America's best read urban weekly | Learn More »
Muddydog, I see that you are at a loss for any sensible defense of your position and have resorted to schoolyard taunts. Yes, I have "suggested areas that is or should be outside the reach of government." I have said several times here that corporations should not be given the rights of people and that money should not be equal to speech. Also, there is the concern of the rise of the security state, NSA, but we will leave that for another time.
It's Thanksgiving, and I give thanks that 43 million of our citizens will have access to healthcare that they would not have had, and many lives will be saved from bankruptcy, suffering and death.
Muddydog, You are being intellectually dishonest and slippery. Rather than concede or refute an idea, you jump to something else. Here again you raise the specter of totalitarianism with a quote from Mossolini. Here's another quote from Mossolini, "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
Threats to our Liberty can arise from many directions. We, (as in "We the people") have a responsibility under the Constitution, and morally, to promote the well being of its citizens and assure opportunity of all. That's not Socialism, or Communism, and it damn sure isn't Totalitarianism. And just to be clear, I'm not against corporations, or Capitalism, but they, and it, can pose a threat to our liberty and needs vigilance and oversight. Giving corporations the same rights as people and equating money with speech is marching down the wrong road.
Muddydog, of course the Constitution is authoritative? You ask why I believe healthcare should be a right of citizenship? The very first line of the Constitution says, "We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare..." There ya go, "promote the general welfare."
You ask, "What evidence do you have that corporate donations actually affect elections, much less "threaten humanity."" As I said in an earlier post, it's more than just corporate contributions and "donations" as you put it. There is so much evidence that corporations are influencing the government elections, etc. that there is no point in even addressing that issue. You ask do I believe that the government protects the environment. It's not a belief, it's a fact. Before the EPA, rivers actually caught fire and major cities were enveloped in smog. And yes, corporations left to their own pursuits threaten humanity. You ask what evidence I have. The BP oil disaster, overfishing, making seeds that only produce one crop, and continuing to mine and burn coal when scientists are telling us that it does indeed threaten the planet and humanity. And to compare our government with China's - well that's just dumb.
Reply to Muddydog. Oh come on now Muddydog, don't be pulling out those images of brown shirts and jackboots just because I'm an advocate of healthcare as a right of citizenship and that environments should be protected, and not there just for profit, or that corporations should be regulated if their actions threaten humanity? And by We, I of course mean "We the people", as I said in my earlier post.
Nobody is challenging your unalienable rights, which is “all men are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” That supports my view. But just so we'e clear, that's from the Declration of Indepedence, Not the Constitution.
Muddydog, you're talking as if the government is making the decisions about corporate political power, (it's more than just "politcal contributions"), and regulating coal and protecting our environment, regulating firearms, and health care of its citizens, on its own. We the people decide that corporations should not have more power than we do as a society. We decide that a company can or can't level a mountain to get the coal and ruin the rivers and communities.
We decide if some of our citizens are to die because they are too poor to afford healthcare. We decide if a crazy neighbor should or should not have a powerfull automatic weapon. Together we decide how we are to live and the values we embrace. Yes, there is the possibility that government can get out of control, but that's better than no control.
Muddydog, the contrasting worldview between Conservatives and Progressives does not address the three issues Robert Herold presents in his editorial. The problem of property having the same rights as people. The problem of some congressman putting in some ridicules crap in a bill that has to be passed.. His third point being that the minority can hold out so things don't get done. I would add a fourth problem. Money should not be equal to free speech and therefore can be regulated.
Website powered by Foundation