The following post is not something I can claim as my own, although I wish I could. We may know the gist of complex subject and make short concise
quips of pertinent logic but it is rare that you come across someone who can quickly and completely breakdown a baffling social conundrum in such
eloquent laymen's term. When you do, you just have to get out of the way so as many people as possible can hear it.
posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:17 PM
The video, tragically, perpetuates the gross misunderstanding of what capitalism actually is. It is not enough to expect to be let off the hook by
qualifying this corporatism as a "different kind of capitalism" because corporatism is, quite simply, not capitalism.
There are three basic tenets to capitalism.
1.) A free and unregulated market place
2.) Massive competition
3.) A stable currency backed by wealth where all can agree upon its value.
Not a single tenet is in play in today's "free and open market". It is yet another tragedy that so many foolishly refer to the economic system in play
today as a "free and open market". When some bureaucrat comes knocking on the business door of a sole proprietor who is a shoe maker and demands to
see the license that "allows" this sole proprietor to make shoes, it is patently absurd to call this a "free and open market".
Of course, a sole proprietor is not a corporation. A sole proprietorship is neither legal, nor is it illegal, it is quite simply a business owned by
one person, where full responsibility for that business is accepted by the business owner. A corporation, on the other hand, is a legal artifice
created specifically to avoid any responsibility for the business itself.
When these legal artifices are created and their primary purpose of existing as a corporation is to avoid liability, or at the very least, only accept
limited liability for the actions of the business it makes sense then that there would become a need for regulation of that business.
This is a cycle not at all mentioned or acknowledged by this very brief episode featured by the O.P., and that is the cycle of application for a
corporate charter in order to obtain limited liability, and once this charter is granted then the process of lobbying legislatures for personhood
begins so that corporations may enjoy an equality under the law, even though their very nature creates an inequality, necessarily separating
themselves from the sole proprietor who accepts full responsibility. Once this "personhood" is granted, and after the regulatory agencies are created
to regulate the artificial person with limited liability, it is only a matter of time when that artificial person demands that the real person become
regulated as well...after all, it is only fair and due process of law, that an artificial person be given the same equality under the law that a real
person technically enjoys.
Thus, the corporation that screams for regulation demands that all business is regulated, and stupidly, we the people not only acquiesce to this
nonsense, we nod our heads with an affectation of wisdom and call this capitalism and free and open markets. It is, as it always has been and always
will be, our fault. As long as we are willing to play fast and loose with words, and accept that words evolve in meaning depending upon our apathy
towards them, then we most assuredly get the government,and the economy we deserve.
The fact of the matter is that because a corporation exists by grant of charter, this means that what has been granted can be revoked. Indeed, states
attorney generals revoke corporate charters regularly, they just don't revoke the corporate charters that do the most damage and instead revoke those
corporate charters of small to mid-size businesses, that arguably never had any business incorporating to begin with...which leads yet to another
aspect of the problem...
The priest class lawyer set who've bamboozled the public into believing incorporating is a sound business decision. These mystics we call lawyers are,
in fact, as officers of the court, not at all representing you, but are representing big government and when they advise you to incorporate what they
are in effect telling you is that it is better to ask the state permission to to business than it is to simply do business by right.
We most assuredly get what we deserve.
That buyer has a choice of many different sellers, and when the competition is massive, this implicitly tells us that the majority of these businesses
are too small to affect the aggregate economy if they fail.
However, under a free and unregulated market, or an open economic system, corporations should have a chance to exist and compete. This complicates
matters a bit because a corporation is more likely to grow in size than an sole proprietorship. This complication is not so bad as long as the
"personhood" of a corporation is understood to be separate and distinct from the personhood of a real live human being. The corporation, by its
nature, requires regulation, but just because that corporation as a "person" is being regulated does not mean it has the right to demand under the
guise of equality under the law that real live people become regulated as well. When every body is regulated then we have a regulation of the market.
If only the corporations are being regulated, then it is not the market that is being regulated, just corporations.
The real problem, in my estimation, is not that agencies such as the FDA, EPA, FCC, and SEC exist, nor is it a problem that corporations use their
wealth to lobby politicians. The problem lies in the average persons ignorance of the law.
The FDA certainly has jurisdiction over a corporation, and they certainly can find jurisdiction over a licensed business, but whether they have actual
jurisdiction, or more correctly subject matter jurisdiction over a natural person who has not applied for any license to do what they do by right is
questionable, even dubious, and well worth challenging.
It is absurd to acquiesce to licensing schemes that have no jurisdiction over a person. A corporation, as a "person" is subject to most jurisdictions
regarding regulatory agencies. A natural born person is not necessarily so. If a natural person is not subject to regulation and a regulatory agent
begs to differ, then only reasonable response to that agent is; "Oh yeah? Tell that to the tree! I am doing what I am doing by right, Mr. So back the
hell off!" Of course, try that today, and Mr. Joe Governmentagent will not back the hell off, and it then becomes necessary to fight this battle in
the halls of justice. Here is where it gets real sticky because too many of us have been conditioned that our battles in the halls of justice can only
be fought by signing over power of attorney to an officer of the court. The reality is that competent assistance of counsel is always a good idea and
most attorneys can be competent, but cannot be competent as long as they are bound by their oath and fealty as an officer of the court.
This means that in order to free an attorney from this oath and fealty an individual should not sign over power of attorney, and handle all legal
battles pro per, only using an attorney as competent assistance of counsel. This allows that attorney to help you in the real sense of help instead of
help as betrayal.
Jean Paul Zodeaux
a reply to: fshrrex
edit on 10-6-2015 by fshrrex because: (no reason given)