BOOK CLUB June: "Unequal Protection" by Thom Hartmann

[CrispyQ]

"Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance & the Theft of Human Rights" by Thom Hartmann

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1579546277/qid=1117644652/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-2349647-1398402?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Let's kick this off. I hope we have more discussion than last month!
===

I'm about 50 pages into this book & have already learned things I didn't know about the role of corporations in history.

I was especially intrigued by the section that discusses community & suggests that size of the community can impact the behavior of those making the decisions for the community. The theory is that in a group of approximately 150 people, the leaders are not anonymous, therefore, the decisions they make are based on the good of the community. When the community grows beyond the 150 count, anonymity sets in & the leaders are then more inclined to make decisions that promote their personal betterment, not the community.

Years ago I read an article about growing companies. (Sorry, don't recall where I read it or who wrote it.) The author suggested that once a company grew to the point where the president no longer knew the names of his employees the company would begin to experience more turnover of employees & basically go into a second phase of the company where employee morale & productivity began to decline. Amazingly, the number of employees the author said was the turning point was 200-250.

I find the idea of accountability to the community based on community size intriguing. Hartmann points out that there are millions of corporations (generally small ones) that do not make decisions that are harmful to the community. The worst offenders are almost always the giant corporations.

Do you agree that at a certain size, leaders feel insulated from the people & begin to make their decisions based on their personal motivations, not the community's needs?

[benburch]

1. By coincidence...

White Rose Society has a limited number of the hardcover edition of Unequal Protection as a premium for new annual subscribers.

Details at http://www.WhiteRoseSociety.org/Hartmann.html

[CrispyQ]

2. Treaties -- did you know this?

In chapter 8 Hartmann discusses treaties & I learned some surprising stuff!

Did you know that international treaties almost always supersede national laws? There's a clause in the Constitution that states: "This constitution and the laws of the Untied States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Because of this, our Founders made it hard for treaties to be ratified, requiring two-thirds vote of the Senate instead of simply a majority. Still, the GATT treaty was nearly 30,000 pages long! According to Hartman, Hank Brown (CO) was the only senator who read the treaty. Originally Brown had been in favor of the treaty, but upon reading it, he changed is mind. Brown discovered that the treaty created a form of world government limited to trade matters and an international court system without due process. The details of this new 'government' (WTO) are buried within the thousands of pages of the agreement.

Gasp!

The result of this has been what is called 'harmonizing' -- bringing the laws of different nations into alignment. Of course, corporations are in favor of this as it generally encourages more corporate-friendly & less restrictive laws. Opponents refer to the process as 'leveling all nations to the standards of the lowest common denominator.'

Under the WTO treaty many corporations have sued countries, claiming, for example, that a country's laws to protect the environment or to protect workers creates an 'unfair restraint of trade.'

Here's an example from the book:

In 1972, the Marine Mammal Protection Act was passed by Congress. This act barred US tuna fishermen from using purse seine nets that killed hundreds of thousands of dolphins a year. In 1988, the law was strengthened with a provision banning the importations of tuna caught in purse seine nets. Remember those 'dolphin safe' labels on the cans? You can thank the Marine Mammal Protection Act for that.

However, in 1995, the first year after the ratification of GATT/WTO, Mexico challenged the US under the rules of the WTO, claiming that the MMP Act was in violation of free trade. Clinton took Mexico's side & the WTO won. It is now legal to catch & import purse seine-netted tuna into the US.

So guess what happened next. Because consumers wanted dolphin safe tuna, the packagers of tuna lobbied congress & various regulatory agencies to get rules passed that as long as the fishing corporation certified that no dolphins were observed being killed or seriously injured during a catch, tuna could still be labeled 'dolphin safe.'

Dolphin populations have begun to decline again & even though we know that millions of dolphins were killed between 1959 & 1972 in these nets, not one fisherman has notified his company that he saw a dolphin die. Basically 'dolphin safe' has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. Corporate interests, defined by trade agreements, supersede the will of the people.

Sorry this is so long, but it made me sick to read this! Hartmann gives several other examples, not as detailed & including many other countries, not the just the US.

The earlier chapters of this book sort of bog down with the history of how corporate personhood came to be, but if you can get past that, this book is a critical read!

[Swamp Rat]

8. Article. VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

Article. VI.

Clause 1: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

[CrispyQ]

10. If our founding fathers knew how corporate power has perverted

Clause 2, they would be rolling in their graves.

That we call free trade agreements 'treaties' is beyond me. They're basically a way for corporations to implement their own laws -- which of course would never have been put in place without the the help of our bought & paid for public officials, people who have sold out their humanity for a few pieces of silver. Grrrrr.

BTW, I just bought a small "U.S. Constitution" book & am starting to read it. I went to a pretty good school (K-12) & yet during all those years, there was not one class where we read the Constitution or Declaration of Independence in their entirety! Can you believe it?

