The Roberts Trilemmas
I have been scratching my head over this trio of Orwellian propositions affirmed by the Roberts Court:
Money is speech;
Corporations are people;
Corruption is integrity.
The first two the Court has affirmed explicitly, despite their obvious absurdity. The third it has affirmed indirectly, when it absurdly claimed that infusing vast amounts of private cash into elections does not create the impression of corruption. Either Roberts et al do not know what corruption looks like, or they do not care; both impeachable offenses.
Propositions as absurd – and dangerous – as these demand mockery. Therefore I have reduced them to voter’s paradoxes. Consider the following triple of voters and their votes:
Moe the Realist Crook:
Money is not free, speech is not free, money is speech;
Corporations have no rights, people have no rights, corporations are people;
Corruption is evil, integrity is evil, corruption is integrity.
Larry the Logical Wimp:
Money is not free, speech is free, money is not speech;
Corporations have no rights, people have rights, corporations are not people;
Corruption is evil, integrity is good, corruption is not integrity.
Curly the Pragmatic Fool:
Money is free, speech is free, money is speech;
Corporations have rights, people have rights, corporations are people;
Corruption is good, integrity is good, corruption is integrity.
Each voter is internally consistent, though I’d side only with Larry in each case. These votes add up, by 2/3 majorities, to these comically inconsistent trios:
Money is not free;
speech is free;
money is speech.
Corporations have no rights;
people have rights;
corporations are people.
Corruption is evil;
integrity is good;
corruption is integrity.