A test for libertarians

[Kulindahr]

The ACLU is an organization dedicated to protecting the individual liberties of all... free speech rights is among the cornerstones of their being. They are an advocacy group... there are many different kinds of advocacy groups who all have the constitutionally protected right to speak up for what they believe in. Groups get far more accomplished than any individual can.... the trick is to make sure groups don't accumulate the power to hurt individuals or other groups. You don't do that by telling corporations they have no right to advocate their positions...we are ALL fucking interest groups in the end, for good or ill. In the old days it was just the rulers and feudal lords who had any say... not anymore. Abuse of influence is one thing, but just pulling out nonsensical theories out of the air about the only speech permissible is individual... well just proves liberal leaners are very capable of thinking out of their asses as the conservatives they correctly rip on for asinine comments.

The ACLU is an advocacy group, and nothing else. Its members are all in agreement about its goals, so there is no coercion or theft of speech rights involved. That is not true of a corporation: unless the corporation's members are in unanimous agreement, spending any of the company's money to support a position is theft.

There's no "nonsensical theory" being invoked here. The Founding Fathers understood rights as being bestowed on human beings by the Creator, and not on any other entities. Both classical liberalism and classical conservatism would support such a view, because both hold exactly what the Declaration of Independence does, that men -- human beings with brain and mouth -- have rights, and not anything else. And generally, where the two classical branches intersect, you find libertarianism, the defense of liberty.

Note: if you think that corporations, which have neither brain nor mouth, should somehow have free speech, then you have no space to complain when churches get into politics and try to impose their ways on everyone. In fact, you should approve of that even more, because in general the members of a church are pretty unanimous in their views.

 

[Benvolio]

I have read it, studied in law school courses devoted to it and have handles cases dealing with Constitutional issues. The Constitutin prohibits limitations on free speech---No Law.

Everyone should be limited to operating as individual citizens -- or legal residents --because only they can have rights.

Though any individuals who wish to do so may band together and form a media entity and exercise freedom of the press, or join together in an advocacy group and exercise freedom of speech.

OK , so Soros or the Koch brothers, or Trump, or Wal-Mart can just form a "media" corporation, nudge nudge wink, wink, and they can say what they want to get past the libertarian speech police.

 

[Kulindahr]

I agree. I'm merely trying to illustrate to our friends here the ridiculousness of the idea that denying "free speech" in the form of unlimited financial leverage on the political process on the notion that doing so "denies them" the rights citizens have is ridiculous. The drawbacks and degree of accountability are nowhere near equal. Nor is a corporation an entity which can go hungry or suffer because of the fallout of policies passed.

Heh -- there's a comparison: if there were virtually immortal humans among us who continually accumulated power and had vast wealth and resources, the outcry against them swaying the political process would be immense. But that is, if we are to regard them as persons, what corporations are.

When corporations (or unions, or churches) become mortal and subject to the "death tax", I'll concede them a degree of rights -- but only a small one, since they still have no soul, no brain, no mouth.

 

[xbuzzerx]

OK , so Soros or the Koch brothers, or Trump, or Wal-Mart can just form a "media" corporation, nudge nudge wink, wink, and they can say what they want to get past the libertarian speech police.

That's what Fox is already doing, genius.

 

[Kulindahr]

OK , so Soros or the Koch brothers, or Trump, or Wal-Mart can just form a "media" corporation, nudge nudge wink, wink, and they can say what they want to get past the libertarian speech police.

Of course they can -- they would be using their individual rights and not coercing anyone else to support their views. In fact the Koch brothers and Soros, too, have essentially done so.

BTW, it's not "speech police", it's rights police, to make sure no one treads on anyone else's. And that is, at root, what government is for.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's what Fox is already doing, genius.

Yep. They're deceptive, manipulative, and often ignorant, but they enjoy the right to freedom of the press. I think we need a "truth in media" law just like truth in advertising, though there are serious problems in implementing such a thing.

 

[Benvolio]

I have read it, studied in law school courses devoted to it and have handles cases dealing with Constitutional issues. The Constitutin prohibits limitations on free speech---No Law.

Everyone should be limited to operating as individual citizens -- or legal residents --because only they can have rights.

Though any individuals who wish to do so may band together and form a media entity and exercise freedom of the press, or join together in an advocacy group and exercise freedom of speech.

Corporation do have legal rights, including property rights which cannot be taken without due process or taken for public purposes without just compensation.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Corporation do have legal rights, including property rights which cannot be taken without due process or taken for public purposes without just compensation.

And when that happens, the corporation has to sleep on the street or get robbed and sexually assaulted in a homeless shelter, right?

 

[Benvolio]

I have read it, studied in law school courses devoted to it and have handles cases dealing with Constitutional issues. The Constitutin prohibits limitations on free speech---No Law.

The ACLU is an advocacy group, and nothing else. Its members are all in agreement about its goals, so there is no coercion or theft of speech rights involved. That is not true of a corporation: unless the corporation's members are in unanimous agreement, spending any of the company's money to support a position is theft.

There's no "nonsensical theory" being invoked here. The Founding Fathers understood rights as being bestowed on human beings by the Creator, and not on any other entities. Both classical liberalism and classical conservatism would support such a view, because both hold exactly what the Declaration of Independence does, that men -- human beings with brain and mouth -- have rights, and not anything else. And generally, where the two classical branches intersect, you find libertarianism, the defense of liberty.

Note: if you think that corporations, which have neither brain nor mouth, should somehow have free speech, then you have no space to complain when churches get into politics and try to impose their ways on everyone. In fact, you should approve of that even more, because in general the members of a church are pretty unanimous in their views.

I of course agree that churches have both the right to free speech and the right to free (including tax free) exercise of religion. They may speak on political matters and Congress may pass no law abridging that right.

 

[Benvolio]

I have read it, studied in law school courses devoted to it and have handles cases dealing with Constitutional issues. The Constitutin prohibits limitations on free speech---No Law.

And when that happens, the corporation has to sleep on the street or get robbed and sexually assaulted in a homeless shelter, right?

Worse, it dies. It's creditors pounce upon it and tear it to shreds.

 

[Benvolio]

I have read it, studied in law school courses devoted to it and have handles cases dealing with Constitutional issues. The Constitutin prohibits limitations on free speech---No Law.

Of course they can -- they would be using their individual rights and not coercing anyone else to support their views. In fact the Koch brothers and Soros, too, have essentially done so.

BTW, it's not "speech police", it's rights police, to make sure no one treads on anyone else's. And that is, at root, what government is for.

Brilliant. Hitler, viewing from hell, is kicking himself. "Why didn't I think of calling them rights police. And Rights Camps."

 

[xbuzzerx]

Worse, it dies. It's creditors pounce upon it and tear it to shreds.

And no one has been killed and no one's private assets have been seized and the corporation isn't worrying what's going to happen to its medical coverage now. It's just a financial entity which has now been cannibalized by other financial entities. Big whoop.

Going with your logic I suppose when there's a merger or takeover now it's "first degree murder."

 

[Kulindahr]

Brilliant. Hitler, viewing from hell, is kicking himself. "Why didn't I think of calling them rights police. And Rights Camps."

Being rights police is what government is FOR.

But I suppose you, being not really a conservative, wouldn't understand that. Today's "conservatives" favor a zoo state where the government is a moral arbiter.

 

[Benvolio]

Being rights police is what government is FOR.

But I suppose you, being not really a conservative, wouldn't understand that. Today's "conservatives" favor a zoo state where the government is a moral arbiter.

There is no kind of libertarian, real or otherwise, who advocates government limitations on political expression, speech, the press, or publication broadly defined. Worse, your animus is directed at those who speak or publish in favor of economic freedom while you have no problem with the liberal media corporations who can be depended upon to support authoritarian economic measures. Authoritarian is the opposite of libertarian, and the shoe fits.

 

[Rolyo85]

"Economic freedom" = "Corporatocracy".

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Kulindahr]

There is no kind of libertarian, real or otherwise, who advocates government limitations on political expression, speech, the press, or publication broadly defined. Worse, your animus is directed at those who speak or publish in favor of economic freedom while you have no problem with the liberal media corporations who can be depended upon to support authoritarian economic measures. Authoritarian is the opposite of libertarian, and the shoe fits.

I advocate constantly for economic freedom. Your problem is that you don't understand what that is -- you portray it as companies being allowed to do anything they please. But that isn't liberty, it's license. When religion did that, humankind suffered through a Dark Age; if corporations are allowed to do it, the same will result. Just as religion needed to be tamed by regulation by the government, so does the economy.

BTW, where have I ever said I have "no problem with the liberal media corporations"? That certainly doesn't fit with my posting history here. If we did things my way, they'd all be busted into smaller pieces that could actually report news and express the multitude of views and positions of the American people instead of being mouthpieces of propaganda for whoever owns them. We wouldn't have any foreign ownership of American media, either.

As for "can be depended upon to support authoritarian economic measures", there's very little support for that in the US except on the right, who want to entrench corporations in firm control of the government. There's excessive regulation, irrational regulation, regulation that should be in the private sector, but no "authoritarian economic measures" . . . unless you want to define "authoritarian" as "any exercise whatsoever of authority", and throw out law altogether. In fact, you're the one who wants authoritarian economic measures, by insisting that everyone should pay federal income taxes even if it means pushing people further into poverty.

- - - Updated - - -

"Economic freedom" = "Corporatocracy".

Ignorance is bliss.

Make that "corporate kleptocracy".