The end of freedom of expression online:

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Plus Ultra, Aug 20, 2017.

  1. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So if corportate taxes are paid for by the consumer - which I agree is true - then what good does it do to raise taxes on corporations?
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017
  2. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just curious. If HBO suddenly spun up a show about how cool slavery is, would you go after HBO?
     
  3. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    If you support anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws your support the suppression of freedom of speech, and despise the rights of man. In other words, you are an evil cretin. If North Korea and South Korea can't convince you the evil of socialism and the goodness of capitalism, you aren't human any longer and must be ignored as the walking dead. Bye bye blood sucker.

    Miss Rand: The necessary precondition of a coercive monopoly is closed entry—the barring of all competing producers from a given field. This can be accomplished only by an act of government intervention, in the form of special regulations, subsidies, or franchises. Without government assistance, it is impossible for a would-be monopolist to set and maintain his prices and production policies independent of the rest of the economy. For if he attempted to set his prices and production at a level that would yield profits to new entrants significantly above those available in other fields, competitors would be sure to invade his industry."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/monopoly.html
     
  4. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Before I put you on ignore, just out of curiosity, are you 10 yet?
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017
  5. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    IF they had solar power, why would they need an electric power company's coal fired power? Or nuclear power? Or Hydro-power...or whatever power? Seems stupid.
     
  6. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It does me a great deal of good because then I no longer have to pay the Corporations share of the tax bill.

    The other point made in the post is the other good. We have a choice. You have 10 dollars in your pocket and the Corp has 10 dollars in its pocket.
    There is a 10 dollar tax bill that needs to be paid. If you give up your 10 dollars to pay the tax the shareholder keeps an extra 10 bucks which they likely do not spend in the local economy (some not even living in the country). If the corp pays the tax and you keep your 10 dollars you spend it immediately in the local economy.

    This then helps the local economy and the economy of the US as a whole. Yes .... I know the argument from the other side . but the corp might spend some of their 10 dollars in the local economy too.

    True ... but ..for a publicly traded company that has any international exposure or one who pays dividends... that company will not spend and in some cases no where near 100% of that 10 dollars in the country never mind the local economy.

    Thus you have a net loss of money in the economy and a net movement of money from the workers and small business owners and some private companies to the Oligarchs/international financiers.

    This is one route a system of indentured slavery is being put in place. Not only have the Oligarchs managed to decrease wages and get rid of Jobs (via anti competitive mechanisms as described above) through mergers and outsourcing ... at the same time they are getting us to foot a greater share of the tax bill.

    These Oligarchs are gobbling up most things of value (again through anti competitive practices, regulation and so on) while keeping the small business from competing.

    Why so many have been fooled into thinking that it is in their best interest to pay the Oligarchs share of the taxes is in part a function of a huge propaganda effort on the part of the Oligarchs who own much and influence all of the MSM.
     
  7. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    i see we do not agree on the way corporate taxes work

    Corporations pass along all the costs of doing business to the consumers who buy their product or service - including taxes

    No matter how much you raise taxes you are really just taxing yourself
     
    Starjet likes this.
  8. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I deleted the rest of your blubbering after this as none of it constituted non fallacious support of claim.

    Throwing insults and repetition of claim is not an valid argument for much.

    Any idiot can have an opinion ... but is it informed. Support your claim Mr. Big Mouth.
     
  9. Plus Ultra

    Plus Ultra Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2017
    Messages:
    3,028
    Likes Received:
    1,190
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's an interesting article on the antitrust issue with these "internet titans"; http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/17/open-markets-google-antitrust-barry-lynn-000523

    It is noted how the consumer as "product" and the fact the internet services are often free confuses the analysis. It is interesting this Barry Lynn headed a liberal Think Tank and I was unaware of the influence he has had on Democrat party policy development. Another significant aspect raised is the 'cozy' relationship between these internet titans and the Democrats, any review of antitrust in the internet could jeopardize a very significant revenue stream to the Democrats. The mere fact antitrust and Google (Amazon or Facebook) are simply associated in policy discussions considering review is significant. I agree the magnitude of the major internet businesses and their ever broadening scope does raise significant issues about competition in an environment they exert absolute control over.
     
  10. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am assuming based on some of your posts you are pro anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws.

