It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
NeoVain hit the nail on the head. By your definition of "existence," that is, something only exists if it has a physical presence
You highlight here precisely what I was hoping not to have to say myself: We humans have the power to revoke the existence of fictional entities by simply refusing to participate in the consensus that instantiates them. Our power and right to refuse to feed this monster abrogates any human-granted "right" it has to exist. In fact corporations have no rights under substantive law but only under statute, which is itself a fancy way of saying, "corporate rules ".
Originally posted by kwakakev
There is a force behind all this teamwork and hierarchy. Capability, resources, assets and influences all working towards a common goal or shared direction. The corporate entity is a consensus, kind of what like unites the ants when you start jumping on their nests.
I don't have grammar hangups, as long as the intended meaning of the writer is unambiguous. The post I had a problem with was so poorly formed that I could not be sure what he meant. If, by rude, you mean that I call people out on their BS, yeah... I do that. Don't like it? Too bad.
Originally posted by glen200376
just about to take your great advice and go to a different thread but first must say the op is rude and has hang ups about grammar etc.so i thought i'll write this with no capitals etc. just to annoy him!(or am i on my droid and can't be bothered to?)
Originally posted by ZeroUnlmtd
wal-mart exists, i was just there today, the u.s. exists, we bully people all the time, what doesn't exist is any shred of common sense in what the OP wrote, if you've read this far then stop and click out of this thread, its rubbish
"People live their lives bound by what they accept as correct and true. That's how they define "Reality." But what does it mean to be "correct" or "true"? Merely vague concepts... their "reality" may all be a mirage. Can we consider them to simply be living in their own world, shaped by their beliefs?"
Uchiha Itachi
Originally posted by seamus
You highlight here precisely what I was hoping not to have to say myself: We humans have the power to revoke the existence of fictional entities by simply refusing to participate in the consensus that instantiates them. Our power and right to refuse to feed this monster abrogates any human-granted "right" it has to exist. In fact corporations have no rights under substantive law but only under statute, which is itself a fancy way of saying, "corporate rules ".
Originally posted by kwakakev
There is a force behind all this teamwork and hierarchy. Capability, resources, assets and influences all working towards a common goal or shared direction. The corporate entity is a consensus, kind of what like unites the ants when you start jumping on their nests.
Let me answer your objection by quoting my original post, since you obviously skipped this part:
Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by seamus
Not existing in a physical manner does not mean something does not exist. Take language, does it not exist? There are many things that exist in practice, as abstractions or projections of physical entities. Thought, will, unity, an itch, to name a few others. One can argue that neither exist in a physical manner, but the fact remain that we manifest them through our consciousness just as we manifest the physical world through our senses. To a human without senses, what physical objects would seem to exist?edit on 16-1-2012 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)
See? I qualified the existence of corporations. I acknowledge that they exist in the minds of men. What I contend is that they ONLY exist in the minds of men, just as pure abstract mathematics only exists in the minds of men, just as that itch you want to scratch only exists in your mind.
Corporations and governments (which nowadays are ALL corporate entities) have no substance and therefore do not exist in the real world. They only exist in the minds of men and women.
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. (Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, USSC 118 U.S. 356 )
I appreciate your POV. However, the degree of personal empowerment I have experienced on a daily basis since I have eschewed dabbling in sorcery indicates to me that the hydra does indeed have a heart, and that heart is Limited Liability. All corporations are creatures whose native element is the muck of irresponsibility, and hide behind this mental construct called Limited Liability. Before limited liability, it depended upon "the divine right of kings"; another, now broken, wicked magic spell. The only way to take down the hydra that is threatening the very life of this planet is to kill the heart. Striking at the heads will only serve to wear you out, as it wore out the hippies, the american communists, the "little landers" of William Smythe's time, and every other movement of men who have wished to better the lot of all. I agree with the rest of what you said, but I maintain that YOU and I are the ones who can change this, and we would be best served to rid this universe of the stench of limited liability. We can deal with money later. We're in a crisis right now.
Originally posted by budaruskie
[...] I think you'd be better served to focus on the idea that gov'ts and corps, including Wal-mart, are at odds with the "abstract idea" of Justice.
