Corporate Power

General discussion about the Elder Race, Life, the Universe and Everything.
Post Reply
User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Corporate Power

Post by Raytrek » Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:49 pm

This is more of a question on the whole issue, merit or criticism. Ideas on if it is practical, and if so, ideas on developing it into some kind of blueprint.

I say the cost of the death of the Union is the death of the Lobbyist.

Originally a corporation was a temporary government contract for emegency situations, now they are virtually immortal. The death of one corporation these days just means the birth of another, the limited liability means they can just cop out of responsiblity and transfer their assets into a new entity.

Shouldn't a corporation just do its business through a court, not through politicians and not through a government?

Shouldn't a corporation just be a research and development organization, progressing product for which they sell to franchisees? With that capital which they make from selling to franchisees to be what funds their next phase of development? Instead, corporations are developers, manufacturers and commercial enterprises, and this seems far too much power for any organization.

I am believing that power corrupts the whole system, can and should something be done about that?

Basically, should the research and development sector, manufacturing and industrial sector and the commercial sector be independant of each other? Even with limitations on one group monopolizing or becoming a clear dominant any one of these sectors?

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: Corporate Power

Post by LoneBear » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:01 am

Raytrek wrote:Originally a corporation was a temporary government contract for emegency situations, now they are virtually immortal. The death of one corporation these days just means the birth of another, the limited liability means they can just cop out of responsiblity and transfer their assets into a new entity.
You're talking the difference between the "natural" and "artificial" person. The artificial person (a corporation) can behave just like a natural person, owning property, enforcing contracts, etc., and was created solely to keep crooks from being accountable for their actions.

Curiously, each and every natural born person is also a artificial person--a strawman--that can be manipulated through "civil" law, versus "common" law. The only difference is that the people are kept ignorant of the fact that they are, on the books, a corporation, not a human being so they cannot take advantage of the corporate veil. If fact, it is used against the natural person to make them liable for things like taxes and laws that they are, as a natural person, not subject to.

I wrote a short piece on natural versus artificial persons as an introduction to the Reciprocal System. It is here: http://forum.rs2theory.org/rs4nondummies
Raytrek wrote:Shouldn't a corporation just do its business through a court, not through politicians and not through a government?
They ARE! Governments, including towns and cities, are now municipal corporations. The courts exist to enforce the UCC -- the Uniform Commercial Code -- based on the old English maritime law of contract and trade. So the corporation DOES its business through a court, politicians are just employees of a corporation called a "government". Doesn't matter what country you live in any more, they are all subsidiaries of the New World Order, Inc.!
Raytrek wrote:Shouldn't a corporation just be a research and development organization, progressing product for which they sell to franchisees? With that capital which they make from selling to franchisees to be what funds their next phase of development? Instead, corporations are developers, manufacturers and commercial enterprises, and this seems far too much power for any organization.
I agree. If it were up to me, I would completely ELIMINATE the "artificial person" and bring back personal accountability for one's actions. You can have people work for you, via the inherent right to contract, but ultimately, you will be personally responsible for your actions and what your "business" does.
Raytrek wrote:I am believing that power corrupts the whole system, can and should something be done about that?
Something IS being done about it.

Start by listening to this discussion of the banking scandal, and what is being done to bring these people to justice. David Wilcock interviews insider "Drake":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjZgsRt8PBc

Then join the Global Voice 2012 community, and listen to the updates (Sunday morning and Wednesday afternoon, here in the States) on what is going on, and how you can help to reclaim our freedom:
http://globalvoice2012.us/
All the radio shows are archived, so you can see what's been going on.
I'm in the chat room during the live broadcasts as "lonebear."
Raytrek wrote:Basically, should the research and development sector, manufacturing and industrial sector and the commercial sector be independant of each other? Even with limitations on one group monopolizing or becoming a clear dominant any one of these sectors?
I don't think it is the separation, as much as the abuse done in the name of greed. Under current conditions, they always find ways around protections.

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Corporate Power

Post by Raytrek » Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:54 am

Thanks for bringing me up to speed, if I had a go at researching now and then I may be aware of stuff. But thanks for the links, I will have a look-see on what I'm missing out on.

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Corporate Power

Post by Raytrek » Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:52 pm

Here is what I think:

If you have a system that only produces the needs of the people, a Spartan Society if you will, then this guarantees that some people will have to work constantly while a huge chunk of society will never have to work at all. As there is no specialty rewards for those who work constantly, then effectively they are punished for contributing.

The way I see it, you produce what everyone needs and they get it as standard, food, home, utilities, education. Then you have a bunch of free non-essentials, these are easy to make and completely renewable with virtually no carbon footprint. Anyone can have these.

But then you have everything else, let’s call them Luxury Items, these range from moderate to difficult to produce as do they have a moderate to substancial footprint. The prices of attaining these things are relative to those two factors, and the price also considers these Luxury Items as what affords the standard society factors, ie: The Luxury Items subsidize the general items, these general items could be made free, and the people who make them are paid from the capital aquired from the Luxury market.

That would be the most logical way to set up society, with the value (paycheck) of every occupation defined by some regulation that weighs difficulty of task, how vital the task is and how much time is consumed performing the task.
That is the big flaw I see in modern Capitalism, it is currently trending in the wrong direction to this last suggestion I made^^: Here in Australia, the basic needs, rent, utilities, food, these are all going up in cost while the whole market of unnecessary indulgences are getting cheaper to aquire by the day. This is because it costs so much just to survive that people can’t afford the Luxury stuff, so the companies drop their prices, soon they will be dead all together as the cost of production outweighs any retail price they could hope to ask for.

User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: Corporate Power

Post by Arcelius » Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:00 pm

Raytrek wrote:If you have a system that only produces the needs of the people, a Spartan Society if you will, then this guarantees that some people will have to work constantly while a huge chunk of society will never have to work at all. As there is no specialty rewards for those who work constantly, then effectively they are punished for contributing.
The work can be better distributed. It need not be as you have described.

If I wish to be of service and I work constantly in order to be of service, how am I punished? I am doing what I wish to do.

As a thought experiment, you might consider that any system may not be the best way to satisfy the true needs of people. In today's world, systems are generally developed in order to have control over certain processes.
Raytrek wrote:The way I see it, you produce what everyone needs and they get it as standard, food, home, utilities, education. Then you have a bunch of free non-essentials, these are easy to make and completely renewable with virtually no carbon footprint. Anyone can have these.
This is a very unnatural way of looking at things from my perspective. In the plant and animal kingdoms, nothing operates this way. Everything contributes in some way to life. Why should we be any different in this respect?
Raytrek wrote:But then you have everything else, let’s call them Luxury Items, these range from moderate to difficult to produce as do they have a moderate to substancial footprint. The prices of attaining these things are relative to those two factors, and the price also considers these Luxury Items as what affords the standard society factors, ie: The Luxury Items subsidize the general items, these general items could be made free, and the people who make them are paid from the capital aquired from the Luxury market.
This is a very materialistic viewpoint. Is the purpose of life and society to acquire material things and be entertained by them?

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Corporate Power

Post by Raytrek » Fri Jan 17, 2014 8:56 am

Hi, I haven't been on in a while, thought I'd stop by. I'll just run by where I now am at on this issue.

There are things that people need just to perpetuate their existence, but then there are things beyond this that give them fulfilment. With the latter; it has a kind of range from being sustainable across the board and over to where it isn't sustainable, so obviously that would be something that isn't freely accessible.

As asked "Is the purpose of life and society to acquire material things and be entertained by them?" To many people, probably, that is a case of subjectivity. I personally do not believe in purpose, it is an anthropomorphic word, I'd use the word function and fulfilment. Generally material possessions are not fulfilling in themselves, experiences are, and it happens that a number of material possessions provide fulfilling experiences.

As far as environmental sustainability, it would make sense if things were measured and costed according to how sustainable they are, with all the jobs that exist in providing both needs and wants will earn the workers the means to access what they can afford along that scale. Humans are currently working on a phenomenal scale, basically because consumerism depends on them being able to consume, the result augments the situation of Corporate Powers and the such, Capitalist class. The more people who can consume the better for them, which results in a society of people who are producing more than both the needed things and the fulfilling things, it is wasteful by that nature and inherently unsustainable.

At this point in technology, people shouldn't need to work on the scale they are, automation can and does take up a lot of the human workload, it could take much more, but again, that doesn't suit the consumer arrangement. The real problem at this stage should be about how we fairly distribute job opportunities between people so they have a chance to access the less sustainable experiences, but I digress.

Corporations being people, citizens who are allowed Democratic rights, so they can become politically involved, lobby and such. That is insane in my opinion. By law, a Foreign Power is not supposed to interfere with the political process of a sovereign nation, as Rich and powerful Americans are not supposed to interfere with the political direction of say the U.K, or the U.S government itself by law is not allowed to interfere with the political direction of the U.K. (they have agreements between governments but they cannot influence the Democratic decisions citizens make)

I'd describe things as a Hierarchical situation; Government and Democracy did well for a while because although government sat at the top of the order, the people could punish politicians by giving someone else their job, so government representatives always kept that in mind when making decisions. But now Corporate powers, or I'd rather say Economic forces or entities, now sit at the top of that hierarchy, so it isn't that government is corrupt and it isn't that Democracy is dead, it is because government is more afraid of those on top than they are of the people.

It isn't a case of returning government to the top, that is redundant at this point, but it is about redefining the rights of those on top, and basically changing the dynamic power structure from this pyramid style arrangement to a circular "Round Table" arrangement. Defining Economic Entities as Foreign Powers, rather than citizens with Democratic rights, you can effectively return People power over Government (Democracy), return Government power over the Economic Entities (Socialist Republic) and allow those Economic Entities to retain their power over the People (Capitalism).

The process of Economic Entities usurping Government in the hierarchy has been a long time coming, but effectively the singularity has occurred. I'd say it started when Ike Eisenhower established the Military Industrial Complex to fight the Cold War, but when that ended so should have the Complex been dismantled, but it wasn't, somehow its perpetuation was justified and it went on to new agendas and has been key in this hierarchy singularity event.

Anyway, sorry for the long post, but there is something for you to sink your teeth into. Ideally we would all be content with simple needs and wants, but since it isn't like that we would at least have to arrange the variable subjectivity of individuals in an ideal way. But diversity is a strength, people can bring their unique perspectives and skillsets to the table, and if we can get over those differences we can actually apply them in a cooperative or complimentary way, and often a way we can make workable compromise.

(I'll throw in a conclusion) Society can provide the means to exist, the tools to grow and the wants to satisfy, but they have to be provided in a way relative to sustainability. With automation becoming more comprehensive, work would be less available, opportunity to do it and compensation earned would have to be adjusted accordingly, and sustainability would serve as that measure. But otherwise, people would pursue fulfilling lives with freedom also measurable to that sustainability, but could also use their own potential to contribute to society, art or science, and earn rewards that way for themselves. Really about efficiency and maintaining it.

User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: Corporate Power

Post by Arcelius » Fri Jan 17, 2014 7:00 pm

Raytrek wrote:As asked "Is the purpose of life and society to acquire material things and be entertained by them?" To many people, probably, that is a case of subjectivity. I personally do not believe in purpose, it is an anthropomorphic word, I'd use the word function and fulfilment. Generally material possessions are not fulfilling in themselves, experiences are, and it happens that a number of material possessions provide fulfilling experiences.
Function = the purpose for which something is designed or exists, Fulfill = to carry out or bring to realization, Anthropomorphic = ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, Purpose =
the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.

