Tag Archives: corporate personhood

Charlotte Web of Lies: The DNC Day 2

Day Two of the Charlotte Web of Lies leads to some real fun.

To recap in the last 48 hours we are worse off than we were 4 years again and we’re better off than we were 4 years ago, God doesn’t exist, God does exist, Jerusalem isn’t the capital of Israel, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, relations with Israel have never been better, relations with Israel have never been worse, Obama will be speaking in an open stadium, Obama will not speaking in an open stadium.  I know politicians like flip-flopping, but usually it’s that their positions change over years, months, sometimes weeks…this is the first time I have seen positions change with tide without having to invoke hyperbole.

Then of course there is that joke of an acceptance of the party platform, which seemed to have over half the delegates not accepting it because it wasn’t left enough but Villeregosa saying it has the needed two-thirds necessary to pass…this is what Democrats apparently consider democracy.

Tonight was a bit sparse on interesting points…yes there was the near constant drivel on Republicans are evil, Republicans are going to destroy medicare, Republicans want to skewer the poor, roast them on spits and eat their flayed carcasses…blah, blah, blah…

But what do you expect.

They had Elizabeth “Dances with Bullshit” Warren.

“Republicans say they don’t believe in government. Sure they do. They believe in government to help themselves and their powerful friends. After all, Mitt Romney’s the guy who said corporations are people.No, Gov. Romney, corporations are not people.”

Thank you Liz for showing you know less than nothing about history, law, or the nature of how an economy works.  The legal fiction of corporate personhood needs to exist for the economy to work…I dread what the world would be like without that particular legal fiction…but you could just look at what the world looked like before corporate personhood (i.e. what was the world like before the 1600’s).

“People have hearts,”

Except maybe Democrats who are willing to let Israel be destroyed in a second Holocaust, are willing to let the innocent  in Syria and Egypt be butchered by the close friends of this Democratic president, and we’re all more than willing to do nothing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur under a Republican president as well as do nothing in Rwanda, Somalia, and almost Bosnia (until Tony Blair dragged Clinton in).  Also as I recall the most recent study on charity shows it’s Republicans who give the most, not Democrats…but what do we heartless Republicans know about having a heart.  It is so much more important to rant and rave about giving and caring than to actually show it in action, often humbly and not seeking praise or attention.

“they have kids,”

You know I’m pro-choice…but given the Democrat’s party’s eagerness to fund every abortion they can, keep in mind they removed the line that abortions should be rare from the platform, this line rings a little hollow. Also this is just disingenuous from the party that is absolutely opposed to school choice and school reform.  You know the most important thing in helping kids.

“they get jobs,”

this one’s too easy, but I have to anyway…they get jobs?  Not under this president!

“they get sick,”

Well I’m certainly sick of your pointless drivel.

“they cry, they dance.”

I will be dancing and crying tears of joy come the night of November 6th when the asshole is voted out of office.

“They live, they love, and they die.”

They’ll be doing a lot more of the last one if we have Obamacare.

“And that matters. That matters because we don’t run this country for corporations, we run it for people.”

They run this country.  Because that doesn’t have any disturbing totalitarian overtones…no, none whatsoever.

“And that’s why we need Barack Obama.”…to take a long walk off a short pier.

Sandra “Julia” Fluke was dull and whiny as usual from her first words:

“Some of you may remember that earlier this year, Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception”

No Sandra you were locked out of a hearing on religious freedom…something you know nothing about, so you had no right to be there. It went downhill from there.  It was all whiny drivel about the freedom to get birth control…the law student apparently has never heard of the Griswold v. Connecticut which guarantees the right to buy birth control (just not to have others provide it for you) and (and you’d be an idiot to think you’d get ¾’s of the states to pass an amendment against that or to think that even conservative judges are about to overturn that one).  So really this is about as made up an issue as you can get.

I could make fun of every dimwitted line of Nancy Pelosi’s speech…but I think it’s more fun that she was caught this weekend saying that the secret to Democrat victory in the House is gerrymandering.

And then there was pathological liar, user and abuser of women (not to mention sometimes rapist…yeah between him and Kennedy it shows they really love women) Bill Clinton.

“A man who ran for President to change the course of an already weak economy and then just six weeks before the election, saw it suffer the biggest collapse since the Great Depression.”

And you don’t think that sudden drop might have been caused by the fact that every business could read the writing on the wall, that Socialism-boy was going to win, and it might be time to batten down for a long storm.  But it would take intelligence to see a correlation between those two events.

“A man who stopped the slide into depression”

The Dems seem to really like the word depression all of a sudden.  Not that there is a single iota of data to suggest we were on the verge of a depression…but it’s fun to see how the economic troubles of 2008, while  a fixed moment in history, have somehow gotten steadily worse as time goes on.

“I want to nominate a man cool on the outside but burning for America on the inside.”

I would too Bill.  You’ll have to settle for someone who is inept on the outside and burning with rage against America on the inside.

“A man who had the good sense to marry Michelle Obama.”

You know, if you were to just read that line on paper without knowing the context, but knowing what a vicious, hateful creature Michelle is, you might think this was an insult.

Now read these two paragraphs:

“In Tampa, we heard a lot of talk about how the President and the Democrats don’t believe in free enterprise and individual initiative, how we want everyone to be dependent on the government, how bad we are for the economy. […]

“We Democrats think the country works better with a strong middle class, real opportunities for poor people to work their way into it and a relentless focus on the future, with business and government working together to promote growth and broadly shared prosperity. We think “we’re all in this together” is a better philosophy than “you’re on your own.”

So you don’t believe in free enterprise and the individual.  You just said as much Bill.  You see the economy as “with business and government working together” we see it as business and individuals working together.  And then of course we get to the fact that Democratic policies hurt middle class and ruin opportunities for poor people.  Really what it is the Democrats believe that “we’re in this together and if I can’t succeed then you can’t succeed” where the Republicans are “Grow up, you must reap what you sow, individuals may help you, but government isn’t there to be your parent.

“Who’s right? Well since 1961, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our economy produced 66 million private sector jobs. What’s the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million!”

Convenient he leaves out the economic powerhouse of Eisenhower.   Also nice that he leaves in Kennedy with his cut taxes pro-growth policies that would be more at home in the GOP these days.  But of those Republicans he mentions, Nixon, Ford, and the Bushes were big government liberals in policy.  And most of that job growth you list bill came from Kennedy’s tax cuts or you riding the wave of Reagan plus a Republican Congress.  But why should facts matter.  Who is right?  Well that all depends on what the definition of “right” is?  If “right” means you’re actually going to tie your conclusion to facts and reality then it’s not you or Obama.

“It turns out that advancing equal opportunity and economic empowerment is both morally right and good economics.”

Yes and it’s a damn good thing Republicans were there to end Democrat supported Jim Crow.  Now if only your party could support education reform that would lead to true equality of opportunity.

“I am grateful to President George W. Bush for PEPFAR, which is saving the lives of millions of people in poor countries and to both Presidents Bush for the work we’ve done together after the South Asia tsunami, Hurricane

That’s the basic argument right there.

Katrina and the Haitian earthquake.  Through my foundation, in America and around the world, I work with Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are focused on solving problems and seizing opportunities, not fighting each other.”

That’s the self aggrandizing egocentric Bill Clinton I remember.  The kind of man who could exploit a young woman for his sexual gratification and never feel a qualm about it.  Kind of reminds me of the ego of someone else.

“They think government is the enemy, and compromise is weakness.”

Big intrusive government is the enemy.  I think someone realized that when they said “the era of big government is over.”  And real compromise isn’t weakness (like when Democrats made suggestions on how to improve the Ryan plan and Ryan not only didn’t fight them but eagerly put those changes in)…it’s the media and modern left’s definition of compromise: “Do everything we say, get nothing you want or you’re an obstructionist who doesn’t believe in compromise.” We have do not problem with rational compromise, we have a problem with strong-arming masquerading as rationality.  And yes we do have our more line in the sand moments, but only because we’ve seen it’s the only way to get half of what we want, anything less and you bulldoze over the RINO faction of our party.

“One of the main reasons America should re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to cooperation.”

I mean just look at the billions he’s given lunatics in Egypt to fund their massacre of women, gays, Christians and Jews. Very cooperative on our part.

“He appointed Republican Secretaries of Defense,”

Technically he just asked the Bush Secretary of Defense to stay on so he wouldn’t have to show his liberal foreign policy too soon.

“President Obama’s record on national security is a tribute to his strength, and judgment, and to his preference for inclusion and partnership over partisanship.”

You know if you ignore Iran with a nuke, betraying Israel, Obama and Alexrod personally leaking classified information, not supporting the democratic uprising in Iran, letting Tunisia, Lybia, and Egypt fall to people more psychotic than before, not doing anything in Syria, and of course wanting to be more flexible with Vladamir…nope nothing to complain about his foreign policy.

“He also tried to work with Congressional Republicans on Health Care, debt reduction, and jobs, but that didn’t work out so well.”

Because he’s a crazy socialist and took a my-way-or-the-highway attitude to all of those things and offered no compromise on anything.

“Probably because, as the Senate Republican leader, in a remarkable moment of candor, said two years before the election, their number one priority was not to put America back to work, but to put President Obama out of work”

Bill, he said nothing about not wanting America to get jobs…he said we need to get rid of Obama, probably because Obama is the single greatest impediment to growth there could ever be.  We want growth. We want jobs.  We want to earn piles of money and we want everyone to have the opportunity to earn as much as they want…but that isn’t going to happen as long as Socialist-in-Chief is around.  Bill, you were annoying, this guy is destructive.

“In Tampa, the Republican argument against the President’s re-election was pretty simple: we left him a total mess, he hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in.”

Actually I believe the line is that our party for too long was in the hands of pseudo-liberal compassionate conservative who basically acted like Democrats, they in collusion with the Democrats screwed everything up since 1992 and now real conservatives are back.  But this brings up a general flaw in the Democratic party logic.  They claim the Tea Party is the new extreme wing of right.  But they claim that the Tea Party is going to do the same things that the old liberal wing did to screw things up.  Unless you’re a Democrat you can’t logically have it both ways.

“I like the argument for President Obama’s re-election a lot better. He inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators.”

Bill you’re mixing up Reagan and Obama.  Reagan laid out the road for prosperity and fixed the country in three years. Obama keeps laying the road for total destruction, and low and behold we’re on it.

I may not agree with Newt on everything…but it was Newt who got the 90’s working, not Bill

“Though employment is growing, banks are beginning to lend and even housing prices are picking up a bit, too many people don’t feel it.”

Employment isn’t growing, and what growth there is is in underemployment.  Banks are loaning only because Obama is strong-arming them, like you did, which is creating a new problem.  And I hate to tell you this, but houses are still overpriced.  The high prices are not a sign of a healthy economy they’re a sign of another bubble.

“I experienced the same thing in 1994 and early 1995. Our policies were working and the economy was growing but most people didn’t feel it yet. By 1996, the economy was roaring, halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in American history.”

Maybe because you worked with the Republican Congress, instead of refusing to pass a budget.

“President Obama started with a much weaker economy than I did. No President – not me or any of my predecessors could have repaired all the damage in just four years.”

Reagan could have.  Reagan did.  The Carter Economy was much worse than what Obama inherited.  And yet by turning to capitalism instead of socialism, things seemed to work out.

