USA now officially a Plutocracy, huzzah! Effect on SL?

Yesterday's Citizen United v. Federal Elections Commission decision opens the way for Goldman Sachs, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, ExxonMobil, and all the other Corporate Persons to let ALL political candidates--from local school board to President--know: We will spend whatever it takes to make sure the candidate elected represents OUR interests!

What an exciting time for these CEOs and boards of directors!

How happily and joyfully they will be in making their wish lists of What Doesn't Serve Our Interests!

Obviously, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (NPR radio and PBS television) will no longer need any funding from the government--they will be gone fairly quickly. As will all radio and television other than that provided by Rupert Murdoch: Fox TV will be all the news we need! Might as well get rid of those pesky newspapers altogether, really.

But what of SL? Will Linden Lab be on the 'approved' lists?

I would guess that M believes his 'get rid of the Immersives, SL is for the Augmentationists' philosophy will protect him. After all, getting rid of the Immersives will get rid of the sexual deviants, the role-players, and all those who spend ANY of their time doing anything but working for the interests of Chevron and General Electric and AT&T, right?

But my guess is that SL is NOT safe, no matter how diligent M is in advancing the anti-Immersive cause.

I think that any 'place' where people could conceivably communicate with each other, outside the Approved Murdoch channels, will be outlawed by the new state and Federal legislatures elected by the corporations.

Twitter may be first to go---the LAST thing a government dedicated to keeping the citizenry docile and ignorant needs, is a means for them to talk to each other, especially with the speed and efficiency provided by Twitter.

My guess is that SL and other 'slower' communications channels will survive a bit longer than will Twitter---but not much longer.


What do you think? Is there ANY way to change SL so as to assure those who decide what lawmakers will do, that SL can't provide a means for people to communicate with each other?

So politicians will be in the pockets of the corporates. I see nothing new there.
Newspapers are dead already, and why would Murdoch necessarily be the sole media mouthpiece?

All it does is give stamp of approval to what has already been going on. Money owns government. It's always been that way, always will be that way.

Much ado about nothing.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I don't see any exceptions to this. The robed nine got one right for a change.

You do realize that most newspapers are owned by corporations. ABC is owned by Disney. NBC is owned by GE, until Comcast buys them. Who knows who owns CBS, I don't think I have watched their channel in years.

As far as I know, CBS owns CBS since Viacom was spun off.

You realize, of course, that unions are also free to contribute as much as they wish to further their special interests. It's balanced. It costs money to get your views out to the general public and if the general public cannot know your views the general public cannot make a intellegent decision on who they want to represent them in any form of govrnment.

That's what's been happening in this country for the last year.......keep the masses ignorant. Interesting how Rupert Murdock was singled out by the OP. How about George Soresos (or however you spell the billionaire left wing advocate's name). There are equal interests who have money to "buy" their way. Keep it fair.

They are an evil corporation as well.
"Both CBS Corporation and the new Viacom are still owned by Sumner Redstone's company, National Amusements."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS#CBS_Corporation_and_CBS_Studios

Ballots give you an either X or Y candidate and no neither option.

Think about that.
Otherwise, it might be a good idea for the servers to be relocated.

/me votes that Des buy a few congressmen and have them enact a law or two that forces them to listen to us.

Hah National Amusements.

Does anyone know why they still bother with their movie theaters? They own just about every one in the US. Yet it's all they can do to break even. Unless all the hollywood companies are just handing them money saying "Please don't close!".

I really detest Rupert Murdoch.

Yeah lets move them to the Ukraine like The Pirate Bay.

But you do get a write-in choice..........I imagine Mickey Mouse has come close to winning several elections.

And you are really wrong in that assumption in first place. If my memory serves I believe Bob Barr garnered about 3% of the vote in the last Presidential election we had here. The Green Party almost always has a candidate on the ballot. You have a choice.......if you want to vote "neither" all you need to do is leave that entry blank on the ballot. All your other choices still count too.

And I detest Nancy Pelosi...........what difference does it make?

Oh, and I wanted to say, in answer to the question about how it will effect SL.............it won't.

/me votes with Sindy..
And agrees this is nonsense - anyone who wants to buy a politician, can - if they have enough money.

Idiocy- any side that finds this is something to rejoice about should look around - it's been going on forever.

As for SL - don't worry about it- the current crop would be more likely to want to represss our Slives. Aside from Bread and Circuses, they would more than likely prefer people that can't share information- look what happens when the populace talks - witness Massachusetts.

personally I think it's idiocy to make it easier (it's always been possible) for corporations to buy politicians, but what do I know, I'm just a silly voter...

I do think that that the USA beincoming a Plutocracy is big news though... I was under the impres it was a Plutarchy =P (see also the entry for modern democracy under Oligarchy)

To the Much Ado About Nothing and Nothing New believers:

What IS new is the 'unlimited spending'.

What IS new is that the corporations (and NOT the unions) can now make it absolutely clear to candidates that they will spend ANY amount necessary to "Get Our Interests Represented", as the saying goes.

ANY amount.

And yes, we can all come up with some isolated examples of the bigger-spending candidate losing their election. But a few isolated counter-examples hardly disprove the well-supported fact that election outcomes are strongly correlated with money spent.

Candidates know this. They really, really do know this.

Oligarchy fits what we have right now. I'll take plutocracy any day.

The answer is to limit government to the point that it isn't worth buying. Then this isn't an issue. Constitutional government cures all problems.

Depends on where in the world you live.

In the USA, up until yesterday, there were laws in place that limited the amount a corporation could spend on an election.

Now, that protection is gone.







Historically governments run by business interests (in fact or de facto) have preferred that the populace NOT be easily able to communicate.

I would expect the USA to move further in that direction.

Unless that corporation was a liberal news organization like CNN or NBC. Or a big union. Or ACORN. Nah, they didn't spend massive amounts of money in the 08 election.

The right to contribute to a candidate without a monetary limit is exactly what we had before the McCain Feingold bill became law..........all the Supreme Court said was that that law was unconstitutional. Using money as a form of free speech, even if you think it stinks, is a right for any person, group, business, or special interest a RIGHT that cannot be denied.

Which individuals at, say, Microsoft were denied freedom of speech until day before yesterday?

How is it that Microsoft is a "person" who has more rights than, say, you? (Assuming for the sake of argument that you are a US citizen [I don't recall if that's the case or not].)

This "person" Microsoft can now spend as many millions to elect some particular Senator (say) as that "person" Microsoft wishes.

You, on the other hand, face strict limits on what you can spend.

Why is the one "person" Microsoft privileged over the person Peggy Paperdoll? Why do you have fewer rights under the new law?

Your claim raises my curiosity:

What money did CNN spend on any particular candidate? Your choice---any candidate you like.

What money did NBC spend on any particular candidate? Your choice---any candidate you like.

What money did A Big Union (your choice of union) spend on any particular candidate? Your choice---any candidate you like.

What money did ACORN spend on any particular candidate? Your choice---any candidate you like.


And bringing it back to SL:

On the wish list of, say, Comcast and Time Warner, will almost certainly be legislation that will disadvantage competitors (such as dish networks). Once these pesky competitors are gone, in any one area, the big winners will likely have monopoly power. And what will be at the top of the list, once a cable provider has monopoly power?......you guessed it: charging for bandwidth.

Comcast won't be shy about letting candidates know that THEIR millions will back that candidate who promises to work for these goals.

What will happen to SL when a large proportion of customers get charged according to the bandwidth they use?