RFK Jr wants to ban Big Pharma ads

[Madison320]

Sure. Mr. Shlomo Pfizor can say whatever he wants, because he can be held accountable for his actions.

Do you think we should nationalize all corporations or the just the bad ones?

 

[otherone]

Do you think we should nationalize all corporations or the just the bad ones?

Weird take.
Nationalization has nothing to do with it. You're the collectivist here, not me. A corporation is a collection of owners masked as an individual entity. It's a paper fiction. It has no rights. The individual shareholders have rights.

 

[Madison320]

Weird take.
Nationalization has nothing to do with it. You're the collectivist here, not me. A corporation is a collection of owners masked as an individual entity. It's a paper fiction. It has no rights. The individual shareholders have rights.

The individual shareholders ARE the owners.

How am I the collectivist? You're the one arguing against individual rights.

By the way Ron Paul agrees with me:

"Paul rejects the notion that corporations are people, with collective rights. He says that only individuals have rights; people are individuals, not groups or companies.[107][108] "Corporations don't have rights per se, but the individual who happens to own a corporation or belong to a union does have rights, and these rights are not lost by merely acting through another organization."

 

[otherone]

The individual shareholders ARE the owners.

How am I the collectivist? You're the one arguing against individual rights.

As an individual, you have rights. As a collective, you do not. Surprised you haven't gone the "corporations are people" route yet.

 

[Invisible Man]

Weird take.
The individual shareholders have rights.

And these rights that they have include their right to pool their resources and delegate to a board the allocation of those resources to exercise whatever rights those shareholders delegate, including speech on their behalf.

 

[nobody's_hero]

So you lose your rights if you're forced to do something by the government?

Back then I was the only one besides occam arguing that the solution is not to nationalize facebook but to stop the government from forcing them to censor. Everyone else wanted to nationalize them or they thought that facebook was just censoring on their own.

Pretty sure the Zuckerbucks pumped into the great ballot harvest of 2020 suspiciously makes it willful cooperation but okay.

 

[Madison320]

As an individual, you have rights. As a collective, you do not. Surprised you haven't gone the "corporations are people" route yet.

I'm not arguing that "corporations are people". I'm arguing that corporations are merely a group of individual owners and that individual owners should have the same rights as anyone else.

Ron Paul agrees with me:

"Paul rejects the notion that corporations are people, with collective rights. He says that only individuals have rights; people are individuals, not groups or companies.[107][108] "Corporations don't have rights per se, but the individual who happens to own a corporation or belong to a union does have rights, and these rights are not lost by merely acting through another organization."

 

[otherone]

And these rights that they have include their right to pool their resources and delegate to a board the allocation of those resources to exercise whatever rights those shareholders delegate, including speech on their behalf.

All the while shielding themselves from possible criminal or civil liability for the actions of the corporate person.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I try to look at it from an individual rights perspective (as does Ron Paul by the way), not whether it's "for the greater good".

I look at it from a perspective of RFK,jr making good on his intention to disembowel the corruption that is the revolving door between Big Pharma and the FDA, from within, and at this point, I'm honestly just curious to see what happens. I mean, hopefully I don't end up with poison in my food—oh wait, liability shielding for harmful long-term effects of medicati—already happening you say? Censorship of research that runs contrary to the findings of scientists hired by Big Pharma—d'oh that's already happening too?!

I know I'm losing all kinds of liberty-credit score for 'principle' at this time but honestly at this point, yeah, f'k it. Have at it, Mr. Kennedy.

 

[Invisible Man]

All the while shielding themselves from possible criminal or civil liability for the actions of the corporate person.

By way of the affected parties entering contracts that agree to that condition.

 

[Madison320]

Pretty sure the Zuckerbucks pumped into the great ballot harvest of 2020 suspiciously makes it willful but okay.

It's very possible that zuckerberg censored stuff voluntarily, but I don't see the what difference it makes. Is your position that we should only nationalize corporations that voluntarily censor?

 

[otherone]

I'm not arguing that "corporations are people". I'm arguing that corporations are merely a group of individual owners and that individual owners should have the same rights as anyone else.

Ron Paul agrees with me:

"Paul rejects the notion that corporations are people, with collective rights. He says that only individuals have rights; people are individuals, not groups or companies.[107][108] "Corporations don't have rights per se, but the individual who happens to own a corporation or belong to a union does have rights, and these rights are not lost by merely acting through another organization."

How does an individual lose their rights because they are a member of a group? It's the same argument as "Minority" (etal) rights. Again, rights have responsibilities. Who is responsible for the actions of a corporation? The shareholders whose rights you believe I'm taking away?

 

[otherone]

By way of the affected parties entering contracts that agree to that condition.

Yes. Contractual freedom with no consequences.

 

[Madison320]

How does an individual lose their rights because they are a member of a group?

They don't. Where did I say that? That's your argument.

Again, rights have responsibilities. Who is responsible for the actions of a corporation? The shareholders whose rights you believe I'm taking away?

The owners are responsible for the actions of a corporation.

 

[nobody's_hero]

It's very possible that zuckerberg censored stuff voluntarily, but I don't see the what difference it makes. Is your position that we should only nationalize corporations that voluntarily censor?

I do not agree with your initial premise that there was no cooperative effort between the Biden administration and Zuckerberg in their efforts to censor or diminish opposing viewpoints (via stamping them with 'fact-checks') during the COVID epidemic, so I'm going to have to disregard your follow up question as a sort of out-of-place red-herring.

(that may not be how you intended it, but I'm simply pointing out that if we do not agree on the fundamentals of your assertion, then the question you pose is rather moot)

 

[otherone]

They don't. Where did I say that? That's your argument.

"but the individual who happens to own a corporation or belong to a union does have rights, and these rights are not lost by merely acting through another organization."

The owners are responsible for the actions of a corporation.

When are shareholders held accountable? That's the point of a corporation.

 

[Madison320]

And these rights that they have include their right to pool their resources and delegate to a board the allocation of those resources to exercise whatever rights those shareholders delegate, including speech on their behalf.

It constantly annoys me that only maybe 2 or 3 people on this forum agree with us on this. It's not theoretical either. I can't think of a quicker way to wreck a country than to start nationalizing corporations. Look at Venezuela for example.

At least Ron Paul agrees with us.

 

[otherone]

It constantly annoys me that only maybe 2 or 3 people on this forum agree with us on this. It's not theoretical either. I can't think of a quicker way to wreck a country than to start nationalizing corporations. Look at Venezuela for example.

At least Ron Paul agrees with us.

SCOTUS agrees with you. The courts agree with you. Hell, common law agrees with you. They banned cigarette ads decades ago, still no Venezuela, even theoretically.

 

[Madison320]

I do not agree with your initial premise that there was no cooperative effort between the Biden administration and Zuckerberg in their efforts to censor or diminish opposing viewpoints (via stamping them with 'fact-checks') during the COVID epidemic, so I'm going to have to disregard your follow up question as a sort of out-of-place red-herring.

(that may not be how you intended it, but I'm simply pointing out that if we do not agree on the fundamentals of your assertion, then the question you pose is rather moot)

I said that zuckerberg may have censored voluntarily and was not forced by government. I don't see the difference but I'll use your exact words. If there is a cooperative effort between the administration and the corporation in their efforts to censor or diminish opposing viewpoints, do you think that corporation should be nationalized?

 

[nobody's_hero]

It constantly annoys me that only maybe 2 or 3 people on this forum agree with us on this. It's not theoretical either. I can't think of a quicker way to wreck a country than to start nationalizing corporations. Look at Venezuela for example.

At least Ron Paul agrees with us.

FWIW, I agree with you on this.

I just don't think Big Pharma qualifies to be viewed as some innocent private corporation trying its darn'dest to work independently of Big Government (I'm trying not to laugh as I type that out) and thus I do not weep when someone in said government (like a Kennedy) flips the dagger around and holds it at their throat.

Sleep with dogs. Get fleas.

EDIT: I hope that answers your latest question. Or at least, further helps you understand my point of view.

In 2020, we ALL witnessed one of the largest concerted propaganda campaigns this country has ever witnessed, between the forces of Big Pharma, Big Government, and Big Media. As far as I'm concerned, that level of coordination DOES NOT HAPPEN organically in a free market and thus, as far as I'm concerned, these corporations whose rights you are losing sleep over, are already, DE FACTO, nationalized. (and . . . they LOVE IT)

To which I say:

Do your worst, Mr. Kennedy.

PS. Can libertarians please start finding hills to die on that someone actually gives a f'k about?