Frontiersman, January 1998

Notice:
This issue of the Frontiersman contains contact information that is out-of-date. For current contact information, click here.

Frontiersman, January 1998

A Mind of its Own
Sam Aurelius Milam III
In recent articles, I've commented about the misbehavior of corporations and suggested various responses to that misbehavior. However, it would be better to correct the misbehavior than to merely respond to it. To accomplish such change will require a careful understanding of corporations. Understanding begins with definitions. Here's an excerpt Bouvier's Law Dictionary, published in 1889.

"CORPORATION (Lat. corpus, a body). A body, consisting of one or more natural persons, established by law, usually for some specific purpose, and continued by a succession of members.
"It is this last characteristic of a corporation, sometimes called its immortality, prolonging its existence beyond the term of natural life, and thereby enabling a long-continued effort and concentration of means to the end which it was designed to answer, that constitutes its principal utility. A corporation is modelled upon a state or nation, and is to this day called a body politic as well as corporate,— thereby indicating its origin and derivation ...."

According to Bouvier's Law Dictionary, a corporation may, within the limits of its charter or act of incorporation, lawfully do all acts that a natural person may do. This anthropomorphism of corporations is widely accepted. Of course, a corporation isn't a person. There are many things that a person can do that a corporation cannot do. A corporation cannot get pregnant. It cannot be put in jail. It cannot bleed. Most important, it cannot make decisions and then be responsible for the consequences. Only people can do that. A corporation isn't a person. It is property. Nevertheless, the view of corporations as being alive in some sense has persisted over the years. Black's Law Dictionary (1979) refers to corporations as artificial persons or legal entities having personality and existence distinct from that of the members (people). Someone with a vivid imagination might conclude that corporations are man's first successful creation of artificial intelligence. Whether or not this is actually true, the notion is intriguing. Corporations do exhibit behavior that is analogous to that of living creatures, and which suggests volition. Although they cannot become pregnant, they do reproduce. They grow. They interact with or dominate others of their kind. They respond to external stimuli, consume resources and generate waste. The analogy can be stretched even further. Suppose that the people within a corporation are the cells of its body. The legal definition does call a corporation a body. Its departments are then its organs. Its communications network functions as its nervous system. Imagine that the employees have no volition, but merely respond organically to nerve signals from other parts of the corporation. They do seem to behave that way. The analogy is fictional, of course. However, it is fascinating and it might be useful. If you view corporations as living creatures, call them Overcreatures, then you might gain a different perspective on the nature and control of corporations. Some perplexing things about them could make more sense. I'll admit that the Overcreature idea is a strange notion. However, if we are to remedy corporate misbehavior, rather than just keep responding to it, then we must find a different way to control the corporations. Perhaps a different way of thinking about them is the first step. This Overcreature idea might help. Ponder it for a while, and see if you find it useful in understanding corporations.

Part of the credit for the Overcreature idea goes to Don J. Cormier, with whom I discussed it at length, long ago at Mere Keep.

— editor

The Origins of Species
Sam Aurelius Milam III

In 1889, Bouvier's Law Dictionary listed eight different kinds of corporations.¹ In 1979, Black's Law Dictionary listed 24 different kinds of corporations,² and five different ways of classifying them.³ Does this constitute evolution in the Overcreature Kingdom, the creation of new "species" of corporations?

Aggregate corporations, civil corporations, ecclesiastical corporations, eleemosynary corporations, lay corporations, private corporations, public corporations, and sole corporations.

Business corporations, brother-sister corporations, civil corporations, close corporations, closely held corporations, corporations de facto, corporations de jure, collapsible corporations, corporations sole, eleemosynary corporations, joint venture corporations, migratory corporations, moneyed corporations, municipal corporations, public-service corporations, non-stock corporations, not-for-profit corporations, professional corporations, quasi corporations, quasi public corporations, Subchapter S corporations, spiritual corporations, trading corporations, and tramp corporations.

Public or private, ecclesiastical or lay, aggregate or sole, domestic or foreign, subsidiary or parent.

Frontiersman@ida.net

Frontiersman
479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236

January 1998

Page 1

The Invisible War
Don J. Cormier

The invisible war is the war that goes on constantly between the individual and the rest of society. Society as a whole is constantly trying to kill the individual, either physically or spiritually.

The war starts on the day that the individual is born. With seemingly good intentions, parents and teachers seek to destroy the child as an individual, and to turn the child into a docile robot. Children have a natural disadvantage in that they must be coerced at times, if they are to survive and learn. Childhood coercion begets habits of dependence and obedience which are very difficult to overcome when the child reaches an age when it would be physically possible to survive without the assistance of others.

Long ago, power-hungry people learned that these childhood habits of dependence and obedience can be transferred from the parents to the state. Often, parents believe that they are being good parents when they teach their children to regard the state as a surrogate parent. These feelings are reinforced by the teachings of the great popular religions, which preach obedience and self-sacrifice.

The widespread illusion that the state is in some way parental is a tragic source of misery. The biggest enemy of the individual's happiness is the state. The state uses punishment to induce behavior which benefits the state or society as a whole, NOT behavior which benefits the individual as an individual. When the individual acts to achieve happiness in non-approved ways, the state frequently kills that individual.

Obedience to social norms may be expedient for the individual's short-term survival, yet over the long-term the conformity to social norms means enslavement and the "death" of self fulfillment.

Why, one might ask, should an individual struggle hard against the enslaving forces of society? Wouldn't it be easier and more comfortable to "go with the flow"? The answer is that while it might be easier in the short term, such submission causes the individual to experience spiritual death as a nagging, clawing, stifling sense of meaninglessness. The popularity of intoxicants rests largely on the fact that they provide people with a temporary, illusory sense of freedom.

The most difficult, yet the most important task for the adult is to break out of the mould imposed by early training. To be really free, one must learn how to live independently of society, because to be dependent on society is to be caught in a game of domination and exploitation.

Philosophy is the start. A firm grasp of one's principles and of reality unfiltered by brainwashing must be the foundation of one's personal fortress. The most important thing to know is that integral self expression — the manifestation or implementation of what is most basic and important to the individual — is the secret of happiness on earth. It is better to pay the price of hell for one's self-will then to gain heaven at the price of the true self.

The ground floor of the fortress is knowing how to live off the land, or as a subsistence farmer. The idea is to be able to leave the pipelines of organized society behind and to have a resource base that is separate from society's power structure.

The next step — the parapet on the fortress — is to learn whatever skills are needed to elude or neutralize the suppressive forces of society. These skills, of course, will vary depending on the exact aims of the individual.

The weapons of the fortress are real, literal weapons. The individual must cultivate the power of physical self-defence and be willing to use that power if needed — even to the point of inflicting death when there are no other options.

Building such a "fortress" will provide the individual with a relatively safe place to endure the long siege inflicted by society in the eternal, invisible war.

Letters to the Editor
Frontiersman

Thanks for hanging in there.

Bob; Murphys, California

Dear Sam

You may think a computer shutdown [referring to alleged future failures of the world-wide computer-based financial system —editor] does not affect you since you are "immune" to banks, but I fear it will have a lot of repercussions.

This country is in for Big Trouble. We have no defense (never did get SDI up), we have no money, and we have no morals. So we are ripe for judgment. The computers just tell us when.

Sincerely,

Shirley; Urbana, Illinois

So far as we know, they never built SDI. What if they built it and didn't tell us? What if its intended targets are domestic? Did anyone analyze the wreckage of TWA Flight 800 for damage by a MASER beam from directly overhead? Maybe that's what caused the fuel tank to overheat.

— editor

The Wee Elf

Under a toadstool crept a wee elf,
Out of the rain to shelter himself.
Under the toadstool fast asleep,
Sat a big dormouse, all in a heap.
Trembled the wee elf, frightened and yet
Fearing to fly away, lest he get wet.
To the next toadstool may be a mile.
Suddenly the wee elf smiled a wee smile.
He tugged 'til the toadstool toppled in two,
And holding it over him, gayly he flew.
Soon he was home again, dry as could be.
Soon woke the dormouse, "Good gracious me!
"Where is my toadstool?" loud he lamented.
And that is how umbrellas first were invented.
— author unknown
quoted by Poppa

January 1998
Page 2

Frontiersman
479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236

Frontiersman@ida.net

Letter From the Editor
Dear Readers

I keep seeing TV advertisements by anti-gun groups. The most recent is the one where the little boy stacks books on a chair so he can reach the pistol on the top shelf. The message is that you can't protect your family from your gun, so you must get rid of the gun. I believe we should make an advertisement that presents the other side of the argument. Here's a suggested scenario:

An attractive young woman is sleeping when she is wakened by the sound of someone moving in the next room. She reaches onto her night stand, grabs her gun, and sits up in bed. A large man of threatening appearance enters the room. He sees her and smiles a very lecherous grin. She shoots him twice. Bang! Bang! In the next scene, the medics are bandaging the wounded intruder while a policeman puts hand cuffs on him. Over his shoulder, the policeman says, "Don't worry, ma'am. He'll live to stand trial. We have warrants for this man's arrest on six accusations of rape. It's a good thing you were able to defend yourself!" The closing caption, printed and spoken is, "Studies indicate that firearms are used over two million times a year for personal protection, and that the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances."¹

What we need is somebody to fund the advertisement, somebody to film it, and somebody to find TV stations that will run it. Any volunteers? I'd suggest that you contact me by U.S. mail, because my Macintosh SE/30 is dying again. When it is gone, I'll no longer be able to receive e-mail. It might be a long time before I can afford to have it repaired. Thus, U.S. mail might be better for now.

On a different subject, several months ago, my friend Lady Jan the Voluptuous showed me a Certificate of Title that she received from the State of Idaho. The first thing that I noticed is that her name isn't alone in the box labeled "Owner's Name and Address". That box also contains "THE STATE OF IDAHO". I've printed a portion of the certificate below, for your information.