    Miss Ayn Rand: "The Antitrust laws—an unenforceable, uncompliable, unjudicable mess of contradictions—have for decades kept American businessmen under a silent, growing reign of terror. Yet these laws were created and, to this day, are upheld by the “conservatives,” as a grim monument to their lack of political philosophy, of economic knowledge and of any concern with principles. Under the Antitrust laws, a man becomes a criminal from the moment he goes into business, no matter what he does. For instance, if he charges prices which some bureaucrats judge as too high, he can be prosecuted for monopoly or for a successful “intent to monopolize”; if he charges prices lower than those of his competitors, he can be prosecuted for “unfair competition” or “restraint of trade”; and if he charges the same prices as his competitors, he can be prosecuted for “collusion” or “conspiracy.” There is only one difference in the legal treatment accorded to a criminal or to a businessman: the criminal’s rights are protected much more securely and objectively than the businessman’s."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/antitrust_laws.html

    Miss Ayn Rand: "[There is only one] meaning and purpose these laws could have, whether their authors intended it or not: the penalizing of ability for being ability, the penalizing of success for being success, and the sacrifice of productive genius to the demands of envious mediocrity.--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/antitrust_laws.html

    Starjett: In football there are dirty players. They try to injure their betters in order to enhance their chances for their victories. They are punks. The same can be said of the supporters of anti-monopoly laws and anti-trust laws. If this country want's to get back on the road to virtue, goodness, morality, prosperity, and fair play, repeal these obscene anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws and lets show the world what the American inventors, producers, entrepreneurs, capitalists, and workers can do. I offer the coming explosion in space tourism as just one example.
     
  11. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And right this marked starting is the core difference which I refute in content totally! Freedom of Speech is NOT a Wild Card to say what you want if it hurts the constitutional rights of others and / or contents crimes by law - point!
     
  12. Art_Allm

    Art_Allm Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,003
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No, Orwell was talking in his 1984 about a Commie dictatorship.
     
    TheGreatSatan likes this.
  13. TheGreatSatan

    TheGreatSatan Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2009
    Messages:
    21,269
    Likes Received:
    21,243
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No way!!!

    BREAKING!!! Collectivist use assimilated drones in control of media outlets to silence political opposition. Nobody surprised...
     
  14. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If I can get someone to print my book, I can write whatever, no matter how vile, wild, or offensive. The free speech amendment is not a limitation on my right to free speech,. It is a prohibition against the government from stopping me. My objection to your use of the phrase "wild card' within the context you use it implies if someone finds a certain speech to be so wild as to be offensive, it can be prohibited. It can't The only thing that can be done is if its a book, no publisher can be forced by the government to publish it, or a store to carry it. If its a speech, no property owner can be forced by the government to allow you to speak, and so on with art, etc. It is not free speech in any of those case that would be the aspect of the law in question, it would be, who holds the property rights. This is why property rights are a sacred and fundamental principle of individual rights. Who owns the property, decides what happens on his property. Pornography is a good example.

    Miss Ayn Rand: "I want to state, for the record, my own view of what is called “hard-core” pornography. I regard it as unspeakably disgusting. I have not read any of the books or seen any of the current movies belonging to that category, and I do not intend ever to read or see them. The descriptions provided in legal cases, as well as the “modern” touches in “soft-core” productions, are sufficient grounds on which to form an opinion. The reason of my opinion is the opposite of the usual one: I do not regard sex as evil—I regard it as good, as one of the most important aspects of human life, too important to be made the subject of public anatomical display. But the issue here is not one’s view of sex. The issue is freedom of speech and of the press—i.e., the right to hold any view and to express it. )Italics and bold are mine).

    It is not very inspiring to fight for the freedom of the purveyors of pornography or their customers. But in the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with the suppression of a given right’s least attractive practitioners. In this case, the disgusting nature of the offenders makes it a good test of one’s loyalty to a principle"--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/free_speech.html

    In essence, what Miss Rand is saying is free speech is free speech, no matter what. This is what is known as fidelity to a principle, or what is often also called Integrity.

    If you wish to say that no one can be forced to hear, see, or view that which they find offensive, you're right. But that determination is going to depend on who has the property rights, and does not mean you can rip the shirt off a person walking down the street because you don't like what it says or shows. When it comes to free speech and government persecution of them, the right to free speech is absolute and the government must defend an individuals right to exercise it within the context of property rights.

     
  15. ibobbrob

    ibobbrob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2017
    Messages:
    12,744
    Likes Received:
    3,136
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Unless I am missing something, your comment is one of the dumbest and most irrelevant that has appeared on this forum. Catch my drift, big guy? And insulting to Jewish folk.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2017
  16. Oh Yeah

    Oh Yeah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,093
    Likes Received:
    2,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's what qualifies for hate speech. Who is doing the refining? Many of our major newspapers have been doing this for years. The omission of a opposing view is as dangerous to freedom of the press as outright censorship. Our founding fathers were aware of the pros and cons and here are a couple examples.

