RU Sirius's two proposals
Our friend RU Sirius has published two intriguing calls to action on his blog, 10 Zen Monkeys:
The QuestionAuthority ProposalIt's time for all those who oppose authoritarian governance and culture to put aside their differences and join together in a coalition that can act as a counterforce to this gathering threat to our liberties. Link
The Open Source Party Proposal
A call for dynamic discourse about the things that really need to change, and how to evolve a new political organization that could kick up some noise by the time the next political season (2010) rolls around. Link
the latest
latest episodes
RU Sirius - "The QuestionAuthority Proposal"
I worry when overall philosophical ideas are turned into cute catch-phrases and "projects"
Yes, we know that our freedoms and liberties have been drastically impinged on (and dimantled) by a myriad of government agencies - but RU Sirius' idea of forming a coalition called "QuestionAuthority" (and The Mondo-Globo Network!) is too little too late.
The largest upsurge in anti-authoritarian protest and grass-roots organization occurred in the late 60s and early 70s and look what it got us...iPods and "American Idol" - in other words, for the most part your average global citizen is pretty much incapable of questioning authority and is happiest when he or she is simply entertained (me included)
I've read RU Sirius' complete mission statement and it all boils down to yet another "tax-deductible charity organization" with membership drives, Boards of Directors, etc
RU Sirius asks: "Why isn't there mass outrage?"
Cultural leaders throughout history have asked this question (from Jesus to Lao Tzu to Mother Theresa) and the answer is that most global citizens are happy with their TV and mp3s and iPhones...protesting corporations and governments is a headache and a bother...plus you can get beat up and thrown in jail.
This kind of organizational mass hysteria serves no purpose other than to play on ordinary citizens innate fear.
To everyone who, like me, has the instinctive reflex to cynically dismiss calls like this: please take a step back and consider.
Is the "QuestionAuthority" proposal pie-in-the-sky? Probably. Will it change the face of politics? Probably not.
But it might. Sillier, less likely forces have changed the world before, and you never know which confluence of well intentioned, smart people will suddenly swell into a powerful movement given enough initial support.
Support this proposal, put some effort into making it a reality. If it fails, it fails, but at least it won't have failed because of you.
Well the outrage issue is problematic sure, but it tied to our link to what we perceive as our immediate community. Knowing as we do that our brains adjust to a community of about 150 people, its easy from that perspective that unless someone in our "community" is directly affected by these problems, that we don't feel the outrage.
Since we know this, it is important as a group to attempt to push past evolution and expand our ability to care and be outraged about atrocities done to any human.
As far as the party type, as an interesting test case, I would love to see how Lessig would define a party type. While I think the benefits of a democracy are great, natural selection, the internet, and open markets have a series of checks and balances that pure democracy at face value lacks.
I am not sure that we should be looking at a republic or democracy, but a totally different system that is open and based on how nature operates similarly to the web, similarly to open markets.
_jp
It seems like the Question Authority proposal is congruent with the ACLU's platform. But perhaps Sirius believes that a less formalized, monolithic organization will draw more people to the cause who prefer focusing their efforts on education over litigation, or might otherwise be reluctant to commit to something card-carrying.
(Usually RU Sirius himself is near the top of the list of authorities I question, but if he actually helps restore civil liberties, state transparency, and checks and balances, then more power to him.)
I'm very much opposed to authoritarian governance. I'm not especially opposed to authoritarian culture. No one should be able to throw you in jail or brutalize you because of your different views, but they shouldn't have to accept you either.
I'll therefore support any movement that opposes using government to enforce conformity. I shall mock and oppose any movement that supports using government to enforce diversity.
As for QuestionAthority:
I'm all for it but the devil is in the details. What I'd love to see him link up with David Brin and George Soros and hammer out a common position paper. If those three could hammer out a common understanding that they would sign their name to, and bring in people who agree with them I'd really get behind this.
