The answer is the Rule of Law is eternally The Rule of Men.
“What legal contract could put OCP in such an incredibly privileged position?”
Power. Politics is Power.
The Rule of Men.
In our case The Rule of Lawyers.
Hence we suffer.
The Constitution is a political pact from which the laws derived, the Founders would have laughed at Weber and the rest, they would have even chastened Montesquieu. The Founders knew that Rule was of Men and divided and limited power accordingly.
Find the phrase “The Rule of Law” in the Constitution. Or any of the legal positivism that we replaced our ancient rights with?
The Constitution says Congress shall or Congress shall not - it has none of this legal theocratic nonsense, as if the law were somehow separate from men.
This is a great piece and reminds me how lawyers who perpetuate the terms which corporations use to enslave us are the modern day prison guards and the judges who enforce the terms are the corrupt vassals of the corporate state
Marvelous to say, shortly after reading this article, I found myself in a rental (hire-) car equipped with an interactive screen worthy of the Death Star. Every time I started the engine, the screen asked me to promise to obey the rules of the road. (As it turned out, the operation of the car did not depend upon my pushing the green button of assent. However, it led me to imagine a car that would not work unless I promised to reduce my emissions, eschew meat, wear a mask, and let myself be clotshot.)
Interesting, disturbing, the sinister consent procedure reminds me of Willem Dafoe's Bobby Peru groping Lula in Wild at Heart, and whispering "Say 'fuck me'. Then I'll go" - you get the feeling that had Nic Cage not turned up, and had she said it, Bobby would have raped/killed her, he wanted her to "consent", to psychologically submit out of fear.
As I go over all the bills and statements and announcements and changes to this or that plan or arrangement or contract that have flooded into my mailbox recently, it occurs to me that this is a form of concerted action. Corporate managers have collectively determined to overwhelm us with fine print. We can't possibly read all this crap, much less meditate like some 18th century aristocrat on the implications of the content. Yet we can't do so much as download an update to Adobe Acrobat without "signing" a contract. We are conclusively presumed to have read, understood, and agreed to every lawyer-drafted word, and yet everybody knows that none of us reads this. Not even Ron Paul -- so don't start with me. And the more of these contracts we get, the less likely it is that we will read any of them. So corporations have an incentive to send more of them and make them longer and more verbose. This is a collective decision on their part, and it is working, and they know it.
Nearly all of this stuff is enforceable, as many an HOA or condo unit owner has discovered, and it makes citizens relatively powerless. The private logic of contract law structures the relationship as individual consumer vs. big corporation with government as the enforcer of the contract, instead of citizens vs. powerful private organizations, with government as policy maker holding jurisdiction over the relationship.
The law calls these boilerplate documents "contracts of adhesion," but the days are long past when judges were willing to throw them out because they were drafted by one party and imposed on the other, there was gross inequality of bargaining power, and there was no real assent to the terms. Now they are deemed essential to the free flow of modern commerce.
My view has always been that policy makers should be willing to step in and reform these relationships if they become predatory or destructive. But there is little stomach for that presently.
- Evan McKenzie, J.D., Ph.D., "The Fine Print Society", December 22 2011
The scene where the truck hits the guy who had fallen into toxic waste, and he explodes like a sack of rotten watermelons, is one of the greatest in all of cinema.
The answer is the Rule of Law is eternally The Rule of Men.
“What legal contract could put OCP in such an incredibly privileged position?”
Power. Politics is Power.
The Rule of Men.
In our case The Rule of Lawyers.
Hence we suffer.
The Constitution is a political pact from which the laws derived, the Founders would have laughed at Weber and the rest, they would have even chastened Montesquieu. The Founders knew that Rule was of Men and divided and limited power accordingly.
Find the phrase “The Rule of Law” in the Constitution. Or any of the legal positivism that we replaced our ancient rights with?
The Constitution says Congress shall or Congress shall not - it has none of this legal theocratic nonsense, as if the law were somehow separate from men.
This is a great piece and reminds me how lawyers who perpetuate the terms which corporations use to enslave us are the modern day prison guards and the judges who enforce the terms are the corrupt vassals of the corporate state
Fantastic article, keep up the great work!
Marvelous to say, shortly after reading this article, I found myself in a rental (hire-) car equipped with an interactive screen worthy of the Death Star. Every time I started the engine, the screen asked me to promise to obey the rules of the road. (As it turned out, the operation of the car did not depend upon my pushing the green button of assent. However, it led me to imagine a car that would not work unless I promised to reduce my emissions, eschew meat, wear a mask, and let myself be clotshot.)
Interesting, disturbing, the sinister consent procedure reminds me of Willem Dafoe's Bobby Peru groping Lula in Wild at Heart, and whispering "Say 'fuck me'. Then I'll go" - you get the feeling that had Nic Cage not turned up, and had she said it, Bobby would have raped/killed her, he wanted her to "consent", to psychologically submit out of fear.
Those last two concluding paragraphs, chef’s kiss accurate
As I go over all the bills and statements and announcements and changes to this or that plan or arrangement or contract that have flooded into my mailbox recently, it occurs to me that this is a form of concerted action. Corporate managers have collectively determined to overwhelm us with fine print. We can't possibly read all this crap, much less meditate like some 18th century aristocrat on the implications of the content. Yet we can't do so much as download an update to Adobe Acrobat without "signing" a contract. We are conclusively presumed to have read, understood, and agreed to every lawyer-drafted word, and yet everybody knows that none of us reads this. Not even Ron Paul -- so don't start with me. And the more of these contracts we get, the less likely it is that we will read any of them. So corporations have an incentive to send more of them and make them longer and more verbose. This is a collective decision on their part, and it is working, and they know it.
Nearly all of this stuff is enforceable, as many an HOA or condo unit owner has discovered, and it makes citizens relatively powerless. The private logic of contract law structures the relationship as individual consumer vs. big corporation with government as the enforcer of the contract, instead of citizens vs. powerful private organizations, with government as policy maker holding jurisdiction over the relationship.
The law calls these boilerplate documents "contracts of adhesion," but the days are long past when judges were willing to throw them out because they were drafted by one party and imposed on the other, there was gross inequality of bargaining power, and there was no real assent to the terms. Now they are deemed essential to the free flow of modern commerce.
My view has always been that policy makers should be willing to step in and reform these relationships if they become predatory or destructive. But there is little stomach for that presently.
- Evan McKenzie, J.D., Ph.D., "The Fine Print Society", December 22 2011
@ http://privatopia.blogspot.com/2011/12/fine-print-society.html
The scene where the truck hits the guy who had fallen into toxic waste, and he explodes like a sack of rotten watermelons, is one of the greatest in all of cinema.
I really wish these pricks would stop taking their inspiration for world governance from dystopian sci-fi movies.
"How can we make the world as gay as possible?"
"Dunno, let's watch Robocop and take notes."
This is a splendid article, Woes, with tight, lively writing and a nice plot twist at the end. Well done!
Great article, and yes Robocop remains a classic. Its message is even more applicable today than when it came out.
I am actually extremely busy today. I will read your piece and get back to you as soon as I can.
I understand, but you need to be patient. People have their own lives going on.
Okay, I was going to let it go but now you're just being pathetic. Either wise up, or leave me alone.
Thank you. Will correct.