McConnel: amendment to overturn Citizens United is a "gag order"


#1

This shows that sponsorship is the most insidious form of censorship, bribery, blackmail and extortion. It all runs together. The Republican money cult is proof of this. Sponsorship in all of its forms must become illegal with the most strident criminal and civil penalties. If we are to suffer the imposition of a state, sponsorship is always ultimately an effort to undermine its legitimacy or any usefulness that it may hold.

And if we had to choose, I’d say people with more than a certain arbitrary indexed amount of money should be barred from office and even denied the vote if necessary. Conspicuous wealth under the current system is in many ways a conviction. If they want to run they can permanently divest for office- no games with trusts. The meaning of power sharing is being able to vote oneself a share of the wealth. Societies that have less are as a rule pieces of shit that should be reconstituted or cease to exist. The idea that I get to tell you what to do because I have more money is the idea that I own you because I have more money. Does anyone think rule by wealth is superior to monarchy or other total garbage arrangements of society?

Whenever we are complaining about lobbying, what we are really upset about is sponsorship and resultant media systems based on worst conflict of interest imaginable. As if the citizens would be united about their own censorship, as if money (censorship-coercive speech at best) should be conflated with vital political free speech.


#2

“Like”


#3

I had read this and my faintest glimmer of an even doubtful hope was crushed. I’d like to opt out of government run society please. Can’t wait for free trade to occur on maidsafe and see how voting systems change things. Give it a couple years of progress and maybe we’ll get a distant glimpse of the death of this disgusting empire.


#4

No idea what McConnel amendment or citizens united is - a link would be helpful?


#5

I’ll summarize for you. It means if you are rich you are a Citizen with rights. If you aren’t rich you are a consumer to be exploited, you have no rights because that would be incompatible with a citizen’s rights to exploit you and treat you as chattel or stock. It means the American South ultimately won the American Civil war. Its cannibalism dressed in religion.


#6

Oooo…kaaay…thanks for clearing that up for me…


#7

Its interesting that unions are restricted in spending even under rules that restrict spending. Even under Citizens United type logic where spending is unlimtied it would still make sense to restrict the rich and corporations but not unions (better yet to make sponsorship illegal- really necessary.) You don’t restrict the voice of people whose voices are already restricted by default, you amplify them. This idea of balance where they try to give a minimum a 50% say to the 1% and a decreasing amount of say to the citizens must end.

What’s needed is a theory and practice that goes beyond allowing wealth influence based even on stewardship notions where the voice of the wealthy would be louder than others when they would be in a position due to stewarding public wealth or the public’s investment and vulnerability. Rather what needs to happen is the voice of wealth be treated as noise and filtered out save for one vote per person and arguments on their un-amplified merit.

In the coming Senate races every last useless Republican (and that would be all of them) should face in every opposition ad: “voted to silence you permanently.” The Republican party must go.


#8

Don’t know if this is exactly what Warren is referring to but it might help give you an idea @Al_Kafir . Honestly I’m not American so I don’t know much more than you do.

@Warren Corporations and unions are the same thing. They’re collectives, collectives which both require government sanction to even exist mind you, using political influence to assert their will. Unions lean on gov’t to get laws passed in their favor. Corporations lean on gov’t to get laws passed in their favor. Really there is no difference. If you’re bitching that corporations can donate more money to government than unions can you’re kind of missing the point which is that your democratic process has long since been corrupted all to hell and you are now living in a plutocracy. I don’t know about the rest of you but as far as I’m concerned as soon as you start arguing unions vs corporations or any other right vs left bullshit I start losing respect for you and tune the whole argument out.


#9

I’ve known for a long time pretty directly that Unions are corrupted, and take money often to seed conflict to continue to exist. I’ve who bad they can make work and I don’t like their culture. But Union does not equal corporation. If it did corporations wouldn’t be so against them. Wholly employee owned would be better- i.e., Mondragon. But the criticism there is that these are supposedly not as responsive to the public. I don’t buy that criticism. Another criticism is that when people vest at a perhaps 5 years they are essentially retired if they like. I don’t buy that criticism either as it doesn’t matter to me when people retire. And I am sorry but I do prefer the left.

I think Gladstone was right. Conservatism is mistrust of the people tempered by fear. Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism, as a ideology based on fear yields predictable results. Reptilian arguing for selfishness etc. Its a downward spiral because it all based on venerating tradition of what may be wrong and looking at the glass half full in terms of what can be lost and its always use verses them, it leads to security and police states. There are conservatives like Burke who wanted to put a limit on law making or coercion and I can agree with that, but outside of that its a less evolved loser perspective, always with predictable results. KKK- conservative. The idiotic American Civil War South arguing for the continuance of Slavery- conservative. McCarthy- conservative Hitler and his group were, despite (National Socialism) were definitely right side. The conservative link to perspectives that aren’t materialistic is also very suspect as conservative religion tends to be materialism by another name. If the right is more likely to enslave you the idealist left when it goes to far has possibly had more of a historical tendency to just eliminate people it though were it its way.

Where we are going in the US will soon lead to the rich paying no taxes and everyone else paying exorbitant taxes. It will also lead to the rich pay people to vote for their puppets directly, aided by the tool of self reinforcing impoverishment. Not surprised if that possibility is already open in some state local elections.


#10

Fact you and everyone else in Canada and the U.S, and probably everyone else in the “civilized” world is traded on the stock market the moment their parents sign their birth certificates. You are a slave, a debt slave. Try not paying your taxes and see how free you are. Moreover the whole system is rigged to erode every little bit of self sufficiency and independece one might have or gain. So really think carefully when you throw around the term “slave.” You don’t need to literally be shackled to a post in order to be owned.

Furthermore during the American Civil War era the fight over slavery was largely economic. The South was still trading with England and wanted to succeed from the union which would have given it an economic advantage. Freeing the slaves was never about morality, it was about tactics. If the slaves were free then the South would lose their economic advantage and wouldn’t be able to trade with the English who were at war with the North. Quite frankly I see nothing wrong with slavery from an economic standpoint, it’s an inevitable transaction if we are to avoid fascism. Of course we can negate it much the way we negate drug abuse with therapy for those that have suffered abuses from it, provide alternatives to it, buy the freedom of those in bondage, shun those that engage in it, etc etc, but at the end of the day the only way to get rid of slavery is to replace it with another kind of slavery so really I don’t see the improvement.

Is it selfish to want to have control of money I earned and choose what I do with it? Is it selfish to not want to have government interfering in my life? Is it selfish to want to have my privacy respected and to be willing to respect the privacy of others? Furthermore I think you are confusing “Conservatives” with pretty much everyone who might be against government. Conservatives as I’ve observed have some key characteristics. They do not like change. They don’t mind government so long as it promotes their moral values. They are usually more geared towards “traditional” values surrounding the home, family, proprietary, reputation, and individuality. Since Christian moral values are what the vast majority are raised with as their tradition of choice then that’s what they latch onto. As I said, resistant to change.

Libertarians on the other hand make a distinct difference between their personal views and the role gov’t plays. Generally while a libertarian might or might not have a particular personal view they generally agree government has no place telling people what they should or shouldn’t do.

So I would propose that being against government, against taxes, and so forth is not what defines conservatives but rather what defines a conservative is their willingnes to enforce their morality on another human being and the shape of which that morality takes. Wait a minute we’ve got another group like that!

Liberals (and if you want to go further left in my case the NDP but let’s not confuse you poor Americans) believe in enforcing their values on people too! Only they have different values. But that’s ok, different strokes for different folks. So one group believes in taking people’s money and putting it into the war machine and another group believes in taking people’s money and putting it into the social services machine. Ok but people are still getting taxed. Why not just take people’s money and let them decide where to put it?


#11

Personally I think slavery is murder, and the response to it should be even stronger than the response to murder. Although I recognize a being born into systems designed to enclose and enslave and treat humans with animal husbandry techniques.

