McCutcheon vs. the FEC, April 2, 2014 The Supreme Court of these great United States of America has ruled, in the case of McCutcheon vs. the FEC, that in a nutshell, limits on aggregate contributions by a person to a political campaign are unconstitutional. And of course, they have already ruled that corporations are people. I personally believe this is a major setback to democracy in this country, and also an affront to our system of government. Yet, in the immediate aftermath of this constitution rattling decision, we are seeing people take the position that this decision is meaningless, corruption is already too well entrenched, and we need to take control out of the corrupted hands in Washington DC, and put it in the hands of the people. I ask, who are the people? More to the point, which political philosophy of which political sect does this philosophy represent? And what agenda does it promote? But let me first focus on just what I am seeing. The argument that making legal, that which is already happening, is basically a misdirected, self-stroking finger of fault. It’s a reference to corruption already having a hold on our government, which is true in my view. But of course, pointing to a problem does not mean one has the best solution. The idea that govt., in and of itself, is more corrupting than corporations are, is a utopian view libertarians like to call the free market. It is irrational to condemn govt. for being prone to corruption, and at the same time dismiss any attempt at reform. Both depend on the actions of people. It is illogical to think the corporate greed that controls government, or more accurately, our elected govt. representatives, and by association, the nominated SCOTUS, will simply stop if the same abusers are left to their own conscience. We are a government of the people, and for the people. I believe it is contrary to the beliefs of our founding fathers that we would be better served by making corporations unaccountable for their actions until the ensuing aftermath. It removes their responsibility to the people during the process of conducting business, and puts accountability, after the fact, into the domain of a judicial system they just may have the power to corrupt. And it is entirely plausible under this system that we, you and I as “the people”, would have no right to demand responsible behavior and actions by a corporation without a court action once damage has been done. And, one who argues that the McCutcheon decision is meaningless argues against the idea that practitioners in the free market are going to act any differently than they do with a federal govt. in place, and makes an illogical assumption. And anyone who argues in favor of the McCutcheon decision is implicitly, intentional or not, in bed with big money and corporate interests, and under the delusion corporations and big money would act differently just because govt. shackles have been overthrown and a free market installed. Arguing for that idea by way of stealth proxy is simply the employment of a hidden agenda to facilitate a political, economical belief. You cant make corporate interests behave by giving them a different kind of leeway. History has shown that Laissez-faire has never worked. Corporations will almost always put profits and self-interest ahead of saving the environment (so many examples in the news recently), trickling down of wealth through the economy (witness the stock market, which may very well be falsely inflated by wealth invested for gain and not trickled down), public health concerns (GMOs, product safety issues, i.e. GM ignition parts and Toyota runaway cars), nuisance lawsuits against farmers fields being unavoidably cross pollinated with patented seeds (Monsanto - to eliminate competition and establish a monopoly), the welfare of labor (reference right to work laws attempting to roll back hard earned gains such as vacation, the 40 hr. work week, overtime; shall we just point to ALEC?), etc, etc etc. The article below gives even more examples. The libertarian myopic utopia, to quote a term coined by someone here on Facebook, whose name I cannot recall, is no more an altruistic framework for an economy, than is our federal government. But those who argue this philosophy fail to mention just what economic, political persuasion they entertain. And those who say they cannot be fitted into any paradigm are, in the least, arguing libertarian debating points without being original. It does not escape my attention that way too many causes have been hijacked by a minority sub-ideology that hijacks power once the movement has been successful. I personally am quite fatigued by an attack on a government our founding fathers designed, and the hypocritical flag waving oratory so often used in doing so. And on the whole, I am irked to the max by those who would use assassination of character as a way to affect an agenda they are reciprocatively much more secretive about, and very sensitive to the critical evaluation of. In fact, the whole condemnation of government as corrupting, and the free market as a creator of altruistic economic endeavors, is simply a substitution of one so called empowered greed for another one, only without strings attached. And in fact, it is an argument for un-impedance to corporate greed. For myself, I prefer to pay attention to the man behind the curtain. politicalgarbagechute/to-err-is-human-or-why-libertarians-are-myopic-about-the-free-market/
Posted on: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 18:06:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015