Corporate Defenders: Are They Necessary? And What -- Ultimately -- Do They Want Anyway?

In the recently released second segment of Glenn Greenwald's interview with Edward Snowden, recorded in Hong Kong in June, Snowden used a couple of locutions that I found instructive as to his motivations.

Quoting from the interview, Snowden says:

(3:03)…they [the government] are applying it [surveillance authority] to the whole society by basically subverting the corporate partnership…

(3:57) …US Government co-opts corporate power to its own ends…

[My emphasis]

I alerted on this kind of talk immediately because it's the kind of thing you hear from Libertarians and their fellow travelers all the time, and this particular way of speaking about the relationship between corporations and government -- that is, "subverted" and "co-opted corporate power" -- may as well be from the Koch Cookbook for Corporate Liberation. 

When I posted about this here and elsewhere, I made the point that he's got it completely backward, essentially inverting reality. The government -- Our So-Called Government -- serves corporate interests and is the creature of its corporate partners, not the other way around. The Government of the United States has long been effectively a wholly owned subsidiary of extremely powerful transnational corporations, and none of us are ever allowed to forget it.

"Step out of line, the man come and take you away..."

Make no mistake, Our Government was serving corporate interests then (in 1968), nearly as much as it is now, as anyone who was aware of the profits being made on the meatgrinder of the Vietnam War knew.

And yet here we see that in SnowdenWorld, it's just the opposite, The All-Powerful Government makes the corporations its bitches and slaves by "subverting" them and "co-opting" their power. That view, in my view, is seriously warped, but it gives us an insight into what's motivating Snowden and what his objectives may be. Snowden's views are aligned with those of Greenwald, who showed himself to be a Corporate Libertarian quite some time ago with his awkward and ham-handed defense of Citizens United and corporate personhood, and -- I would come to learn -- Snowden is aligned with quite a few other Corporate Defenders on the internet and in the digital data industry who apparently really do see themselves and their companies as "subverted" and "co-opted" by government, rather like kidnap or rape victims forced to engage in icky behaviors they otherwise wouldn't do if not for the coercion and imposition of authority upon them by nasty, evil government.

I see.

No. Wait.

This notion of government-evil/corporation-good is bullshit. Complete, utter bullshit. Corporate interests run governments at every level, top to bottom, practically everywhere around the world. There hasn't been an era of greater consolidated corporate control of government in history. Nothing even close to it has been encountered in this country since the Gilded Age, yet here's Snowden and other Corporate Defenders claiming against plain evidence to the contrary that corporate partners don't have enough independence and power, and that they are forced, somehow, to abide by icky government command and control, indeed that they are subverted and co-opted to the will of this Alien Government Thing, and here's proof!

Dude needs to get a grip.

He appears to be caught up in a Corporate Libertarian mindset -- and fantasy -- that I'm surprised to find is shared by so many otherwise rational and even progressive individuals who apparently see government as a kind of Ultimate Evil and corporations -- to the extent they "exist" at all -- as Benign Entities who would Rule Over Us with Loving Grace -- if only they were allowed to do so without the interference of ... (ewww!) government. [And that's only a little bit of hyperbole.]

In arguing these points at FDL yesterday, the Corporate Libertarian separation from reality became quite clear to me, as did the underlying authoritarianism of those who hold this viewpoint.

As I frequently ask of Libertarians: "Liberty for whom? To do what?" They never have an answer, because if they start answering it, the real repugnance and ugliness of their ideals would be revealed. Based on my own experience with Libertarians and their fellow travelers over many years, it has always been part of the Libertarian program to obfuscate and deny their real intentions and to propagandize the ignorant masses into believing in and acting on ideals of "liberty" and policies contrary to their own best interests.

My version of the Libertarian Motto: "I demand the liberty to impose my authority on you."

But this post is not about that. I have written many others that are. This post is about what I see as the end game of Corporate Libertarians, and what is driving Snowden in particular. This post is about the objectives of Corporate Defenders and whether their ideal world is really the world we want to live in now or in  the future.

Greenwald and Snowden said all they wanted was a debate about the kind of world we want to live in; their partisans have ordered the rest of us to confine that debate to the issue of the NSA's surveillance, which has -- not surprisingly -- almost nothing to do with the real debate we need to have.  Which is not to defend NSA's domestic surveillance activities in any way. It is merely to point out that NSA's surveillance activities are hardly the most important matter in the debate over the kind of world we want to live in.

