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.

 

Separation of corporations and state?

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
At the time our founding fathers determined it was integral to have a separation of church and state, this was done for obvious reasons. At the time the church was the second largest body next to the government. Its potential to sway policy/regulation in their favor was the reason our forefathers felt it was absolutely necessary to maintain the separation in order to protect democracy.

When we look at modern society, we are now seeing that very thing happen with corporations. Lobbyists lining our politicians pockets have pushed policies, loopholes, and blatant disregard for human safety at the sake of profit and furthering their agendas all while we sit and watch our country rot away.

With this being the case, why is there not more pushing to have a separation of corporations and state?

It was for these very fears that a separation of church and state was established, and yet we allow corporations to do the same and remain unchecked?

We hear constant talk on here about which lesser of two evils we want to see in the white house..yet no one wants to address the real problems.

The fact of the matter is both candidates are not there for the American people, they are there to represent corporate interests alone.

You want to see real change in America? The attention needs to be put back on its citizens and not on corporate interests. We must push for separation of corporations and state or forever remain trapped in this endless cycle.

So what say you folks? Is this feasibly possible?

Or have we fallen too far down the rabbits hole?
edit on 21-9-2012 by mutatismutandis because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by mutatismutandis
 


What a novel concept!

I think if we DON'T separate them NOW we will fast become a Nation of WALMART CLONES - subservient and obedient, underpaid and stressed out "workers" who will all but kill ourselves for our jobs and our bosses because they provide our health care, have our lives in their grasp and quite literally become "the hand that feeds us" - whom we will never dare to bite. I don't think this is exactly what the forefathers had in mind.



edit on 21-9-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mutatismutandis
 

You've raised an excellent point, I've never heard it expressed before. Congratulations on your creative thinking and the passion with which you present it. Feasible, or rabbit hole? Well, just wait there and I'll throw you a rope, so you can climb out.

I think there are two possible problems that we have to overcome first. The first is more in the realm of political philosophy. I think someone slipped you some false information when your back was turned. The Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment wasn't put in to protect the Republic from religion, it was to protect religion from government. The reason for insisting on no state religion was that people didn't want to be forced by the state to adopt any particular religion.

The other problem is a little more "real world." Corporations are created by states, without their approval corporations wouldn't exist. Corporations, as persons, are legal fictions. That means they only exist because the state has passed laws allowing them to be created and governing their behavior. A corporation without the state is like a seed without soil, air, and water. I can't imagine how they could be separated.

It would be interesting to see how we could get to the proper balance between government and business, but I don't have an answer to that one off the top of my head.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
The Constitution doesn't grant corporate personhood, US code does. A presidential signature is all it would take to nullify that stupid law.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I only disagree on one point. The establishment clause does not create a separation of church and state . What it does do is prevent the establishment of a state religion. The Anglican church was a creation of the crown. And it was used to deify government to the point where religious law and state edict were indistinguishable.

..ok two points: the founders were not seeking to protect democracy, they were seeking to protect the newly formed REPUBLIC.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


The Constitution doesn't grant corporate personhood, US code does. A presidential signature is all it would take to nullify that stupid law.
This is one of those, "You're right, but . . ." times.

The Constitution doesn't grant the right to abortion either. The Supreme Court has read it into the Constitution, so for all practical purposes, that is what the Constitution says until they overrule it. Same thing with corporations.

Further, corporation law is found in all 50 states. It's not that easy for a President to nullify a State law, he'd have to go back to the Supreme Court for approval.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


God! I hope he would do this. Maybe I'm stupid, but I'm still clinging onto the belief that he will become way better once he gets reelected.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Ive always read it as stopping the church from pushing the state to enforcing one religions views over others, but if my view is distorted then so is the majority of our country that believes that was its original purpose. Certainly plausible.

As far as corporations being formed by the state, i agree completely. I see it as even more of a reason it should be the government calling the shots their own, without the corporate influence on every little thing our government does.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by METACOMET
The Constitution doesn't grant corporate personhood, US code does. A presidential signature is all it would take to nullify that stupid law.


Corporate personhood was just the final nail in the coffin though...lobbyist had far too sweeping influence well before that was passed. Just gave them a guarantee on all our elections...



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mutatismutandis
 

Dear mutatismutandis,

Thank you for your response, I misunderstood the point of the thread. It was my fault, not anyone else's. So, the idea here is that corporations shouldn't be allowed to lobby government? All right, I can see that.

Would the employees of the company be allowed to band together to advance the corporate interest? I don't see how it could be stopped, employees can join unions to lobby for them, couldn't employees form "unions" to lobby for whatever they want?

And if the employees could lobby for the company, why not the owners? They're people, too. And if the owners are too busy with whatever it is they do, couldn't they hire some one to do the lobbying for them? And we're back at lobbyists.

I'm truly not saying it's a bad idea, but somehow we would have to get the Supreme Court to change its mind on at least a couple of issues. I just can't figure out how to do it.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
We all know how well separation and Church is working...



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Anyone who would try that would have one hell of a fight on his/her hands.
US congress is working for the corporations and they would be the ones doing the separating?
The revolving door. www.pogo.org...
Sooooooooooo much money.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by mutatismutandis
 


I think the separation of church and state, well, the original intention at least, was to protect both....
it gave the religions the freedom to decide what they believed was the best doctrine to follow without undue pressure of a gov't that had already decided on a proper doctrine for their people.....such as what we had in europe at one time, think England-Ireland and the conflict that is still seen today....
and it protected the gov't from being overly pressured by any one religion, freeing them to treat everyone equally, regardless of religion affiliations....think of those kings and queens, counts and dukes of old who had to bow down to the pope's decrees or face the wrath of the church's armies banging on the castle's walls!!! germany has some great castles remains by what I understand from the wars they fought in an attempt to be free from the roman catholic power!

the big reason I would like the two to be separate is that it seems that whenever the two powers get too closely entwined, God's name gets invoked in the justification of some of the worst attrocities in human history!!
which kind of causes the people to eventually doubt the religion, and the God!!!

my God wouldn't command the people to go and kill every man, women, child, animal in a large piece of land so his people could inhabit it, but well, the preists that had total control of the people did, so they could settle in that large peice of land called isreal a long time ago...


god wouldn't have ordered the inquisition and witch burnings, but well, the priests did, as they fought with the kings and queens over who was the richest amoung them!!!

the religions should concentrate on the spiritual side of their followers lives, the gov't should concentrate on what is best for every one within t he country, not just a few followers who they happen to share the same belief system with. we are now a country that probably has followers of every religion on earth, and many of them are here because we wanted their cheap labor at one time or another. I think we traded our right to call this a "Christian Nation" for immigrants, and that cheap labor they gave us...sorry, they are here, they have just as much a right to be represented in our gov't as anyone else does!



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Obviously we would still need something that would allow the employees to be heard. I agree with you completely on that. Where the issue is, how do we address employee concerns but still stop the blatant abuse of policy and loopholes.

There's a big difference between "we need help to protect the welfare of our employees" and "give us a tax break or we'll take our business to another country".

I certainly cant say i have an end all be all solution to the problem, but i do believe a lot of our issues stem from this.

The second we heard banks were too big to fail should have been a major warning sign that something just isn't right. No company, bank or otherwise, should hold such influence that without them threatens our very livelihood..

Maybe the solution is to cut employee lobbying. Its all about human rights anyways, so why not make it a human rights issue instead of a corporate/union grievance. Any true issue a union is going to bring to the table will more than likely be something every employee of any company would want addressed anyways, if the issue truely holds weight.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by mutatismutandis
 


I think the separation of church and state, well, the original intention at least, was to protect both....
it gave the religions the freedom to decide what they believed was the best doctrine to follow without undue pressure of a gov't that had already decided on a proper doctrine for their people.....such as what we had in europe at one time, think England-Ireland and the conflict that is still seen today....
and it protected the from being overly pressured by any one religion, freeing them to treat everyone equally, regardless of religion affiliations....think of those kings and queens, counts and dukes of old who had to bow down to the pope's decrees or face the wrath of the church's armies banging on the castle's walls!!! germany has some great castles remains by what I understand from the wars they fought in an attempt to be free from the roman catholic power!

the big reason I would like the two to be separate is that it seems that whenever the two powers get too closely entwined, God's name gets invoked in the justification of some of the worst attrocities in human history!!
which kind of causes the people to eventually doubt the religion, and the God!!!

my God wouldn't command the people to go and kill every man, women, child, animal in a large piece of land so his people could inhabit it, but well, the preists that had total control of the people did, so they could settle in that large peice of land called isreal a long time ago...


god wouldn't have ordered the inquisition and witch burnings, but well, the priests did, as they fought with the kings and queens over who was the richest amoung them!!!

the religions should concentrate on the spiritual side of their followers lives, the gov't should concentrate on what is best for every one within t he country, not just a few followers who they happen to share the same belief system with. we are now a country that probably has followers of every religion on earth, and many of them are here because we wanted their cheap labor at one time or another. I think we traded our right to call this a "Christian Nation" for immigrants, and that cheap labor they gave us...sorry, they are here, they have just as much a right to be represented in gov't as anyone else does!



