Or, my personal opposite-day favorite, 'Citizens United', which should have been called "Citizen-Crushing Cabal Empowerment Act", or "The 'Citizens, Get Fucked!' Act"
Citizens United is and was correct, imo, because all it says is that you and I, individual and private citizens, may pool our resources toward mutual and freely decided upon political ends, completely and utterly, did I say *necessarily*? yes I did, independent of any group, especially and most importantly that most dangerous of all groups, Society, and its mindless, vicious, anti-human pit bull, the State.
Riight...Citizens United allows both the wealthy and the poor to contribute unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns. And it confers Sovereign Individual status on both mortal humans and immortal corporations- which don't die; they merely change names when their assets are purchased by even larger corporations. A neat trick that humans are unlikely to duplicate, no matter how far technology advances.
That "vicious, mindless pit-bull, the state"...well, that's all very Rhetorical, but the same State that you reject so heatedly also charters Corporations and draws up and enforces contracts on behalf of owners of Private Property. Citizens United merely underscores the pronounced bias in the US for offering those protections in direct correlation to the net worth of a given individual, or private alliance of wealthy individuals. Some corporations are easily modeled as partaking of many of the same oppressive powers as governments, of course; those powers are sometimes formally certified as private prerogatives by governments (contract law, again.) Other times, there's no necessity for that. After all, for all of the loose talk about serfdom, it's always been more a feature associated with private property owners and employers than democratic republics.
Unless you're a hermit, you are part of human Society. It's how you were raised. Even gangs led by warlords- the only practical form of "minarchy"- comprise Societies, and carry out the same oppressive functions that you loathe so much in governments, minus the protections of civil liberties and individual rights that are found to some degree in all democratic republics. Typically not that much of a problem in terms of practical consequences as long as you pledge your troth to the warlord, of course, although you never can tell.
Anarchy is not a practical option, unless you're a hermit- and the US has plenty of territory consisting of less than one person per square mile; it sounds like you should look into that.
For what it's worth, I find it ironic that in my observation, citizens with the most complaints against 'the State"- particularly the Federal Government- are residents of rural areas who seldom face much threat from the Government themselves; they're mostly upset over things that they read in the media, about events far, far away. (Paranoia is, of course, one of the prerogatives most likely to be embraced by an Individual who has talked themself into viewing Society per se as a hostile entity.) The people most likely to indulge in rhetorical excoriation of any and all Government also have a way of losing all interest in dismantling the Government once the political faction they favor is in power, instead shifting toward support for dismantling only the parts that conflict with their dogmatic ideological preconceptions. Unless they find that they'd personally lose some practical advantage if that were to be done, that is.
Imperious professional managerial class ideological dogmatism and private propertarian class ideological dogmatism have this in common: underneath all of the Manichean absolutism of the idealistic rhetoric, the primary goal is So Much Winning, for their personal private ends of material advantage and social status. And otherwise, so much Whining.
I hope you give me the benefit of the doubt here that I am not copping out by not responding in kind and at length; believe me, I want to and will hopefully someday, but I have no time right now!
Please, please, if you run across me in the future, prompt me without hesitation.
Just one more point I need to add: when considering questions like these, remember the crucial difference between a Bug and a Feature, and be honest about which is which.
Really appreciate your explainer about Citizens United and comparisons of powerful orgs (corps, govs and gangs).
But a small bone to pick with you about who has the most complaints against the Federal gov. I'm a citizen who doesn't fit your description, who is upset about a whole range of things that could probably fit under the umbrella of corruption. And I certainly don't rail against any and all government, though I have noticed a tendency for corruption to creep.
Some folks say, 'Sure, it's a total mess above a certain level, which is why we should focus our efforts from the state on downward'. Problem with that though, is that humans are now collectively facing problems that likely require *larger* govs to address. What can state or local leaders do about climate/environmental issues requiring global cooperation? What can they do about human rights abuses, wars and war crimes, or the development pathway for AI?
Some of the most time-pressured issues we face are simply too large to be tackled with 'think global, act local'. And corruption seems to creep faster near the top, where all the money and power flows. Citizens United accelerated this, plus the process of corps becoming bigger and more powerful than many govs. Reigning that in is maybe going to look like *solving* the problem of corruption at the highest levels plus creating some corruption-free... higher levels yet.
One of the bugaboos on the Right is a world gov. But to me, a world gov is only scary because of the unsolved corruption issue. Solve that, and it maybe becomes a powerful force for positive transformation plus healing. No small order, solving corruption at the highest levels, but pointing this out is neither Winning nor Whining.
Do you ever watch fighting sports, such as boxing, wrestling, or MMA?
If you understand the concept of a weight class, and why they're a good idea that makes sense, you also understand why Citizens United was a terrible ruling.
There's no surer sign of someone who knows full well that they have no valid point to make, than when they try to distract the audience from it by mocking their opponent's point rather than responding to it.
Biden's new rule on Title IX to allow guys to rape girls in school bathrooms. Without any consequences written in. How in the world did the President of the United States allow this and put these previous young girls in harms way?
The Iron Law of Bill Names! (See: Inflation Reduction Act, which has very very little to do with reducing inflation.)
Or, my personal opposite-day favorite, 'Citizens United', which should have been called "Citizen-Crushing Cabal Empowerment Act", or "The 'Citizens, Get Fucked!' Act"
Wrong. 180 degrees.
you're going to need to do better than that. This is a tough crowd.
Oh, very well...
Citizens United is and was correct, imo, because all it says is that you and I, individual and private citizens, may pool our resources toward mutual and freely decided upon political ends, completely and utterly, did I say *necessarily*? yes I did, independent of any group, especially and most importantly that most dangerous of all groups, Society, and its mindless, vicious, anti-human pit bull, the State.
Riight...Citizens United allows both the wealthy and the poor to contribute unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns. And it confers Sovereign Individual status on both mortal humans and immortal corporations- which don't die; they merely change names when their assets are purchased by even larger corporations. A neat trick that humans are unlikely to duplicate, no matter how far technology advances.
That "vicious, mindless pit-bull, the state"...well, that's all very Rhetorical, but the same State that you reject so heatedly also charters Corporations and draws up and enforces contracts on behalf of owners of Private Property. Citizens United merely underscores the pronounced bias in the US for offering those protections in direct correlation to the net worth of a given individual, or private alliance of wealthy individuals. Some corporations are easily modeled as partaking of many of the same oppressive powers as governments, of course; those powers are sometimes formally certified as private prerogatives by governments (contract law, again.) Other times, there's no necessity for that. After all, for all of the loose talk about serfdom, it's always been more a feature associated with private property owners and employers than democratic republics.
Unless you're a hermit, you are part of human Society. It's how you were raised. Even gangs led by warlords- the only practical form of "minarchy"- comprise Societies, and carry out the same oppressive functions that you loathe so much in governments, minus the protections of civil liberties and individual rights that are found to some degree in all democratic republics. Typically not that much of a problem in terms of practical consequences as long as you pledge your troth to the warlord, of course, although you never can tell.
Anarchy is not a practical option, unless you're a hermit- and the US has plenty of territory consisting of less than one person per square mile; it sounds like you should look into that.
For what it's worth, I find it ironic that in my observation, citizens with the most complaints against 'the State"- particularly the Federal Government- are residents of rural areas who seldom face much threat from the Government themselves; they're mostly upset over things that they read in the media, about events far, far away. (Paranoia is, of course, one of the prerogatives most likely to be embraced by an Individual who has talked themself into viewing Society per se as a hostile entity.) The people most likely to indulge in rhetorical excoriation of any and all Government also have a way of losing all interest in dismantling the Government once the political faction they favor is in power, instead shifting toward support for dismantling only the parts that conflict with their dogmatic ideological preconceptions. Unless they find that they'd personally lose some practical advantage if that were to be done, that is.
