>If we assume robot cars will be better, we it follows there will be more of them, so this problem cannot get better.
That is not actually true because you're ignoring a major factor. Right now time spent in traffic on a commute is a time wasted unproductively. It does not benefit society nor the individual in any way. It's a huge cost that gets amortized over everybody and which nobody gets any benefit out of - a textbook example of market failure (literally - a great many economics textbooks use traffic jams to explain market failures). With SDC's even if congestion DOES remain a problem AND gets worse- it's no longer an issue. The time is no longer wasted. You can spend that time working, or reading a book, or watching a movie. The time you spend getting to and from work is no longer time you LOSE - it's time back for yourself to use however you wish. That is a MASSIVE gain for everybody.
>Or are you suggesting that actual persons will be forbidden to drive their non-self-driving cars on the roads?
Nope, there is no need for that. The advantages of self driving cars are so significant - that automakers will rapidly start manufacturing them and they will be greatly cheaper and it will, in fact, only be a brief period of time before they completely stop making manually driven cars because the market will simply be too small to be worth it. Around the same time the last generation of hand-drives have to be retired, you will have an entire generation of people who have never learned how to drive. Simple economics will kill hand-driving in less than 2 decades. Even if somebody DID pass a law banning them on safety reasons (which would be no less reasonable than any other roadworthiness laws once superior technologies exist) - they would not be doing anything with that law that economics itself would not have done within a few years.
Nobody had to ban horse-drawn carriages to make them virtually extinct, once cars existed - that happened all by itself in a very, very short period of time. The change to self driving cars is more likely than not to mirror the change from carriages to cars. Here in my major metropolis I still see the odd donkey-pulled cart on the road - and actually the law did the OPPOSITE of what you fear, there are traffic laws on the books specifically making allowances for them by dictating how car drivers are to drive around them, how to pass them safely etc. etc. You can expect the SDCs to likewise have compensating code to deal with hand-driven cars, and any other car failing to communicate in the right protocols.
Anybody who trusts a computer less than a human driver is vastly overestimating human drivers. Humans are absolutely terrible at driving cars. Hell even really mediocre self driving cars would be safer than all but the very best of the best human drivers - and frankly I don't see self driving cars getting very popular in formula one circles - the ONLY circles containing drivers that even the worst possible viable SDCs won't outperform.
Actually - if you get your head out of your ass you would realize that is a nett INCREASE in freedom.
More people will be able to go more places more easily than now. Exactly because the freedom to use the road will not be limited to those who can drive and afford a car.
Indeed. What little you may gain from a VM you will likewise gain with windows around. I still keep an xp VM around for rare one in a million times I want to run a windows app and dont want to set up a whole install for it. For example I used it to get MGSO installed on morrowind but I actually play morrowind using openmw.
Fair point but not really relevant to GPs misinformed statements about wine. Personally I dont even use lbreoffice anymore. I do little that requires office software that browser apps more than suffice.
>Unless you are more than 100 years old, you have never lived during a time when there were no commercial airlines.
100 years is definitely "not that long ago". It is a merely 0.1% of RECORDED history, which is itself a mere 100th of a percent of the history of the human race, and that is still only about 1/4 of 1000th of a percent of the history of life.
Actually - your entire description of wine is several years out of date. Wine today, especially when combined with PlayOnLinux runs just about everything I throw at it not only well - but better than windows does.
I'm sure there are edge-case exceptions but they are extraordinarily rare these days. In fact, Wine is MORE compatible with pre-vista versions of windows than windows itself is (that is to say - there are more windows programs that run fully-supported under wine than there are older windows programs that work on newer versions of windows).
Indeed, but accidents do happen - and sometimes people just plain make mistakes. This is one reason why manual transmission cars still have parking brakes. Even on a flat surface it provides a level of redundancy in case you accidentally leave the car in neutral.
Every major invention in human history appears to have been simultaneously and independently invented by at least 3 people at the same time. I personally maintain that invention is a natural consequence of the state of human knowledge at any given moment. Once the next step becomes possible - multiple people will take it. Though I was not aware of the other claims to the compiler - their existence does not surprise me in the least.
> then not only would we never have invented compilers and programming languages
Except that this is not at all how we got compilers and programming languages. Hell cross-platform support was a benefit to these concepts that wasn't realized or deemed important until well into the second generation of compilers and languages. The original motivation was pure marketing. To get businesses to see the value of computers, they would need to be able to use those computers for their specific needs. There wasn't a huge stack of available generic software yet - nobody knew what an "office suite" may contain or even conceived of the concept. So how do you get businesses to want a computer ? By making it so the owner of the business can use it for whatever he specifically needs. To do that - you have to lower the barrier of entry for applications programming. The person who came up with a solution was Grace Hopper and she wrote the compiler. And no surprise the language she invented to compile with it was COBOL - a language designed so executives used to filling accounting and HR-style forms could write code in a familiar environment.
Most later programmers would hate COBOL but it survived for decades due to it's executive-friendly nature. It also proved that the concept of high-level programming worked, and that's when the hacker types started writing their own compilers for languages designed to fit their own needs better.
The idea of compilers as a way to avoid rewriting machine code over and over didn't truly hit home until 1969 when K&R invented a high-level language close enough to machine code to write operating systems in and used it to create the first Unix.
Your point is perfectly valid, don't get me wrong, but your choice of example was terrible. I agree that solving personal problems and making your own work-life easier is a hugely important source of ideas for what to code - it is also where by far the most rewarding and fun part of programming as a career happens. But the other side is paying the bills. Getting people to pay you means solving THEIR problems which they already identified and which may be something that YOU would never experience. That's often where the worst part of our job lies, it's often drudgery (not always - some clients/bosses will present you with truly interesting challenges but often). And compilers and programming languages were solidly born from the latter. Hopper's lifelong passion for computers led to many breakthroughs but she invented THOSE two to ensure that computers would survive post-war. They were created to turn war-machines into business-machines - to open up new markets so that the industry she loved to work in would thrive and people like her have would be able to get PAID for working with computers.
A better example of what you describe is actually Kernighan and Richie - but they came rather later.
The astonishing thing is that after 3 decades of stack-crashing causing more security bugs than any other type - there still isn't a native array/hash/list type added to C. One can sanely argue that there are genuine cases where C's freedom to do almost anything is both needed and wanted - but how does that preclude giving sane, one-place-fixable standard data types for common tasks which you can deviate from only when you do, in fact, have to ?
Sure there are implementations of such in some libraries - but the moment you go there your programs portability and shippability is suddenly dependent on those of the library. This is the kind of functionality that ought to have been in ANSI-C decades ago so you could use it, and compile with any standards compliant compiler on any platform without fear.
>So you think that censorship is okay as long as you agree with it? You're the only one who has promoted censorship. I was promoting NOBODY being censored. Wallmart gets to promote and not promote whatever they want. I get to say about that whatever I want.
Neither party is censored.
Indeed - neither party CAN ever censor anybody. Censorship can only be done by somebody with serious authority (like a government). Wallmart may choose to stock only clean albums - other retailers will still sell the rest. I may choose to complain -they can ignore me. Nobody in your scenario is prevented from expressing whatever they want so nobody is being censored.
Free speech is such a simple concept... it's amazing how many people always get it wrong.
>Are you by any chance confusing... sole proprietorships / partnerships / corporations?
There is no difference relevant to the topic at hand. If the sole propietorship was it's owner, then it's owner's assets would be at stake if it went bankrupt.
>When you want to control what a business does, you want to control what the people who ganged together to form it do Nope. You're doubly-wrong. Firstly I never proposed controlling what a business does - I proposed restricting what it can do, there is an important difference. I'm not saying you can force a business to sell peanut butter. I'm just saying you CAN prevent it from discriminating based on sexual orientation. Your other point however is even MORE wrong. It absolutely DOES mean that. The owner of the cakeshop has every right to retain her religion. She has every right to practise it. To believe gays are evil or whatever. I'm not in any way restricting that. Her business does NOT have that right but that does not in any way compel her to do anything. If she personally has a problem with a gay marriage, the company has every right to hire a temporary employee to serve this particular customer. The business has to fulfil it's legal obligations. In a corporation every one of the many people it has contracts with has the right to, in their own capacity (i.e. on time not covered by the contract) believe and act however they see fit as long as they don't interfere with anybody else's rights to do the same. But there's no reason the COMPANY should have that right.