I’m done…Clinton keeps lying and distorting and making crap up.  It’s Slick Willie, did you expect anything else…but dear God did this run long.

2 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Corporate Welfare, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Tyranny, Unions, Welfare

God Bless Citizens United v. FEC

So while liberals have been throwing hissy fits for over a year about the Citizen’s United (Really the creation of Super PACS owes a lot to various relegation and legislative changes and to just Citizens United v. the Federal Election Committee, but Democrats know their base doesn’t do well with complex ideas, so they just pick on Citizens United, and I always try and play in the opposition’s ballpark, so we’ll just refer to Citizens United). But the night of the Wisconsin recall hit a new level of pathetic from the left with the whimpering of possibly the whiniest human being on earth decrying the death of democracy.

You know personally my first inclination is to slap the little loser and tell him we’re a republic not a democracy. But we are a democratic-republic, and despite his inability to use words properly, the dimwit meant that the democratic feature of the republic died. He’s wrong, but what do you expect from idiots.

Now first off let’s deal with the lies. The Democrats claim they were outspent 7 to 1…if you actually look at real statistics the number is closet to 3 to 2 or 1.5 to 1. Now they were outspent, but it wasn’t by much.

Also I failed to notice that they complained all those years they had almost limitless funds from unions and big time contributors like George Soros, Warren Buffet, and 90% of Hollywood…not to mention the glory days before FOXNews and when you only had the Big 3 to get your info from…or the glory days before the internet and the news outlets were your only source of info…or the glory days before talk radio when there literally wasn’t any choice but what the mainstream media fed you. Let’s be honest there is just a lot of corruption on the left that they like to ignore…
…and some take it even worse than the whiner in Wisconsin…

(I love Downfall parodies, they’re hilarious)

But let’s ignore the minutia and get to the heart of the matter.

The central liberal argument is that Citizens United v. Federal Election Committeewas wrong—that money is not speech

Every so often they get something right as they did in Citizen’s United…now to overturn Kelo

and therefore cannot be protected under the First Amendment—that whoever has the most money always wins. The first point is just obviously stupid, but this is an argument from people who don’t get why we have to have the legal fiction of corporate personhood. They also don’t understand that your property rights are sacrosanct and under the theory of natural rights (which is kind of the basis of our entire legal system); that your property, including money, and what you do with it is an extension of your person legally, ergo spending money is speech if you choose it to be.

But let’s ignore the unspeakable idiocy of the argument that money isn’t speech. Let’s focus on what they’re saying about democracy, because that is even more laughable (or frightening).

The argument against Citizens United is based on the argument that who has the most money wins.

Let’s look at this argument.

Certainly if I have half a trillion dollars and my opposition has $10 I will probably win. But seldom in American politics are things so lopsided. And do you really think that if the Klan or the American Nazi Party had a trillion dollars they could actually get any real power in this nation? Logic tells us that at a certain point you can spend all the money you want and if the people hate you, you’re screwed. You just have to look at advertising…Hollywood occasionally spends the GNP of third world nations hyping some piece of crap that almost no one goes to see…if the logic of Citizen’s United opponents were applied then everyone should just follow the hype.

But let’s look at some extremes. On the one side did we forget that a felon in West Virginia and a challenger in Arkansas, both with no money to speak of, gave a sitting president a run for his money this year in the primary? Or on the other side let’s look at a man like George Soros. Now I don’t have to believe that Soros is some evil mastermind on the level of Lex Luthor or Ernst Stavro Blofeld to admit that (A) his politics are somewhere to left of the current French president’s and (B) through direct contributions and contributions to PACs like Moveon the man has dumped an obscene amount of money into U.S. elections. I don’t buy the conspiracy theories, but the fact is the man is very progressive and very giving of money to causes he believes in. As is his right. But here’s the funny thing…if the people who oppose Citizen’s United were right, then all the money he has spent combined with all the money unions have spent over the years then it should never have even been close in 2000 or 2004, and the country should already be so far left that Obama would look like Reagan right now. Strangely I failed to see the retirement age lowered to 50 or minimum wage raised to $20 an hour, universal public health care, or a 70% tax on income above $100,000 here in Sorosandia.

Money helps. No doubt about that. If you can get your message out it certainly is more effective. However in a day and age of twitter, blogs, and YouTube, it’s not just money that matters. It’s having a message that resonates with people…even if that message is the mentally retarded statements of “Yes we can” and “we are the ones we have been waiting for.”

But there’s a deeper problem than the common sense issue that money can’t buy everything in politics. It’s the implications of human nature.

Notice what is implicit in the argument that money is all that matters to democracy. Notice what is says if you believe that the person with the most money, not the better argument, always wins. It means that all people don’t have stupid and shortsighted moments, as I believe it means that people are incapable of rational thought. That they will follow the shiniest piece of polished metal provided by the person with the most money—that there is no rational thought, that no matter how extreme an idea, if it has money backing it, it will win. Ummm…if people are actually that dumb, then why do we have any democratic elements in our government? Democracy is based on the idea that the majority of the people, when put together will more often than not make the right choice, not because they believe the shiniest lie, but because reason will win the day with the majority of people more often than not. It is a premise based on the idea that a human being and human reason has value. If your argument is that money drives everything, then you must state you believe that humans on a whole have no ability to reason. Now is human reason perfect? Hell, no. That’s why we have always been a republic that limits the momentary whims of the masses and forces compromise and slow deliberation.

Now I will admit that human reason is not perfect, but taking money out of the equation will not solve the problem of imperfect reason being a driving force in our elections.

Now if you actually wanted a functioning democratic election, as the critics of Citizen United claim they want, what should they be arguing for?

Well, how about Voter ID check or clearing the voter rolls in every state every two years and making everyone re-register. You know to prevent fraud, and felons, and illegal immigrants from voting in mass numbers and making sure that the democratic principle of one man, one vote was actually allowed. As for making everyone re-register, if going down to the post office or going to a web site to pick up a form and sending it in is too much work for you, then dear God, you are not qualified to be deciding the future of this nation.

Or how about this one I know would never pass, but you would have to admit would get rid of the majority of influence of money in elections…require people to earn a high school diploma before they can vote. Okay liberals, get all the insults out now…I’m a racist, I’m a bigot, I’m closed minded, I don’t know anything about democracy, blah, blah, blah…I teach high school, I have been working in schools for nearly 14 years, and have been working consistently in alternative education with at risk youth for the last seven…do you have any idea how easy it is to get a high school diploma? Or a GED? I’m sorry but you seriously have to try to not pass high school. And I’m sorry given how much the income difference is between a high school diploma and having nothing, you’re an idiot’s idiot to not get a high school diploma. And when you put those two sentences together you realize that high school dropouts are actively trying to be an idiot’s idiot. Can’t imagine why I would want these losers voting. I mean who do you think falls most easily for flashy ads, the person with a bare bones education or the person who actively tried to remain ignorant. And if voting is really that important to you, getting a GED is not that difficult, really it’s not. If we were to institute this, you would find pandering by politicians drop quite a bit, and low and behold you might see better legislation.

Or you might go back to what the Founders correctly envisioned for the Senate: State legislatures and governors working together to nominate and elect the most qualified in the state (as opposed to the most popular) to the upper house of Congress. It would completely eliminate money’s influence on Senators themselves…and if people are so worried about SuperPAC money influencing federal elections…right now to influence the Senate you have to influence maybe 40 statewide elections (I figure about 60 seats are safe Republican or safe Democratic seats) going back to pre 17th Amendment republican ideals you would have to influence the same 40 state wide elections but this time for governors, plus influencing one to two houses of the state legislature. Even the most well funded SuperPacs would go bust before being able to make a dent in the long term. But to do that you would actually want to try and take out the influence of money…instead of say, hypocritically just wanting your traditional sources of money to be the only ones that counted.

