Re: “Libertarians,”/ vs Corporate Power

On Jul 2, 4:59 pm, Chuck <livingli...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 2, 1:26 pm, Sanity <sanity-cla...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jul 2, 12:35 pm, Chuck <livingli...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 2, 10:17 am, Sanity <sanity-cla...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 2, 10:39 am, Chuck <livingli...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 2, 7:17 am, Sanity <sanity-cla...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 1, 1:18 pm, Chuck <livingli...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 1, 8:49 am, whistler <whistler...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/whycorporations.html

.....................sn
   But what happens if groups of people, i.e., collectivist entities,
form together for the purpose of getting the government to grant
unearned special privileges to them? How will this affect the
marketplace? Well, this has actually happened in America, and the
result is that these collectivist entities with their government-
bestowed privileges have taken over our economy, in some particular
cases to the benefit of some particular individuals, but to the
overall detriment to individuals in general. These collectivist
entities are known as “corporations,” and it is initially puzzling as
to why they are lionized by “Libertarians,” who proclaim themselves
the defenders of individual rights.

   By deliberately obscuring the boundaries between individuals and
corporations, “Libertarians” have caused themselves to treat
corporations as if they were individuals, thereby assisting in the
corporate takeover of America, and the McDonaldization of practically
everything and practically everyplace, all over the globe –
“Globalization.”

   Plainly put, corporations are anti-American. They are anti-
individual. The word “corporation” does not appear in our
Constitution.
..................

While I’m not going to take the time to research my and show
references to my understanding, I’m sure if you were to do so you will
find I have my facts straight.  The corporation was born out of the
necessity of building bridges and other forms of infrastructure that
were for the better good of the public at large.  The gov would set-up
a trust account and the private sector that had a vested interest in
the project (such as building a bridge) would contribute funds to this
account at a nominal rate of interest (bonds).  This would insure the
project had the needed funds toward completion and the investors
benefited by the improvement through increased productivity and
commerce.  The public benefited by the improvement to the
infrastructure or whatever the project took on, such as a library.
That was a good way to utilize the corporation and I see nothing wrong
with that, there was no profit motivation.  What happened was the gov
allowed the private sector to take on projects (thus incorporating)
that didn’t necessarily operate toward the public's better good.  And
didn't always have gov oversight, but functioned for the sake of
profit.  Of course the gov didn’t mind because it increased the tax
base.  Before you know it these operations didn’t remain groups of
individual investors, but united into one named incorporated company
and the corporation was born.  Add to the fact that the courts have
allowed them to take on the identity of a person with the same rights
as a person and you spell trouble.

     Chuck

Double think; not you Chuck, the Gummint effectively says corporations
are privileged to have rights...  Corporations are required to get
permission from the Gummint to exist, and in return are granted the
same rights God endows corporeal people with; thereby annulling the
distinction between Big Brother and God!  This is the de facto Star
Chamber Courts of the U.S. in action.

HISTORY: The Star Chamber Courts of England were established by James
1st, circa 1607, to hold court for him because the syphalitic little
SOB preferred to party than do his kingly duty.  In Star Chamber the
judges sat on high dias with paintings of the heavens on the ceilings
above them and everyone before them had to comport themselves as
though they were before the Throne of God because of the king's divine
right to rule empowered the proceedings...  The Star Chamber judges
were the first to postulate the idea of "judicial immunity" as a
derivitive of the king's sovereign immunity. "The king can do no
wrong!" - Blackstone

"Honor dies where interest lies." - Anon.  Show me a federal or state
judge that is independent of the illicit corporate fiat money in
currency, I'm from Missouri.

"The truth makes you free, but first it makes you angry." - Anon

Waging Peace, Sanity

Whether anything good can come of a corporate function is really up to
individual interpretation.  All I was doing is pointing out in brevity
it’s beginnings in US history and the subsequent result.  There are
after all similarities between corp. and collective operations.
Individuals must decide for themselves what good can come of either.

     Chuck

IMO nothing good has come or can come from corporations having
rights.  Rights come from God as endowments, and corporations are not
created by God.  Yeah, some corporations have done some good but they
didn't need rights so to do.

Peace, Sanity

I agree wholeheartedly with your first sentence, and originally (here
it the US) a corporation ended with the project it was created to
complete.

     Chuck

Example?

While I realize Wikipedia can be found inaccurate this link here at
the second paragraph gives a brief explanation of what it was though
not exactly an example.  The point being much of what constituted a
corporation back then were project oriented.  Not too long ago I watch
a documentary of sorts on PBS that went into some detail regarding the
history of America’s early corporate enterprises which usually
amounted to the building of a bridge or other public interest.  If I
should remember it and find it on the PBS site, I’ll be sure to post
it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation#Mercantilism

I guess turnpike toll roads fit the mold. Starts as a public work
payed for by bond issue, the toll pays off the bond issue + interest,
then the toll gates come down. Unlike Erie Railroad vs Tompkins(?)
wherein the railroad is always and forever a private enterprize. Yes
there is a public interest in having a railroad, but no corporations
need not have "rights." I am of the opinion that the U.S. Gummint
[corporation] does not exist by right, that its existence is a
priviledge licensed by the consent of the governed; but everyone knows
I'm crazy... ;^)

Peace, Sanity
.

Relevant Pages