Volatility

September 23, 2011

Corporate Tribalism Part 1: Legal Corporatism As A Version of Racism

>

(This is a preliminary post to a series I’ll be writing soon. The series will be about our relocalization imperative vs. corporate kleptocracy’s will to impose a vicious new feudalism upon us. Thus from both points of view we are to become reindigenous. The choice is whether we can build our own new communities out of the ashes of the corporate wasteland, or whether we’re recolonized, exactly as tribes formerly were, but on a far worse basis. Classic indigenous people suffered the assault on what were usually still-intact communities. As of now we lack even that, and are slated to face the onslaught not just as tribesmen but as atomized tribesman lacking any context whatsoever.
 
The corporate attempt to substitute its own fraudulent values like consumerism and the “organization man”, as well as more exalted ideological notions of corporate communalism, for the true values and communities it has wiped out, is part of this attack.)
 
I’ve written previously about the backdoor way the SCOTUS enshrined corporate personhood as the “law of the land”. As I describe in that post, the court was surreptitious and cowardly in the way it decided Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad.
 
On the other hand, the appeals court which previously decided the case for the railroads and against the people was more talkative.
 
It opens up with a dogmatic statement which already asserted what the case was supposed to decide:
 

The principle which justifies… a discrimination in assessment and taxation, where one of the owners is a railroad corporation and the other a natural person, would also sustain it where both owners are natural persons

 
Thus the court telegraphs that its goal in taking the case was to hijack the 14th amendment to the purpose of declaring corporations legal persons.
 
The decision proceeds to invert the entire purpose of the 14th. What was intended (see my post linked above for details) to constitutionally invalidate legal discrimination of human against human became licence for the law to discriminate on behalf of corporations against humans.
 

It would be a singular comment upon the weakness and character of our republican institutions if the valuation and consequent taxation of property could vary according as the owner is white, or black, or yellow, or old, or young, or male, or female… Strangely, indeed, would the law sound in case it read that in the assessment and taxation of property a deduction should be made for mortgages thereon if the property be owned by white men or by old men, and not deducted if owned by black men or by young men; deducted if owned by landsmen, not deducted if owned by sailors; deducted if owned by married men, not deducted if owned by bachelors; deducted if owned by men doing business alone, not deducted if owned by men doing business in partnerships or other associations; deducted if owned by trading corporations, not deducted if owned by churches or universities; and so on, making a discrimination whenever there was any difference in the character or pursuit or condition of the owner. To levy taxes upon a valuation of property thus made is of the very essence of tyranny, and has never been done except by bad governments in evil times, exercising arbitrary and despotic power.

 
As Peter d’Errico comments in his analysis of the case,
 

The circuit court in Santa Clara did not avoid discussion of an underlying jurisprudence. Its opinion confidently presented corporate personality as a legitimate and necessary aspect of economic “leadership” in society, rather than as a form of economic domination as the Populists argued. The decision announced broad constitutional protection for corporate persons within a description of society as a system of market relations…

The court thus asserted, in a converse syllogism, that where law prohibits discrimination between human beings (“natural persons”), no discrimination may be made between human beings and corporations. The court’s justification for this proposition was set out in a series of hypothetical statements describing varieties of discrimination. The text moved from discrimination based on human characteristics to discrimination based on characteristics of human economic behavior to discrimination involving strictly economic categories…

Note the semantic structure of the opinion. The distinction between individual economic activity and the activity of economic organizations was smoothly elided. Differences of economic function were neatly equated with human differences. Signs of natural human difference—race, sex, age—were intertwined with signs denoting types of institutions and forms of business organization. In this way the doctrine of legal personality admitted no distinction between humans and human organizations, between biology and politics—one was included within the other. Human existence was subsumed in the abstract realm of political economy. This semantic movement reached its foreordained conclusion: the concept of human equality in the Fourteenth Amendment not only extended to the nonhuman but prohibited any distinction between human and nonhuman, between humans and corporations.

 
The court justified this by arguing trickle-down and Fuhrerprinzip logic.
 

the aggregate wealth of all the… companies engaged in business, or formed for religious, educational, or scientific purposes, amounts to billions upon billions of dollars… and furnishes employment, comforts, and luxuries to all classes, and thus promotes civilization and progress… the persons composing them—amounting in the aggregate to nearly half the entire population of the country.

 
Thus we arrive at the new vision for the 14th amendment:
 

With the adoption of the [Fourteenth] amendment the power of the state to oppress any one under any pretense or in any form was forever ended; and henceforth all persons within their jurisdiction could claim equal protection under the laws…. This protection attends every one everywhere, whatever be his position in society or his association with others, either for profit, improvement, or pleasure. It does not leave him because of any social or official position which he may hold, nor because he may belong to a political body, or to a religious society, or be a member of a commercial, manufacturing, or transportation company. It is the shield which the arm of our blessed government holds at all times over every one, man, woman, and child, in all its broad domain, wherever they may go and in whatever relations they may be placed.

 
The Orwellism of this is obvious, since we know the litigant and the “justices” wanted to empower corporations over humans. Rewriting this, translating it from Orwellian code, we have:
 

With the adoption of the amendment the power of the state to [protect] any one under any pretense or in any form [except in the form of property] was forever ended; and henceforth all persons within their jurisdiction could claim equal protection under the laws [insofar as they are property owners and/or profiteers]…. This protection attends [all property (but really big, concentrated property)] everywhere, whatever be his position in society or his association with others, either for profit, improvement, or pleasure. It does not leave [property] because of any social or official position which [it] may hold, nor because [it] may belong to a political body, or to a religious society, or be a member of a commercial, manufacturing, or transportation company. It is the shield which the arm of our blessed government holds at all times over [the sword of] every [large-scale property owner], in all its broad domain, wherever they may go and in whatever relations they may be placed [, and especially wherever it aggresses].

 
People are born free and are everywhere in chains. People are born human and are everywhere without rights. We’re now human only insofar as we’re members (i.e., propertarians) within a legal propertarian machine. This is a corporatist version of humanity as a mere legal definition, as Arendt discussed regarding formal State citizenship. This legalization of humanity is more insidious and even more deadly.
 
Personhood now only exists as a legalism, while practically the question is placed within the realm of Might Makes Right. One is a person only insofar as one is a de jure legal person, but one is a de facto legal person only insofar as one is a property owner. This is the extreme example of humanity existing to serve the law, rather than the law serving humanity. To be more clear, this is the law as flunkey of organized crime.
 
The intellectual movement here leads up to corporatism as the same kind of phenomenon as racism, and using what was supposed to be an anti-racist constitutional amendment as its vehicle. Racism includes discrimination based on race. If we look again at the quote above, we see how the court immediately confounds this with taxation of “property”, and proceeds to claim that discrimination based on economic function is the same thing as racial discrimination. (Never mind that taxing different actions differently isn’t “singular” or “strange” at all, and that all law discriminates in that sort of way. This fraudulent court knew that perfectly well, but had a different agenda here.)
 
Having equated economic entities, declared corporations “persons”, and invented this doctrine of total economic anti-discrimination, the court had implicitly rigged things to enable power, corporate prerogative, and the law itself to discriminate, as a practical matter, against human beings and on behalf of the profit prerogative. And so it has accelerated ever since.
 
This end was implicit and intentional because it’s common sense that if the law enshrines profiteering, including corporate profiteering, while disparaging all human claims, corporations will certainly come to dominate. That’s their purpose. Corporations wouldn’t exist if the rich and powerful didn’t expect to use them as vehicles of domination. Court decisions like these were meant to ensure this domination.
 
(Court decisions and legal philosophy shouldn’t mean much, and eventually they’ll mean nothing. But for now we’re mired in a corporate free-fore zone which has usurped the place of society, where the fraud simulation of “law” still dictates many of the violent actions of the State, and where all too many of the beleaguered masses still have faith in this fraudulent and criminal system. So perhaps it’s worthwhile to make a few statements on this legal front, however much we recognize its nothingness.)
 
We can turn this rightside up. While biology cannot be forever denied in order to serve politics, we can, if the criminals insist, make politics serve biology. Only real biological persons exist, period. Corporations, property, money, concentrated wealth, are purely fictive. We can start out by refusing to recognize their legitimacy on any level, or their existence other than as brute power facts. This can help achieve inner clarity, from which we can then build a new vision and plan for human redemption.
Advertisements

34 Comments

  1. Actually, as I recall it, the Court did not reach any conclusion regarding the 14th Amendment in Santa Clara County. Rather, the clerk of the Court in the syllabus stated incorrectly that the Court had reached such a conclusion. But the syllabus of an opinion is not part of the opinion and therefore does not represent binding precedent. Unfortunately, however, later courts relied on the syllabus as providing the precedential holding and the conclusions it reached ultimately became the law of the land.

    The same thing is happening right now in another case decided in 2005.

    Comment by Tao Jonesing — September 23, 2011 @ 10:31 pm

    • Sorry I wasn’t more clear. The decision discussed and quoted here is that of the prior circuit court, while I linked to my earlier piece on the SCOTUS decision.

      Which 2005 decision?

      Comment by Russ — September 24, 2011 @ 1:54 am

  2. Here I am, in your house. You could have asked to carry on the conversation here, not befoul Yves site, yet you insist on manufacturing constructs, taking others thoughts and questions and reassembling them to your unique empirical perspective. Until you can provide the answers to my questions or not, but I, will not buy a pig in a poke. sorry attempter, too many of us have been down that road. Kinda why humanity is in the fix it is…eh.

    Skippy…good luck amigo.

    Comment by skippy — September 24, 2011 @ 2:12 am

    • LOL. No, you’re no stalker! But don’t worry, your idiocy is evidently in line with Yves’ current plans for the “evolution” of the site. (Just out of curiosity, did she herself egg you on at all?)

      Don’t worry, the NC world’s been made more safe for the Pilkingtons and Skippys. You can all rot together with your pathetic whining (Mosler bonds!) to which no one in power will ever listen even enough to laugh at. I predict that within six months it’ll be an open question there whether or not to support Obama. (He won’t care either, BTW.)

      Comment by Russ — September 24, 2011 @ 2:32 am

      • I never, ever, called attempter an idiot or a stalker. To the contrary I disagreed *only* with him on his black and white condemnation of every thing not attempter brand qualified. Fuck me for having an individual thought or engaging in critical thinking..whoops! And no yves has never asked me to do any thing like you suggest, in fact I don’t share all of her perspectives, but, find her some one that can be worked with…accommodating and not a persona in toto…zealot vs. intellectual, experience vs. mental masturbation.

        Skippy…again may the real attemper stand up, acolytes back the fuck down, WTF one side is just as bad as the one they decry!

        Comment by skippy — September 24, 2011 @ 4:02 am

      • I don’t recall your disagreeing with me prior to the telecom flap. Nor did I see you change in general and start saying to people in general “you’re being too hard on the banks” and “the banks rightly own and control the money supply”.

        No, you flipped only on telecoms and on the fact that the people own the Internet, and from then on you had me in particular on the brain, because I attacked the telecoms most effectively in that thread.

        Meanwhile, you’re here but not commenting on the post at hand. You’re just cluttering up the thread. Now why is such behavior “befouling” on Yves’ thread, but it’s OK here?

        Lemme guess: Yves is an elite blogger, while I’m just a peasant, is that it? Therefore, conduct which would sully her threads doesn’t do the same for mine? Or more like, it’s not possible to befoul the thread of a non-elite blogger, because he’s just scum.

        The level of hypocrisy and evident un-self-awareness of some people is really something to see.

        Comment by Russ — September 24, 2011 @ 4:50 am

      • it was government creation of the net, not telecoms dipshit, get your facts straight, so no flipflops save your confused mind. Elitist boggers, cluttering threads, your a peasant,, et al,, fuk me everyone is the enemy pathos.

        BTW I started life with one foot in both worlds (rich and poor), after that I became one of a few elite team members in the American army (bloody stupid thing to do in retrospect, bad info ftw) hell I trained the jack boot cops that now crush any decent (my bad, feel great about it, not). additionally did some merc work before landing corporate job, then on to work for an international oem after parts for cars company #1 (fuked that off in a few years, sociopath problem) only to re-enter the corporate world a few years after on the tools for a energy mob that retro-fit city’s, municipality’s, highrises for reduction of power consumption. Although some one forgot to tell me the director was in hock to the jewish mob in LA, was ripping off penny venture capital investors to pay them back, so having been payed the big bucks, I went surfing for 6 month in Baja cal in old VW van, came back and tossed my keys to the receptionist and tendered my resignation, greedy bastard that I am…eh. Next I left the beaches of cal to move to boulder where I did bartending, waiting tables, until getting a job in niche construction now after 4 years of traveling around the us and filling ever concealable position, this guy try’s to screw my soon to be wife whilst Im away on a job for him…so adios MF. Any way I move sith wife to aussie land, wife falls pregnant, so feelings of going back to “responsible works ends up as me becoming a sales ex for a inter city developer / parking lot mob… the fraud was epic…I pulled the director up on it and pissed off, Now having burnt all my bridges to weath land fame I went back to the tools, eventually becoming a project manager.

        These days its the wife’s medical career, first responder, and kids education, trying mot to unleash a brat pack upon the world, Help everyone I can,pro bono legal debt advice (hailstorm of fraudulent debt collection) and helping people rebuild after the flood.

        What ever may come…I find solace in knowing that your on the
        other side of the planet. You see down here we work together, imperfect as
        it may be, to walk into the future that awaits us, see flood response. Tens
        of thousands of people in a selfless act of free will, spread out to help
        their fellow citizens. Exposing themselves to harm and danger and asking
        nothing in return, happy for the opportunity to extend their time and backs.

        Sadly…I can only assign you (from personal experience) the persona of “The
        Music Man” “Ya Got Trouble”

        PS. have fun wandering the desert till everyone’s sins are washed.

        Russ who the fk are you, what gives you the right to spit in everyone’s face, with out knowing them, too me your just a rat trying to claw its way out of its own hate filled mind. good luck with that russ. I mean it.

        Comment by skippy — September 24, 2011 @ 6:00 am

      • Let me guess – your wife got sick of your tedious ramblings and that’s why you’re posting them here? It’s so funny the way you’re outraged at being called a stalker, yet simultaneously your very act of sputtering and spewing here proves the charge.

        I’m going to delete any further comments which do nothing but, in your words, “befoul the thread”. But I’m letting this one stand so the record can see what I’ll be deleting. (I did delete the stupid video as being excessive cluttering of the thread, “befouling” according to you. That’s your term for the behavior you continue to engage in.)

