Intellectual theft by Stan
Austin’s Ben Sargent hits it on the head again. To my mind, corporations should have NO free speech rights, nor should they be recognized as a “person.” Now this would include non-profits and unions, the poor person’s corporations. What we should have as a legal standard is something akin to the idea that brought the civil rights movement to success: One man, one vote. In the case of corporations– which are nothing else than collectivization for the moneyed folk (with side benefits in liability protection)– the rule should be “one person, one voice.” The corporate owners are already persons with a voice. Let them use those voices and stand for themselves in advocating their positions and ideas the same as any other citizen rather than the rest of us give them the advantage of huge sums of money to polish and repeat, repeat, repeat their so-called ideas. You want democracy? I do.
Now tell me why this is harebrained. I’m listening.
5 responses so far ↓
1 joepremont // Jan 30, 2010 at 9:12 am
Harebrained? Not by a long shot. However, this kind of thinking does not sit well with folks who have lost their objectivity.
Maybe this is why Mother Theresa didn’t do politics?
Hang in there, bro, someone’s got to say it.
2 Jack Veggie // Feb 1, 2010 at 8:58 pm
So, let’s say an Bush-like successor to Obama wants Microsoft to disclose to the justice department, a set of algorithms that will enable faster interception and eavesdropping by the Dept. of Justice, but Microsoft refuses, believing the disclosure too invasive.
Microsoft should be prohibited from running ads to advise the public? Microsoft should be prohibited from making a campaign contribution to the opponent of such a president?
Free speech. Free even to those who can print more of it and say more of it. Plenty of people have more money than plenty of corporations.
People too stupid to think for themselves usually are too stupid to go through the trouble of voting…….and those are the only ones fooled by campaign BS.
The Supreme Court decision I’m waiting on is the one that says, a bribe is a bribe, whether paid to influence a candidate before an election as a campaign contribution, or paid after they are seated in office.
We’ll never see such a decision until we have a major political change, like secession or federal meltdown….or both.
3 Stan // Feb 1, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Secession? yeah. Yer run of the mill Texan is ready for that. Right.
4 Stan // Feb 2, 2010 at 1:13 am
Regarding your Microsoft case, I’m assuming some one will do the right thing and blow the whistle. Realizing that corruption is a problem and a big one, I don’t believe that everyone working in corporations or government are corrupt just because that’s where they work. I’d have to go shoot myself if I did. My point: communication is a human function, not a corporate one. The humans in the corp can and should report the undue pressure from a governing agency.
One person has one voice and is perfectly free to use it. Or so I naively believe.
5 Jack Veggie // Feb 2, 2010 at 10:36 pm
I guess if the constitution said ‘an individual’s right to free speech’ is inviolate, I would have a different take on it.
I see the evil in campaign contributions as corruption of the elected. Whether the corruptor is a group or an individual.
ABC, NBC, Fox, CNN are all corps. All pushing an agenda. Do we fine them whenever they say an unobjective statement or exhibit bias? Jail them for lingering a camera on a candidate too long?
Sounds complicated.
Less laws less complicated.
Secession. Probably not in my day, but the tipping point may come sooner than the death of my grandchildren. Took some time to get rid of King George, and I have read only 3% of the population. I heard the 3% figure from an interesting guy that had done Iraq a couple of times….guessing that’s propaganda fed to the NCO’s justifying action there. All it takes is 3% to make a difference….etc. Point being, average Texan ain’t going to support or oppose secession.
You must log in to post a comment.