Sometimes I am rather slow picking up on things. A few days ago an investment broker responding to one of my Blogs used the term “Statist” in reference to Western European nations adhering closer to Socialism than the United States. I was uncertain what he meant at the time by Statist. I remain so. I don’t know if he was coupling Statism to Socialism, or storing the two concepts separately in his mind.

If he meant that a nation’s purpose is to assist each and every of its citizens to accomplish what they as individuals cannot alone do for themselves, I am in accord with him. However, if he uses Statism to belittle the validity of the protective concept of a nation in today’s “Global” economy, thereby primarily helping an elite wealthy few, I disagree.

The Supreme Court has decreed that within our nation/“State,” corporations are people. But Attorney Tom Baines has pointed out to me that, “corporations are not citizens.” Therein from a legal aspect lies a vital distinction. He points out further that the Supreme Court left a bit of a mess when they did not, “clarify what it means for a non-citizen constitutional person to have rights such as free speech.”

That last strikes me to get directly to the free speech root of the concept of Citizens voting and financing elections, rather than corporations. American corporations dislike much regulation with a hint of “social” in its concept. They commonly define Western European nations not as the democratic and fully capitalist countries they are, but imply they have Marxist Socialist leanings, simply because they have strong governmental social support mechanisms. That’s irrational at best, biased at worst.

Statism implies the responsibility of a nation to forge a partnership with all its citizens. Corporations presently forge partnership with those investing money in them. The lesser of the two concepts in social value to citizens of a “State” is clear. Corporations may be valuable to some. But until they learn to provide value to all, I propose we conservatively reserve our judgment as to their long-term worth. Regarding any legal position in financing elections, I believe they should have none whatsoever.