The Corporate State

[Kyran]

I would like to expound upon the relationship between Big Government and Big Business; to prove exactly how our rights are being eroded, and to analyze the situation.

This is very big, folks. Bear with me whether you're from the left, right, or outside the two-party system. This affects you. First, the idea behind this Corporatism is defined by Robert Locke. It was also explained by Karl Marx, who called it Capitalism, but latter Marxists have not drawn realistic connections. This presentation will.

What Is Corporatism?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=3054

I gotta give credit to Liberty Landing for referring me to this article in the first place. Now for my presentation.


I. Modern Powers

A. Obligatory Priviledges (Government)
B. Taxpayer Larceny (Corporate & Private)
C. Consumer Burden
D. The Corporatist Machine
E. Miscellaneous Powers

II. Summary Analysis

III. Conjecture


I. Modern Powers


The best way I can demonstrate this is from back to front. We'll start with today's corporate state and how it operates. The notable events of the past two years will serve for this example.

A. Obligatory Priviledges

(Free Speech)

You recall the FCC fining Clear Channel Communications for Howard Stern's broadcast. Clear Channel did not take it to court and was willing to cut Howard from it's stations. Why? Money. Think of the lawyer costs to this corporation.

The corporation cooperated with the unconstitutional portion of our government.

In another example, churches can lose their tax-exempt status if the pastors speak about politics. Why do they comply? Money.

(Self Defense)

A Pizza Hut delivery driver was fired for defending himself from a robber. We all know that we would lose our jobs if we carried a weapon to work and used it in the same fashion. Why? Money. Think of the Workman's Compensation rates the employer would have to dish out.

The employer cooperated with regulations.

In all these examples, notice the government forces private entities (which are not US Citizens) into a position where they have to pay for the private individuals, who are employed or in direct service thereof, to enjoy their rights. These entities, which mostly exist to turn a profit, respond by taking the path of least financial resistance.

Let's look at one more scenario. The government allows employers to use hours-for-dollars wage slavery. In this system, a company may obtain more production (labor) from it's workers for free. What's the catch? The government compulses those employers by regulation into Workman's Comp, Minimum Wage, Child Labor Laws, and Overtime; not to mention business taxes. The price of this priviledge is measurable.

I summarize these types of cases under the term Obligatory Priviledges. The Workman's Comp example is a unique case of OP, where the government obligates one private entity to another; which in turn mandates the otherwise unconstitutional rules implicitly. They are only applicable to businesses and organizations.

B. Taxpayer Larceny

Majority Leader Bill Frist pandered to the republican fundamentalist base (article between him and Robertson in google) with his Sanctity of Marriage Act in an attempt to prohibit gays from entering into lawful agreements with one another. Frist's brother owns a health care corporation, which stands to benefit from his Prescription Drug Benefit program. The social program was signed into law by president Bush, even to the dismay of Christian fundies!

Boeing asked the Federal Government for $20 billion, in response to their lost business post-911, and got it from Bush.

Social programs put private entities and individuals on the backs of the taxpayer. Social Security, Corporate & Individual Welfare, Food Stamps, etc all come out of the taxpayer's pocket without his/her consent and sometimes without his/her choice to use the program.

C. Consumer Burden

100% of corporate income taxes can be found within the cost of goods and services. Who pays Bill Gates taxes? You do. How? When you buy Windows at $199.99 (or whatever it is right now) Gates sends the government a portion of that in Income Tax. Without this tax, Gates would not have to charge you as much for Windows. Market competition therefore would reduce this price -- that is if there were any. Bad example, but this demonstrates how the government is a partial Owner of every business in America.

These costs add up. The manufacturer (Pepsi) pays income taxes on it's goods which are sold to commercial outlets (Food Lion, 76, BP, fast food joints.) In turn, the commercial businesses sell them again and pay income taxes on their profits. By the time you get the product, you've paid a portion of the income taxes on both big businesses as well as all the employees who work for them.

If I may demonstrate the difference, Pantry's owner corporation has just begun manufacturing it's own soda product line. Retail on this name brand for a 20 oz bottle is $.89 compared to Pepsi at $1.19. That's a 25% difference in price! How does this happen? Simple. This corporation doesn't have to pay Pepsi's income taxes this way.

