Corporations Will Choose Leaders Now

[Guest Straight Shooter]

Fellas-

Every one of our enumerated rights can/has been abused.

Foreign influence on our political system is in fact a very legit concern. Look at what we are witnessing with LEONARD trying to push our 2A/ TN gun laws to the limit. Yes,there are and can be abuses. HOWEVER..we should give Congress NO FOOTHOLD WHATSOEVER in abridging freedom of speech, if they can do it for one,they will figure out how to do it for many. Point of fact, this law was HUGELY beneficial to the liberals/unions/Democrat party. They are in fact, almost the only ones crying about it. One side had an advantage, one side did not. Is this fair? No gents.

How do we address the problem of foreign money influencing our elections? I dont know. Maybe we can without affecting our rights in the process.

As Ive said here before...if you want proof that "we the people" won, watch Chuck Schumer cry and moan about the SCOTUS reversal. THATS all I need to know.

[sigmtnman]

Well, apparently you're okay with restricting free speech for americans, as long as those shifty foreigners don't get to say things.

I'm not.

Check your prejudice against the DOJ's position that it could ban articles, books, movies, etc. that involve political speech. Now hold this up against the first amendment.

The ironic thing about your position is that the suit was brought by the producers of a movie about Hillary Clinton. The Clintons took literally millions from Chinese sources.

I think you just checkmated yourself.

I do not support abridging free speech for US citizens and have never said I have. I would fight to die for a fellow US citizens right to free speech. I do not however respect the a decision by our government to allow corporations which are not natural persons with God given rights to enjoy our god given rights as natural persons.

Corporations are not people capable of morals and are not US citizens. That is the flaw. Sure Corporations are made of of people. I work for one and the majority of workers are non us citizens. I believe they should not have a say in our political system. I am more likely to lose my rights to free speech by the company telling me I have to watch what I can say in public and on the internet, but hey, I have to live with that because I choose to work there. I don't like the idea of H1B visa holders and foreign execs influencing another election.

I didn't checkmate myself. I read the entire opinion, IMNHO it should have been decided on a more narrow ground, but they chose not to, and unfortunately I don't have a lifetime appointment from a corrupt executive.

Edited January 24, 2010 by sigmtnman

[sigmtnman]

I reckon I am really surprised that so many people feel a legal entity drawn up on paper and devoid of a soul is our equal.

Oh and sorry about all the edits I am cleaning a 1911 while we discuss this.

Edited January 24, 2010 by sigmtnman

[E4 No More]

Yeah, that is the conventional wisdom. If the taxes or corps go up they corps raise the prices on the consumers. Thus, a corp tax is the same as a tax on consumers.

It seems logically sound and nearly inarguable but it just isn't true. People constantly oversimplify the market and view corporations as mindless automatons that produce X at cost Y.

That just isn't the way things happen. Corporations charge what the market will bear. Say company X can make a product for 10 bucks and the market will pay 400 dollars for the thing. The corporation doesn't charge $11. If they did they would be giving up $389 dollars of profit. Why would they do that? Of course, they wouldn't.

This is useless without examples. How much does a text message cost you? $20 bucks a month does the text message cost AT&T? Nothing. Turns out a text fits into the data that is transferred when the tower follows your phone.

So the text message costs AT&T nothing but you pay for it because you are willing to pay for it.

You can't blame AT&T, they are making some nice change there. But imaging that more taxes would automatically be passed on to the customer is ridiculous.

The argument works better with commodities. So you decide to sell rice. It costs you X and you desire profit Y. If your taxes go up you have to pass that cost on to the consumer, right?

Not so much. Your desire for profit Y is tempered by the amount you already have invested. Since the rice has already been grown and such you'll take a loss just to recoup some of your money. So, again, the cost isn't passed on to the consumer.

There is also the price point thing to consider. In this scenario people want to pay X for something. Sadly you have 20% taxes. So you can either sell an iPod that people will buy at $500 or sell an iPod that no one will buy for $600. Profit maximization dictates that you go for the $500 iPod.

Yeah, you can put so many taxes on a business it isn't worth doing business but it isn't as cut and dried as most people think. With an idealized market sure you'll get the lowest price possible and the tax will be built in but we don't live in a world of frictionless inclined planes and perfect markets.

You're wrong. Business is out to make profit; not be a benefactor for the government. When expenses for goods/services goes up then the price goes up. The market bears that because the expense goes up for the competition as well. When said expenses go down the price goes down with the market because it also goes down for the competition. Plain and simple.

[sigmtnman]

I have had my own business before and sold it. So please don't think I am a business hater. I love free enterprise. I hate government intervention. I feel government intervened when it recognized corps as natural persons with god given rights.

[Mark@Sea]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Seems pretty cut and dried to me. When the gov't passes a law that basically protects the incumbant by prohibiting speech before an election, that would seem to me to be "abridging the freedom of speech".

[sigmtnman]

It is cut and dried for the natural persons known as "we the people".

[Guest Straight Shooter]

That AINT what it says, sigmtnman. Congress shall make NO LAW...is what it says.

I think the very fact that we are able to even have this friendly debate here on the forum,is PROOF that no one should have the freedom of speech denied. What if there were a law that said I could get my point of view across, but you couldnt. If corporations feel that one party is unfavorable to their business, WHY shouldnt they be able to support candidates/parties who they deem favorable to their cause? And,to all who are against the SCOTUS ruling I must ask...do you think people cant think for themselves?! Do you REALLY think if the Unions spend ANOTHER $60million on the next election, that its gonna cause me to vote for Obama? Thats ANOTHER aspect to this, libs must think that their electorate cant think/decide for themselves without a political ad telling them how to think. Isthat true for you? For anyone? I sure as hell hope not. As Ive said before, I give a damn how much any of em spend. I KNOW what I believe in, and Ill vote accordingly,ads be damned.

[Rightwinger]

The thing we all need to watch for is the part where anyone can now advertise but it must be TRUTHFUL. This could turn mudslinging into mountain slinging. I don't care who says what as long as it's the truth and not spun.

[E4 No More]

That AINT what it says, sigmtnman. Congress shall make NO LAW...is what it says.

I think the very fact that we are able to even have this friendly debate here on the forum,is PROOF that no one should have the freedom of speech denied. What if there were a law that said I could get my point of view across, but you couldnt. If corporations feel that one party is unfavorable to their business, WHY shouldnt they be able to support candidates/parties who they deem favorable to their cause? And,to all who are against the SCOTUS ruling I must ask...do you think people cant think for themselves?! Do you REALLY think if the Unions spend ANOTHER $60million on the next election, that its gonna cause me to vote for Obama? Thats ANOTHER aspect to this, libs must think that their electorate cant think/decide for themselves without a political ad telling them how to think. Isthat true for you? For anyone? I sure as hell hope not. As Ive said before, I give a damn how much any of em spend. I KNOW what I believe in, and Ill vote accordingly,ads be damned.

Obama...do I need to say more?

A corporation is an entity; not a human. If a CEO wants to support a candidate he his free to do so, but not in my name. For many years corporations have been donating to candidates under their employees' names to get around contribution limits, and now you want to allow them to openly campaign for them?

[Guest Straight Shooter]

I see your point SWJewellTN.....BUT, even the radical leftists agree he has lied and not kept his word on what he was gonna do. The CHANGE has become more of the same. Now, not doing what you say and said your gonna do, is not a advertising, or free speech problem, its a personal problem. Also, waay before that law was passed, we had CLINTON and CARTER...need I say more?

Also-Ive worked several places in my life, and THE ONLY place Ive ever heard of where an organization campaigned "in my name" was a UNION workplace,taking my dues to vote for Clinton.

I dont believe that ANY employer can legally put MY NAME down like that without my express consent. If you have proof of this Id love to know about it, for my own educational purposes. And you say they did it to "get around contribution limits"....well they aint got to worry about that now, do they?

Again sir...this aint perfect,I never claimed it was. ALMOST EVERYTHING TODAY has pro's/con's, dont it? We can just disagree, and still all be patriots and lovers of our country..........I hope.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Straight Shooter

[sigmtnman]

That AINT what it says, sigmtnman. Congress shall make NO LAW...is what it says.

I think the very fact that we are able to even have this friendly debate here on the forum,is PROOF that no one should have the freedom of speech denied. What if there were a law that said I could get my point of view across, but you couldnt. If corporations feel that one party is unfavorable to their business, WHY shouldnt they be able to support candidates/parties who they deem favorable to their cause? And,to all who are against the SCOTUS ruling I must ask...do you think people cant think for themselves?! Do you REALLY think if the Unions spend ANOTHER $60million on the next election, that its gonna cause me to vote for Obama? Thats ANOTHER aspect to this, libs must think that their electorate cant think/decide for themselves without a political ad telling them how to think. Isthat true for you? For anyone? I sure as hell hope not. As Ive said before, I give a damn how much any of em spend. I KNOW what I believe in, and Ill vote accordingly,ads be damned.

The constitution must be taken as a whole, you can't cherry pick. The preamble sets up the constitution and begins "We the people" and all rights referred to in the constitution are self evident from our creator. That would eliminate corporations having the same rights as people.

I am not so much against the scotus ruling as merely trying to point out the fallacy of corporate person hood. Any foreign national with enough money to incorporate will enjoy the same rights to freedom of political speech as you, donations to candidates and all. I guess next we will be giving foreign terrorists and prisoners of wars our rights as well.

Just because my countries government says a corporation is a person, that don't make it so with my god.

Edited January 24, 2010 by sigmtnman

[Mark@Sea]

Well, thats' different then. Of course, as an individual with no corporate funding, my voice will never be heard, unless I get together with a group of like-minded individuals and incor - whups. Say, I know, I'll start a newspaper or news channel and then I can campaign to my hearts content, under the guise of 'editorials', picking and choosing what I want to see print, and so forth. No one would ever misuse that power to select and support a candidate, right?

Seems I've heard a whole lot in the last few years about foreign nationals giving campaign money to US politicians. Good thing we had this law in place protecting us from that, right?

Of course, all the information about these donations was brought to light by others, so we knew just who was supported by whom... heck, somebody prob'ly made a movie about it.

And the FEC prohibited the movie from being shown.

A corporation is nothing more than a fellowship of individuals, sharing goals and purposes. Should they be silenced because of it?

[Guest Straight Shooter]

"I guess next we will be giving foriegn terrorists and prisoners of war our rights as well".

Um...er..THATS EXACTLY WHAT THE OBAMA ADMIN IS ALREADY DOING! Surely you know they are trying the terrorists as criminals and not as war criminals. Yes, Miranda rights, Constitutional rights, free lawyers, free soapbox,ect. ect. Surely you know he is doing this,dont you?

Mark@Sea, you make a good point. CHINA gave more to the Clintons than anyone,did ANY of our laws stop that?

Corporations ARE people, I think this is the point where we disagree. I dispise a lot of what some of the corps do...like FORD MOTOR CO. pushing and supporting the homosexual agenda for years. I could go on and on. I show my contempt by NOT BUYING FORDS, and supporting candidates who disavow gay marriage,for example.

There will ALWAYS,FOREVER be someway/somehow to skirt nearly every law. There are people who study how to do this daily,like Clinton saying "he wanted to find ways AROUND the Constitution" to get some of his s%^t passed. Nothing is perfect.BUT...when it comes to light, and it will, that a candidate has taken money from China,or Venezuela,or whoever...then THAT will not be something they want the public to know. If I aint mistaken,Obama and Clinton gave some back after it became public knowledge,ONLY after, I might add.

For another view on this, go to the NRA website, and listen to Wayne Lapierre talk about how this crippled the NRA and what a huge victory the ruling was for gun owners. Anyway..Ive said all I can on this,Ill just say we disagree and Im happy with the ruling, its law now,and case closed. Straight Shooter OUT.

[sigmtnman]

A corporation is nothing more than a fellowship of individuals, sharing goals and purposes. Should they be silenced because of it?

lol. I have had a number of jobs at corporations and never have I had a say in the political statements of the company, only the board and execs did.

Why do all of the people need to form a corporation to have their voice heard? You can join together with others to have a voice heard without a corp.

[Worriedman]

I guess next we will be giving foreign terrorists and prisoners of wars our rights as well.

Uh, seems like that has been happening with regularity as of late. Embedding FBI agents with our troops in the sand box to read captured combatants their rights, giving terrorist lawyers upon their arrest, allowing them our rights when they try to blow our planes up. 9-11 plotters being tried in civilian courts in the city they hit. Corporations like CNN, NBC, and GE fawning over the Anointed One, spending money and air time on him like drunken sailors.

Hopefully you were being sarcastic, if not, you are clueless!

Uh oh, double tap with Straight Shooter's post. I had to redo mine a couple of times to ratchet it down.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Worriedman

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Right. Corporations are not "We the People". Corporations exist for making a profit. That's all. Corporations employee people to achieve the goal of making a profit. That ruling had nothing to do with people as opposed to corporations. It struck down a

piece of law that gave one party unlawful advantage over another party. That doesn't

make sense to say that corporations will choose our leaders from now on just because

it took an unfair advantage away from unions and other organizations that definitely

have a political agenda. I don't know for a fact, but I would speculate most corporations would rather have free market principals evenly applied and less politics

embedded in order to make more profit. I just don't see McCain-Feingold doing anyone any good unless they are progressives. And I'm glad it was struck down. Make those hyenas in DC legislate according to the Constitution and none of this would have ever happened.

[Guest mosinon]

You're wrong. Business is out to make profit; not be a benefactor for the government. When expenses for goods/services goes up then the price goes up. The market bears that because the expense goes up for the competition as well. When said expenses go down the price goes down with the market because it also goes down for the competition. Plain and simple.

I surely understand that argument. And in a perfect market, an idealized market, a commodities market, it might hold true.

But we don't love in that world. Yes, businesses are out to make a profit. But businesses are also not always run by stupid people.

You might, naively, think that that a business charges cost plus X%. So if it costs 200 to build and a business wants to make 100% profit (nothing wrong with that) they would charge $400 for the item.

If that is what you think you are sorely misinformed. The cost of the item doesn't matter, it is what the market will bear.

You actually already know this, you just don't realize it. If a company (out to make a profit) can sell a device or service for more than it costs they will sell it, if they can't they won't. That is pretty simple.

So, if you make something that you can sell for a 1000 percent profit (say text messages) the taxes aren't a big deal. You'll gladly absorb the taxes to make the huge profits. Which, as you mentioned, the corporations are after.

I realize that the notion of of a free economy is comforting, I understand that the idea that the market will trend to the lowest and best deal for consumers is an easy conclusion to reach.

However that isn't always the case. Corporations don't necessarily pass the savings on to consumers (and you wouldn't expect them to). Corporations generally try to maximize profits.

Maximization of profits does not necessarily intersect with providing the lowest price for consumers.

I'll put a finer point on it.

We can get into math. You are a corporation with product Z.

Your choices are:

Sell one million units of product Z at $500

Sell one hundred thousand units of product Z at $600

Taxes are twenty percent either way. Would you rather sell one million units and eat the tax or work the tax into the price or sell one hundred thousand units?

I know it seems easy to boil everything down to basic principles and idealized world but that is fallacious.

No one likes taxes but the notion that taxes are necessarily passed along to the consumer is very weak.

[Smith]

I surely understand that argument. And in a perfect market, an idealized market, a commodities market, it might hold true.

But we don't love in that world. Yes, businesses are out to make a profit. But businesses are also not always run by stupid people.

You might, naively, think that that a business charges cost plus X%. So if it costs 200 to build and a business wants to make 100% profit (nothing wrong with that) they would charge $400 for the item.

If that is what you think you are sorely misinformed. The cost of the item doesn't matter, it is what the market will bear.

You actually already know this, you just don't realize it. If a company (out to make a profit) can sell a device or service for more than it costs they will sell it, if they can't they won't. That is pretty simple.

So, if you make something that you can sell for a 1000 percent profit (say text messages) the taxes aren't a big deal. You'll gladly absorb the taxes to make the huge profits. Which, as you mentioned, the corporations are after.