Or how about this one: Get the government out of the economy. If you placed legitimate restrictions on how far the government can get into the economy, then guess what, all those businesses and business people wouldn’t care about elections. As long as the government has the power to pick winners and losers, you’d be a bit of an idiot to not do everything in your power to make sure you’re not the loser…but if you got the government out of the economy you get rid of the incentive to be so involved in elections…at which point why would business waste their hard earned profits on silly things like elections.

But the people who bitch about Citizens United don’t care about any of that…they’re just unhappy that now other people have a chance to fight their endless union coffers.

***
One last note on a pragmatic side issue. I’ve heard that nearly a trillion dollars will be spent on the 2012 election (when you count all the elections at all levels). Given how crappy the Obama economy is (and yes it is his fault, if it wasn’t for him we’d be in a full recovery by now) I want you to think how bad it would be if you took out a trillion dollars. Yes that trillion is going to a limited sector in the advertising business…but those people who get the money then spend it on other things and it moves through the economy…I want you to imagine what the economy would look like if you took yet another trillion out of GDP. Just a pragmatic consideration to keep in mind.

1 Comment

Filed under Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Obama, Patriotism, philosophy, politics, Tyranny, Unions

In defense of Corporate Personhood

I’m getting tired of people discussing corporate personhood as if it’s a bad thing.  Corporations have been treated legally as people almost since the moment joint-stock companies were created in England in the 1600’s.  Yes it’s a legal fiction, but it’s a necessary one.  400 years ago they saw the reasons why you need to treat corporations as people, reasons that people who want to whine about corporate personhood are apparently too stupid to see…but let me go over just a few.

Taxation

Now this point is, for me, the weakest point, but I felt like this one will make the biggest impact on liberals.

If corporations aren’t legally people how do you tax them?  There’s no clause in the Constitution allowing for taxation of corporations, only on states and the income of people (and I have a real problem with that Amendment anyway).  If corporations aren’t people you have no legal right to tax them, which actually is fine with me since I despise the evil of double taxation created by the corporate income tax.  But for everyone who bitches about corporate personhood…did you want to stop taxing corporations?

But since I want to get rid of corporate taxes I’m not too invested in that argument.  So what else do I have…

Legal Responsibility and Crime

I want you to look at criminal law and most regulations.  90% of them don’t even mention corporations.  They mention people.  The only reason that corporations have to follow those regulations are because, legally, they are people.  After all if they’re not people they’re things…and things don’t have legal responsibility. You don’t charge the knife with murder, you charge the person who held it.  Or if I were to give a chimp a gun and it shot someone, it’s not the chimp’s fault, it’s mine.  Only people have legal obligations to obey the law.

Now someone out there will say that this argument isn’t valid, that the organization still has legal obligations.   Okay, let’s take a look at a real life organization, that everyone admits exists, that it is near impossible to make it uphold it’s legal responsibilities: the mafia.  If a company is incorporated under law you can charge the whole company with violations of the law, hold everyone on the board responsible, and give fines or jail time.  Tell me how well that works with the mafia…has the mafia ever been charged with a crime…no we have to charge individuals with crimes, and we even need to come up with convoluted laws to help link one person in the organization to another (RICO), and even then it’s impossible to legally prove collusion, conspiracy and guilt.

I’d like to think that people have it in them to always be their best…but I know not to be so naïve as to think every corporation will act in a responsible manner.  And if you take away the personhood that makes each corporation obliged to follow the law you make every corporation a mafia, a law unto itself who acts under omerta like silence so that no individual within the corporation can be prosecuted.  You think a corporation can behave badly now?  Wait until you remove their personhood.