In the long run, the price of goods is raised to staggering levels. This makes it hard on the consumer to purchase and to start up a business. Consumer burden restricts economic growth.

Ask yourself, "Am I paying too much taxes?" You are. You are working to pay for taxes on you and the people you buy things from. This is why you have to work as much as a modern man or woman to pay for the basic necessities.

D. The Corporatist Machine

Government works with the private sector to help the current system continue. I can prove this on the following points.

1. Public Education
2. Zoning
3. Political Deals
4. Business Licensing

Government schools do one thing that no one seems to disagree with. They teach kids to A) get your diploma, B) get into college, and C) get a job. There are 4 legal ways to make an income; investing money, selling property, jobs, and starting a business. You'll notice that the other 3 items require you to possess something. The school system does not teach people how to do any of these other items...but they'll teach you how to go get exploited. They'll praise you for being a good cog in the corporatist machine. The only interest served by this is that of employers already out there in the marketplace. How? This discourages competition in the market, and encourages more competition in the workforce.

Zoning laws prohibit you from starting a business from your home. They also make it impossible for you to dig for gold, oil, plant a garden, raise livestock, build an electric generator, sell your land to an industry, or do anything that could save or profit you money. The businesses of today benefit directly from your inability to become independent. You become a customer just like everybody else.

If you are a homeowner, you gain an Obligatory Priviledge through your local government. Homeowner associations have used county councils to force unwanted residents out of the financial proximities of their homes to protect their land value. As you know, land values depend somewhat upon area. Government grants homeowner associations the power of Eminent Domain implicitly in return for compliance with existing zoning regulations which are against property rights.

Frist's deal is just one of many examples I can put up about how the two-party system works with individuals and companies to maintain the status quo. This example is peculiar only in that government increases in size and scope as a result of the deal. Supposing the church was able to give out welfare, it would benefit similarily by gaining new potential religious recruits. Corporate welfare is a major component in this; and FDIC insurance makes the taxpayer responsible for any bank which runs out of funds.

Business licensing seems to require everyone who wishes to sell a product or service to be a Business, yet flea markets have allowed independent people to sell their goods for many decades without such. I think the reason for this is that unless you sell $5500/yr worth of inventory, you don't have to have to pay income taxes on it. Nonetheless, the ability to make transactions is an Obligatory Priviledge. In order to do so, you must comply with all the existing regulations.

E. Miscellaneous Powers

Corporate bankruptcy law, according to Locke, allows a big business to run into the red and come back out in black just like our government; all at the expense of the taxpayer. By this and corporate welfare, all our corporations are on a form of financial life support...forever. This will exist as long as we are on a paper money supply that is declared legal tender by the government. So much for free market competition!


II. Summary Analysis


To begin this, I'd like to quote Double-L who said it perfectly:

Originally posted by Liberty_Landing, The entire purpose behind a totalitarian state is to win the people's cooperation in the war against their rights. The modern totalitarian state buys people's cooperation, which is why we've seen the rise of the welfare state.

It is winning on the following fronts by selling Obligatory Priviledges:
--Businesses & Organizations against Free Speech & Self Defense; pinning establishments against new costs
--Homeowner's Associations against Property Rights; giving eminent-domain temporarily and implicitly

Summary Powers of the Corporate State:
--Partial Ownership of the means and Partial Control of production; which is the private sector
--Partial Ownership of the Citizenry; via income tax
--Power to Redistribute the Incomes of Taxpayers; corporate & individual welfare
--Power to Create and Manipulate the Value of Money
--Power to Grant Unconstitutional Power to the People

Summary Obligatory Priviledges of the Private Sector:

1. Employment (hours-for-dollars wage slavery)
Obligations: Minimum Wage, Workman's Comp, Affirmative Action, Child Labor, Overtime, Income Tax, etc
Translation: Tyranny

2. Commerce (selling)
Obligations: Business Licensing & compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations.
Translation: Trade Permission

3. Financial Bailouts (from bankruptcy; also corporate and individual welfare)
Obligations: Compliance with program regulations; i.e. no welfare if you continue producing children
Translation: Financial Immortality; Competition Failsafe

4. Broadcasting Rights
Obligations: FCC regulations
Translation: Broadcasting Permission

5. Tax-Exempt Status (for organizations like churches)
Obligations: Compliance with status regulations; i.e. no politically-oriented sermons
Translation: Permission to Organize

6. Limited Eminent Domain (homeowner's associations)
Obligations: Compliance with zoning standards
Translation: Landlording


III. Conjecture


To my right-wing friends and especially ANY libertarians, you've gotta understand this corporatism issue. If you do not, you are in the dark. This is why the left thinks we're a bunch of dumb corporate sheep who are trying to give them free power. The left merely sets the price of that power and lets it be sold; but this is changing. Without the social regulations in place today, corporations would enjoy freedom from fiscal responsibility at absolutely no cost to them whatsoever. Therefore, our capitalist solutions must focus on attacking Obligatory Priviledges which are held by businesses and organizations. This will reduce the levels of corporate and socialist injustice. My commission worker proposal is a start, but there is much to be done. We cannot advance Economic Freedom until the government is out of the business of buying and selling power..and the Federal Reserve is shut down permanently.

And for you leftists, again I can't apologize enough for not seeing what's been going on. But look, you can raise minimum wage to $500/hr, you can create programs which put all the citizens on taxpayer support...none of that is going to stop Corporatism, because the companies can go broke and get bailed out by their buddies. The stress on our economy falls upon the working man. As long as your leaders are raising the price of these priviledges, could you see to it that businesses must display their prices in silver and gold? We capitalists appreciate your assistance in fighting corporatism.

Politics is now about money and power. Each major party tries to get money and power for it's favored constituency while recruiting sheep (who supposedly share values) who are in the dark as to the true nature of our system. The right serves the rich and the left serves the poor. The root cause of this system is people's faith in government to solve their economic problems. They do not trust the free market to deliver goods and services.

I need everyone's help to get the word out. It needs to be shown in it's entirety to the politically-inclined, not rewritten or retold by another. Soon I will have a website launched with this information available, along with explanations on all the issues. Let's all work together, despite our differences.

[Technosoul]

That was a very good report that you collected and your new webpage should be interesting - make sure you also explain it in very simple terms for those who might not have a lot of knowledge about it.

I think if we could total up all the taxes we pay, income tax, sales taxes, and the taxes included in the price of the product being passed on to the consumer, we would be very surprised indeed. Just the knowledge that gasoline at the pumps is said to be 30 percent tax is a bit of an eye-opener. I would not be a bit surprised if at least 60 percent of out total income ends up going for taxes alone. If we stop to think about it that means we are working for free 60 percent of our work day (if you base it on hourly wage). This means that 60 percent of our time worked we are salve workers for the government (which may or may not go for road upkeep or other things that must be done collectivly that is needed by all of us collectivly and individually), but none the less, it is mandatory and not by choice that we work on Uncle Sam's cotton farm for free like in slavery, even if the plantation gives us some bread and water rewards to stay alive, it is still slavery.

Meanwhile we shell out money for other services we already paid for with taxes - we pay parking tickets to fund the police. We pay permits, interest on credit cards, fees the bank withholds, deposits on cans and bottles that they never refund to us in full. Insurance and a hundred and one other deductions over the real cost of the product or service at it's basic value. And as a topping we might even have to pay someone to fill out our tax forms for us out of fear of doing it wrong our self. And when you get around to adding in all those mandatory fees, permits, fines, union dues, insurance deductions, and what have you .... you end up oweing the system another three years of work just to cover what you spent last year over the real costs of living. Like in that song "sixteen tons", oweing our soul to the company store. Then as a kicker we donate money to some political party thinking they will change things? More lost wages.

And this rant is just about one single aspect of your total message posted above.

I could change the words of that song by Country Joe and the Fish and sing "what are we working for, next stop we're in a jam".

Now I would not suggest I am totally for complete freedom or liberation from all that, I would like those pot holes repaired now and then. But lets not go broke doing it, is it possible to streamline all those deductions down to about 20 percent of our total income instead of the 60 percent and perhaps even the "in debt" percentage (concidering complete total) we are now obligated to hand over (as a person earning a normal income reflective of the majority of the population)?

I will be back to rant and rave more about the examples you provided us with.

Technosoul.

[Gorgo]

Here's a site with a lot more facts than frontpagemag.com :

http://looneytunes.warnerbros.com/we...e/homepage.jsp

Why do you people buy into this nonsense? Where are the facts? Just a lot of emotional nonsense with nothing to back it up.

[Zeebadee]

"You recall the FCC fining Clear Channel Communications for Howard Stern's broadcast. Clear Channel did not take it to court and was willing to cut Howard from it's stations. Why? Money. Think of the lawyer costs to this corporation."

Wrong. Clear Channel wasn't fined for Howard's free speech. It was fined for misuse of the public airwaves, which they were licensed to use. If Howard wants to sit in his office and say anything he wants, I have no problem with that. But if he wants to use the radio bandwidth that Clear Channel is authorized to use, and breaks the rules, they are in violation of the agreement they made when they obtained their license.


"A Pizza Hut delivery driver was fired for defending himself from a robber. We all know that we would lose our jobs if we carried a weapon to work and used it in the same fashion. Why? Money. Think of the Workman's Compensation rates the employer would have to dish out."

Wrong again. The driver wasn't fired for defending himself, he was fired for violating the company rules he agreed to when he took the job. What company could stay in business if it couldn't punish employees that violated established company policies??


"Let's look at one more scenario. The government allows employers to use hours-for-dollars wage slavery. In this system, a company may obtain more production (labor) from it's workers for free."

Again, wrong. The government allows employers to offer jobs to workers for hourly wages and benefits. No worker is ever forced to either take, or stay with a job he isn't satisfied with. Unions routinely deal with this particular problem, usually pretty well.

[Zeebadee]

"100% of corporate income taxes can be found within the cost of goods and services. Who pays Bill Gates taxes? You do. How? When you buy Windows at $199.99 (or whatever it is right now) Gates sends the government a portion of that in Income Tax. Without this tax, Gates would not have to charge you as much for Windows. Market competition therefore would reduce this price -- that is if there were any. Bad example, but this demonstrates how the government is a partial Owner of every business in America."

Wrong. Every business needs to make enough money to pay ALL it's bills, taxes included, and make a profit over and above that. If it doesn't, guess what? It doesn't stay in business. If you think that getting rid of corporate income taxes would lower everyone's individual tax bill, think again. The government would merely raise taxes on EVERYONE to make up the shortfall. At least with corporate taxes, the people that are actually using the product are the ones that are paying them.


"In the long run, the price of goods is raised to staggering levels. This makes it hard on the consumer to purchase and to start up a business. Consumer burden restricts economic growth."

Again, wrong. Your own example of Pantry making their own soda product demonstrates that it's easier to start up a business. All you have to do is undercut the sales price of your competition. If the competition has a lot of tax recoup costs in it's product, you've already got an advantage.

[Zeebadee]

"Government schools do one thing that no one seems to disagree with. They teach kids to A) get your diploma, B) get into college, and C) get a job. There are 4 legal ways to make an income; investing money, selling property, jobs, and starting a business. You'll notice that the other 3 items require you to possess something. The school system does not teach people how to do any of these other items...but they'll teach you how to go get exploited."

Now this is just downright confusing. You list 4 ways to make an income, but then refer to 3 other items. Do you mean the 3 items listed A), B), and C) ?? If so, you say, "The school system does not teach people how to do any of these other items", but at the start of your paragraph, you say, "They teach kids to A) get your diploma, B) get into college, and C) get a job." So which is it? Do schools teach or don't they?


"Zoning laws prohibit you from starting a business from your home."

And this is bad because?? Would you really want your next door neighbor opening an auto body shop in his garage? How about raising cattle in his back yard? What would happen to your property value if he did so?

