I would disagree with that. Show me one communist system that doesn't involve political power?
Show me one capitalist system that doesn't involve political power. Certainly not the US where corporations are people too (
Citizens United).
Corporations are people. Show me a corporation with no people. Name one company that has no people at all. Good luck with that. That is what a company is... it's a group, or even one single person. You have a company of one person. But there is no company of zero people.
I already showed you an example of capitalist without political power. A student in high school, built a massive half billion dollar international company, with a $900 pickup truck, purchased using his income from his part time job.
I could list you millions of examples like that. Take a tribal people in the Congo, where they exchange mud bricks for food, in order to build bigger homes, and of course better arrows and bows to hunt with. That Capitalism.
Now if you are asking show me a capitalist society in which there is no government.... show many any society where there is no government? Even in tribes, you have a the head of the tribe that enforces the rules of their society.
Without some body of enforcing the rules, you have Somalia, with chaos, murder rape and thievery.
Even in communes, you have some body of people in the commune that enforce the rules.
But saying you need government to create Capitalism? No, capitalism is the default standard of all humanity. Go all the way back to the early times in human history, where farmers farmed the land, and exchanged goods for their produce. Capitalism was the defacto standard.
Socialism requires government to create it. Without government, socialism never exists.
Every one of those corporation employees already has the ability to give $ and their vote to a politician so they are already well represented. Corporations don't have to live with the effects of pollution but their workers do.
There are millions of small businesses in this country but I wonder if they exercise more political power than Amazon?
Corporations don't have to live with the effects of pollution but their workers do.
When you read that statement, how do you not see how illogical that is? Corporations are the employees. There isn't a single person in a company that doesn't have to live in the same world as everyone else. So company employee, from the CEO down to the Janitor has to live with pollution, thus yes the corporation does have to live with the effects of pollution. In fact even the shareholders have to live with the effects of pollution.
Again, a corporation is nothing more than a group of people. Which person, walks out with their own private supply of air and water, that no one else in the company has access too? None. We all live on the same planet.
So no that makes no sense.
Further, you seem to be implying that employees wouldn't pollute. Employees pollute all the time. I remember working at a parts store, having guys come in to drop off oil, only to find out our tank was full. They would say "well I'll just pour it down the drain". Now I don't know for certain if they did or not, but I would absolutely be willing to put money on it.
The idea that somehow the corporation is doing anything that people don't do, is ridiculous. The only difference is, corporations make money, and you hate that. For some reason all the pollution that individuals do, you ignore, and pretend that only companies do it.
Further, when a company does illegal dumping, the government eventually finds out, and they are fined, or forced to clean it up, or both.
Regardless, what does this have to do with the prior claim about political power and corporations being people? Are you suggesting that if corporations were not supposedly people, that magically they would have no representation in Washington? That they magically would not ever cause any pollution?
Again, ridiculous. First, there are dozens, literally dozens of examples of policies that were passed by government in the past 10 to 15 years, that companies all opposed.
However, I am not saying that corporations do not have influence. Of course they have influence. Just like all businesses did, back in 1776. Just like they had in England before that, and throughout all human history.
To suggest that companies today have more influence in government, than in the past 2000 years, or more, of human history, is a ridiculous and unsupportable claim.
For starters, and I could list dozens on dozens of examples.... if corporations have such unlimited 'power' in government, why did Amazon get kicked out of New York City, but a pathetic air head know-nothing bimbo girl, who actually said publicly that she was going to "spend a tax deduction" on schools and health care?
How was one of the most powerful, and most wealthy, and largest companies in America today, completely smacked around, by a ridiculous bartender in her 20s? Seriously? Corporations have oh so much power and influence, that an air head, that can't even figure out that you can't spend money NOT COLLECTED.... a tax deduction.... on a school..... an air head that stupid, knocked around one of the largest most wealthy companies in the country?
No. Sorry. The facts don't support such an over exaggeration of corporate power. Influence, yes. They most certainly do have influence. But they don't have the power you claim. Not even close.
Corporations are not altruistic, nor should they be. Their obligation is to the owners/shareholders of the corporation. I wonder how many of the owners/shareholders of the corporations that frac in Pennsylvania live in PA or are more concerned with the water quality there than their personal bottom line.
I don't think corporations are all-powerful but they do have money and money + politics = corruption. Always has, always will. Therefore, I think limiting corporate donations to ALL politicians is a good thing and not an affront to their rights.
So a couple of things there.
First, as someone who has been around CEOs his whole life, I can tell you that nearly every single executive at a corporation is very much concerned with water quality and pollution. You can deny that, but you are ignorant. How many CEOs have you talked with in your life? I have talked with dozens.
Your own 'evidence' of that claim, is that different people came up with different opinions than you, therefore according to your logic, they must not care about pollution. Well.. that is a very arrogant and ignorant argument to make.
Second, you ask the question you wonder how many people who are in the fracking industry, live in PA. That same question could be directed at you. How many people opposing fracking, live in PA? Do you live in PA?
So what's it to you, if the state of PA allows or prohibits fracking? Why is it your concern, to destroy an estimate 50,000 job PA, and who knows how many supporting jobs, created by the Fracking industry in PA?
Do you know someone who died of Fracking pollution in PA? Do you have relatives with cancer in PA, that you can state conclusively is because of fracking pollution? And if not, what business is it of yours?
And by the way, I am fully in support of States governing themselves. If you DO live in PA, then by all means vote. You have a state government that governs the state of PA. VOTE. But understand that your fellow citizens can vote against you, and support Fracking. That's how Democracy works.
I don't think corporations are all-powerful but they do have money and money + politics = corruption. Always has, always will. Therefore, I think limiting corporate donations to ALL politicians is a good thing and not an affront to their rights.
Kind of reminds me of the Nazis in Germany, who slowly rolled back rights, one by one, inch by inch, until there was no one left to oppose them.
You start denying Americans, rights in the constitution, such as the right to vote, because you don't like how they vote... I will guarantee you 100%, that this power will be eventually used against you.
After all, there are tons of people in this country, whose voting I disagree with, and have equally valid concerns about. Take for example, the vote of Unions that get government contracts. Unions would bankrupt the entire country, for the benefit of themselves.
Should we eliminate the Union voting rights as well? How about public school teachers?
Just watch that, and you can see it is obvious that Unions happily damage the country, for their own benefit.
Can we revoke the freedom of speech of teachers? Of Unions? How many other examples would you like?
Lastly, I would like to disagree with your claim that money + politics = corruption.
No. That is false. Evil voters + evil politicians = corruption.
Money is not evil, nor causes evil. Money is simply a mode of exchange. It has no moral leanings either way.
Money in the hand of a righteous person, will allow him to be more righteous.
Money in the hands of a corrupt person, will allow him to be more corrupt.
Money does not cause anything.
You vote in corrupt politicians, you end up with corruption. If you think stopping one source of money into government, is going to stop corruption, you are crazy. Corruption, by the definition of the word, mean that they will find illegal ways of conducting themselves, for personal benefit.
No amount of laws, is going to stop this. Why? Because they are not following the law now. Why would you think that you can regulate away corruption, when they are not following the regulations right now, as they exist?
This is like people saying we need a new gun law, after a crime where a dozen existing Federal laws were violated. If they break 11 laws, why would a 12th law stop them?
Similarly, there are dozens of people in government today, who have broken the law, sometimes for decades, and nothing happened.
Al Gore was caught openly, and unambiguously, calling donors from the very office of the Vice-President, and shaking them down for money. It was not up for debate, not up for argument, we had the audio tapes of Al Gore on the phone, with people, "asking" for money, like he was in a Mafia crime family, asking for protection money.
The public of this country, almost made that guy president. And you think you can stop corruption, with another regulation that no one will follow? Al Gore broke a dozen campaign finance laws, and the public voted for him. Why would any corrupt politician anywhere, feel the need to follow a fiance law, when you voted for someone who violated dozens of laws?
How many examples do you need? Hillary? Kennedy? Barnie Frank? Maxine Waters?
In 2005, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., was added to a liberal watchdogâs running list of the most corrupt members of Congress. Waters was added again in 2006 to the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washingtonâs annual report on D.C. corruption. They added her again in 2009 and one more...
www.washingtonexaminer.com
Maxine Waters specifically, has been chronicled for almost 15 years, documenting endless corruption. Clearly defined, overt corruption, for over a decade. The public still votes for her routinely.
The problem is the public. It's not corporations. It's not money. It's not lobbying. The public openly supports corruption, and that's why it's a problem.
