Tell it to the Marines

September 13, 2016 OPINION/NEWS




Hazel Speed

As an English and British writer, I was most interested to take up the challenge submitted to me by Dr Daniel Korschun. Also, it crossed my mind that perhaps he had read an earlier article I wrote on The Paradoxical Dichotomy of Nepotism and how to accommodate both sections thereof within our thinking.

The ethical dilemma in the piece about Goldman Sachs is a type of Parody on my Article and core principles thereof, albeit lateral in a few respects.

That said, a similar format can be adopted and adapted for this contingency, albeit with at least a number of immediate and ‘self-evident’ caveats.

USA Amendments and Rights then link with the subject matter if a Company/Corporate (National or International commercial concern), adopts the strategy they proposed (as outlined in Dr. Korschun’s link), internationally in all countries where they trade or have offices, under jurisdictions of host countries to which they remain subjected thereto.

As in ‘Paradoxical Dichotomy of Nepotism‘, a ‘points system’ could, in theory, work within certain confines but with variations on a few themes. Ultimately, however, all points and/or segments thereof should merge.





These, as already referred to within the link provided, ‘scream out’. There are areas of deviation open to any potential miscreant(s).

Such as, different identities for the same person in the specified categories (Directors/Executives), Family Members (friends or colleagues) being partner in possible collusions. Still being subject to influences or coercion of any sort regarding promotion, general malevolent or benevolent factors, blackmail, or otherwise, on-going.

As an outsider to the country of America, I am unaware of the nuances between various States and County Line Legislations and what are the diverse declarations therein.

Another area to entertain in any deliberation is Corporate and Intellectual Property Laws which can differ in nuances according to environment and numberless arenas, whether any or all given States of America or other Courts, and then again there are the issues relating to block counting set-ups (block votes), i.e. American Unions/Teamsters (?), or outside America, there is a block vote of the European Commission and its constant fluctuations of allied Countries, then as is the case in the UK, soon to be divorced from the same.

Trading Markets throughout the world, various alliances, UK or its Constituent Countries, another aspect perhaps may be to recall that Her Majesty The Queen is Head of 53 Commonwealth Countries. Though Head of the Family of Nations (and the Commonwealth Games comes under the auspices of alliances thereof), each Constituent Nation, independent as a unit, or classed as a Protectorate or Dominion under The Crown, all have their own Laws and ways of doing things singularly, yet collectively are a block vote in certain diplomatic political ways. They are consulted about many things by respective Ambassadors of Her Britannic Majesty.

Another nightmare loop-hole one has to consider are ‘payments in kind’ such as Conflict Diamonds, minerals, artefacts secreted from owner country to those who wish to profiteer or have the historic items in their country or private vault. Then the black market economy makes its own entrance. Laundering of money. For those so minded and restricted to types of ‘moral legislation’ expounded by the Goldman Sachs example, they may turn to the double indemnity solution (if thus minded/corrupt), as after all both weapons and/or political favours do not generate any formal receipts.

There are more endless examples where a moral structure inferred within Corporations could be obvious nightmare scenarios if utilized by the immoral.

So in our considerations let us now switch to the potentiality of a workable moral system:


  1. A Corporate vote has to be a Corporate vote without at the same time precluding Human Rights of the individual who has one vote in democratic society.

(Caveat – Various Laws – Federal/Local) – are the Laws on voting the same? One vote at time of Election for President of the United States

Then I believe, in America, more votes are cast, perhaps electronically in a booth, down to the local fire chief, police chief, etc.


  1. Donations. Finance. Other donations “in kind” – facilitating essential sponsored blankets for people in need or disaster areas, such as fire, flooding, earthquakes, war, political unrest, foreign or domestic.


Solutions should all merge under different umbrellas en route.


So we have to remember….




Personal Vote

Corporate Vote

Donor Vote (especially, but not exclusively political/lobbyist)



Now I would like to propose a possible solution akin to that I outlined in my article concerning the Paradoxical Dichotomy of Nepotism:


Designated Voter(s) System

Replicated version of Designated Driver System, Designated Hitter, etc.

