A "body politic" is a group of people who have political authority and are organized politically and have political relationships both within their own organization and with other "body politics."
Corporations meet the criteria to be considered "body politics." They have political authority granted by the state. They are internally politically organized. They have political relationships with other "body politics," including both governments and other corporations.
It is when you ask "What kindof internal political organization do corporations have?" that you need a model to describe them. The closest analogy is the fascist nation state.
I don't disagree with the notion. What I disagree with is the notion that corporations should be allowed to organize as political entities that are not subject to the republican checks and balances required of political entities by the constitution.
The word "fascism" actually comes from an Italian word that describes corporate organizations: "fascii"
Merriam-Webster OnLine dictionary says nothing about corporations.
One entry found for fascism.
Main Entry: fas·cism Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si- Function: noun Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces Date: 1921 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition 2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
<early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge> - fas·cist /-shist also -sist/ noun or adjective, often capitalized - fas·cis·tic /fa-'shis-tik also -'sis-/ adjective, often capitalized - fas·cis·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb, often capitalized
Of course if you are trying to mislead people and use corporate in the brodest menaing you may be correct. But, as I said, you would be misleading people.
A "body politic" is a group of people who have political authority and are organized politically and have political relationships both within their own organization and with other "body politics."
I cannot agree that corporations are included within the term "body politics" as you define it.
It is when you ask "What kind of internal political organization do corporations have?" that you need a model to describe them. The closest analogy is the fascist nation state.
Again I disagree. I am sure there are a few corporations are so organized. I don't believe that is the norm.
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
It doesn't take much imagination and requires no fabrication to see the resemblance of the internal organization of a fascist nation state to a corporation.
In the corporation, the "nation" in the above example is the corporate culture of the organization, and this is indeed exalted over the individual within the organization. Corporations are usually organized under an autocratic leader who has the support of a hierachical group. The severe economic and social regimentation is also present: especially with regard to rank and file workers. There is also a forcible suppression of opposition. You may not be shot for dissent, but you will be fired. And if you have something juicy to spill to the media or the regulators, you're almost certain to get some nasty reprisals by vicious corporate lawyers.
There is more in the way of analogy when you look at corporate interaction with the public and the government regarding questions of limiting corporate power or increasing their liability or acountability.
It doesn't take much imagination and requires no fabrication to see the resemblance of the internal organization of a fascist nation state to a corporation.
Well apparently you have a sterotypical view of corporations. You seem to think that a corporations have the same structure and same attitudes. Some might call that bigoted.
Actually I'm aware that not all corporations have exactly the same structure and attitudes. Yet even the most enlightened organizations have internal structures that bear little resemblance to the checks and balances systems deemed necessary to just societies.
In the past 24 hours we have seen a Democrat memo discussing the use of the Intelligence Committee as a political tool in next year's presidential elections, the problems in Philadelphia (including the 2X4 attack by a Democrat, slapping a Republican so hard that it opened up a bloody welt on the doctor's cheek in a confrontation over campaign signs, Republican poll-watchers not being allowed to witness the polling process and an all out brawl at a polling place - these are just a few of the 171 serious complaints reported to the District Attorney and 84 incidents at polling places reported to police) and a desire to overthrow the government using guns if neccessary.
You tell me, are there Democrat "Hate Filled enemies of the state"?
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) today released the following statement concerning a memo written by Democratic staff on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that suggests ways to politicize intelligence data:
“I have often said that the process in Washington is so politicized and polarized that it can’t even be put aside when we’re at war. Never has that been proved more true than the highly partisan and perhaps treasonous memo prepared for the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee.
“Of all the committees, this is the one single committee that should unquestionably be above partisan politics. The information it deals with should never, never be distorted, compromised or politicized in any shape, form or fashion. For it involves the lives of our soldiers and our citizens. Its actions should always be above reproach; its words never politicized.
“If what has happened here is not treason, it is its first cousin. The ones responsible - be they staff or elected or both should be dealt with quickly and severely sending a lesson to all that this kind of action will not be tolerated, ignored or excused.
Just look for any "New" faces in these forums, and you'll quickly see that there aren't ANY, only extreme right-wingers, one or two real "Republicans", and perhaps one or two Democrats. That wasn't the case just a couple years ago...their were many different viewpoints, until the "Hate-Filled-Liberals" shit started.
No, the hate filled liberals just went to the hate filled liberals boards because they felt at home there.
Now, there are just a few varyiong points of view, and the only thing about this place that brings me back, is the laughs I get reading their delinquent and insipid remarks, day in and day out, all day long...ad nauseum.
These few malicious shitbags propagate their hatreds on the many Springer-Like souls who actually listen and believe their bullshit, and that is the scariest thing about them.
What I disagree withis the notion that corporations should be allowed toorganize as political entities that are not subjectto the republican checks and balances required ofpolitical entities by the constitution.
There's checks and balances. Corporations have to answer to regulators, stockholders, auditors, boards....
You want to see real Democrat hate? Try this post....
The only way to get rid of this slime bag WASP-Mafia, oil barron ridden cartel of a government, this assault on Americans and anything one could laughingly call a democracy, relies heavily on what a shit hole Iraq turns into. They need to die so that we can be free. Soldiers usually did that directly--i.e., fight those invading and harming a country. This time they need to die in defense of a lie from a lying adminstration to show these ignorant, dumb Americans that Bush is incompetent. They need to die so that Americans get rid of this deadly scum. It is obscene, Barbie Bush, how other sons (of much nobler blood) have to die to save us from your Rosemarys Baby spawn and his ungodly cohorts.
This from the party of compassion. This from the party that cares so much for you. Ill bet you just cant wait to get out there and vote for these Democrats next year, can you?
Well, that should bring the bats out of the attic with fangs dripping. I won't be hypocritcal. It is politically correct, particularly in any Dem discussion to hope and pray and feel for our troops and scream "bring them back now". I'm fighting something bigger.
I'm a 58 year old broad and I can tell you that what is going on in our country isn't the usual ebb and flow of politics where one party is in power and then another; where the economy goes through ups and downs.......yawn, yawn--just wait a bit and things will turn out peachy keen. That stupid la-la land is over.
I realize that not every GI Joe was 100peeercent behind Prseeedent Booosh going into this war; but I do know that that is what an overwhelming number of them and their famlies screamed in the face of protesters who were trying to protect these kids. Well, there is more than one way to be "dead" for your country. They are not only not accompishing squat in Iraq, they are doing crap nothing for the safety, defense of the US of A over there directly. But "indirectly" they are doing a lot.
The only way to get rid of this slime bag WASP-Mafia, oil barron ridden cartel of a government, this assault on Americans and anything one could laughingly call "a democracy", relies heavily on what a shit hole Iraq turns into. They need to die so that we can be free. Soldiers usually did that directly--i.e., fight those invading and harming a country. This time they need to die in defense of a lie from a lying adminstration to show these ignorant, dumb Americans that Bush is incompetent. They need to die so that Americans get rid of this deadly scum. It is obscene, Barbie Bush, how other sons (of much nobler blood) have to die to save us from your Rosemary's Baby spawn and his ungodly cohorts.
Of course, this is not a "Hate Filled enemy of the state".
Here is another quote from the Jail4Bush organization:
Incidentally, I was going to call this website Death4Bush—and I didn’t chicken out because of fear of being persecuted by the federal Gestapo. I would have advocated execution after subjecting George W. Bush to a secret military tribunal, a strategy that is apparently legal in the new USA that is so blessed by compassionate conservatism.
Nor was I intimidated by the countless people who think the death penalty is immoral or the sheeple who fear any sensible statement that deviates from the norm or threatens to violate stupid people’s sense of civility. I think the death penalty may be generally immoral in the U.S. for the simple reason that our legal system is so frighteningly dysfunctional and corrupt. But I believe in accountability, and I think some of the most heinous crimes merit death or life in prison—which can be even crueler than execution.
That’s precisely why I do not advocate the death penalty for the greatest traitor in American history; it’s too easy. George W. Bush deserves to suffer for his almost unbelievable crimes—from treason to espionage against the American people, breaking international treaties and fabricating lies in order to sell Americans on a pointless war. Let King George be an example for other evildoers. Since Bush is primarily a figurehead, I advocate sending thousands of corporate executives, Republicans and Democrats along with Bush to Guantanamo, Cuba, where they can spend the rest of their pathetic lives enduring a diet of bread and beans and ten-minute daily exercise breaks as they wither and die.
To see how tolerant the DU is, try logging in and posting a republican or libertarian view point. You will be booted from the forum and your profile deleted. They will not tolerate a desenting opinion.
To see how tolerant the DU is, try logging in and posting a republican or libertarian view point. You will be booted from the forum and your profile deleted. They will not tolerate a desenting opinion.
I believe that is typical for most liberal discussion boards.
Nothing in the Constitution suggests that the Court has any authority whatsoever to rely on the decisions of international courts in rendering its own decisions. If the highest court in the land can just fabricate bases upon which to decide cases, our entire legal system, the structural framework for our Republic, is in grave jeopardy.
Another instance where things which are decided by common sense, are described by the Liars who want to propagate their opinions on the rest of us, by Lying!!!
The above makes no sense. Try again.
Judges are supposed to use their best JUDGEMENT, based upon our Law and their own Common Sense, and the History of Law and of other Nations Laws, as they have done since day ONE, in 1776, and that includes looking at what is going on around us, and then rendering a decision.
It is clear you don't understand what the role of judge is supposed to be. A judge is to apply the Constitution and to give each clause effect as it was meant to be when it was ratified. When a judge looks "at what is going on around us" and determines what he thinks the law should be or how the Constitution could apply outside of the history of the ratification of the constitution and its amendments, then there is no constitutional government you simply have politicians implementing law outside of democratic procedures.
You are wrong about that, but I don't expect you to know how the Court gained that authority under the constraints of it's constitutionally enumerated powers.
Here's a hint: Marbury v Madison is the first link in the chain of precedents. You'll have to research the constitutional status of US treaties according to Supreme Court precedents for the rest.
If you think that the current system of checks and balances is an effective distribution of power within corporate structures and serves to deter corruption, then you aren't paying attention.
taraka, it is apparent that you don't understand what Marbury stands for. While it allows the Supreme Court to determine what is Constitutional that determination must be made based on the document itself, not out of the political whims of the judges. As for US treaties, those apply because of Senate ratification. That does not mean that the Court can use other nations law as a basis for their decisions.
If you think that the current system of checks and balances is an effective distribution of power within corporate structures and serves to deter corruption, then you aren't paying attention.
I think you are the only one here that believe corporations should have an internal distribution of power. They have external checks and I think that is all that is needed. You advocate fascist remedies.
I find your desire to shield terrorists behind the first amendment to be the most transparent hypocrisy I've ever seen.
As I can now clearly see you are an asshole. I didn't say such a thing. And only a fscist would think that because someone displays a confederate flag that that alone makes them a terrorist.
US Treaties have the same force of law as the Constitution itself. The precedents that have established that are based upon the Court's power to decide whether a law is constitutional or not, and that poweris based upon Marbury.
The Court can consider the laws of other nations in rendering decisions when the laws in question are relevant, since the US signatory status to treaties regarding the establishment of international law makes those laws (of other countries)part of a body of laws constitutionally recognized by the United States.
jethro bodine 11/5/03 11:38am
A "body politic" is a group of people who
have political authority and are organized
politically and have political relationships
both within their own organization and with
other "body politics."
Corporations meet the criteria to be considered
"body politics." They have political authority
granted by the state. They are internally politically
organized. They have political relationships with
other "body politics," including both governments
and other corporations.
It is when you ask "What kindof internal
political organization do corporations have?" that
you need a model to describe them. The closest analogy
is the fascist nation state.
jethro bodine 11/5/03 11:45am
I don't disagree with the notion. What I disagree with
is the notion that corporations should be allowed to
organize as political entities that are not subject
to the republican checks and balances required of
political entities by the constitution.
then the amendments are meaningless?
No they aren't meaningless just like criminal laws aren't meaningless.
The word "fascism" actually comes from an Italian word that describes corporate organizations: "fascii"
Merriam-Webster OnLine dictionary says nothing about corporations.
One entry found for fascism.
Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
<early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>
- fas·cist /-shist also -sist/ noun or adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·tic /fa-'shis-tik also -'sis-/ adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb, often capitalized
Of course if you are trying to mislead people and use corporate in the brodest menaing you may be correct. But, as I said, you would be misleading people.
A "body politic" is a group of people who
have political authority and are organized
politically and have political relationships
both within their own organization and with
other "body politics."
I cannot agree that corporations are included within the term "body politics" as you define it.
It is when you ask "What kind of internal
political organization do corporations have?" that
you need a model to describe them. The closest analogy
is the fascist nation state.
Again I disagree. I am sure there are a few corporations are so organized. I don't believe that is the norm.
corporate just means "body"
It doesn't take much imagination and requires no
fabrication to see the resemblance of the internal
organization of a fascist nation state to a
corporation.
In the corporation, the "nation" in the above example
is the corporate culture of the organization, and this is
indeed exalted over the individual within the organization.
Corporations are usually organized under an autocratic
leader who has the support of a hierachical group.
The severe economic and social regimentation is also
present: especially with regard to rank and file workers.
There is also a forcible suppression of opposition.
You may not be shot for dissent, but you will be
fired. And if you have something juicy to spill to
the media or the regulators, you're almost certain to
get some nasty reprisals by vicious corporate lawyers.
There is more in the way of analogy when you look at
corporate interaction with the public and the government
regarding questions of limiting corporate power or
increasing their liability or acountability.
So if they REALLY wanna get ya they will try to
sic the government on ya. Easier than getting
their hands dirty.
Worst nightmare for a corrupt corporation?
An articulate, and squeeky clean foe to
corruption who never gives up. Like
Ralph Nader.
Some very good posting in here today! This is the kind of stuff I like to read.
It doesn't take much imagination and requires no
fabrication to see the resemblance of the internal
organization of a fascist nation state to a
corporation.
Well apparently you have a sterotypical view of corporations. You seem to think that a corporations have the same structure and same attitudes. Some might call that bigoted.
Worst nightmare for a corrupt corporation?
An articulate, and squeeky clean foe to
corruption who never gives up. Like
Ralph Nader.
I like Ralph. I hope he runs for president again in 2008!
jethro bodine 11/5/03 1:24pm
Actually I'm aware that not all corporations have exactly
the same structure and attitudes. Yet even the most
enlightened organizations have internal structures that
bear little resemblance to the checks and balances
systems deemed necessary to just societies.
'Bill - Fold' 11/5/03 4:13pm
awww cut me a littleslack: I went downtown
to finish editing the latest episode of my tv show
at 2:30.
I did SOME work today....
BTW, I DON'T CARE if Anita Hill is a big liar
or not: Clarence Thomas' view on affirmative
action is pure voodoo!
In the past 24 hours we have seen a Democrat memo discussing the use of the Intelligence Committee as a political tool in next year's presidential elections, the problems in Philadelphia (including the 2X4 attack by a Democrat, slapping a Republican so hard that it opened up a bloody welt on the doctor's cheek in a confrontation over campaign signs, Republican poll-watchers not being allowed to witness the polling process and an all out brawl at a polling place - these are just a few of the 171 serious complaints reported to the District Attorney and 84 incidents at polling places reported to police) and a desire to overthrow the government using guns if neccessary.
You tell me, are there Democrat "Hate Filled enemies of the state"?
