Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Monday, June 30, 2014

What Do We Call Politicians Who Value the Rights of Corporations Over the Rights of Individuals?

Posted by on Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:18 AM

The Hobby Lobby news was a hell of a thing to wake up to. Christian Nightmares posted this victory-lap video from the owners of Hobby Lobby crowing about how their "family business" will get to enjoy its "religious freedom."

I'm also interested by Senator Rand Paul's response to this ruling:


Rand Paul is not splitting with his dad on this issue—the Paul family seems dead-set against contraception. Not just government funding of contraception, but contraception in general. Ron Paul says birth control doesn't create immorality, rather that "immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills. So you don’t blame the pills." In other words, he's not for banning contraception, but he is calling contraception "immoral." And he also believes that government shouldn't pay for it.

It's interesting to me, because Rand Paul is essentially taking the stance that a corporation's liberty is worth more than an individual's liberty. (You can argue that if someone doesn't like Hobby Lobby's policies, they're welcome to go find another job elsewhere, or to start their own hobby store, but the truth is that's a disingenuous argument—the market can't sustain an infinite number of hobby stores, and any given area only provides so many jobs. There are only so many options, and people don't need birth control at some random point in the future. They need birth control when they need it.) He's not so much a libertarian as he is a corporatist, which is an inelegant word to describe someone who argues on behalf of corporations. It's unfortunate that corporatist is a word that has basically opposite meanings, depending on who uses it. I would love to see someone come up with a new word to define political interests—like Mitt Romney, like the majority of the Supreme Court—who advocate for corporations as basically super-humans, with amplified powers of free speech and religious freedom that impinge on the rights and freedom of average Americans. At this point, it is most definitely a real political movement, and political movements need names.

 

Comments (63) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Collin 1
Corporaphile.

It makes it sound more irrational (which it is) and more like its a fetish for corporations (which it is). Also it rhymes with pedophile :P
Posted by Collin on June 30, 2014 at 11:29 AM · Report this
venomlash 2
Assholes. We call them assholes.

@1: That sounds too similar to "coprophile" and actually just means "body-lover".
Posted by venomlash on June 30, 2014 at 11:31 AM · Report this
Max Solomon 3
just a regular old politician, since that's what they do, and have done, since corporations became individuals.
Posted by Max Solomon on June 30, 2014 at 11:35 AM · Report this
4
A very selective reading of Paul's stand on birth control:

Some of the "pills" be objects to are reactive abortofacients – killing an organism with movement, possessing a unique genetic code, exhibiting growth, respirating etc. All of the characteristics science uses to characterize life.

Other "pills" are affirmative, preventive birth control. His objection to those is that they aren't the business of government to provide, respecting the rights of individual people to not financially subsidize others in their personal choices.

Not reporting the very clear distinctions that libertarians make between protecting the rights to the individual related to TYPES of birth control should be a personal embarrassment to anyone professing to have an interest in the truth, an informed citizenry and a healthy debate.

But, that's The Stranger for you. What else would we expect from liberal arts majors whose careers never reconciled to their personal choices about student loans.

Hope and change.
Posted by Zok on June 30, 2014 at 11:37 AM · Report this
5
The Court made a pretty important distinction here. Hobby Lobby gets to do what it wants because it's a "closely-held corporation", which is effectively a family business organized as a corporation. A publically-traded corporation or a privately-held corporation owned by investment firms could not adopt a similar policy.
Posted by Sean P. on June 30, 2014 at 11:41 AM · Report this
6
It's true that the SCOTUS decision deals with only four types of BC, but seriously, who's listening to that? They took the first step at stomping on women's reproductive choices, and the pill isn't going to be far behind. For all intents and purposes, any form of birth control is going to be avoided by any business that decides it should be denied due to religious beliefs.

In fact, if you look at all the crowing on the right, it's as if the ruling DOES apply to all forms of BC, so from a practical standpoint, what's the difference?

And while the decision is narrowly defined right now, how soon before it's expanded to other areas of bigotry?
Posted by FranFW on June 30, 2014 at 11:42 AM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 7
Corprophagic. Shit eaters!
Posted by Pope Peabrain on June 30, 2014 at 11:46 AM · Report this
AmyC 8
@5 - no, that's not what the decision said. It DIDN'T DECIDE the issue of what non-closely held for-profit corporations could do, which is a fuck of a lot different from saying non-closely held for-profit corporations can't do it. And the way SCOTUS has been ruling on this shit lately, its really only a matter of time.
Posted by AmyC on June 30, 2014 at 11:50 AM · Report this
fletc3her 9
Ron Paul seems to be saying that having sex without the goal of procreation is immoral. Which would be a weird view for a libertarian if he were actually a libertarian.

The Supreme Court decision is all kinds of wrong. It treats money as speech. It confuses the actions of the workers for the actions of the employers. And it seriously suggests that corporations can hold religious beliefs and practice religion.

It will take a generation to undo the damage this court has caused to our democracy, markets, and personal freedom.
Posted by fletc3her on June 30, 2014 at 11:56 AM · Report this
10
He is a Libertarian alright considering that the overwhelming majority of Libertarians are effectively corporatists no matter what they may claim. Corporatism is the natural outcome of modern laissez-faire capitalism. Just a clue, if you are looking for people advocating individual liberty look up "anarchist".
Posted by anon1256 on June 30, 2014 at 11:59 AM · Report this
Original Andrew 11
Corporate supremacists.
Posted by Original Andrew on June 30, 2014 at 12:00 PM · Report this
12
@10

Can you please do us the favor of pointing-out where in America we are practicing "modern laissez-faire capitalism?"

Because for those of us subjected to the hyper-regulated, anticompetitive, State-infested policy-fest are really curious. We haven't seen it in 50 years.

You're characterization of the enemy "no matter what they claim" is a nice Reich-like device.
Posted by Zok on June 30, 2014 at 12:06 PM · Report this
13
I think calling them corporatists is probably the best way to frame this as a populist issue, rather than as a contraception/religious issue.

'The corporations are steamrolling our rights' I think is the way to piss off enough people to get something done.
Posted by CPN on June 30, 2014 at 12:07 PM · Report this
14
Corporaphilia and Corporaphiliacs
Posted by Akin to Extreme Coprophilia on June 30, 2014 at 12:10 PM · Report this
15
I'd go with "Plutocrat".
Posted by unpaid reader on June 30, 2014 at 12:13 PM · Report this
ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ 16
@12: Reading comprehension, Zok. He didn't say that we're practicing it, but rather that Libertarians advocate for it. And I agree that putting it into practice would lead to large for-profit corporations effectively running the country. Do you disagree?
Posted by ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ on June 30, 2014 at 12:13 PM · Report this
17
I use the term 'corporatist' often to describe pols that push policies which favor the interests of corporations over the interests of real, live humans. Mostly I think these pols do it out of corrupt and lazy expediency, cause they're in this perpetual chase for money - for campaigning or for just plain old fashioned kickbacks. However, I think if you were to look at it from an ideological perspective, the closest term I can think is 'fascist.'
Posted by screed on June 30, 2014 at 12:14 PM · Report this
18
@12 were you asleep during the last 30 years of deregulation, outsourcing, financialization of the economy? were you also sleeping during the 2007 financial crash brought about by massive gambling in financial markets following the reversal of regulations implemented after the 1929 crash caused by Laissez faire capitalism?
Posted by anon1256 on June 30, 2014 at 12:22 PM · Report this
19
@16 we are effectively living Laissez Faire as far as financial markets are concerned; they are also getting ever closer to get rid of the meager gains of Dodd-Frank. In many other sectors, the regulatory apparatus has been captured and neutered.
Posted by anon1256 on June 30, 2014 at 12:27 PM · Report this
mikethehammer 20
Mittists? Romnists? Given the relative absurdity of the notion, I kinda like something that feels forced & awkward.
Posted by mikethehammer on June 30, 2014 at 12:32 PM · Report this
biffp 21
Last year, a corporation was a separate person, and money was speech. This year, a corporation is a pass-through of its investors, and money is religious freedom. The basis for the decision being the evolution of corporate law is stunning. Religious law trumping the law of the land is unusual in a Supreme Court decision.