As for the Open Source Party:
Get RMS, Linus, Bruce Perens, and Mark Shuttleworth to sign on and we have a movement.
Well the outrage issue is problematic sure, but it tied to our link to what we perceive as our immediate community. Knowing as we do that our brains adjust to a community of about 150 people, its easy from that perspective that unless someone in our "community" is directly affected by these problems, that we don't feel the outrage.
Since we know this, it is important as a group to attempt to push past evolution and expand our ability to care and be outraged about atrocities done to any human.
As far as the party type, as an interesting test case, I would love to see how Lessig would define a party type. While I think the benefits of a democracy are great, natural selection, the internet, and open markets have a series of checks and balances that pure democracy at face value lacks.
I am not sure that we should be looking at a republic or democracy, but a totally different system that is open and based on how nature operates similarly to the web, similarly to open markets.
_jp
Sirius has been promoting one cause after another for the last twenty years.
None of them went anywhere because nobody outside a loose band of libertarian lunatics knows him - and quite frankly, nobody takes him or his projects "Sirius-ly".
So this will go nowhere as well. Unless, as others have suggested, he gets some "Serious" people to sign on and promote it themselves.
Does well meaning ignorance actually help or does it just further fuel partisan strife without contributing constructively to solving problems?
Where should I start... Does R.U. Sirius realize that "corporate personhood" is the reason the FBI would need to get a warrant before raiding the offices of the ACLU? While its quite obvious that idiots that advocate the "end of corporate personhood" don't think that the government should be able to raid their favored non profit organizations without a warrant, thats what their legal campaign literally implies. They don't understand what a "corporation" is nor what "personhood" means in the sense they use it. We can debate whether or not their advocacy is useful in some emotional way, but it obviously isn't right, and I'm certainly not going to sign up to support it.
While we're grabing touchstones from the radical left, we should balance things out with some radical right wing ideas too, such as one from the Ron Paul campaign: Revert to the gold standard. Yes, lets get the government out of dickering with the money supply so that we can have rampant inflation and massive depressions. It would actually make the economy more efficient, but that will only matter to those of us who don't starve to death in the streets. If it wasn't for federal regulation of money and banking we'd be having rampant bank failures right now because of all the bad housing debt banks have bought and the surprise write downs that have occurred in the past few quarters.
A bit closer to real modern issues is the comment about "the virtual death of habeas corpus," but I'm pretty sure the last time I checked the cops still have to haul me before a judge if I get arrested, and while I personally have serious problems with the "balance" Congress has struck with respect to suspected terrorists convincing people on the other side of the fence on that issue to change their view involves engaging their valid concerns and the real problems caused by the current approach. They are just going to ignore sensationalistic hyperbole and assume its part of a partisan political strategy.
There are real issues for how to govern in the next century, and there is a need for a party of people who understand both how the world has changed and what aspects of the past need to be preserved and what aspect need to be left behind. But this isn't it. Unfortunately, neither party up for election this year is either.
Great to see people responding and/or reacting. A few posts are worth commenting on.
>>
It seems like the Question Authority proposal is congruent with the ACLU's platform. But perhaps Sirius believes that a less formalized, monolithic organization will draw more people to the cause who prefer focusing their efforts on education over litigation
>>
ACLU is all about legal battles. QA proposes to engage in dynamic, grassroots educational/activism types of activities that are fairly well delineated in the proposal, but it sometimes helps to pull a few quotes out of a lengthy document...
>>>
"
1a) We will monitor, inform about, and coordinate public educational responses against any further assaults on the basic constitutional liberties of Americans, and will organize information and educational responses to civil liberties already lost to the "war on terror."
>>>
Try to find accessible, navigatable, written-in-plain-english materials on the ACLU website or anywhere where you can give yourself an education in what has happened around these issues over say the last 7 years. You can't. Everything there, of course, is miscellaneous! And that's problematic. I propose coherence and one-stop shopping for concise comprehensible information in this area. If we accomplish nothing else, we'll still be a massive Success...
