liberals are mostly for human rights more so than republicans
Oh please. Republicans are totally for human rights. The right of Republican humans to tell the rest of the humans who they can marry, that they have to teach religion in science class, that a woman's uterus is not her own, that you don't have the right to a proper trial, and their religion's commandments and creches had better be displayed on government property despite the first amendment. Because if they aren't that is a violation of Republicans' first amendment right to tell the government to tell the people which religion to follow.
Remember; Republicans are all about keeping the government's nose out of people's personal business.
This seems to be a false dichotomy. It is not necessary to have either the government nor large corporations rule our lives. It would behoove us to develop a system in which government and corporations act as a sort of checks and balances against one another. The government should not control any one person's life, but a corporation is not a person, has much more power and is birthed into existence via the government. Corporations are the government and by extension our own responsibility. We cannot let our own children trample us down.
NP "The government should not control any one person's life, but a corporation is not a person, has much more power and is birthed into existence via the government. Corporations are the government and by extension our own responsibility."
Sorry pal but that was jibberish. You're arguing with yourself. I'm socialist and I would probably know and be happy if we had the social system you seemed to think you are describing. What we have become is a fascist state where the gov't exist for the benefit of the corporation. Also, you stated that a "corporation is not a person". Then why did this SCOTUS ruling give them the same rights to free speach as a citizen?. This ruling also nulifies the argument that corporations shouldn't be taxed because they aren't people. The SCOTUS says differently.
Corporations are not independently developed entities, they need governmental permission to form. I was arguing that governmental regulations on corporations are necessary and should be seen as an obligation due to the governments role in corporation formation. You realize as much as anyone why the supreme court would make their decision as they did. Corporations are not people, even if they are granted some rights. Note, the patriot act effectively negates pretty much every right but the right to refuse quartering soldiers. Also being taxed doesn't make something human. If everything that is taxed were people, then transactions would be people. If transactions were people it would be the highest form of capitalism.
What we have become is a fascist state where the gov't exist for the benefit of the corporation.
Not yet, but that's where this SCOTUS decision will take us.
Then why did this SCOTUS ruling give them the same rights to free speach as a citizen?.
The real question I have is how did this become a free speech issue? I don't see anywhere in the text of the First Amendment that makes it unconstitutional to limit campaign contributions. So long as it's for everyone, across the board. If they say "No one person (or entity, since corporations are not people) can donate more than $5,000" that's equal, across the board, which in my humble interpretation promotes free speech, where giving the power to the rich inhibits it.
The US helped bury imperial Britain with lend lease after WW2.
As a non American,the US certainly seems to be in decline.
Not sure I understand your second point. Do you mean it was after WW2 America developed its despised jingoism and stunning disparity of the distribution of wealth? (it had been already been an imperial power for approaching 100 years)
It is the irony of Empire that when they expand, they sow the seed of their own collapse.
Though the US has been expansionist with its idea of Manifest Destiny, it many concerned itself with its own region (Monroe Doctrine). World War II, and its conclusion, saw the United States much more willing to engage in the wider world rather than be as isolationist has it had been.
Though the US has generally been a nation that valued conspicuous consumption since its inception (hence the great emphasis on the contrary ethics of prudence, thrift and self-sufficiency of the American character), after WWII the situation boomed.
Greater wealth lead to greater consumption of goods and services, which enriched the companies that produced such (Certainly, there was great corporate wealth being accumulated prior to then, but it was much more concentrated. The experience of Standard Oil resulted in the limitation of corporations to establish (effective) monopolies.). This was helped by the rise of the middle class, a rise that now see them as the dominant political force in the population.
And thus the cycle began, feeding upon itself and the world until it became so bloated we see what the US has become: a powerful economic and military nation in the world, ironically so loaded with debt that its survival depends on the self-interested economies of other nations to shovel more into the trough. And the bailout by its own Government.
Corporate America - and the populace it has seduced and inculcated - has become a rapacious beast. The tentacular and sinewy reach of the corporation from Wall Street to the halls and offices of Washington, DC, has so entrenched itself that the will of the people is but mere illusion.
And thus the American Republic is dying.
It will suffer convulsions, declaiming its failing, ailing state. It will have all the appearance of being a republic, but it will be a veneer; no more than the heavy rouge of an old and weary whore, desperate to appear otherwise in search of the next trick. But the people will be seduced, satisfied enough by the illusion - the glamour - to think the republic is alive, vigorous and strong.