Among the issues most commonly discussed are individuality, the rights of the individual, the limits of legitimate government, morality, history, economics, government policy, science, business, education, health care, energy, and man-made global warming evaluations. My posts are aimed at thinking, intelligent individuals, whose comments are very welcome.

"No matter how vast your knowledge or how modest, it is your own mind that has to acquire it." Ayn Rand

21 April 2012

Pelosi Wants Constitutional Amendment to Deprive Persons of Freedom of Speech

The ex-Speaker of the House of Representatives when it was controlled by the Democrat Socialist Party prior to the 2010 election, wants to deprive some people who are associated with one another in a certain way of their freedom of speech.  The association she wishes to use as a means of muzzling speech takes the form of a corporation.  She and many other Progressive Elitists were incensed when the Supreme Court ruled against such a deprivation of freedom of speech in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, often called the McCain-Feingold Act.  The case was called Citizens United v. FEC, which I earlier discussed here.

There is a completely irrelevant claim that a corporation is not a person, therefore it can be muzzled.  This ignores the very obvious fact that individuals actually do the speaking.  It ignores the fact that the speaker has voluntarily chosen an association with a set of other individuals in order to pursue values and goals of his own choosing in the private sector.  The particular association is a legal entity which offers some protections of the assets of the individuals who own and manage the legal entity.  The mere fact that they seek these legal protections should not deprive them of the right to speak freely.

It is important to be aware of the fact that the corporation form of association may apply to a giant or a micro business.  It may apply to a think tank or to a charitable organization.  The association of people pursuing common goals in the private sector as a corporation does not imply that these goals are either moral or immoral, and it does not imply that government has any legitimate purpose in promoting or thwarting the goals of the individuals using their freedom of association in the private sector to cooperate closely with others in the association organization called a corporation.

Because government all too often tries to interfere with the rights of individuals in voluntary associations in the private sector, the organization of individuals may have a very dire need to protect their common interests from the government.  This means that there are very important joint efforts the associated individuals will want to take to influence the outcome of an election.  They have as much right to do so as members of a bridge club or book club do.  They have as much right as those in a business organized as a LLC or a LLLLP.  They have as much right as those in a business organized as a partnership.  They have as much a right to freedom of speech as do members of a church or of a family.  As the Supreme Court very wisely pointed out, the fact that an individual has exercised his freedom of association should not deprive him of his freedom of speech.  There is no case in which the exercise of one freedom should deprive us of our other freedoms.

Some people want to deprive the persons involved in a corporation's activities of their freedom of speech because they see some corporations as very powerful.  They fear that this power will badly influence government policies.  Of course, they ignore the fact that if the government were as limited in power as is mandated by the Constitution, then there would be little reason for the people in a corporation to fear the government and little reason for them to make the effort to try to control or influence the policies of the government.  Any problems that do result from big corporations using their money to influence elections are the result of excessive and illegitimate government.

Of course, Nancy Pelosi is an advocate of unlimited government.  She is most eager to deprive people associated in corporations of their ability to protect themselves simply by speaking up.  She wants the government to be able to rob such of the corporations as are wealthy of their property and income.  She wants to keep small corporations from becoming large ones.  She and other Progressive Elitists want them disarmed completely so that labor unions who have lost the interest of private sector workers can once again with government help increase their private sector membership far above its recent anemic percentage.  Of course these unions are expected to pay a pretty penny to the Democrat Socialist Party election coffers and provide huge numbers of free workers during the campaign.  The constitutional amendment Pelosi is backing is designed to disarm everyone who is in an association with others in the form of a corporation.

The bigger government gets, the less willing it is to brook opposition to its power.  The danger is not from people associated in corporations, which operate in the private sector.  It is from government, which demands a monopoly on the use of force and would like to have a monopoly on the use of speech as well.  The sword is not enough.  Government also wants control of the pen.

No comments: