The Venus Project

[Everything]

The following is from Wikipedia:

Theory

According to Fresco, poverty, crime, corruption and war are the result of scarcity created by the present world's profit-based economic system. He theorizes that the profit motive also stifles the progress of socially beneficial technology. Fresco claims that the advance of technology, if it were carried on independently of its profitability, would make more resources available to more people by producing an abundance of products and materials. This new-found abundance of resources would, according to Fresco, reduce the human tendency toward individualism, corruption, and greed, and instead rely on people helping each other.[9][non-primary source needed] Fresco believes it is now possible to achieve a society in which people would live "longer, healthier, and more meaningful lives." [10] Fresco believes the monetary system and the processes associated with it, such as labour and competition, damages society and holds people back from their true potentials. He states his ideas would maximally benefit the greatest number of people. He claims some of his ideas stem from his formative years during the Great Depression.[2] Fresco believes the current global economic system will have to see a major crisis before people start to lose the confidence in the monetary system and start looking for other directions.[11] Fundamental to the project is what Fresco calls a "resource-based economy". Such a system uses existing resources, rather than money, to provide an equitable method of distribution in the most humane and efficient manner. It is a system in which all goods and services are available to everyone without the use of money, credits, barter, or any other form of debt or servitude.

 

If you wish to learn more, there is the site of the Venus Project, there is Zeitgeist: moving forward that goes deep into the subject. For people who are skeptical about such huge changes to the economy and politics, there is Zeitgeist Addendum.

 

There are many documentaries out there that make you sad, and show people that no, our world is not perfect and now less perfect more then ever before.

 

You have Earthlings, which is so disgusting it makes you vegetarian.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce4DJh-L7Ys

 

You have the documentary: Home. So sad that it makes you cry. Clearly a focus on a lot of problems we face today. It does not show alot of happy faces that we also have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU

 

Whats wrong?

You have the documentary An inconvenient truth, now you think you know whats wrong, but haven't found the root of the problem.

Can't even find a link to that...

 

Then you have Zeitgeist Addendum, this is the root of the problem. I've never liked economy and politics. Guess we don't even have a true economy yet. I think alot of us had such an intuition but were discouraged to even think about the flaws of our economy. Fearing to fear the economy of today. Spending money because it is good for the economy, while that very same economy is a bad thing on itself... Paradoxical.

 

Then you have Zeitgeist moving forward, a solution to most of the problems we face today.

Alot of science backing up the ideals Venus Project.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytBfshwlws0

 

Then you have the Venus Project, a movement towards this better future which is not perfect either, but alot better then today. It is the only possible alternative we have, will we ever need one.

 

I think there has been a post about this before. But as someone who has witnessed behaviour in several groups trough the philosophy of TTC, I have a much larger faith in the a future as Jacque Fresco presents it rather then how it is now. I've known elder ones who have lived in diffrent societies and cannot understand that we have to pay for food and water... It should be free for everyone on this planet. This is the only way I see that happening with a big population like ours.

I believe that TTC is similar to the view of a scientist in that it is without ego. Ever changing, never holding on to one single believe, open to every possibility, recognizing the infinite value we can draw from experience, etc. Sure people itself will be people, but the science by which we live is at its core without ego and the most solid temporary truth's we will hear. If anyone here disagrees that science and technology should come at the base of a type 1 civilization, you can share the opposing ideas. Or if you think that TTC philosophy is not one that promotes science, I'd like to hear your thoughts aswell. I feel that moving towards the Tao is the very purpose of science.

 

But I don't think a movement towards this future will come untill alot goes terribly wrong. History says so, but the risks today are greater then the risks we faced during a revolution in ancient times. The transition towards a type 1 civilization is the arrival at heaven in a scientific view of the world, especially the one physicians hold. This is our immortality, practicly. Unless we don't survive the transition from type 0 to type 1.

 

Then it makes sense that whatever comes after type 1, wether it be aliens finally visiting us or us travelling the stars. Nothing matters, because we finally have our peace in life. The focus in such a future lies on quality problems that are worth your attention, and enjoyable to solve. My concern for the future is the last war that will be fought. But wether it ends badly or good, the outcome is the same. There will be no more wars. I have already decided to live in a society that is constructive at its base. I truely believe that if we fight for such a society, our very survival would mean the opposite. What do you think will, or should happen to make this transition as smooth as possible.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Everything

[joeblast]

 

"Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good. In area after area - crime, education, housing, race relations - the situation has gotten worse after the bright new theories were put into operation. The amazing thing is that this history of failure and disaster has neither discouraged the social engineers nor discredited them."

 

~Thomas Sowell

[Christoph]

isn't this Zeitgeist collectivist nonsense basically the polar opposite of Daoism?

[Everything]

 

"Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good. In area after area - crime, education, housing, race relations - the situation has gotten worse after the bright new theories were put into operation. The amazing thing is that this history of failure and disaster has neither discouraged the social engineers nor discredited them."

 

~Thomas Sowell

I guess with the knowledge of today, we've reached a peak point in how idealistic our ideas can become and how much we can actually realize trough the striving for these ideals. We now look beyond our own ideas, which has never worked, and as you said, did not work. With this scientific understanding, we can create a better world without our own ego, without attachement to new truth's and with a constant growth towards a better and more constructive future.

[Everything]

isn't this Zeitgeist collectivist nonsense basically the polar opposite of Daoism?

No, not at all. You make me curious just to ask such a question. Have you read Tao Te Ching?

A great translation here:

chinapage.com/gnl

 

Nature is complete because it does not serve itself.

 

The sage places himself after and finds himself before,

Ignores his desire and finds himself content.

 

He is complete because he does not serve himself.

In the economy we live today, the truth is that everyone serves his self alone. Why is that? Because we all need money to live, and every transaction, wether it be time, action, emotional energy is based upon ultimately getting money. The whole purpose is to get money.

 

Now lets say that our economy is based upon resources. We now have basic components of life for everyone on the planet. What suddenly happens to motivation? Do you think people will sit on their lazy butt all day doing nothing? No, that is exactly what most believe, growing up in this economy based on money. Money is not the true motivation. The economy today creates this illusion. But a resource based economy would mean that people grow up in total freedom, without limitation to the mind. No mental limitation as to what you may do everyday all day. There is no need for thievery, because scarcity does no longer exist. There is nothing to do in such a world, but to serve others in order to become complete. Such civilizations has been in the past, and can be now aswell.

 

Thirty spokes meet at a nave;

Because of the hole we may use the wheel.

Clay is moulded into a vessel;

Because of the hollow we may use the cup.

Walls are built around a hearth;

Because of the doors we may use the house.

Thus tools come from what exists,

But use from what does not.

Now look at our economy as a tool, look at its core, and you will see how every flaw in our society rises from this core and not the people who use this flawed tool. We currently have no choice but to continue this way of living, but the alternative is ready to become a reality. When people look at our economy as tools they are bombared by labels and terms they do not even understand. The thing that you don't see is its core, thats the very thing that gives rise to all corruption. The flawed core of the economy, where money=debt. While most people who look at the economy just see money as the thing you need in order to "buy" something.

 

Too much colour blinds the eye,

Too much music deafens the ear,

Too much taste dulls the palate,

Too much play maddens the mind,

Too much desire tears the heart.

 

In this manner the sage cares for people:

He provides for the belly, not for the senses;

He ignores abstraction and holds fast to substance.

Just look at commercials. Companies spend more on commercials then their products itself. When you understand how a commercial works in a dynamical social group and how it influences people you will understand that there is nothing constructive about commercials. It is only in the interest of proffit, not human interest. A resource based economy would naturally put human interest in the first place and not proffit. There would be no need for commercials, it would be totally pointless, nonsense, laughable. People would live more peacefully without being forced so many useless ideas and trends to follow in order to remain social.

If we could abolish knowledge and wisdom

Then people would profit a hundredfold;

If we could abolish duty and justice

Then harmonious relationships would form;

If we could abolish artifice and profit

Then waste and theft would disappear.

This one shows best how a resource based economy is exactly what Lao Tzu describes to be the most harmonious society, with least thievery and waste. An economy that would TRUELY economize. It has been recorded in history several times how these kind of societies never had any form of violence recorded. How more equal countries had more of the positive traits that TTC promotes.

When you think you are a "good" person and think that others are "bad" then you have not yet understood Tao Te Ching with more clarity. Every Taoist would agree that our behaviour is an abstraction of Nature. When one learns this, it sees how a diffrent environment or line of thoughts and ideas would change his behaviour. That is where the freedom lies. Abolishing duty and justice, we no longer have laws. When people face a problem they can't solve, they make laws for it. And rules are made to be broken. Rules never work without punishement for not following them. This is not a harmonious concept, it promotes destructive behaviour. It promotes punishing bad behaviour instead of promoting good behaviour.

A technician would solve the problem all together, allowing people to live naturally good, without laws. That is the very core of Tao Te Ching. As an example given in the Venus Project. Instead of disallowing drunk people to opperate a vehicle, the vehicle itself can be made so to straighten itself when the driver is not driving properly. Technology is ready to serve humanity in the best way it can. People cannot comprehend how much better our lives can become when technology serves us without limitations set by corporations who see no proffit in this kind of transaction.

 

The very fact that you are interested in Tao Te Ching yet not living on some mountain means that the Venus Project is the way to go. There is no better alternative for a future where humans continue to evolve in the most harmonious way possible. I don't know about Zeitgeist alot... I know it is has a partnership with the venus project, I know they're both equally poor. hehe.

 

I personally enjoy the Venus project, watching someone serve humanity in such a commited way, literally untill his last breath. Wether he will ultimately succeed I don't know. Thats up to nature.

 

One thing I'm skeptical about is the patience of these men. They clearly have too much ambition and little patience... That saddens my heart to see such wisdom go to waste, so much light shed, so much excess knowledge given away so impuslively. IT would be better to simply allow nature take its course and wait for the opportunity to rise and take their project to the next level. It would be better to let go, die in peace, rather then rush things before ones death. Leave the project for other comitted minds with strong bones and little ambition.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Everything

[Everything]

Oh I almost forgot to mention how Tao Te Ching recognizes we are of nature, and that the law of nature is what moves us. Thus it bases its laws on nature and not that of men. Venus project does the same

[Encephalon]

 

"Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good. In area after area - crime, education, housing, race relations - the situation has gotten worse after the bright new theories were put into operation. The amazing thing is that this history of failure and disaster has neither discouraged the social engineers nor discredited them."

 

~Thomas Sowell

 

This makes perfect sense if you accept the premise that what was trying to be replaced was working. It's a safe argument that things have gotten worse across the spectrum but that doesn't mean that they would not have gotten worse anyway due to the influence of other forces. I'm not a sociologist but I could come up with a half dozen plausible explanations myself with a couple weeks of writing and research.

 

I relish the debate of this subject through the lens of social and behavioral sciences as much as anyone, but the meta-narrative underpinning this calamity is the era of cheap oil elevating consumerism to a religion, followed by the inevitable expiration of the petroleum-based consumer culture and the exhaustion of resources. Left/right arguments don't even begin to explain what we're up against, and while I think top/bottom - rich/poor arguments come closer, they still fail to adequately capture the real problem. Ecology is the only subject that really captures the essence of the problem, but it's still too young a science for people to grasp. And yet, ancient Buddhist and Taoists intuited basic and pertinent ecological facts thousands ofyears ago.

 

The movie "Collapse" also has enormous explanatory power and is also available for online viewing.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Blasto

[Otis]

 

"Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good. In area after area - crime, education, housing, race relations - the situation has gotten worse after the bright new theories were put into operation. The amazing thing is that this history of failure and disaster has neither discouraged the social engineers nor discredited them."

 

~Thomas Sowell

What Sowell is describing is the problem with politics, which relies on cheap shot fallacies to sell policy. Three strikes, no child left behind, subprime lending: these were all "nice-sounding" ideas with no credibility or track record, and they've all led to making the situations worse.

 

But these were not the creation of sociologists and visionaries, but of politicians who fall back on authority fallacies. Those fallacies appeal to those who have not learned to trust their own power yet, and think that progress must always rise from external discipline, rather than internal strength.

[Encephalon]

What Sowell is describing is the problem with politics, which relies on cheap shot fallacies to sell policy. Three strikes, no child left behind, subprime lending: these were all "nice-sounding" ideas with no credibility or track record, and they've all led to making the situations worse.

 

But these were not the creation of sociologists and visionaries, but of politicians who fall back on authority fallacies. Those fallacies appeal to those who have not learned to trust their own power yet, and think that progress must always rise from external discipline, rather than internal strength.

 

I agree with you but a bigger story on a larger scale is that the American people have been unwitting subjects in the biggest and longest running experiment of social conditioning in the history of the world, perpetrated with electronic media by state, corporate and commercial sectors. it's actually been going on since the 1880s but it really kicked in with the advent of tv. That's why leaders in the critical thinking movement only have approximations of what a truly intellectually free critical thinker would look like, someone on the order of a zen master in the midst of nirvana, because of the multiple layers of conditioning we're exposed to.

 

KILL YOUR TELEVISION

[Otis]

KILL YOUR TELEVISION

Amen to that. I work in TV, but I am not a fan of it, at all. The last TV I had with any reception was in 1988, when I last lived with my folks. I'm still a big fan of visual media, but I just watch movies and DVDs.

[aridus]

There are many documentaries out there that make you sad, and show people that no, our world is not perfect and now less perfect more then ever before.

 

I used to think this. Now I realize the world is perfect. Not us, the world.

 

We see it as "messed up" as a consequence of its perfection.

 

You do something, it has consequences every time. This is the perfection at work. It does not fail.

 

When you boil an egg, the egg boils. It does not explode into rainbow confetti, that wouldn't be perfect.

 

When the sun warms the earth, it warms it. It doesn't paint it pink with yellow polkadots.

 

When it rains, things get wet.

 

When people do, things are done.

[strawdog65]

No, not at all. You make me curious just to ask such a question. Have you read Tao Te Ching?

A great translation here:

chinapage.com/gnl

 

Nature is complete because it does not serve itself.

 

The sage places himself after and finds himself before,

Ignores his desire and finds himself content.

 

He is complete because he does not serve himself.

In the economy we live today, the truth is that everyone serves his self alone. Why is that? Because we all need money to live, and every transaction, wether it be time, action, emotional energy is based upon ultimately getting money. The whole purpose is to get money.

 

Now lets say that our economy is based upon resources. We now have basic components of life for everyone on the planet. What suddenly happens to motivation? Do you think people will sit on their lazy butt all day doing nothing? No, that is exactly what most believe, growing up in this economy based on money. Money is not the true motivation. The economy today creates this illusion. But a resource based economy would mean that people grow up in total freedom, without limitation to the mind. No mental limitation as to what you may do everyday all day. There is no need for thievery, because scarcity does no longer exist. There is nothing to do in such a world, but to serve others in order to become complete. Such civilizations has been in the past, and can be now aswell.

 

Thirty spokes meet at a nave;

Because of the hole we may use the wheel.

Clay is moulded into a vessel;

Because of the hollow we may use the cup.

Walls are built around a hearth;

Because of the doors we may use the house.

Thus tools come from what exists,

But use from what does not.

Now look at our economy as a tool, look at its core, and you will see how every flaw in our society rises from this core and not the people who use this flawed tool. We currently have no choice but to continue this way of living, but the alternative is ready to become a reality. When people look at our economy as tools they are bombared by labels and terms they do not even understand. The thing that you don't see is its core, thats the very thing that gives rise to all corruption. The flawed core of the economy, where money=debt. While most people who look at the economy just see money as the thing you need in order to "buy" something.

 

Too much colour blinds the eye,

Too much music deafens the ear,

Too much taste dulls the palate,

Too much play maddens the mind,

Too much desire tears the heart.

 

In this manner the sage cares for people:

He provides for the belly, not for the senses;

He ignores abstraction and holds fast to substance.

Just look at commercials. Companies spend more on commercials then their products itself. When you understand how a commercial works in a dynamical social group and how it influences people you will understand that there is nothing constructive about commercials. It is only in the interest of proffit, not human interest. A resource based economy would naturally put human interest in the first place and not proffit. There would be no need for commercials, it would be totally pointless, nonsense, laughable. People would live more peacefully without being forced so many useless ideas and trends to follow in order to remain social.