This certificate is a legal document, and I don't believe that anything on it is an accident. I believe that the Great Seal is intentionally arranged on the form so that the name of the State of Idaho appears in the ownership box. I believe that the State of Idaho is indeed a joint owner of Lady Jan's vehicle and that the arrangement of the form is a tacit admission of that fact. The use of a watermark instead of plain text is a clever deception that most people don't notice.

I suggest that all of you to check your certificates of title. See if the name of your state appears with your name in the box indicating ownership. I'd appreciate receiving copies of certificates in which this is the case. As a minimum, I'd like to publish a list of states whose certificates display this feature. With your permission, I'd like to publish copies of the certificates.— editor

The Armed Citizen, 11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, Virginia 22030

Acknowledgments
•     My thanks to The Affiliate, of VanKleek Hill, Ontario for regularly printing reviews of the Frontiersman.
•     My thanks to Sir Donald the Elusive for paying the production costs of this newsletter and for his additional contributions.
•     My thanks to Lady Jan the Voluptuous for her ongoing editorial assistance and for her countless other efforts in support of this newsletter and of its editor.
•     My thanks to the following people for their recent contributions: Shirley, of Urbana, Illinois; Bob, of Murphys, California; and Kathy, of Idaho Falls, Idaho.

— editor

Frontiersman

Cancellations — If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, print REFUSED, RETURN TO SENDER above your name and address, cross out your name and address, and return the newsletter. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription. You may also cancel by letter, e-mail, carrier pigeon, or any other method that gets the message to me.

Back Issues — Back issues or extra copies of this newsletter are available upon request.

Reprint Policy — Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in its entirety or to reproduce material from it, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. Please note that I do not have the authority to give permission to reprint material that I have reprinted from other publications. For that permission, you must go to the original source. I would appreciate receiving a courtesy copy of any document or publication in which you reprint my material.

Submissions — I solicit letters, articles, and cartoons for the newsletter, but I don't pay for them. Short items are more likely to be printed. I suggest that letters and articles be shorter than 500 words, but that's flexible depending on space available and the content of the piece. I give credit for all items printed unless the author specifies otherwise.

Payment — This newsletter isn't for sale. If you care to make a voluntary contribution, you may do so. The continued existence of the newsletter will depend, in part, on such contributions. I accept cash and U.S. postage stamps. I don't accept checks, money orders, anything that will smell bad by the time it arrives, or anything that requires me to provide ID or a signature to receive it. In case anybody is curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I'm sure you get the idea.

— Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor

Frontiersman@ida.net

Frontiersman
479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236

January 1998

Page 3

Frontiersman
479 E. 700 N.
Firth, Idaho 83236

Frontiersman
Starting the new year
with
fewer than
500,000 subscribers!!

Net Watcher's News

The Ant and the Grasshopper:

Original Version

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.

Modern American Version

... come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving. CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can it be that, in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Then a representative of the NAAGB (National Association for the Advancement of Green Bugs) shows up on Nightline, charges the ant with "green bias," and makes the case that the grasshopper is the victim of 30 million years of greenism.

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when he sings "It's not easy being green." Bill and Hillary Clinton make a special guest appearance on the CBS Evening News to tell a concerned Dan Rather that they will do everything they can for the grasshopper, who has been denied the prosperity he deserves by those who benefited unfairly during the Reagan summers or, as Bill refers to it, the "Temperatures of the 80's." Richard Gephardt exclaims in an interview with Peter Jennings that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share." Finally, the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Greenism Act," retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government. Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill appointed from a list of single-parent welfare moms who can only hear cases on Thursday's between 1:30 and 3 PM, when there are no talk shows scheduled. The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he's in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him since he doesn't know how to maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. And on the TV, which the grasshopper bought by selling most of the ant's food, they are showing Bill Clinton standing before a wildly applauding group of Democrats announcing that a new era of "fairness" has dawned in America.

— (author unknown)
provided by Silicon Valley Bob

Buck Hunter Shoots Off His Mouth
Dear Buck

What do you think of Rachmaninoff's Rhapsody?

— Music Lover

Dear Music Lover

I'm afraid I've never met the lady.

Sesame Suite

Hermit the Frog: Hey Priggy!

Ms Priggy: Yes, Hermie?

Hermie: How do you tell if a feminist has been trying to make chocolate chip cookies in your kitchen?

Priggy: Rrrrrr!

Hermie: By the cracked M&M's shells all over the counter-top! He he he — uh ....

Priggy: Haayyeeee — YAH!

Hermie: Whap! Oof! Thump!
(I hope you appreciate that I'm doing all of my own stunts.)

Nookie Monster: Nooookeeee! Nooookeeee!

Sesame Suite is a production of the Children's Tunnelvision Workshop

January 1998
Page 4

Frontiersman
479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236

Frontiersman@ida.net

Back to the Frontiersman Directory

Back to the Beginning of This Issue