Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Occupy the Courts: The Irony of Protesting Against Free Speech

Expand Messages
  • Dan Clore
    ... I don t think you ve presented anything to support the claim that these folks want more regulation to balance corporate privilege as opposed to simply
    Message 1 of 226 , Feb 1, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On 1/30/2012 1:14 PM, Dan wrote:

      > I'm not saying don't remove the privileges, but I don't think the
      > goal should be to increase regulations to somehow balance privileges.
      > That only increases state power. And the people who want the court to
      > change here don't see to want to get rid of the privileges so much as
      > increase state power. This amounts to maintaining that the way to
      > control the government is to increase its power.

      I don't think you've presented anything to support the claim that these
      folks want more regulation to balance corporate privilege as opposed to
      simply lessening it (but not removing it entirely). I mean, really, how
      big a bureaucracy do you need to *not* grant personhood and rights to
      non-existent, fictional entities?

      And, again, from a libertarian standpoint non-existent, fictional
      entities are not persons and do not have rights -- unless granted
      personhood and rights by the state. So to speak of opposition to
      state-granted personhood and rights for non-existent, fictional entities
      as "protesting against free speech" is not entirely accurate. And to say
      that proposing a Constitutional Amendment to clarify that non-existent,
      fictional entities are not persons and do not have rights is not
      precisely an attempt to "amend the Constitution in order to gut the
      First Amendment's protection of free speech", which the courts did not
      extend to apply to non-existent, fictional entities until long after the
      era of the Founding Fathers. And the latter didn't any bureaucracy at
      all to *not* do this. They just didn't do it.

      --
      Dan Clore

      New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
      http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
      My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
      http://tinyurl.com/3tyj9cq
      Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
      http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
      News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

      Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
      immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
      -- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
    • James
      Totally agree. And by the way all of these anti Citizens United folks have no problem with unlimited labor union spending on political activity and
      Message 226 of 226 , Feb 2, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Totally agree.

        And by the way all of these anti Citizens United folks have no problem with unlimited labor union spending on political activity and contributions, do they? Unions are funded by compulsory dues.

        Are unions people?

