Does government have the authority?

[LibForestPaul]

To Limit The Speech of Corporations.
To Limit The Possession of Firearms by Corporations.
To Limit The Practice of Religion by Corporations.

[noxagol]

Government has no authority to limit anything by anyone, period.

[low preference guy]

You'll have to find one enumerated power that allows them to do it.

[LibForestPaul]

commerce clause

[ChaosControl]

To Limit The Speech of Corporations.
To Limit The Possession of Firearms by Corporations.
To Limit The Practice of Religion by Corporations.

Sure. Corporations only exist because government exists to extend them special benefits such as corporate personhood and limited liability which could not exist in a free market, so I do not see any issue with in exchange the government regulating them.

[low preference guy]

commerce clause

lol

[sratiug]

Corporations have no existence outside of the state they are chartered in. So this would be a state issue.

[Danke]

Corporations are the creation of the state, so of course.

[NYgs23]

Corporations (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=227830) are not necessarily creations of the state.

[Danke]

Corporations (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=227830) are not necessarily creations of the state.

Sure they are. It is true a private business does not need to incorporate. But that is a different matter.

[NYgs23]

Sure they are. It is true a private business does not need to incorporate. But that is a different matter.

No, corporations may very well be able to exist in a free market through contracts. Read Defending Corporations (http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-huebert_defending-corporations-2009.pdf). Also, In Defense of the Corporation (http://blog.mises.org/archives/004269.asp) and The Corporate Form, Limited Liability, and the State (http://mises.org/story/2816).

Even if they are statist, it's irrelevant, unless you believe in stripping all rights from government employees.

[Danke]

No, corporations may very well be able to exist in a free market through contracts. Read Defending Corporations (http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-huebert_defending-corporations-2009.pdf). Also, In Defense of the Corporation (http://blog.mises.org/archives/004269.asp) and The Corporate Form, Limited Liability, and the State (http://mises.org/story/2816).

Even if they are statist, it's irrelevant, unless you believe in stripping all rights from government employees.

I agree they can via private contract, but that is not what we are talking about.

Just as a man and woman can marry without a license. But once they apply and get a state issued license, they are subject to government interference.

[NYgs23]

Just as a man and woman can marry without a license. But once they apply and get a state issued license, they are subject to government interference.

Oh??? So should be stripped of the natural rights when they get a marriage license because they've become "creatures of the state"? Should married couples be forbidden from purchasing political ads? What about people who have driver's licenses? What about people who use Federal Reserve notes to purchase the ad?

Let's stop this weaselly nonsense and defend freedom in each and every area. This is only supposedly pro-freedom website I've seen in which people are crying in their beer over this ruling. Everywhere else, libertarians are happy about it because they know that McCain-Feingold was a disaster and this ruling is a victory for free speech. But on this site, I guess, people have gotten such a hard-on at the prospect of winning elections, they're willing to abandon their principles to do it. More sick, disgusting lust for power, by alleged lovers of liberty. How sad.

[Danke]

Oh??? So should be stripped of the natural rights when they get a marriage license because they've become "creatures of the state"? Should married couples be forbidden from purchasing political ads? What about people who have driver's licenses? What about people who use Federal Reserve notes to purchase the ad?

Let's stop this weaselly nonsense and defend freedom in each and every area. This is only supposedly pro-freedom website I've seen in which people are crying in their beer over this ruling. Everywhere else, libertarians are happy about it because they know that McCain-Feingold was a disaster and this ruling is a victory for free speech. But on this site, I guess, people have gotten such a hard-on at the prospect of winning elections, they're willing to abandon their principles to do it. More sick, disgusting lust for power, by alleged lovers of liberty. How sad.

Nice.

I'm not taking a position for or against. Just stating the reality we live in.

If you don't want government interference, then don't play in their system of benefits, like Limited Liability, etc. Is that difficult to do, yes. But it is possible and may entail some hardships along the way.

[TastyWheat]

A state could do it, in accordance with their own constitution. Our federal government has no such authority. The commerce clause is often misinterpreted. It exists so the federal government can "make regular" interstate commerce when it becomes restricted. Mandating that insurance policies can be bought across state lines would be a proper use of congressional power.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Nice.

I'm not taking a position for or against. Just stating the reality we live in.

If you don't want government interference, then don't play in their system of benefits, like Limited Liability, etc. Is that difficult to do, yes. But it is possible and may entail some hardships along the way.

I agree with Danke and am not taking a position over a breadcrumb issue based on flawed fundamentals. In the current system corporations are created by the state.

[erowe1]

Here's a good response I just came across for those using the "Corporations are a creation of the state, therefore the state can suspend our rights when whenever we attempt to exercise them via corporations" argument.
http://volokh.com/2010/01/22/should-people-acting-through-corporations-be-denied-constitutional-rights-because-corporations-are-state-created-entities/

[NYgs23]

More articles by libertarians on the statist aggression called campaign finance reform:

Ron Paul, "Campaign Finance Reform” Muzzles Political Dissent (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=336)
Lew Rockwell, Corruption in Government? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/archives/fm/4-97.html)
Anthony Gregory, Campaign Finance Reform, Censorship and Michael Moore (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory16.html)
Stephan Kinsella, What's Wrong with Campaign Finance Regulations? (http://blog.mises.org/archives/010646.asp)
Jude Blanchette, The Corruption of Reform (http://mises.org/story/625)
Tibor Machan, Corruption and Campaign Finance (http://mises.org/story/316)
Richard Pilon, Constitutional Issues Related to Campaign Finance Reform (http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-rp072299.html)
Robert Levy, Money, Politics and the Supreme Court (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9443)
Patrick Basham, Campaign Finance Fantasyland (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4275)
Bradley Smith, Campaign Finance Regulation: Faulty Assumptions and Undemocratic Consequences (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa238.html)
Lillian BeVier, Campaign Finance "Reform" Proposals: A First Amendment Analysis (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-282.html)
Penn Jilette, Campaign Finance's Funny Loophole (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv24n2/jillette.pdf)
Jonathan Rauch, McCain-Feingold at Rest (http://reason.com/archives/2005/05/09/mccain-feingold-at-rest)
Brian Doherty, The Big Money Boys of Campaign Finance Reform (http://reason.com/blog/2005/03/14/the-big-money-boys-of-campaign)
Bradley Smith, John McCain's War on Political Speech (http://reason.com/archives/2005/12/01/john-mccains-war-on-political)
Jacob Sullum, Another Provision of the Incumbent Protection Act Falls (http://reason.com/blog/2008/06/30/another-provision-of-the-incum)
Sheldon Richmond, Did Business Want Campaign-Finance “Reform”? (http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0406b.asp)
Jacob Hornberger, Real Campaign-Finance Reform (http://www.fff.org/comment/com0203e.asp)
Russell Roberts, Will Campaign Finance Reform Enhance the Power of the People? (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/will-campaign-finance-reform-enhance-the-power-of-the-people/)
John Wenders, Campaign Finance: The Symptom, Not the Problem (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/campaign-finance-the-symptom-not-the-problem/#)
Robert Higgs, The Futility of Campaign Finance Reform (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=221)
Jeffrey Milyo, Do Campaign Contributions Corrupt Politics? (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=448)

[thasre]

Last I checked, the government doesn't have the authority to regulate speech, religion, or the possession of firearms AT ALL. The wording of the 1st amendment makes it pretty clear that there is an ABSOLUTE limit on the ability of Congress to make laws that regulate those issues, regardless of who or what those laws might pertain to.

I don't see anything in that amendment that suggests any of those limitations apply only on behalf of individuals, or that those limitations can be abrogated in the case of a "compelling interest" in the rights of individuals. Speech itself is protected, not merely the speech of individuals (since that's really what we're talking about here).

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

II. The Impact on Other Constitutional Rights.

A second issue is that this logic applies not only to corporate free speech rights, but to all other constitutional rights exercised through the use of corporate resources. If people using “state-created entities” don’t have free speech rights, they don’t have any other constitutional rights either. After all, the supposed power to define the rights of state-created entities isn’t limited to free speech rights. Thus, government would not be bound by the Fourth Amendment in searching corporate property (including employee offices). It could take corporate property for private use without paying compensation because the Fifth Amendment would no longer apply. It could forbid religious services on corporate property (including that owned by churches, most of which are after all nonprofit corporations). If the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment doesn’t apply to corporate property, neither does the Free Exercise Clause. And so on.

This is already the position of government. Once a right (like the right of people contracting for economic benefit to a privilege of limited liability) is converted to privilege the privilege can be regulated by government in whatever way government decides best. The only thing that has happened with this case is that some people are crying foul with regards to how government is regulating the privilege.

I doubt the author and proponents of this article are going to advocate people exercising their right to travel by whatever means of the day without registering cars and obtaining driver licenses. This is the absurdity of the article and position. No principle, no logic, and no consistency. Without equal application their is no just law being enforced.

[ARealConservative]

a corporation is something that exists by the grace of govenrment. Unlike man, it can have no natural rights because by its very nature, it is an extension of government power.

now I'm going to read and see how many agree with me. :)

[erowe1]

This is already the position of government. Once a right (like the right of people contracting for economic benefit to a privilege of limited liability) is converted to privilege the privilege can be regulated by government in whatever way government decides best. The only thing that has happened with this case is that some people are crying foul with regards to how government is regulating the privilege.

I doubt the author and proponents of this article are going to advocate people exercising their right to travel by whatever means of the day without registering cars and obtaining driver licenses. This is the absurdity of the article and position. No principle, no logic, and no consistency. Without equal application their is no just law being enforced.

I don't put much weight in parts 1 and 2 of that blog. Part 3 was really the meat of it.

[newbitech]

Does government have the authority? To Limit The Speech of Corporations.
To Limit The Possession of Firearms by Corporations.
To Limit The Practice of Religion by Corporations.


What has given the corporation the unalienable right to speech?
What has given the corporation the unalienable right to bear arms?
What has given the corporation the unalienable right to practice religion?

I don't consider the corporation to be an individual. Individuals have inalienable rights. Corps I believe do not. For instance, if an individuals rights come from the creator does the creator have the authority to remove those rights?

Similarly, if the State of Florida created my corporation and gave it it's right to exist as an entity separate from me, wouldn't the state also have the right to prevent the corporation from engaging in certain types of practices like for instance funding a political candidacy?

I say yeah, the State of Florida has the right to prevent the corporation from even existing at all, much more the right to prevent the corporation from engaging in whatever activity the state of Florida decides it wants to prohibit.

Does that authority extend to me as an individual? Nope. As long as I am not acting as a corporation, then the State of Florida does not have the authority to regulate me as it regulates the corporation. These are my unalienable rights that my creator gave me and the State of Florida cannot take away.

As far as the Federal Government... meh... no this Federal Ruling is outside the scope of the supreme court. The SCOTUS fucked up when it recognized a non human entity as an individual and tried to protect it in the same way it SHOULD be protecting individuals.

But,,, one thing I have noticed or should say not noticed on here is an Executive Order signed by BHO on the day before the Haiti quake. Probably why it hasn't been discussed yet or at least at length here. I only saw 1 thread on it that was dismissed by a poster as old news.

Well, its not old news.

Council of Governors. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-705.pdf

Anyways, Federal Usurpation of State delegated rights has been a big issue. So we have the SCOTUS now also hearing cases that are not Federal in nature, as well as the POTUS signing E.O. that also seek to consolidate power.

By giving corps the same rights as individuals, the SCOTUS is effectively on the path towards diminishing the value of our rights as individuals in by increasing the artificial rights of the collective. This is democracy in action, unfortunately and it completely abridges the powers laid out in the constitution.

Regardless, I have recognized some time ago, that operating as an individual behind the corporate firewall is going to be the only way I am going to stay free and survive long enough to effect some real change. This is the trend towards watering down individual liberty and freedom by making it equal to something that is completely artificially created.

A step closer to free markets is not always a step closer to individual liberty if one takes a long term fundamental view. In fact, in this case, by recognizing corps as individuals on par with "real" individuals, it is actually a wolf in free market clothing.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I don't put much weight in parts 1 and 2 of that blog. Part 3 was really the meat of it.


III. Nearly Everyone and Everything is Probably a “State-Created Entity.”

What is their to debate, it's true. I am just not in denial about it unlike the author.
Their is no narrow or broad definition debate. It is black and white. Either it is a state created entity or it isn't.

Where you feel compelled to provide a u.s. birth certificate to justify your state created citizen existence I can justify my natural born existence with affidavits.

[NYgs23]

Individuals have inalienable rights. Corps I believe do not....In fact, in this case, by recognizing corps as individuals on par with "real" individuals, it is actually a wolf in free market clothing.

This strawman has been refuted about three-dozen times.

[thasre]

There is no right TO speech. There is a restriction on the government from making laws ABRIDGING speech. Everyone is right that corporations don't have positive rights. However, the Bill of Rights is a restriction on government authority. WHY IS THIS HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

[akforme]

I always liked what George Carlin said about authority.

"I have as much authority as the pope. I just don't have as many people who believe me"

And another one that I don't know who said.

"Laws are just words on a paper enforced by a gun." Government has the authority thru violence. Whether you give in or not is your choice but choices have consequences, good and bad.

[newbitech]

So when can we expect a ruling that allows a corporation to vote? When can we expect a ruling that allows a corporation to run for office?

Are two corporations allowed to enter into civil union? If two corporations are living together but not married, and one of them dies, what happens to the property of the surviving corporation?

If one corporation performs a hostile take over of another, is this cannibalism?

If two sister corporations are in bed together is this incest?

And finally, if a child corporation merges with the parent corporation does that corporation become his own grandfather or do we just consider it the father?

No, not liking the idea of giving corps special status. Like, if I decide to boycott McDonalds because I think their food is unhealthy, are we going to get some kind of Corporate Civil rights movements that ban me from discriminating based on Corporate Status? I mean come on where does this bullshit end?

[newbitech]

This strawman has been refuted about three-dozen times.


How is it a straw man?

A Corporation only exists on paper. So its not me trying to give a metaphor rights.

Go ahead if you don't feel like refuting MY statement, at least source something.

Coming out and saying what you did with nothing to back it up is a little, I don't know lazy I guess.

[NYgs23]

So when can we expect a ruling that allows a corporation to vote? When can we expect a ruling that allows a corporation to run for office?

Are two corporations allowed to enter into civil union? If two corporations are living together but not married, and one of them dies, what happens to the property of the surviving corporation?

If one corporation performs a hostile take over of another, is this cannibalism?

If two sister corporations are in bed together is this incest?

And finally, if a child corporation merges with the parent corporation does that corporation become his own grandfather or do we just consider it the father?

No, not liking the idea of giving corps special status. Like, if I decide to boycott McDonalds because I think their food is unhealthy, are we going to get some kind of Corporate Civil rights movements that ban me from discriminating based on Corporate Status? I mean come on where does this bullshit end?

http://www.pushingplay.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/facepalm.png

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

There is no right TO speech. There is a restriction on the government from making laws ABRIDGING speech. Everyone is right that corporations don't have positive rights. However, the Bill of Rights is a restriction on government authority. WHY IS THIS HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

It's not hard to understand but that is not the context of the ruling and thread discussion. If the ruling stated government does not have constitutional authority to enact positive law abridging speech it would be case closed nice ruling. But on the other hand a creature of the state does not have constitutional standing to obtain that ruling.

[erowe1]

What is their to debate, it's true. I am just not in denial about it unlike the author.
Their is no narrow or broad definition debate. It is black and white. Either it is a state created entity or it isn't.

Where you feel compelled to provide a u.s. birth certificate to justify your state created citizen existence I can justify my natural born existence with affidavits.