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, November 5, 2003
Miller on Politicized Intelligence Memo:
‘Heads Should Roll’
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) today released the following statement concerning a memo written by Democratic staff on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that suggests ways to politicize intelligence data:
“I have often said that the process in Washington is so politicized and polarized that it can’t even be put aside when we’re at war. Never has that been proved more true than the highly partisan and perhaps treasonous memo prepared for the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee.
“Of all the committees, this is the one single committee that should unquestionably be above partisan politics. The information it deals with should never, never be distorted, compromised or politicized in any shape, form or fashion. For it involves the lives of our soldiers and our citizens. Its actions should always be above reproach; its words never politicized.
“If what has happened here is not treason, it is its first cousin. The ones responsible - be they staff or elected or both should be dealt with quickly and severely sending a lesson to all that this kind of action will not be tolerated, ignored or excused.
“Heads should roll!”
Zell's okay
Yup, to say that your party made a big mistake in this day and age takes some big nads.
generally I think this is one of the Republican's strengths...they are more likely to stick together and not critisize each other.
here's a question...which party is more likely to have difficulty deciding what candidate to choose to run for them?
Dan Zachary 11/5/03 9:25pm
Yes, heads should roll...big time!
"here's a question...which party is more likely to have difficulty deciding what candidate to choose to run for them?" - Crabby
I would have to say the anarchists.
see...now that's funny.
Extreme left-wingers are not in the majority in the Democratic Party, not even close.
The hell if they are not. Most are just like you fold. That means most are hate filled.
Losers and traitors to our Nation and it's freedoms, one and ALL.
See, fold, you are hate filled.
Just look for any "New" faces in these forums, and you'll quickly see that there aren't ANY, only extreme right-wingers, one or two real "Republicans", and perhaps one or two Democrats. That wasn't the case just a couple years ago...their were many different viewpoints, until the "Hate-Filled-Liberals" shit started.
No, the hate filled liberals just went to the hate filled liberals boards because they felt at home there.
Now, there are just a few varyiong points of view, and the only thing about this place that brings me back, is the laughs I get reading their delinquent and insipid remarks, day in and day out, all day long...ad nauseum.
Oh yes, fold, you really do seem amused.
These few malicious shitbags propagate their hatreds on the many Springer-Like souls who actually listen and believe their bullshit, and that is the scariest thing about them.
Ah yes feel the love!
So someone in the Florida legislature wants to ban display of the Confederate Battle Flag: http://4h.ifas.ufl.edu/newsandinfo/Legislature/2003Bills/C10.PDF
Have they heard of the first amedment of the united states constituion?
What I disagree with is the notion that corporations should be allowed to organize as political entities that are not subject to the republican checks and balances required of political entities by the constitution.
There's checks and balances. Corporations have to answer to regulators, stockholders, auditors, boards....
You want to see real Democrat hate? Try this post....
The only way to get rid of this slime bag WASP-Mafia, oil barron ridden cartel of a government, this assault on Americans and anything one could laughingly call a democracy, relies heavily on what a shit hole Iraq turns into. They need to die so that we can be free. Soldiers usually did that directly--i.e., fight those invading and harming a country. This time they need to die in defense of a lie from a lying adminstration to show these ignorant, dumb Americans that Bush is incompetent. They need to die so that Americans get rid of this deadly scum. It is obscene, Barbie Bush, how other sons (of much nobler blood) have to die to save us from your Rosemarys Baby spawn and his ungodly cohorts.
This from the party of compassion. This from the party that cares so much for you. Ill bet you just cant wait to get out there and vote for these Democrats next year, can you?
Heres a link to the site. Democratic Underground
Here is the full post from DU:
Of course, this is not a "Hate Filled enemy of the state".
Here is another quote from the Jail4Bush organization:
To see how tolerant the DU is, try logging in and posting a republican or libertarian view point. You will be booted from the forum and your profile deleted. They will not tolerate a desenting opinion.
Progressives my ass.
See those Nazi's preaching free speech, then they ban every and all conservatives from posting?
Yeah, no hatred whatsoever, right Bill Fold?
