Forum Post: Noam Chomsky on Corporate Personhood
Posted 12 years ago on Feb. 13, 2012, 1:58 p.m. EST by struggleforfreedom80
(6584)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Public Forum
2 comments 3 weeks ago by gsw
1 comments 4 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 1 year ago by agkaiser
6 comments 1 year ago by grapes
15 comments 1 year ago by gsw
12 comments 1 year ago by BrentWeirick81
30 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
48 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
16 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
8 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by grapes
6 comments 2 years ago by haightashbury98
51 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
14 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
6 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
Very interesting that humans with flesh and blood, such as undocumented aliens, have fewer rights than corporations, and, that free speech for corporations was first generally for corporations involved in journalism.
yeah, it´s sad that it has come to this. It´s not graven in stone, though. It can be changed!
50+ corporate personhood videos
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com
chomsky is great, thanks for the link
No problem:) Yes, Chomsky is great. He deserves much more attention.
I will be voting for Ron Paul this year, even if I have to write him in, like I did in 2008.
Long Live Liberty!
Ron Paul is corporations and the super wealthy´s best friend. He wants to give HUGE tax cuts for these private tyrannies making them even more powerful in society. Ron Paul is a reactionary advocating pure tyranny
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIpJQEcXP7A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B0Q109uQ7o
You state: "He wants to give HUGE tax cuts for these private tyrannies making them even more powerful in society."
Yes, you are correct. You are correct because he wants to end Federal Income Tax for EVERYBODY.
If you understood what the role of a Federal Income Tax is under a fiat money system, you may not want it be in place, as well.
If I remember correctly, you live in Norway. Have you ever been to the United States?
Yes, tax cuts for everybody. And how much actual cash will billionaires and powerful corporations get compared to a carpenter, let´s say? The wealthy will of course get the overwhelming amount of actual cash making them much more powerful and increasing the gap between workers and the finacial elite.
You missed my question. "Have you ever been to the United States?"
I´ve told you many times before: Focus on the case, not on me, and present relevant counter arguments (unlike what you just did). Dont ask me personal questions, I rarely answer them . If you dont stop this I will not chat with you anymore.
To have a worthwhile discussion, it is helpful to share "truth".
You are more than welcome to stay silent on any question you choose.
That right is protected by the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
As a citizen of Norway, do you have that right?
Of course
What do you think is going to be the first thing to happen once the Federal tax schedule is done away with? I say your state tax is going to go up and I bet it'll go up higher than the median income person pays in federal taxes. Ron Paul is not for individual rights; he is for state's rights and corporations' rights to state regulatory arbitrage. That means the state can ream you and the corporations can ream your state, But hey, at least you are not paying the federal government anymore, right?
I will let you in on the secret that most people are not aware of. Here it is, "short and sweet":
Federal Income Tax is in place so that the government of the U.S. can pay off the interest it is charged when dollars are put into circulation by the Federal Reserve."
Please think about that for a second. "We the People" are being charged interest. Interest on what? Interest to have the right to "use" our own system of money.
To contrast this, imagine the game of Monopoly. In the game of Monopoly, "the money" is everyone's to use. And everything the bank does is transparent to the other players.
Do you have any questions so far?
I am only wanting to speak the truth to you. So if you have reason to believe I am giving you false propaganda, I will listen to your objections.
Let's just say that all we pay is interest on national debt. I have a hard time believing this because I can see the money working in my state. schools, colleges, roads and other needed services. But let's just say that we pay the minimum balance on the nation's credit card, are we not getting a better deal than if each state had to come up with the funds on their own? Yes, we have a big National debt, but that is because of war, subsidies, and failed, piece meal style health insurance. You are going to have to show me some evidence that shows we are paying interest on FED debt, the fed makes money by selling treasury bonds. Yes there is interest given to the barer of the bonds, but this is common knowledge.
I went and pulled out a few key points from Greenspan's essay to "show evidence":
"...the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale."
.. and ..
"But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government's promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets. A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates."
One more item of "evidence" that ties the scheme of our money system to taxes is the fact that both the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment (to allow Congress to tax income) were passed in the same year, 1913.
You said: "You are going to have to show me some evidence that shows we are paying interest on FED debt"
I give you Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of The Federal Reserve. His words are my "showing of evidence".
Please look up the four-page essay he wrote in 1966. The title of the essay is "Gold and Economic Freedom".
The money "at work" in your state comes primarily from Property Tax. There are also other taxes in place for local governments, such as Alcohol, Cigarettes, Telephone, etc.
I have watched the videos. I gave them my full attention. You sent them to me before.
And while I did listen to them, they were not successful in changing my principles. My principles are based on my belief in protecting Individual Liberty, an adherence to The Golden Rule, an adherence to the pre-1913 Constitution of the United States, and to Love & Understanding for all. I am against tyranny.
A few of my heroes are: Gandhi, Thomas Jefferson, Bob Marley....
"Indvidual liberty" can be lots of things. Individual liberty is very important inLibertarian Socialism: A society where people can live in freedom without having to be treated likes cogs in a machine and taking orders from powerful people who are not democratically elected
http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html
I believe that individuals should have the right and freedom to participate and have democratic say in the things they´re part of and that affect them. That´s not the way capitalism works. In Capitalism the institutions are private tyrannies - you don´t have a say in how your workplace is being run. That´s tyranny.
I do see what you are saying.
I would then say that, yes, they are "private tyrannies". They are able to dictate (without democracy) what happens on their "private property" while they "produce a product" or "run their service" to/for others in the free market.
However, the workers are still free. The people who first chose to work on that "private property" can leave and work somewhere else. And if they do it all at once, the property owner will be left with land they must "work" themselves. This to me, is the beauty of the "Free Market".
I am for FREEDOM. Freedom for the worker, freedom for the property owner.
"I do see what you are saying. I would then say that, yes, they are "private tyrannies"."
I´m glad you agree.
"However, the workers are still free"
No. Freedom is living in a society where you are in control of your own life: where you have the right and freedom to participate and have democratic say in the things they´re part of and that affect you. That, of course, includes your workplace and community.
Read and watch video: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html
"The people who first chose to work on that "private property" can leave and work somewhere else"
So because they can quit their job, that makes them free? So if all workplaces in a society offered employees only 10 cents an hour and horrible working conditions f.ex, then they are free because they can quit? That argument is horrible, it can justify all sorts of horrible institutions.
Workers arnt free. The wealty control not only the tyrannical institutions, but the whole economy to a large extent. Capital is very highly concentrated. So workers are given the choice between accepting this power that the wealthy have and work for them or starve. That´s not freedom, that´s inhumane tyranny.
Besides, what youre saying is really not relevant if one like the idea of democracy. Then one would be advocating people having the right and freedom to participate and have democratic say in the things they´re part of and that affect them. That, of course, would include democracy in the workplace and community - Libertarian Socialism: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html
The "free marked" you´re talking about means power and wealth in society to private non-elected tyrannically run institutions controlling the economy and hence your life.
But like Chomsky mentioned: Your tyrannical utopia will never come into place because the wealthy can´t survive without a powerful state.
In your vision of "utopia", does the concept of "private property" exist?
Sure. Private ownership on personal possessions, things in the private sphere that don´t have an impact on the economy or other people is no problem. But huge things being a big part of the economy/society should be controlled democratically by the participants and the ones affected.
So in other words, private ownership on your I pod and books? YES! private ownership on the means of production and economic institutions? NO!
Hope this cleard things up. Please read and watch this: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html youll get lots of answers to your questions
In your scenario: If I worked, got paid money and then bought an iPod, could I then sell that iPod?
Listen, one´s democratic say should be proportional to how much things affect you and you´re a part of. Based on that "rule of thumb" you should be able to figure out many answers yourself especially when combining it with common sense. I also have to say that details would in general have to be worked out democratically among the people living then. Which services and products should be free of charge when you need them? Which should cost money? What should prices be? etc etc. These are all questions that have to be worked otu democratically when LS came into place.
But to answer your question: Sure, a small iPod transaction would not be a problem.
You seem very interested in LS. You should check out my blog, youll get some answers there, i think
You wrote: "Sure, a small iPod transaction would not be a problem."
Would a large iPod transaction be a problem"?
Are you kidding me? Did you not read what I just wrote? It almost seem like you´re just trying to anoy. If you cant figure out what my answer would be, based on what i written so far, then I cant help you.
It's a simple question. I am seeking your answer, instead of making assumptions, so that I understand your vision of exactly how our society should be.
Here's an example of what I would call a "large iPod transaction":
What if I was a famous musician and I was able to sell my used iPod, with my signature engraved on the back, for 100 times the price of what a normal one was going for. In your system, would it be ok for me to sell it?
If you can´t figure it out based on what i written so far, then I cant help you. Its pretty hard to miss.
It's a simple question that I seek your answer to. I want to hear it from you, since you are the one attempting to educate me on "your system".
Here it is again: "What if I was a famous musician and I was able to sell my used iPod, with my signature engraved on the back, for 100 times the price of what a normal one was going for. In your system, would it be ok for me to sell it?"
Too bad Mr. P doesn't really believe in liberty.
Just in the right to trample everything you can get away with.
Please refrain from being a source of false propaganda. Base your statements on truth by backing them up with verifiable evidence.
What do think his refusal to answer questions and defer them to "States rights" is all about? It veils his bigotry.
Bigotry is the polar opposite of liberty.
The necessary evidence is all over this forum, you just need to look beyond your own propaganda.
To quote you: "Bigotry is the polar opposite of liberty."
You are incorrect.
"Tyranny" is the polar opposite of "Liberty".
I stand corrected.
To be open minded is the polar opposite of bigotry.
Tyranny of the individual, is still tyranny, more so when it's endorsed in the name of liberty.
I have yet to meet a tyrant, who is not also a bigot.
I try to be open-minded. To me, it's the best way to live.
[Removed]