Toys Aren’t People

A lot of people in this country have had chips on their shoulders about the Citizens United decision allowing corporations to spend money on political speech. “Corporations aren’t people! The 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to them!” these people say.

Well, the Russian government just used this same argument to ban a protest using toys to make its point. The idea was that these toys would hold protest signs, visually expanding the ranks of protestors even in the midst of the Siberian winter. Well, the Russian government says the toys can’t participate in the protest, because “they’re not people.” What’s next, banning the use of protest signs because they’re not people either?

It’s time for everyone to admit that the tools of speech are protected just as well as yelling from a soapbox by Freedom of Speech provisions in the US Bill of Rights and elsewhere. “Freedom of Speech” means that in protesting, you’re free to organize, to use protest signs, to buy things that aid your message, and to put them on display without any limits that may chill your speech.

This means that, in the United States, a group of people organized as a corporation, pooling their money to buy ads and contribute to political campaigns are constitutionally protected to do so. Likewise, people organized into unions have the same rights. There can be no government-enforced financial limits on speech without violating the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

Don’t like it? Grit your teeth and deal with it like a responsible human being who respects the rights of other human beings. Punch a pillow if you have to. But if you want to keep your right to freedom of speech, then you can’t infringe on the rights of others. That’s what it means to have equal rights to freedom.

The Libertarian Revolution

Through the course of my discussions about the current state of the U.S. Government, I’ve received a few responses which I consider a bit unsettling. I’ve had some accuse me of plotting a violent revolution, and others suggest that this sort of approach would be the only way to bring about the necessary change to produce a truly free society. On the contrary, I believe that the sort of social change that I seek not only should not, but can not be brought about through violence.

You see, we live in a democratic society. That which is determined democratically is not necessarily right, but it is what the majority wants. There cannot be a popular revolution without the support of the people. And if we have the support of the people, then we have the power to change the system democratically anyways, making violence unnecessary. That is what makes our current situation different from that of Americans of the 18th century, or that of the Iraqis a decade ago.

When I speak of the Libertarian Revolution, I speak of a revolution of minds. I speak of a revolution in the way we think about the concept of government. I speak of a popular awakening movement, brought about through discussion, debate, and a desire for greater freedom. What I do not seek and do not wish for is a violent revolution which would inevitably tear apart our society and leave the spoils in the hands of the men with the biggest guns.

Timothy McVeigh was trying to bring about the Libertarian Revolution when he bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City back in 1995. Needless to say, he did not accomplish his goal. Failing to see his own hypocrisy, he didn’t realize that the American People, even in the face of liberation, do not like being told what to do under the threat of violence. Here in America, when someone blows up a building, we don’t lend them our ears; we give them the death penalty. In a democratic society where we have the freedom of speech, the greatest freedom fighter is someone who will speak for the people, not draw blood for them.

Thus, I wield only my words against the injustices of the world. If I commit no crime, then I cannot be silenced.