    Arthur Lee, writing as "Cincinnatus" to James Wilson in 1787, said, "I have proved , sir, that not only some power is given in the constitution to restrain, and even to subject the press, but that it is a power totally unlimited; and may certainly annihilate the freedom of the press, and convert it from being the palladium (element) of liberty to become an engine of imposition and tyranny. It is an easy step from restraining the press to making it place the worst actions of government in so favorable a light, that we may groan under tranny and oppression without knowing whence it comes. Documentary History, XIV: 11. The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution. Chap. 6 pg. 184 Brion McClanahan

    Others thought differently and were indifferent to the imposition (a thing that is imposed, in particular an unfair or unwelcome demand or burden) by the press.

    Richard Henry Lee wrote "a free press is a channel of communication as to mercantile (commerce) and public affairs; by means of it the people in large countries ascertain (find out for certain) each others sentiments; are enabled to unite, and become formidable (intimidating) to those rulers who adopt improper measures. Newspapers may sometimes be the vehicles of abuse, and of many things not true, but these are but small inconveniences, in my mind, among many advantages. Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution Chap. 6 pg. 185 Brion McClanahan
     
    Art_Allm likes this.
  17. Paperview

    Paperview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    Messages:
    9,359
    Likes Received:
    2,735
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have no idea what you're talking about.

    Private companies are not the government. How about you read the First Amendment and post the words of what it says. You can start by inhaling deeply just the first five words of that Amendment, then come back here and try again.
     
  18. Oh Yeah

    Oh Yeah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,093
    Likes Received:
    2,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How about you reading what I wrote. I only quoted what a couple founding fathers used for arguments about the First Amendment. Pro and Con. So pull your panties back up.
     
    Toefoot likes this.
  19. Paperview

    Paperview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    Messages:
    9,359
    Likes Received:
    2,735
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I did read it. It is irrelevant to the discussion as it regards a private company deciding what to print or not print.

    What are the first five words of the 1st Amendment?
     
  20. Paperview

    Paperview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    Messages:
    9,359
    Likes Received:
    2,735
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh Yeah said: "Many of our major newspapers have been doing this for years. The omission of a opposing view is as dangerous to freedom of the press as outright censorship."

    & This may come as a great shock to you, but since our founding (and even before) most newspapers back then were even more biased than what you see today - and omitted opposing views
    ALL
    THE TIME.
     
  21. Oh Yeah

    Oh Yeah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,093
    Likes Received:
    2,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No where in my reply does it say change the law or Congress should change the law. I just pointed out most liberal newspapers crap qualifies for hate speech but that is the pain we pay for an uncontrolled press. The only recourse "We the people" have is to point it out when it pops up and boycott those publications or media outlets and shows we don't like. Boycott those who supply the advertising money is even better.
     
  22. Oh Yeah

    Oh Yeah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,093
    Likes Received:
    2,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Tell me something I didn't already know. My point is we live in a dangerous time as far as media goes. They are still trying to run the agenda and it's the duty of some to shine a light on their corruption of the truth.
     
  23. Paperview

    Paperview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    Messages:
    9,359
    Likes Received:
    2,735
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You said not allowing a private company to decide what goes in its pages / content as "dangerous," likened it to censorship, and said it was a crime - "hate speech." All of which is ridiculous.

    What's even more ridiculous is indicting just the liberal press. Then even more: ---> "that is the pain we pay for an uncontrolled press."

    Yeah, freedom of the press. A real pain it's not "controlled."

    <smh>
     
  24. Paperview

    Paperview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    Messages:
    9,359
    Likes Received:
    2,735
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well if you did know it, you should have said : "Many of our major newspapers have been doing this for centuries"
    instead of "Many of our major newspapers have been doing this for years."

    You're assertions are just plain naive. We live it a time with more media available to us than ever before -- it's up to you to be a wise consumer and apply critical thinking, and if you think this "a dangerous time" re: media, you must be quite young or not familiar with much history/
     
  25. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because Google is not censoring anything, They are arguably PROMOTING hate sites by putting them on a list of such and thus making them more well known. I know LOTS of people that will consult such a site just for the entertainment value alone, including myself (hey, laughing at stupid hatemongers is part of what keeps me coming here)

    You rightists are a TRIP, now people want to help you out and y'all start screaming censorship. Un Fracking Believable
     

Share This Page