|
Please read Dr. Tremblay's
coming book: The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles To
pre-order: The United States of Corporate America: From Democracy to
Plutocracy Comments (17) New
A Constitutional Republic
Posted, Sunday, January 31, 2010
2:03 pm I read your article, "The United States of
Corporate America: From Democracy to Plutocracy" and am
in agreement with what the title says. The principles upon which American was
founded are being murdered and the deed is just about complete. What I do not like about your article and what way
to many other people say is you/they keep referring to America as a
"democracy". Why do you not called it what it is suppose to
be? a "Constitutional Republic".There is a big difference
between "rule by majority" and "rule by
law" Mike Answer by R. T.: It is true that the U. S. is a democratic republic
with checks and balances, and not a so-called popular democracy. But let us
not play with words here. A republic is: 1, “ a government in which the head of state
is usually a president”. And 2, “a country governed by the elected
representatives of its people.”
So it's true that the United States is a republic,
but it is also a representative democracy. One does not exclude the other. In fact, the principles proclaimed in the U.S. Bill
of Rights and the U.S. Constitution (the Bill of Rights is part of the
constitution) are democratic principles that apply to all citizens. With the Civil
War and the abolishment of slavery, plus the extension of the right to vote
to non-property owners and to women, the United States has become even more
democratic. That's why American leaders profess to go around the
world waging war to establish “democracy”. New
Corporations as Persons and
Money as Speech
Posted, Tuesday, January 26,
2010 3:12 pm If we roll back this U.S. Supreme Court decision,
what do we do about media corporations who demonstrate their political bias
on a daily basis? Why should one corporate entity (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC,
FOX) have the ability to spend huge sums of money promoting their candidate
through “friendly reporting” while another non-media corporation
is banned from buying time to do the same for their chosen candidate? ...I
support the Supreme Court ruling and believe that non-media corporations are
disadvantaged against the predominately liberally biased media who have free
reign to influence elections through unfair and biased reporting. I happen to believe that the Supreme Court made the
right decision by determining that a corporation is a form of association of
people. I work for a corporation. Nobody forces me to work there. ...Another
reason I support the decision is the inherent unfairness that existed prior
to the ruling. Other groups of individuals such as MoveOn.org and the Center
for American Progress could spend as much money as they wished on advocacy or
individual candidates, yet corporations, which are also groups of individuals
(they both have boards of directors who decide how the money is spent) were
banned from even doing advocacy advertising, much less financially supporting
candidates. ...If we are going to allow 501c3 non-profits to support
individual candidates, we must also allow business corporations to do the
same since both corporations and 501c3's are non-person entities... The Supreme Court is making the argument that a
corporation is to be viewed the same as an individual since it is a group of
individuals. ...It should be all or nothing; all associations of individuals
should be excluded from contributing funds to political campaigns, or none.
...Let the free flow of ideas occur and let the people decide. Ron (Montana) Answer
by R. T.: Well,
the answer to your first question is easy: Reinstate the “Fairness
Doctrine” that Reagan abolished in 1986. President Obama should put on
his pants and start governing. My
answer to your second assertion is the following: There
is a big difference between economic corporations whose business is to
produce and distribute goods and services, and thus benefit from the
privilege of limited liability, and voluntary political action committees
whose main purpose is to engage in political debate. Such PACs are more
similar to political parties than to business corporations or unions. This
does not mean that the amount of money spent by PACs during a political
campaign cannot or should not be capped. Banning
such PACs, however, would deny the freedom of association guaranteed by the
Constitution and would be an infringement of the First Amendment. The
answer to your third point is this one: Incorporated businesses are not voluntary
associations of persons. They are a legal entity with the privilege of limited
liability in order to join capital and labor in the production of goods and
services. They are not created under the constitutional right of association
but by legislation as an efficient way to promote economic activity. That's
why incorporated businesses cannot be treated as associations of individuals
for political purposes. In fact, people who invest in them are rarely de
facto consulted in regard to the direction of the company. Their real
recourse, unless they are a majority shareholder, is to sell their shares if
they disagree. Management has no right to speak for the individuals connected
to the corporation. The same can be said about labor unions when leaders
impose their political views on the membership and use union dues to favor
one candidate or one political party, irrespective of a member's choice.
