Bio not provided
The only moral obligation of government is to protect our liberty. May they repeal as muc hFederal legislation as they can, and instate as little of their own in its place. Go Massachusetts!
2 years ago on Massachusetts Nullification Initiative Set to Win in a Landslide
i think you misunderstood - the question was rhetorical ... our natural rights should NOT be abridged under any conditions as a matter of principle because this opens the door to abuse. This is clear from the context which goes on to explain the very point you are chastizing me for in your post.
2 years ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous
JK, the last part of your last post seems inherently in conflict ... how can natural rights be abridged under any conditions? The answer is not to be found in overiding libertarian philosophical purity, but rather enforcing it. In other words, let the wealthy pay to put their people into power, but then let those politicians and ceos act in the name of the people not their benefactors - remove the artifial immunity that is generally accepted by all agents of all organizations today. Imagine polticians held responsible for the demolition of Granny's home, or the illegal arrest of someone who looks and acts a bit different then the rest of us. Imagine CEOs held responsible for the dumping of chemicals into a river (regardless of whatever is permitted by a pro-pollution EPA). Don't you think that if CEOs and politicians were held accoutnable for their actions that they would assume far less power, reducing the capacity for destruction you criticize in government and corporations? This can be achieved without compromising libertarian philosophy.
I wonder if indeed the bill of rights pertains to corporations ... are there original sources to support this? I am not sure but the logic of affording corporations same status as physical persons seems faulty at best. On the one hand, a physical person is 100% free to the extent of the bill of rights, and100% liable for transgressions of law. A corproation is not 100% liable. A corporation can never attain the level of freedom enjoyed by an individual , since logically it can represent its constituent parts to a degree approaching but not 100% including the rights (and limitations) of those parts. (Power of attorney, agent) By recognizing the protections of free speech (and other fundamental rights) to the physical persons making it, but not the impersonal corporations through which they make it, we achieve accountability at a human level without abusing the rights of people themselves. FOr people are always able to act independently should the restrictions of the corporate entity not satisfy their needs. Imagine what this would mean in respect of campaign finance, environmental pollution, .... corporate responsibility in general. I say this as a hardcore libertarian: enforce the natural rights and obligations of people fully, but do NOT transfer them with the same breadth to limited liability, opaque corporations. I hold this to be a significantly more internally-logical position than granting these pseudo people the same rigthts and responsibilities of real people.