To see how tolerant the DU is, try logging in and posting a republican or libertarian view point. You will be booted from the forum and your profile deleted. They will not tolerate a desenting opinion.
I believe that is typical for most liberal discussion boards.
Jethro, in YOUR case, you are a "Shit-Filled" Deuchebag, and Neo-Nazi.
Ah the love, it is unmistakable!
Sorry, for the misunderstanding. There has been no misunderstanding. I have always known that you are hate filled, fold.
Nothing in the Constitution suggests that the Court has any authority whatsoever to rely on the decisions of international courts in rendering its own decisions. If the highest court in the land can just fabricate bases upon which to decide cases, our entire legal system, the structural framework for our Republic, is in grave jeopardy.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20031107.shtml
Another instance where things which are decided by common sense, are described by the Liars who want to propagate their opinions on the rest of us, by Lying!!!
The above makes no sense. Try again.
Judges are supposed to use their best JUDGEMENT, based upon our Law and their own Common Sense, and the History of Law and of other Nations Laws, as they have done since day ONE, in 1776, and that includes looking at what is going on around us, and then rendering a decision.
It is clear you don't understand what the role of judge is supposed to be. A judge is to apply the Constitution and to give each clause effect as it was meant to be when it was ratified. When a judge looks "at what is going on around us" and determines what he thinks the law should be or how the Constitution could apply outside of the history of the ratification of the constitution and its amendments, then there is no constitutional government you simply have politicians implementing law outside of democratic procedures.
If aliens came to this message board and saw you two post, they may think both conservatives and liberals were hate-filled.
jethro bodine 11/7/03 8:15am
You are wrong about that, but I don't expect you to know
how the Court gained that authority under the constraints
of it's constitutionally enumerated powers.
Here's a hint: Marbury v Madison is the first
link in the chain of precedents. You'll have to
research the constitutional status of US treaties
according to Supreme Court precedents for the rest.
If aliens came to this message board and saw you two post, they may think both conservatives and liberals were hate-filled.
Hey, I admit I hate liberals.
THX 1138 11/6/03 8:43am
If you think that the current system of checks and balances
is an effective distribution of power within corporate
structures and serves to deter corruption, then you aren't
paying attention.
taraka, it is apparent that you don't understand what Marbury stands for. While it allows the Supreme Court to determine what is Constitutional that determination must be made based on the document itself, not out of the political whims of the judges. As for US treaties, those apply because of Senate ratification. That does not mean that the Court can use other nations law as a basis for their decisions.
If you think that the current system of checks and balances
is an effective distribution of power within corporate
structures and serves to deter corruption, then you aren't
paying attention.
I think you are the only one here that believe corporations should have an internal distribution of power. They have external checks and I think that is all that is needed. You advocate fascist remedies.
jethro bodine 11/6/03 8:22am
I find your desire to shield terrorists behind the
first amendment to be the most transparent hypocrisy
I've ever seen.
Worthy of a real nazi. Proud of yourself?
jethro bodine 11/7/03 9:36am
No, I advocate reorganizing corporations, which
currently are fascist organizations.
I find your desire to shield terrorists behind the
first amendment to be the most transparent hypocrisy
I've ever seen.
As I can now clearly see you are an asshole. I didn't say such a thing. And only a fscist would think that because someone displays a confederate flag that that alone makes them a terrorist.
jethro bodine 11/7/03 9:33am
US Treaties have the same force of law as the Constitution itself.
The precedents that have established that are based upon the
Court's power to decide whether a law is constitutional
or not, and that poweris based upon Marbury.
The Court can consider the laws of other nations in
rendering decisions when the laws in question are
relevant, since the US signatory status to treaties
regarding the establishment of international law
makes those laws (of other countries)part of a body
of laws constitutionally recognized by the United States.
I'm not holding a seminar here. Look it up.
No, I advocate reorganizing corporations, which currently are fascist organizations.
Then I suggest you buy some stock and try to change the structure from the inside. Otherwise you are advocating fascist tactics.