[ramapo]

3. A bizarre situation

I'm only about a third of the way through the book but I've already gained a number of insights into the political and business climate and decisions during the formative years and decades of the United States. I sure don't remember learning any of what I've read so far in school.

It is amazing how corporations are basically deified in our society. Sure you'll get some general agreement from people as to how corporations are rather heartless but it is forgiven as the pursuit of profit. The reasoning goes that since the aim of the corporation is to make money for the stockholders, the corporation can only make decisions on what is ultimately best for the bottom line, even if we get screwed as a result.

Speak out too harshly about corporations and you'll be quickly branded a communist or socialist, maybe even a terrorist by today's standards. Despite never-ending corporate layoffs, tax avoidance, fraud, pollution, political corruption, et. al., there is virtually no call from our fellow citizens to reign in corporate power.

It has always struck me as quite bizarre that corporations are provided the same rights as natural persons. There is no logic to this but it goes unquestioned. It was very illuminating to learn that there is infact no true legal basis for corporate personhood.

What I've found most striking so far in this book are the many warnings from political leaders in regards to the dangers of corporate power. Grover Cleveland said in 1888, "...Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters.". How prophetic. Teddy Roosevelt was another leader who spoke out. I suspect such statements would be vilified today.

I look forward to the rest of the book as the author traces the rise of corporate dominance to the current day. While I see that the author makes some suggestions for remedying the current situation, I suspect that the recommendations are somewhat naive.

Corporations have achieved almost total economic and political dominance. Our lives are governed far more by the corporation than by our legislators. For the most part, Americans accept the situation, with many believing that the corporation is a bedrock of our country. It is very difficult for me to imagine Americans generating anywhere near the political pressure necessary to truly counter corporate power.

[CrispyQ]

7. I too, look forward to Thom's suggestions for reversing

corporate personhood and I agree they may be naive. I think your last sentence is spot on: "It is very difficult for me to imagine Americans generating anywhere near the political pressure necessary to truly counter corporate power."

What will it take to wake the people up to the fact that global corporations are ruining the environment that supports our lives, simply for profit? Perhaps when clean water costs more than a gallon of milk, or when those living in major metro areas need masks to go outside because of the pollution, or when the American middle class no longer exists because of outsourcing. Or perhaps it will take that kind of impact on a global scale before anything happens. But like so many other causes -- until it personally affects a large majority, there will be no revolution.

[hfojvt]

4. see, as always, "Small is beautiful"

Particularly chapter 5 "a question of size" and chapter 16 "Towards a theory of Large scale organizations"

I did not get this book as it was on an indeterminate waiting list at the library.

[CrispyQ]

6. I will check this book out.

Thanks for your suggestion.

I hope you will read 'Unequal Protection' when it's available & post your comments here.

[CrispyQ]

5. Moving along . . .

Part 2, which covers chapters 3-8 was a bit slow, however, I believe essential to understand that the Supreme Court ruling was misinterpreted, & therefore the entire premise that corporations are ‘persons’ is invalid. He also suggests that the 14th amendment was purposely worded with the word 'persons,' not 'natural persons' so as to provide a loophole which the corporations (railroads) could use to usurp the ruling. Had ‘natural persons’ been used, corporations would not have had a chance to challenge that they too are persons, because they are actually ‘artificial persons.’

Part 3, Unequal Consequences, chapters 9-20, will enrage you. Due to their unequal influence in government (with the help of corrupt elected officials, of course), corporations have put in place laws & regulations that undermine the people -- natural persons, while strengthening their rights. This section was difficult reading for me as I became more & more PO’d with each chapter.

I am just starting Part 4, Restoring Democracy. I look forward to Thom’s suggestions on how to reverse this situation, if it can be done after this amount of time. In Part 2, Thom tells how he interviewed an attorney familiar with supreme court rulings. Basically she said that “it’s now part of our law, even if there was a mistake.” ~gasp


I leave you with a few links from Reclaim Democracy, a great site devoted to this topic.

Draft of a Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Revoke Personhood Rights
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/proposed_constitutional_amendments.html

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States:
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html

Timeline of Personhood Rights & Powers:
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/personhood_timeline.pdf

Main corporate personhood page:
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/index.html


More later.

[Swamp Rat]

9. I'm all for an amendment to revoke corporate constitutional privileges.

Form the link you provided:

An Amendment to Revoke Corporate Constitutional Privileges

SECTION 1. The U.S. Constitution protects only the rights of living human beings.

SECTION 2. Corporations and other institutions granted the privilege to exist shall be subordinate to any and all laws enacted by citizens and their elected governments.

SECTION 3. Corporations and other for-profit institutions are prohibited from attempting to influence the outcome of elections, legislation or government policy through the use of aggregate resources or by rewarding or repaying employees or directors to exert such influence.

SECTION 4. Congress shall have power to implement this article by appropriate legislation.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/proposed_constitutional_amendments.html

*****

I hope there will be a time when I can obtain some of these books in this thread CrispyQGirl.

:yourock: