Corporations Are Not People.

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

Corporations Are Not People.

a position paper

by: Jonathan Barlow Gee

for: the Pythagorean Order of Death

Passover and Easter, April 8, 2012.

Corporations are a collection of individual people, and as such are not merely mechanical appendages attached to a single hegemon. They cannot be, by definition, and therefore defy all reason to be compared to, a collection of "individual people" if they also fit the cannard that "corporations are collectives." Thus, because individual people can no more conform to becoming mechanical appendages to the executive hegemon in a corporate collective, no corporate collective based on such complete sacrifice to conformity by individual people can exist. This is not a "legal principle" that can be argued and interpreted; this is a simple statement of logical fact: Corporations are the exact opposite of being Individual People.

People are each individual, unique biological beings. Each person has their own constituent genetic code, their own memories, their own dreams to shape their choices, and no two people will respond the exact same way as one another in any given situation. This comes as much from genetic conditioning over the epochs of evolution on earth as from social conditioning occuring to us during our own lives; but these are each only 1/4th the total of factors involved in how individual people think and operate, and the other 1/2 is the most important: Free Will. The ability to make a conscientious choice to embark down a suicidal pathway, to engage in a no-win situation, or to self-destruct, to knowingly, willingly and purposefully make a mistake in judgement, to intentionally fail, in spite of all hopes and chances for success, is proof itself that free-will exists in every individual, not only those who excercise theirs to manifest more socially useful goals. Free-will and the right to always have a choice, to have a "say in" your own fate, is wasted and lost when someone acts for spite and in self-destructiveness. This is why they are mourned: their fate was stolen from them until they felt they had no other method of escape. On the other hand, most individual people are healthy and willing participants in the social-compact and free-market methods for receiving due consequences for one's contributions to their chosen society. Both societally beneficial contributors and self-haters both have free-will. We ALL have Free-Will.

Corporations are groups of individual people, delegated into rank and file - not necessarily by seniority and experience, as in most military chains-of-command - but instead to autonomous working groups that each specialises on one job. It has long been speculated that, when people congregate together into non-specific groupings, alike cultures, which have led inevitably to more task-specific society and eventually to class-stratified state-craft, the individual will is subsumed into a larger cause, the spirit of the movement, the good of the group. This effect is reduced to "group-think" terms like "collectivism" or "crowd mentality" to generalise the "weakness of individuality," however this is a wholely specious argument. That individuals are individuals cannot be denied, whether they are alone or in groups of other people. The more singular the hegemonic head of any group, the more their workers and followers will hate and resent them personally, but will feel directly relatively powerless and fearful to change their social system as well. This is not a flaw in the individuals' wills. This is due to state-side coercion to enforce conformity where it is unpopular at best, and impossible anyway. The influence of the individual hegemons throughout history has contributed the rank and file of military chains-of-command, while the influence of individual rebels against such a system has contributed the lateral stratificiation between task-specialising work-based collectives, ie. corporations and their sub-contractors.

Corporations, seen as groups of individual people, are an inherent good within a truly free and open market economy. When seen as even remotely possibly comparable to an individual person themselves, such groups of people are reduced in their ability to modify and adapt to their environmentally changeing reality. This dysfunction results in a seriously retarded business model, called "corporatism," where the vines of corporate-collective groups and the hegemons most in favour of state-side coercion and military forces intertwine to such an extent, the growth of both are totally choked out by one another.