"... 1b) Imagine every authoritarian absurdity and outrage carefully explored and catalogued on a single website. Imagine networked groups that can spring into action to alert and educate the public the next time authorities savage the Bill of Rights"
>>>>
Same point. THere's McCarthyism Watch on the Progressive Magazine website but it doesn't do much and it's obviously slanted in one direction
>>>
"... 2a) We will do everything in our power to bring non-authoritarian and anti-authoritarian thinkers and speakers before the public and particularly before youth.
2b) Imagine a QA publicity/speakers bureau that would get a wide variety of QA types onto college campuses, on the various media talk shows (let's change the dialogue from Right v. Left to Authoritarian v. Non-Authoritarian) and before various civic groups.
>>>
Again, nobody else is doing it.
>>>>
LATER ON somebody posted:
>>
I'm very much opposed to authoritarian governance. I'm not especially opposed to authoritarian culture. No one should be able to throw you in jail or brutalize you because of your different views, but they shouldn't have to accept you either.
I'll therefore support any movement that opposes using government to enforce conformity. I shall mock and oppose any movement that supports using government to enforce diversity.
>>>
Me too! Show me where I suggest using the government to enforce conformity or diversity. My inclusion of Authoritarian culture in the statement may well refer to people being slienced by Political Correctness. It certainly refers to people taking umbrage all the time at every movie, artwork, ad infinitum, whether it's some right wing christians or a racial identity group.
>>>
And then this:
"As for QuestionAthority:
I'm all for it but the devil is in the details. What I'd love to see him link up with David Brin and George Soros and hammer out a common position paper. If those three could hammer out a common understanding that they would sign their name to, and bring in people who agree with them I'd really get behind this.
As for the Open Source Party:
Get RMS, Linus, Bruce Perens, and Mark Shuttleworth to sign on and we have a movement."
>>>>
Yes! So help out. This should maybe be a Paul Revere moment for people who are concerned about some of these issues...
>>>
And finally this:" Does R.U. Sirius realize that "corporate personhood" is the reason the FBI would need to get a warrant before raiding the offices of the ACLU? While its quite obvious that idiots that advocate the "end of corporate personhood" don't think that the government should be able to raid their favored non profit organizations without a warrant, thats what their legal campaign literally implies"
>>>
I'm sure there are greater legal minds that I who can take this on, but the 4th amendment should be sufficient to protect organizations from ACLU to KBR as well as individuals from warrantless searches or somebody is not doing a very good job of interpreting the constitution etc. And if it's not, their ought to be a way to retool the essential impulse behind that platform point to make it work in the way it's intended. There are also 7 points on that document and I invite people who agree with 5 of them to get into the mix, so come on in if you care to...
>>>
and... "A bit closer to real modern issues is the comment about "the virtual death of habeas corpus," but I'm pretty sure the last time I checked the cops still have to haul me before a judge if I get arrested,"
but the attorney general can freeze your assets. Actually, literal interpretations of current laws could declare you a terrorist and strip you f most of your rights, or at least they could try to. The fact that these powers are rarely used doesnt diminish the fact that they exist as a form of intimidation...
If you can find anything vaguely "closed source" about any Green Party anywhere, I'll eat my hat. Every one makes policy in public, by decisions of the membership, and decides its own rules the same way.
And the policy outcomes include a good tranche of geek activism and digital libertarianism alongside, y'know, saving the planet.
So don't waste time replicating it, join it.
(disclaimer, I only know the Scottish version, but I know the same principles apply)
It's nonsense language like "a way to retool the essential impulse behind that platform point" that confirms what most of us know... this is going nowhere.
well, i for one question RU sirius's authority to start a movement like this...
@ ark #12
speak for yourself.
"a way to retool the essential impulse behind that platform point" isn't nonsense.
it means:
"congress putting two brain cells together to recognize the wisdom inherent in the constitution, and making sure the law expresses this wisdom."
(not that everything the founding fathers did was great, but most of them would vomit at the sight of our government's current state.)
i don't know squat about ru sirius, nor how many times he's failed, but there is potential when people get together, even if it's for a dubious reason initially, or under a flawed leader.
being that as it is, i offer one critique and one congruent platform idea.
i like the goal of being able to effect the next election, but let us not forget that this next election can be effected as well. there are new games afoot, with the internet taking a very serious role this year, don't sleep on opportunities to turn it your way. rove wouldn't! (the candidates are a bit wack... it's like you get "honest", "electable" and "wise", pick two!)
the congruent idea comes from an old friend of mine, muskrat. he's definitely reaganite to my lennonist (john, folks, not vlad!) but we agree on this point. there should be an un-legislative branch. the point of this branch is to make sure time is made to remove laws that are irrelevant, stupid, insane, or otherwise useful to remove. the fact is congress is too busy with formalities and making new legislation to really ever spend time removing laws, so the law is incomprehensibly large, even for congress.
the law should be simple enough that it could at least be read in a year, one hour a day. that extra fat makes it much easier to store carcinogens.
RU, we already have right now criminals in the White House who have staged a coup.
This is the time for resistance, not pretty slogans.
"RU, we already have right now criminals in the White House who have staged a coup.
This is the time for resistance, not pretty slogan"
That sounds like a couple of slogans actually. This is the time for cohesion not more-radical-than-thou bluster...
RU
Ppl rn't trgd bcs thr's nthng fr mst ppl t b trgd gnst.
["th vrtl dth f hbs crps, th lglztn f srvllnc gnst ll mrcns"]
xpln t m hw hbs crps hs dd fr m? thnk thy nd t g r-rd th lw thr. nd h ys, th lss f my rght t prvcy whl n pblc?
f thy wnt m t gt rld p, thy'r gng t hv t b lt mr spcfc bt xctly wht rghts 'v lst.
Our society is closing now. We have already legalized torture. The president already has the power to declare you and enemy of the state and have you arrested and detained with no right to habeas corpus. In February you will need to apply to the state for permission to travel within the country and you will be required to carry with you your Real ID. Even to enter a federal building. Does it sound to you like you have time to print banners, blow up balloons and debate party slogans?
i just wish RU Sirius would get back to producing his rather excellent podcasts (RU Sirius Radio Show and Neofiles). they were once the highlights of my week, but they've vanished without a trace and i feel empty for it.
Nn:
Shw m whr t sys wht y jst sd t sys. cn't fnd t. fnd lw tht sys smthng cmpltly dffrnt, thgh.
thnk y nd t stp gng ff f wht th lrmsts r "prphrsng" (t s plt wrd fr wht thy'r dng) nd ctlly rd sm f th lws. Th lrmsts r mstly ftr pg hts nd mny. Th trth s lss ntrstng, ftr ll.
I bet that once RU gets this trucking, a bunch of these same naysayers here will jump on board and later tell everyone they thought it was a great idea all along.
RealCatholicMen
My nick is "noen" not neon. It means "anyone" in Norwegian.
Section 948a of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is what you're looking for.
According to Bill Goodman, Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Joanne Mariner, from FindLaw, this bill redefines unlawful enemy combatant in such a broad way that it refers to any person who is
"engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States."
This makes it possible for US citizens to be designated unlawful enemy combatant because
"it could be read to include anyone who has donated money to a charity for orphans in Afghanistan that turns out to have some connection to the Taliban or a person organizing an anti-war protest in Washington, D.C."
Societies are closed down bit by bit and by the time most people realize what is happening it is already too late. That is why this stage of denial "it can't happen here" is so dangerous.
Posse Comitatus has also been whittled away. It is a reality that today Bush could declare an emergency and federalize the National Guard. You could wake up tomorrow to find Blackwater guarding federal buildings and there is nothing anyone could do about it.
It is too late to organize yet another third party. We need to act and we need to act now.
