We were talking about this around the paint bucket. The crew, to a man, have all seen corporate executives and significant shareholders drive up to 7/11 in old batttered cars (getaway cars), drink black coffee with lots of free sugar, have a hot dog, etc. They obviously should be viewed as a collective person so they have some influence over their misunderstood lives. If they give hundreds of millions to look after their interests, well, that is the casue of their marginal existence.
We believe that Judge Robert's has confused personhood. Is it an abstraction or a guy with suggery black coffee hoping for a days work or some influence for the hundreds of millions of dollars in a cry for help.
Judge Roberts must have thought that the American people, say the uninsured, are a person. Or persons can or should have health care. This kind of thinking is crazy or ultimately traitorus. Are Manhatton, left handed people, the coast guard, Hoisers, NRA, the telephone book, Neilson ratings, etc. persons or representations of persons? If they are subdivided endlessly to they fall below the unit of person, into subperson? Do subpersons have rights?
We are confused.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment