tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post4920818746440743667..comments2024-03-18T17:28:44.693-07:00Comments on Rondam Ramblings: Getting really scary really fastRonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-69642370314134601862017-02-15T09:20:44.742-08:002017-02-15T09:20:44.742-08:00@Publius, to what extent does this whole argument ...@Publius, to what extent does this whole argument reduce to a deep desire to threaten the considerable rhetorical power of the government's own exercise of speech?<br /><br />> Finally, let's pull out a special message that Justice Black has for you in his concurrence to <i>Speiser v. Randall</i>:<br /><br />>> I am convinced that this whole business of penalizing people because Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1953417597683875802017-02-15T03:32:51.009-08:002017-02-15T03:32:51.009-08:00> Thinking that all rights would be treated sim...> Thinking that all rights would be treated similarly by the courts<br /><br />I don't think that.<br /><br />> Thinking that the application and treatment of rights in Amendments 2 to 33 can be analogously applied to the First Amendment.<br /><br />Why is that an error? Of course it *can* be. None of these rights are consequences of the laws of physics, they are policy decisions thatRonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-74985537212658954402017-02-14T15:58:36.644-08:002017-02-14T15:58:36.644-08:00E R R O R
>> Just because you can give up a...<b>E R R O R</b><br /><br />>> Just because you can give up a right doesn't mean that Congress can condition benefits on you giving up free speech rights.<br /><br /><i>>Of course it means that. That is why plea bargains are constitutional.</i><br /><br />This is your error right there. There are at least 2 components to your error:<br /><br /><b>ERROR 1:</b> Thinking that all rightsPubliushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-36558523351643610182017-02-14T15:56:03.889-08:002017-02-14T15:56:03.889-08:00It Is, Except When It Isn't
>> Yet it i...<b>It Is, Except When It Isn't</b><br /><br />>> Yet it is no so simple.<br /><br />@Ron<br /><i>Actually, it's quite simple. You are trying to make it complicated in order to avoid admitting that you are wrong.</i><br />>> The defendant could choose a bench trial, perhaps receiving no sentencing benefit.<br /><i>So? How does that in any way refute my position?</i><br />>&Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-59114950705402416232017-02-14T11:27:25.130-08:002017-02-14T11:27:25.130-08:00> if I appear dim, it is because your ignoranc...> if I appear dim, it is because your ignorance is plunging to deeper depths where light cannot penetrate.<br /><br />We'll see.<br /><br />> Yet it is no so simple.<br /><br />Actually, it's quite simple. You are trying to make it complicated in order to avoid admitting that you are wrong.<br /><br />> The defendant could choose a bench trial, perhaps receiving no sentencing Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-4294304577064111582017-02-14T10:39:42.000-08:002017-02-14T10:39:42.000-08:00Fiat Lux
@Ron
>Actually we have, you're j...<b>Fiat Lux</b><br /><br /><br />@Ron<br /><i>>Actually we have, you're just too dim to see it. Your own example actually supports my position:</i><br /><br />I blaze like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R136a1" rel="nofollow">RMC 136a1</a>; if I appear dim, it is because your ignorance is plunging to deeper depths where light cannot penetrate. <br /><br />>> the defendant Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-69525147432625979872017-02-14T10:17:56.305-08:002017-02-14T10:17:56.305-08:00@Publius:
> You hit upon the method - insuranc...@Publius:<br /><br />> You hit upon the method - insurance. You can buy insurance to transfer liability from you to someone else. That's <i>civil</i> liability, of course, not <i>criminal</i>.<br /><br />The difference makes all the difference. One result of your line of argumentation—whether you intend it or not!—is that corporations involved in influencing politics get to shield their Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-35965839891837904412017-02-14T05:48:27.272-08:002017-02-14T05:48:27.272-08:00> Well, no, we haven't established that peo...> Well, no, we haven't established that people can voluntarily surrender their rights in exchange for consideration from the government. <br /><br />Actually we have, you're just too dim to see it. Your own example actually supports my position:<br /><br />> the defendant could plead guilty.<br /><br />Yes, of course. When a defendant pleads guilty they voluntarily waive three Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-79952976873642473102017-02-14T00:48:19.369-08:002017-02-14T00:48:19.369-08:00Bolt And Fastener Opinions Corporation