First off, thanks for the reply, I may not agree with you but I appreciate you taking the time to THOUGHTFULLY reply. I don't think you called me a libtard once!
Your point about me not living in PA is true and I should have little influence on their frac rules (except if they affect other states). It is the people who live in that state who should decide and that is exactly my point. A NYC corporation shouldn't be able to give millions to a PA politician to ensure their ability to frac. If their 50,000 employees want to support it then that is their right.
I'm not for denying anyone their rights but I don't consider corporations to 'people' and don't recognize the corporation's 1st amendment rights. I see our political system as requiring politicians to be corrupt since it cost big bucks to get elected and there is the Golden Rule.
I would limit all special interests from direct contributions to politicians or their PACs. I'd limit corporations and special interests from airing political ads, they'd be limited to their particular interest. Teacher Unions could talk about teacher pay, school funding, school bonds, etc. but banned from speaking about politicians. I'd even go further and publicly fund elections and ban ALL political contributions.
Personal rules I follow: I respond to people at the level they respond to me. As long as you don't accuse me of things, I won't accuse you. If you don't call me names, I don't call you names.
But if you start throwing punches, I'm going to punch back.
As it relates to this discussion, as long as you keep replying to the topic, I'll do the same.
Also, by the way, you are in fact in the CDZ forum, so personal attacks are not supposed to happen here anyway. If you did start trying to insult me, I'd have the moderators remove your posts.
Anyway....
Your point about me not living in PA is true and I should have little influence on their frac rules (except if they affect other states). It is the people who live in that state who should decide and that is exactly my point. A NYC corporation shouldn't be able to give millions to a PA politician to ensure their ability to frac. If their 50,000 employees want to support it then that is their right.
I don't see NYC corporations giving millions to PA politicians to ensure their ability to frack.
Their employees DO support Fracking, as do about half the state.
As for your specific influence in PA, that actually is my point. You can influence things in PA, as do others.
Take for example, Penn Environment, a special interest group aiming to ban fracking. Where do they get their funding? We don't know for absolute certain, because they have chosen to keep their donor lists completely secret. However, what we do know is that they are affiliated with groups from ... California, Colorado, New Mexico, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and several Washington DC based Democrat run funds, like Environment America.
So we have people across the entire country, funding anti-fracking campaigns in states none of them even care about, because they are "fly over country".
Now let me ask you... if your ran a company, and you decided to open a factory in the next state over, if people in California can spend millions to try and ban your factory, shouldn't you also have the right to spend money in support of your factory?
You claim you have zero influence, but you do. The people of New Mexico have influence. Colorado have influence. Washington DC have influence.
Now if you want to actually make that a law, that no Union can spend money, on legislative fights in other states, and no environmental group can spend money on legislative fights in other states, and so on and so on, until no one is allowed to spend a single penny on anything that does not happen in their own state........
Ok then I'll agree with that. But that would have to apply to absolutely everyone equally, meaning Unions, meaning Greenpeace, meaning Serria Club, meaning absolutely everyone everywhere, all has to have that same ban.
And then you also have to ban lobbying by unions, by pensioners, by civic organizations in Washington DC as well. No more Lobbying from California, for pollution controls in Ohio. No more green energy lobbying from New Mexico, for wind farms in Ohio. No more of any of that. Ban it all. All of it.
Because if you can fund lobbying the destruction of my business, no matter how right or wrong (and I would argue most of it is entirely wrong), then I should have the right to fund counter lobbying, and that's where we are right now.
And of course this logically means we're talking about a massive repeal of freedom of speech.
I'm not for denying anyone their rights but I don't consider corporations to 'people' and don't recognize the corporation's 1st amendment rights. I see our political system as requiring politicians to be corrupt since it cost big bucks to get elected and there is the Golden Rule.
This is such a strange and baffling concept you are trying to push here.
"I don't recognize corporations as people, and thus don't recognize a corporations 1st amendment rights."
Then you don't support 1st Amendment rights period.
What do you think corporate first amendment rights are? There is now 'magic' corporate person. When a company donates to a politicians, what exactly do you envision that being? Who do you think gives the money? It's a person. An American citizens with a 1st Amendment right.
Because let me tell you how that information is determined: When they say "Exxon gave XXXX amount of money to Y Politician", do you know how they find that information out?