I would say unfettered corporate control of that world is a far more important matter in the debate we should be having, and that is the debate that Corporate Defenders and Corporate Libertarians are anxious to avoid or prevent.

Instead, they aver that there is too much government control of corporations, and that NSA's domestic surveillance activity is the case in point.

In fact, for all intents and purposes, the US Government particularly, and governments throughout the world generally, are the creatures and the servants of corporate interests -- to the exclusion of the public interest at almost all times, almost everywhere.  This is a main reason why so many people are so enraged and rebellious in so many places so much of the time. Hello?

There is not too much government control of corporations, if anything there is far too little. Corporate interest runs roughshod over the public. Corporate interest is the principal business of most governments most of the time. Corporate interest comes first and foremost, and we are near the point where corporate interest is the only interest of government.

But, but, but, but Secret FISA COURT ORDERS!!!! Ayiee! Snowden proved it, did he not?

As I and others have pointed out, FISA court orders to companies providing data to the Surveillance System are functionally eyewash and ass covers for those companies to immunize them from lawsuits by the public for ongoing privacy violations and violations of terms of service.

And here it's important to realize that the Surveillance System is a joint partnership operation by an essentially fused corporate-government. It is not something that has been imposed on an innocent corporate sector by an evil government despite the arguments of Corporate Defenders to the contrary.

So with the Corporate Defenders' premise (of too much government control of corporations) undermined, what is the point of all this hoohah, anyway?

It is, in my view, to so diminish the power and authority of "government" that it literally ceases to exist as an independent entity and becomes entirely -- not substantially, but entirely -- the creature of a global, implacable, and unassailable Corporate-State.

In other words, the end-game, as I see it, is the full privatization of government everywhere around the world, in perpetuity, without let or hindrance, forever and ever, world without end, amen.

And the contest, such as it is, is over which corporate interests will have control of this ideal privatized government, and to some extent how soon it can and will be implemented, with the digital companies demanding primacy and the liberty to extend their reach and power immediately and indefinitely.

That's what this is all about. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Is the coming Corporate World, masterminded and controlled by a handful of digital Super-Corps the kind of world we want to live in?

Let's have that debate.

"All watched over by machines of loving grace."

Black Letter of the Law

And the problem of False Equivalence.

Today I posted some things over at Glenn's Place that touched on some interesting parallel actions in Supreme Court rulings.

On May 10, 1886, for example, the Court handed down the Yick Wo v Hopkins (that Glenn referred to in his post today) which extended 14th Amendment protection to non-citizens, such as Yick Wo himself. That same day, they also handed down the infamous Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad ruling that extended 14th Amendment protection to corporations such as the Southern Pacific Railroad in its headnote, though that was not what the Court actually ruled in its decision on the case under review. That ruling essentially upheld lower court rulings that SPRR property in Santa Clara and Fresno Counties had been improperly assessed.

On December 18, 1944, the Court ruled in Korematsu v United States that Executive Order 9066 which ordered the removal of persons of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast was Constitutional. On the same day, the Court ruled in Ex Parte Endo that the Government could not continue to hold American citizens (such as the rounded up Japanese Americans in the camps established as a result of the execution of Executive Order 9066) once the Government itself conceded their "loyalty" -- which the Government had done. Consequently, beginning January 2, 1945, the internees were allowed to go home if they could, and the camps prepared to shut down. This occurred while World War II still raged in Europe and the Pacific, and FDR was very much still alive.

I also posted the entire text of the 14th Amendment and the holdings in Yick Wo v Hopkins and Santa Clara v Southern Pacific as they related to the 14th Amendment.

The point Glenn was making in his post is that the Constitution applies to citizens as well as non-citizens -- ie: all "persons" under the jurisdiction and/or authority of the United States of America, as declared by the Court in Yick Wo. The point I was making was that the Court was in an expansive mood that day and was extending 14th Amendment protection, perhaps inadvertently, to corporations (ie: fictional "persons") as well as aliens.

In like manner, the Court, feeling expansive, ruled in favor of the Government in Korematsu and against continued holding of "loyal" American citizens in Endo, in effect releasing the internees.

These expansive acts are forms of balance that the Court once engaged in fairly regularly, but which it appears to have avoided for quite a while. My argument is not that there are equivalences here but is instead that these important rulings should not be considered in isolation. They have a context, and that context is often missing in the discussion of them. Part of that context is an effort by the Court to find some kind of balance between competing interests. Ie: at least the perception of Justice.

