New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

rshowalter - 09:10am Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4827 of 4838)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Russia's going to have to do things that work for her, as she is --- but Russians should KNOW how to communicate with others -- to an extent that she sometimes doesn't.

The fact that Russia has been so victimized by entrepreneurs means that Russia needs a framework, better than it now has, for coordinating the essential requirements of collective function and decency with other things that inevitably do take individuals, and small organized teams largely independent of governments.

Bill Gates may be a "pirate" -- in significant spots, not all of them entertaining ---- but he's a very different, more complicated, and more capable animal than the gangsters Russia has let steal so much of the country.

possumdag - 09:16am Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4828 of 4838)
Possumdag@excite.com

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?13@@.ee843c1/8

rshowalter - 09:22am Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4829 of 4838)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Perhaps I'm being unfair here? I hope so.
MD2087 rshowalter 4/8/01 8:22am

MD3175 rshowalter 5/3/01 5:12pm

MD3510 rshowalter 5/8/01 12:09pm . . . MD3512 rshowalter 5/8/01 12:28pm
MD3514 rshowalter 5/8/01 12:38pm . . . MD3515 rshowalter 5/8/01 2:04pm

MD3519 rshowalter 5/8/01 3:01pm

almarst-2001 - 09:24am Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4830 of 4838)

Somthing to consider - killsfirst "U.S. Foreign Policy" 6/11/01 11:16pm

THE BIRTH OF CORPORATE TYRANNY!

The early state-chartered corporations of Europe and England were established to sponsor exploration of the New World. If they did not sail under the charter of a state corporation, they and their families could be ruined for life if bad weather or piracy struck en route. By establishing the corporate form, limiting shareholders to liabilities no greater than their investment, Europeans were able to create a form of commerce that could absorb the hard knocks of trading and exploring, encouraging both risk-taking and speculative investment at the same time.

Those early corporations negotiated their charters with the state, which outlined the terms of their rights as well as the monies that were to be repaid to the crown. The charter of limited liability distinguished a corporation from all other forms of enterprise, because it was (and still is) actually a gift of the state, a grant, a covenant, a form of permission that citizens, through their government, delegate to the corporation and its shareholders.

In the early years of the republic, the citizens of the United States were keen to prevent any institution, foreign or domestic, commercial or religious, from dominating or suppressing their newly won rights. Early corporation charters were carefully drafted by states to ensure this subordination. Even then, citizens openly and persistently expressed concern that corporations with specific rights granted under charters would nevertheless become so powerful that they could take over newspapers, public opinion, elections and the judiciary. Workers had similar fears about their own status within these new corporations. Thus early state charters were detailed and restrictive. Some states even required public votes to continue certain charters.

Despite these efforts, legislatures inevitably began to lose their control over big business, state by state. Government corruption became particularly rampant after the Civil War, under the Republican administration of U.S. Grant and with it came a loosening of laws regulating interlocking trusts, factory towns and sequestered private fortunes. The Civil War had transferred great amounts of wealth to corporations, and with this concentration of power they began to clamor for "equal rights" and new simplified chartering laws that would treat every corporation equally.

There quickly followed a wholesale reinterpretation of the Constitution by the judiciary, granting new powers and rights to corporations. The primary thrust behind these precedents was the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This amendment protected the rights of freed slaves, but it was subsequently interpreted to give corporations the same status before the law as that of a natural person. On that basis, judges reversed hundreds if not thousands of state laws controlling wages, working conditions, ownership and corporate tenure.

The marriage of business and government also undermined, turned upside down, in fact, the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment, guaranting the right of every citizen to engage in free speech, was established to encourage, promote, and preserve democratic traditions. The Founding Fathers wisely understood that the suppression of these political expressions would inevitably lead to tyranny of one sort or another; they did not want any one voice to have sway or dominance over the public discourse.

By invoking the First Amendment privilege to protect "speech," corporations achieve precisely what the Bill of Rights was intended to prevent: domination of public thought and discourse. Although corporations profess that they are legitimately expressing their democratic rights in their attempt to influence the government, their argument presupposes that all parties, from t

possumdag - 09:37am Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4831 of 4838)
Possumdag@excite.com

Alex:

Interesting that it helps if a 'man' is 'rich' to be President! (USA)

And in Russia ... that a new President had to forgive a former President of his 'sins' before becoming President.

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense