Well, like anything, we would need to get it to become a national discussion. A 'declaratory amendment' to clarify status is, in and of itself, too vague to energize people to push for it, but there is enough anger regarding this latest SCOTUS reinterpretation of the 'rights' of corporations as persons with respect to campaign finance, that
that would be our springboard toward garnering support for reexamination of this issue of personhood more broadly.
I am dumbfounded that, all the while people are complaining that corporations are getting the same rights as people ('statutory rights') no one has paused to reflect that they
themselves must be only considered by the courts to possess rights of no better quality than a corporation's!
Think about that.
So we put the question of, "Should corporations have the same rights as people?" (to which most already say no) into the negative: "Should
people have only those rights as are possessed by a
corporation?"and "If those are the only rights we have,
why are those the only rights we have?"
We should ask, even more plainly perhaps, "If a corporation is a person, does that mean I'm a
corporation?"
To my knowledge, anyone who has stated this theory that a man or woman is a corporation under the law (the 'name in ALL CAPS' or strawman/fiduciary argument) has done so in the context of a vacuum, or of only examining it as it pertains to the income tax. But now, we have the opportunity to examine this question in the context of a recent Supreme Court decision, over which there is already much frustration and outrage, and begin to get people thinking in this direction, to divert the outrage into the seeds of a more holistic libertarian thought.
The answer of how to achieve success, in this issue or in relation to
any libertarian issue, is this: I told you yesterday Ron Paul is losing cause he is fighting like a gentleman, and employing logic, history, economics and intellectual means only. Now, what did the Project for a New American Century say
they needed to affect the change they sought?
"…some catastrophic and crystallizing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”
Thankfully, we are not talking here about anything the magnitude of a Pearl Harbor or a 9/11, but this principle still holds true in miniature. This is
their strategy, it is their strategy because it
works, and I am recommending we follow their strategy in miniature. White House Chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told us how to go about this, and we were too busy theorizing our purity of doctrine on the forums to listen. Here is the video wherein he makes this now infamous admission:
YouTube - Rahm Emanuel "DON'T WASTE A GOOD CRISIS!"
So there you have it. There is a place for theory and there is a place for practice. The practice does not always follow 100% true to the theory, no differently than no house is built 100% to the architect's plans. You take the theory and you find a suitable building site. One that has already been leveled (by outrage or crisis) is easiest to build upon.
