Today, I do not point my blade towards myself. I point my edge towards an entity that acts as a parasite– those who call themselves merchants yet lack the integrity and benevolence expected of them. Companies, commercial entities that seek to fish in the water that they bloodied themselves.
These profit-lusting corporations have no ethical nor moral concerns in regards to their actions, oiling our public servants to act at their behest. It seems that these monetary interests outweigh the rights of consumers themselves.
This hierarchy is most clearly defined by the inequality within the laws meant to instill order into the land. For why else do these laws act as our nooses– serving as a mere irritant to these companies– charging petty sums while imprisoning individuals.
An individual alone has little influence over the grand scheme of life– their intentions being limited to their surroundings. A group of individuals has a good deal of influence– akin to a group of sand, easily scattered.
A company is a cohesive group formed for a single purpose– an iron arrow that is shot through these clumps of sand, overriding the will of the people. Influence is the jugular vein of these entities– making it a strong indicator of a company’s strength.
For some odd reason, companies have the same rights of an individual when their power is clearly disproportionate compared to individuals. Our nation is unique in this regard– allowing for a mistake to become the foundation of our treatment towards these parasites.
In the age of the industrial revolution, nations ratified their constitutions– marking a clear distinction between an individual and a company. Yet our nation ratified their constitution long ago in their own revolution– lacking this distinction, allowing for these lines to be blurred in the name of “freedom”
They have weaponized the Amendments against the people– substituting will with capital. The courts that once served us dutifully have abandoned us, allowing this mistake to remain uncorrected– fermenting into the legal precedent of today. How shameful is it for the origin of this doctrine to be a headnote? The honorable courts have undermined their own legitimacy, allowing for a court reporter’s words to become the origin of this doctrine.
My respect for the Courts originates from the acts and virtues of its predecessors– above all, John Marshall. It is this man who elevated the Court to its current status– his successors positioning themselves as the stewards of his court, a carefully uttered claim.
His successors have laid waste to the restraint that he has cultivated– a transparency that has been rendered oblique, its color matching the outcome of a ruling. It was by his pen that the court’s legitimacy was retained– a pen that would blot this doctrine out. In his eyes, companies were merely a means to an end– thus each right would have to be consciously allotted to them for the sake of its functionality.
Yet today he would find himself alarmed at the Court’s current state. A precedent that lacks structure, a court that lacks restraint, and justices that have abused the authority he secured– undermining their own existence. The court was founded as an apolitical institution, one that relied on structure and remained as an arbiter. I see that this neutrality withered after the death of John– its passing remains unmourned while the progenitor was remembered by all.
Amongst all Chief Justices, only his death had the sole honor of being mourned by all. Congress adjourned as they extolled him in both the House and Senate, draped in black. The Court suspended its session as they wore mourning bands for their fallen Justice. The people mourned regardless of faction for a man who served not a faction but its people– an honor that perhaps no other justice shall ever receive.
I find that both institutions and the people are remiss, forgetting the weight of the coffins that built this nation. It is we, the people that are a party of the social contract with our nation– not these soulless husks. Yet I find that our blood is what gives them the capacity to suppress our will. After all, even our losses have been used as a means for them to profit from.
Their predecessors showed greater restraint– abiding by a sense of honor as the relative gap between the people and it could’ve been bridged by their outrage. As this gap has increasingly widened itself, they have lost the need to fear public backlash– becoming well-insulated against such means.
What good is law if it cannot restrain those subordinate to it? The law is meant to establish the order of the land, to act as the codification of the people’s sentiment. It is a social contract between the people and their government– one that guarantees their rights as enumerated.
By default, we are a party to this contract– our birth acting as our signature and our deaths acting as our absolvement. The law acts as our shield and our sword– to allow us to maneuver within its bounds to settle our matters. With the addition of companies, red tape introduces itself– as this tape binds us in place, allowing for these corporate actors to move freely without the fear of repercussion.
After all, Companies are a separate existence– a party that is not a signatory of this social contract. They maneuver outside of these established boundaries and use them when convenient. To interpret them as the legal definition of a person is nothing but a misnomer– after all, a company can’t be hung nor can they enjoy the liberties of life. I find that these companies do not want the right of death– their shamelessness becoming twofold, they aspire to live like individuals yet they do not want to die like one.
The liberties that they have enjoined are to be severed– lest these companies are bestowed with even more rights, nullifying our own. We may see ourselves as people, yet a company can only perceive in numbers– their blade may not be blind, yet it still swings indiscriminately. Each swing is calculated, its cost measured with legal fees and profits, ethics being absent from these calculations.
Let us not forget of the atrocities committed for them to accrue their wealth. The first being their consistency of depriving us of our environment. The Flint Water Crisis’s effects still linger around the state of Michigan, a case of lead poisoning that remains responsible for the stunted development of a generation. The Government’s negligence was resolved with its own punishment, yet this punishment absolved the contractors involved– once again allowing for their profits to be maintained with the caveat of paying a few civil settlements.
The return of our taxes continues to be steered into the mouth of these greedy gluttons– acting as conduits of corruption as both corporate and officials profit. It was not the first time that these companies have failed us nor shall be the last. Money burns quick when it is not your own– a universal trait that is more evident in companies due to their scale. Even the monetary damages that they are forced to compensate are paid by us, the taxpayers.
It is by no accident that these companies are taxed to a lesser extent than our individual taxes– they’ve already paid a separate one to our legislators, ensuring that their business operations remain unaffected by congressional pressure.
For why else can it be seen that New York’s Governor has diluted the will of the people– softening the language of a bill meant to regulate a company’s usage of AI, a poison that the legislature was forced to swallow. What good is praise from a business when you have betrayed your constituents– razing your own image for what?
Along with this coddling, we are treated like kindling for the ambitions of these companies– forcing families to either pay inflated bills or live without light. In this regard, there is no compromise– as the people seldom take well to this infringement.
They pretend to be subservient to us– donning the moniker of a saint, when it is clear that virtues are lost on them. These sins that they have committed against the people remain interred in history– showing that this nature of theirs is inherent, one that must be curbed.
I refuse to paint all of these entities in the same light– for that would be no different than fearmongering. I am not so blind as to not recognize their contributions to society, their existence permanently marking a shift in our nation.
After all, there are a great many companies whose paths are anchored in goodwill– their actions soften the hearts of those who argue for regulations. While a company remains distinct from a person– diversity is a trait seen in these companies.
Let it be known that these companies that I write of are but a part of this whole, my critique applicable to those who find themselves as ethically bankrupt with no moral linings. My writing is like that of a magnifying lens– focusing light onto a particular corner, yet my light is far too small to burn.
Yet my ire is still reserved for them– as it only takes a single choice for them to abuse this corporate personhood of theirs. History has a penchant for repeating itself, thus making suspicion a necessity– to assume good faith is nought but naivety.
While the Courts may have condemned us– their only intention was to provide relief against excessive regulation brought on by the states. The path to hell is oftentimes paved with good intentions– this being a suitable example.
While I may criticize such companies, how could I forget about the dereliction of the Government? After all, our representatives have a tendency to lean towards this bad faith– blinding themselves in hubris or bills.
Their blindness is no different than approval, their silence sanctioning these acts and further aiding it. Many of these recorded incidents have the Government’s shadow behind it– with the executive bending laws, the legislature drafting new ones to ensure that their patrons are safe-guarded, and the Judiciary softening the blow of their gavels.
A company may be the root cause, but our government acts as both facilitator and amplifier– roles that contradict their obligations as regulators and stewards of the people. How wonderful would it be, for this government to grant us the same consideration as they do companies?
I reject the notion that a company’s rights remain until questioned. A company is merely a means to an end– a thought that is embedded globally but has failed to penetrate our system. Each right that a company possesses must be rooted in functionality– rather than a far-fetched interpretation.
For a right to be endowed as such, they must be questioned and pass the test of the Judiciary– not for the Judiciary to assume good faith and act in reverse, to question restrictions rather than endowment. The Founding Fathers intentions remain rooted in the people– a nation for the people, built by the people.
It was us who built this nation– companies serving as our vehicles, tools for us to build this nation. To expect us to surrender our rights so easily is a folly– our nation was founded as an act of rebellion and its people are rebels who fought oppression. A company cannot die as a person, thus it can not live as a person but as a tool– for the lifespan of a tool is a separate concept from that of a human.
Now, let this sword return to its natural position. I too am remiss, as a contradiction exists in my writing pieces– one that must be rectified. In ‘Refinement of Hatred’, I wrote that hatred and love are two sides of the same coin– hatred being the stronger poison out of the two.
In ‘About me’, I wrote of my love of humanity– that I love people by that virtue. If I were to remove this extended notion of love, then I love humanity yet abhor its individuals.
In ‘Judgement’, I likened it to a love dedicated towards a collective, given in the form of dividends to people. I addressed the matter of this love being misconstrued as a romantic one, as I’ve come to loathe this misunderstanding. I likened this particular strain of love as an affliction that died, a flame that I refuse to reignite– a line that I shall mark in this piece.
In its individual capacity, I still recognize love as a poison. While a person may have different feelings in regard to others, some emotions have the intrinsic need to be reciprocated– a need that is more apparent in positive emotions. If this need were to be denied, then the three foremost outcomes are as follows.
This emotion would eventually die without nourishment– a scenario that situates the first two. The first outcome is that this emotion would disappear with a sense of pain– this pain being dependent on the depth and time of this emotion, with the potential to form lessons and memories that are forgotten at a slower rate.
The second outcome is that this love leaves a vacuum behind. A vacuum that is quickly filled by negative emotions such as spite, scorn, anger, sadness, and so on.
