It’s really a wonder that I haven’t dropped all my ideals, because they seem so absurd and impossible to carry out. Yet I keep them, because in spite of everything I still believe people are really good at heart.
- Anne Frank, from her diary, July 15, 1944
This book is about the difference between humans and the corporations we humans have created. The story goes back to the birth of the United States, even the birth of the Revolution. It continues through the writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the 1780s, and reaches its first climactic moment 100 years later, after the Civil War. The changes that ensued from that moment continue into the 21st century, where the results continue to unfold. And very few citizens of the world are unaffected.
In another sense, this book is about values and beliefs: how our values are reflected in the society we create, and how a society itself can work, or not work, to reflect those values.
Go here to read more of the introduction to Thom's book, "Unequal Protection", an updated version of which is coming out soon.
Comments
Combatting corporate "personhood" by means of a constitutional amendment , even if successful will be a long process taking, most likely, years. However, in order to counter the recent Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to spend megabucks in political compaigns might best be to push hard for a reinstatement of the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE for broadcasting and other forms of advertising. Most of the money will go for the inane TV ads, which unfortuneately are effective.
Thom does talk about the fairness doctrine and other alternatives to constitutional amendments on the show.
The new up to date edition of the book, including Citizens United, is now out.
MovetoAmend.org is a new group organized to combat the outcome of the Citzens United case. If you are angry at this travesty that permits corporations the right to negatively affect our electoral process, I urge you to get involved and visit the MoveToAmend's website for further info.
In his book,Unequal Protection, Thom writes:
"In today's America when a new human is born, the child is given a Social Security number and is instantly protected by the full weight and power of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights."
Not true at all. Anyone who applies and receives a Social Security number is NOT instantly protected by the U.S. Const. and Bill of Rights. He/she has equal protection as corporations. The Social Security [codified] Act describes anyone with an SSN as an "individual." While the term "individual" is not defined in the Social Security code, it is defined in the Tax Code as "person" and "person" includes "individuals."
Here it is from the Internal Revenue Code sec. 7701
(1) Person. The term "person" shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, comany or corporation.
The SSN is a Taxpayer I.D. and anyone using their SSN as a Taxpayer I.D.is deemed to be a corporation (business entity) The SSN coverts to a Taxpayer I.D. when the employee completes the W-4. They first have to get permission from the employee to use their SSN as a Taxpayer I.D., because they know that the SSN is not a Taxpayer I.D. So after the employee has consented to the use of their SSN as a Taxpayer ID he/she is now co-equal with the employer corporation. Both Taxpayers can now go to court together and be given "equal protection under the law," (utter lie). It is the SSN that coverts all free persons to corporate entities or Taxpayers. Only free persons are "instantly protected" by the full weight and power of the U.S. Constitution (however that is moot since we have no constitutional courts or judges). Anyway, this is not an attack on Thom or his book- I just wanted to point out that the word "Taxpayer" is the magic word what makes people co-equal with corporations.
In his book,Unequal Protection, Thom writes:
"In today's America when a new human is born, the child is given a Social Security number and is instantly protected by the full weight and power of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights."
Not true at all. Anyone who applies and receives a Social Security number is NOT instantly protected by the U.S. Const. and Bill of Rights. He/she has equal protection as corporations.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you may be misconstruing Thom's statement? The word "and" here does not mean "and as a result". There is no implication that the mechanism of tax collection endows a citizen with their constitutional rights. Actual people had those rights before there was such a thing as social security numbers. So did corporations, but for a different reason: the Supreme Court decisions Thom talks about. Therefore applying for a social security number does not mean that the person "has equal protection as corporations" only, or even substantively in that respect.
The word and is a conjunction. It means "together with," and not "and as a result." Social security was implied in the sentence as "together with" constitutional rights. There is no comma after 'Social Security number' so it is not separate from the second half of the sentence.
