Are Freedoms Bad for the Environment?

Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections...If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."



Since corporations are just a group of people with a common interest like groups of senior citizens or unions, or any other group and this is the correct decision by the courts.



The First Amendment states "prohibits the Congress from making laws infringing on the freedom of speech" It says nothing about this right being only for individuals.



Do you believe that the free sharing of ideas is a bad thing for the environment?



Do you think that greater regulations by a central planner is the solution to environmental problems?



Do you think that people aren't smart enough to be able to come to the correct side of the issue?



Or do you hate this ruling because now you have to work to compete to get your own ideas in the marketplace?Are Freedoms Bad for the Environment?Nope.



Left to their own devices, most people behave responsibly. Restrict them, and they'll do what they can get away with.



Socialism has been historically the most bad thing for the environment, and the countries with the most repressive governments have the worst environmental records. The most free countries have the best. Look it up.Are Freedoms Bad for the Environment?
Well if the Supreme Court had too much to do with this decision, then it is probably screwed in favor of big business, which in turn rules the roost (Big Gov.)Are Freedoms Bad for the Environment?It's only bad if it doesn't make Obama and Al Gore happy. Otherwise it's 100% necessary, so necessary that the government should take over part of the economy to honor it.

Or, so I can sound like a Master of Science (why'd Dana take that part out of his name?) "tax, denier, warm, (insert random lie) tax, denier, warm, (insert random lie) tax, denier, warm (insert random lie).

Or,inObama'slanguage, "blahblahblahCHANGEblahblahblahCHANGEbla… BUSH'S FAULTblahblahblah..."

While those lines may seem completely irrelevant to your question, they're actually answering it in their own strange little ways...Are Freedoms Bad for the Environment?
Freedoms aren't bad for the environment, morons are.



"Since corporations are just a group of people with a common interest " ---%26gt;Like doing anything necessary to make money for a shareholder?



"Do you think that people aren't smart enough to be able to come to the correct side of the issue?"

Quite frankly, no they are not. Especially someone who has a "Support the Troops" magnet on their 3-ton Seriously Useless Vehicle, that has never been to the Gulf making sure to protect their ability to waste. As far as this vet is concerned, people like that are traffic terrorists and the reason we are there!Are Freedoms Bad for the Environment?free sharing of ideas to an intelligent community can never be a bad thing for the environment; if the shared idea is environment-friendly it will contribute to the better being of the environment, and even when the shared idea is anti-environmental; it will meet with cirticism and will find a chance to get corrected. Both the ways, no harm'll be done to the environment. But,of course, if you're sharing your ideas with a bunch of log-heads, it will all be an another story.



yes, greater regualations from central planner is a must to solve environmental problems.however, support and efforts should be from everwhere to actually imply those regulations and get results.



yes, those who haven't come to the correct side of environmental issues are not smart people at all...there might be sly people as exceptions though....pple who don't want to spare their time to deal the issues by themseves but are very much willing to benifit from the involvement of others.
That depends on what freedom you're talking about. Are you talking about the freedom of giant corporations to recklessly pollute? Oh, and of course there's also the fun when you realize that some of these corporations are held by foreign interests...



Since when is giving money to a political candidate 'free speech'? Wouldn't that mean that Al Gore giving money to a group of climate scientists is 'free speech', too?



The first Amendment doesn't imply that campaign contributions are 'free speech'.



%26gt;"Do you believe that the free sharing of ideas is a bad thing for the environment?"

Of course not. Do you believe that a corporation's ideas are more valuable than an 'average' citizen's?



%26gt;"Do you think that greater regulations by a central planner is the solution to environmental problems?"

Yes I do. If you want to know why that is, it's very simple. Corporations have central planning as well. Their planning is centered around profit, though, usually regardless of environmental concern.



%26gt;"Do you think that people aren't smart enough to be able to come to the correct side of the issue?"

Some people are, of course. I wouldn't say that of 'people' in general, however. Some people are also prone to come down on the 'wrong' side for selfish reasons. Some of them answer in this very section...



%26gt;"Or do you hate this ruling because now you have to work to compete to get your own ideas in the marketplace?"

I think this ruling is a slap in the face of the personal freedoms of the actual citizens of the United States as it infringes on their personal ability to influence government policy through voting and campaign contribution. Why would a candidate listen to someone who's contributing 1 vote and $100 to a campaign when they are receiving $250k from Exxon? And how will that $250k influence the voting public when it is spent on the campaign for said candidate?



_Are Freedoms Bad for the Environment?
First of all, I disagree quite strongly with the proposition that corporations are legally tantamount to individual human beings. Likewise, I very strongly disagree that pay-offs to politicians - referred to euphemistically as "campaign contributions," but more accurately called BRIBERY - is equivalent to political speech.



Also, I should like to point out that the position that corporations are entitled to the legal rights of individuals is very much a new - and rather disingenuous - one. In fact, up until the late 19th century, no one seeking to form a corporation would be given a charter unless they could prove a priori that the corporation was going to function in the interests of the general welfare, and even then, the charter only lasted for a limited period - usually 10 years or the length of the project.



That said:



%26gt;%26gt; Do you believe that the free sharing of ideas is a bad thing for the environment? %26lt;%26lt;



No, but it's certainly a bad thing for the radical, totalitarian environmentalist ideologues.



%26gt;%26gt; Do you think that greater regulations by a central planner is the solution to environmental problems? %26lt;%26lt;



In some cases that is necessary; for instance, there is certainly no right to dump toxic waste in a manner which endangers public health. Of course, if we're talking about emissions of non-pollutants like carbon dioxide, that's a different story entirely.



%26gt;%26gt; Do you think that people aren't smart enough to be able to come to the correct side of the issue? %26lt;%26lt;



Not at all. The collapse in public support for the AGW fraud provides strong evidence that the general public is more than sensible enough to eventually come down on the right side of these issues.



%26gt;%26gt; Or do you hate this ruling because now you have to work to compete to get your own ideas in the marketplace? %26lt;%26lt;



It's a ridiculous ruling for the reasons I've already described; however, it has far more to do with the pervasive corruption of the characters currently in government (SCOTUS justices are certainly not exempt) than it does with any sort of ideology.
the ruling will at least give us a way to partially counter obamas personal internet army "OFA" (organizing for america) though they have proved they can deliver 300,000 phone calls in one day to selected congressmen %26amp; are training hundreds of 15 hour a week "community organizers"

they are apparently stepping on too many toes of the traditional democratic machine so they may already be losing influence..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/2010011…

this new ruling will allow OFA opposing political interests that operate on donations from average Americans to help level the playing field %26amp; make their voices heard.

taking the advertising shackles off organizations I belong to sounds like freedom ringing to me.Are Freedoms Bad for the Environment?
Nope to all, but money already speaks too loudly in politics. Many on the right think that also. Look at how the banks pretty much have owned their governments, and where THAT'S gotten us.