I realize that the notion of of a free economy is comforting, I understand that the idea that the market will trend to the lowest and best deal for consumers is an easy conclusion to reach.

However that isn't always the case. Corporations don't necessarily pass the savings on to consumers (and you wouldn't expect them to). Corporations generally try to maximize profits.

Maximization of profits does not necessarily intersect with providing the lowest price for consumers.

I'll put a finer point on it.

We can get into math. You are a corporation with product Z.

Your choices are:

Sell one million units of product Z at $500

Sell one hundred thousand units of product Z at $600

Taxes are twenty percent either way. Would you rather sell one million units and eat the tax or work the tax into the price or sell one hundred thousand units?

I know it seems easy to boil everything down to basic principles and idealized world but that is fallacious.

No one likes taxes but the notion that taxes are necessarily passed along to the consumer is very weak.

You keep saying we have over simplified free economy with supply and demand and then say it is a simple as price fixing by the producers. You can't argue both sides. IT is as simple as supply and demand and taxes create an artificial demand that affects price. What happens is that when the marketable margin + tax reaches a point where it is not worth the effort to produce said widgets they quite making them. It is still supply and demand with a government controlled third factor. That is the problem with corporate tax. The government is getting it on both ends. They tax the consumer directly (sales), then add on the corporate taxes (built into the product), and then artificially drive up all three prices by a false demand factor. That's why the American people pay half or more of their income to in "taxes" and never bat an eye. Very clever on the part of the government.

However this has little to do with the OP. BTW if anyone has an IRA or invest in the market at all - YOU are the corporations. Don't like your companies political stance? Sell them off and fight them that way.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Smith

[sigmtnman]

Make those hyenas in DC legislate according to the Constitution and none of this would have ever happened.

Pardon my train of thought here, I can hopefully put a caboose on it...

Statutory law is why they can legislate however they please. We accept the "contract" when we take social security cards. Under contract you agree to give up your freedoms for the security the government offers. Once in a while there is a dog and pony show put on by the SCOTUS to keep us all from pondering this and to make us feel like we have "constitutional" rights. We have no constitutional rights, we have god given rights. This may sounds crazy, but the legal words that we choose to use can put us soundly in the common law or position us to fall under statutory law. An example is drivers licenses. There is SCOTUS case law where a man who did not have a drivers license (contract with the state to drive) was aquited of charges because when he was stopped he said he was "traveling", which the constitution forbids the goverment from restricting. Had he said he was "driving", that would place him under statutory law, because a "driver" is a commercial activity that can be regulated by interstate commerce.

From my perspective over the years of paying attention to politics, I really see no substance difference in either party or their actions when the rubber hits the road. I also see the loan democrat or republican crossing party lines at just the right moment to pass crap legislation, time and time again. I see one party pick up and do the same things the last party complained about, while apologists sit around saying it's different this time or acceptable because "party Y" did it before.

Ask yourself why Clinton runs around with Bush Sr. Why did W work so closely with Obama during the transition? These people put on a show in public then go drinking and patting each other on the back at night. There is a pattern where a republican executive tees up something and the next democrat executive drive it home. Then while driving home the teed up crap, the democrat tees up some distasteful crap for the next republican to drive home, allowing for finger pointing galore while lining their pockets. Nixon teed up relations with china, and Carter drove it home. Carter allowed massive illegal immigration and Reagan granted them amnesty.

A handful of corps own the majority of the news and media, but most folks are not aware of the interrelationships of the directors that sit on these boards. This is not tinfoil, just straight up facts that are varifiable. Go to Media Owners - See who owns the American media - American media companies at MediaOwners.com and pick out a company. Select either the ceo or the company name itself and go to theyrule.net, again this is not a tinfoil site, just a site that uses public records to map who are the directors for what company, what institutions they are affiliated with (CRF, RAND,etc) and finally which Executive administrations they have participated in. If you then use muckety, it will allow you to find additional relationships. All of the information on these 3 sites is varifiable through public records.