The sign someone is a "corporatist" in their philosophy is that they will try to claim real a non-existent justification for the argument that "corporations are people." The idea of "corporations" being "people" is a colloquialism to begin with. It is nothing but a massive pun, intended to shift the conceptual dialogue to favour their own low intellects. To say "corporations are people" sounds dumb because it is dumb. These would be the words of a fool from the point of view of anyone with the least bit of education on the accepted meanings and definitions of terms. "Corporations" are "groups of people." In this regard, they can be said, quaintly, to be "people," insofar as they are "comprised of poeple." However, this subtle shift from logic allows the foolish would-be hegemon to introduce their own level of intelligence, the low-jynx antic of disguising one thing as another. Groups of people are seen as less like task-specialising working-groups, laterally organised among equal individuals, and more like a "single hegemon" when there is a chief-executive officer who comes into power through asserting their own self-worth over others. If these two terms were both allowed to exist and to compete against one another, like two trees planted at the same time side-by-side will compete for sunlight, the result is that "corporations as groups" out-grows "corporations as individuals;" it out-lives it, and by surviving will result in the failure of the lesser, until only the "fittest" remains.

To argue that "corporations are individuals, not groups of individuals," is to argue that "individuals in groups are no longer individuals," and to say that "corporations are people," instead of "corporations are groups of people," is to posit only a more extreme version of the case too often made claiming "all coporations are collectivist," or that "all unions are hegemonic," or that "all states under a hegemon are Leviathans," where "each new beuracratic department adds a new tentacle to the vast reach of the elitist and narrow-minded court-conspiracy surrounding the chief hegemon." If anyone tries to tell you, following 2012 AD, that "corporations are people," you should ignore their input unless they recant this position. Refuse to accept that "corporations are collectivist" as being a "lesser necessary evil" than to say "corporations are people," because the two mean the same thing, and there is no such thing as a "necessary evil." A "necessary evil" would be like attaching an anchor to a kite. "Corporations are collectivist people" would be a truer statement, but only about the "corporatist"-minded individual who is saying it themselves, yet it cannot be applied any further than to them alone. Likewise, any military coercion authorised by some anonymous beuracrat can only rightfully be used on that nameless nobody themselves.

Corporatists avow that "the government should be run like a corporation." What is the goal of a corporation? To maximize the profits being made for selling their collectively-manufactured products. Eg. the goal of all corporations is simply this: to make money; that is their "bottom-line." Is the role of government to make money? Is the goal of state-craft only to turn a profit for the government itself? What becomes of this supposed wealth then, in sole possession by the state and its politicians? Is this money to be spent on the citizens in social-works programs? Is this money to be saved and kept to pay for a generation's retirement benefits or to off-set life and health insurance against natural disasters or disease epidemics? Should the money be spent on research and development, and if so, should the military test it prior to its being packaged for the private-sector end-line consumers? The very allocation of the role of a "corporation" to the actor of the "government" raises all these questions only off the top of my head at this moment. However, these all depend on the single, biggest and most obvious red-herring of this entire argument: ""What is the role of government?" If the role of government is not compatible with the role of a corporation, then "corporatism" is only a modern-day euphamism for "fascism," a system tried last century that met with nothing but disastrous failure.

How tired from being beaten down has your ego become if you allow yourself to listen to, let alone believe in, the statement made that "corporations are people," let alone tolerate the argument attempting to justify it? How far have we come in this day and age when the anchor attached to the kite prevents it from even becoming air-borne? How badly have we suffered from our self-inflicted scourgings in the form of war after war, forming into one big war, inside an economic bubble, etc. that by now, we cannot even sustain a logical mind long enough to question the validity of such an obvious non-sequitor, even when it is being toutued as a truism by the media's most favoured politicians? Anyone who believes the statement and its justifying argument that "corporations are people," is simply greedy for the contra-positive condition to occur, where "individual people have rights equal to those of international corporations." Human rights are not purchased by money. They are endowed to us each as individuals by natural creation itself. It is not individuals who ought to be greedy for the expanded rights enjoyed by the elite rich rulers, but it is corporations that already desire the rights enjoyed equally by every individual person: the right to be free to make your own choice.

Make your own choices, people. If your tv tells you you "need" their new car model that just came out, then shoot your tv. Because it would do the same to itself if it could, and is doing as much to you already. PEACE. - Jon

[Jarrett Gornto]

I commend you on your insights.. Im for Thar bartter system... Thats pretty regulated...