[Kyran]

Techno, I'm glad we've found some common ground to stand on. This is absolutely the most important issue of our time.

Originally posted by Gorgo,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Gorgo,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Why do you people buy into this nonsense? Where are the facts? Just a lot of emotional nonsense with nothing to back it up.[/b]

Since when have you used facts to prove anything?


------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Zeebadee,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Zeebadee,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Clear Channel wasn't fined for Howard's free speech. It was fined for misuse of the public airwaves, which they were licensed to use. If Howard wants to sit in his office and say anything he wants, I have no problem with that[/b]

Oh, well we are so glad you've permitted Howard to say what he wants within the scope of his office! When will Howard be able to speak on the radio without the FCC fining the company he works for? A fat and lazy government does not serve the people.

And if you say, "When he behaves himself" then I will say, "When will the FCC behave? Is the Constitution not the Supreme Law? Then why do you support one law and not the other?"

Saying what the government doesn't want to be heard is misuse of public airwaves? I could see if I opened up my own station right next to another and broadcasted over their broadcast. That would be a misuse, but your argument holds no water.

The Constitution requires Congress to respect the content of broadcasters (Freedom of Speech) while it permits Congress to license (Regulation of Commerce) the space in which said broadcasters may transmit. The FCC administers an obligatory priviledge and dodges the Constitutional Bounds set forth by our founders.

Originally posted by Zeebadee, Wrong again. The driver wasn't fired for defending himself, he was fired for violating the company rules he agreed to when he took the job. What company could stay in business if it couldn't punish employees that violated established company policies??

Indeed what wage-slaver could stay in his plantation if he could not torture, oversee, and exploit the wage slave? How could he profit without the instruments of indenture?

Almost all of the jobs in this country have these exact same company rules and you know it. The only exceptions are security, law enforcement, and military. Why is this? The rules exist because all companies are required to have Workman's Comp on their employees; an obligation for using the priviledge of employment. WC insurance will charge those companies in the event one of their employees is known to use a weapon.

That's why he was fired. It's not about company policy...it's about corporatist policy.

Originally posted by Zeebadee, Again, wrong. The government allows employers to offer jobs to workers for hourly wages and benefits. No worker is ever forced to either take, or stay with a job he isn't satisfied with. Unions routinely deal with this particular problem, usually pretty well.

Truly these unions bring some justice to the working man. It is better that they obtain justice than for us to go without; for our government has not lifted a finger against these crimes.

How is a man supposed to live with zoning laws forcing him into the workplace? Had these citizens been able to own their own means of production, do you think they would slave for the almighty dollar?

You can try to blame it on life, but life isn't the one sending an inspector out to fine people for putting windmills in their backyards.

A wage slaver can legally coerce an employee into doing work for nothing. Salary employees do variable amounts of work at a set pay rate, even though some number of them work at a variable pay rate. No one can dispute this.

Originally posted by Zeebadee, Wrong. Every business needs to make enough money to pay ALL it's bills, taxes included, and make a profit over and above that. If it doesn't, guess what? It doesn't stay in business.

Then what of Boeing's $20 billion dollar bailout? Would you have me believe that it was a gift of God? I have never seen a miracle like the one given by President Bush and this Assembly. To take money from the government and give to such a poor defenseless corporation, he must be Robin Hood in the flesh. When he gave taxpayer money to 9/11 victims, it was the will of the people; for they care.

Mind you that I would aspire to be like your great leader. That is, if I were able, I would take his money and give back to the taxpayer's coffers what he stole.

Originally posted by Zeebadee, If you think that getting rid of corporate income taxes would lower everyone's individual tax bill, think again. The government would merely raise taxes on EVERYONE to make up the shortfall.

Surely you speak the truth. Any threat to the government's obesity would be met with it's drones bringing it more fat and lard. How these busy bees care about their queen! They'll not have her starve, even if she makes other nations miniscule by comparison in weight.

What foolishness there is in feeding the hungry beast. Do you think it will go on a diet as long as you put food in it's mouth? Government is like a dog, in that it will eat and eat until it dies or there is no more food.

Lowering corporate income taxes wouldn't lower the amount everyone pays in taxes? That's just illogical. And your remark that the government WOULD DO something else to tax people is a poor excuse. You're full of it.

Originally posted by Zeebadee, Again, wrong. Your own example of Pantry making their own soda product demonstrates that it's easier to start up a business.

Nonsense. Pantry's corporate owner didn't start up a business.

Pantry INC's quarterly report:
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/040805/ptry10-q.html

If you read this, it's quite clear that the company started it's own line of soda (Celeste) products. Try not to pull arguments out of your ass.

Originally posted by Zeebadee, Now this is just downright confusing. You list 4 ways to make an income, but then refer to 3 other items.

Oops. I mistyped. Here is how the paragraph should read:

<!--QuoteBegin-Kyran,@
Government schools do one thing that no one seems to disagree with. They teach kids to get your diploma, get into college, and get a job. There are 4 legal ways to make an income; A) investing money, B) selling property, C) jobs, and D) starting a business. You'll notice that items A, B, and D require you to possess something. The school system does not teach people how to do these other items...but they'll teach you how to go get exploited (Item C.)[/quote]

<!--QuoteBegin-Zeebadee,
And this is bad because?? Would you really want your next door neighbor opening an auto body shop in his garage? How about raising cattle in his back yard? What would happen to your property value if he did so?[/quote]

Why do you tempt me? I don't have a problem with people living independently on their own land. That's their right as free citizens.

I'll tell you a thing about land value. If my neighbor had an auto body garage, I wouldn't have to drive into the business sector to get mine repaired. And if he were a butcher, I wouldn't have to drive to the grocery store for steak. To me that neighbor is priceless, but to the fat and wealthy competition and all the wage slavers in America his life is worth nothing.

You are wise to worry about how your neighbor's yard smells, because it would be unseemingly for you to have the scent of Oil or Cow Dung as evidence of the company you keep.

[Kyran]

Update:

Recently I've found a few new items which match these criteria and have added them to the master list.

8. Marriage
Obligations: Compliance with marriage law
Translation: Public Status

9. Death
Obligations: Estate Tax

10. Education & Teaching
Obligations: Property Taxes, Federal Standards

11. Working
Obligations: Income Tax

Now check out the 14th amendment here guys...

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This explains several things. One, there are no illegal immigrants. There are unregistered immigrants. The definition of Person does not necessitate citizenship. Secondly, this apparently forbids the states from limiting the powers sold to citizens by the Federal United States.

We should question the validity of our own citizenships.

Any court justice would admit that employment and education are priviledges. The 14th amendment is the core obstacle to limiting government.

Double L recently suggested I bring my commission worker proposal to my governor, Mark Sanford. At first I was reluctant, being as it seems impossible, but now I'm going to push these issues. I've sent an article on OPs to the ACU.

A company is not a citizen, right? I surmise this is how California and other states have their own minimum wage laws; local ability to regulate the priviledges of companies directly not citizenry. I'm going to pray the leftists are right on this one legally. Because if they are, then we can begin monkeywrenching the corporate state.

If we can't illegalize employment, we'll create the alternative system as a state right or priviledge, perhaps even for state nationals...then raise the price on wage slavery to impossible levels. HA! Let's raise MW to $50/hr! Companies will take the path of least financial resistance; opting to use commission and people will be paid fairly.

My idea is that turning priviledges into rights or illegalizing them at the Federal level is necessary to liberating ourselves from the system. I'm also questioning whether a 14th Amendment State can give out priviledges as the federal government does.

Any ideas people?

[castille]

Actually, Bill Gates only owns less than 25% of Microsoft, so its hard to say he "rules da world!".

[tman_ndsu08]

What would happen to your property value if he did so?

Are you suggesting that you're entitled to any "lost" value of property due to external circumstances?

Isn't that like saying that since you owned stock that was valued @ $10/share but could only be sold for $8/share, you're entitled to the extra $2 a share?

No one can see into the future. There is something called "taking a risk" when you invest your money.

Moreover, I don't appreciate anyone telling me what I can and can't do with my own property.

