Objectivist Identity Meets Constitutional Authority

Personal Identity and the Corporate Body

When Hobby Lobby challenges the Constitutional authority to command the corporate body it is asserting an Objectivist philosophy of identity that protects the corporates (the people it contains who are “self” governed) from risk. Liability is limited by means of positive law, which is described as natural law.

(Remember, governing yourself does not mean you govern the risk. Like Hobbes said, it is nothing but delusional, characteristic of the king who wants to dictate religious sentiments and everything else without liability. America was founded so that “We” do not suffer the delusions of aspiring elites.)

Since the Supreme Court is composed of Ivy-League graduates, an Objectivist identity is immediately apparent, ready to exercise the power of being “the best and the brightest” from on high. Its elitist (delusional) aristocratic identity, despite any abiding “liberal” element, has tended (naturally) to demonstrate the corporate body as having the attributes of a person when the corporate is being used to legally shield the person behind it from liability. The reason the shield works is because the corporate does not have the natural identity (the attributes) of a person (like the king).

A legal, corporate identity is naturally intended to not be the person it shields.

A person that incorporates a business identity is personally shielded from the liability of, for example, its employees using corporate revenues to pay for family planning in the form of income. (If the employer tells employees how to spend their income then it is a dictatorship, not a free market. Saying it is a free market only if “I” say so is nothing but delusional. It’s a free market anyway.) The establishment clause is fully enforced. A person that establishes a business is not being forced to pay for family planning anymore than being forced to be any particular religion in order to do business. Employees demand it in the marketplace and have no right to command the employer change religious sentiments to support that demand (with the space being fully occupied by natural law in priority, which is positively confirmed, posteriori, constitutionally established and well defined).

If the business owner wants to fully occupy and dictate the space called “the free market” then the owner is being delusional. That space is defined on demand, not command.

Advertisements

About griffithlighton

musician-composer, artist, writer, philosopher and political economist (M.A.)
This entry was posted in Political-Economy and Philosophy. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.