By Len Hart
I do not and cannot support the Libertarian party. Primarily –if the libertarian position re: taxation had been the rule, FDR could NEVER have spent the U.S. out of the GREAT DEPRESSION. Think of how fortunate we were to have had a great President in office! Think of how disastrous our fate had a 'libertarian' been occupying the White House!
As I understand their platform, the 'Libertarian party', would have opposed Roosevelt's 'New Deal' and, most certainly, Social Security. Secondly, Libertarians may have embraced the 14th Amendment to rationalize 'corporate personhood', in effect, granting them 'Freedom of Speech'. I do not believe that Exxon (for example) may enjoy 'free speech'. Exxon is not a person. If EXXON were never allowed to spew their lies and propaganda on REAL people, it would not keep me awake nights. I have freedom of speech. A 'legal abstraction' does not! I don't care what myths, lies and voodoo are subsribed to by ilk like Scalia.
But this issue is of considerable interest to anyone considering whether or not to support Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a strong supporter of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which SCOTUS has recently applied to 'legal abstractions', i.e, corporations. Has Paul considered the implications? Paul should stand up and outline in reasonable detail his position vis a vis 'corporate personhood'! Is he for it or 'agin it'?
IF corporations are people, then nothing can be done to prevent them becoming monopolies enslaving 'real people' in various ways. IF corporations are people, to restrain them violates the 14TH amendment. Is Ron Paul's vocal support of the 14th a cloak that hides his less publicized support of 'corporate personhood'?
If I were opposing Paul in a run for a nomination, I would demand he answer this question: are you for or against corporate personhood? Are you for or against the 14th? If you are for the 14th but against corporate personhood, how would you propose to avoid a nation in which 'corporate-persons', in fact, legal monstrosities would exploit that unique status in ways that are yet still unknown?
If corporations were allowed 'personhood' today, nothing would prevent that 'concentration of wealth' in very, very few corporate-elite hands! Ergo: corporate personhood is a recipe for a NEW GREAT DEPRESSION and the LIBERTARIAN policies of Ron Paul would make it so, extending his brand of freedom to 'newly created' real people, i.e, corporations. It would be the immediate onset of BIG BRO.
Ron Paul cannot have it both ways. If 'people' are to have his brand of freedom AND if corporations are people, then what 'power' would restrain them, the govt being reduced in power and status?
If corporations were allowed 'personhood' today, nothing would prevent that ''concentration of wealth' in very, very few corporate-elite hands! Ergo: corporate personhood is a recipe for a NEW GREAT DEPRESSION.
Ron Paul cannot have it both ways. If 'people' are to have his brand of freedom AND if corporations are people, then what 'power' would restrain them, the government being reduced in power and status?
Rather –corporations should be restrained by a govt responsible only to REAL, REAL people. Pin Ron Paul down on this point! It should be made clear –beyond any shades of gray or doubt –that CORPORATIONS are NOT people! It should be made clear that corporations exist at the pleasure of a government that was describe by our founders –a government of REAL people, BY real people, and FOR real people!
I suspect that just such an outcome is precisely what 5 ideologues on SCOTUS had in mind. SCOTUS, certainly, does not care about R. Paul's problems. SCOTUS, kissing up to corporate 'sponsors' re-created the Frankstein monster but on paper! It's a monstrous problem for anyone but more so for anyone claiming to be a 'libertarian'.