Against Monopoly

defending the right to innovate

Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely.

Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of course we are hungry for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded, you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License.


Corporations get a crack at even more political power

The Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission this week link here. It declares that corporations and other groups have the same rights as live humans. The left considers this a great defeat which will lead to a flood of corporate money in elections to the detriment of the average voter while the right only sees a justified extension of corporations and other groups freedom to speak and spend money to affect political races.

Professor Juan Cole in his blog, Informed Comment, asks a sensible question: Does this decision really change the amount of corporate money in political campaigns? The cynic might note that both parties seem to be captive of one interest group or another. Another blogger noted that TV time for political ads is already fully spoken for.

There is some irony, however, when one notes that both Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito carefully claimed to be judicial conservatives and would stick with precedent. In fact, they are turning out to be radicals of the right. Stay tuned to learn the new surprises they have for us.


Well, IMHO the problem is not that corporations are allowed to lavish money on politicians. After all, is regulating (i.e. curtaling or prohibiting party finance by any entity other than "live humans") not anti-libertarian? No, the solution is: leave politicians and government so little to regulate that no one would "donate" with the aim of profiting from it by reciprocal government favors!
@Chris - A fundamental mistake. Corporations could still encourage regulation by paying the politicians to pass "regulations" that would discourage competition. Some "regulations" are actually for that reason. There are "benefits" to corporations resulting from regulation!!
The Supreme Court is obviously mistaken. Corporations are not people, in the same way entities like Al-Queda, the Catholic Church, and KKK are not people. In fact, corporations are even worse to equate to personhood than any of these groups, because corporate membership is even more transitory, and forced acceptance and denial of memberships is even more totalitarian. The very definition of a corporation is for the express purpose of limiting the individual liability of its members, and making sure it can survive the loss of any subset of members. In other terms, an unregulated corporation with personhood status is like designating someone above the law, and then also making them immortal. Giving them all unfettered free speech is the same thing as giving bankers free reign to gamble bank reserves -- a license for misuse, misinformation, and chaos.
There are so many people in this world. All of them of course have a different interest in every game. They want to play their favourite game everyday, and many people are become expert in the game that they like. business administration degree AND business management degree AND accounting degree
yes,this kind of blog always useful for blog readers, it helps people during research. your post is one of the same for blog readers. education degree AND nursing degree

Submit Comment

Blog Post


Email (optional):

Your Humanity:

Prove you are human by retyping the anti-spam code.
For example if the code is unodosthreefour,
type 1234 in the textbox below.

Anti-spam Code



Most Recent Comments

Some history

Killing people with patents SYSSY

IIPA thinks open source equals piracy rerwerwerwer

IIPA thinks open source equals piracy Thank you for this great

Questions and Challenges For Defenders of the Current Copyright Regime Eu acho que os direitos autorais da invenção ou projeto devem ser

IIPA thinks open source equals piracy https://essaywritingsolutions.co.uk/

Your Compulsory Assignment for Tonight rerrerrr

IIPA thinks open source equals piracy rwerwewre

An analysis of patent trolls by a trademark lawyer

Questions and Challenges For Defenders of the Current Copyright Regime It is one of the finest websites I have stumbled upon. It is not only well developed, but has good

Killing people with patents I'm not really commenting the post, but rather asking if this blog is going to make a comeback

The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges Finally got around to looking at the comments, sorry for delay... Replying to Stephan: I'm sorry

Let's See: Pallas, Pan, Patents, Persephone, Perses, Poseidon, Prometheus... Seems like a kinda bizarre proposal to me. We just need to abolish the patent system, not replace

The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges I'm a bit confused by this--even if "hired to invent" went away, that would just change the default

Do we need a law? @ Alexander Baker: So basically, if I copy parts of 'Titus Andronicus' to a webpage without

Do we need a law? The issue is whether the crime is punished not who punishes it. If somebody robs our house we do

Do we need a law? 1. Plagiarism most certainly is illegal, it is called "copyright infringement". One very famous

Yet another proof of the inutility of copyright. The 9/11 Commission report cost $15,000,000 to produce, not counting the salaries of the authors.

WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece P.S. The link to Amazon's WKRP product page:

WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece Hopefully some very good news. Shout! Factory is releasing the entire series of WKRP in Cincinnati,