Hmm... now, who do we know that likes to reverse symbols and meanings? How does your reversal obviate the fact that you ignored my acknowledgment of the UN building as an artifact of stone, steel, concrete and glass? It doesn't. More smoke from a smokestack. Try again.
Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by seamus
And I explained what that building is. You obviously ignore that fact, and so try to heap dung upon the truth. Bad form, kiddo!
Reverse it, maybe you would have it right. I'm heaping truth on dung.
Oh, I believe it, just as I have said it. However, a wiser man than I once said, "the most well-adjusted to a sick society are the most sick". Well, that's a paraphrase, but I'm sure you catch my drift.
Your premise that none of your listed entities exist is just so much babble. If you believe this babble, then you are seeing the world through a perspective that not a lot of people have. That is indicative of something.
If you don't believe it, then you are a troll.
You two obviously missed my qualification, "except in the minds of men". You get a pass. And no, the government cannot get physical, since the government is a mere golem-puppet, moved by the hands of men who are your equal before the Infinite Creator. When you think the government is 'getting physical', it is actually thugs who have been duped, just as you have, into thinking that the government has a will of its own and that it would be good for them to obey that will, who are getting physical. No corporation has a will of its own. NONE. If you want to say otherwise, support that statement with at least a smidgen of logic. Show me the money!
Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by DJW001
NeoVain hit the nail on the head. By your definition of "existence," that is, something only exists if it has a physical presence
What about for a person who is blind and paralysed? They cannot see or touch anything. If this person could hear then sound would become their understanding of existence. There is a physical reaction as the sound moves through the air.
With the corporate entity we have the culture, organisation and capability providing many physical interactions. Try telling Bradley Manning the government cannot physical when it wants to.
Corporations and governments (which nowadays are ALL corporate entities) have no substance and therefore do not exist in the real world. They only exist in the minds of men and women.
I can understand why you might feel that way, but unless you connect the dots for yourself, the understanding of the implications of the "knowledge" I have will be completely lost on you. I owe it to you not to hand it over on a silver platter. It would be ...criminal to rob you of the joy of discovery.
Originally posted by RicoMarston
reply to post by seamus
I've been trying very hard to stay on the OP's side, but here is where he reveals himself; "You highlight here precisely what I was hoping not to have to say myself..." If you really have something to say, wisdom to offer, why can't you just come out and say it? It's so arrogant to think that you should speak in riddles and hyperbole and painstakingly guide us ignorant sheep to the Light of your Knowledge.
That was not my intention in the least. My intention is to do for others what was done for me a few years ago. I came across a discussion thread on the David Icke forum that discussed substantive law, and it led to me putting the pieces of the puzzle together. I already had all the pieces! YOU already have all the pieces! The only valuable thing I have to offer is a different perspective on the information that you already possess in your eternal being, and just maybe I might remind you of a particular bit that you might have forgotten (but it still belongs to you!)
We all know that Wal-Mart and the U.S. government are not giant monsters living in caves that we can go confront. Don't treat the ATS community like children.
I truly apologize for your feelings on my method of communication. If I knew another way to communicate from my paradigm to yours, I might give it a try. Truly, I am speaking from the perspective of an individual who has taken complete responsibility for his entire existence, from birth to present. That has connected me with insights that I cannot filter out of my perception for the sake of the comfort of others. I am communicating from that POV to a realm where the majority still exist within the box of limited liability, victims, perpetrators, chance, accident, insurance, and fear. I am not surprised you take my words as sounding like I feel I am superior to you, because your ego can't help but ring that bell. I assure you, I see all men as my equals. However, that does not free me from the responsibility of ruffling the feathers I came to this earth to ruffle.
I understand trying to stimulate conversation, but you do so in a very condescending manner.
I would appreciate a quote, if you wouldn't mind helping a social cripple like me to communicate better. You might be referring to where I made insinuations about another individual's maturity level? That was me pushing an ego button. Sometimes I just can't help myself, when they put it out there so big and red and shiny... Perhaps I misinterpreted something that was said as an attack when it was more of a question? I don't know, because you haven't included the pertinent info in your... tirade?
Acting as if the people who have minor disagreements over single points in your OP and wish to discuss them are somehow ignorant or bullies is itself ignorant and rude.
You too, old friend.
Thanks, have a nice day!