14 Responses to The Economist Burns Reason Magazine

1. donkeytale October 27th, 2012 at 8:17 am 1

   Highly recommended.

   Reply
2. donkeytale October 27th, 2012 at 8:22 am 2

   So let’s see: can I universalise the non-voting maxim? Can I imagine living in a world in which every eligible voter opts for a nap or a game of Temple Run in lieu of going to the polls? No. The logic of American democracy does not support such a universalised principle. No one votes, no one is elected, a moment of constitutional failure brings an emergency convention in which unelected delegates draft a new constitution calling for an alternate system of specifying leaders that doesn’t involve the public. The franchise, and America as we know it, disappears. Since the logic of the system cannot be sustained were everyone to adopt the nap-over-voting maxim, I am morally bound not to act on it.

   Now, again, the force of Kant’s argument is not empirical: you don’t need to show that a decision not to vote will actually bring a constitutional doomsday. You just need to show that if universalised it would. I like this argument. It establishes a minimal civic duty as incumbent on all eligible voters. But I acknowledge that not everyone is a Kantian. Not everyone will be persuaded that free riding on the civic responsibility of others is a sin. So here is one more consideration.

   Reply
3. donkeytale October 27th, 2012 at 8:24 am 3

   God, if only Glenn Greenwald could learn to employ logic in his dumbed down propaganda pieces.

   (Ah, but then he would lose his loyal readership…so don’t hold yur breath, donkeyturd)

   [:o)

   Reply
4. timesthree October 27th, 2012 at 9:24 am 4

   In response to donkeytale @ 3

   Your obsession with Greenwald is amusing. In a laughing at you kinda way.

   Reply
5. Ludwig October 27th, 2012 at 11:30 am 5

   Oh my goodness, The Economist gets to exercise morality over Reason! Don’t worry comrades, your opposition is not surrendering, it is only engaged in Kabuki Kapitalism.

   Reply
6. Ludwig October 27th, 2012 at 11:32 am 6

   In response to donkeytale @ 3

   O’Donkeytale has hired a new personality to kick his ass! Bidness is good, O’Donkeytale?

   Reply
7. donkeytale October 27th, 2012 at 11:44 am 7

   In response to timesthree @ 4

   By your false definition of obsession, you are three times more obsessed with me.

   [:o)

   Reply
8. donkeytale October 27th, 2012 at 11:49 am 8

   In response to Ludwig @ 6

   O’LudicrousWhig, your tired insinuations of sock puppetry are so 2004.

   You were still in high class back then to know how outdated your amateurish attacks are?

   Wasting your time on me, fake lefty. But go ahead. You have lots of time to waste and at that at least you remain faithful.

   Makes no diff to me, my pet rock.

   Reply
9. Ludwig October 27th, 2012 at 12:11 pm 9

   In response to donkeytale @ 8

   Go kick your other personality’s ass back, O’Donkeytale. Say, was 2004 a lucrative year for you?

   Reply
10. timesthree October 27th, 2012 at 12:20 pm 10

    In response to donkeytale @ 7

    Au contraire, mon ami. Over your head things continue to go.

    As far as you and Glennzilla, the object of your affection doth not e’er respond to your advances.

    Twixt us, however, the dynamic is not such, for I poke, and you stir.

    Reply
11. donkeytale October 27th, 2012 at 1:15 pm 11

    In response to timesthree @ 10

    You mean the subjects of my disaffection, don’t you?

    You respond as dogs to a can of Alpo…

    Reply
12. timesthree October 27th, 2012 at 1:32 pm 12

    In response to donkeytale @ 11

    You pick at Glenn like a lover scorned. What else am I to think?

    Reply
13. donkeytale October 27th, 2012 at 5:48 pm 13

    In response to timesthree @ 4

    Here is some more Greenwald obsession for you..

    [:o)

    And while the majority elides the issue of corporate personhood and the question of whether money is speech, these issues form a big part of Justice Stevens’ analysis of why Congress can restrict the ability of corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to get their way in American electoral politics. Justice Stevens explains patiently both how corporations differ from human beings and how corporate resources are not “an indication of popular support for the corporation’s political ideas.” A ban on corporate expenditures is constitutional, Stevens argues, because it does not “prevent anyone from speaking in his or her own voice.” (Dissent at 77.) He concludes that “corporate spending is ‘furthest from the core of political expression,’” (dissent at 77,) because corporations have no autonomy or dignitary interests in freedom of expression; in fact, corporations, by law, must concern themselves only with maximizing profit. Therefore, prohibitions on such spending “impose only a limited burden on First Amendment freedoms.” (Dissent at 79.) In other words, because corporations are not people, and because money is not really speech, the justification needed for a ban on corporate spending on elections is not the same as the justification the government needs for banning political speech by individuals.

    Greenwald himself recognizes that “corporations are creatures of the state and should not enjoy the same rights as individuals.” But his bottom-line position -- that corporate expenditures are political speech and that there is no compelling governmental interest sufficient to justify restriction on political speech -- makes this concession meaningless. Greenwald supports this position with the same simplistic textual argument relied upon by the majority: the First Amendment is a limit on Congress -- "Congress shall make no law" -- and it doesn't distinguish among who is speaking. But, it has never been the law that all forms of speech (even political speech), and all types of speakers, are treated equal. Stevens response is devastating: "If taken seriously, our colleagues' assumption that the identity of a speaker has no relevance to the government's ability to regulate political speech would lead to some remarkable conclusions. Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by 'Tokyo Rose' during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders. More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”

    Greenwald also criticizes as “intellectually confused” the argument that the conservatives on the Roberts Court were too cavalier in tossing out prior precedents, most notable its ruling in Michigan Chamber of Commerce v. Austin. Greenwald’s right, of course, that no one should be an absolutist about adhering to prior rulings – as he puts it, “if a settled proposition of law is sufficiently repugnant to the Constitution, then the Court is not only permitted, but required, to uproot it.” But everyone, including the dissenting justices, recognizes that. Justice Stevens’ main argument – powerfully laid out on pages 42-55 of his dissent – is that the majority is disingenuous in denying how sharply its ruling departs from constitutionally sound case law, and how much the Court’s ruling in Citizens United changes the law in a case in which there were numerous narrower grounds for a decision available to the Court. Here’s Justice Stevens summation:

    Our colleagues have arrived at the conclusion that Austin must be overruled and that §203 [of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act] is facially unconstitutional only after mischaracterizing both the reach and rationale of those authorities, and after bypassing or ignoring rules of judicial restraint used to cabin the Court’s lawmaking power.

    Reply
14. timesthree October 27th, 2012 at 5:57 pm 14

    In response to donkeytale @ 13

    OK, so I assume you posted something that you think does great harm to Greenwald’s credibility. Could be it does, I don’t know, I didn’t read it.

    But for dog’s sake, man let go of this one-way spat you keep engaging in with the man. He doesn’t know you exist.

    Reply