I'm not seeing your distinction between purpose and function/fulfillment. Also, since the question could easily be "Is the purpose of a human's life to acquire material things and be entertained by them?", I don't see how this could really be anthropomorphic since humans are involved (even with the original question). Material possessions are created with a purpose in mind or to perform a specific function or set of functions. When that is realized, then a fulfilling experience according to the material possession may be the result. This is virtually a tautology though.

What is the fulfillment of a human? I don't believe it is to create material things and enjoy their fulfillment. Material things can never really fulfill a human unless the human is nothing more than a material thing or just a consumer.
Raytrek wrote:Corporations being people, citizens who are allowed Democratic rights, so they can become politically involved, lobby and such. That is insane in my opinion. By law, a Foreign Power is not supposed to interfere with the political process of a sovereign nation, as Rich and powerful Americans are not supposed to interfere with the political direction of say the U.K, or the U.S government itself by law is not allowed to interfere with the political direction of the U.K. (they have agreements between governments but they cannot influence the Democratic decisions citizens make)
Sovereign nations are also corporations. Political processes are really business processes. The law is a set of standards enforced by a police or military force who work for and are paid by a corporation. There are many limits to the "decisions" that citizens are allowed to make by the corporations.
Raytrek wrote:I'd describe things as a Hierarchical situation; Government and Democracy did well for a while because although government sat at the top of the order, the people could punish politicians by giving someone else their job, so government representatives always kept that in mind when making decisions. But now Corporate powers, or I'd rather say Economic forces or entities, now sit at the top of that hierarchy, so it isn't that government is corrupt and it isn't that Democracy is dead, it is because government is more afraid of those on top than they are of the people.
I'd say that neither corporate powers, government (other corporate powers), or economic forces (probably other corporate powers) sit at the top of the hierarchy. I agree that all of them are much more afraid of those at the top than the people (i.e. those at the bottom). Really though, what can the people at the bottom do? There are established corporate processes for preventing any real change coming from the bottom up.
Raytrek wrote:It isn't a case of returning government to the top, that is redundant at this point, but it is about redefining the rights of those on top, and basically changing the dynamic power structure from this pyramid style arrangement to a circular "Round Table" arrangement. Defining Economic Entities as Foreign Powers, rather than citizens with Democratic rights, you can effectively return People power over Government (Democracy), return Government power over the Economic Entities (Socialist Republic) and allow those Economic Entities to retain their power over the People (Capitalism).
It is about getting rid of "rights" altogether and having people more interested in duty, honour, and responsibility. Rights are permissions that are granted by corporations and that can be just as easily taken away. No one should really be exercising this kind of power over anyone else. I don't see much difference between a pyramid and a round table. How about a holographic structure?

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Corporate Power

Post by Raytrek » Sat Jan 18, 2014 9:49 am

Function = the purpose for which something is designed or exists, fulfil = to carry out or bring to realization, Anthropomorphic = ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, Purpose =
the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.

I'm not seeing your distinction between purpose and function/fulfilment. Also, since the question could easily be "Is the purpose of a human's life to acquire material things and be entertained by them?", I don't see how this could really be anthropomorphic since humans are involved (even with the original question). Material possessions are created with a purpose in mind or to perform a specific function or set of functions. When that is realized, then a fulfilling experience according to the material possession may be the result. This is virtually a tautology though.

What is the fulfilment of a human? I don't believe it is to create material things and enjoy their fulfilment. Material things can never really fulfil a human unless the human is nothing more than a material thing or just a consumer.
Not exactly; If you conclude that a God exists, the function and purpose will be related, but without making such a conclusion that God exists, function is not related to purpose. There are innumerable things in existence that have a function but have no apparent creator or purpose, except in some kind of leap of faith argument. Assigning purpose to things is anthropomorphically relative; if it is made by people for a purpose that serves them or if by naturally occurring it serves humans, we can attribute the distinction of purpose to it, but really that is just because our perspective as humans observes the benefit from it.

Fulfilment is when humans intend something and it comes to fruition, again anthropomorphic, but when something is fulfilling, this is because, wether humans created it or it naturally exists, people attain a benefit from it, again anthropomorphic situational/subjective perspective. Where purpose is an anthropomorphisation, function isn't, function is broadly prevalent throughout the universe, and unless you assign an intelligent influence to account for its very existence, you cannot automatically conclude function and purpose are synonymous.

Another thing is; if indeed there is a God, then the concepts of Intelligent Design and Purpose from the perspective of such a being would not automatically have a correlation to human perspective of the definitions, in which case we would be guilty of anthropomorphising God itself.

But in that, you cannot underscore the phenomena; Function in itself is what makes things more than the sum of their parts, that is extraordinary on its own without further applying suppositions to the origin.

I also wrote this, I cut and pasted it from another site that I posted it:

I don’t think an individual funnelling funds into a campaign is the problem, remember Corporations are people too; they have Democratic rights as citizens to be politically active and lobby. That is the problem.

You may presume that a wealthy individual who is part of a Corporation may do the same thing even though you stop Corporations from doing it, but a wealthy person buying favours for a Corporate interest is the same thing as Corporations doing it themselves, in my opinion, anything that red-flags as irrationally opportune for Corporate interest, regardless of its source, is a violation of Democracy.

I have suggested to identify Corporations, and other such economic powerhouses, as Foreign Nations, rather than people/citizens, especially when they are multinational, or potentially multinational.

There are significant advantages of having Corporatized management, Democratic rights to lobby should not be one of them, full stop, because when they can do that there are no disadvantages to having a Corporatized management, that is the same as absolute power.

Individuals will be interested in laws that help themselves, not the Corporation they are associated with, although helping the Corporation will often equate to helping themselves.

But the difference is that as an individual there is a natural singularity point where they are spending more money for the Corporate interests than they will personally gain from the advantage bought for the Corporation, and such individuals will expect other members of the Corporation to apply a sacrifice relative to their own contribution, and such a thing will red-flag as a potential violation attempt.

What is also a danger is if they conspire off-shore to do it, but an individual contributing more than they would reasonable gain would also red-flag.

But sometimes a law to help a Corporation would genuinely help society, and that has to be balanced between the gain of the Board and shareholders versus the societal and economic advantages.

It would introduce a whole new area for potential Inquiries across the Corporate/Industrial sector.

User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: Corporate Power

Post by Arcelius » Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:07 pm

Raytrek wrote:Not exactly; If you conclude that a God exists, the function and purpose will be related, but without making such a conclusion that God exists, function is not related to purpose. There are innumerable things in existence that have a function but have no apparent creator or purpose, except in some kind of leap of faith argument. Assigning purpose to things is anthropomorphically relative; if it is made by people for a purpose that serves them or if by naturally occurring it serves humans, we can attribute the distinction of purpose to it, but really that is just because our perspective as humans observes the benefit from it.
Have you read The Ra Material? Are you familiar with the Reciprocal Theory or System (RS or RS2 with improvements)? I think you will find most people on this site will accept them as a basis for their worldview.