If you oppose birth control, you have every right not to use it. But that's your ONLY right. Your company has no such right, and cannot impose your belief on people who work for it (since by definition it's about what they do outside work in their private lives). You are free to believe nobody's health insurance should pay for it. Your company is not free to refuse that. And this is a much better example - because if we assume you ARE the business -then LOTS of people's personal freedoms are now dependent on YOUR whims. If you and the company are distinct, then you cannot use the company to enforce your whims on employees about matters unrelated to the business. Clearly and obviously the latter scenario is the one that maximizes freedom for the most people.
No it isn't and hasn't been for more than 200 years. That definition became invalid the day we passed the first limited liability law. If a business was a group of people then limited liability would be a travesty of justice that absolutely flies in the face of the principle of equal before the law. Limited liability could only be made law in the free world by defining a business as NOT a group of people but a completely distinct legal entity which is not human but has contracts with a lot of people.
For some of them it's an employment contract, for others it's shareholding (which is a contract) but none of them are the business, nor are they collectively the business. Even if there's only one of them then he or she is STILL not the business. They are merely somebody who has a contract with the business that establishes ownership. Hell if businesses were people shareholding would be slavery.
Businesses are not people and the very idea is fundamentally incompatible with every principle of a free and just society which is why the law does not and cannot define them as people.
> Meanwhile the 1% view it as just another legal tool.
For the one percent it doesn't mean NEVER having a chance to stop being poor. It doesn't mean being excluded from ever having a better job, or ever owning a home. That's what it means if you're working class however.
Then it's not really a region of elected justices is it ? If actual elections basically never happen ? Surely then you cannot take your region as representative of those where they are frequent events ?
No it isn't. Not even slightly. A business is a distinct legal person - that happens to have contracts with a group of people, it is not a human being nor is it a group of human beings. Each of those individuals whom it has some sort of contract with (including the ones with whom that contract is "owns shares") are free to act as individuals on their own behalf - but when acting within the confines of the contract that lets them represent the business they only have the limited subset of freedoms that the business has.
If you're going to give an oversimplified argument to try and prove a point without thinking - at least get your facts straight. In no legal jurisdiction ever conceived has a business been a group of people. No law has ever seen it as such. Now you could lobby that the law SHOULD see it as such - no business would agree though, because if a business is a group of people then limited liability is a travesty of justice that completely conflicts with the principle of equality before the law.
The rights of free people can only exist if there are limits to them - otherwise NOBODY has freedom. And political correctness is merely the term people use for "respecting OTHER people's freedom" when they don't.
More importantly - none of your examples WERE individuals. Businesses are NOT individuals and don't HAVE the rights of free peoples. They have a limited subset there-off - in order to maximize the liberty of the people that subset should at all times be kept as minimal as possible, the bare minimum with which it is possible for a business to exist is the maximum freedom a business should have.
Businesses are not people - so they can't be free people, nor can they be non-free people. You can't intrude on the freedom of a business anymore than you can enslave a hammer, defraud a wall or discriminate against a cloud.
Yeah... i "patronize" people by saying "i made that mistake myself once and nothing but dumb luck gave me a better outcome". On the contrary my argument was "there but for the grace of god go I" - except that Im an atheist.
It is mathematically impossible for payday loans not to make things worse. Ergo they are fraudulent. Even so, even if you persist in the insane belief that their business model is not to finance as protection rackets are to insurance it is not relevant. Nobody at all banned them. Nobody even proposed banning them. I never proposed banning them. I merely applauded somebody choosing not to advertise them.
Or do you think the pro life movement should be forced to hand out brochures for planned parenthood too ? I have a moral problem with their business. Moral problems however are very rarely appropriate to fix by legal means. Maybe this is one of those cases, probably not - I actually demand compelling evidence that the law is the only resort before supporting it. But I have the right to my moral belief, the right to agitate for said belief and the right to applaud when others agitate for it.
Gay cake bakery: civil rights act. The right not to be discriminated against is protected and your right to freedom of association cannot intrude on it. Neither does property rights apply in a business which serves the public. Refusing to serve a gay customer is no different from putting a whites-only sign in the window. Companies however are not people, cannot be discriminated against and dont have civil liberties.
Citizens united extended a legal right that nobody should have at all. Bribery is not protected speech.
Slashdot Mirror
>If we assume robot cars will be better, we it follows there will be more of them, so this problem cannot get better.
