http://www.thedynamo.org/index.php?disp=comments en-US-utf8 http://backend.userland.com/rss 60 Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:18:31 +0000 Ross Mittiga [Member] c46@http://www.thedynamo.org/ To respond point by point-<br /> <br /> You cited the first amendment here which directly underlines the issue I was referring to- corporations should not be able to claim any constitutionally derived rights as they are not people. These abstract institutions have no physical voice, and therefore the only thing that would possibly remain to be curbed would be their inability to directly express sentiments connected to their economic interests. I would like to cite Federalist Paper No.10 in the light of corporations acting as interest-based factions, "<em>By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.</em>" Giving corporations free and uncontested access to the political sphere, which is already heavily influenced in the favor of these giants, could only work to the detriment of the typical citizen.<br /> <br /> To address the next point- the case is not focused around if corporate lobbying would be made illegal. Also, I think your subsequent claims about the economy being "slower" and the notion that it "<em>... would be impossible to implement [regulations on lobbying] given the depth of industrial forces</em>" can in no way be substantiated. Intuitively, I think the antithesis of that argument could just as easily be made.<br /> <br /> Finally, to address your last point, "<em>It is often most-efficient to let nature take its course: let free-market supply and demand naturally serve societal interests and abilities.</em>" I would say that it is incorrect to assume A) that a ruling against the corporations in this case would be limiting the free-market, because in actuality a <em>positive</em> ruling for corporations would probably more likely provide to that end, and B)that free-markets, in any sustainable way, serve societal interests.<br /> <br /> That said, I leave you with a <a href="http://fora.tv/2009/10/06/Noam_Chomsky_Philosophies_of_Language_and_Politics#Noam_Chomsky_Says_Big_Business_Dictates_the_Presidency">video </a>featuring the very brilliant political theorist, Noam Chomsky, discussing shortly this issue.<br />
You cited the first amendment here which directly underlines the issue I was referring to- corporations should not be able to claim any constitutionally derived rights as they are not people. These abstract institutions have no physical voice, and therefore the only thing that would possibly remain to be curbed would be their inability to directly express sentiments connected to their economic interests. I would like to cite Federalist Paper No.10 in the light of corporations acting as interest-based factions, "By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Giving corporations free and uncontested access to the political sphere, which is already heavily influenced in the favor of these giants, could only work to the detriment of the typical citizen.

To address the next point- the case is not focused around if corporate lobbying would be made illegal. Also, I think your subsequent claims about the economy being "slower" and the notion that it "... would be impossible to implement [regulations on lobbying] given the depth of industrial forces" can in no way be substantiated. Intuitively, I think the antithesis of that argument could just as easily be made.

Finally, to address your last point, "It is often most-efficient to let nature take its course: let free-market supply and demand naturally serve societal interests and abilities." I would say that it is incorrect to assume A) that a ruling against the corporations in this case would be limiting the free-market, because in actuality a positive ruling for corporations would probably more likely provide to that end, and B)that free-markets, in any sustainable way, serve societal interests.

That said, I leave you with a video featuring the very brilliant political theorist, Noam Chomsky, discussing shortly this issue.
]]> http://www.thedynamo.org/index.php/a-dialogue-on-the-rights-of-corporations#c46 Sat, 03 Oct 2009 21:18:46 +0000 Lance Legel [Member] c29@http://www.thedynamo.org/ <em>"That is why it is very significant to put blocks on its "megaphone" capacities and reign in its abilities: so that other’s interests (the American public) can still be heard, and effectively implemented."</em><br /> <br /> I disagree. Your suggestion effectively revokes the First Amendment of our Constitution: <strong>"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or the press..."</strong> Imagine what could happen if an extremist group receives the authority to "put blocks" on "megaphones"?<br /> <br /> <em>"I think that if corporate directives were also what was best for the people and demographics it affects, it should focus its resources on legally garnering support among those who have the right to influence: citizens."</em><br /> <br /> If direct corporate lobbying to Congress was made illegal, for example, then our systems would be more transparent. But our economy would be slower, while structurally identical. Furthermore, this would be impossible to implement given the depth of industrial forces.<br /> <br /> I think we must be very careful when using government mandates for socioeconomic development. Because regardless of the nobility and plausibility of legislative initiatives, humans are not super-computers.<br /> <br /> It is often most-efficient to let nature take its course: let free-market supply and demand naturally serve societal interests and abilities. "That is why it is very significant to put blocks on its "megaphone" capacities and reign in its abilities: so that other’s interests (the American public) can still be heard, and effectively implemented."

I disagree. Your suggestion effectively revokes the First Amendment of our Constitution: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or the press..." Imagine what could happen if an extremist group receives the authority to "put blocks" on "megaphones"?

"I think that if corporate directives were also what was best for the people and demographics it affects, it should focus its resources on legally garnering support among those who have the right to influence: citizens."

If direct corporate lobbying to Congress was made illegal, for example, then our systems would be more transparent. But our economy would be slower, while structurally identical. Furthermore, this would be impossible to implement given the depth of industrial forces.

I think we must be very careful when using government mandates for socioeconomic development. Because regardless of the nobility and plausibility of legislative initiatives, humans are not super-computers.

It is often most-efficient to let nature take its course: let free-market supply and demand naturally serve societal interests and abilities.]]> http://www.thedynamo.org/index.php/a-dialogue-on-the-rights-of-corporations#c29