Who or What Are You?

At times, especially during the high arc of election cycles, we are prompted by others to identify ourselves--are you a Republican or a Democrat? Conservative or Liberal? Tea Party or Person-trying-to-take-away-my-government-by-trying-to-do-something-about-the-nation's-problems? It is part of the explaining the world thing--if we think we can categorize others, we can cope with them, avoid offending them, anticipate them, understand them, control them. We can use labels to diminish, simplify, judge, demonize and destroy.

In lesser ways, we do this, too. What do you do for a living? Is this your boyfriend/girlfriend,husband/wife? What church do you go to? Did you go to college? These are all ways we attempt to gather information which allows us to categorize others.

That is probably the second best way to learn about someone. Instead of "what" why don't we ask the more pertinent question: Who are you? After all, isn't that what we want to know?

I can see asking the Who rather than the What creating difficulty in our social exchanges. We are so conditioned to guard our information, color impressions, etc. in order for the answer to the What question to help us, or at least not hurt us. Giving useful, honest answers to the Who question takes some thought and some practice, but I bet it would help us get along a little bit better.

Who are you?

Person to Person

There are two kinds of persons in the United States. The first kind, the biological kind, are born, have DNA, are able to feel pain and a huge range of emotions, think, decide, believe, vote, create, procreate and die. The second kind are creations of the first kind. Not a messy procreation like birth or in a laboratory like the Frankenstein monster, but something that occurs on paper and in documents filed with government officials. The second kind of person can acquire and own stuff, can sell stuff, and can promote stuff, laws and political candidates. It can even live forever. It can act in its interest and the interest of its stockholders [sort of--as if every stockholder's interest could be known to and accounted for in the decisions which are made], and a host of other things. It cannot do the things the first kind of person does unless one of the first kind of persons acts a an agent to do them. The second kind of person is a corporation. Who, other than the U.S. Supreme Court feels these two persons are the same thing deserving the same kind of protections, duties and obligations?

I get that corporations have some useful role in our society but they are created to do something that individuals or groups cannot do. Therefore, they are different. Pretty plain to see that distinction.