Human Rights vs. Corporate Rule - by Mark E. Smith

I live in the USA, a capitalist country where corporations have more rights than humans. It is perfectly legal for a corporation to make billions in profits from activities that cause irreparable harm to human health, but it is considered terrorism to attempt to interfere with those blood-drenched profits.

Despite this, I registered Fubar for Blog Action Day, October 16th, 2013, which focuses on Human Rights. Imagine my confusion at finding that I had to select the type of blog I had, and Human Rights was not one of the available categories. So I checked "politics," although I'm very much against what the US calls politics, i.e., electing corporate-funded crooks to make national decisions.

I do not beleve that human rights and campitalism are compatible or can co-exist. Where corporations can legally produce carcinogenic toxins that get into everyone's food, water, and air, the concept of human rights is a very sick joke that isn't likely to be appreciated by the millions of very sick people capitalism has harmed. It is even worse when the ubiquitous radiation and dioxin pollution are blamed on smoking:

How Tobacco Took the Rap for Dioxin and Radiation

http://fubarandgrill.org/node/1547

This country has the largest prison system in the world, and most prisoners are caged for non-violent crimes, while the corporate executives who pollute and poison the planet are appointed to high level government policy making positions. In the USA, environmental and animal rights groups are listed as terrorist organizations, despite never having harmed a human or even an animal, while genuine terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda in Syria receive US government funds to support their crimes against humanity.

I know that there were human rights in Libya because Muammar Gaddafi gave all Libyans the right to free housing, free health care, free higher education, and a guaranteed income for those who were unemployed. I believe that is why the US killed him, because the US is utterly opposed to human rights.

In my country, nobody can travel without producing identification and subjecting themself to humiliating body searches, youngsters in poor urban areas cannot walk down the streets in their own neighborhoods without being stopped, frisked, often beaten, and sometimes killed by the cops, people who try to occupy public space are set upon by police riot squads, and even those who are employed in the war economy of the biggest military superpower on the planet, have good reason to fear for their job security.

The US, as someone recently Tweeted, was founded by the genocide of one race and built upon the enslavement of another.

Human rights? As Gandhi is said to have remarked with regard to Western Civilization, I think it would be a great idea.

 

Of course we do have the right to sue them.

If a toxic chemical makes me sick, I can sue the company that made it.

All I have to do is find a way to prove to a court that it was that specific chemical that made me sick, and not one of the other 100,000 or so toxic and carcinogenic man-made chemicals that I'm exposed to daily in my food, water, air, clothing, furniture, etc. And even if I manage to accomplish that somehow, the corporation will bring in experts to convince the court that my illness is really due to the fact that I smoke cigarettes.

Of course since the corporation will have made billions of dollars poisoning millions of people, it can afford to have an enormous legal department with many high-priced attorneys and staff, and to find technicalities to avoid having the case settled before I die. Justice delayed is justice denied, as they say.

But even if I win, I'll get a small monetary payment, and that only if I agree not to say anything that might warn other people about the fact that they're being poisoned.

Shouldn't the right not to be poisoned be a human right?

 

Exactly right

The divine right of Kings is the feel of the whole mess we live under today. Corporate kings.. and yes they still take anyone they want for sexual delights.  It just gets applied throughout human existence now, in every aspect of life... and death.

The old double standard.

If an individual poisons another person in the US, they are subject to criminal proceedings which could include the death penalty. Should the poisoner be sentenced to prison instead, they may not keep the proceeds from any articles or books they write about what they did, as human criminals are not allowed to profit from their crimes.

On the other hand, if a US corporation poisons millions of people in the US, at most they might be subject to a small fine, amounting to no more than a tiny fraction of the profits they made by poisoning people. Corporate criminals are allowed to keep the rest of their profits, and are even allowed to continue poisoning people for profit, although eventually another lawsuit might result in another small fine. The fines are never large enough to be a deterrent and are merely a kickback to the government for allowing the corporation to poison people and protecting it from protesters. In most cases the corporations recoup the fine many times over through tax breaks and government subsidies or defense contracts.

Those who protest being poisoned by corporations are considered terrorists and subject to lengthy prison sentences, even if their "crime" was nothing more than a blog post or a casual conversation about a hypothetical action.

In the United States, the right to murder is reserved to corporations and cops, while humans do not have even the right to protest being murdered, no less any right not to be murdered.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Discussion Forum