The moral Universe of the “Free World”

Values and The Freedom of human Behavior

Values are not inevitable: Values are human elective normative constructions. To the extent that these constructions are unconscious, they drive behavior and may lead to the tragic circumstances in which humanity finds itself today – millions of innocent lives lost, the ruination of whole societies, and the destabilization of the very conditions which support life on the planet.

Unconscious assumptions lead to a superficial interpretation of events, such as, for instance, the attribution of present predicaments to “power politics,” the personality of leaders, or “economic laws” -- without an analysis of the value system in which this “power” or these personalities move, and without an analysis of the values on which “economic laws” are based (McMurtry, p. xv).

Within the “Free World,” contradictions, such as surveillance, repression and denial at the institutional level, are rationalized, ignored, invalidated, or attacked as heretical. The rule of “Freedom” is accepted to entail as its “necessary cost” and “collateral damage,” such life-negating actions as the betrayal of the public interest, mass murder, and ecological destruction. The catastrophic effects of these on individual lives and life conditions do not register as issues of concern. The fight for “Freedom” must stay the course, with more of the same, no matter the evidence on the ground (McMurtry, pp. xvi and xviii).

The categorical and absolutist nature of this belief system is revealed in the instance when President George W. Bush identifies the 9/11 terrorist attacks as a “declaration of war,” without justification for this designation in either international law or norm. Proclaiming the attacks as “war against America,” Bush then proceeds to bomb a country different from the one which provided citizenship to most of the hijackers. The moral logic of the system excludes all other options, any opposition being perceived as “support for the terrorists.”

As per President Bush’s moral ultimatum to the world:

“You are either for us, or you are with the terrorists.”

Implemented under the guise of “freedom,” “democracy” or “economic necessity,” such thinking is accepted as “inevitable” by all who have absorbed its unconscious value system. This includes environmentalists and even those who suffer from the system.

For instance, ecological economics is a growing field of endeavor. All its proposals, however, fall within a market-value frame of reference -- such as trading in pollution credits, or higher prices for ecologically-friendly products. The common underlying characteristic of these proposals is the reproduction of the very market-value frame of reference which assumes cost and price as final value coordinates, and block out life value coordinates a priori.

The market-value frame of reference assumes that an economy serves something other than the lives of its members. Money, its investment and its products are considered ends in themselves. In such a value frame, junk-foods, images of repetitive violence, luxury cars, military weapons, and the disposal of waste, all increase the gross national product (GNP) – which is good because growth of the GNP is the objective.

The life-value frame of reference, in contrast, assumes that an economy serves the lives of its members. It considers money, its investment, and its products as instrumental to human beings and social policies. It seeks those alternatives which are most likely to satisfy vital life needs, and thereby enable a more comprehensive expression and enjoyment of life, both for the individual and for the collective. Vital needs are those for which deprivation results in long-term reduction of endogenous powers of thought, experienced well-being and/or organic function. Food, shelter, clean air, clean water, and learning opportunity qualify. A principal aim of such an economy would be to minimize waste (pp. 123-124 and 251).

At present, the moral system of the “Free World,” led by the United States, is not subject to systematic inquiry. When the U.S. designates its official enemies as “evil,” the values implied thereby, and the possibility of externalization of guilt onto the Other, are not systematically analyzed. When the United States considers itself humanity’s final bearer of the Good, and chosen to lead the “Free World,” its moral system is not questioned, even though the history of the “Free World” under its leadership, especially since 1991, has been marked by depredation of both life and the conditions necessary for life.

The statement by President Bush on the evening of the 9/11 (2001) attacks, remains unchallenged:

“We go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world” (Quoted pp. 44 and 234. Quoted more specifically in Day 2005, p. 7).

The great achievement of the Renaissance in Western civilization was the rational exposure of multiple alternatives. Only an openness to internal criticism can expose a society’s ruling moral system (McMurtry, pp. xxi-xxiii, 123, 159 and 255).

Social societies are constructed by humans. There is nothing inevitable about the way societies are structured. The degree of their tolerance, their market exchanges, their comportment toward other societies, their system of defense, and even their science and technology, are all determined by the value system which automatically selects options in a certain direction (McMurtry, pp. xxiv-xxv).

Three major Trends: This state of affairs seems to have arisen from at least three main trends, deeply rooted in Western civilization, each one accepted automatically, unconsciously, as an apriori given. The three are analyzed in the present document. They are:

1. Scientism and the Technology to which it leads: Scientism is the assumption that science is the source of all knowledge, namely, that there is no other path to knowledge than the observation of external phenomena and the corroboration of this observation by other people. Since scientism does not take its cues from life – which is indeed neither repeatable nor predictable – the technology to which it leads is also not friendly to life and its needs. The technology of scientism is one which fragments life into repeatable units, such as the assembly line, agri-business based on monocultures, and the disaggregation of foods into their component parts, with the re-aggregation of these parts into artificial, packaged, edible commodities. The technology which is the material representation of scientism does not look at the whole of people’s lives, attempting to make these lives more meaningful. Rather, it orders life into mechanical uniformity. It derives from a mind-set which projects onto life the characteristics of what is lifeless (pp. 106, 109 and 157-158).

2. Our Concept of exclusive Property: Our society is stratified in accordance with the possession of money. This money is conceptualized as being the exclusive property of its owner, even to the exclusion of the one who produced the good which enabled the money accumulation. Transgression of this principle leads to punishment by imprisonment, no matter how needy the transgressor may be, and no matter how unjust the system may be. If a homeless steals Bill Gates’ wallet, the law decrees that he should be imprisoned, no matter the absurd inequality between these two individuals which the system has spawned. Imprisonment converts life into property. In contrast to slaves, prisoners are not instrumental to any production. They are just maintained, without freedom. They are to the prison regime like dogs to their owner (pp. 70-72).

3. The Rise of the Corporation: In the “free market” of the “Free World,” corporations are treated as privileged market agents. They have all the rights of actual, living persons, yet have none of an actual person’s legal liabilities. This privileged position has enabled them to rise transnationally to such power that they now manage more money than most governments, and are able to over-ride national laws. Not being actual persons but rather bureaucracies organized for the purpose of money accumulation, they are, unsurprisingly, not friendly to life or the conditions on which life thrives. Their mandate is to turn raw material into marketable commodities, externalizing as much of the cost of production as possible onto the public. For many transnational corporations today, the production of commodities is but a side endeavor, a public face, while the main source of money accumulation is speculation, money leveraging, and credit creation.

Science and technology

Scientists and the Status quo: We live in the scientific age. Historically, scientists and engineers have had a symbiotic relationship with the established order. They have developed means to increase man’s power and control. The establishment, which finances these scientists and engineers, has access to these means, and has used the power and control to its own advantage.

Scientists and engineers have generally wrapped themselves in a mantle of religion, and thus shielded themselves from the valid criticism that they do not direct their prowess to meeting the basic human needs of the many, directing it instead to increasing the power of an elite few -- among which they themselves have figured prominently.

Common people have abetted the hubris of scientists and engineers, in the vain hope that the new discoveries would benefit everyone, not just the powerful elite – even perhaps bring salvation to all. But science and technology have never been primarily about meeting human needs. They have been about power and status quo, shielded by a mantra of transcendent mortal concerns (Noble 1997/1999, summarized in Hall 2004a, p. 22).

The evolving Hubris of Scientists: While St. Augustine refused to see in technology the power to bring man closer to God, his assessment of technology evolved over time until, in modern times, scientists openly express their conviction that technology will allow man to best God – be better than God. Scientists working on “technologies of transcendence” are particularly prone to make this grandiose claim – those working on atomic weapons, space exploration, artificial intelligence, artificial life, nanotechnology, robotics, genetic engineering, and on the convergence of these technologies. None of these technologies is directed at helping the poor of the Third World. They are all designed to improve the world which God has created, this being labeled Aprogress.@

St. Augustine (354-430) – Technology of no Value for Salvation: Acknowledging the usefulness of “arts and skills” in easing the plight of mankind after its Fall, St. Augustine nevertheless maintained that these had no value for redemption. Only grace could provide redemption:

“Remember, all these favors [provided by the useful arts] taken together are but the fragmentary solace allowed us in a life condemned to misery” (Noble, pp. 11-12).

Saint Benedict of Nursia (c. 547) – Technology of Value for Salvation: Saint Benedict of Nursia, Italian monk and founder of the religious order of the Benedictines, saw the “practical arts” as helping the pursuit of spiritual perfection. He was the first to decree that these were vital elements in monastic devotion (Noble, p. 13).

Charlemagne (742?-814) – Technology as God’s Will: By 800, during the reign of Charlemagne, when the heavy plow made man master (exploiter) of nature, rather than its vassal, at a time when the Benedictines were in a position of dominance in Western Europe, people slowly began to conceive of technology as an aspect of Christian virtue – God’s will (Noble, p. 12-13).

John Scotus Erigena (c.810-c.877) – Technology to be in God’s Image: Erigena, Irish

philosopher, perhaps the most learned man of his time, saw the “mechanical arts” as

part of mankind’s original endowment, his God-like image – divinely inspired and of

value for salvation:

“The arts are man’s links with the Divine, their cultivation a means to salvation” (Noble, pp. 15-16 and 202).

Hugh of St. Victor (1096-1141) – Technology to be like God: Hugh of St. Victor, French or German Augustinian canon, philosopher and theologian, saw technology as a means to recover the divine power lost with the Fall of Adam:

“This, then, is what the arts are concerned with, this is what they intend – to restore within us the divine likeness” (Noble, pp. 19-20).

Roger Bacon (c.1214-1294?) -- Technology to prepare for the Millennium: Roger Bacon, Franciscan friar, philosopher and scientist, maintained that advances in the arts were both means to restore humanity’s lost divinity and means to prepare for the kingdom to come (Noble, p. 26).

Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) – Technology to be God of the Earth: Giordano Bruno, Italian philosopher, saw science and technology as making man god-like:

“By fashioning other natures, other courses, other orders by means of his

intelligence – and with that freedom without which his resemblance to the deity

would not exist – [man] might in the end make himself god of the earth . . .[thus]

separating himself more and more from his animal nature, [and] climb nearer to

the divine being” (Noble, p. 39).

Francis Bacon (1561-1626) – Technology to have Dominium over Creation: Largely through Francis Bacon’s enormous and enduring influence, the medieval identification of technology and transcendence would inform the mentality of modernity then emerging. Bacon’s utilitarian outlook and millenarian thinking gives formative shape to the milieu of modern science.

“Man by the Fall fell at the same time from his state of innocence and from his

dominion over creation [but] both these losses . . . can even in this life be in some

parts repaired – the former by religion and faith, the latter by arts and sciences”

(Noble, pp. 50-53 and 57).

Robert Boyle (1627-1691) – Technology to be God’s Co-creator: Robert Boyle, Anglo-Irish physicist and chemist, father of both experimental science and modern chemistry, saw man assume the mantle of creator in his own right, as a god himself. Useful designs and devices were extensions or augmentation of, and even improvements on, the original creation – the human (divinely directed) complement to creation.

“And sure it is a great honor that the indulgent Creator vouchsafes to naturalists – that though he gives them not the power to produce one atom of matter, yet he allows them the power to introduce so many forms . . . and work such changes among the creatures that if Adam were now alive, and should survey that great variety of man’s productions that is to be found in the shops of artificers, the laboratories of chymists and other well-furnished magazines of art, he would admire to see what a new world, as it were, or set of things has been added to the primitive creatures by the industry of his posterity” (Noble, pp. 65-67).

Leo Szilar (1898-1964) -- Technology to be a God: Leo Szilar, Hungarian-American nuclear physicist and biophysicist, the first to conceive of the possibility of a nuclear chain reaction, observed:

“If I wanted to contribute something to save mankind, then I would

probably go into nuclear physics because only through the liberation of

atomic energy could we obtain the means which would enable man not

only to leave the earth but to leave the solar system” (Noble, p. 105).

Alan Turing (1912-1954) --Technology to be better than God: Alan Turing, British

mathematician and computer theorist who, with Claude Shannon, developed the

theoretical basis for both the design of electronic computers and the development of

artificial intelligence, declared:

“One may hope that this process [of learning new tricks] will be more expeditious than evolution. The survival of the fittest is a slow method of measuring advantages. The experimenter, by the exercise of [machine design] intelligence, should be able to speed it up” (Noble, pp. 150-151).

Modern scientists who have expressed the potential of technology to make man not only like God but better than God, include:

Robert Sinsheimer: Robert Sinsheimer, molecular geneticist, explained, in 1969:

A It is a new horizon in the history of man. . . Some may smile and may feel that this is but a new version of the old dream, of the perfection of man. It is that, but it is something more. . . To foster his better traits and to curb his worse by cultural means alone has always been, while clearly not impossible, in many instances, most difficult . . . We now glimpse another route – the chance to ease the internal strains and heal the internal flaws directly, to carry on and consciously perfect far beyond our present vision this remarkable product of two billion years of evolution@ (Noble, pp. 187-188).

V. Elving Anderson: V. Elving Anderson, professor (emeritus) of genetics at the University of Minnesota, in 1994:

AThe earth does not need more humans but perhaps it needs better humans, humans more disease-resistant, genetically superior, more intelligent, sympathetic, moral and spiritual, better adjusted to and able to cope with their environment. With our rapidly increasing knowledge about the human microsphere and our developing technology, we stand in a position to improve our progeny@ (Noble, pp. 196-197).

Lee Silver: Lee Silver, professor in the Departments of Molecular Biology, Ecology and Evolutional Biology, Princeton University, in 1997:

AIt is difficult to find the words to describe the enhanced attributes of [the GenRich (genetically enhanced)] people. >Intelligence= does not do justice to their cognitive abilities. >Knowledge= does not explain the depth of their understanding of both the universe and their own consciousness. >Power= is not strong enough to describe the control they have over technologies that can be used to shape the universe in which they live. . .” (Silver p. 293, summarized in Hall 2004a, p. 20).

Daniel Koshland: Daniel Koshland, former editor of Science, in 1998:

AIs there an argument against making superior individuals?@ (Cited in McKibben, p. 27, summarized in Hall 2004b, p. 7).

Richard Dawkins: Richard Dawkins, professor, Oxford University, in 2000:

APeople who object to research of this kind must explain exactly who would, in their view, be damaged by it. Phrases like >playing God= form no part of a valid argument@ (Cited in McKibben, p. 43).

Ian Pearson: Ian Pearson, futurologist, British Telecom, in 2000:

AHomo Cyberneticus [will soon emerge with a] full duplex link between man and machine . . . [In turn, this creature will merge with] Homo Optimus, [the genetically engineered] elite race of people who are smart, agile, and disease-resistant. [Together, they will form] Homo Hybridus [which will have no trouble displacing] Homo Ludditus@ (Cited in McKibben, pp. 87-88).

Joseph Rosen: Joseph Rosen, professor, Dartmouth Medical School, in 2001:

A[We should demand permission] to sculpt the genotype . . . [Were I given permission by a medical ethics board], I would try to engineer a person to have wings@ (Cited in McKibben, p. 25).

James Watson: James Watson, co-discoverer the structure of DNA, president of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories, in 2002:

AGoing for perfection@ (Cited in McKibben, p. 10).

Gregory Stock: Gregory Stock, professor, University of California at Los Angeles, in 2002:

AIn light of our yearnings for immortality, the underlying biology of aging may well be the first germline intervention to truly tempt us@ (Stock 2002, cited in McKibben pp. 47 and 147).

From Hubris to Scientism: The scientific method is a milestone instrument in the evolution of humans. However, made to speak beyond its domain of understanding, it becomes a reductionist and closed metaphysic which purports to speak of inexorable laws of natural science, including human behavior. Economic phenomena, for instance, are considered to be as redundant as those of physics and chemistry, with free will omitted and humans turned into inert objects. Such colonization of all fields by science is scientific totalitarianism -- “scientism.”

Scientism considers as valid information only:

* Externally observable, quantifiable data. This principle is presupposed. It is not, and cannot be a finding of science.

* Experimental findings which can be “replicated.”

The technology which evolves as the materialized extension of this scientism, consists of predictably behaving systems which re-structure regions of the world by means of uniform sequences. It considers all that exists as raw material to be subjugated to its order. Every form of production and reproduction is:

* Analyzed into its constituent phases.

* Standardized and fixed into place within invariant sequences.

Examples of this organizing format include auto-manufacture, agri-industry, media programming, and genetic modification. The thanatic value-set by which these are structured cannot see itself.

This technological method has been adopted by the global corporate system. The factory assembly line is the epitome of this paradigm of “efficiency.” The military is its prototype. Even the professions of medical care and education are increasingly being made to follow suit, with “value adding” as their stated goal.

Ross Perot, twice nominee for President of the United States (1992 and 1996), speaking the night before the 2000 elections, in support of the “educational presidency” of George W. Bush:

“[The ideal is to] program students like you do computers” (pp. 103 and 247. Wikipedia “Ross Perot” 2008, p. 1).

A representative of General Mills echoes, in 2001:

“The consumer begins to develop in the first year of existence . . . [our model is] ‘from cradle to grave’ . . . We believe in getting them early and having them for life” (pp. 104 and 247).

Robert Pritchard, President Emeritus at the University of Toronto, concurs, in 2001:

“We need a more market-driven, deregulated, competitive and differentiated [that is product-mandated] university system, [with the] production of better services to consumers” (pp. 108 and 249).

The world is turned into a vast hierarchy of assembly lines – the “soul-less mega-machine” described by American social philosopher Lewis Mumford (1895-1990) (pp. 97-110).

From Scientism to Control: The predictive control of human subjects is a master theme in the scientific (or, more accurately, scientistic) literature. Its underlying, unifying principle is that all behavioral outputs are determined by conditioning inputs. Freedom of choice, being neither externally verifiable nor publicly replicable, is outside the capacity of the paradigm to consider, and hence considered illusory. From Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) to present-day research into the technology of behavior control, whether in the fields of psychology, sociology, management, or the military, the goal is the systematic control of human beings.

Applied to economic science and policy, the doctrine conceives of the “consumer” as a malleable resultant of operant conditioning, with no limit to his/her desires for commodities – thus leaving no room for choice, despite its claim to be “value neutral.”

Applied by corporations, the conditioning of human choice is aimed at producing profitable outcomes for product advertising. The aim in all cases is control.

The prediction and control of life has deep roots in scientific method:

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527): Italian author and statesman, Niccolo Machiavelli, first describes the means by which a prince can gain and maintain power. In Il principe [The Prince] (1532), Machiavelli’s “ideal” prince is an amoral and calculating tyrant, power justifying his every action (p. 103. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000).

Francis Bacon (1561-1626): English philosopher, essayist and statesman, Francis Bacon, gives the first formal expression of the reduction of life for purposes of prediction and control – the equation “knowledge = power.” In his Novum Organum (1620), Bacon compares the scientific method to the torture of witches. The underlying sinister assumption is that life, resisting the scientist, is to be tortured into subjugation, and enslaved for the sake of power as an end-in itself:

“[The scientific method is] an inquisition, [with] no part interdicted, [which] puts Nature on the rack to compel her secrets from her, [as the scientist deploys] the mechanical arts [to] make nature man’s slave” (pp. 105 and 248. See the present document under The evolving Hubris of Scientists).

Rene Descartes (1596-1650): French philosopher, mathematician and scientist, Rene Descartes, in his famous proposition, “Cognito ergo sum” (“I think, therefore, I am”), assumes an atomic “I.” Descartes’ segregation of the material world (“extension”) from his thoughts, posits an ontological dualism which implies that all non-human lives are machines. Descartes would greatly influence the formation of the mechanistic-atomism mind-set of the modern era (pp. 107 and 249).

David Hume (1711-1776): Scottish philosopher and historian, David Hume, expresses most famously the paradigm which has become standard in modern times. “Hume’s fork” in the social sciences, particularly economics, states:

“Is it empirically verifiable by others? Can you quantify its effects? If not, commit it to the fire, for it is nothing but sophistry and illusion (pp. 102 and 247).

William Kelvin (1824-1907): British mathematician and physicist, William Kelvin, echoes “Hume’s fork” in a somewhat modified form:

“When you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind” (pp. 102 and 247).

Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936): Russian physiologist and experimental psychologist, Ivan Pavlov, having discovered the conditioned reflex, and the fact that specific areas of the cerebral cortex are concerned with specific reflexes, develops a mechanistic theory of human behavior which not only has widespread influence on neurology and psychology, but also finds political favor (p. 103. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000).

B. F. Skinner (1904-1990): American psychologist and leading exponent of the psychology school of Behaviorism, B. F. Skinner, promulgates the assumption of scientism, namely, that nothing qualifies as real which is not directly observable by others – including one’s own thought processes. The model rules out the existence of the experience of consciousness, the feeling of freedom of choice, and such second-order knowledge, as “I know that I am thinking.” Skinner coins the term “operant conditioning” to describe the learning of the organism as a result of responding to, or operating on, its environment (p. 103. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000).

Stanley Milgram: In the late 1960=s, the young American psychologist Stanley Milgram, performs a series of obedience experiments which is probably part of a massive, secret, mind-control project carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) since 1950. The objectives of the project are both psychological warfare and the disintegration of human consciousness through torture. The project has already led to the development of the “no touch” method of torture (entirely psychological), which has been codified in the Kubark Counter-intelligence Interrogation Manual, and disseminated worldwide.

Milgram concludes that social convention leads normal individuals to accept authority and ignore the pain of the victim. Although his research methods are controversial, Milgram would later be appointed full professor at the City University, New York (McCoy 2006, pp. 7-8, 10-11. 26, 47-49, 50, 52, 86 and 91. Miles 2006, pp. 28 and 49. Both sources summarized in Hall 2006, pp. 17-18).

The Life-ground Perspective: In contrast to this atomistic, mechanical paradigm, we as humans, do not experience the world in which we live as the redundant, law-like set of phenomena revealed by the scientific method. Though very powerful, the scientific method is a limited instrument of understanding, properly restricted to the inorganic world and the homogenous infrastructure of the organic world. For humanity, the “real world” is the directly experienced world of being alive as humans, with a subjecthood of “who I am” boundless in possibility.

Corporations, governments and academics everywhere, however, calculate all that exists in terms of formulae of repetitions, locking humans into isolated, predictable sequences which are assumed to be the nature of existence itself. The life-ground ethics releases the human subject from this invisible prison (p. 107. See the present document under “The corporate Coup d’état,” “The Mind as a marketing Site”).

PROPERTY AS THE BASIS FOR LAWS

Capitalistic Property: Capitalism has its roots in rebellion against rulers appropriating lordly privileges for themselves at the expense of others. The philosophical justification for capitalism was first set down by John Locke. In some circumstances, said Locke, revolution is not only a right but an obligation. Locke also set down the policy of governmental checks and balances, as would be later delineated in the Constitution of the United States.

To Locke, each person should have the right to the product of his/her labor – hence, the rights of property were fundamental. Locke’s views on private property – and punishment for its violation – has given us the framework we use today, even though Locke’s economically pluralistic society, consisting of yeomen, small businesses and professionals, was immensely different from today’s society, dominated by oligopolistic transnational corporations (pp. 65 and 72. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000).

John Locke (1632-1704): English philosopher and founder of British empiricism, John Locke was the first to express systematically the concept of capitalist private property. In The Second Treatise of Government (1690), Locke argues that all rights and legitimacy derive from the right of private property. Specifically:

* “Life” is private property. Payment for its loss should consist only of the money for which it could have been marketed, were the person alive.

* The public good is private property. The government is the legislative and executive “deputy” of property-holders who charge it with the security of their own private property. No other right and no obligation exists on the part of property-holders (Locke 1690, Section 221).

* “Political power is the right to make laws with penalties of death, and all lesser penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property” (Locke 1690, Section 3).

* Reason is the capacity to obey laws of private property. If someone does not obey these laws of “right reason,” he is judged to have “put himself into a state of war” with the one whose property he has transgressed, or the state which represents the transgressed (Locke 1690, Section 18).

Locke, therefore, thought of possession as exclusionary, even in the case when possession is not grounded in either work or recompense. Locke’s type of possession is blind to the needs of life – the needs of the poor.

Consider, in contrast, the re-distribution of un-needed property for the needs of life -- Jesus, Robin Hood, systems of progressive taxation, and the concepts of the first peoples of the Americas for whom the privatization of nature into exclusionary private property is a violent offense against both the earth and other members of the community.

In Europe, during this period, the commons were being enclosed, with millions of people being driven off their traditional lands.

Locke’s Shift: At the beginning of his treatise, Locke defines property as real property. He sets three sensible limits to its acquisition. Private property must:

* Be the outcome of “mixing one’s labor [with what is] appropriated from nature” (Locke 1690, Section 26).

* Always leave “enough and good in common for others” to do likewise (Locke 1690, Section 27).

* Not “be allowed to spoil” (Locke 1690, Section 31).

Midway in his treatise, however, buried in an argument about money possession, Locke notes that the introduction of money negates all three provisos. Since money can buy the labor of others, the mixture of the owner’s labor with the property is no longer required. Since there can be unlimited amounts of money, it is not required to leave “enough and good in common for others.” Since money does not “spoil,” its possessors have the right to unlimited amounts, even if others have none (Locke 1690, Section 37 onward, particularly Section 50).

Punishment for the transgressor, however, remains intact. The one who infringes “puts himself into a state of war” with the property owner and the state.

The argument in which Locke makes this shift is one about the use of money. The use of money, says Locke, implies the “tacit agreement” and the “voluntary consent” of men to distribute wealth according to the possession of money rather than according to the contribution of labor. In contrast to the beginning of his treatise, when Locke had defined wealth as real estate, now, with wealth defined as money, the right of the property owner is absolute, excluding even the right of the actual producer of the wealth. The social order is ruled by money possession rather than work contribution, and Locke certifies this order as “the cornerstone of human society and civilization.”

The inequality of money possession has no limit, in either theory or law. It is rightful, Locke asserts, since:

“It is plain that men have agreed to a disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth [by their] tacit and voluntary consent to the use of money.”

Locke (and his successors) fail to note that consent (to money or anything else) requires an option before it is “voluntary consent.” They are oblivious to that fact that the very foundation of the doctrine – the “labor right” to property – has been reversed. They do not acknowledge that the doctrine implies that ever fewer people can have ever more property, while ever more people can have little or none. They do not see the injustice of imprisoning those who transgress a system which is itself unjust (pp. 65-70, 72 and 237).

THE RISE OF THE CORPORATION

The Market Doctrine: The original corporations were non-profit institutions chartered to serve the public good for a limited period of time. The for-profit British East India Company (1600-1874) was formed by a group of merchants, and charted by Queen Elizabeth I, in 1600, to have monopoly of trade with Asia.

For Locke, and even for Adam Smith, a century later, “market agents” were individual human proprietors.

Today, private corporations control more revenues than most governments. A few hundred of their stockholders own more wealth than the total income of the majority of the world’s population. The evolution of the free market agent from individual proprietor to transnational oligopolistic corporation, is a major shift whose significance is not recognized by “free market” proponents (pp. 92 and 193-194. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000).

Adam Smith (1723-1790): Scottish economist Adam Smith, founder of the market doctrine, wrote much of his An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (1776) as a treatise against the chartered private-monopoly corporations which he viewed as suppressing free trade. In fact, Smith’s concept of “free trade” was specifically directed at them. Smith did not see corporations as serving the public good, the joint-stock enterprise being capable, he said, of “nothing but uniform function.” Smith did not conceive of the for-profit corporation we know today as a market agent.

Smith defined capital as what gives men work, what produces tangible goods, and what increases the material prosperity of the home country – a definition which does not hold for today’s money “capital flows” across borders.

Smith emphasized that value arises from the labor expended in the process of production. Influenced by David Hume and the rationalist current of the century, he believed that in a laissez-faire economy, the impulse of self-interest would bring about public welfare – the “invisible hand” of the market (pp. 21 and 193-194. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000. For David Hume, see the present document under “From Scientism to Control”).

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873): British philosopher and economist John Stuart Mill stressed that the method of empiricism was the only source of all knowledge. Seeing through the lenses of the ruling principles of his day (and ours), Mill wrote:

“Commercial adventurers from more advanced societies have been generally the first civilizers of barbarians . . . International trade . . . is the greatest permanent security for the uninterrupted progress of the ideas, institutions, and character of the human race.”

Mill was oblivious to the problem of mass unemployment, whether in Britain or in other countries, which followed from the deregulated mass importation of cheaper goods from abroad, made possible by “free trade.” He saw only gains from “free trade.” The issue of ruined lives was invisible to him, even though during his own life time, tens of millions of village weavers in India, displaced by British machine-made cotton commodities, starved as a consequence of the “free trade” which he was advocating (pp. 46-48).

The Corporation as a Person, 1886: No constitution recognizes the corporation. In the United States, to gain constitutional legitimacy, corporations have used the vehicle of the Fourteenth Amendment which “protects the rights of former slaves as persons.” According to then Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black (1886-1971):

“Neither the history nor the language of the Fourteenth Amendment justify the belief that corporations are included within its protection.”

The landmark 1886 decision was rendered in the case of Santa Clara County vs. South Pacific Railroad Company. The court recognized the railroad corporation as “a person,” thereby preventing public authority from regulating its stockholders who were taking advantage of the public. There was no principle or precedent of law to support the judgment of the court. British-New Zealander jurist John Salmond (1862-1924) expressed:

“The corporation is nothing less than the birth of a new being . . . a being without soul or body. The company may become insolvent, but its members remain rich.”

Corporations in fact have more rights than person. Incorporation charters exempt the stockholder group from personal responsibility under civil and criminal law for the actions of the corporation. “Limited” means “limited liability.” The exemption is justified as “necessary” because large capital pools are necessary to achieve economies of scale. In a non sequitur, it is argued that because of this, corporate investors should not be held responsible for their investments.

On the one hand, the “risks by his investment” which the corporate investor takes, justify the profits he obtains without work contribution. On the other hand, those risks are nullified by the exemption of the investor from the personal liability incurred by corporate action (pp. 95, 153-154, 194-195 and 244-245. Wikipedia “Hugo Black” 2008, p. 1. Encyclopaedia of New Zealand “Salmond, the Hon. Sir John William” 2007, pp. 1-3).

Friedrich von Hayek (1899-1992): British economist Friedrich von Hayek expressed his commitment to free markets and his aversion to government intervention in The road to serfdom (1944), which significantly influenced the policies of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher(1925-, Prime Minister of Britain 1979-1990).

In The fatal Conceit (1988), Hayek writes:

“Civilization depends on the extended order of cooperation known as capitalism . . . For there is no known way other than by distribution of goods in a competitive market, to inform individuals in what direction their several efforts must aim so as to contribute as much as possible to the total product. . . If humankind owes its very existence to [this] one particular rule-guided form of conduct of proven effectiveness, it simply does not have the option of choosing another. . . The fruitless attempt to render a situation just, whose outcome by its nature cannot be determined by what anyone does or can know, only damages the functioning of the process itself. . . For the most part, only unknown lives will count as so many units when it comes to sacrificing a few lives in order to serve a larger number elsewhere. Even if we do not like to face the fact, we constantly have to make such decisions . . . We have never been able to choose our morals . . . If we ask what most men owe to the moral practices of those who are called capitalists, the answer is, their very lives. . . Most of the millions of the developing world owe their existence to opportunities that advanced [market] societies have created for them.”

Hayek’s “transcendent impersonal order,” however, even during his time, was not, in fact, regulated by the principle of competitively priced production. The non-productive financial sector was even then, and is now increasingly dominant. The actually governing private investments and returns which rule the global economy, consist of leveraged money invested in increasingly monopolistic corporate investment vehicles which produce nothing (pp. 21, 51-52 and 235).

David Gauthier: Canadian-American philosopher David Gauthier, espousing a neo-Hobbesian, social contract view of morality, grounds this view in market theory, assuming the self-maximizing agent as both a given and the bearer of true rationality. For Gauthier, the market is the ideal structure of moral freedom. “Freedom” and “the free market” are moral equivalents.

In his Morals by agreement (1986), Gauthier writes:

“Appropriation has no natural upper bound. Economic man always seeks more” (pp. 49 and 235. Wikipedia “David Gauthier” 2008, pp. 1-3).

THE CORPORATE COUP D’ETAT

Structuring the System: The Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, and the Trilateral Commission, are the three major policy planning bodies of the United States-led corporate world rule. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund implement the policies. Originally conceived for post-World War II reconstruction, both institutions have changed their mission over the years, focusing now on the “development” of Third World economies.

1921: The Council on Foreign Relations: Established in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations has a powerful influence on U.S. foreign policy. Its proceedings are private and confidential. Total present membership is 4,300.

Corporate members include ABC News, Alcoa, American Express, Boeing, BP, CBS, Chevron, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, ExxonMobil, FedEx, Ford Motor, General Electric, GlaxoSmithKline, Google, Goldman Sacks, Halliburton, IBM, JP Morgan Chase, Lehman Brothers, Lockheed Martin, MasterCard, Merrill Lynch, News Corp, Pepsi, Pfizer, Shell Oil, Sony, Time Warner, Toyota, United States Chamber of Commerce, Verizon, and VISA.

Present Directors include Madeleine Albright, Tom Brokaw, Richard Holbrooke, Colin Powell, Christine Todd Whitman and Fareed Zakaria. David Rockefeller is Honorary Chairman.

Previous members have included Zbigniew Brzezinski, George H. W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Alan Greenspan, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Henry Kissinger, Bill Moyers, Brent Scowcroft, George Shultz, George Soros, Paul Volcker and Robert Zoellick .

In 1940, the Council initiated a global design of world rule in cooperation with the Nazis. The Nazis would rule Europe, and the United States would rule “the Gran Area”– the non-Nazi remainder of the world. An October 19, 1940, memorandum of the Council’s (secret) War and Peace Studies Group, implies a world empire in peaceful collaboration with the Nazis:

“[The idea is] to set forth the political, military, territorial and economic requirements of the United States, in its potential leadership of the non-German world.”

After 1942, major U.S. transnational corporations supplied military-industrial commodities to the Nazis. Among these were General Motors and Ford (armored vehicles), IBM (concentration camp punch-cards), AT&T (ovens), and Dupont (chemicals) (pp. 188 and 260. Wikipedia “Council on Foreign Relations” 2008, pp. 1-13).

1944: The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund: An agreement during the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, in Bretton Woods, NH, led to the creation of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Both are located in Washington, D.C. Both are dominated by the United States. In the World Bank, the president must be an American nominated by the President of the U.S. In addition, the U.S. has 16 percent of the Bank’s shares, giving it effective veto power in constitutional decisions. In the IMF, the U.S. has 17 percent of the votes, almost three times the votes of the next highest country, Japan, with 6 percent of the votes.

The World Bank focuses on loans for “development,” by promoting environments favorable for investments. The IMF focuses on exchange rates and balances of payments.

The constitutions of both institutions direct them to promote “currency stability” and “the maintenance of high levels of employment and real income” on a global basis. In time, however, both institutions would desert their mission. It is no longer possible to recognize this purpose of the United Nations in the money sequences which the World Bank and the IMF now prescribe to the world. Both institutions participate in the de-linking of money and credit from their base in the conditions of life (health, the environment), and instead, focus solely on money acquisitions.

Both the World Bank and the IMF share the presently prevailing economic paradigm which focuses on increasing the money capital of transnational investors rather than improve the lives of people and their life conditions. Both institutions view societies and environments as means of profit-maximization for corporate stockholders, rather than viewing the stock market as a means to promote shared life goods. Both institutions use human and environmental life as disposable instruments to help stockholders control the market, rather than demand the constitutional subordination of stockholders to the sovereign common life interests of societies and their environment.

Even as more than a billion people lack access to fresh water, the World Bank has adopted a policy of privatization of fresh water supplies for profit.

The “conditionalities” which the IMF imposes as a conditions to its loans, decrease social stability. In particular, its Structural Adjustment Program leads to increases in poverty (pp. 121, 176, 203 and 258. Wikipedia “World Bank,” 2008, pp. 1-7. Wikipedia “International Monetary Fund” 2008, pp. 1-13).

1954: The Bilderberg Group: The Bilderberg Group had its inaugural meeting, in Holland, in 1954. The Group is not an official group. It meets annually, by invitation-only, and both its membership and the deliberations of its members are kept secret. A leak, in 2003, revealed that this meeting, in Versailles, near Paris, included among its 130 invitees John Bolton (Under-secretary of State for Arms Control), Dick Cheney, Thomas Friedman (Foreign Affairs Columnist, New York Times), Paul Gigot (Editor, The Wall Street Journal), Henry Kissinger, Richard Perle, Colin Powell, David Rockefeller, Donald Rumsfeld, James Wolfensohn (President, World Bank), Paul Wolfowitz, Fareed Zakaria (Editor, Newsweek), and Robert Zoellick [then Trade Advisor to the U.S. President, at present (since July 2007), President of the World Bank] (Wikipedia “2003 Bilderberg Meeting” 2008, pp. 1-8. Wikipedia “Robert Zoellick” 2008, p. 1).

1973: The Trilateral Commission: David Rockefeller founded the Trilateral Commission in 1973, together with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker (both later to be chair the U.S. Federal Reserve System). The Commission has about 300 members which include George H. W. Bush, Jimmy Carter (who, as president, appointed 26 Commission members to senior positions in his Administration), Bill Clinton (who, as president, appointed 12 Commission members to senior positions in his Administration), Dick Cheney, Gerald Ford, John McCain (2008 Republican Presidential Candidate), and Robert Zoellick (now President of the World Bank) (Wikipedia “Trilateral Commission” 2008, pp. 1-7. Wikipedia “David Rockefeller – Bilderberg and Trilateral Commission” 2008, p. 1).

The Rich win the Class War: The “Great Reversal” -- the present social revolution in reverse, the contraction of democracy -- began around 1980 (pp. 79, 187 and 206).

1976: “A Crisis of Democracy”: The 1976 Report of the Trilateral Commission identifies a “crisis of democracy,” which it describes as an “excess of democracy” and an “excess of entitlements” in previously passive and unorganized population groups, including blacks, Chicanos, Indians, white ethnic groups, students and women (p. 86).

1980’s:

1. Re-structuring domestic Economies: The global corporate coup d’état begins, with the re-structuring of national economies through military and financial coercion. The corporate press cooperates by not bringing the terms of this re-structuring to the attention of the public.

Transnational trade fiats begin to simultaneously:

* Compel national societies to de-regulate their capital and commodity sectors -- massively, at all life-serving levels.

* Re-regulate national economies on the transnational level, through the imbedding in trade fiats of corporate rights declared to over-ride those national laws not deemed to serve the transnational purpose (pp. 165-166).

At present, worldwide, more than 3 billion people live on less than $2 a day. The axiomatic premise of the ruling doctrine is that a marginal rise in the aggregate income of Third World countries will resolve the deprivation of life means. An increase in the gross domestic product (GDP) is the remedy proposed by all global financial institutions and all mainstream development economists. But this is a non sequitur. The remedy excludes a priori the means of life which the poor obtain from nature, the community and the government. These means are not priced, and they are now being systematically depleted, polluted, and destroyed by the very neo-liberal program which proposes to “reduce poverty.” In addition, it removes from the calculations both people’s decision-making ability (for instance, what they might do with more free time) and their ability for self-government. This, under the proclamation of “increased freedom” (pp. 6 and 222).

2. Ignoring previously developed international Trade Law: Since 1988, all trade and investment treaties which have been sponsored by the United States, have over-ridden, without so much as recognition of, or reference to the body of international trade law developed since the Second World War. Ignored, for instance, are the original Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights adopted by the European Union, and the Social Chapters adopted by the European Community and the Council of Europe.

Ignored also is the United Nations Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States. The Charter, passed by the Assembly, in 1974, by a vote of 120 in favor, 6 against (the United States and other industrialized countries), with 10 abstentions, recognizes the “sovereign and inalienable right of every state to”:

* “Choose its economic system, as well as its political, social and cultural systems in accordance with the will of its people without any outside interference.”

* “Regulate and exercise authority over foreign investment.”

* “Regulate and supervise the activities of transnational corporations.”

* “Nationalize, expropriate or transfer ownership of foreign property . . . [with] appropriate compensation.”

* Ensure “appropriate measures designed to attain stable, equitable and remunerative prices for primary products [that is, products extracted from sovereign natural resources]” (pp. 176, 178 and 259. Brower and Tepe, Jr., 1975, p. 2).

1991: “A supra-national Sovereignty”: During the 1991 meeting of the Bilderberg Group, in Baden, Germany, David Rockefeller (1915-) makes clear his views on democracy, and expresses his appreciation to the media for their cooperation in putting in place a world rule more to his liking:

“A supra-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers . . . is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries. . . [The media have cooperated with this] plan for the world [and are to be thanked for their] discretion . . . It would have been impossible for us to develop a plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years” (pp. 81-82 and 111 and 187-188).

2001: Joseph Stiglitz – an Analysis: In 2000, Joseph Stiglitz, former Chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors (1995-1997), and Chief Economist at the World Bank (1997-2000), resigns from the World Bank. Stiglitz has been under fire for exposing the vested interests behind many decisions of the World Bank and the IMF.

Upon winning the 2001 Nobel Prize for Economics, during an interview with reporter Greg Palast, Stiglitz describes the four obligatory steps which the World Bank, the IMF, and their majority stockholder, the U.S. Treasury, prescribe for all countries – a “one-size-fits-all, four-step diktat which ruins national economies:

1. “Briberization/Privatization”: A program of “market reform” in which national officials are given a 10 percent commission on sales, if they privatize domestic resources, such as oil, electricity, water and industrial assets.

The present corporate grab of land and resources (including whole mountains containing bauxite) in India, is eloquently described by Arundhati Roy.

2. “Capital-market Liberalization”: A program in which foreign money, backed by foreign banks, is allowed to speculate in currency, real estate and portfolio funds. It then flees, draining national reserves, and leaving host governments ripe for the IMF “conditionality” of raising interest rates to 30-80 percent in order to tempt back financial speculators – those very speculators who have just hijacked the country’s national reserves.

3. “Market-based Pricing”: A program of price raises on basic life commodities, such as water, food and cooking oil, until social unrest is predictably sparked. The army is then brought in to control the “IMF riots” – a solution in which Washington is highly invested. This bankrupting of the public, together with the flight of capital, allows foreign corporations to buy at fire-sale prices whatever remaining assets are still in public hands, such as mining concessions or ports.

4. “Free Trade”: A program of forced mass imports, coerced by financial blockade, until domestic markets are open to a flood of U.S. imports (pp. 164 and 262. Wikipedia “Joseph Stiglitz” 2008, pp. 1-2. Roy 2007).

The corporate Vehicles of Command: The vehicles of command for transnational corporate rule include:

1. The European Union (EU): The European Union was created by the Maastricht Treaty, in 1993, as the successor to the European Community. It comprises almost 500 million people, in 27 nations, primarily in Europe. The combined nations generate about 30 percent of the world’s gross domestic product. Of the world’s 500 largest corporations, 153 are headquartered on its territory. The EU is the WTO’s European collaborator (Wikipedia “European Union” 2008, pp. 1 and 13).

2. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into effect on January 1, 1994. It became the prototype for the “agreements” by which the WTO means to rule all countries (p. 258. Wikipedia “North American Free Trade Agreement” 2008, p. 1).

3. The World Trade Organization (WTO): The World Trade Organization (WTO) came into effect on January 1, 1995, as the successor of the 1948 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) which had operated since then as a de facto international organization (Wikipedia “World Trade Organization” 2008, pp. 1-27).

4. Derivative regional Instruments:

a. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC): The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) consists of a group of Pacific Rim countries which have been meeting annually since 1989 (Wikipedia “APEC” 2007, p. 1).

Addressing APEC’s 2007 Business Summit meeting, in Australia, President George W. Bush declared:

“The expansion of trade creates jobs. The expansion of investment creates opportunities for people on this side of the Pacific, and it opens up new markets for American workers and farmers and entrepreneurs . . . Leaders in every country have to make tough decisions to reduce barriers to trade . . . The United States . . . supports the vision of the Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific . . . The only road to enduring prosperity and stability is through open markets and open trade” (White House 2007, pp. 1-3) .

The only road? This is the leader of the “Free World” speaking . . . Omitted is any possibility for property held in common, cooperative rather than competitive production, narrowing of the present worldwide money inequality, or any focus on life and the conditions of life rather than profit-engendering sales.

b. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI): The proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) was the result of secret negotiations, begun in 1995, among the countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The first draft of the document, leaked to the public in 1997, met with strong resistance, particularly on the issue of its over-ride of national laws. France withdrew in 1998, and was followed by other countries.

Rich countries, however, have not waited for the finalization of the Agreement to promote their agenda. They have pushed for similar investment rules through:

i. The World Trade Organization (WTO), particularly since 1996, at the Singapore Ministerial meeting. Investment rules and other issues resisted by poor countries, are now known as “The Singapore issues.”

ii. Bilateral investment treaties, as well as bilateral and regional free trade agreements.

iii. A proposed Policy Framework for Investment (PFI). This is a non-binding set of “good practices” on the part of nations, if they want to “attract” investment (Wikipedia “Multilateral Agreement on Investment” 2008, pp. 1-6).

c. The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA): No agreement on the FTAA was reached at the last summit, in 2005, at Mar del Plata, Argentina, and there is little chance for this comprehensive trade agreement to be finalized in the foreseeable future.

However, the enlargement of existing agreements is taking place. With the exception Cuba (excluded by the United States) and Haiti [which does not participate in the Caribbean Community (Caricom)], North American countries have almost completed a sub-continental free trade area by means of regional and bilateral agreements (Wikipedia “Free Trade Area of the Americas” 2008, pp. 1-6).

Together, these agreements constitute the hierarchical structure which rules the world by transnational, extra-parliamentary fiat.

Transnational corporations, acting through the WTO and its related supra-national constructs, are represented by, and prescribe to, national political parties, which they finance, and which act on their behalf to promote transnational corporate access to the domestic market and domestic resources without “barriers.”

This private corporate rule over governments is understood as “necessary to compete in the global market” and to “retain market share.” Except for internal European agreements, there is no binding regulation in any transnational trade treaty or agreement which protects, or even seeks to protect any human or environmental life good or condition. No binding regulation protects human rights, labor, or the conditions of life. All binding regulations protect only the rights of the transnational corporate investors. The Kyoto Treaty on climate-altering gases, the Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting chemicals, the Basel Convention on trans-boundary pollutants, and the body of established international agreements on human and labor rights, are excluded or over-ridden – in the last instance by the final judgment of WTO panels of trade-lawyers. All “scarcities” are assumed (with no scientific evidence) to be correctable by market price mechanisms and technological substitutability.

All negotiations are carried out behind closed doors, without public participation. In accordance with the “investor-state method of dispute resolution,” all disputes are adjudicated in secret before unelected authorities and tribunals, with no public or elected observers permitted, and without publication of proceedings. National governments, however, are obliged to pay the fines and penalties imposed for any policy they may have which has been deemed to conflict with the “rules of international trade.” Even in the situation when criminally-produced commodities under-sell those produced domestically, WTO forbids labels or standards visible to consumers (pp. 111-116, 188 and 200).

The labor force, which accounts for the vast majority of market traders, and the unwaged labor (women) which produces this labor force, are uniformly excluded from any participation in negotiations. The corporate financial agents who participate in the decisions represent the less than one percent of the population in the “developed” world who derives 90 percent of the revenue gains from the new rules. The slogan “democracy and freedom,” which provides the system its legitimacy, is, therefore, systematically negated. Self-maximization by a few who employ (or dis-employ) the rest of society, is rationalized (normalized) by assuming that the “invisible hand of the market” will, in the end, maximize the welfare of all (p. 185).

Sir Paddy Ashdown, Chair of the British Law Enforcement and National Security Agency, explains, in 2001:

“Power has migrated beyond the nation state. Very radical [new thinking is required to ensure a] security [which will counter] the threat to order and stability [posed by] social interactions based on popularisms” (pp. 190 and 260).

What is a Free Market?: Corporations call it a free market even though:

* Many Market Agents are not legally responsible Individuals: Corporate market agents are bureaucracies which protect individual shareholders from legal liability, while having themselves all the rights of living persons (pp. 95 and 244-295).

* The Competition is not Free: The competition is dominated by corporate entities which both control the supply and create the demand for goods and services.

As of the 1980’s, and increasingly through the 1990’s, large-scale transnational mergers and manufacture-market integration, have established interlocking oligopolist bureaucracies in the production of, and sales of a wide rage of goods, such as:

Aerospace products, airlines, biotechnology products, cars and trucks, chemicals, computers, consumer durables, electronic components, food processing, mass media products, oil, pharmaceutical products, and steel.

By 1998, the world’s 300 largest corporations controlled 98 percent of all foreign direct investment, and 60 percent of all land cultivated for export. This transnational trade and investment regime is called (corporate) “globalization” (pp. 95 and 245).

* Most are not free to buy their chosen Market Good:

- Those without money cannot choose to buy.

- Transnational trade law forbids labeling the process of production of commodities. Slave labor, environmental destruction, and even toxic contents of products have been ruled illegal as grounds for refusing their entrance into domestic markets (pp. 95 and 245).

- The driving force behind the global corporate system is not productive capital in the Marxian sense, but rather money seeking more money.

. In 1995, 95 percent of the currency volume of transactions was speculative. Of this percentage, 80 percent had a return time of one week or less.

. In 2000, 80 percent of “free capital flows” across national borders, was not invested in any productive enterprise, but rather in short-term exploitation of margins and the takeover of vulnerable assets, without commitment to any productive function (pp. 96, 173 and 246).

* Most Market Agents are not free to sell or exchange:

- The vast majority of market agents do not have either the land or the tools to produce. They are obliged to sell themselves (their time) in return for wages.

- Even the option of wage labor is absent where no jobs are available. At present, one-third of the world’s workforce is unemployed.

- Starving people may have to accept work in conditions which are toxic or hazardous. In the United States, only 10 percent of workers in the corporate sector belong to unions which provide so much as minimal workplace protection, and yearly, more than 100,000 workers die from occupational toxic exposures (pp. 96 and 245-246).

* Elected Governments are not free to choose whether to participate: The binding terms of transnational law which over-ride the central constitutional powers of elected governments, have not been publicly reported and debated in any country. This is so, even in the case of the European Union, the most progressive transnational regime. Examples this over-ride include:

- Europe: The control by the E.U. over national public expenditures.

- Europe: The control by the European Central Bank over the interest and exchange policies of member-nations. Article 147 of the Maastricht Treaty calls for the exclusion of any elected government which seeks to influence the decisions of the Bank.

- The United States: In the U.S., more than 96 percent of the money is created not by either the government or the Federal Reserve, but by private banks and financial institutions which do so by leveraging investment and creating credit (pp. 96 and 246).

- Small, poor Countries: Many governments do not have the power to choose not to participate. In 2000, of the world’s 100 largest economic entities, 51 were corporations, and 49 were countries.

The more accurate meaning of a “free market” economy is one that is open to the expansion of the transnational corporate system within its national borders, and does not protect itself from the exploitation by this system of its domestic markets, natural resources, public budgets, and military national security apparatus. Societies which do not have such a “free market” are labeled “un-free” and attacked. Both in the “developed” and “developing” world, national security intelligence services protect transnational corporate interests against their own citizens -- targeting those who publically criticize transnational “free trade” regimes, such as the World Trade Organization (pp. 32 and 230-231. Anderson and Cavanagh 2000, pp. 1-4).

The Mind as a marketing Site: The mind set of those behind the global corporate program, assumes that it itself is the sole discoverer of the ultimate solution to the problem of how peoples everywhere should live their lives. Its success in occupying public consciousness is based on a covert ideological structure which lies and inverts values, transforming all that it itself wants into the “Free” and the “Good” (no matter what the effects), and anything opposing it into the “Un-free” and the “Bad.”

This ideological structure consists of:

1. The big Lie: Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), in her The origins of totalitarianism (1951), describes how the big lie occurs through the systematic, normalized routine of overriding the line between fact and fiction. One of the big lies the corporate system feeds us daily, is that it seeks a “free market.”

In fact, the free market is the opposite of the global corporate system. A free market does not allow:

a. The control of supply by either corporate oligopolies or intra-firm international trade. At present, such control rules trade and investment around the world.

b. The control of demand by corporate oligopolies through pervasive advertising, semi-monopoly of public contract bids, and the domination of decision-makers through political funding and media control.

2. The Inversion of Values: The corporate system equates the “free market” with freedom, and “globalization” with unimpeded transnational corporate rights to the world’s resources. In a non sequitur, the two are then further equated. The master assumption is:

“Freedom” = the “Free Market” = “Globalization” = Global Corporate Rights.

How could any sane person not believe in the self-evident principles of freedom and global interconnections? The inversion masks the destructive consequences of the actions of those ruled by it. For them, the only issue is how to ensure rapid acceptance of this “freedom” across national borders.

Further elaborations form an entire ideological program:

“Freedom” = “Democracy,” = “Prosperity,” = “Development.”

Confrontation with opposition movements brings out a further elaboration of the same ideological structure:

Opposition to “globalization” = violence = terrorism.

Imposition of “globalization” by violence = anti-terrorism

= poverty reduction = peace.

The corporate economic order has no life coordinates in its decision-making paradigm. To legitimize itself, it must represent its life-blind imperatives as life-serving – which they decisively are not.

To the extent that we, as members of the public, accept the corporate framework, we become the living vehicles of its conquest and legitimation around the world. The corporate system’s imprisonment of people as human functions of its global market program, is not usually achieved by means of brutal repression or concentration camps, and only rarely by military invasions. Its rule is through the occupation of public consciousness. The mind of the public is the ultimate marketing site of the corporate system. Public consciousness demarcates the territory under its control, the nature of its frontline, and the adequacy of its base for further, more comprehensive occupation. Acquiescence to its “inevitability” provides it with momentum.

Distant “rogue states” and foreign “terrorists” are ever ready as pretexts for social repression.

* In the United States, “rogue states” and “foreign terrorist threats” are also the pretext for military control of the planet – as expressed, in 2001, by the Commission to assess the United States National Security Space Management and Organization (NSSMO):

“[Our plan is] to project power through and from space in response to events anywhere – with little transit, information or weather delay.”

In such as world, the meaning of President George W. Bush’s admonition, in his Address to the Nation of September 20, 2001, nine days after the 9/11 attacks, has stark implications for anyone who opposes:

“Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) describes totalitarianism as reality in her The origins of totalitarianism (1951), just as George Orwell (1903-1950) describes it as fiction in his Nineteen-eighty-four (1949). However, in today’s world, the mechanics of ever-shifting primary fears and aggression are not based, as they describe, on brutal shows of violence by the state. Arendt foresees this. While she describes “the only two forms of totalitarianism we know” – Nazism and Stalinism – she warns:

“[Totalitarianism is] an ever-present danger [arising from] the endless process of capital and power accumulation [which may erupt past former historical and social limits, and become an overwhelming social force through its] alliance with classless masses.”

Ultimately, self-determination is the ground of battle. For the corporate system, the future is already determined.

(Pp. 52-55, 58, 61, 85-86, 90-91, 93, 95-96, 242 and 259. See also the present document under Values and the Freedom of human Behavior, Values are not inevitable).

Consequences of the Coup d’état: The present coup d’état by global institutions dominated by the transnational corporate structure [such as the World Trade Organization (WTO)], has disastrous consequences at every level of life. The method consists of the use of financial and military coercion to re-structure domestic economies. Transnational trade fiats massively de-regulate capital and commodity flows on a national level, while simultaneously re-regulating them on the transnational level by the imposition of a rule of corporate rights which over-rides domestic laws (pp. 165-166).

Some of the consequences of the coup d’état:

The United States: For the U.S., some of the consequences of the coup d’état include:

1. Worker Repression: Workers labor the longest hours in the industrialized world – 3 ½ weeks longer yearly than in Japan, which used to be in the lead. From 1980 to 2000, the average work week increased by 60 hours annually, while the average wage fell by 12 percent. Yet, worker productivity has risen dramatically. From the early 1970’s to 2005, worker productivity doubled, and from 2000 to 2005, it increased at an average of 2.5 percent per year.

2. Increased Poverty: New Deal laws protecting the poor have been repealed. In 2005, 37 million people lived in poverty.

3. Lack of Health Insurance: In 2005, 47 million people had no health insurance. In 2004, 5.6 million people suffering from the consequences of war (1.8 million veterans and 3.8 million members of their households) were uninsured and ineligible for care in veterans’ facilities.

4. Only Money Capital: Only corporate and privately-priced goods count as having value. In 1996, for instance, expenses for managing public health programs, were entered by the government in its budget as operating expenses -- not investments. The value to consumers of this public good did not enter the government’s calculations. In inflationary times, public expenditures are the first to be reduced. However, private expenses for managing a (for-profit) Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) hospital, were hailed as one of the most lucrative capital investment in the world.

5. Wealth Disparity: In 1999, one percent of the population had more wealth than the bottom 95 percent.

6. Incarceration: In 2008, one adult out of every 100 was imprisoned – the highest rate of incarceration in the world, and a rate which does not reflect either a parallel increase in crime, or a corresponding rise in the nation’s population.

7. Repudiation of international Law: The U.S. has rejected ratification of the International Criminal Court to which it agreed in 1998. It has repudiated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (1972), the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change (1998), and has refused to sign international laws against the export of personal weapons. It has refused to sign the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the Covenant against Torture (1985), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), and the Enforcement Pact of the Biological Weapons Conventions (2001).

With regards to fundamental labor rights, the U.S. has refused to sign the United Nations Elimination of Forced Labor Convention (1930), the Convention on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize (1948), the Convention on the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining (1949), the Equal Remuneration Convention (1951), the Discrimination in Employment and Occupation Convention (1958), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), the Convention on the Minimal Age for Child Labor (1973), and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979).

8. War to protect Investments: The U.S. has a $1 billion-a-day national security system – to protect, not people, but investments.

a. In straight-forward Language: In its document, Vision 2020, released in 2000, the U.S. Space Command states its mission as:

“U.S. Space Command – dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect U.S. interests and investments. Integrating space forces into war fighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict.”

Under “Long Range Plan,” the document states:

“Widespread communications will highlight disparities in resources and quality of life, contributing to unrest in developing countries. The global economy will continue to become more interdependent. Economic alliances, as well as the growth and influence of multi-national corporations, will blur security agreements. The gap between have and have not nations will widen, creating regional unrest. One of the long-acknowledged and commonly understood advantages of space-based platforms, is no restriction or country clearances to overfly a nation from space.”

b. In Orwellian Language: On November 26, 2007, during a secret video-conference, without public discussion in either country, U.S. President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki, signed a “Declaration of Principles” which provides for permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq to “deter foreign aggression” (!), and calls for:

“facilitating and encouraging the flow of foreign investment to Iraq, especially American investments, to contribute to the reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq.”

This “reconstruction” begins with oil -- U.S. energy conglomerates are to be given preferential treatment.

(Pp. 4, 73, 143, 166, 192, 201, 222, 238 and 253-254. Pew Charitable Trusts 2008, pp. 1-2. Democracy Now! 2008a, p. 4. Annotated Life 2006, pp. 1 -3. Hightower and Frazer 2008, p. 3. United Nations Development Programme 2004, pp. 238 and 242. Grossman 2001, pp. 1-2. Wikipedia “Joint Vision 2020” 2007, p. 1. Die Welt 2007, pp. 1-6).

Worldwide: For the world, some of the consequences of the coup d’état include:

1. Universally lowered real Wages (pp. 176 and 258).

2. Unemployment: In 2000, one third of the world’s work force was unemployed (p. 245).

3. The Destruction of social Infra-structures (pp. 176 and 258).

4. Economic Destabilization: Financial and trade de-regulation has stripped the economies of Mexico (1994), Thailand, Indonesia and Korea (1997), Russia and its former territories (1998), Brazil (1994 and 2001), Argentina and Turkey (2001), and Africa throughout those years (p. 167).

5. Widening Wealth Disparity:

a. The disparity in income between the richest and poorest quintile of the world’s population has grown:

1960 30:1

1970 35:1

1990 60:1

1997 74:1

2001 89:1.

The disparity is now a significant factor contributing independently to overall mortality and morbidity (pp. 3, 121, 221 and 250. United Nations Development Programme 1999, pp. 3 and 11. Annotated Life 2006, p. 11).

b. In 1996, the world’s 200 richest people had more wealth in total than 45 percent of the world’s population. Yet, from 1996 to 2000, they doubled their wealth (pp. 237 and 238).

c. In 2000, the richest one percent of adults owned 40 percent of global assets (United Nations University, cited in Annotated Life 2006, p. 8).

d. In 2000, three people owned more wealth than the total income of the world’s 48 poorest countries (pp. 221 and 227).

6. Ecosystem Collapse: The world’s ecosystem is in a state of collapse (p. 167).

7. Taxpayer-supported Ecocide: The exhaustion of global resources and the pollution of ecosystems are subsidized by taxpayers at every phase of commodity cycles consisting of resource depletion, pollution, and waste (p. 152).

8. Lack of Consumer Choice: Under the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO):

a. Genetically-modified Organisms (GMO’s): Genetically-modified Organisms (GMO’s) must not be “discriminated” against, countries obliged to allow entry of these artificial organisms across their borders, unlabeled as such. Labeling a food “non-GMO” is also “discriminatory” and is prohibited.

b. Criminally-produced Commodities: Criminally-produced commodities, such as chocolate produced with the labor of slaves, or oil produced in collaboration with such military-corporate dictatorships as that of Burma, also must not be “discriminated” against. It is “discriminatory” for any country to allow the “process of production” of a commodity to be a “non-tariff barrier” to its entry across its borders, even by so much as a labeling requirement (pp. 150, 200, 245-246, 254 and 261).

c. Cigarettes: Since 1995, cigarettes and advertisements for them must enter countries, despite the 50-year concealment by transnational corporate producers, of the massive death and disease caused by their product (pp. 152 and 254).

The moral Universe of the Leaders of the “Free World”: From the point of view of the rulers of the United States, the self-designated leader of the “Free World,” things are as they should be. They do not see life -- only triumphs of Western technology, law and civilization over “the forces of darkness.” Large scale killing is “predictable” and their perpetrators beyond accountability. U.S. leaders do not see their behavior as war crimes or crimes against humanity.

* General Colin Powell, Gulf War Field Commander: In 1991, Colin Powel, later to be U.S. Secretary of State, responds to the burning of thousands of Iraqis forced into battle and fleeing:

“It’s really not a number I’m terribly interested in” (pp. 28 and 229).

* Madeleine Albright, United Nations Ambassador: In 1996, during an interview on NBC television, Madeleine Albright, responds to the concern that half a million children have died as a result of the bombing of Iraq by NATO forces:

“I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is

worth it” (pp. 28 and 229).

* General Wesley Clark, U.S. Commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Forces in Kosovo: In 1999, after the bombing of the “former Yugoslavia,” when the number of refugees has reached more than a million (750,000 Albanians and 250,000 Serbs), General Clark considers that the massive terror was:

“entirely predictable.”

Questioned about the accompanying increase in ethnic massacres, General Clark explains that NATO operations:

“were not designed as a means of blocking Serb ethnic cleansing” (pp.

28 and 229).

* Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense: In 2001, when the number of refugees in Afghanistan has reached 2 million, the United Nations Food Program has closed due to U.S.-British air attacks, Kabul’s electricity system has been bombed, and the U.N. mine-sweeping headquarters in Kabul has been bombed, Donald Rumsfeld responds to a question concerning the future plans of the U.S.:

“We’re not running out of targets. Afghanistan is.”

The next day, after a village has been destroyed and hundreds of villagers killed by U.S. bombs, Secretary Rumsfeld is still confident:

“Everyone knows in this country that the U.S. government never targets

civilians – but we all know there will be civilian casualties” (pp. 28-29

and 229).

* President George W. Bush: On September 7, 2007, addressing a business summit meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), President Bush, referring to Iraq, declares:

“People want to live in hope . . . We’re giving people a chance to live in peace” (White House 2007, pp. 1 and 7-8).

On March 19, 2008, the fifth anniversary of “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” when more than half Iraq’s 24 million population has been either killed (1.2 million), wounded (5 million), internally displaced (2 million), externally displaced (2 million), or in need of emergency assistance (4 million), President Bush assesses the situation during an address to the Pentagon:

“The successes we are seeing in Iraq are undeniable” (Jamail 2008, pp. 1-3. White House 2008, pp. 1 and 4).

* Vice-president Dick Cheney: On March 17, 2008, during a surprise visit to Iraq for the fifth anniversary of the invasion, Vice-president Cheney, declares the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq:

“a successful endeavor” (Jamail 2008, p. 1).

On March 19, 2008, during an interview on ABC Television, Cheney continues confident:

“On the security front, I think there’s a general consensus that we’ve made major progress, that the surge has worked. That’s been a major success . . . I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations of the public opinion polls” (Democracy Now! 2008b, p. 2).

* Republican Party presidential Candidate John McCain: On March 17, 2008, also in Iraq for the fifth anniversary of the invasion, during a CNN interview, John McCain declares:

“The surge is working” (Jamail 2008, p. 3. CNN 2008, p. 1).

* Democratic Party presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton: On April 22, 2008, during an interview on ABC Television, Clinton, referring to the Iranians, declares:

“In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them” (Reuters 2008, p. 1) .

* White House Press Secretary Dana Perino: On May 7, 2008, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino answers questions from reporter Helen Thomas about the two-month campaign led by the United States, in the Sadr City district of Baghdad. The results of the campaign include 6,000 refugees, 150,000 people (half of them children) cut off from aid by the U.S. military, and medical care compromised after a May 3^rd U.S. missile damaged several ambulances in the main Sadr City hospital. Overnight, thirteen people have been injured, and four people killed, among them a pregnant woman and her children who burned alive when a U.S. bomb dropped on their home.

Dana Perino – The operation against the militias in Sadr City will continue until they root them out. And that is expressly in order to protect people like you just mentioned.

Helen Thomas – Root who out? The Iraqis? In their own country?

Perino – It is Prime Minister Maliki’s government which is going after the [Shia] militia, which is appropriate.

Thomas – Why are we bombing these people?

Perino – Any time anyone that is an innocent civilian is hurt in a conflict, we obviously regret it, and we go out of our way to make sure it doesn’t happen” (Democracy Now! 2008c, pp. 1-2).

The administration of “shock treatments” to whole peoples is acknowledged without moral qualms, but rather with the certitude that all is “necessary” and “inevitable.” Neither the elected leadership of the United States, nor any global corporate faction, takes moral responsibility for the systematic economic restructuring of societies across the world. It occurs by necessity, inevitability and laws of the market. The tone of the United States’ leaders is triumphant fatalism. The global cosmology of determinism by external laws, and unaccountability for those who apply these laws, is not questioned, not even in ethics journals. “There is no alternative” (TINA) said Margaret Thatcher. It appears that the “Free World” compels compliance (pp. 6, 8, 19-20, 45 and 61).

LIFE, NOT MONEY CAPITAL

Life Capital instead of Money Capital: At present, the economic future of humanity is determined by the direction of its money investment. Investors are not accountable to the public interest. The issue is not even raised as a possible option.

In a life economy, by contrast, the economy would be steered systematically toward the preservation of life conditions and the welfare of community members. Life-indicator measures which have been proposed include:

* The United Nations Human Development Index (UN-HDI).

* The Index of Economic Well-being (IEWB).

* The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI).
* The Calvert-Henderson Quality of Life Indicators.

* The Index of Social Health (ISH).

* The Ecological Footprint (EF).

* The Statistics Canada System of Environmental and Resource Accounts.

Except for Statistic Canada, these indices are non-governmental. All are under-developed. The UN-HDI, for example, contains only three indicators – longevity, educational attainment, and per capita gross domestic product (GDP). All are averages, hiding inequalities and bottom-end deprivations (pp. 123 and 155).

The Basic Well-being Index (BWI): In contrast, a Basic Well-being Index (BWI) would focus on basic, minimum life coordinates for assessing life conditions. It would include:

1. Air quality.

2. Access to clean water.

3. Sufficient nourishing food.

4. Security of habitable housing.

5. Opportunity to perform meaningful service or work of value to others.

6. Available learning opportunity to the level of qualification.

7. Health care when ill.

8. Temporally and physically available healthy environmental space for leisure, social interaction and recreation.

This set of vital life conditions reflects the true measure of the economic performance of a society. An economy succeeds or fails in the extent to which it provides its members severally and a whole, with these means of life.

Almost no market society has ever achieved a satisfactory Basic Well-being Index (BWI) for all of its citizens. More fatefully, market societies become increasingly inefficient by life standards, as the production and distribution of goods are de-regulated and privatized. The usual market index, the gross domestic product (GDP) conceals this fact. The Basic Well-being Index exposes it (pp. 123-124, 133, 141 and 156).

Governments of market societies have avoided any life accounting system. No nation or group of nations has an official measure close to the adequacy of the Basic Well-being Index. Without an on-going , objective well-being profile of a population, it is not possible to determine whether an economy is, in fact, improving, declining, or even working as a system. This blind eye permits the magical thinking of market fundamentalism to run free with slogans and propaganda of life flourishing, unconnected to any body of evidence confirming or disproving their claims. Instead, voluminous statistics of money are endlessly recorded -- for-profit commodity sales, exports and imports, stock-values, and other data serving the security and growth of money sequences. The figures kept indicate nothing about the actual well-being or ill-being of people (pp. 156-157).

Principles for a Life Economy:

1. Re-gain Control over corporate Behavior:

a. Repeal all transnational trade and investment rules which abolish the right of a sovereign people to:

i. Maintain control all foreign capital within their borders.

ii. Negotiate performance requirements on the use of domestic resources by foreign capital.

iii. Retain ownership of public service and natural resources (pp. 176-177).

b. Require 100 percent legal tender reserves for interest-bearing loans (p. 133).

c. Make the internalization of commodity costs (extraction, pollution and waste) a strict condition for market access (p. 161).

d. Make labor and social standards strict conditions for the entry of commodities across national borders (p. 188).

e. Develop an accountability charter for international traders and investors, binding all parties selling or investing across borders to:

i. Uphold labor and environmental standards, domestic tax schedules, the rights of community property, and international standards of public communication across borders.

ii. Comply with international criminal law (pp. 202 and 219-220).

2. Make Life needs the Government’s Priority:

a. Ban weapons of mass destruction from market sale (p. 161).

b. Make inventories of the society’s natural capital and the well-being of its people (p. 161).

c. Promote the production of life capital (instead of money capital) by allocating public money (investment assistance, loan credits, interest rates, taxation levels) toward the life needs of the people (clean water, healthy foods, meaningful jobs, public transportation) (p. 149).

d. Apply the precautionary principle to untested commodities (such as genetically-modified foods) (p. 161).

e. Write binding environmental protection standards in all international trade agreements (p. 181).

f. Reclaim life-spaces (arable lands, forests, fisheries, urban concourses, coastal waterways, public education sites, policy sites) which are either unused or not used in compliance with codified life-standards (p. 218).

3. Control international Money Flow:

a. Repudiate all societal debts incurred without the consent of the people and/or already paid through debt servicing (p. 169).

b. Create an international currency clearing house charged with preventing predation by speculators, the creation of forced debt, and the destabilization of national price systems (p. 172).

c. Create a World Reserve Fund charged with securing all bank loans across national borders by legal tender reserves deposited in the Fund. Give the Fund the fiduciary authority to issue and administer debts in accordance with international standards for the security and development of life-capital (p. 213).

Conclusions

Three Forces leading to a Coup d’Etat: Three forces have converged to make possible the present disastrous turn of events for humanity and for life in general on the planet.

1. Our Technology: Our triumphant technology is based on a scientism which excludes all that cannot be observed externally, and is blind, therefore, to what is most human in us – our consciousness, our thoughts, our emotions, our feeling of freedom of choice.

2. Our Concept of Property: Our capitalistic concept of property excludes property held in common, and global assets not owned by anyone, such as the beauty of the stars. We stratify society according to the amount of money owned, forgetting that money, unlike real property, can be accumulated indefinitely, without intrinsic external limit. An increase in money wealth is the great goal, poverty the great fear, and incarceration the great punishment, no matter how morally unjust the system.

3. The Rise of Corporations: The rich began to win the class war when corporations became privileged market agents -- whether this was a monopoly of trade with Asia, as with the East India Company, or when corporations gained all the privileges but none of the liabilities of “persons” under the law, in 1886. Corporations are bureaucracies established to make a profit for their shareholders. They are not designed to further life needs.

The coup d’état, which had its beginnings in the 1980’s, and continues with ever greater momentum at the present time, is the logical, life-blind result of the three forces which shape the thinking of the “Free World.” It consists of an usurpation of power by a small group of rich people, who purport to decree how the peoples of the world shall live – the “end of history,” declared by Francis Fukuyama in 1992.

The occupation of our mind is the wealthy cabal’s tool of conquest. To the extent that we continue to think of money as the only type of property, omitting communal property and all non-priced life good, we buy into their frame of reference, and the conclusion of the discussion is foregone. To the extent that we can focus on life values, such as the quality of the experience of living, and on the conditions of life, such as a healthy environment, we show the falsity of their assumptions and have a chance to win the debate.

An economy is not an end in itself. Economic growth is not the unquestioned desirable goal it is portrayed to be. An economy is an instrument to further life and the conditions of life. Economic growth is irrelevant, if the people are free, healthy, educated and self-governing.

REFERENCES

Unless specified otherwise, all page numbers refer to:

McMurtry, John. 2002. Value wars – the global market versus the life economy. Sterling, VA: Pluto.

Specified page numbers refer to:

Anderson, Sarah and John Cavanagh, 2000. “Of the World’s 100 largest economic Entities, 51 are now Corporations and 49 are Countries.” In Report on the Top 200 Corporations. Institute for Policy Studies. December.

http://www.corporations.org/system/top100.html. Updated January 3, 2002. Accessed May 12, 2008.

Annotated Life, 2006. “A closer Look at the staggering new Inequality Data,” December 6 (pp. 8-11); and “A Look at the Economy for 2007,” December 29 (pp. 1-6). Author “Edie.”

http://annotatedlife.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html.

Brower, Charles, and John Tepe, Jr., 1975. “The Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States – A Reflection or Rejection of International Law?” The International Lawyer 9: 591-604.

http://www.stephankinsella.com/texts/brower_tepe_Charter. Accessed May 8, 2008. (pp. 1-25).

CNN, 2008. “Stakes are enormous in Iraq for McCain.” Washington Bureau (John King).

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/17/mccain.stakes/index/html. Accessed April 28, 2008.

Columbia Encyclopedia. 2000. 6^th Edition. New York, N.Y.: Columbia University/Gale Group.

Day, Steven, 2005. “The last Chance Democracy Café – Episode 36:1, Speaking the forbidden Word: Impeachment.” BuzzFlash Progressive Marketplace. June 8.

http://www/buzzflash.com/day/05/06. Accessed May 8, 2008.

Democracy Now!

2008a. “Record 1-in-100 Americans behind Bars.” February 29.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/29/headlines. Accessed April 28, 2008.

2008b. “Bush, Cheney dismiss Iraq War Opposition.” March 20.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/20/headlines. Accessed April 28, 2008.

2008c. “Sadr City Residents told to flee Homes.” May 8.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/8/headlines. Accessed May 8, 2008.

Die Welt, 2007. “Permanent Irak Occupation, Yes, Sir.” November 29.

http://welttag.blogspot.com/2007/11. html. Accessed May 18, 2008.

Encyclopaedia of New Zealand, 1966. “Salmond, the Hon. Sir John William.”

http://www.teara.govt.nz/1966/S/Salmond. Updated September 18, 2007. Accessed April 27, 2008.

Grossman, Karl, 2001. “U.S. Military moves to ‘control Space’ and be ‘Enforcement Arm for the global Economy.’” Presentation, Teach-in on “Technology and Globalization.” New York, City. February 24.

http://www.envirovideo.com/karltechglobe.html. Accessed May 13, 2008.

Hall, Francoise Hall,

2004a. “Technology driven by Faith in God.” April 5 (28 pages, unpublished).

2004b. “Besting God – Genetic Engineering, Nanotechnology and Robotics.” April 24 (9 pages, unpublished).

2006. “Torture in Western Culture.” July 9 (83 pages, unpublished).

Hightower, Jim, and Phillip Frazer, 2008. “What 8 Years of BushCheney have done to our Economy.” Hightower Lowdown 10:4. April.

Jamail, Dahr, 2008. “Five Years, no End in Sight.” Anti-War.com. March 19.

http://www.antiwar.com/Jamail/. Accessed April 28, 2008.

Locke, John. 1690. Second treatise of government. New York: Liberal Arts, 1953. As summarized by McMurtry 2002, pp. 65-74.

McCoy, Alfred. 2006. A question of torture B CIA interrogation, from the cold war to the war on terror. New York: Henry Holt/Metropolitan.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2006. “Torture in Western Culture.” July 9 (83 pages, unpublished).

McKibben, Bill. 2003. Enough -- staying human in an engineered age. New York, N.Y.: Henry Holt/Owl.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2004b. “Besting God – Genetic Engineering, Nanotechnology and Robotics.” April 24 (9 pages, unpublished).

Miles, Steven. 2006. Oath betrayed B torture, medical complicity, and the war on terror. New York: Random House.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2006. “Torture in Western Culture.” July 9 (83 pages, unpublished).

Noble, David. 1997/1999. The religion of technology – the divinity of man and the spirit of invention. New York, N.Y.: Penguin.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2004a. “Technology driven by Faith in God.” April 5 (28 pages, unpublished).

Pew Charitable Trusts, 2008. “Pew Report finds more than One in 100 Adults are behind Bars.” Pew Press Release. February 28.

http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id-35912. Accessed April 28, 2008.

Reuters, 2008. “Clinton says U.S. could ‘totally obliterate’ Iran.” (David Morgan).

http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMost ReadidUSN2224332720080422. Accessed April 28, 2008.

Roy, Arundhati, 2007. “Brave new India – Uprisings.” December 29. Interview with David Barsamian, broadcast on Alternative Radio, April 30, 2008.

http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs.

Silver, Lee. 1997. Remaking Eden B how genetic engineering and cloning will transform the American family. New York, N.Y.: Avon.

Cited in Francoise Hall, 2004. “Technology driven by Faith in God.” April 5 (28 pages, unpublished).

Stock, Gregory. 2002. Redesigning humans B our inevitable genetic future. New York, 2002. Cited in McKibben 2003.

United Nations Development Programme.

1999. United Nations Development Report, 1999. “Overview.” New York, N.Y.: Oxford University.

2004. United Nations Development Report 2004. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University.

White House,

2007. “President Bush attends APEC Business Summit.” September 7.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070907.html. Accessed April 30, 2008.

2008. “President Bush discusses global War on Terror.” March 19. Accessed April 28, 2008.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/03/20080319-2.html.

Wikipedia,

2007,

“APEC”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated September 12. Accessed April 28, 2008.

“Joint Vision 2020.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated October 23. Accessed May 13, 2008.

2008,

“2003 Bilderberg Meeting.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated February 25. Accessed April 25, 2008.

“Hugo Black.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated May 6. Accessed May 16, 2008.

“Council on Foreign Relations.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated April 25, 2008. Accessed April 25, 2008.

“European Union.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union. Accessed April 30, 2008.

“Free Trade Area of the Americas.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated April 20. Accessed April 28, 2008.

“David Gauthier.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated April 21. Accessed April 27, 2008.

“International Monetary Fund.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated April 17. Accessed April 25, 2008.

“Multilateral Agreement on Investment.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated April 16. Accessed April 28, 2008.

“North American Free Trade Agreement.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated April 28. Accessed April 28, 2008.

“Ross Perot.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated May 14, 2008. Accessed May 15, 2008.

“David Rockefeller – Bilderberg and Trilateral Commission.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated April 19. Accessed April 25, 2008.

“Joseph Stiglitz.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated April 14, 2008. Accessed April 25, 2008.

“Trilateral Commission.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated April 20. Accessed April 25, 2008.

“World Bank.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated April 25. Accessed April 25, 2008.

“World Trade Organization.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated April 26. Accessed April 28, 2008.

“Robert Zoellick.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated April 14, 2008. Accessed April 27, 2008.

***