Why government subsidized corporations should have the same restrictions as the government
Copyright Carl Janssen 2018 January 13
"Corporations" often receive a legal shield from the "government" giving the people that constitute this entity different legal treatment then if they were not working on behalf of a "corporation." There are certain official restrictions of what the American "government" is permitted to do in the bill of rights.
For example the "government" is not allowed to restrict speech, however a individual who owns a microphone may limit access to who is allowed to use his or her microphone because they personally own it and indirectly prevent that microphone from being used to amplify speech. It is falsely argued that "corporations" such as Google have a right to restrict how the services they offer are used because they own the online websites by which said services are made available, however google and other "corporations" should not get a exemption to censor speech on their website because Google is a entity created by faith in the American "government" and possibly other "governments."
The American "Government" subsidized "Corporations" with tax payer money and puts policies on what the "corporations" must do in order to receive these subsidies.
Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon alone have been awarded more than $2 billion in subsidies combined, according to the report "Money Lost to the Cloud: How Data Centers Benefit from State and Local Government Subsidies."
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/google-microsoft-facebook-apple-and-amazon-get-2b-in-data-center-tax-breaks-economic-benefit-unclear/
Accessed 2018 January 13
These "corporations" sway elections by being the media to influence who gets elected to ensure they will get subsidized.
There is a debate about if the "government" should be used to prevent "corporate" corruption or "corporations" should be used to prevent " government" corruption but actually the "corporations" recognised by the "governments" and the "governments" that are listed by the United Nations and recognised by mainstream society are all illegitimate fictitious entities used as a means to unethically influence people's behavior. Take Google for example
The Ad-Friendly Monetization Policy which was severely criticized by various YouTubers that the new rules censors and silenced YouTubers' freedom of speech and their platforms by demonetizing YouTube videos that deals with controversial subjects (like tragedies, natural disasters, politics, health, and etc.) and YouTubers loved Freedom Of Speech, but the new Ad-Friendly Monetization rules are still a dire form of Censorship by TPTB at Google and YouTube.I
https://www.change.org/p/google-inc-fire-susan-wojcicki-as-youtube-ceo
Accessed 2018 January 13
The geographical region of the United States has historically prospered relative to other locations from some points of view because the bill of rights was a guard listing things "governments" should never be allowed to do. The "government" never protected the rights listed on the bill of rights but people tried to limit the "government" from suppressing the rights listed on the Bill of Rights unlike Europe where free speech is much more strictly limited than America in many but not all ways in recent time.
However Google and other companies have been subsidized by the elites through people's faith in the "government" which hands out the subsidies. These companies have provided a massive outlet for free speech receiving large numbers of viewers as an alternative source of information. They then recently have been caught using various means to make it more difficult for points of view contrary to the narratives presented by the ruling elite to be heard. And it can not be legitimately argued that they have a right to do this with the property they rightfully earned in free market trade.
George Monbiot It's not just the common agricultural policy: the corporate sector relies on state handouts that dwarf their profits
It could be argued they have the right to do it they own their websites but the "government" subsidizes and "owns" these websites through subsidies but really the elites behind the scene who fabricated both the governments and the corporations "own" these outlets.
Since the "corporations" are merely acting as agents to enforce "government" policies they should be required to follow the same restrictions as the "government" because "corporate" policies are " government" policies and "government" policies are "corporate" policies.
In another theoretical world if you split hairs about definitions it might be possible for a corporation or a government to exist as anything more than a fraud such as if all participants truly signed a social contract to agree to abide by a certain set of rules in the locality they live and there was not one dissenter in the locality upon the date of signing but this is not the world we live in. Even then it you define governments as Larken Rose has they still could not exist even in theory, you can read about this in his book the most dangerous superstition or watch his short video but corporations do not exist either in a sense
https://archive.org/details/236222899TheMostDangerousSuperstitionLarkenRose201
"Corporations" often receive a legal shield from the "government" giving the people that constitute this entity different legal treatment then if they were not working on behalf of a "corporation." There are certain official restrictions of what the American "government" is permitted to do in the bill of rights.
For example the "government" is not allowed to restrict speech, however a individual who owns a microphone may limit access to who is allowed to use his or her microphone because they personally own it and indirectly prevent that microphone from being used to amplify speech. It is falsely argued that "corporations" such as Google have a right to restrict how the services they offer are used because they own the online websites by which said services are made available, however google and other "corporations" should not get a exemption to censor speech on their website because Google is a entity created by faith in the American "government" and possibly other "governments."
The American "Government" subsidized "Corporations" with tax payer money and puts policies on what the "corporations" must do in order to receive these subsidies.
Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon alone have been awarded more than $2 billion in subsidies combined, according to the report "Money Lost to the Cloud: How Data Centers Benefit from State and Local Government Subsidies."
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/google-microsoft-facebook-apple-and-amazon-get-2b-in-data-center-tax-breaks-economic-benefit-unclear/
Accessed 2018 January 13
These "corporations" sway elections by being the media to influence who gets elected to ensure they will get subsidized.
There is a debate about if the "government" should be used to prevent "corporate" corruption or "corporations" should be used to prevent " government" corruption but actually the "corporations" recognised by the "governments" and the "governments" that are listed by the United Nations and recognised by mainstream society are all illegitimate fictitious entities used as a means to unethically influence people's behavior. Take Google for example
The Ad-Friendly Monetization Policy which was severely criticized by various YouTubers that the new rules censors and silenced YouTubers' freedom of speech and their platforms by demonetizing YouTube videos that deals with controversial subjects (like tragedies, natural disasters, politics, health, and etc.) and YouTubers loved Freedom Of Speech, but the new Ad-Friendly Monetization rules are still a dire form of Censorship by TPTB at Google and YouTube.I
https://www.change.org/p/google-inc-fire-susan-wojcicki-as-youtube-ceo
Accessed 2018 January 13
The geographical region of the United States has historically prospered relative to other locations from some points of view because the bill of rights was a guard listing things "governments" should never be allowed to do. The "government" never protected the rights listed on the bill of rights but people tried to limit the "government" from suppressing the rights listed on the Bill of Rights unlike Europe where free speech is much more strictly limited than America in many but not all ways in recent time.
However Google and other companies have been subsidized by the elites through people's faith in the "government" which hands out the subsidies. These companies have provided a massive outlet for free speech receiving large numbers of viewers as an alternative source of information. They then recently have been caught using various means to make it more difficult for points of view contrary to the narratives presented by the ruling elite to be heard. And it can not be legitimately argued that they have a right to do this with the property they rightfully earned in free market trade.
Free market does not exist
George Monbiot It's not just the common agricultural policy: the corporate sector relies on state handouts that dwarf their profits
Accessed 2018 January 13
It could be argued they have the right to do it they own their websites but the "government" subsidizes and "owns" these websites through subsidies but really the elites behind the scene who fabricated both the governments and the corporations "own" these outlets.
Since the "corporations" are merely acting as agents to enforce "government" policies they should be required to follow the same restrictions as the "government" because "corporate" policies are " government" policies and "government" policies are "corporate" policies.
In another theoretical world if you split hairs about definitions it might be possible for a corporation or a government to exist as anything more than a fraud such as if all participants truly signed a social contract to agree to abide by a certain set of rules in the locality they live and there was not one dissenter in the locality upon the date of signing but this is not the world we live in. Even then it you define governments as Larken Rose has they still could not exist even in theory, you can read about this in his book the most dangerous superstition or watch his short video but corporations do not exist either in a sense
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u-sRbR2QQ7w
The Whole Problem (and Solution) in Two Minutes
https://archive.org/details/236222899TheMostDangerousSuperstitionLarkenRose201
As the obvious result of the actions of "government", everybody just acts as if corporations really "existed". We all just assume that a gigantic con is "true", because openly stating that the emperor has no clothes could very well cost you your life.
Made it so far? OK, then it should be clear by now that a corporation is a fiction.
However, the corrupt privileges that "corporations" carry (like the privilege to sue "on behalf of the corporation" I just used as an example), are very observably and tangibly real; they are granted to theowners of the "corporation" (actual flesh and blood human beings, in this case). And those privileges are exclusively granted by those assholes operating under the name "government".
