SCOTUS Justice Stevens retires, Obama gets second appointment..

[Rothbardian]

I support campaign finance regulations and ideally would like to see elections largely publicly funded.

the constitution grants powers to the fed gov't, including the ability for the legislature to make laws. campaign finance is not exempt.

constructionism is bullshit because madison is not the only person in US history that matters, especially when you're just cherry picking quotations to support your conservative brand of activism.

Could you even be more vague? Yes, Congress can make laws, but only specific and enumerated laws. Congress does not have the authority for example, to coin anything other than Gold & Silver, and that Gold & Silver is payable for debts, yet, we have the Federal Reserve and FRN's. In essence, you are saying that we shouldn't even have a Constitution and that the elites should just rule by political fiat (Well shit, isn't that our system now? How are you liking it?).

As for public financing. Man, if you thought 3rd parties were impossible now, fuck it if they will NEVER happen ever again if that goes through. Donkeys and Elephants will be up on that shit in no time expressly outlawing finance unless a candidate receives something like 30% support in their biased polls. Good luck with that one hahaha! Independants? Say Goodbye. Ross Perot moments? Say Goodbye. Any other parties ever, other than GOP and Democrat? Say Goodbye. You would basically be enshrining the Status Quo in perpetuity.

Madison is what matters because he wrote the Constitution! That's like saying Mark Twain doesn't matter when it comes to interpreting the Adventures of Tom Sawyer. Also, let me clarify that I do not support the Constitution because it allows for far too much centralization and authority, and provides no check against Tyranny, or if anything such a small miniscule one to be negligible (See: Lysander Spooner's No Treason, Constitution of No Authority). If I am to pick an American Document to form the basis of society, I would choose the Declaration of Independance bar none, and if that wasn't on the table, then I would immensely prefer the AoC over the Constitution -- hence why I am an Anti-Federalist. But, shit, if we have the Constitution the only way to abide by the Supreme law of the land is to interpret it literally, as written, as meant in 1787.

I'm not conservative. And will you please produce me quotes that I am cherry picking?

[Beckwin]

Congress does not have the authority for example, to coin anything other than Gold & Silver, and that Gold & Silver is payable for debts, yet, we have the Federal Reserve and FRN's

why should anyone take anything you say seriously?

lets jump in a hot tub and go back to the 1780s where there was actually a context for your arguments, and even a few people might agree with them (but not everyone, because everyone was not madison).

Madison wrote the words, but it's not like our legislators just said "hey John, go ahead and write what you want, we're cool with whatever you come up with." my god you really can't be that dense.

[Kyo]

And will you please produce me quotes that I am cherry picking?

my god you really can't be that dense.

lol

[Rothbardian]

why should anyone take anything you say seriously?

lets jump in a hot tub and go back to the 1780s where there was actually a context for your arguments, and even a few people might agree with them (but not everyone, because everyone was not madison).

You are correct, but the irony of that is those that did not agree with Madison were even more radicals for liberty and de-centralization called the Anti-Federalists which I am one of! The Anti-Federalists didn't agree with the premise of the entire document, but after ratification and promise of the Bill of Rights, they all agreed with Madison that the only sound functional, indeed, the only way to interpret the supreme law of the land is uniformly, and in its original context, for it was adapted in that context, and not in the context of the 21st Century lexicon. Madison even warned against this and many others.

You are also obfuscating the point entirely and de-railing from the original synthesis. Back more to the point -- it is laughable to even call Stevens a constructionist. That shit is absurd. The whole SCOTUS is a loony bin of tyrants, and any deferance for them is a sure sign of tyranny on behalf of those who espouse such support. I guess I can't defend myself because you say so. Yeah, ok. I guess I am not entitled to the fruits of my labor because you say so. Yeah, ok.

It is also intriguing that if you do not believe in constructionism, then the only logical conclusion one can make of it is that the law is whatever nine men in black robes say it is. What the hell do we even have an EXECUTIVE BRANCH FOR? By eschewing Federalism, you are eschewing the entirity of the American polity. Now, I'll be the first to say the system we have now sucks, and sucks major fucking ass, but your system, of the oligarchial elite ruling with impunity and total fiat, is even more atrocious, and more absurd. In an ironic twist, we have gone back to 1775. At least I the forward thinker I am, am in 1776!

[Rothbardian]

why should anyone take anything you say seriously?

lets jump in a hot tub and go back to the 1780s where there was actually a context for your arguments, and even a few people might agree with them (but not everyone, because everyone was not madison).

Madison wrote the words, but it's not like our legislators just said "hey John, go ahead and write what you want, we're cool with whatever you come up with." my god you really can't be that dense.

What the fuck do you think RATIFICATION was? They wouldn't have ratified the Constitution unless they agreed with the document. You lack even the slightest modicum of logical awareness, and I'm not the one to use such obvious tact on this point. Good grief.

[Beckwin]

the document was formed as a result of debate, thus there is a variety of founder opinions and intents regarding the document. everything that madison favored did not get in the document, so it's pretty absurd to take his external writings as some sort of absolute gospel because they contain things not explicit in the constitution itself.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

are you talking about the recent decision by conservatives on the bench to allow unlimited corporate political financing, which was different from a hundred years of precedent?

oh right, then shut the fuck up

Yea, how dare they protect free speech and a free press. So activist and so radical.

[Priran]

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/766...identcamac.jpg

did somebody say unlimited right to bear arms and campaign funding by corporations?

[Rhinox]

I'll say this

If kagan gets appointed get ready because corporatist policies will be going into overdrive.


This is were I agree with the right-wing about Obama destroying America.

If he does indeed appoint Kagan he would now have placed two very corporatist judges on the bench and the Citizens united case would be childs play for the things to come.

[Rothbardian]

I'll say this

If kagan gets appointed get ready because corporatist policies will be going into overdrive.


This is were I agree with the right-wing about Obama destroying America.

If he does indeed appoint Kagan he would now have placed two very corporatist judges on the bench and the Citizens united case would be childs play for the things to come.

I haven't looked much into Kagan, I'll have to do that. Though seriously, did anyone think Obama was going to appoint an anti-monopolist, anti-LLC, anti-draft, anti-unconstitutional war, pro-private property, pro-market Justice like Napolitano? Nah, didn't think so.

I think Napolitano would be the absolute best choice. Strongest pro civil liberties, pro private property, pro Natural Law, anti - war, Justice. Brings people from both the two dominant political spectrums in the US. I'm sure though that both sides would be fussy over some of the decisions they disagree with particularly conservatives on the anti-war position, and liberals on the unlimited right of arms, and market positions.

[Beckwin]

Yea, how dare they protect free speech and a free press. So activist and so radical.

Yeah, how dare they allow political speech to become a market commodity, driving people out of the marketplace who don't have enough money to compete with non-person corporations.

[Rothbardian]

Yeah, how dare they allow political speech to become a market commodity, driving people out of the marketplace who don't have enough money to compete with non-person corporations.

Corporations all ready fund these things (campaigns), before the ruling. Look at the Presidency to see this. Do you really expect, grass-roots to compete with the obfuscated contribution techniques that allowed corporations to basically fund these candidates (On both sides of the duopoly) as much as they want? Sure, in limited cases, but at least now honest businessman can compete with the unscrupulous who use Government for their own desirious ends. At least now it is more open, and less obfuscated.

I'm more interested in opening up market entry in things like wave spectrum, TV, etc. Get rid of licensing and allow free and open competition & entry. The Media more than anything constitutes debate in this country. Quite sad really. Until people realize its not a red vs blue, but a liberty vs tyranny ra-ra fight, nothing is going to change. Seriously MSM is analagous to Pravda, like Democrats/GOP are analagous to Hard-core Bolsheviks vs Less-Hardcore Bolsheviks. They are pretty much identitical. It is quite hilarious to witness if it wasn't so destructive.

;/

[Beckwin]

if we more tightly regulated corporate contributions and political advertising, yes, grassroots organizations composed of individual small donors can compete.

I personally donated to a couple grassroots orgs during the healthcare debate and we were able to get TV airtime, in addition to more standard forms of citizen action pursued such as petitions and letter writing. Of course, there wasn't enough capital acquired to really compete with the airtime that corporations could put up, but there is no doubt that grassroots can reach mainstream media.

