Slashdot Mirror

"Even Aristotle said that a democracy naturally degenerates into despotism. The United States is simply repeating the past, though one must say in a much faster tempo than its predecessors."

ITYM Rosseau, not Aristotle.

"When the State is dissolved, the abuse of government, whatever it is, bears the common name of anarchy. To distinguish, democracy degenerates into ochlocracy, and aristocracy into oligarchy; and I would add that royalty degenerates into tyranny; but this last word is ambiguous and needs explanation."
http://files.libertyfund.org/p...

Better yet read this:

Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. J.B. Bury with an Introduction by W.E.H. Lecky (New York: Fred de Fau and Co., 1906), in 12 vols. Vol. 1. Monday

Gibbon's classic work, still the greatest prose work in the English language IMHO, was originally published in 1776.

It is available, free of charge, at the Online Library of Liberty Website at this URL.

They have several different formats including: an HTML version converted from the original text, EBook PDF a text-based PDF created from the HTML, Facsimile PDF, an image-based PDF made from scans of the original book, and a Kindle E-book. OLL has many other classics of political theory and history available fro free downloads.

First Paragraph:

In the second century of the Christian era, the empire of Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the most civilised portion of mankind. The frontiers of that extensive monarchy were guarded by ancient renown and disciplined valour. The gentle, but powerful, influence of laws and manners had gradually cemented the union of the provinces. Their peaceful inhabitants enjoyed and abused the advantages of wealth and luxury. The image of a free constitution was preserved with decent reverence. The Roman senate appeared to possess the sovereign authority, and devolved on the emperors all the executive powers of government. During a happy period of more than fourscore years, the public administration was conducted by the virtue and abilities of Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and the two Antonines. It is the design of this and of the two succeeding chapters, to describe the prosperous condition of their empire; and afterwards, from the death of Marcus Antoninus, to deduce the most important circumstances of its decline and fall: a revolution which will ever be remembered, and is still felt by the nations of the earth.

The issue people have with corporate personhood is the granting of civil liberty rights to corporations, not the ability to own property.

The issue you refer to is a lack of understanding of what rights are. There can be no useful distinction between the right to own property and any other "civil liberty rights" in the US constitution.

John Locke, whose writings in defense of the English Glorious Revolution of 1688, became the inspiration of the Founding Fathers of the United States and part of the basis of the Constitution said that: "The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property." Sec. 124 of the 2nd Treatise of Government http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=222&layout=html#chapter_16371.

The ownership of property is recognized and protected by Amendments 4 & 5 of the Bill of Rights and Amendment 14 as well. And, it and was deemed fundamental by Congress in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the first civil rights act to protect the newly freed slaves. The provision is still part of the civil rights laws of the United States 42 USC Sec. 1982 - Property rights of citizens http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1982&%238364;.

That association (including incorporation) does not impair civil rights is borne out by inspection of the First Amendment. Freedom of religion is exercised by the thousands of religious congregations that have incorporated. ABC, NBC, & CBS exercise the right of free speech, as do universities from Harvard to Slippery Rock, which are also corporations. The New York Times and the Washington Post depend on freedom of the press. Trade Associations and Unions are associations (some of which are corporations) formed to petition the government for redress of grievances.

And you can't disingenuously claim "it's religion freedom for JP Morgan or our whole society goes to hell", banking on the naivety of those which don't understand the law.

I cannot parse that sentence. As for the religious freedom of corporations, see above.

Like it or not, the law has _always_ bifurcated the public sphere into commercial and private parts.

And so?

Governments have wide latitude to control the behavior of commercial entities.

Subject, of course, to the overarching structure of the US Constitution.

Civil liberty rights ... were never intended to be applied to corporations, per se.

That is an interesting assertion. Perhaps you would care to provide some evidence for it. It is not, however a logical consequence of the laws.

Associations of persons, yes, but that's different than allowing the rights to inhere in a fictional entity.

It really makes no difference whether you think that rights inhere in an association or its members, unless you believe that individuals forfeit rights by associating.

For example ... unions are considered associations ... union officials and members can go straight to jail if the union as a whole doesn't abide by an injunction.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. The consequences of a court order depend on whom it is addressed to and how they are notified of it, not on the legal rubric under which they have associated.

A corporation is a title that courts are free to ignore, especially when it comes to constitutional matters and rights that [normally] inhere in individuals.

Your "rhetorical" answer to your question only reveals that you do not understand the law.

First we must remember that the rubric "corporation", includes not only Microsoft and Wal-Mart, but also universities, hospitals, churches, municipalities, and clubs. The first corporation to assert constitutional rights in the US Supreme Court was not a business. It was Dartmouth College. ("It is a small college, but there are those that love it." - Daniel Webster).

Corporations are associations of natural persons (i.e. individual human beings), who themselves have full legal capacity and who themselves bear "rights". The associates include the directors and officers of the corporation.

Granting them corporate personhood allows them to own property and enter into contracts in their roles in the association. The Latin word for a role is "persona".

Doing this allows the property and contracts to inhere in the association so that if an individual dies or retires from his role, the property and contracts automatically transfer to the next individual who holds that role. If we did not do this, the property and contracts of the association would have to go through probate if one of the associates were to die, or be deeded for every resignation, or even worse, be subject to litigation.

The underlying social logic of this type of legal structure has been laid out by Nobel Prize winning economist Douglass North. In his view the open availability of institutional structures like the corporation is one of the hallmarks of advanced societies like the US. The lack of these structures defines base state societies like Afghanistan, Syria, and Sudan. See "Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History" by North, Wallis, & Weingast.

IAAL. As Chief Justice Coke explained to King James I, (see "Prohibitions del Roy"), issues concerning the life, liberty, and property of citizens, are not decided by the King's natural reason, but by the artificial reason and judgment of Law, which is mastered only by long study and labor. But, the Law is the golden measure that protects everyone, governor and governed alike, in safety and peace.

Better source.

The Declaration had a few problem of it's own. Namely that a large number of the rationales given for secession were either grossly exaggerated or outright fabrications.

Government is necessary. Laws are necessary. These are though necessary evils. You can't argue that someone is more free when there are restrictions placed on what they can do by men with guns. At the same time you can't argue that mankind would be better off (outside of some kind of Eden) with no government at all. So the best solution would logically be as much government intrusion as necessary and no more. I don't think many people would seriously argue with this. It is the question of how much is necessary that is the major point of contention. Start reading here: http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=343

The 17th amendment certainly has some terrible effects on governance, but having 700,000 people per Congressional district is worse. Another huge blow is the Supreme Court's invention of 'Incorporation', which, along with enumerated powers of Congress, is at the heart of most issues, including those discussed on NPR and by the OP.

It is perfectly feasible, because you have touched on a grain of rice where you should be considering something more akin to the whole enchilada.

Dear Sir, --I received your favor of Oct. 16, at this place, where I pass much of my time, very distant from Monticello. I am quite astonished at the idea which seems to have got abroad; that I propose publishing something on the subject of religion, and this is said to have arisen from a letter of mine to my friend Charles Thompson, in which certainly there is no trace of such an idea. When we see religion split into so many thousand of sects, and I may say Christianity itself divided into it's thousands also, who are disputing, anathematizing and where the laws permit burning and torturing one another for abstractions which no one of them understand, and which are indeed beyond the comprehension of the human mind, into which of the chambers of this Bedlam would a [torn] man wish to thrust himself. The sum of all religion as expressed by it's best preacher, "fear god and love thy neighbor" contains no mystery, needs no explanation. But this wont do. It gives no scope to make dupes; priests could not live by it. Your idea of the moral obligations of governments are perfectly correct. The man who is dishonest as a statesman would be a dishonest man in any station. It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings collected together are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately. It is a great consolation to me that our government, as it cherishes most it's duties to its own citizens, so is it the most exact in it's moral conduct towards other nations. I do not believe that in the four administrations which have taken place, there has been a single instance of departure from good faith towards other nations. We may sometimes have mistaken our rights, or made an erroneous estimate of the actions of others, but no voluntary wrong can be imputed to us. In this respect England exhibits the most remarkable phaenomenon in the universe in the contrast between the profligacy of it's government and the probity of it's citizens. And accordingly it is now exhibiting an example of the truth of the maxim that virtue & interest are inseparable. It ends, as might have been expected, in the ruin of it's people, but this ruin will fall heaviest, as it ought to fall on that hereditary aristocracy which has for generations been preparing the catastrophe. I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country. Present me respectfully to Mrs. Logan and accept yourself my friendly and respectful salutations.

From http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=808&chapter=88352&layout=html&Itemid=27

Confucius, one of the most influential philosophers in Chinese history. He has something to say about censorship and the role that the government should play in communicating with the people that I think makes what the Chinese are trying to accomplish a bit clearer:

XIX. The Duke Gae asked, saying, “What should be done in order to secure the submission of the people.” Confucius replied, “Advance the upright and set aside the crooked, then the people will submit. Advance the crooked and set aside the upright, then the people will not submit.”

XX. Ke K‘ang asked how to cause the people to reverence their ruler, to be faithful to him, and to urge themselves to virtue. The Master said, “Let him preside over them with gravity;—then they will reverence him. Let him be filial and kind to all;—then they will be faithful to him. Let him advance the good and teach the incompetent;—then they will eagerly seek to be virtuous.”

Source

So notice how Chinese censorship not only applies to political messages but also to non-political messages that are deemed to not be representative of virtue. They shutdown people who have stock tip blogs, who are writing sex gossip columns, who become popular in signing and dancing competitions and professional sports culture. They don't want people who the government considers to be not good role models for the people to achieve any degree of fame. The government would never permit the kind of gangster/mafia glorifying culture in China which is so popular in many parts of the rest of the world no matter how non-poltiical.

