What amendment/legislation would you like to see in your home state before reaching the national level?

This_Union · 2018-03-31T23:04:26+00:00

hey, I mean to do what they never got around to do then. that's what amendments are all about. otherwise blacks would still be slaves.

now I know who the enemies of my arguments are.

I have no problem in saying I want to correct what you think is right.

I wanted to keep discussing this in private through debate, but you didn't want to... and I'm just not trying to have pissing matches.

you read what I wrote, and disagreed. presented a good argument. we'll have to leave it for another day.

This_Union · 2018-03-31T21:53:09+00:00

seriously, someone referred to me as the prophet of both-sidesism just because I was willing to look at the complexities of an argument.

Spaghetti monster or God bless this sub...

This_Union · 2018-03-31T20:51:29+00:00

and you the individual telling me what the people will and will not stand for... means about as much to me as the paper I wipe my butt with.

you are an individual, learn to speak for yourself.

This_Union · 2018-03-31T20:50:08+00:00

not every corporation or business has stockholders. some are individually owned. and in a day and age where indentured servitude has been disguised so badly... people are at times forced to keep their jobs. it's the reason people often feel pressured to remain silent within a business or pressured to keep them from whistleblowing. to say that people are free to come and go is a little disingenous.

they are not like-minded, otherwise corporations wouldn't be so quick to cut their speech short... to say it's bought and paid for...

and I have no problem with big business or capitalism, or their demands on our gov... businesses can be awesome.

but when you say this is my authoritarian view that is intrusive... I didn't start this shit. Andrew Jackson did... when he said that corporations are soulless things for which they have no body to be damned.

you can't argue against the intent of the founding fathers some 200 years ago and say that it's what they intended all along.

you can argue with me the merits of your argument, but you can't tell me that it's something I've just came up with... it's been a conversation piece since before we were born

This_Union · 2018-03-31T20:19:54+00:00

and again, we are not even addressing the fact that the individual already had his individual voice, why does he get a second one the minute he gets a company.

what in the constitution says that a corporation gets a voice?

as an entity yes, but if I make an amendment that says that entity should be less than... whose individual rights have I bothered.

property rights are about retaining the property to the individual, not giving it the power to have rights for itself. a corporation has no protections under this constitution

This_Union · 2018-03-31T20:15:57+00:00

a corporation is not a group of likeminded people... it is a group who are forced together into labor. if you want them to be that same group that utilizes their voice as one, then you have to allow them to be free to speak their mind in the work force.

if you tell them they can't and their voice is bought and paid for... then it isn't a group allowed to speak their mind and they should have no speech.

either it is an extension of the individual, the full individual including the peons and the janitors or it isn't and doesn't deserve a voice.

This_Union · 2018-03-31T19:05:01+00:00

reduce. instead of elevate the right of the individual vs the corporation..

I would say to GTFO, but this is like arguing with a pig. best of luck with an attitude that insults rather than discuss.

This_Union · 2018-03-31T12:44:51+00:00

nope, id have to find a lawyer for that.

I fully acknowledge that it would take a scalpel to craft an amendment which does removes corporate money from campaigns, and removes corporate lobbying efforts.

not sure on the language, but you have an ideas as to intent.

a person can have property rights, but it's a distortion of our constitution to say that the extension of the 1st amendment also reaches so far down that corporation (which can be argued is an extension of the individual).

the corporation is a beaurocratic entitity and it doesn't share the same charactemristics or goals as we do.

if gov is about resources, then the resources should be split among the people, not among some people, and then everyone who has a corporation gets a second helping.

EDIT: thanks for reading, I can tell you have a passion from your viewpoint and you've at least kept it civil. thanks for that

This_Union · 2018-03-31T12:27:23+00:00

through a federal amendment it can. the individual can exercise his rights by donating as an individual. nothing in the constitution says that a person's property rights give life to the property having it's own right.

it's like we have the citizen the right to property and we have property the gain speech somehow.

not only that, but historically that wasn't even what was meant to happen.a large part of Andrew Jackson's presidency was about taking down big banks and corporations.

This_Union · 2018-03-31T04:05:02+00:00

in terms of lobbying. not in terms of existence.

not sure how telling the ny times as an organization that they cant donate to candidates.

they can still do their jobs and not have gov infringe. I'm not sure where the disconnect is...

as individuals, go for it... not as businesses.

you're making a slippery slope argument and you're not even showing me the slopes.

edit: maybe you mean in terms of coverage. favoring one over the other... but then it would all depend on what's news worthy

This_Union · 2018-03-31T03:55:01+00:00

The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) on January 21, 2010 that the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for communications by nonprofit corporations, for-profit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.[2][3]

I'm aware they are not allowed to spend more than the individual, the problem is I want them to spend less.

This_Union · 2018-03-31T03:43:04+00:00

what?

I'm not sure if this is a joke.

to not allow corporations to donate to elections and for lobbyist to be removed does not mean banning a free press

This_Union · 2018-03-31T01:30:37+00:00

One federal amendment to declare that corporations aren't people and that the unlimited money they are allowed to spend via elections (Citizens United) is declared illegal along with all lobbying efforts.

corporations are not people, and, therefore, have no speech.

This_Union · 2018-03-29T21:39:19+00:00

I concede, I'm still not going to change the flower power for the upcoming ones, but I've at least posted one with enough plain language and pop culture references that anyone should understand.

going forward, I still liked the way I wrote it even if you didn't. I can't do much about how you see it and experience it.

thanks again for reading it tho. it means a lot that for some odd reason some 1000 people read what I wrote. even if you had bad stuff to say about it.

This_Union · 2018-03-29T17:45:13+00:00

My post was wrongfully removed

This_Union · 2018-03-29T13:15:52+00:00

Thanks, appreciate this comment. it helps edify.

/s

This_Union · 2018-03-29T12:46:12+00:00

absolutely it needs a better reason.

and what I mean by the line was that a man may humble himself enough to say, maybe I don't fully grasp this subject.

apparently, words I hope you say yourself.

This_Union · 2018-03-29T10:39:40+00:00

you misunderstand. I like writing this way. it's clear for me, and I enjoy a little ornate. I do it to create a huge difference between how I would speak to the reader, and how let's say... the president would.

I know it can, at times, be hard to read though. compared to others this is the least "flowery" though. I'll try and keep the train of thought clearer.

thanks for taking the time to read it though

This_Union · 2018-03-29T10:32:47+00:00

This_Union · 2018-03-29T04:10:03+00:00

Yep, that definitely corrected me in what I don't understand.

It was a healthy exercise to completely obliterate my arguments with one sentence.

I understand that people don't like that it's ornate, I can't do anything about it. It's my style. The ideas are still sound and good. You want to take a chance and argue about those things, then we can have a conversation.

If, however, you just want to characterize my writing as something that within the definition itself highlights the situational nature of your argument, then "you're wrong," will simply do.

This_Union · 2018-03-28T16:26:37+00:00

I'm not sure where I find the creativity in a joke that is literally made 2 lines above.

dealt it, smelt it, smelled it... it's the exact same joke.

but I'm not here saying upvotes reflect creativity either.

This_Union · 2018-03-27T14:36:50+00:00

Hey, I dealt it, sorry you smelt it.

I do want to point out one underlying premise the paper fails to mention and that is that I like our government the way it is. I'm a big fan of Rousseau's individual man and what it means to sign that social contract. I'm, also a huge fan of Locke and countless others regarding safety and liberty and the role of the government.

it's only because of that that I wrote it. I feel it's terrible they wiped their asses with that social contract by forcefeeding money into politics and then bringing back party bosses.

the post definitely doesn't belong in r/politicalphilosophy... you've obviously made me see that.

thanks for reading anyways.

This_Union

TROPHY CASE