A continuation of an opinion on SCOTUS f-up

A summation for a libertarian acquaintance.
Okay to bring you up to date:
1) A corporation is a fictional entity licensed by the government. In effect it is a fake person engaging in an activity on behalf of the government.
2) That fake person now has real person hood and constitutional rights to free speech in the form of being able to make unlimited political contributions.
3) That fake person now has religious belief, and can use that religious belief to opt out of federal law.
Summation – A Government Entity now has the ability to directly influence governmental election cycles on behalf of a parent religion with unlimited monetary contribution to politicians and political parties.
In the mean time, that same governmental entity can ignore hard won labor rights and ignore the law by imposing iron age beliefs on the people working there.
This WILL directly allow for non-American interests to directly influence the American legal system. At the moment places like the Chamber of Commerce that take donations from people outside the US need to keep donations separate from money used for lobbying and political spending. However, if instead those non-American sources of funding instead just hire a corporation to do a job that money is being funneled into political action in our country. Now it will be directly related to the religion of the shopper.
Corporations and Religions have no place in our legal system. This ruling continues to allow them unfettered access to our positions of political power without having to play all the old political games.
Imagine the corporation We sell Rubber Ducks, Inc. They are a Catholic corporation and the Roman Catholic Church in South Africa buys $5 million in rubber ducks from them. That then gives We sell Rubber Ducks, Inc $5 million in funds to give to politicians that promote Catholic causes in the USA free and clear that they can legally spend in anyway that they like to influence the legal system.
All the while it will be removing affirmative action so that We sell Rubber Ducks, Inc doesn’t have to hire gay people or promote women into managerial positions because the Bible forbids women to be in authority over men.
And you apparently think it is a good thing.

His Response

I disagree with your basic premises (points 1 through 3 as listed) and your explanation of corporate personhood, so its no surprise that the remaining analysis doesn’t make sense to me.

As I see it:

1. A private corporation is a voluntary association of individuals (“natural persons” like you and me) who have joined together in order to collectively pursue their happiness.

2. The doctrine of corporate personhood merely asserts that for certain activities such as owning property and entering into contracts this group of individuals may be treated as a sort of artificial person, which is essentially just an abbreviation for all of the individuals that make it up.

3. The other big sky-is-falling case, Citizens United v FEC essentially just reaffirmed that the individuals that make up a corporation do not lose their right to free speech by nature of having pooled their resources in pursuit of their common interests.

What if We Sell Great Textbooks, Inc. was a Atheist group that used their foreign-made profits (earned selling high-quality science textbooks to developing countries) to promote Socialism and Science Education in the USA giving money to progressive pols that support better Science Education? Is the same process palatable because we agree with the point of view of the people doing it? Or because we think it will have a better outcome?

You think I’m being myopic?

I object to anyone using force to compel others to do their will. I specifically include in this using the force of the government to get people to do your will, whether you will is to paint your house a certain color, worship a certain way, buy a certain product, or to refrain from smoking a certain herb.

Our system has problems, no doubt. The reforms I think it needs are to address bigger, more fundamental problems.

I’m bothered by the policeman with his boot on my neck. You’re complaining about the color of the boot.

My response

As a matter of fact I do not think that We sell Textbooks should be any where near the government, the people can of course promote their political views but the corporation should never be allowed to act in politics, and the corporate money should stay the hell away from politics. I would rather have the police’s boot on my neck than return to the Industrial Revolution. This is the point that you are missing is that you are directly promoting the destruction of the protections that the labor movements have given us.

The police can be removed by election. The Robber Barons require more. You think I am worried about the color the boot, but you are missing the point that you are enabling the buying of thousands of boots and the hiring of thousands of people to wear them.

The police aren’t the problem, the problem is who controls the police.

I posted some links to state exemptions to employment and equality laws for religious employers
His response

You can continue [to post about religious exemptions to employment law] if you want, but the exceptions don’t bother me as much as the regulations do in the first place. I am so old-fashioned that I think that if I build a business I should be able to choose my own employees by any standard I choose, whether that be only members of my family, only members of my church, my gun club or my gaming group, only women, only people I went to school with, or only former members of the Argentine military. If consumers don’t like my choices, they shouldn’t buy my products.

The problem is the same that it has always been. Namely that as long as you allow government the power to interfere in the free choices people make, there will always be people and groups of people who seek to abuse that power, to control others by threat of governmental violence, and to profit at the point of a gun.

More regulation does not solve this problem. Restricting liberty does not solve this problem. The only thing that solves this problem is limiting the power of government.

I’m a big fan of marriage equality, because I think everyone should be treated equally under the law, but the current batch of laws supporting marriage equality get at best a half-hearted thumbs up from me, because I think the real answer is that government has no business inserting itself into people’s marriages or personal relationships.

So you see I don’t support the buying of boots with taxpayer money, or the hiring of the boot wearers. I also don’t grant any special magical legitimacy to the wearing of boots by someone just because his paycheck is extorted from the serfs by violence or threat of violence.

my response

wow… just wow… smh

just seriously wow, I keep rereading this just holy crap… wow…

Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: