-Caveat Lector-
----- Original Message -----
From: Howard R. Davis III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> nurev wrote:
> > "Howard R. Davis III" wrote:
> > > Ric Carter wrote:
> > >
> > > > Does the concept of the primacy of "individual rights" preclude
> > > > any individuals from joining in free association, incorporating
> > > > as groups to engage in commercial, charitable, governmental or
> > > > other activities? Do corporations [public or private] have more,
> > > > equal or less rights than individuals?
> > >
> > > Corporations do not have individual rights nor should they. They
> > > are a creation of government and thus should be regulated.
> >
> > No no. They are the creation of Capitalists with the license from
> > government. Jeez guys, can't you get over this government as bogey-
> > man shit? It positively ruins your thinking abilities.
> >
> A corporation is an artificial entity. It can have no existence without
> government. It is you that have a problem with your thinking ability. It
> is true that someone (usually capitalists, but also others) may petition
> the government for the corporation's creation and own it. It is,
> however, created by the government when a charter is filed.
Everybody's missing the point: a gov't is a corporation too, as are
non-profit agencies [NGOs], religions, any groups that are organized
within certain guidelines [which vary from place to place]. To that
extent, ANY legally organized group is an "artificial entity", eh?
Cities, churches, cartels, charities, manufacturers, bankers, unions,
traders, lawyers, political parties, doctors, all incorporate under
the laws of some jurisdiction or another. And such a jurisdiction,
itself a corporation, defines the rights/privileges/obligations of
any individual or organized group within that jurisdiction.
So I return to my original question: does the concept of "individual
rights" interfere with the ability of individuals to associate, to
join together, to organize in groups, for whatever purpose? Do people
in groups have more or equal or less rights/privileges/obligations
than they do individually, as seen from the context of "individual
rights"? Remember, people organize such groups precisely because a
group is capable of mustering resources, developing specialties, doing
things that an individual is unable to do. So, because a group can
do things an individual can't, is a group more or less responsible
for its actions than an individual would be? Or does "individual
rights" mean that groups are non-entities, fictional, evil, what?
Ric, puzzled...
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