If we could abolish knowledge and wisdom

Then people would profit a hundredfold;

If we could abolish duty and justice

Then harmonious relationships would form;

If we could abolish artifice and profit

Then waste and theft would disappear.

This one shows best how a resource based economy is exactly what Lao Tzu describes to be the most harmonious society, with least thievery and waste. An economy that would TRUELY economize. It has been recorded in history several times how these kind of societies never had any form of violence recorded. How more equal countries had more of the positive traits that TTC promotes.

When you think you are a "good" person and think that others are "bad" then you have not yet understood Tao Te Ching with more clarity. Every Taoist would agree that our behaviour is an abstraction of Nature. When one learns this, it sees how a diffrent environment or line of thoughts and ideas would change his behaviour. That is where the freedom lies. Abolishing duty and justice, we no longer have laws. When people face a problem they can't solve, they make laws for it. And rules are made to be broken. Rules never work without punishement for not following them. This is not a harmonious concept, it promotes destructive behaviour. It promotes punishing bad behaviour instead of promoting good behaviour.

A technician would solve the problem all together, allowing people to live naturally good, without laws. That is the very core of Tao Te Ching. As an example given in the Venus Project. Instead of disallowing drunk people to opperate a vehicle, the vehicle itself can be made so to straighten itself when the driver is not driving properly. Technology is ready to serve humanity in the best way it can. People cannot comprehend how much better our lives can become when technology serves us without limitations set by corporations who see no proffit in this kind of transaction.

 

The very fact that you are interested in Tao Te Ching yet not living on some mountain means that the Venus Project is the way to go. There is no better alternative for a future where humans continue to evolve in the most harmonious way possible. I don't know about Zeitgeist alot... I know it is has a partnership with the venus project, I know they're both equally poor. hehe.

 

I personally enjoy the Venus project, watching someone serve humanity in such a commited way, literally untill his last breath. Wether he will ultimately succeed I don't know. Thats up to nature.

 

One thing I'm skeptical about is the patience of these men. They clearly have too much ambition and little patience... That saddens my heart to see such wisdom go to waste, so much light shed, so much excess knowledge given away so impuslively. IT would be better to simply allow nature take its course and wait for the opportunity to rise and take their project to the next level. It would be better to let go, die in peace, rather then rush things before ones death. Leave the project for other comitted minds with strong bones and little ambition.

 

 

Thank you for saying that so well.

The Venus project is a symbol of hope for a better future.

[Encephalon]

Amen to that. I work in TV, but I am not a fan of it, at all. The last TV I had with any reception was in 1988, when I last lived with my folks. I'm still a big fan of visual media, but I just watch movies and DVDs.

 

1988 was the last time I lived in a house where we paid for cable. With all the great stuff available for Instantwatch streaming on Netflix, we just reduced our account to one dvd at a time for $10/month. The first step of transforming delusion into wisdom is to get rid of corporate tv propaganda.

[ralis]

Anyone seen this? Oliver Stone's statement on the media. Saw it in 93 when it came out and it really freaked me out!! Unfortunately, Netflix wont stream it.

 

 

 

Edited April 2, 2011 by ralis

[ralis]

Perhaps the greatest threat to freedom and democracy in the world today comes from the formation of the unholy alliances between government and business. This is not a new phenomenon. It used to be called fascism… The outward appearances of the democratic process are observed, but the powers of the state are diverted to the benefit of private interests. – George Soros

 

“I fear what they're doing… is setting the crown for a corporate state…. And by that I mean a rather small but very powerful circle of financial institutions… also some industrial corporations… Too big to fail… protected by (government)… The leading banks and corporations… will have the means to monopolize democracy.” – William Greider, discussing the Geithner plan to address our economic crisis, in an interview with Bill Moyers, March 27, 2009.

 

 

The United States and the other Allied Nations fought World War II against the Fascist nations of the world, which posed a severe and imminent danger to world-wide freedom and livelihood. The United Nations was conceived by President Roosevelt and brought to fruition largely by the efforts of President Truman with an eye towards identifying future fascist threats to world freedom and imposing a barrier against them.

 

Definition of fascism

The Fascism that we fought against is often defined by its warning signs, which include:

 

1. Powerful and continuing nationalism; 2. Disdain for human rights; 3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause; 4. Supremacy of the military; 5. Rampant sexism; 6. Controlled mass media; 7. Obsession with national security; 8. Interweaving of religion with government; 9. The combining of government and corporate power (corporatism); 10. Suppression of labor; 11. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts; 12. Obsession with crime and punishment; 13. Rampant cronyism and corruption, and; 14. Fraudulent elections.

 

These warning signs of fascism can be seen as combining two major groups of characteristics: corporatism (# 9) and scapegoating alleged enemies as a unifying cause (# 3). Those two characteristics represent the core of fascism. The other traits follow as a consequence of those core characteristics.

 

Nationalism (# 1) is the ultimate unifying cause that fascists aim to produce. The “nation” takes precedence over all else, and anyone who doesn’t fall in line is an “enemy” of the state. Disdain for human rights (# 2) follows, as the “enemy” is dehumanized, thus rationalizing its brutal repression. Disdain for intellectuals (# 11) is necessary because they are among the most likely to speak out against the state – and they make a convenient enemy.

 

Corporatism requires corruption (# 13) because governments are supposed to serve their people; therefore, when they decide to serve corporate power instead, that by definition constitutes corruption. Suppression of labor (# 10) is necessary for the corporatist state because labor is the natural enemy of excessive corporate power.

