The Supreme Court, Continuum, and Obselesence
The Supreme Court has ruled that drugs companies are largely exempt from law suits. I don't know the Law well enough to evaluate this ruling. I could dig into it. I could argue the point from the perspective of what is truly legal. Or, I could just shove my world view at the issue. If yours is similar enough, this piece might get a Like from you. If mine and yours are sufficiently different, then this post might earn a nasty comment. Neither of these modes of inquiry really appeal to me. This obvious implications of this ruling serve not as proof of the failure of the American legal system, but they serve as a means of exposing the way it functions as a mechanism and how the mechanism if fundamentally broken.
The Law cannot adapt quickly enough. The Law draws its power from stare decisis. It's flaw is in its name. The Latin betrays the problem. Our political system solves problems by relying on tradition. The entire system must combat an historical inertia in an era that's largest challenge is one of acceleration.
Whether the Supreme Court's ruling is an example of partisan decision making, corporate influence, or pure legal reasoning, it does not matter. The end result is that a certain kind of corporation which influences the ways the brains of Americans functions is less open to direct critique by citizens. This closing down of a legal means of addressing a corporation furthers the distance between the citizen and the corporation. It is not simply that corporations have the rights of people, but rather the corporations have precisely that kind of sovereignty which all true subjects ought to have. The corporation exists as a fuller entity than the individual as citizen. The Supreme Court, in limiting the individual's, in his or her role as citizen, capacity to address the corporation through legal means has either stripped the individual of a measure of sovereignty or the government of a level of legitimacy.
All of which resonates oddly with a television show I've been watching recently, Continuum. The lead if a female detective in 2012 who is secretly from 2077. She's arrived back in our present due to an escape by an anti-corporate terrorist organization. The corporations have replaced the government by 2077, and this terrorist group wishes to restore our liberties and does so through acts of violence. I'm only a few episodes in, and there has certainly been enough foreshadowing to suggest that the corporate leaders might have souls and wish to fix the situation in 2077. The show also includes a certain anti-tech theme as trusting her tech is what makes Keira an excellent Protector in 2077, but to become a good detective she must learn to trust her instinct. It is not the show's anti-tech theme nor it's hinting at redemption for certain individuals within a corporate body that I'd like to draw attention to.
Science Fiction ought to expose the threats to our society that can only be seen when present decisions and trends are taken to predictable extremes. This show functions as engaging pro-corporate propaganda. It does so not simply by making the anti-corporate terrorists the antagonists of the show rather than the protagonists but also by suggesting that the corporations are somehow reducible to the people who run them.
It misinforms the viewers and misconstrues the problem. The future in 2077 is run by corporations which have revised history and stripped citizens of rights. I acknowledge this dystopian effort, but it does not go far enough. It makes it seem as though the problem is one of imbalance. The reality is that corporations can adapt more easily than governments, and because our era's primary problem is one of acceleration it is this adaptability which makes them dangerous.
The Supreme Court's decision is an acknowledge of its own incapacity and obsolescence. This is not to say that the corporate paradigm is the correct solution to the problem of acceleration, but rather than a government which is formally designed to be as stable as possible (like America's) may need significant restructuring if it is to remain a viable organizational structure for meeting the needs of the people it exists as a representation of.
The Law cannot adapt quickly enough. The Law draws its power from stare decisis. It's flaw is in its name. The Latin betrays the problem. Our political system solves problems by relying on tradition. The entire system must combat an historical inertia in an era that's largest challenge is one of acceleration.
Whether the Supreme Court's ruling is an example of partisan decision making, corporate influence, or pure legal reasoning, it does not matter. The end result is that a certain kind of corporation which influences the ways the brains of Americans functions is less open to direct critique by citizens. This closing down of a legal means of addressing a corporation furthers the distance between the citizen and the corporation. It is not simply that corporations have the rights of people, but rather the corporations have precisely that kind of sovereignty which all true subjects ought to have. The corporation exists as a fuller entity than the individual as citizen. The Supreme Court, in limiting the individual's, in his or her role as citizen, capacity to address the corporation through legal means has either stripped the individual of a measure of sovereignty or the government of a level of legitimacy.
All of which resonates oddly with a television show I've been watching recently, Continuum. The lead if a female detective in 2012 who is secretly from 2077. She's arrived back in our present due to an escape by an anti-corporate terrorist organization. The corporations have replaced the government by 2077, and this terrorist group wishes to restore our liberties and does so through acts of violence. I'm only a few episodes in, and there has certainly been enough foreshadowing to suggest that the corporate leaders might have souls and wish to fix the situation in 2077. The show also includes a certain anti-tech theme as trusting her tech is what makes Keira an excellent Protector in 2077, but to become a good detective she must learn to trust her instinct. It is not the show's anti-tech theme nor it's hinting at redemption for certain individuals within a corporate body that I'd like to draw attention to.
Science Fiction ought to expose the threats to our society that can only be seen when present decisions and trends are taken to predictable extremes. This show functions as engaging pro-corporate propaganda. It does so not simply by making the anti-corporate terrorists the antagonists of the show rather than the protagonists but also by suggesting that the corporations are somehow reducible to the people who run them.
It misinforms the viewers and misconstrues the problem. The future in 2077 is run by corporations which have revised history and stripped citizens of rights. I acknowledge this dystopian effort, but it does not go far enough. It makes it seem as though the problem is one of imbalance. The reality is that corporations can adapt more easily than governments, and because our era's primary problem is one of acceleration it is this adaptability which makes them dangerous.
The Supreme Court's decision is an acknowledge of its own incapacity and obsolescence. This is not to say that the corporate paradigm is the correct solution to the problem of acceleration, but rather than a government which is formally designed to be as stable as possible (like America's) may need significant restructuring if it is to remain a viable organizational structure for meeting the needs of the people it exists as a representation of.
No comments have been added yet.
