Third Party & Independents Archives

Not Just Any 3rd Party

I recall little mention of 3rd parties in 08, beyond WB’s middle column. This election cycle 3rd party noise is definitely increased. One has to believe that as the economy worsens or drags on for a decade or so, people will begin to look favorable at 3rd party efforts.

A fairly new third party is the http://www.votecitizens.org/
Citizens Party, formerly the New American Independent Party. And, of late, Tom Friedman is involved in a new 3rd party, which supposedly isn't a 3rd party, but an alternative way of getting third party candidates put on ballots around the country.

On alternative voting: http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/03/thomas-friedman-calls-for-a-moderate-third-party-and-instant-runoff-voting-in-so-many-words/

http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/13/americans-elect/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/two-parties-no-solutions_b_966637.html

The cross to bear for 3rd parties remains the same; 3rd party votes are never enough to win but tend to take away votes from either the dems or reps. Or, a 3rd party candidate might win but be powerless in a room full of demreps. Under those conditions it is assumed we should always vote for the lesser of two evils and the truth be damned.

I'm not in favor of any 3rd parties on the books at the moment. I hope none are successful. IMO, voting in 'just another 3rd party' is a total waste of money, time and effort. Which is why I blog in advocating a 3rd party designed for the 21st century. It's that Einstein thing, 'doing the same thing over and over'. . .

Readers, let's not allow a 3rd party to the forefront unless it is established in ironclad rules that makes it impervious to the money influence, from beginning to end. Let's make sure party members can act as oversight for their party officials and elected officials/incumbents. To wit: if an incumbent fails to pursue the party agenda then that incumbent is subject to rules whereby they may be voted up/down and failing a favorable vote, can be rejected from the party. Try to imagine the dialog this would create between candidates/incumbents and their constituency/members. Wouldn't be enuff bandwidth in the light spectrum to handle the commo for that. See www.republicsentry.com as an example for such a party.

Otherwise, we have the corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by Roy Ellis at September 16, 2011 10:09 PM
Comments
Comment #329398

We can change our rules — without changing Constitution:

* National Popular Vote for president (nationalpopularvote.com)
* Ranked choice voting when electing one person (instantrunoff.com)
* Proportional voting for legislatures (FairVote.org)

We own our country. Let’s make it work for voter choice, full debate and fair representation.

Posted by: Rob Richie at September 17, 2011 10:00 AM
Comment #329399


Rob Richie, the Republic Sentry Party agenda calls for legislation to enact the following:

Legislate to shorten the election period to six months preceding the election.

Legislate to restore voting rights to those who have completed incarceration.

Legislate to declare that Election Day is now a National Holiday.

Legislate to effect same day primaries be held by political parties.

Legislate to modify the Electoral College to produce a one person, one vote effect in the general election.

However, the position now is to not support a popular voting system. We believe the balance between ‘the Republic’ and ‘democracy’, as established by the Founders needs to be retained. The trend is toward ‘too much democracy’, IMO.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the entire United States.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/8721-popular-vote-project-is-against-spirit-letter-of-constitution

The ever wise Founder’s set up the system we have to protect the “””REPUBLIC””” and give disproportionate clout to small states. Understandable that California would want a ‘more democratic’ system given their large population.

http://www.jbs.org/news/national-popular-vote-would-end-states-role-in-elections-for-president

Instant runoff is yet another good example of the fact that we have ‘too much democracy’.

http://irvbad4nc.blogspot.com/

http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/3rdparty.html

A third party will definitely be required relative to amending the Constitution for such issues as Corporate Personhood and Money Is Free Speech.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 17, 2011 12:17 PM
Comment #329408


If we more than quadrupled the number of Congressional representatives to 2000, each would be representing approximately 155,000 people.

Posted by: jlw at September 17, 2011 3:45 PM
Comment #329410

jlw, it sure is a lot easier to represent a couple of thousand companies, especially when they will fly/boat you away to foreign places.

How about a cspan channel for each state? A national channel might be adequate. Republic Sentry proposes a broadband media capability for party communications.

Looking back at the 17th, I’m coming of the opinion that we were better off under state legislature elections for Senators. As it is the federal gov’t tends to run over the states, carrot and the stick ventures, etc. It is a hard one as there were many problems with legislative appointments.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 17, 2011 4:40 PM
Comment #329423

Roy politicians appointing politicians to the Senate? Didn’t work then what makes you think it will work now?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 18, 2011 8:25 AM
Comment #329428

A 3rd party almost always rises up when there is enough dissatisfaction with the two main parties.
And the motivation for that happening is the growing pain and misery from these abuses and problems growing in number and severity, and too

YEAR: PARTY; CANDIDATE; VOTE%; ELECTORAL VOTES; OUTCOME in Next Election:

  • 1832: Anti-Masonic; William Wirt; 7.8%; EV:7; Endorsed Whig Candidate;
  • 1848: Free Soil; Martin Van Buren; 10.1%; EV:0; 5% of the vote; absorbed by Republican Party;
  • 1856: Whig-America; Millard Fillmore; 21.5%; EV:8; Dissolved;
  • 1860: Southern Democrat; John C. Breckinridge; 18.1%; EV:72; Dissolved;
  • 1860: Constitutional Union; John Bell; 12.6%; EV:39; Dissolved;
  • 1892: Populist; James B. Weaver; 8.5%; EV:22; Absorbed by Democratic Party;
  • 1912: Progressive; Teddy Roosevelt; 27.5%; EV:88; Returned to Republican Party;
  • 1912: Socialist; Eugene V. Debb; 6.0%; EV:0; Won 3% of the vote;
  • 1924: Progressive; Robert M. LaFollette; 16.6%; EV:13; Returned to Republican Party;
  • 1948: States’ Rights; Strom Thurmond; 2.4%; EV:39; Dissolved;
  • 1948: Progressive; Henry Wallace; 2.4%; EV:0; Won 1.4% of the vote;
  • 1968: American Independen; George Wallace; 13.5%; EV:46; Won 1.4% of the vote;
  • 1980: Independent; John Anderson; 6.6%; EV:0; Dissolved;
  • 1992: Reform; H. Ross Perot; 18.9%; EV:0; Won 8.4% of the vote;
  • 1996: Reform; H. Ross Perot; 8.4%; EV:0; Did not run;
  • 2000: Reform; Ralph Nader; 2.7%; EV:0; Ran Next election;
  • 2004: Green; Ralph Nader; 1%; EV:0; Ran Next election;
  • 2008: Green; Ralph Nader; 1%; EV:0; Ran Next election;
  • 2012: ?

Power corrupts, and when government is FOR-SALE, it is rotten to the core.

Except for the equally destructive extremes of the two main parties, there really aren’t any significant differences.

But the majority of voters pretty much have what they deserve.
The majority of voters are culpable too, when re-election rates are so high (though falling about 10% in the last election):

  • Start _ End _ Congress _ Re-Election Rate
  • Year __ Year __ # ______ Rate
  • 1927 __ 1929 __ 070st __ 83.6% (87 incumbents ousted)
  • 1929 __ 1931 __ 071st __ 79.7% (108 incumbents ousted)
  • 1931 __ 1933 __ 072nd __ 76.8% (123 incumbents ousted)
  • 1933 __ 1935 __ 073rd __ 61.2% (206 of 531 incumbents ousted; 59 Dems, 147 Repubs)
  • … … … … … … . .
  • 1989 __ 1991 __ 101st __ 90.1%
  • 1991 __ 1993 __ 102nd __ 87.7%
  • 1993 __ 1995 __ 103rd __ 73.5% (142 of 535 incumbents ousted)
  • 1995 __ 1997 __ 104th __ 79.8%
  • 1997 __ 1999 __ 105th __ 77.4%
  • 1999 __ 2001 __ 106th __ 89.2%
  • 2001 __ 2003 __ 107th __ 89.2%
  • 2003 __ 2005 __ 108th __ 87.9% (65 of 535 voted out/replaced)
  • 2005 __ 2007 __ 109th __ 88.6% (61 of 535 voted out/replaced)
  • 2007 __ 2009 __ 110th __ 84.9% (81 of 535 incumbents voted out/replaced)
  • 2009 __ 2011 __ 111th __ 86.9% (70 of 535 voted out/replaced)
  • 2011 __ 2013 __ 112th __ 77.0% (123 of 535 voted out/replaced)
  • 2013 __ 2015 __ 113th __ ??.?% (??? ousted perhaps?)

Pain and misery is causing the falling re-election rates.
However, too many voters still fail to hold THEIR incumbent politicians accountable.
And when enough voters do finally get it, they will have waited too long (again) to avoid many more years of more pain and misery.
For example:

  • 40%-to-50% of voters don’t bother to vote at all;
  • Too many voters blindly pull the party-lever, without knowing the candidates on the voting ballot, because too many voters do not even know who are their senators and representatives much less the candidates’ voting records. An uninformed vote is possibly worse than not voting at all;
  • Too many voters prefer to wallow in the distracting partisan warfare, blame game, which many politicians love to fuel the partisan warfare;
  • Too many voters are complacent, apathetic, lazy, and/or ignorant of the issues and their politicians’ voting records;
  • Too many voters underestimate the power of their vote, and have resigned to what is perceived as futility;
  • Too many voters are too easily bribed with promises to receive back some of their tax dollars; however, most (if not all) of those systems are pilfered, wasteful, costly, and essentially fraudulent;
  • Too many voters fail to see how the two main parties never offer challengers from the same party, and since most voters refuse to vote for the OTHER party, they vote for the incumbent, which is one of the contributing reasons why re-election rates for incumbents are so high;

The federal government is out of control, severely bloated, wasteful, corrupt, and essentially fiscally and morally bankrupt.
When will it end?
Fortunately, there is a potential self-correction mechanism: pain and misery
Pain and misery are the logical consequences of too many years of rampant greed and selfishness.
And the majority of voters actually only have themselves to thank for it, because they under-estimated human greed and selfishness, and are too easily bribed with promises of receiving back some of their own tax dollars.

The majority of voters could do something about it.
A PARTY is not even required.
Simply stop repeat offenders!
Don’t re-elect them!

Or, keep insanely doing the same thing while expecting a different result?

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 18, 2011 2:31 PM
Comment #329438

Good post, d.a.n. I’m sure most agree that our voting habits have allowed the politicians the resilience and time to ‘incorporate’ themselves in a legislative seat. Time for congress to establish a pecking order whereby the power resides with a handful of reps. Consider your 1st term rep up against folks that have been in office for 30 years. Not what the Founder’s intended. Not what democracy calls for either. ‘One person, one vote’ doesn’t ring true in today’s congress.

We need only peruse a daily rag to realize where our inaction and silence has taken us.
$20B recovery act dollars led to 3500 jobs created or, $5M/job.

Preference in college entrance for black/hispanic over white/asian with same SAT: 576:1

Solyndra getting a loan redo putting the gov’t (taxpayer) $$ at risk over private investments shortly before declaring bankruptcy.

Just a little more tautology relative to the vocal (wealthy) minority in control of the really really silent (busted) majority.

GE’s Imelt and the US Jobs Czar today suggested that the US can create some at $18-20/hr. This while GM’s entry level is $14-16/hr and GM is looking for ‘creative’ ways to cut labor costs which are higher than non-union US plants. That’s about $30K/yr and the poverty line is $22.3K, set back in the 60’s.

$4B IRS refunds to immigrants who pay no taxes but file a 1040 using an ‘independent worker’tax ID’ card. Check child credit for $1K/child refund.

Must be 100 different ways for foreign workers to take up root in the US. 50% walk in and 40% fly in. 26 different types of worker visas. We take them as they come, druggies, criminals, weirdos, would be terrorists, etc. Wealthy ladies fly in for a month stay at the ‘baby motel’ have their baby, now a US citizen, shop at Gucci’s and fly home. If there are 25M unemployed and 25M illegals, that is 50M folks needing gov’t support. Well, 46.2M in poverty by gov’t measure.

It’s just a win, win, win, for the Corpocracy in working to break the back of the middle class worker.

Our economy is at a critical point. Couple of PIIGS fall down and we are toast.

Silence is golden, up with globalisation and all that.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 18, 2011 7:28 PM
Comment #329555

http://idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=82835

IMO, the only way President Obama could be re-elected is if Ex-President Bush was selected as his running mate/VP. Don’t know if that would be legal under IMF/WTO regulations but, worth considering.

Virginia seems to be giving up on the federal gov’t and is looking into toll roading I95 and I81. I recall posting last year about some Midwest Interstates that were sold to foreign firms to operate as toll roads.