        I still can’t decipher your tantrum over the telecoms, and it’s clear that you’re going to refuse to explain your interest in them.

        But I’ll repeat the original statement of fact which so set you off:

        The tubes were funded and built by the people. They’re public property. Their privatization was embezzlement on the part of the government and theft on the part of corporations.

        That’s the fact, Jack.

        (For others reading this, does anyone else think that statement isn’t in the mainstream of what I normally say?)

        Comment by Russ — September 24, 2011 @ 6:29 am

      • Russ said: “You can all rot together with your pathetic whining… to which no one in power will ever listen even enough to laugh at.”

        File under: Pot calls kettle black.

        Comment by Karen — September 26, 2011 @ 5:09 pm

  3. Bravo Russ,

    This disregard for natural law and subsequent deforming of the principle of equality before the law to serve entrenched interests is both significant and tragic. I think you have articulated this quite well and it reminds me of the powerful experience of reading Gangs of America.

    This history is vital for both general education and the necessary reform of business practices. Further, it reminds us that even in times of prosperity we must dedicate some time to vigilance to maintain the proper foundations for society.

    Comment by Strieb Roman — September 24, 2011 @ 4:12 am

    • I have zero market positions, I do not own an house, I do have some land that at present im building a earthship style house upon. I do not serve any one, I make my own way and try to limit my cannibalism of others intentional or other wise,, in fact i give back more than I take.

      Skippy…natural law, like international natural law you say? Try searching yves site with skippy and natural law a few years back, then we will discuss deforming of principle.

      Comment by skippy — September 24, 2011 @ 4:23 am

    • Thanks, Streib. I’ll be saying more about organicism and “natural law” in subsequent posts, since that’s part of the attempt (among intellectuals, at any rate) to elaborate an ideology of corporate communalism.

      Needless to say, in practice it was only ever intended and used to serve power and profit. Meanwhile, the very idea of communalism based on profiteering is a contradiction in terms. That’s why Dewey and others ended up throwing up their hands and saying, “we don’t really need ideas for this stuff, just ad hoc justifications”. 20th century corporatist SCOTUS jurisprudence followed this improvisational pattern.

      You’re right, Nace has a good discussion of this history.

      Comment by Russ — September 24, 2011 @ 4:55 am

      • Russ said in the post; “Only real biological persons exist, period. Corporations, property, money, concentrated wealth, are purely fictive.”

        Russ, Skippy has a point, you do have a tendency to throw out the baby with the bathwater as evidenced in your above statement. Corporations, property, money, and concentrated wealth are not fictive they are reality. They ARE manifestations of ‘natural law’ – it is a dog eat dog world of cannibalism that we are all unwillingly thrust into and Corporations, property, money, concentrated wealth, etc are all manifestations of that cannibalistic struggle.

        There is some good in all of them, you can not deny the real politik and magically start over. Its like the Constitution – an extension of the Magna Carta and any other document in history that was crafted to move the human morality down the evolutionary trail – they all get co-opted and stained and so they need to be upgraded like software, not thrown out. I am with you in terms of the extent of the damage to government (caused by corporate elite wealth co-option and not the people who have virtually no say due to the corrupt electoral process) and see no remedy from within (even to the extent of labeling those fucking dimwits who constantly attempt to do so, and implore others to do so, as murderers for their complicity [Thats why I got the boot at NC.] – I know personally many that have been killed by this crooked corrupt system – it WILL NOT change from within), but, having said that, the existing Constitution is a good departure for a rewrite outside of the present co-opted government, and money, yes even fiat, if controlled by the people is workable, as is banking, if again controlled by the people with time banking an element of it, and even corporate structure can be useful for overly large beneficial to society undertakings, if again CONTROLLED by the people.

        I think you and Skippy should kiss and make up!

        Deception is the strongest political force on the planet.

        Comment by i on the ball patriot — September 24, 2011 @ 8:58 am

      • That’s in part similar to what I said – their only reality is that of might makes right. But that’s certainly not any kind of “law of nature”, however much the criminals want to make people think it is. On the contrary, the evidence of natural history proves a more communal nature among humans, where violence and exploitation played relatively lesser roles, especially within communities.

        It’s only the modern depravity and lying propaganda which claim people are naturally violent and rapacious.

        I don’t recognize the philosophical or moral validity of any of those things, and I suggest that a general spiritual and intellectual renunciation is a good place to start upon the task of renouncing the forms of kleptocracy in real action.

        Comment by Russ — September 24, 2011 @ 10:44 am

      • Russ said; “It’s only the modern depravity and lying propaganda which claim people are naturally violent and rapacious.”

        People ARE naturally violent and rapacious, and you will never rise above that fact unless you first acknowledge and accept that fact, we are all cannibals – it IS a dog eat dog world. You can not survive without putting proteins, carbohydrates and fats into your mouth, nor get through the day without using the creations of other humans that were exploited in some sense or fashion.