That's undemocratic and abusive. That's
why both business corporations and labor unions should be barred from
spending a corporation's or a union's money in a political campaign. That's
not the managers' money. They are only custodians of that money. Their use of
it to intervene in the political process reduces the importance of each
individual citizen's participation in the democratic process. To
summarize, and as I explain in my coming book The Code for Global Ethics, (chap. 9), I say
that corporations are not moral agents—only breathing individuals
are—only they can adopt moral standards of conduct and be a source of
law. Contrary to what you say, and what the Roberts Court majority seems to
think, incorporated businesses are not associations of
persons. They are a legal entity with the privilege of limited liability with
the purpose of using capital and labor in the production of goods and
services. They are not created under the constitutional right of association
but by legislation as an efficient way to promote economic activity. Therefore, my
conclusion is that the five-member majority on the U. S. Surpreme Court
rendered not only an antidemocratic judgment, but also an immoral one. I
would add that what the Roberts Court majority has done is to
devalue the importance of each American's vote and increase tremendously the
political power of the money class and business corporations in the United
States. They will be able to buy senators and representives,
even presidents, at will. I thus predict that the U. S. which has the lowest
voting turn-out of all democratic countries (a bit above 50 percent for
presidential elections and a bit above 33 percent for mid-term elections)
will see voter participation decline further in the coming years, if this
revolutionary Supreme court judgment is not over-turned one way or another.
Ordinary people, i.e. living persons, will arrive at the conclusion that
their vote has no value, everything being decided in advance by the corporate
full-time 35,000 lobbyists in Washington D.C. and by the billions of dollars
used by them to buy influence and political access. I would bet that 10-15 years from now, the
participation rate will drop to 33 percent for presidential elections and to
25 percent for mid-term elections. That would be a true mockery of democracy
and the U.S. will be laughed at for pretending to “spread democracy
around the world” when it does not practice it at
home. Alexander Hamilton, who wanted an elected aristocracy, would have won
over Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. New
The Grand Conspiracy of
Corporate Personhood
Posted, Tuesday, January 26,
2010 11:12 am Perhaps you may want to read the history of the
machinations by which corporations became persons. I have copied excerpts
from Chapter 6 of Thom Hartmann's book Unequal Protection. They are most
instructive and demonstate the long reach of corporate personhood. In The Rise of American Civilization (1927), Columbia
history professor Charles Beard and woman’s suffrage movement activist
Mary Beard suggested that the rise of corporations on the American
landscape was the result of a grand conspiracy that reached from the
boardrooms of the nation’s railroads all the way to the Supreme Court. Lynn Answer by R. T.: The latest manifestation of corporate power, of
course, is the extremist Roberts Court's decision to extend the Bill of
Rights to corporations and other legislatively created entities. That's why I
say that this January 21 decision is really the equivalent of a political and
constitutional “coup d'état”. It is truly a revolutionary and system-changing
decision. This is reminiscent of Hitler burning The Reichstag (Assembly
Chamber) in Germany in 1933. This is an event that marked the establishment
of Nazi
Germany. If the
January 21 (2010) Roberts court's decision is not overturned one way or another
by the President and Congress, it will have devastating consequences for the
future of U.S. democracy. New
Strains on American Society
Posted, Monday, January 25, 2010
4:05 pm That there are stresses and strains on American
society is clear for anyone to see. These stresses and strains are the result
of changes that include the country's demographic composition, but more
importantly, fundamental changes in the way value has been created during the
last decade and a half. As these changes are now making their impact felt,
many thinking people struggle with the question of what will happen to
American Capitalism. My own take on it is driven by a simple distinction
that I find helpful in trying to understand what is going on. That
distinction is between "Culture" and "Structure." For
example, the American business culture has always been and continues to be
informed by a spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship, and a willingness to
take a chance. The structure of our present model of capitalism is
another story. There is no doubt in my mind that a large part of today's
societal frictions is the result of the fact that several important
industries have morphed into what can be labeled as "Oligopolies".
An oligopoly is a market system dominated by three or four major players and
in which everyone else operates on the periphery. Today, we find this
condition in such sectors as, financial services, automotive (the domestic
portion, anyway), the health insurance industry and pharmaceuticals. One of the
more salient characteristics of an oligopoly is that the leading participants
try to avoid competing on price in as many ways possible. At the same time, you will find that large
corporations, including those operating under conditions of oligopoly, are
not exactly stellar creators of jobs. To the contrary, it is a
well-established fact that job creation occurs mostly at the bottom of the
pyramid, where the millions of smaller and medium-sized companies reside. Those players operate under conditions of "Free
Enterprise", where many players compete vigorously on price and all
other ingredients of the competitive landscape. Free enterprise of course, is
merely a different shade of grey within the entire spectrum of capitalism's
organizing principles. ... Tom New
Taking the Judgment not Lying
Down
Posted, Monday, January 25, 2010
10:45 am Most Americans have taken that judgment not lying
down, but standing up, which is the usual position for sleepwalking. Neocons, who control U.S. media and finance, are
reactionary corporatists who purged from the GOP us bonafide conservatives
who had built the party. Bush/41 and self-styled neoconservatives then
hijacked it. I suggest to all true conservatives in the South
that henceforth we call ourselves 'seventy-sixers' or 'grandkids' (re the
Revolutionary 'Sons of Liberty'), as neocon anticonservatives have now
dropped the 'neo', thereby making 'conservative' the 'new gay' -- a
misappropriated word that in no way means what it had once meant. Liberal collectivists, having trashed their own
'brand' through unpopular policy positions and distasteful political tactics,
have rebranded themselves as 'progressives'. Ironically, we conservatives had
our brand trashed for us by reactionary collectivists who misnamed themselves
neoconservatives in order to steal an impeccable brandname and displace us. Given the malicious and destructive domestic and
foreign policies they have pursued, the neocons -- now led domestically by
Benny Bernanke-panky (Time Magazine's 'Poison of the Year') -- would have
more accurately called themselves the 'Merchants of Menace'. Had the banking
racket been more developed in his day, perhaps Shakespeare might not have
written [Henry VI] "kill all the lawyers". Johnny New
Real Democracy in Australia!
Posted, Sunday, January 24, 2010
6:22 pm Your books are in excellent company. I will read
them with great interest. Because no realistic political remedy appears to
exist that might rescue democratic government in the US, UK or Canada, I
thought you might enjoy reading the product of a real live plot to achieve
this in Australia. In the event we are successful this will provide a model
for others to emulate. Although our membership structure prohibits accurate
assessment of our numbers, it would appear that we are now the third largest
political entity in the country; happily, a growth that has developed
entirely below the media and party political radar. This discretion is
important to us because the last entity to attempt a return to democracy was
destroyed by the Murdoch-dominated media and by academia, and its members
ridiculed and reviled and, finally, politically assassinated. The leader was
imprisoned. Our second method favouring our survival is the
adoption of a strategy by which instead of one single organisation, which
would attract unwelcome attention and harassment, we function as nine
separate entities. One of these, for example, promotes music and bands that
tend to politicise working class youth, for these are the main sector that
can be relied upon to get up and fight, should this be required. (University
youth, seeing themselves as the future elite, are in favour of a more
hierarchical and anti-egalitarian society). However, our spearhead groups
pursue tariff restoration and opposition to ETS. A second advantage of multiple entities is that by
exposing prospective members only to specific causes they approve, we
alienate no one. So far, members have proved to be very comfortable with
this. By comparison, political parties, carrying a platform of policies, are
inevitably limited in their growth and support, to tolerance for all of their
policies. This is why small parties rarely attract more than 8-10% of the
electorate; generally settling at 7%. The first e-mail attachment elaborates on the points
you made about democracy. I have researched this subject quite exhaustively,
including spending many years within tribal communities in which consensus
protocols guide pure democracy. You may be aware that most anthropological
opinion would deny this interpretation, however, in Australia, I never
encountered an Anthropologist who bothered to learn Aboriginal languages
whereas I learned one quite thoroughly and several other languages to varying
stages of fluency; flowing from an investment of 25 years. I consider
monolingualism to be the absolute disqualification for any attempt at
interpreting a disparate culture. The second attachment has been described by some
notable readers as our manifesto, which I suppose it is
to some extent. However, the intent is simply to acquaint pro-democracy
entities with an overview of the real globalisation; as launched by the
Rockefeller/Rothschild group. We are attempting to establish a globalisation
resistance movement around the world in which members contribute their own
special knowledge, thus educating us all. To a considerable extent, www.GlobalResearch.com performs
this function admirably but we seek additional coordination of action. One can
talk only for so long but eventually active strategies must be launched. We
are quite expert at knowing what works and what are deliberate pitfalls ready
to bog down naive campaigners, and we have proselytised techinques since
2006. Tony (Electing someone to do our thinking for us is
foolish. Imposing the people's consensus on government is democracy.) New
Corporate globalism
Posted, Sunday, January 24, 2010
2:22 pm I just read an article by you on corporate
globalism. I think that the word "globalism" should not be used
without the word "corporate" in front of it. I am a
singer-songwriter in Berkeley, CA who recently learned to make music videos. Vic New
Labor Unions and Corporations
Posted, Sunday, January 24, 2010
10:19 am Although you mentioned labor unions in the beginning
of your article, you failed to include them in your revision of the
constitution. They have been allowed this opportunity even prior to the
court's recent decision. Why leave them out? Phyllis New
Plutocracy vs Democracy
Posted, Saturday, January 23,
2010 8:42 pm As per your article titled: "The United
States of Corporate America: From Democracy to Plutocracy",
nowhere in the US Constitution does it even mention the word Democracy, let
alone this being its form of Government. The article you have so eloquently
written is only partially true, the US is now and has been a Plutocracy since
the beginning of the War between the States in 1863. The Republic went
thru it's final unseating in 1916 with the re-election of Woodrow Wilson. In
future if you intend to write an article "Based on the facts"
please include them. Douglas
New
Excellent Piece
Posted, Saturday, January 23,
2010 10:43 am This is an excellent piece. What a travesty! Even
John McCain has come out against the Roberts Court's decision. Diana New
Heading toward a Revolution?
Posted, Friday, January 22, 2010
12:25 am About the Supreme Court decision, your article is exactly
to the point. I fully concur. Consequences of that Court decision will be
dramatically bad, unfortunately. The paradox is in the fact that the Supreme
Court acts against the Consitution, which it is supposed to guard. I'm afraid
we are heading toward a revolution. Karol New
Ordinary People!
Posted, Saturday, January 23,
2010 2:05 pm The Constitution doesn’t
begin with “We the Ordinary People”. We all have our individual talents; that does not make us
better than others. Thomas Jefferson had the decency to refer to the citizens
as the people when he spoke. Drop the “ordinary” language from
your vocabulary. I seem to recall a skirmish (war) fought in the late
1700’s to rid ourselves of corporate rule. The British East India Corporation
with the backing of King George III sent in troops to quell the rabble and
lost. I am still quite puzzled by this-when anytime in history before this
event did the loser get to dictate the terms of the treaty. In essence they
didn’t lose much at the time, however in the long run they lost a great
deal. So you see the Founders were painfully aware of the evils of
corporations and left it up to the states to make laws governing them. I am
looking forward to reading your book. Harvey New
Fine Article
Posted, Saturday, January 23,
2010 10:25 am Many thanks for the vary fine article clearly
reflecting America's slide into slavery. You are so right in that so many
people are asleep and just don't give a damn, but maybe the upset in Mass. is
a dim light into the future. Heep up the good work, Professor, the Americas
need more of you. Walter New
The Word “Equality”
is Dangerous
Posted, Friday, January 22, 2010
10:00 pm It is very good stuff, and fundamental, with the
potential of affecting millions. I would like to raise a fundamental point: The word "equality" used in the article is
a dangerous one at times, to wit: "We hold these truths to be self
evident, that all men are created equal." Which originated
from what became the US. It was, and is, an absolute blatant, damnable, lie,
that supported the American Revolution, that preceded the French Revolution,
that preceded the Russian Revolution, and that has encouraged socialism and
jealousy and dissatisfaction around the world ever since! No two people are equal. Even two identical twins of
the same sex, are not equal! Finger printing and DNA prove it. I would prefer, for possible example: ... the
basic democratic principle that all citizens have equal voting rights. Jim Answer by R. T.: Of course, regarding the word equality, some
definitions and precisions would be useful here. What is meant in the context
I use it is that each human being belongs to the human race and is thus
worthy of being treated with respect. Each individual, of course, has his or
her own characteristics, personality and potential. No two individuals are
identical in this sense. And, of course also, at another level, no two
cultures are equal or of the same value regarding social or economic
efficiency or any other goal. What is meant in the U. S. Declaration of
Independence that you cite (“...that all men are created
equal"), I think, is the idea that there is no superior race
who have rights that other people don't have. At birth, every human being has
the same human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Thinking
otherwise is racism and has been a source of much evil during human history. New
Why are Supreme Court Judges
Appointed for Lifetime?
Posted, Friday, January 22, 2010
6:06 pm Admirable
article. This was a long time coming and the Bushites merely ushered it in
faster. I am in the camp where none of the Supreme Court appointees should be
lifetime. They should be elected to term as well as term limits. Of course, I
also believe the electoral college system should be abolished, electronic
voting done away with, one vote for each voter and winner takes all.
Politicians should all have term limits as well as corporations recognized
for what they are: Businesses. Being a politician was never created to be a
job and career. Officials who refuse to abide by the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights should be removed from office as they have committed acts of
treason. Ron
(Miami) Answer by R. T.: I agree with you regarding term limits. In Canada,
for example, Supreme Court justices have to retire when they are 75 years
old. In the U. S., Supreme Court justices tend to wait to be near death
before retiring, because they know the partisan appointments swing the Court
from one extreme to the other for a long time. As
to the five Republican judges on the US Supreme Court involved in the
revolutionary decision of January 21, they seem to be part of a powerful
oligarchy that controls things in the United States pretty much irrespective
of the people's wishes. In 2000, let us remember, they elected George W. Bush
who had received 500,000,000 fewer votes than Al Gore. —A decade of
disasters followed. We should also keep in mind that when a country is under
a system of plutocracy and of oligarchy,
it can be said to be run by a plutarchy. New
The Enemy is Here
Posted, Friday, January 22, 2010
10:54 am The Supreme Court ruling has been
described by several major pundits and bloggers as the end of Democracy. When I enlisted in the Marine Corps in
1966, I swore an oath to defend my country. I was sent to Vietnam, where
someone else who was defending his country shot me. It is said, “Once a Marine,
always a Mariine.”. Am I still under obligation of the oath I swore? If
corporate entities are ending my Democracy, it means the enemy is here and
now. What should I do? hgovernick New
Responsibility
Posted, Friday, January 22, 2010
12:57 pm If the congress allows this decision to stand,
allowing them (corporate entities) the freedoms and responsibilities of a
person or citizen, then perhaps they could be held responsible for the deaths
of a half million Iraqi civilians during the embargo years. There is little
doubt of corporate involvement. Charles |