It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
SOURCE: The Prince, Ch 12, by Nicolò Machiavelli, 1505.
"Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you."
SOURCE: The New Mercenaries - Corporate Armies For Hire (1997)
There are three major differences between these new corporate armies and mercenaries of old. First, they are business ventures foremost, not a venture for individual profit or excitement. Second, these corporations, at least those based in western states, do not take contracts that are in direct opposition to their country's national interest. Third, again for those based in western countries, they maintain a high level of professionalism and profess to adhere to internationally accepted norms of operations.
SOURCE: Johnston v Dyncorp (2001)
...employees and supervisors from DynCorp were engaging in perverse, illegal and inhumane behavior [and] were purchasing illegal weapons, women, forged passports and [participating in] other immoral acts."
SOURCE: The New Mercenaries - Corporate Armies For Hire (1997)
These companies have become an integral part of DoD plans and operations. The professionalism and expertise within these corporations are without reproach.
Originally posted by kozmo
The only way I see it is that we are owned by the corporations via their ownership of our politicians, our elections and legislation.
I frequently see these types of thread, reporting the wrongdoing, and the results of said wrongdoing, but I rarely hear any discussion regarding what people would do about it to reverse, or stop it when push came to shove. Push is indeed starting to come to shove with what I am seeing.
I figure with the detailed info you provided and providing your stance is viewing the situation as a negative (well, duh), that you have somehere in your mind, a thought on what would be required to counter it.
How do we stop corporations from shaping our lives into slavery?
Would it be political, financial, by force? Also how?
I often think about scenarios regarding what it would entail to stop corporations from what they are currently doing.
I am interested in hearing your take.
Most people believe that the Constitution - specifically, the Bill of Rights - guarantees our rights to freedom of speech, religion, and press, to peaceably assemble, and so forth. People of all political stripes say this. But the truth is, it does no such thing. Almost all of our constitutional protections are expressed as the absence of a negative rather than the presence of a positive. So the First Amendment, for example, does not say, "All citizens are guaranteed the right to free speech"; it only says, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . ." The First Amendment just restricts the government from specific encroachments; it doesn't guarantee anything. This was not a concern for the people because they had strong bills of rights in their state constitutions, and at that time, the states had more power than the federal government. The US Constitution allowed slavery throughout the US, for example, but it was each state's constitution that created free or slave states. Over time, however, the states have lost power to the federal government. The federal laws are now usually ruled to supercede the states' laws. The federal Bill of Rights is where we look to protect our freedoms. The lack of positive protection of these rights weakens them greatly.
If those rights were actually guaranteed in the Constitution, people could, for example, take the Bill of Rights into the workplace, but we can't. Anyone who thinks workers have free speech while they're on corporate property should ask the workers or talk to a union organizer. Because corporations are property, and because the Constitution protects property rights above all, most people have to abandon the Bill of Rights in order to make a living. The way different groups of people - like African Americans and women - have, one by one, acquired rights and become persons under the law is by getting protection from abuse by the government, usually through amendments to the Constitution - not a guarantee.
These systems of oppression weren't established overnight; they were gradually and sometimes surreptitiously introduced and refined in ways that made them acceptable. At the time of the Constitution, corporations were widely reviled, but a century later they were a commonplace business institution, and a century after that they've become our invisible government. They accomplished this over decades, changing the law incrementally when most people weren't looking.
Resistance to these oppressions evolved in a similar way. Those who wished to end slavery, for example, worked for many years collecting information, refining their analysis, and debating among themselves. They came to understand the issue as one of human rights and that the whole institution of slavery was fundamentally wrong. They didn't come up with a Slavery Regulatory Agency or voluntary codes of conduct for slave owners. They called themselves Abolitionists - the whole thing had to go.
We look at corporate personhood the same way. We see that corporate personhood was wrongly given - not by We the People, but by nine Supreme Court judges. We further see that corporate personhood is destructive, because it was the pivotal achievement that allowed an artificial entity to obtain the rights of people, thus relegating us to subhuman status. And finally, because of the way corporate personhood has enabled corporations to govern us, we must eradicate it.
Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person. Like abolishing slavery, the work of eradicating corporate personhood takes us to the deepest questions of what it means to be human. And if we are to live in a democracy, what does it mean to be sovereign? The hardest part of eliminating corporate personhood is believing that We the People have the sovereign right to do this. It comes down to us being clear about who's in charge.
From This Thread :
Blackwater : Right-Wing Conservative America, Whether You Like It Or Not...
I just had a great idea and looked for "Blackwater MOUT Training" on YouTube and found this neat training video :
Here's another YouTube link to a story where Erik Prince is answering to a Congressional Hearing :