Amen to that! :-)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by mutatismutandis
 



You want to see real change in America? The attention needs to be put back on its citizens and not on corporate interests. We must push for separation of corporations and state or forever remain trapped in this endless cycle.


Yes, I agree. But apparently the rights of private corporations were written into the constitution in Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution: "Powers Granted to Congress," paragraph 11, permits Congress "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water."
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Although letters of marque originated in America as a war time necessity during the revolution, there is no real difference between merchants contracted by government to protect the country then and general business licenses granted by government to any corporation now. It would seem that this paragraph in Section 8 of the Constitution is far more pertinent to licensing laws and government control over business than is the commerce clause. The interesting part is that the founders didn't allow the practice to fade away after the war was won, but wrote it into the constitution as one of government's authorized actions for all time.

But I agree the nexus between government and business is where it all went wrong and what needs to be revised/rejected. Can't do that unless we know where it all began.

Pardon me if this is garbled ~ too few cups of coffee.

edit on 22-9-2012 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mutatismutandis
At the time our founding fathers determined it was integral to have a separation of church and state, this was done for obvious reasons. At the time the church was the second largest body next to the government. Its potential to sway policy/regulation in their favor was the reason our forefathers felt it was absolutely necessary to maintain the separation in order to protect democracy.

When we look at modern society, we are now seeing that very thing happen with corporations. Lobbyists lining our politicians pockets have pushed policies, loopholes, and blatant disregard for human safety at the sake of profit and furthering their agendas all while we sit and watch our country rot away.

With this being the case, why is there not more pushing to have a separation of corporations and state?

It was for these very fears that a separation of church and state was established, and yet we allow corporations to do the same and remain unchecked?

We hear constant talk on here about which lesser of two evils we want to see in the white house..yet no one wants to address the real problems.

The fact of the matter is both candidates are not there for the American people, they are there to represent corporate interests alone.

You want to see real change in America? The attention needs to be put back on its citizens and not on corporate interests. We must push for separation of corporations and state or forever remain trapped in this endless cycle.

So what say you folks? Is this feasibly possible?

Or have we fallen too far down the rabbits hole?
edit on 21-9-2012 by mutatismutandis because: (no reason given)


No, its not possible. Yes, you have fallen too far.

The same interests that fund the politicians and direct their policies control the news you read about the candidates, about what they do when elected and about how it affects the world.

The system is entirely captured. from one end to the other.

The only threat is the internet and it will be captured soon 'for your protection'.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mutatismutandis
 

Dear mutatismutandis, (Why is it that everyone I want to talk to has such devilishly tricky names?)

Thank you for your well thought out response. Mind if I tell you an idea that you've sparked? The idea is "Why?"

Why is there such a corrupt tie between government and business? Could it be that government can do special favors for individual business, and it is worthwhile for businesses to pressure government to grant those favors? Things like grant subsidies, write regulations that only end up affecting a few companies, that sort of thing.

This is really a half-baked idea, but should we be looking at reducing the power of the government to do those things? If they can't grant massive favors, perhaps business would leave the government alone? As my grand-daddy used to say "You don't go pickin' if there ain't any apples on the tree." (Actually, he never said any such thing, I never knew my grandfather. Just trying to be folksy.)

If that starts any thoughts with anybody, maybe we can explore it.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Yes, we desperately need separation of corporation and state, but at this point it's pretty unlikely unfortunately. Maybe if Obama is reelected and the Dems hold the senate and take the house (not likely) something like this could happen, but it would undoubtedly be quite weak and watered down.




most atheist's are probably psychopaths or extreme narcissists


Brilliant load of crap there, especially considering the millions of religious psychopaths in this world (including most Bush fans and Tea Partiers).



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join