Hello Bj”rn,
I'm presently writing an essay regarding the crazy intellectual property status that we have, almost all over the world since about half a century ago.
It goes further back than that. Much further.
I've nailed it all down to the US 14th amendment, where the US wanted to grant equal rights to the slaves,
Slaves were not people. The 13th amendment did away with slavery
and indentured servitude, except as punishment for crimes of those
duly convicted. The 14th amendment granted citizenship to those
who had been slaves of the state where they reside. The 15th
amendment granted former slaves the right to vote, regardless of
race or color. Women still had to wait, regardless of color.
but where soon some clever corporate lawyers took the opportunity to
claim
that corporations should have the same rights, claiming that a US corporation is also a US citizen.
No, no, no, no, no! You've got it all wrong! Not citizens under
the Comity Clause {"the Citizens of each State shal be entitled to
all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several states."
Article IV}.
Alexander Hamilton wrote about it in Federalist No. 80, arguing
that the Comity Clause was "the basis of the union."
As a side note, only 5% of all the US Supreme Court cases handled for the next 50 years after and about the 14th amendment was adopted were about former slaves. The rest were about corporate attempts to be treated as equal citizens. I ended up with the Santa Clara County v. Southern
Pacific
Railroad Co. case:
http://tinyurl.com/omkm9t3
US Senator Roscoe Conkling's argument that the 14th amendment was not
limited to natural persons. The USSC did not decide the matter of the
actual opinion, as it only appeared in a footnote (1886).
The terms "citizen" and "person" were used differently. The drafters
chose "person" specifically to include corporations.
What I haven't managed to figure out yet is how this USSC ruling could actually mean that suddenly a corporation can be regarded as an actual citizen?
Under the Comity Clause the USSC has never extended corporate
"citizenship." Bank of Augusta, Earle, 38 U.S. 519, 587 (1839)
"The only rights [a corporation] can claim are the rights which are
given to it in that character, and not the rights which belong to its
members as citzens of a state."
If they are not, the intellectual property laws of today, in the entire world, would be totally easy to make in par with reality.
"Corporations do not make up this country. People do." ~Gerry Spence
If every single "intellectual property" was to be maintained by the
creator,
he/she could never sell out and he/she would be granted every right to
his
creation. He could never sell out to either patent trolls nor the greedy media industry. Right?
We are only endowed by certain inalienable rights, among them life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (according to Thomas Jefferson).
Does that include intellectual property?
Also, the bankers and other financial crooks wouldn't get away with what they now are enjoying in their safe retirement on the tax payers bill.
The law is not there to protect the people. The law is there to
protect those in power to maintain themselves being in power. That
is how the system works.
So who does actually benefit from this slave to corporations sell-out of
the
US 14th amendment, according to the USSC?
The USSC has never opined that corporations are citizens.
Even in the USSC case cited, it should be noted that
US Senator Roscoe Conkling lied in his definition in order
to make it appear he had a meritorious case.
Well, if you have some information that you yourself has found out,
please
drop me a netmail or an email (see the first page of the latest
Fidonews),
it would be very much appreciated.
What is a citizen? What is a person?
What is a naturally born citizen? What is a natural person?
Who decides who, or what, is a citizen or a person?
The Framers of the Constitution wrote their own rules, for
themselves and for those who supported them. Certainly not
for those who held contrary views, or other interests.
White men who owned property had rights in the early days.
Or so was their claim. Then came others who also staked their
own claim. What about the future, such as when AI becomes
sembient? Robots are reality, not science fiction. And
also have their own language, developing into something only
robots can understand.
What if robots decide they are persons? Or citizens? Who are
we to stop them? Even if we wanted to, I am not sure we would be
able to.
Self-replicating robots. With their own language, developed
by robots, for robots. We wouldn't have a chance.
Isaac Asimov wrote the three laws of robots.
But that was fiction, intended for storytelling.
What laws will robots write for themselves?
Certainly not laws we the people write for them.
George Orwell wrote a book called "1984" in 1949.
Some of things he wrote about have come true.
One of those things was the Versificator, an AI
that composed music and wrote literature.
We have that today, and have no more real need
to depend on other humans to compose music and/or
write books. With that in mind, we no longer
have the need for other humans to write laws or
anything else.
With AI in charge of INGSOC, Winston Smith knew
that all was well. Especially with posters of some
dark mustachio'd guy being posted everywhere, with
the caption "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU" staring
right at him.
Of course, Winston realizes all too late that
BIG BROTHER is just a fictional figure invented
by the party to muster loyalty.
If only the world knew then that robots are real.
--Lee
--
Nobody Beats Our Meat
--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin:
news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)