Why, when something becomes politically animated, do standards tend to be lowered?
HN is a community of very smart individuals and, when it comes to argument, has had several very good discussions about Paul Graham's piece on the merits of logical argument, entitled "How to Disagree" (http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html?)
The essence of that piece was as follows: "If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages."
There followed a series of stages, ranked from low forms of argumentation such as name-calling, ad hominem attacks, etc. to high forms such as carefully reasoned refutations.
Now, if we were to classify the spirit of the implicit argument made by the idea that a corporation is running for Congress, it would amount to saying: "I can't believe that anyone would say that a corporation is a person and isn't it ridiculous to assume that an artificial construct of this type has rights - therefore, anyone who would say this is assumed to be a real idiot in believing that a 'person' of this type could run for office."
Though the "argument" is implicit and not cast as an express argument, the implied argument it does make ranks, I think, right at the bottom of Paul Graham's hierarchy, somewhere among the "name calling," "ad hominem," and "contradiction" categories (the latter, by the way, representing a form of argument where one simply sets forth a contradictory position without attempting to reason why it is valid, as for example, when one asserts "it is obviously unsupportable for someone to treat a corporation as a person.")
I know there is a certain level at which this is being treated as a joke, or more precisely as a clever jab at a disfavored position.
My question: how does jumping on to this bandwagon get reconciled with the normally high standards of argumentation and debate found here at HN?
It isn't a joke. It's a very serious legal precedent that, if pushed hard enough, can go all the way to Supreme Court (which would most likely reject the case, letting the last decision stand). It is an excellent example of a serious issue with case-based law, as practiced within the U.S. It's a hack, and it's designed to demonstrate both the absurdity of the Supreme Court's decision when taken to a logical extreme, and the limitations of our legal system. It's also very clever. The fact that it is satirical in nature is only of cursory interest.
There are lots of serious implications stemming from the Court's recent decision and one doesn't have to look far to find a serious discussion of them, no matter how one views the merits of the issue. See, for example, this piece on how the "High Court Campaign Finance Opinion Roils Dozens of Cases" (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202441779559&High...).
Since the law has recognized corporations as "legal persons" for a couple of centuries at least, all without anyone even beginning to think that a corporation is a citizen entitled to vote and to run for office, I think there is a long-standing rationale for this position that its critics need to address before simply declaring the point to be absurd. This sort of stunt obviously fails to do this. And, far from demonstrating the absurdity of the Supreme Court's position taken to a logical extreme (to paraphrase your characterization), it does no more than take a straw man position out to a logical extreme and therefore illustrates nothing (at least nothing serious as far as law is concerned). It is, therefore, a low form of argumentation.
I understand that people feel passionately about it, and therefore appreciate a clever ploy that appears to make their point, but that is really my point: it is that very animated spirit that we can have about politics that allows us to lower standards and find acceptable in that context a way of arguing that we would axiomatically reject in another context.
far from demonstrating the absurdity of the Supreme Court's position taken to a logical extreme (to paraphrase your characterization), it does no more than take a straw man position out to a logical extreme and therefore illustrates nothing
This is a much better explanation of the view point you expressed originally - probably the best I've seen so far. I agree with you here completely. I still think it's a clever hack, but I concede that my original argument wasn't very strong.
The court's decision, as I understand it, was that people do not lose their right to free speech merely because they exercise it while involved in a corporation. So, the logical extreme is that people should not lose their right to run for office even if involved in a corporation, right?
People seem to want to spin this as "people involved in corporations gain a 'free speech' right that they wouldn't have if they were just a rich person", which would seem pretty bizarre, if it were actually what was said.
The name for the type of argument used in the linked article/video is reductio ad absurdum (or maybe ad ridiculum), and unlike ad homeneim, it is not inherently a fallacy.
I think there is real merit in challenging, even via theatre, the have-their-cake-and-eat-it-too role held by corporations, and the very real growth of corporate personhood interpretations of law.
(... An example of ad hominem might be your implication that, by holding the views in my prior sentence, I'm "jumping onto this bandwagon" and abandoning "high standards" ...)
Another way to state the implicit argument is "If corporations are considered persons with regards to free speech, then we must be consistent and afford them other rights, such as the ability to run for office." No name-calling necessary.
Although I consider that beside the point, since this company did more than just make an ad. They actually filed to take part in the Republican primary. Assuming they get denied, then that could set precedent for the limits of corporate person-hood.
Unfortunatly in this specific case, no, because as another person pointed out, the corporation in question is not yet 25 years old. The real question will be deferred until a corporation which meets all other requirements runs.
Corporations are not citizens, they do not meet the requirements to stand for election. Similarly, corporations can't cast votes or sit on juries or be drafted into the armed forces.
HN is a community of very smart individuals and, when it comes to argument, has had several very good discussions about Paul Graham's piece on the merits of logical argument, entitled "How to Disagree" (http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html?)
The essence of that piece was as follows: "If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages."
There followed a series of stages, ranked from low forms of argumentation such as name-calling, ad hominem attacks, etc. to high forms such as carefully reasoned refutations.
Now, if we were to classify the spirit of the implicit argument made by the idea that a corporation is running for Congress, it would amount to saying: "I can't believe that anyone would say that a corporation is a person and isn't it ridiculous to assume that an artificial construct of this type has rights - therefore, anyone who would say this is assumed to be a real idiot in believing that a 'person' of this type could run for office."
Though the "argument" is implicit and not cast as an express argument, the implied argument it does make ranks, I think, right at the bottom of Paul Graham's hierarchy, somewhere among the "name calling," "ad hominem," and "contradiction" categories (the latter, by the way, representing a form of argument where one simply sets forth a contradictory position without attempting to reason why it is valid, as for example, when one asserts "it is obviously unsupportable for someone to treat a corporation as a person.")
I know there is a certain level at which this is being treated as a joke, or more precisely as a clever jab at a disfavored position.
My question: how does jumping on to this bandwagon get reconciled with the normally high standards of argumentation and debate found here at HN?