corporate vs. state, TD's education
At 10:26 AM 3/25/04 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: I also think that some cypherpunks mistake the Corporate State for what has been described as Crypto-Anarchy. Get this through your head: a corporation can't initiate force against you. You may not like their product, practices, or price, but no one is coercing you at gunpoint. The state, on the other hand, is entirely based on coercion. If you can't appreciate this, you'll be hopelessly inconsistant. PS: you are a corporation, I am a corporation, together we could be a corporation, with 100K others we could be too. Doesn't matter; all have the same rights to act, and be left alone. In fact, it's easy to argue that the current Oil Crusade in Iraq is precisely for the purpose of protecting a set of dinosaur industries in the US. That's not the kind of capitalism I think most Cypherpunks espouse. The state can legitimately only use taxpayers' armies to defend citizens in the country, not other countries, not its perceived-by-some self-interest, not corporations. All the oil colonialism is illegitimate for that reason, as well as illegal as Congress has not declared war.
RE: corporate vs. state, TD's education
Ah Variola...do I detect a wee bit of Knee-jerk in your otherwise consistently iconoclastic views? Let's take a looksee... Get this through your head: a corporation can't initiate force against you. You may not like their product, practices, or price, but no one is coercing you at gunpoint. Think I'm gonna have to disagree with ya' hear partner. For one, in the old days Corporations regularly hired goons to mow down striking coalminers and whatnot. OK, those days are all gone, right? Wrong. Halliburton and Bechtel have both hired mercs for their Iraq operations. (In fact, I was on a call a couple of weeks ago where a Halliburton official was describing the casualties they take on a regular basis. These don't get reported much in the news, though, for obvious reason...) However, a corporation doesn't actually have to hire the goons these days in order to get the job done, not when it's much cheaper to call upon the publically-available pool of goons that function as a government in some places. The fact that some corporations may leverage existing thuggery to get their job done doesn't make them any less complicit. But this is all besides my main point... PS: you are a corporation, I am a corporation, together we could be a corporation, with 100K others we could be too. Doesn't matter; all have the same rights to act, and be left alone. Well, this is where I suspect a little knee-jerk. I'm no socialist: in no way am I saying that Corporations are inherently evil. (In fact, I'm hoping to continue profiting admirably as the result of my participation in the capitalist system.) What I think bares investigation is whether or not, here in the US, a subset of the big corporations are so tied in with the political engine as to be complicit in the violations we both agree are occurring. As Max said so eloquently, this is not to imply that we should make some laws and eliminate these big evil corporations. Or maybe it is (I dunno...I'm a stoopid Cypherpunk...). But I don't think it's inherently inconsistent to point out that there may be a direct correlation between the activities of our particular State and the interests of a subset of Large, Old-money-dominated US Coporations. -TD In fact, it's easy to argue that the current Oil Crusade in Iraq is precisely for the purpose of protecting a set of dinosaur industries in the US. That's not the kind of capitalism I think most Cypherpunks espouse. The state can legitimately only use taxpayers' armies to defend citizens in the country, not other countries, not its perceived-by-some self-interest, not corporations. All the oil colonialism is illegitimate for that reason, as well as illegal as Congress has not declared war. _ Get reliable access on MSN 9 Dial-up. 3 months for the price of 1! (Limited-time offer) http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialuppgmarket=en-usST=1/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/
Re: corporate vs. state, TD's education
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 02:02:25PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: Get this through your head: a corporation can't initiate force against you. You may not like their product, practices, or price, but no one is coercing you at gunpoint. Think I'm gonna have to disagree with ya' hear partner. For one, in the old days Corporations regularly hired goons to mow down striking coalminers and whatnot. That's for sure -- you should read the history of the strike back around the early 1900's on Minnesota's Iron Range. The goons would surround a whole small town, then go from house to house beating *everyone*, even children, with axehandles. Killed a lot of people too. OK, those days are all gone, right? Wrong. Halliburton and Bechtel have both hired mercs for their Iraq operations. (In fact, I was on a call a couple of weeks ago where a Halliburton official was describing the casualties they take on a regular basis. These don't get reported much in the news, though, for obvious reason...) Not to mention all the goons they still hire all over the 3rd world to break strikes, kill organizers and labor leaders, etc. However, a corporation doesn't actually have to hire the goons these days in order to get the job done, not when it's much cheaper to call upon the publically-available pool of goons that function as a government in some places. The fact that some corporations may leverage existing thuggery to get their job done doesn't make them any less complicit. But this is all besides my main point... PS: you are a corporation, I am a corporation, together we could be a corporation, with 100K others we could be too. Doesn't matter; all have the same rights to act, and be left alone. Nonsense -- corporations are not humans, they have zero rights. Together we could be a partnership, with 100K others we could be a partnership as well. Corporations where the owners (shareholders) and employees are not liable for the crimes and debts of the corp should be illegal. And there's nothing at all socialistic or statist about that -- in fact, it's more that corporations require statism to even exiest. Well, this is where I suspect a little knee-jerk. I'm no socialist: in no way am I saying that Corporations are inherently evil. (In fact, I'm hoping to continue profiting admirably as the result of my participation in the capitalist system.) What I think bares investigation is whether or not, here in the US, a subset of the big corporations are so tied in with the political engine as to be complicit in the violations we both agree are occurring. As Max said so eloquently, this is not to imply that we should make some laws and eliminate these big evil corporations. Or maybe it is (I Why not? If Thomas Jefferson and George Washington had their way, corporations would be illegal in the US. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: corporate vs. state, TD's education
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Harmon Seaver wrote: Nonsense -- corporations are not humans, they have zero rights. Unfortunately, there are a whole slew of Supreme Court decisions that say otherwise - mostly applying the 14th amendment (you know, freeing the slaves) to grant free speech and other constitutional protections to corporations.
Re: corporate vs. state, TD's education
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 05:27:14PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Harmon Seaver wrote: Nonsense -- corporations are not humans, they have zero rights. Unfortunately, there are a whole slew of Supreme Court decisions that say otherwise - mostly applying the 14th amendment (you know, freeing the slaves) to grant free speech and other constitutional protections to corporations. Correct, that is unfortunate -- and it certainly is additional evidence (as if anyone needed more) that the Supremes are just another criminal gang. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: corporate vs. state, TD's education
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-03-25 22:27Z) wrote: On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Harmon Seaver wrote: Nonsense -- corporations are not humans, they have zero rights. Unfortunately, there are a whole slew of Supreme Court decisions that say otherwise - mostly applying the 14th amendment (you know, freeing the slaves) to grant free speech and other constitutional protections to corporations. Persons, not humans. Nobody has ever claimed that corporations are human. -- That woman deserves her revenge... and... we deserve to die. -- Budd, Kill Bill
Re: corporate vs. state, TD's education
Harmon Seaver (2004-03-25 23:06Z) wrote: On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 05:27:14PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Harmon Seaver wrote: Nonsense -- corporations are not humans, they have zero rights. Unfortunately, there are a whole slew of Supreme Court decisions that say otherwise - mostly applying the 14th amendment (you know, freeing the slaves) to grant free speech and other constitutional protections to corporations. Correct, that is unfortunate -- and it certainly is additional evidence (as if anyone needed more) that the Supremes are just another criminal gang. Why should it be impermissible for corporations to be persons under the law when parents can be persons on behalf of their minor children? In both situations, one or more people are persons only to represent others. Does a parent have any more right to act on behalf of others than a company does? -- That woman deserves her revenge... and... we deserve to die. -- Budd, Kill Bill
Re: corporate vs. state, TD's education
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 11:46:29PM +, Justin wrote: Why should it be impermissible for corporations to be persons under the law when parents can be persons on behalf of their minor children? Why should they be? In both situations, one or more people are persons only to represent others. Does a parent have any more right to act on behalf of others than a company does? -- No, why should they? -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: corporate vs. state, TD's education