Nn,
Y shld rd th ntr txt f th lw rthr thn ccptng th prphrsng f thrs (vn mn!). Y cn fnd t nln. Hr's sm rlvnt qts:
Rgrdng wh t ppls t:
"() Prps- Ths chptr stblshs prcdrs gvrnng th s f mltry cmmssns t try ln nlwfl nmy cmbtnts nggd n hstlts gnst th ntd Stts fr vltns f th lw f wr nd thr ffnss trbl by mltry cmmssn."
Th dfntn fr "ln" s tht y r nt n mrcn ctzn.
Wht y snppd ws prt f th dfntn fr "nlwfl cmbtnt".
Pt thm ll tgthr nd y hv "ln nlwfl cmbtnt". Ths r th nly ppl ths dcmnt ppls t. Hnc, f y r n mrcn ctzn, thn th Mltry Cmmssns ct f 2006 ds nt pply t y. t ds nt grnt nyn th thrty t d nythng t y s lng s y r ctzn. (t ls dsn't grnt nyn th rght t d nythng t y f y r lwfl cmbtnt, whch s dfnd lswhr.)
ls, n ntrstng snppt rgrdng trtr:
" sttmnt btnd by s f trtr shll nt b dmssbl n mltry cmmssn ndr ths chptr, xcpt gnst prsn ccsd f trtr s vdnc tht th sttmnt ws md."
n thr wrds, f Jmb s trtrd by Bb, th S rmy cn rnd p Bb nd pt hm n trl nd s Jmb's trtr-rndrd sttmnts gnst Bb. Thy cnnt trtr Bb nd s hs wn sttmnts gnst hm, r s Jmb's sttmnts gnst Jmb, vn thgh w ddn't d th trtrng, Bb dd.
Th lw s rlly jst vrbs wy f syng, "f y r trrrst, th Gnv Cnvntn ds nt pply t y, nd ths s hw w'r gng t hndl t". Prt f th rsn ths hs bn sch hg snf s bcs mrc hd n clrly dfnd mthd f dlng wth llgl nmy cmbtnts. Thy st n Cb bcs thr wr n lws fr dlng wth thm.
Th lw s bng msrprsntd s sm knd f trrbl thng tht tks wy th rghts f mrcn ctzns, whch n fct t hs ZR mpct n mrcn ctzns nd trs t dfn hw w'r gng t trt cptrd trrrsts, ncldng th fct tht w cn't s trtr rndrd sttmnts gnst thm n thr trl.
ws rdng p n Pss Cmtts (th blty t dply th mltry s lw nfrcmnt gncy).
Th prsdnt hs bn bl t d ths snc 1807.
Th 2007 Dfns pprprtns Bll wdnd th pssbl rsns t ncld f n pdmc, ntrl dsstr, trrrst ttck, tc, s s bd tht th stt cn't hndl t. .g. f mssv hrrcn lvls ll f Flrd nd klls 85% f th ppltn, th prsdnt cn s th rmy t g n nd prvd rdr.
jst dn't s whr tht's bd thng. f thr's mssv dsstr, why nt thrz th rmy t hlp? ndr th rgnl ct f 1807, th Prsdnt cld nly thrz ths fr nsrrctns -- ntrl dsstrs wrn't lstd. Nw t cn ls b thrzd fr, sy, Ktrn , f t ws bd ngh tht th rsrcs f Flrd rn't ngh t dl wth t. r sm srt f mssv trrrst ttck tht, gn, mngs t vrwhlm stt rsrcs.
H cnnt smply snd t trps "tdy" bcs nthng s gng n tdy tht fts th qlfctns.
RealCatholicMen you make some good points. I'll consider them. However other people that I trust arrive at different conclusions.
To get back on topic, I think RU Sirius's proposals sound very good and hopefully they will change things for the better. But I am still deeply alarmed by and very distrustful of this administration. I do not trust it with the kind of power it has been accumulating to itself. You can say that these are perfectly normal and who would want the gov to act in a natural emergency. But then why all these exceptions buried here and there?