The third outcome is that this love evolves into a more dangerous form– obsession, a hyperfixation on a person that disregards self-preservation. Love is a subjective emotion– a person being able compartmentalize their feelings of different aspects of the target of their affection. Obsession is essentially the nullification of this compartmentalization, a person’s fixation overriding these compartments– both general and subject-specific.
This poison can be abetted with acknowledgement and cured with reciprocation. It is the weight behind these emotions that contributes towards its toxicity. Acknowledgement disperses this miasma rather than allowing for this weight to stack up. Reciprocation shares this emotion and acts as a converter, converting its toxicity into a tonic– poison and medicine are different sides of the same coin, some poisons being able to save and some medicines being able to kill.
My words leave much to be desired by the account of my ineptness– as there is much that I’ve yet to experience or learn of, thus making my understanding incomplete and flawed. I recognize that my will alone cannot forbid me from drinking this poison– but I must still reject it. I shall not knowingly condemn myself again– if I do not poison myself, I do not have to trouble myself with this detoxification. The ease of drinking this poison is mirrored by difficulty in acquiring a cure.
In its collective capacity, pertaining to humanity as a whole– I do not recognize love to be a poison. For this particular sense of love only requires empathy. There is no excess, as this sense of love is encompassing– nourishing both self and others. While the first form of love is like that of a river, this form is akin to an ocean– each droplet representing an individual. If I love this ocean, then surely I would love its constituents– including myself.
To love in itself acts as a form of relief, allowing me to be blind– to have no expectations for reciprocation or acknowledgement. If a person harbours such expectations, do they truly love humanity or do they love the attention brought on by the former?
While this reward pales in comparison to the tonic of the former, it is a constant that sustains me– that alone is enough.
Project-wise, there’s some changes that I have to put in writing. Thanks to some friends of mine, I now have two notebooks to fill with my writings– so anything written in those books shall not count towards the word count. To them, I owe them two thanks– the first for the gifts and the second for the idea that they gave me.
In “Bonds”, I warned against people speaking lightly since the nuance between a person’s intent is hard to discern at times. I have a tendency to either take them at face value or to ponder on those words. I wrote this to give a background on sorts for my idea.
That friend of mine told me to write about others– referring to themselves in the process. In the past, I thought about this but decided against it. This time, I thought about it further and have now developed this idea to the point of it becoming my second long-term project.
I have no qualms writing about people in my life, I’ve already praised some and criticized the acts of others. What I do have qualms about is a person identifying themselves in my writing. So my plan is to associate a person with a specific concept or thought, to liken them into an image. This would allow me to preserve a layer of distance and write about a person extensively at the same time.
This project is going to be fun for me since I get to write with others as a foundation, so they’re essentially my inspiration for my writing. I’ll do most of the planning and organization in those new journals of mine since writing on paper gives off a better feel than I thought. Since I have until graduation to complete this new passion project of mine, I am deferring the military guide until the completion of this project.
My prior writings and ethics bind me in regards to anonymity, so no need to worry about that aspect– a breach would prove to be one of the most egregious errors that I could commit. The concept that comprises the cores of this can be anything– the only requirement being that it matches a person in a manner befitting their intrinsic dignity, there’s no fun in demeaning them.
An example of this would be; Person A: Duty, Person B: Butterfly Effect, Person C: Doubt. The format is similar to my earlier works like ‘Bond’,’Judgement’, and other one-word pieces but it’ll be personalized and intertied to the other cores with the imagery and everything. I’ll finally be able to claim that I do creative writing when I publish this piece.
That’s all I’m sharing for the time being since I’ve barely started and have a lot of writing and planning to do. I’ve to protect my proprietary trade as well.
Author’s note:
Would you believe me if I said that I wasn’t satisfied with this? Of the three parties, I’ve criticized the government and Companies– but the people haven’t escaped my gaze. I plan on dedicating an entire piece to them instead, as I’ve much to write about them– the topic of people is a net that holds other topics.
It’s been a while since I’ve argued in a somewhat serious manner– a pastime that I’ve begun to miss. It’s fun to argue over viewpoints since it’s a way of tempering and allows people to understand each other better.
As evidenced by the latter part of my writing, I see people as humans– nothing more, nothing less. Originally, I planned on using the other pieces to write a paragraph here, since I’d hate for others to make assumptions in silence– so I’d rather quash it pre-emptively. But then I realized that I’ve contradicted myself in between pieces.
Regardless of my feelings about this contradiction, I am obligated to settle it post-haste. I believe that it’s relevant to this project as my spark– in terms of everyday and writing might give off the wrong idea which would stain this project, by extension staining me.
I’ll be writing more in my author’s note from now on. I find it better to write and type here as a way of communicating since people confound me at times. I’ve chalked it up to the de-sync between digital and physical images of people since people behave differently.
As always, congratulations for reaching the end of this piece.
29-People 19-About me 22-Judgement 21-Bonds 09-Refinement of Hatred 19-About me 12-Chains of Liberation