That is not actually true because you're ignoring a major factor. Right now time spent in traffic on a commute is a time wasted unproductively. It does not benefit society nor the individual in any way. It's a huge cost that gets amortized over everybody and which nobody gets any benefit out of - a textbook example of market failure (literally - a great many economics textbooks use traffic jams to explain market failures).
With SDC's even if congestion DOES remain a problem AND gets worse- it's no longer an issue. The time is no longer wasted. You can spend that time working, or reading a book, or watching a movie. The time you spend getting to and from work is no longer time you LOSE - it's time back for yourself to use however you wish. That is a MASSIVE gain for everybody.
>Or are you suggesting that actual persons will be forbidden to drive their non-self-driving cars on the roads?
Nope, there is no need for that. The advantages of self driving cars are so significant - that automakers will rapidly start manufacturing them and they will be greatly cheaper and it will, in fact, only be a brief period of time before they completely stop making manually driven cars because the market will simply be too small to be worth it. Around the same time the last generation of hand-drives have to be retired, you will have an entire generation of people who have never learned how to drive.
Simple economics will kill hand-driving in less than 2 decades. Even if somebody DID pass a law banning them on safety reasons (which would be no less reasonable than any other roadworthiness laws once superior technologies exist) - they would not be doing anything with that law that economics itself would not have done within a few years.
Nobody had to ban horse-drawn carriages to make them virtually extinct, once cars existed - that happened all by itself in a very, very short period of time. The change to self driving cars is more likely than not to mirror the change from carriages to cars. Here in my major metropolis I still see the odd donkey-pulled cart on the road - and actually the law did the OPPOSITE of what you fear, there are traffic laws on the books specifically making allowances for them by dictating how car drivers are to drive around them, how to pass them safely etc. etc.
You can expect the SDCs to likewise have compensating code to deal with hand-driven cars, and any other car failing to communicate in the right protocols.
Anybody who trusts a computer less than a human driver is vastly overestimating human drivers.
Humans are absolutely terrible at driving cars. Hell even really mediocre self driving cars would be safer than all but the very best of the best human drivers - and frankly I don't see self driving cars getting very popular in formula one circles - the ONLY circles containing drivers that even the worst possible viable SDCs won't outperform.
Actually - if you get your head out of your ass you would realize that is a nett INCREASE in freedom.
More people will be able to go more places more easily than now. Exactly because the freedom to use the road will not be limited to those who can drive and afford a car.
Indeed. What little you may gain from a VM you will likewise gain with windows around. I still keep an xp VM around for rare one in a million times I want to run a windows app and dont want to set up a whole install for it. For example I used it to get MGSO installed on morrowind but I actually play morrowind using openmw.
Fair point but not really relevant to GPs misinformed statements about wine. Personally I dont even use lbreoffice anymore. I do little that requires office software that browser apps more than suffice.
>Unless you are more than 100 years old, you have never lived during a time when there were no commercial airlines.
100 years is definitely "not that long ago". It is a merely 0.1% of RECORDED history, which is itself a mere 100th of a percent of the history of the human race, and that is still only about 1/4 of 1000th of a percent of the history of life.
Actually - your entire description of wine is several years out of date. Wine today, especially when combined with PlayOnLinux runs just about everything I throw at it not only well - but better than windows does.
I'm sure there are edge-case exceptions but they are extraordinarily rare these days. In fact, Wine is MORE compatible with pre-vista versions of windows than windows itself is (that is to say - there are more windows programs that run fully-supported under wine than there are older windows programs that work on newer versions of windows).
PlayOnLinux has had an automated install wizard for MS-Office for many years now. Zero effort required.
Indeed, but accidents do happen - and sometimes people just plain make mistakes. This is one reason why manual transmission cars still have parking brakes. Even on a flat surface it provides a level of redundancy in case you accidentally leave the car in neutral.
Good point actually.
Every major invention in human history appears to have been simultaneously and independently invented by at least 3 people at the same time. I personally maintain that invention is a natural consequence of the state of human knowledge at any given moment. Once the next step becomes possible - multiple people will take it.
Though I was not aware of the other claims to the compiler - their existence does not surprise me in the least.
