An outstanding defense of Citizens United

[Rudy Canoza]

A dedication to free speech doesn't get much better than this.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcginnis-money-speech-liberals-20160522-snap-htmlstory.html

[Matt Singer]

On 5/20/2016 12:06 PM, nickname unavailable wrote:

> On 5/20/2016 9:51 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> A dedication to free speech doesn't get much better than this.
>>
>> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcginnis-money-speech-liberals-20160522-snap-htmlstory.html
>>
>

> That's really good.

Doesn't get any better!

[Witziges Rätsel]

Actually money isn't free speech. Money is valuable pieces of paper
and metal coins. Free speech is composed of words and sentences often
expressing opinions. Evidently rightwingers don't comprehend the difference.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

The argument seems to be that each time you try to make speech equal you
are abridging the freedom of speech for one party or the other. Because
freedom does NOT equal equality and equality does NOT guarantee freedom.

Equal has been adopted by the mantra of the Left (Liberals) in an effort
to use the constitution to limit freedom. The Liberals (from everything
I have seen) have a pure hatred for *FREEDOM* and the only way to
circumvent the constitution is to pretend that freedom and equality are
the same thing. That way they can limit freedoms in the name of equality
which in their mind is an acceptable loss since Liberals (Marxists) have
totalitarian tendencies and want a government to do the central planning
and social engineering for every aspect of life and that requires that
FREEDOM be abandoned as a constitutional tenet.

--
If Atheists demand scientific proof that GOD and Spaghetti Monsters
exist, why don't those same Atheists demand scientific proof that gayys
and Global Warming exist?

That's Karma

[Fred Brown]

"Witziges Rätsel" <z...@roer.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:nhnqaj$l2l$2...@dont-email.me...

Money is free speech, Dumbo. It takes money to propagate speech. You can
stand on a street corner and yell "Vote For Trump or Vote For Hillary" and
your
speech is only heard by a few near you. Print and distribute flyers, radio
and TV
messages saying the same thing reaches a wider audience, which takes MONEY.
The book and movie Clinton Cash investigating the foreign benefactors of
Bill and
Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation could only have been produced
with
money.

[Unknown]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> A dedication to free speech doesn't get much better than this.
>
> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcginnis-money-speech-liberals-20160522-snap-htmlstory.html
>

Here is some of what the author says:
The 1st Amendment’s text supports corporate speech: “Congress
shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.” As set
down by the framers, the right isn’t limited to particular
kinds of speakers but bans the government regulation of
speech...


This argument is from a collectivist busy promoting
collectivism.

If we assume the founders weren't brain dead
then it would seem free speech is limited
to those who actually are able to utter speech.

A corporation is an collective that
exists only because "We the people" allow
it to exist. Without the privileges and
immunities conferred by law to corporations
no corporations would be formed.

In response to the claim that
it has the same rights real people have, I say
let's abolish corporations and then we will
all see clearly what rights corporations have.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/20/2016 3:39 PM, scrotum lied:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> A dedication to free speech doesn't get much better than this.
>>
>> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcginnis-money-speech-liberals-20160522-snap-htmlstory.html
>>
>>
>
>
> Here is some of what the author says:
> The 1st Amendment’s text supports corporate speech: “Congress
> shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.” As set
> down by the framers, the right isn’t limited to particular
> kinds of speakers but bans the government regulation of
> speech...
>
>
> This argument is from a collectivist busy promoting
> collectivism.

No.

> If we assume the founders weren't brain dead
> then it would seem free speech is limited
> to those who actually are able to utter speech.

No.

[Just Wondering]

On 5/20/2016 4:39 PM, jim wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> A dedication to free speech doesn't get much better than this.
>>
>> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcginnis-money-speech-liberals-20160522-snap-htmlstory.html

> Here is some of what the author says:
> The 1st Amendment’s text supports corporate speech: “Congress
> shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.” As set
> down by the framers, the right isn’t limited to particular
> kinds of speakers but bans the government regulation of
> speech...
>
> This argument is from a collectivist busy promoting
> collectivism.
>

No it's not.

> If we assume the founders weren't brain dead
> then it would seem free speech is limited
> to those who actually are able to utter speech.
>
> A corporation is an collective that
> exists only because "We the people" allow
> it to exist. Without the privileges and
> immunities conferred by law to corporations
> no corporations would be formed.
>
> In response to the claim that
> it has the same rights real people have, I say
> let's abolish corporations and then we will
> all see clearly what rights corporations have.
>

You oversimplified. To clarify:
You as an individual have a right to free speech.
I as an individual have a right to free speech.
If we chose, we could unite and exercise our rights of free speech together.
We could do that as a two-person team.
IF we had a hundred people join us, we would still have the right.
There is no good reason we should lose that right if we exercise
it as a corporation.

[Unknown]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 5/20/2016 3:39 PM, scrotum lied:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> A dedication to free speech doesn't get much better than this.
>>>
>>> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcginnis-money-speech-liberals-20160522-snap-htmlstory.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Here is some of what the author says:
>> The 1st Amendment’s text supports corporate speech: “Congress
>> shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.” As set
>> down by the framers, the right isn’t limited to particular
>> kinds of speakers but bans the government regulation of
>> speech...
>>
>>
>> This argument is from a collectivist busy promoting
>> collectivism.
>
> No.

Is that the best you can do?

