tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post7404790154764043584..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: The Renewed War Against Freedom of SpeechUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-50454009837211723942010-02-09T20:53:54.978-05:002010-02-09T20:53:54.978-05:00"You can call it “corporatism” if you like, b..."You can call it “corporatism” if you like, but the key thing is the power to play favorites. Deny the executive and legislative branches of government the power to intrude in, “manage,” manipulate, or “direct” the economy, and that kind of thing will stop. The Constitution does not specifically deny the government that power. That’s an amendment that ought to be taken seriously."<br /><br />Ed, here's hoping you'll come back to this theme too!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-68538264628612734972010-02-09T07:36:40.092-05:002010-02-09T07:36:40.092-05:00M.D. asked: "Is the Supreme Court the most tr...M.D. asked: "Is the Supreme Court the most trustworthy of the three branches of government?"<br /><br />Not necessarily. Look at its record over the last century or so of rationalizing the advance of statism. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., one of the most revered past members, was a pragmatist who discarded the embedded principles in the Constitution, and in fact was a pen pal of Harold Laski, Britain's premier socialist guru. Other notable justices, such as Arthur Goldberg, were out-and-out statists. Remember also that the Court sanctioned the eminent domain in Kelo. Most of the statist rulings of the Court in the past were examples of mental gymnastics that bypassed the recognition and application of the principles of liberty and government limits by citing the illogic of precedents and the paramount "virtue" of society. <br /><br />The majority opinion of Citizens United, however, was one of the rare instances in which the Court expressly cited principles present in the Constitution. <br /><br />EdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-58506870184816359042010-02-09T01:05:17.858-05:002010-02-09T01:05:17.858-05:00Is the Supreme Court the most trustworthy of the t...Is the Supreme Court the most trustworthy of the three branches of government?M.D. Labeithttp://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/labels/MichaelLabeit.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-79024065951077255922010-02-08T19:24:21.174-05:002010-02-08T19:24:21.174-05:00Mo said: “But I would like you to explain a bit mo...Mo said: “But I would like you to explain a bit more how people buy elections when they vote and why corporations don't buy elections,” and remarked, “I want to add that some people have pointed out that the supreme court decision was along ideological lines and is an example of corporatism.”<br /><br />When I remarked that “people buy elections,” I was using “buy” in a metaphorical sense. Many Americans believed in the Obama product, and “bought” it with their votes. And, many regret their “purchase,” because either he’s more than they thought he was -- a power-luster on the make who would make no distinction between those who voted for him and those who didn’t, he wants to fleece them all of their liberty -- or that he’s not aggressive enough in his quest for power. Come next November, many of these voters, regardless of their voter registration cards, will be asking for their money back. <br /><br />Yes, some observers have claimed that the Court’s decision was “along ideological lines.” But, an ideology is a distillation of a political philosophy, and what is the Constitution but the manifesto of a political philosophy? How else could the justices -- in the minority or in the majority -- think but in terms of a political philosophy? This is the unique function of the Supreme Court. What was it that the Founders debated when discussing what the Constitution should say? A political philosophy. <br /><br />As for the decision being an instance of “corporatism,” that’s the charge being leveled by the left, who shouldn’t really throw any stones. The government isn’t being run -- and has never been run -- by big organizations such as corporations or labor unions, which may or may not claim to speak for the “people.” It’s always been run by those in office or in positions of power. Corporatism is possible only when there is no obstacle to big organizations being able to influence those in power with perks, bribes, campaign donations and the like. They are mere beneficiaries of government power, not the source of that power. If Bill Gates, the wealthiest American, really had the “power,” do you think he would have allowed himself to be sued by the government? On the other hand, there is George Soros, another wealthy man. He may have helped Obama get elected, but can his money prevent Obama from being frustrated everywhere he turns, trying to get his agenda passed into law? No. <br /><br />The campaign finance law that the Court partially emasculated was intended to disable the perceived “corporatist” influence in government and in elections. It has done no such thing. Obama and his departmental cronies are handing out or rewarding campaign donors with lucrative government-financed ‘green” and other contracts. You can call it “corporatism” if you like, but the key thing is the power to play favorites. Deny the executive and legislative branches of government the power to intrude in, “manage,” manipulate, or “direct” the economy, and that kind of thing will stop. The Constitution does not specifically deny the government that power. That’s an amendment that ought to be taken seriously.<br /><br />EdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-14937322013076042672010-02-08T18:49:59.131-05:002010-02-08T18:49:59.131-05:00I want to add that some people have pointed out th...I want to add that some people have pointed out that the supreme court decision was along ideological lines and is an example of corporatism.Monoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-43218688999016792152010-02-08T18:32:36.319-05:002010-02-08T18:32:36.319-05:00very nice article. but i would like you to explain...very nice article. but i would like you to explain a bit more how people buy elections when they vote and why corporations don't buy elections.Monoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-43299153917841790922010-02-08T09:12:58.188-05:002010-02-08T09:12:58.188-05:00Corporatophobia.Corporatophobia.M.D. Labeithttp://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/labels/MichaelLabeit.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-26810397757088108242010-02-07T02:55:56.309-05:002010-02-07T02:55:56.309-05:00Give 'em hell, Ed!
Those criminals in White H...Give 'em hell, Ed!<br /><br />Those criminals in White House and Congress are now exposed as the fascists they really are.<br /><br />FREEDOM FOREVER!<br /><br />Bill BuckoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com