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by tman_ndsu08, Are you suggesting that you're entitled to any "lost" value of property due to external circumstances? Isn't that like saying that since you owned stock that was valued @ $10/share but could only be sold for $8/share, you're entitled to the extra $2 a share? No one can see into the future. There is something called "taking a risk" when you invest your money. Moreover, I don't appreciate anyone telling me what I can and can't do with my own property.

So you're saying that you wouldn't mind if your next door neighbor started raising pigs in his back yard, or opened a McDonalds right next to your house? Somehow, I doubt that you'd be quite so willing to accept something like this.

[tman_ndsu08]

I never said anything about liking or not liking it, because those are irrelevent.

Obviously no one is going to like losing thousands of dollars in the stock market, so why should the real estate market be any different?

[Kyran]

Zee, Land Value is based upon sale price. No one has the right to sell, and no one has the right to defend the value of property their beyond claiming retribution in a civil court against direct alteration or destruction of it. Water has more value in the desert...I can't force people to turn their homes into desert to protect my Water Value.

Anyhow guys, I've cooked up a proposal which may build us a bridge out of empire. I recommend contacting your representatives if you are interested in limited government. Here's how we win.

I: Establishment of State Naturalization.
II: Commission-Employment System for State Citizens
III: Rate Hiking on Federal Employment Priviledges.

The State creates priviledges for "all" persons (residents) within it's jurisdiction under the current Law. The goal is to limit the State to defining Obligatory Priviledges for State Citizens instead of for "everybody." While all U.S. citizens should have the protections of the law, unregistered immigrants have exploited this loophole for decades.

So what does this do?

1. Allows liberal economic policies against federal priviledges.
2. Allows conservative social policies against federal priviledges.
3. The end result is a libertarianesque set of State priviledges that outcompete Federal ones.

Sounds simple enough, but how to get it past the State Assembly? The right will be interested in locally controlled legislation while the left will be interested in social justice solutions.

Corporatism is a very dangerous game to play, and I don't recommend jumping in unless you know what you're doing. I spent a few days here checking out state and federal law just to be sure what I'm pushing is legal.

In the long run, we're shooting for:

1) Revisal of the 14th Amendment so that State Citizens do not automatically become Federal Citizens. Crappy Federal priviledges will help this process.
2) Federal Priviledges are run 100% by the states themselves.

I think it can work. Any thoughts, ideas, or suggestions?

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by castille, Actually, Bill Gates only owns less than 25% of Microsoft, so its hard to say he "rules da world!".

Until quite recently, Microsoft was primarily an employee owned company.

[Compugasm]

Kyran, while many agree with what you propose, the fear of turning the system on it's ear will ultimately kill your proposal. If given the chance to incrementally step toward the goal, what would be the first step, and who would it affect?

[Kyran]

Comp, whatcha mean turning the system on it's ear?

The first step is getting a single state assembly to create a major State Obligatory Priviledge for State Citizens. This has to be separate from Federal priviledges which the State regulates.

Once one state does this, the others will follow. Nothing can stop the chain reactions of state governments competing with each other to provide top quality priviledges. I've thought this through. See, if some of the Feds try to take away the States' ability to regulate Federal priviledges (which they shouldn't have in the first place but do anyway) then all the Federal representatives will fight about it.

And even if they do manage to get regulation passed which makes the Federal government the sole regulatory authority over Federal priviledges, they won't win in the long run. The guys we send to Washington will routinely attempt to raise the Price of Federal OPs so that their home states can outcompete them easily. And since both parties within each state are working towards priviledges that beat federal ones, the end result in each state is libertarianesque priviledges which respect economic and personal freedom.

After the States have services, the Federal programs will be shut down for good.

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by Kyran, I've thought this through.

No doubt. I think it's partially because I'm unliterate. But I have to read your posts 3-4 times before i grasp enought to ask a question about what you've written. What your suggesting about making public servant commission based, is totally opposite to how it works now. Quite a drastic change, and in effect "turning the system on it's ear". Which is why I was asking for a more step by step method. A start point.

Hmm, I'm gonna have to go back and read again because your first paragraph in the last post is so densely packed with terms, my brain hurts. Does what you propose effect the 17th Ammendment? Repeal it, modify it, make a new Ammendment, or nothing?

[Kyran]

Sorry for all the legalese, Comp. Ya gotta be careful when tossing around terms like Person, U.S. citizen, and Privilege (which I misspelled everywhere.)

Public servants won't be affected by the Commission part of my proposal. I have this big 3 line no-no warning in all caps that tells the government to stay on hourly-wage whether it likes it or not.

Since that portion of the proposal has a Countdown Clause, it will not go in effect for two years after becoming law. During that time, businesses may transition into it at their own leisure. After that time is up, our state government will begin bullying them into transitioning using leftist economic policies. Also, there will be webpage info describing the advantages of the State Employment priviledge versus the Federal one.

Nothing in this affects the 17th or any other Amendment.

Now, will this turn the system on it's ear within South Carolina? Sort of. I expect some people to argue about it; after all this is change. However, once people realize how much control and freedom they have I believe they won't want to go back to hours-for-dollars.

This IS the step-by-step method. Creating 1 state privilege is all we're doing here bud. There's nothing fancy or special attached onto this bill which does anything else. State naturalization is a part of it, but is currently handled by SINS (State Immigration & Naturalization Service.) Naturalization is citizenship-obtainment.

Privilege = not a right; power granted to an individual by an authority.
Obligatory Privilege = code word for privileges already in existence and their relevant regulations
Regulation = a statutory law applying only to persons engaged in the usage of a privilege
State O.P. = code word for privileges offered by a State like S.C.
Federal O.P. = privileges offered by the Federal government
Dual-Citizenship = the status of holding State Citizenship and Federal citizenship.

It will end up regulated much differently in the long run than what we started with, and I'm praying our Governor can keep the left AND the right off the contents of my proposal until it goes into effect. It would suck ass if the politicians stupidly made it WORSE than federal employment privilege.

So, in summary...the procedure we are following is:

1. Create a State Privilege that is better than a Federal one.
2. The states, on their own, follow this lead by copying.
3. Federal privileges are beaten out of the market by state privileges.
4. Game over. We win.

Btw, the commission proposal effectively privatizes public schools in part. By raising the status of the common man from vassal to businessman, we free everyone from the yokes of bondage.

The privilege authorization clause of the proposal also immunizes all persons from entering into State Privileges who do not wish to enter into them, as well as from PAYING for them. Welfare can't get created at the State level. State public schools can only be paid for by parents of children who attend. Why? Simple. What happens if the State runs two School Systems and then tries to regulate federal citizens into paying for the state system? The supreme court happens baby. Hahaaaaaaaaaahahahaha.

And that is how you crush the World Superpower. I'm still surprised it's this friggin easy to localize government again. You'd think the feds would have had a failsafe protecting them from any State's attempt to compete in the Power Market. It is our government's nature as a Union of Sovereign States that has prevented such a failsafe from ever being created.

I love my state. The Union sucks.

[Compugasm]

Hmm, I'm getting it now, and realize I have to modify my argument about economic freedom as stated in the "X Party" thread.

[Kyran]

Comp, I love economic freedom. Personal freedom does come about as a result of it. Every time civilization has moved up the Means of Labor from exploitative practices, the resulting society has enjoyed more liberties.

1) Our revolution from vassalship to England, taxation without representation, resulted in liberty.

2) Lincoln's ending of slavery resulted in a progress towards equal rights.

I'm still working out the kinks in my proposal. Government needs limitations on making privilege agreements.

a) no person should be forced to pay for another's privilege.
b) no person should be forced to accept any privilege.
c) no one should obtain privileges without being fully informed of all the regulations, taxes, fees, and dues respective thereof.

See, we can let the left & right have their public education, welfare, marriage, or whatever as long as they are willing to pay for it themselves and not drag the rest of us into it. These privilege thingies need regulations to work properly, so let em have it and we'll get back our civil liberties through defining clear limits on state privileges.

We've never defined standards before for this! See what happens when we don't limit government? I need serious help defining limited government standards within the context of Privileges.