For me, the purist form of ethical Corporate Stance in the scenario under debate herein, is the hire (employment) of a Special Executive and perhaps also a Special Worker (Employee) to combine on 1 Financial Sponsored Corporate Vote (either collectively or separately in vote association, i.e. another potential sub-structure, or to keep things more simple, one combined vote, but can only have their own personal vote if they live or work in a different voting area, i.e. sponsorship donor and/or personal political vote must be facilitated in two separate States to prove beyond doubt they cannot and are not benefitting by any previously known routes it may have been possible so to do).

The emphasis has to be to keep Corporate element (vote) extremely separate to personal vote.

Such interests in this regard should be formally registered, computerized, so that you have a Designated Sponsor(s), vote (with stringent checks more intricate than a gun licence check, perhaps pay an FBI Facilitating Register a nominal fee, and provide fingerprints “expressly only for that purpose” and at time of voting, Designated Sponsor Booth and Real time Screen checking validity.

Ideally, the person (or persons if representing different levels within a Corporate Structure), should be employed ‘as’ the Designated Voter(s) irrespective or instead of, a normal field which usually may secure their employment. So once again, a potential divergence of roads but merging at voting time.

Any conflicts of interest re individual and Corporate Entrepreneurial sponsors or lobbyists remain pure both in mens rea and actus reus. Also individual rights/Human Rights Facilities if the earlier references of caveats are met.

Perhaps another look should be taken at the existing scheme and its legitimacy in at least moral terms (Legal Terms are an issue, of course, for Lawyers and Government Officials within the United States of America), The Senate and Congress (not omitting a national public vote).

“Morals are on a sliding scale of inference” – Hazel Speed.

By that, apart from obvious crimes such as murder, kidnapping and blackmail – the top ten within God’s Commandments given to Moses, most of us, have our own cut-off point when it comes to a sense of feeling that something is right or wrong, black or white, or grey and dubious. Even then, whilst that may halt some, others will not care and will carry on after that point. What one person may do according to ‘their own self be true’ may not be acceptable to others, and it could be whatever the issue is, it is not against the Law in most arenas, if not all, (environments, Countries etc., with obvious political exceptions).

I think unless a points system is utilized and a Designated Sponsor(s), whether it be individual or combined ‘team’ vote, (1,2,3 people, etc), then any Corporation will have an unworkable system, a synthetic version of free voting, when in reality a vote in one camp, precludes a vote in another, as a person has a right to vote for whomever they so please in their own democratic Country as an individual regardless of where they are employed. One should never encroach on the other and I think the system as I have understood same (rightly or wrongly), does not ‘satisfy’ all variations considered herein, mainly because it has no ‘achievement’ strategy as its end goal, just cosmetic surgery over intended or inferred morality, and there is a difference between that and the real thing!

Accommodation can only be realised by a combination of the above two key over-riding principles or factors. The nuances have to be worked out further, in drill down fashion, to enable the Corporation who practices such a system to be fair to the viewer, the employee as Corporate Representative, and the employee as Private Voter.

Although not qualified in American Law, I feel sure the nuances of what is currently in place, do not go anywhere near enough to facilitate all these facets and without them, it remains an unworkable concept, and resented by anyone and everyone who view same no doubt.

If it was determined by the Corporation that also has the unintended (no doubt) whiff of nepotism as best, and incestuous conceptualising at worst!

In America, I believe, the term is lipstick on a (moral issue) pig.

In England, the term I would use would be similar, but with a slight difference,

If a monkey dresses in silk, a monkey it remains’.

Morality, if pure, cannot be achieved by any disguise, no matter how well intended and to be honourable to the Corporate Designated Voter(s) as I have mooted herein, they have to have facility and enjoyment of both work arena and private life with an ‘impeccable’ vote in each!





(Note: Disclaimer. This Article represents a Philosophical assessment of the exercise undertaken by Goldman Sachs, as invited by Dr. Korschun and is not meant, implied, nor inferred in any way, to be a direct criticism of the detail I have read within the link provided, but rather, I have looked at the process undertaken, considered potential flaws and have recommended a preferred strategy for some).








Hazel Speed

Photo (c) Hazel Speed – used by kind permision to Tuck Magazine

Hazel Speed is a Philosopher, Writer, and Artist with various creative projects at differing states of development. Her flaship project is an animation which has produced a film short:

Art sites:


No Comments Yet!

You can be first to comment this post!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.