That's not very nice. Corporations are people, too, y'know?

That's not very nice. Corporations are people, too, y'know? — Luke

I laughed, but it was a morbid laughter.

They are tools. Not participants.

Nor should they be allowed to be a means to convert and amplify individual economic power into political power. — Frederick KOH

Preaching to the choir in my case. I expounded a bit here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/61466#Post_61466

They are tools. Not participants. — Frederick KOH

A corporation must be a tool, considering it cannot do anything without human activity. That's a given.

Nor should they be allowed to be a means to convert and amplify individual economic power into political power.

Why should people be limited in what tools they can use to raise money for individual use?

Preaching to the choir in my case. I expounded a bit here: — Benkei

If you can cite yourself, so can I. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/63098

What kind of corporations? That word covers quite a lot of entities. And why should we care if they deform democracy? The US is not and was never intended to be a democracy, for example.

That's not very nice. Corporations are people, too, y'know? — Luke

I suspect you don't know what you're talking about.

Beats quoting yourself verbatim or repeating yourself.

And in case you thought the constitution would protect you...

http://billmoyers.com/story/kochs-to-rewrite-constitution/

Baseless fear mongering.

Got a basis for that? Got some evidence to show that show the information is false? Or are you just vomiting?

Vomit is an apt description of that article. No evidence was given that the constitution would be abandoned, amended beyond recognition, or be made to no longer protect the rights enshrined within it, just conspiratorial insinuations to that effect (as usually happens when leftist media outlets talk about the benighted Koch brothers; just as right wing outlets tend to don tin foil hats when talking about George Soros).

Nor was it claimed. Merely, apropos the topic, that corporations deform democracy, in this case to the point of adjusting the constitution. However, since you mention it, the fact that a corporatist president is scornful of the judiciary, that the supreme court is rather being packed, and that there is one party extremely dominant might give cause for concern. I'm sure the constitution won't be abandoned, but it might well be amended to entrench power somewhat.

So you have no basis at all for your claim, I take it, apart from your own hyperbole.

Entrench power? The Republican party is dividing against itself. Paul Ryan is expected to try to find allies among Democrats.

The next Hitler is as likely to come from your country as mine.

The next Hitler is as likely to come from your country as mine. — Mongrel

Wouldn't argue with that. Nor that the Republican party is divided. But pointing out anti-democratic forces is not quite the same a s predicting the next Hitler. These things can be resisted, and even, perhaps especially, by republicans.

You're backpedaling on your own and the article's insinuations. What do you think the statements "in case you thought the constitution would protect you" or "Kochs to rewrite the constitution" mean and imply? Once you figure that out, compare it with the facts and you will see that both you and the article are the ones guilty of hyperbole.

Every turn in the river sure makes its on way down to the sea.

↪unenlightened You're backpedaling on your own and the article's insinuations. What do you think the statements "in case you thought the constitution would protect you" or "Kochs to rewrite the constitution" mean and imply? Once you figure that out, compare it with the facts and you will see that both you and the article are the ones guilty of hyperbole. — Thorongil

The Kochs are involved in a credible orchestrated move to change the constitution, which stands a pretty good chance of succeeding. Exactly how they or others will change it if it succeeds is unknown. So there is a base, unless you have credible evidence that disputes this for a legitimate concern that any changes will be in the interests of corporations and big business rather than the ordinary citizen.

It follows that those who may have thought that the constitution protected them from the excesses of corporate takeover of government have reason to be concerned. To the extent that corporations can rewrite the constitution to suit themselves, the constitution no longer affords protection to the ordinary citizen. My warning is both well based in fact and reason, and in no way 'mongered' since I have zero financial interest either way. I'm not back-pedalling, I'm calling you out for an unreasoning baseless propagandist, trying to blow smoke in the eyes of the readers.

I think the 'government is evil' meme, which is strongly associated with libertarian movements, like the Tea Party, and now the Heritage Foundation, is itself pretty evil. Why? Because government is at least answerable to the electorate whereas the boards of corporations are only answerable to shareholders, who by definition have a vested interest in profitability.

I think the line that 'government is evil' is very convenient for corporates who want to reduce tax and regulations that impede the pursuit of the holy dollar. And indeed the current presidency is slashing regulations, particularly environmental regulations, which are seen by the right as an 'anti-business green left conspiracy'.

So 'freedom' in this formulation is freedom for the powerful to make as much as possible unimpeded by regulation and unburdened with the requirement to support public benefits programs, like affordable care. It presents itself as a kind of rugged individualism but really that is just a nice PR face for plain old corporate greed and the top 1% gaining ever more power.

So - agree with OP.

Exactly how they or others will change it if it succeeds is unknown. — unenlightened

But it's not. They're explicit about the amendment they want to add. The article suggesting that, once a convention is convened, more amendments (read: "scary corporatist ones") will be added is pure fear mongering and baseless speculation.

I'm calling you out for an unreasoning baseless propagandist, trying to blow smoke in the eyes of the readers. — unenlightened

More pot calling the kettle black.

public benefits programs — Wayfarer

Which are bankrupting the country and don't result in what they purport to do; quite the opposite in fact: they lead to abuse and dependency.

like affordable care — Wayfarer

Which was a piece of legislation designed to benefit giant corporate interests and has been a miserable failure, with rates increasing (more irony).

Either more amendments can be added, or they cannot. I'm no expert in constitutional law, so you'll have to enlighten me. But if it is possible, it is worth worrying about, for lovers of the constitution as is. And even if it is not possible, the fact that corporate interests have a credible way to change the constitution at all is worth worrying about. And again, there is no speculation involved it is the case that corporate interests are trying to change the constitution. It is neither baseless nor speculative, it is happening, and no matter how many feeble denials and how much you bandy your 'baseless' accusation, you have provided not a single argument or refutation of anything that has been said. You are a vacuous bullshitter.

Which are bankrupting the country and don't result in what they purport to do; quite the opposite in fact: they lead to abuse and dependency. — Thorongil

The country was taken far closer to bankruptcy by W's budget mismanagement than by healthcare. If T has his way on further tax cuts the deficit will balloon even further. Affordable care has provided health insurance to more than 25 million people who previously didn't have it. The reason the GOP failed to overturn it, was because the country now realises that it's needed, and the Republicans didn't have any real plan to improve it. And that is a fact.

I'm the one asking for evidence of a corporate conspiracy, one that neither you nor the article have corroborated. You also assume that the Kochs's interest is that of "corporate interest" in general, which is apparently itself axiomatically bad in your view. It's not clear to me that it is. A balanced budget amendment and decreased federal power would in fact not be in the interest of giant corporations. See the recent bailout as evidence of that.

You are a vacuous bullshitter. — unenlightened

Why the continued insults? They're really not necessary.

The country was taken far closer to bankruptcy by W's budget mismanagement than by healthcare. — Wayfarer

Debatable, but I'm not an apologist for Bush's domestic overspending.

If T has his way on further tax cuts the deficit will balloon even further — Wayfarer

You don't know that, and I doubt you know how deficits are created.

I'm not an apologist for Bush's domestic overspending. — Thorongil

Why not? When I tackled you on Trump's obvious incompetence and possible malfeasance, you said 'oh I don't actually like Trump.' Yet you pop up on all these politics threads, singing from the right-wingers hymn sheets.

I doubt you know how deficits are created. — Thorongil

Why wouldn't I know 'how deficits are created'? I can read. It's simply an imbalance between expenditure and income. As the main raison d'etre of the Republican party is to cut taxes for the rich you can bet your boots that by the end of this term, the deficit will have grown enormously.

I am in sync with many of your comments on philosophical issues, but in political commentary, I agree with Un. The current administration in the US is indefensible on so many fronts, that I could never respect anyone who defends them, if I meet anyone in the real world who does, I simply walk away.

Either more amendments can be added, or they cannot. I'm no expert in constitutional law, so you'll have to enlighten me. — unenlightened

I could tell you, but then you've have to change your name.

(Y)

Why not? When I tackled you on Trump's obvious incompetence and possible malfeasance, you said 'oh I don't actually like Trump.' Yet you pop up on all these politics threads, singing from the right-wingers hymn sheets. — Wayfarer

Why do you assume that all conservatives must support everything a Republican does? Conservatism ≠ the Republican Party. What exactly do you think the "right-wing" is? There is a massive amount of intellectual diversity within the umbrella of "right wing politics." Either you don't know this or are attempting to straw-man the term.

I can read. — Wayfarer

So explain to me how tax revenues went up and not down after the Bush tax cuts, and how the budget deficit declined after them as well.

If corporate organization and action is indeed a main driver of overall human success, how badly would we be hamstringing their ability to exist and be efficient progressors of modern civilization if we ignore their "rights".... (Just to play Walmart's advocate)...

I'm reasonably conversant with American politics. There are US conservatives that I have respect for - the traditional conservatives who believe in hard work, individual effort, free enterprise, small government. I get all that. The problem is the right has been hijacked by ideologues (as has the left, in many ways). Breitbart, Steve K Bannon, Fox News, and many of the so-called 'conservative' media and outlets are a far cry from the true conservatives. Their a ratbag collection of conspiracy theorists who want to destroy government.

Incidentally, I want to say a few more words about healthcare in the US. I'm an Australian, but my son lives there, and furthermore I'm about to be a grandparent of a Yankee baby, so I'm a stakeholder.

The GOP campaign against the Affordable Health Care Act was always a disgraceful piece of scare-mongering founded entirely on the unwillingness of the wealthy to provide public benefits. Their attitude was, it's not 'the American way' to rely on the public purse for anything, so if you can't afford hospital treatment, or insurance, then basically that's your problem. The ACA was derided as 'socialised medicine' for that reason alone, and subjected to the most egregious campaigns of lies, obstructionism and distortion.

Nevertheless, the Democrats did get it working, and now it has become part of the landscape. And that is why the GOP couldn't overturn it. As soon as Trump said 'we'll make it even better', it was game over for the GOP, because they had neither the will nor the means. Ryan and his technocrats never had any intention of improving the healthcare system, all they wanted to do was destroy what they called 'socialised medicine'. But now Ryan has been exposed as the hollow man he always has been, whose sole rationale is to do the bidding of the corporate sector - cut taxes and cut public benefits. Talk about draining the swamp, Trump has actually re-stocked it with worse critters than ever.

tax revenues went up and not down after the Bush tax cuts, and how the budget deficit declined after them as well. — Thorongil

Incorrect. There is consensus that the Bush tax cuts, and the invasion of Iraq, contributed massively to US Government debt, which the Obama administration actually had started to succeed in turning around.
Here it is, in graphics.