@Luke
>...<b>Bolt And Fastener Opinions Corporation</b><br /><br />@Luke<br /><i>>After all, a person can't have limited liability qua person, can [s]he? (If I'm wrong, where do I sign up?! Sounds like a good insurance policy in the present political climate.)</i><br /><br />You hit upon the method - insurance. You can buy insurance to transfer liability from you to someone else. That's <i>Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-76833146091707273142017-02-14T00:45:16.949-08:002017-02-14T00:45:16.949-08:00Bolt And Fastener Opinions Corporation
@Luke
>...<b>Bolt And Fastener Opinions Corporation</b><br /><br />@Luke<br /><i>>After all, a person can't have limited liability qua person, can [s]he? (If I'm wrong, where do I sign up?! Sounds like a good insurance policy in the present political climate.)</i><br /><br />You hit upon the method - insurance. You can buy insurance to transfer liability from you to someone else. That's <i>Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-33640911522359334052017-02-13T23:41:14.320-08:002017-02-13T23:41:14.320-08:00Keep Calm
@Ron
>Why? We have already establish...<b><a href="https://goo.gl/TkAm1r" rel="nofollow">Keep Calm</a></b><br /><br />@Ron<br /><i>>Why? We have already established that people can voluntarily surrender their rights in exchange for consideration from the government (e.g. plea bargains).</i><br /><br />Well, <i><b>no,</b></i> we haven't established that people can voluntarily surrender their rights in exchange for consideration Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-73199623711487312322017-02-13T06:53:34.465-08:002017-02-13T06:53:34.465-08:00> If it helps, I agree that "limited liabi...> If it helps, I agree that "limited liability" is not a Constitutional right. It is a creation of Congress. Congress could repeal it tomorrow. <br /><br />Yes. That helps a lot.<br /><br />> Let me give the long version. It is impermissible for the government, in return for the special advantage of being a (limited liability) corporation, to limit the free speech rights of 1) Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-54926972858120770872017-02-13T05:54:12.806-08:002017-02-13T05:54:12.806-08:00@Publius:
> Let me give the long version. It i...@Publius:<br /><br />> Let me give the long version. It is impermissible for the government, in return for the special advantage of being a (limited liability) corporation, to limit the free speech rights of 1) the corporation itself (an association of people), 2) any officer of the corporation (including the CEO), or 3) any employee.<br /><br />Publius, if a corporation is a person, then we Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-67917436697342640852017-02-12T23:30:46.753-08:002017-02-12T23:30:46.753-08:00alexia without agraphia
@Ron
>Your capacity f...<b>alexia without agraphia</b><br /><br /><br />@Ron<br /><i>>Your capacity for twisting reality never ceases to amaze me. Where did you get this idea that you are entitled to limited liability? You aren't.</i><br /><br />It's baffling to me how you find in any of my writing the idea that one is entitled to limited liability. That idea is not present. <br /><br />If it helps, I agree Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-62185174622953613122017-02-12T16:48:47.669-08:002017-02-12T16:48:47.669-08:00I sense that @Publius hasn't quite grasped tha...I sense that @Publius hasn't quite grasped that my argument does not preclude Bill Gates spending $100 million on TV ads promoting his favorite candidate. The only restriction is that on the way from his bank account to the advertising agency, it cannot pass through a corporation with limited liability. The instant it attempts to pass through such a corporation, that corporation would <i>loseLukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-35004205550181972872017-02-12T06:44:12.534-08:002017-02-12T06:44:12.534-08:00> How much money do unions have to bring to bea...> How much money do unions have to bring to bear?<br /><br />Oh, thank you for reminding me!<br /><br />Yes, the social contract with unions is different. Unions are not chartered to raise capital and produce a product. Unions are chartered to represent workers in order to level the playing field when they have to negotiate over wages and benefits with for-profit corporations. The question Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-65348200542551174732017-02-11T22:34:58.708-08:002017-02-11T22:34:58.708-08:00@Publius:
> I should have specified both the c...@Publius:<br /><br />> I should have specified both the <i>corporation</i> <b>and</b> the its <i>CEO</i>. <br /><br />"CEO" is just a mask that the human can put on and take off. It carries certain privileges, certain protections, certain duties. It does not carry all the rights of the person. Why is this a problem?<br /><br />> You're still trying to come up with a scheme to Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-53907497331716896592017-02-11T20:00:47.588-08:002017-02-11T20:00:47.588-08:00> Limited liability comes up in these discussio...> Limited liability comes up in these discussions because someone always has the "clever" idea to hold limited liability protection hostage in return for a corporation's free speech rights.<br /><br />Your capacity for twisting reality never ceases to amaze me. Where did you get this idea that you are entitled to limited liability? You aren't. The baseline situation is Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-7650359696432022402017-02-11T18:51:01.352-08:002017-02-11T18:51:01.352-08:00do not separate
@Luke
> The only limitation is...<b>do not separate</b><br /><br />@Luke<br /><i>> The only limitation is if that money ever goes through a legal entity with limited liability. As long as the leadership of the entity is happy taking full responsibility with no legal shield, they can dump as much money as they want into politics.</i><br /><br />You're still trying to come up with a scheme to separate that which cannot be Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-49509299697020695542017-02-11T18:35:23.878-08:002017-02-11T18:35:23.878-08:00Joint and Singular
>> 1. To form a corpora...<b>Joint and Singular</b><br /><br /><br />>> 1. To form a corporation, the CEO gives up his right to political speech.<br /><br />@Luke<br /><i>>Where did I say or imply this? Not having access to your corporation's pot of gold doesn't mean you don't have free speech </i><br /><br />I should have specified both the <i>corporation</i> <b>and</b> the its <i>CEO</i>. <br />Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-12604087786414737792017-02-09T00:44:27.689-08:002017-02-09T00:44:27.689-08:00@Publius:
By the way, note that my proposed legal...@Publius:<br /><br />By the way, note that my proposed legal reasoning allows CEOs to spend as much of <i>their personal money</i> as they want on politics. The only limitation is if that money ever goes through a legal entity with limited liability. As long as the leadership of the entity is happy taking full responsibility with no legal shield, they can dump as much money as they want into Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-68733009657225465702017-02-08T21:20:16.942-08:002017-02-08T21:20:16.942-08:00@Publius:
> 1. To form a corporation, the CEO ...@Publius:<br /><br />> 1. To form a corporation, the CEO gives up his right to political speech.<br /><br />Where did I say or imply this? Not having access to your corporation's pot of gold doesn't mean you don't have free speech. It just means you don't have a pot of gold to build a really big megaphone for your speech. Instead, you're rather like the little guy. Huh, it&Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-34657371196642681972017-02-08T19:38:01.411-08:002017-02-08T19:38:01.411-08:00You can't undo a baptism, either
@Luke
>Th...<b>You can't undo a baptism, either</b><br /><br />@Luke<br /><i>>That's fine; we simply say that if the CEO wishes to "alienate" himself/herself from legal liability—like going to jail if his/her corporation is found responsible for negligent homicide—then that CEO also "alienates" himself/herself from the resources of that corporation when it comes to politicalPubliushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-36604620537880237642017-02-07T22:49:29.181-08:002017-02-07T22:49:29.181-08:00@Publius:
> Except . . . free speech is an una...@Publius:<br /><br />> Except . . . free speech is an <a href="http://www.conservapedia.com/Unalienable_rights" rel="nofollow">unalienable right</a> and therefore cannot be separated from individuals, even a corporate CEO.<br /><br />That's fine; we simply say that if the CEO wishes to "alienate" himself/herself from legal liability—like going to jail if his/her corporation is Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-19711572998194720932017-02-07T21:55:13.591-08:002017-02-07T21:55:13.591-08:00> People have the right of association and to f...> People have the right of association and to form contracts.<br /><br />Absolutely correct. But they do *not* have the right to shield themselves from personal liability by forming associations. That is a *privilege* granted under the law, not a right. And that privilege comes with concomitant responsibilities.<br />Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.com