[Unknown]

Just Wondering wrote:
> On 5/20/2016 4:39 PM, jim wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> A dedication to free speech doesn't get much better than this.
>>>
>>> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcginnis-money-speech-liberals-20160522-snap-htmlstory.html
>>>
>
>> Here is some of what the author says:
>> The 1st Amendment’s text supports corporate speech: “Congress
>> shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.” As set
>> down by the framers, the right isn’t limited to particular
>> kinds of speakers but bans the government regulation of
>> speech...
>>
>> This argument is from a collectivist busy promoting
>> collectivism.
>>
> No it's not.

corporatism=collectivism

>
>> If we assume the founders weren't brain dead
>> then it would seem free speech is limited
>> to those who actually are able to utter speech.
>>
>> A corporation is an collective that
>> exists only because "We the people" allow
>> it to exist. Without the privileges and
>> immunities conferred by law to corporations
>> no corporations would be formed.
>>
>> In response to the claim that
>> it has the same rights real people have, I say
>> let's abolish corporations and then we will
>> all see clearly what rights corporations have.
>>
> You oversimplified. To clarify:
> You as an individual have a right to free speech.
> I as an individual have a right to free speech.
> If we chose, we could unite and exercise our rights of free speech
> together.

Do you mean sing in unison or a cacophony of
everyone talking at once? Nobody is talking about
taking away the right for people to unite to
express their opinion, but that isn't the reason
corporations are allowed to exist. Corporations are
a legal fiction created for a legitimate economic
purpose and it is reasonable to expect that they
stay within the bounds of the purpose for which
they were allowed to exist. The issue of whether
they have rights to speech is moot if they are not
given the privileges and immunities which allowed
them to exist.

> We could do that as a two-person team.
> IF we had a hundred people join us, we would still have the right.

And you say this is not collectivism????

All of that ignores the fact we can pass law to
abolish the privilege extended to corporations. And
without those privileges they would not
exist as powerful entities with lots of
money to bribe politicians. Problem solved.

[jane.playne]

.

Do you think all businesses should be sole proprietorships???

If the business of your sole proprietorship was extraction of petroleum
in the Bering Straits, how are you going to finance it???

[Just Wondering]

On 5/20/2016 5:42 PM, jim wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 5/20/2016 4:39 PM, jim wrote:
>>
>>> Here is some of what the author says:
>>> The 1st Amendment’s text supports corporate speech: “Congress
>>> shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.” As set
>>> down by the framers, the right isn’t limited to particular
>>> kinds of speakers but bans the government regulation of
>>> speech...
>>>
>>> This argument is from a collectivist busy promoting
>>> collectivism.
>>>
>> No it's not.
>
> corporatism=collectivism
>

How old are you? I ask, because that's a silly falsehood that
no one with a decent junior high school education would say.

>>
>>> If we assume the founders weren't brain dead
>>> then it would seem free speech is limited
>>> to those who actually are able to utter speech.
>>>
>>> A corporation is an collective that
>>> exists only because "We the people" allow
>>> it to exist. Without the privileges and
>>> immunities conferred by law to corporations
>>> no corporations would be formed.
>>>
>>> In response to the claim that
>>> it has the same rights real people have, I say
>>> let's abolish corporations and then we will
>>> all see clearly what rights corporations have.
>>>
>> You oversimplified. To clarify:
>> You as an individual have a right to free speech.
>> I as an individual have a right to free speech.
>> If we chose, we could unite and exercise our rights of free speech
>> together.
>
> Do you mean sing in unison or a cacophony of
> everyone talking at once?
>

It makes no difference, either way it's people exercising their right to
free speech.

> Nobody is talking about
> taking away the right for people to unite to
> express their opinion, but that isn't the reason
> corporations are allowed to exist.
>

First, that irrelevant, but some corporations are indeed created for
that very purpose.

> Corporations are
> a legal fiction created for a legitimate economic
> purpose and it is reasonable to expect that they
> stay within the bounds of the purpose for which
> they were allowed to exist. The issue of whether
> they have rights to speech is moot if they are not
> given the privileges and immunities which allowed
> them to exist.
>

More irrelevant mental masterbation.

>
>> We could do that as a two-person team.
>> IF we had a hundred people join us, we would still have the right.
>
> And you say this is not collectivism????
>

No it's not, because it is coordinated private activity that occurs
outside of government. You really need to look up what collectivism
means. Hint: It doesn't mean a group of private individuals acting
together.

[Unknown]

jane.playne wrote:
>> And you say this is not collectivism????
>>
>> All of that ignores the fact we can pass law to
>> abolish the privilege extended to corporations. And
>> without those privileges they would not
>> exist as powerful entities with lots of
>> money to bribe politicians. Problem solved.
>>
>>
> .
>
> Do you think all businesses should be sole proprietorships???

I think businesses that are chartered as
a legal fiction should do the things that
they are chartered 6to do and not anything.
If they don't get that then the charter should
be revoked. It's like your license to drive.
Its a privilege that can be revoked.

[Unknown]

Just Wondering wrote:
> You really need to look up what collectivism means. Hint: It doesn't
> mean a group of private individuals acting together.
>

That's exactly what collective means. For instance
a flock of birds is a collective.

[Kevrob]

I'm as libertarian as they come, and I don't think there's
anything anti-liberty about a truly _voluntary_ collective.

You do know that political parties in the US organize
as non-profit corporations, don't you? Specifically:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/527_organization

Kevin R

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/20/2016 4:30 PM, scrotum lied:

It was far more than was needed.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/20/2016 7:09 PM, scrotum lied:

> Just Wondering wrote:
>> You really need to look up what collectivism means. Hint: It doesn't
>> mean a group of private individuals acting together.
>>
>
> That's exactly what collective means.

No, that's not what it means at all, scrotum.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/20/2016 4:42 PM, jim wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 5/20/2016 4:39 PM, jim wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> A dedication to free speech doesn't get much better than this.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcginnis-money-speech-liberals-20160522-snap-htmlstory.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>> Here is some of what the author says:
>>> The 1st Amendment’s text supports corporate speech: “Congress
>>> shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.” As set
>>> down by the framers, the right isn’t limited to particular
>>> kinds of speakers but bans the government regulation of
>>> speech...
>>>
>>> This argument is from a collectivist busy promoting
>>> collectivism.
>>>
>> No it's not.
>
> corporatism=

No such thing.

