Benefit Corporations: Expansion of the Public-Private Fascist State, Part 4
|By Stephen Poole|
|Wednesday, 17 August 2011 11:18|
Follow closely, and I will explain — and those of you who haven’t read the first three parts should probably do so now so you’ll know I’m not making scenarios up out of whole cloth.
Imagine two corporations, Mammon LLC and Beneficius B Corporation. The former is a traditional corporation, the latter a new “Benefit Corporation” created courtesy of the passage of SB26; both are primarily involved in the housing construction industry. And both are submitting bids for an “affordable housing” project being contemplated by a North Carolina municipality as a result of the passage of the “Congestion Relief and Intermodal Transportation 21st Century Fund,” specifically G.S. 136-252 section (b) (3) (d), which says applicants for grants must produce a “housing needs assessment and plans” that includes:
But most important for consideration in this hypothetical situation is this: the two companies are not only completely equal in terms of customer satisfaction and quality of work, but have submitted precisely the same bid. So who gets the contract for the housing project?
Be honest. Do you really think that Beneficius, because its very corporate designation implies it is imparting a “benefit,” wouldn’t get the contract over Mammon? Of course it would, even though the decision-makers at the municipality might not say that’s the reason in so many words. And of course there’s always the possibility that a Benefit Corporation could simply underbid its non-Benefit Corporation competitors because it allegedly doesn’t seek the same type of profit margins that bad, money-loving standard corporations do.
So now one company would likely win out over another company not because its work is necessarily more “beneficial” but because it had hired more women and minorities, used more renewable energy, recycled more goods, reduced its carbon footprint, offered more generous employee compensation plans, and dealt with suppliers who had followed the same regimen — i.e., creating the vague “general public benefit” defined by the “third-party standard” I addressed in Part 3. But are the qualifiers that make up the bulk of the “third-party standard” all that beneficial? The wage gap between men and women has been obliterated; men are being increasingly shoved out of the workplace, in keeping with Agenda 21's focus on women and children; renewable energy sources are costing lives and money; manmade global warming is a scam; and recycling is utterly inefficient and even wasteful.
And if you don’t think that the creation of a new type of business called a Benefit Corporation wouldn’t lead to it being favored by government, banks, and investors, you owe it to yourself to see what the creators of the B Corporation™ concept have to say on the subject. On Page 11 of “Benefits of Becoming a B Corporation™” we read:
There you have it. Benefit Corporations are being promised access to a special stock exchange; preferential treatment by government, “institutions,” and other corporations; and lower corporate and capital gains taxes. But can B Lab really make any of this happen for its B Corporations™?
It already has. In 2009, Philadelphia became the first city to authorize a tax break for the corporations certified by B Lab. When you read about this groundbreaking event on page 20 of B Lab’s 2011 Annual Report, you discover that this is more about “sustainable development” than about “general public benefits:”
So the real goal of the Benefit Corporation legislation is to coerce — or at least strongly coax – all corporations into becoming B Corporations™ and, in the process, implementing many of the social, economic, and environmental goals of Agenda 21 without having our representatives knowing that’s what they’re actually doing. And if you’re still unsure about Agenda 21 being implemented on the local level, scroll back and read the excerpt from the “Congestion Relief and Intermodal Transportation 21st Century Fund.” Note what cities must do to gain government grants: set aside 15% of housing “stock” for people making less than 60% of the area’s median income, conveniently located near bus or rail lines. That’s called “stack ‘em and pack ‘em” planning: shoving poor people into areas where they won’t “need” cars because the train or bus will be right outside the doors of their ghetto apartments, ready to whisk them away to the local food or manufacturing cooperative. Say you’re not too keen on this dystopian vision? Too bad, because in the Agenda 21 document the U.N. points out that resistance is futile:
What would a “low-income, high-density urban settlement” look like? The Smart Growth Utopians paint a rosy picture, where pastoral quietude blends seamlessly with a bustling (but carbon-free) local economy "where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average." Here's a typical example of how they envision a "smart growth" urban design.
But it's funny how artists' conceptions rarely match the reality when the projects reach fruition. Take the Pruitt-Igoe housing complex built in the 1950s in St. Louis. Here's an artist's rendering of what the urban housing center would look like.
The bureaucrats (both Democrats and Republicans) who pushed for the clearing of "slums" and replacing them with an idyllic group of domiciles hoped they would pay unexpected dividends, helping the entire city by leading to new parks, parking lots, playgrounds, and shopping centers. Instead, here's what the citizens of St. Louis got.
The result of a partnership between the federal government, state authorities, and private construction firms, Pruitt-Igoe had several "features" that housing planners thought would improve the lives of the tenants. Elevators stopped only at the first, fourth, seventh, and tenth floors, forcing tenants to use the stairs in an effort to reduce "congestion." Communal corridors on the third floor of every building housed a communal room, laundry, and a garbage room; these corridors quickly became covered in graffiti and littered with garbage and human waste. Pruitt-Igoe was completed in 1955; by 1968, HUD was encouraging people to move out, and in 1972 the buildings were demolished. Topping off the fiasco, it turns out that Pruitt-Igoe cost 60% more than above the national average for public housing.
But the caring folks who've crafted Agenda 21 surely wouldn't crowd us into cities and make us live in squalor, right?
If Bonnie Prince Charles has his way — and he is not only a huge proponent sustainable development but also a key architect of Agenda 21, to the point that it was on his yacht that George H. W. “New World Order” Bush signed Agenda 21 — these "human settlements" should be modeled after Dharavi, the shanty town featured in the movie Slumdog Millionaire. The Good Prince said that Dharavi has the "benefits" of locally sourced materials, a balance of business and homes, and "walkable neighbourhoods" as evidence for its superiority. That Newspeak translates into images like this one:
Prince Charles’ idea of a “sustainable community” featuring the benefits of "locally sourced materials" more commonly known as refuse.
And how might the “alternative stock exchange work?” We get a glimpse by looking at another piece of bad legislation passed by our overlords in Raleigh in August 2010. SB308 allows the creation of yet another type of corporation known as a “low-profit limited liability company.” In the text of the law we get some classic Orwellian doublespeak, bolded for your convenience:
Where did the idea for a L3C come from? Why, the Aspen Institute, of course — which makes you wonder why our representatives don’t just move to that resort town whenever they are considering any type of changes to our business laws. To help you divine the inspiration for this new corporation, I’m going to quote liberally from an article that was written in close cooperation with LC3 “visionary” Robert Lang, who just happens to head up a foundation that as you see stands to benefit greatly from the new type of corporation.
Look at the types of “investors” listed in the first and third paragraphs: “community-minded” individuals, government agencies, nonprofits, for-profits. Is there a better definition of “public-private partnership?” Note that foundations — you know, the ones who’ve been socially and economically engineering our society for more than 50 years, and doing it without paying income taxes on their mammon — “take the top tier of ownership” and, in this example, would “lease” factories to furniture manufacturers.
Or would that be “furniture cooperatives?” Sounds a lot like an industrial version of sharecropping to me.
Lastly, note that the scheme entails creating “tranches” that could be bundled together and sold to “pension or endowment funds.” Who do you think controls most “endowment funds” in this country? That’s right: foundations. And it’s likely they’ll be trading these soon-to-overleveraged derivatives on B Labs’ “Alternative Stock Exchange.”
Friends, I plead with you to call your representative in the NC General Assembly and demand that they vote against this legislation. As I’ve abundantly pointed out, there’s no reason companies can not achieve the purported goals of SB26 without the passage of such a law, while the enactment of this legislation could lead eventually to corruption and crony capitalism of dizzying proportions. Last but not least, you might try to explain how this is a back-door implementation of Agenda 21, or coax them into reading my series here on NC Freedom so they can understand the full implications of their vote.
Or you might try this: tell them the only laws you want to see them pass are ones repealing the tyrannical dictates previous sessions have imposed upon us.
As a graduate of Wake Forest University, Stephen Poole emerged from that institution as a zombified collectivist incapable of critically analyzing the socialist shibboleths with which he'd been indoctrinated. After awakening to the untenable nature of his "beliefs," he's now a an individualist who believes in truly free markets, Constitutionally limited federal government, the eminence of personal liberty, and unalienable rights granted by God.