Imperious professional managerial class ideological dogmatism and private propertarian class ideological dogmatism have this in common: underneath all of the Manichean absolutism of the idealistic rhetoric, the primary goal is So Much Winning, for their personal private ends of material advantage and social status. And otherwise, so much Whining.
Thank you for this substantive response, M. DC.
I hope you give me the benefit of the doubt here that I am not copping out by not responding in kind and at length; believe me, I want to and will hopefully someday, but I have no time right now!
Please, please, if you run across me in the future, prompt me without hesitation.
Just one more point I need to add: when considering questions like these, remember the crucial difference between a Bug and a Feature, and be honest about which is which.
Thanks for the conversation.
I have the right to make an Anti-Trump film.
You have the right to make an Anti-Trump film.
We do not lose those rights simply because we decide to team up.
The alternative is giving government permission to decide what is and isn't allowable speech -- and we know how that goes.
(Thanks for the reminder, M. Sim. I had forgotten to put this on my round tuit list. Good thing I still have a supply left.)
Really appreciate your explainer about Citizens United and comparisons of powerful orgs (corps, govs and gangs).
But a small bone to pick with you about who has the most complaints against the Federal gov. I'm a citizen who doesn't fit your description, who is upset about a whole range of things that could probably fit under the umbrella of corruption. And I certainly don't rail against any and all government, though I have noticed a tendency for corruption to creep.
Some folks say, 'Sure, it's a total mess above a certain level, which is why we should focus our efforts from the state on downward'. Problem with that though, is that humans are now collectively facing problems that likely require *larger* govs to address. What can state or local leaders do about climate/environmental issues requiring global cooperation? What can they do about human rights abuses, wars and war crimes, or the development pathway for AI?
Some of the most time-pressured issues we face are simply too large to be tackled with 'think global, act local'. And corruption seems to creep faster near the top, where all the money and power flows. Citizens United accelerated this, plus the process of corps becoming bigger and more powerful than many govs. Reigning that in is maybe going to look like *solving* the problem of corruption at the highest levels plus creating some corruption-free... higher levels yet.
One of the bugaboos on the Right is a world gov. But to me, a world gov is only scary because of the unsolved corruption issue. Solve that, and it maybe becomes a powerful force for positive transformation plus healing. No small order, solving corruption at the highest levels, but pointing this out is neither Winning nor Whining.
Do you ever watch fighting sports, such as boxing, wrestling, or MMA?
If you understand the concept of a weight class, and why they're a good idea that makes sense, you also understand why Citizens United was a terrible ruling.
Right.
I just *know* that you didn't compare real world politics to ballet for fat guys.
Edit: ...and favorably, at that!
There's no surer sign of someone who knows full well that they have no valid point to make, than when they try to distract the audience from it by mocking their opponent's point rather than responding to it.
No, sir. You are wrong.
Sometimes mocking a point *is* the most appropriate, valid, *and* substantive response.
As to your "substance," I disagree, but then I repeat myself.
No doubt!
But in my defense, I only claim to exercise my First Amendment right to utter pure opinion, free of charge no less!
The crowd is getting a bargain, says I.
тАЬSee Civil Rights Act тАЬ she said in a low voice... LBJ, not a nice person...
Biden's new rule on Title IX to allow guys to rape girls in school bathrooms. Without any consequences written in. How in the world did the President of the United States allow this and put these previous young girls in harms way?
Symbolic wish fulfillment.
ItтАЩs so much fun to sniff hair --why not more?
CARES Act - largest single upward transfer of wealth in human history
Yes in fact I just learned that the IRA is another ploy just to privatize more public infrastructure.
Guys, don't lump the PELOSI Act into this. Though maybe it's the exception that proves the rule.