Do you agree with the following:

The Op has asked 3 questions and here is my take on them, then I will give an answer:

The first question is: Is if we agree that there needs to be a release of the nation by the stranglehold of corporate interest and a politics dominated by big money.

The second question is: That there is a privacy that is violated by government and big business, and that such needs to be reversed, with the privacy of the individual needs to be restored and strengthened.

The third and final questions: Should the individual consumers have the right to make fully informed choices about the food, drink and drugs they purchase.

Here are the answers I have for said questions and the reasons behind them.

In answer to the first question: The way it is asked, the answer is no. The reason is that, like any law, can be abused, and used against people. The best case example, is as someone brought up, would be say a union. What if everyone in a business were to donate money to one candidate, then under a law like that, the business would be penalized, as it would give the appearance that it is donating as one organization to one political candidate. And like all laws, there would be those that seek to exploit and abuse for their advantage. Unions would argue that they should be exempt as they are not a business or a corporation but a collection of people. Other organizations would do the same, and it would turn out to be going from one set of donors to another and end up getting to be messy in the end.
And what about the owners of said businesses, would you deny them their rights to participate in the political process? Would you deny say Paris Hilton from donating to a political candidate, all cause she is owner of a corporation?

In answer to the second question, if I understand it: No. there is always going to be a violation of privacy. If you want absolute privacy for the person, then it stands to reason, that what a person donates to a political candidate can not be on public display. Nor can it be held against them.
And by allowing for a greater privacy would ultimately also work against the interest of business, as now they would not be able to suggest products to a target demographic, or an individual. Would you deny a person the right to make a choice, or even hear about said choice?

The answer to number 3: How much more information does a person need? Having general information is a good thing, but more and more, people choose to ignore said information. And whose fault is it? The company/organization providing the information, or those who choose to ignore the information?

a reply to: FyreByrd

Well, I would say that I agree with #2 as well. So, yes to all three. I'll await my cookie.

As a rational, libertarian my right to swing my fist, ends before it hits you nose. Now, a brought and paid for, 19th Century, Supreme Court ruled that Corporations are individual entities with Constitutional rights. Which let a lot of very rich people off the hook concerning legal actions, criminal and civil. Imagine a CEO being told that a citizen dying due to actions of his/her corporation meant they personally would be charged with murder. If the company goes tits up under your watch, there is no "golden parachute," your funds go into the bankruptcy court to settle the debts. What is called for is not prohibition of big money donors, but total and absolute transparency. The people need know exactly who is paying for a political campaign or petition vote, how the money is being given. A qualified Yes. This includes any and all organizations and individuals with interests in the outcome.
Now, the corporation has no right to privacy, nor do individual who contribute large sums of money or other goods to a campaign. Remember, politicians and other public figures are considered to have surrendered the right to total privacy upon entering the public arena. The corporation may make a claim, under present law, to have a right to free speech. It has by participating in a public issue entered the "public arena.," no total right to privacy. The same applies to individuals unless they write a personal check to support a politician or defeat an issue, and take no public stand or statement.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: FyreByrd

Well, I would say that I agree with #2 as well. So, yes to all three. I'll await my cookie.

How about brownies?

originally posted by: FyreByrd
No the difficult question: (and thank you to all for answering and being patient.)

Are you willing to support measures to attain these widely held concepts, even, even, if:


1) It isn't a perfect solution.

2) It is a compromise solution.

3) You have to work with people you don't like to help implement the solution.

Are there any answers to the above three additions.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I answer YES to all three.

Will you, at some point, tell us what it all means? A brownie is great, but I'm very curious about your conclusions.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


The point I was hoping to get to was that there are many issues that left and right and inbetween agree in principle on.

Let's work together on the thins we agree on even if the solutions are what we want in the spirit of cooperation.

There is so much to be done. So much... I am willing to support things that, while working in the right direction, may be flawed in some way or insistence. A single example of how something doesn't work does not make something bad, nothing and no one is perfect.

I'm so tired of 'road block'...