So, since citizenship is a state construct, by the reasoning you seem to be using, it follows that the state has the right to limit the rights of all citizens however it pleases in exchange for their enjoyment of the privileges of that state-defined status as "citizen". I can't accept that.

To me, the bottom line is property rights. I have the right to use my money however I please, including spending however much of it I want to propagate any political message I want, including trying to get people to support a political candidate.

I also have the right to pool money with other people for a combined effort in propagating political speech, including support of a particular candidate. I also have the right to do that in a way where we enter a contract that defines the terms by which that money is dispensed according to decisions made by a group of people to whom we delegate the responsibility to make those decisions. One example of such a group of people is a candidate's campaign committee. Thus, I can't escape the conclusion that, at least as an individual, there is no limit to my right either to spend my money on political speech in favor of a candidate or to donate my money to a candidate's campaign committee.

I also have the right to enter contracts with other people similar to those described above where we pool money, not just for political speech, but for a business venture, making and selling widgets. And again I and those who invest along with me have the right to do that in a way that includes terms by which we delegate to a group of people our rights to decide how that money is spent, including spending it on political speech and including donating to candidate campaign committees.

So I don't have to believe in some abstract idea of corporate personhood with all the other ideas that people might truck into that label. I just have to believe in individual property rights to believe that it is wrong for the government (or anyone else) to interfere with our rights to spend our money on political speech as individuals and in combination with other individuals via corporations.

If we see other things the government has gotten itself into, which is has no right to do, such as extending limited liability and other illegitimate privileges to corporations, then we should attack those things for what they are. But we shouldn't use the fact that the state has done those things it has no right to do as a pretext for granting it the right to do other things it has no right to do, such as interfere with individual property rights by way of interfering with the rights of individuals to exercise those rights via contracts such as I described above.

[NYgs23]

Go ahead if you don't feel like refuting MY statement, at least source something.

On Corporations
Walter Block and J.H. Huebert, Defending Corporations (http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-huebert_defending-corporations-2009.pdf)
Ilya Somin, People Organized as Corporations are People Too (http://volokh.com/2010/01/21/people-organized-as-corporations-are-people-too/)
Ilya Somin, Should People Acting through Corporations be Denied Constitutional Rights Because Corporations are “State-Created Entities”? (http://volokh.com/2010/01/22/should-people-acting-through-corporations-be-denied-constitutional-rights-because-corporations-are-state-created-entities/) (thanks to Erowe for posting this)

On Campaign Finance Reform
Ron Paul, "Campaign Finance Reform” Muzzles Political Dissent (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=336)
Lew Rockwell, Corruption in Government? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/archives/fm/4-97.html)
Anthony Gregory, Campaign Finance Reform, Censorship and Michael Moore (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory16.html)
Stephan Kinsella, What's Wrong with Campaign Finance Regulations? (http://blog.mises.org/archives/010646.asp)
Jude Blanchette, The Corruption of Reform (http://mises.org/story/625)
Tibor Machan, Corruption and Campaign Finance (http://mises.org/story/316)
Richard Pilon, Constitutional Issues Related to Campaign Finance Reform (http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-rp072299.html)
Robert Levy, Money, Politics and the Supreme Court (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9443)
Patrick Basham, Campaign Finance Fantasyland (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4275)
Bradley Smith, Campaign Finance Regulation: Faulty Assumptions and Undemocratic Consequences (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa238.html)
Lillian BeVier, Campaign Finance "Reform" Proposals: A First Amendment Analysis (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-282.html)
Penn Jilette, Campaign Finance's Funny Loophole (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv24n2/jillette.pdf)
Jonathan Rauch, McCain-Feingold at Rest (http://reason.com/archives/2005/05/09/mccain-feingold-at-rest)
Brian Doherty, The Big Money Boys of Campaign Finance Reform (http://reason.com/blog/2005/03/14/the-big-money-boys-of-campaign)
Bradley Smith, John McCain's War on Political Speech (http://reason.com/archives/2005/12/01/john-mccains-war-on-political)
Jacob Sullum, Another Provision of the Incumbent Protection Act Falls (http://reason.com/blog/2008/06/30/another-provision-of-the-incum)
Sheldon Richmond, Did Business Want Campaign-Finance “Reform”? (http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0406b.asp)
Jacob Hornberger, Real Campaign-Finance Reform (http://www.fff.org/comment/com0203e.asp)
Russell Roberts, Will Campaign Finance Reform Enhance the Power of the People? (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/will-campaign-finance-reform-enhance-the-power-of-the-people/)
John Wenders, Campaign Finance: The Symptom, Not the Problem (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/campaign-finance-the-symptom-not-the-problem/#)
Robert Higgs, The Futility of Campaign Finance Reform (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=221)
Jeffrey Milyo, Do Campaign Contributions Corrupt Politics? (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=448)

On Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Stephan Kinsella, Left-Liberals on Free Speech and Finance Campaign Laws (http://blog.mises.org/archives/011512.asp)
Justin Raimondo, The Big Question: Will corporate money change campaigns? (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/77279-the-big-question-is-the-supreme-court-right-on-campaign-finance) (scroll down about halfway)
Matt Welch, Citizens United, Free At Last (http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/21/citizens-united-free-at-last)
Jacob Sullum, It Turns Out the First Amendment Prohibits Congress From Punishing People for Their Political Speech (http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/21/it-turns-out-the-first-amendme)
Jason Pye, Scotus Backs Free Speech in Ruling (http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/4777-scotus-backs-free-speech-in-ruling)
Timothy B. Lee, Citizens United and Corporate Money in Politics (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/22/citizens-united-and-corporate-money-in-politics/)
Ilya Shapiro, Supreme Court Ruling on Hillary Movie Heralds Freer Speech for All of Us (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/21/supreme-court-ruling-on-hillary-movie-heralds-freer-speech-for-all-of-us/)
Doug Mataconis, Supreme Court Strikes A Blow For Free Speech (http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2010/01/21/supreme-court-strikes-a-blow-for-free-speech/)

[Freedom 4 all]

Sure. Corporations only exist because government exists to extend them special benefits such as corporate personhood and limited liability which could not exist in a free market, so I do not see any issue with in exchange the government regulating them.

This.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

So, since citizenship is a state construct, by the reasoning you seem to be using, it follows that the state has the right to limit the rights of all citizens however it pleases in exchange for their enjoyment of the privileges of that state-defined status as "citizen". I can't accept that.


I wasn't theorizing. What you can't accept I cited as fact. The state does regulate privileges and I previously cited the right to travel by whatever means of the day as one example.

[NYgs23]

*sarcasm* I guess it's nice that there are so many crypto-leftists on this forum for variety and all *sarcasm*

[LibForestPaul]

Last I checked, the government doesn't have the authority to regulate speech, religion, or the possession of firearms AT ALL. The wording of the 1st amendment makes it pretty clear that there is an ABSOLUTE limit on the ability of Congress to make laws that regulate those issues, regardless of who or what those laws might pertain to.

I don't see anything in that amendment that suggests any of those limitations apply only on behalf of individuals, or that those limitations can be abrogated in the case of a "compelling interest" in the rights of individuals. Speech itself is protected, not merely the speech of individuals (since that's really what we're talking about here).

So corporations should be allowed to own firearms as well as vote. Congress has no authority over corporations with such issues ?

[NYgs23]

I wasn't theorizing. What you can't accept I cited as fact. The state does regulate privileges and I previously cited the right to travel by whatever means of the day as one example.

The state shouldn't regulate anything. More government isn't the answer. When will people understand stand that the answer to too much statism is not MORE statism?

[newbitech]

There is no right TO speech. There is a restriction on the government from making laws ABRIDGING speech. Everyone is right that corporations don't have positive rights. However, the Bill of Rights is a restriction on government authority. WHY IS THIS HARD TO UNDERSTAND?


What is hard to understand is why there is even a question at ALL on whether or not a corp has the same rights as an individual.

So what if the supreme court did the right thing by deciding that Congress doesn't have the power to limit speech? Fucking yay finally.

But what is more appalling to me than the fact that Congress thinks it can get away with limiting speech is a group of UNELECTED judges thinking it can get away with elevating a fucking piece of paper to the status of person hood.

W.T.F>?

Maybe I am misunderstanding the details of the ruling, but from what I can tell, this trend and lobbying of the judiciary to recognize corps as "individuals" has been going on way before this little debate about campaign finance reform.

Also, where in the hell does the court get its authority to over rule a state decision that is explicitly reserved to the state? Where is the jurisdiction established? Under what precedent? Or is this another case where the federal government has clearly overstepped its boundaries into state affairs?

So I see this as two steps towards consolidation of power and one step back. Not satisfied with the ruling AT ALL. It is an insult and a mockery of the intention of the founders.

If somebody making decisions inside a corp wants to use corp money to sponsor a candidate, then let that person take a profit distribution from the corp and pay the tax on that distribution like any other individual activity would have to do. Let them be 100% liable for what happens as a result of that person financing a clown candidate that destroys more of my liberty instead of hiding behind their corp.

And what so now corp contributions are going to be an expense of doing business HA!

All the state has to do now is slap a tax on a corp that spends money this way. Hows that going to do for the little guy? An extra campaign tax in the mix.

Oh and of course the Fed Gov is going to LOVE bypassing the state election tax on corps by either calling it unconstitutional OR subsidizing the damn MSM dog and pony show that the corps will undoubtedly purchase to push their favorite BIG GOVERNMENT big SPENDING Candidate.

No this will not turn out well.

Can't wait to start seeing political messages on ALL of my American made goods. Boy that will sure help stem the tide of socialist propaganda. Eesshhh, I cannot understand how this is a good thing.

[NYgs23]

So corporations should be allowed to own firearms as well as vote.

The individuals within them should, just as they should have full control over their own property, incorporated or not. This has been gone through a million times over. Are you people illiterate?

[NYgs23]

What is hard to understand is why there is even a question at ALL on whether or not a corp has the same rights as an individual.


Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals.

[LibForestPaul]

The individuals within them should, just as they should have full control over their own property, incorporated or not. This has been gone through a million times over. Are you people illiterate?

LOL HAHA, nice run around the question.


The executives and the board on behalf of the corporation can give money to another corporation for ad space.

Extending YOUR logic

The executives and the board on behalf of the corporation can give money to another corporation for guns.

I suppose most corporations would pass a background check.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The state shouldn't regulate anything. More government isn't the answer. When will people understand stand that the answer to too much statism is not MORE statism?

I agree with you, get rid of the state... but we are talking about the system that presently is or how it ought to be?

[NYgs23]

LOL HAHA, nice run around the question.

The executives and the board on behalf of the corporation can give money to another corporation for ad space.

Extending YOUR logic

The executives and the board on behalf of the corporation can give money to another corporation for guns.

I suppose most corporations would pass a background check.

Executives should be able to do anything they want on behalf of the corporation, so long as it's according to the stated rules of that corporations and is non-aggressive. Just as anyone should be able to anything they want on behalf of any organization so long as it's according to the rules of that organization and is non-aggressive.

Sheesh, you'd like the corporate business model is Satan, from the reaction it gets from some people!

[newbitech]

Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals. Corporations are groups of individuals.

groups of individuals are collectives and this ruling elevates the collective to the same status as individuals; this is a ruling favorable to communism. groups of individuals are collectives and this ruling elevates the collective to the same status as individuals; this is a ruling favorable to communism. groups of individuals are collectives and this ruling elevates the collective to the same status as individuals; this is a ruling favorable to communism. groups of individuals are collectives and this ruling elevates the collective to the same status as individuals; this is a ruling favorable to communism. groups of individuals are collectives and this ruling elevates the collective to the same status as individuals; this is a ruling favorable to communism. groups of individuals are collectives and this ruling elevates the collective to the same status as individuals; this is a ruling favorable to communism. groups of individuals are collectives and this ruling elevates the collective to the same status as individuals; this is a ruling favorable to communism. groups of individuals are collectives and this ruling elevates the collective to the same status as individuals; this is a ruling favorable to communism. groups of individuals are collectives and this ruling elevates the collective to the same status as individuals; this is a ruling favorable to communism. groups of individuals are collectives and this ruling elevates the collective to the same status as individuals; this is a ruling favorable to communism.

[NYgs23]

I agree with you, get rid of the state... but we are talking about the system that presently is or how it ought to be?

Presently, individuals in corporations have the same right over their own property as all other individuals, and it's violent and evil to use force to prevent them from spending investing that property in advertisements or anything else. Do married couples have the right to buy advertisements with their money? Do they have the right to buy food? Should we have them starve to death?

[NYgs23]

groups of individuals are collectives and this ruling elevates the collective to the same status as individuals; this is a ruling favorable to communism.

So whenever individuals get together in any group they automatically lose their rights? Should we be allowed to bomb voluntary communes? Should we be allowed to murder married couples?

What an obscene perversion of individualism. Individualism is about voluntarism. Collectivism is evil when it's aggressive.

[thasre]

@NYgs23:

Good luck if you decide to continue this fight. I'm on your side, but clearly there's a load of people whose anti-corporatism outweighs their support for freedom. It's not worth it to me to help you change their minds.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Presently, individuals in corporations have the same right over their own property as all other individuals, and it's violent and evil to use force to prevent them from spending investing that property in advertisements or anything else. Do married couples have the right to buy advertisements with their money? Do they have the right to buy food? Should we have them starve to death?

You are not even talking about how it is or how it ought to be. You appear somewhere in the middle.

Here is my position. Eliminate the state and state granted privileges no longer exist. A constitutional position could be the state should not be in the business of granting privilege but of protecting individual rights. The only thing that remains in either case is individuals contracting together for economic benefit. If those shareholders desire to run ads let them join together in suit as individuals (or appoint a legal representative) to assert government has overstepped constitutional limits enacting positive law abridging speech. But that is a position on how it ought to be, this is how it really is:

Government has asserted time and time again that it can regulate privileges and it does. So these people need stop bitching about government regulating their privileges, shut up, and eat some of the democratic statist privilege regulating cake they have baked.

Or reinvent their principles

[NYgs23]

Let shareholders contract among themselves for economic benefit.

That's what they did when they incorporated


Government has asserted time and time again that it can regulate privileges and it does.

Corporations buying an ad has nothing to do with privileges. They could do it even if they didn't get any privileges. In any case, just because the govt says it doesn't mean it's right. Some govt aggression doesn't justify more govt aggression.


So these people need stop bitching about government regulating their privileges, shut up, and eat some of the democratic statist privilege regulating cake they have baked.

If you're going to take the position that everyone who receives a privilege from the govt thereby loses their rights, then no one has any rights. Not me. Not you. So stop bitching when the state comes to your house to take your stuff.

[newbitech]

So whenever individuals get together in any group they automatically lose their rights? Should we be allowed to bomb voluntary communes? Should we be allowed to murder married couples?

What an obscene perversion of individualism. Individualism is about voluntarism. Collectivism is evil when it's aggressive.

No you are confusing a Corporation that have special privileges with individuals who have unalienable rights.

I am not the one elevating a privileged group to the status sovereign individual. Don't call my views obscene.

Take a step back for a second. Who benefits from the bombing and rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan? Is it the sovereign individual or the privileged corporation? Who is accountable for the atrocities committed in on behalf of making shoes, or expanding food chains in 3rd world countries. Is our country doing these things just for the taste of it? Did we as American's collectively tell our military to just do it when it came time to respond to 9/11?

Does your insurance agent tell you to have it your way when you visit your doctor? Are your taxes really fair and balanced? Is it your countries deficit that keeps going and going and going?

Do you think most American voters have intel inside? Is that your portfolio that takes a licking and keeps on ticking? Is that your local sheriff who is everywhere you want to be?

Come on now..

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

That's what they did when they incorporated

This is where I differ with you based on the reality of state law. Pick a state and let us analyze the current law.



If you're going to take the position that everyone who receives a privilege from the govt thereby loses their rights, then no one has any rights. Not me. Not you. So stop bitching when the state comes to your house to take your stuff.

I take this position with regards to people who are ok with the government privileges they like but are not ok with the government privileges they don't like. Which is what this case represents, a group of people bitching about how government is regulating a privilege.

[NYgs23]

No you are confusing a Corporation that have special privileges with individuals who have unalienable rights.

I am not the one elevating a privileged group to the status sovereign individual. Don't call my views obscene.

Take a step back for a second. Who benefits from the bombing and rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan? Is it the sovereign individual or the privileged corporation? Who is accountable for the atrocities committed in on behalf of making shoes, or expanding food chains in 3rd world countries. Is our country doing these things just for the taste of it? Did we as American's collectively tell our military to just do it when it came time to respond to 9/11?

Does your insurance agent tell you to have it your way when you visit your doctor? Are your taxes really fair and balanced? Is it your countries deficit that keeps going and going and going?

Do you think most American voters have intel inside? Is that your portfolio that takes a licking and keeps on ticking? Is that your local sheriff who is everywhere you want to be?

Come on now..

I mean I just don't understand this. It's like I'm speaking a different language. You don't address anything I said.

In your first two paragraphs you repeat the same hyperbolic rhetoric you and others keep repeating: corporations aren't people, blah blah blah. And I and others have refuted that a billion times: no, they're not people, but they're associations of people, and the people within them have rights. But you don't hear it; you just use the same mantra over and over: corps aren't people, corps aren't people, corps aren't people. Everyone knows that! How dumb do you think I am. But corps do have rights IN THE SENSE that they are groups of PEOPLE, and the PEOPLE within them have rights! When you remove rights from a GROUP OF PEOPLE you remove rights from the PEOPLE WITHIN THE GROUP. This should be obvious, shouldn't it? For example, you and I are in the same group (God help me) as members of the same forum. We have rights, insofar as the forum leaders allow it, to post, for example, swear words. But what if the state said that "forums" aren't people, they have no rights, and on that basis banned all forums from having swear words posted on them. I mean, forums have no rights, right? But the do have rights in the sense that people who run them and use them have rights.

Again, when you eliminate rights from a "group" of people, you eliminate rights of the individuals within the group. That's not "collectivism." Isn't it obvious that since all groups are made up of individuals, when you aggress against a group you really aggress against the individuals within the group.

"Oh, but corps receive privileges from the govt." Well, so does everyone else! Do public school teachers not have rights? Should we be allowed to shoot them on sight?

No, your not against the idea of corporations having rights (that is: the individuals within them having rights) either because corporations are groups or because corporations receive govt privileges, because you know that either of those presumptions would eviscerate rights for everyone, including yourself. Rather, you just have a bias against corporations, as shown by the rest of your post, decrying the misdeeds of certain corporations. Yet corporations are not inherently aggressive nor are only corporations aggressive. In the end, it's still certain individuals who are aggressive, some of whom happen to be within corporations.

[NYgs23]

I take this position with regards to people who are ok with the government privileges they like but are not ok with the government privileges they don't like. Which is what this case represents, a group of people bitching about how government is regulating a privilege.

They're not regulating a "privilege." They're regulating something everyone has a natural right to do, whether they're within a group or out of it, whether the group receives a "privilege" or not: using their own money to purchase something. Everyone has the right to engage in acts of trade (money for ads in this case), whether or not they've pooled their resources. It wasn't a govt grant that allowed them to pool their resources; they could do that anyway. They may have received some privilege in addition to it, but that doesn't strip them of their other rights.

I might add that even if the govt does grant a privilege, it is necessarily a good thing to further allow the govt to regulate it any way it wants. That just gives the govt even more power. Some statism doesn't justify more of it.

Is it okay to mug public school teachers? Old people who happily accept social security checks? Poor people who apply for Medicaid, food stamps, or unemployment? Married couples who sign a marriage license? Individuals who get driver's licenses? They lost their rights when they sought the privilege, right?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

They're not regulating a "privilege." They're regulating something everyone has a natural right to do

A fundamental concept of constitutional government is that government does not have the power to regulate natural rights only powers expressly delegated to it.



I might add that even if the govt does grant a privilege,

Which is it. Government regulates natural rights or privileges?

I offered to discuss state law regarding the privilege and incorporating. You avoided the question so I am unable to further discuss the specifics and realities of the privilege in the present system.

[Danke]

http://www.pushingplay.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/facepalm.png

When you are clueless to the intricacies of the topic being discussed, post this ^

[NYgs23]

A fundamental concept of constitutional government is that government does not have the power to regulate natural rights only powers expressly delegated to it.

That's what I'm saying!!! By regulating where corporations (i.e. ASSOCIATIONS OF PEOPLE) spend their money, they're regulating a natural right, and they SHOULDN'T be!


Which is it. Government regulates natural rights or privileges?

Hopefully neither. It's immoral to restrict rights. As for govt-granted privileges, they shouldn't exist, but I see no benefit for lobby for the govt to regulate them even more. At best, that's a waste of time.


I offered to discuss state law regarding the privilege and incorporating. You avoided the question so I am unable to further discuss the specifics and realities of the privilege in the present system.

I know what you mean: limited liability, legal personhood...I heard it twenty times, I addressed it twenty times, particularly in this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=227830). I've talked about how corporations could exist in the free market through contracts. I've talked about how, even if not, it doesn't matter, because those "privileges" don't apply here, because corporations would still be able to purchase ads even within them. And here, yet again, is the incredibly long list of further commentary I've posted:

On Corporations
Walter Block and J.H. Huebert, Defending Corporations (http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-huebert_defending-corporations-2009.pdf)
Ilya Somin, People Organized as Corporations are People Too (http://volokh.com/2010/01/21/people-organized-as-corporations-are-people-too/)
Ilya Somin, Should People Acting through Corporations be Denied Constitutional Rights Because Corporations are “State-Created Entities”? (http://volokh.com/2010/01/22/should-people-acting-through-corporations-be-denied-constitutional-rights-because-corporations-are-state-created-entities/) (thanks to Erowe for posting this)

On Campaign Finance Reform
Ron Paul, "Campaign Finance Reform” Muzzles Political Dissent (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=336)
Lew Rockwell, Corruption in Government? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/archives/fm/4-97.html)
Anthony Gregory, Campaign Finance Reform, Censorship and Michael Moore (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory16.html)
Stephan Kinsella, What's Wrong with Campaign Finance Regulations? (http://blog.mises.org/archives/010646.asp)
Jude Blanchette, The Corruption of Reform (http://mises.org/story/625)
Tibor Machan, Corruption and Campaign Finance (http://mises.org/story/316)
Richard Pilon, Constitutional Issues Related to Campaign Finance Reform (http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-rp072299.html)
Robert Levy, Money, Politics and the Supreme Court (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9443)
Patrick Basham, Campaign Finance Fantasyland (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4275)
Bradley Smith, Campaign Finance Regulation: Faulty Assumptions and Undemocratic Consequences (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa238.html)
Lillian BeVier, Campaign Finance "Reform" Proposals: A First Amendment Analysis (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-282.html)
Penn Jilette, Campaign Finance's Funny Loophole (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv24n2/jillette.pdf)
Jonathan Rauch, McCain-Feingold at Rest (http://reason.com/archives/2005/05/09/mccain-feingold-at-rest)
Brian Doherty, The Big Money Boys of Campaign Finance Reform (http://reason.com/blog/2005/03/14/the-big-money-boys-of-campaign)
Bradley Smith, John McCain's War on Political Speech (http://reason.com/archives/2005/12/01/john-mccains-war-on-political)
Jacob Sullum, Another Provision of the Incumbent Protection Act Falls (http://reason.com/blog/2008/06/30/another-provision-of-the-incum)
Sheldon Richmond, Did Business Want Campaign-Finance “Reform”? (http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0406b.asp)
Jacob Hornberger, Real Campaign-Finance Reform (http://www.fff.org/comment/com0203e.asp)
Russell Roberts, Will Campaign Finance Reform Enhance the Power of the People? (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/will-campaign-finance-reform-enhance-the-power-of-the-people/)
John Wenders, Campaign Finance: The Symptom, Not the Problem (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/campaign-finance-the-symptom-not-the-problem/#)
Robert Higgs, The Futility of Campaign Finance Reform (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=221)
Jeffrey Milyo, Do Campaign Contributions Corrupt Politics? (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=448)

On Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Stephan Kinsella, Left-Liberals on Free Speech and Finance Campaign Laws (http://blog.mises.org/archives/011512.asp)
Justin Raimondo, The Big Question: Will corporate money change campaigns? (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/77279-the-big-question-is-the-supreme-court-right-on-campaign-finance) (scroll down about halfway)
Matt Welch, Citizens United, Free At Last (http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/21/citizens-united-free-at-last)
Jacob Sullum, It Turns Out the First Amendment Prohibits Congress From Punishing People for Their Political Speech (http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/21/it-turns-out-the-first-amendme)
Jason Pye, Scotus Backs Free Speech in Ruling (http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/4777-scotus-backs-free-speech-in-ruling)
Timothy B. Lee, Citizens United and Corporate Money in Politics (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/22/citizens-united-and-corporate-money-in-politics/)
Ilya Shapiro, Supreme Court Ruling on Hillary Movie Heralds Freer Speech for All of Us (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/21/supreme-court-ruling-on-hillary-movie-heralds-freer-speech-for-all-of-us/)
Doug Mataconis, Supreme Court Strikes A Blow For Free Speech (http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2010/01/21/supreme-court-strikes-a-blow-for-free-speech/)

What more? What else can I say? How many more times do I have to repeat things I've already said to people who don't read what I've said and then claim I've never addressed their arguments?

[newbitech]

I mean I just don't understand this. It's like I'm speaking a different language. You don't address anything I said.

In your first two paragraphs you repeat the same hyperbolic rhetoric you and others keep repeating: corporations aren't people, blah blah blah. And I and others have refuted that a billion times: no, they're not people, but they're associations of people, and the people within them have rights. But you don't hear it; you just use the same mantra over and over: corps aren't people, corps aren't people, corps aren't people. Everyone knows that! How dumb do you think I am. But corps do have rights IN THE SENSE that they are groups of PEOPLE, and the PEOPLE within them have rights! When you remove rights from a GROUP OF PEOPLE you remove rights from the PEOPLE WITHIN THE GROUP. This should be obvious, shouldn't it? For example, you and I are in the same group (God help me) as members of the same forum. We have rights, insofar as the forum leaders allow it, to post, for example, swear words. But what if the state said that "forums" aren't people, they have no rights, and on that basis banned all forums from having swear words posted on them. I mean, forums have no rights, right? But the do have rights in the sense that people who run them and use them have rights.

Again, when you eliminate rights from a "group" of people, you eliminate rights of the individuals within the group. That's not "collectivism." Isn't it obvious that since all groups are made up of individuals, when you aggress against a group you really aggress against the individuals within the group.

"Oh, but corps receive privileges from the govt." Well, so does everyone else! Do public school teachers not have rights? Should we be allowed to shoot them on sight?

No, your not against the idea of corporations having rights (that is: the individuals within them having rights) either because corporations are groups or because corporations receive govt privileges, because you know that either of those presumptions would eviscerate rights for everyone, including yourself. Rather, you just have a bias against corporations, as shown by the rest of your post, decrying the misdeeds of certain corporations. Yet corporations are not inherently aggressive nor are only corporations aggressive. In the end, it's still certain individuals who are aggressive, some of whom happen to be within corporations.

Ok, I guess I keep repeating myself because you haven't yet shown your ability to understand what precedent was overruled.

Basically, corporations are now allowed to use their general funds to pump whatever political candidate they choose.

This general fund comes from the profits the corporation makes by selling stuff to you. So you go out spend $500 bucks on your new iPhone or whatever. Next week, as you are playing with your phone, you get an add to vote for your favorite candidate and the add is sponsored by Apple. In fact this add becomes a very catchy add that gets people parroting the name of some douchebag like Sarah Palin or whoever.

So now everyone associates Sarah Palin with the iPhone. Now here I come and see you with your iPhone and laugh at you because you support Sarah Palin. Fun times right?

Gets better. So these corporate profits, this general fund that is now fair game to be spent on political campaigning the profits come from the pool of money that the shareholders at Apple get their dividend from. The shareholders of course being these individuals that pool their money together.

Well, now all of a sudden these shareholders are supporters of a candidate or an incumbent who supports aggressive wars. Oh but wait, they can sell their shares if they don't like it right? Or they can vote out a board or w/e. Well so what? Doesn't matter, they still contributed and profited from that financial endorsement. Probably without their consent. So who exactly does the corporation speak for? It speaks for everyone in that corporation whether they like it or not.

But why should the corporation care? This ruling simply overturned a law that prevented a corporation from investing its primary capital and profiting from political elections.

It gets even better. Now a corporation can write these off as expenses and reduce their tax burden. There is no buffer between corporate finance and political finance.

A candidate can now open his own corp, solicit donations, then reinvest those donations on Wall Street where he sells shares of his candidacy to the highest bidder ON THE OPEN MARKET and then proceeds to govern at the advice of his board of directors. This wouldn't be such a big deal if the share holders in the candidacy were allowed to literally fire the politician. It would actually be kind of cool. But no, this decision did nothing to change elections laws. so basically and assuming the corporation was successful in getting their candidate elected and successful in preserving their capital for successive runs FOR profit, the people will be stuck with that politician simply on the merits of that corporation being able to better economic success FOR THEMSELVES.

We couldn't even expect to compete with this corporation in the campaign financing realm without creating our own corporation to counter the financial success. Go ahead and write it down now. You will start seeing shell corps pop up that are not publicly tradeable who take in funding from the giants and all the lobbying and PACS etc etc are going to take one giant step back into the dark.

Think we have shadow government now? Think we have mass brainwashing going on in 2008? Think this is good example of freedom for individuals? Negative. Again, a corporation is not an individual. A corporation has the privilege of doing things that NO individual can do.

Hell what is the point of even donating to campaigns anymore? May as well donate to a corporation that is running ads for your candidate. Or better yet, invest in that corp, BUT only if you think that candidate is going to win, otherwise, your propaganda IS not going to be tax deducible. Of course, the corporations will be. Read the ruling please.

I have been digging through it, and trust me, your forum analogy does it no justice.
Also, the idea that this ruling helps the little guy or the small business, absurd..

[NYgs23]

Ok, I guess I keep repeating myself because you haven't yet shown your ability to understand what precedent was overruled.

Basically, corporations are now allowed to use their general funds to pump whatever political candidate they choose.

This general fund comes from the profits the corporation makes by selling stuff to you. So you go out spend $500 bucks on your new iPhone or whatever. Next week, as you are playing with your phone, you get an add to vote for your favorite candidate and the add is sponsored by Apple. In fact this add becomes a very catchy add that gets people parroting the name of some douchebag like Sarah Palin or whoever.

So now everyone associates Sarah Palin with the iPhone. Now here I come and see you with your iPhone and laugh at you because you support Sarah Palin. Fun times right?

Gets better. So these corporate profits, this general fund that is now fair game to be spent on political campaigning the profits come from the pool of money that the shareholders at Apple get their dividend from. The shareholders of course being these individuals that pool their money together.

