The Lie That Corporations Have “Rights”
The Lie That Corporations Have “Rights”
Written by Jeff Nielson (CLICK FOR ORIGINAL)
People
have rights – at least we used to have them, until the mythological
“War on Terror” was rammed down our throats as a pretext for stripping
us of many rights. Corporations cannot have rights, which should be
evident to all citizens in our pseudo-democracies.
However, thanks to the endemic brainwashing of the corporate media,
this important distinction of law/logic is no longer obvious to many.
Indeed, in the United States, corporations have been elevated to a legal
status at least equal to that of its citizens – if not above the status
of the people.
Precipitating this discussion, we offer a particularly odious piece of propaganda from
the mainstream media, where a purported law professor attempts to
advance the specious argument that corporations (in the United States)
have “free speech rights.”
The scope of the First Amendment [free speech] lies
at the heart of my thought experiment. We live in an era when
criticisms of corporate speech can become overwrought. Many activists
deny that corporations have any free speech rights at all.
Not even the four dissenters [judges] in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission took that position. They conceded that corporations possess First Amendment rights .
They simply argued that the government, with sufficiently strong
reason, can limit some avenues for the expression of those rights as
long as it leaves other avenues open.
This
is wrong, in every respect. It is “bad law” in every respect. It
reflects a refusal of the corrupt U.S. judiciary system to acknowledge
the limits of our governments’ authority. It is nothing less than a
complete betrayal of the oath these judges take to uphold the law.
Here,
the perversion of reality descends to the level of cultural insanity.
In the United States, a corporation is “a person.” This is an outrageous
distortion of law and reality, particularly once we place this legal
perversion into its proper context. In the United States, a fetus is not “a person.”
Irrespective
of one’s views on the highly emotionally-charged subject of abortion,
one fact is clear. If a human fetus is not legally deemed to be “a
person,” then obviously an inanimate corporation could never be deemed
as such. As a matter of basic biology and elementary logic, the claim of
a fetus to the status of “a person” must be above any claims by mere
corporations.
Because
of our brainwashing, this point still may not be obvious to some
readers, thus a further definition of terms is necessary. We will begin
with defining the word “right.” Since our context for examining rights
is a legal one, our definition must be legally rather than
linguistically oriented.
This
is an important point, as the word “right” is used both very loosely
and colloquially in our societies. Dictionary definitions are of little
help here. Consult a half dozen different dictionaries, and one will see
the word “right” defined in six different ways.
To
define the word in a legal context requires first answering a
preliminary question: from where do our rights originate? Primarily, our
rights are derived from the Constitutions of our nations. To a lesser
extent, they are also derived from the United Nation’s “Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.” However, as this document has (at best)
only quasi-official status within our various nations, our rights are
primarily derived from the former source.
Our
Constitutions exist above the level of our governments. We know this to
be true, because we require that any amendments to our Constitution
only be enacted via some sort of Super Majority. This is to demonstrate
to the people that the proposed change(s) reflects the will of the
people, and it is only under such circumstances that we allow our
governments to modify our Constitution.
Our
rights come from our Constitutions, and our Constitutions have a legal
status above that of our governments. Thus our rights exist, legally,
above the level of our governments. Why is this point of such great
importance? Because it sheds light on the true definition of “a right.”
Because
our rights exist above the legal level of our governments, our
governments do not (and cannot) bestow rights. Rather, our human rights
are intrinsic and inalienable. This conclusion simply mirrors the
language of the U.N.’s Universal Declaration:
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.
As
a proposition of both law and logic, this makes much of our
anti-terrorism laws legally null and void, since they seek to infringe
upon, if not eliminate, rights which exist above the authority of our
governments.
Governments
cannot grant rights. Equally, they cannot take them away, except via
Constitutional amendment. Here it is very important that we distinguish
the word “right” from a somewhat similar word/concept: “privilege.”
Privileges resemble rights except for one crucial distinction of law/logic. Privileges are revocable.
Our governments do have the legal authority to grant privileges, and
thus to revoke privileges – something for which they lack the legal
authority with respect to rights.