In that light, it is of some interest that at the time Yick Wo was decided, Chinese immigrants were barred from citizenship. Yet the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, by the clear black letter of the law, applied to "any person within its jurisdiction," without the caveat that that "person" had to be a "citizen." Discrimination by race under the law or in the application of the law (in this case a San Francisco ordinance) was therefore clearly unconstitutional, and so the Court ruled.

Of course they would rule ten years later in Plessey v Ferguson that "separate but equal" accommodations were Constitutional... so you never know.

However, extending 14th Amendment protections to corporations, as they did in Santa Clara, seems quite a stretch, for it presumes that the status of corporate "persons" is identical at law to that of "natural persons." But that status had never previously been established, and in fact it had been previously denied, deliberately and with substantial consideration.

Corporations are not "persons" in the sense that the term is used in the Constitution. "Persons," "People," and "Citizens" are used in the Constitution to refer to "natual persons," ie: human beings.

Corporations are artificial creatures chartered by the State ostensibly on behalf of the People. Rights and privileges of corporations are purely a function of their charters and the People's governments which approve their charters, not of the Constitution.

Rights and privileges of natural persons ultimately derive from their status as human beings; the Constitution protects those rights and privileges against excess Government intrusion. Corporations are creatures of their charters as approved by the Government; they have no existence whatsoever outside that which has been provided them by charter and Government.

It's a false equivalence to assert that corporations are entitled by the Constitution to the same protections of the 14th Amendment as "natural persons."

Corporations have no Constitutional protection at all. A plain reading of the black letter of the law would lead one to believe that the Court erred in extending 14th Amendment protection to corporations. Correcting such an error will not be easy, but it's not impossible.

One approach, which I favor, is to avoid the false "either/or" alternatives. It is false to assert that corporations either have full protection of the 14th Amendment as a function of their "personhood" or they have "no rights at all."

As creatures of their charters and the approval of the Government, they have such rights and privileges as the People shall determine, not the rights and protections guaranteed to the People by the Constitution.

This is not a hard concept except to those who would make it hard.

Corporate "personhood" is now deeply ingrained in law, and it is said to be difficult at this point to dis-"person" corporations without overturning a huge body of law concerning corporations. Yes, it is inconvenient and potentially costly, but it is not impossible.

The point is to restore corporate rights and privileges to those which can be determined by the People, through their elected bodies and statute law, not the Constitution.

In fact, "personhood" may (or may not) be sustained by the People, but it should be up to them, not an offhanded comment by a justice who then rules on something else entirely.

Another false equivalence that enters the discussion is that between Government on the one hand and corporations on the other. sysprog asked, for example, whether I thought it was desirable to "leash and regulate" governments as well as corporations. Simply put, they are not the same, and there should be no confusion and no equivalence between them. The premise of the question is wrong. Government is instituted by the People to protect the Constitution and the rights therein. Corporations are created by charter (of their shareholders/members) and approved by Government to produce a profit for their shareholders or a public good in the case of nonprofit corporations.

sysprog followed with more questions based on false premises: should corporations be subject to criminal and civil liability like natural persons or should only natural persons be subject to them? Should corporations be subject to due process? Am I arguing that corporations have no rights at all?

No, I'm arguing that corporations should have such rights and privileges as are determined by the People to be in the People's interests.

Corporations are created by their charters under the authority and regulation of the Government as the People see fit. There is no inherent or Constitutional protection for them. But that does not mean corporations necessarily have no rights.

It's simple. And this was not at all difficult to fathom prior to 1886 and the headnoted provision of 14th Amendment protections to corporations.

Black letter of the law, people.

Black letter of the law.

Re: Corporate "Personhood"

Eugene over at dKOS has a good piece up regarding the true nature of the struggle today vis a vis a mindset among so-called "progressives" that is largely stuck in the 1990s.

It's refreshing to see some commentator refer to some other "stuck on" era than the 1960's! You mean there is something after 1968? Who'd a thunk it?

At any rate, Eugene's point is one I agree with: we're in a Neo-Liberal phase, and for some reason -- based on 1990s precedents, perhaps -- liberals and so-called "progressives" believe they have to compromise their principles (whatever they may be) to accommodate "what can be done" under a Neo-Liberal umbrella.

We did it in the 1990s, we can do it now, and it will all work out in the end.

NAFTA.

The Neo-Liberal umbrella under which liberals and so-called "progressives" shelter is of course the umbrella of Corporatism. AKA Fascism back in the misty and poorly understood past.

Neo-Conservatism is the psychotic phase of Corporatism; Neo-Liberalism is the consolidation phase of Corporatism. While one is kinder-gentler (perhaps) than the other, they are both political/economic organizing systems intended to extract the maximum loot from the maximum number in the shortest feasible time. They are both offspring of Corporate Dominionism.

So what do you do about it?

Over on David Atkins' "We Must ORGANIZE! (Again!)" thread, I posted this:

The "ORGANIZE!" mantra has been repeated every few months or so for the last ten year or more. There's now a plethora of "progressive" causes, websites, fundraising appeals, organizations, alternative media outlets, calls to action and on and on and on. Millions of people belong, donate, participate, organize and do on behalf of these many, many causes and organizations.

And still we see the call to start anew. Stop your bickering and start anew.

More Organizations!

Something's out of whack here. The constant call to ORGANIZE heightens the sense of futility and the apparent impotence of the many, many organizations we have. The constant call to ORGANIZE has the effect of further atomizing the so-called Left, to the point where in time nearly everyone on the "Left" will be their own individual organization.

What we need, it seems to me, after more than a decade of ORGANIZING -- and atomizing -- is consolidation and agreement.

And that's where things get really tough. Right now, "progressive" is pretty much a politically meaningless term that serves primarily as a tribal identification. It doesn't mean you're a liberal, it doesn't even mean you're for social justice. "Progressive" means you're a member of a tribe that is in perpetual conflict -- with someone, some institution, some status quo.

It is the conflict that gives your tribe meaning, not agreement on positive political programs or policies. I would submit that's why there is so little progress. Why the call is always to start anew. Organize differently, with different objectives, different struggles, organize around different issues, different conflicts.

But that's not a recipe for the enduring success of a Movement.

It's time for the organizations we've got to agree with one another on a binding set of principles, a manifesto if you will, a stated and comprehensive ideology (oh, shudder!), and learn to consolidate resources and actions, coordinate messages, and stand up united and unyielding for a simple set of principles.

Instead of all this maneuvering for advantage and attention and trying to work the mechanics of the corrupt and decadent political system that wants nothing to do with us. And will happily sucker-punch us and take our lunch money to boot.

Consolidate. Agree. Then fight back.

For whatever reason, the Internet "progressive" learning curve is a Mobius Strip that always gets you back approximately where you started from, and that is, ORGANIZE! -- again. And again and again and again. Declare Victory! over losses (Holy Joe is still in the Senate, and now he's wielding the Imperial Scepter as if it were his very own; but the Internet "progressives" are still crowing their Victory! because he was re-elected by Republicans. Huh?)

Internet "Progressive" Guide to Political Action: ORGANIZE!>Act>Compromise Principle>Lose>Victory!>ORGANIZE!>Act>Compromise Principle>Lose>Victory!

Well. Yes, of course. It's Victory! for the Corporatists who are Our Rulers. I'm sure they have a big ol' party every time the I-Progressives crash and burn. It is a sweet savour unto them.

So what do you do?

Well, recently, the Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling that essentially allows the President-Emperor to create a category of Un-Persons who have no rights which Americans are bound to respect. Anyone, anywhere, can be so declared, and once designated an Un-Person, these individuals have no recourse at law and anything at all can be done to them at will.

This was one of Cheney's more subtle reorganizations of law and custom to fit his paranoid Imperial designs, one that civil libertarians were certain would be struck down. But come to find out, no. The High Court let it stand.

Well. Now. Think of the possibilities. It's always surprised me that the rabid right wing has never feared Hillary or Obama using this Ultimate Power. It must be tempting to anyone in high office to implement Un-Personhood on anyone who expresses hostility or resistance to the Imperial Will. But Rightists are unconcerned about that. This tells me that their Corporatist Rulers are convinced they have perfectly captured the Government and no one can threaten their vise-like grip.

Back in the Old Days, a clerical error led to the establishment of the Corporate Personhood rule, by which, today, Corporations and Corporatists rule us through their agents in Government. It's quite a cosy relationship, and of course, it is marketed as being "for our own good." It's.... better than nothing.

But if the President-Emperor can legally Un-Person anyone at all, at his sole discretion and pleasure (which is what the lower court ruling essentially said and the Supremes let it pass), then he can do it to Corporations, too.

Which... should make them tremble.

Undoing Corporate Personhood is necessary to relieving the stranglehold of Corporatism on us all.

It's just barely conceivable that the threat of designating Corporate Un-Persons could be enough to at first limit and then end Corporate Dominionism.

Well, it's a thought.

Just the threat of it...