Naw dude, you're making a gross mischaracterization.
The vast majority believe corporations have no natural rights and ought have rather fewer legal rights than they currently enjoy. This is quite different from believing "yay, let's censor everything!"
I understand you feel that restriction of corporate rights may lead, as a second or third order effect, to restriction of traditional capitalist modes of news publishing. We can even put aside the question of whether this type of publishing organization, systemically biased towards the interests of big money as it is, operates more as a propaganda organ for those interests than as a news outlet.
What I hope you will see is that there is no direct, obvious, and inevitable connection between the policy of reducing corporate rights and the outcome of (more) censored news reporting. You may sincerely believe in your model that predicts that outcome; but the majority do not share that belief. In fact many people see excessive corporate rights creating an economic and social environment in which the average person enjoys less, not more, freedom.
Now you're quite right to point out that under our current form of financialist totalitarianism, individual people have only those legal rights for which they can afford to sue in Federal kangaroo court. Which is to say, working people have no rights. Imho this is a very strong argument for reform of the judicial system.
However I don't see how "it's a great idea give corporations the same (or more!) legal rights as human beings" follows from either a critique of totalitarian financialism, or from a desire to reform the laws and courts. Your argument is a non sequitur.
There are lots and lots of us big city people who prefer Trump over the establishment. You know that he made his name as a New York real estate developer, right? Whatever else be might be, Trump is a city boy.
PS: fuck the suburbs and the know-nothing self satisfaction they seem to engender.
Complete offshoring has a reputationâ for miserable failure.
But hey, if they want to brazenly fuck over their countrymen for a buck, why not just nationalize their sorry excuse for a company? Of course the erstwhile owners of these companies will be free to go to India and start a new company there. Under Indian laws and regulations. And without the capital they stole from American workers.
So they're plotting some type of coup? Just as you say, they better hope they succeed.
Of course, a judicial coup might well lead to a military or poplar counter-coup. Any of you who think a civil war would be just a swell idea ought to read Bao Ninh's fine book "The Sorrow of War". We *really* don't want a civil war in America.
Maybe you baizou could just try accepting democracy for a while?
Nice disaster porn wet dream, broham. But ya know... the kind of guy who would actually become a despot in a failed state is likely neither anonymous nor cowardly. Just sayin'...
Oh c'mon, you know that's a bullshit misdirection. No one is proposing to strip any human person of his rights as an individual.
But an overwhelming majority of people believe companies - as collective entities - have no natural rights, and ought have a severely restricted set of legal rights. I take it you disagree?
Does anyone know if AWS practices the Agile Scum micromanagement methodology? I doubt it, since they seem competent and their software actually works right. But it would be nice to know for sure. And if not Agile Scum, what development methodology do they use?
At the moment I'm lucky enough I don't have to drive a car. =). But I'm not sure I understand your point. Yes, fossil burning cars cause pollution. Yes, our society should try to get off fossil fuels ASAP. I guess that means we agree, AC?
Soon we'll all be destitute and precariously housed. Cool, right? Now if only we could turn it up a little a more and get some mass starvation. The "free" market demands it!
It doesn't matter whether anthropogenic climate change alarmism turns out to be valid or just a false alarm. Either way, nasty filthy POLLUTION from coal power plants sucks massive goat balls. I grew up near a ("modern", "clean") coal power station. It was still dirty as fuck.
You don't need to be a trendy baizou shrieking about how the sky is falling, to be an environmentalist. Pollution sucks, it's that simple. As some religious folks like to say, it is proper for man to be a steward of the earth, not an exploiter.
Does that mean we can turn off all the coal plants tomorrow? Not realistically. But does it mean we should be moving as fast as possible to clean renewable energy? Damned straight it does.
Clinton brought us NAFTA. Remember, the "giant sucking sound" as what little remained of American heavy industry was literally packed up and shipped to low wage countries.
Pardon me, brother, can you spare a couple hundred million dollars? I need to change some badlaws, but it seems I've lost my wallet and can't afford to buy even one congressman, much less a judge.
Why do you want to use the violent coercive power of the state to enforce one-sided contacts that are detrimental both to the worker getting screwed over and to society as a whole?
Contract fetishizing Libertarianism is laughably hypocritical. It's impossible without a strong, central, authoritarian state.
Slashdot Mirror
Naw dude, you're making a gross mischaracterization.
The vast majority believe corporations have no natural rights and ought have rather fewer legal rights than they currently enjoy. This is quite different from believing "yay, let's censor everything!"
I understand you feel that restriction of corporate rights may lead, as a second or third order effect, to restriction of traditional capitalist modes of news publishing. We can even put aside the question of whether this type of publishing organization, systemically biased towards the interests of big money as it is, operates more as a propaganda organ for those interests than as a news outlet.
What I hope you will see is that there is no direct, obvious, and inevitable connection between the policy of reducing corporate rights and the outcome of (more) censored news reporting. You may sincerely believe in your model that predicts that outcome; but the majority do not share that belief. In fact many people see excessive corporate rights creating an economic and social environment in which the average person enjoys less, not more, freedom.
Now you're quite right to point out that under our current form of financialist totalitarianism, individual people have only those legal rights for which they can afford to sue in Federal kangaroo court. Which is to say, working people have no rights. Imho this is a very strong argument for reform of the judicial system.
However I don't see how "it's a great idea give corporations the same (or more!) legal rights as human beings" follows from either a critique of totalitarian financialism, or from a desire to reform the laws and courts. Your argument is a non sequitur.
Duuuuuude, muh FACTS! The New York Izvestia and the Washington Pravda said it's true, so I know it's a FACT!
There are lots and lots of us big city people who prefer Trump over the establishment. You know that he made his name as a New York real estate developer, right? Whatever else be might be, Trump is a city boy.
PS: fuck the suburbs and the know-nothing self satisfaction they seem to engender.
Baizou fact #356: horribly overpaid, subhuman cockroaches built the internet.
Complete offshoring has a reputationâ for miserable failure.
But hey, if they want to brazenly fuck over their countrymen for a buck, why not just nationalize their sorry excuse for a company? Of course the erstwhile owners of these companies will be free to go to India and start a new company there. Under Indian laws and regulations. And without the capital they stole from American workers.
So they're plotting some type of coup? Just as you say, they better hope they succeed.
Of course, a judicial coup might well lead to a military or poplar counter-coup. Any of you who think a civil war would be just a swell idea ought to read Bao Ninh's fine book "The Sorrow of War". We *really* don't want a civil war in America.
Maybe you baizou could just try accepting democracy for a while?
Nice disaster porn wet dream, broham. But ya know... the kind of guy who would actually become a despot in a failed state is likely neither anonymous nor cowardly. Just sayin'...
Oh c'mon, you know that's a bullshit misdirection. No one is proposing to strip any human person of his rights as an individual.
But an overwhelming majority of people believe companies - as collective entities - have no natural rights, and ought have a severely restricted set of legal rights. I take it you disagree?
Sounds like only paid protest is lawful protest
Companies have rights too! Who will think of the companies?
Does anyone know if AWS practices the Agile Scum micromanagement methodology? I doubt it, since they seem competent and their software actually works right. But it would be nice to know for sure. And if not Agile Scum, what development methodology do they use?
Truly it's delightful to watch the filthy baizou eat one another alive.
Hey broham - did you stop raping goats yet?
Thank you, Professor Pedant, for your enlightening wisdom.
Yup. No disagreement.
At the moment I'm lucky enough I don't have to drive a car. =). But I'm not sure I understand your point. Yes, fossil burning cars cause pollution. Yes, our society should try to get off fossil fuels ASAP. I guess that means we agree, AC?
Soon we'll all be destitute and precariously housed. Cool, right? Now if only we could turn it up a little a more and get some mass starvation. The "free" market demands it!
It doesn't matter whether anthropogenic climate change alarmism turns out to be valid or just a false alarm. Either way, nasty filthy POLLUTION from coal power plants sucks massive goat balls. I grew up near a ("modern", "clean") coal power station. It was still dirty as fuck. You don't need to be a trendy baizou shrieking about how the sky is falling, to be an environmentalist. Pollution sucks, it's that simple. As some religious folks like to say, it is proper for man to be a steward of the earth, not an exploiter. Does that mean we can turn off all the coal plants tomorrow? Not realistically. But does it mean we should be moving as fast as possible to clean renewable energy? Damned straight it does.
What are you smokin', broham?
I think he was just trying to make a point that, to be successful, the struggle of workers against capitalist exploitation must be international.
Clinton brought us NAFTA. Remember, the "giant sucking sound" as what little remained of American heavy industry was literally packed up and shipped to low wage countries.
Pardon me, brother, can you spare a couple hundred million dollars? I need to change some badlaws, but it seems I've lost my wallet and can't afford to buy even one congressman, much less a judge.
There's nothing remotely surprising about anti-leftwing communists. Maybe you should read some Lenin: https://archive.org/details/Le...
Why do you want to use the violent coercive power of the state to enforce one-sided contacts that are detrimental both to the worker getting screwed over and to society as a whole? Contract fetishizing Libertarianism is laughably hypocritical. It's impossible without a strong, central, authoritarian state.
The word for this is "proletarianization". It's a new phenomenon for our industry, but far from new historically.