That is a fair and charitable characterization.

You’ll find no disagreement from me that government or the state is far from an ideal solution that we should get beyond if possible. Funny that Libertarians and Communists agree on the need to get rid of the state. We do have Libertarian Socialists like Noam Chomsky.

Interesting on the social issues. Take abortion. In the interest of the sense that the child has a right to subsist or exist, I want to tell the woman based on science or some other reason what she can do with her body. On the other hand I can’t stand this idea for the same reason I dislike the death penalty- the state isn’t qualified- dirty hands etc.

Although it doesn’t look like it on the surface that is what true progressive taxation tries to do with top bracket. It says do what ever you want with the money and keep it through the loop holes but keep it because you done things that clearly hurt others with money and pay the full tax.

But the idea of money as property is a little strange and abstract. Lets say that by perverse lottery or freakish endowment I somehow come into possession of 400 trillion dollars. Now that is my money? How did that happen. Maybe I can’t account for how I came into possession of it but its not forged. If on the other hand I’ve acquired the money in a way that seemed to benefit others or obviously did not hurt them and by honest means no less and in amount that merely covers my biological needs- well in that case it looks more like that money is mine. And people trying to separate me from it would be putting me at risk, and at risk for more than a shot at the good life.

If we ever get a way to move through time (could be a natural effect- seeming change in nature of time itself) I can see us going back, assuming we could avoid paradox, and subjecting every monarch to their own rules at the very least. I don’t see a “prime directive.” These are humans, they’re us and they look enslaved… If, time ever became even more permeable than space, we’d probably purge the monarchs from all of history and if feasible from all of the future.


#12

Great you think slavery is murder and the response to it should be murder. Okay what about those who enter into slavery voluntarily and thoroughly enjoy it? What about those who would use slavery as a form of payment for some debt? Say instead of paying in cash you paid in a period of time, which sounds more reasonable to me seeing as you’d be paying in time anyway in order to earn the cash to pay the debt. Time is a commodity. And ultimately you cannot sell your freedom, you’re always free to choose, you can only enter into various agreements. Now if you’re talking about forced exploitation that’s a different thing altogether but then I must ask you how is that different than what’s going on today what with taxation? You don’t pay your taxes and your stuff is confiscated at gun point. You were sold into slavery at birth by your parents via birth certificate in exchange for various gov’t services, you didn’t choose it and yet somehow you are not obligated to pay taxes because of that. So tell me if you’re so against slavery then wouldn’t you also be against all forms of government since government is all based on coercion and extortion?

Moreover if you want to go off and kill slave masters and traders go right ahead, it’ll certainly deter the behaviour, but I’d advise being aware that there are different motivations and slavery is not by default extortive, coercive or even unpleasant and therefore your relationship with varying parties, including the slaves in question, will be quite diverse. Some will praise you as their saviour and others will condemn you as the demon that destroyed their lives. It’s all subjective.

Pretty much this is how I figure it. She had the choice to have sex. She had the choice to be on birth control or not. But once she gets pregnant it’s not her, singular, body any more. The discussion is no longer concerning a single person and therefore the debate of whether she has a right to do with what she likes with it are null and void because she is now responsible for another’s life as well as her own. If you want to go jump out of an airplane that’s cool but if you want to jump out of an airplane with someone tied to you who doesn’t want to take that same risk, or who is say unconscious and is unaware of what risk they are taking, then that’s an entirely different proposition. To risk your own life is one thing, to risk your life and someone else’s life on top of it is something else entirely. And you say the state is qualified, qualified for what?

Then why not do exactly that and just use crowdfunding?

I’m sorry what? It sounds like you are suggesting that keeping my own money is a privilage granted to me by the state and not my right as the owner of my own money.

No it’s pretty straightforward actually. Just the same way my toothbrush is my property or my TV is my property or my pillow is my property so to is my money. Money is just a barter item everyone wants, it’s no different than any good or service you trade. That’s why we can’t get rid of money, because in any quid pro quo system we’d end up with some small popular easily traded item that would end up being used as currency.