If you thought the gender of the Court didn't matter, it seems to have today. Women were just handed second class rights - unless you thought reproductive care was not part of medical coverage. Could a decision on insurance coverage for married gay couples be more than a year or two away?
Posted by biffp on June 30, 2014 at 12:46 PM · Report this
22

@16 and @18

@18 That's so cute that you believe all that stuff. Now: Do actually believe there is less regulation now than 30 years ago? The Federal Register has increased 146% since 1975, (and up 11% under Obama in just 5 years.)

And what was your plan to prevent outsourcing? (The communist enslavement of capital?) And who was going to pay for those union and government pensions without CalPERS getting so heavy into hedge funds? Wall Street is Main Streets unfunded pension casino.

The issue is the ineptitude of government, which - strangely – seems to be the device you'd prefer to free markets, despite its appalling reputation for performance.

@16

Your premise is that "big" and "for-profit" are bad. (Worse than the current state?) Many (in fact most) companies are run by good people, with good intentions, dealing fairly. You wouldn't want Jim Sinegal from Costco making decisions for the country?

What liberals don't understand is that when they try and have the government grow larger and more influential, businesses seize on that power (lobbying) to create conditions for their success. Stop trying to grow the power of government – push everything to the individual (low tax, only essential regulation, little bureaucracy), and corporations will have no power.
Posted by Zok on June 30, 2014 at 12:47 PM · Report this
23
All the court effectively said was that there are four ways to buy birth control.

1) You can buy it for yourself (Walgreens)
2) You can have other people provide it (Planned Parenthood)
3) The government can provide it. (Single payor)
4) The government can compel your employer to get involved with your sex life. (Obamacare)

Except one of these compels the owner of a business to do something that has nothing to do with your job, but everything to do with his/her beliefs. (Oh yeah, the Constitution.)

So – The Supreme Court didn't cause this problem. The Obama Administration failed to make the system single payor, and didn't address the statute properly.

Last week Obama suffered his 13th loss by a UNANIMOUS (9-0) Supreme Court. All of the cases had to do with infringements on individual rights and the overreach of the Executive office. This is not a matter of a partisan Supreme Court. He can't even hold his own nominees on most cases.

He's a Constitutional lightweight, a total pussy in the political economy, a glad-handing opportunist and petulant would-be-Emperor.
Posted by Zok on June 30, 2014 at 12:58 PM · Report this
sloegin 24
The corporatist piece of this ruling is only part of the reason that it's so terrible. The other part being Catholic justices carve out a special snowflake exception for their religion and claim that other possible religious legal scenarios don't count, because... one true religion or something.
Posted by sloegin on June 30, 2014 at 1:02 PM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 25
@23: How is a plan covering all maintenance medications the employer getting involved in your sex life? Specifically excluding one maintenance medication which is also a contraceptive is actually the employer getting involved with your sex life.

Ugh, but why bother? You are clearly the new Slog conservatroll, your basic ignorance shadowed only by the massive cognitive dissonance required to claim the things you do. It is amazing how people like you can just be wrong about everything.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on June 30, 2014 at 1:07 PM · Report this
biffp 26
@23, your employer should not be involved in your medical decisions.
Posted by biffp on June 30, 2014 at 1:14 PM · Report this
27
@8: The Court ruled that Hobby Lobby doesn't have to cover certain forms of contraception because it is a closely-held corporation, not because "corporations are people just like you and me". That the distinction was made implies that it is meaningful. Closely-held corporations have always fallen into a gray area between partnership and corporation. If you can find a publically-traded corporation that enacts corporate policies based solely on the religious beliefs of its owners, feel free to sue just to see what happens.
Posted by Sean P. on June 30, 2014 at 1:26 PM · Report this
venomlash 28
@22: You're jousting with a strawman there, chum.
My premise is NOT that "big" and "for-profit" ARE necessarily bad, only that they CAN BE very dangerous if left to their own devices. Power itself is not evil, but it can be put to evil uses; this I learned from reading "Shi Tou Chi".
There are big for-profit corporations that do a great deal of good in this world, both in the values they promote and in their business models. There are also those which will oppress their workforce, nickel-and-dime their customers, and shortchange their suppliers if given the slightest chance. Since exploitation often pays out larger short-term gains than altruism/symbiosis, despite being untenable in the long term, it is the duty of government to punish exploitation and reward symbiosis; otherwise, under a laissez-faire approach, the former is likely to go to fixation for a while.

