Again, you completely misunderstand what "corporatism" means. Mussolini was not referring to corporations, he was referring to the corporate body of the nation.
It seems like the dominant trend in U.S. legislation is that if favors rich corporiations [sic] and individuals, at the cost of what seem like basic freedoms of common citizens.
This was a lawsuit between two competing corporations. The large and rich American corporation lost to the much smaller foreign corporation. How does this ruling favor rich corporations?
Have you heard of a little thing called the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution? Prior to its passage, each state could, and did, do exactly that: decide whether blacks were people worthy of respect or just chattel.
So yes, we needed a Constitutional Amendment to say people are people.
My apologies to those in this thread who are now losing the modpoints I'd given them, but I've seen this misconception spread too often and it has to be cleared up.
Fascism has nothing to do with the status of corporations or their perceived (or real) control over a nation. Fascism is a state-focused political system that places the interests of the state over those of any individuals or groups of individuals in the nation. Private property exists only so long as the state doesn't need it; contracts between individuals and the state can be rescinded or modified in the state's interests at any time; and there are no constitutional protections for due process of law or respecting the rights of individuals, since everyone lives and breathes only at the whim of state officials.
The confusion comes because fascism is a corporatist political and economic system. But "corporatist" has nothing to do with "corporations", they just share a common ethnological ancestor (Latin corpus). Corporatism focuses on the body of a political system, rather than its constituent parts. What you think of as "fascism" is properly labeled "corporatocracy".
From the Wikipedia article on corporatism:
Corporatism, also known as corporativism, is a system of economic, political, or social organization that views a community as a body based upon organic social solidarity and functional distinction and roles among individuals. The term corporatism is based on the Latin word "corpus" meaning "body". Formal corporatist models are based upon the contract of corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labor, military, patronage, scientific, or religious affiliations, into a collective body.
We are are entitled to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Even that kid with no insurance and who's parent's had AIDS and gave it to him. He's entitled to Life and that requires us as a society to lay out some cash.
You need to read up on the differences between positive rights and negative rights before spouting that kind of nonsense. Just because you have a right to have a life does not mean anyone else is compelled to provide you with one (except your parents when you're a child, perhaps).
Reread what I wrote. The general welfare clause has nothing to do with the states or the people. It has to do with managing the government of the United States, the Federal government. Those things that apply to individuals, even in the aggregate, refer to the people, not the United States.
You can't just make the Constitution say something it doesn't because you want it to. If these things are important to you, pass an Amendment to add that functionality. If enough people agree with you, it'll pass. The alternative is to let Congress pass whatever laws they want without regard to the Constitution. That's how we ended up with things like warrantless wiretaps, the PATRIOT Act, the TSA, this health care bill, Social Security, and all kinds of other things that have no Constitutional basis.
Either the govt is allowed to create laws for the benefit of it's populace or it's not.
Ooh, ooh, Mistah Cartah! I know this one! "It's not!"
The government has to play by the rules. It cannot go about, passing new laws just because it wants to. It has to have the authority to pass those laws in the first place. Otherwise, Congress could pass a law requiring you to burn a kitten every time you file your income tax.
So telling people to give to charities means you hate them? Believing that someone will go to hell unless they change their ways, and trying to get them to change their ways and save their souls, that means you hate them, too?
Sure, the tea party people claim they want it repealed, but it's going to be interesting to actually ask them 'So you want insurance companies to deny insurance to children with pre-existing conditions again?'.
I'm not a teapartier, but I'll answer that question: yes, children with preexisting medical conditions should be denied insurance. Insurance companies are not charities, they do not exist to support the indigent and the sick. They can only function if people pay premiums in before getting money back out.
As a parent, I would be heartbroken if my insurance denied a claim for my child due to it being "preexisting". But you know what? I knew that was a possibility and have never been without insurance coverage, of one sort or another, since before my children were born. I took responsibility for my life and theirs and made sure to have them protected. If some idiot lacks the foresight to do that, and their child suffers as a consequence, well, that's just not anyone's problem but theirs. Next time, exercise some responsibility for your own life and stop expecting others to fix all of your problems for you.
In the Constitution, there are three different groups that are referenced in different parts. The "United States", which refers to the government of the original 13 states acting in congress; the "states", the individual states themselves; and the "people", the individual citizens of the several states. "General welfare of the United States" refers to the upkeeping and maintenance of the former and has nothing to do with the last-named.
