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.
No comments:
Post a Comment