Internet Censorship Bill

I see some flaws in your logic, Irock. Firstly, capitalism is rather broadly defined, but has some defining characterisitcs like private ownership of the means of production, production of goods and services for profit, the accumulation of capital, competitive markets and wage labor. The definitions of some of these aspects are defined by a country's politics, not its economic structure. In a capitalist country, the government does not interfere in firms' choice of product or service nor in the decision of individuals to choose where they work. I'd say that's pretty close if not identical to what we have in America.

The reason the government bails out big corp when they fail is so the nation's GDP doesn't nose dive and make goods and services unavailable, thus lowering the US credit rating and negatively affecting our global purchasing and borrowing power.

I contend that the economic crisis was caused by de-regulation. If it wasn't, how do explain the collapse of mortgage lenders insuring themselves against their own loans when they knew they'd fail? It had a lot to do with the Glass-Stegall act being repealed. There we have a de-regulation paving the way for the circumstances that caused the credit crunch- the worst economic crisis to hit the US since the Great Depression- all because banks and lenders saw an opportunity to gain more capital, a core tenet of capitalism.

I do agree that it was predictable, and therefore preventable, but the fact that the government took no action to do so is consistent with capitalist economics: the theory that if left alone, capitalist systems will work themselves out. As we saw, this was not done in the most recent crisis because that theory is incorrect, because the entire nation was on the verge of an economic collapse. This tells us that capitalism as we have it in the US is flawed, and socialist measures were taken to protect a capitalist system. Those measures worked- but despite the nature of those measures, they were taken to support capitalism, and do not represent the bulk of US economic policy.

If we had a mix of corporatism and socialism, then why do we not see more government involvement in career choice, a tenet of both systems, or public ownership of means of production, a tenet of socialism? Socialist economics are about the accumulation and distribution of resources, while what we have in America is simple accumulation, with more capital turning into the acquisition of more capital.  If I may throw your words back at you, you don't know what socialism is.

We do have a big government, and I too would like to see it reduced. I could live with its size as long as I was confident that it existed for my benefit, which I do not beleive it does. When you say it does as it pleases, you will hear no argument from me, but you make my point for me. Corporations lobby, and they are heard. That has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism, that's just corruption.

When I say capitalism, I mean free markets.

Bailouts don't help us in the long run. Inflation, public debt and malinvestment negatively affect the value of the dollar and our credit rating.  Debt needs to be liquidated and malinvestmen needs to end, and the government's only delaying and raising the intensity of an inevitable crisis.

In a true free market, the Glass-Stegall act wouldn't have a reason to exist, considering we wouldn't have government insurance programs and taxpayers wouldn't be the ones at risk for banks making bad decisions. There would also be less incentive to take major risks without safety nets. Additionally, banks were forced to take risks by making unsafe housing loans, which caused the whole bubble in the first place.

The government is taking action all the time to correct problems they created, which in turn creates more problems. Where have you been?

Examples of corporatism: bailouts, subsidies, health care mandates, lobbying

Examples of socialism: government student loans, medicare, medicaid, unemployment benefits

Corporations lobby to unfairly get ahead, but that doesn't mean the government should do what they say. That's not what a free market is, and if the government would follow a constitutional free-market philosophy like they're supposed to, we wouldn't have most of these problems.

If you mean free markets, say free markets. You can't make a point unless you use the proper terms to make your case. Otherwise it sounds like you're backpedaling.

I never said bailouts were good. In fact, I said the opposite; they are performed to shore up a failing system. It was bad investing by big corporations (who obstensibly should know better) that was the catalyst for the crash, and if we had a free market those companies would have died, serving as an example to the rest of the business community- but Uncle Sam came in and saved many of them, providing a HUGE precident for the largest companies to take risks of the nature that caused the crash. If the Glass-Stegall act had been in place, these circumstances wouldn't have existed in the first place, free market or otherwise.

Saying that banks were forced to take risks is ridiculous. No hand forced any lender to make bad loans, that was a decision made by the underwriters. They began following the trend of hedging their bets by insuring loans they KNEW would default to make more money. The government stepped in when all the loans defauted in rapid sequence and the insurers for the lenders went broke, also making broke the lenders unable to recoup their losses. Of course the government is constantly fixing mistakes it makes, the capitalist system is supports is broken! Where have YOU been?

I've been working. I support a middle class family of five, and even with a union behind me I'm constantly trying to protect my job, my wages and my earned benefits from some lawmaker who wants to take what little (comparatively) I have and give it to some rich schmuck. That is not what I want my government to be doing. Do you work to support yourself? Do you pay for your own healthcare or education? If you do, then don't tell me you want the government to nto have those programs available, socialist or not. If you don't, please stop telling me what the government should do for its economic policies regarding those things.

On that note, you played the Constitution card.

Article 1, Section 8
 
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

The part about debts shows the government has responsibility to maintain a secure financial staus for the country, which means it ought to legislate to keep the corporations from effing things up like they have lately. That way it can do the next part, which includes things like those darned socialist concepts of educational grants, and health care for the elderly and unable to work. Since the constitution was written before the advent of Marxist philosohpy, I can only conclude that these are not socialist principles.

I was unable to find any reference to a free market philosophy in the Constitution. It enables a free market by omission of powers to regulate private property, but neither requires nor even mentions a free market system.

All that being said, I think we're losing sight of what's important to the discussion, something we DO agree on. That is, as you said,

Corporations lobby to unfairly get ahead, but that doesn't mean the government should do what they say.

See, we could be running mates!
 

Ignorant words escaped, I apologize. You realize by "replacing cilvil liberties..." I specifically meant something like SOPA that favors corporation instead of the general public. But it was stupid on my part because it can hurt online business too.

Lobbying isn't actually always bad. "Corporations lobby to unfairly get ahead, but that doesn't mean the government should do what they say." I too agree with that. But at the same time, it's clear many of our incumbents are talking with their pockets full of corporate financial backing. (OpenSecrets.org has some pretty interesting data.) At the very same time it doesn't start and end with the politician; corporate liaisons should have a very finite ability to lobby. Our whole culture spins around money, so it's unlikely any of that will change if incumbents are still being backed by large pockets indifferent to the general public.

I didn't read any of the posts being ageist and racist, which I take offense to, inevitably being a middle-aged average-height white male myself. Self-deprecatory comments are okay sometimes!

They indeed were forced to make bad loans to people that were bad credit risks through the community reinvestment act. Additionally, the federal reserve kept mortgage interest rates artificially low, which was also a major contributor.

You're grossly misinterpreting Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution.

If you think "to pay the debts" means anything other than using the money they collect for paying public debts, you're way off. I've never heard ANYONE argue what you just argued.

Now let's look at the general welfare part:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

The wording here is important. One of the key words here is 'general'. 'General' means it applies to the whole. Welfare such as medicare and education grants are targeted, as opposed to general.

Even more importantly, that part of Article 1, Section 8 specifically states who or what "general welfare" applies to. It says, "and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". That means it applies to the United States. You can interpret "United States" two ways. It could mean the general welfare of the federal government or the general welfare of the states themselves. I'm not entirely sure which it is, but it's certainly not "the people" by any stretch of the imagination. The constitution likes to specifically mention what something applies to, and it always refers to the people as "the people".

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

et cetera

If the general welfare clause were intended to give the federal government the power to do and run anything in the name of welfare, it wouldn't be written that way, and powers wouldn't be specifically enumerated in the constitution. Furthermore, it would be uncharacteristic for the founders to even agree to such a vague enabler of national government power.

This assembly does further disavow and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the compact, in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare, which construction would make that, of itself, a complete government, without limitation of powers; but that the plain sense and obvious meaning were, that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare, by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others.

With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.

This thread should be split...

SOPA hearing is apparently rescheduled to the 21st and not January. Now that's rather slimy.

Agreed. What is this move-up going to mean for the vote? *shiver*

Irock, I'm glad you care so much about your country. I disagree with you almost entireley on wat is referring to what; while you make some great arguments, you still haven't proven to me that the government shouldn't be used as a tool to improve the lives of those under its law. I gave out some boxes of food today to those who could not afford it. These kids are going to have a Christmas dinner where ordinarily there would be none, and the interpretation of government you present has no room for these things. I simply refuse to accept that this is what our founders wanted, or that this is how things ought to be.

And if you've never heard the argument I presented, as a progressive I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you. +rep

Agreed. What is this move-up going to mean for the vote? *shiver*

Irock, I'm glad you care so much about your country. I disagree with you almost entireley on wat is referring to what; while you make some great arguments, you still haven't proven to me that the government shouldn't be used as a tool to improve the lives of those under its law. I gave out some boxes of food today to those who could not afford it. These kids are going to have a Christmas dinner where ordinarily there would be none, and the interpretation of government you present has no room for these things. I simply refuse to accept that this is what our founders wanted, or that this is how things ought to be.

I'm not sure how you can believe that "general" means "targeted" and "United States" means "the people" when the people are always referred to as "the people" everywhere else in the document. I even provided a Thomas Jefferson and James Madison quotes that say that's not what the clause means.

The tenth amendment allows state governments and the people to do what's not delegated to the United States government, and not forbidden to the states. Whether you gave out food working for your local government or voluntarily on your own, it's not forbidden by the constitution. I recommend actually studying what our founding fathers believed in and then carefully reading the document that's supposed to define the role of the US government.

Should we run our country on what 200 years dead people think, or what is correct for the country?   You seem to dodge that whenever it comes up. Besides, the US is nothing approaching the limited government they envisioned any longer. I can't help but think that you haven't thought about this as deeply as you could.

Should we run our country on what 200 years dead people think, or what is correct for the country?

Both. We do neither.

Now THAT I can agree with.

Check out this article, actually on topic!

Hmmm. Thoughts?

It uh, actually got delayed back to January again before you posted that.

Have any of you been signing petitions, or emailing representatives? If not, I suggest you do that. Talking about it is fine, but it takes 2 seconds to click a few links and actually have your opinion be represented.

I signed two petitions. When it pops up again I'll call my representative.

Have any of you been signing petitions, or emailing representatives? If not, I suggest you do that. Talking about it is fine, but it takes 2 seconds to click a few links and actually have your opinion be represented.

This, also call, or email. In my experience you're heard more if you call or email. Petitions get overlooked a lot, but if your representative is getting tons of emails/calls on a particular subject, then they pay closer attention.

I've been working as part of something that we shall not mention here to have this stopped. I don't even live in your country and I'm doing everything I can to stop this happening.

Have any of you been signing petitions, or emailing representatives? If not, I suggest you do that. Talking about it is fine, but it takes 2 seconds to click a few links and actually have your opinion be represented.

Done!

This, also call, or email. In my experience you're heard more if you call or email. Petitions get overlooked a lot, but if your representative is getting tons of emails/calls on a particular subject, then they pay closer attention.

And done! As far as my computer at work not getting the latest news, well, I looked... Thanks for the correction!

Just got this in an email:

"""Happy Holidays -- we have some great news to share.

We've just won two huge battles in the fight against Internet censorship -- everything you are doing is working!  First off, the House of Representatives failed to move SOPA out of committee!  Why? Because their offices got swamped with phone calls and overwhelmed by the snowballing opposition.  Thank you for helping make that happen.

Second, in response to the boycott of GoDaddy, the web hosting company just made a public announcement that it's dropping its support of SOPA.  Amazing what you have made happen."""

That is awesome, but don't forget about PIPA. This one is potentially more dangerous, so keep those phone calls and emails coming.

Rock the fuck on.

It is good to see that our voice is being heard! It gives me hope for our country.

Right, who knows what's going on unannounced

IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!

It wouldn't have before, but this time, it is very possible that it could happen. Seriously, keep signing petitions and phoning reps.

I'm in denial. I'm going to be difficult. I am going to provide reasoning that holds no logic whatsoever. But the government is not going to limit our freedom of speech throughout the internet anymore, mark my words. I will do whatever I can to stop the government from becoming all-powerful, which is exactly what would happen here. Hell, it's not even my government. I'm in Canada.

The reason that it could happen this time is because it is a bill being pushed by people who have no idea what they're talking about. The people who are pushing this only see one small part of it, and that is the overly simple "piracy = lost profits". They aren't seeing that nearly every current website could potentially be shut down, that all user-created content could be dropped from the web, that huge sites such as YouTube and facebook could be gone forever. They don't understand what they're playing with, and that is why it is up to us, the people who use the internet on a daily basis, to show them why this is a horrible idea.

Edit: Also, it isn't the government that is trying to become "all-powerful" in this situation, really. It is mostly corporations.