9/17/2007

09-17-07 - 6

(I'm stealing this from Nader and others but : ) there's zero reason why corporations should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns or political advertising. It currently is justified because in the US, corporations legally have the rights of people (and thus 1st amendment rights), but that's absolutely absurd and every humanist rails against it. Now, certainly corporations do often act in the best interests of the population - but when that is the case the population can support that cause themselves, there's no benefit to the population in having the corporation lobby directly.

Removing corporate money from politics is almost 100% a win, but I'm under no illusion that it would magically make things better. Obviously there would still be huge corporate influences - news people are paid by corporate advertising, owned by conglomerates with many arms, and don't want to say anything that would stir the established order or anger their money sources. Furthermore, even if the population is presented with the truth and allowed to make a judgement, I have zero faith in them to be reasonable, not just because they're retarded, but mainly because they just don't care, they don't pay attention, they don't study and learn about politics and the world, etc. In any case, it would be an improvement.

The idea that you shouldn't do something which is an improvement just because it's not a full solution is one of that retarded fallacies that is often used to sabotage perfectly good proposals. Everyone does it, but it seems the Republicans really like to use it with environmental proposals. Oh, this program that would definitely cut our dependence on foreign oil wouldn't completely solve our energy problems, therefore we shouldn't do it. Great logic mate.

No comments:

old rants