Cardinal Social Problems: Essay on Dangers to Basic Constitutional Rights

Cardinal Social Problems:
Essay on Dangers to Basic Constitutional Rights
1984

Emory L Warrick, Sr.



1. Where Morality Fails, Ethics Succeeds.
2. Corporate Personality And English Common Law
3. The Dream Is Dead


1. Where Morality Fails, Ethics Succeeds.

It would seem that the Essay on Moral Equivalence and Moral
Equivocation missed the point entirely. The crucial distinction
is not between "virtue and vice", but rather between the uses of
ethics and morality. In The Origin of Consciousness in the
Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind Julian Jaynes suggests that circa
the time of the "Homeric" rendering of the bardic collection of
the "aoidoi", spanning some six millenia, divine revelation
ceased to be recognized. Jaynes surmises that this occurs
because the shift from a pastoral/rural society that was
homogeneous to a heterogeneous/urban society produced a shift
from predominantly right brain functioning to predominantly left
brain functioning. This means that there was a shift from
predominantly affective functioning to predominantly cognitive
functioning; a shift from "feeling" to "thinking". The
development of cities and trade begat a process of change
continuing to this day (and vociferously resisted to this day).

In pastoral, rural, homogeneous societies there is consensus on
values. Replacements for the society (i.e., children) are
socialized into acceptance of these social values, just as
replacement parts for machines are fashioned by physical
factories. The family is a social factory producing replacements
for the social machine. Norms are behavioral expectations (e.g.,
one does not wear a tuxedo as swimwear in most circles; one does
not eat english peas with one's pocketknife). This network of
norms forms the structure of the society - the culture of the
society. Acceptance of, and familiarity with, that culture is
produced in the social replacements by pressure and influence of
significant others (i.e., family) and peers (i.e., friends and
role models). Mos are cultural values perceived by the society
to be vital (in varying degrees) to the survival of the society,
whether positive or negative.

Those culture values of relatively minimal value are social
conventions, and usually involve social sanctions (e.g., pity or
ridicule). Those cultural values having great value are mos
(i.e., plural of more; the "value statement" of a more being a
moral) and usually involve legal or physical sanctions (e.g.,
jail, fine, or beating). Those cultural values perceived as
vital to the survival of the society are called "taboos" and are
capitally sanctioned (e.g., transportation, execution,
Congressional Medal of Honor, crucifixion). It follows that mos
(morals in behavioral terms) grow out of consensual values, which
occur only in homogeneous societies.

Conscience is an affective function growing out of one's
socialization into a particular system of cultural values arising
out of a particular set of social conditions existing in a
particular society at a particular time. To speak of morality is
to speak of adherance to a particular cultural milieu in an
homogeneous society where consensual social values exist.
Something "feels right" or "feels wrong". There is no cognitive
analysis (i.e., thinking) involved. Ethical distinctions are
quite different. Consider the categorical imperative of Immanuel
Kant: "So act that if every other person in the world acted
according to the principle of your action, the world would be a
better place".

The essence of our situation is that we live in a pluralistic
society. There is no ONE system of values. People have always
come to this society from every culture in the world, and value
systems (and mos) vary wildly. What is right in one culture may
be very wrong in another. This culture is not just Anglo-
Saxon/Puritan/England-West, regardless of what many people
believe. Humility is not a characteristic endemic to all
Americans of christian persuasion, particularly those of English
descent. The critical distinction takes account of our society
as an urban, diverse, heterogeneous, pluralistic society.
Homogeneous and tribal are simply not elements characteristic of
our society.

One of the truly misguided and disasterous concepts of our
culture is that of a "christian society". The inherent, innate
contradiction in this misconception is easy to accept if one
really has no intimate familiarity with the Four Gospels of the
Christian Bible. People who carp of "christian societies",
advocate "capital punishment" and "the Right-to-Life" in the same
breath, advocate war and hatred of strangers in the name of "The
Prince of Peace", and want us to be sure to "Kill our Commie" for
Christ today are much more likely to quote from the Epistles of
St. Paul or from the Old Testament than from the Gospels - the
Word of Christ.

If one truly understands the essence and structure of the
teachings (and the model set) by The Nazarene, then one
understands fully that the concept "christian society" like unto
the concept "square circle" is potentially conceivable but not
possibly existent. There ain't no such animal. The implications
of the teachings of The Nazarene and the implications of
"Christian Morality" are quite different. They are, in fact,
almost diametrically opposed.

Dr. Ruben Lamar Norman, Jr., now resident in New York City, was
won't to say "there ain't no morality between groups." Soren
Kierkegaard said of the writings of Hegel "value statements can
be double-edged swords", and so the statement by Dr. Norman is.
At the time Dr. Norman made this statement, the statement
referred to the obvious lack of christian compassion and concern
displayed by inter-group relationships as contrasted with intra-
group relationships. The statement can carry an even more cogent
meaning: Moral relationships between groups are impossible
because morals are based upon consensual values, and the
resultant conscience (FEELING of right or wrong) based upon that
cultural milieu. Since different groups have different value
systems, this means that moral inter-group relationships are
impossible (e.g., cf. the Montagues and the Capulets, or, more
recently, the Hatfields and the McCoys). This means inter-group
relationships which are effective, constructive, and productive
must be ethical (i.e., cognitively based) in nature rather than
moral (i.e., affectively based).
Even though a "christian society" is impossible, and, indeed,
even involves a contradiction in terms, it is possible - and
highly desirable - for there to exist a society based upon
christian principles. It would, even, be an extremely practical
and productive society. It would have to be inclusive, not
exclusive; tolerating of diverse value systems by all groups,
including those fundamentalistic and evangelical groups who call
themselves "christian" and yet maintain that they have the ONE
POSSIBLE value system and would exclude the value systems of all
others; compassionate toward all in need and willing to share
accumulated bounty voluntar-ily and enthusiastically (farmers
understand and accept tithing because they know that one must
RETURN some of the product OF the soil TO the soil or the soil
will become sterile and non-productive; the same dynamic operates
in any society - the "bottom-line-boys" kill the society, and
greed and selfishness are contra-productive); forgiving of
deviance from ethnocentric, single-group norms (i.e., it is truly
unchristian to vote against gambling, drinking, or abortion and
thereby to deprive others of the exercise of their will in
choosing what they will do - to be a moral entrepreneur and seek
to inflict one's own values on everyone); understanding that
those who have different value systems have just as much right to
their value systems as one does to one's own values (why do you
think those English Dissenters came over here in the first
place?) - that God loves those different from oneself as much as
God loves oneself; loving enough to put the welfare - the
commonweal - of the group above one's own pride and
acquisitiveness, and loving enough to help those who need help;
and, finally, to be humble enough to realize that while humans
may differ in what they HAVE (e.g., beauty, wisdom, health,
wealth, or power) that all humans ARE the same - all humans are
of EQUAL value.

It must be understood that liberty and freedom are not
synonymous. The French Philosophes never mentioned freedom, nor
does the word appear in our Constitution or Declaration
of Independence. Liberty is a function of external controls,
conditions, and constraints; freedom is potential exercise of the
will. Jean-Paul Sartre said "man is condemned to freedom". One
must choose, and not to choose is to make a choice; our life
history flows from our choices. A novelist tells us "our lives
are dominated by a Georgia slattern because a London cut-purse
went free". One uses one's will (i.e., FREEDOM) to effect
choices - choices which either aid or hinder one's adaptation to
that which one is not at LIBERTY to evade. An American is not at
liberty to evade diversity and pluralism, and is condemned to
choose either an ethnocentric, imperialistic morality or an
egalitarian ethic to cope with that diversity. Of the proper use
of freedom is christian love exercised.

Our essayist speaks of "allergy to elemental distinctons"; among
these elemental distinctions one may distinguish that war may be
moral, but war is not ethical. In any conflict at least one of
the combatants is operating on affect, not cognition. Compromise
is ethical, not moral. The true gift of the statesman is to be
able to compromise without being compromised. Compromise is a
cognitive function, and through compromise each party may be
allocated more than the winner could salvage through conflict
(while destroying enough to deprive the losers of everything).
What does one want - what is the purpose and aim of the exercise?
Prejudice is pre-judgement (i.e., decision without data) which is
an affective - not a cognitive - function. Analysis is more
productive.

A most disturbing element of our Essay was "how (the essayist)
parsed the problem". Republicans can be imperial-
istically moral in their homogeniety. Democrats must deal with
pluralism and diversity, and thus must employ a truly christian
ethic if they are to survive the heat of their own caldron, and
ultimately to prevail. Democrats try to go for decent treatment
of people, while our Republican friends go for ideology. Let's
parse this problem by defining "terrorism". Terrorism is that
state of character and psyche which values an idea more than one
values the life and welfare of an innocent human (i.e., the
morality of terrorism holds that the end justifies the means -
shades of Socrates and the Sophists). One can support a
murderous dictator so long as the dictator espouses the proper
ideology. One could state contemporary American foreign policy
as "label them as Communists before you murder them".

