Skip to main content

View Diary: The real reason why local governments often have to raise taxes or revenue or go bankrupt (23 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Money is a symbol of value, rendered tangible, (0+ / 0-)

    even in electronic form.
    I suspect, and it's only a suspicion, that people who have difficulty or find it impossible dealing with symbols are afflicted with a deficient sense of touch. Our integument is what connects us to the material world and people whose sense of touch, who are often described as "out of touch," don't make the connection and, what isn't perceived can't be virtually understood. That dollars, like the characters we write with, are worthless, regardless how many we employ on a page, unless they are spent and received by someone else is simply incomprehensible.
    The SCOTUS has said that money is speech and is not to be interfered with by the agents of government. Would that they applied that same reasoning to our currency. There's a reason why management of the currency was included in the same section of the Constitution as the responsibility for insuring accurate weights and measures.

    •  Hannah (0+ / 0-)

      Thank you for your comment.

      The courts have broadened the definition of speech over the years to keep up with technology. To however extend the same freedoms enjoyed by citizens to corporations that are constructs of the state in my opinion goes too far.

      •  The problem here, as in so many other things, (0+ / 0-)

        is that Congress has failed to define artificial bodies (corporations) as different from natural bodies. So, the SCOTUS is left with no option but to accept the argument that since private corporations, like public corporations, are made up of natural persons, the same principles should govern, including the principle of probity -- i.e. that what they do is good, unless and until it is proven bad.
        The Congress could change that by requiring private corporations to be strictly limited by their charters to carry out only those enterprises authorized ahead of time and consistent with the public welfare and environmental preservation.
        The reason the Congress hasn't done that is because, even as individual members claim great support for the principle of limited government, they actually resent that the Constitution outlines what they may and must do -- nothing more and nothing less -- and are both envious of the freedom of private corporations to make a mess, as well as desirous of having private corporations act as "partners" to do the dirty work for them.
        Example: the marriage between airlines and the TSA, which restricts individual citizens, violates their right to privacy and bodily integrity, as well as to travel freely without impediment. Note that I write that as a person who has never flown on a commercial plane and has no intention of doing so.

        •  hannah (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hannah

          I agree with you on this point. I have argued in other venues for similar reforms. Like the financial industries who have over the past two centuries accreted to themselves the the belief by the public that they are more than middle men but masters of the universe, corporation have accreted to themselves legal prerogatives that allow them to behave like governments without checks and balances or obligations to anything other then their top management and largest investors.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (132)
  • Community (53)
  • Baltimore (45)
  • Bernie Sanders (36)
  • Civil Rights (35)
  • Culture (25)
  • Freddie Gray (21)
  • Elections (20)
  • Racism (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Hillary Clinton (19)
  • Law (19)
  • Economy (18)
  • Labor (17)
  • Politics (16)
  • Rescued (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Texas (14)
  • Media (14)
  • Environment (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site