> then not only would we never have invented compilers and programming languages
Except that this is not at all how we got compilers and programming languages. Hell cross-platform support was a benefit to these concepts that wasn't realized or deemed important until well into the second generation of compilers and languages. The original motivation was pure marketing. To get businesses to see the value of computers, they would need to be able to use those computers for their specific needs. There wasn't a huge stack of available generic software yet - nobody knew what an "office suite" may contain or even conceived of the concept. So how do you get businesses to want a computer ? By making it so the owner of the business can use it for whatever he specifically needs. To do that - you have to lower the barrier of entry for applications programming. The person who came up with a solution was Grace Hopper and she wrote the compiler. And no surprise the language she invented to compile with it was COBOL - a language designed so executives used to filling accounting and HR-style forms could write code in a familiar environment.
Most later programmers would hate COBOL but it survived for decades due to it's executive-friendly nature. It also proved that the concept of high-level programming worked, and that's when the hacker types started writing their own compilers for languages designed to fit their own needs better.
The idea of compilers as a way to avoid rewriting machine code over and over didn't truly hit home until 1969 when K&R invented a high-level language close enough to machine code to write operating systems in and used it to create the first Unix.
Your point is perfectly valid, don't get me wrong, but your choice of example was terrible. I agree that solving personal problems and making your own work-life easier is a hugely important source of ideas for what to code - it is also where by far the most rewarding and fun part of programming as a career happens. But the other side is paying the bills. Getting people to pay you means solving THEIR problems which they already identified and which may be something that YOU would never experience. That's often where the worst part of our job lies, it's often drudgery (not always - some clients/bosses will present you with truly interesting challenges but often). And compilers and programming languages were solidly born from the latter. Hopper's lifelong passion for computers led to many breakthroughs but she invented THOSE two to ensure that computers would survive post-war. They were created to turn war-machines into business-machines - to open up new markets so that the industry she loved to work in would thrive and people like her have would be able to get PAID for working with computers.
A better example of what you describe is actually Kernighan and Richie - but they came rather later.
The astonishing thing is that after 3 decades of stack-crashing causing more security bugs than any other type - there still isn't a native array/hash/list type added to C.
One can sanely argue that there are genuine cases where C's freedom to do almost anything is both needed and wanted - but how does that preclude giving sane, one-place-fixable standard data types for common tasks which you can deviate from only when you do, in fact, have to ?
Sure there are implementations of such in some libraries - but the moment you go there your programs portability and shippability is suddenly dependent on those of the library. This is the kind of functionality that ought to have been in ANSI-C decades ago so you could use it, and compile with any standards compliant compiler on any platform without fear.
>So you think that censorship is okay as long as you agree with it?
You're the only one who has promoted censorship. I was promoting NOBODY being censored.
Wallmart gets to promote and not promote whatever they want.
I get to say about that whatever I want.
Neither party is censored.
Indeed - neither party CAN ever censor anybody. Censorship can only be done by somebody with serious authority (like a government). Wallmart may choose to stock only clean albums - other retailers will still sell the rest. I may choose to complain -they can ignore me. Nobody in your scenario is prevented from expressing whatever they want so nobody is being censored.
Free speech is such a simple concept... it's amazing how many people always get it wrong.
No. How does my complaining restrict their rights ? Thats right ! It doesn't. I can only change their behavior with persuasion.
>Are you by any chance confusing ... sole proprietorships / partnerships / corporations?
There is no difference relevant to the topic at hand. If the sole propietorship was it's owner, then it's owner's assets would be at stake if it went bankrupt.
>When you want to control what a business does, you want to control what the people who ganged together to form it do
Nope. You're doubly-wrong. Firstly I never proposed controlling what a business does - I proposed restricting what it can do, there is an important difference. I'm not saying you can force a business to sell peanut butter. I'm just saying you CAN prevent it from discriminating based on sexual orientation.
Your other point however is even MORE wrong. It absolutely DOES mean that. The owner of the cakeshop has every right to retain her religion. She has every right to practise it. To believe gays are evil or whatever. I'm not in any way restricting that. Her business does NOT have that right but that does not in any way compel her to do anything.
If she personally has a problem with a gay marriage, the company has every right to hire a temporary employee to serve this particular customer. The business has to fulfil it's legal obligations.
In a corporation every one of the many people it has contracts with has the right to, in their own capacity (i.e. on time not covered by the contract) believe and act however they see fit as long as they don't interfere with anybody else's rights to do the same. But there's no reason the COMPANY should have that right.
If you oppose birth control, you have every right not to use it. But that's your ONLY right. Your company has no such right, and cannot impose your belief on people who work for it (since by definition it's about what they do outside work in their private lives). You are free to believe nobody's health insurance should pay for it. Your company is not free to refuse that.
And this is a much better example - because if we assume you ARE the business -then LOTS of people's personal freedoms are now dependent on YOUR whims. If you and the company are distinct, then you cannot use the company to enforce your whims on employees about matters unrelated to the business. Clearly and obviously the latter scenario is the one that maximizes freedom for the most people.
No it isn't and hasn't been for more than 200 years. That definition became invalid the day we passed the first limited liability law. If a business was a group of people then limited liability would be a travesty of justice that absolutely flies in the face of the principle of equal before the law.
Limited liability could only be made law in the free world by defining a business as NOT a group of people but a completely distinct legal entity which is not human but has contracts with a lot of people.
For some of them it's an employment contract, for others it's shareholding (which is a contract) but none of them are the business, nor are they collectively the business. Even if there's only one of them then he or she is STILL not the business. They are merely somebody who has a contract with the business that establishes ownership.
Hell if businesses were people shareholding would be slavery.
Businesses are not people and the very idea is fundamentally incompatible with every principle of a free and just society which is why the law does not and cannot define them as people.
Of course I can. I will defend their right to do so - but I will ALSO defend my right to complain if they do.
> Meanwhile the 1% view it as just another legal tool.
For the one percent it doesn't mean NEVER having a chance to stop being poor. It doesn't mean being excluded from ever having a better job, or ever owning a home. That's what it means if you're working class however.
Then it's not really a region of elected justices is it ? If actual elections basically never happen ?
Surely then you cannot take your region as representative of those where they are frequent events ?
No it isn't. Not even slightly. A business is a distinct legal person - that happens to have contracts with a group of people, it is not a human being nor is it a group of human beings.
Each of those individuals whom it has some sort of contract with (including the ones with whom that contract is "owns shares") are free to act as individuals on their own behalf - but when acting within the confines of the contract that lets them represent the business they only have the limited subset of freedoms that the business has.
If you're going to give an oversimplified argument to try and prove a point without thinking - at least get your facts straight. In no legal jurisdiction ever conceived has a business been a group of people. No law has ever seen it as such. Now you could lobby that the law SHOULD see it as such - no business would agree though, because if a business is a group of people then limited liability is a travesty of justice that completely conflicts with the principle of equality before the law.
The rights of free people can only exist if there are limits to them - otherwise NOBODY has freedom. And political correctness is merely the term people use for "respecting OTHER people's freedom" when they don't.
More importantly - none of your examples WERE individuals. Businesses are NOT individuals and don't HAVE the rights of free peoples. They have a limited subset there-off - in order to maximize the liberty of the people that subset should at all times be kept as minimal as possible, the bare minimum with which it is possible for a business to exist is the maximum freedom a business should have.
Businesses are not people - so they can't be free people, nor can they be non-free people. You can't intrude on the freedom of a business anymore than you can enslave a hammer, defraud a wall or discriminate against a cloud.
Yeah... i "patronize" people by saying "i made that mistake myself once and nothing but dumb luck gave me a better outcome". On the contrary my argument was "there but for the grace of god go I" - except that Im an atheist.
It is mathematically impossible for payday loans not to make things worse. Ergo they are fraudulent.
Even so, even if you persist in the insane belief that their business model is not to finance as protection rackets are to insurance it is not relevant. Nobody at all banned them. Nobody even proposed banning them. I never proposed banning them. I merely applauded somebody choosing not to advertise them.
Or do you think the pro life movement should be forced to hand out brochures for planned parenthood too ? I have a moral problem with their business. Moral problems however are very rarely appropriate to fix by legal means. Maybe this is one of those cases, probably not - I actually demand compelling evidence that the law is the only resort before supporting it. But I have the right to my moral belief, the right to agitate for said belief and the right to applaud when others agitate for it.
Gay cake bakery: civil rights act. The right not to be discriminated against is protected and your right to freedom of association cannot intrude on it. Neither does property rights apply in a business which serves the public. Refusing to serve a gay customer is no different from putting a whites-only sign in the window.
Companies however are not people, cannot be discriminated against and dont have civil liberties.
Citizens united extended a legal right that nobody should have at all. Bribery is not protected speech.