What would you call a god? Is a human a god or potential god? Simply because you (or anyone else) can't find a creator or purpose behind something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Something that creates something else whether they are human or not implies purpose. Purpose is not only in the realm of humans. For example, a beaver creates a dam for the purpose of raising the water level and creating a home for itself within the water. The beaver knows how to build the dam and what the result will be and because of that, will expend the effort to do so. I don't see much difference in this than what most humans do.
Raytrek wrote:Fulfilment is when humans intend something and it comes to fruition, again anthropomorphic, but when something is fulfilling, this is because, wether humans created it or it naturally exists, people attain a benefit from it, again anthropomorphic situational/subjective perspective. Where purpose is an anthropomorphisation, function isn't, function is broadly prevalent throughout the universe, and unless you assign an intelligent influence to account for its very existence, you cannot automatically conclude function and purpose are synonymous.
So when plants and animals intend something and it comes to fruition and they gain a benefit from it, that is not fulfillment? Plants and animals (and other things) are intelligent. In some cases, they are much more intelligent than some humans. There are intelligent fields throughout the universe and we sit in the middle of a number of them. Moving elsewhere may simply just change which fields we are inside the influence of. This is why I conclude that function and purpose are synonymous.
Raytrek wrote:Another thing is; if indeed there is a God, then the concepts of Intelligent Design and Purpose from the perspective of such a being would not automatically have a correlation to human perspective of the definitions, in which case we would be guilty of anthropomorphising God itself.
Unless, you, as a human, have advanced further than such a god and realize that god, as commonly defined, does not exist but that many other intelligent things do.
Raytrek wrote:But in that, you cannot underscore the phenomena; Function in itself is what makes things more than the sum of their parts, that is extraordinary on its own without further applying suppositions to the origin.
In my opinion, function underscores a materialistic worldview which avoids looking at the world holistically or systemically. Purpose, or an intelligence aspect, enables something to become more than the sum of its material parts.
Raytrek wrote:I don’t think an individual funnelling funds into a campaign is the problem, remember Corporations are people too; they have Democratic rights as citizens to be politically active and lobby. That is the problem.
I agree that this is a problem with corporations and one of the main reasons I am not in favour of them. I am also not really in favour of Democracies either though. You may note that the USA is a Republic (at least looking at the constitution) and not strictly a Democracy unless you start redefining words.
Raytrek wrote:I have suggested to identify Corporations, and other such economic powerhouses, as Foreign Nations, rather than people/citizens, especially when they are multinational, or potentially multinational.
But nations (foreign or otherwise) are also corporations.
Raytrek wrote:There are significant advantages of having Corporatized management, Democratic rights to lobby should not be one of them, full stop, because when they can do that there are no disadvantages to having a Corporatized management, that is the same as absolute power.
Advantages for whom?
Raytrek wrote:Individuals will be interested in laws that help themselves, not the Corporation they are associated with, although helping the Corporation will often equate to helping themselves.

But the difference is that as an individual there is a natural singularity point where they are spending more money for the Corporate interests than they will personally gain from the advantage bought for the Corporation, and such individuals will expect other members of the Corporation to apply a sacrifice relative to their own contribution, and such a thing will red-flag as a potential violation attempt.

What is also a danger is if they conspire off-shore to do it, but an individual contributing more than they would reasonable gain would also red-flag.
So self-interest is primary?
Raytrek wrote:But sometimes a law to help a Corporation would genuinely help society, and that has to be balanced between the gain of the Board and shareholders versus the societal and economic advantages.

It would introduce a whole new area for potential Inquiries across the Corporate/Industrial sector.
This sounds more like a benevolent dictatorship (or oligarchy) which is perhaps the best we (as citizens) can hope for unless something really changes.

Raytrek, what are you hoping for when you post here? You seem to have a different worldview than most people who do post. That in an of itself is certainly not a bad thing either. For myself, I feel that I have benefited from the posts and people who are here and so I try to return the favour for others. Is it the same for you or something else?

User avatar
dave432
Centurio
Centurio
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:59 am

Re: Corporate Power

Post by dave432 » Mon Jan 20, 2014 11:29 am

I had an interesting education working for a corporation once, when I first learned that a company can create another corporation and sell the original entity to the new one at a loss. Then the company can claim the loss on taxes and whatever other benefits this brings.

I wonder if a natural person can transfer or sell personal debt to the strawman and write it off? Just think like a corporation and avoid all responsibility. Problem with that is that you would be participating in a system that is flawed at its core and you would be endorsing the continuation of a top-down hierarchy and all that implies, rather than working toward a society based more on fairness and equanimity, something like the LMs must have. I realize there are a lot of people talking about these types of maneuvers these days but I don't follow it much, assuming that success with this would be limited to the nobility anyway.
"just down the road a little way, turn left, cross the drawbridge, and you will be my guest tonight."
-- directions to the grail castle. We'll have some toast.

Post Reply