Your argument is the same old tired "regulation is good for big business", a claim that falls flat in light of corporate interests' constant opposition to regulation. When we enacted consumer protection and food safety laws, it was at the behest of John and Jane Q. Public. When we gave legal protection to workers' unions and established the modern 5 day 40 hour work week, it was driven by the advocacy of the working class.
Posted by venomlash on June 30, 2014 at 1:40 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 29
@22,
Many (in fact most) companies are run by good people, with good intentions, dealing fairly. ... Stop trying to grow the power of government ... and corporations will have no power.
That is an incredibly naïve and rose-colored view of company heads and corporate goals.

When left alone without sufficient regulation, companies exploit their workers and eventually their consumers. Unregulated free markets result in monopolies and company towns that are headed by bosses equivalent to feudal lords.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on June 30, 2014 at 1:43 PM · Report this
keshmeshi 30
@5,

And what will the distinction be when that closely held corporation decides it doesn't want to serve gay customers or hire black people? It *was* already established that religion does not exempt a business (regardless of how it's organized) from the regulations the public has chosen to impose. SCOTUS just undid 50 years of human progress.
Posted by keshmeshi on June 30, 2014 at 1:48 PM · Report this
31
@23 by choosing to ONLY exclude contraception, Hobby Lobby is BUTTING ITS HEAD into the sex lives of its employees.
Posted by db206 on June 30, 2014 at 1:50 PM · Report this
32
@25 Teddy...

I know you come here seeking the comforts of the like-minded. Sorry that the challenge of new ideas distresses you so.

In fact it is you that whiffed on the underlying argument. The plaintiff's complaint was based on the coverage extending to abortofacient drugs, not "maintenance" drugs (medications prescribed for chronic, long‐term conditions and are taken on a regular,recurring basis.)

In fact – the plaintiff in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores stated that they didn't object to all contraceptives. Just those after fertilization by frustrating the implantation on the uterine wall,
terminating the existence of separate, moving, respirating, cell-dividing organisms with their own unique genetic signature. (FYI - Scientists define these characteristics as "life.")

Its fantastic that you think, because someone disagrees with you, that its trolling or "conservative."

In fact, more of us are being liberated from the shackles of party-line "Liberalism."

We're for the legalization of drugs, gay marriage, etc – and against foreign wars of choice – but don't trust government can do much for us, and should stop trying.

In fact, "Progressives" really don't represent progress anymore, aas their tired-schtick of government programming has spectacularly flamed-out.

Posted by Zok on June 30, 2014 at 1:52 PM · Report this
biffp 33
@32, government just stepped in and decided a corporate employer can push their religion on to you. That isn't small government anymore than your description of contraception is abortion.
Posted by biffp on June 30, 2014 at 2:01 PM · Report this
34
Back to the original article...

A name that is scathing, yet clever enough that they'd adopt it without realizing it's an insult.

FYI, I've been calling them Regressives in the hopes that their ideological tunnel-vision will happily take on anything that goes against progressiveness., i.e. "Wow, the Regressives want to create a nation of robot workers. They sure are a bunch of dumb fucks!"
Posted by themightywoozie on June 30, 2014 at 2:03 PM · Report this
blip 35
Restricting women's access to birth control will result in more unintended pregnancies and thus more abortions. Hormonal birth control pills -- even ones that could theoretically prevent implantation of a fertilized embryo -- work primarily by blocking ovulation and making it more difficult for sperm to reach the uterus.

If you give women greater access and more choices for preventative birth control the net result would be fewer abortions. But of course this isn't about preventing abortions, but restricting women's access to birth control.
Posted by blip on June 30, 2014 at 2:24 PM · Report this
36

@33 Ummmmm...

Not before government stepped in, mandating that employers had to buy you something (unrelated to you work ) that you don't really have any choice over (Obamacare plans).

Ask yourself: If Obama and the Democrats were really, really interested in helping you. Why do they leave the purchase of healthcare up to Hobby Lobby?

