We need laws that criminalize the practice of Congress members accepting money

[editec]

"Property" doesn't have rights. People have the right to own property. Property rights ARE citizen rights. I'm not really sure how you're seing them in conflict.

A corporation is NOT a person...it is property

A corporation has rights according to the SCOTUS.

Is that a good place to start this disussion?

Sure. And I suppose what I start with is that it's only nominally the rights of "corporations" at issue. What we are really talking about are the rights of owners of corporations.

Good theory but it's wrong.

NOBODY owns many corporations because they are not-for-profits and those corporations DO have the right to buy poliitical ads according to the SCOTUS.

Who owns, for an example...the CATO insitute?

Do you think they are NOT involved in our poltical process?

I actually find legal personhood a questionable concept, but I don't think it enters the argument re Citizen's United.

You don't. That's interesting. Why not? Seems extrmel;y evident to me that it is the CRIX of the issue.

The question is whether people have a right to join forces and spend their money to influence politics. To say they don't has far-reaching consequences.

That's not a question, anymore....they do.

That's what CITIZENS UNITED ruling was all about.

 

[dblack]

NOBODY owns many corporations because they are not-for-profits and those corporations DO have the right to buy poliitical ads according to the SCOTUS.

Who owns, for an example...the CATO insitute?

Do you think they are NOT involved in our poltical process?

That's a worthwhile clarification. I stand corrected. Corporations aren't property, they're organizations comprised of people. In the case of incorporated businesses, these people share ownership of the business - but as you point out, there's not necessarily any property involved.

The question is whether people have a right to join forces and spend their money to influence politics. To say they don't has far-reaching consequences.

That's not a question, anymore....they do.

That's what CITIZENS UNITED ruling was all about.

Which is why I think it was, ultimately, the right decision.

 

[dblack]

That's better than what we have now. Now a policy isn't valid unless everybody agrees? It's just another reason why libertarians can't be taken seriously. If you go step by step through discussions like this, you end up at anarchy. No policy is is going to be universally accepted. Making that a principle inevitably leads to government not being able to do anything at all.

That's not what I said. It's not a claim libertarians make either. So stow the strawman. I was pointing out that democracy has it's downside. Ultimately, it does force the will of the majority on the minority. Which is why it should be limited to only circumstances where full conformity is necessary. We can't let people "go their own way" when it comes to acts of violence against others, for example. So we agree to abide by laws that the majority decides.

When such conformity isn't required, the majority (ie government) has no business bossing the rest of us around. It's not necessary, for example, to force everyone to finance their health care the same way, so we shouldn't. This is the key value that I think it missed when liberals assess the libertarian mindset. We take tolerance and diversity seriously, and find your lip service regarding them deeply hypocritical.

 

[nitroz]

Senators Who Voted To Protect Oil Tax Breaks Received $23,582,500 From Big Oil | ThinkProgress