[Just Wondering]

On 5/20/2016 7:02 PM, jim wrote:
> jane.playne wrote:
>>> ... we can pass law to abolish the privilege extended

>>> to corporations. And without those privileges they
>>> would not exist as powerful entities with lots of
>>> money to bribe politicians. Problem solved.
>>

>> Do you think all businesses should be sole proprietorships???
>
> I think businesses that are chartered as a legal fiction
>

What businesses are those? I ask, because A corporation
most assuredly is a legal reality, not a legal fiction.

> should do the things that they are chartered to do
> and not anything else.
>
Most Articles of Incorporation say something along the
lines of "The corporation is authorized to perform all
lawful acts, activities and pursuits for which a
corporation may be organized ..." With a charter
like that, what activities do you think your idea
would limit?

[Just Wondering]

The word is "collectivism", not "collective". Since
you apparently don't know how to perform an internet
search, I'll give you a hand.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collectivism
a political or economic theory advocating collective
control especially over production and distribution;
also a system marked by such control

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/collectivism
Collectivism is a political theory associated with communism.
More broadly, it is the idea that people should prioritize
the good of society over the welfare of the individual.
Collectivism .. has to do with political theories that put
the group before the individual. In a collectivist system,
power should be in the hands of the people as a whole, not
in the hands of a few powerful folks. Collectivism is the
opposite of individualism. Ideally, in a collectivist society, decisions
benefit all the people. This is a difficult idea to
put into practice, as seen in the attempted collectivist society
of Soviet communism.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/collectivism.html
Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group—whether
to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man
must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake
of what is called “the common good.”
Collectivism holds that, in human affairs, the collective—society,
the community, the nation, the proletariat, the race, etc.—is the
unit of reality and the standard of value. On this view, the
individual has reality only as part of the group, and value
only insofar as he serves it.
Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his
life and work belong to the group . . . and that the group may
sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way
to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force—
and statism has always been the political corollary of collectivism.
Fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs
fighting over the same territory . . . both are variants of statism,
based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of
the state.
Modern collectivists . . . see society as a super-organism, as some
supernatural entity apart from and superior to the sum of its individual
members.



:) :) :) :)
BTW a group of crows is called a murder. Then there is a brood of
chickens, a gaggle of geese, a rookery of albatross, a bellowing of
bullfinches, a wake of buzzards, a mob of emus, a cast of falcons, a
charm of finches, a scold of jays, a watch of nightingales, a parliament
of owls, an ostentation of peacocks, an unkindness of ravens, a fling of
sandpipers, an exultation of skylarks, a host of sparrows, a muster of
storks, a flight of swallows, a mutation of thrush, a descent of
woodpeckers, a herd of wrens. Not a collective in the lot.

[Unknown]

Just Wondering wrote:
> economic theory advocating collective
> control especially over production and distribution;
> also a system marked by such control

That is the theory that underpins the creation
of corporations.

[Unknown]

Just Wondering wrote:
> On 5/20/2016 8:09 PM, jim wrote:
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> You really need to look up what collectivism means.
> >> Hint: It doesn't mean a group of private
> >> individuals acting together.
>>
>> That's exactly what collective means. For instance
>> a flock of birds is a collective.
> >

> The word is "collectivism", not "collective".

Collectivism is derived from collective.

Flocking birds are collectivists and
birds that fly alone are not.

[Unknown]

Just Wondering wrote:
> On 5/20/2016 7:02 PM, jim wrote:
>> jane.playne wrote:
>>>> ... we can pass law to abolish the privilege extended
>>>> to corporations. And without those privileges they
>>>> would not exist as powerful entities with lots of
>>>> money to bribe politicians. Problem solved.
>>>
>>> Do you think all businesses should be sole proprietorships???
>>
>> I think businesses that are chartered as a legal fiction
> >
> What businesses are those?

That would be Corporations.
The fiction contained in the law is that
corporations are persons. It is
easy to see that this is a fiction because
real persons have a right to life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness while
corporations clearly do not.
Corporations are put to death all the time
for simply owing more to others than they
owe. That can only happen to fictional persons.



.

[Kevrob]

Collective is a word, too.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collective

Try a "collective of communists."

Are you aware that the coterie of intellectuals who regularly
met with Ayn Rand ironically dubbed themselves "the Collective?"

Collective is usually used, non-ironically, by socialists and
communists for some of their communal organizations. So, since
doctrinaire marxist communists are atheists, all the irreligious
on aa must be marxists, the trolls "think." Notable atheist
proponents of the free market, like Rand, go straight into the
memory hole. I'm a political libertarian and an atheist, and
the trolls can't grok the existence of a non-statist like me
in this context.

There's a "religious left" as well as a religious right, I recall.
They pull the old "Jesus was radically in favor of the poor,
so adopt this stupid statist idea" frequently. That the
New Testament never calls believers to take control of the reins
of the state bothers them not. Find the Jesus quote that means
"go and BE Caesar!" It ain't there.

Aside from an irreligious mindset, non-trollish participants in
this group disagree about a lot. There is no "collective."

Another iteration of TINC?*

Kevin R

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_Is_No_Cabal

[Unknown]

You are Rudy so of course that has to be
a lie.

corporatism is collectivism

Capitalism has been wrecked by corporatism.
True capitalism would reward entrepreneurs while
corporatism seeks to enslave them and
if it can't succeed at that, destroy them.

[Fred Brown]

"jim" <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m...@mwt.net"> wrote in message
news:nho779$317$1...@dont-email.me...

Wrong. Citizens United can still exist without corporate protection.
There is nothing to prevent a group of people banding together to
combine their money and spend it advocating for or against a political
candidate.
Incorporating only gives Citizens the same legal protections that any
other corporation enjoys.

[Unknown]

Fred Brown wrote:
>>
>> All of that ignores the fact we can pass law to
>> abolish the privilege extended to corporations. And
>> without those privileges they would not
>> exist as powerful entities with lots of
>> money to bribe politicians. Problem solved.
>
> Wrong. Citizens United can still exist without corporate protection.

Sure but that still ignores the reality that the Corporations
won't exist without the state conferring privileges
and immunities that the state has no obligation to give.

You might recall that the Boston tea party was a
not rebellion against the govt of England - it
was a rebellion against corporatism.
The govt of England only got involved to use
its powers for draconian retaliation against all
of Boston in aid to a corporation until Boston
repaid the corporation for its losses.

At that point it became clear to the colonist
that they were doomed to be ruled by corporatism
unless they made a break with England.

As a consequence of the corporate abuses in the colonies
corporate power was greatly curtailed in the early
years of the United States. It took corporations 200
years to slowly build their power back to the level that
existed before the revolution.

[Governor Swill]

If the corporation had been formed for the purpose of exercising free
speech.

Swill
--
S. E. Cupp has characterized Trump as wearing the Republican party
like a rented tuxedo. When the prom is over, it's going to end up on
the floor with the liquor stains and cigarette butts.

[Governor Swill]

On Fri, 20 May 2016 20:31:44 -0400, "jane.playne" wrote:
>On 5/20/2016 7:42 PM, jim wrote:
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> You as an individual have a right to free speech.
>>> I as an individual have a right to free speech.
>>> If we chose, we could unite and exercise our rights of free speech
>>> together.

>>> We could do that as a two-person team.
>>> IF we had a hundred people join us, we would still have the right.
>>
>> And you say this is not collectivism????

No, it isn't, unless you consider GE a communist entity.

>> All of that ignores the fact we can pass law to
>> abolish the privilege extended to corporations. And
>> without those privileges they would not
>> exist as powerful entities with lots of
>> money to bribe politicians. Problem solved.

>Do you think all businesses should be sole proprietorships???
>
>If the business of your sole proprietorship was extraction of petroleum
>in the Bering Straits, how are you going to finance it???

By bribing politicians?

[Governor Swill]

There's more than one definition of "collective". Since we're
discussing political issues, the *political* definition of
collectivism should apply.

"a political or economic theory advocating collective control
especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked
by such control"

The other definition of "collectivism" being used in the thread means
something rather different.

"a political or economic system in which the government owns
businesses, land, etc."

If you guys want to keep cutting each other up over what "is" is, be
my guest. But if you want to effectively discuss anything, make sure
you're both speaking the same language.

[Unknown]

Governor Swill wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2016 20:31:44 -0400, "jane.playne" wrote:
>> >On 5/20/2016 7:42 PM, jim wrote:
>>> >>Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> >>>You as an individual have a right to free speech.
>>>> >>>I as an individual have a right to free speech.
>>>> >>>If we chose, we could unite and exercise our rights of free speech
>>>> >>>together.
>>>> >>>We could do that as a two-person team.
>>>> >>>IF we had a hundred people join us, we would still have the right.
>>> >>
>>> >>And you say this is not collectivism????

> No, it isn't, unless you consider GE a communist entity.
>

What has communist have to do with it?
Corporations are one form of collectivism,
but not the only form.

[Witziges Rätsel]

On 5/20/2016 6:15 PM, Fred Brown wrote:
>
> "Witziges Rätsel" <z...@roer.invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:nhnqaj$l2l$2...@dont-email.me...
>> On 5/20/2016 3:07 PM, Matt Singer wrote:
>>> On 5/20/2016 12:06 PM, nickname unavailable wrote:

>>>> On 5/20/2016 9:51 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> A dedication to free speech doesn't get much better than this.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcginnis-money-speech-liberals-20160522-snap-htmlstory.html
>>>>>
>>>>

>>>> That's really good.
>>>
>>> Doesn't get any better!
>>>
>> Actually money isn't free speech. Money is valuable pieces of paper
>> and metal coins. Free speech is composed of words and sentences often
>> expressing opinions. Evidently rightwingers don't comprehend the
>> difference.
>
> Money is free speech, Dumbo. It takes money to propagate speech. You can
> stand on a street corner and yell "Vote For Trump or Vote For Hillary"
> and your
> speech is only heard by a few near you. Print and distribute flyers,
> radio and TV
> messages saying the same thing reaches a wider audience, which takes MONEY.
> The book and movie Clinton Cash investigating the foreign benefactors of
> Bill and
> Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation could only have been produced
> with
> money.
>
You've offered proof of my point. You're evidently a rightwinger.

[Unknown]

http://images.dailykos.com/images/77960/large/collectivists720.png?1397493969

[Governor Swill]

col·lec·tive
adjective 1. done by people acting as a group. "a collective protest"
noun 1. a cooperative enterprise.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=collective+definition

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

On 05/21/2016 10:47 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
> No, it isn't, unless you consider GE a communist entity.

They're probably more fascist than communist but they are more
interested in using the government than they are competing for business.

Obama is their Marxist pal.

--
If Atheists demand scientific proof that GOD and Spaghetti Monsters
exist, why don't those same Atheists demand scientific proof that gayys
and Global Warming exist?

That's Karma

[Governor Swill]

You guys are using a word with multiple meanings and deliberately
misunderstanding just for the pleasure of pissing at each other.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

On 05/21/2016 10:44 AM, jim wrote:
> Sure but that still ignores the reality that the Corporations
> won't exist without the state conferring privileges
> and immunities that the state has no obligation to give.

And no constitutional powers to give, in many cases.

[Governor Swill]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 10:01:50 -0400, "Fred Brown" wrote:
>Wrong. Citizens United can still exist without corporate protection.
>There is nothing to prevent a group of people banding together to
>combine their money and spend it advocating for or against a political
>candidate.
>Incorporating only gives Citizens the same legal protections that any
>other corporation enjoys.

Correct. Corporate personhood has a decades long history of
definition by courts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

The two concepts are often confused because CU dealt with the rights
and limitations on corporate spending for political purposes. CU
*does not* define corporations as persons - it relies on legal
precedent to assume it and proceeds from that assumption.

