Natural v. Artificial Persons

That corporations are persons is one of those half truths that is worse than a lie. It is true that governmental, commercial, industrial and even charitable corporations are made up of people, but to consider the non-governmental to be private, much less to have the same rights as natural persons is just plain wrong.

The Constitution of the U.S. is addressed to agents of government on behalf of the people, natural persons, who govern. It outlines both the structure of the government and the duries and obligations and restrictions on its agents. It does not overtly state that both the federal government and participating states are structured as corporations whose duties are specified and may be amended by legislation. This perhaps a serious omission because it seems to account for the subsequent proliferation of multiple subsidiary corporations for commercial, industrial, educational and charitable purposes whose duties and obligation to the people were overlooked.

These subsidiaries are called “private” because they are not public according to the division spplied to property. But, a private corporation is an oxymoron, since it is made up not just of many persons, but of many property owners. The “private” designation seems akin to the termination of a pregnancy as an “abortion.” Both errors may just be the result of males not knowing what they are opining about.

In the beginning, the Constitution distinguished between natural persons and property and, as a matter of fact, the latter included some natural persons. Moreover, that is still the case for minor children. Children are the property of parents until their emancipation. Which suggests that purchased persons were not subject to a peculiar situation. Also, onemight ask whether women were ever emancipated.

Anyway, the various governmental entities were/are tasked with protecting property and promoting commerce. The Department of Commerce was established first because trade was to produce the revenue with which all other services, including protecting the nation, would be paid. While Native Americans had relied on seashells as currency and then tobacco served as a store of value, as well, the U.S. Treasury relied on precious metals whose abundance in North America was not comparable to what Spain and Portugal had plundered from South America and then lost to the Dutch.

That the need for collecting taxes was considerably lessened by the transition to fiat currency has not registered, mainly because the established financial community did not consider it advantageous or even desirable. The quetion now is much longer will the currency fiction be maintained.

Then there are the problems introduced by having Constitutional law, common law and case law. At least I now have an explanation for why I was told that the law is not necessarily what it says. Presumably the lawyers like it that way.