Tucker Carlson: Should the govt regulate Google?

[nikcers]

Corporations are groups of people, they have just as many rights as the people in the group.

Can you put a corporation in jail? Can you deduct living expenses from your taxes like a corporation deducts business expenses? The whole problem is when people want to assign rights to groups, and then people try to fix that problem by giving groups rights. Individuals have rights.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Can you put a corporation in jail? Can you deduct living expenses from your taxes like a corporation deducts business expenses? The whole problem is when people want to assign rights to groups, and then people try to fix that problem by giving groups rights. Individuals have rights.

Corporations are in need of reform, but preventing people from exercising their rights together as a group is not one of the needed reforms.

 

[nikcers]

Corporations are in need of reform, but preventing people from exercising their rights together as a group is not one of the needed reforms.

I don't care about preventing people from exercising their rights as a group. I care about one group of people running all of the presidential candidates we get to pick from and they all get financed from the same pocket through a shell company.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I don't care about preventing people from exercising their rights as a group. I care about one group of people running all of the presidential candidates we get to pick from and they all get financed from the same pocket through a shell company.

One of the dangers we have to take with freedom.

It is possible to beat them because we still have our right to group speech, without it they will be the only voices heard in the smoke filled back rooms and in the "impartial" MSM.

The state of American politics is entirely the fault of the American voter.

 

[nikcers]

The state of American politics is entirely the fault of the American voter.

bullshit, voters don't get any say in the matter. Iraq? We voted two presidents in that was a mandate to get out of Iraq. WE don't have representation and you can't blame people for not wanting to suicide against the government. We play lip service to having free speech because we can bitch about shit on the internet but that's not stopping the starvation in the middle east, the creation of a new Israel.

 

[Swordsmyth]

bull$#@!, voters don't get any say in the matter. Iraq? We voted two presidents in that was a mandate to get out of Iraq. WE don't have representation and you can't blame people for not wanting to suicide against the government. We play lip service to having free speech because we can bitch about $#@! on the internet but that's not stopping the starvation in the middle east, the creation of a new Israel.

Yeah, there were no better choices than W and Obummer, UH HUH! There was no Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul or any other 3rd party candidates

 

[nikcers]

Yeah, there were no better choices than W and Obummer, UH HUH! There was no Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul or any other 3rd party candidates

Well I think Ron Paul would of had a good chance in 2011 but Trump would of probably ran 3rd party like he said he would.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Well I think Ron Paul would of had a good chance in 2011 but Trump would of probably ran 3rd party like he said he would.

None of that matters, the voters have had many superior choices to those they selected for decades and they are responsible for our current desperate straits.

 

[nikcers]

None of that matters, the voters have had many superior choices to those they selected for decades and they are responsible for our current desperate straits.

Not really that many choices for liberty. Ron Paul made liberty popular again. They stole the election but they can't make us forget the ideas he taught us.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Answer: Eliminate barriers to competition.

 

[DamianTV]

Corporations are groups of people, they have just as many rights as the people in the group.

Then you end up with a Democracy, exactly what those like Jefferson, one of the first true Anti Federalists, wanted desperately to avoid at all costs. Does being a part of a group make any man "more" equal than any other man? That is exactly what is implied with Corporations and Democracy. "I am part of Group X, therefore my voice carries more weight than that individual." And Democracy is nothing more than the group with more people taking away the rights of the group with less people.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Then you end up with a Democracy, exactly what those like Jefferson, one of the first true Anti Federalists, wanted desperately to avoid at all costs. Does being a part of a group make any man "more" equal than any other man? That is exactly what is implied with Corporations and Democracy. "I am part of Group X, therefore my voice carries more weight than that individual." And Democracy is nothing more than the group with more people taking away the rights of the group with less people.

We are talking about speech, the voters and the legislators still hold the power.

What you propose would allow the government to prevent any group from speaking as a group, the public would be relegated to speaking one at a time with little influence while the elite would wield power and influence in smoke filled back rooms.

The cure for mob rule is constitutional restrictions like the Bill of Rights not letting the government limit speech.

 

[DamianTV]

We are talking about speech, the voters and the legislators still hold the power.

What you propose would allow the government to prevent any group from speaking as a group, the public would be relegated to speaking one at a time with little influence while the elite would wield power and influence in smoke filled back rooms.

The cure for mob rule is constitutional restrictions like the Bill of Rights not letting the government limit speech.

No, what I want is a smaller govt where there is no one in power for groups of any label to influence.

Restriction of Govt IS Free Speech. That includes limiting govts privilege to listen only to the groups based on label, such as "Business" and "Corporation".

 

[Swordsmyth]

No, what I want is a smaller govt where there is no one in power for groups of any label to influence.

Restriction of Govt IS Free Speech. That includes limiting govts privilege to listen only to the groups based on label, such as "Business" and "Corporation".

No you want to prevent businesses and corporations (groups you disagree with) from speaking, that is no different from AntiFa's position.

We need less controls on speech not more, if you don't like the influence of businesses and corporations then compete with them, find or form your own group and lobby and campaign for candidates that support your beliefs, if the government can limit the ability of corporations to engage in political speech it can limit you and that is BAD.

There is no way to force government to listen to you and forcing others not to speak will not help.

 

[The Rebel Poet]

Answer: Eliminate barriers to competition.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

 

[PierzStyx]

People should have Rights, not Corporations. Google is not acting like a person. And really, Google should be adhering itself to the Constitution, not manipulating lawmakers to bypass and circumvent existing protections so it can make more money at our expense.

Just my two cents.

You cannot regulate a corporation or business. Businesses are just dumb things. When you "regulate" a corporation what you are doing is telling the people in it what they can and cannot do. You violate their rights to say and do what they wish with their liberty and their property.

 

[DamianTV]

No you want to prevent businesses and corporations (groups you disagree with) from speaking, that is no different from AntiFa's position.

We need less controls on speech not more, if you don't like the influence of businesses and corporations then compete with them, find or form your own group and lobby and campaign for candidates that support your beliefs, if the government can limit the ability of corporations to engage in political speech it can limit you and that is BAD.

There is no way to force government to listen to you and forcing others not to speak will not help.

There is a big difference between using ones Freedom of Speech, and flat out BUYING Politicians. There is a big difference between an individuals free speech and corporations free speech. If you havent been paying attention, the corporations shit on us by manipulating and coercing and bribing our elected representatives. Elected. Yeah, that is kind of funny tho isnt it? The head of the FDA was already employed by Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), or has been offered a job at Monsanto once they leave their position of high power. Does that sound like corporations really have our best interests in mind?

Corporations are NOT people, and being "a group of people" does not entitle them to more Rights than any one person, which is exactly what they are doing. If things were all peachy keen, then why is it that so many of our disastrous bills are flat out written by Corporate Lawyers and not even read at all by most of our representatives?

 

[DamianTV]

You cannot regulate a corporation or business. Businesses are just dumb things. When you "regulate" a corporation what you are doing is telling the people in it what they can and cannot do. You violate their rights to say and do what they wish with their liberty and their property.

And they violate ours by coercion of govt by the ability to establish a Monopoly.

Edit:

Should Google be Regulated? NO. Not unless they become such a monopoly that they are effectively a Utility.

 

[goldenequity]

 

[shakey1]