# Start Here > Guest Forum >  Do Libertarians support the Citizens United decision?

## 56ktarget

I'm interested in learning more about the Libertarian cause in general, so that's why I ask this question. Do you guys think political donations are a form of free speech? Or is it a subversion of our democracy into the hands of the wealthy few?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I'm interested in learning more about the Libertarian cause in general


No you aren't. Both the tone and content of your posts thus far suggest that the only things you are interested in is patronizing us and telling us how wrong we are about everything.

----------


## silverhandorder

Now now. Some of us enjoy feeding trolls . That is what makes this so fun.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Do you guys think political donations are a form of free speech? Or is it a subversion of our democracy into the hands of the wealthy few?


No. Yes.

The answer is to repatriate the 14th amendment. Define the citizen clearly as "natural". Corporate personhood then becomes void. Or at least the means to benefit from the gift of constitution. It's the only way to repatriate we the people to it's historic form.

You're technically asking the question the wrong way though.

Start here... Corporate Personhood versus Democracy (The History of Corporate Personhood)

As well, Dennis Kucinich discusses why this particular case I've shared above is so important....




Also...the more relevant question (at this point) is "Do libertarians support the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement?".

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Now now. Some of us enjoy feeding trolls . That is what makes this so fun.


Yeah, I suppose, but the number of replies to his threads are abysmal. He is just too boring.  Even the persona of FSU63 was more interesting.  

Ah well, anyway, he gets a neg rep for being boring.  Come on, 56 IQ;  at least come up with something that gets more replies.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Sure we support it. Because we just really love pissing off Obama and his followers.

----------


## pcosmar

> I'm interested in learning more about the Libertarian cause in general, so that's why I ask this question. Do you guys think political donations are a form of free speech? Or is it a subversion of our democracy into the hands of the wealthy few?


Subversion or corruption? 
That is the question.

I can not speak for all,, or for "libertarianism".
But this country is not supposed to be a Democracy. it is suppose to be a Republic,, with democratically elected Representatives. (Not leaders or Rulers)

I would support strict limits of any "donations",, and treat them as bribery. 
But then, I would also like to eliminate Taxes and put out government Tip Jars. Government should be limited,, and the money available should also be limited and voluntary.

----------


## angelatc

> I'm interested in learning more about the Libertarian cause in general, so that's why I ask this question. Do you guys think political donations are a form of free speech? Or is it a subversion of our democracy into the hands of the wealthy few?


*All 9 justices agreed it was a form of free speech.*  That isn't even an issue.  4 justices voted to override the Constitution and take it away anyway.

That just indicates that liberals don't give a crap about the Constitution, including those in this thread pretending to be libertarian while posting the opinion of a socialist to back them up.

----------


## jllundqu

I'll believe Corporations are people when Texas executes one.

----------


## angelatc

> I'll believe Corporations are people when Texas executes one.


SCOTUS did not say corporations were people.  Thats a lefty talking point designed to be permanently implanted in their mindless drones.  ($#@! like that is why the right never wins the long term battles.)


SCOTUS said that people have a right to form groups (as in, the right to assemble) - Thats true
SCOTUS said that corporations were groups of people. - That's true
SCOTUS said people have a right to free speech. - That's true
SCOTUS said people in groups do not lose their right to speak - liberals hate this.

Corporations are not allowed to donate to campaigns.  Corporations are allowed to run ads telling people things like, "voting for a higher minimum wage will kill jobs,"  and "voting for a higher sales tax will kill jobs"  

People who hate the CU decision hate freedom.  They are not here to fight government, they are here to fight corporations.

----------


## matt0611

Yes I support the decision. I don't support the government in general though. But if we're going to have it and businesses and corporations want to support a candidate with their money then that's their prerogative.

----------


## angelatc

> I'm interested in learning more about the Libertarian cause in general, so that's why I ask this question. Do you guys think political donations are a form of free speech? Or is it a subversion of our democracy into the hands of the wealthy few?


Maybe you should learn what the hell you're talking about before you try to learn about Libertarians feel about.


Corporations are not allowed to donate to campaigns.  Citizens United did not change that.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Corporations are not allowed to donate to campaigns. .


OpenSecrets.org says Microsoft Corp. was the 2nd biggest donor to Barack Obama's campaign.  

Are they getting something wrong?

----------


## eduardo89

> OpenSecrets.org says Microsoft Corp. was the 2nd biggest donor to Barack Obama's campaign.  
> 
> Are they getting something wrong?


It means *EMPLOYEES* of Microsoft were the second largest donor group by employer. Have you ever noticed that when you donate to a campaign you must include your employer? This is nothing more than sorting donors by employer. Microsoft, the corporation, did not donate a penny to the Obama campaign, that is (wrongly) illegal.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> It means *EMPLOYEES* of Microsoft were the second largest donor group by employer. Have you ever noticed that when you donate to a campaign you must include your employer? This is nothing more than sorting donors by employer. Microsoft, the corporation, did not donate a penny to the Obama campaign, that is (wrongly) illegal.


Thanks for clarifying.

----------


## pcosmar

> Thanks for clarifying.


Yeah,, instead they Lobby. (provide Booze drugs and sex) and promise gifts and perks, including employment (if they get their way)

----------


## 56ktarget

> Maybe you should learn what the hell you're talking about before you try to learn about Libertarians feel about.
> 
> 
> Corporations are not allowed to donate to campaigns.  Citizens United did not change that.


How ignorant can you be? Anybody who thinks Super-PACS are not coordinating with the candidate's actual campaign are deluding themselves. 

And this whole idea that money should be considered free speech needs to stop. To people who agree with that notion:

1. Does that mean a rich person has more right to speak than a poor person?
2. Won't unlimited number of donations amount to legalized bribery?
3. How does this not subvert the "one person, one vote" principle that is fundamental to our democracy?

----------


## 56ktarget

> No you aren't. Both the tone and content of your posts thus far suggest that the only things you are interested in is patronizing us and telling us how wrong we are about everything.


Is this meant to be a joke? The only patronizing I've seen is from you and two of the regulars, who insist on labeling me a troll and insulting me personally whenever I post.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> How ignorant can you be? Anybody who thinks Super-PACS are not coordinating with the candidate's actual campaign are deluding themselves. 
> 
> And this whole idea that money should be considered free speech needs to stop. To people who agree with that notion:
> 
> 1. Does that mean a rich person has more right to speak than a poor person?
> 2. Won't unlimited number of donations amount to legalized bribery?
> 3. How does this not subvert the "one person, one vote" principle that is fundamental to our democracy?


You are not seeing the forest from the trees.

What should the government give away?

It is a serious question.

I ask you with the reminder that the government has nothing to give away except that which it takes. Whether directly in the form of taxes, fees, and fines or indirectly through inflation, that is, they devalue a currency.

My followup would be, by what Right does the government have to give or take anything away?

(this is related to the question you posed and if responded to, I will explain why)

----------


## Natural Citizen

I'll just say this. Fascism is clearly defined as the merge of corporation and state.

----------


## 56ktarget

To kcchiefs6465:

I don't follow your argument. What exactly is it that the government is "giving away?"




> I'll just say this. Fascism is clearly defined as the merge of corporation and state.


I agree.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I don't follow your argument. What exactly is it that the government is "giving away?"


First you need to ask people to explain what they understand "government" to be in it's current state. Try it. You'll throw em fer a loop. Too many throw that term around and place it into a historical context to support the typical politically acceptable argument that fits  the left-right paradigm model but fail to consider how it has evolved.

----------


## 56ktarget

> First you need to ask people to explain what they understand "government" to be in it's current state. Try it. You'll throw em fer a loop. Too many throw that term around and place it into a historical context to support the typical politically acceptable argument that fits  the left-right paradigm model but fail to consider how it has evolved.


The same could be said for "freedom" or "liberty." Just because people don't know how to explain something does not mean it is bad.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> The same could be said for "freedom" or "liberty." Just because people don't know how to explain something does not mean it is bad.


I always ask "Liberty for whom?" As was mentioned previously in the thread, "we the people" are a very broad cast of characters these days.

----------


## TaftFan

I do.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I do.



How about the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, TaftFan? What do you think about that? The reaon i ask is because, similar to corporate repatriation of our electoral processes, we now have multinational corporations maneuvering to place themselves into a position to over power entire countries.

----------


## TaftFan

> How about the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, TaftFan? What do you think about that?


Well, I don't see how they are related. I don't support how trade agreements are written but I agree with the concept of universal free trade.

----------


## 56ktarget

> *All 9 justices agreed it was a form of free speech.*  That isn't even an issue.  4 justices voted to override the Constitution and take it away anyway.
> 
> That just indicates that liberals don't give a crap about the Constitution, including those in this thread pretending to be libertarian while posting the opinion of a socialist to back them up.


It doesn't say explicitly in the 1st amendment that money is a form of free speech. So according to libertarianism, doesn't that mean money is NOT speech?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> *Is this meant to be a joke?* The only patronizing I've seen is from you and two of the regulars, who insist on labeling me a troll and insulting me personally whenever I post.


Is THIS meant to be a joke?  You start the thread off with:




> I'm interested in learning more about the Libertarian cause in general,...


