Evil Ghosts have Human Rights?

A post at Reason.com debated the ‘freedom of speech’ for corporations. My response:

It is bizarre to claim that abstractions have human rights.

Humans have human rights.

Corporations exist to deflect responsibility, mostly financial and at times physical.

As a ghost totally created out of law, they are wholly beholden to their God-creator; the government. It is no surprise that government, as God manifest, would grant its creation equality as if it was a real person. Evil begets evil.

As the quoted article says “So corporations have to have some constitutional rights or nobody would form them in the first place.”

Exactly.

Their existence is contrived and purposeful to enable those who act to be relieved from the responsibility of potential negative consequences of those actions.

These people get to enjoy all the positive consequences – the gains – but face little or minor of the negative consequences – that is, little or no personal loss.

With no surprise, corporations take on risks that would be inappropriate if such risk was taken by real people. As such, corporations will tend to act imprudently, immorally, and leave in their wake real people having to absorb and suffer higher losses.

To suggest such an evil ghost can also claim real human rights, besides being utterly bizarre, is a complete and total insult to real human beings.

Advertisements

16 Responses to “Evil Ghosts have Human Rights?”

  1. Kevin Wilmeth Says:

    Excellently said. It seems a huge blind side for many folks to rail incessantly on the evils of corporations, while somehow missing that the biggest, baddest, evil-est corporation of all is the state itself (and specifically, the same state that is usually invoked to Do Something About Those Mean People). I rather like this reverse-take on the same basic observation.

    FWIW, I have been enjoying this blog in general, as well. A nice addition to the liberty blogroll.

  2. anita Says:

    Just seeing if I could hang with the topic….nope!

  3. v. Holland Says:

    I agree with your statements but when put into the political question-Why should corporations not be allowed to participate in placing aids, if organizations especially the parties themselves have free reign ? If it’s better that corporations be denied these privileges-shouldn’t all organizations be denied them too and just let individuals only, donate to the candidates so that the power of the wealthy can’t influence the elections and if organizations are allowed this privilege than shouldn’t corporations have the same privilege to help balance the power.

  4. v. Holland Says:

    that would be “ads” not aids- HE HE

    • Black Flag Says:

      V. Holland,

      I struggle giving an answer because, to me, the question is posed like this for me:

      “If we are being poisoned, how best would it be to be poisoned? By drink or by food? If by food, wouldn’t drinking be better?”

      I am wholly removed from the question of politics – to me, the delivery of evil simply means evil is delivered – the means by its delivery is irrelevant. How government pays for its legitimacy, to me, in the whole picture is abhorrent.

      My argument rests completely on human rights.

      I posit that human rights are held by humans because they are human. That is, inherent by creation of the human being.

      If, by an act of law, a ghost is created, and then, by an act of law, this ghost claims human rights, we are admitting that it is, in fact, law by government that creates human rights.

      This risks the entirety of my root premise. Human Rights cannot be both inherent and granted.

  5. Birdman Says:

    Black Flag:

    Totally off topic. I did take out my IRA today. Ouch!!! Talk about government theft! I earned it yet they take a large chunk for no work at all.

    I am not asking you for financial advice. Only I know my circumstances and what is best for me.

    My question is, where do I store the cash? Do I place it back in a bank account? Stuff it in a mattress? Are banks safe and can we still trust the FDIC?

    I’ve thought about purchasing some gold from Gold Line. Is that a good place to buy gold coins?

    • Black Flag Says:

      What is safe?
      Your paper will be guaranteed – what it buys will not.

      But protecting the paper…
      From the FDIC web site:

      The standard insurance amount currently is $250,000 per depositor. …. is temporary for all other deposit accounts through December 31, 2013. On January 1, 2014, the standard insurance amount will return to $100,000 per depositor

      http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/DIfactsheet.html

      Further, this is per bank account per person. If you have two bank accounts, you have two insurances. If it is a joint account, each holder gets $250,000 (that is, a dual-joint account is protected to $500,000)

      Therefore, do not deposit MORE than $250,000 (and in 2014, $100,000) per account.

      No matter what, the FED will never let the FDIC go “broke” – that would end the FED. You will always get your ‘paper’ returned as long as you follow the above rule. What that paper buys that day…who knows?

      However, whether you can get your money out of a bank in a time of crisis is another question…. what happens if the ATM’s are shut off and the doors are closed? All the insurance in the world will not help you and neither will the gold in your safety deposit box.

      Also remember, every deposit into a bank account creates a reserve asset for the bank – that is, supports the evil Fractional Reserve System. Every withdrawal of money from the bank and held in hand causes a highly leveraged dissolution of fiat money.

      Every dollar in deposit allows the bank to loan it, over and over again, creating up to 99 times more ‘air’ money. Every dollar removed from deposit destroys 99 dollars of ‘air’ money. You will ‘jab’ the system a little bit if you take your money out of the bank and keep it out.

      But storage of cash/valuables is always a problem – mattresses sometimes get through out with the garbage – as what happened to a woman in Israel. Her daughter surprised her with a new mattress and threw out the old one – stuffed with Mom’s life savings…..

      Gold:
      I do not know Gold Line.

      A respected source suggests these:
      Camino: 800-348-8001
      Franklin Sanders: 888-218-9226

      Before you buy gold, you need to answer this question:
      What will I do with the digital money I will get when I sell my gold?”

      It forces you to think of why you are buying gold in the first place. It also helps you know when you should sell your gold.

      It also helps one become grounded because if you would by food with gold when you need food, use the money now to buy the food now, and skip the conversions and the hassle in the future.

      If gold is there to relaunch one’s life after a calamity, that’s a plan.

  6. Black Flag Says:

    “Patriot Henry” over at Reason.Com discussing this topic posted a very powerful idea.

    Patriot Henry|2.5.10 @ 5:55PM|#

    “Because they got together and formed a “corporation” to finance it.”

    They formed a “State permitted collective”. The State owns all such collectives. It decides how much of the collective’s earnings to take or not to take. It decides how often and how such collectives shall do a great many things, such as having meetings and keeping notes on meetings amongst a wide variety of such State mandated duties.

    The State can and has now again decided which natural rights such collectives may assume. The greater the expansion of natural rights of collectives the greater the restriction of the natural rights of individuals. The State permitted collectives shall now grow more powerful and influential over the State.

    The solution isn’t to restrict the speech of such collectives – it’s to eliminate them entirely.

  7. Maggie Says:

    Blackflag I am finding that most people are not in fact addressing the reason for the actual decision in Citizens United and why it was struck down on grounds of free speech. I am finding that most people are concentrating on “the right to vote” but they are not looking at the reasoning behind why that one section of the act was struck down.

    There is good and bad in the existence of corporations and the limited liability can be a real plus in some ways. On the other hand the existence of the corporation can lead to unscrupulous people getting away with ripping people off, and then going bankrupt so that they never face the consequences of their actions. So yes there are evil people who form corporations and hide behind the facade of the corporation.

    However, the same is true of those PACs that are the creation of the McCain-Feingold act. It has been proven a real money spinner and a way to funnel funds to candidates.

    Even so, such comments do not address the specific case or why it was struck down. From a quick reading of the Kennedy judgment the emphasis seems to be on the criminal sanctions that apply in regarding to the airing of ads or in this case a movie that causes people to change their minds about voting for a person. The provisions apply to “corporations” but do not apply to the press who are in fact also corporations, who can print any manner of untrue things about candidates, or even release scandalous information about candidates right at the very last without impunity.

    In the Citizens United case, the plaintiff was not successful on most grounds that were presented to the course. However, Kennedy struck down s 441(b) but left in place s 441(e) relating to foreign corporations. I think that this has more to do with the penal sanctions and free speech than it has in allowing any floodgates to open in relation to putting funds into heavy advertising.

    I do need to point out something that is hypocritical in my view and that is that the SEIU spent member funds on two recent political campaigns. In particular the SEIU was responsible for putting out a pamphlet that twisted information regarding the now Senator Scott-Brown, twisting his position on the subject of rape and emergency rooms. Why would that be ok when it was done in the last week of the campaign, but it was not ok (and criminal sanctions could apply) if Citizens United showed the movie Hillary within 30 days of the primary?

    The only case that was overturned by the Supreme Court was that of Austin.

    • Black Flag Says:

      Maggie,

      As you’ve highlighted very well – once you open the door to abstractions that are designed to replace real humans in action, all sorts of bizarre stuff thinking comes into play.

      A movie now needs freedom of speech because it can change a vote??

      Eliminate bizarre-ity. Humans have rights. Things do not. Things are owned by humans, but humans are the actors.

      If we made humans responsible for their actions in all matters, much of the evil that is done in the name of office.

  8. Birdman Says:

    I found this over at The Onion.

    February 3, 2010 | Issue 46•05

    WASHINGTON—In a landmark decision that overturned decades of legal precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday to remove all restrictions that had previously barred corporations from holding public office. “This is an unfair, ill-advised, and tragic mistake,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said before boarding a flight to Arizona in response to primary poll numbers that show him trailing the Phoenix-based company PetSmart by a double-digit margin. “Despite the deep discounts and exciting promotions that they may be able to offer, these huge, soulless entities are not capable of truly serving the American people’s—or their pet’s—needs.” Corporate attack ads have already begun to hit the airwaves in New York, where a new Pepsi commercial set to a catchy modern remix of Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A-Changin'” blasts incumbent governor David Paterson as “unrefreshing” and urges New Yorkers to “taste the choice of a new generation this Nov. 2.”

    • Black Flag Says:

      Birdman,

      Though the Onion is a parody, they may actually portend a future. As with all things government, a toenail in the door, and before you know it, you don’t own your house.

  9. Birdman Says:

    It was funny though and fit your subject well.

  10. Anonymous Says:

    Kudos from one brainiac to another. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: