your ears apparently. Love the quotes around "too much" though.. like you were afraid your hands would get dirty without them, LOL

 

[Rustic]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

Pocahontas does not want anybody to own their own business… That is a fact

 

[Grumblenuts]

Rustic believes only billionaires own businesses... That's a fact.
Jack.

 

[dblack]

who has "too much". If you setup government to make those kinds of decisions, people will fight hard to control that process.

Here's news for when you take a pee break. Government already decides who makes "too little."

Yes. That's the problem. It was a mistake to grant them this power.

Love the quotes around "too much" though.. like you were afraid your hands would get dirty without them, LOL

No, more like it's a completely arbitrary and subjective judgement - and will always serve the interests of the "judger".

 

[Grumblenuts]

it's a completely arbitrary and subjective judgement

Like how high one can pee up a rope. Well, perhaps not quite..
How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty

 

[georgephillip]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

Pocahontas does not want anybody to own their own business… That is a fact

Pocahontas does not want anybody to own their own business… That is a fact

Warren understands corporations are not people.
That's a fact.

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending. Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

Here's another fact:

 

[daveman]

Yep. Not to mention nitpicking over stuff recently said by (an amazingly still sharp but nonetheless) ninety year old. And finding a token black guy for backup, LOL. All leftists though, discussing world affairs at a high level. Anything noticeably missing?

If I'm remembering correctly, Chomsky was at one time the most frequently quoted scholar in academic journals. He was the only living academic to be quoted often enough to make the all time top ten list of thinkers quoted in those journals, but, of course, conservatives know better.

He's a linguist. You may as well ask Sean Penn his views on geopolitics.

Oh, wait -- you idiots did that, too.

He's a linguist. You may as well ask Sean Penn his views on geopolitics.

Oh, wait -- you idiots did that, too.

"Main article: Noam Chomsky bibliography and filmography

"Linguistics

• Syntactic Structures (1957)
• Current Issues in Linguistic Theory (1964)
• Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965)
• Cartesian Linguistics (1965)
• Language and Mind (1968)
• The Sound Pattern of English with Morris Halle (1968)
• Reflections on Language (1975)
• Lectures on Government and Binding (1981)
• The Minimalist Program (1995)

"Politics

• American Power and the New Mandarins (1969)
• Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact & Propaganda with Edward S. Herman (1973)
• The Political Economy of Human Rights (1979)
• Towards a New Cold War (1982)
• The Fateful Triangle (1983)
• Pirates and Emperors (1986)
• Manufacturing Consent (1988)
• Necessary Illusions (1989)
• Deterring Democracy (1991)
• Letters from Lexington (1993)
• The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many (1993)
• World Orders Old and New (1994)
• Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship (1997)

• Profit over People (1999)
• 9-11 (2001)
• Understanding Power (2002)
• Middle East Illusions (2003)
• Hegemony or Survival (2003)
• Getting Haiti Right This Time (2004)
• Imperial Ambitions (2005)
• Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy (2006)
• Interventions (2007)
• Gaza in Crisis (2010)
• Making the Future (2012)
• Occupy (2012)
• Requiem for the American Dream (2017)"

Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia

Yeah, looks like he started believing his own bullshit pretty early on.

Yeah, looks like he started believing his own bullshit pretty early on

Whose bullshit do you believe?

"Chomsky has described his parents as 'normal Roosevelt Democrats' with center-left politics, but other relatives involved in the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union exposed him to socialism and far-left politics.[41]

"He was substantially influenced by his uncle and the Jewish leftists who frequented his New York City newspaper stand to debate current affairs.[42] Chomsky frequented left-wing and anarchist bookstores when visiting his uncle in the city, voraciously reading political literature.[43]

"He wrote his first article at age 10 on the spread of fascism following the fall of Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War[44] and, from the age of 12 or 13, identified with anarchist politics.[40]

"He later described his discovery of anarchism as 'a lucky accident'[45] that made him critical of Stalinism and other forms of Marxism–Leninism."

Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia

If there's anything stupider than a Commie, it's an anarchist.

 

[daveman]

"In America, libertarian means "extreme advocate of total tyranny."

No, it doesn't. It means keeping government interference in individual lives as minimal as possible.

Look, I know that's a scary concept to leftist totalitarians, but damn...there is no way you can call this man intelligent.

He's a moron.

"In America, libertarian means "extreme advocate of total tyranny."

No, it doesn't. It means keeping government interference in individual lives as minimal as possible.