        Rising above that base cannibalism is what the evolution of morality is all about.

        Modern propaganda (wealthy elite global propaganda) seeks to legitimize that cannibalistic aspect of human nature and defile and unravel our past good morality by providing rationalizations for it – greed is good, torture is OK, invasions under false pretenses are OK, dip shit Ayn Rand was a legitimate philosopher rather than the twisted odious scum bag that she was, etc. This is all being done to intentionally create ‘perpetual conflict’ in the masses – it is working swell – this post attests to its effectiveness. You are so pissed off you want to go back in the woods and reinvent glass and money. That pisses Skippy off and so he very ungracefully unloads on you. I have felt that same frustration in the past in conversations with you and I simply withdraw for a while because I recognize and value our most common bond, that is that we both recognize the severity of the corruption, as does Skippy. The work to be done here is to locate the best remedial starting point without the name calling. Skippy is not Matt Stoller or millionaire Alan Grayson.

        If you are banning and deleting Skippy let me know. I don’t want my comments here to stand as tacit approval or validation in any way of that tactic and I will withdraw further comments.

        Deception is the strongest political force on the planet.

        Comment by i on the ball patriot — September 24, 2011 @ 12:28 pm

      • Corporations, property, money, and concentrated wealth are not fictive they are reality. They ARE manifestations of ‘natural law’

        You obviously have imbued the term “natural law” with your own meaning, most likely something along the lines “that which follows from human nature.” But that is not the natural law that Russ (or anybody else) is talking about when they use that term.

        In any event, corporations, property, money and concentrated wealth are only reality because we belive them to be truth, even though they are fiction.

        Corporations do not spring from nature but from the laws of man. Indeed, the modern, perpetual corporation is only about 130 years old. That’s hardly something that is immutable or “natural.”

        Natural law principles recognize that personal property is indeed a fiction, something bestowed by society as part of the social contract. Nature does not recognize property, only man does.

        Money is another invention of man. Read David Graeber’s book. Hell, even economists agree that we invented money. In fact, our current form of money in the United States is LESS than 100 years old.

        Concentrated wealth is just the accumulation of money, and it is even more of a fiction. All you have to do is compare M2 to the currency component of M1 (i.e., that portion of M0 that is in circulation and not in bank reserves) and ask yourself what would happen if everybody at the same time asked for their CDs and demand deposits to be turned into cold, hard cash. Let me help you visualize it with this graph that I put together over at FRED:

        https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?graph_id=55078&category_id=0

        M2 = $9 trillion. M0 in circulation = $1 trillion. That leaves $8 trillion of concentrated fiction.

        People ARE naturally violent and rapacious,

        Another fiction. When people are violent or rapacious, it typically is to strangers, and this particular fiction is used to excuse such violence and rapaciousness and allow it to persist. Such thinking is moral and intellectual cowardice.

        Comment by Tao Jonesing — September 24, 2011 @ 3:26 pm

      • one more thing for i on the ball . . .

        I think that I actually understand what you are trying to say, i.e., that corporations etc. are a manifestation of what human beings do to accumulate power and exercise power over their environment, I just think you go too far with it. Humanity is a much more robust and diverse then your Social Darwinist contstruct allows. If it is a dog eat dog world, it is only because we allow it to be.

        Comment by Tao Jonesing — September 24, 2011 @ 3:32 pm

      • You are so pissed off you want to go back in the woods and reinvent glass and money.

        Bullshit, as you know perfectly well if you have any reading comprehension at all. The Naked Capitalism blogger kept calling me “Manichaean”. While that’s a moronic assessment of me, it sure seems to apply to you and others, who are incapable of conceiving anything between your Reformed State Utopia or “going back to the woods”. That’s your limitation, not mine.

        You can not get through the day without using the creations of other humans that were exploited in some sense or fashion.

        That’s your State system, the one you want to conserve, not mine. I conceive a world without such exploitation. It’s already existed, over most of the world for most of humanity’s natural history. It can exist again if people envision it and work and fight for it.

        I guess you won’t let the evidence of history and anthropology get in the way of your misanthropy, which only causes you to agree with the Ayn Rand view of the world and endorse that kind of deception, so I won’t argue it any further. If you change your mind, Graeber’s book is a good place to start.

        we are all cannibals – it IS a dog eat dog world.

        That’s scientifically false but I gather you don’t care about scientific evidence either.

        As for Skippy, I said I’d delete any further comments from him which are non-responsive to the post and just spew insults and fulminations. You can deal with that policy however you like.

        Comment by Russ — September 24, 2011 @ 3:41 pm

      • ask yourself what would happen if everybody at the same time asked for their CDs and demand deposits to be turned into cold, hard cash.

        I’ve read that that’s true of gold as well (most of which “exists” in the form of certificates of ownership or something).

        Comment by Russ — September 24, 2011 @ 3:47 pm

      • @Russ,

        I have also heard that there is far more claims on gold than there is gold. I’m sure that has always been the case for as long as there has been fractional reserve lending.