The very next words out of your keyboard are: 




> How ignorant can you be??



That would be a textbook example of trolling.  It's so obvious that you're not here
 to learn anything at all, so yours is actually an example of piss poor trolling.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Is this meant to be a joke?


No. It isn't. It is an honest & accurate description of your posts - and especially of the first posts in the threads you've started.




> The only patronizing I've seen is from you and two of the regulars, who insist on labeling me a troll and insulting me personally whenever I post.


Yeah, right. Whatever. 

 The only other time I've ever replied to you outside of this thread was in a thread in which you condescendingly (and ludicrously) suggested that you were the only one clever enough to have sussed out that the obviously satirical OP article was in fact satirical.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Hey 56KTarget, where did you come up with that user name?  Is it because you'd cap every American's income at $56,000 per year?

----------


## 56ktarget

> Hey 56KTarget, where did you come up with that user name?  Is it because you'd cap every American's income at $56,000 per year?


Troll.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Troll.


Sorry Holmes, you can negative rep me.  You don't have enough posts.  Your neg rep shows up as a neutral bar.

By the way, it's Saturday night.  Isn't it time for your weekly bath?

----------


## Cleaner44

> How ignorant can you be? Anybody who thinks Super-PACS are not coordinating with the candidate's actual campaign are deluding themselves. 
> 
> And this whole idea that money should be considered free speech needs to stop. To people who agree with that notion:
> 
> 1. Does that mean a rich person has more right to speak than a poor person?
> 2. Won't unlimited number of donations amount to legalized bribery?
> 3. How does this not subvert the "one person, one vote" principle that is fundamental to our democracy?


What is your ideal vision of people donating to politicians?  Should any be allowed?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> To kcchiefs6465:
> 
> I don't follow your argument. What exactly is it that the government is "giving away?"


What do they promise to give away? Or more importantly to this discussion, though apparently you wish to have none (or can have none, at least with regards to adequately defending a position you may have), what do you purport to "give away"?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> First you need to ask people to explain what they understand "government" to be in it's current state. Try it. You'll throw em fer a loop. Too many throw that term around and place it into a historical context to support the typical politically acceptable argument that fits  the left-right paradigm model but fail to consider how it has evolved.


I've asked you to respond in exactly how you feel Liberty, or libertarians, in general, to be knocking on fascism's door, perhaps it was?

There was never a response.

I understand the nuances between the word "government." Have you not read Section I, II, III, VI, VIII, X ,XIX and the Appendix  of No Treason? Or perhaps the whole? To summarize, the case is made legally, short of any collectivist tyranny, to be, indisputably, concrete. Yet I am told of "thrown for a loop." How about this loop, short of any _left v. right_: My Rights are Mine. You, and your ilk, have no authority, legitimacy, lawful reasoning, logical reasoning, or bare reasoning in general that wouldn't be subsequently destroyed if you mentioned it. It is why my questions are not answered! 

"I don't follow your argument", I'm told! You know why, aside from possibly being dimmer than 30 watts? Because they are collectivists. They think Rights come from a majority. You probably do too. Or it's been inculcated in the average Merican that wealth is bad. That corporations are bad. What else need I say?

What I understand government to be? YOU. YOUR ILK. I may not be able to put a name to every tyrant usurping *MINE* any more than I can scientifically number you. But I goddamn tell you this, your words deceive you.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Well, I don't see how they are related. I don't support how trade agreements are written but I agree with the concept of universal free trade.


Yeah, me too. I'm up in the air with it myself. I was just ondering, really. I suppose just to better understand some of your input in other areas of discussion here. Didn't mean to put you on the spot like like, taft.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I've asked you to respond in exactly how you feel Liberty, or libertarians, in general, to be knocking on fascism's door, perhaps it was?
> 
> There was never a response.
> 
> I understand the nuances between the word "government." Have you not read Section I, II, III, VI, VIII, X ,XIX and the Appendix  of No Treason? Or perhaps the whole? To summarize, the case is made legally, short of any collectivist tyranny, to be, indisputably, concrete. Yet I am told of "thrown for a loop." How about this loop, short of any _left v. right_: My Rights are Mine. You, and your ilk, have no authority, legitimacy, lawful reasoning, logical reasoning, or bare reasoning in general that wouldn't be subsequently destroyed if you mentioned it. It is why my questions are not answered! 
> 
> "I don't follow your argument", I'm told! You know why, aside from possibly being dimmer than 30 watts? Because they are collectivists. They think Rights come from a majority. You probably do too. Or it's been inculcated in the average Merican that wealth is bad. That corporations are bad. What else need I say?
> 
> What I understand government to be? YOU. YOUR ILK. I may not be able to put a name to every tyrant usurping *MINE* any more than I can scientifically number you. But I goddamn tell you this, your words deceive you.


The throwing for a loop thing didn't really have anything to do with your posting, kcchiefs. In fact, I don't hold any of those positions that you mention though. My gripe comes from the fact that we fail to recognize the battle going on regarding citizenship in whole. As far as representation goes. I think that you misunderstand me. I've been thinking about bringing this up in a separate thread anyhow but just haven't got around to it. kcchiefs, I say lots of things around here. And I don't necessarilly agre with many of the thuings that I post but they need to be brought up. If that makes me the bad guy within the community then so be it.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> 1. Does that mean a rich person has more right to speak than a poor person?


  For all practical pruposes?  Yes, of course.  Printing presses are not free.  Very expensive equipment, they were (and are).  Ink is not free.  Handbill distribution is not free.  Even standing on a soapbox in town square and speaking is not free -- that's a rich man's pastime.  The poor don't have time to do that, because they are busy farming and mining, earning a living and barely getting by.  So, who got to do more of the speaking back in 1776?  The rich.

Yes, the rich have more of many things.  That's what makes them rich.    

The only way to change that is to make them not-rich.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Is this meant to be a joke? The only patronizing I've seen is from you and two of the regulars, who insist on labeling me a troll and insulting me personally whenever I post.


OP sure did make himself scarce.  Even on his own threads.

Get back here, 56 IQ.  I'm not done insulting you yet.  LOL.

----------


## Lord Xar

> I'm interested in learning more about the Libertarian cause in general, so that's why I ask this question. Do you guys think political donations are a form of free speech? Or is it a subversion of our democracy into the hands of the wealthy few?


No, I don't believe you are interested at all. I believe you fancy yourself a slight measure above your peers and thought to come here and try to measure your intellect against those you disdain. In all the threads, you have had your ass handed to you. There comes a time when you must reflect on what you know, in the limited space you have settled yourself. In you, there is a bit of stockholm syndrome.... statism will do that.

----------


## angelatc

> How ignorant can you be? Anybody who thinks Super-PACS are not coordinating with the candidate's actual campaign are deluding themselves. 
> 
> And this whole idea that money should be considered free speech needs to stop. To people who agree with that notion:
> 
> 1. Does that mean a rich person has more right to speak than a poor person?
> 2. Won't unlimited number of donations amount to legalized bribery?
> 3. How does this not subvert the "one person, one vote" principle that is fundamental to our democracy?


1, No
2. No
3. We aren't a democracy.

----------


## angelatc

> For all practical pruposes?  Yes, of course.  Printing presses are not free.  Very expensive equipment, they were (and are).  Ink is not free.  Handbill distribution is not free.  Even standing on a soapbox in town square and speaking is not free -- that's a rich man's pastime.  The poor don't have time to do that, because they are busy farming and mining, earning a living and barely getting by.  So, who got to do more of the speaking back in 1776?  The rich.
> 
> Yes, the rich have more of many things.  That's what makes them rich.    
> 
> The only way to change that is to make them not-rich.



The poor person still has the same right as the rich person.  It' just that the rich person is likely to have better access to a platform to speak from.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The poor person still has the same right as the rich person.  It' just that the rich person is likely to have better access to a platform to speak from.


To a person of left-wing sentiments, "right" means something different.  A man's "rights" aren't just about negative rights, they are about positive rights, too.  The positive rights are more important, in fact.  "In what sense does a person have a 'right' to health care if he can't afford treatment and dies in the gutter of a easily curable malady?," the left-wing thinker would ask.    And I think he would ask the same thing in regards to speech.  "In what sense does the average person have free speech, when their voice is drowned out by the corporation, which has a billion-dollar bullhorn with which to amplify its message?  If you effectively have no voice, have no way to make yourself heard, you have no meaningful freedom of speech."

I'm just addressing that thought-process on its own level.

----------


## Unregistered

To Mr. Kucinich and his apologists here who argue from a position of Democracy, please go back and read the U.S. Constitution and Declaration. Your entire premise is corrupt.  Kucinich says there's no protection of corporations to be found in the Constitution. A more fundamental understanding of the Constitution reveals there's actually no mention of DEMOCRACY... ANYWHERE in the Constitution or the Declaration.  A democracy was anathema to the Founders for critical reasons which, if you don't understand, then our public education and institutions have brainwashed you successfully.  I don't agree with the corrupt power of our current Oligarchy by any stretch. But, to guarantee the protections of the First Amendment to individuals, but NOT to groups of individuals???  Think about THAT form of government for a New York minute, then think about the political group you belong to.  Where would you be?

----------

