This joker should lose his job. He does not represent the values of this country,
This joker should lose his job. He does not represent the values of this country,
http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/06/08/a-brief-history-of-the-...
Arguably, corporations were more powerful then than they are now. Wars were fought because of the British East India Company - in 1778, it had a private army of 67,000 soldiers, over 50% more than the total strength of the American militia at that time.
Corporations aren't citizens now. If you mean "corporations weren't considered 'persons' in the scope of the 14th Amendment" in 1776 (or even, say, when the Constitution was first adopted), that's true, but then neither was anyone else.
Corporations, of course, have been legal persons in the general sense since the corporate form was invented; that's the whole point of the form.
The stories behind the other cases you cite are similarly murky. The US has been manufacturing consent since before it was born.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_of_the_United_States_De...
The common people of the colonies were likely in a situation very similar to where ordinary citizens today are when deciding between Google/FB/etc. and the NSA. Distrustful of both sides, but more inclined to go with the weaker of them, because then they'd be less fucked over.
Well, globally weaker and more locally powerful. Strength probably wasn't the decision criteria at all for those who chose the rebel side, it was probably perceived accountability: the local governments that were represented by the signers and which revolted were all accountable to the local population, the British government was not.
I remember asking this question back in 2005, and getting a solid "No". so I left the country. I doubt it's somehow been magically remembered since then.