This my friend is called luck, random chance or a blessing. Why does it matter how it happened? You said yourself it could be a lottery or an endowment. Someone might just be engaging in a random act of kindness. You seem to have an abundance issue here and a problem with good things happening to people.

So let me get this straight: By your definition the only way you can “own” something is if you give back to society somehow and you can only own so much up to a limited amount. That’s a debtor mentality man. That’s a mental belief that you are somehow always in debt to society and must be constantly be paying them back for your existence and they to you. The world does NOT owe you a living. And you don’t owe them shit. Earning a couple trillion, or inheriting it, or winning it is fine. That’s a roll of the dice. Now the question is what are you going to do with it?


#13

Call it self defense. I don’t think we can voluntarily give up our volition for any period of time and have that be meaningful- I object to the notion of employment for that reason. Notice we have lame middle grounds like independent contractor. We not stop conditioning people to be employees- its a form of violence. There is no debt in the modern world that would justify slavery, its simply too dangerous of a social precedent to accept the increasing resurgence of. There may be no greater violence. Seems like there is agreement here save for the wording.

As for taxes, its more complicated but one can leave a country and leave property behind. Not always practical. But this is how I feel about the capitalist cut of labor hours. Even with all this technology we have people working 40 hours a week where subsistence prior to language and tools outside the home was 4 hrs per day giving at least 12 hrs of our time per week to the capitalists- given technology its probably more like 25 hours of our time per week. I’d see that incur a debt against the capitalists. The taxes relative to what the capitalists takes are less of a problem, but become increasingly problematic when its just the rich taxing the poor and beyond the point of subsistence. Then it becomes a matter of slavery.

Not all forms of government demand that kind of slavery. It may still be possible in Sweden or Norway to simply choose not to work without stigma. That was the case for a long time. Now I’ve noticed there is this effort to attribute this sort of thing in Norway to finding and properly socializing oil deposits. But that icy rock country had that long before the oil.

Historically there were more less egregious forms of slavery (Cesar was a slave) and historically under certain crunch agrarian periods it at least had some temporary necessity to it- justified or not. But today it lacks even the necessity. If today there were a situation where elites had to enter into slavery voluntary or otherwise in order to prevent the majority from falling into slavery- even as slavery is defined as murder- that seems like a more acceptable trade off. Much more than an enslaved majority or an enslaved non elite majority. There is a sense in which the arrogation of elite status begs a precarious situation.

No, that was some sort of terrible slip (I edited above.) The state is not qualified(!) anymore than it is qualified to play dirty hand games or get blood on its hands with the death penalty. Even if these could be justified they are slippery slope issues. And there is adoption.

Nope more proofing on my part. The notion is money is power and as long as people use it wisely and don’t hurt other people with it they don’t get the full tax they keep most of it as the government can’t generally cycle it as efficiently or effectively as a private party and while capital may rot under a private party it’s even more likely to be diminished under state handling which is bad for the public as well. Part of this is not wanting to legislate or prescribe every harmful inaction but dissuade with tax. One utility of the state is preventing crime and a lot of crime is the criminal use of money. This is more of an issue where huge sums are involved and can really be used to damage the public.

Again the notion of owner of money is abstract- maybe you dug the gold out of the ground under some notion of “finders keepers,” and minted the coin of your own design.

The way I see it, I don’t even own my body, but it doesn’t mean I want to grant others power over it. If its temporary you can’t really possess it or own it. Anything that is temporary may not even be on loan. Now with regard to the 400 trillion, my luck does not grant me power over others. That 400 trillion would suddenly make me the most powerful person on Earth. Other would be free not to trade with me. And other collections of people at the very least would be out to voucher-ize my money and transactions. If they weren’t coming up with pretenses and means to confiscate they would be might trying to restrict what I could trade for and even trying to punish people who traded with me on any other basis tracking the serial numbers of bills etc.