This
brings us to another extremely important definition: “corporation.” A
corporation is an inanimate, paper entity. More specifically, it is a
front for wealth. These paper shells have been created in order to
facilitate the deployment of wealth, and thus facilitate commerce. Of
equal importance, corporations are a creation of government.
Why are these basic traits of corporations of such great legal relevance to this discussion?
1) Corporations have a legal status created by our governments, and
thus a legal status equal to our governments, but well below the status
of our human rights.
2) In our world of mega-corporations, corporations have become primarily the paper fronts for the ultra-wealthy.
Dealing
with the second point first, it should become immediately apparent why –
as an issue of justice and equity – a corporation could never have
rights. As individuals, the ultra-wealthy already have rights equal to
and commensurate with the rights of all other citizens. This is all they
could ever be entitled to. If we grant rights to the mega-corporations
owned by the ultra-wealthy, we are granting this one class of
individuals a second set of rights – in addition to their intrinsic,
human rights.
This
is obviously unjust and inequitable. When we then examine the first
point (above), we see how supposedly granting rights to corporations is
clearly illegal.
We
have already established that our legal rights exist above the level of
our governments. They cannot create or bestow rights, nor can they take
them away. Obviously, if they cannot bestow rights to the people, they
cannot bestow rights upon inanimate corporations – entities with a legal
status equal to that of our governments. They lack the authority.
Similarly,
if a government cannot legally bestow rights upon corporations, they
cannot elevate corporations to a status equal to that of the people,
i.e. by defining a corporation as “a person.” This is simply an indirect
means of doing what we have already established is illegal. If we allow
our governments to define any entity it chooses as “a person,” we would
be giving these governments the back-door power to bestow rights,
something which is unequivocally beyond their legal authority.
One
does not have to be a judge, or even a law professor in order to
understand these elementary points of law, logic, and justice. How could
someone who (supposedly) possesses the legal expertise of a law
professor have constructed the fallacious and ludicrous argument that
“corporations have rights”?
He
did so by deliberately refusing to define the terms he was using. It is
much easier to lie to people, and to pretend that corporations have
rights if you scrupulously avoid any precise definition of what a
“right” actually is.
A
definition of terms is the foundation of all valid analysis. Refusing
to define the terms that one uses in constructing their arguments is the
methodology of the propagandist. Most lies and propaganda are couched
in semantics, and engaging in semantic deception is impossible if one
first precisely (and correctly) defines their terminology.
People
have rights. People have a legal status well above that of mere
corporations. Corporations can never have rights. Corporations exist at a
legal level equal to that of our own governments (another form of paper
entity), and well below the level of a person.
A
corporation can, at best, have privileges bestowed upon it – privileges
which can be taken away by any legislative act. Perhaps the greatest
outrage and tragedy of this issue is that it even requires an
explanation.
At
one time, the citizens of our nations understood that the government
serves the people, not the other way around. At one time, the citizens
of our nations understood that their own legal status (and the status of
their rights) exists above the authority level of our governments.
Instead,
we are now mere serfs in the most illegitimate of hierarchies. Corrupt
governments regularly pass pseudo-laws, which grossly exceed the level
of their legal authority, and are thus null and void. Corrupt
judiciaries have abdicated their own legal duty, and now simply
rubber-stamp an endless stream of these null-and-void laws.
The people of our nations need to know their rights. But first, they have to understand them.
The people of our nations need to know their rights. But first, they have to understand them.
|
Jeff Nielson is co-founder and managing partner of Bullion
Bulls Canada; a website which provides precious metals commentary,
economic analysis, and mining information to readers/investors. Jeff
originally came to the precious metals sector as an investor around the
middle of last decade, but soon decided this was where he wanted to make
the focus of his career. His website is www.bullionbullscanada.com.
|
The
views and opinions expressed in this material are those of the author
as of the publication date, are subject to change and may not
necessarily reflect the opinions of Sprott Money Ltd. Sprott Money does
not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness and reliability of
the information or any results from its use.