I had heard that a million dollars would buy you citizenship but had no particulars until today. The Washington Post relates that Casino developers in Md. are offering citizenship on the cheap, If a well heeled foreigner will Invest 500k in Casino development they will receive a green card and move to the front of the line re citizenship. Called the EB-5 visa program, I guess there is a 6 and 7 and so on, has existed for two decades and has been used to fund assisted living centers, amusement parks, dairy farms, etc. One lady said she was worried about the future for her son, now in second grade, because of a number of food safety scandals in China. Another lady wants her son to go to postgrad schools at USC where tuition would be a 3rd cheaper if her son had a green card. “it’s a good deal for us to spend that amount of money and get three green cards”, she said.

You gotta like this Corpocracy. Everything is for sell except the squeal.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 20, 2011 5:10 PM
Comment #329604

Roy
As long as the Obama keeps promising “freebies” and falsely claiming the rich don’t pay as much in taxes as Joe Sixpack, he will win.

And any third party that does not do the same, does not have a chance in hell of winning.

Posted by: kctim at September 21, 2011 4:20 PM
Comment #329617

Kctim, reports are that the President has lost much of his base and the Flordia Hispanic bloc. The WaPo relates that the GOP is gerrymandering like crazi which will influence the electoral college vote while the Dem’s are pushing for a direct-majority vote system to replace the electoral college. Recall that Al Gore received half a million more popular votes than Bush but Bush won the electoral college vote. Likely ‘the fix’ will be more in for the GOP.

If one is primarily interested in AIDS or religion they may have a stake in partisanship or party politics. I see nothing to be gained regardless of which party wins. Duopoly equals Corpocracy, IMO. Globalisation being the mantra for the corpocracy, we will be drug down that road, wherever it leads.

IMO, the road leads to New World Order, one currency, balanced wages around the world, etc. The IMF has forecast 1-2% or less growth for the U.S. and China, 9-9.5% for the next couple of years. Question is how long will it take to balance out world economies. Greece is set to pick up $11B in the next round of bailouts, 18% or so coming from US taxpayers. As an aside, I see where the U.S. has backed down on rearming Taiwan with modern fighter aircraft but is willing to provide engines and parts to keep the old F-5’s humping along. Also note the interest China draws from owning our debt pays for 80% of their military effort. Meanwhile, the U.S. is reducing ships, planes, missiles. Balancing out military power as well as economical power.

This is the track the corpocracy is on. If there was an interest In protecting U.S. sovereignty and the taxpayer/voter the duopoly would be enacting policy like a VAT for import/export which would bring near balance to the China trade deficit; a flat income tax with no deductions to boost revenue on a fair basis, no winners/losers. Straight talk with China on currency manipulation, etc.

But, ain’t happening, taking the globalised economy path. Reflected in GM workers starting wages at $14-16/hr. A 1970 dollar now worth a dime. A 1992 Centel phone bill at $5/mo is, a decade later, on the order of $30/mo.

Interest on the national debt is $1B/daily and the debt is growing by $6B/daily. That’s near $2.6T yearly just to tread water and the corpocracy wants to ‘lower the deficit’ by $4T over 10 years?????

http://one-simple-idea.com/DebtAndMoney.htm

Think New World Order, One World Currency and so on …

I agree, kctim, that ‘any’ 3rd party would have to follow suit with the duopoly. But, we don’t ever want just any 3rd party to ever see the light of day. We need a 3rd party with a diff pol — - - -, founded in rules to prevent co-option by the money influence, incumbent oversight by the party membership, etc. We need a grassroots, bottom up, party designed for 21st century politics. See www.republicsentry.com

Maybe some need a little more tautology to get it. From today’s Washington Post headlined “donor Is Accused of Funneling Cash to Senator’s Campaign.”

Gist: Jian-Yun “John” Dong has been accused of stealing more than $3.6M in fed grant money and illegally funneling foreign cast to Sen. Lindsay Graham’s campaign. Accused of fraud, making illegal campaign contribs, and dozens of other crimes by federals. His wife is facing some charges as well.

Relation between Dong and Graham included a $20M federal earmark champione by Graham for Dong’s biotech company, GenPhar. Employees rank among top donors to Graham’s campaign fund. At least $31K came from an unknown foreigner. Dong and wife arranged for donations thru pac’s and Graham’s main campaign fund, some from relatives and employees, some through their daughter. Dong sent an email to the foreign national stating that the contributions had helped the company win federal funding. “This is your money at work” Dong allegedly wrote in an email six days after GenPhar receiving $1.1M in federal funding. With Graham’s help GenPhar received $19.6M in fed grants between 04 and 10. In one example Graham requested a $5M earmark for GenPhar, resulting in a $1.3M award at that time. Dong accused of using false timesheets, bogus paperwork to skim millions of fed dollars for construction, travel and personal expenses, often diverting funds through a second company he created. Used federal money to help pay for lobbying expenses totaling $280K over seven years. Etc.

I know I’ve worn out any welcome, kctim. In summation, I’ve been wanting a 3rd party with a diff - - - since Carter, starting with Regan’s era of ‘grreed is good’. Some want incumbents voted out, some want Article V Convention, some want to abolish corporate personhood and money is free speech. But IMO, it will take a 3rd party with a diff - - - to remove the money influence from politics/govt and implement real campaign finance reform, save the REPUBLIC, our national sovereignty, democratic principles, etc. Gasp - - gasp, need an arthiritus break!

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 21, 2011 8:32 PM
Comment #329626


Well, if that is going to replace, Obama is going to take your guns away from you, perhaps it is time to make it harder for Joe Sixpack to vote.

Roy, if you read that article then you know that if the University of Wisconsin admissions standards were unconstitutional, that group would have already sued.

On that issue, I say be patient for 20 more years and those standards will no longer be necessary. It would be nice to at least think that we now live in a color blind society but we don’t. We will soon.

Those green card deals are part of the globalization incentive promotion pack. I think we should offer half a green card for a large investment in low wage jobs and a full card for well paying jobs. The first step towards citizenship, an opportunity to experience the American way of life, and a discount on tuition at a state university in return for a large investment in American jobs seems a bargain in a time when American investors are looking for their opportunities overseas.

Immigrants, illegal or not are, are not breaking the back of the American Middle class. The wage scale being imposed in combination with inflation is doing the job, and as Dan pointed out, the middle class is doing it to themselves by voting for Familiar Name. In the opinion of many voters, the only member of Congress that doesn’t suck is good old Familiar Name.

Capitalism plus progressive legislation equals large middle class. Capitalism minus progressive legislation equals small middle class.

Factory workers middle class? Why who ever heard of such a silly notion. Business would go bankrupt, the world as we know it would come to an end. That is what globalization and corpocracy is all about, a race to the bottom, the least common denominator, when it comes to wages, acquisition of resources and regulation. Tax breaks for the wealthy, massive spending with huge deficits, outsourcing, illegal immigration, attacks on unions, all part of the plan to turn the middle class against itself, the poor and the progressives.

That is the corpocracy ideal of globalization and it can only be altered by the workers themselves, all workers, not just American.

Posted by: jlw at September 21, 2011 10:23 PM
Comment #329640

jlw, quite the contrary. It is promoted at the highest levels of gov’t/courts. There is a term for it, which I can’t recall at the moment, but goes toward correcting past discrimination. I like slogans like ‘one person, one vote’ and ‘all men are created equal’ and I suppose they will remain just that, slogans.
CNN reports this morning that more than half of college administrators show preference for entrance for those who can pay cash over those with straight ‘A’s but dependent on financial aid. Beyond that, rank is for minorities, athletes, veterans, international students, alumni, then men over women.

Don’t agree that wages or set by the wage scale imposed. Why did US corps move overseas? Don’t you think wages would go up if several million laborers were removed from the work force? Surely you have heard there are jobs US workers won’t do, like doctors, nurses, engineers, hi-tech workers, apple pickers and so on …

The fight between progressive labor and mgmt will go on forever, IMO. And, mgmt will continue to hold sway so long as we are ruled by corpocracy. That’s why a 3rd party with a diff pol att is needed. Get us back to one man, one vote. Think Solyndra,

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 22, 2011 11:29 AM
Comment #329641

Roy
We cannot “save the Republic” until the people stop voting for the politician who promises them the most, and that is not going to happen any time soon.

When the people become dependent on their government, they expect their government to provide everything for them. In order for government to do this, it must rely on corporations. Government is more powerful than any corporation and soon government eats them and gains even more control over the people. Once it gets this control, government proclaims it is what is best for all and mandates all must be forced to contribute.

Corporations do not have the power to do this. Government is the ONLY entity with such power.

“I know I’ve worn out any welcome”

(Perhaps I am not reading that in the proper context, I am tired this morning. But just to make sure.)
I hope my posts don’t make you feel unwelcomed Roy. While I may disagree with the assertion that corporations are what we should fear, I always welcome your contributions here.

Posted by: kctim at September 22, 2011 11:31 AM
Comment #329643

kctim, the ‘welcome’ thing was just jesting as my way of saying I was getting a little verbose in my reply.

Yore argument falls daid at my feet, kctim. d.a.n just posted the incredible stats on re-electing incumbents. I think one legislator just retired at the age of 91. We’ve had Tenure Corrupts and Vote Out Incumbents Democracy.

I don’t see any movement to change the stats this election cycle. Ron Paul represents the ‘reform candidate’ but an unlikely winner. And, a ‘reform president’ has only the bully pulpit and is just red meat for a corpocratic congress. Then you’ve got Huntsman responding to the $250B annual trade deficit with China with ‘that situation will ameliorate over the next 10 or 20 years’. Wunerful. I CAN”T WAIT!! What with China laying claim to the entire South China Sea, planning to start drilling for oil off the P.I. Sprately Islands, and with the US heeding China’s warnings not to modernize the Taiwanese air force, I would tend to disagree with Huntsman.

I don’t have faith that the voting public will, year over year, vote out incumbents and/or ‘pick the right’ candidates. No top level candidate/incumbent will stand for office until they have secured sufficient corporate donors to see them through a campaign. Further, voters come and go but corpocracy exist in perpetuity.

Which is why we will need a 3rd party impervious to the money influence. A people movement can’t get through congress and the courts. A 3rd party with a diff pol att can. We really can do little to nothing towards real reform until we defeat such laws and corporations are persons and money is free speech. That will take a 3rd party with a diff pol att, IMO.

Otherwise - - -


Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 22, 2011 1:20 PM
Comment #329649


Before the rise of large corporations business was primarily based on personal relationships between owners, their employees and their customers. Large corporations have changed business into impersonal contractual relationships. Owners became alienated from their workers, their customers and often even management. Workers became replaceable work units rather than human beings. Work units, being less than human could be treated just like that dirt that is cast aside to get at the gold.

And from the pulpits of Anglo Protestant churches came a message of material success, Social Darwinism and the unworthiness of the poor. The churches projected an atmosphere of affluence which alienated the workers and the poor, making them feel unwanted. To paraphrase one preacher, ‘we don’t want any stinking workers smelling up our church.’ Church attendance by workers and the poor fell dramatically and church attendance remains low to this day.

Thus was born, the Agrarian Reform Movement, the Workers Reform Movement, the Social Gospel Reform Movement, collectively known as the Progressive Era; and the rise of the American middle class.

Corporations finance our politicians, especially our incumbent politicians elections campaigns, not because they expect cooperation from those politicians, but out of a sense of patriotism, duty, charity, and an obligation to help government govern.

Kctim, corporations have one goal that rises above all others and that is maximising profits. Buying government influence increases their chances of maximising profits. They have no choice in this matter, it is either buy government influence and propagandize the population or suffer the influence of the people as a whole. A situation that is definitely contrary towards maximising profits.

The owners of corporations want nothing to do with democracy and one man one vote. It is their greatest threat and why they spend the money to buy politicians and influence public opinion. The goal of many of them, not all, is to influence government and public opinion in a manner conducive to dismantling the Progressive Era legislation. Many middle class Americans support the corporate owners goals and the middle class is shrinking fast as a result of it.

Globalization will eventually give rise to a World Progressive Era. The alternatives are a World Fascist Authoritarian State or a World Socialist Authoritarian State.


Posted by: jlw at September 22, 2011 2:52 PM
Comment #329655
government proclaims it is what is best for all and mandates all must be forced to contribute.

Corporations do not have the power to do this. Government is the ONLY entity with such power.

This flies in the face of reality. For instance, corporations mandate that we purchase and use QWERTY keyboards with our computers even though Dvorak keyboards would be much more efficient.

