Wednesday, 16 March 2005


I’ve never been a fan of the phrase “state’s rights” since I view individuals as rights holders, so I generally use the word federalism instead. The Professor points to an article that makes the distinction. I’m simply marking it for later reading, and hoping it will be of interest to you.


Any views expressed in these comments are solely those of their authors; they do not reflect the views of the authors of Signifying Nothing, unless attributed to one of us.
[Permalink] 1. flaime wrote @ Wed, 16 Mar 2005, 6:57 pm CST:

I’m glad that someone else acknowledges that they think rights devolve to individuals rather than to megalithic entities, like governmental units…Although, I probably go further in my assertion on that level than most, as II limit rights to individual citizens, and don’t hold that corporations have rights that are not purely invested in the individuals that make up the corporations…



I agree with you, actually. Jefferson has a great quote that explains my view:

“What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals.”—Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789.
That quote applies equally well to all institutions, whether they are corporations or states. BTW, I think the corporation’s rights are just a legal artifact to allow them to own property across lifetimes.

Thanks :)

This is something I’ve always been interested in and wanted to develop my thoughts on more fully (boy is that a tortured sentence).

Comments are now closed on this post.