Posted on 01/31/2014 3:30:44 PM PST by The Looking Spoon
I can't imagine liberals would have a problem with this graphic. It describes to the letter their vision for the world and how totally unrealistic it truly is.
And a Constitutionalist thinks everyone should compete under the same rules - as natural human persons, not corporations.
A liberal will say that the only reason that we are not equal at the finish line is because we were not equal at the starting line. Some had advantages because they were white, male, or otherwise privileged. Not saying I agree, but that will be their response.
Or unions, or bureaucracies eating from the private sector to fund their lifestyles of mainly useless endeavor.
No Kidding.
You know what Hayek says? That the only way to bring about equality in view of our individual differences is through governmental force.
I think that is well stated. :^)
That goes by the technical term, “stealing.”
Or Tyranny.
that is why it is better for conservatives to support freedom of opportunity rather than equality of opportunity.
So if two natural human persons operate in concert (by forming a corporation) they should lose their protections under the constitution?
Each person has the right of free speech, but combined they lose their right of free speech? So a newspaper (presumed to be owned by a corporation) is not protected by the first amendment?
Now I might agree that an organization which extracts payment from a more or less captive segment of the population (read Labor Union) does not enjoy the same right of free speech as say the owners of the corporation and by extension the corporation itself.
Willing to go that far?
Brilliant observation.
Hate to break this to you, but corporations already have no rights. They have privileges. The difference betwen the two is fundamental.
And your phrase, "working in concert," is also fundamental. Two people each have the right of free speech. But if they want to form a legal fiction called a corporation in order to escape liabilities for their joint actions, there is no way to do that. It's impossible. They are still two people who are responsible for their individual actions, working together or not, speaking in agreement, or not.
Oops, that's not true. Look, here;s the government swooping inm telling them that hey, all you have to do is pay us money, and let us tax you, and surrender your human rights, and we'll call you a corporation. That's a fake legal person, with no rights, created by government, answerable to government, owned by government as an individual profit center of the government. From then on, you become a de facto employee of the government, working (in whatever work you do) to generate tax income for the government. In return, according to the tax laws, the government will allow you to keep a portion of the 100% taxable income it can legally require of you at any time, and penalize you at any time for whatever it wants, with the legal understanding that the purpose of your privileges is the government's benefits - not yours.
Now, do you see anything at all about "rights" in that absolutely exact legal description of a corporation? No? Well you're wrong! That's right, you're wrong, because the government has declared that corporate privileges can be referred to as "rights," not in the sense of human rights or the Bill of Rights," but in the sense of a shortening of the full phrase "corporate rights," which are defined as a phrase which refers to the limited operational set of privileges accorded to corporations by the government, in the interests of the government.
There's your "rights."
A liberal will say that not everyone stopped to take naps on the way to the finish line. Unfair.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.