If you hadn’t noticed, large corporations are governments all by themselves; historically, corporations have been known to hire their own private armies to enforce their wills on the populace. We the people must be wary with letting anybody wield excessive power unchecked.

Posted by: Warped Reality at September 22, 2011 4:17 PM
Comment #329660

From a url on the history of corporate personhood.

Excerpt: Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.
The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow. –End-

The British East India company was the government for much of India. Following corporate personhood law Thomas Jefferson recognized the corrupting power of the money influence by quoting “I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

Warped, I would say we are a day late and dollar short on curtailing corporations and the money influence. This movement by Move To Amend and Reclaim Democracy is coming on strong. But, to achieve their goal of abolishing corporate personhood and money is free speech will, IMO, require a 3rd party with a diff pol att - - - -

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 22, 2011 4:59 PM
Comment #329697

jlw
Even still, they do not have the power to do any of that, only government does. Which is why they ‘buy’ government.

Warped
Sorry, but the reality is that you are not mandated to buy one. There is no threat of penalty if you choose not to.

“historically, corporations have been known to hire their own private armies to enforce their wills on the populace.”

And yet, some still wish to take away our right to prevent such things from happening. In case you hadn’t notice, such things are usually localized, illegal and something larger usually shows up. Government.

“We the people must be wary with letting anybody wield excessive power unchecked”

Thank you. That is why so many people fight against government gaining such power.

Posted by: kctim at September 23, 2011 1:11 PM
Comment #329713
Sorry, but the reality is that you are not mandated to buy one. There is no threat of penalty if you choose not to.

The compulsion to purchase the Qwerty keyboard is just the same. No keyboard means no computer, which may indirectly lead to no job. No job may mean that I starve to death; thus the business decision to prohibit the sale of Dvorak keyboards carries a lethal threat.

such things are usually localized, illegal and something larger usually shows up. Government.

This was not the case during the Gilded Age. Private corporations legally contracted private “detective agencies” to enforce their will. The most famous of these private law enforcement agency were the Pinkertons and they were active nationwide and they were not put down by the government until the 1930s.

Posted by: warped reality at September 23, 2011 6:34 PM
Comment #329751


Kctim, without government intervention, the corporations would monopolize. Without government to check their power, there will be little to prevent them from some of the foul excesses of power demonstrated in the past.

Without partisan divisions, the people would not reelect corrupt politicians nor allow corporations bribe their way. We the people are the ones that allow an election process financed by corporations and other special interests to exist. No group spends more to promote partisan differences and buy political favors than corporations. The profit returns on both make it well worth the effort.

Get the government out of the way and corporations will do as they please. 21 airline companies convicted of price fixing. Without the government, price fixing wouldn’t be an issue, but rather a common corporate business practice.

Because of the threat posed by government, one airline company got cold feet and squealed, while one other guilty company was convinced to cooperate to bust the others.

Was preventing the government from regulating business and help it’s citizens the motivation for the massive debt created by the Reagan and the Bush Administrations? Is that why Republicans are now saying that the people have to choose; do they want people programs and business regulation or do they want jobs?

Posted by: jlw at September 24, 2011 5:22 PM
Comment #329868

Warped
You’re reaching with this keyboard thing man. You are not mandated to buy a PC or a certain keyboard. You choose to. And if you choose not to, you are not required to pay anything for them.

This is not the ‘Gilded age’ or even the 30s. A company cannot mandate that you support them unless it has government help.

jlw
Seriously, the ONLY people mentioning absolutely no government are the liberals/progressives trying to convince people that is what everybody on the right believes in.
Of course we need some government and of course some people will seek favors, that is the nature of the beast.
I don’t disagree on partisan divisions. I would only add that I believe some of it is due to human nature and some of it is influenced by government propaganda.

Again, ‘no government’ is only a fear tactic by leftists to scare people into believing their freebies are in jeopardy. Which explains why their motto is and always will be, ‘vote for us and we will give you this.’

FWIW: I did not and do not know Reagan or Bush, so I have no idea what their motivation was.

I believe our nation is at a tipping point and that the Republicans finally see this and that is why they are now saying people have to choose between freebies and rights.

Posted by: kctim at September 28, 2011 9:58 AM
Post a comment