        Comment by Tao Jonesing — September 24, 2011 @ 5:28 pm

      • Tao Jonesing said; “You obviously have imbued the term “natural law” with your own meaning, most likely something along the lines “that which follows from human nature.” But that is not the natural law that Russ (or anybody else) is talking about when they use that term.”

        I’m a Webster fan, its popular with a lot of folks;

        “: a body of law or a specific principle held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to positive law”

        if you have a different abstraction spit it out.

        Tao Jonesing said; “Corporations do not spring from nature but from the laws of man. Indeed, the modern, perpetual corporation is only about 130 years old. That’s hardly something that is immutable or “natural.””

        The laws of man, written laws, and those chiseled in stone, which are a few thousand years or more old, spring from nature, they were devised to regulate the cannibalism in a group of people – an alliance of people. Corporations more recently co-opted those laws, giving themselves person hood “thereby springing from law”, and thereby breaking the alliance.

        Tao Jonesing said; “Natural law principles recognize that personal property is indeed a fiction, something bestowed by society as part of the social contract. Nature does not recognize property, only man does.”

        Nature recognizes property, nature is very territorial, even those communities that live in peace and harmony that Russ celebrates as the ideal get their balls in an uproar when others attempt to encroach on their resources. Try ripping the prey out of a Lion’s mouth and see how far you get.

        Tao Jonesing said; “Another fiction. When people are violent or rapacious, it typically is to strangers, and this particular fiction is used to excuse such violence and rapaciousness and allow it to persist. Such thinking is moral and intellectual cowardice.”

        No, a lot of violence is betwixt and between people that know each other well. That’s what domestic violence is all about. Such thinking recognizes reality, not fantasy. I think intellectual cowardice might be more like refusing to let another person speak and deleting their comments.

        Tao Jonesing said; “one more thing for i on the ball . . .

        I think that I actually understand what you are trying to say, i.e., that corporations etc. are a manifestation of what human beings do to accumulate power and exercise power over their environment, I just think you go too far with it. Humanity is a much more robust and diverse then your Social Darwinist contstruct allows. If it is a dog eat dog world, it is only because we allow it to be.”

        You make my point beautifully, thank you.

        Deception is the strongest political force on the planet.

        Comment by i on the ball patriot — September 24, 2011 @ 6:51 pm

  4. Russ, Skippy, there is a better way of conducting this conversation. It needn’t be this aggressive.

    Skippy, you’ve been on the attack for days now. Do you really think the conversation you want with Russ is emerging, or could have emerged, or will emerge if you keep this kind of provocation going? There’s more than one way to skin a cat.

    Russ, it doesn’t serve your interests at all to insult. It belittles you. Skippy is no idiot, nor is he a fan of corporatism. That has been obvious to me since I first ‘met’ Skippy on NC. His reaction to you is one you have invoked in others. You are uncompromising in a messy world, and caustic about it too, especially at NC where, it seems to me, you feel almost honour-bound to stay true to your principals. It took me a while to figure out what that means, to read more of your posts, think more about certain things, and I’ve come to understand your anarchist’s intellectual starting point well enough to share fruitful exchanges with you, and respect your efforts generally. But not everyone wants to put in that effort. So I understand Skippy’s reaction (I once had it myself and we crossed swords), though I think his style of engaging you on what bothered him was counterproductive and childish. There are, let’s say, ‘affectionate’ ways of asking those questions.

    In the end this is a waste of both your energies. It’s a shame it happened (though I did get to know Yves a lot better!) but I think you both are more like each other than either of you is prepared to acknowledge right now. Neither of you likes to give ground, that’s for sure…

    Comment by Toby — September 24, 2011 @ 10:33 am

    • Don’t worry, Toby. It’s over. I’ll just reiterate what you already saw, that this person never had a problem with my caustic style before I turned it on a particular target which is evidently a sacred cow to him. (Actually, before he saw me turn it; I’d criticized the telecoms before. And those comments were hardly me at my most aggressive, anyway. He seemed especially offended that I merely said, “nice Internet we had there for awhile”.) Lots of people have those sacred cows. I didn’t say he was a corporatist in general – on the contrary, I said it’s bizarre that he flipped to the corporate side in this one case. That’s what I’ve said from the beginning of the thing, none of which I initiated or fueled.

      But there won’t be any further insults here, since I’ll delete them rather than respond to them.

      Comment by Russ — September 24, 2011 @ 10:49 am

      • You created out of hole cloth, the telecom perspective, purely out of your preexisting mentally biased position (others recognize that it was government and not telecoms) . My intent was to show that *every thing* is_all bad_in toto…all the time. Your positing that I never had a problem with any thought or stylistic contributed by you is indicative of your cognitive projection…you assumed. To further trot out this petard and throw it at me is not an substantiated argument, it is a straw man to hang around my neck and point at and never bizarrely switched to the corporate side either (in aggregate or individually) , more strawman building, my positions are part of the record and they stand *as is*.

