People are always sovereign as to how they want to run their lives. They enter into societies for that purpose. There is simply no alternative. Any organization represents the interests of the people in that company. But those very same people in those companies belong to their own society apart fom the company.

To conflate the two by this moron is just literally nonsense. Are microsoft employees in Bangkok any less Thailandese. If the US government wants to steal Iraqi oil should the Iraqis cease feeling the need to defend it and cede their sovereignty to it?

It is truly amazing the amount of idiocy that people that have power over widely read journals can spew out.

The corporations that are “recovering” NO LONGER EMPLOY AMERICAN WORKERS. What is it about that so hard to understand? They can recover all they want and we can bail them out all they want BUT IT WON’T CREATE JOBS.

UNTIL OBAMA ADDRESSES NAFTA, OFFSHORING, OUTSOURCING, UNDOCUMENTED AND TOO MANY VISAS, the jobs will not be back here and our kids will have McDonalds jobs forever. And our country will be FOREVER IN DEBT.

Reich and Krugman are stinky with NAFTA. But it is very simple. If you allow American companies WHO ARE SUBSIDIZED BY AMERICAN TAXPAYERS to act like foreign companies, or more accurately, COMPANIES WITHOUT A COUNTRY then this whole system is doomed. Thanks Clinton, you ass.

These guys HAVE IT WRONG.

I saw TCU use this term, “corporatocracy,” last night. Is this term common ’round here? What about the terms “plutocracy” and “plutocrats”?

I understand the differences to be that a plutocracy is a nation ruled by the rich; an oligarchy is a nation ruled by a privileged group other than the rich; a corporate oligarchy is a group of influential commercal entities, such as banks, that act at the whim of the oligarchy; and a corporatocracy is a nation ruled by corporations acting in a manner that serves their own interests.

In each case, the governing group acts with little or no regard for the Rule of Law and constitutionally protected civil rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy#Corporate_oligarchy

But nobody promotes elimination of our Constitution and replacement by corporations more than Richard Haas. Haas runs the Council of Foreign Relations. Haas and the CFR want to eliminate governments with their awkward assurances of peace, justice and law. Haas wants Goldman Sachs and Microsoft to run our government.

For 350 years, sovereignty — the notion that states are the central actors on the world stage and that governments are essentially free to do what they want within their own territory but not within the territory of other states — has provided the organizing principle of international relations. The time has come to rethink this notion.

The world’s 190-plus states now co-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds. The sovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded.

As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states. This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the UN General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organizations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met. Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function…

Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.

This was demonstrated by the American and world reaction to terrorism. Afghanistan’s Taliban government, which provided access and support to al-Qaeda, was removed from power.

This last quote about terrorism ignores the fact that US neo-cons supported and provided funding to both the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/06/gateway-center-shooting-a_n_348566.html

I’m sorry, but I read shit like that and think that mankind not only doesn’t really have much of a chance for surviving much longer, but it also doesn’t deserve much of a chance, either.

I mean, right on the internet for all to see, step by step instructions on how to create the most dangerous biological weapon in the history of mankind.

Americans, in spite of their massive egos, are really not all that bright.