Common law has been overrun by statutory law and none of us are freemen anymore, just property of the Federal gov. We gave away our own decision making and the responsibilities that go along with those decisions for statutory laws to protect us form things that might happen. Whether we wanted to make that exchange or not, it was forced on "We the people" with the 13th and 14th ammendments which removed all of us as citizens of our soveriegn states and made us United States citizens. This was completed with the social security cards which place us under the guardianship of the fed.

The moochers and looters have taken advantage of the statutory laws and use it to supress competition with onerous requirements that only large corps can afford(hipa,sox, etc) , direct favors (subsidies, tax credits for certain industries), force companies to do business with others they may not wish to, and in the worst cases using the investigative/enforcemtn units of government illegally to stifle competition(fda raiding raw dairy farmers and food coops.) Pasterization is a good example. Industrialized farming required pasturization to make the milk safe due to the conditions of operation and the large distribution areas. These industrial farming corps then lobbied for every dairy farmer to be forced to pasturize their milk because people were choosing to stick with raw milk and not the pasteurized milk. This is a clear example of industry using statutory law to benifet themselves and stiffle competition.

I believe the majority of statutory law is crap too. It removes personal responsibility by indviduals and places it in the hands of the state. If you have lots of money or connections, you get a good lawyer or the right venue/DA/judge and you go free, if you don't, well you don't...

Under pure property rights, there is no need for the onerous statutory law, since everyone is responsible for themselves, if they impede on others property rights.

Statutory laws try to handle the what-ifs and possible situations that *may* cause something. These statutory laws are the same laws that grant person hood to a soulless corporation and give your god given rights to them so they may work to take away those rights from you.

Edited January 25, 2010 by sigmtnman

[Worriedman]

We accept the "contract" when we take social security cards. Under contract you agree to give up your freedoms for the security the government offers.

Outside of government workers, no one gets to "accept" the contract on Social Security, it is pushed down the workers throats. There is going to be a huge uprising of anger when the folks who are of the right age group, and are loosing their jobs during the "recession" we are now in, find out that their SS benefits are held to a 10 year average, and that if you are out of work, and do not pay in enough "quarters" prior to retirement or becoming disabled, you have no benefits whatsoever.

My wife ran a day care for 18 years, payed the full ride of 16% self employment tax, then decided to go back to college and get her nursing degree once we became empty nestors. At the end of 5 years of school, and passing her boards, she got hit with end renal failure due to polycystic kidney disease, requiring dialysis. Complication of the disease prevented her from going to work, and when we approached SS for disability, we got the nice letter from the Feds which stated that she was not eligible, as she had not worked for the last 5 years, nor was the dollar amount she had paid in returnable, some illegal needed that more.

They do not ask the average person to sign a contract to join the ranks of SS payers, it is a forced Ponzie scheme.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I understand what you're saying, Sig. We don't accept any contract unless we are a party to it, though. If you are making the argument that our elected officials are signing contracts for us, then every contract has been signed under duress by a significant number of the populace every

time. Laws change all the time, but usually for the worse. The more laws

that are passed the more freedoms are stripped away. We, as a group

can change that if we challenge these elected dopes. We elected them

and we can get rid of them, at the end of the term. If the law is challenged as to it's constitutionality before it becomes law then those

dopes are doing there jobs. If it is later found that they lied about that,

then they should pay dearly. You can use moochers and looters. I agree with the terminology. Just call them dopes and us dopes for electing

them.

There is always a loan Dem or Repub that crosses over, like you said,

because of bribes or threats. What's the other name for that? High crimes and misdemeanors, or something like that. I'm sure some of them have this pang of guilt at the last minute just to screw the people that elected them.

The moochers and looters are always there. That takes an honest, responsible and diligent government to push that back and we need to make sure our government does just that. I guess I sound like some

pie in the sky idealist, but so be it. Every time a small victory happens, it seems to be forgotten. Do we have an income tax in Tennessee? Did

Phil Valentine organizing a mob on the state plaza and continuing getting

the message out help? I think so.

I just can't understand how someone would adopt an attitude of "it's going to happen, anyway, and there's nothing I can do about it". If it affects you and you see that and you sit back and do nothing about it,

it becomes your fault, also. I don't mean "Annie get your gun", not yet.

Educating each other and hashing out what is really the problem is what we're trying to do, here. Something called communication. Word gets

around and when enough people hear the topic, things can get done.

I'm worried about a tyrant trying to strip away our right to do this,

and then then take away our right to defend ourselves when we have

lost our right to speak. The rest should become apparent very quick.

McCain-Feingold needed to go to the ash bin. A lot of legislation needs

to follow it, and we have a duty to make some right decisions for our

children to have a place other than the damned Ukraine to live in. Don't tell me something can't get done. That's lame.

Trains don't use cabooses, anymore. They use those boxes that blink.

[sigmtnman]

Yes, I agree. I really do feel the acceptance of corps as an equal to man was a move by the leaders of the government to usurp our god given rights. When natural person rights and corporate rights are at loggerhead, the corps win because they are viewed as having super rights because they supposedly represent a body of natural persons, when in fact, they represent the views whoever is at the decision making helm. Eminent Domain is a case in point. We need to wake up to the realization that this is yet another tool in the arsenal of those who wish to remove us of all of our rights. Please don't confuse this with business, and commerce. Business and commerce can take place under sole proprietorships and partnerships, where there is absolute responsibility assigned to the owners who are in fact natural persons.

I do think we would be able to make inroads and progress if we actually had an educated populace that cared about others, ate dinner together every night with their family and was more motivated to discuss politics openly, instead of watching dances with stars. Instead, the dept. of education has done a excellent job of preparing everyone for their place as an obedient mindless cog. Have you ever had a chance to look into who founded the department of education? Very interesting stuff right there.

I absolutely feel things will get done. I am just thinking it will take a statutory enema to accomplish it. Please don' t take this the wrong way, but in our discussions, I see you more as Hank or Dagny who still believes that the looters are acting under misguided altruism and incompetence. I feel a bit more like John, Ragnar and Fransisco...

I like your sig, but I think there is a complimentary passage by Francisco that applies: " "So you think that money is the root of all evil?... Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or the looters who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil? ... Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into bread you need to survive tomorrow. ... Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values... Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it becomes marked: 'Account Overdrawn."

(forgive me from getting this from wiki, I know it is not the best source, but this is summarized from pages 410-413. When I went back to my copy to reread the whole section, I found it already dog eared. )

A strange side note is that I find it funny that Alan Greenspan, who was a student of Rands philosophy went on to become a destroyer of money with the Federal Reserve.

Edited January 25, 2010 by sigmtnman

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeh, to take a bit from that book, you couldn't have picked a better quote, and believe it or not, I agree with everything else you said. You have to have the Hanks and Dagnys to put the other in it's proper perspective, plus fuel the economy. But that book was written to show, somewhat absurdly, what happens when altruists and Marxists are doing to this country. That's why it's still in print. She figured it out a long time ago.

If people wake up in time we won't have to go to the book's conclusion. That's why it is important for people to pay attention to what the dopes are doing in DC, and flush them, from time to time, instead of sitting on our asses. That's why I like the Tea

Party movement. It may be the part of a revolution against tyranny if it keeps growing. It will happen one way or another; by the ballot box, or by the gun.

I don't understand Greenspan, either, except that once you get to that level you

might lose perspective and believe you know better than the rest.

It's just not a time to be complacent, is it?

[sigmtnman]

I hope you are correct, but I fear "they" have positioned themselves on all sides of the arguments, so that even when we win 1, we lose 2.

Most people can not fathom a world in which we are free from the binds of onerous government process. A world in which I can drive any speed I desire, but am responsible for the my action if I impact another's private property. A world where I can do business without a license, but am wholly responsible if I affect another's private property. A world where there are no victimless crimes. A world where I don't need a drivers license to drive, a marriage license to marry or a social security card to work. When I talk of this sort of things folks loose their minds, because they have always been told it is anarchy, when in actuality it is the pinnacle of freedom and responsibility.

With the fact that the largest employer in the US is the US government, the task of awakening folks becomes even more difficult, as those in the employ are less likely to do anything to upset the status quo.