Why are they asking Hobby Lobby (whose expertise is glitter and pinking shears), to step in and provide the funds for Viagra and Plan B?

If its such a compelling public interest – why aren't "The Progressives" doing it through single payer? If insurance companies are really so bad, why did Obamacare make them more powerful?

Ya' see, the Left wants you to think that the 1%, the Supreme Court, churches and businesses are out to get you.

Meanwhile Harry Reid lives at the Ritz-Carlton (look it up), Hillary is collecting a half-million to speak at Goldman Sachs (look it up); Nancy Pelosi still won't release her taxes (look it up) and Michael Moore is sitting on 9 private residences (look it up).

You might think those that aren't registered Democrats are stupid, but really... for those of us on the outside... you kids are starting to look like complete suckers for still buying this shit.

Next thing you'll tell us is that Hillary is here to advocate and protect young women, despite voluntarily (for a few bucks) defending someone charged with raping a 12 year old girl, that she knew was guilty (all the while oscillating between southern accents.)

Obama has had and astounding 13 defeats of 9-0 in front of this court. He can't even hold his own nominees. The Democrats are a disgrace.


Posted by Zok on June 30, 2014 at 2:39 PM · Report this
37
This is a very confusing ruling. It says that for these purposes, the owners of the shares of this corporation are regarded as if they were the direct owners, but for other purposes they retain the benefits of corporate ownership. That's confusing.

Equally confusing is the idea that an employer's religious beliefs trumps employment law. Since when? Since when have people been exempted from the law because their faith (according to their interpretation) conflicts with the law?

This isn't a slippery slope - this is where you end up when you have slid down one. Employers, per this ruling, are exempt from the laws that are counter to their self-proclaimed religious beliefs. That's bullshit.
Posted by Charlie Mas on June 30, 2014 at 2:51 PM · Report this
thelyamhound 38
@32 -
Just those after fertilization by frustrating the implantation on the uterine wall,
terminating the existence of separate, moving, respirating, cell-dividing organisms with their own unique genetic signature. (FYI - Scientists define these characteristics as "life.")
It seems to me that "life" is already a fairly fungible concept under law. "Human life" is marginally less so, but the notion of "personhood" is the only one that holds legal sway.

I would venture to say that, since we cannot illustrate that value occurs naturally, that life, human life, or the life of a person only has what value we collectively assign it, and to whatever degree we protect any such phenomenon by way of law, some sort of collective civic utility or harm would have to be demonstrated.
In fact, more of us are being liberated from the shackles of party-line "Liberalism."

We're for the legalization of drugs, gay marriage, etc – and against foreign wars of choice – but don't trust government can do much for us, and should stop trying.
It sounds viable, if you don't think it out, or if you labor under the presumption that the function of a species as "advanced" (or, from another viewpoint, as fundamentally dissolute) as the third chimpanzee.

Look at it this way--all means of anthropoid survival, and of human survival in particular, involve collective endeavor and inter-subjective negotiation. There is no "moral" duty that does not refer to at least a second organism aside from the one whose morality is being judged; even religion must anthropomorphize [G/g]od(s) to give us a metaphysical point of accountability to which we owe fealty. We have many, many ways of organizing ourselves and answering questions about utility, morality, ethics, philosophy, law, and so on: family, community, government, corporation, profession, church (or other religious organization), subculture, tribe, and so on. Most of us belong to multiple circles. There may be the occasional Jeremiah Johnson out there; I don't object to him, but I think we can agree that his contribution to cultural history is somewhere between negligible and nil, since he's essentially opted out of participation in culture, a rare solitary organism in an otherwise resolutely social species.

Given that, what I've never understood about the conservative and/or libertarian take on government--which seems to posit that it is uniquely unqualified to deal in amenities like public health or funding the arts or educating the populace. Are you of the opinion that other modes of organizing ourselves have shown themselves more worth of our trust or more capable of offering these amenities? Based on what reasoning?
More...
Posted by thelyamhound http://thebayinghound.blogspot.com on June 30, 2014 at 2:52 PM · Report this
blip 39
@36, We've spent the last 5 years hearing about how the government took over the healthcare system, when in reality the government just mandated everyone that have health insurance that is primarily obtained via the private market. Imagine the apocalyptic terror that an actual government takeover of healthcare would have wrought.

