Lessig doesn' expressly say it, but we also need to rein in the "self-evident", "unalienable rights" of all corporations Actually, the last quip in the title are my words, not Lessig's. Last week, I noted Harvard law prof Lawrence Lessig's earlier rebuttal to Glenn Greenwald...
Posted to
TT's Lost in Tokyo
by
TokyoTom
on
Wed, Feb 10 2010
Filed under:
Filed under: rent-seeking, corporations, religion, constitution, Lessig, limited liability, states, speech, federalism, equal protection
Further to my preceding post on speech and corporations , I highly recommend Lawrence Lessig `s insightful short piece, " The Principled and Pure Court? A Reply to Glenn Greenwald " (HuffPo, January 27). For those who haven`t seen it yet, I take the liberty of quoting liberally (emphasis added...
Further, virtually everyone has been ignoring (2) WHY it is that there is so much concern about corporations and their influence on (and vulnerability to) government: namely , states have allowed individuals (and now other corporations) to form separate, limited-liability legal entities that cut off...
In my initial post, on how Austrians strive for a self-comforting irrelevancy on climate change , I copied my chief comment to Stephan Kinsella . I copy below my other posts and some of the remarks I was responding to on Stephan`s thread , including the one that I was unable to post - for some reason...
[Note: Stephan Kinsella tells me he has NOT put my posts on his thread on moderation. I believe him, and so (even as I fail to understand why I was unable to post a particular comment after a number of attempts), as noted I would in my original post, I withdraw my charge that he put my comments on moderation...
[Update: Readers may wish to note the latest developments, as I note in these follow-up posts .] Stephan Kinsella - whom I have engaged before on the ramifications of the decidedly non-libertarian state grant of limited liabiility to corporations - has a new post up on the Mises Blog on global warming...