"Therefore applying for a social security number does not mean that the person "has equal protection as corporations" only, or even substantively in that respect."
I never said that the SSN means that the person has equal protection as corporations. I said that if you use the SSN as Taxpayer I.D. will be treated as has having equal protection as corporations. Corporations do not have rights and the idea that they do began to impress on people's minds starting around 1913 when Congress delegated their power to coin money to a bank, the Federal Reserve, which essentially gave them the power (or the right) to collect taxes on our labor. Money and laws cannot be separated so when Congress gave the Federal Reserve the power to coin money, they (the Federal Reserve corporation) essentially became our lawmaker too. He who owns the gold makes the rules.
Corporations do not have rights and the idea that they do began to impress on people's minds starting around 1913 when Congress delegated their power to coin money to a bank, the Federal Reserve, which essentially gave them the power (or the right) to collect taxes on our labor.
Definitely an unfortunate episode in our history. Perhaps we can start an "exchange your bills for coins campaign" and allow "coin deposit only" banks to be chartered. Therefore my 60 million dollars (kidding, I wish) is deposited in the form of "coins only". I just get to keep using a debit card- how convenient! Thank god for modern techonology!
But the fed "prints" enough money to allow for the fact that what is collected in the form of taxes equalls a pre-determined amount which is necessary for the gov. budget. The number of dollars in circulation should be enough to facilitate the greatest number of transactions per dollar, and therefore the greatest amount of return on treasury bond investment- keeping lending interest rates lower that bond yield rates. If so, the gov. avoids budget shortfalls through growth, until interest paid exceeds actual wealth; the growth of wealth in the form of valuation expressed through dollars will exceed the production of physical growth in a capitalist system.
Correct? What's your suggestion for a sustainable system? And please don't answer "greenbacks". What's your political solution?
What's your political solution?
Ideally, my political solution is Democracy. Democracy = no politicians
Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language (1755):
Democracy. One of the three forms of government; that in which the sovereign power is neither lodged in one man, nor in the nobles, but in the collective body of the people. While many of the servants, by industry and virtue, arrive at riches and esteem, then the nature of government inclines to a democracy. Temple. The majority having the whole power of the community, may employ all that power in making laws, and executing those laws; and there the form of government is a perfect democracy. Locke ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Here's an excerpt from one of my favorite spiritual teachers (Osho) MOST PEOPLE, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, EQUATE DEMOCRACY WITH THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE THEIR POLITICIANS, YET YOU SEEM TO ENVISAGE A COUNTRY WHICH IS BOTH DEMOCRATIC AND POLLUTION-FREE, BECAUSE YOU SEE POLITICIANS AS POLLUTION. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?
Just the very existence of nations, countries dividing humanity into stupid parts, is the whole game of the politician. And this I call pollution. It is poison to humanity. That's why you don't see really authentically alive people in the world. You are asking, "People generally understand democracy to mean the freedom to choose politicians." Do you see the idiotic understanding of the people? It is choosing between poisons. The bottles contain the same poison -- on one is written "Democratic," on another is written "Republican." Politicians have been befooling you. They have managed the whole strategy in such a way that you never become aware what is happening. You choose one kind of poison for five years; for those five years you have to suffer that poison. After five years you are fed up with this kind of poison. You change to another bottle -- Republican, Liberal, Democratic, Communist, Socialist. They are all available in all shapes and sizes, whatsoever suits you. But you will fall in the same ditch. Maybe there are minor differences between poisons, but poison is poison. I do not see democracy as the freedom to choose between the politicians. To me, democracy means there are no longer any politicians around. You individually choose somebody you feel is the right person; there are no political parties. In a real democracy, political parties cannot exist; there is no reason why they should exist. People are intelligent enough to choose on their own. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Government should be local and with no politicians. As far as money is concerned, all I know is that the banks do not own our labor. Money is a product of man's labor. Money belongs to man, not the banks. 'Dollar' is the money of the United States. It belongs to the people, not the banks. Congress stole our labor (Dollar) and gave it Federal Reserve without our consent (so it was stolen). The Federal Reserve does not have authority from the Congress to print the word 'Dollar' on their notes, therefore Dollar still rightfully belongs to the people. The right to own our labor needs to be taken back. The long term politicial solution is to get rid of the policitians. I like your idea about the "coins only" campaign. It could be started locally.
The 14th Amendment could not have made corporations persons because the 14th Amendment does not use the word person in an artificial sense. It uses it in a natural sense. See the Supreme court case of Darthmouth vs. Woodward : “a corporation is an ARTIFICIAL being, invisibly intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law." Notice that the court didn’t say artificial person. It said artificial being. An artificial being is not a person. So the goal for the corporation was to become a person, because only human beings or natural persons have rights.
The following is the short of how corporations became natural persons, taken from the book The Corporation:
“Before the end of the 19th Century, through a bizarre legal alchemy, courts had fully transformed the corporation into a “person,” with its own identity, separate from the flesh-and-blood people who were its owners and managers and empowered like a real person, to conduct business in its own name, acquire assets, employ workers, pay taxes, and go to court to assert its rights
and defend its actions. Now viewed as an entity, “not imaginary or fictitious, but real, not artificial but natural,” as it was described by one law professor in 1911, the corporation had been reconceived as a free and independent being. The logic was that, conceived as natural entities analogous to human beings, corporations should be created as free individuals, a logic that informed the initiatives in New Jersey and Delaware, as well as the supreme Court’s decision in 1886 that, because they were “persons” corporations could be protected by the 14th Amendment’s rights to “due process of law” and “equal protection under the laws,” rights originally entrenched in the constitution to protect freed slaves."
Fast forward to the 20th century, through more bizarre legal alchemy (legislative acts of the government), corporations are no longer natural persons, but artificial or legal persons with rights. From natural person to artifical person. Make up your mind will ya?
Blackstone's Commentary (1765):
"Persons also are divided by the law into either natural persons, or artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us: artificial are such as created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government; which are called corporations or bodies politic."
On page 21 of Thom's book, after reading Blackstone's commentary [above] to the court, attorney Delmas stated that "[T]his definition suggests at once that it would seem unnecessary to dwell upon that though a corporation is a person, it is not the same kind of person as a human being"...
Unbeknownst to Delmas, here in America, the law of England "is not to be taken in all respects to be that of America" (Justice Story, Van Ness infra.) Blackstone's commentary states that corporations are persons, but that is not necessarily true in America. If corporations in America were persons, then the court in Darthmouth vs. Woodward probably would have defined them as such. Instead, the court said that corporations were artificial beings. The reason Delmas read that definition from Blackstone's Commentary is because there was no dictionary at that time in American law defining corporations as persons.
Justice Story:
“The common law of England is not to be taken in all respects to be that of America. Our ancestors brought with them its general principles, and claimed it as their birthright; but they brought with them and adopted only that portion which was applicable to their situation.” Van Ness vs. Pacard (1829)
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Van_Ness_v._Pacard/Opinion_of_the_Court
Justice Story:
“We take it to be a clear principle that the common law in force at the emigration of our ancestors is deemed the birthright of the colonies, unless so far as it is inapplicable to their situation, or repugnant to their other rights and privileges. Town of Pawlet v. Clark (1815)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/13/292/case.html
It is my opinion that the term "person," (used in an artificial sense) was never meant to be applied to corporations in America, as it is clearly repugnant to human rights. Had Delmas known that England's definitions do not necessarily apply to America, he may not have chosen to read from Blackstone's.
The term "person" ( in an artificial sense) is now found in all U.S. Codes, including the Tax Code. The tax code defines the term "Taxpayer" to mean any person liable for an internal revenue tax. The term "person" in the Tax Code is defined as an individual, association, partnership, company or corporation. That term, in my opinion, has been the bane of America.