[Rothbardian]

if we more tightly regulated corporate contributions and political advertising, yes, grassroots organizations composed of individual small donors can compete.

I personally donated to a couple grassroots orgs during the healthcare debate and we were able to get TV airtime, in addition to more standard forms of citizen action pursued such as petitions and letter writing. Of course, there wasn't enough capital acquired to really compete with the airtime that corporations could put up, but there is no doubt that grassroots can reach mainstream media.

It will reach the MSM as long as it is sanctioned speech by them. Look at what they did to Ron Paul, and continue to. At least CNN had a very very good piece last night. I attribute that to CNN horrible decline in ratings. Even with their stranglehold market forces bust through .

I would argue it is a better avenue to pursue opening up entry into media markets such as wave spectrum -- both TV & Radio, abolishing IP and increasing internet market entry thus, and stripping the tax incentives to lobby in the first place. Those simple things that call for abolishment and repeal would be infinitely more beneficial. Enivatibly though, the system itself is the agent of corruption. No matter what you do over time it will always be corrupted, by those seeking power & money and using the power of the State to restrict entry and competition.

So, what if we regulate and allow Corporations to donate say, 5,000 to a candidate, and we left individuals at 2400. What happened before, and happens now is that they will diffuse the contributions. Call it embezzlement, call it racketeering, call it fraud. It is all of these, but the fact is the system itself sanctions it. Likewise, Government accounting is never called fraud, even though that is what it is. No, we aren't going to put this, this, and this "on the budget". It is off-budget. Man, Enron would love the ability to do that and not be called fraud! Likewise, the people who get elected, based on these contributions will NEVER rule against them. Why on Earth would these people willingly rule against themselves to oust themselves. If we know one lucid undeniable fact of nature is that as Lord Acton put it:

Power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts.

It's time we started to put the power where it belongs -- to the individual and his pocketbook. We should be able to join & leave, form and implement, and compete openly and freely in the market of law, court, justice, and other goods and services monopolized by the State. You honestly think your vote matters in the vast majority of cases? Bet not. You think your money matters to businesses? Hell fucking yes.

[mightyg]

Let's get rid of voting altogether. Guy with the most money wins. Yeah, that will be different from how it is now!

[Beckwin]

for one, a corporation should not be allowed to contribute more than a real person. second, we could investigate and prosecute dishonest means of diffusion. if we could actually put some teeth in our legislation and get some good ol' corporation-hating leftists in the justice dept/courts, we could give a lot more volume to the voices of average citizens.

[Rothbardian]

Let's get rid of voting altogether. Guy with the most money wins. Yeah, that will be different from how it is now!

You are aware that you as an individual have subjective value and choice, right? You don't have a choice now. You can't choose whether you want to be under the Constitution, AoC, a different contract, or under the natural order and law of the Declaration of Independance. If you do choose to seceede yourself from the US you get killed, or kidnapped by the ABC's.

So saying whoever has the most money wins is fallacious on its face. Whoever meets your demands and provides a reputable service wins. The essence of the market.

[Beckwin]

umm, you can go to another country if you'd like. you can choose your citizenship.

or you can live on the high seas!

[Kuya]

Listening to libertarians and anarchists can be exhausting.

[Rothbardian]

umm, you can go to another country if you'd like. you can choose your citizenship.

or you can live on the high seas!

Actually no you can't, well, not without undue duress. The IRS fines you for rescending your citizenship, and you cannot rescind your citizenship unless you are a citizen of another Nation-State. Well I for one, do not ascribe to any Nation-States, thus I have no choice.

As for the high-seas that is indeed a fascinating idea that I am very interested in, with Patri Friedman and the SSI. As you can tell, his father David Friedman is also another well known Anarcho-Capitalist/Voluntaryist, though albeit too utilitarian than suits my tastes, but nevertheless I hope to see it one day, or even better space Colonization one day.

Anyways, the point is, there is no system of governance which suits my wants currently, nor can I open my system of law and court to compete.