 

The connection between corporatism and scapegoating

Why the connection between the scapegoating of enemies as a unifying cause and corporatism? In a corporatist state, the corrupt alliance between government and corporate power means that power and wealth are concentrated among a small elite few at the top, which leads to corresponding lack of power and wealth among the vast majority of the population, with corresponding great potential for mass suffering. The corporatist state must find a way to convince these great masses of people to happily accept their fate. The scapegoating of alleged enemies has been found to be one of the best ways to do this. Item #s 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, and 14 in the warning list are just more methods that the corporatist state uses to keep its subjects in line.

 

The vicious cycle of increasing corporate power

In the United States today, the deepening ties between our government and private corporate power is bringing us dangerously close to the kind of fascism/corporatism that we fought against in World War II. The fact that bribery of government officials, in the form of “campaign donations”, is essentially legal in our country, has opened the door to the merging of government and corporate power that defines fascism. Corporate propaganda and monopolization of our airways has opened the door still wider. Worse yet, it creates a vicious cycle. Corporate money is used to bribe government officials to pass legislation favorable to their agenda, which inevitably leads to further increase in corporate wealth and power. It has gotten to the point where a majority of our elected officials at the federal level feel dependent upon corporate contributions to remain in office. Even many of those who may have basically good intentions have succumbed to the need to placate corporate power. In so doing, they prioritize the desire of a small minority of corporate elites above the needs of the vast majority of their constituents. The bottom line is that corporations have become powerful enough to enter into corrupt bargains with government, thereby enabling private corporations and government to mutually enrich each other at the expense of everyone else. This is the tyranny of fascism. With that in mind, let’s consider how we got to this point:

 

 

The Rise of Corporate Tyranny in the United States

 

A corporation has been defined as:

 

The most common form of business organization, and one which is chartered by a state and given many legal rights as an entity separate from its owners. This form of business is characterized by the limited liability of its owners…

 

In 1819, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the state of New Hampshire when it attempted to revoke the corporate charter of New Hampshire, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward. New Hampshire citizens were outraged by that decision, arguing that corporations are created by the state, with the purpose of serving the public interest.

 

In a democracy, ALL actions of the state should be to serve the public interest. If the state grants a charter to a corporation, it should have the right to regulate that corporation in the public interest, in return for the privileges that it bestows upon the corporation.

 

The threat of corporate power at the founding of our nation

Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations”, published in the same year (1776) as the U.S. Declaration of Independence, expounded on the advantages of a free market economic system, while at the same time warning of the dangers of corporations. That seems ironic on the surface, since today’s right wingers constantly push their own version of the “free market”, while using Smith as their authority. But in reality, Smith was deeply antagonistic towards any view of so-called “free market” principles that favored corporations – the very opposite of the stance advocated by today’s right-wing movement. This is what Smith had to say about the effect of corporate power on free markets:

 

It is to prevent this reduction of price, and consequently of… profit, by restraining that free competition which would most certainly occasion it, that all corporations, and the greater part of corporation laws, have been established… This prerogative of the crown seems to have been reserved rather for extorting money from the subject, than for the defense of the common liberty against such oppressive monopolies.

 

David Corten explains that our Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution that coincided with it were in large part a reaction against the same corporate abuses that Smith warned against in “The Wealth of Nations”:

 

It is noteworthy that the publication of The Wealth of Nations and the signing of the U.S. Declaration of Independence both occurred in 1776. Each was, in its way, a revolutionary manifesto challenging the abusive alliance of state and corporate power to establish monopolistic control of markets and thereby capture unearned profits and inhibit local enterprise. Smith and the American colonists shared a deep suspicion of both state and corporate power.

 

The conferring of corporate personhood

There is nothing in our Declaration of Independence, nor our Constitution, nor any of the amendments to our Constitution that conferred special rights or privileges upon corporations. Indeed, as late as 1855 the U.S. Supreme Court made perfectly clear, in Dodge v. Woolsey, that corporations have no special rights or privileges, and that they are subservient to the American people:

 

That the people of the States should have released their powers over the artificial bodies (i.e. corporations) which originate under the legislation of their representatives… is not to be assumed. Such a surrender was not essential to any policy of the Union, nor required… Such an abandonment could have served no other interest than that of the corporations, or individuals who might profit by the legislative acts themselves. Combinations of classes in society, united by the bond of a corporate spirit, for the accumulation of power, influence, or wealth… unquestionably desire limitations upon the sovereignty of the people… But the framers of the constitution were imbued with no desire to call into existence such combinations…

 

But in 1886, in an unofficial opinion by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, before any oral arguments took place in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, and without any explanation whatsoever, Waite simply announced:

 

The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.

 

This offhand statement – which cannot possibly constitute an official opinion of the court, which is always preceded by extensive research and debate – has since been considered the law of the land.

 

And as such it greatly increased the power of corporations against individuals by allowing them the protections given to persons under our Constitution, even though corporations are simultaneously showered with various powers that actual persons don’t have and exempted from many of the responsibilities and obligations that actual persons have. David Korten puts this in perspective in his book, “When Corporations Rule the World”:

 

Thus corporations finally claimed the full rights enjoyed by individual citizens while being exempted from many of the responsibilities and liabilities of citizenship. Furthermore, in being guaranteed the same right to free speech as individual citizens, they achieved, in the words of Paul Hawken, "precisely what the Bill of Rights was intended to prevent: domination of public thought and discourse." The subsequent claim by corporations that they have the same right as any individual to influence the government in their own interest pits the individual citizen against the vast financial and communications resources of the corporation and mocks the constitutional intent that all citizens have an equal voice in the political debates surrounding important issues.

 

The restraint of corporate power by FDR

Excessive corporate power led to vast disparities of wealth, which in the late 19th Century became known as the Gilded Age. This culminated in the Stock Market Crash of 1929, which led to the Great Depression and the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as President.

 

FDR aggressively criticized the conditions that led to this state of affairs in his 1936 Democratic Convention speech to the American people. In that speech he condemned the men who were responsible for the nation’s economic woes, whom he referred to as “Economic Royalists”.

 

Out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital … the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service. There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit.

 

The privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.

 

The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor – these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small business man, the investments set aside for old age – other people's money – these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.

 

The abuses of power that FDR detailed in that speech provided much of the rationale for his New Deal, which lifted tens of millions of Americans out of poverty and created a vibrant middle class, while taxing corporations at unprecedented levels.

 

The New Deal didn’t just fade away after FDR’s death. Instead, due to its stunning success, most of its components lasted for decades. Largely as a result of this, we experienced for the next three decades what Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman calls “the greatest sustained economic boom in U.S. history”. Beginning in 1947, when accurate statistics first became available, median family income rose steadily (in 2005 dollars) from $22,499 in 1947 to more than double that, $47,173 in 1980.

 

The “Reagan Revolution” reversal of New Deal economic policy

With the advent of the Reagan Revolution in 1981, characterized by a return to the “free market” ideology of the Gilded Age, the route marked out by FDR was reversed. Since that time, except for a brief respite during the latter years of the Clinton presidency, the income of American workers has been virtually stagnant, despite large increases in American productivity which have enriched the already wealthy.

 

The reign of “free-market” ideology has been characterized by an ideological ban against government intervention in economic matters to help those who most need it, which played out domestically and internationally. William Greider, in his book, “Come Home, America – The Rise and Fall (And Redeeming Promise) of our Country”, explains how this played out on the international stage:

 

The World Trade Organization enforces rules that protect capital investors and corporations, but it has no rules protecting workers and communities, that is, people. The so-called Washington Consensus – a stern dogma imposed on developing countries that borrow from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund preaches that national governments must not try to protect their people from the harsh side effects of capital and commerce. America’s representative democracy, meanwhile, is offered as the model the world should follow, despite the democratic breakdown that Americans well know is in progress….

 

Greider mentions globalization as another of the factors contributing to the demise of the United States. However, he also notes that other nations are affected by globalization just as much as the United States is, and yet other industrialized nations have much less economic inequality than the United because they are not bounded by the inflexible right wing ideology of the so-called “free market”.

 

James Galbraith, in his book, “The Predator State”, explains why globalization and free trade agreements need not cause serious adverse effects for American workers, if only we would give up that radical “free market” ideology that the right wingers have foisted upon us:

 

The populist objective is to raise American wages, create American jobs, and increase the fairness and security of our economic system… Is there a better way to do this…? Of course there is – and that is to do it directly. You want higher wages? Raise them. You want more and better jobs? Create them.

 

In other words, our government should work directly for the average American, not the corporatocracy using the rationale that expansion of corporate wealth will “trickle down” to everyone.

 

 

Corporate propaganda to pervert our concept of democracy

 

In addition to routinely bribing government officials to promote their agenda, the corporatocracy has bombarded the American people for several decades with incessant propaganda aimed at perverting our concepts of the workings of democratic government, in order to gain our acquiescence in their continuing power grabs:

 

Perversion of the concept of “freedom”

The concept of freedom has become perverted in our county. Freedom has been defined as “the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints” – and that’s how most people use it. Another way of saying that is “the power to do whatever one wants to do”.

 

As an absolute concept, it is not plausible or reasonable or even possible for a functioning society to allow its members such powers – for a very simple reason. The freedom of the powerful to do whatever they want tends to impinge tragically on the freedom of the vulnerable members of society. Some men for example like to rape women. But enabling them to do that whenever they want would impinge on the freedom of women not to be raped. The vast majority of people realize that giving men the freedom to rape at will would be a very bad idea.

 

At the societal level, powerful corporations often dump vast quantities of poisons into the air, soil, and water without having to bear the costs or other consequences of their activities. Most Americans agree that such activities should be prohibited or otherwise strongly regulated, or that corporations that engage in such activities should be made to bear the costs or other consequences – in other words, that the “freedom” of corporations to pollute and ruin our environment should be strictly controlled. Yet, corporate power in the United States has perverted the concept of “freedom” to justify ever more unrestricted expansion of their power, with the consequent diminishment of freedom for the vast majority of Americans.

 

George Lakoff discusses the nuances and frequent contradictions of the word “freedom” in great detail in his book, “Whose Freedom – The Battle over America’s Most Important Ideal”. Here is an one of many excerpts from that book that make the point of how the freedom of the few often diminishes the freedom of the many:

 

The focus of (George Bush’s) presidency is defending and spreading freedom. Yet, progressives see in Bush’s policies not freedom but outrages against freedom. They are indeed outrages against the traditional American ideal of freedom… It is not the American ideal of freedom to invade countries that don’t threaten us, to torture people and defend the practice, to jail people indefinitely without due process, and to spy on our own citizens without warrant…

 

Bill Moyers discussed this idea in an article titled “A New Story for America”. He notes how Ronald Reagan put our country on the road to fascism (though he didn’t use that word) by convincing many or most Americans that “big government” destroys our freedom and that we must therefore shrink government and give business unlimited “freedom” to do as they please. With regard to Reagan’s idea of “freedom”, Moyers says:

 

But what that… means today is the freedom to accumulate wealth without social or democratic responsibilities and the license to buy the political system right our from under everyone else, so that democracy no longer has the ability to hold capitalism accountable for the good of the whole… It has taken us down a terribly mistaken road toward a political order where government ends up servicing the powerful and taking from everyone else…

 

Nor does it assure the availability of economic opportunity… Yet it has been used to shield private power from democratic accountability, in no small part because conservative rhetoric has succeeded in denigrating government even as conservative politicians plunder it… But government is … often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions.

 

The hypocrisy of the corporate version of “free market” ideology

There is nothing “free” about the right wing corporate version of so-called “free markets”. Rather, through the amassing of great wealth and power and the use of that wealth and power to legally bribe our elected officials, they have stacked the deck in their favor so as to acquire monopoly control over so many aspects of our economic and political life. As Adam Smith, whom the right wing ideologues are so fond of quoting, says, creation of true free markets requires at a minimum the limiting of the power of corporations. Our corporate elites are not interested in “free” markets. They are interested only in gathering unto themselves as much wealth and power as they possibly can.

 

This is all part and parcel of the utterly nonsensical doctrine of “trickle down economics”, which was never supported by a shred of evidence. They want us to believe that the road to a healthy economy is to shower the wealthy with privileges and riches, so that eventually this wealth will shower (or trickle) down on the rest of us, by virtue of making the wealthy more productive. Well, we’re still waiting.

 

With their control of the news media, corporate America has foisted a toxic ideology on the American people that serves to maintain their wealth and power. When powerful banks lose money, they warn that the taxpayers must save them, lest our economy go into a permanent tailspin. Yet when the American people attempt to devise a health care system that will keep them financially solvent and prevent twenty thousand deaths each year, the corporate elite scream SOCIALISM!!

 

This is all part and parcel to the idea that “big government” is our biggest problem. The corporatocracy would have us believe that any infringement of our government on the “freedom” of corporations do whatever they please constitutes “interference” with the “free market”. Bill Moyers takes us back in history to explain how our country’s greatest leaders, from Jefferson to Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelt to FDR, have used the powers of government to provide opportunity for Americans to create a decent and better life for themselves. Thus Moyers concludes about our present state:

 

So it is that contrary to what we have heard rhetorically for a generation now, the individualist, greed-driven, free-market ideology is at odds with our history and with what most Americans really care about … Indeed, the American public is committed to a set of values that almost perfectly contradicts the conservative agenda that has dominated politics for a generation now.

 

Opposing the public interest

Corporations, as creations of the state were originally required to act in support of the public interest in return for the many favors they received from the state. But instead, they have come to oppose the public interest, in pursuit of their own private goals and the goals of their owners, and in the process they have cast a progressively darkening cloud of tyranny over our country and the world. In reality it is difficult or impossible to separate the goals of a corporation from the goals of its owners – those who exercise control over the corporation. After all, a corporation is merely a financial tool, which can be utilized for whatever purposes those who control it wish. Yet it is legally defined as an entity separate from its owners. Thus those who control the corporation have a powerful tool at their disposal, while at the same time utilizing corporate law to shield them from the liabilities that mere individuals would incur without a corporation to hide behind.

 

That would be ok if the state was determined to regulate corporations in the public interest. However, especially since the 1980s corporate propaganda has achieved a measure of success in convincing Americans that government regulation of corporations – in the public interest or otherwise – is bad for our economy and therefore bad for our people. Perhaps most Americans don’t really believe that absurdity. But enough do that, in combination with the power of money, the public interest has taken a back seat to corporate “freedom”.

 

 

Monopoly

 

It has long been recognized that corporations have a tendency to form monopolies, which reduce competition and raise prices. That is why, beginning with the Sherman Anti-trust law of 1890, and continuing with President Theodore Roosevelt’s trust busting efforts, the U.S. government has had a long and justified history of intervening to prevent unfair monopolistic practices, especially with regard to services that are essential to us, such as gas and electric utilities.

 

When monopolies are allowed to flourish, competition is stifled and the result is an increasing wealth gap and poverty. Specific examples of monopolies leading to bad consequences include the lax regulation that led to the energy blackouts in California in 2001 and policies that allow price gouging by oil companies. Yet, for reasons that they’ve never explained, the right wing “free market” ideologues are the first ones to allow the stifling of competition by monopolies.

 

Monopoly provides the financial foundation of corporate power. With rampant monopolization of U.S. industries in recent years, competitive obstacles to the accumulation of wealth have been removed for a select few, at the expense of almost everyone else. Barry Lynn discusses in his book, “Cornered – The New Monopoly Capitalism and the Economics of Destruction” – how the monopolization of so much industry in the United States, which began under the Reagan Presidency, has led us towards a corporatist state that has vastly limited the freedom of so many Americans:

 

The structural monopolization of so many systems has resulted in a set of political arrangements similar to what we used to call corporatism. This means that our political economy is run by a compact elite that is able to fuse the power of our public government with the power of private corporate governments in ways that enable members of the elite not merely to offload their risk onto us but also to determine with almost complete freedom who wins, who loses, and who pays. Then suddenly there was Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson… using our tax money to fix his bank and the banks of all his friends…

 

The Bush and Obama administrations and… Congress all responded to the collapse of our financial system in most instances by accelerating consolidation… The effects are clear… the derangement not merely of our financial systems but also of our industrial systems and political systems. Most terrifying of all is that this consolidation of power – and the political actions taken to achieve it – appears to have impaired our ability to comprehend the dangers we face and to react in an organized and coherent manner.

 

The bottom line: Too much freedom for the powerful impinges greatly upon the freedom of everyone else.

 

 

“Too big to prosecute”

 

Perhaps the greatest indicator of the tyranny of corporate power in America today is the approach that our criminal justice system takes towards corporate criminals. Our country is still suffering from our worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s, which is largely the result of corporate irresponsibility and malfeasance. Yet not one of those responsible for this crisis has even been prosecuted, let alone sent to jail. To the contrary, the American taxpayers have bailed out our irresponsible financial institutions to the tune of several trillion dollars.

 

William Greider explains, in an article titled “How Wall Street Crooks Get out of Jail Free”:

 

The nation is left to face a disturbing spectacle: crime without punishment. Massive injuries were done to millions of people by reckless bankers, and vast wealth was destroyed by elaborate financial deceptions. Yet there are no culprits to be held responsible.

 

Former U.S. Senator Ted Kaufman put the problem in perspective:

 

People know that if they rob a bank they will go to jail… Bankers should know that if they rob people, they will go to jail too… At the end of the day this is a test of whether we have one justice system in this country or two. If we do not treat a Wall Street firm that defrauded investors of millions of dollars the same way we treat someone who stole $500 from a cash register, then how can we expect our citizens to have any faith in the rule of law?

 

Greider explains the system that is routinely used in the United States today to deal with corporate criminals, and its purported rationale:

 

Instead of “Old Testament justice,” federal prosecutors seek “authentic cooperation” from corporations in trouble, urging them to come forward voluntarily and reveal their illegalities. In exchange, prosecutors will offer a deal. If companies pay the fine set by the prosecutor and submit to probationary terms for good behavior… then government will defer prosecution indefinitely or even drop it entirely.

 

The favored argument for the more conciliatory approach was that criminal indictment may amount to a death sentence for a corporation. The fallout will destroy it, and the economy will lose valuable productive capacity. The collateral consequences are unfair to employees who lose jobs and stockholders who lose wealth.

 

That’s a lot of sympathy of corporations, corporate employees and stockholders. Where is the comparative sympathy for the tens of millions of other Americans who are out of work or who lost their homes?

 

Russell Mokhiber, longtime editor of the Corporate Crime Reporter, explains the real reason for this kid glove treatment of corporate criminals:

 

Over the past twenty-five years the corporate lobbies have watered down the corporate criminal justice system and starved the prosecutorial agencies. Young prosecutors dare not overstep their bounds for fear of jeopardizing the cash prize at the end of the rainbow – partnership in the big corporate defense law firms after they leave public service. The result – if there are criminal prosecutions, they now end in deferred or nonprosecution agreements – instead of guilty pleas.

 

Greider continues:

 

Deferring prosecution was made standard practice by George W. Bush’s Justice Department… During Obama’s first two years, Justice deferred action on fifty-three corporate defendants… Leading lawyers dubbed deferred prosecution “the new normal for handling corporate misconduct”.

 

In other words, they have more money than we do, and in today’s United States, justice is for sale.

 

 

Setting the crown for a corporate state – Corporate power in perspective

 

William Greider has warned us many times in the past about the dire consequences of government becoming too cozy with the corporatocracy:

 

This will sound extreme to some people, but I came to it reluctantly. I fear what they're doing… in their design is setting the crown for a corporate state…. And by that I mean a rather small but very powerful circle of financial institutions the old Wall Street banks, famous names. But also some industrial corporations… Too big to fail. Yes, watched closely by the Federal Reserve and others in government, but also protected by them… The leading banks and corporations are sort of at the trough, ahead of everybody else in Washington, they will have the means to monopolize democracy. And I mean that literally. Some of my friends would say, hey, that already happened…. The corporate state is here…. The fact is, if the Congress goes down the road I see them going down, they will institutionalize the corporate state in a way that will be severely damaging to any possibility of restoring democracy.

 

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x793602

Edited April 2, 2011 by ralis

[Everything]

Perhaps the greatest threat to freedom and democracy in the world today comes from the formation of the unholy alliances between government and business. This is...

 

 

 

...to any possibility of restoring democracy.

 

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x793602

Wow, thats so much to say. I have no idea how politics work. I know that the human laws are abstracted from humans whih are abstracted from nature which is abstracted from the Tao. Why do we live by human laws when ultimately nature has the last word? When nature holds the only true law, should we not base our lives on nature instead of politics?

Which is the true law? The law that teaches us that walking trough a red light is wrong?

Or the law that teaches us that falling towards heaven is wrong?

The law that ends up putting people in jail?

Or the law that has made it impossible for the victims heart to continue beating?

 

Nature is the only true dictatorship, accepting this makes this place your home. We're all guests of nature.

[aridus]

Nature of man is part of the balance. It isn't separate. It isn't "us" and "nature". Can't take a weight off balance scale and expect the other side not to tip down. Can't put a weight on and expect other side not to tip up.

 

Nature yields to the balance. Men throw it around. Either way balance is thrown around. Conflict, war, are results of this. That too is part of the nature.

[Dagon]

Nature of man is part of the balance. It isn't separate. It isn't "us" and "nature". Can't take a weight off balance scale and expect the other side not to tip down. Can't put a weight on and expect other side not to tip up.

 

Nature yields to the balance. Men throw it around. Either way balance is thrown around. Conflict, war, are results of this. That too is part of the nature.

 

Niether are either or.

[Dagon]

"If you wish to learn more, there is the site of the Venus Project, there is Zeitgeist: moving forward that goes deep into the subject. For people who are skeptical about such huge changes to the economy and politics, there is Zeitgeist Addendum."

 

Make sure that you go the right right site!

 

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/

 

 

 

I bought their t-shirt, You get something and it goes to a good cause

Edited April 2, 2011 by Dagon