There is no "Exxon Corporate Man" that shows up, out of the void like Thanos in Avengers, and donates to a politician.
The way they come up with "Exxon gave XXX to Y politician", is that people have a donor list. They have a list of American citizens that donated their own private money, to a politician.
They then cross check that list, and find out what companies they work for. Then they say that company they work for, gave to X politician.
I do not know where you work. But let's say that you worked at Pizza Hut. Say you donated $100 to Obama, or Trump. If they could find out where you worked, and found you worked at Pizza Hut, they would add your donation, to all the other donations by people who worked at Pizza Hut, and then say "Pizza Hut donated XXX Million to Obama (or Trump, or whoever)."
Do you see the problem? When you say that corporations shouldn't have 1st Amendment rights, you are saying people shouldn't have first amendment rights. There is no "corporation" that you can deny a right to. There are only people in a corporation that you deny rights to.
I would limit all special interests from direct contributions to politicians or their PACs. I'd limit corporations and special interests from airing political ads, they'd be limited to their particular interest. Teacher Unions could talk about teacher pay, school funding, school bonds, etc. but banned from speaking about politicians. I'd even go further and publicly fund elections and ban ALL political contributions.
So here's my problem with that. Donations are the only..... ONLY.... speech you have as an individual citizen.
Donations are the only way you have, of letting your voice be heard in Washington. That's it. End of story.
If you supported Obama, did he call you up, and listen to your concerns from 2008 to 2016? If you supported Trump, did he read your tweets on Twitter and address your concerns?
The only way you have, at all... of getting your concerns heard by Washington DC, is through lobbying. The only way.
See, I know what you are thinking, because I've heard this before, and it's an unsupportable theory. You are thinking that if we ban all influences, that magically the only influence will be the public, and you'll have this utopia of democracy.
First, democracy is terrible, and the influence of the public is only good, if the public itself is good, and the fact is the public is pretty evil. Look around you. You want those people call ALL the shots? No, not a good idea.
But second, and more important is that it is a wrong theory. Without lobbying, and banning all money in politics, the result will be that ONLY the rich and wealthy have influence. ONLY the elite and the power players in Washington will have influence.
Do you really think that if you ban corporate influence, that somehow government will care more about your positions and concerns? No. Of course not. They would care about you less, because now the public has no way to fund the opposition. Now they have no reason to listen to you at all, because you can't even fund a lobbying effort.
See you think that if you ban legal ways of influence government, that no one will have any influence. But we already know from decades of experience, that this isn't so.
View attachment 447379
This picture is garbage, but not everything was uploaded to the internet in the 1990s. This is picture of Bill Clinton (2nd to the right in black), with the executives of Enron.
Enron had a total of $1.2 Billion in government loans throughout the 1990s.
Now you tell me.... If you ban legal lobbying.... you think a President open to corruption like Bill Clinton was, is going to stop going on golfing trips with Corporate CEOs? Do you think so? You think YOU are going to be on the golfing Trip with the president, because he's now open to hearing the concerns of the public since you banned lobbying?
Of course not. The elite in Washington DC, are going to hang out with the elite. And they would love for you not to be able to voice your concerns with lobbying, because then they can hang with their rich buddies, and do whatever they want.
View attachment 447384
Remember Obama hosting those massive elite, rich and wealthy only, parties in Washington DC, that there were no billionaires in the room, talking to Obama about their concerns?
You think if you ban lobbying, that you'll be at one of these events?
The only chance you have, of having your concerns as a private citizen, reach the ears of law makers in Washington DC, is lobbying.
You shut that off, you are cutting off your only method of having your voice heard. You won't stop a single multi billionaire from talking to the President if he wants to. Not one. Honestly, what you are you going to do then? Ban parties? Ban social events for government officials? Good luck with that.
Here's is what you need to do. Here's the real solution. Vote for people who won't be bought.
Bush in 2001, was approached by Enron executives the same way they approached Clinton before in the 1990s. Bush said no. Bush said he's not bailing out Enron, nor providing government loans.
Enron failed. There's a reason Enron didn't fail in the 1990s under Clinton, but did in the 2000s under Bush.
Vote for better people. Maxine waters should have been run out of Washington decades ago. Kennedy should have been in prison, instead of serving more terms in Congress.
