Chapter 14: Your Constitutional Rights End at Your Workplace Door... and Where You Live
The U.S. Constitution guarantees us many rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, the right to peaceful assembly, freedom of the Press, protection from illegal search and seizure (this right is currently being directly violated in many cities with respect to the homeless – see earlier in this writing), equal rights before the law, presumption of innocence and more. Members of the military, police and other similar agencies swear an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The Constitution is at the heart of the fundamental intention of the formation of the United States of America.
Yet the economic power structure and prevailing Capitalist norms directly threaten, undermine, contradict and nullify these Constitutional rights. Part of this tragedy arises from the concepts associated with private ownership of land and buildings, especially as embodied by the devastatingly destructive concept of "corporate personhood," that allows control of ever-expanding resources to concentrate into a very few hands. Part of this comes from the dictatorial power that the Capitalist paradigm confers upon the employer in the employer-employee relationship and the landlord in the landlord-tenant relationship.
Here is one of the inherent contradictions and damaging paradoxes of Capitalism. Note that in the workplace setting, the one bringing the check to the transaction has rights over the one bringing their time, energy, expertise, labor, etc. - except for the CEO and very few others at the top of the pyramid, who dictate the terms and conditions. Yet in the vast majority of living situations, the one bringing the check to the transaction, the tenant or homebuyer who actually lives in the home, is forced to live under terms dictated by the one supplying the place to live. Notice that in both situations it is the same party who is bereft of rights: the employee/tenant/homebuyer - the person in the weaker economic position. Capitalism is truly a "heads I win, tails you lose" dynamic in which the party at the top of the economic pyramid sets the terms and conditions that everybody else is expected and compelled to live by and under, with no appeal, negotiation or discussion.
Because the workplace is considered the "private property" of the "person" (Corporation or ultra-wealthy human), of the employer, the employer is legally given the right of dictatorial power over employees. Since virtually all lands and locations are owned privately under Capitalism, our theoretical Constitutional rights are superceded in practice by the rights of the owners of the place where we are standing, sleeping, working, eating, studying, living, etc.
As a result, in spite of Constitutional guarantees to the contrary, we can have our free speech curtailed, can be fired (deprived of livelihood and possibly becoming homeless) for any reason or for no reason at all, as embodied most commonly in the United States by the concept of "at will" employment, in which either employee or employer can terminate employment at any time with no repercussions. Proponents say it is fair and equitable because the employee is also free to quit at any time. This is yet another case of verbal and logical sleight of hand, since in Capitalist paradigms it is analogous to one person holding a rope at the other end of which another person is hanging over an abyss. Saying that either person is free to let go of the rope at any time is a cruel and insensitive travesty.
In the workplace, under Capitalist paradigm, we may be pressured, harassed (as long as such harassment does not cross legal lines regarding race, religion, gender etc), intimidated, censored, censured, searched, bullied, spied and eavesdropped upon, held to task for everything we do, down to the point of regulating the length and frequency of permitted restroom use. When accused of wrongdoing, we are presumed guilty, not innocent, often with no appeal or opportunity to prove our innocence. “Innocent until proven guilty” does not apply in the workplace or in the rented or mortgaged home.
Employees have been fired for postings in social media or involvement in social or political causes that have nothing to do with work or their employers, simply because their boss did not like or agree with the post or the cause. Many employers monitor all employee phone calls, keystrokes and mouse clicks on computers, the length and frequency of bathroom breaks, even when a medical condition is involved.
Many companies make it clear that they reserve the right to search employees, their belongings and vehicles at any time on the premises. Any expression of dissatisfaction or even constructive criticism can often be grounds for dismissal, even when justified.
It is understandable that an employer would want to make sure that employees are doing their jobs and not spending work time on personal or recreational activities. It is also reasonable that employers would wish to ensure that employees don't steal. Such concerns arise from the inherently divisive and adversarial nature of the Capitalist paradigm, which pits group against group and individual against individual even within an endeavor or enterprise. This dynamic is at odds with the fact that the success of the enterprise is in the best interest of all concerned. When employees feel exploited and are unable to survive on what they’re paid, some of them will feel justified to steal.
The reinforcers are powerful and ever-present. The oppositional behaviors become a fight for survival. The interests of employee and employer are in direct conflict in more ways than not. The mutual distrust that arises from this situation engenders these draconian policies on the part of employers as well as some destructive behaviors on the parts of some employees.
Under the Capitalist paradigm, the employer is almost always given preference and rights over the employee. When an employer fires an employee and gives him or her a bad reference or even simply states that they would not re-hire the employee, future potential employers almost universally reject the job applicant out of hand. Just the fact of having been fired will severely reduce the likelihood of the employee being hired elsewhere, regardless of circumstances. Quitting a job greatly likewise reduces the applicant's chances of being hired elsewhere.
