From: Michael S. Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Wed Dec 20 2000 - 09:16:33 MST
KPJ wrote:
>
> IAAI "Michael S. Lorrey" <mlorrey@datamann.com> wrote:
>
> |Because governments are corporations which all of us are members of,
> |then that government cannot exclude one citizen more than another, which
> |is why only governments are bound under these discrimination laws.
>
> I first read that and concluded you made the standard misteak of using the
> nasty "be" ("27 meanings, all contra-factual" :-) verb.
No mistake. A government is a corporation, a non-profit corporate
association.
>
> Governments enjoy a power monopoly over a territory ultimately using weaponry.
> I fail to see corporations doing that on their own, except maybe in parts of
> Latin America where U.S. companies have used that technique (with the approval
> of the local fascist government, I might add).
>
> Those who define governments as corporations make a special version of the
> age-old Thoreau argument on social contracts. Except for people who leave
> one state to become subjects of another I know of nobody having written a
> social contract. How can one allow one's forefathers to write a social contract
> in stone, as it were?
The state constitution is the social contract. If you accept being a
citizen, you accept that contract. You may not like some parts of it,
but you accept it or you leave. The only point of contention is what
constitutes uncoerced acceptance.
>
> No. States simply consist of local power monopolies giving some people the
> power over some territory. The "us vs them" syndrome of human behaviour.
> If one idealizes states as corporations, then one should also idealize the
> mafias and mobs of this world as such. Power monopolies can allow themselves
> to make any discrimination against the subjects of their power monopoly.
Mafias and mobs are in and of themselves corporate organisms, though
they are not officially organized as such, but since they also typically
only engage in their monopoly of force within their own ranks (and
punish those who violate this rule), they only need to be internally
recognised as such. Just because a government is a monopoly of force
does not mean it is not a corporation that is engaged in monopolizing
the market of force. Just because it engages in that market does not
mean it permanently monopolizes it without contest.
>
> One could argue that you wrote about *U.S.* govnerment and that the laws
> (esp. one called "constitution") allow you to bear arms and theoretically
> overthrow the government in case it goes "bad". In practice, you can forget
> that pipe dream. You may have your rifles, but when the opposition has a
> much larger arsenal of weapons, technology, and people you lose. Irak had
> a large force (the 4th largest, if memory serves) but lost hard. Why would
> any small group win over the U.S. Government, given those statistics?
>
> I just wanted to add my USD 0.02 to point out some contradictions in
> your belief system.
Well, I don't accept that its impossible to reform our government by
force of arms, and having studied a bit of military history, for a
number of years, I stick by that statement. However that has nothing to
do with the assertion that a government is a corporation of a non-profit
association type.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:29 MST