[Unknown]

Governor Swill wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2016 21:09:33 -0500, jim wrote:
>
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> You really need to look up what collectivism means. Hint: It doesn't
>>> mean a group of private individuals acting together.
>>>
>>
>> That's exactly what collective means. For instance
>> a flock of birds is a collective.
>
> There's more than one definition of "collective". Since we're
> discussing political issues, the *political* definition of
> collectivism should apply.
>
> "a political or economic theory advocating collective control
> especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked
> by such control"
>

Sounds exactly like the theory behind corporatism.

> The other definition of "collectivism" being used in the thread means
> something rather different.
>
> "a political or economic system in which the government owns
> businesses, land, etc."

All definitions would contain the meaning
that the participants are collectively joined
for a common purpose. That's pretty unlikely
for the above definition.

That definition better describes a feudal arrangement
or dictatorship or monarchy if it refers to a national
govt.

If you are talking about a small band of
people stranded on a deserted island then yes
collectivism may well be the chosen political
and economic arrangement.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/21/2016 3:48 AM, scrotum lied:

Wrong.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/20/2016 7:09 PM, scrotum lied:

> Just Wondering wrote:
>> You really need to look up what collectivism means. Hint: It doesn't
>> mean a group of private individuals acting together.
>>
>
> That's exactly what collective means. For instance
> a flock of birds is a collective.

Complete bullshit. The flock has no interests. Only the individual
birds have interests. Those interests are met by forming into a flock.

Fuck, you're stupid.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/21/2016 5:53 AM, scrotum lied:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 5/20/2016 4:42 PM, scrotum lied:
>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 5/20/2016 4:39 PM, scrotum lied:

>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> A dedication to free speech doesn't get much better than this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcginnis-money-speech-liberals-20160522-snap-htmlstory.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Here is some of what the author says:
>>>>> The 1st Amendment’s text supports corporate speech: “Congress
>>>>> shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.” As set
>>>>> down by the framers, the right isn’t limited to particular
>>>>> kinds of speakers but bans the government regulation of
>>>>> speech...
>>>>>
>>>>> This argument is from a collectivist busy promoting
>>>>> collectivism.
>>>>>
>>>> No it's not.
>>>
>>> corporatism=
>>
>> No such thing.
>
> You are Rudy so

so I told the truth.

> corporatism is collectivism

No such thing as "corporatism." That's just another proggie ACORN
swearword.

Fuck, you're stupid.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/21/2016 7:01 AM, Fred Brown wrote:
>
> scrotum lied:
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 5/20/2016 4:39 PM, scrotum lied:

Exactly. Citizens United has nothing directly to do with corporations.
The bad and wrong law that it overturned had its worst effect on rich
individuals, unions and other entities that are not business corporations.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 09:42:38 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

Fuck but you're ignorant, Rudy!

But we knew that!

http://www.britannica.com/topic/corporatism

Corporatism, also called corporativism, the theory and practice of
organizing society into “corporations” subordinate to the state.
According to corporatist theory, workers and employers would be
organized into industrial and professional corporations serving as
organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent
the persons and activities within their jurisdiction. However, as the
“corporate state” was put into effect in fascist Italy between World
Wars I and II, it reflected the will of the country’s dictator, Benito
Mussolini, rather than the adjusted interests of economic groups.

Although the corporate idea was intimated in the congregationalism of
colonial Puritan New England and in mercantilism, its earliest
theoretical expression did not appear until after the French
Revolution (1789) and was strongest in eastern Germany and Austria.

That was a little bit BEFORE ACORN, you ignorant fuck.

LOL

You're dismissed.

[Unknown]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 5/20/2016 7:09 PM, scrotum lied:
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> You really need to look up what collectivism means. Hint: It doesn't
>>> mean a group of private individuals acting together.
>>>
>>
>> That's exactly what collective means. For instance
>> a flock of birds is a collective.
>
> Complete bullshit. The flock has no interests.

I suppose you think you are an expert on this because
you are a bird-brain.

[Unknown]

Rudy Canoza wrote:

>>>>
>>>> corporatism=
>>>
>>> No such thing.
>>
>> You are Rudy so
>
> so I told the truth.
>
>> corporatism is collectivism
>
> No such thing as "corporatism."

Ron Paul says you are wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDGs9HKFY_M

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/21/2016 8:47 AM, scrotum lied:
> Governor Swill wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 May 2016 21:09:33 -0500, scrotum lied:

>>
>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> You really need to look up what collectivism means. Hint: It doesn't
>>>> mean a group of private individuals acting together.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's exactly what collective means. For instance
>>> a flock of birds is a collective.
>>
>> There's more than one definition of "collective". Since we're
>> discussing political issues, the *political* definition of
>> collectivism should apply.
>>
>> "a political or economic theory advocating collective control
>> especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked
>> by such control"
>>
>
> Sounds exactly like the theory behind corporatism.

There's no such thing as "corporatism", scrotum.

It also doesn't sound like the theory behind incorporation.

>
>> The other definition of "collectivism" being used in the thread means
>> something rather different.
>>
>> "a political or economic system in which the government owns
>> businesses, land, etc."
> All definitions would contain the meaning
> that the participants are collectively joined
> for a common purpose.

No.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/21/2016 8:05 AM, scrotum lied:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 5/20/2016 7:09 PM, scrotum lied:
>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> You really need to look up what collectivism means. Hint: It doesn't
>>>> mean a group of private individuals acting together.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's exactly what collective means.
>>
>> No, that's not what it means at all, scrotum.
>>
>
> http://images.dailykos.com/

<yawn>

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/21/2016 8:02 AM, scrotum lied:

> Governor Swill wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 May 2016 20:31:44 -0400, "jane.playne" wrote:

>>> >On 5/20/2016 7:42 PM, scrotum lied:

>>>> >>Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> >>>You as an individual have a right to free speech.
>>>>> >>>I as an individual have a right to free speech.
>>>>> >>>If we chose, we could unite and exercise our rights of free speech
>>>>> >>>together.
>>>>> >>>We could do that as a two-person team.
>>>>> >>>IF we had a hundred people join us, we would still have the right.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>And you say this is not collectivism????
>
>> No, it isn't, unless you consider GE a communist entity.
>>
>
> What has communist have to do with it?
> Corporations are one form of collectivism,

No, they are not.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/21/2016 7:44 AM, scrotum lied:

> Fred Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> All of that ignores the fact we can pass law to
>>> abolish the privilege extended to corporations. And
>>> without those privileges they would not
>>> exist as powerful entities with lots of
>>> money to bribe politicians. Problem solved.
>>
>> Wrong. Citizens United can still exist without corporate protection.
>
> Sure but that still ignores the reality that the Corporations
> won't exist without the state conferring privileges
> and immunities that the state has no obligation to give.

No one ever said there was an "obligation" to give it, scrotum.

Fuck, you're stupid.

[Rudy Canoza]

> http://www.britannica.com/topic/corporatism

Irrelevant. scrotum is using "corporatism" incorrectly, as a shorthand
for the legal phenomenon of incorporation. It's wrong, and you're
stupid, as usual.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/21/2016 10:17 AM, scrotum lied:

Because I am.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/21/2016 10:24 AM, scrotum lied:

> On 5/21/2016 9:42 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 5/21/2016 5:53 AM, scrotum lied:
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 5/20/2016 4:42 PM, scrotum lied:
>>>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/20/2016 4:39 PM, scrotum lied:
>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> A dedication to free speech doesn't get much better than this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcginnis-money-speech-liberals-20160522-snap-htmlstory.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is some of what the author says:
>>>>>>> The 1st Amendment’s text supports corporate speech: “Congress
>>>>>>> shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.” As set
>>>>>>> down by the framers, the right isn’t limited to particular
>>>>>>> kinds of speakers but bans the government regulation of
>>>>>>> speech...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This argument is from a collectivist busy promoting
>>>>>>> collectivism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it's not.
>>>>>

>>>>> corporatism=
>>>>
>>>> No such thing.
>>>
>>> You are Rudy so
>>
>> so I told the truth.
>>
>>> corporatism is collectivism
>>

>> No such thing as "corporatism." That's just another proggie ACORN
>> swearword.
>>
>> Fuck, you're stupid.
>

> Ron Paul says you are wrong

No, he doesn't.

Corporations are not collectives.

[Unknown]

> Because I am a bird brain.
>

Ha Ha ha

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/21/2016 11:33 AM, scrotum lied:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 5/21/2016 10:17 AM, scrotum lied:
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 5/20/2016 7:09 PM, scrotum lied:
>>>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>> You really need to look up what collectivism means. Hint: It
>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>> mean a group of private individuals acting together.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's exactly what collective means. For instance
>>>>> a flock of birds is a collective.
>>>>
>>>> Complete bullshit. The flock has no interests.
>>>
>>> I suppose you think you are an expert on this because
>>

>> Because I am.
>>
>
> I don't know anything about the definition or meaning of collective.
>

We know.

[Ted&Alice]

You just admitted defeat, little jimmy-boi (but of course you're too dumb
to realize it).

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 10:38:37 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
lied:

>>Fuck but you're ignorant, Rudy!
>>
>>But we knew that!
>>
>>http://www.britannica.com/topic/corporatism
>>
>>Corporatism, also called corporativism, the theory and practice of
>>organizing society into “corporations” subordinate to the state.
>>According to corporatist theory, workers and employers would be
>>organized into industrial and professional corporations serving as
>>organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent
>>the persons and activities within their jurisdiction. However, as the
>>“corporate state” was put into effect in fascist Italy between World
>>Wars I and II, it reflected the will of the country’s dictator, Benito
>>Mussolini, rather than the adjusted interests of economic groups.
>>
>>Although the corporate idea was intimated in the congregationalism of
>>colonial Puritan New England and in mercantilism, its earliest
>>theoretical expression did not appear until after the French
>>Revolution (1789) and was strongest in eastern Germany and Austria.
>>
>>That was a little bit BEFORE ACORN, you ignorant fuck.
>>
>>LOL
>>
>>You're dismissed.

>Irrelevant.

No. You claimed

>>>No such thing as "corporatism."

You were wrong.

You claimed

>>>That's just another proggie ACORN swearword.

You were wrong again.

You had no idea what it ever WAS until I provided you with the
definition.

It's ALWAYS funny when you accuse someone of being "stupid" when you
are one of the most ignorant fucks-- if not THE most ignorant fuck--
ever to sit in front of a keyboard.

You're now dismissed, boy.

[chuckle]

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/21/2016 11:51 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

> On 5/21/2016 10:38 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 5/21/2016 9:46 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>> http://www.britannica.com/topic/corporatism
>>
>> Irrelevant. scrotum is using "corporatism" incorrectly, as a shorthand
>> for the legal phenomenon of incorporation. It's wrong, and you're
>> stupid, as usual.
>>
>

> No. You claimed

Correctly.

Fuck, you're stupid.

[chuckle]

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 12:46:41 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

>>On Sat, 21 May 2016 10:38:37 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
>>lied:
>>

>>>>Fuck but you're ignorant, Rudy!
>>>>
>>>>But we knew that!
>>>>
>>>>http://www.britannica.com/topic/corporatism
>>>>
>>>>Corporatism, also called corporativism, the theory and practice of
>>>>organizing society into “corporations” subordinate to the state.
>>>>According to corporatist theory, workers and employers would be
>>>>organized into industrial and professional corporations serving as
>>>>organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent
>>>>the persons and activities within their jurisdiction. However, as the
>>>>“corporate state” was put into effect in fascist Italy between World
>>>>Wars I and II, it reflected the will of the country’s dictator, Benito
>>>>Mussolini, rather than the adjusted interests of economic groups.
>>>>
>>>>Although the corporate idea was intimated in the congregationalism of
>>>>colonial Puritan New England and in mercantilism, its earliest
>>>>theoretical expression did not appear until after the French
>>>>Revolution (1789) and was strongest in eastern Germany and Austria.
>>>>
>>>>That was a little bit BEFORE ACORN, you ignorant fuck.
>>>>
>>>>LOL
>>>>
>>>>You're dismissed.
>>
>>>Irrelevant.
>>
>>No. You claimed
>>

>>>>>No such thing as "corporatism."
>>

>>You were wrong.
>
>
>
[crickets.wav] (© 2015 All Rights Reserved)
>
>
>

Caught you lying again.

NEXT!

>>You claimed

>>
>>>>>That's just another proggie ACORN swearword.
>>

>>You were wrong again.
>
>
>
[crickets.wav] (© 2015 All Rights Reserved)
>
>
>

Caught you lying again.

>>You had no idea what it ever WAS until I provided you with the
>>definition.
>>
>>It's ALWAYS funny when you accuse someone of being "stupid" when you
>>are one of the most ignorant fucks-- if not THE most ignorant fuck--
>>ever to sit in front of a keyboard.
>>
>>You're now dismissed, boy.
>>
>>[chuckle]

>> No. You claimed
>
>Correctly.

LOL

You were not correct. You were wrong, as I proved.

All you can do now is bleat in your astounding ignorance. But at least
you learned something today.

Don't waste it.

[Rudy Canoza]

Right, as always.

[chuckle]

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 13:16:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

> No. You claimed

>> No such thing as "corporatism."

And you were wrong, as I proved.

Suck it up, little man.

[chuckle]

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/21/2016 1:23 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Sat, 21 May 2016 13:16:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
> wrote:
>
>> No.

And you were wrong, as I proved.

[chuckle]

[Rudy dances the fagged kleine klauschen around by the scruff of his
neck again]

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 13:37:33 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

You claimed

> No such thing as "corporatism."

And you were wrong, as I proved.

Message-ID: <e341kbd85jjoqm6mj...@4ax.com>

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 12:24:08 -0500, jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m...@mwt.net">
wrote:

Everyone says Rudy is wrong.

[chuckle]

Rudy claimed

> No such thing as "corporatism."

And he was wrong, as I proved.
Message-ID: <e341kbd85jjoqm6mj...@4ax.com>

Suck it up, Rudolph!

[chuckle]

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/21/2016 1:41 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude lied:

[lies]

You lose again.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/21/2016 2:00 PM, fat activist, zoophilliac, pedophile coprophiliac
- because he's fucking *FAT*, likes to fuck animals and small children,
and eat shit - kleine klauschen, wearing soiled short pants, squeaked:
> On Sat, 21 May 2016 12:24:08 -0500, scrotum lied:

>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> corporatism=
>>>>>
>>>>> No such thing.
>>>>
>>>> You are Rudy so
>>>
>>> so I told the truth.
>>>
>>>> corporatism is collectivism
>>>
>>> No such thing as "corporatism."
>>
>> Ron Paul says you are wrong
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDGs9HKFY_M
>>
>>

> Everyone says Rudy kicks my ass.

They're right, too!

[chuckle]

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 14:06:32 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 14:07:41 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:
You claimed

> No such thing as "corporatism."

And you were wrong, as I proved.
Message-ID: <e341kbd85jjoqm6mj...@4ax.com>
Suck it up, little man.

[chuckle]

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/21/2016 2:14 PM, fat activist, zoophilliac, pedophile coprophiliac

- because he's fucking *FAT*, likes to fuck animals and small children,
and eat shit - kleine klauschen, wearing soiled short pants, squeaked:

> [bullshit]

No.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/21/2016 2:14 PM, fat activist, zoophilliac, pedophile coprophiliac

- because he's fucking *FAT*, likes to fuck animals and small children,
and eat shit - kleine klauschen, wearing soiled short pants, squeaked:

> [bullshit]

No.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 14:18:04 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 14:18:23 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>

[Rudy Canoza]

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/21/2016 2:14 PM, fat activist, zoophilliac, pedophile coprophiliac

- because he's fucking *FAT*, likes to fuck animals and small children,
and eat shit - kleine klauschen, wearing soiled short pants, squeaked:

> [bullshit]

No.

[Rudy Canoza]

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/21/2016 2:14 PM, fat activist, zoophilliac, pedophile coprophiliac

- because he's fucking *FAT*, likes to fuck animals and small children,
and eat shit - kleine klauschen, wearing soiled short pants, squeaked:

> [bullshit]

No.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/21/2016 2:14 PM, fat activist, zoophilliac, pedophile coprophiliac

- because he's fucking *FAT*, likes to fuck animals and small children,
and eat shit - kleine klauschen, wearing soiled short pants, squeaked:

> [bullshit]

No.

[Rudy Canoza]

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 10:43:14 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

>On 5/21/2016 10:24 AM, scrotum lied:
>> On 5/21/2016 9:42 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 5/21/2016 5:53 AM, scrotum lied:

>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 5/20/2016 4:42 PM, scrotum lied:
>>>>>> Just Wondering wrote:

>>>>>>> On 5/20/2016 4:39 PM, scrotum lied:

>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>> A dedication to free speech doesn't get much better than this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcginnis-money-speech-liberals-20160522-snap-htmlstory.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here is some of what the author says:
>>>>>>>> The 1st Amendment’s text supports corporate speech: “Congress
>>>>>>>> shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.” As set
>>>>>>>> down by the framers, the right isn’t limited to particular
>>>>>>>> kinds of speakers but bans the government regulation of
>>>>>>>> speech...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This argument is from a collectivist busy promoting
>>>>>>>> collectivism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No it's not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> corporatism=
>>>>>
>>>>> No such thing.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 10:38:37 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/21/2016 2:14 PM, fat activist, zoophilliac, pedophile coprophiliac

- because he's fucking *FAT*, likes to fuck animals and small children,
and eat shit - kleine klauschen, wearing soiled short pants, squeaked:

> [bullshit]

No.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/21/2016 2:14 PM, fat activist, zoophilliac, pedophile coprophiliac

- because he's fucking *FAT*, likes to fuck animals and small children,
and eat shit - kleine klauschen, wearing soiled short pants, squeaked:

> [bullshit]

No.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/21/2016 2:14 PM, fat activist, zoophilliac, pedophile coprophiliac

- because he's fucking *FAT*, likes to fuck animals and small children,
and eat shit - kleine klauschen, wearing soiled short pants, squeaked:

> [bullshit]

No.

[Rudy Canoza]

[Rudy Canoza]

[Rudy Canoza]

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 13:37:33 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

You claimed

> No such thing as "corporatism."

And you were wrong, as I proved.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 14:55:33 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>

[Alex W.]

On 21/05/2016 22:18, jim wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:

>> On 5/20/2016 7:02 PM, jim wrote:
>>> jane.playne wrote:
>>>>> ... we can pass law to abolish the privilege extended
>>>>> to corporations. And without those privileges they
>>>>> would not exist as powerful entities with lots of
>>>>> money to bribe politicians. Problem solved.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think all businesses should be sole proprietorships???
>>>
>>> I think businesses that are chartered as a legal fiction
>> >
>> What businesses are those?
>
> That would be Corporations.
> The fiction contained in the law is that
> corporations are persons. It is
> easy to see that this is a fiction because
> real persons have a right to life, liberty
> and the pursuit of happiness while
> corporations clearly do not.
> Corporations are put to death all the time
> for simply owing more to others than they
> owe. That can only happen to fictional persons.
>

Just to note: "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is part of
the Declaration of Independence and not part of the body of law of the
United States.

Secondly, to note: debt bondage where a person might hand themselves and
other members of their family into slavery to pay off a debt and hence
forfeit any claims to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a
most ancient concept that does persist to this day. So this is not an
absolute characteristic distinguishing a real from a legal person.

[Rudy Canoza]

[Rudy Canoza]

[Rudy Canoza]

[Rudy Canoza]

[Rudy Canoza]

[Rudy Canoza]

[Rudy Canoza]

[Alex W.]

On 22/05/2016 03:36, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 5/21/2016 8:02 AM, scrotum lied:
>> Governor Swill wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 May 2016 20:31:44 -0400, "jane.playne" wrote:
>>>> >On 5/20/2016 7:42 PM, scrotum lied:
>>>>> >>Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>> >>>You as an individual have a right to free speech.
>>>>>> >>>I as an individual have a right to free speech.
>>>>>> >>>If we chose, we could unite and exercise our rights of free speech
>>>>>> >>>together.
>>>>>> >>>We could do that as a two-person team.
>>>>>> >>>IF we had a hundred people join us, we would still have the right.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>And you say this is not collectivism????
>>
>>> No, it isn't, unless you consider GE a communist entity.
>>>
>>
>> What has communist have to do with it?
>> Corporations are one form of collectivism,
>
> No, they are not.
>

Not necessarily, but they can be.

If a million individuals pool resources by investing their money in
shares in a corporation, they form a collective for the specific purpose
of increasing their wealth. Even more so as the individual investor
only has a say in direct correlation to the level of investment which or
the vast majority of retail investors means no influence at all.

[Rudy Canoza]

Debt bondage resulting in slavery is, of course, prohibited in the 13th
amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Be all that as it may, corporations are not a form of collectivism.
It's a form of business organization that provides limitations on
liability for the investors in the firm and, if the corporation has
publicly traded shares, the ability to sell one's ownership interest.
It has nothing to do with collectivism in any way.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/21/2016 5:05 PM, Alex W. wrote:
> On 22/05/2016 03:36, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 5/21/2016 8:02 AM, scrotum lied:
>>> Governor Swill wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 20 May 2016 20:31:44 -0400, "jane.playne" wrote:
>>>>> >On 5/20/2016 7:42 PM, scrotum lied:
>>>>>> >>Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>You as an individual have a right to free speech.
>>>>>>> >>>I as an individual have a right to free speech.
>>>>>>> >>>If we chose, we could unite and exercise our rights of free
>>>>>>> speech
>>>>>>> >>>together.
>>>>>>> >>>We could do that as a two-person team.
>>>>>>> >>>IF we had a hundred people join us, we would still have the
>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>And you say this is not collectivism????
>>>
>>>> No, it isn't, unless you consider GE a communist entity.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What has communist have to do with it?
>>> Corporations are one form of collectivism,
>>
>> No, they are not.
>>
>
> Not necessarily, but they can be.
>
> If a million individuals pool resources by investing their money in
> shares in a corporation, they form a collective for the specific purpose
> of increasing their wealth.

No, they don't.

[Alex W.]

On 22/05/2016 01:16, Governor Swill wrote:

> On Sat, 21 May 2016 05:48:40 -0500, jim wrote:
>> Just Wondering wrote:

>>> On 5/20/2016 8:09 PM, jim wrote:
>>>> Just Wondering wrote:

>>>>> You really need to look up what collectivism means.
>>> >> Hint: It doesn't mean a group of private
>>> >> individuals acting together.
>>>> That's exactly what collective means. For instance
>>>> a flock of birds is a collective.
>>> The word is "collectivism", not "collective".
>
>> Collectivism is derived from collective.
>> Flocking birds are collectivists and
>> birds that fly alone are not.
>
> You guys are using a word with multiple meanings and deliberately
> misunderstanding just for the pleasure of pissing at each other.
>

Welcome to Usenet.