Well, now all of a sudden these shareholders are supporters of a candidate or an incumbent who supports aggressive wars. Oh but wait, they can sell their shares if they don't like it right? Or they can vote out a board or w/e. Well so what? Doesn't matter, they still contributed and profited from that financial endorsement. Probably without their consent. So who exactly does the corporation speak for? It speaks for everyone in that corporation whether they like it or not.

But why should the corporation care? This ruling simply overturned a law that prevented a corporation from investing its primary capital and profiting from political elections.

It gets even better. Now a corporation can write these off as expenses and reduce their tax burden. There is no buffer between corporate finance and political finance.

A candidate can now open his own corp, solicit donations, then reinvest those donations on Wall Street where he sells shares of his candidacy to the highest bidder ON THE OPEN MARKET and then proceeds to govern at the advice of his board of directors. This wouldn't be such a big deal if the share holders in the candidacy were allowed to literally fire the politician. It would actually be kind of cool. But no, this decision did nothing to change elections laws. so basically and assuming the corporation was successful in getting their candidate elected and successful in preserving their capital for successive runs FOR profit, the people will be stuck with that politician simply on the merits of that corporation being able to better economic success FOR THEMSELVES.

We couldn't even expect to compete with this corporation in the campaign financing realm without creating our own corporation to counter the financial success. Go ahead and write it down now. You will start seeing shell corps pop up that are not publicly tradeable who take in funding from the giants and all the lobbying and PACS etc etc are going to take one giant step back into the dark.

Think we have shadow government now? Think we have mass brainwashing going on in 2008? Think this is good example of freedom for individuals? Negative. Again, a corporation is not an individual. A corporation has the privilege of doing things that NO individual can do.

Hell what is the point of even donating to campaigns anymore? May as well donate to a corporation that is running ads for your candidate. Or better yet, invest in that corp, BUT only if you think that candidate is going to win, otherwise, your propaganda IS not going to be tax deducible. Of course, the corporations will be. Read the ruling please.

I have been digging through it, and trust me, your forum analogy does it no justice.
Also, the idea that this ruling helps the little guy or the small business, absurd..

I knew it. It was never about you're views on group rights, govt privileges or whatever. It was all about your fear that corporate spending would hurt your chances to get your guy elected. Aggression is justified and violation of the Constitution is justified so long as it helps your guy get elected. I, on the other hand, don't give a shit about "helping the little guy," if by "helping the little guy" you mean "use aggression to get my way." Do I really have to post my endless list of links about the folly and foolishness of campaign finance reform again? Well, what about just one:

Ron Paul, "Campaign Finance Reform” Muzzles Political Dissent (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=336)

[NYgs23]

A corporation has the privilege of doing things that NO individual can do.

No, once again: individuals can buy ads, groups of individuals (corps) can also buy ads. No special privilege there.

[Reason]

YouTube - Court green-lights corporate election spending (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw5SB4JKh74)

[newbitech]

No, once again: individuals can buy ads, groups of individuals (corps) can also buy ads. No special privilege there.

This case is not about buying ads.

Corporations were never restricted from buying political ads. The restriction was on the "type" of funds used to buy those ads.

Please read this ruling and the history that was flushed down the toilet with it.

[NYgs23]

This case is not about buying ads.

Corporations were never restricted from buying political ads. The restriction was on the "type" of funds used to buy those ads.

Please read this ruling and the history that was flushed down the toilet with it.

Yet another excuse to support aggression for political gain: it's the wrong type of funds. The Imperial God-King declares that all CEOs may use the "right" type of funds, but death to he who useth the "wrong" type of funds. It doesn't matter what type of funds they are or what history was flushed down the toilet. The state shouldn't have started it's idiotic "campaign finance reform" crusade in the first place. When the hell did libertarians start supporting campaign finance reform? When did libertarians start wanting to examine how corporations spend which funds where? They can light their money on fire for all I care.

On Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Stephan Kinsella, Left-Liberals on Free Speech and Finance Campaign Laws (http://blog.mises.org/archives/011512.asp)
Justin Raimondo, The Big Question: Will corporate money change campaigns? (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/77279-the-big-question-is-the-supreme-court-right-on-campaign-finance) (scroll down about halfway)
Matt Welch, Citizens United, Free At Last (http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/21/citizens-united-free-at-last)
Jacob Sullum, It Turns Out the First Amendment Prohibits Congress From Punishing People for Their Political Speech (http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/21/it-turns-out-the-first-amendme)
Jason Pye, Scotus Backs Free Speech in Ruling (http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/4777-scotus-backs-free-speech-in-ruling)
Timothy B. Lee, Citizens United and Corporate Money in Politics (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/22/citizens-united-and-corporate-money-in-politics/)
Ilya Shapiro, Supreme Court Ruling on Hillary Movie Heralds Freer Speech for All of Us (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/21/supreme-court-ruling-on-hillary-movie-heralds-freer-speech-for-all-of-us/)
Doug Mataconis, Supreme Court Strikes A Blow For Free Speech (http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2010/01/21/supreme-court-strikes-a-blow-for-free-speech/)

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

That's what I'm saying!!! By regulating where corporations (i.e. ASSOCIATIONS OF PEOPLE)

Corporations are not associations of people. A corporation is a legal construct of the state with state granted privileges. People are free to engage in business and associate and contract with each other for an economic benefit.

But you are not saying people who contract with each other for an economic benefit should be free to buy ads. People who contract with each other for an economic benefit are free to buy ads.

The reason this whole case exists is because a "corporation" which is not people contracting with each other for an economic benefit it is people applying to receive government granted privileges and thereby subject to regulation.

If Larry Lepard produced the film Mr. Lepard would have a constitutional case. However neither Mr. Lepard nor an association of individuals produced the film. A "corporation", a term with a distinct legal meaning, did.

Words mean everything in law. I have said it before. The word business is the messiest word in the present legal system. Government tries to assert authority and jurisdiction over people's natural rights for doing "business".

I wanted to sell some crap lying around my house before christmas and was pondering my options: 1) garage sale 2) ebay 3) local flea market. I knew I did not want to deal with the city obtaining a garage sale permit since they assert I have to obtain permission due to a traffic safety hazard. Ebay is okay but I was thinking it's the holiday season maybe I can get rid of a lot of crap sitting at a flea market for a day or two.

I went to the flea market and there was a sign on the leasing office counter stating all vendors are required to have a vendors license per the county. I am perfectly ok with people doing whatever they want on their property but I found their motivation for enforcing law (the county told them so) repugnant. Not to mention I am not getting permission from government to sell personal property. Naturally I contacted the county vendors license department and inquired as to why I must obtain permission from the government to sell personal property in my county. The county cited it had the authority under state statues and referred me to the appropriate chapter. I reviewed the chapter and the word business is not defined in it. I contacted the legislative review board in my state and inquired where the term business is currently defined in state statues. They provided three sections where the word business appears 1) appears in criminal statues 2) used but not defined in occupation/vendor licensing 3) defined in sales tax statues. In sales tax law the definition of business specifically exempts the sale of personal property. Adequately informed I contacted the occupational/vendor license office again and explained how the only place in state statues that defines the word business exempts the sale of personal property. The clerk acknowledged such, acknowledged the term business is not defined in the vendor/occupational license statues, and further stated state law says that when a word is not defined a standard dictionary definition may be used. This is how states seek to regulate your natural rights. On a comical note I told the clerk they did not have the authority to regulate people selling personal property on ebay and the response was that they in fact did have the authority just not the manpower to enforce it. At this point my only recourse is to 1) obtain the permission of the county to sell personal property and get the license or 2) file a writ in court and argue county government has exceeded its legislative and constitutional authority based on state law and my state constitution.

Thinking to myself that my county can not be this ass backwards I contacted a county council representative. The county council member felt people need to register with government before selling personal property to protect the public. In addition the county council member stated I should be collecting sales tax on the sale of my used personal property despite the fact it is exempt in state law and I have already paid sales tax on it. So I thought maybe my elected state representative with their office resources can save me some time and provide a definition of business and some court precedents. So I called and asked for a definition of business with regards to occupation/vendor licenses. I got back a reply stating many things are delegated to the county and if I had any further questions regarding selling please see my county council. Obviously my state legislator has no interest in insuring counties are in compliance with state law which delegates counties power. In addition I have received other notices from government for unrelated matters because this is how it often works when you question things. You have to pick and choose your legal battles. You might win one battle but you will also be fighting government on two or three other fronts until you are broke.

My county asserts they are regulating the privilege of conducting business. If I actually took this to court they will argue they can regulate the activity of business, they WILL NOT argue they have the authority to regulate my right to sell my personal property. I have a very strong case against the county because I am an individual and in the right. If I was representing a corporation I would have no case because the state has always asserted it has the authority to regulate "corporations".

I have incorporated before and I am debating from a real world perspective, not fantasy land. If you want to discuss the privilege pick a state because when it comes to corporations government is regulating a privilege not the rights of an association of people.

[revolutionary8]

LFOD
:eek:

what a total cluster fu@*

YouTube - Pink Floyd - Run Like Hell (Live) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKgOe1Rl8YY)

[newbitech]

Yet another excuse to support aggression for political gain: it's the wrong type of funds. The Imperial God-King declares that all CEOs may use the "right" type of funds, but death to he who useth the "wrong" type of funds. It doesn't matter what type of funds they are or what history was flushed down the toilet. The state shouldn't have started it's idiotic "campaign finance reform" crusade in the first place. When the hell did libertarians start supporting campaign finance reform? When did libertarians start wanting to examine how corporations spend which funds where? They can light their money on fire for all I care.

On Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Stephan Kinsella, Left-Liberals on Free Speech and Finance Campaign Laws (http://blog.mises.org/archives/011512.asp)
Justin Raimondo, The Big Question: Will corporate money change campaigns? (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/77279-the-big-question-is-the-supreme-court-right-on-campaign-finance) (scroll down about halfway)
Matt Welch, Citizens United, Free At Last (http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/21/citizens-united-free-at-last)
Jacob Sullum, It Turns Out the First Amendment Prohibits Congress From Punishing People for Their Political Speech (http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/21/it-turns-out-the-first-amendme)
Jason Pye, Scotus Backs Free Speech in Ruling (http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/4777-scotus-backs-free-speech-in-ruling)
Timothy B. Lee, Citizens United and Corporate Money in Politics (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/22/citizens-united-and-corporate-money-in-politics/)
Ilya Shapiro, Supreme Court Ruling on Hillary Movie Heralds Freer Speech for All of Us (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/21/supreme-court-ruling-on-hillary-movie-heralds-freer-speech-for-all-of-us/)
Doug Mataconis, Supreme Court Strikes A Blow For Free Speech (http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2010/01/21/supreme-court-strikes-a-blow-for-free-speech/)

So you are going to completely ignore the fact that corporations are able to do things that no individual is able to do. Instead you are going to pretend like we weren't trying to find common ground and result to hurling angry insults at me instead.

So what about your links? Do you not have the time to pull up the pdf of the ruling, and cross reference all of the opinions of the court with your own opinion and come to a conclusion on your own?

I can understand if you do not have the time to do that, but please forgive me if I find your links to be irrelevant to my own opinion as I am reading from the same source these folks are. Is there some reason you think that these list of people should change my mind?

I will probably read the opinions of folks who think this was some kind of victory for freedom of speech, but as I have already said, it is a hallow victory. The Supreme Court continues to assert that groups of people should be treated as individuals rather than as groups and that these groups should have privileges that as individuals we cannot have. One example is tax exemptions on campaign expenditures. This is a special status that was recently returned back to corporations.

Do you really think that giving more special privileges to corporations is an advancement of liberty and free speech? You do realize that corporations had the ability to buy ads or make movies before this ruling right? You do realize that the regulation that I am concerned with is the regulation that allows corps to spend their general funds on election expenses rather than establishing an accountable fund that could only be funded by willing and knowing participants, right?

Now it is possible for an individual to contribute directly to the propaganda fund of an unknown candidate. And this can be done through shell corps now with the money being funneled through a network of shell corps with absolutely NO accountability. And this is going to be done in the name of free speech.

I don't see that as being free speech, I see it as being fraudulent, manipulative speech. I don't think you can have free speech without responsible speech, do you? I don't think liberty in speech is protected by ensuring a lack of accountability in that speech, do you?

[NYgs23]

Corporations are not associations of people. A corporation is a legal construct of the state with state granted privileges. People are free to engage in business and associate and contract with each other for an economic benefit.

Well, let's just hope the state doesn't declare you do be a corporation, thereby negating your humanity and removing your natural rights. The point is that whatever the state says, corporations actually exist as associations of individuals with rights. Do you deny that CEOs and stockholders have rights merely because they belong to a corporation. Do you support Sarbanes-Oxley, so long as it only applies to corporations? What about OSHA? CAFE? CPSIA? Minimum wage? Antitrust? Zoning regulations? All these things are presumably legal and moral as they apply to corporations, since their just regulating "state creations." Am I allowed to loot property from a corporate building? Would I be allowed, morally speaking, if the state declared that I was allowed? And, as has been pointed out before, civil marriage and citizenship are also "legal constructs," so does that mean married couples and citizens automatically become appendages of the state with privileges but no rights? Can the state ban citizens from advertising because citizenship is a legal construct?

It doesn't matter what the state says. What matters is that when there are individuals in those corporations. They have rights. They do not give up their rights to control their property when they join the corporation.

Furthermore, I reject the idea that the corporation is a statist construct. Corporations receive statist privileges, just as citizens do. But the corporate business model can very well exist without those privileges, and their purchases of ads has nothing to do with those privileges:

Walter Block and J.H. Huebert, Defending Corporations (http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-huebert_defending-corporations-2009.pdf)
Ilya Somin, People Organized as Corporations are People Too (http://volokh.com/2010/01/21/people-organized-as-corporations-are-people-too/)
Ilya Somin, Should People Acting through Corporations be Denied Constitutional Rights Because Corporations are “State-Created Entities”? (http://volokh.com/2010/01/22/should-people-acting-through-corporations-be-denied-constitutional-rights-because-corporations-are-state-created-entities/)

But you are not saying people who contract with each other for an economic benefit should be free to buy ads. People who contract with each other for an economic benefit are free to buy ads.


The reason this whole case exists is because a "corporation" which is not people contracting with each other for an economic benefit it is people applying to receive government granted privileges and thereby subject to regulation.

So I'm allowed to mug you in the street if you have a driver's license? What about a public library card?

[revolutionary8]

Do you really think that giving more special privileges to corporations is an advancement of liberty and free speech?

How is it "more special privelieges" for corps." and not also "more special priveleges" for small businesses and the individuals who make up those small businesses?

I just don't get it. If a public ccorp. has the balls to gamble on a politician, then it would seem likely that if they gambled wrong (which will inevitably happen, think John Edwards,Spitzer, etc) then they stand the chance of losing millions if not billions...
They have already found the loopholes people. Srsly.

[NYgs23]

So you are going to completely ignore the fact that corporations are able to do things that no individual is able to do. Instead you are going to pretend like we weren't trying to find common ground and result to hurling angry insults at me instead.

So what about your links? Do you not have the time to pull up the pdf of the ruling, and cross reference all of the opinions of the court with your own opinion and come to a conclusion on your own?

I can understand if you do not have the time to do that, but please forgive me if I find your links to be irrelevant to my own opinion as I am reading from the same source these folks are. Is there some reason you think that these list of people should change my mind?

I will probably read the opinions of folks who think this was some kind of victory for freedom of speech, but as I have already said, it is a hallow victory. The Supreme Court continues to assert that groups of people should be treated as individuals rather than as groups and that these groups should have privileges that as individuals we cannot have. One example is tax exemptions on campaign expenditures. This is a special status that was recently returned back to corporations.