You say torture is inadmissible but what you don't say is that we define torture to mean whatever we want it mean. So this gov says with a straight face that it does not torture because it has defined waterboarding as not meeting it's definition. And yet it is torture and has been for hundreds of years.
You say the MCA does not apply to US citizens and yet we did indeed detain and torture a US citizen (Padilla) on no evidence at all and kept him in sensory deprivation so long that his mind was effectively wiped clean.
I really hope that RU's proposals do some good and become a positive force today, we need more like that. What I am afraid of is that it may be too little too late. I hope I am wrong.
Nn,
Pdll pr-dts th Mltry Cmmssns ct nd t stll wldn't pply t hm tdy, snc h's ctzn. Hs cs ws ctlly t d wth th d tht th prsdnt cn dclr S ctzn t b n nlwfl nmy cmbtnt. Th prcdnt fr ths, hwvr, ctlly dts bck t 1942 (x Prt Qnn -- th crts tht phld hs dclrtn s n nmy cmbtnt ctd tht cs).
Hs cs s ntrstng bt stll dsn't rlly mk fr cnvncng rllyng cry, snc h hs ths fr bn cnvctd by jry tht h ws, n fct, nggng n th ctvts f n nlwfl nmy cmbtnt. f y g t rq nd st rdsd bmbs s n mrcn ctzn, r y nt n nlwfl nmy cmbtnt nggng n wr gnst s? Hw shld w trt y? (lthgh ls dn't ndrstnd why thy ddn't jst ccs hm f trsn, rthr thn mddlng thrgh wht sms lk lt f gry r.) t ny rt, h's nt gng t mk fr gd pstr by. Mst mrcns wll nt rlly rnd hm.
Bsclly, thgh, wht 'd lk t gt crss s tht y SHLD qstn thrty, bt mk sr y'r qstnng bth sds f t. Qstn Bsh, bt ls qstn Bng Bng. Qstn th sttmnts f th ppl wh r tllng y tht th gvrnmnt s gng hywr. Tht's wht mst f my cmmnts n Bng Bng hv bn, n fct: 'm qstnng thrty. n ths nstnc, 'm qstnng th thrty f R Srs. wnt t mk sr h's rlly gt ll th dtls rght bfr bck hm p. S fr, h's nt cnvncd m.
nd nc n whl smn slngs rnd wrd lk "rvltn", bt tht's srs mttr. Bfr 'll stnd bhnd nythng rmtly lk tht, 'm gng t pr vr th ctl txt f th lws nd css n qstn. 'm nt gng t tk th wrd f Dck Chny r Wrd. 'm gng t fnd t fr myslf. sggst vryn d th sm bfr rchng ny srs (r Srs) cnclsn.
Interesting discussion. I still feel that others have a different opinion of the same facts than you have RealCatholicMen. They read the same laws and are aware of the same facts and yet reach very different conclusions. And I very strongly feel that there is a clear need for action along the line that RU has given. Discussion, debate and networking for those who are interested in these issues is a good thing.
Across the country, people who do more than watch "American Idol" are worried and frightened. I believe they have good reason to be. That deep pervading sense that this country is going in the wrong direction is probably why RU decided to make these proposals.
And I still feel, very strongly, that this administration has committed impeachable offenses. Rising to the level of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
You may think that I am a bit of an alarmist RealCatholicMen. No so, among my circle I am the calm rational one.
To whomever the shoe fits:
Why the condescending remarks about Sirius? The same people who complain about the fact that no one ever does anything about anything seem to be the first to mock those who try. What have you done lately?
Why doesn't anything change? Because we have the hip cynics on one side mocking the activists, and the staunch defenders of the staus quo on the other. The cynics mistake their attitude for an opinion, and the conservatives mistake their opinions for knowledge.
Per habeus corpus: not extending the protections of habeus corpus to citizens of other countries being tried in our courts is hypocritical.
It's right up there with sending detainees to other countries to be tortured by others so that we can keep our hands "clean," and with calling detainees "enemy combatants" or whatever neologism some brainiac has thought up, so that we don't have to afford them the protections of the Geneva Convention.
I posted a comment on the last article about this, but it didn't really say anything interesting.
Anyway, my thoughts about this are that I'm pretty skeptical of any kind of call to action that contains outdated ideas like political parties, or petitioning one's master for more rights. "Democracy" always makes me cringe when it's not thoroughly explored and dissected. The idea of an alternative currency has always seemed really unimaginative and fraught with peril. The juxtaposition of these ideas next to calls to organize anti-authoritarians doesn't sit right with me.
It's not just these words, but the overall tone of the calls. It just seems like the same kind of thing I've seen over and over. I like RU, but I don't see any of this going anywhere.
One thing that I think is interested is the increasing influence of anarchist thought on liberals, as opposed to Marxist-Leninist thought that ruled thirty years ago. You can see this all over - I think the best example is the whole Horizontalism thing. I haven't read the book, but it's been summed up to me as being heavily influenced by anarchist thought, but more interested in building counter-institutions than smashing hierarchy. It's still better than Lenin, and I'm definitely glad that things are progressing towards challenging the very idea of authority.
RU: Thanks for your response...
>>> I'm sure there are greater legal minds that I who can take this on, but the 4th amendment should be sufficient to protect organizations from ACLU to KBR as well as individuals from warrantless searches... >>>
The whole point of "ending corporate personhood" is to strip the protections of the 4th amendment (and other constitutionally protected rights such as the freedom of speech) from corporations (which includes big companies, small companies, the news media, non-profits, charities, etc...) The whole idea started because activists were angry that Nike has a first amendment right to freedom of speech. They don't want corporations to have rights. The notion of "ending corporate personhood" is the deeply authoritarian idea that people should not be able to exercise constitutional rights in groups. I'm not sure what other intent this platform point could have. (When pressed advocates of this position usually conceed that they only want to strip constitutional rights from certain groups of people (in particular the wealthy). I don't think this makes the position any more reasonable or compelling.)
>>>> but the attorney general can freeze your assets. Actually, literal interpretations of current laws could declare you a terrorist and strip you f most of your rights, or at least they could try to. The fact that these powers are rarely used doesnt diminish the fact that they exist as a form of intimidation... >>>>
In Canada there is this "notwithstanding" clause in the charter of rights and freedoms that allows legislatures to ignore fundamental rights without judicial review at will. Its a massive loophole, far, far more dangerous than the MCA. Yet Canadians generally speaking feel that they have a legally protected right to freedom of speech and a right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
You are absolutely right that the MCA can be abused to round people (including citizens) up without review because it establishes no method of third party oversight... No safety vale. Its an unnecessary and dangerous law. But Habeas Corpus is not dead. Courts in America still require it. So the problem we have is not that Habeas Corpus is dead. If we, however, go to the supporters of the MCA and say "you need to stop what you are doing because you have killed habeas corpus" they, knowing that in fact they haven't killed habeas corpus, are not likely to be moved to action. We need to raise problems that are real and aren't easily refuted.
Personally, I think corporations (and other group organizational forms) should definitely have rights. I even think that those rights would overlap with 'human rights' in some ways.
However, the legal hack that arrogated 'human rights' to inhuman corporations via the notion of corporate personhood was clearly ill-considered, though equally clearly it provided many short term benefits. For that matter, it unfairly privileges corporations over other organizational forms.
The main problem is that in many ways a corporation can exercise it's rights more completely than any individual can (especially freedom of speech). This becomes most evident when corporations exercise their first-amendment rights in order to lie. While I certainly think corporations should have a right to speech, I do not think this should extend to the right to lie (this is but an extension of the 'truth in advertising' rule).
Corporations are not human. Corporations should have rights. Some of those rights may be functionally similar with some human rights, but not all. What's so difficult about this?