i guess from a 'new atheism' and scientific approach, and general aesthetics, maybe all that bleeding heart kumbaya stuff about human (and now even animal) rights should just be scrapped, and instead face the facts and declare humans to be corporations (which have deeds to operate in certain places).. Viewing people as corporations (input-output devices) whcih evolved to optimally attract money (or squander it, which by conservations laws is required as a basic symmetry (GIGO---emma noether's theorem)) seems to me more natural, especially good for raising kids. 'what da bidness iz' (see www.axiomsandchoice.blogspot.com) due to academic orthodoxy, this view is rejected by entrenched camps, especially in physics. even shrodinger of quantum theory, likely, like other ruined dead souls like schopenhauer and nzietche, by exposure to the known heresy of hindu philosophy, in 'mind and matter' wanted elementary particles to have minds too (and obviously rights, like the Higgs (or 'god') particle----no way hose, no pay, no play). if one realizes from chomsky, that humans are programmed, then they are computers----i.e. Dell, apple, etc. Following chomsky's linguistics on 'government and binding', legal scholars (at Georgetown) have proven that law is genetic and innate (in certain modules, which dell probably sells for those who can afford a good lawyer).. This holds despite the fact there is no univerasal, innate, genetic grammar, because it turns out the law comes first---without law there would be no citizens, and humans are one subset of citizens (just depending on place of origin). The law, such as the genetic code, creates genes from which humans derive. Like numbers which are both objects and functions (processes), law obviously is also a business---its in the yellow pages. And as the 'government and binding' idea shows, we are bound by law to obey governments. So, as the paradox of public choice shows (Mancur Olsen), governments are just anohter class of corporations, producing stuff people buy and themselves consuming the will of the people, to get the hard working tax payer's money which they got from the fed or TANF. anyway seeing the whole world as a set of businesses seems much more natural. POCLAD maybe should take a more science, and evidenced based dielectrcical materialistic approach (Frolich's theory for bose-einstein condensation in biosystems---and they more or less touched on that recently on capital hill when discussing whether cell phones cause (or are casued by) high IQ or not; maybe it was low IQ, or just a game like russian roulette.) . and from a darwinian evolutionary theory approach, once can say in the beginning was the nuclear industry. this was the first corporation in a his story of the plan it; perhaps it was an amphibian (eg blackwater) or alchemical business. .
--- On Sat, 9/19/09, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: From: Jim Devine <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Supreme Court can end liberal democracy this year To: "Progressive Economics" <[email protected]> Date: Saturday, September 19, 2009, 11:05 AM if corporations are people, then we should take something away from them that people don't have, i.e., limited liability. Why should the owners of GE have any immunity from the impact of GE's dumping of toxic chemicals in the Hudson? take away their mansions to pay for the clean-up. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
