U.S.A, Inc.

[Guest guest]

T

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:42:59 -0800 (PST)

U.S.A, Inc.

 

U.S.A, Inc.

 

" Like any corporation, the United States chooses profit over humanity.

But the United States is unique in that it operates less like Unocal

or Halliburton and more like the mafia, complete with " hits " upon any

competitors which might threaten the existing order ( " nothing

personal, just business " ). But even the most violently diabolical

members of organized crime can only drool with envy at the military

might the U.S.A., Inc. has at its disposal to enforce its will upon

the world. "

 

Jeremy R. Hammond

 

02/17/05 " Information Clearing House " - - The corporation is, by

nature, an exploitative entity. I've pointed this out in conversation

only to have the notion summarily rejected, the defense being that

this corporation or that corporation is not exploitative, so the

hypothesis must therefore be false. The fallacy should be obvious

enough, however, to the careful observer. The hypothesis is not that

all corporations are exploitative, but that the corporation is

exploitative. Nor is the former a corollary of the latter.

 

As self-evident as it may seem to some, there are others who might

consider the statement to be " liberal " rhetoric emanating from the

margins of society, and who therefore require some demonstration of

its accuracy should they be expected to take the hypothesis seriously.

 

To do so is a laborless enough task. One need merely point out that

corporations, by law, are required to maximize profits for their

shareholders. Thus, when any conflict of interest arises, the

corporation will inevitably choose to do that which brings in more

mammon, rather than that which serves the public interest. It should

come as no surprise, then, that exploitation occurs as a result.

 

Take the environment. This is perhaps the most obvious area in which

corporations are exploitative, and even those who would deny the

hypothesis would be reluctant to assert that corporations are not

naturally exploitative of the environment. Given the choice between

doing what's right for the environment (such as, say, not polluting),

and making a profit, the route the corporation will take is no great

secret.

 

Fortunately, there are times when the law of the corporation which

demands profits for its shareholders may be trumped by other public

laws, such as those which seek to preserve the delicate balance of the

natural world in which we live. Thus, the corporation, given the

choice, will always exploit the environment for profit unless there is

some act of legislation preventing it from doing so. Naturally,

therefore, when deregulation occurs, increased exploitation results.

 

Or take wages of labor, a matter in which, to provide evidence for the

hypothesis, I will defer to a higher authority. " The workmen, " wrote

Adam Smith, " desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as

possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the

latter in order to lower the wages of labour… But whoever imagines,

upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the

world as of the subject. Masters are always and every where in a sort

of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages

of labour above their actual state. "

 

Furthermore, " Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the

differences between masters and their workmen, " Smith also noted, " its

counselors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is

in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is

sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters. "

 

Tacit conspiracies to depress wages of labor – what any laborer, at

least, would describe as exploitation – are not the only conspiracies

in which corporations engage. " People of the same trade seldom meet

together, " Smith wrote, " even for merriment and diversion, but the

conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some

contrivance to raise prices. "

 

I will add one final observation from the renowned economist: " The

monopolists, by keeping the market constantly understocked, by never

fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much

above the natural price, and raise their emoluments, whether they

consist in wages or profit, greatly above their natural rate. "

 

I submit these observations of the nature of corporations by this

competent authority as evidence of their exploitative nature. It

should be noted, however, that the absence of any sort of conflict of

interest for any particular corporation will naturally mean no

exploitation occurs. It is where such a conflict of interest occurs

that it is in the nature of the corporation to choose the more

exploitative of routes.

 

It might be prudent to include a few specific examples of exploitation

which exist today as a result of corporations' inability to rise above

their nature. The outsourcing of U.S. jobs to foreign countries is one

example of particular concern in recent years. Not only does this

represent what the American labor force views as a betrayal, but it

also results in the exploitation of foreign labor forces.

 

To the corporation, what matters is the numbers, and the fact that

they can pay someone in a third-world country a tiny fraction of what

they would have to pay an American worker to accomplish the same job.

As Smith observed, one method of maintaining profits is by depressing

wages. It being the nature of the corporation to maximize profit, it

should come as no great surprise that it will view the opportunity to

replace a labor force receiving reasonable wages with one receiving

barely enough to provide food on the table, a roof over a few heads,

and modest coverings for a few naked bodies – or less – with great

enthusiasm. Humanity is simply not a variable in the equation.

 

Some might argue that this is not exploitation since it provides

foreign laborers with jobs they might otherwise not have. But this

argument fails to take into account other natural factors, such as the

lack of regulation in foreign countries that are under more despotic

rule than our own. It ignores such matters as that of children

laboring fourteen hours a day in sweatshops. It is precisely by

abusing the rights of the laborer, accommodated by the lack of

legislation enforcing the protection of such rights, that the

corporation is able to pay such low wages. Attempting to paint such

exploitation in the color of benevolence is nothing more than an act

of denial on the part of corporate apologists.

 

Corporations are also more than happy to take advantage of lax

environmental regulations in foreign countries. Thus, corporations

which might be required by law in our nation to take measures to

protect the environment can operate in other countries without concern

over investing in such protective measures. Why pollute our country

when we can pollute somebody else's at a fraction of the cost?

 

Another aspect of corporate exploitation is the willingness to collude

with despotic regimes. Corporations' willingness to support tyrants

for mutual profit is another common theme in exploitation regularly

ignored by the apologists of what has been dubbed " globalization " .

 

But besides being exploitative in nature, there are other disturbing

features of the corporation, such as their designation as legal

" persons " . By defining " corporations " as legal " persons " , they can

legally claim the same " privileges and immunities of citizens of the

United States " referred to in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

 

The traditional explanation for that amendment is that it recognized

the rights of blacks. Under this interpretation, it can be argued that

corporations can claim to have " rights " such as those protected by the

first ten amendments – an implication with dangerous enough consequences.

 

But the amendment nowhere mentions " rights " , only " privileges " . It

speaks of " persons " who are " subject to " the United States government.

This language should be enough to cause any true republican to raise

an eyebrow.

 

First, there is a fundamental difference between " rights " and

" privileges " . Rights, as defined by the Declaration of Independence,

are God-given and inalienable. Privileges, on the other hand, are

granted by one man to his fellow man and are quite alienable. The

founding documents established a republican form of government for the

union of States that is subject to the people. We the People, with

God-given inalienable rights, established a government subject to our

authority and granted it certain privileges.

 

Suddenly, with the 14th amendment, a different form of government was

described. In this form of government, the people are subject to the

government, rather than vice versa. In this form of government, the

people are granted privileges from the government, rather than vice

versa. In short, whereas the Constitution established a republic, the

14th amendment described a democracy.

 

For all the talk these days about " democracy " , one might never guess

that the founding fathers despised that form of government. A

democracy, they recognized, is mob rule. It's two wolves and a sheep

voting on what's for dinner, to borrow the analogy. In a republic, on

the other hand, one man and the law is a sovereign in an impenetrable

fortress. A democracy grants privileges, a republic recognizes rights.

There is, in short, all the difference in the world between a republic

and a democracy.

 

What is certain is that the 14th amendment created a new class of

citizens. What exactly this new class of citizens is, however, is

slightly more ambiguous. It is commonly taught that this new citizenry

was the black population, which was raised to the level of white

citizenry. In reality, if one may accurately judge from the language,

what occurred is that the status of the entire population was lowered

from being citizens of a republic to being citizens of a democracy,

and from having God-given inalienable rights to having

government-granted privileges.

 

Understood in either context, the consequences of the legal

designation of corporations as " persons " is essentially the same. In

either interpretation, it means that corporate entities have equal

standing under the law as individual citizens, something that should

be considered neither appropriate nor desirable. Corporations should

rightfully be bound by stricter regulations than those which govern

individuals in their relations with one another.

 

It is not that the corporation has been given the same status as

sovereign citizens of the republic, but that the republic has been

replaced with a democracy and every citizen denigrated to the level of

the corporation; while the regulations governing corporations have not

been met with any similar denigration. The end result is that,

whichever paradigm one chooses to live by, corporations have more

power and influence in society than should exist in a just and

equitable society.

 

And thus it is that we have come to be regulated by commercial law,

rather than by common law; by the law of the sea rather than by the

law of the land. We have all become corporate entities, having

surrendered our republic in favor of democracy, our rights in favor of

privileges, and our sovereignty in favor of servitude by some other

name. We have entered the rabbit hole of legalism, where nothing is as

it seems; or the matrix, if you prefer, designed to give the

appearance of freedom but lacking its most fundamental and essential

characteristics.

 

And so it is that " United States " has come to be defined as " a Federal

Corporation " (Title 28, VI, Chapter 176, Subchapter A, Section 3002)

with all the implications of that designation. Our nation has come to

be the most exploitative upon the face of the earth. Only a great act

of self-delusion could prompt one to assert any differently in the

face of the supporting evidence.

 

Like any corporation, the United States chooses profit over humanity.

But the United States is unique in that it operates less like Unocal

or Halliburton and more like the mafia, complete with " hits " upon any

competitors which might threaten the existing order ( " nothing

personal, just business " ). But even the most violently diabolical

members of organized crime can only drool with envy at the military

might the U.S.A., Inc. has at its disposal to enforce its will upon

the world.

 

And the U.S. is not afraid of using this might, as it is only too

eager to demonstrate, in order to advance its agenda of domination,

particularly, if recent history is any judge, with regard to the

natural resources of the Middle East. Apologists for U.S. aggression

commonly charge its critics with being " anti-American " . These

apologists rightfully recognize that being " American " means sharing in

the beliefs and principles laid out by the founding fathers in the

founding documents, but fail to recognize that, by this very

definition of the word, it is our government itself which is violently

" anti-American " .

 

The problem of exploitation runs thick in the heart of our nation

today. The nature of corporations can only be overcome by enforceable

regulations which protect the rights of individuals. So long as we

have a government that is more protective of corporations, however,

than of individuals, exploitation will continue to increase until the

remains of our republic are swept into the dustbins of history. If

this is not the future we desire for ourselves, then it's time to

restore the republic, and to take back the reins of government from

those who have usurped it.

 

For those who would insist that this is anti-American-speak, I submit

the following evidence to the contrary:

 

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created

equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable

Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of

Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted

among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the

governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive

of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish

it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such

principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall

seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence,

indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be

changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience

hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are

sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which

they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations,

pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them

under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to

throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future

security. "

 

You just can't get much more American than that.

 

Jeremy R. Hammond - Email - jrhammond001

 

http://207.44.245.159/article8101.htm