Your fellow citizens can be just as harmful to your freedoms as the gov't; and actually maintaining any freedom requires actively limiting the freedom of other people to infringe on that, and enforcing that limitation.
It gives them "freedom to" blast their music. However it definitely takes away my "freedom from" having to hear that shit.
And I think this is why young people are libs and older people are more conservative - probably the exact reason actually. When I was young I never blasted my music, but I also didn't care if others did. Now I'm older and I definitely hate hearing other's music blasting everywhere - no matter where I am. So I NOW want a government that would limit others blasting their music.
It really sucks that simple things like are also things people go to war for. I'm not kidding, if the government tomorrow issued a decree saying that blasting music is punishable by 10 years in prison, the US would literally be at war and millions would die.
Instead we settle for individual cities making noise ordinances and hoping that it's not challenged in court.
You cant have it both ways. Limits on government force are inverse to limits on it's people. The Bill Of Rights is a list of things we want to remember that the gov can never do (see it's preamble), it's a bit of a bug that it's called that. Gov is special, we _give_ it the ability to use violence to enforce the rules we set. Corporations don't get to use violence to enforce their rules (unless they buy the gov in a country without the 2ndA). It's a real difference. We are not forced to use a private service (which is why conservatives are so anti forced "health care"), nobody is required to use FB, or YT. Only confused (or ill) people think they are.
A properly functioning system of exchange regulates this via monetary physics. FB is going to be myspace sooner or later. People learn from their mistakes if they have the freedom to make them.
Money like code, is ultimately speech. I'll take that any day over the alternative limitations as long as we have legit voting and non-forced spending of money.
What makes HN topics and discussions interesting are the diffs from other topics and discussions. Therefore the generic is what we're most trying to avoid.
More here if anyone wants it: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
that may be an accepted legal viewpoint in the USA but it is not the truth
> I can become a one man corporation
In truth you can't, because you will still be a person. Its just that in addition there will be a corporation consisting solely of one person. You may notice that when you incorporate, the corporation does not get a vote and neither does your vote get removed. You may notice that you can incorporate several times and this still does not affect your status as a person.
Exactly. It's pretty hard to argue being a corporation is somehow special, our courts correctly recognized that. I agree with your second paragraph completely.
So how does it work?
Because that's literally why corporate personhood exists: To be able to sue companies.
And I find it very illuminating that the only response demonstrates ignorance.
In fact, I'm looking at the federal rules of US civil procedure right now, and they say nothing about 'personhood' being required to take action. They say "A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court" and it has a specific section called "SERVING A CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP, OR ASSOCIATION" and it goes on and on about officers, general agents, representing attorneys, and other such appointed persons who will become involved in such a case.
So perhaps you should actually take a look at the law before you accuse others of ignorance.
Not really, no. It's frequently gerrymandered and considerable effort is put into making it harder for some people to vote than others. The count is probably legitimate, except where questionable machine voting systems are in place.