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.
|
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.