The highest court continues its effort to build laws on a foundation based in fiction. by Gene DeNardo
(libertarian)
Friday, January 22, 2010
It is almost comical [but not really!] to witness the reactions to the recent Supreme Court decision on campaign financing by corporations and unions.
It is framed as some kind of grand struggle between privileged interests and the people or conversely as between the freedom to spend our money [or a corporation's money] the way we choose against government intrusion into our finances.
It is neither and both. Of course, anyone or any group should be able to spend as much as they want trying to convince whoever they want to believe whatever they want and vote for whomever. Who should care? If you want to try to convince me that I will get an STD if I vote for a paticular evil candidate, more power to you. If I am stupid enough to believe you, then the other evil candidate you favor possibly even deserves my vote.
Conversly, the impact of giving protected entities [corporations] free reign with the extra capital they have attained as a result of State mandates that eliminate competition in the marketplace for more than a century will only supress even further what freedoms we have left.
What is absurd is the foundation of the decision. State backed incorporation is probably the most fundamental violation of personal freedom in the modern era. The socialization of the risk and liability inherent in the world of everyday affairs and enterprise is a feat Carl Marx would have been envious of! State mandating and institutionalization of such socialization is as powerful as any feudal system ever was or ever will be.
For the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land and arguably the world, to make one decision after another based on the complete fiction that incorporation is, demonstrates the depth of ineptitude and corruption they and we have achieved. For a large percentage of our legal system to be entwined in this same fiction through the extrapolation of what is called "corporate law", only further exasperates the condition.
If the State has no business in business, other than to prevent aggressive force, then certainly the State has no right to use aggressive force to allow some to benefit from the fiction of "incorporation" and others to pay for it. Let liability fall where it may and let the courts only decide those cases where liability and aggressive force cross paths. Now, that might be a court worthy of a "supreme" adjective!
This is not to say that any form of consensual alliance or cooperative venture should be disallowed. Not to say that one individual or group could relinquish any claim on any liability they may experience or cause during any transaction.
Just that the force of the State should be left out of the equation and the free market should determine the costs and liabilities of all transactions and all acceptance and rejections of liability and risk should be consensual.
In other words, incorporate on your own dime!
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Gene DeNardo only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Gene DeNardo is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