Well, at least one judge disagrees with your argument. But far be it from me to question the wisdom of other Slashdot posters. Surely you understand the issue far better than a Federal judge.
It looks more like the variant of ad hominem known as poisoning the well. Don't attack what the guy is doing now, but detail criticism of what he's done in the past that you disagree with. It's a pretty juvenile tactic, IMO.
And while I'm not saying the OP is a child molester or anything, you should keep in mind that it is pretty common for child molesters to poison wells during discourse. Just saying.
The oldest languages around the Persian Gulf are Semitic, so it's unlikely the forerunners of the Indo-Europeans lived in the hypothetical valley now sitting under the waves.
Consider a real-world example: a small publisher runs a newsletter out of an office in a mall. The newsletter publishes some leaked information from a government source, and later his landlord kicks him out and changes his locks. While the publisher pursues legal avenues to get the doors open again, his subscribers (and some of their friends) mount a protest at the mall, blocking the entrances and picketing for the landlord to reverse his decision.
In the real world, I would have a hard time feeling sympathy for the landlord, since he acted like a jerkass by closing up the newsletter. But blocking all of the entrances so that other stores (like Amazon's ZStores, which are run by mom-and-pop companies) lose business and customers can't get the purchases they want is just going to earn more enemies than friends. Letters to the editor, a peaceful protest (like forming Facebook groups and email chains), and boycotts would be much more effective than chaining yourself to the front doors.
Of course, acting like a civilized adult requires you to first be a civilized adult. Something that Anonymous/4chan just plain aren't.
I think the point was that being a negative person who only pokes holes in what others are trying to accomplish serves no purpose, while being optimistic means that, even if you can't achieve what you want right now, you can still work hard and do so later.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but that's not fascism, that's corporatocracy.
many key oil exporters are avowed or tacit opponents of the US.
Considering we get about 50% of our oil from Canada, I'd say you were absolutely correct!
Again, you completely misunderstand what "corporatism" means. Mussolini was not referring to corporations, he was referring to the corporate body of the nation.
It seems like the dominant trend in U.S. legislation is that if favors rich corporiations [sic] and individuals, at the cost of what seem like basic freedoms of common citizens.
This was a lawsuit between two competing corporations. The large and rich American corporation lost to the much smaller foreign corporation. How does this ruling favor rich corporations?
Have you heard of a little thing called the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution? Prior to its passage, each state could, and did, do exactly that: decide whether blacks were people worthy of respect or just chattel.
So yes, we needed a Constitutional Amendment to say people are people.
My apologies to those in this thread who are now losing the modpoints I'd given them, but I've seen this misconception spread too often and it has to be cleared up.
Fascism has nothing to do with the status of corporations or their perceived (or real) control over a nation. Fascism is a state-focused political system that places the interests of the state over those of any individuals or groups of individuals in the nation. Private property exists only so long as the state doesn't need it; contracts between individuals and the state can be rescinded or modified in the state's interests at any time; and there are no constitutional protections for due process of law or respecting the rights of individuals, since everyone lives and breathes only at the whim of state officials.
The confusion comes because fascism is a corporatist political and economic system. But "corporatist" has nothing to do with "corporations", they just share a common ethnological ancestor (Latin corpus). Corporatism focuses on the body of a political system, rather than its constituent parts. What you think of as "fascism" is properly labeled "corporatocracy".
From the Wikipedia article on corporatism:
Corporatism, also known as corporativism, is a system of economic, political, or social organization that views a community as a body based upon organic social solidarity and functional distinction and roles among individuals. The term corporatism is based on the Latin word "corpus" meaning "body". Formal corporatist models are based upon the contract of corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labor, military, patronage, scientific, or religious affiliations, into a collective body.
We are are entitled to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Even that kid with no insurance and who's parent's had AIDS and gave it to him. He's entitled to Life and that requires us as a society to lay out some cash.
You need to read up on the differences between positive rights and negative rights before spouting that kind of nonsense. Just because you have a right to have a life does not mean anyone else is compelled to provide you with one (except your parents when you're a child, perhaps).
Reread what I wrote. The general welfare clause has nothing to do with the states or the people. It has to do with managing the government of the United States, the Federal government. Those things that apply to individuals, even in the aggregate, refer to the people, not the United States.
You can't just make the Constitution say something it doesn't because you want it to. If these things are important to you, pass an Amendment to add that functionality. If enough people agree with you, it'll pass. The alternative is to let Congress pass whatever laws they want without regard to the Constitution. That's how we ended up with things like warrantless wiretaps, the PATRIOT Act, the TSA, this health care bill, Social Security, and all kinds of other things that have no Constitutional basis.
Fair enough.
Either the govt is allowed to create laws for the benefit of it's populace or it's not.
Ooh, ooh, Mistah Cartah! I know this one! "It's not!"
The government has to play by the rules. It cannot go about, passing new laws just because it wants to. It has to have the authority to pass those laws in the first place. Otherwise, Congress could pass a law requiring you to burn a kitten every time you file your income tax.
So telling people to give to charities means you hate them? Believing that someone will go to hell unless they change their ways, and trying to get them to change their ways and save their souls, that means you hate them, too?
Sure, the tea party people claim they want it repealed, but it's going to be interesting to actually ask them 'So you want insurance companies to deny insurance to children with pre-existing conditions again?'.
I'm not a teapartier, but I'll answer that question: yes, children with preexisting medical conditions should be denied insurance. Insurance companies are not charities, they do not exist to support the indigent and the sick. They can only function if people pay premiums in before getting money back out.
As a parent, I would be heartbroken if my insurance denied a claim for my child due to it being "preexisting". But you know what? I knew that was a possibility and have never been without insurance coverage, of one sort or another, since before my children were born. I took responsibility for my life and theirs and made sure to have them protected. If some idiot lacks the foresight to do that, and their child suffers as a consequence, well, that's just not anyone's problem but theirs. Next time, exercise some responsibility for your own life and stop expecting others to fix all of your problems for you.
You do realize there is no severability clause in that part of the law, right? So if it gets tossed the whole thing gets tossed.
Still laughing?
In the Constitution, there are three different groups that are referenced in different parts. The "United States", which refers to the government of the original 13 states acting in congress; the "states", the individual states themselves; and the "people", the individual citizens of the several states. "General welfare of the United States" refers to the upkeeping and maintenance of the former and has nothing to do with the last-named.
Plus this is indeed a tax.
Really? Because the authors of the bill, including the President and Speaker of the House, all insisted it was not a tax.
One of the regulars on Hit&Run (Reason Magazine's blog, http://reason.com/blog).
Well, at least one judge disagrees with your argument. But far be it from me to question the wisdom of other Slashdot posters. Surely you understand the issue far better than a Federal judge.
You mean like buying the product (service really) of federal law enforcement?
Federal law enforcement is not run by private, for-profit companies. Try again.
1) The power to tax is there to pay the government's bills and provide for the general welfare of the nation, not its citizens.
2) The OP specifically exempted taxes, which your clause covers.
So again, point out something in the Constitution that allows the Feds to force citizens to buy something, other than paying taxes.
It looks more like the variant of ad hominem known as poisoning the well. Don't attack what the guy is doing now, but detail criticism of what he's done in the past that you disagree with. It's a pretty juvenile tactic, IMO.
And while I'm not saying the OP is a child molester or anything, you should keep in mind that it is pretty common for child molesters to poison wells during discourse. Just saying.
I stand corrected, I thought Sumerian and Elamite were Semitic.
Still, none of them were Indo-European so my conclusion still stands.
The oldest languages around the Persian Gulf are Semitic, so it's unlikely the forerunners of the Indo-Europeans lived in the hypothetical valley now sitting under the waves.
You know what doesn't rust? Gold. It was always a good idea to have a gold dagger on hand when playing with a certain DM.
Consider a real-world example: a small publisher runs a newsletter out of an office in a mall. The newsletter publishes some leaked information from a government source, and later his landlord kicks him out and changes his locks. While the publisher pursues legal avenues to get the doors open again, his subscribers (and some of their friends) mount a protest at the mall, blocking the entrances and picketing for the landlord to reverse his decision.
In the real world, I would have a hard time feeling sympathy for the landlord, since he acted like a jerkass by closing up the newsletter. But blocking all of the entrances so that other stores (like Amazon's ZStores, which are run by mom-and-pop companies) lose business and customers can't get the purchases they want is just going to earn more enemies than friends. Letters to the editor, a peaceful protest (like forming Facebook groups and email chains), and boycotts would be much more effective than chaining yourself to the front doors.
Of course, acting like a civilized adult requires you to first be a civilized adult. Something that Anonymous/4chan just plain aren't.
I think the point was that being a negative person who only pokes holes in what others are trying to accomplish serves no purpose, while being optimistic means that, even if you can't achieve what you want right now, you can still work hard and do so later.