Pragmatically, if you were to take away corporate personhood, you would have to rewrite all laws and regulations to hold corporations to the same rules as people.  Ignoring the preposterous idea of writing into law the idea that a thing can be held responsible, let me ask you how well is that going to go?  Having the people who are paid off by corporations to rewrite thousands upon thousands of laws to include corporations…do you think that the laws will be a tad more lax on corporations than on people?  Do you think that’s a good thing?

Legal Standing

Okay, I admit, the comparing them to the mafia might be a bit of a stretch, but there is something else to consider.  If a corporation isn’t a person, then it has no legal standing in court.  That means it can’t sue or be sued.  It can’t be held liable for a civil document, like a contract.

Inevitably any business, if it’s around long enough, even if founded by people of character and genius, will come, at least for a time, under the control of thugs and short sighted fools (GE for instance).  If you can’t sue a corporation, do you think there is anything that will stop a corporation from behaving badly?  Do you have any recourse if they harm you with their product?  Yeah you could try suing the board or the CEO, but you would have to prove they knew of whatever it is you’re suing for, and by the already byzantine madness that is corporate bureaucracy and by the fact they’ll claim deniability, that will be all but impossible to prove, and they’ll win.

And I guess you could go after the owner and investors personally, because, hey, if you’re going to strip them of free speech rights, then the legal protections that corporate law provides can’t be far behind…but as I’m about to explain in the next section…that will only hurt the economy.

So why not just rewrite the laws to say that corporations are exempt from the privileges of free speech?

Well for two slippery slope arguments that legal scholars have always found very convincing.  (Probably because history is filled with examples of when these slippery slopes did result in worse case scenarios).

The first is that if you abridge one’s right of personhood for a corporation then you can easily start abridging all the rights of personhood for corporations.  At which point when you have stripped them of all the rights and left them with only the obligations, why would anyone form a corporation?

The second the costs outweigh the benefits corporations will stop being created.  Now I’m sure some very stupid socialists out there are cheering at that idea…the rest of us have at least a vague idea of why that is a very, very bad thing.  Without the protections of a corporation, innovation/starup businesses & investment will stop; when investment stops growth and economic prosperity will stop; from there innovation will halt and our standard of living will collapse. Look at it this way, China which still doesn’t have much in the way of private property rights (which are a key point to true and long lasting economic growth) has protection for corporations and investment.  Most of China’s recent growth in the last couple of decades has been because of these legal protections allowing corporations to grow and prosper. If we completely get rid of those protections expect to be living in a very nice third-world nation.  (Oh and you 99% idiots, think income inequality is bad now…just wait for a civilization where there is no growth).

The other slippery slope is just as horrifying.  If you can abridge the rights of this group you don’t like…what’s to stop the next group. But you start abridging the most basic rights of one unpopular group, how long before that’s used as a justification for taking away rights of other unpopular groups. I think illegal immigration is a major problem, but I’m not about to write laws that say you have to show proof of citizenship before a hospital treats you for a life threatening illness (although I wouldn’t mind a call to ICE afterwards).  I think wearing a hijab is an insult to the very nature of humanity and equality of the sexes, but I’m not about to pass a law against them.  And while I just named two things that I as a conservative am opposed to…think about all the things liberals are opposed to…would you trust atheists who could use this precedent?  And we all know that many liberals are violently opposed to the 2nd amendment…where does it stop once you start abridging rights for one group or another?  Human history tells us that we, as a species, have some really nasty moments…do you really want to give legal precedent for giving into those worst inclinations?  Or should we get Manzanar ready again for the next really unpopular group?

The fact of the matter is that corporate personhood is a necessary legal fiction of modern civilization. Yes I’m finding these SuperPACS a little annoying too, but challenging the idea of corporate personhood is probably the worst way to deal with this annoyance.

How about limiting the amount that the government can get involved in the economy, thus removing the incentive for corporations to back laws and candidates?  But that would make too much sense wouldn’t it.

1 Comment

Filed under Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Natural Rights, Occupy Wall Street, politics