|
 |
||
|
Latest Stories
Recent blog posts
|
October 7, 2008 - 9:02pm.
Many centuries ago, when my British ancestors were facing regular and bloody incursions by Vikings looking for bloody fun, non-consentual sex and profit (sometimes expressed as rape and pillage), some Vikings offered to leave particular villages or areas alone for that particular raiding season - for a price. This price came to be known as Dane-geld, or I suppose it could be expressed alternatively as pillage without the rape. There is a problem with Dane-geld, however, and it was beautifully expressed by Rudyard Kipling centuries later, when he pointed out in verse that once you pay Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane. In modern usage, Dane-geld has come to mean any form of blackmail from kidnap and ransom to terrorist threats, and Kipling is most often correct. When you pay blackmail money, the blackmailer just asks for more. The United States has suffered a coup, every bit as real as a third world coup accomplished at the point of a gun. To be entirely honest, we cannot even be absolutely certain that guns were not involved. One of the necessary prerequisites for a successful coup is the control of information, which means that you and I are unlikely to be in possession of the whole story. I am not saying this was a violent coup - I am inclined to believe that it was not - but there is no way for me, or any other average citizen, to be certain. Things have just gotten exponentially worse. We have just paid Dane-geld, and that means we are going to have an incredibly difficult time getting rid of the Dane. Most of our Congress-critters, and even our two major presidential candidates, are owned by their corporate masters - corporate masters who trade on Wall Street. That is why they have betrayed us. Now that they have managed to loot almost a trillion dollars from the U.S. Treasury - meaning from your kids and grandkids - you can be dead certain they are going to ask for more. And more. We must find a way to get rid of the Dane! I am often asked why I am opposed to NAFTA and FTAA, when I am a libertarian free market capitalist. I am opposed to them because they have nothing whatsoever to do with free markets. So where did we go wrong? Let's get back to the roots of objectivism. The roots of objectivism say that all group rights are individual rights. Groups of people, and even governments, do not have more rights than individuals. If you follow this idea to its logical conclusion, it also means that corporations are not people, and should not have the rights of individuals, let alone the right to pillage without consequence. Theft is a crime, whether it is committed by an individual, a corporation, or a government. See? Dead simple and dead easy to understand. In the last few decades, we have allowed corporations to amass enough power that they are now running our government. They are free to pillage our treasury - and our individual futures - absolutely without consequence. There is a word for this sort of corporatism. It is called fascism, and it is not a pretty way to live. We must change this! We do not have a choice. Believe me, the last thing in the world I want to see is civil strife in my country, but peacefully or not, we must change what has happened to us. Corporations must return to what they were always meant to be - a group of individual business partners. We must restore the checks and balances - and the civil liberties - embodied in our Constitution. We must restore the accountability in government. We do not have a lot of time to do this. We are up against perhaps 5,000 folks with trillions of dollars they can spend to stop us. Our one advantage is that there are 280 million of us, and we are becoming annoyed. That is a juggernaut I hope they cannot stop, but only time will tell. We became complacent. We assumed that freedom and stability were ours by right. Now we must pay the price for that stupidity. Are you ready to stand up and be counted?
Capitol Hill Blue's columnists, blogs and reader comments Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site that belongs to no political party and subscribes to no political or philosophical point-of-view. Our columnists are welcome to their opinions but readers should understand that their views do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of this web site. We also welcome comments to selected opinion columns and in our popular ReaderRant discussion forum. Please remember, however, that we believe in civility on this web site and comments may be reviewed, moderated or removed if we feel they contain obscenities, racism, bigotry, anti-Semitic remarks or attack other posters. Our goal is reasoned discussion on issues facing this nation and we do not feel that goal is served by personal attacks and by seeing how many cute adjectives you can attach to an elected official or politician's name. Copyright © 2008 Capitol Hill Blue
|
User login
 |
Technorati Tags:
Indeed!
Submitted by griff on October 8, 2008 - 12:59am.Indeed!
"The roots of objectivism
Submitted by gazelle1929 on October 8, 2008 - 8:15am."The roots of objectivism say that all group rights are individual rights. Groups of people, and even governments, do not have more rights than individuals."
And that is where objectivism is so wrong and has been rejected almost universally by people who understand what a society is all about.
Yes, all individuals have rights. You have the right to speak your mind, but you do not have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded restaurant. You have the right to take a machine gun into a church and begin shooting people. But by being a part of society you have tacitly agreed to cede some of your rights for the good of the whole.
You have the right to your property and to the fruits of your toil. But you also are part of a society and you need to give up your right to a portion of the fruits of your toil. Actually you don't NEED to do that, but if you don't the rest of the individuals in your society have the right to expel you from the society. One method of expulsion is to jail you for failure to pay taxes. Or to execute you if you murder another person (this restriction may not apply in all jurisdictions, be sure and read the fine print before going on a shooting spree.)
You don't have to live under this system. You are free to go anywhere else in the world that you want to. But your very act of staying becomes your agreement that you have ceded some rights to the society. But be warned: if you go where there are other people you must agree to be part of their society and to abide by their rules. So for the people who truly believe in unfetter objectivism there are still a few desert islands somewhere.
I don't think you are
Submitted by woody188 on October 8, 2008 - 1:54pm.I don't think you are getting it gazelle. Her argument is that corporations and the government do not have more rights than the individual. Your arguing that individuals give up rights to join a society. While you do cede some rights to be a part of society, that does not mean you have fewer rights, or your rights are less important than that of the government or business.
Business has not paid their fair share of taxes, have supported anti-society policies such as off-shoring, and have virtually taken control of the government.
We should be removing business rights and forcing a return to our roots where corporations have 3 main goals of welfare of society, of nation, and finally to make a profit instead of just profit, profit, profit. You know, corporate social responsibility instead of corporate social vampirism.
You don't have to live under this system. You are free to go anywhere else in the world that you want to. But your very act of staying becomes your agreement that you have ceded some rights to the society.
We are born and raised here. We aren't leaving without a fight. As far as I'm concerned these businesses are free to move instead. Not like they are doing anything but adding to unemployment here while not paying taxes and moving all profits overseas. Good riddance!
Actually I am "getting it",
Submitted by gazelle1929 on October 8, 2008 - 2:40pm.Actually I am "getting it", thank you very much.
At the risk of appearing as condescending, I am merely going to point out the holes in your logic.
You said, "We should be removing business rights and forcing a return to our roots where corporations have 3 main goals of welfare of society, of nation, and finally to make a profit instead of just profit, profit, profit."
Whence the idea that the corporation existed for some highfaluting moral purposes?
A corporation does not exist to maintain society or nation. It exists for one purpose and exactly one purpose, to make a profit. Anyone who has views that differ from this should reexamine them at once.
Corporations are amoral. That means neither moral nor immoral. They exist to return a profit and for no other purpose. Certainly corporations can and do appear to be doing moral things, but that is nothing but window dressing, designed to encourage you to buy more of their products. Newman's Own is an example of this. It is said that the company will give away as donations all of its after-tax profits. That is NOT true. The truth is that Paul Newman was the sole stockholder and he decided that he would donate HIS dividends to charity. From the wikipedia article on Newman's Own: "Newman received all of the profits from product sales, and then he donated 100% of the proceeds. . .." I submit to you that part of the cachet of buying Newman's Own products was and I hope still is that they proceeds end up going to charity. But the corporation exists ONLY to make a profit.
If you take away the legal fiction that corporations exist as a person, you take away their right to sue. How many corporations would remain in existence if they could not sue a person or a corporation who has wronged them civilly? It would be a license to steal! This legal fiction is a necessary part of our economy and society and you meddle with it at your own peril.