Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="rickyb" data-source="post: 4640106" data-attributes="member: 56035">i think racism, capitalism, imperialism, etc are all tied together so im assuming thats intersectionality i dont recall what the guys i listen to say about that word.i agree with you that corporations are not people.  obviously you want limits on political spending because otherwise you are going to be in the situation were currently in where a small portion of hte population controls politics.  this is a brief summary of life before citizens united on public citizen's website: "Before Jan. 21, 2010, there were some fairly basic, generally noncontroversial, rules for making political contributions or other expenditures to influence U.S. elections. Chiefly, the donor needed to be a person, and that person needed to be a citizen or permanent resident of the United States. These rules were only slightly different than the rules on voting eligibility.Contributions of more than $200 to federal political committees were disclosed, and corporations and unions were prohibited from spending money from their treasuries for overt activities to influence elections.There were abuses of the system. For years, political parties and outside groups evaded the prohibition on corporate and union money by using money from these sources to pay for sham issue ads that were actually intended to influence elections. Meanwhile, funding of elections was never representative of the electorate, as a whole.<a href="https://www.citizen.org/article/ten-years-after-citizens-united/#_ftn1" target="_blank">[1]</a>But, despite these shortcomings, the vast majority of the money flowing into the system was given by individuals, was disclosed and was subject to contribution limits."[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.citizen.org/article/ten-years-after-citizens-united/[/URL]im not sure they founded america as a represenative republic since only white people with property were allowed to vote, and they were against popular democracy and in favor of protecting private property from the masses.  they set up a powerful central govt to squash rebellions with the constitution.  you only got freedom to assemble i believe by people organizing to get it in the constitution.  i think the founders replaced the british ruling class with an american one.  i dont really want to get into this other stuff now because im trying to answer your 2 big questions about absolute morality and this:i just dont like the idea that im the only mind that exists because it sounds egoistic and ridiculous.    i like the idea that thinking means i exist but do people with no brains mean they dont exist?  im talking about 100% brain damage.  i dont whats the significance of talking about this but its kinda interesting.if you have more questions about how authoritarian structures of domination and control justify themselves (i believe thats teh word chomsky used) you can read "on anarchism" or watch his videos about anarchism.</blockquote>

Verification