To use the language of ethics rather than the language of
morality is not to debase the lingual currency. The language of
morality appeals to the affective hemisphere of the brain, not
the cognitive (e.g., appeal to Bones, not to Spock; Kirk is the
effective melding of both). If affect is blind, then cognition
can certainly prove unfeeling. Immanual Kant tells us, again
quite accurately: "Concepts without percepts are empty; percepts
without concepts are blind;" Kirk is Commander of the
Enterprise!! Our prayer should surely be: God grant me both the
compassion of the liberal and the principles of the libertarian.
Grant, we pray, that our society be neither empty nor blind.

The just pluralistic, diverse, heterogeneous society can have no
moral issues, particularly if it is a society based upon
christian principles. The behavior of others cannot be a moral
issue for the observer, either individual or group, but only an
ethical concern. Where the Pharisee or Sadducee would have
stoned the Samaritan woman at the well, The Nazarene counseled
her to go get her act straigntened out. The blurring of moral
distinctions is not our social problem, nor does it cause our
"breakdown of Law and Order". It is our unethical, unchristian,
imperialistic efforts to force our individual value system upon
everyone which leads to conflict, lawlessness, war, famine, and
breakdown of respect for, and adherence to, the social institu-
tions of our nation. As Dean William R. Inge asserts: "A nation
is a society united by a delusion about its ancestry and by a
common hatred of its neighbors."; "THERE AIN'T NO MORALITY
BETWEEN GROUPS!!!"


2. CORPORATE PERSONALITY AND ENGLISH COMMON LAW

The concept of a "Corporate Personality" is contradictory to the
meaning and purpose of English Common Law upon which our
Constitution and our legal system are based. To designate an
abstraction as a living entity is absurd. To accord authority
without that authority bearing responsibility is reckless. Even
Ethelred the Redeless knew better. The root word of
"personality" is person, which is a living, sentient,
intelligent, individual being. The framers of our Constitution
never envisioned an impersonal entity with virtually absolute
power over our health, wealth, and welfare and bearing no
responsibility to us at all (i.e., a power totally disregarding
our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness).

Our Essay begins with an appeal to understand bureaucracy. Max
Weber, the great German sociologist, wrote several important
works, among which was a study of power. In this study of power
were listed three types of power, by source; charismatic power,
traditional power, and legitimate power. Charismatic power
derived from the "star quality" of the leader, and the followers
did what he said simply because he was himself. Examples are
Fidel Castro and the Ayatollah Khomeini. Traditional power is in
the vein of a monarchy, and derives from tradition. Legitimate
power resides in rules and statutes, accepted by consensus,
detailing the power, duties, responsibilities, and privileges of
the occupant of a position in a rationally organized
administrative structure.

Weber tied all this together in his book The Protestant Ethic and
the Spirit of Capitalism. Weber was responding to conclusions
drawn in Das Kapital by Karl Marx, and with which Weber
disagreed. Richard H. Tawney in Religion and the Rise of
Capitalism responded to the perceived errors in both Marx and
Weber. Weber holds that bureaucracy is the application of
reason to the affairs of men. Reason was viewed as a Divine
Attribute. Plato used this as the "Method of Recollection" in
the Meno, where the questions of Socrates lead the untaught
slave boy to reason through and to state the theory of surds. He
also refers to this, implicitly, as the "music of the spheres" in
the Symposium and the Timeaus.
It is also contemplated in the legend of "The Tree of Life" in
the book of Genesis.

Aristotelian deductive logic and analytic arguments derived from
this. As set forth in the Gospel of John in the Trinity God the
Creator was the divine intelligence which created the universe.
All of this led to the humanist view. Unfortunately, as
demonstrated above, any argument carried to its logical extreme
becomes absurd. This is what Plato meant (in Republic IV) when
he spoke of "saphrosyne", the principle of temperance, the Golden
Mean, in the state - to make the state practical. In our own
time we have such reality statements as Murphy's Law and Cooper's
Second Corollary Thereto, Parkinson's Law, and the Peter
Principle, which refer to the same thing.

As people manage to fulfill the requirements of one position and
are moved upward until they can no longer adequately fulfill
their responsibilities, and are promoted to their level of
incompetance, there happens in the organization (by and through
which all big business and government is run) a hardening of the
arteries. This condition, atherosclerosis, is analogous to the
condition which leads to a stroke (i.e., a cardiovascular
accident) which occurs in an unexercised, middle-aged body. Just
as the unexercised, middle-aged body cannot function - and when
taxed, dies - so this condition has come to represent the
condition of a great deal of our government, industry, and
commerce of today. Many bright people have suffered from this
disinclination to countenance any type of new idea or change, and
have been rejected by the society wwhich did not want to view any
possibility of different ideas.

The process of ageing is the process of loss of flexibility and
tensility. The Lenin-Marxist societies, especially China and
Russia, and our own Department of Defense, are prime examples of
bureaucratic atherosclerosis with accompanying rigidity,
senility, and inability to adapt. Given this, it becomes
imperative to understand from whence come the concepts liberal
and conservative, and to understand the difference between these
concepts. As they are used in the vernacular, the difference in
the terms is stated as the conservative wanting to keep things
the way they are, to preserve (or conserve) the status quo; the
liberal is viewed, in the vernacular, as being willing to accept
change - or even fostering change for change's sake.
Philosophically, as these people stand, the conservative derives
from the Protest (i.e., he is Protestant). The liberal derives
from what Tawney calls the "Medieval Synthesis", the social
organization of feudal Europe under the aegis of the Roman
Church, that made the individual only a cog in a machine (there,
for the glorification of God - Jehovah; in the Lenin-Marxist
countries, for the glorification of God - the State). The
liberal values the individual only functionally - as a member of
the group. The only value of the individual is functional, and
derives from membership in that group. The conservative values
the individual intrinsically, in and of himself, rather than as a
means to an end of the common good of the group, as does the
liberal.

The Protestant - Catholic dimension forces itself upon us. The
Liberal - Conservative continuum is congruent with the Catholic -
Protestant continuum as these terms are technically defined.
Church organizations follow the technical definitions, not vice
versa. A catholic society is defined as being an homogeneous
society characterized by functional valuation of the individual.
The individual derives value from group membership; "I am a
MARINE whose name happens to be Jones". Religious examples of a
catholic society would be the Roman Catholic church, the Anglican
Communion, the Baptist Church in all its sects, and the Islamic
Faith in all its branches, as well as the founding exemplar - the
Jewish religion. Political examples would be the Lenin-Marxist
societies, principally Russia and China, African tribal
societies, the United States Military Services, and what our
United States is becoming if it continues as under the Reagan
Administration. A catholic soociety is absolutely necessary for
the development of a dictatorship. In 1984 the First, Fourth,
and Fifth Amendments went first.

A protestant society is defined as a heterogeneous society
characterized by intrinsic valuation of the individual; "I am JOE
SIGSPAK who happens to be an American from Georgia (or a
Mississippian from the U. S.), and a Methodist, or a Unitarian,
or etc. Religious examples, political examples, or any other
kind of examples are becoming increasingly difficult to find.
Catholic societies function affectively, using right-brain
skills, and are "moral" societies with generally repressive
governments. Protestant societies function cognitively, using
left-brain skills, and are, necessarily, "ethical" societies
since they are pluralistic. Intergroup relations based upon
morality tend to be aggressive and destructive. Intergroup
relations which are ethical in nature are much more likely to be
constructive and ameliorative (i.e., christian). A negotiated
compromise settlement will almost always leave both parties
better off than the winner would be after a war. War is moral;
negotiation is ethical.

The basic political problem of any government is the balance
between the commonweal and individual liberty. The basic
economic problem of any government is the allocation of surplus
value; whether this is to go to the person who produces the
surplus value, or to the person (or corporation) who provided the
means of production, or whether this is to be absorbed by the
government for redistribution within the society in accordance
with social or governmental priorities, or any two or all of
these. Liberals, basically, are caste oriented and elitist,
believing that the individual should not be coerced into
conformity (in some cases), but that commerce should be
controlled. They accept the Hebrew concept of usury from the Old
Covenant. The alleged conservative is liberal, also, because
while he believes in commercial laissez faire, he believes, also,
that the individual should conform rigorously to his
"conservative" group norms. The conservative is no believer in
democracy; the conservatives want to get the government off our
backs so they can put it on our fronts.

True conservatives are hard to find, and, certainly, Ronald
Reagan is not one of them. Nelson Rockefeller was, in fact, more
of a conservative than is Reagan, who is very strongly liberal
(i.e., controlling) in some ways. This whole concept of catholic
and protestant, of liberal and conservative, is a very important
concept to understand. By catholic is not meant the Roman
Church, but the concept of the body catholic - the Corpus Christi
- and its extrapolation into the "Medieval Synthesis". The whole
concept is meant having to do with the group being more important
than the individual. This applies, basically, to Lenin-Marxism.
Tawney calls Marx the "Last of the Scholastics". Marx took
degrees from the universities of Jena, Bonn, and Berlin,
including doctorates in both Law and Philosophy. He carried over
into Marxism the basic social structure of the "Medieval
Synthesis" of feudal Europe.

In fact, this is a superior explanation for the fact that Lenin-
Marxism has presented a threat in almost every basically Roman
Catholic country, and will represent a threat here only insofar
as the Reagan administration coerces us into becoming a quasi-
homogeneous country. Insofar as we have followed the dictates of
our founding fathers Lenin-Marxism has never presented a threat
here. Laissez faire is anathema to Europe by reason of this
social structure. Europe, even in its predominantly Lutheran
sections, has never been truly comfortable with pragmatic
protestantism. The people in Europe have never been able
completely to free themselves from the caste orientation inherent
in the "Medieval Synthesis", or to be able to accept the
intrinsic value of the individual. Laissez faire developed in
Britain, and the role of the channel in all phases of British
life was to set it apart from the continent. Through the
disruption of geographical continuity there was also a
disruption of philosophical continuity that made it possible for
Anglo-Saxon common law to develop in England in contradistinction
to the basic Roman cast of law as reflected in the Napoleanic
code on the continent. The common law is congruent with
empiricism, while the Napoleanic code is congruent with
continental rationalism; in the U. S. only Louisiana laws derive
from the Napoleanic code.

This nation is much too huge to grasp affectively. For this
reason the "Melting Pot" has not worked. We need neighborhoods
and ethnic groups. Pressure groups have been able to exert such
powerful pressure in our society through their role in reducing
social imperatives to "graspable" size. This diversity results
in the conflicting demands of different groups being very
strongly upheld and pursued. Sociological research has
established as fact that it is very much easier to relate to, and
to be loyal to, a finite group than it is to relate to the
apparently infinite, abstract nation. The whole meaning of the
Bi-Centennial resided in the fact that it made the nation, the
national abstraction, concrete for many people. The other
opportunity of the Bi-Centennial arose from the fact that most
highly educated folk had the folk-ways of both questioning and
criticizing the system, and the basically non-verbal, non-
educated, electorate of this country has for so long been told
all the defects of the country that most are seeking desperately
for a reaffirmation that this nation does in fact represent the
greatest of human dreams. Liberalism-Humanism derives, as we
said, from the social structure of the feudal "Medieval
Synthesis", from the medieval caste system.

The conservatives, basically, are Platonic in bent. They see man
as the expression in the many of the One. A basic conservative
looks to the structure of behavior. Behavior expresses the
essential values and/or living skills which have proven
efficacious for survival in society. This is the relationship
which, ideally, religion should have to the political
structure. This is not to require that the politician go through
a certain given religious form like everyone else (e.g., Lincoln
as an example), but that his personal integrity be a gyroscope, a
steadying force, throughout all the vicissitudes and temptations
present in the occupancy of political offices up to and
including the Presidency. Essential behavior in diverse
circumstances should be shaped by core values. To integrate
means to make whole, and to have integrity means to have
wholeness, or to be whole, and honesty and honor flow from (and
are an integral part of) that wholeness. The genius of our
founding fathers showed itself in their design of a political
structure based upon separation of powers designed "to shield the
political process from the frailties of any one man's ambition".

The commonweal is much more easily defined for an homogeneous
society than for a heterogeneous society. In a pluralistic
society all segments of that society ought to have a voice in
issues affecting their common good. Ultimately, it is the
bureaucracy which defines the commonweal and responds to that
definition with action, or lack thereof. The power of an
entrenched bureaucracy is a late development in the U. S.
Because of the openness of the new, developing continent, and the
abundant opportuniity offered by that circumstance, government
interference became undesirable even to those who were reared in
a bureaucratic environment. This frontier of opportunity
prevented the coalescing of the familiar European folkways and
social structure. At that time no one wanted a "~New Deal" -
virtually everyone's hand was filled with Aces.

If "a glacial pace of change" can be defined as the wearing away
of Gibraltar by dusting it with a feather duster, it can also be
defined as the rate of change in a bureaucracy. Bureaucracy
endures. The French Revolution destroyed nearly everything in
France except one thing - the bureaucracy. It survived monarchy,
revolution, terror, restoration, and a hundred governments since,
while continuing constant and unchanged. Since bureaucracy is
the only semi-rational, quasi-pragmatic influence in affective,
catholic societies, it becomes absolutely necessary to the
survival of the society. It may be ALMOST immoveable, but it
does respond, albeit slowly, to overwhelming power - and therein
lies our present and future danger. Our founding fathers had
been so frightened and impressed by the omnipotence of
traditional, monarchical power that they failed to forsee the
probable abuses growing out of untrammelled legitimate,
bureaucratic power. They would have felt that whatever was
rational was good, forgetting that even rationality carried to
extremes is destructive - it smothers judgement, which leads to
trouble.

Our founding fathers, and Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations,
envisioned commerce and industry as being conducted and carried
out by small units having a principal owner who bore
responsibility under the common law. With the carcinomous growth
of corporations following upon the refinements in stock-holding
and leveraging, the corporation outgrew the purview of a single
owner, and at the same time accumulated such massive amounts of
resources and capital that they have begun to overwhelm the
entire political process. It is easier, admittedly, to deal with
a person under the law than with an amorphous diffuse entity, but
the end DOES NOT justify the means. The misbegotten according of
a personality to corporations has enabled the corporation to
bring into focus all its diffuse power in such a way as to
motivate the bureaucracy, at the same time the corporation was
being accorded privileges without concomitant responsibilities.
An abstraction has no soul, nor compassion, nor consideration for
the commonweal, until its survival is threatened, When the
bureaucracy accepts the corporation's definition of the
commonweal, and the expressed needs attendant thereupon, then
everyone suffers.


Complicating and aggrevating the problem is the population bomb.
Since the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt the population of
the U. S. has doubled. That means everyone has only one half as
much space; the population is twice as dense and the attendant
problems have multiplied a hundred fold. When problems multiply
the need for problem solving mechanisms multiplies, and the door
is opened for bureaucracy. The situation is tolerable if the
bureaucracy is responsive to ALL THE PEOPLE, but the mass of
people have no mechanism, such as the corporate personality,
through which to bring their power into focus - so we all lose
out. The corporations, who can focus their power through the
mechanism of the "Corporate Personality", are able to bring
tremendous influence on the bureaucracy to meet the immediate
needs of the corporation as viewed through tunnel vision without
regard to the systematic impact those actions cause in the total
environment.

The reification of the "Corporate Personality" has been, and has
created, a disaster. It is part and parcel of Anglo-Saxon common
law that some one person must bear responsibility for actions and
damages. If a person, even a Robber Baron, is responsible for
the death of another, that person is subject to capital
punishment (i.e., death or transportation) under the common law.
When the corporation is culpable for death to one or more, on
whom falls the responsibility? Is the Chairman of the Board
hung?; the President of the corporation electrocuted?; the holder
of the largest block of stock gassed? Is one of the stock
holders elected to be the scape-goat, or mayhap the Janitor? It
is a grave error to try to treat some corporate entity, where all
responsibility is diluted, as an individual person under Anglo-
Saxon common law. The individual has the right to the
disposition of his own personal property because he, as an
individual, bears the responsibility for the social consequences
flowing from that disposition, and must do this without harm to
others. The same cannot be said of a corporation, and the
whole argument for the laissez faire right of the corporation has
no standing, whatsoever, in the Anglo-Saxon foundations of our
law.
It would seem that until we develop a doctrine of "The Designated
Hangee" that corporations should be deprived of any right to
function as a person, and a tremendous educational effort be
mounted to the end that the governmental bureaucracy become aware
to whom their allegiance and loyalty is owed. The consumers
should be protected, not the corporation. The citizen should not
have vital oxygen,water, and earth destroyed by corporate
ignorance or cupidity. Even a dedicated and devoted protestant,
who is a committed capitalist, cannot breathe without oxygen, or
live on poisoned water or air. Even James J. Kilpatrick would be
forced to aver: It pains to admit this, but corporations must be
forced to accept their responsibilities to maintain in purity
those vital resources necessary to our population's survival.

Vive l'commonweal!!! No corporate personality without a
DESIGNATED HANGEE!!!