We do not have single-payer health care because it is politically impossible, not because liberals and progressives prefer putting the clusterfuck health care system we currently have on steroids. It's better than no reform at all, but it's not what we wanted.
Posted by blip on June 30, 2014 at 2:54 PM · Report this
fletc3her 40
You really have to read the ruling to get how whack-a-doodle the reasoning is. And justices like Scalia consider their legacy to be the methods which they use to make these decisions. Every appeals court judge and lawyer reads these decisions to see how to frame arguments.

Alito goes to great length to show that Congress considers a corporation to be a "person". And then we get what I consider the money quote, "According to HHS and the dissent, these corporations are not protected by RFRA because they cannot exercise religion. Neither HHS nor the dissent, however, provides any persuasive explanation for this conclusion."

The argument is being made that not only is the corporation a "person" and entitled to all the rights of a person, but that the corporation can actually exercise religion and have deeply held religious convictions! That is the idea this decision hinges on and that is a very dangerous line of reasoning which, given how Romney promoted it a while back, has been a goal of the Republicans to normalize for a while now.

However, here in what used to be reality, we recognize that corporations are not "persons" since they cannot be jailed, suffer physical harm, etc. They don't have corporeal essence. They cannot attend church. We are going to need Karl Popper to straighten all this out.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13p…
Posted by fletc3her on June 30, 2014 at 2:58 PM · Report this
thelyamhound 41
@36 -
If its such a compelling public interest – why aren't "The Progressives" doing it through single payer? If insurance companies are really so bad, why did Obamacare make them more powerful?
Agreed. It was a missed opportunity. I blame the laudable, but laughably utopian, impulse toward compromise and bipartisanship.
Meanwhile Harry Reid lives at the Ritz-Carlton (look it up), Hillary is collecting a half-million to speak at Goldman Sachs (look it up); Nancy Pelosi still won't release her taxes (look it up) and Michael Moore is sitting on 9 private residences (look it up).
It all seems a little conspicuous to me, 'tis true, but if you think we on the left fundamentally frown on wealth, I'm inclined to say you're missing the point.
You might think those that aren't registered Democrats are stupid, but really... for those of us on the outside... you kids are starting to look like complete suckers for still buying this shit.
I'd say that, for most of us, the government is sort of like the phone company--we'd rather not have to think about it, but we can't really function within our civilizations if it's not there. I don't see that the "shit" we buy is any worse than the shit the other part[y/ies] is/are selling.
Next thing you'll tell us is that Hillary is here to advocate and protect young women, despite voluntarily (for a few bucks) defending someone charged with raping a 12 year old girl, that she knew was guilty (all the while oscillating between southern accents.)
Under our legal system, there is no one so low as to not deserve competent and vigorous defense. Period. It's among the biggest reasons I never really looked into law as a profession, despite the fact that, generally, I could argue the pants off of Daniel Webster if I took a mind.
More...
Posted by thelyamhound http://thebayinghound.blogspot.com on June 30, 2014 at 3:08 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 42
So let me get this straight: because someone doesn't think a business should be forced to pay for something, that means that person is against the subject at hand. Really?
So are you against weed? No one is saying my boss should pay for my weed. Are you against tacos? I'm sure the SStranger doesn't buy tacos for its workers.
Saying a business shouldn't be forced to spend money on something is NOT corporatism...unless all the mom and pop stores who would be forced to pay for IUDs are suddenly corporations now too.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 30, 2014 at 3:44 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 43
What do you call a white, privileged half-ass "journalist" who is beloved by hipsters and takes every available opportunity to throw strawmen and bring up class warfare?
Paul Constance.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 30, 2014 at 3:46 PM · Report this
biffp 44
"why aren't "The Progressives" doing it through single payer?" That's all this. @36 and Alito willing to throw out anything over Obamacare.
Posted by biffp on June 30, 2014 at 3:52 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 45
Oh, and most libertarians are opposed to corporate personhood, while we understand that the people who make up corporations should be treated with respect. This is just another SAD piece of straw-libertarianism by a man (Paul Constance) who probably doesn't know anything about it.
Just as it would be idiotic to say all socialist, including Sawant, are like Stalin (especially Sawant, a Troskite) it would be idiotic to say all libertarians are like right-wing republicans...especially when you consider that many libertarians, like myself, are actually left-libertarian.
Here's a website Paul probably would say doesn't exist: http://praxeology.net/all-left.htm
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 30, 2014 at 3:55 PM · Report this
46
@36 There was and continues to be criticism of the Affordable Care Act from the left, from liberals/progressives who aren't mindlessly partisan Democrats. It started the day it became clear that Obama would not even consider single-payer, and continued through the torturous on-again, off-again 'public option' debate (the stink of it became excruciating when Joe Lieberman was paraded out to put the final public nail in the public-option coffin, a job he did with equal parts smarmy sanctimony and unabashed glee). It was a shit-show to be sure, the cave-ins, the pre-emptory 'compromises' the Dems were all to happy to agree to, all for how many republican votes? Oh yea, that's right, NONE! Not a single republican senator voted for the legislation. Alright, back on topic. I agree that democrats complaining now about the Hobby Lobby case is like crows coming home to roost. They created a flawed piece of legislation and now they're complaining when it starts falling apart. Remember all that happy talk about the ACA being like a 'starter home' which provides a foundation that can be built on? Kinda like Clinton promising to fix NAFTA later. Still waiting on that one. So instead of improving the ACA 'starter home', we're tearing it apart (medicaid expansion, contraception coverage, what next?) and turning it into a lean-to, or maybe into a cave. But the insurance companies and drug manufacturers are still making really really fat profits, so its all good. From a corporatist perspective, what's not to like?
Posted by screed on June 30, 2014 at 3:56 PM · Report this
47
@22 - in other words you are denying that massive financial deregulation occurred over the last 30 years, which makes of you either a delusional fool or someone with the intellectual honesty of a toilet (toilets have no intellectual honesty). You aren't a corporatist, you just happen to agree with them.

I am not going to argue blow by blow with your verbal diarrhea, which in traditional fashion for a Libertarian is profuse but meaningless for a non-religious type like me; however, your simplistic count of regulations in the books as evidence that greater regulation occurs today is not worth my time discussing any further.
Posted by anon1256 on June 30, 2014 at 4:30 PM · Report this
blip 48
@45, Dude. Self-awareness: try it out sometime. You throw around more fake arguments than anyone who regularly comments here. Just earlier today you claimed the Stranger's readership is mostly rich "trust-fund hipsters," which are barely even a real thing, let alone the majority of the people who read this paper.

You also seem to be incapable of defending your beliefs without shitting on other people or philosophies (like your screen name, for example), but that's another diagnosis altogether.
Posted by blip on June 30, 2014 at 4:50 PM · Report this
49
In the case of Hobby Lobby, what I'd call them is fuckin' hypocrites. The vast majority of their stock comes from China, where forced abortion and birth control are not just the norm but actively enforced by the government. If the Greens were really as deeply religious, as personally involved with Jesus, as they claim to be, they would be sourcing their crap from places where abortion and contraception are illegal. Most of Central America qualifies, but I don't hear that they're buying their shit down there. This is purely about their bottom line -- the religious angle was just lawyerly cleverness.
Posted by Calpete on June 30, 2014 at 5:38 PM · Report this
50
@30: The Court actually had the opportunity to do that with Elane Photography but declined to hear the case. Your slippery-slope fallacy will have to wait another year to be tested, but I have a pretty hard time believing that anybody is going to try to overturn the Bob Jones decision.
Posted by Sean P. on June 30, 2014 at 6:39 PM · Report this
51
@36 I'd love for there to be a single payer option and I think most Democrats would to. Alas that was not possible at the time. For 100+ fucking years various attempts have been made at addressing healthcare and nothing had passed until ACA. The dam had to be broken.

Moreover if one steps back and looks at the actual structure of ACA it screams for a single payer public option to be put in place at some point in the future.