Do you really think that giving more special privileges to corporations is an advancement of liberty and free speech? You do realize that corporations had the ability to buy ads or make movies before this ruling right? You do realize that the regulation that I am concerned with is the regulation that allows corps to spend their general funds on election expenses rather than establishing an accountable fund that could only be funded by willing and knowing participants, right?

Now it is possible for an individual to contribute directly to the propaganda fund of an unknown candidate. And this can be done through shell corps now with the money being funneled through a network of shell corps with absolutely NO accountability. And this is going to be done in the name of free speech.

I'm not interested in what extra privileges they have. Even if they had all the privileges in the world, it wouldn't justify this. Some statism doesn't justify more statism. Are you allowed to rob a schoolteacher who gets her paycheck from the state. Some statism doesn't justify more statism. In this particular case, a corporation spending funds (of whatever type) on an ad (of whatever type) is not an act of aggression and is not a special privilege. Nothing else the state might do around that makes it so. Is this the corporation's money or not? If so, they can spend it on whatever they want, privileges, schmivileges. Some statism doesn't justify more statism.


I don't think you can have free speech without responsible speech, do you? I don't think liberty in speech is protected by ensuring a lack of accountability in that speech, do you?

No? I can say irresponsible and unaccountable things with my free speech. Not aggressive.

[NYgs23]

I can understand if you do not have the time to do that, but please forgive me if I find your links to be irrelevant to my own opinion as I am reading from the same source these folks are. Is there some reason you think that these list of people should change my mind?

Just letting you know that you disagree with every libertarian I've ever heard of on this issue. This site is the first place I've ever heard any self-described libertarians or constitutionalists defend campaign finance reform. Must be something in the water.

[newbitech]

How is it "more special privelieges" for corps." and not also "more special priveleges" for small businesses?


well I already mentioned that claiming this ruling helps or protects small business is absurd. I will be more than happy to expand on that.

First, small business are just that, businesses. This case and the cases referenced in the ruling dealt and have dealt with large special interest non-profits who exist for the sole purpose of political activities. These aren't corps like Apple, Intel, Wal-Mart, etc bringing these cases.

Second, small businesses and large corps had a level playing field in that both had to establish specific types of financing accounts in whatever particular state they are doing business. The rules for funding these accounts have traditionally been that solicitation of the funds can only be done through those particular companies vested interested. Like shareholders, employees, etc etc... From what I have read, these STATE rules also made provisions of disclosure in the form of accepting money into these funds meant that whatever the source of funds would be notified that their money was being used for political endorsements. Also, these funds did not have the status of being business expenses as they would be recognized a political contributions which are not tax exempt.

Finally, small business do not operate on the open exchanges where their general treasury capital can be invested, nor can the public at large generally have a vested interested through the purchase of securities.

These three points tip the scales of political persuasion and overall competition of ideas far away from the benefit of small business. Whereas in the past, small business would be able to participate individual and as equals with a large corporation, now we are ALL competing against corporate capital pools that are funded in many cases internationally and with the issuance of bonds aka DEBT.

I could expand more on how this type of freedom of speech law hurts the smallest groups and benefits the largest. I think it should be pretty obvious from the perspective of accountability. Well now some corp can go ahead and yell FIRE in the crowded theater of politics and the press would likely have no one to interview. We used to be able to ask question of the political account treasurer or the political chairman of whatever corp. Now since corps are individuals, we have to try and pin down some logo and file FOIA request to find out who the hell is funding these wacked out brainwashing propaganda commercials. Sounds like fun!:o

[newbitech]

Just letting you know that you disagree with every libertarian I've ever heard of on this issue. This site is the first place I've ever heard any self-described libertarians or constitutionalists defend campaign finance reform. Must be something in the water.

I think you are not seeing the forest through the trees. I really don't know what libertarians or constitutionalist you are talking to. I really don't know why you think I am defending campaign finance reform.

Water?

Look this decision is going to open up our election process to all kinds of politically motivated funding "arbitrage" in the name of free speech. Everyone running around tooting the free speech victory horn on this one needs to look below the surface of this ruling. This is a ruling IN FAVOR of campaign finance reform. This is a less is more kind of ruling. Less regulation on political manipulation equals more spending on political manipulation. We don't need MORE political manipulation, we need more political accountability and responsibility. This ruling add manipulation at the expense of accountability and takes the responsibility of organizing OUT of the hands of individuals and puts it IN the hands of elite controlled corps. I don't know how to be more clear.

Let me go look at the links, I am sure that I am not the only one making this point. You are probably over looking something or misreading what is being said here.

[revolutionary8]

From what I have read, these STATE rules also made provisions of disclosure in the form of accepting money into these funds meant that whatever the source of funds would be notified that their money was being used for political endorsements. Also, these funds did not have the status of being business expenses as they would be recognized a political contributions which are not tax exempt
okay, so it now must also be noted on a federal level?, correct?


Finally, small business do not operate on the open exchanges where their general treasury capital can be invested, nor can the public at large generally have a vested interested through the purchase of securities.
correct, which makes it a WHOLE NEW BALL GAME if you think about it. I can think of NO POLITICIAN that as a corporation I would invest my $ in to these days (besides the obvious to US) in fact tell me ONE acting representative besides Ron Paul that is untainted.
It happens underground, not on the surface, and this ruling will change nothing for the corps who learned how to circumvent "the law" centuries ago.
Silly Rabbit, Trixx are made for kids.

[NYgs23]

I think you are not seeing the forest through the trees. I really don't know what libertarians or constitutionalist you are talking to. I really don't know why you think I am defending campaign finance reform.

I listed them all, and you said you didn't know why they'd change your mind. I posted opinions from Cato, Mises, FFF, and Reason. I posted an article from Ron Paul. You don't have to agree with him, of course, but most libertarians appear to think that more state power isn't gonna bring more freedom.


Look this decision is going to open up our election process to all kinds of politically motivated funding "arbitrage" in the name of free speech.

It is already.


This is a ruling IN FAVOR of campaign finance reform. This is a less is more kind of ruling. Less regulation on political manipulation equals more spending on political manipulation.

How is it "manipulation" to buy an ad? Just because they have a lot of money? How is what your saying different from anything any other left-winger who whines about giving the state more power in order to protect "the little guy" from "the rich." When has that ever worked. You say you're against campaign finance reform? Your arguments are identical to those who supported it. Do you support McCain-Feingold? What about the Federal Election Campaign Act? What about the Tillman Act of 1907? Were these good or were these bad?


This ruling add manipulation at the expense of accountability and takes the responsibility of organizing OUT of the hands of individuals and puts it IN the hands of elite controlled corps.

In other words, it doesn't change anything. Government will always be an oligarchy when its huge and powerful (in my opinion, it will always be an oligarchy, period).

[revolutionary8]

well I already mentioned that claiming this ruling helps or protects small business is absurd. I will be more than happy to expand on that.

First, small business are just that, businesses. This case and the cases referenced in the ruling dealt and have dealt with large special interest non-profits who exist for the sole purpose of political activities. These aren't corps like Apple, Intel, Wal-Mart, etc bringing these cases.

Second, small businesses and large corps had a level playing field in that both had to establish specific types of financing accounts in whatever particular state they are doing business. The rules for funding these accounts have traditionally been that solicitation of the funds can only be done through those particular companies vested interested. Like shareholders, employees, etc etc... From what I have read, these STATE rules also made provisions of disclosure in the form of accepting money into these funds meant that whatever the source of funds would be notified that their money was being used for political endorsements. Also, these funds did not have the status of being business expenses as they would be recognized a political contributions which are not tax exempt.

Finally, small business do not operate on the open exchanges where their general treasury capital can be invested, nor can the public at large generally have a vested interested through the purchase of securities.

These three points tip the scales of political persuasion and overall competition of ideas far away from the benefit of small business. Whereas in the past, small business would be able to participate individual and as equals with a large corporation, now we are ALL competing against corporate capital pools that are funded in many cases internationally and with the issuance of bonds aka DEBT.

I could expand more on how this type of freedom of speech law hurts the smallest groups and benefits the largest. I think it should be pretty obvious from the perspective of accountability. Well now some corp can go ahead and yell FIRE in the crowded theater of politics and the press would likely have no one to interview. We used to be able to ask question of the political account treasurer or the political chairman of whatever corp. Now since corps are individuals, we have to try and pin down some logo and file FOIA request to find out who the hell is funding these wacked out brainwashing propaganda commercials. Sounds like fun!:o

newbi,
FTR,
I have much enjoyed reading you on the eco. forums, ESPECIALLY your insight re the loans. It is clear that you really understand the undercurrents of our current "system", and I truly appreciate the knowledge that you have shared with us.

That said,
Using my own common sense, I have to disagree, at the verry verry least, because of the fact that simply because something is "illegal", doesn't mean it isn't going on, and furthermore, the sudden "legalization", usually leads to the eventual downfall fo certain "cabals" that profited from said PROHIBITION.

I am not, and never have been a big fan of prohibition.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Well, let's just hope the state doesn't declare you do be a corporation, thereby negating your humanity and removing your natural rights.

A corporation I had once purchased a property. The mortgage was under the corporation as well as personally guaranteed. The city brought me before a code enforcement board and asserted that the property was owned by a corporation not an individual and in the interest of public safety the city can regulate all leased properties. They asserted I as an individual did not own the property and the corporation was renting to me. As such the corporation had to obtain an occupational license to rent property. The corporation required no occupational license to own the property just a license for for me to live in it while it was getting rehabbed.



The point is that whatever the state says, corporations actually exist as associations of individuals with rights.

When you say something like this to someone like me who has spent real world time and money to defend and assert so called rights in this wonderful constitutional system, I do not consider you credible. Quite frankly you are talking out of your tail pipe when it comes to the real world.

Companies may contractually exist as associations of individuals with rights but not corporations. Tell me of your grand personal experience with corporate ownership and individual rights.



Do you deny that CEOs and stockholders have rights merely because they belong to a corporation. Do you support Sarbanes-Oxley, so long as it only applies to corporations? What about OSHA? CAFE? CPSIA? Minimum wage? Antitrust? Zoning regulations? All these things are presumably legal and moral as they apply to corporations, since their just regulating "state creations." Am I allowed to loot property from a corporate building? Would I be allowed, morally speaking, if the state declared that I was allowed? And, as has been pointed out before, civil marriage and citizenship are also "legal constructs," so does that mean married couples and citizens automatically become appendages of the state with privileges but no rights? Can the state ban citizens from advertising because citizenship is a legal construct?

Are you suggesting government does not already regulate advertising? Can I put any sign on my property? Can I advertise using any language or images I want? Doesn't government assert you are conducting business out of your home if you advertise a local paper? When you obtain a home occupation permit do you not give up some rights?



It doesn't matter what the state says. What matters is that when there are individuals in those corporations.

Reality is living with rights will cost you more time, money, and resources fending off government than converting rights into privileges. This is where the problem comes in. People want rights for privilege cost.

[newbitech]

blah blah ok, lets do this...



On Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Stephan Kinsella, Left-Liberals on Free Speech and Finance Campaign Laws (http://blog.mises.org/archives/011512.asp)
Justin Raimondo, The Big Question: Will corporate money change campaigns? (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/77279-the-big-question-is-the-supreme-court-right-on-campaign-finance) (scroll down about halfway)
Matt Welch, Citizens United, Free At Last (http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/21/citizens-united-free-at-last)
Jacob Sullum, It Turns Out the First Amendment Prohibits Congress From Punishing People for Their Political Speech (http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/21/it-turns-out-the-first-amendme)
Jason Pye, Scotus Backs Free Speech in Ruling (http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/4777-scotus-backs-free-speech-in-ruling)
Timothy B. Lee, Citizens United and Corporate Money in Politics (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/22/citizens-united-and-corporate-money-in-politics/)
Ilya Shapiro, Supreme Court Ruling on Hillary Movie Heralds Freer Speech for All of Us (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/21/supreme-court-ruling-on-hillary-movie-heralds-freer-speech-for-all-of-us/)
Doug Mataconis, Supreme Court Strikes A Blow For Free Speech (http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2010/01/21/supreme-court-strikes-a-blow-for-free-speech/)

Stephen Kinsella


A better decision would have struck the federal McCain-Feingold law down without reference to the First Amendment, on the grounds that there is no power authorized in the Constitution to enact the law in the first place--after all, such a law would have been as unconstitutional in 1790 (before the Bill of Rights was ratified) as in 1791 [see The Unique American Federal Government (http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/10/26/the-unique-american-federal-government/) and the work of Professor McAffee discussed in The Great Gun Decision: Dissent (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/21701.html) and in On States' "Rights" (http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/09/26/on-states-rights/)].
Exactly, the decision lacked authority because it did not tackle the real Constitutional issue in the first place, which is namely WHO has the power to regulate corporations. Certainly not the Federal Government. The First Amendment protections for individuals should have NEVER been tainted with this gutless ruling.

Justin Raimondo


To have them, of all people, ensuring the sanctity of free and open elections is like entrusting a bear to guard the honey pot.
Exactly, which is why the supreme court should have left the issue of regulating corporations up to the state where those entities are created in the first place. Ensuring the sanctity of free and open elections is something that belongs as close to the people as possible, which is why overruling a century of state law in favor of these large corporations in the name of free speech protected by Constitutional limits on the Federal government is such bullshit.

Matt Welch

overturned many of the worst campaign finance restrictions in federal law


The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states. It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.
So direct contributions are not protected speech but indirect contributions are? Again, another observation regarding the lukewarmness of this ruling. Also, how is this a victory for free speech if it overturns the laws regulating financing on the state levels? Do the people in these 24 states believe that allowing unlimited campaign expenditures by corporations "chill" their own free speech? IN other words, haven't these states decided that allowing corps to roar as loudly as they can drown out and stifle speech by other "individuals"?

Jacob Sullum



That last point is debatable, and I wish the Court would stop accepting the idea that predictions about how voters will perceive this or that aspect of political activity can justify restrictions on speech (as they supposedly do in the case of campaign contributions).
I would argue that this indeed WAS the point of the ruling. The ruling said,



Reliance on a "generic favoritism or influence theory...is at odds with standard First Amendment analyses because it is unbounded and susceptible to no limiting principle."
The problem I have is that a Corporate Status IS NOT a generic favoritism or influence theory first of all. Corporate Status is a privileged status that is granted by the states. Now for groups of individuals to compete with this privilege status, THEY MUST become a corporation, otherwise they lose favoritism and influence. This gives a distinct advantage and encourages corporations to speak as a collective rather and has the chilling effect of STIFLING individual speech. There is indeed a limiting principle and that limit is that speech is a right of an individual, NOT a right of a group of individuals. Just like Congress or the Fed cannot enact laws that abridge speech for a group, it also cannot enact laws that abridge speech for individuals. Corporations, with their privileged status granted by the State are now granted, via judicial legislation in defiance of state laws, the ability to speak louder than and effectively silence or otherwise stifle and abridge the speech of the individual.

Jason Pye


This is great news for free speech and the Bill of Rights.
Really Jason? And why is that?

Timothy B. Lee



The best you can say, I think, is that limiting corporate influence is a “compelling state interest” sufficient to overcome the First Amendment’s ban on speech abridgment, but that’s just another way of saying that you don’t care about free speech very much.

No really a lot more can be said about compelling state interest in limiting corporate influence. And no protecting free speech at the local and state levels is much more important to me than protecting free speech at the national levels. This is why overruling state courts in the guise of opposing federal regulation is so destructive to individual rights. States typically use their influence to attract corporate influence. This is how states generate commerce locally.

The states have a vested interest in controlling the commerce that they attract to their towns. When states see fit to limit the privilege granted to the legal entities they create in an effort to protect voters right to free speech, the SCOTUS should have no opinion on the constitutionality of the states exercising their right to curtail damaging speech. Especially when the states pass laws to protect voters from outsiders injecting their propaganda and influence into matters of the state. I care about free speech which is why I want my state to make sure that my right to free speech is not taken away by outsiders who can use their special privilege to make sure my message is not heard. Or to spread lies or to make unaccountable and irresponsible statements that waste my time and resources having to refute.

Ilya Shapiro


While the Court has long upheld campaign finance regulations as a way to prevent corruption in elections, it has also repeated that equalizing speech is never a valid government interest.
Then why grant special privilege to corporations? Why overturn state laws governing the conduct of a legal entity that cannot open a mouth, type an email, or pen a newsletter? Why reject laws that effectively hold individuals rights above the privileges of a group? What is the reason to see a corporation as equally protected as an individual? This just doesn't make sense. This is not about free speech it is about allowing a group of people who have come together under a financially privilege status the ability to use that status to speak more often, more loudly, and with less accountability and less responsibility than an individual. This isn't protecting free speech, the is exploiting individual rights in favor of protecting a privilege status. Right > Privilege Status. Individual > Corporation This ruling erases the state laws recognizing that!!!!! State law which by the way "gave birth" or created that "entity"!!!

Doug Mataconis


By driving a stake (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012101724.html?hpid=topnews) through the heart of McCain-Feingold: ....

As I’ve said many times before, the only campaign finance regulation that we need is full and complete disclosure.
Every candidate for Federal office should be required to disclose all contributions and disbursements and a regular basis (possibly even more frequently than the quarterly reports that are now the law), and that information should be easily available to the public so that people can know where a candidate’s money comes from and where it goes. After all, isn’t that what the First Amendment is really all about — let the information out and let the public decide what to think about it ?

And driving a stake through the state laws of 24 states as well as 100 years of legal precedent that existed BEFORE McCain-Feingold!!!

The author completely misses the point of this ruling. This is not about contributions and disbursements of candidates. This is about privately funded campaign activities that have now lost ALL ability to be held accountable or responsible IN THE NAME OF FREE SPEECH. We used to be able to follow the money trail. No more. We will have to file FOIA just to even get a hearing on the basis of election law to find out who the hell is sponsoring candidates. You want disclosure, yet you will gladly accept that free speech means secretive speech. Fine, I don't have a problem with that, but why in the hell do I have to have a corporation in order to have the same financial privileges? If corporations and individuals are equal in free speech, then "we" should be equal in everything else. there should be no corporate privilege if the creator of that priviledge is not allowed to regulate it!

Otherwise, my free speech rights just took a back seat to an entity that is allowed to act and function in a way that I as a sovereign individual AM PROHIBITED from acting. This is irresponsible interpretation of the 1st Amendment and an abridgment of my freedom under the same.

If congress is not allowed to make a law infringing a legal entities privileged 1st Amendment "right", then the Supreme Court is not allowed to overrule a law that protects my sovereign 1st Amendment from that privilege entity EVEN IF that protection causes that entity to lose its privilege but NOT its right!

[revolutionary8]

A corporation I had once purchased a property.

did you not purchase this piece of property of your own sound mind/body? Power of Attorney?

were you forced to purchase this piece of property?

until those quiestions are answerd/explored, the rest is completely bougs.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

did you not purchase this piece of property of your own sound mind/body? Power of Attorney?

were you forced to purchase this piece of property?

until those quiestions are answerd/explored, the rest is completely bougs.
d whorefor.

This is how the property was acquired as far as government is concerned. I incorporated. As the sole shareholder I elected myself to the board of directors. As the sole person on the board of directors I appointed myself president of the corporation. Board of director minutes we're recorded according to state law. The corporation was directed to acquire property and articulate any guidelines desired by shareholders. In the official capacity of president an officer of the corporation I executed the wishes of the board of directors. As president the only consideration is not acting of your own sound mind/body officers of a corporation must observe rules established by the board of directors who represent the shareholders.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

A corporation does not have the same rights as an individual with regards to company records. The list goes on and on. At the end of the day this case is going to come down to the same thing. Fundamentally nothing has changed but some of the rules government uses to regulate privileges.

[newbitech]

newbi,
FTR,
I have much enjoyed reading you on the eco. forums, ESPECIALLY your insight re the loans. It is clear that you really understand the undercurrents of our current "system", and I truly appreciate the knowledge that you have shared with us.

That said,
Using my own common sense, I have to disagree, at the verry verry least, because of the fact that simply because something is "illegal", doesn't mean it isn't going on, and furthermore, the sudden "legalization", usually leads to the eventual downfall fo certain "cabals" that profited from said PROHIBITION.

I am not, and never have been a big fan of prohibition.

Thank you for your kind words. I really try to give back as much as I can to this community and I will respond to you by saying that even tho in these forums I may have crazy opinions that are wildly off base, I am completely open to hearing other points of view and other facts that may persuade my thinking.

I consider myself to be a discerning individual and often times while I post here, the views I express are not necessarily my convictions or even my own opinions. I try to stay neutral and not identify myself with words so much as with actions and experience. This is why I was attracted to this community, the shear willingness to act on a belief. And not just any belief but a belief that can withstand the rigorous analysis of people from all political persuasions and backgrounds.

That being said, I have reviewed the opinion in this case, read most of the 186 page opinion of the Justices as well as referenced the precedent and case laws from the lower courts and the state and federal laws to which those rulings and briefings were based.

This is one huge decision that will change the game literally overnight. 1st Amendment rulings are in my opinion highly subjective because of the nature of speech. As far as campaign finance reform, I believe this is a question of financial and accounting reform. For whatever reason, the Supreme Court Decided to hear free speech arguments. I think this was a mistake. The challenge should have been heard on the grounds that congress doesn't have the authority to pass oppressive laws in the first place. This is should have been taken care of based on Article 1 Section 8.

Hearing first amendment laws caused the Supreme Court to usurp the power of the state and effectively legislate state law governing corporations from the bench. I am sure that we have not heard from the States on this issue yet, and I would hope that we would get some serious backlash from voters at the state level to file 10th amendment violations.

People forget that Corporations are created under the authority of the state, and if the states are not allowed to regulate their corporations, then corporations don't exist. I can get more into that as well but to your point.

Have you been following what is going on with Tom DeLay and what went on with some of his aides and Jack Abramoff? Well, the reason I ask is because the reason the con and fraud was exposed in the Abramoff scandals is because of campaign finance regulation of corporations.

So basically we are able to expose that fraudulent activity that surrounds bribing politicians due to campaign finance laws. Sort of like how Elliott Ness was able to put Al Capone in jail for tax evasion. These guys are experts at covering their tracks, but they still get caught because its not easy to move that kind of money around without raising some flags in the accounting. By rejecting state laws regarding campaign financing, we are giving these guys the green light to launder their bribes through the corporate general fund. This is a privilege that corporations enjoy. The ability to move money around in these different types of accounts.

The issue in this case was that the non-profit didn't create a special account and follow the rules of political finance that were designed to prevent such fraudulent activity. Yes, it made it harder for these non-profits to collect money, but only marginally so. You see, they had to set up special accounts and keep track of all the people who contributed to these accounts. They also had to disclose to anyone whose money went into these account WHAT exactly their money was going to.

For instance, now the ACLU can go around and collection donations for legal defense, but then turn around and use that money to put out an attack add on whatever politician they don't like. So you see, I can now easily say, yeah I am going to donate my money to the benevolent police association so that they can buy sports equipment for the kids. And then the director of that association can say ah well you know what, I think instead of buying equipment for the kids, I am going to go ahead and run an add for the reelection of the sheriff who believes that the 4th amendment doesn't apply to people who have an arrest history.

Sure just because something is illegal doesn't mean it won't happen, but does that mean that we should go ahead and reject laws that create drug free zones at schools, or smoke free areas at a restaurant? NO! Likewise, the state laws that got rejected here protect individuals right to free speech from being infringed by corporations. The case law precedents that were overruled were informed by 100 years of experience and opinion. That in and of itself doesn't make them right, but people need to realize that it was not just a decision based on Congress passing McCain Feingold. This ruling is a historic landmark ruling on the 1st amendment. This ruling will be with us for a LONGGGGGG TIME and we can't vote it out, or legislate it away. We can bring new cases tho. Cases that will have to go thru District courts. I don't have the money as an individual to do this do you? Ah but I bet I know who does!!! And I don't like it.

[NYgs23]

Exactly, the decision lacked authority because it did not tackle the real Constitutional issue in the first place, which is namely WHO has the power to regulate corporations. Certainly not the Federal Government....Exactly, which is why the supreme court should have left the issue of regulating corporations up to the state where those entities are created in the first place....So direct contributions are not protected speech but indirect contributions are? Again, another observation regarding the lukewarmness of this ruling. Also, how is this a victory for free speech if it overturns the laws regulating financing on the state levels?

So you're big beef is that the ruling didn't go far enough and should have stuck to federal law under the enumerated powers? If so, I agree, that would have been better. The answer to that is to get rid of the incorporation doctrine. Nonetheless, morally speaking, the individuals within corporations still possess a natural right to spend that money anyway they want.

Insofar, as state or local govts possess such laws they should also be overturned, albeit on the state and local level.

Do the people in these 24 states believe that allowing unlimited campaign expenditures by corporations "chill" their own free speech? IN other words, haven't these states decided that allowing corps to roar as loudly as they can drown out and stifle speech by other "individuals"?


Corporate Status is a privileged status that is granted by the states.

Is it privileged in such a way that the individuals can only pool those resources to buy an ad if they receive the state privilege? No. There could be no state privileges, and they could still get together and pool their resources in the same way and buy an ad. This is like saying that if a farmer receives a govt subsidy, he's privileged and therefore shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

Further, there's nothing intrinsic about corporations that couldn't allow them to exist without state privileges.


Now for groups of individuals to compete with this privilege status, THEY MUST become a corporation, otherwise they lose favoritism and influence.

Which privileges? Limited liability? Legal personhood? They have nothing to do with these people buying ads, and they could exist through contracts in the free market anyway. And even if they did make it easier for them to buy ads, the answer would be remove the privileges, not their right to buy ads.


When states see fit to limit the privilege granted to the legal entities they create in an effort to protect voters right to free speech, the SCOTUS should have no opinion on the constitutionality of the states exercising their right to curtail damaging speech.

If all you're worried about is the federalism issue, fine. You should be fighting against the incorporation doctrine. Are you going to say that SCOTUS shouldn't rule under the 1-10 amendments at all now, because they'd be incorporated into state law? Obviously, that's ridiculous. Fight the real problem.

Also, states have no rights. The federal govt just doesn't have the legal authority to force them to change those laws. But they should change those laws anyway. Damaging speech? Only if it's aggressive.


Especially when the states pass laws to protect voters from outsiders injecting their propaganda and influence into matters of the state.

Blast all those out-of-state voters donating to Rand Paul! You seem to care more about the storied fable of "good government" than individual liberty. There's no such thing as good government.


I care about free speech which is why I want my state to make sure that my right to free speech is not taken away by outsiders who can use their special privilege to make sure my message is not heard.

Just because they have more money then you and people listen to them instead of you doesn't mean their committing aggression against you. Give me a break.


Or to spread lies or to make unaccountable and irresponsible statements that waste my time and resources having to refute.

There's nothing inherently aggressive about "unaccountable and irresponsible statements."


Why overturn state laws governing the conduct of a legal entity that cannot open a mouth, type an email, or pen a newsletter?

A proprietorship's a "legal entity" that can't speak. Does that mean the individuals within have no rights to do what they want with the money invested in the proprietorship.


Why reject laws that effectively hold individuals rights above the privileges of a group?

When two people open up a joint checking account, do they no longer own what's in it, because now it's a "group" and groups have no rights? What do really care about? That corporations are groups or that they receive legal privileges? What about an individual that receives legal privileges? What about a group that receives no legal privileges. Or is the only problem group who also receive legal privileges?


...why in the hell do I have to have a corporation in order to have the same financial privileges?

Which privileges?


there should be no corporate privilege if the creator of that priviledge is not allowed to regulate it!

Of course, there should be no privileges. Duh. Get rid of all privileges. But you'll still have corporations and they'll still be donating money to buy ads.


If congress is not allowed to make a law infringing a legal entities privileged 1st Amendment "right", then the Supreme Court is not allowed to overrule a law that protects my sovereign 1st Amendment from that privilege entity EVEN IF that protection causes that entity to lose its privilege but NOT its right!

No one's aggressing against you by buying an ad. Give me a break.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

When two people open up a joint checking account, do they no longer own what's in it,


Take a check made out to you personally and a check made out to your corporation to the bank and ask the bank to cash the checks.

Let me know why they will cash the one made out to you personally but not the one made out to a corporation.

[NYgs23]

A corporation I had once purchased a property. The mortgage was under the corporation as well as personally guaranteed. The city brought me before a code enforcement board and asserted that the property was owned by a corporation not an individual and in the interest of public safety the city can regulate all leased properties. They asserted I as an individual did not own the property and the corporation was renting to me. As such the corporation had to obtain an occupational license to rent property. The corporation required no occupational license to own the property just a license for for me to live in it while it was getting rehabbed.

All licenses, safety regulations, and "code enforcement boards" should be abolished forthwith. Just because your municipal aggressor used an immoral trick to scam you out of full control over your property is no reason to excuse to committing acts of violence against others. It's still aggressive to forcibly prevent people from buying ads with their own property. Aggression doesn't justify more aggression.


When you say something like this to someone like me who has spent real world time and money to defend and assert so called rights in this wonderful constitutional system, I do not consider you credible. Quite frankly you are talking out of your tail pipe when it comes to the real world.

You're tough, hard-bitten, worldly-wise "realism" still doesn't justify that state using violence against others to control their property.


Companies may contractually exist as associations of individuals with rights but not corporations.

In that case, corporations have no rights to the property they control, which means the property is really unowned abandoned resources. Therefore it's morally acceptable for me to simply take corporate "property" for myself whenever I can get away with it, right?


Are you suggesting government does not already regulate advertising?

It does, but it shouldn't. What does that have to with anything? Aggression doesn't justify more aggression.


Can I put any sign on my property? Can I advertise using any language or images I want?

If you do, some thugs is blue costumes might commit acts of despicable violence against you, but morally you have every right to do so.



When you obtain a home occupation permit do you not give up some rights?

No. Government doesn't grant rights. Nor should it grant permits. Permits and licenses imply an enforced ban on all those who don't have them, i.e. aggression.

[MichelleHeart]

There happen to be a lot of statists here! "Seize the banks" and "make corporations illegal" isn't exactly libertarian rhetoric. Too many Webster Tarpley fanatics, perhaps?

[NYgs23]

Take a check made out to you personally and a check made out to your corporation to the bank and ask the bank to cash the checks.

Let me know why they will cash the one made out to you personally but not the one made out to a corporation.

Who cares about that? None of this has anything to do with morality. Morally, if there is property, someone owns it, and that person can do whatever he wants with his own property. Period. If the statues violate that moral law, then the statutes are immoral.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Who cares about that? None of this has anything to do with morality. Morally, if there is property, someone owns it, and that person can do whatever he wants with his own property. Period. If the statues violate that moral law, then the statutes are immoral.

Let me remind you of my first post in this thread


I agree with Danke and am not taking a position over a breadcrumb issue based on flawed fundamentals. In the current system corporations are created by the state.

I also said I agree with you if you are debating what ought to be but I disagree with your presentation of ought to be as what presently is.

There is a distinction.

On a side note after 9 pages related to the word business which is one of the most abused words by government in the english language I can't believe you introduced the word morality to this thread. Morality has nothing to do with equal application of law regardless of whether law is positive or natural. Morality is a biased application of law.

[newbitech]

So you're big beef is that the ruling didn't go far enough and should have stuck to federal law under the enumerated powers? If so, I agree, that would have been better. The answer to that is to get rid of the incorporation doctrine. Nonetheless, morally speaking, the individuals within corporations still possess a natural right to spend that money anyway they want.

Insofar, as state or local govts possess such laws they should also be overturned, albeit on the state and local level.

Do the people in these 24 states believe that allowing unlimited campaign expenditures by corporations "chill" their own free speech? IN other words, haven't these states decided that allowing corps to roar as loudly as they can drown out and stifle speech by other "individuals"?



Is it privileged in such a way that the individuals can only pool those resources to buy an ad if they receive the state privilege? No. There could be no state privileges, and they could still get together and pool their resources in the same way and buy an ad. This is like saying that if a farmer receives a govt subsidy, he's privileged and therefore shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

Further, there's nothing intrinsic about corporations that couldn't allow them to exist without state privileges.



Which privileges? Limited liability? Legal personhood? They have nothing to do with these people buying ads, and they could exist through contracts in the free market anyway. And even if they did make it easier for them to buy ads, the answer would be remove the privileges, not their right to buy ads.



If all you're worried about is the federalism issue, fine. You should be fighting against the incorporation doctrine. Are you going to say that SCOTUS shouldn't rule under the 1-10 amendments at all now, because they'd be incorporated into state law? Obviously, that's ridiculous. Fight the real problem.

Also, states have no rights. The federal govt just doesn't have the legal authority to force them to change those laws. But they should change those laws anyway. Damaging speech? Only if it's aggressive.



Blast all those out-of-state voters donating to Rand Paul! You seem to care more about the storied fable of "good government" than individual liberty. There's no such thing as good government.



Just because they have more money then you and people listen to them instead of you doesn't mean their committing aggression against you. Give me a break.



There's nothing inherently aggressive about "unaccountable and irresponsible statements."



Neither can a proprietorship. Does that mean the individuals within have no rights to do what they want with the money invested in the proprietorship.



When two people open up a joint checking account, do they no longer own what's in it, because now it's a "group" and groups have no rights? What do really care about? That corporations are groups or that they receive legal privileges? What about an individual that receives legal privileges? What about a group that receives no legal privileges. Or is the only problem group who also receive legal privileges?



Which privileges?



Of course, there should be no privileges. Duh. Get rid of all privileges. But you'll still have corporations and they'll still be donating money to buy ads.



No one's aggressing against you by buying an ad. Give me a break.


Please, please educate yourself on the privileges that a corporate business structure has.

Here are a few of the more obvious ones. http://www.legalzoom.com/incorporation-guide/corporate-tax-advantage.html

A corporation is a very special business structure that has the ability to form unique relationship that no other entity or "person" has the ability to create. We are discussing the ability of this entity to act with less accountability and less responsibility. This is a mistake on many levels. I will be waiting to see how this consolidation of power and ignorance of a states right to regulate its own creation will bring more liberty and freedom to my life, especially in regards to my ability to spread the message of freedom and liberty. Until I see CFL or Mises or some other corp using this ruling to their advantage, I will remain skeptical.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

You're tough, hard-bitten, worldly-wise "realism" still doesn't justify that state using violence against others to control their property.


I am not trying to justify the state using violence. I am fed up with the state using violence. Like the founders I too have been oppressed. I have my own list of just grievances against government. My footing is defensive.

I could really care less about people who are principally flawed and only desire to argue over how government regulates a privilege without addressing flawed fundamental problems. From my perspective these people can eat the cake they have baked. If they adopt a principled position based on individual liberty I welcome them as a brother or sister. If they do not they are no different than the assholes that have oppressed me thus far regulating privileges.

[NYgs23]

Please, please educate yourself on the privileges that a corporate business structure has.

Here are a few of the more obvious ones. http://www.legalzoom.com/incorporation-guide/corporate-tax-advantage.html

Does ANYBODY own the money in a corporate fund? Either somebody owns it or no one does. There's no nebulous halfway or third category, no matter what any law says about it. If no one owns that money, I can come along and take just as much as I can take any unowned property. If someone owns it, that person or group of people can use it to buy an ad. If they don't have the right to purchase a political ad, they don't have the right to purchase anything. There's nothing special about a political ad.

Now, it's pretty clear to me that the stockholders owns it, and therefore has a right to buy an ad with it. And it's further clear to me that the Board of Directors and the company executives are managing that money with the stockholders' permission, and therefore they have a right to buy an ad with it. It's no more complicated than that. Anything else doesn't matter. Someone owns the property and the owner of the property is controlling the property in a non-aggressive way. That's all anyone should need to know. What about it do you question? Do you question that the stockholders own the money in the fund? Do you question that the executives are managing the money with stockholders' permission. Do you question that anyone in any circumstance does not have the right to purchase something with their own money?


A corporation is a very special business structure that has the ability to form unique relationship that no other entity or "person" has the ability to create.

Not so special or unique that it can make property rights disappear.


We are discussing the ability of this entity to act with less accountability and less responsibility.

Responsible and accountable to whom? The state? I don't care if someone's not accountable to the state anymore than if their not accountable to the Mafia.


I will be waiting to see how this consolidation of power and ignorance of a states right...

States have no rights.


Until I see CFL or Mises or some other corp using this ruling to their advantage, I will remain skeptical.

It's all about scoring political points then.

[NYgs23]

I also said I agree with you if you are debating what ought to be but I disagree with your presentation of ought to be as what presently is.

I'm happy whenever there's less aggression by state. This ruling means the state can no longer point a gun at someone for the victimless crime of purchasing an ad, I'm happy.


Morality has nothing to do with equal application of law regardless of whether law is positive or natural. Morality is a biased application of law.

Morality has everything do with it. Without morality there is no law for humans, only nihilism. I oppose aggression because it's immoral. If it wasn't immoral, I wouldn't go to all this trouble opposing it.


I am not trying to justify the state using violence. I am fed up with the state using violence. Like the founders I too have been oppressed. I have my own list of just grievances against government. My footing is defensive.

You're justifying statist aggression in at least one specific case: when executives use a corporate fund to purchase a political ad. They have every right to do that. There are no victims of that.


From my perspective these people can eat the cake they have baked. If they adopt a principled position based on individual liberty I welcome them as a brother or sister. If they do not they are no different than the assholes that have oppressed me thus far regulating privileges.

Am I allowed to rob my mailman?

[newbitech]

Does ANYBODY own the money in a corporate fund? Either somebody owns it or no one does. There's no nebulous halfway or third category, no matter what any law says about it. If no one owns that money, I can come along and take just as much as I can take any unowned property. If someone owns it, that person or group of people can use it to buy an ad. If they don't have the right to purchase a political ad, they don't have the right to purchase anything. There's nothing special about a political ad.

Now, it's pretty clear to me that the stockholders owns it, and therefore has a right to buy an ad with it. And it's further clear to me that the Board of Directors and the company executives are managing that money with the stockholders' permission, and therefore they have a right to buy an ad with it. It's no more complicated than that. Anything else doesn't matter. Someone owns the property and the owner of the property is controlling the property in a non-aggressive way. That's all anyone should need to know. What about it do you question? Do you question that the stockholders own the money in the fund? Do you question that the executives are managing the money with stockholders' permission. Do you question that anyone in any circumstance does not have the right to purchase something with their own money?



Not so special or unique that it can make property rights disappear.



Responsible and accountable to whom? The state? I don't care if someone's not accountable to the state anymore than if their not accountable to the Mafia.



States have no rights.



It's all about scoring political points then.

but the corporation does....

[MichelleHeart]

Am I allowed to rob my mailman?

Good one! I never thought I'd see the day when RP supporters would be calling for corporate regulations. Has this forum been infiltrated by socialists?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Good one! I never thought I'd see the day when RP supporters would be calling for corporate regulations. Has this forum been infiltrated by socialists?

It's not a good one at all.

NYgs23 articulates corporations ought to be only defined as associations of people. Well that's good and well as what ought to be but that is not reality. Corporations are state created entities with privileges that can be regulated by the state. In all of NYgs23's reasons why they ought to be associations of people the current realities and legal definition of corporations dictate otherwise.

NYgs23 says it doesn't matter this is how it ought to be. Well if that is how it ought to be instead of debating about government regulating privileges people voluntarily obtain... take a principled position and tell people not to convert their rights to privileges and then bitch about government regulating it.

If people stopped converting natural rights to privileges there would be more freedom. Debating the merits of people bitching about how government regulates privileges perpetuates the class war of collectivism that has this country by the balls. One group of people arguing with another group of people over what is right and what government should do about it.

[LibForestPaul]

Corporations are not associations of people. A corporation is a voluntary legal construct of the state with state granted privileges. People are free to engage in business and associate and contract with each other for an economic benefit.

>>Well, let's just hope the state doesn't declare you do be a corporation, thereby negating your humanity and removing your natural rights. The point is that whatever the state says, corporations actually exists. Non-issue, voluntary...


The executives and the board on behalf of the corporation can give money to another corporation for ad space.
Extending YOUR logic
The executives and the board on behalf of the corporation can give money to another corporation for guns.

>>Executives should be able to do anything they want on behalf of the corporation, so long as it's according to the stated rules of that corporations and is non-aggressive. Just as anyone should be able to anything they want on behalf of any organization so long as it's according to the rules of that organization and is non-aggressive
Thanks for clarifying what authority congress DOES have over corporations.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I'm happy whenever there's less aggression by state. This ruling means the state can no longer point a gun at someone for the victimless crime of purchasing an ad, I'm happy.

Be happy. I will continue to tell people not to voluntarily convert natural rights to privileges and then bitch about it. If you want to be free be free.



Morality has everything do with it. Without morality there is no law for humans, only nihilism. I oppose aggression because it's immoral. If it wasn't immoral, I wouldn't go to all this trouble opposing it.

No at best one can argue morality is relevant to what the law ought to be but not equal application of it. With your left hand you have argued corporations should not be defined by state law which is where they are legally defined in the present system. You say they ought to only be associations of people. With your right hand you advocate unequal application of the law because instead of advocating for equal application of crappy democratic privilege regulating law you are happy with the judiciary legislating from the bench if it produces a net result of less aggression. I would rather advocate eliminating crappy law and provide restitution to its victims than claim victory of unequal application of law.



Am I allowed to rob my mailman?

Not even relevant because there is law in every state that says you can not legally do so.

[liberateliberty]

Corporations are simply individuals who join together for the common cause of a given task of commerce. Do we forfeit our rights when we band together? I would hope not. Our rights exist whether we stand alone or in a group. A collective, by the will of each person, is not to be suppressed or belittled.

[erowe1]

I wasn't theorizing. What you can't accept I cited as fact. The state does regulate privileges and I previously cited the right to travel by whatever means of the day as one example.

Oh. In that case I completely misunderstood you. If you were merely pointing out the fact that the state does wrongfully impose itself on corporations and individuals in myriad ways, including infringing upon our property rights and freedom of speech, then nobody here could disagree with that. But at times in this thread it has looked as though you have been saying that it is actually morally right for the state to do these things that you accurately cited as a matter of fact that they currently do. And it is certainly not morally right.

[NYgs23]

but the corporation does....

No, it does not. The people within it do however, and the state is not justified to tell them what they can and can't do with their property.

[NYgs23]

With your left hand you have argued corporations should not be defined by state law which is where they are legally defined in the present system. You say they ought to only be associations of people. With your right hand you advocate unequal application of the law because instead of advocating for equal application of crappy democratic privilege regulating law you are happy with the judiciary legislating from the bench if it produces a net result of less aggression. I would rather advocate eliminating crappy law and provide restitution to its victims than claim victory of unequal application of law.

The ruling seems quite constitutional to me, if that's what you're on about. Would you only be happy if all statist interferences are abolished all at once, root and branch? I'm happy because an individual statist law was abolished. I understand there are others that need to be fought against. Similarly, when marijuana possession is legalized for medical purposes, I'm happy about that, even though I think marijuana possession (and production and sale) should be legalized altogether, along with all other drugs.


Not even relevant because there is law in every state that says you can not legally do so.

It's totally relevant because I'm talking about the natural law, not the laws of men. Was this ruling morally right or morally wrong?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The ruling seems quite constitutional to me, if that's what you're on about.

It's totally relevant because I'm talking about the natural law, not the laws of men. Was this ruling morally right or morally wrong?

You say it's constitutional but you have not constructed a logical constitutional argument. You have shown known no interest to discuss the specifics of law and have demonstrated a lack of its understanding. Your legal theories do not include equal application of law only law that suits your morality. It's like listening to a democrat or republican arguing about the bs they argue about. I strike to the very heart and foundation of the legal matter when I say don't voluntarily convert a natural right to a privilege and then bitch about it.

I am so out voted in the poll its not funny. Clearly there is empirical proof government has exercised legal authority to regulate privileges. However government ought not have the authority. Ought not is not the question of the poll. If the question was should government have the authority I would say no. But the question is does government have the authority and the way government has methodically allowed people to voluntarily convert natural rights to privileges they do in fact have the authority to regulate a privilege. A court might say it's self evident and penalize you for advancing frivolous legal arguments.

In a previous post I made a comment if the court ruled constitutionally and simply stated government does not have constitutional authority to make positive law abridging free speech it would be nice ruling case closed. But constitutionally a state created voluntary legal concept such as a corporation does not have constitutional standing in and of itself. The only legal remedies a state created legal construct has is what is defined in state law. The only reason corporations have constitutional standing is corporate person hood. Yet you dismiss the relevance of the corporate person hood legal concept. Without corporate person hood a corporation would not have the standing to bring a case before the supreme court.



Would you only be happy if all statist interferences are abolished all at once, root and branch? I'm happy because an individual statist law was abolished. I understand there are others that need to be fought against. Similarly, when marijuana possession is legalized for medical purposes, I'm happy about that, even though I think marijuana possession (and production and sale) should be legalized altogether, along with all other drugs.

I said don't convert a natural right to a privilege and then bitch about government regulating the privilege. I suggested eliminating crappy law. I recommend amending a state constitution to further limit the legislative power of state governments. Personally I would rather eliminate the state altogether but I already know to change law, a constitution, or government requires a majority which I do not have where I live. I am more interested in solving that problem first then working to effect change. Call me stupid I would prefer to have the battle won before I actually fight it.

After reviewing the poll 75% of people have said no. I don't agree with those people. Government has the authority and has repeatedly demonstrated it. I don't like it and I don't think it ought to be but I am not going to deny what is because I don't like it. There is a whole legal foundation of government jurisdiction because government does in fact regulate privileges not rights.

Since I am in the minority I will concede the thread and can only place my hopes in equal application of law to protect my individual rights from a tyrant majority imposing their morality upon me.

[heavenlyboy34]

No, corporations may very well be able to exist in a free market through contracts. Read Defending Corporations (http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-huebert_defending-corporations-2009.pdf). Also, In Defense of the Corporation (http://blog.mises.org/archives/004269.asp) and The Corporate Form, Limited Liability, and the State (http://mises.org/story/2816).

Even if they are statist, it's irrelevant, unless you believe in stripping all rights from government employees.

The articles above do not argue for the current notion of government Corporations, but that they can be formed with contract.

i.e. "Robert Hessen's (a Randian) In Defense of the Corporation is a good defense of corporations. He shows that they don't require privilege from the state to exist; they can be constructed from private contracts." (http://blog.mises.org/archives/004269.asp)

I would agree with that. Thank you for the articles-you've given me new insight into the subject.

[NYgs23]

You say it's constitutional but you have not constructed a logical constitutional argument.

The constitutional argument is just what the Supremes said: that it's a matter of free speech under the First Amendment, but not because "corporations" per se have free speech. However, the people who compose the corporation do. The corporation's property is their property--it doesn't fall out of their ownership by virtue of belonging to the "corporation"--and therefore they can use it to purchase ads, exercising free speech, the same as anyone else can with property that he owns.

I do agree with Stephan Kinsella that it would have been better to rule under the basic issue of enumerated powers and that this shouldn't apply to individual states. However, that's because of the incorporation doctrine. The fact that the incorporation doctrine is illegitimate doesn't make the ruling illegitimate, because it's not based on that.

Even under the First Amendment, though, there should be no federal laws regulating free speech, whether involving the use of corporate money or any other money (again, state laws are a different issue; I think such state laws should be overturned at a state level). But you say that the people who constitute the corporation don't have that First Amendment right to spend their money on a political advertisement because the corporation is a "privileged state entity." Applying that concept consistently, it seems that shareholders and executives would be open to all manner of federal regulations involving speech using corporate funds (still their property). Executives could also lose due process rights in criminal cases involving the corporation, could they not? Govt employees (teachers, policemen, soldiers, mailmen, even politicians!) would also not be able to spend their wages on political speech, or any other kind of speech, without the govt's permission. Neither would govt contractors, subsidized farmers, welfare recipients, etc. They would also lose due process and civil liberties, and the right to purchase a gun (at least with money received from the state). If, for example, a road worker with a govt contract wishes to use some of the money to donate money to a pro-marijuana legalization group, the federal govt would be able to stop him, since that money is a matter of govt privilege and therefore subject to regulation, right?

[MichelleHeart]

A Message to All the Pro-Regulatory Members of RPF: If the government is allowed to enact any corporate regulations they want, then why don't we just dictate executive salaries, fix prices, hike the minimum wage, tell businesses who they can and can't hire, determine what will be sold, further restrict consumer choice, and get in bed with unions? Hell, why don't we just nationalize industry! Is that what you statists want?

God, I thought I could trust Ron Paul supporters not to side with socialists. I never thought I'd see the day, but here we are. What's next?

[Peace&Freedom]

I'm afraid everybody on this thread has missed the point, because they are not following the money. Does Government have the authority to limit rights? Absolutely not. Does government have the authority to regulate privileges that the state did create? Absolutely yes. Because of the latter dynamic, well established and reinforced in legislation and case law, the state has pursued the literal or procedural conversion of rights into privileges. As a matter of contract, when you have consented to take a license, file to have the state recognize your legal entity, etc., you have consented to have the activity connected to it treated like a privilege, whether or not it is a privilege, and regardless of what your inalienable rights are.

But all this is irrelevant to the court decision's importance, because it vastly opens the up the pocketbooks of the fictional corporations, while retaining the limits on what real people can give. The entities with state privileges get more liberty than do the natural born real persons with rights. This is an atrocious situation, similar to the tax racket, where corps get all the big breaks so as to remain free of tax, while most people are presumed ensnared in liability even where they are not subject to the tax code.

The racket of state privilege creates an opening though which the government can presume jurisdiction over everybody, so as to eliminate ever dealing with rights. Just because they give some folks a tax break here, or lift limits for campaign finance there to create an illusion of liberty expansion, the context remains state control through regulation. A real judicial victory for liberty would have been found if the Supreme Court ruled all campaign finance laws and regulations on people to be unconstitutional. A ruling that did not rule this, but merely grants more monetary relief to fictional entities the state already firmly controls, is just a reinforcement of the system of state privilege.

[Danke]

I'm afraid everybody on this thread has missed the point, because they are not following the money. Does Government have the authority to limit rights? Absolutely not. Does government have the authority to regulate privileges that the state did create? Absolutely yes. Because of the latter dynamic, well established and reinforced in legislation and case law, the state has pursued the literal or procedural conversion of rights into privileges. As a matter of contract, when you have consented to take a license, file to have the state recognize your legal entity, etc., you have consented to have the activity connected to it treated like a privilege, whether or not it is a privilege, and regardless of what your inalienable rights are.

But all this is irrelevant to the court decision's importance, because it vastly opens the up the pocketbooks of the fictional corporations, while retaining the limits on what real people can give. The entities with state privileges get more liberty than do the natural born real persons with rights. This is an atrocious situation, similar to the tax racket, where corps get all the big breaks so as to remain free of tax, while most people are presumed ensnared in liability even where they are not subject to the tax code.

The racket of state privilege creates an opening though which the government can presume jurisdiction over everybody, so as to eliminate ever dealing with rights. Just because they give some folks a tax break here, or lift limits for campaign finance there to create an illusion of liberty expansion, the context remains state control through regulation. A real judicial victory for liberty would have been found if the Supreme Court ruled all campaign finance laws and regulations on people to be unconstitutional. A ruling that did not rule this, but merely grants more monetary relief to fictional entities the state already firmly controls, is just a reinforcement of the system of state privilege.

Excellent post. But reread the thread. There are a few of us here that get it.

[erowe1]

A real judicial victory for liberty would have been found if the Supreme Court ruled all campaign finance laws and regulations on people to be unconstitutional.
I agree that that would be a great victory. The ruling we're discussing is still a great victory in itself. But you're right, that would be even greater. I'm hopeful that this week's ruling is the camel's nose in the tent. They can't very well miss the conclusion that if it's wrong to limit our spending on political speech via corporations, then it's also wrong to limit it outside of corporations. There will undoubtedly be other cases in the near future where that point is made.


A ruling that did not rule this, but merely grants more monetary relief to fictional entities the state already firmly controls, is just a reinforcement of the system of state privilege.

The ruling we're discussing doesn't merely grant relief to fictional entities. If it did, it would be irrelevant, since fictional entities don't exist. The ruling does grant relief to real flesh and blood individuals like all of us to exercise our God given rights to spend our money on political speech by way of corporations.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

But you say that the people who constitute the corporation don't have that First Amendment right to spend their money on a political advertisement because the corporation is a "privileged state entity." Applying that concept consistently, it seems that shareholders and executives would be open to all manner of federal regulations involving speech using corporate funds (still their property). Executives could also lose due process rights in criminal cases involving the corporation, could they not? Govt employees (teachers, policemen, soldiers, mailmen, even politicians!) would also not be able to spend their wages on political speech, or any other kind of speech, without the govt's permission. Neither would govt contractors, subsidized farmers, welfare recipients, etc. They would also lose due process and civil liberties, and the right to purchase a gun (at least with money received from the state). If, for example, a road worker with a govt contract wishes to use some of the money to donate money to a pro-marijuana legalization group, the federal govt would be able to stop him, since that money is a matter of govt privilege and therefore subject to regulation, right?

Yes tough shit. They obviously wanted to convert a natural right to a privilege to get some tax, legal, convenience, or other benefits when they incorporated. Government has established jurisdiction in this way and has been asserting the right to regulate privileges. This is the system that people have democratically put in power a government that regulates privileges.

This is the part you are not getting the other side of the coin and how your unequal application of law undermines my natural rights allowing a tyrannical majority to impose their morality or will upon me. Let's say I purchase 100 widgets and offer them for sale. I am selling personal property, exercising a natural right, and not subject to regulation.

Now if I choose to convert that right into a privilege I can purchase from resale distributors in bulk for less money. Resale distributors require you to have an occupational license and a tax sales permit but since I am selling personal property and exercising a natural right I do not need to get an occupational license and I have already paid sales tax on the items. The reason resale distributors require the licenses is because they are exercising a privilege and get specific tax and other legal benefits for doing so. They are doing it voluntarily and choose to only sell to entities that have voluntarily applied for regulated privileges.

I am just scratching the surface here. I can get quite in depth on this scenario and clearly articulate all the benefits of the privilege but you aren't hearing me. The bottom line is this. By advocating unequal application of law you undermine my natural right to sell personal property. Business has lobbied for all of this law to prevent people like me from exercising my natural right to sell personal property. They have set government against me to regulate my natural right activities so they do not have to compete against my lower overhead. I do not care if these people are unhappy about how government is regulating their privilege.

People who voluntarily convert their natural rights to privileges and then bitch about it is crying uncle. Do you have a drivers license or do you exercise your natural right to travel by whatever means of the day? Don't come bitching when you get pulled over and the police officer says I know you are happy I pulled you over. I stopped you in order to protect you from yourself. I have jurisdiction because you are exercising a privilege. Please fasten your seat belt and have a nice day. Here is a bill for services rendered. Please stop by the local clerk of courts at your earliest opportunity and pay the bill or feel free to dispute the privilege and nature of the services rendered with the judge.

So because most people have converted a natural right to a privilege the few people who do exercise their natural right to travel by whatever means of the day are persecuted until they are broke. If it goes to trial all of the privilege lovers are going to persecute the person that exercised their natural right to travel because they are unhappy that person is not paying the fees associated with privileged travel. This is what allows the government to persecute the people who exercise their natural rights. A mindset of privilege lovers.

[NYgs23]

Yes tough shit. They obviously wanted to convert a natural right to a privilege to get some tax, legal, convenience, or other benefits when they incorporated. Government has established jurisdiction in this way and has been asserting the right to regulate privileges. This is the system that people have democratically put in power a government that regulates privileges.

This is the part you are not getting the other side of the coin and how your unequal application of law undermines my natural rights allowing a tyrannical majority to impose their morality or will upon me. Let's say I purchase 100 widgets and offer them for sale. I am selling personal property, exercising a natural right, and not subject to regulation.

Now if I choose to convert that right into a privilege I can purchase from resale distributors in bulk for less money. Resale distributors require you to have an occupational license and a tax sales permit but since I am selling personal property and exercising a natural right I do not need to get an occupational license and I have already paid sales tax on the items. The reason resale distributors require the licenses is because they are exercising a privilege and get specific tax and other legal benefits for doing so. They are doing it voluntarily and choose to only sell to entities that have voluntarily applied for regulated privileges.

I am just scratching the surface here. I can get quite in depth on this scenario and clearly articulate all the benefits of the privilege but you aren't hearing me. The bottom line is this. By advocating unequal application of law you undermine my natural right to sell personal property. Business has lobbied for all of this law to prevent people like me from exercising my natural right to sell personal property. They have set government against me to regulate my natural right activities so they do not have to compete against my lower overhead. I do not care if these people are unhappy about how government is regulating their privilege.

People who voluntarily convert their natural rights to privileges and then bitch about it is crying uncle. Do you have a drivers license or do you exercise your natural right to travel by whatever means of the day? Don't come bitching when you get pulled over and the police officer says I know you are happy I pulled you over. I stopped you in order to protect you from yourself. I have jurisdiction because you are exercising a privilege. Please fasten your seat belt and have a nice day. Here is a bill for services rendered. Please stop by the local clerk of courts at your earliest opportunity and pay the bill or feel free to dispute the privilege and nature of the services rendered with the judge.

So because most people have converted a natural right to a privilege the few people who do exercise their natural right to travel by whatever means of the day are persecuted until they are broke. If it goes to trial all of the privilege lovers are going to persecute the person that exercised their natural right to travel because they are unhappy that person is not paying the fees associated with privileged travel. This is what allows the government to persecute the people who exercise their natural rights. A mindset of privilege lovers.

What you seem to be saying is that "the people" have elected a government that imposes restrictions and prohibitions, compelling people to seek permits, licenses, and other such thing, which, in your eyes "convert rights in to privileges." Once they do that, they've become appendages of the state and have lost their rights. And that's just the way it is, so tough shit??? That sounds like democratic fascism to me.

One aggression doesn't justify another aggression (the state may say it does, but the state is insane). Saying the state can force a schoolteacher to give up her right to own a gun when she takes a govt paycheck just compounds violence upon violence and statism upon statism. The end result, of course, is more violence and statism. Statism + statism = liberty? What a principle!

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I am even willing to put my money where my mouth is. I have an idea for a toy. I will go to home depot and purchase all of the materials. I will bring the materials home and make toys. Since these toys are my personal property I will offer the toys for sale. I am not going to obtain any licenses or permits and simply exercise my natural rights. I am not going to collect sales tax since I paid sales tax on the materials. The toys will be sold under contract. I will only sell to people who agree to the terms of my sales contract which will stipulate terms for liability.

For the hell of it I will consider offers from people who would like to contract with me for economic benefit and investment if they think I am going to make a good toy and be successful and would like an opportunity to profit.

Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is and contract with me to protect me from government when government receives a complaint from toy manufacturers exercising a privilege and government asserts I am performing an activity subject to regulation based on laws that have been lobbied for by special interest groups to regulate privileged activity?

There is a new free market insurance idea for ya... insurance against government intervention.

[NYgs23]

I am even willing to put my money where my mouth is. I have an idea for a toy. I will go to home depot and purchase all of the materials. I will bring the materials home and make toys. Since these toys are my personal property I will offer the toys for sale. I am not going to obtain any licenses or permits and simply exercise my natural rights. I am not going to collect sales tax since I paid sales tax on the materials. The toys will be sold under contract. I will only sell to people who agree to the terms of my sales contract which will stipulate terms for liability.

Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is and contract with me to protect me from government when government receives a complaint from toy manufacturers exercising a privilege and government asserts I am performing an activity subject to regulation based on laws that have been lobbied for by special interest groups to regulate privileged activity?

I'm neither going to help nor hinder you whether or not you obtain a license. But I wouldn't blame you if you did and claim that you therefore lose rights.

[Danke]

What you seem to be saying is that "the people" have elected a government that imposes restrictions and prohibitions, compelling people to seek permits, licenses, and other such thing, which, in your eyes "convert rights in to privileges." Once they do that, they've become appendages of the state and have lost their rights. And that's just the way it is, so tough shit??? That sounds like democratic fascism to me.

One aggression doesn't justify another aggression (the state may say it does, but the state is insane). Saying the state can force a schoolteacher to give up her right to own a gun when she takes a govt paycheck just compounds violence upon violence and statism upon statism. The end result, of course, is more violence and statism. Statism + statism = liberty? What a principle!

I don't think he is saying he supports that system, but that is the reality of it.

I also see your point in fighting against the current system while inside and using the system's rules that are in place. Some take a different approach and choose to divorce themselves from the system altogether, but that can lead to a constant battle. But some very smart and persistent people do just that and prevail.

Nearly all business that want to grow and expand eventual cave and incorporate in order to do "business as usual." Get bank loans, contract with other corporations, etc.

[Peace&Freedom]

Excellent post. But reread the thread. There are a few of us here that get it.

I agree you and a few others got the privilege issue right, my concern is that the money spigot that just got selectively unleashed is the real elephant in the room. As a commentator on what Really happened blog noted:

"When an individual gives a small campaign contribution to a candidate or ballot initiative, it's an act of conscience which will have little affect on their finances. If an environmentally-aware citizen gives $100 to an anti-logging candidate, the money is just gone out of their pocket. When a timber corporation gives $10,000 to a pro-logging candidate, it's a bribe that they expect will buy them access to millions of dollars worth of timber.

When a corporation makes campaign contributions, it's a business decision with a profit motive. They EXPECT that they will earn a return on their political investment, and be pissed if the politician doesn't deliver for them. In fact, if you look at the size of corporate donations relative to the size of the pay-outs, A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION IS THE MOST PROFITABLE INVESTMENT ANY BUSINESS CAN MAKE. The return is almost always in the hundreds-to-one bracket, and often thousands of dollars are "earned" for every dollar in campaign contributions spent.

Citizens can never win in a contest like this, because the profit-motive side of the equation can always out-bid the conscience side."