        And lets not forget that when you were on thin ice over at NC in the ether, I was one of the few that spoke on your behalf. To be as simplistic as I can, you have an amplitude issue, that is my *personal* thoughts, fist full of salt stuff, each in their own way, can make, their own assessments.

        If it serves, I’m more in IOTBP sphere of thought, so we don’t agree on every thing, whats a body to do?

        Any way I wont darken your door step here again, you’ve got it all worked out and don’t need my or anyone else’s experience or knowledge. Some live in trees, some in towers, I like the plains. Good luck with your endeavors russ and no insults eh.

        PS. IOTBP….baloney sandwiches with out a friend are just…baloney…ambidextrous arms!

        PSS. thread copied (screen shot) every time a comment was added, including reply box in my case.

        Comment by skippy — September 24, 2011 @ 10:21 pm

      • addendum….. should read….not every thing is bad.

        Skippy…lol…my bad.

        Comment by skippy — September 24, 2011 @ 10:39 pm

      • You created out of hole cloth, the telecom perspective, purely out of your preexisting mentally biased position (others recognize that it was government and not telecoms).

        You’re still making no sense. Can anyone else decipher it?

        Your positing that I never had a problem with any thought or stylistic contributed by you is indicative of your cognitive projection

        Sigh. I obviously meant you never disagreed enough to say so, let alone with such incoherent personalized rage. Anyone who’s followed my ideas knows that within the limits of people’s power to act, I recognize only action, not “intent”. I’ve been consistent in that as well, however much you now pretend to misunderstand me. So when I say you never had a problem with something, I obviously mean never enough of a problem to take action based on it. So I repeat, you never objected.

        To get back to the government and the telecoms, I’ve consistently argued the existence and aggression of a corporate-government nexus where the two parts are only nominally distinguishable, but substantively not so. Many others at NC have also argued this. I don’t recall seeing you object, to me or anyone else. But as soon as this line of criticism touched the telecoms, you had a meltdown.

        No matter how you try to twist this, the fact remains that you went from 0 to 10, agreement or silence to personally insulting rage, only where it came to a particular example of a common general argument to which you’d never objected before. Them’s the facts.

        And lets not forget that when you were on thin ice over at NC in the ether, I was one of the few that spoke on your behalf.

        When was that? I was certainly never on thin ice with the majority of participants. On the contrary whenever people celebrated the comment threads (and rightly so, since they were at least as important as the OPs, just as much a contribution to making NC what it used to be; these days, often, more so), if they named names of their favorite commenters, mine was one of the names most frequently mentioned. It’s been like that for years. Nor was I on thin ice with the “proprietor” (who used to tell me in e-mails how much she liked my comments) until her own position started shifting to become more mercenary. The net result is that neither your approval nor disapproval has played any role in anything.

        PSS. thread copied (screen shot) every time a comment was added, including reply box in my case.

        For what? I already said I’d delete abusive nonsense from you. I’m not Yves, surreptitiously trying to change history and then lie about it. (Let’s all recall how a week or two ago I found that comments had been scrubbed from one of the older Pilkington threads, and Yves gave a clumsy reply which was completely unresponsive.) So I’m not a coward like the crew over there, Skippy. If I delete anything and you show your pathetic screen shots to anyone, it’ll only prove I followed through on what I said I’d do.

        But as your record of conduct already shows, you won’t be showing the screen shots of the NC evidence, where history is not your friend.
        http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/links-9411.html

        http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/links-92211.html#comment-475568

        http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/philip-pilkington-the-history-of-greed-%e2%80%93-an-interview-with-jeff-madrick.html#comments

        That is, unless Yves has since sanitized those as well.

        Comment by Russ — September 25, 2011 @ 2:24 am

  5. Attempter:

    The term and concept of “law” is discussed extensively here and many places. There is no “law” (a consistent set of agreed upon acceptable and unacceptable behaviors to which all are expected to adhere so a group or society can function, at least in partially harmony. There will always be anti-social persons). As currently structured in the US empire, I agree with your statement “To be more clear, this is the law as flunkey of organized crime.” The “law” is used by men with guns to fulfill their greed and blood/other lusts with impunity. The crux of it is, NO ACCOUNTABILITY for them. The FISA/telecom immunity is one example, but not the most heinous by any means, (genocide, torture and crimes against humanity are).

    The concept of corporation as person is of course nonsense; a pathetically tortured illogic to justify greed and lust regardless of harm with the bonus of NO ACCOUNTABILITY. The fictional person known as a corporation does not perpetrate criminal acts, the human beings making decisions within the corporate structure perpetrate criminal acts. Under the current “legal” paradigm, those individuals are not held accountable, corporations just pay fines, at most. The “law” says corporations are persons but not subject to arrest or execution (dissolution); how convenient. From a macro conceptual point of view (if the task was to develop a framework for a new society) I say this:
    1. Only human beings are legal persons
    2. Managers of corporations or any other type of organization, who make decisions for such organizations or carry them out are responsible for any and all criminal, fraudulent or negligent actions of the organization, especially in cases where the organization comes to financial ruin or is the cause of the death, pain or suffering to any legal person.
    3. If found guilty of the above, the person shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labor for life without the possibility of release and a fine equal to all their material possessions.

    You say “We can turn this right side up…….We can start out by refusing to recognize their legitimacy on any level, or their existence other than as brute power facts.” Some of the respondents above contend you go too far, that there are salvageable parts of the existing system. Each person must decide for themselves what they are capable and willing to accept and do.

    I say, it starts with the individual, with me. There is no shielding corporate fiction, there are only human beings, who, if they harm me, someone in my family or dear to me, are held ACCOUNTABLE personally as an individual. One person is small when facing the monolith of these fictional entities, but one-on-one is amazingly equalizing. It may seem harsh (and most can’t handle this approach, for whatever reason, and that is ok with me) but it is plain for all to see that the war criminals, perpetrators of crimes against humanity, corporatists and statists will not stop themselves (even i on the ball patriot states “I know personally many that have been killed by this crooked corrupt system – it WILL NOT change from within).” The cumulative effect of single actions is surprisingly effective. The sociopathic cogs (big and small) perpetuating the criminal system known as the U.S. empire must be made to realize that there is ACCOUNTABILITY.

    Let the gnashing of teeth begin!

    Comment by jm51 — September 24, 2011 @ 4:50 pm

    • Yes, it’s clear that law, if it ever had any existence independent of and constraining upon the prerogatives of power, has long since ceased to exist. I’m ready to dispense with the concept completely. It only ever allegedly existed and needed to exist as integral communities started to be forcibly assimilated by commercial empires. Given that the human goal has to be the eradication of all empire and the restoration of human community and human economies, it follows that “law” in the Statist sense isn’t a goal.

      Thus in these posts I want to lay bare how law has been the servant, not of the citizenry, but of corporatism. Not of the human community, but of a fraudulent, nihilistic corporate simulacrum of community made up of consumerism, circuses, and aspirational bourgeois propaganda, all of it temporarily propped up by debt, which is now meant to serve as the vehicle of enslavement.

      As far as the real framework of a new society, I don’t see any necessity or desirability in keeping the corporate form at all. But as far as transitional demands, the ones you name are the absolute minimum acceptable. Corporations are not persons, and management and shareholders are fully liable for all crimes.

      It’s accountability, among other things, that we want. The very purpose of the corporate form is to enable criminals to relinquish accountability. At the micro level, it lets management and shareholders commit crimes and externalize risks and losses with impunity. At the macro, the purpose is to enable government to simultaneously extend its power even as it abrogates responsibility. Corporatism is the process of government abdication and elite secession I’ve often discussed. Corporate welfare is no abuse, but a core element of the intended corporate-state interaction.

      In a nutshell, the goal is to render power and prerogative infinite, while abolishing responsibility and risk completely. The latter are to be transferred completely onto the slave class, which will comprise almost everyone.

      Abolishing corporations as such shall be a necessary part of our liberation.

      Comment by Russ — September 24, 2011 @ 5:23 pm

  6. Profit! The market wants indiscriminate profit. You’re either conducting a market exchange w/ an implied net gain/loss b/w parties or… non-cash reciprocal exchange?

    Kill profits. The Earth is doing it naturally with climate change. Just how many Gulf coasts are we willing and able to rebuild?

    The profit imperative, wealth accumulation, compound interest are the ideological drivers of Corporatism. Attack the mechanism to generate profit, instead of sitting in the park. We know what buttons to press to get the abuser on our throats. This Court legalism is them sharpening the switch for anyone that cares to play ball in their court.

    Comment by Ross — September 25, 2011 @ 3:04 pm

  7. […] the 99? That’s part of what I was getting at with my We’re All Lumpenproles Now and Corporate Tribalism ideas. I’ll be writing more about those, incorporating new insights from David […]

    Pingback by September 17th, Occupy Wall Street, Levels of the Movement « Volatility — October 5, 2011 @ 9:33 am

  8. […] In my first preliminary post on corporate tribalism I described how jurisprudence has tried to define corporate persons as more human than human […]

    Pingback by Corporate Tribalism Part 2: Steven Pinker and Sublimated Violence « Volatility — October 11, 2011 @ 3:23 am

  9. No matter if some one searches for his essential thing, therefore
    he/she wishes to be available that in detail, therefore that thing is
    maintained over here.

    Comment by www.large-porn-tube.com — November 26, 2012 @ 7:41 am

  10. I blog often and I really thank you for your information.

    This great article has truly peaked my interest. I will bookmark
    your site and keep checking for new details about once a week.
    I opted in for your RSS feed too.

    Comment by entry level jobs in nyc — December 4, 2012 @ 1:24 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: