I doubt if many of you will read and study this subject to it’s full dimension, and that is exactly why we are facing totalitarianism, and war. If you want to survive, you must know who and what is planning your demise.
By John Ikerd
University of Missouri
Presented at the Summer Canvassers’ Conference, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, sponsored by the Hudson Bay Company, Golden Valley, MN, July 26-28, 2001.
We Americans are a fiercely independent people. Right? We truly value our freedoms our freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of privacy, and the freedom to use our personal property as we see fit. We are fiercely independent about personal things. We don’t want the government or anyone else imposing restrictions upon our freedoms. However, in matters that relate to our public life our role in the economy, in politics, in society in general we seem more than willing to depend on others.
We let someone else decide what’s in and what’s out in clothes, cars, hairstyles, soft drinks, etc. We are more than willing to follow the trendsetters. We let someone else decide who gets to run for office and gets elected to office at local, state, and national levels. We don’t have time to waste on politics although we can find time to complain about the stupid decisions that politicians make and the taxes we have to pay to support them. We let someone else decide what kind of society we are going to have which types of behavior are socially acceptable and which are not, what’s moral and ethical and what’s not. We leave that sort of thing to theologians, the philosophers we just aren’t interested in such esoteric matters.
While boldly claiming our independence, we depend on others to shape the economic, social, and ethical environment in which we live our lives.
A Dependent Society
We most certainly are not independent economically. We have to buy nearly everything we need from someone else, and we have to work for someone else to get the money to buy those things. In economic terms, we are specialists we do one thing for a living and depend on other specialists to provide the things we can’t provide for ourselves. In addition, most of us work for some corporate business organization that makes all of the major workplace decisions for us. For the most part, at work, we do what we are told to do. We have no true economic independence. We do what we have to do to keep our jobs and to survive.
We are not independent politically. We don’t educate ourselves on the issues; we don’t participate in the process of getting people and issues on the ballots, so we don’t even have a chance to vote for the things we want. If we participate at all, we depend on political parties, political action committees, and other special interest groups, to define the issues and to articulate our political positions for us. When we take the time to vote, we don’t vote as independents. We vote for one of the two major parties, or we vote for some independent third party, instead of voting as individuals.
When we do exert our independence, we tend to be exploitative. We compete; we feel we must win. We must beat someone else or profit from someone else; we must use someone else for our own benefit. Without someone else to beat, we have no way to win, no way to succeed. And, others have no way to win or succeed without beating us. In reality, we are hopelessly dependent on a system that demands that we be either victor or victim, and thus, encourages us to exploit each other.
Through our lives of dependence, we have become only parts of people. We have let big parts of ourselves become little parts of thousands of others, and most important, we have become little parts of non-human corporate organizations and systems over which we have no influence or control. We cannot be independent because we are no longer whole people; we have lost control of our individual lives. The problem most certainly is not that we have too many relationships with other people. The problem is that these relationships are dependent rather than interdependent in nature.
Steven Covey, in his book, Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, writes about dependence, independence, and interdependence. Independence may be defined as the ability to survive and thrive on one’s own resources without significant relationships. Interdependence is defined as relationships of choice rather than necessity relationships between independent people who choose to form relationships that make both lives better. Dependence is defined as relationships of necessity rather than choice relationships among people who can’t survive without each other. A person in a dependent relationship needs to take more from the relationship than they can possibly give to it. Dependent relationships are parasitical they are inherently exploitative and can be mutually destructive.
In America, too many of our relationships have become dependent and exploitative. Through our dependence, we not only are exploiting each other, but we are also exploiting the natural environment. We are sucking the life from each other and from the whole of creation. We are destroying the very things upon which our own quality of life and the long run survival of humanity depend. In spite of our boast of being fiercely independent, we have become totally dependent on a system of economics, politics, and ethics that quite simply is not sustainable.
The good news is that we can break free from these destructively dependent relationships. However, independence is not the answer. We must move beyond independence to build interdependent relationships of choice relationships that are mutually supportive rather than mutually exploitative. But first, we will have to become whole again. We will have to replace the broken and missing parts of ourselves and of society, but it won’t be nearly as difficult as building a new society from scratch. We don’t have to become totally independent in order to choose interdependence, but we must stop exploiting each other. We can’t become totally independent of our natural environment, but we must stop exploiting it. We need to become sufficiently independent to break free from our unnecessary dependencies. We must be sufficiently secure within ourselves to refuse to participate in relationships that force us to exploit or to be exploited.
From Capitalism to Corporatism
To break from the grasp of destructive dependence, we need to understand the nature of the force that holds us. Our dependence is a reflection of the society in which we live. Over the past several decades, America has evolved from a capitalist to a corporatist economy and from a democratic to a corporatist society we have traded democratic capitalism for corporatism. And in the process, we Americans have lost our independence.
Corporatism is defined by Webster as the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising some control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction. Corporatism means that we participate in society as members of groups, which not only represent us but also exert control over us. Corporatism means that we participate in the economy, not as individuals but as members of organizations as workers, owners, or managers of corporations. Corporatism means that we participate in the political process, not as individuals but as members of organizations as members of labor unions, corporate business organizations, political action committees, or other special interest groups. Corporatism means that we let someone else make our economic and political decisions for us.
Corporatism is a natural consequence of the process of industrialization. The processes of specialization, standardization, and centralization characterize the industrial paradigm. Specialization, with each person or unit performing fewer functions, allows each function or step of a production process to be performed more efficiently i.e. division of labor. Standardization allows the various specialized functions to be controlled and integrated into an efficient overall production process i.e. assembly line production. Specialization and standardization allow, in turn, efficient centralization of management and consolidation of control i.e. economies of scale.
Economies of scale allow fewer firms or business organizations to grow larger and thus to gain greater control over the total output of an industry. As business firms become fewer and larger, they acquire increasing market power the ability to reduce wages and buying prices and increase selling prices leading to further economies of size, still greater market power, and chronically declining competitiveness of markets. Labor unions and other special interests groups emerge to counteract the power of large industries to exploit their workers, civil society, and the natural environment.
An industrial organizational structure has evolved to facilitate specialization, standardization, and centralization of control. Organizations are separated into specialized units divisions, sections, departments, etc. so as to facilitate gains from specialization. The function of each unit then must be specified and standardized so that all units work together effectively to achieve the overall purpose of the organization.
This same organizational structure has characterized private for-profit corporations, special interest groups, and government organizations all specialize, standardize, and centralize to achieve efficiency. Each organization, and each division, department, and workgroup within the organization, performs a specialized, standardized, function. Control of the organization can then be centralized, allowing a few key decision makers to make decisions which exert control over the people within the organization while claiming to represent them to the outside world. The corporation speaks for its stockholders and employees, the labor union speaks for its members, and Political Action Committees speak for their contributors. People participate in society through these various types of corporate organizations not directly, as independent individuals.
The Corporatization of Agriculture
During my professional career, I have lived through the industrialization and corporatization of agriculture. The motives invariably were economic. Farmers saw the opportunity to profit from adopting new agricultural technologies new machines, fertilizers, pesticides, or business management strategies. Each new technology promised lower costs, and thus, greater profits. However, these new technologies inevitable allowed farmers to specialize, to standardize and mechanize, and to produce more than before to farm more land, produce more per acre, to manage more workers, or use more capital. So as more farmers individually adopted these new technologies, their collective production, which made up total market supply, began to increase. As supplies increased, market prices fell.
The promise of profits disappeared, but not the need to adopt. Profits went primarily to the innovators those willing and able to take the risks of adopting unproven technologies. The early adopters followed the innovators. They realized some profits but less than the innovators as prices continued to fall. The laggards eventually are forced to adopt, not to make profits, but in order to survive, as prices drop below their old, higher costs of production. Those who attempted to adopt too late, or were unable to adopt, were forced out of business by falling prices as production continued to increase.
The failure of some was necessary so that others might acquire more land so that they could reap the full benefit of the economies of scale offered by the new industrial technologies. As the farms became fewer, the surviving farms became larger. The same amount of land was still farmed as before, but now by larger, more industrialized farming operations.
Why should people in general be interested in what I have seen happen to farmers? Because, this same thing has happened to nearly every other segment of the American economy. This is the same process by which the crafts-people of the past were replaced by factories, by which mom and pop grocery stores were replaced by supermarkets, and by which the small dry goods and hardware stores were replaced by the giant discount stores.
This also is the process that ultimately brings an economy under corporate control by which a country moves from capitalism to corporatism. Incorporation allows still further specialization allowing the ownership of an organization to be separated from its management and labor. Public stock offerings allows people with large amounts of capital to own companies that they do not manage or work for, and allows others to work for and manage companies that they do not own. The overriding motive for public investment and ownership is to realize profits and growth in value. Thus, corporate ownership frequently removes all social and ethical constraints to a company’s pursuit of ever-greater profits and growth. Anything that is legal is considered allowable, and if profitable deemed desirable, regardless of its social or ethical implications.
The corporatization of agriculture did not become apparent until the 1990s, but it should have been anticipated from the earlier industrialization of other sectors of the economy. As consolidation led to larger and larger business organizations, it became more and more difficult to amass sufficient quantities of capital to fully realize the potential economics of scale. Thus, surviving businesses were forced to incorporate in order to accumulate sufficient capital to adopt the latest industrial technologies.
At first corporations tended to be family corporations a means of making capital accumulated during one generation available to the next generation within the same family. Eventually, however, corporations tend to go public to raise still more capital. At this point in the consolidation process, existing publicly held corporations in other sectors of the economy become attracted to the newly emerging corporate sector. Old corporations acquire or merge with the new corporations. As these enterprises become still larger, it becomes quite difficult, if not impossible, for the remaining individually owned business to survive. The sector then is in the final stages of corporatization. And as the corporations grow larger, fewer firms will control an increasing share of total output, and markets become less competitive. Beyond some point, the market will no longer be competitive at least not in an economic sense necessary for competitive capitalism.
The giant supermarket chains Kroger, Safeway, Albertsons have replaced the corner grocery store by this same process. The giant department stores chains Sears, J.C. Penny, Macys have replaced the locally owned dry-goods and house-wares stores by this process. The giant building supply chains Lowes, Home Depot, and Builders Square have replaced local hardware and lumberyards by this same process. And now, still larger corporations, such as Walmart, are using this same process to replace the supermarket, department store, and building supply chains.
This is the process by which capitalism has been replaced by corporatism. The process is defended using the theoretical principles of competitive capitalism if it is a result of free market competition then it must be good for society. However, there is no theoretical economic foundation to support the prevailing belief that a corporatist economy is capable of meeting the overall needs of society. Corporatism is not capitalism. Corporations are designed to amass capital to generate profits and to grow. Corporations facilitate industrialization, and thus, facilitate production of ever increasing quantities of cheap stuff. Beyond this, there is no reason to believe that corporations will serve the needs of society. There is no reason to believe that corporations are capable of doing anything other than this any more efficiently or effectively than can individuals. In fact, there is reason to believe that corporations inevitably lead to the destruction of relationships and degradation of resources upon which human society ultimately must depend.
Why Corporatism Isn’t Working
Capitalism is based on private ownership of property by individuals. But, most private property in the U.S. today is owned by corporations, not by individuals. Capitalism depends on social values and morals of the people to constrain their pursuit of individual self-interest. Corporations have no morals. The only things a corporation values are profit and growth. People have hopes and dreams for the future. People have hearts and souls as well as minds. Corporations have neither. In order for capitalism to work for the good of society, for the good of people, individual people must make the economic decisions, not corporations.
Capitalism is based on competition. But, Adam Smith’s invisible hand of competition has been mangled in the machinery of industrial corporatism, and is no longer capable of transforming self-interest into societal good. We no longer have competitive markets, at least not in the economic sense needed to eliminate excessive profits and pass cost savings on to consumers. It’s no longer easy to get into or out of businesses, as is needed to accommodate ever-changing consumer tastes and preferences. We don’t have accurate information concerning the actual qualities of the things that we buy, but get disinformation by design, in the form of persuasive advertising. Superficial differentiation of products abound, but there is no real variety and thus very limited consumer choice in the marketplace. Consumer sovereignty is a thing of the past as advertisers now shape consumer demand rather than respond to it.
None of the necessary conditions for competitive capitalism exists in today’s economy. The American economy is moving away from market coordination toward a corporate version of central planning. The problems of the centrally planned economies of Eastern Europe were not merely a lack of sophistication in management and planning. Central planning, by government or corporation, is a fundamentally wrong-headed way to try to coordinate an economy.
Capitalism is based on the principle of minimum government involvement in the economy, but the government and the economy have become inseparable. The government’s primary economic function under capitalism is to maintain competition. Instead, the top priority of the government has become to promote economic growth. Corporate interests permeate every aspect of government from the making of laws to the delivery of basic public services. It’s virtually impossible to run successfully for any major office without corporate financial backing. High level corporate and government officials swap positions regularly as they move freely through revolving doors between big industry and big government. The corporations have gained so much influence in government that not only does government fail to ensure competition; government has become a tool for corporate exploitation of both people and resources.
Our economy is no longer capitalistic and our government is no longer democratic. We are in the midst of a great social experiment an experiment being carried out by non-human entities that we have created and let loose to plunder the earth. A society cannot survive in the absence of effective societal restraints to moderate the pursuit of short-run, self-interests. It will exploit and eventually destroy the very things that it must have to survive productive human and natural resources. In America, we have removed all social and moral restraints to our selfishness. We have sacrificed our independence on an altar of free markets. We, the people, are the only means left by which we can end this experiment before it is too late.
Our common sense tells us that it’s time to re-declare our independence. It’s time for a new American Revolution. Our common sense tells us that what society needs most is not more cheap stuff. We already have more stuff than we need. What we really need now is a greater ability to get along with other people within families, among friends, within communities, within nations, and among people of all nations of the world. What we need now is to learn to build positive, interdependent relationships. We need to learn to build each other up rather than tear each other down. We need to take care of the earth rather than destroy it.
We need to revolt against economic and political oppression because we need to help build a better world for the future of humanity. A world with far fewer wars, that would be a better world. A world with less crime fewer prisons, fewer policemen, fewer judges, that would be a better world. A world with less conflict fewer confrontations, fewer lawyers and economists, fewer broken families and bankruptcies, that would be a better world. All of these things are possible, but only if we break free of our destructive patterns of economic and political dependence, competition, and exploitation, and start building new patterns of truly, interdependent relationships.
Our common sense tells us that we need to learn to lead lives of purpose and meaning. Purpose and meaning can only come from some higher level of understanding some higher order of which we are but a part. We cannot gain purpose and meaning from our relationships with other people or things no matter how strong or positive they may be. We are at the same level of organization as all of the tangible things we can see and feel; we are all part of the same whole. The meaning of our lives is not derived from our relationships with each other, but instead from the relationship of us all with the larger whole of things.
We need to learn to rely on the spiritual dimension of our being for insight into the unique purpose and meaning of our lives. Through this spiritual dimension, we are rewarded when we practice stewardship, when we take care of the other living things of the earth and take care of the earth itself. Through spirituality, we are rewarded for treating those of future generations, as we would like to be treated by them, if we were of the future and they were of the present. A world in which people respect and take care of other living things accepting that plants and animals provide food for people as people give live and sustenance to them that would be a better world. A world in which people care for, nurture, and restore the environment, for the benefit of themselves as well as for those of the future that would be a better world.
The new American Revolution must begin in the hearts and souls of the people. We need to begin by declaring our independence from the various corporate organizations that control us while claiming to represent us. Independence doesn’t require that we quit our corporate jobs. But, we must find the courage to refuse to do anything that exploits other people or exploits our natural environment, and we must work to wrest the corporate conscience from the grasp of the greedy. We may well need to look for another job, if we can’t regain our independence in the one we now have. We should not allow a corporation to represent us that that does not respect our independence.
Independence doesn’t require that we drop out of every advocacy organization to which we now pay dues. But we must find the courage and the time to oppose those organizations when we do not agree with their positions on issues, and to take an active role in shaping their policies. We cannot blindly accept the position of any special interest group as if it were our own. We may well need to drop out of organizations that are not responsive to independent members who choose to speak for themselves.
As we reclaim our personal independence, we can begin to build interdependent relationships with other like-minded people. Relationships are important a fundamental part of being human. But, our relationships need to be empowering, not weakening or depleting. As we change ourselves, we can begin to build relationships that will change our little piece of the world.
As we regain our personal independence, we can begin to form interdependent organizations to remove our dependence on corporate organizations of all types. We can create our own jobs by joining with family members and other like-minded people to pursue ventures that are economically viable, ecologically sound, and socially responsible. We don’t have to become self-sufficient. But, we can develop enterprises that allow us to sell and buy from people with whom we have meaningful relationships people that we care about and who care about us. We can create relationship markets. We don’t have to be driven to get the highest price when we sell or the lowest price when buy. We can insist that our trades be beneficial to both us and to those with whom we trade.
These types of opportunities already exist in agriculture through farmers markets, community-supported agriculture groups (CSAs), community food circles, and other forms of direct marketing between farmers and their customers. These are relationship markets, where the quality of the relationships among people and between people and the land are at least as important as the quality of the products. A group of dedicated agrarian revolutionaries is recreating the global food system, locally one farm and one community at a time by reconnecting people with each other and with the land.
I am sure that similar movements are underway elsewhere, and can be initiated in any area where they are not already developing. All it takes is a few people who realize that change is necessary, and who can find the courage to help bring it about. Similar changes can transform our non-profit organizations and special interest groups as well. We no longer need large organizations to speak for us in the political arena. We can form far smaller groups of like-minded people. These smaller groups can form alliances with other groups on specific issues on which they agree without being tied together on issues where they do not. In these days of e-mail and the Internet, such networks of political relationships can be flexible and dynamic interdependent rather than dependent.
As we regain independence in the workplace and in politics, we can begin to reclaim our economy and reclaim our democracy. We can wrest the political process from corporations of all types. We can force corporations to serve the public interest we have the constitutional right to demand it. We can restore harmony and balance among the economic, social, and moral dimensions of our individual and collective social lives. We can stop the exploitation of people and of nature in America and start building a sustainable society.
We Can Do It!
America today is not unlike America of the early 1900s. John D. Rockefeller formed the first US trust in 1882. He persuaded stockholders in some forty different corporations to exchange their stock for shares in The Standard Oil Company of Ohio. This allowed Rockefeller to consolidate management and centralize decision making across a large segment of the entire petroleum industry under one board of directors, which he chaired. Rockefeller exerted market power over the petroleum industry, manipulating supplies and influencing prices and profits, in ways that totally contradicted the conditions of competitive capitalism. American industrialists ever since that time have attempted to follow his lead.
In 1893, American Sugar Refining Company and the United States Rubber Company had joined Standard Oil in the merger game. A second flurry of mergers, beginning in the early 1900s, lead to the formation of such well-known companies as United States Steel, DuPont, American Can, and International Harvester. Soon large corporations not only controlled the American economy but also reached deeply into the American political process as well. Politicians and elections were routinely, often openly, bought and sold through bribes, lobbying, and corporate financing of campaigns. In many respects, the economic and political situation was not unlike that of today.
But in the early 1900s, the people rebelled. They demanded political and economic reform. Reform didn’t come easy, but the people found the courage to challenge the political machines. They sent a lot of new faces to Washington to represent them. At the urging of the new President, Teddy Roosevelt, the new Congress passed a number of new laws designed to help strengthen and enforce the antitrust laws already on the books.
During Roosevelt’s two administrations, the Justice Department brought more than 40 suits against the corporate trusts and won several important judgments. One judgment resulted in the split up of the Standard Oil Company Trust. The Progressive Era in American politics continued through the Woodrow Wilson administration. Civil Service eventually replaced political patronage, crippling the powerful political machines and primary elections were instituted to select candidates for offices instead of corporate deals in smoke-filled rooms.
The Progressives were the initial advocates of such radical ideas as election of Senators by popular vote, prohibition of child labor, women’s suffrage, Social Security, collective bargaining by labor, full constitutional rights for minorities, and federal curbs on monopolies. Now, once again, the country is ready for some new radical ideas.
Today, the concentration of corporate industry is far greater, and consequently, markets are far less competitive than in the early 1900s. Today’s corporations are multinational exceeding the span of control of any single nation, and often exceeding the size of most national economics. Widespread corporate alliances and joint ventures add still further to the span of control of the corporate giants. However, corporations are not more powerful than the people. People have created corporations both business and political and people can control corporations. We have the power, if we can find the courage.
The new progressive area must begin with us, the people. As we change ourselves, we can begin to influence others. As we influence others, we can begin to change the world around us at least our little piece of it. As each of us changes our little piece of the world, little by little the whole of the world begins to change. This is the pattern of all great social and political movements of the past.
We shouldn’t wait for some great charismatic leader to arise. We need to lead this movement ourselves the leadership must come from the people. Certainly, we need to network with others and build strong relationships, both as individuals and as groups. But we need to build interdependent relationships, not simply exchange one kind of dependency for another. We need to create a new form of democratic capitalism, based not on the independence of the past or the dependence of the present, but instead on interdependence relationships of choice rather than necessity.
Idealistic? No. Realistic! That’s the way the world changes for the better, little by little one person at a time. Change happens, but it’s change in people that makes lasting change in society. And, people change one at a time. In the words of Margaret Mead, the renowned cultural anthropologist, Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has. We have the power to change the world, if we can find the courage to use it.
Our Government is a Company
by AL Whitney (C) copyright 2011
Permission is granted for redistribution if linked to original and AntiCorruptionSociety acknowledged
so are our schools . . .
by AL Whitney (C) copyright 2011
We are living in a duality that most don’t recognize. Many suspect things aren’t going well as jobs are outsourced, public utilities and roads are privatized, and our elected officials keep passing bills they don’t read and that don’t solve any of the “real” problems we face. Most of us feel that our elected officials don’t really represent us anymore. Why is that?
Because they don’t!
They represent corporations aka our state, local and federal governments –
The corporatization of our governments (which started long ago) changed the role in government our elected officials play. Once they take office, they no longer represent the folks who voted for them, but become trustees (or employees) of the federal, state, or local corporations. 
This scam has been going on a long time , but we feel the results of it more each year.
- Have you noticed how our elected officials are distant and difficult to reach once in office?
- Have you noticed how no matter how valid our complaints are – we are ignored?
- Have you noticed how few people ever get justice in our court system any longer?
This is because we are primarily living under admiralty, maritime or business “contract” law not Common Law or Constitutional Law.
Many years ago (1851) the Ohio Constitution was created. From the Ohio Constitution:
We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare, do establish this Constitution.
Article 1: Bill of Rights
- 1 INALIENABLE RIGHTS.
All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety. (1851)
Unfortunately that document does not represent the primary legal system currently being implemented. Instead, we are now living with the “rules” aka “statutes” that corporate government entities (i.e. the STATE OF OHIO) pass to govern “society” and to ensure their control and revenue stream. And the police force has become the rule enforcement officers for “Government, Inc.” To serve and protect the public, in most cases, is no longer their primary function. It is critical to remember that a corporation’s PRIMARY GOAL is to produce profits for that corporation. It is literally their legal “fiduciary” responsibility.
The definition of an act or a statute:
A legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed, as a rule, by a corporation. By it’s own definition it is not Law, it is only given the FORCE of law by CONSENT of the GOVERNED.
Statutes are the rules made by incorporated government bodies to “do business”, extract money from and control all of us.
The H1N1 flu “pandemic” and the pandemic response system, that has been constructed in Ohio over the past seven years , helps demonstrate how our current legal/government system works. Each legal entity involved has two names; one is the common (or government) name we are familiar with and the other is their commercial or business name as listed on the Dun and Bradstreet  web site.
Name the public recognizes
|Dun and Bradstreet Corporate Listing|
|Ohio||STATE OF OHIO|
|Ohio Governor||EXECUTIVE OFFICE STATE OF OHIO|
|Ohio state legislators||LEGISLATIVE OFFICE OF THE STATE OF OHIO|
|Ohio judges||JUDICIARY/SUPREME COURTS OF THE STATE OF OHIO|
|Ohio Dept of Health||HEALTH, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF|
|Franklin County Health Dept||FRANKLIN CO OH HEALTH|
|“My Town”, Ohio||“MY TOWN”, CITY OF|
|“My Town” Board of Education ||“MY TOWN” BOARD OF EDUCATION also traded as “MY TOWN” SCHOOL DISTRICT and “MY TOWN” SCHOOLS|
|United States of America||UNITED STATES|
Legal entities involved with public health and H1N1 vaccination program
In 2006-2007 the UNITED STATES government gave OH $13.8 million (as payment per contract aka coorperative agreement) for the pandemic planning that OH had completed. This pandemic planning included 1) the passage of Senate Bill/House Bill 6 redefining public health “rules” aka “statutes” in 2003 and 2) the completion of a pandemic policy manual, Limitations of Movement and Infection Control Practices, in 2005 by the Ohio Department of Health. This was a business/contractual arrangement between the UNITED STATES and the STATE OF OHIO.
Senate Bill/House Bill 6
The CEO (director of health) of Ohio Department of Health  (Ohio Revised Code: 3701.03) was granted authority to:
- Raise money for Ohio Department of Health  (ORC 3701.04) by selling their services to anyone they choose
- Accept and spend money raised as a gift, bequest or contribution for the purpose the gift, bequest or contribution was made  (ORC: 3701.04)
- Order home or business invasions of those who are suspected of violating their “health rules” with little or no justification (violation of Article 1, §15 of the Bill of Rights – Ohio Constitution)  (ORC: 3701.06)
- Quarantine and/or isolate anyone with little or no justification  (ORC: 3701.13). This is in direct violation of Article 1, §1 and §8 of the Bill of Rights – Ohio Constitution.
Limitations on Movement and Infection Control Practices sites the “statutes” that public health officials can refer to as legal authority to enforce actions against the public regarding forced vaccinations, property searches and quarantine/isolation
Then in April 2009, the STATE OF OHIO and OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH accepted $7.5 million from the UNITED STATES government for the STATE OF OHIO’s H1N1 vaccination program, which included the School-located Vaccination (SLV) program.
In Sept 2009 I contacted the elected Board Members (BOARD OF EDUCATION) of my local school district and expressed my grave concerns regarding the dangerous/untested H1N1 vaccine and the implementation of their mass school vaccination program. I received a formal letter as a response. The President of the BOE stated their intentions to proceed with the mass vaccination program. She also acknowledged that a business arrangement had been entered into with Franklin County Board of Health (FCOH). ” . . . our school district and all school districts in the central Ohio area have a memorandum of understanding with the Board of Health . . . ” As I have not seen the actual Memorandum of Understanding the BOE signed, I do not know the date. But, essentially these memorandums precede cooperative agreements. School districts have entered into business contracts whereby they will get paid after allowing the mass vaccination program of the children in their schools. The school districts were incorporated by legislation passed in Ohio in the 50s. However, it is important to remember that no law or “statute” allows for the school board to authorize child endangerment , which is a felony.  The H1N1 vaccine is an experimental untested vaccine and the risk of vaccine injury is quite high.  Parents need to understand their rights to sue the school for assault should their children be vaccinated without their permission.
While the public naively believes Government Inc. represents the taxpayers, Government Inc. is not unlike Business Inc., i.e. “They have no soul to save and they have no body to incarcerate” . But, unlike Business Inc, Government Inc can pass statutes giving themselves legal immunity from most of their unscrupulous business arrangements that cause harm to the general public – and there are many! This is the mechanism that allows those who are profiting from (Business, Inc) and administering (Government, Inc) the mass dangerous/experimental H1N1 vaccination programs in our schools – to do so with impunity. . . so far.
There is a way to restore Constitutional government and slay the Corporation dragon . . . but it will not be welcome to any of those profiting from either Business Inc or Government Inc: Link was hacked and files deleated
A potential landmark case was filed into the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, 500 Indiana Ave. NW, Room JM-170, Washington, DC 20001 on July 29, 2009.
The case seeks, among other multiple remedies, the nullification of all Federal Corporate Charters, and is quietly gaining traction as the numerous named Defendants continue to default Court protocol and procedure.
The named, lead Defendant is Eric H. Holder, Jr, Attorney General of the UNITED STATES, in his corporate capacity.
Summonses were formally ordered by Chief Judge Lee F. Satterfield and issued by the Plaintiff starting on July 30, 2009 for Mr. Holder at 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20530.
The case is officially designated as DALE, RODNEY Vs. UNITED STATES, Case No. 2009 CA 005391 B, in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and is docketed for an Initial Scheduling Conference at 9:30 am on Friday, November 6, 2009 before Judge Brian F. Holeman in Courtroom A-49, 515 5th Street NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20001. Judge Holeman’s Chambers’ phone number is 202-879-7815.
The case is styled, by the Court, as a “Complaint for Fraud” on behalf of the American people and places ALL interlocking Corporate Charters in this country in question. This means that the Federal Corporate charters, on down to the smallest political subdivisions (city or town), are in jeopardy and alleged to be in violation of their written and enumerated Fiduciary duties.
In addition, because of the style of the Plaintiff’s filing, ALL courts in the 50 states, including the United States Supreme Court, have been interlocked as parties to this suit.
Rodney Dale Class of High Shoals, North Carolina filed the case in conjunction with Carl Weston of Oklahoma with both serving as Private Attorneys General on behalf of the American people. Both Mr. Class and Mr. Weston are serving as Private Attorneys General under seals of both North Carolina and Oklahoma. In addition, their status is recognized by the Senate Judiciary Committee under the leadership of Sen. John Conyers, Jr. (D – MI).
More on School-Located Vaccinations
 Here is a short explanation as to how the government of our country was turned into a corporate entity http://www.joycerosenwald.com/Treason.htm
 For an excellent explanation as to when and how our legal system was established and manipulated read Common Law at the DetaxCanada web site: http://detaxcanada.org/cmlawintro.htm
 Both House Bill 6 and Senate Bill 6 were passed in 2003 and changed the “rules” regarding public health policies and authorities.
 The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation (NYSE: DNB), headquartered in Short Hills, New Jersey, USA, is a provider of credit information on businesses and corporations. Often referred to as just D&B, the company is perhaps best known for its D-U-N-S (Data Universal Numbering System) identifiers assigned to over 150 million global companies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dun_%26_Bradstreet
The DUN System is utilized by many major banks/lenders, insurance and finance companies as well as municipalities, Federal agencies and endorsed by the European Union as the primary identification system for International business assessment and validation throughout the world. The DUNS/BIR (Business Information Report) is required for many US federal government transactions, so are widely used as a leveraging tool to win bids and portray a stable and creditworthy business, able to meet its obligations and can validate what it professes. The System is frequently used for corporate research.
 ORC 3313.17 Corporate powers of the board.
“The board of education of each school district shall be a body politic and corporate, and, as such, capable of suing and being sued, contracting and being contracted with, acquiring, holding, possessing, and disposing of real and personal property, and taking and holding in trust for the use and benefit of such district, any grant or devise of land and any donation or bequest of money or other personal property.”
Effective Date: 10-01-1953
 3701.03 General duties of director of health.
(A) The director of health shall perform duties that are incident to the director’s position as chief executive officer of the department of health. The director shall administer the laws relating to health and sanitation and the rules of the department of health. The director may designate employees of the department and, during a public health emergency, other persons to administer the laws and rules on the director’s behalf.
(B) Nothing in this section authorizes any action that prevents the fulfillment of duties or impairs the exercise of authority established by law for any other person or entity.
Effective Date: 02-12-2004
 3701.04 Director of health – powers and duties.
(B) The director of health may enter into agreements to sell services offered by the department of health to boards of health of city and general health districts and to other departments, agencies, and institutions of this state, other states, or the United States. Fees collected by the director for the sale of services shall be deposited into the state treasury to the credit of the general operations fund created in section 3701.83 of the Revised Code.
Effective Date: 02-12-2004; 04-14-2006
 3701.04 Director of health – powers and duties.
. . . and expend the grant, gift, devise, bequest, or contribution for the purpose for which made.
Effective Date: 02-12-2004; 04-14-2006
 3701.06 Right of entry to investigate violations.
The director of health and any person the director authorizes may, without fee or hindrance, enter, examine, and survey all grounds, vehicles, apartments, buildings, and places in furtherance of any duty laid upon the director or department of health or where the director has reason to believe there exists a violation of any health law or rule.
Effective Date: 02-12-2004
 3701.13 Department of health – powers.
The department of health shall have supervision of all matters relating to the preservation of the life and health of the people and have ultimate authority in matters of quarantine and isolation, which it may declare and enforce, when neither exists, and modify, relax, or abolish, when either has been established. The department may approve methods of immunization against the diseases specified in section 3313.671 of the Revised Code for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of that section and take such actions as are necessary to encourage vaccination against those diseases.
Effective Date: 02-12-2004; 05-06-2005
 To surrender children to public health officials, while they are in school, for the purpose of the administration of dangerous untested vaccines (that have harmed many children) is not protecting the child but exposing him/her to potentially serious injury.
Ohio Legal Services: http://www.ohiolegalservices.org/public/legal_terms_dictionary/child-endangerment
 Ohio Legal Services: http://www.ohiolegalservices.org/public/legal_terms_dictionary/child-endangerment
 Exposed by Dr Roby Mitchell’s in depth analysis of the vaccine package insert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqEeQzMGzzc
 Quote of Baron Thurlow describing corporations.
The Corporatization of Higher Education
Photo by origamidon, 2010, via Flickr creative commons
In 2003, only two colleges charged more than $40,000 a year for tuition, fees, room, and board. Six years later more than two hundred colleges charged that amount. What happened between 2003 and 2009 was the start of the recession. By driving down endowments and giving tax-starved states a reason to cut back their support for higher education, the recession put new pressure on colleges and universities to raise their price.
When our current period of slow economic growth will end is anybody’s guess, but even when it does end, colleges and universities will certainly not be rolling back their prices. These days, it is not just the economic climate in which our colleges and universities find themselves that determines what they charge and how they operate; it is their increasing corporatization.
If corporatization meant only that colleges and universities were finding ways to be less wasteful, it would be a welcome turn of events. But an altogether different process is going on, one that has saddled us with a higher-education model that is both expensive to run and difficult to reform as a result of its focus on status, its view of students as customers, and its growing reliance on top-down administration. This move toward corporatization is one that the late University of Montreal professor Bill Readings noted sixteen years ago in his study, The University in Ruins, but what has happened in recent years far exceeds the alarm he sounded in the 1990s.
The most visible sign of the corporatization of higher education lies in the commitment that colleges and universities have made to winning the ratings war perpetuated by the kinds of ranking U.S. News and World Report now offers in its annual “Best Colleges” guide. Since its relatively modest debut in 1983, the “Best Colleges” guide has grown in influence. For any number of small colleges, getting traction from the “Best Colleges” guide may be a dream, but for a wide range of middle-tier and upper-tier colleges and universities, winning a good “Best Colleges” ranking is considered so essential to success that it shapes internal policies.
Robert Morse, who heads the team that makes up the college and university rankings for U.S. News, says the “Best Colleges” guide never sought to shape higher education policy, but that claim no longer matters. Colleges and universities continue to do whatever they can to boost their U.S. News ranking, especially when it comes to whom they admit.
It is now a standard practice for many schools to solicit applications from students who have done well on their SAT tests, even though they know there is no room for most of these students. Admissions officers don’t mind this waste of their time. The more students a college or university gets to reject, the higher it is ranked on the all-important U.S. News selectivity scale. Having a student body with impressive SAT scores is great; having a student body with impressive SATs and rejecting more applicants than a rival is better still. The closer a college or university comes to Harvard’s nationwide low of taking just 5.9 percent of its applicants, the happier parents are.
Instead of backfiring, the make-it-as-hard-as-possible-to-get-in strategy has pushed more and more high school students to go to extremes to win the attention of admissions officers. Recent cheating scandals at New York City’s elite Stuyvesant High School and the Great Neck high schools on Long Island’s Gold Coast show how desperate even “gifted” high school students are these days. Everyone is telling them they need to find an edge. Middle-class families as well as the rich are as a result spending thousands of dollars to hire private college advisers, SAT tutors, and sports coaches for their college-age sons and daughters.
The students who succeed in getting into our highest-ranked colleges and universities are thus far wealthier than the population as a whole. At elite schools, 74 percent of the student body come from the top quarter of the socioeconomic scale, while just 3 percent come from the bottom quarter. What follows from this skewed demographic pattern is a second layer of college spending. In the eyes of college administrators, students, especially those who are not on scholarship, have become customers who need to feel satisfied with the campus experience bought for them at prices that now top $50,000 per year at many elite schools.
Food courts, spa-like athletic facilities, and elaborate performing-arts centers are increasingly common on college and university campuses. Whether this emphasis on the amenities is much more than a throwback to such a nineteenth-century Harvard extravagance as having a student room come with extra space for a valet to live is open to debate, but not open to debate is how so many colleges and universities with four-year residential campuses have increased spending for student services that on a percentage basis outpace their increases in academic instruction and financial aid.
Equally telling, winning the higher-education prestige battle no longer involves just changing the internals of college and university life. Prestige—and with it the prospect of new cash infusions—also comes these days from increasing educational market share. We are currently witnessing the rise of the imperial university with campuses around the globe, particularly and ironically in countries with authoritarian regimes willing to invest in a brand-name university. As of 2010, thirty-eight American schools had sixty-five branches in thirty-four countries, all with the authority to grant degrees.
Colleges and universities that don’t have a foreign campus worry about getting left behind. As Brown University’s outgoing president, Ruth Simmons, complained in an interview she did for the Brown Alumni Magazine, “Our competitors are internationalizing at a much faster rate than we are. As a consequence, they are making themselves more attractive on the global stage.”
Not all university officials are as candid as Simmons, but what they are willing to give up in order to open a foreign campus is considerable. In starting its new campus in Singapore, Yale University has not only ignored protests by its faculty over civil rights abuses there. It has also ignored the warnings of Human Rights Watch, which classifies Singapore as a “textbook example of a politically repressive state.”
New York University, which has started a campus in Abu Dhabi, where free speech is also limited, has been equally cavalier about the toll its venture will take, but there is no doubt about who is ignored as NYU builds its global empire. Half of NYU’s faculty, compared to 20 percent at Columbia or Harvard, is part time, and scanty financial aid leaves the average NYU graduate with $35,000 in debt (the average college debt is $23,000 nationwide).
The Rise of the Administrators
Not surprisingly, those administrators who occupy the highest ranks in our college and university bureaucracies are those who have professionally benefited the most from corporatization. Running a corporatized college or university is not easy. The professor who takes time out from teaching and research to devote him- or herself to administration for a few years increasingly is an anachronism. A new, permanent administrative class now dominates higher education. At the top are the college and university presidents who earn a million dollars or more a year and serve on numerous corporate boards (Shirley Ann Jackson, the president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, earned a reported $1.38 million in a single year from her multiple directorships). Thirty-six private college and university presidents, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, fall into the million-dollars-a-year category, and many more are close behind.
Not surprisingly, those administrators who occupy the highest ranks in our college and university bureaucracies are those who have professionally benefited the most from corporatization.
A still bigger change in how higher education is managed lies in its growing number of administrators in its ranks. As political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg, the leading authority on this subject, has pointed out, administrators have become a greater presence in colleges and universities while faculty have been in decline. Between 1998 and 2008, private colleges increased their spending on instruction by 22 percent while they increased their spending on administration and staff support by 36 percent.
If we go further back in time, the rise in administrators becomes even more striking. In the last forty years the number of full-time faculty at colleges and universities has grown by 50 percent—in line with increases in student enrollment—but in this same period the number of administrators has risen by 85 percent and the number of staffers required to help the administrators has jumped by a whopping 240 percent. Small wonder, then, that so many policy decisions at colleges and universities are made without—or despite—faculty input.
Small wonder, too, that when colleges and universities think of economizing, their target is all too often those who are already their most vulnerable employees—part-time faculty and service workers. The administrators who run our leading colleges and universities are unwilling, the record shows, to downsize themselves. In the 1970s, 67 percent of faculty were tenured or on a tenure track. Today that figure is down to 30 percent, and for those who run higher education such a low number is ideal. Whether they are adjuncts or teaching assistants (TAs), those without the claim to permanent jobs cost less and are easy to get rid of in a period of contraction. Unionization efforts by teaching assistants in graduate programs at public universities throughout the country have rectified some of the worst abuses in what is in essence an academic temp system. But the TA union successes have not changed the fact that, at our largest universities, an academic underclass is at work: the faculty having the greatest amount of contact with individual students are those on the lowest rung of the academic ladder.
The corporatization of higher education has placed similar burdens on the employees who do the brunt of the janitorial and food-service work. In the case of food-service workers, whose median wage in 2010 was $17,176, these burdens are often made even worse because the workers are actually hired by a contractor, whom the school then pays. This hiring distinction is an artificial one that simply adds a bureaucratic layer, but colleges and universities like it. Hiring through a contractor allows them breathing room when, as is bound to happen, their workers complain about their wages and benefits and win the support of students and faculty. The schools can then promise to deal with the contractor while insisting that they are caught in the middle of a crisis not of their making.
This claim of being trapped is a fig leaf worth paying attention to, however. It reminds us that those responsible for the corporatization of our colleges and universities are aware that they face limits on their own power. Whether they will be able to erode these limits further, as they seem to want, or forced to deal with a pushback is an unanswered question. “It is easy to criticize the corporatization of education,” social critic Thomas Frank warned in a Harper’s essay, (“The Price of Admission,” June 2012). “But criticizing it is actually different from halting its progress—a political step we seem unable to take.”
Beyond the GI Bill
The corporatization of higher education began to take its present form in the early 1980s at the same time Ronald Reagan was dominating American politics. U.S. News’s “Best Colleges” guide came into existence then, as did the willingness of college and universities to increase their prices at a faster rate than the cost of health care or inflation was rising. In an age of deregulation, a built-in restraint that had been in place for years was suddenly gone, and no effective resistance movement by parents and politicians rose to counteract it.
Today, by contrast, critiques of higher education abound. Columbia University literature professor Andrew Delbanco’s book College: What It Was, Is, and Should Be has won widespread praise within the academic world for its old-fashioned defense of liberal education and its insistence that today’s students are being betrayed by being “relentlessly rehearsed and tested until winners are culled from the rest.” Criticism from within colleges and universities by professors such as Delbanco, even when accompanied by union organizing, is still limited, though, in the actual reform it can bring about.
For starters, faculty are going to have to take back much of the power they have surrendered over the years to professional administrators to see real change.
In addition, the federal government will also need to play a bigger role in higher education. The Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862, which in the middle of the Civil War gave the states federal land they could sell and use to start state universities, was transformative. The GI Bill, which Franklin Roosevelt signed into law in the summer of 1944 while the Second World War was still going on, opened up educational opportunity for the nation’s military. By 1947, veterans accounted for 49 percent of the students in American colleges and undid the Great Depression notion that higher education was only for the rich.
Barack Obama, faced with Republican and Tea Party opposition at every turn, has acted cautiously with respect to higher education. At a time when, according to the Education Department and the Consumer Protection Bureau, outstanding student loan debt is over $1 trillion, the president has nibbled at the edges of reform, calling for keeping down the interest rate on student loans and insisting that colleges and universities need to make their actual costs clearer to families. But the Obama administration’s caution should not be a guide for the future.
According to a 2011 Pew Research Survey, 75 percent of Americans believe college is too expensive. There has never been a better time for proposing major reform in higher education. Allowing students to pay for their college educations by having a small percentage of what they earn following graduation deducted from their income tax could make a difference in reducing the burden of student debt, and so could a loan-forgiveness system that allowed students to write off their government loans in exchange for working at a public service job, such as high school teaching, at subsistence wages for the same number of years they were in college.
The only thing out of the question when it comes to higher education is continuing to do business as usual.
Nicolaus Mills is professor of American Studies at Sarah Lawrence College. His most recent book is Winning the Peace: The Marshall Plan and America’s Coming of Age as a Superpower.