Yet if an employee or ex-employee makes any negative or critical statement about a current or former employer at a job interview, such a statement is held against the applicant, not the former employer, by interviewers. This is the case regardless of the details of the circumstances of the employee's firing or quitting. Under Capitalism, the employer's word is almost universally believed over the employee's. No research or fact-finding is ever performed. In the world of the workplace, accused is taken as guilty, and the privilege of being permitted to make money to pay for the privilege of occupying space is functionally revoked.
Since employment is the most common way of coming up with one’s monthly ransom money, a negative parting between employee and employer has no significant impact on the employer but can devastatingly threaten the survival of the employee and their family. Offending, annoying or inconveniencing the employer, taking too many restroom breaks, calling home to touch in with a sick family member, expressing an opinion that the employer does not like, participating in a demonstration on time off that upsets the boss, making a superior look bad, failing to meet metrics set by the employer, or even being the most convenient person upon whom a manager can shift blame for their own mistake - any of these and more can result not only in loss of livelihood but also in loss of ability to find a different livelihood. One's Constitutional rights are superceded under Capitalism by the preferred status accorded the employer over the employee, both in law and in custom and cultural attitudes. With no employment, there is no money. With no money, we are unable to pursue Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Our Constitutional rights end at our workplace door.
For the vast majority of people, the situation in one's place of residence is very similar. Here as well, we have opposing groups and classes created by the Capitalist paradigm, strongly reinforced in their adversarial dynamics.
For renters, who are multitudinous, the landlord is legally allowed to dictate how many people can live on the premises, whether one may have children, whether or not they may have guests, what changes or improvements residents may or may not make, where residents may or may not park, what residents may or may not plant in any yard or garden on site, whether residents may have pets, whether or not residents may hang laundry outside to dry in order to save energy and more. This writer knows of a case in which a renter's elderly parents came to visit them in their motorhome and the security guards employed by the owners woke them up at 3 a.m. to make them leave.
Some areas do have one version or another of "rent control," a set of laws aimed at protecting renters from some kinds of abuses by landlords. In these situations the predation, abuse and advantage-taking are mutual. Not universal but certainly common.
Even "homeowners" (both real and mortgaged) are not immune. There are towns (and homeowners’ associations) in which regulations impose fines on homeowners whose lawns go brown or whose gardens don't conform to arbitrary specifications. These fines can be financially significant.
Yet during times of drought, states and towns naturally fine people for watering their lawns and gardens, in order to conserve water. However, the regulations against brown lawns are still enforced. Thus residents (renters and "owners") alike, are fined if they water their lawn to keep it green and also if they comply with drought regulations by not watering.
Incidentally, if the reader is thinking that these green lawn laws are not the result of Capitalism but of local lawmakers and legislators, then the reader is not aware of the whole picture. The motivation behind laws dictating the form and condition of residents' lawn and gardens is to keep property values as high as possible.
In the Capitalist construct called real estate, property values (which equal profits for the real estate industry and among wealthy people who "flip" houses, not to mention other parasitic industries that support the real estate industry) are capriciously influenced and impacted by people's subjective perceptions and emotional reactions to arbitrary factors.
A brown lawn, wild un-manicured garden, farming the yard for food, the presence of cows, goats, chickens or other food animals, windmills, any vehicles on the property in the process of being repaired, an RV or trailer on the premises, any artistic or experimental projects visible, a house in visible need of painting (which can occur because the occupants cannot afford to paint or have it painted) - all of these and more cause property values to go down.
In some time periods, the presence of dark-skinned people or immigrants in the neighborhood has also had the same effect. This drives landowners, realtors, and residents to pressure lawmakers to pass laws and regulations that force occupants to refrain from any practices that might adversely affect property values.
In Capitalist societies, the less-well-off are looked down upon and their presence is not welcomed. Attitudes prevail that it is a bad idea to associate with people in that situation. Even among people in those circumstances, there is often a tendency to try to associate with more affluent people. The attitude almost reaches the proportions of a superstition: It's bad luck to hang around poor people AKA "losers" and it's good luck to hang around affluent people, as though these circumstances are highly contagious either way.
Thus, once again we see that to a critically large extent, one's degree of freedom, respect and options is not determined by the Constitution so much as by one's financial circumstances under Capitalism.
Public schools, which are intended to be Constitutionally guaranteed, not-for-profit public institutions supported by the community, have in some instances formed business arrangements with soft drink and snack food companies in such a way as to take away the freedom of choice from students, teachers and staff. Some campuses are Coke campuses and some are Pepsi campuses. Some have even gone so far as to punish individuals who bring their own soft drinks of the non-approved brand.
