Comments on: Our Fragile Democracy

By: Donkasaurus Post » Blog Archive » Title

Donkasaurus Post » Blog Archive » Title — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:24:10 +0000

[...] One on a subject that has been occasionally covered; the undue influence of corporations now, in addition to everything else, upon our election process in the wake of the abysmal decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. (Some more analysis on Citizens that misses the point and paints a false paradox, with good commentar…). [...]

By: Donkasaurus Post » Blog Archive » The Observation that Was too Scathing for Maureen Dowd to Handle

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:11:14 +0000

By: Not Sure I Agree

Not Sure I Agree — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:16:00 +0000

John G. Spragge,

Perhaps this was the unexpressed but actual thinking of the Supreme Court itself (and Julian somewhat.)

We have restrictions on campaign expenditures by those individuals, do we not?

So if ‘corporations’ don’t speak, then aren’t corporations just a way to render limitations by individuals directly on behalf of a candidate, invalid.

But if those limitations on individuals have been recognized as constitutionally valid (and they have), then it is wildly inconsistent to say that corporations can spend what they want, and then defend that against all of the many sensible comments made here, by saying corporations “don’t speak” only individuals do.

By: UserGoogol

UserGoogol — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:24:14 +0000

The main reason why banning stupid people from voting is a bad idea is because government cannot be trusted to determine which people are stupid. It is all too easy for the appropriate test to be biased in a way which skews towards certain demographics or certain policy stances, as is shown by actual historical events. Aside from that, banning stupid people from voting is not an inherently bad idea. And in a sense, we already do it for the more extreme cases since children and (in most states) the developmentally disabled are legally prevented from voting.

Restricting corporations from engaging in speech isn’t as risky for the same arguments people have been making, the humans themselves are free to engage in speech, it’s just that when they form government chartered organizations those organizations are restricted.

By: John G. Spragge

John G. Spragge — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:19:15 +0000

I love it when political debate gets surreal. A corporation actually consists of a set of papers, possibly with the addition of an embossing seal. I certainly support giving collections of papers and embossing machines all the free speech they can possibly use. I feel pretty confident that we’ll never hear from an actual corporation.

The “speech” that comes from corporations actually comes from individuals with authority to write cheques on behalf of the corporations. The cheques they write come from assets that belong to the profit participants in the corporation. In some cases, the decision makers clearly have the consent of the principals to speak politically on their behalf; in other cases, such as those involving pension funds, they quite clearly do not.

By: finzent

finzent — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 14:52:02 +0000

I think anybody who wants to restrict other peoples’ right to vote for whatever reason should be denied the right to vote.

Oh, wait…

By: Pithlord

Pithlord — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:53:49 +0000

We can solve the dilemmas of democracy easily. Just deny people who make lame arguments like “corporations aren’t people, so we can freely censor them” the right to vote.

By: Mark Dorroh

Mark Dorroh — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:50:40 +0000

So far as the intrinsic value of democracy goes, I believe Winston Churchill got it right when he said that it is the worst form of government except for all the others which have been tried from time to time. It’s a messy, noisy process which produces all sorts of good and bad outcomes … just like life itself. So suck it up and deal.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:36:30 +0000

Of course (1) and (2) are not contradictory so it is at least possible to hold them together. There are alternatives to placing power in the wisdom of the people no matter how minute and imperfect that wisdom. For instance, kings, dictators (benevolent or otherwise), aristocracy, legislatures, judiciaries, or some sort of leviathon. All of these things are, plausibly, worse options than the deeply imperfect and flawed wisdom of the people.

I think you probably know that. While there is no contradiction in holding (1) and (2) I see a problem. Governments use coercive force in a way that is supposed to be justified. In democracies, this justification comes from popular mandate. But if people are susceptible in the way (2) suggests, then perhaps the coercive powers granted to democratic governments are illegitimate. Is this a case for some form of anarchy?

By: example

example — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:09:38 +0000

How is that inconsistent? If you think voters are stupid and easily lead, then democracy is fragile and people needs to be protected from being controlled by corporations.

Are you saying that if we think that democracy is fragile, and voters are that we must also think that it would be improved by being run by corporations seeking to maximize their profit (and for the benefit of their directors and CEO?)

Obviously, that’s not the case.

As for replacing it with something else, I think the Churchill quote “The worst form of government except for all the rest” makes sense. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be tweaked and guided by not allowing self-interested wealthy parties and foreign governments to control the process.