Perhaps it's human nature to form collectives. These collectives have grown over time from tribal to national. And these collectives have morphed to include entities which are not human or natural at all. The idea that corporations are equal entities among national collectives of individuals is not natural and is not human, certainly not pro-human. In fact one has to shed common sense and shred human decency to even consider lending institutions the rights of individuals and inviting them, as equals and friends, into any collective.
In order to understand anything it is important to boil it down, as if a math problem and consider the least common denominators. Institutions are not individuals. Institutions can exist for hundreds or thousands of years, they do not need clean air, water and food. They do not need companionship. Institutions are not your friends. They are simply mechanizations. Institutions in the world today seek growth. And alternatively and occasionally more importantly they seek to prevent losses.
Institutions take on a certain life of their own, but are only the characterization created by individuals. They are tools of, for and by people and normally only a select few people. Institutions are normally oligarchical to one extent or another. An oligarchy is a pyramid system where the few are in control of the many, the steeper the slant, the more oligarchical the institution.
The U.S.A. was founded on flattening the oligarchical world. But now, with the buildup of the military industrial complex, the private prison system and a slew of institutionalization which benefits the few at the cost of the many, the U.S.A. is just another oligarchical nation among many. Perhaps no other recent legislation in the U.S.A. so spurs oligarchical collectivism as the Supreme Court decision on Citizen's United. The Court's opinion basically allows unlimited spending for political campaign advertising under the guise of the First Amendment. However the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights was written to bestow rights on individuals by limiting what institutions were allowed to do and not the other way around. The law enables oligarchical collectivism by implementing the potential that a very few wealthy people can fund an entire campaign instead of many contributors. If the Supreme Court interpreted the Bill of Rights as written for individuals they would have kept the spending cap. The Bill of Rights was not meant to be applied to expand the rights of institutions. It describes the rights of individuals, especially the First Amendment. In fact the First Amendment uses the word people and describes acts which only people can do. The First Amendment describes rights of individuals which when used correctly can defeat oligarchical collectivism and when applied to institutions might bolster it.
In this one Supreme Court decision we can see how governments essentially promote or prohibit and the things they promote and prohibit shape the formation of the nation. The Supreme Court decision on Citizen's United is part of the global paradigm lending the rights of man to machines. It is part of the global tendency to disproportionately build up institutionalization rather than individuation.
Governments essentially promote and prohibit. And most nations promote war and institutionalization which in turn prohibits peace and individuation. The U.S.A. is arguably the biggest war country in the world now. Most nations prepare for war and buildup war machines and in doing so they have to eliminate peace and individuation. War is totally anti-individual. The notion that militarism builds individual character is not true. Physical training and increased learning builds character, brotherhood builds character, however war kills individuals. In peace individuals can build up their surroundings and themselves. In war only institutions are built up.
If one boils down the idea that government institutions simply promote and prohibit, as well as the idea that they are basically martial institutions with martially enforced laws, there are essentially four types of states. This understanding can be utilized to understand both outside nation states as well as inside mental states. This metaphor of the duality of polarity as applied to the cross reference of war and peace, by way of promotion and prohibition, is the metaphor of thinking and being. People as well as states are either at peace or at war.
The metaphor of thinking and being, complete with one distinct part, displays the four states of war and peace. The four states can be applied to both internal and external states as well as to both individuals and institutions. One state is of peace, promotes peace and only prepares for peace. Another state is of war, promotes war and only prepares for war. Another state is at war, promotes war and yet is ready for peace. And the last state is at peace, promotes peace and yet is ready for self-defense. One can imagine being in one of these states, both internally and externally, and realize which is the more balanced and prepared state.
What do institutions promote and prohibit? Why has the United States transformed from a state of the fourth type, one that is at peace, promotes peace and yet is prepared for defense to a state, into a state that is at war, promotes war and prepares for war. The United States of America is being taken over by institutions and institutionalization. We are turning into the worst type of nation, promoting and preparing for war on people outside our nation with the biggest military budget in the world and on people inside our nation with the biggest prison business in the world. I strive to be at peace, to promote peace, and to always be ready to defend myself, others around me and peace.