        --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "Nathan Byrd" <nfactor13@...> wrote:
        >
        > As I said before, I don't think it matters whether the corporation is a person or not. What matters is, what justifies using force to prohibit someone from speaking as a representative of a corporation or from giving money on behalf of a corporation to someone else (provided it's not in support of some other criminal act or aggression)?
        >
        > Nathan
        >
        > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Dan Clore <clore@> wrote:
        > >
        > > On 2/2/2012 2:00 AM, James wrote:
        > >
        > > > Nothing changes the fact you don't want groups of people who form
        > > > corporations to have free speech rights.
        > > >
        > > > Speaking of "non-libertarian"!
        > >
        > > The "groups of people who form corporations" are the states who grant
        > > their charters and attendant privileges. It's true, I don't think that
        > > states have rights. Human beings do.
        > >
        > > And really, the legal claim that a corporation is a person with rights,
        > > distinct from its members, doesn't make any sense. If you took it
        > > seriously you'd end up with all sorts of ridiculous results. It would,
        > > surely, be illegal to own a corporation if it were a person with rights,
        > > would it not?
        > >
        > > > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Dan Clore<clore@>
        > > > wrote:
        > > >>
        > > >> On 2/1/2012 6:16 AM, Dan wrote:
        > > >>>
        > > >>> To prevent corporations from donating money and running ad
        > > >>> campaigns, I think you'd need regulations plus enforcement. In
        > > >>> other words, there has to be a person or group charged with
        > > >>> deciding who can express what depending on whether this is done
        > > >>> via a corporation and a person or group to enforce this. That
        > > >>> doesn't seem like nothing to me. And in a libertarian society, I
        > > >>> wouldn't expect such regulations and enforcers to be in
        > > >>> business.
        > > >>
        > > >> Er, a fully libertarian society wouldn't have a state granting
        > > >> corporate charters giving special privileges, either, so of course
        > > >> it wouldn't need any such regulations or enforcers.
        > > >>
        > > >>> As for the case against such entities donating money and running
        > > >>> ad campaigns, why does this need to be limited in the first
        > > >>> place? This isn't some extra privilege people get when they act
        > > >>> via corporations versus acting along. It seems to me you're
        > > >>> making the case that people acting in such a way have less
        > > >>> rights. Do you believe that?
        > > >>
        > > >> No, I just don't believe that they should have state-granted
        > > >> privileges. These folks aren't claiming their own free speech
        > > >> rights, but those of a non-existent, fictional entity. They're
        > > >> doing that because this gives them certain privileges, versus
        > > >> acting as individuals or voluntary groups. (If it didn't, why would
        > > >> they go to the trouble and expense?) If they had claimed their
        > > >> rights as individuals, or as a voluntary group, they would have had
        > > >> a case.
        > > >>
        > > >> Someone using the Miss Piggy muppet recently joked about how absurd
        > > >> it would be to consider Fox News as, you know, news. Now, *someone*
        > > >> had a right to say that, but it wasn't Miss Piggy.
        > > >>
        > > >> Now, as to the need for regulations and enforcers, look to history.
        > > >> In the US originally, when states granted corporate charters they
        > > >> explicitly listed the powers given to the corporation, along with
        > > >> its privileges. They charters were not interpreted as granting
        > > >> personhood, or rights, or powers that were not explicitly granted.
        > > >> It wasn't until 1886 that a Supreme Court decision granted
        > > >> corporations personhood and rights. (This was actually a clerical
        > > >> error, but let that pass for now.)
        > > >>
        > > >> Nothing special was needed to enforce this, just the regular courts
        > > >> and law enforcement. That's all we would need now. (I'm not, of
        > > >> course, claiming that this would be a perfectly libertarian system;
        > > >> but it would be somewhat more libertarian than what we have now. In
        > > >> Shelley and Thoreau's metaphor, this measure merely prunes the
        > > >> branches of the state-corporate capitalist poison-tree, rather than
        > > >> striking at the root.)
        > > >>
        > > >>> For me, the libertarian case is against corporations,
        > > >>> collectives, clubs, co-ops, or any group having more rights than
        > > >>> the individuals composing it -- that there are no extra rights
        > > >>> these groups get (such as a right to nullify legitimate
        > > >>> contracts), but the groups as groups do not necessarily lose
        > > >>> rights.
        > > >>
        > > >> This is correct, but it ignores the issue at hand.
        > > >>
        > > >>> Regards,
        > > >>>
        > > >>> Dan
        > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        > > >>>
        > > >>>
        > > >>
        > > >>>
        > > *From:* Dan Clore<clore@>
        > > >>> *To:* LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Wednesday,
        > > >>> February 1, 2012 4:11 AM *Subject:* Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re:
        > > >>> Occupy the Courts: The Irony of Protesting Against Free Speech
        > > >>>
        > > >>> On 1/30/2012 1:14 PM, Dan wrote:
        > > >>>
        > > >>>> I'm not saying don't remove the privileges, but I don't think
        > > >>>> the goal should be to increase regulations to somehow balance
        > > >>>> privileges. That only increases state power. And the people
        > > >>>> who want the court to change here don't see to want to get rid
        > > >>>> of the privileges so much as increase state power. This amounts
        > > >>>> to maintaining that the way to control the government is to
        > > >>>> increase its power.
        > > >>>
        > > >>> I don't think you've presented anything to support the claim
        > > >>> that these folks want more regulation to balance corporate
        > > >>> privilege as opposed to simply lessening it (but not removing it
        > > >>> entirely). I mean, really, how big a bureaucracy do you need to
        > > >>> *not* grant personhood and rights to non-existent, fictional
        > > >>> entities?
        > > >>>
        > > >>> And, again, from a libertarian standpoint non-existent,
        > > >>> fictional entities are not persons and do not have rights --
        > > >>> unless granted personhood and rights by the state. So to speak of
        > > >>> opposition to state-granted personhood and rights for
        > > >>> non-existent, fictional entities as "protesting against free
        > > >>> speech" is not entirely accurate. And to say that proposing a
        > > >>> Constitutional Amendment to clarify that non-existent, fictional
        > > >>> entities are not persons and do not have rights is not precisely
        > > >>> an attempt to "amend the Constitution in order to gut the First
        > > >>> Amendment's protection of free speech", which the courts did not
        > > >>> extend to apply to non-existent, fictional entities until long
        > > >>> after the era of the Founding Fathers. And the latter didn't any
        > > >>> bureaucracy at all to *not* do this. They just didn't do it.
        > > >>
        > > >> -- Dan Clore
        > > >>
        > > >> New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
        > > >> http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable
        > > >> and Others_: http://tinyurl.com/3tyj9cq Lord Weÿrdgliffe&
        > > >> Necronomicon Page: http://tinyurl.com/292yz9 News& Views for
        > > >> Anarchists& Activists: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
        > > >>
        > > >> Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the immarcescible
        > > >> purple of poetry before the color-blind. -- Clark Ashton Smith,
        > > >> "Epigrams and Apothegms"
        > > >>
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > ------------------------------------
        > > >
        > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --
        > > Dan Clore
        > >
        > > New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
        > > http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
        > > My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
        > > http://tinyurl.com/3tyj9cq
        > > Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
        > > http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
        > > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
        > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
        > >
        > > Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
        > > immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
        > > -- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.