So, if government disappears, what happens?
Well, the very idea of "corporation" becomes instantly meaningless, because there's nobody to recognize the "existence" of any "corporation", or to compel anybody to (counterfactually) recognize their "existence", much less grant owners of "corporations" the corrupt "corporate" privileges.
https://rudd-o.com/archives/corporations-are-fictions.-they-do-not-exist
Larken Rose argues that government can not exist for three reasons but for similar reasons corporations can not exist
1 if an individual does not have the right to do an action then he can not delegate a right to do that action to someone else by calling them a corporate person or a part of a corporation
2 You can not have a moral obligation to do what is wrong whenever there is a conflict between what the corporation or employer commands and what you have a moral obligation not to do.
3 no document or ritual can alter morality
Good employees obey corporate policies
Bad employees disobey corporate policies
No one joins a corporation as an employee with informed consent free from coercion because being unemployed is equivalent to being a criminal do to a combination of vagrancy laws, property tax and rent laws which force people to fork over federal reserve notes simply to exist physically at a location without being arrested.
Signing a contract with a corporation does not produce a moral obligation to obedience under such circumstances.
The "corporations" are just a way for the "government" to get around the bill of rights
It is against the fifth amendment to require someone to report their own earnings for taxation but not against the fifth amendment for a third party to report said earnings. In order to stay on the "governments" approved list of "corporations," "corporations" are expected to report employees earnings even though one person hiring another person in secret would not be permitted to be forced to testify against themself under the fifth amendment because it would be self incrimination to admit to hiring someone and not reporting their earnings.
Corporations allow a way to violate search warrant requirements. It maybe illegal for the government to search your personal property but it is not illegal for a corporation to search their own private property that you were forced to use in order to access certain services on behalf of the government. These services including email or use of rental property or simply the "service" of being an employee etc.
Merely live in a rented facility and the government can have the landlord search on their behalf. Use Google email and the government can have Google search on their behalf. Attend a private college and the college can permit the government to search on their behalf. Have forced attendance at a corporate work place and you maybe searched at any time.
Use YouTube and the "government" or the elites can demonitize your videos on their behalf even though if a city has a public sector Christmas display it must legally allow a public sector Satanist display but not so for government funded youtube.
Larken Rose argues that government can not exist for three reasons but for similar reasons corporations can not exist
1 if an individual does not have the right to do an action then he can not delegate a right to do that action to someone else by calling them a corporate person or a part of a corporation
2 You can not have a moral obligation to do what is wrong whenever there is a conflict between what the corporation or employer commands and what you have a moral obligation not to do.
3 no document or ritual can alter morality
Good employees obey corporate policies
Bad employees disobey corporate policies
No one joins a corporation as an employee with informed consent free from coercion because being unemployed is equivalent to being a criminal do to a combination of vagrancy laws, property tax and rent laws which force people to fork over federal reserve notes simply to exist physically at a location without being arrested.
Signing a contract with a corporation does not produce a moral obligation to obedience under such circumstances.
The "corporations" are just a way for the "government" to get around the bill of rights
It is against the fifth amendment to require someone to report their own earnings for taxation but not against the fifth amendment for a third party to report said earnings. In order to stay on the "governments" approved list of "corporations," "corporations" are expected to report employees earnings even though one person hiring another person in secret would not be permitted to be forced to testify against themself under the fifth amendment because it would be self incrimination to admit to hiring someone and not reporting their earnings.
Corporations allow a way to violate search warrant requirements. It maybe illegal for the government to search your personal property but it is not illegal for a corporation to search their own private property that you were forced to use in order to access certain services on behalf of the government. These services including email or use of rental property or simply the "service" of being an employee etc.
Merely live in a rented facility and the government can have the landlord search on their behalf. Use Google email and the government can have Google search on their behalf. Attend a private college and the college can permit the government to search on their behalf. Have forced attendance at a corporate work place and you maybe searched at any time.
Use YouTube and the "government" or the elites can demonitize your videos on their behalf even though if a city has a public sector Christmas display it must legally allow a public sector Satanist display but not so for government funded youtube.
Comments
Post a Comment