Chomsky recognizes there are other greater threats to individual liberty than that posed by a democratic government:

On "Private Tyrannies" | Ben O'Neill

"If you have ever read much of the political philosophy and commentary of renowned anarchosyndicalist intellectual Noam Chomsky, then you are probably familiar with his view that large private business organizations are 'private tyrannies' — oversized and antidemocratic institutions that function according to that most hated of organizational principles, the hierarchy! According to Chomsky,

"As state capitalism developed into the modern era, economic, political and ideological systems have increasingly been taken over by vast institutions of private tyranny that are about as close to the totalitarian ideal as any that humans have so far constructed.[1]"

SO THE OBVIOUS ANSWER IS ABSOLUTE GOVERNMENT CONTROL

Run along, dumbass.

SO THE OBVIOUS ANSWER IS ABSOLUTE GOVERNMENT CONTROL

Run along, dumbass.

Skippy, you can eat all of Chomsky's shit you want -- just don't expect normal people to believe you when you say it's yummy.

 

[georgephillip]

How will "vested interests" enhance their wealth if Warren's ACA requires corporations with more than a billion dollars in tax receipts to give their employees the right to elect 40% of their board of directors?

The same way the do with every other regulation scheme. Their lawyers and lobbyists will write the laws and make sure it suits their interests. This happens every. fucking. time.

ACA was only the most overt example.

The same way the do with every other regulation scheme. Their lawyers and lobbyists will write the laws and make sure it suits their interests. This happens every. fucking. time.

How would lawyers and lobbyists affect the votes of workers sitting on the boards of major corporations?

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"Section 6(a) requires the Securities and Exchange Commission in consultation with the National Labor Relations Board to issue rules on fair director elections. Section 6(b) requires that no less than 2/5 of the directors shall be elected by employees after one year from the introduction of the rules"

 

[georgephillip]

"In America, libertarian means "extreme advocate of total tyranny."

No, it doesn't. It means keeping government interference in individual lives as minimal as possible.

Look, I know that's a scary concept to leftist totalitarians, but damn...there is no way you can call this man intelligent.

He's a moron.

"In America, libertarian means "extreme advocate of total tyranny."

No, it doesn't. It means keeping government interference in individual lives as minimal as possible.

Chomsky recognizes there are other greater threats to individual liberty than that posed by a democratic government:

On "Private Tyrannies" | Ben O'Neill

"If you have ever read much of the political philosophy and commentary of renowned anarchosyndicalist intellectual Noam Chomsky, then you are probably familiar with his view that large private business organizations are 'private tyrannies' — oversized and antidemocratic institutions that function according to that most hated of organizational principles, the hierarchy! According to Chomsky,

"As state capitalism developed into the modern era, economic, political and ideological systems have increasingly been taken over by vast institutions of private tyranny that are about as close to the totalitarian ideal as any that humans have so far constructed.[1]"

SO THE OBVIOUS ANSWER IS ABSOLUTE GOVERNMENT CONTROL

Run along, dumbass.

SO THE OBVIOUS ANSWER IS ABSOLUTE GOVERNMENT CONTROL

Run along, dumbass.

Skippy, you can eat all of Chomsky's shit you want -- just don't expect normal people to believe you when you say it's yummy.

Skippy, you can eat all of Chomsky's shit you want -- just don't expect normal people to believe you when you say it's yummy.

Now you know.
bon appetit,

 

[georgephillip]

If I'm remembering correctly, Chomsky was at one time the most frequently quoted scholar in academic journals. He was the only living academic to be quoted often enough to make the all time top ten list of thinkers quoted in those journals, but, of course, conservatives know better.

He's a linguist. You may as well ask Sean Penn his views on geopolitics.

Oh, wait -- you idiots did that, too.

He's a linguist. You may as well ask Sean Penn his views on geopolitics.

Oh, wait -- you idiots did that, too.

"Main article: Noam Chomsky bibliography and filmography

"Linguistics

• Syntactic Structures (1957)
• Current Issues in Linguistic Theory (1964)
• Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965)
• Cartesian Linguistics (1965)
• Language and Mind (1968)
• The Sound Pattern of English with Morris Halle (1968)
• Reflections on Language (1975)
• Lectures on Government and Binding (1981)
• The Minimalist Program (1995)

"Politics

• American Power and the New Mandarins (1969)
• Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact & Propaganda with Edward S. Herman (1973)
• The Political Economy of Human Rights (1979)
• Towards a New Cold War (1982)
• The Fateful Triangle (1983)
• Pirates and Emperors (1986)
• Manufacturing Consent (1988)
• Necessary Illusions (1989)
• Deterring Democracy (1991)
• Letters from Lexington (1993)
• The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many (1993)
• World Orders Old and New (1994)
• Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship (1997)

• Profit over People (1999)
• 9-11 (2001)
• Understanding Power (2002)
• Middle East Illusions (2003)
• Hegemony or Survival (2003)
• Getting Haiti Right This Time (2004)
• Imperial Ambitions (2005)
• Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy (2006)
• Interventions (2007)
• Gaza in Crisis (2010)
• Making the Future (2012)
• Occupy (2012)
• Requiem for the American Dream (2017)"

Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia

Yeah, looks like he started believing his own bullshit pretty early on.

Yeah, looks like he started believing his own bullshit pretty early on

Whose bullshit do you believe?

"Chomsky has described his parents as 'normal Roosevelt Democrats' with center-left politics, but other relatives involved in the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union exposed him to socialism and far-left politics.[41]

"He was substantially influenced by his uncle and the Jewish leftists who frequented his New York City newspaper stand to debate current affairs.[42] Chomsky frequented left-wing and anarchist bookstores when visiting his uncle in the city, voraciously reading political literature.[43]

"He wrote his first article at age 10 on the spread of fascism following the fall of Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War[44] and, from the age of 12 or 13, identified with anarchist politics.[40]

"He later described his discovery of anarchism as 'a lucky accident'[45] that made him critical of Stalinism and other forms of Marxism–Leninism."

Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia

If there's anything stupider than a Commie, it's an anarchist.

If there's anything stupider than a Commie, it's an anarchist.

You can go now
Trump needs his ass wiped.

 

[daveman]

"In America, libertarian means "extreme advocate of total tyranny."

No, it doesn't. It means keeping government interference in individual lives as minimal as possible.

Look, I know that's a scary concept to leftist totalitarians, but damn...there is no way you can call this man intelligent.

He's a moron.

"In America, libertarian means "extreme advocate of total tyranny."

No, it doesn't. It means keeping government interference in individual lives as minimal as possible.

Chomsky recognizes there are other greater threats to individual liberty than that posed by a democratic government:

On "Private Tyrannies" | Ben O'Neill

"If you have ever read much of the political philosophy and commentary of renowned anarchosyndicalist intellectual Noam Chomsky, then you are probably familiar with his view that large private business organizations are 'private tyrannies' — oversized and antidemocratic institutions that function according to that most hated of organizational principles, the hierarchy! According to Chomsky,

"As state capitalism developed into the modern era, economic, political and ideological systems have increasingly been taken over by vast institutions of private tyranny that are about as close to the totalitarian ideal as any that humans have so far constructed.[1]"

SO THE OBVIOUS ANSWER IS ABSOLUTE GOVERNMENT CONTROL

Run along, dumbass.

SO THE OBVIOUS ANSWER IS ABSOLUTE GOVERNMENT CONTROL

Run along, dumbass.

Skippy, you can eat all of Chomsky's shit you want -- just don't expect normal people to believe you when you say it's yummy.

Skippy, you can eat all of Chomsky's shit you want -- just don't expect normal people to believe you when you say it's yummy.

Now you know.
bon appetit,

Ewww. Dood. Quit eating shit. That's nasty.

 

[daveman]

He's a linguist. You may as well ask Sean Penn his views on geopolitics.

Oh, wait -- you idiots did that, too.

He's a linguist. You may as well ask Sean Penn his views on geopolitics.

Oh, wait -- you idiots did that, too.

"Main article: Noam Chomsky bibliography and filmography

"Linguistics

• Syntactic Structures (1957)
• Current Issues in Linguistic Theory (1964)
• Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965)
• Cartesian Linguistics (1965)
• Language and Mind (1968)
• The Sound Pattern of English with Morris Halle (1968)
• Reflections on Language (1975)
• Lectures on Government and Binding (1981)
• The Minimalist Program (1995)

"Politics

• American Power and the New Mandarins (1969)
• Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact & Propaganda with Edward S. Herman (1973)
• The Political Economy of Human Rights (1979)
• Towards a New Cold War (1982)
• The Fateful Triangle (1983)
• Pirates and Emperors (1986)
• Manufacturing Consent (1988)
• Necessary Illusions (1989)
• Deterring Democracy (1991)
• Letters from Lexington (1993)
• The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many (1993)
• World Orders Old and New (1994)
• Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship (1997)

• Profit over People (1999)
• 9-11 (2001)
• Understanding Power (2002)
• Middle East Illusions (2003)
• Hegemony or Survival (2003)
• Getting Haiti Right This Time (2004)
• Imperial Ambitions (2005)
• Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy (2006)
• Interventions (2007)
• Gaza in Crisis (2010)
• Making the Future (2012)
• Occupy (2012)
• Requiem for the American Dream (2017)"

Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia

Yeah, looks like he started believing his own bullshit pretty early on.

Yeah, looks like he started believing his own bullshit pretty early on

Whose bullshit do you believe?

"Chomsky has described his parents as 'normal Roosevelt Democrats' with center-left politics, but other relatives involved in the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union exposed him to socialism and far-left politics.[41]

"He was substantially influenced by his uncle and the Jewish leftists who frequented his New York City newspaper stand to debate current affairs.[42] Chomsky frequented left-wing and anarchist bookstores when visiting his uncle in the city, voraciously reading political literature.[43]

"He wrote his first article at age 10 on the spread of fascism following the fall of Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War[44] and, from the age of 12 or 13, identified with anarchist politics.[40]

"He later described his discovery of anarchism as 'a lucky accident'[45] that made him critical of Stalinism and other forms of Marxism–Leninism."

Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia

If there's anything stupider than a Commie, it's an anarchist.

If there's anything stupider than a Commie, it's an anarchist.

You can go now
Trump needs his ass wiped.

So, I say Chomsky's an idiot...and you just post quotes from him.

This is supposed to make me change my mind?

 

[dblack]

How will "vested interests" enhance their wealth if Warren's ACA requires corporations with more than a billion dollars in tax receipts to give their employees the right to elect 40% of their board of directors?

The same way the do with every other regulation scheme. Their lawyers and lobbyists will write the laws and make sure it suits their interests. This happens every. fucking. time.

ACA was only the most overt example.

The same way the do with every other regulation scheme. Their lawyers and lobbyists will write the laws and make sure it suits their interests. This happens every. fucking. time.

How would lawyers and lobbyists affect the votes of workers sitting on the boards of major corporations?

Lobbyists will write the laws. They will ensure that their interests are protected. ACA was not an anomaly. It's the way our government works. "Accountable Capitalism" would go the same way.

I don't get the disconnect - why the blinders? If government is corrupt, what makes you think it will get less corrupt if you give it more power?

 

[georgephillip]

How will "vested interests" enhance their wealth if Warren's ACA requires corporations with more than a billion dollars in tax receipts to give their employees the right to elect 40% of their board of directors?

The same way the do with every other regulation scheme. Their lawyers and lobbyists will write the laws and make sure it suits their interests. This happens every. fucking. time.

ACA was only the most overt example.

The same way the do with every other regulation scheme. Their lawyers and lobbyists will write the laws and make sure it suits their interests. This happens every. fucking. time.

How would lawyers and lobbyists affect the votes of workers sitting on the boards of major corporations?

Lobbyists will write the laws. They will ensure that their interests are protected. ACA was not an anomaly. It's the way our government works. "Accountable Capitalism" would go the same way.

I don't get the disconnect - why the blinders? If government is corrupt, what makes you think it will get less corrupt if you give it more power?

I don't get the disconnect - why the blinders? If government is corrupt, what makes you think it will get less corrupt if you give it more power?

Capitalists corrupt government with their money.
Corporations provide capitalists with their money.
Government regulates corporations.
If you weaken government, capitalists and their corporations become stronger.
Isn't that what you really want?

"But I should have known better than to discount the corporate class. "); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px); font-family: medium-content-serif-font, Georgia, Cambria, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 21px; letter-spacing: -0.084px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Led by the Koch brothers, the 1% did not give up on their capitalist agenda. As their traditional Republican venues disappeared, they headed to their last resort: the Libertarian Party"

Top 10 Libertarian Lies

 

[dblack]

Capitalists corrupt government with their money.
Corporations provide capitalists with their money.
Government regulates corporations.

If you weaken government, capitalists and their corporations become stronger.
Isn't that what you really want?

Setting aside the incorrect assumption that a weaker government means stronger corporations (corporate power depends on government power), I don't want to weaken government. I want it to have all the power it needs to do its job. The question is, what IS the job of government?

In my view government is there to maximize our freedom to create the kind of society we want, voluntarily. It's there to prevent bullies from forcing themselves on others. You, however, see the government as a tool for doing the bullying, a means of forcing your ideas on everyone else. This is why I've always seen socialism as fundamentally authoritarian. Even if it's run perfectly democratically, it still places the authority of government above all else.

EDIT: - I almost forgot to insert a silly graphic!

 

[georgephillip]

Capitalists corrupt government with their money.
Corporations provide capitalists with their money.
Government regulates corporations.

If you weaken government, capitalists and their corporations become stronger.
Isn't that what you really want?

Setting aside the incorrect assumption that a weaker government means stronger corporations (corporate power depends on government power), I don't want to weaken government. I want it to have all the power it needs to do its job. The question is, what IS the job of government?

In my view government is there to maximize our freedom to create the kind of society we want, voluntarily. It's there to prevent bullies from forcing themselves on others. You, however, see the government as a tool for doing the bullying, a means of forcing your ideas on everyone else. This is why I've always seen socialism as fundamentally authoritarian. Even if it's run perfectly democratically, it still places the authority of government above all else.

EDIT: - I almost forgot to insert a silly graphic!

Setting aside the incorrect assumption that a weaker government means stronger corporations (corporate power depends on government power), I don't want to weaken government. I want it to have all the power it needs to do its job. The question is, what IS the job of government?

In the context of 2019, I would say government's job is to protect the individual from the power of private tyrannies:

Political positions of Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia

What's your opinion on the job of government?