Jump to content

flatcat

Members
  • Posts

    1,270
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Converted

  • Location
    People's Republic of Massachusetts

flatcat's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. Often, the best interests of a corporation are mutually exclusive to the best interests of numerous other entities. If the political result of their message enables them to act in spite of this fact, is the result ethical? I'm not sure what you mean by 'other entities'. Do you mean it's shareholders? Other corporations? Other businesses? Individuals? This is an important point, though I'd phrase it a little differently; that is, the interests of a corporation are not always coincident with those of the public, other corporations, or other individuals within society. I'm not as concerned about ethics here. I'm mostly concerned about outcomes in issues or conflicts at the intersection of the public good and the private good of the corporation. As a simple example, it may be to General Motors' corporate good to move all the jobs in Detroit to China. This definitely contravenes the good of many individuals in Detroit (and in Washington DC). Suppose GM pays for ads supporting candidates in favor of offshoring, and because of the size of their megaphone, their candidates carry the day in the elections, and those jobs are lost. Or how about a relatively common occurrence - a corporation which knowingly pollutes bodies of water backs candidates interested in eliminating the Clean Water Act. I think the problem is that this isn't a question of speech. It's a question of power, because in the United States, money = power, not speech. I know that historically, money = speech in terms of precedent and court decisions; but it's my opinion that on the ground, in actuality, money = power. If you frame the question as a speech issue, then it makes sense. But in my opinion, the reality is that it's *not* a speech issue at all. Spending in this way will have a direct outcome on the political process, it seems to me, and because of that, a big money bankroll can effect changes in society that are not coincident with the public interest. Too often people equate government and business. They aren't the same. They don't have the same concerns. They aren't good at the same things. Each has a proper place. It seems to me this decision creates a very blurry line and it's individuals who will get the short end of the stick. Say what you want about the amount of individual contributions - they're not *organized* in the same way that the gigantic purse of some corporations are, and organizing those individual contributions into some sort of counterweight seems to me to be really, really unlikely. Many corporations are effectively dictating public policy at this point now anyhow. It's not just the insurance companies gutting actual health care reform, nor is it the banks writing the bills for banking reform. Large corporations already leverage their power to force policies that are friendly to themselves that are not necessarily in the interests of American citizens. This decision seems to me to be just moving closer to corporatism. Maybe having "The Senator from Texaco" or "Congressman Jones (I-Microsoft)" isn't so far away.
  2. I have a 2000 VW Golf which has plenty of room also. I think my record was: * my Eden 2x10, * GK 800RB head, * EAW three-way (15+8+horn) * an 8-channel powered Peavey head * a Fender twin * a double guitar case * my bass * my bag of cables * my guitarist's two bags of cables and stuff * my guitarist We rode a little low that night, but everything fit. I still have (and love) that car. 135K almost, gets 28+ mpg, runs pretty well...I've had to fix some stuff on it, which has been expensive. But of all the cars I've owned, it's the one that's the most fun to drive. I get behind that wheel and I just *love* driving that car, way more than any of my Toyotas or Hondas. It's not as reliable. But man, does it drive great. YMMV.
×
×
  • Create New...