Where this stopped isthat the whole power of a corporation is that the corporation itself islegally a person, with all of the rights thereof. The purpose ofputting a corporation as a person is so that if the corporation goestotally broke your seperate finances aren't completely lost. Now, whenthe 14th amendment freed the slaves, it stated that a person could nothave something that was genuinely theirs taken away, nor could they bedisbanded as being an equal human being once declared as such. Wonderfully this set the slaves free in america, unfortunately thisalso gave corporation lawyers a new tool to use in court, one that madeit so that no matter how much a corporation earned they could not bedisbanded by the government without doing something completely againstthe law. (even than try getting past the twenty some-odd lawyers of astereotypical major corporation.)

Let us now bring in a thirdthinker. John Ruskin, who while not as well-known in the statesinfluenced Ghandi's ideas of economics in a radical way. Originally Ithought that Ruskin's work was completely socialist, and if he had beenaiming for the promotion of socialism it should be noted that he makesa much better argument than Karl Marx (writer of "The CommunistManifesto") However there is a major difference between the things that Ruskin discusses and socialism. Ruskin's "Unto This Last"is more about the morality of money and having such than anything else,and while he did insist that it was better for all holders of a job tobe paid the same wage for that job, such as socialism suggests the keydifference between his works and socialist philosophy comes into beingin who enforces this. I believe that Ruskin was pleeing to corporationowners to make these changes, while a socialist would have beenaddressing the government. His writing was a precursor to creditunions, a type of bank that is owned equally by the people who have moneyin it.

Now why would I bring up the evils of taxes, the originsof corporations, and semi-socialism with the key difference of nogovernment interference? My idea is that if a group of people cometogether with common goals for something such as in a credit unionwhere the common goal is saving money with more interest than astandard bank (along with the seperation from government regulatedbanks) and these people decided to take care of the things thatgovernment claims to take care of with the money from thatorganization, which I would reccomend be incorporated for the taxbenifits. Could we ween ourselves off of our ridiculous dependancy ongovernment?

Personally, I think that the less reliant we are ongovernment and money the better off we will be. The economic model Iam proposing, is to have a sub-society within our society (but nottotally seperate) wherein people come together under the common goal ofthrowing off the overbearing shackles of dependancy and paying for thethings taxes would normally pay for via the method that corporationswere originally used for. Even if one could not become totallyseperate from government in this endeavor, at least they could enlistthe tax-benefits of owning a corporation to assist in lessening theweight of taxes. I would like to use these methods to fund education,security, transportation, shelter, as opposed to relying on biggovernment (government=middle man). The most ideal situation I couldthink of would be a tax-free society composed of cooperative financialinstitutions. The people who work for the money and earn the money andprovide such things would than be responsible for funding differentcauses, this being the case, the funding for a cause could only becontinue so long as A) the people within the society genuinely believethis in this cause, or B) that corporation has a damn-goodsalesman/woman. You would vote by funding what you wanted to fund, bybuying the products of the company that wanted to fund that. Eachcorporation, as part of the cooperative agreements that this societywould rely on, would have to state what they were raising money forwith their products. Another part of the agreements would have toinclude that products such as anything but a book on why thatcorporations ideal is the one that you should put your money into,would have to be shared products. No one corporation having tickle-meelmo, or food, or gas, but rather each cause having corporations thatprovides our needs and wants. I think this would be the most directform of democracy in that the people would have total control on wherethe funding goes as well as by voting for what we want through buyingfrom the places we agree with, we could ideally form of this societycut out seperation of government and people entirely and permanently