In the United States and some other countries, since the 1980’s there has been a relentless and escalating trend towards what is called “privatization.” In Capitalist cultures the term “private” carries an unspoken subliminal emotional implication of applying to affirming the individual, their private life, their home, their autonomy, rights and dignity. People in Capitalist paradigms have been trained, when they hear the words “private” or “privatization,” to perceive it as an affirmation of their personhood and rights, as compared to government control, which is perceived as authoritarian. Many people associate the term “private” or “privatize” with a positive emotional tone. Yet in reality, in any country with a democratic Constitutional set of principles similar to those in the U.S. Constitution, elected officials are tasked with administering public resources such as schools, libraries, parks, nature preserves, public hospitals, transportation systems, roads, defense forces, emergency responders and more. These same elected officials work for the people, for their constituents who have the right and ability to fire or replace them at the next election or even sooner if they commit sufficiently grave betrayals of the public trust. Privatization of these same resources and services explicitly means placing them into the hands and control of for-profit corporations run by the neo-Feudal Lords of Capitalism, who are utterly and absolutely insulated from any accountability to the people whatsoever. Privatization inevitably results in improved financial efficiency and profitability for the corporation at the expense of increased prices, steadily degrading quality and quantity of services, and reduced accessibility and availability. This happens in all Capitalist environments.
As has been discussed elsewhere, the media in the United States and other countries operating under similar models, are rank with censorship and propaganda, in direct contradiction to the Constitution. Any programming that is offensive to one or more major sponsors, or to Network executives, is suppressed, even if it is extremely popular among the audience.
As is also discussed elsewhere, free and open dialog and information sharing among scientists, engineers and developers is suppressed in the name of the "intellectual property" of companies and corporations. As previously discussed, this goes to the point where the individuals actually doing the research and developing the technologies are denied ownership of the fruits of their own labor, by employment agreements forcing them to relinquish any ownership or rights over their own products and signing the rights over to the employer. In a society that places highest importance on ownership, the individual human being is once again denied the fruits of their labor, knowledge and experience in favor of the parasitic corporation and the billionaires at their helm.
In Capitalism, as in Feudalism, the Feudal Lords of the ruling classes take what they want from the serfs or employees working for them under their control and domination, typically leaving them not enough with which to survive.
So where can one truly enjoy the exercise of one's Constitutional rights under the Capitalist paradigm? Certainly not in most workplaces. Equally certainly only to a limited degree in one's residence. Perhaps in public places? Think again.
Most towns and cities have ordinances banning and severely suppressing behavior outside of the Capitalist norm. For example, if the paradigm truly supported "free enterprise," then street and sidewalk performers would be treated as a welcome and legitimate addition to the environment. Yet in most cities and towns, street performing is either illegal or only permitted in very limited and highly regulated locations. This applies whether the performer is putting out a hat for money or just sharing their craft for free.
Such restrictions have nothing to do with the artistic or aesthetic quality of the performance. Under Capitalism, what is reinforced is performance through, and under control of, corporate channels: star artists generating massive revenues for large corporate entities. Small independent performers, if allowed to flourish and thrive, would cut into the profit margins of those larger enterprises, especially if the quality and variety of the small street performers were comparable or superior to the performances marketed by said entertainment conglomerates.
Predictably, as is typical in Capitalist paradigms, the persons who enjoy the smallest portion of said copious revenues are the writer and performer. Often the performer or writer receives less than 10% of what their craft generates. The parties who rake in the lion's share of the funds are the parasitical operatives whose only contribution to the music, acting, or other performance is to market it and ensure that all is done in such a manner as to best benefit the Corporation and its major stockholders. Here again we see how freedom of expression is curtailed by the Capitalistic power structure, no less fiercely than was ever the case under Soviet “Communism.”
As discussed elsewhere, in order to pursue one's rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, one must have a place to be; yet under Capitalism "ownership is nine-tenths of the law." In short, if you do not own the space that you occupy, then whoever does own it is allowed to dictate what you can or cannot do there, or even whether or not you can be there. Therefore, if you do not own any piece of land, you do not have the right to exercise any of your constitutional rights.
Money and physical resources are not the only things artificially scarcified under Capitalism. Freedom is at best a costly and exceedingly unevenly-distributed commodity, made scarce by the socio-economic presumptions upon which the paradigm is based.
No matter how much propaganda and carefully-seeded folklore may speak to the contrary, the fact is that Capitalism is incompatible with, and long-term fatally toxic to, a free and open society, inimical to government of, by, and for the people. In functional, objective terms, Capitalism can be accurately described as Feudalism wearing new clothes and citing new justifications; but the socio-politico-economic dynamics are very nearly the same. The only way to achieve a truly free and democratic society is to weave together both political and economic democracy. Government of, by, and for The People can only thrive when there is economy of, by, and for the people.