This is what Major Variola (ret) [EMAIL PROTECTED] said about corporate vs. state, TD's education on 25 Mar 2004 at 9:16 Get this through your head: a corporation can't initiate force against you. You may not like their product, practices, or price, but no one is coercing you at gunpoint. Maybe in the good ol' USA, but apparently not so elsewhere. The following quote is from a CBC radio show, Dispatches, about 3/4 down the page at http://www.cbc.ca/dispatches/thisseason.html = Start quote = In the Congo,...a mining company can pay its taxes and fees to the local warlord, knowing full well that the money will be used to arm guerillas and kill more people. All perfectly legal. All perfectly immoral. That's a passage from the new book, Making A Killing: How And Why Corporations Use Armed Force To Do Business. Canadian author Madelaine Drohan has examined the corporate use of violence and private militias down through the years, and concludes, you can't trust corporations to wield armed force. While the cases she documents are all in Africa, in our interview she reminds us that Canada was opened up by British fur companies operating on the same principle. = End quote = The RealAudio transcript is at http://www.cbc.ca/dispatches/audio/031022_drohan.rm -- -- -- -- Bob Jonkman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
corporate vs. state, TD's education
At 10:26 AM 3/25/04 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: I also think that some cypherpunks mistake the Corporate State for what has been described as Crypto-Anarchy. Get this through your head: a corporation can't initiate force against you. You may not like their product, practices, or price, but no one is coercing you at gunpoint. The state, on the other hand, is entirely based on coercion. If you can't appreciate this, you'll be hopelessly inconsistant. PS: you are a corporation, I am a corporation, together we could be a corporation, with 100K others we could be too. Doesn't matter; all have the same rights to act, and be left alone. In fact, it's easy to argue that the current Oil Crusade in Iraq is precisely for the purpose of protecting a set of dinosaur industries in the US. That's not the kind of capitalism I think most Cypherpunks espouse. The state can legitimately only use taxpayers' armies to defend citizens in the country, not other countries, not its perceived-by-some self-interest, not corporations. All the oil colonialism is illegitimate for that reason, as well as illegal as Congress has not declared war.
RE: corporate vs. state, TD's education
Ah Variola...do I detect a wee bit of Knee-jerk in your otherwise consistently iconoclastic views? Let's take a looksee... Get this through your head: a corporation can't initiate force against you. You may not like their product, practices, or price, but no one is coercing you at gunpoint. Think I'm gonna have to disagree with ya' hear partner. For one, in the old days Corporations regularly hired goons to mow down striking coalminers and whatnot. OK, those days are all gone, right? Wrong. Halliburton and Bechtel have both hired mercs for their Iraq operations. (In fact, I was on a call a couple of weeks ago where a Halliburton official was describing the casualties they take on a regular basis. These don't get reported much in the news, though, for obvious reason...) However, a corporation doesn't actually have to hire the goons these days in order to get the job done, not when it's much cheaper to call upon the publically-available pool of goons that function as a government in some places. The fact that some corporations may leverage existing thuggery to get their job done doesn't make them any less complicit. But this is all besides my main point... PS: you are a corporation, I am a corporation, together we could be a corporation, with 100K others we could be too. Doesn't matter; all have the same rights to act, and be left alone. Well, this is where I suspect a little knee-jerk. I'm no socialist: in no way am I saying that Corporations are inherently evil. (In fact, I'm hoping to continue profiting admirably as the result of my participation in the capitalist system.) What I think bares investigation is whether or not, here in the US, a subset of the big corporations are so tied in with the political engine as to be complicit in the violations we both agree are occurring. As Max said so eloquently, this is not to imply that we should make some laws and eliminate these big evil corporations. Or maybe it is (I dunno...I'm a stoopid Cypherpunk...). But I don't think it's inherently inconsistent to point out that there may be a direct correlation between the activities of our particular State and the interests of a subset of Large, Old-money-dominated US Coporations. -TD In fact, it's easy to argue that the current Oil Crusade in Iraq is precisely for the purpose of protecting a set of dinosaur industries in the US. That's not the kind of capitalism I think most Cypherpunks espouse. The state can legitimately only use taxpayers' armies to defend citizens in the country, not other countries, not its perceived-by-some self-interest, not corporations. All the oil colonialism is illegitimate for that reason, as well as illegal as Congress has not declared war. _ Get reliable access on MSN 9 Dial-up. 3 months for the price of 1! (Limited-time offer) http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialuppgmarket=en-usST=1/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/