On another note, it might just be me but Collectivism_sucks is sounding increasingly unhinged lately. Has anyone else noticed this?
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on June 30, 2014 at 6:57 PM · Report this
52
@47 anon1256

Earlier you said deregulation (unqualified), and when rebutted you claim 'financial' deregulation. Okay, fine. But let's not confuse correspondence with causation.

http://reason.com/archives/2009/06/19/th…

How exactly did Europe, with all that banking regulation, get so fucked up? Because government was overseeing it. The same nature of government that just took over healthcare. (The VA is just a trial run at fiasco.)

You throw corporatist around like you know what it means. Fool.

Posted by Zok on June 30, 2014 at 8:02 PM · Report this
curtisp 53
Most of their crap is made in China where abortions are strong arm encouraged by the government and religious freedom is sparse. These nice American Christians are really only interested in imposing their morality on women here where they have a vision for our future. So let's call these two closely held corporate persons exactly what they are...Creepy Hypocrites.
Posted by curtisp on June 30, 2014 at 8:15 PM · Report this
54
@52 get a life, moron.
Posted by anon1256 on June 30, 2014 at 8:21 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 55
@ 52, Europe was fucked up by austerity. Elementary.
Posted by Matt from Denver on June 30, 2014 at 9:19 PM · Report this
56
@55 No no, Elementary is the US version of Sherlock.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on June 30, 2014 at 9:50 PM · Report this
57

@55

It would appear that -- with your head up your ass --- it's easy for you to confuse sequencing,

Excessive bank regulation failure. First.
Necessary austerity. Next.
Posted by Zok on June 30, 2014 at 10:06 PM · Report this
58
see, Zok even agrees with plutocrats about austerity but nooo, he isn't a corporatist. wink, wink.
Posted by anon1256 on June 30, 2014 at 10:09 PM · Report this
59
Anon256.

Your seeming addiction to regulation, and rejection of libertarianism belies a lack of confidence in your own ability to provide for yourself without nannies.

Austerity, if you really understood it anyway, isn't a choice anymore. Who was going to lend money without budgetary constraint.,Prnting new money as a fiat currency only dilutes the purchasing power of currency.

What Liberals don't understand --- 5 years into "recovery" -- with a GDP tanking in 1Q, and record low labor participation rate, is that the party is fucking over. Over.

You get austerity, because it's all been spent.

The past 30 years of federal expenditure and consumer affluence will be a terrible predictor of what's next. The sooner you adapt toa Libertarian standard, of self-reliance and personal autonomy. The better off you'll be in this transition.
Posted by Zok on June 30, 2014 at 11:13 PM · Report this
60
How calling them Hobby Lobbyists?
Posted by TransitSam on June 30, 2014 at 11:49 PM · Report this
61
oligarchs, plutocrats, feudalists, neoconservatives, neoliberals, robber barons, capitalists, take your pick. I don't think a lack of words is the problem
Posted by thescotushasalwaysbeenanoligarchy on July 1, 2014 at 11:37 AM · Report this
62
"Fascism should more properly be called Corporatism, since it is the marriage of State and corporate power." -Benito Mussolini, the *founder* of Fascism. (Real quote-Google it)

Call 'em Fascists.
Posted by MosesInvests on July 2, 2014 at 5:58 PM · Report this
Ernie Piper 63
Yo ZOK. I want to live in a version of America where if I need medical stuff, it'll be taken care of, regardless of how much money I have. Currently, in this version, I have to have a specific kind of job with a specific kind of employer who will be willing maybe to provide me with some of the medicine, based on how they feel about it. Maybe.

I bet it was great for you being a self-starter and working your way up from the top and doing entrepreneurial shit and selling selling! and investing and networking and finally, after years of labor, reaching a position of wealth and stability through your efforts alone. LET'S FUCKING PRETEND that you had to do that while being pregnant and raising a child. This is going to hurt, because you're using your empathy and imagination, which have been atrophying in a wretched wrinkled corner of your grey matter, cooing for stimulation.

I get that you disagree with how things should be implemented. I understand that you think government is the last refuge of stupid people, and that you can't trust anyone but yourself. BUT NOT EVERYONE had your same opportunities. It would be really cool if you tried to think about that for a little bit. Then you may understand how us filthy communist progressive liberal democratic asshats started to think that maybe reigning in corporations was a good idea.
Posted by Ernie Piper on July 3, 2014 at 1:54 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy