61–69 of 69 posts
I wanted to find this interesting, but it has AI/LLM signs of writing all over it. The dig in the middle - "you can skip the next part, but if you do skip, are you even a real reader? Not judging. Just saying" - ugh. Why would I bother reading every word if you likely didn't write every word?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are there actually chess clubs that are incorporated? Coops, unions, guilds, non-profit societies, knitting circles, meetups, etc. are all non-corporations. > Government influence primarily consistes of sharing information with votes passing flyers on the street or running adds. Lobbying, and superpacs are not about getting a message out - they are about spending money on ads to buy votes. That’s different from advoc…
Interesting.i was wrong about unions. You are wrong about co-ops and non-profits, both of which are almost universally Incorporated. So much so that I've never seen a non Incorporated Co-op. That said, we could also ban informal groups from political speech. How are these things different, getting the message out versus buying votes? Also where do I go to collect my vote payments? Getting the message out usually cost…
Money is not speech. Speech is free, everybody can speak. Money lets some people amplify their speech proportional to how rich they are. Thus the rich get richer and democracy goes hungry.
> How are these things different, getting the message out versus buying votes
“Grain is good” getting your message out.
“Vote for jeff, a message from big grain” buying votes
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting.i was wrong about unions. You are wrong about co-ops and non-profits, both of which are almost universally Incorporated. So much so that I've never seen a non Incorporated Co-op. That said, we could also ban informal groups from political speech. How are these things different, getting the message out versus buying votes? Also where do I go to collect my vote payments? Getting the message out usually cost…
> That said, we could also ban informal groups from political speech. Money is not speech. Speech is free, everybody can speak. Money lets some people amplify their speech proportional to how rich they are. Thus the rich get richer and democracy goes hungry. > How are these things different, getting the message out versus buying votes “Grain is good” getting your message out. “Vote for jeff, a message from big grain”…
You could talk to your neighbor but not donate or collaborate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That said, we could also ban informal groups from political speech. Money is not speech. Speech is free, everybody can speak. Money lets some people amplify their speech proportional to how rich they are. Thus the rich get richer and democracy goes hungry. > How are these things different, getting the message out versus buying votes “Grain is good” getting your message out. “Vote for jeff, a message from big grain”…
So no paid speech? It would be interesting. It would give a lot of leverage to those who already own megaphones. You could talk to your neighbor but not donate or collaborate.
E.g. Spending limits. Each person can spend up to $2000 on political speech. Individually or as part of a group, company, whatever. After that, all you’ve got is your time - go knock on doors.
Sure, $2000 is nothing to a jeff bezos, and too much to someone making $18k/year - but it levels the field so that jeffy, or the nra, or aipac, or oil and gas can’t throw their weight around in the way they do now.
There are other ways, that’d just be a return to how things were pre-citizens united
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I should not have used the word dumping there as it's not in the same context as its usage upthread. I just meant they plowed all their profits into R&D and infrastructure growth, and as a result had very little or even negative taxable income. They operated at a loss, but it was contrived. They had revenue pouring in. While I agree we want to incentivize investing in future capacity, I don't think we intend tha…
The tax situation isnt what created monopolies. It was and is available to all. It is unclear what is bad about it, as long as they provide a better or cheaper product than the competitor. If they are ilegally preventing competition, then regulatory action should be swift. Otherwise, it is a win-win and the consumer is getting a better product than others could provide. This is the classic walmart scenario.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So no paid speech? It would be interesting. It would give a lot of leverage to those who already own megaphones. You could talk to your neighbor but not donate or collaborate.
Are you playing dense on purpose here? There are lots of ways forward. E.g. Spending limits. Each person can spend up to $2000 on political speech. Individually or as part of a group, company, whatever. After that, all you’ve got is your time - go knock on doors. Sure, $2000 is nothing to a jeff bezos, and too much to someone making $18k/year - but it levels the field so that jeffy, or the nra, or aipac, or oil and g…
That said, I think it's a position that someone could take that they'll political speech should be limited when it involves money, provided they are honest about it.
I do think it would give more power to those who owned the megaphones, but maybe that's worth it.
That said, I don't think that pac spending are that big of a problem. The bigger problem is lobbying, aka the sharing of thoughts and ideas with politicians to educate them and inform their positions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As the bumper sticker/fridge magnet says, "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one of them".
Almost certianly manufactured by a company that could otherwise be prohiited from printing it. Interesting.
well at least they're not hiding it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you playing dense on purpose here? There are lots of ways forward. E.g. Spending limits. Each person can spend up to $2000 on political speech. Individually or as part of a group, company, whatever. After that, all you’ve got is your time - go knock on doors. Sure, $2000 is nothing to a jeff bezos, and too much to someone making $18k/year - but it levels the field so that jeffy, or the nra, or aipac, or oil and g…
That seems to contradict you position above where speech is free and money isn't speech. That said, I think it's a position that someone could take that they'll political speech should be limited when it involves money, provided they are honest about it. I do think it would give more power to those who owned the megaphones, but maybe that's worth it. That said, I don't think that pac spending are that big of a proble…
Speech is free, as in part of freedom, so speech should not be regulated by the government.
Spending money to amplify speech is not a right or a freedom, it should be heavily regulated.
> That said, I don't think that pac spending are that big of a problem
Look at aipac, there are only a handful of politicians who don’t take their money (or how every you want to phrase pac money being spent on you “independently”). And yet something like 60% of americans have an unfavorable view of israel. If those politicans taking aipac money take the wrong position on israel, that money disappears, and goes to an opponent of theirs. That’s just lobbying. Pac money is lobbying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unproven, really. I don't think I'd argue that most people think that the individuals in a company (even its CEO) have the right to influence government. But the question is whether the corporation ("are people too, my friend) itself has this right. I'm not clear that most agree with that.
The corporation is the primary structure for individuals to organize - from soul crushing businesses to chess clubs, environmental non-profits, or labor unition. Government influence primarily consistes of sharing information with votes passing flyers on the street or running adds. When framed this way, I dont think most people would agree that groups should be prevented from getting their message out.
Sure, most people would agree that the various kinds of corporations formed for the purpose of doing something other than making money should be able to play a political role.
But I do not believe that most people would agree that corporations formed for the explicit and (generally) sole purpose of making money should have this ability.