BTW, I urge anyone who wants to understand China better to read Confucius. He was writing in about 200BCE, before China had any contact at all with the West so in order to fully appreciate it, one has to temporarily disregard everything one is familiar with in the western traditions and carefully digest his words.

It strikes me that you could have just Googled "Marcus Cicero" and found everything you wanted to know easier than asking me to do your homework... of course, you seemed to have problems finding Access Research Network on Google, so maybe not.

OK, follow this link On the Nature of the Gods. Here you can download a PDF of the book and read flor yourself. Go to page 51 and read chapter XVI (don't worry it's short). Then go to page 68, chapter XLIV and read the last two sentences.

As for the words "Intelligent Design" together, the first recorded use seems to be in an 1847 issue of Scientific American, but the phrase started to be used somewhat regularly after that... Even Darwin used the term himself... according to Wikipedia.

Spencer, Herbert "Social Statics", c. XXV, "Poor-Laws"

GP probably meant Social Darwinism, which many /. Libertarians (and LIRLs) apparently embrace (whether or not they accept the term).

Every time you see someone post "Capitalism is Evolution", this is what they're really talking about.

It's toxic stuff, and I wish more Libertarians knew that Saint Mises himself rejected it.

Spencer apologetics don't move me, btw. Whether he was a Lamarckian or Darwinist is totally irrelevant, Hofstadter's analysis wasn't a statist conspiracy to discredit Libertarians, and all of the above have little to do with the facts about the beliefs of most Libertarians.

As Thomas Jefferson said in QUERY XVII: The different religions received into that state? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecuter, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.

Nature had given all things to all men, but seeing they were barred from the use of many things whereof man's life standeth in need by reason of the distance of places, it was needful to pass over from place to place. Neither yet was there permutation, but finding other things with others they used them at their pleasure by course. Almost after the same manner they report the Seres do, who, leaving their goods in the wilderness, the bargain is made only by the honesty and conscience of the changers.

... also consider reading Vattel and Pufendorf. Both aren't mentioned much in the states, but their thinking has influenced a good deal of the way most European politicians look at foreign affairs.

Both Grotius' The Free Sea and Vattel's The Law of Nations are freely available online. But I'd start with Locke's Second Discourse on Government and Rousseau's Second Discourse. Both present very different liberal views of property rights.

Here is a link that lists the top 40 books cited by the founders in their writting. Some of the texts that arn't available at the libertyfund's online library are available at Guetenburg...

The Soviet Union fell apart in part because its subjects caught enough images of the West as a rich and happy place from movies, magazines, video tapes of TV ... and then they tried to instantly become America (with big advice from Harvard) and ended up being gangster heaven. Now countries under dictatorship have a much more mixed view of the Wonders of the West available to them and, guess what, the West isn't such a shining example when seen in wider scope, so it leaves the locals more likely to base their utopian dreams on the silly fantasies in old "religious" books - much like many of the more desparate (Republican) Americans today down in the Old South (apologies to the excellent poster who's a Southern Patriot - I'm proud my relatives shot at his and won - although ashamed that we returned the vote to white Southerners too soon by a couple centuries).

Anyhow, the point is we need to remake some of the West so that it can again - under the increased scrutiny the Net allows - be a shining, almost irrestible example. The way to topple tyrants is to offer a believable vision of Utopia - as Lenin and Mao both knew, but as the American Founders also took advantage of in the idealization of ancient "Saxon liberties" that was prevalent in the history books that they all were avid readers of at the time. See Trevor Colbourn's The Lamp of Experience: Whig History and the Intellectual Origins of the American Revolution to learn how this worked. Our liberties are partly from our ancestors (those of us who are of English blood especially) but more fundamentally the product of the particular Utopian dream they mistook for the real, proven prospects of the best way to live - and in large part lucked out on (although there was also a current philosophical basis - particularly in the works of Francis Hutcheson). Hey, it worked. Oh, also note that the "Saxon liberties" that were taken by the American Revolutionaries to be the inherent rights of Englishmen were pre-Christian - and so those current idiots who claim that the Bible is behind it all are being even more wishful in their history than Jefferson and crew were.

For those of you who do not wish to read 18th century prose (which I find delicious, but some of you may think is too much work) try A Monarchy Transformed: Britain 1603-1714 (Penguin History of Britain Series, No 6) by Mark Kishlansky. Avoid the Stone book which is crippled by the author's marxist commitments.

The English Civil War was a key event in American History also. the connections are explained by Kevin Phillips in The Cousins' Wars: Religion, Politics, and the Triumph of Anglo-America

For those of you who do not wish to read 18th century prose (which I find delicious, but some of you may think is too much work) try A Monarchy Transformed: Britain 1603-1714 (Penguin History of Britain Series, No 6) by Mark Kishlansky. Avoid the Stone book which is crippled by the author's marxist commitments.

The English Civil War was a key event in American History also. the connections are explained by Kevin Phillips in The Cousins' Wars: Religion, Politics, and the Triumph of Anglo-America