Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by Maxmars
Tired and sluggish as I am.. I have to respond to your post! Thank you, by the way
Some questions and issues...
...in the last century or so, as our governance became increasingly focused on commerce, ...Secrets were kept about economics, finance, corporate
undertakings, and soon the ill-defined and mostly closeted relationships between transnational corporate entities and our (or other) governments
(acting as a member of the corporate community.)
The "corporate community" you describe is global - and purportedly places transnational corporations on an equal footing national governments.
* Do you see that such partnerships implicitly define -and establish- global corporate government?
* Do you think transnational corporations and national governments should be equal?
Essentially, my perception calls into question certain paradigms about organizational structures, on the first point specifically;
As a collective organism, mankind has learned unequivocally that it cannot be ruled by a person. The reason being that as all people are equal, all
people are equally prone to conduct that is self-serving, and even if the individual is not seeking vainglory, authority over others places them in a
position to engender the worst sort of abuse. Most mythologies, philosophies, and "common understandings" teach either through allegory or parable
or direct admonition that all people are equal, and leadership without consent is a futile exercise in relatively short-lived violent oppression.
Socially, we have 'evolved' a common wisdom that motivates us to create systems of governance which we can tolerate. The systems include certain
axiomatic principles, which we like to think are either natural, divine, or self-evident laws. In my opinion the fundamental truth of personal
equality is the grandest of all concepts.
Generally speaking, we accept 'temporary' allocations of authority and access to serve, and we apparently rarely accept the notion of leadership by
force as tolerable. Now here's the rub...
Corporations, while legally protected and empowered as citizens in the least (while in practice their status of late is much higher,) have some
characteristics that distinctly separate them from a 'person'.
Allowing corporations to govern without considering these characteristics is folly. Corporations are immortal.... If a person were to seize rule, say
for example, in the manner of a charismatic leader establishing a totalitarian regime, his mortality guarantees that the leadership will be subject to
a finite period. His plans may mature past his death, but nothing can prevent the changes that the subsequent leader and time will force upon the
original tyrants rule.
Corporations do not die. They either commit suicide by purposeful termination, a conscious decision to dissolve itself, or it is subsumed by another
corporation. Once under corporate rule, the only thing that can end it barring suicide would be outright rebellion.
Also, in the reality of the law, corporations exists at the whim of the authority which grants them a charter. In other words in a bizarre, perhaps
ironic way, humans have succeeded in creating an immortal entity larger and more powerful than himself... the immortal corporation.
These trifles complicate the idea of accepting the viability of corporate governance. Corporations are 'held' by boards... these boards 'own' the
corporation and define its character and conduct. This would mean essentially that the governed would be, in effect, "owned" by a board.
On the second point above, I do not believe that corporations can exercise civic, judicial, or ideological authority. They should be barred from
existing outside of any nations' authority to terminate their existence. In that way, they would become more like a true person, who must face
mortality. Many different corporations have opted frequently to offend many different nation's security and or law by participating in support of
wars, engaging in massive economic attacks, and interfering with the public good; all driven by the distinctly unpatriotic notion of 'anything for
profit' and 'greed is good.'
Since a corporation cannot die, and cannot be compelled to serve the community, it must never enjoy the protection of citizenship. Corporations
should not be empowered to own other corporations. Only one layer of corporate protection is necessary for honest business. Corporations are not
people, they are created by a charter and that charter should be iron clad. A corporation cannot face it's accuser because a corporation is not a
person, it cannot go to jail, or even be punished because it is not a real thinking living person.
A corporation is a tool. It can no more effectively run a nation than a monkey wrench can.
This is to say that when we talk about corporate governance, we are pretending it isn't in reality a bunch of people hiding behind a corporate
identity running everything... and with a 'front' that will never perish.
* Such "equality" gives a great deal more power to corporations because governments are saddled with far more responsibilities than the
mandate to profit: governments must protect civil rights, their people, etc. It's a losing battle in negotiations.
That's the real problem isn't it? By definition, a government exists at the will of the governed - to serve them. Corporations exist at the whim
of the government - to serve itself. Merge the two, as has clearly happened, and you have a catastrophic combination of corporate agenda eclipsing
the mandate of the governed.
A term established under international law with the North American "Free Trade" Agreement - and subsequently exported around the world
in other "free trade" agreements.
You know, it seems karmic that we allowed businessmen to convince us that they were the best suited to manage the governments day-to-day activity, and
then were surprised when the key to national survival became 'business.'
Today the corporate and governmental are no longer separate... and certainly not separate in the manner of the civil and the governmental.
One of the many travesties that needs to be set right.
Well, despite the oaths of offices around the world, despite the ideological and sometimes even religious mandates of public service, the drafters of
our principles of governance actually addressed specifically what we can and should do if the people decide they do not wish to be so governed. But
our government recently further reduced that option to criminal behavior, dissent is no longer 'reasonable' to them. (All the while they
exponentially increased prison populations and capacity. No wonder some more sensitive souls worry.)
The government has the power and mandate to police itself. Yet it does not... apparently.
You see, as citizens, we have no real interest in the systemic and mechanical maintenance of the information of government,
Oh yes I do.
I don't doubt you. Sadly, many people would rather take a nap than actually engage in some reasoned examination of the state of affairs. They
require a sense of immediacy that can only be provided by vicarious entertainment, or gross materialism.
... it avails us nothing to know that a certain consul in some other country might be willing to open discussions on diplomatic negotiations for
regulating trade subsidies, if the right motivation were provided.
Oh yes it does. Particularly if one of the terms negotiated requires "confidentiality" between government and corporation, and prohibits government
from being responsible for and accountable to its citizens.
Such a development however would be a function of corporate loyalty or personal gain, and is a flaw of unwarranted trust in the judgment of a person
who was appointed by a person who we were sold by popular media and psychology-savvy public relations people.
I mean, if a person of bad intent is in a position of authority, it is not the existence of the position that's the problem, it's the manner of
filling (and overseeing) it that requires review.
I vote for personal sovereignty.